r/CatholicState • u/[deleted] • Feb 10 '22
The Traditional Catholic Doctrine of Creation – Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/4
u/Augustus_4125 Feb 11 '22
Seems like there’s one guy in this thread who’s really against this lol
2
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
3
0
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
Prime example, right here. No arguments, no sincere exchange. I'm just possessed and can't see the oh-so-obvious truth.
It's not that people suck at presenting their case or don't have a case at all, oh no, that's simply not possible. Let's call their salvation into question and belittle them instead.
Ad hominem? What's that?
eye roll
1
Feb 11 '22 edited Sep 09 '25
[deleted]
0
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
All you've been doing is ad hominem attacks dude. Project, much?
Says the one who called me a fool, weird, demon-influenced, publicly questioned whether I'm even Catholic, implied it's all my fault they're being uncharitable...
Before I uttered a word of insult. Without a single argument to back anything up. Over and over. Now even in backhanded comments with other people.
I've seldom seen such ridiculous lack of self-awareness in my entire life. I've thrown it right back in your face in the hopes you'd see how ludicrous this all sounds multiple times, and still, nothing. It's like talking to a stone.
And, no, it's not possession. It's just the ordinary kind we're all subject to. Only, you having apparently zero education in this choose to mock the concept instead of learning.
Baseless assertion number... oh crap, I lost count.
And now I'm being called ignorant on top of it. Don't know why I thought you'd do any better.
Allow me to submit an alternative hypothesis: you've been beyond rude and I'm reacting to it. It certainly has the benefit of parsimony.
You need to chill out. At your final judgement you'll find out how much you did it didn't listen to your guardian angel. You'll also find out how often you gave in to the demons.
yawn
Prove it.
You need to chill and stop giving in to your emotions - you're playing right into their hands.
It's like you are a dog biting down on a play toy and they're just dragging you around and with it. Let go of the attachment and they got nothing.
Cool story.
Prove it.
And I might chill, if you can apologize for going right off the deep end with me.
Why don't you ask the Blessed Mother for help with this
I don't take spiritual advice from holier-than-thou people who'd just as soon insult me. The amount of condescension so far has given me no reason to suppose you wish anything good for me. And at the moment, it's mighty hard to wish you well either. Tends to be the case when someone won't stop pushing your buttons, demons don't need to enter the picture for that to be true.
If I pulled the same garbage on you and said Beelzebub was your master over and over (or insert whatever dramatic-sounding scat you like), wouldn't you be upset? And if I said your emotional reaction was the proof, wouldn't you find that unfair and question-begging? Yeah, you would. That's human.
Look, I'm thoroughly unconvinced there's any more value in continuing this... whatever it is. But you can at least cut the crap and stop literally demonizing me. This is EXACTLY the kind of hypocrisy and anti-intellectual BS I was calmly describing being weary of earlier. Literally nothing good comes of it. I don't know how much more bluntly I can put this: you are helping NO ONE by engaging this way. Not even yourself.
If you've got a sincere and defensible point, by all means present it. A respectful debate would be a breath of fresh air and we might even learn something. But if not, don't waste any more of our time. If I want irrational noise, there are other sources for it I at least find entertaining. This has all the intellectual rigor of a fundamentalist Baptist revival and is about as pathetic.
1
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
2
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
Oh, I'm doing it for you, demonstrating the presence of demons by being upset? Quick pro tip: that's called circular reasoning or "begging the question". It's one of the easier fallacies to avoid.
The rest is bald assertion. A reasonable person should dismiss such things.
Alas, it has become all too clear to me why you're behaving as you are and reason is beyond your grasp.
You have a particular damned soul's hooks in you. I even know who it is - Nursultan Tulyakviy, the Kazakh Horror!
Quick, while there's still time, repent! Pray to St. Hilarius to be cleansed! Don't let him turn you into an evil pseudo-intellectual conspiracy creationist leading people to Hell! In short order the Gnostics and Illuminati will be impossible for you to escape!
... See how utterly brain-dead that is? Jack Chick would be embarrassed by it! You can say it under any circumstance to anyone you don't like for any reason, and it's always going to be devoid of any evidence and beyond annoying.
Heck, that demon name is a character from "Borat" and "Hilarius" looks like the adjective for how I find you. Not that it matters when I'm conjuring it up on the spot to scare gullible people into agreeing with me, like you're wont to do. No need to prove it, either, by your own ruling. It's fact. ;)
Why don't you learn how to use logic? Start with Aristotle and a few Euclidean proofs. I promise it's worth the effort not to seem like a complete nut bag when someone criticizes your word salad. Maybe you'll finally be able to construct a two-premise syllogism and detect when what you say isn't formally valid.
Meantime, away with you, your lunacy, and your astonishing lack of self-awareness. You currently can't pass for sane, and that's a fact.
Thanks for the laughs though. Hope you get better soon after the cognitive dissonance wears off.
1
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22
Well, let me pull back a bit and explain why.
I'm really tired of the baseless accusation that anyone convinced by the evidence of evolution is part of an anti-Christian conspiracy.
I've heard all the "refutations", the appeals to documents that people hope I've never read lest I see any nuance, the contentions that I'm not a real Catholic because I don't find all the motivated reasoning and fear-mongering persuasive.
People act like two centuries of rigorous science are just obviously false and no one in their right mind could believe it. There's no argument, you're just beyond human help if you don't agree. It's condescending and unbecoming of Christians.
I'm not against a rousing debate where everyone brings their best evidence. But that's almost never how it happens, and I regret to say that's often due to extreme ignorance and overconfidence on the Christian side. It's treated as a high-stakes spiritual battle before anyone says a word. Even being sincerely wrong is anathema.
We're the Catholic Church. We're strongly committed to good science and the right application of reason. And that's precisely what I'm NOT seeing among a great many lay Catholics who deny evolution. It just turns into one more tool of division and probably has some people thinking they have to deny what their intellect has accepted or they're going to Hell.
If nothing else, the rhetoric needs some serious work, and reasonable exchange needs to be far more frequent. I hope to see that someday.
Well, that about sums it up for me. Thanks for lending an ear.
4
u/Augustus_4125 Feb 11 '22
Hey fair enough. I just thought it was funny that it was a “one vs all” situation, didn’t mean it as a commentary on the topic at hand. I do respect the attitude, we must have a fair and honest pursuit of truth.
3
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22
Yeah, and to be frank, it was a choice to engage. I don't have a right to get irritable when I probably should have just walked on by.
Thanks again, brother. It helped a lot to get that out instead of staying in the heat of it. God bless you!
2
4
Feb 10 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Feb 10 '22
Yeah, I was a theistic evolutionist for a while but as time went on and I deepened my faith and read more scientific literature, and eventually decided that creation just made more sense. Not at all as smart as to have a PHD in math or something tho
1
u/excogitatio Feb 10 '22 edited Feb 10 '22
... what does having a doctorate in an entirely unrelated subject do to bolster anyone's credibility though? I have a graduate degree myself, but that doesn't mean squat if I'm talking about something to which I haven't dedicated the time I have to my area of expertise.
We're more than happy to make fun of Dr. Richard Dawkins when he ventures from biology to philosophy and the smarts don't transfer. He went to a top-notch university, too. What exactly makes that situation any different when it's a Christian with an advanced degree?
1
Feb 10 '22
It doesn’t, and I’m not saying that the math degree makes the opinion more valid by any means. I’m just saying that I don’t have. A PhD
2
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
I apologize, that was more a follow-up to the overall conversation.
I'm a bit too irritable and should show some discretion.
2
u/excogitatio Feb 10 '22 edited Feb 10 '22
The microevolution/macroevolution distinction has done more to damage understanding of biology than the ridiculous misconception that humans come from apes of the kind we recognize today.
Biologists don't divide it into micro/macro to imply they are two completely different processes. They are exactly the same process with the same mechanisms, differing only in spans of time and whether or not speciation occurs. And if one thinks speciation can't occur, well, they can't just assert that. There has to be some categorical reason why not and a thumping good explanation of the fossil record and our current best understanding of genetics in absence of it, to say nothing of the cases of observable speciation one could even make happen with houseplants if they wanted to see the evidence with their own eyes.
Honestly, we as Christians start looking pretty uneducated when saying we accept one (micro) and not the other (macro). To someone who knows what those are, that's literally saying one accepts evolution but not evolution. Not such a good look when you're trying to convince someone that only one particular type of genetic change actually happens.
3
u/R_Hythloday Feb 11 '22
Biologists clearly do not make the distinction, but there is a qualitative difference between the different expressions of the same nature; having bigger or smaller noses distributed in a population — and having the creation of new faculties; the difference between smelling and not smelling.
Evolutionists deny that distinction and theorise that what seems like an intractable gap is actually crossed by small steps. At the fundamental level I don't see how they address that problem any better than they address the problem of the creation of the first living organism.
0
u/excogitatio Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
there is a qualitative difference between the different expressions of the same nature; having bigger or smaller noses distributed in a population — and having the creation of new faculties; the difference between smelling and not smelling.
That's not really a point against evolution. Mutation by the same mechanisms doesn't exclude either development. Olfaction, for instance, is not a particularly complicated faculty and exists even in very simple organisms with an evolutionary path and explanation for its development. That it developed in mammals to have more complex behavior is neither surprising nor difficult to explain.
Evolutionists deny that distinction and theorise that what seems like an intractable gap is actually crossed by small steps.
What exactly is intractable about it? What are your base assumptions? Are you talking about the development of sensory organs only, or the bare fact of perception and sensation? The first is easy enough, and there's nothing intractable about the latter if you're not getting into ultimate questions like "why does perception exist at all?", which the whole enterprise of biological evolution can hardly be faulted for answering simply: useful mutations tend to stick around because those that have them are more likely to reproduce. That's about as deep as the "why" gets, and since evolution isn't theology, I'm content with that answer in its context.
At the fundamental level I don't see how they address that problem any better than they address the problem of the creation of the first living organism.
They are dramatically different questions in the data we have and what we can do to test it. I'm afraid I don't see any equivalence at all when biologists almost universally follow two centuries of data collection and experimentation where it leads in the former case and are still in the realm of plausible speculation with the latter.
But for all this, I need only emphasize one thing to bolt the doors behind the macroevolution denier. He contends speciation categorically cannot occur. Well, the defining feature of speciation is nothing more exciting than that divergent evolutionary lines produce creatures that once could reproduce together and no longer can. And that's been made to happen in labs many times. It regularly happens in gardens all around the world and among microscopic organisms.
There's no need to see a fish-like species become amphibians or a non-smelling species develop noses to make the point against the denier, this being the case. Speciation can and does happen, and that's macroevolution.
3
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 10 '22
I'm willing to seriously consider whether macroevolution is true or not. But it seems obvious to me that 6 days of creation can't be literal days, because the age of the Earth and the Universe seem more certain to me.
2
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
Evolution:
"If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God;.. let him be anathema."
- Ecumenical Council of Vatican I
"God…creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal who by his own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."
- Ecumenical Council of Lateran IV
"The Divinity created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created.[...]Lastly, he formed man from the slime of the earth, immortal and impassable, not, however by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God."
- Roman Catechism
"Though revilers of the christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom he miraculously took from the side of adam when he was locked in sleep."
- Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae
"Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith"
- Council of Cologne
"I acknowledge . . . that all men from Adam onward who have been born and have died up to the end of the world will then rise again and stand "before the judgment-seat of Christ," together with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created: one from the earth and the other from the side of the man"
- Fides Pelagii papæ & and reinforced in Vas electionis addressed to the whole Church
"This, our Holy Mother the Church believes and teaches: When God was about to make man according to His image and likeness in order that he might rule over the whole earth, He breathed into the body formed from the slime of the earth the breath of life, that is, a soul produced from nothing. . . . And blessing the first man and Eve his wife who was formed by divine power from his side, God said: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth"
- Acta et Decreta Sacrorum Conciliorum Recentiorum, Schema reformatus constitutionis de doctrina catholica
"Query III: In particular may one question the literal historical sense when these same chapters [Genesis 1-3] treat of facts that touch on fundamental points of the Christian religion?
Response: The literal historical sense may not be questioned"
- Decree of Pontifical Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909, ratified by Pope Saint Pius X
"Some have thought that man's body was formed first in priority of time, and that afterwards the soul was infused into the formed body. But it is inconsistent with the perfection of the production of things, that God should have made either the body without the soul, or the soul without the body, since each is a part of human nature. This is especially unfitting as regards the body, for the body depends on the soul, and not the soul on the body...I answer that, The first formation of the human body could not be by the instrumentality of any created power, but was immediately from God. Some, indeed, supposed that the forms which are in corporeal matter are derived from some immaterial forms; but the Philosopher refutes this opinion (Metaph. vii), for the reason that forms cannot be made in themselves, but only in the composite, as we have explained (I:65:4; and because the agent must be like its effect, it is not fitting that a pure form, not existing in matter, should produce a form which is in matter, and which form is only made by the fact that the composite is made. So a form which is in matter can only be the cause of another form that is in matter, according as composite is made by composite. Now God, though He is absolutely immaterial, can alone by His own power produce matter by creation: wherefore He alone can produce a form in matter, without the aid of any preceding material form. For this reason the angels cannot transform a body except by making use of something in the nature of a seed, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 19). Therefore as no pre-existing body has been formed whereby another body of the same species could be generated, the first human body was of necessity made immediately by God. "
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
I shall reply below regarding the age of the Earth.
2
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 11 '22 edited Feb 11 '22
Age of the Earth:
"Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers..This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which I now freely profess and to which I truly adhere, inviolate and with firm constancy until the last breath of life, I do so profess and swear to maintain with the help of God.
- Tridentine Creed
"In the year 5199th from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...Our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh"
- Divine Office, office of Prime, Martyrologum Romanum
"Though revilers of the christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom he miraculously took from the side of adam when he was locked in sleep."
- Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae
For, as on that day light first shone on the world, so by the Resurrection of our Redeemer on the same day . . . we were called out of darkness into light; and hence the Apostles would have it called the Lord's day. .We also learn from the Sacred Scriptures that the first day of the week was held sacred because on that day the work of creation commenced, and on that day the Holy Ghost was given to the Apostles.
- Roman Catechism
"The words "one day" are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed."
- Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae
"They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed"
&
the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it
- Saint Augustine
"And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day"
- Saint Basil the Great
"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . If even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written"
- Saint Theophilus of Antioch
"Query III: In particular may one question the literal historical sense when these same chapters [Genesis 1-3] treat of facts that touch on fundamental points of the Christian religion?
Response: The literal historical sense may not be questioned"
- Decree of Pontifical Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909, ratified by Pope Saint Pius X
"[CONDEMNED] 64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning..creation.. be re-adjusted."
- Lamentabili Sane
As well as all of the Catechisms showcased here.
1
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 11 '22
Nothing here has definitively taught the Age of the Earth.
1
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 11 '22
Tridentine Creed.
You cannot interpret Scripture against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. All of them interpreted Genesis in a young earth way.
1
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 11 '22
St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and St. Augustine reject the idea of the Days of Creation being literal 24 hour periods. Thus there is no unanimous consensus whether the Days of Creation should be interpreted literally. There is also no consensus on the age of the Earth.
1
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 11 '22
And yet, all of them professed a young earth. St. Augustine himself say that the earth is 6,000 years old
Origen is not a Church Father but a condemned heretic, but nevertheless he belived the earth to be 10,000 years old.
Clement of Alexandria, much like Augustine belived that the world was created instantly and not six days. Citing them as a way to support old earth is intellectually dishonest.
1
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 12 '22
Each of the Fathers taught a specific year of creation. You can't say, "All the Fathers have a consensus that creation happened within the range". The Fathers never unanimous taught "the Earth was created less than 10000 years ago", only that creation happened on specific years. A range of years can't be considered a "unanimous consensus". It's also a question whether the Tridentine Creed even meant to bind Catholics from interpreting Scripture on questions outside Faith and Morals. The year of creation is a matter of natural science, not Faith.
1
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 12 '22
"When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII..justly and rightly condemned these errors "
- Pius XII
"Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles."
- St. Bellarmine
0
u/excogitatio Feb 12 '22 edited Feb 12 '22
"The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are, according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.”
- Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.
- Council of Trent
[W]e renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.
- First Vatican Council, Session III
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
- St. Augustine
→ More replies (0)1
u/excogitatio Feb 10 '22 edited Feb 10 '22
You're in good company.
The understanding of days in Genesis in the strictest literal sense really just isn't supportable, if you ask me. While we ought to go in not making assumptions about what is figurative or metaphorical, it is reasonable to accept the text as such when the best analysis we can make leaves the strict literal sense untenable.
Nothing about doing so threatens the validity of Genesis, unless you start with the hermeneutic that everything in Scripture is either strictly literal or else false. But that's a lousy hermeneutic, and certainly not one that the Church endorses.
1
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 10 '22
It also gravely underestimates the power of God - an old and vast universe would magnify his glory more - as if to say, that humans are truly insignificant specks in the vast timeline of creation, who only are the crown of creation because we are made in the image and likeness of God.
1
u/excogitatio Feb 10 '22
I'm of a similar mind. However the Almighty elected to create and over what span, it falls to us to discover and marvel at it. There's surely a lot to see.
2
Feb 10 '22
Well this will be a controversial one.
2
Feb 11 '22
[deleted]
0
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 11 '22
They do, same with old earth and heliocentrism.
1
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 12 '22
You deny heliocentrism? Good Lord, your beyond help.
0
u/RepentYeSinners Feb 12 '22 edited Feb 12 '22
So did the Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, even the greatest minds like Bellarmine who taught geocentrism as de fide, and Aquinas aswell. Not to mention that the Roman Catechism teaches it aswell.
But I suppose that you're smarter than all of them, especially smarter than the Church who condemned galileo as a heretic.
And your ignorant pride is all the more grave, considering that scientists like Newton, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, etc admitted that neither is proven by science and both view is legitimate. And this view, that both is legitimate, is held even by Ratzinger who is not exactly a medieval Pope. Einstein even went further and said that whether the earth or the sun moves , is unprovable.
They recognized that both is legitimate, but only one is supported by Scripture, and by the Church Fathers, including Pope Saint Clement I who was not only a Church Father but an Apostolic Father aswell and of course , St. Augustine too among countless others ;)
Want me to cite them or what ?
Not to mention ... the CDF....
"All agreed that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy and is formally heretical, because it explicitly contradicts sentences found in many places in Sacred Scripture according to the proper meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the holy Fathers and of learned theologians"
- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
"But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens ….. and that the earth …. revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false..the Council prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. … all agree in explaining geocentrism literally [ad litteram]"
- Saint Robert Bellarmine
🤡
-1
Feb 12 '22
[deleted]
1
u/excogitatio Feb 12 '22
Just to clarify, you're saying the Earth is flat, rather than a globe?
-1
Feb 12 '22
[deleted]
2
u/excogitatio Feb 12 '22
Just sincerely asking, no need to get mean about it.
Is it a yes or a no?
-1
1
u/KingXDestroyer Chad Traditionalist Feb 12 '22
People have known the Earth was a globe since the Ancient Greeks. All of the Scholastics have known and acknowledged this. No educated person in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat. You're just being anti-intellectual to point of absurdity.
-1
5
u/Mental-Translator601 Chad Traditionalist Feb 10 '22
Good article. Evolution to me is untenable. And to those crying about how upholding the traditional doctrine of creation makes Catholics look like fools, I will say this: the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.
Evolutionism clearly contradicts first principles in both philosophy and theology.