Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9

Author Topic: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science  (Read 3332 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2026, 03:24:20 PM »
Quote from: OSanctissimus on September 21, 2026, 01:31:07 PM
One tiny issue, though, is the St. Maximillian has in his writings that he believed the stars were 140 millions years away. 
He's not a scientist, nor is he a Church Father.  His opinion is kinda worthless, as compared to many other saints and Doctors, who actually studied the planets/stars (i.e. St Bellarmine)
Logged

Offline OSanctissimus

Re: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2026, 03:36:36 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 21, 2026, 03:21:55 PM
Indirectly, you are opening to the door, if you aren't precise with your explanations.

Your explanation is not precise and is wrong.  We are not allowed to think that "Yom" is ANY long period of time. 
Can we say that "yom" is longer than a day, because the use of the word 'day' was allegorical?  Yes.
Can we say that "yom" is longer than a day, i.e. a million years?  No.  Because that is no longer allegorical and destroys the meaning of the word 'day'.

God used the word DAY on purpose.  He knew what He was doing.  If He had meant that the period was very, very long, He would've used the word "age" or "period".  There were 7 periods/ages of creation.  But He didn't use those terms; He used "day".

If you want to say that 'day' is an allegory, you still have to define it so as not to destroy the notion of the word.
In the Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae,” on November 18, 1907, Pope St. Pius X declared that no one could contest the rulings of the PBC without “grave sin.”

In English translations of the Holy Bible, yom is variously translated as "time" (Gen. 4:3, Is. 30:8), "year" (1 Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19, Amos 4:4), "age" (Genesis 18:11, 24:1, 47:28; Joshua 23:1,2), "always" (Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23, and 2 Chronicles 18:7), "season" (Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7, 2 Chronicles 15:3), and as either "epoch" or "24-hour day" depending on interpretation.

Here then are the PBC Rulings of 1909 regarding Genesis:

Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.



II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.



III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.


IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.


V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.



VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.



VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.



(AND HERE IS THE VERY RELEVENT SECTION:)


VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.


So you are saying things about the word "yom" that the Church does not say.   

And you are also saying things about the word "yom" that go against what various other Bible exegetes have not said.

Additionally, as I already mentioned, St. Kolbe himself stated that the distance of the stars from our planet was measured as 140 million years.  While he is not a doctor of the Church, the fact that he advocated for an older (mature) Creationism, yet is the patron of the Kolbe Center is more than ironic.

 
The Church mostly clearly allows for "yom" to be interpreted as a longer or shorter period of time and has not - to the best of my knowledge - specified the amount of time. 

Logged

Offline OSanctissimus

Re: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2026, 03:58:56 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 21, 2026, 03:21:55 PM
Indirectly, you are opening to the door, if you aren't precise with your explanations.

Your explanation is not precise and is wrong.  We are not allowed to think that "Yom" is ANY long period of time. 
Can we say that "yom" is longer than a day, because the use of the word 'day' was allegorical?  Yes.
Can we say that "yom" is longer than a day, i.e. a million years?  No.  Because that is no longer allegorical and destroys the meaning of the word 'day'.

God used the word DAY on purpose.  He knew what He was doing.  If He had meant that the period was very, very long, He would've used the word "age" or "period".  There were 7 periods/ages of creation.  But He didn't use those terms; He used "day".

If you want to say that 'day' is an allegory, you still have to define it so as not to destroy the notion of the word.
Also, no, it is not opening a door to evolution if one believe in a longer-earth Creationism.

As you mentioned, God may have chosen to create in such a way that things did not reproduce, or in such a way that things were already in a mature or STATIC state (and hence, not evolving). 
Logged

Offline icarlytradcath

Re: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2026, 04:14:24 PM »


This is just a book on Bible folklore and legends, mainly Jєωιѕн, but it does propose some interesting questions, when did time and change actually begin? Did things decay and suffer from entropy before the Fall? How long were Adam and Eve in paradise before the Fall?

I'm not too familiar with it but I have heard some Eastern Fathers leaned more towards us being in Eden right now but we're just blind to it, the Fall was like a loss of vision and a veil over all creation but creation itself remained mostly the same. Maybe someone who knows about this can tell us about it.

On an aside I've taken to the term paradise over heaven, I find heaven conjures in most peoples' minds this Simpsons-esque idea of just being in the clouds playing a harp for eternity, when Paradise will be a new earth, with all that entails,
Logged

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: Latest Kolbe Center re Fr. Robinson's The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2026, 07:50:38 PM »
Quote from: OSanctissimus on September 20, 2026, 11:05:17 PM
You've said a lot of things.

Like a Gish Gallop.

Oh, the irony!

Your responses to the drubbing you are receiving in this thread and in the "Telling" thread, https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/telling/msg1040730/#msg1040730
include Gish Gallops. You too have "said a lot of things" at a rapid pace, many of which are false.

"Considering" that you claim to be a woman and have demonstrated a soft spot for an "evangelist" of the Judaized Novus Ordo (Nishant/Xavier/Telling), I wonder if you also claim тαℓмυdic heritage. Are you a convert from тαℓмυdic Judaism? I ask because a pattern, though not yet firm seems to be starting to coalesce. After all, the tribe is infamous for accusing others of things for which they themselves are much more demonstrably guilty (in your case, Gish Gallops, lies, incompetence, and hypocrisy). Do I smell the tainted odor of gefilte fish? In view of your penchant for "quadrupling down" on the serial lies you have told in the Telling thread. I allow for the possibility (likelihood?) that you will lie in your response here, but I ask anyway.

Further "consideration," while a disproportion of thumbs-down is not an objective measure of truth per se, your own disproportion of down-thumbs as a newbie is indeed an indicator that you lack credibility in and seem incompatible with the "Trads" this forum.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9
« previous next »