Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism among TLM Traditionalist Catholics?
  • Evolution, as a scientific theory (to be distinguished from mere conjuncture as used in everyday parlance) is far more internally consistent and has much more evidence in its favour than two different, contradictory accounts of the Earth's creation written in a book which professes to be no scientific authority. In addition, I refuse to believe in a deceitful God who would manufacture a world that appears to be far older than it actually is, for the sole purpose of testing believers. If, as we (rightly) claim, the evidence for what we believe in is quite clear and logical, how are we to reconcile this with a God who occasionally does the exact opposite?
  • Chris,

    Experiments on bacteria show that genetic mutations can enable a small portion of a population to survive an adverse change in the environment ("selection"). Although not the whole story, this is very strong evidence for the theory of evolution.

    With regard to macro evolution (e.g., horses), the theory doesn't claim that this can be demonstrated in a laboratory. However the evidence of genetics and the fossil record is very strong support for the theory.
    Thanked by 2Marc Cerisier Elmar
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,771
    I have a clock whose hour hand I've never seen move with my own eyes. Even on a non-geological time scale, though, it's easy to imagine how speciation might work. One would predict there to be borderline cases where it's hard to decide whether there are two species or one, and any birder is familiar with these: the Plain Titmouse on my life list became an Oak Titmouse a few years ago and I had to wait for a roadtrip east to twitch a Juniper Titmouse. It goes the other way too: Bullock's Oriole became a subspecies of Northern Oriole when the genome was looked at more closely.

    There are also cases where actual speciation is only one accident away: the California Valley foothills have many salamander subspecies that interbreed with all neighbors except at the southern part of the ring, where two populations behave as separate species. And there are two old world warblers that hybridize as cagebirds, but intergrades are not seen in the wild: one winters in the Mediterranean and the other well south of the Sahara, where the only trees are now fossils.
  • I'm sorry but the argument proposed in several above posts of how scientific "theory" is more factual than "common parlance of theory" is artificial and arbitrary. I understand the concepts of hypothesis and that "theory" is not simply something pulled out of thin air. To try to argue, however, that it is actually factual and must be believed as a scientific principle is simply false.

    Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain, through natural causes, how plants and animals developed over time. Vestigial bones (as one example) might be evidence to support this theory - in certain instances. It is possible that God chose to use evolution as a means of the development over time of certain animals and / or plants.

    Possible <> certain. Theory <> fact. To pretend otherwise is irresponsible and reprehensible. Even if evolution may be the mechanism God chose to use IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, it by no means automatically extends to the extent that some would argue - i.e. it may be true in particular, narrowly defined circumstances and yet, not generally or universally true. We simply don't know for certain.

    Further, to argue "inerrant" vs. "infallible" is simply ridiculous... as is to suggest that the biblical account of creation is necessarily flawed and inaccurate - or that God is somehow deceitful because of how we perceive the age of creation.

    At the end of the day, I'm not arguing that you can't believe evolution. I'm saying that it is not an article of Faith one way or the other... and that science - in it's truest sense - would say the same thing regarding it's universal application.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw francis CCooze
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    I would also put forward that evolution of a species may be confused with mutation, and sometimes I think some may be replacing one with the other. I am wandering out of my sphere here, but isn't mutation a dead end? Isn't mutation something that only occurs within one species and cannot be transmitted to another species?
  • I could understand God not being deceitful if He created a young earth that appeared older in a couple of ways. However, things like starlight redshift are things that would have needed to be expressly manufactured in a way that could only be construed as representing an old Earth, i.e. we can clearly measure the difference between older and newer stars, so God would have needed to create older-seeming stars out of thin air rather than creating uniformly young stars. I fail to see such a suggestion as anything other than deceitful.

    Some people here also seem to be falling into the fallacy that Scripture, Genesis in particular, was actually written by God, rather than being divinely inspired and written by humans.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,943
    I think Genesis was an attempt to explain the unexplainable to primitive people. It was written down who even knows how many eons after the fact.
    Thanked by 1Marc Cerisier
  • Charles,

    Why must people in another generation be primitive?

    You, for example, are from an older generation than I am (certainly) and perhaps others, but such a fact doesn't make you somehow more primitive.

    Shakespeare wrote for an audience which made his plays well received, which means that at some level many in Shakespeare's day were less primitive than our average college student today. (High school students sometimes read Shakespeare in translation!) Shakespeare's plays aren't primitive just because they're older.

    Pope Benedict's papacy was (ostensibly -- let's not argue the point) over before Pope Francis taught even one thing, but that doesn't make Francis more sophisticated or Benedict more primitive.

    If a group of persons, as you would have it, wrote down Genesis to explain the unexplainable to primitiv-er persons, wouldn't that mean that a level of sophistication existed in order to tell a story to others, and to have (obviously more sophisticated) persons accept it as true for more than a thousand years?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,943
    They were technologically primitive and often their knowledge of the universe didn't extend beyond themselves and what they could see. I would agree they were good story tellers. But they didn't have the technology or equipment that exists today.

    I have come to the conclusion that regardless of time and place, priests and religious leaders are quite capable of making up theology. Theology later generations will prove to be nonsense with no basis in reality. Do you actually believe Egyptian gods were real even though Egyptian theology was highly developed. Their religion lasted a lot longer than Catholicism has been around. Religious leaders can be a bit manipulative and self-serving. In that regard little has changed.
  • I'm not sure why anyone is arguing that the culture ca. 600 BC that produced Genesis isn't more primitive than today's. Even speaking solely from a theological standpoint, many of the events and ideas that defined modern Judeo-Christian religion had yet to occur. And our literary, scientific, poetic, and (indeed) musical abilities and knowledge today are far in excess of back then.

    Shakespeare was writing in an era when everyday culture was elevated far beyond the drivel we get today. In addition, he was only writing four hundred years ago, as opposed to two and a half millennia.

    One must not confuse today's anti-sophistication culture with primitivism. We may be less cultured than we could be, but that is our own fault for not having the correct individual attitudes - the tools and centuries of collected knowledge in our society could make us the most educated and least primitive generation in history.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Elmar
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    They were technologically primitive...


    Yet we still don’t know how the pyramids were constructed.

    image
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,943
    Actually, we do understand how the pyramids were constructed. Archaeologists have discovered new drawings and texts that explain construction techniques of that time.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Some people here also seem to be falling into the fallacy that Scripture, Genesis in particular, was actually written by God, rather than being divinely inspired and written by humans.

    Just to be clear... I'm not arguing for a literal understanding of the Bible, as in Creation took six twenty-four hour periods and God "rested" on a seventh twenty-four hour period. I'm arguing that we MUST believe (if we intend to be Catholic) what the Church teaches. Period. That includes our understanding of the Bible as divinely inspired and factual - not simply allegorical.

    The Church typically explains what that means. For example, the consistent teaching of the Church is that a "day" is simply an expression of passage of time in the recounting of Creation. One day may have been millions of years. Another day may have been seconds. The Church does not require us to believe any particular period of time for the creative act in any given context. Science offers what it believes is a reasonable estimation of some period of time for the beginning of the universe. We - none of us - know if that is factual either. The Church allows a free range of belief, therefore, regarding that point. Which is all I'm pointing out.

    The fundamentalist can get wrapped around the axle about a literal understanding of "day". The rationalist can get wrapped around the axle about "proofs of science". Getting wrapped around the axle at either end seems to be counter productive.

    As a final point, God is not "deceptive" because we puny humans lack the capacity to understand how or why He does what He does... on any level.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw CHGiffen Elmar
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    Seeing as there are several novellas (Tobit, Judith, Ester) in the Bible, factual may be stretching it.
  • Seeing as there are several novellas

    And yet, Doctors have indicated that these (including the book of Tobias) are indeed, inspired - and factual as well. Again, we are obliged to the teaching of the Church, no more, no less. I don't know what would lead you to think that "factual may be stretching it". Judith didn't kill Holofernes? Esther didn't marry Boaz? What next? There was no flood? Old and New Testament alike are merely parables? Christ is a figment of our imagination?

    I, personally, would see the three books you mention as histories rather than "novellas".

    From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm):
    Until recently there never was question among Catholics in regard to the historicity of Tobias. It was among the historical books of the Old Testament, the Fathers had always referred to both elder and younger Tobias and to the other personages of the narratives as to facts and not to fancies. The stories of almsgiving, burial of the dead, angelophany, exorcism, marriage of Sara with Tobias the younger, cure of the elder Tobias — all these incidents were taken for granted as fact-narrative; nor was there ever any question of likening them to the tales of "The Arabian Nights" and the "Fables of Æsop". Jahn, "Introductio in libros sacros", 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1814), 452, gives the stock objections to the historicity of Tobias, and suggests that either the entire composition is a parable to teach that the prayers of the upright are heard or at most only the main outline is fact-narrative. His book was put on the Index (26 Aug., 1822). Anton Scholz, "Die heilige Schrift", II, iii, p. 12, and Movers in "Kirchenlexicon" (first ed., I, p. 481) hold that Tobias is a poetic fiction. Cosquin, in "Revue biblique" (1899, pp. 50-82), tries to show that the sacred writer of Tobias had before his eyes a form of the Ahikhar story and worked it over rather freely as a vehicle to carry the inspired thought of the moral he wished to convey to his readers. Barry, "The Tradition of Scripture" (New York, 1906), p. 128, says: "Its relation to other stories, such as The Grateful Dead and the tale of Ahichar, has been used in illustration of the romantic nature ascribed to it by modern readers; so, too, the symbolical names of its personages, and the borrowings, as they say, from Persian mythology of Asmodeus, etc." Gigot, "Special introduction to the study of the Old Testament", I (New York, 1901), 343-7, gives at length the arguments in favour of the non-historical character of the book and attempts no refutation of the same.

    With these and a few other exceptions, Catholic exegetes are unanimous in clearly defending the historicity of Tobias. Cf. Welte in "Kirchenlexikon" (first ed., s.v. Tobias); Reusch, "Das Buch Tobias", p. vi; Vigouroux, "Manuel biblique", II (Paris, 1883), 134; Cornely, "Introd. in utriusque testamenti libros sacros", II (Paris, 1887), i, 378; Danko, "Hist. revelationis v.t.", 369; Haneburg, "Gesch. der bibl. Offenbarung" (3rd ed., Ratisbon, 1863), 489; Kaulen, "Einleitung in die heilige Schrift" (Freiburg, 1890), 215; Zschokke, "Hist. sacra A.T.", 245; Seisenberger, "Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible" (New York, 1911), 343. This almost unanimity among Catholic exegetes is quite in keeping with the decision of the Biblical Commission (23 June, 1905). By this Decree Catholics are forbidden to hold that a book of the Holy Writ, which has generally been looked upon as historical, is either entirely or in part not history properly so called, unless it be proven by solid arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to write history; and the solidity of the arguments against the historicity of an historical book of the Bible we are not to admit either readily or rashly. Now the arguments against the historical worth of Tobias are not at all solid; they are mere conjectures, which it would be most rash to admit.


    There follows an analysis of some of the conjectures.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw CHGiffen Elmar
  • I'm not trying to turn your position into a strawman, Incardination - I was more responding to the wording by some people in this thread that "God wrote Genesis" as part of their line of argument.

    But in response to what you have said, what about, say, the Book of Job? Or the minor discrepancies in the synoptic Gospels? It seems to be that a more nuanced position is necessary, and we must search for the important truth in all of Scripture rather than taking any sort of monolithic viewpoint.
  • I'm not sure I understand the question about Job. I find it a history, just like that of Tobias. As for the minor differences between the Gospels, it is simply related from a different viewpoint. Nothing that would, for example, have one of the Evangelists saying that Lazarus was raised from the dead with another asserting that it never happened.

    Nothing I've said in my posts above have advocated a strictly literal understanding of Sacred Scripture... "day" for example in the relating of the Creation; the attempts by the author to explain strange unknown things in Ezekiel or the Apocalypse. Judith, Job, Tobias, Esther, Noah - these people all existed. Factually. Literally. When Moses struck the rock, water actually came forth. When the Israelites reached the Red Sea, the water was actually parted. The day was actually lengthened so that the Jews could achieve the greater victory. Why should we question the veracity of any of this? Is God not the Creator? Is He not the Master of all Creation? Does He not have power over all?

    I was a reactor operator in the Navy - assigned to a submarine for just over 3 years after nearly 3 years of training. As part of the nuclear power program, we studied physics, math, chemistry, etc., at some length. I remember a sad discussion with my leading petty officer - nominally Catholic. He couldn't get over the fact that I actually believed in Transubstantiation... "knowing what you know".

    How is the fact that bread and wine actually, factually change into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ any different than anything else recounted in Sacred Scripture? The incorruptible saints? The miracle of the sun at Fatima? The countless cures of the disabled and sick at various locations around the world? How is one instance of miracles that we (presumably) accept as factual one iota different than anything recounted in the Bible?

    Credo.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,167
    How is the fact that bread and wine actually, factually change into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ any different than anything else recounted in Sacred Scripture?

    The Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist isn't a miracle, it's a sacrament: it's something we only know through divine revelation accepted by faith, and not perceived by the senses (cf. Adoro te). A miracle, in contrast, is a wonder you can look at (cf. miror, admire, esteem).
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Elmar
  • Hmmm... not sure I agree.

    http://the-journals.org/dah/eucharist.htm:
    In Catholic theology, transubstantiation is the miracle that occurs during Mass when the priest says the words that Jesus commanded at the Last Supper, and the substance of the bread is changed in to the substance of the body and blood of Christ; and the substance of the wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, while the appearances (accidents) of the bread and wine remain unchanged.
    Fr. Don Thomas, M.S.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle
    In Christianity, a Eucharistic miracle is any miracle involving the Eucharist. In the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the fact that Christ is really made manifest in the Eucharist is deemed a Eucharistic miracle;[1][2] however, this is to be distinguished from other manifestations of God.

    References for the above in Wikipedia:
    1 Wandel, Lee Palmer (2006). The Eucharist in the Reformation. Cambridge University Press. p. 260. ISBN 9780521856799. "While Luther had been quite clear that the words of institution themselves, quite autonomous of the minister, effected the miracle of consubstantiation, priests were the medium through which the miracle of transubstantiation occurred."
    2 Strasburger, Frank C. Why the Anglican Communion Matters. Forward Movement. p. 16. "At the heart of it is the eucharist, the miracle by which the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. In that act, individual persons, with all their differences, become one with God and one with another. If that matters, then the Anglican Communion matters."

    But hardly the salient point from the above post. Whether considered a "miracle" or not, it is something that cannot be understood without faith, without believing the word of God.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oogJ-cdi7yI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJ8BORx1p8

    In the Aquinas definition, Chonak is correct to say that the usual transsubstantiation is not a miralce, but there have been numerous if not many Eucharistic miracles.

    Here is a good scientific explanation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrqoCDz7UWo
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,152
    @Incardination

    From the USCCB website

    New American Bible Revised Edition


    BIBLICAL NOVELLAS

    The Bible conveys the Word of God in many literary forms: historical narrative, poetry, prophetic exhortation, wisdom sayings, and novellas (edifying stories). In the Constitution on Divine Revelation from Vatican II (Dei Verbum), the council fathers give instruction on how to approach this variety: “Attention must be paid to literary forms, for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression. Hence the interpreter must look for that meaning which the sacred writer intended to express and did in fact express through the medium of a contemporary literary form” (DV 12).

    The Books of Tobit, Judith, and Esther are often grouped together. They are stories told to instruct the people concerning the ways of God, to encourage them in critical times, and to entertain. They are aids to the imagination. While they may contain kernels of historical fact, these stories are told primarily to illustrate truths that transcend history.

    The author of the Book of Tobit, writing in the second century B.C., tells a story about the life of a devout family in seventh-century Assyria. He gives the people of his own time an example to follow as they struggle with the tensions of living a faithful Jewish life in the midst of a non-Jewish civilization. Tobit, suffering from the affliction of blindness, perseveres in good works and prayer, as do the other characters in the story. God sends an angel who, while hidden from them, leads them to health and happiness. The conclusion demonstrates that God does answer prayer and that perseverance in good works does not go unrewarded.

    The author of the Book of Judith gives many clues that this story is beyond history. All the worst enemies of the people—the Assyrians of the eighth and seventh centuries, the sixth-century Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar—are rolled into one terror. The hero, Judith, is modeled on the heroes of the Book of Judges, yet her story is also reminiscent of a second-century hero, Judas Maccabeus (1–2 Maccabees). Even the conflation of time indications—the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2:1; the year 587 B.C., when he destroyed Jerusalem and took the Jews into exile) with the return from exile and rededication of the Temple (4:3; the events of 538 and 515 respectively)—suggests God’s deliverance from the most terrible circumstances. The story may be set in a time long past, but it is meant to encourage the people of the late second century to trust in God when their way of life is threatened. God can use even the most unlikely means, such as a widow, a biblical figure of powerlessness and vulnerability, to deliver them from their enemies.

    The Book of Esther includes several historical elements. The Persian king Xerxes (486–465 B.C.), the city of Susa, a court official named Marduka, are all known from other sources. But further investigation shows this is not meant to be a historical account. There is no record of Xerxes having any other queen than Amestris and no mention of such a massacre during his reign. The book has a different purpose: to suggest a historical basis to the festival of Purim, perhaps originally a Persian feast. Through the story of Esther, Purim becomes a celebration of God’s rescue of the people from persecution and certain death.

    The message conveyed in these stories is not confined to one geographic place or historical period. It remains a valid expression of God’s care for faithful people in every time and place.
  • I believe this is a situation where we will have to agree to disagree. I won't dispute your right to believe what the NAB says... but I'll stick with the Douay-Rheims and the traditional (Catholic) understanding of Sacred Scripture. Haydock and Augustine are among readily available online resources referring to Judith (as just one example) as an actual history.
  • Augustine and any number of early apologist-theologians did not consider the Bible to be entirely literally true. Allegory is hardly a new understanding of large parts of the biblical account.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • I think I've given several examples in prior posts where I acknowledged some examples of allegory, and I've made clear several times I'm not arguing for a strict literal interpretation everywhere throughout. But Augustine (among others) would not have said that entire books of the Bible were some kind of allegorical parable.

    As I said, I'll agree to disagree.
  • ghmus7
    Posts: 1,472
    "In my 40+ years of attending the TLM, I have only encountered a small handful of YE - and fewer yet of Geocentric. Of course that's only based on my experience and given the circumstance that the topic came up in discussion."

    In my experience, the TLM churches ive encountered were all big on this and were majority YE
    Thanked by 2MarkB Elmar
  • Hugh
    Posts: 198
    There are perceptive comments on all sides of this fascinating issue since I last visited this thread a few weeks back. Hopefully I'll have time soon to jump in again.

    Just one question for now: how to OEs deal with Dr Mary Schweitzer's discoveries of soft tissue in the bones of dinosaurs that, according to standard paleontology, are about 60 million years old?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,771
    "But no one except Schweitzer and her collaborators has been able to replicate their work."

    Schweitzer herself seems to have become an OE creationist.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Elmar
  • Hugh
    Posts: 198
    But she's not denying the evidence she has uncovered, nor does she explain how soft tissue could last more than a few thousand years. (edited. H.)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,714
    There is also the fossilised miners helmet discovered in Poland!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    "To finish with this whole question of faith and its shoots, it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about their development. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be, among the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it works out. And first with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing penetration of the religious sentiment in the conscience. This progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all foreign elements, such, for example, as the sentiment of family or nationality; and positive by the intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea was enlarged and enlightened while the religious sentiment became more elevated and more intense. For the progress of faith no other causes are to be assigned than those which are adduced to explain its origin. But to them must be added those religious geniuses whom we call prophets, and of whom Christ was the greatest; both because in their lives and their words there was something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the needs of their time. The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the obstacles which faith has to surmount, to the enemies it has to vanquish, to the contradictions it has to repel. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly its own mysteries. Thus, to omit other examples, has it happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith admitted in Him expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God. The chief stimulus of evolution in the domain of worship consists in the need of adapting itself to the uses and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of accommodating itself to historical conditions and of harmonising itself with existing forms of society. Such is religious evolution in detail. And here, before proceeding further, we would have you note well this whole theory of necessities and needs, for it is at the root of the entire system of the Modernists, and it is upon it that they will erect that famous method of theirs called the historical.

    27. Still continuing the consideration of the evolution of doctrine, it is to be noted that Evolution is due no doubt to those stimulants styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus, turned aside from its primitive vital principle, would lead to ruin instead of progress. Hence, studying more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact; for by right it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition, and, in fact, for authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs lies in the individual consciences and ferments there - especially in such of them as are in most intimate contact with life. Note here, Venerable Brethren, the appearance already of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its maintenance.

    With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. Being in intimate contact with consciences they know better than anybody else, and certainly better than the ecclesiastical authority, what needs exist - nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Having a voice and a pen they use both publicly, for this is their duty. Let authority rebuke them as much as it pleases - they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them with certainty that what they deserve is not blame but praise. Then they reflect that, after all there is no progress without a battle and no battle without its victim, and victims they are willing to be like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts against the authority which uses them roughly, for after all it is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that it remains deaf to their warnings, because delay multiplies the obstacles which impede the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when there will be no further chance for tergiversation, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while, they cannot be ultimately destroyed. And so they go their way, reprimands and condemnations notwithstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility. While they make a show of bowing their heads, their hands and minds are more intent than ever on carrying out their purposes. And this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience - thus unconsciously avowing that the common conscience is not with them, and that they have no right to claim to be its interpreters."


    (continued in next post)

  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    (cont'd)

    "Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts. On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new - we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX., where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, impeded by this pronouncement - on the contrary it is aided and promoted. For the same Council continues: Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries - but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."


    Saint Pius X, pray for us!
    All Saints and Angels, pray for us!

    PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

    ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
    ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS
    The Evolution of Doctrine
    Par. 26-26
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,966
    When quoting, it's good to make it clear one is quoting, and whence.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    Liam... O, yes... sorry about that!

    Fixed.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    Just ran into this quote today... it reminded me of the mention of the author on this thread, so I thought I might post it here.

    “The doctrine of atonement, which Christians take very seriously indeed, is so deeply, deeply nasty that it deserves to be savagely ridiculed.”
    R. Dawkins

    In my book, blasphemy.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,027
    I agree that Richard Dawkins should shut his mouth about philosophy and theology. Hard to consider him an intelligent commentator on those two subjects.

    But since this thread has been resurrected, if anyone is interested to see what Young Earth Creationist Catholics believe, watch the two free videos of the newly-released "Foundations Restored" series produced by the Kolbe Center. Trads I know are already heavily pushing this video series at parishes and among Catholics:

    https://foundationsrestored.com/

    Balance that with this article by a SSPX priest (interesting, because SSPXers are no friends of Modernism) critical of the Kolbe Center for claiming its interpretation of doctrine about creation is binding on all Catholics:

    https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/the-reinterpretations-of-‘catholic’-biblicism-church-magisterium
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins Elmar
  • It would seem more practical to be stockpiling wheat, wine, water and rosaries against the impending plague-war-climate disaster-zombie invasion-etc than fuss over how long ago God created things.
  • (Though this thread is super interesting...)
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,027
    I'll add too anecdotally to answer my original question that started this thread that two people I know who believe in the Big Bang and evolution of species recently told me that they have been told they are material heretics for believing so by members of traditional Catholic parishes they attend.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,966
    The most useful response to which may be "Bless your heart(s)".
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,943
    Traditional Catholics are not always the most enlightened and objective people around so yes, bless their little hearts.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,966
    All manner of folk get squirrely when they band intensely around shared ideas - it incentivizes them to pay more attention to their differences. It's a major problem for intentionally gathered communities. For some such folks, the eremetic model may be fruitful than the cenobitic one.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Traditional Catholics are not always the most enlightened and objective people around so yes, bless their little hearts.


    Apparently even some {Novus Ordo Catholics}, {Orthodox}, {Protestants}, {etc.} judging by posts on the forum.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,943
    You can't have everything. Any group can get squirrely when it interacts with mostly its own members and reinforces the same thoughts and ideas over and over.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    humanity is squirrely in general (and needs the Saviour)... no need to throw tomatoes at our own kind... we need to gather together and defend the faith as it goes down (from the top down) against those who wish to exterminate us.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,771
    our own kind
    There are a variety of ways this might be interpreted.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,695
    Richard

    Your link isn't going anywhere... check it.

    Clarity:

    Our Own Kind - Roman Catholic to the Core
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,966
    Well, if he intended to link to the famous Emo Philips routine, here's a link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBKIyCbppfs
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,771
    I was thinking of Luke 10, but that routine certainly sounds a lot like the quilisma wars.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,966
    Well, there is only one way to perform a quilisma properly.

    Which is whatever your director/conductor tells you.

    Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't pursue.

    Et pax Christi exultet in cordibus vestris.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,771
    In the words of the twig-painter Bob Ross, "It kind of helps if you're nervous."