tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post4821347450141285427..comments2024-03-22T18:43:00.710-04:00Comments on Unam Sanctam Catholicam: The Increasingly Non-Committal Christmas ProclamationBonifacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-28220419612353073962016-07-02T18:49:24.251-04:002016-07-02T18:49:24.251-04:00Finally, you might find interesting a most remarka...Finally, you might find interesting a most remarkable concordance between the Genesis narrative of the first day of creation and a currently wholly plausible hypothesis of "creation at the start of the inflationary epoch" (*), which I presented here:<br /><br />http://speculativethinking.blogspot.com/2015/08/concordance-between-narrative-of_26.html<br /><br />In the article I then go on with day 2, which also has a remarkable level of concordance independent of this hypothesis, and days 3 to 6, for which the concordance is much weaker.<br /><br />(*) If you care why this hypothesis is currently wholly plausible, see my comment at the bottom of the discussion under this article:<br /><br />http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/physics-culture-and-theistic-cosmology-models/<br />Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-47521242808104128892016-07-02T18:38:31.254-04:002016-07-02T18:38:31.254-04:00The Catholic Church could never teach that the wor...The Catholic Church could never teach that the world was created in 5199 because that number is based on Septuagint (LXX) chronology for Genesis, while the official Bible for the Catholic Church is the Vulgate, which is a translation from a quasi-Masoretical Text (MT), which features a different chronology.<br /><br />This difference arises because LXX and TM differ in the ages of the Genesis' patriarchs at the time of procreating, with the LXX manuscripts, in turn, differing between themselves. Furthermore, among the LXX-based computations, the one from Eusebius' Chronicle, translated and spread by St. Jerome in his own 380 Chronicle and on which the 5199 number is based, is substantially lower than the others.<br /><br />This is because Eusebius takes from each LXX manuscript the number that results in a lower elapsed time, and also omits the post-diluvian patriarch Cainan, added by the LXX and mentioned by St. Luke in his genealogy.<br /><br />A clear error in Codex Vaticanus, picked by Eusebius, is that Methuselah was 167 years old when procreating, which implies that he survived the Flood by 14 years. To avoid this, this age must be corrected to 187 as in MT and Codex Alexandrinus.<br /><br />With this correction, and defining the following intervals:<br /><br />Tcfl: Creation - Flood<br />TfbA: Flood - birth of Abraham<br />TcbA: Creation - birth of Abraham<br /><br />Source ............: Tcfl + TfbA = TcbA<br /><br />Masoretic text (MT): 1656 + 0292 = 1948<br />Eusebius corr. (Ec): 2262 + 0942 = 3204<br />C. Alexandrinus (A): 2262 + 1072 = 3334<br />Vaticanus corr (Vc): 2262 + 1172 = 3434<br /><br />From this point you must add years to a well-dated event: the destruction of the first temple in 587 bC. Here Eusebius makes a simple arithmetic mistake: when adding times from Adam to the second year of Darius he obtains 4680, while the correct result of the addition is 4671. Adding 1 year to shift his assumed age of Jesus at the start of his public life from 29 to 30, the finally correct Eusebian computus is 5209, with the corresponding MT/Vulgate version being<br /><br />5209 - 3204 + 1948 = 3953<br /><br />almost exactly the time computed by St. Bede, 3952, in his two books on the subject, of 703 and 725.<br /><br />FWIW, my own computation places Abraham's birth at 1952 bC, Exodus at 1447 bC and the start of Solomon's reign at 970 bC, which implies dating Creation at 3900, 5156 or 5286 bC, using MT, correct Eusebius, or Codex Alexandrinus chronology.Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-76491934580544459482016-07-02T17:37:16.074-04:002016-07-02T17:37:16.074-04:00Regarding the interpretation of the 6 days in Gene...Regarding the interpretation of the 6 days in Genesis ch. 1, let us recall the June 30, 1909 reply from the then-magisterial Pontifical Biblical Comission:<br /><br />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?<br />Answer: In the affirmative.<br /><br />http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/oldtestament/commission.htm<br /><br />Note that while Genesis ch. 1 says at the end of the creative action for each day from 1st to 6th: "And there was evening and there was morning, a [nth] day.", it does <b>not</b> say that for the 7th day, meaning that the 7th day was still ongoing at the time of writing of Genesis.<br /><br />Since in biblical reckoning of time each day is comprised of a nocturnal part followed by a diurnal part, as the quoted formula shows, I posit the following continuation of the scheme of days of Genesis ch. 1:<br /><br />- day 7, nocturnal part: from the fall of Adam and Eve till the coming of Jesus;<br /><br />- day 7, diurnal part: life of Jesus until sunset of Good Thursday;<br /><br />- day 8, nocturnal part: Passion of Jesus and time while He was dead;<br /><br />- day 8, diurnal part: from the Resurrection of Jesus till the end of times.<br /><br />The diurnal part of day 7 started at Jesus' birth for Mary and Joseph (and a few selected witnesses like the shepherds) and at Jesus' baptism in the Jordan for the people of Israel at large, in analogous fashion to the fact that people on the top of a mountain see the rising sun earlier than people at the bottom of a valley.<br /><br />Johanneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05371418313799513738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-64146555406040162422014-12-27T02:29:53.705-05:002014-12-27T02:29:53.705-05:00Where did the original dating come from? What is t...Where did the original dating come from? What is the tradition in the divine office, and by what means did our forebears ascertain the specific dating of the patriarchs?Ryan Carruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14879617994740548449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-87131568964859885132014-12-26T13:59:57.759-05:002014-12-26T13:59:57.759-05:00In addition to the article I just shared with you,...In addition to the article I just shared with you, I also found another author who deals more explicitly with the whole becoming vs. being debate; the name of the author is Edward Oakes; Oakes' article which is called "Dominican Evolution" can be accessed through the same resource I had given you, only this time it is in volume 77 of the Thomist. As was the case with Dumsday, I lack the training to understand Oakes' argument, but perhaps you can take a shot at it.Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382047339018420875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-33968691936513058802014-12-26T13:08:51.685-05:002014-12-26T13:08:51.685-05:00I also found something that may be of relevance. I...I also found something that may be of relevance. In volume 76 of the Thomist there appears an article written by Travis Dumsday entitled "Is There Still Hope for a Scholastic Ontology of Biological Species?" In which he treats this subject. You can find it online; I was able to gain access the article through Avan Aversa's Aristotelian Thomism webpage. The pages that deal with the issue are on 18-21 of the PDF file, though you should probably read the entire article which is twenty-five pages long. <br /><br />I would love to tell you what Dumsday said, but I don't have a strong grasp on philosophical discourse, so I was not able follow his argument, at least not well enough to provide you with a useful summary. Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382047339018420875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-30979495896274580812014-12-25T17:47:51.364-05:002014-12-25T17:47:51.364-05:00Amanda,
Yes! That is him!
(Thanks for visiting ...Amanda,<br /><br />Yes! That is him! <br /><br />(Thanks for visiting on Christmas Day)Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-50575321749248437432014-12-25T17:06:46.761-05:002014-12-25T17:06:46.761-05:00Is that a photo of Fr. Saguto, FSSP? I know firsth...Is that a photo of Fr. Saguto, FSSP? I know firsthand that his rendition of the Christmas Proclamation is an illustration of the ideal: both fully traditional and awe-inspiring!A.R. Danzigerhttp://www.ardanziger.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-1167367134133037262014-12-24T10:16:28.840-05:002014-12-24T10:16:28.840-05:00I'm sorry, Anon. I see the difficulty, but wit...I'm sorry, Anon. I see the difficulty, but with Christmas about upon us I don't really have time to address it now. But keep in mind the 1860 condemnation was by a regional synod with no binding magisterial authority, although there is (some) evidence that Pius IX approved of their proceedings. Even if so, that would not make its declarations binding. Similar with the condemnations and placing of works on the Index.<br /><br />Pius XII Humani Generis remains the highest level pronouncement ever spoken on evolution itself, although as I said in the article, I think Vatican I is very relevant as well. I do agree that Pius XII "allowance" was against the mind of the 19th century Magisterium, but the 19th century Magisterium never made a high-level, authoritative pronouncement on this question, so in the strict sense Pius XII was really free to allow the compromise without formally contradicting or violating anything other than the mind of the Magisterium of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X - and this happens all the time.<br /><br />I'm afraid that's all I have time for now. Merry Christmas.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-78893893826934484682014-12-24T09:31:22.444-05:002014-12-24T09:31:22.444-05:00Ok, but I don't see how it's logical in th...Ok, but I don't see how it's logical in the slightest.<br /><br />Let me ask you this, which is a more general question. I was reading the article on the enthronement of evolution and noted the contrast between the first official Catholic response to the theory in 1860, which was a clear denunciation that left no room for many of the nuanced compromises later proposed by Pius XII, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and those later compromises.<br /><br />I believe this same thing has occurred with any number of matters, not just evolution. So how do we make sense of this? Either the compromises are legit or they're not. If not, then the prior statements are not only true, but seem to be authoritative. If they are legit, then it calls into question the legitimacy of prior statements.<br /><br />Now, expanding this a bit, if the compromises are legit, then it seems to me to put us always in a position of needing to be skeptical of statements when they occur, at the time that they occur, because they could be reactionary, or time bound, or simply false or lacking nuance. Whatever the specific outcome may be, what's newest is truest.<br /><br />This, as I see it, is the one of the central dividing lines in the Church today. If we do not definitively know how to understand the past statements, evaluate their authority and worth, then we cannot possibly make any sense of the rush of seeming compromises that occur now.<br /><br />How do we arrive at the truth with all of this?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-58788136637004637172014-12-24T08:56:27.172-05:002014-12-24T08:56:27.172-05:00Short answer is yes. But let's leave that for ...Short answer is yes. But let's leave that for another post. <br /><br />Keep in mind that literal 24 hour periods were affirmed by a great number of fathers and saints. Don't dismiss it so quickly. Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-92162544950226712872014-12-24T08:30:23.908-05:002014-12-24T08:30:23.908-05:00The six days as literal? Really? How could that ...The six days as literal? Really? How could that logically be when God Himself separated light from darkness (day from night)? God created everything, time included! Did that too happen in one of those 24 hour periods? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-64292505459216975052014-12-23T21:35:19.439-05:002014-12-23T21:35:19.439-05:00I just take the 6 days literally too. I just take the 6 days literally too. Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-85984628921792250642014-12-23T21:20:09.540-05:002014-12-23T21:20:09.540-05:00I vote for six days of 24 hours. After all, its a...I vote for six days of 24 hours. After all, its a pretty common use of the word "day." I mean, Who are we talking about here? God? Then what is wrong with 6 DAYS. <br /><br />But then I don't buy evolution, and I also accept the historical and recent reality of the Deluge.<br /><br />I expect that the Christmas Proclamation to snap back to its original form in a few years, and include the following:<br /><br /><i>" and x years from the purification of the Minor Chastisement, the enthronement of the Great Monarch and the reforms of the Angelic Pastor..."</i>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-63842163803586705762014-12-23T21:14:40.733-05:002014-12-23T21:14:40.733-05:00Thanks!
Do you know how he handles the problem of...Thanks!<br /><br />Do you know how he handles the problem of substance?Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-31412633115854711082014-12-23T21:11:58.717-05:002014-12-23T21:11:58.717-05:00"I am not aware of any Catholic authors who d..."I am not aware of any Catholic authors who defend evolution by demonstrating that it does not conflict with Aristotelian metaphysics. "<br /><br />Charles DeKoninck. That is one ;)Stomachosushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985536970467983132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-32134427603397977532014-12-23T21:07:27.532-05:002014-12-23T21:07:27.532-05:00In my opinion the last option is the worst, althou...In my opinion the last option is the worst, although I can't say it's prohibited. <br /><br />I do know a few Fathers and medievals said it was an indeterminate amount of time, but it was a minority position. But that's not the same as saying it stands for nothing. Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-69546601869732791302014-12-23T20:27:33.783-05:002014-12-23T20:27:33.783-05:00And are all those acceptable positions for a Catho...And are all those acceptable positions for a Catholic to hold? The last one sounds incompatiable with Leo XIII as well as the First Vatican Council's injunction to interpret scripture according to the judgement of the fathers. Though as far as I know, no Patristic father claims that the days in Genesis reprrsent an undetermined period of time, yet Pius X made allowances for it in the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Academy (and this was back when it was an arm of the Magisterium). <br /><br /><br /><br />Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382047339018420875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-51901523739308328262014-12-23T19:56:45.328-05:002014-12-23T19:56:45.328-05:00Brian,
Regarding the several positions:
>That...Brian,<br /><br />Regarding the several positions:<br /><br />>That the six days are strictly literal, a fairly common traditional view.<br />>That they each represent 1,000 years, also common.<br />>That they symbolize some other indeterminate amount of time.<br />>That they are fairly literal, but that "light" means something other than literal light.<br />>That they do not describe the chronological but the logical order of creation (Scott Hahn).<br />>That they describe logical distinctions between what was created but all actually happened simultaneously; the world was created in an instant (Augustine).<br />>That they don't stand for anything but are merely literary devices.<br />I am not aware of any Catholic authors who defend evolution by demonstrating that it does not conflict with Aristotelian metaphysics. Ratzinger of course defends evolution, but he believes that the classical concept of substance is no longer viable, so he abandons Aristotelian metaphysics.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-70172353823189419402014-12-23T18:29:07.667-05:002014-12-23T18:29:07.667-05:00And what are those several positions?
Anyway, I ...And what are those several positions? <br /><br />Anyway, I found your post on the solemn enthronement of evolution to be very informative and interesting. Although I d not have a definitive opinion on whether or not some phenomenon similar to evolution has indeed occured, I am always interested in tackling the question from a philosophican angle. I believe you mention one Catholic author who criticized the theory from a metaphysical standpoint, are you aware of any Catholic authors who defend it from a similar angle? Or, who at least claim that evolution, when properly understood, does not conflict with an Aristotelean metaphysic?<br /><br />I know that Biologos once gave a grant to a team of Dominican biologist, to do just that; unfortunately, I haven't heard anything back from them.Brian Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16382047339018420875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-13299572693710956732014-12-23T15:56:38.495-05:002014-12-23T15:56:38.495-05:00*and identify with the one...
*and identify with the one...<br />Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-56252439048425481742014-12-23T15:55:32.349-05:002014-12-23T15:55:32.349-05:00You don't have to resolve it, you know. You ca...You don't have to resolve it, you know. You can always just say, "I don't know," or find a position that is espoused within Tradition - there are several - I identify with the one that your sensus catholicus resonates with the most. Where there is legitimate disagreement with, even among the saints and doctors, there is no harm in this, or as I said, in just admitting ignorance, which is what I do in this question.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-37325428868747304562014-12-23T15:51:44.554-05:002014-12-23T15:51:44.554-05:00If there is reasonable ambiguity about the extent ...If there is reasonable ambiguity about the extent of the literalism of Genesis, what is a faithful Catholic to do? I see no way around the fact that the 'days' of creation do not refer to literal 24 hour periods. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-74525424337375810382014-12-23T15:43:07.907-05:002014-12-23T15:43:07.907-05:00That is beyond my skill level to answer, although ...That is beyond my skill level to answer, although Augustine addresses it in Confessions, I think Books 11 and 12, and also in "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis."<br /><br />I have found in my readings that while the fathers and saints have tended to take literally that Creation happened in the not-too-distant pass, the literalism breaks down when you come to the individual days, although there is a very large segment of authors who hold to literal 24 hour days.Bonifacehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10672810254075072214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6086833995941525990.post-34112005180971178962014-12-23T15:36:57.685-05:002014-12-23T15:36:57.685-05:00Does the literal reading of Genesis extend to the ...Does the literal reading of Genesis extend to the days of creation? If so, how are we to understand that the separation of light from darkness occurred on one of those 'days' when the very separation of one day from another, in a literal sense, presupposes the separation of light from darkness? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com