Are Catholics Obliged to Be Young Earth Creationists? - Questions with Father #42 - Fr. Robinson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2024
- On today’s episode of the SSPX Podcast, we’ll dive back into our Questions with Father episodes with a topic we touched on about 6 years ago: Young Earth Creationism. Many Catholics claim that it is doctrinal, and morally necessary to believe that the earth was created in a particular time, or in a particular way. In this episode and a following one to come later, Fr. Paul Robinson will lay out the Catholic perspective on not just this topic, but broadly, what a Catholic should believe in terms of Scripture and Science.
On SSPXpodcast.com you can find all our previous questions with Father episodes as well. This is free to listen to, and always will be, but if you can help with a one time or a small monthly recurring donation, you’ll be making sure that we can continue this work of producing good Catholic content on a regular basis.
Subscribe to the SSPX RUclips channel here:
ruclips.net/user/SSPXNewsEng...
Stay Connected on Social Media:
Twitter: / sspxen
Facebook: / sspxen
Instagram: / sspx_en
SSPX News Website:fsspx.news/en
Visit our website: sspx.org/en
Fr. Robinson has explained this excellently. Thank you!
Very clarifying. Thank you Fr. Robinson. God bless you.
I've been an SSPX parishioner for just 8 years, but I've met 3 SSPX priests that have taught us young Earth creationism (Creation is just 6 thousand years old) during the catechism for adults. I live in a hispanic country and all 3 priests are from different hispanic countries; I don't know if it's a cultural difference, but we as laymen never got scandalized by this teaching and accepted it as something natural and logical.
Yes Andrew, there's nothing like SSPX position or teaching, SSPX has no any other position,other than what the church has always teach and believe from centuries till our own time.
You guys should set up a dialogue with Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center and Fr. Robinson. I have no doubt it would be cordial, lively, and fruitful.
This is the only way for Fr. Robinson to steel man his position.
I was also going to suggest this!
@@stthomasmore4811 I have also spent time with Hugh Owen, in a purely social atmosphere, and I find this comment inaccurate. I’m not aware that he’s anti-SSPX-maybe he is, but he has been on with Kennedy Hall, who has been strongly supporting the YEC view.
And what does body odor (if present, which I did not detect) have to do with this topic? That seems nothing more than ad hominem.
This was a very good discussion. Having flexibility in these matters is a strength for the church as it allows us to avoiding the idiom fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
Btw the writtings of the saintly seer Anne Catherine Emmerich reveals to us four thousand years from Adam to Christ
We aren't obliged to believe believe private revelation as you know. So even though I believe what she said is probably true, all Catholics don't have to think that.
"Private revelations"
Good for her.
Not only that, but the Baltimore Catechism teaches that there were 4,000 years from the fall of Adam to Christ
She isn’t infallible or inerrant
Thank you for clarifying this.
I thought i had to believe the six-day creation as Catholic teaching when I embraced traditional Catholicism. It's a huge relief.
Because an evolutionist told you so? You're already lost
I think there’s a lot of good intention with having flexibility in interpreting genesis. However, I find it a bit troubling on what was said about theistic evolution, definitely going to stir the pot with a lot of Catholics. I think we need to be careful when we say “what the science says/tells us”, because the question is who’s science? While there are some mainstream schools of thought, there’s a lack of consensus in a lot of areas. It’s definitely a topic that divides Catholics, and that is sad
Spot on. The thing is this question won't matter in heaven. That's why the devil can have his way with us about it. I personally believe that the earth is the center of the universe, I believe it is a planet although I wonder how you can see the shores of Africa from Sicily... and I think that there are no aliens. All demonic manifestations. I tend to think the earth is old but humankind a few thousand years ... but yeah who cares? It doesn't makes you a better person.
Catholics don’t have to accept “Theistic evolution”. What Fr. Robinson has made clear is that the Church teaches us that we may believe it. Catholics are free to hold multiple positions and can disagree as much as we wish and still remain Catholics in good standing.
I don't think he ever juxtaposed science with faith in that way. He never said, they disagree, we have to choose science. He said (by citing the various statements of the Church over time) that the Church gives us liberty to support reasonable science when the Church does not teach otherwise on the matter in question.
I thought the point Father was making was that those who believe in Theistic Evolution are not in a state of grave sin (or believing in something sinful per se).
I believe TE is nonsense (as explained by the Kolbe Center) but I cannot expect other Catholics to have the same opinion.
Thank you, Father Robinson. This was clear and concise! The bible simply supports what Catholics already believe from Church teaching. There is nothing new to be found in scripture when it comes to the faith. It’s sad to see how the Protestant mindset (Sola Scriptura) continues to have its influence, even in Catholic circles.
Thanks Andrew and Fr Robinson!
Old earther here … can’t we have it both ways? If God created a universe that in all senses appear to be old, but He did it 6000 years ago, isn’t it still ancient? His Work is perfect and complete, so all of our scientific research would show it to be old in every aspect.
Neither opinion is contra faith. The concern is stating flatly that Young Earth Creationism = dogma
Jesus said if you have seen me you has seen the Father. Every time Jesus did a miracle it happened instantly it didn’t take millions or billions of years, why would anyone think it would take
Millions or billions of years to Create the universe, that would not match Gods character . It is the same question the devil asked Eve did God really say He Created the Heavens and the Earth in six days ?
That’s kind of the point. A miracle is something “supernatural” and unexplainable. Nature is natural and explainable.
What difference does that make?
St. Augustine of Hippo said that God created the whole universe in an instant - in its causes. The "days " were not 24-hour periods, but God unfolded His creation story to His angels. This was 1500 years ago
If God took hundreds of years to take the Israelites out of Egypt. If it took him hundreds of years to do that, then why would it be out of character for him to take millions of billions of years to create?
Decided to watch after the shoutout from Trent Horn in his recent episode.
Your comment lead me to the Trent Horn video. I guess there's some ecumenism here! 😆
The Kolbe Center for the Study of creation has great info on this subject. A young earth makes the most sense to me. It seems that is what the Church Fathers believed as well.
They did believe this because there was no evidence to the contrary at the time. But not everything the Church Fathers said is revelation or infallible.
It is my understanding that if there is a consensus with the Church Fathers it is considered dogma. Is this correct? If so, is there not a consensus with Church Father's on the "young earth"? A term they did not use but the acceptance of the 4k-6k years?
What Loving God would make us wait millions or billions of years to show us his Love?
Until there were people on Earth, there was no one to redeem. God didn't become man to redeem the dinosaurs. Until there were men, the whole need for guidance from God wasn't there. God guided the rocks, plants, and animals to their ends through His laws of nature.
This was really an excellent video. I’m glad you revisited the topic. An important expansion, is what happened after St Pius X's motu proprio document named "Praestantia Scripturae" (1907) where St. Pius X confirmed that the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission were to be considered as coming under the Church’s teaching authority.
In this time after, the authority of the PBC was reevaluated and modified following the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), particularly under Pope Paul VI, who restructured the commission in 1971. Since then, the PBC's role has been advisory rather than prescriptive, contributing to biblical scholarship and interpretation without issuing binding decrees. The modern PBC functions under the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but its publications are now considered as scholarly aids for understanding Scripture rather than obligatory doctrinal statements.
As a Catholic who justly rejects all heretical Popes, including Paul VI, I don't hold myself to this revisioning of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, but it's important to know about it.
Strongest and most radical position? I think young earth creationists is a strong and good position but not radical at all.
I really appreciate the teachings on the liberty in interpretation from the Church. But how the Kolbe center was portrayed was unfortunate. They work with many scientists and have showed many flaws in the scientific method applied by evolutionist and the dating methods of fossils and rocks. They do not just fall back on a flawed reading of authority as stated in this video. This video began with objective Church teaching on the individual's freedom of interpretation, but ended in "old earth creationism good, young earth creationism bad"
I don't understand the motivation to doubt and or change or reinterpret or take other than literally what the Bible says on this matter. There is absolutely no need to conform to the mythology claimed by evolutionists and atheists; who cares what they think. Father has not provided any Catholic reason or motivation to reinterpret what Genesis says other than to understand it as what it already says
I needed to hear on this topic because many people are talking also about milenarism due to a movie that it’s being promoted that says that Christ will come and reign 1000 years on earth. The Catholic Church condemns the idea that Jesus will physically come and reign on earth for 1000 years but in this movie they say that he will come spiritually and that is also not correct because the Holy Ghost was left here on earth by Jesus and hasn’t left !
Up until Darwin and his Freemasonic scientist buddies came out with their theories on evolution and uniformity of geology, the earth was believed to be inhabited by humans by approximately 6,000 years. Catholics used to believe the genealogy presented in Matthew and Luke. Pope Pius XII said that Catholic schools and seminaries should not teach evolution as fact, but to present both sides. How has that worked out? Paul says that there was no human death until Adam sinned. This is backed up by the Council of Trent.
Humans are rational animals, and rational animals didn’t exist until Adam and Eve, so I fail to see the issue
Scratch the surface on the Hubble “expanding universe” thing and you begin to realize how brainwashed we are
And I love Pius XII so don’t get it twisted
Why would the line of patriarchs given in Holy Scripture have gaps!? This line father to son was given precisely to affirm the historicity od the accounts.
Saint Jerome and Saint Hilary both assert quite clearly that there are two gaps in Saint Matthew's genealogy of Jesus Christ. And Saint Matthew's gospel as per the Fathers was originally written in Hebrew following Hebrew traditions.
We're answering that question in an episode we're recording right now, so hold tight! :) It's a fascinating reason, having to do with the very different way ancient writers constructed their "narratives".
Into @8 minutes...most of the theologians, priests, encyclopaedia etc didn't have a view of yec but were mostly "old earth creationism"...
Dear father, can you please share a list of at least 10 theologians or priests who were old earthers?this is plain embarrassing that the SSPX of all people take this position. Seriously.
You are missing the point. The SSPX DOESN'T take any position on this matter; they are only presenting what the Church has taught. Namely, that a Catholic CAN hold several positions on this topic without apostatizing. Fr. Robinson himself holds Old Earth Creationism, but that's just his opinion; he doesn't claim that it binds you.
The instantaneous creation of matter or the Big Bang Theory supports Genesis, and it drives atheistic materialists nuts (implying a non-material Creator) and also implies that materiality, if created, must end, also supporting Catholic teaching. One objection they raise is the teaching that bodies rise from the dead at the end of the world (I heard this in a Discovery podcast with Dr. Stephen Meyer). when I have raised this issue with Catholic friends, they say, 'Well, too bad, because the Creed says *material* bodies rise.' I say, 'But, passing through walls?' etc. To no avail. Can anyone cite more definitive teaching about the nature of our risen bodies. Must it be categorized as material? One friend cites a Catholic mystic who says heaven will be material, too, with fruit and fountains and etc.
Yes
I know it's gonna be offtopic, but may I suggest to do podcast/s about Church's teachings and faithfull opinions on the subject of the matter of original sin?
So the sspx holds that Moses was spot on accurate with all the stuff he got from the Holy Spirit as pertains to what comes after the first few chapters of Genesis...but those first few he really goofed whether accidentally or deliberately and we ought to take it all with a grain of salt. Why not take the parting of the Red Sea with a grain of salt?, the ten plagues of Egypt? the manna, the rock that gushed water, the sun standing still? It leads inevitably to a modernist perspective that inevitably leads to hell. What other bits of the Bible can we grant the same degree of latitude? Just a looseleaf Bible will do I guess. Looseleaf catechism, missal...
"Except ye be converted and become as little children ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven"
Just believe.
@gentlegiants1974: The SSPX certainly does not hold that position, specifically: that Moses "goofed whether accidentally or deliberately and we ought to take it all with a grain of salt." Because the SSPX holds what Holy Church has taught, and has always taught, your statement can also be seen, unfortunately, to accuse Holy Church, specifically the Biblical Commission, for teaching error. Remember, Genesis is a mystical book--it is shrouded in mystery, e.g. the creation of the earth, creation of man, the word "We" that God uses [showing the mystery of the Trinity], etc.. It would be silly to say that Moses would ever "goof", for Basil the Great says: "Moses, whom the daughter of Pharaoh adopted; who received from her a royal education, and who had for his teachers the wise men of Egypt; Moses, who disdained the pomp of royalty, and, to share the humble condition of his compatriots, preferred to be persecuted with the people of God..." (www.newadvent.org/fathers/32011.htm). If Moses received a wholesome study from the Egyptians [the study consisted of science, architecture, history, mathematics], which every historian I have read has said that the education from the Egyptians was THE best, why would he purposely "goof" if he had all this education? Not to mention he was inspired my the Holy Ghost, and would this mean that the Holy Ghost was in error? Was Moses to trick the Hebrew people [as they were described as childish and believed anything], was it to gain personal fame or fortune from the Egyptians or other peoples? It would be absurd to think any of these things. If Moses really "goofed" then that would cast doubt upon not only Genesis, but the other four Books that he wrote: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. As a side note: I find it rather interesting that few Traditional Catholic commentators have done commentaries on Genesis. The only ones that I can name off the top of my head who have are: Cornelius a Lapide, and only a few Church Fathers. To get back to point: I personally know that the Hebrew word "yam" means "day," but as Fr. Robinson mentions, it can be taken as either a literal day, or an extremely long period of time--again you would have to understand Genesis from the point of view that the original Hebrew people would have read/heard it. As a Traditional Catholic geologist, I do not know what to think about the age of the earth. I have heard many an argument about the age of the earth through an anthropological sense [some authors like the Catholic Warren Carroll believe that the race of man stretches back 20,000 years!], through a geological sense, and evolution [I reject evolution because of its philosophical and biological errors: the fact we have emotions, the impossibility of the cell to evolve [what came first: the nucleus or the mitochondria?] right and wrong, and on and on], and the list goes on. In short, deciding how old the age of the earth is NOT a matter of faith: your soul does not depend on it for salvation. Yes, I understand some of the Church Fathers were YEC [Young Earth Creationists] and there are more modern men, like what Fr. Robinson pointed out, who believed the opposite, and yet on both sides, they are Saints! I want to leave you with a thought from St. Basil the Great. To paraphrase: It does not matter how old the universe or earth is, as long as we can believe that God created them.
@@NoahShort-zv6lb that is a incorrect position to hold. The Bible is literal either you’re in or out. Lets put it this way if God was in front of you, you would have the courage to say yeah I know your book says you made the earth with an enclosed system and yeah I know you made Adam from the dirt but I still believe that SCIENCE PROVES WE CAME FROM APES AND WE ARE A GLOBE SPINNING IN SPACE. The Bible not once mentions the heliocentric model. Dont be a heretic this is why Christianity has fallen weak to the state we are at. In Islam if u deny the quaran u are not a true Muslim maybe we should learn from them to take scripture to heart because as far as I can tell they are the only ones holding true to the false religion they believe.
I think, just by casual conversation, that our chapels are filled with young earthers who demand we read and reverence only that point of view. I do not know how it impacts our schools. I wish pastors would pause teaching adult catechism year after year, not ever getting through it, and begin classes on topics such as this.
The bible tells you literally what God did. There is no other explanation needed.
It tells you that God created the world. Some of the details may be taken figuratively, as was held by the Church Fathers. St. Augustine thought that God created the world immediately
in its causes. Before you dismiss this idea, remember that you and I were created by God, even though we were descended from our parents in the usual way.
What did Archbishop Lefebvre, a successor of the Apostles, teach on this subject?
Obviously didn’t finish this episode
Here we have a priest trying to make secular theories superior to supernatural revelation. He actually taught Thomism in a SSPX seminary, but obviously chose to ignore his most important teaching on this subject.
‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers [rather believers] to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.’--- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theolagiae I.46.2)
Now what you must know is that all Fr Paul's secular creation arose from the lie that the Church was wrong with regard to Galileo's rejection of Biblical geocentrism. Indeed all the catechesis he quotes is post-Galileo lie. In 1871 and 1887 two scientific tests were done that found the Earth does not revolve around the sun.
‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73.)
Now every word uttered above is based on Catholic teaching ARISING from the Galileo lie.
The council of Trent said, that when all the Fathers agree on a REVELATION of Scripture that is infallible teaching. Fr Robinson;'s heliocentric evolutionary science is based on his rejection of what Pope Paul V defined and declared, THAT GEOCENTRISM of Scripture was based on the understanding of ALL THE FATHERS. So every long-age evolutionary theory depends on rejecting this dogma of the Catholic Church. Every word that Fr Paul quoted from 'Catholic teaching' is based on a rejection of the infallibility of a revelation held by all the Fathers.
Take for example fr Paul's age for the universe. The Bible said God's immediate Creation placed all the stars out there visible to man on the sixth day. That is a supernatural teaching and Catholicism is a Supernatural religion not an atheist religion that holds ever one of Fr Paul's beliefs on origins. In other words there is no time-distance involved with the Supernatural teaching.
Look I could go on but if anyone wants an answer to any question on Fr Robinson's secular religion, just let me know.
Fr. Paul Robinson vs. Robert Sungenis INTERNET ARCHIVE
“Who are you, O Immaculate Conception?” asks St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe.
The Knight of the Immaculata goes on:
Not God, for God has no beginning.
Not Adam, for Adam was made from the dust of the earth.
Not Eve, for Eve was drawn from Adam’s body.
Nor the Incarnate Word who already existed from all eternity and who was conceived, but is not really a “conception.”
Prior to their conception the children of Eve do not exist, hence they can more properly be called “conceptions”;
and yet you, O Mary, differ from them too, because they are conceptions contaminated by original sin, whereas you are the one and only Immaculate Conception.
+
Therefore,
-The human race has not evolved from apes because Our Lady of Lourdes identified herself as, “the immaculate conception”. (The only one)
-The first man, Adam, was created in a special way as we read in the Old Testament; Adam was immaculate before the Original Sin (CCC 390); also he couldn’t have been conceived because Our Lady is telling us at Lourdes that she alone is the only creature to have been conceived immaculately.
The Good Father can say what is the Catechism is the teaching of the Church. I re read the section on the Creation. No where did m
Not find a mention of a young earth. I had college level college courses and The accepted narrative is that modern humans began to migrate out of Africa 100,000 yrs ago . Most probably settling in the Middle East then out wards. We can now say with some certainly that the date of Agriculture to 13, 600 yrs ago.
Are you saying that I now have to accept the Bible only Fundamentalists. That it is a 6 day creation event that the earth is no more than 7 thousand years old . That humans are created as is .The Catechism does not say that.
*Science and Agriculture at NC state university. *
Did you bother to watch the video? Father says that the Church doesn't require us to interpret Genesis literally.
Fr. Robinson should be the last priest to be tackling this subject, with all due respect.
Adding “with all due respect” doesn’t make your statement any less disrespectful or dumb. The LAST priest ? Really ?
Agree
Why so?.
Why?
Genuine question, why?? Just interested
Pretty disheartening and embarassing podcast. No, it's not dogma - that is a simple and uninteresting question. The question is rather, is it beneficial for my soul, to be a YEC?
The answer is fully and essentially, YES it is. The Kolbe Center has produced astounding materials defending this position, rooted in Church Fathers, Holy Writ, Saint Thomas Aquinas and - as you also mention here - Saint Pius X and the PBC Question 1-5.
I'm not sure why people are up in arms. They never said it was "bad" to believe in YEC... they literally never said that. I think we all need to calm down 😅
Pretty sure Father said it's not harmful to the Faith to believe in YEC... Where in the podcast did he say otherwise, please?
@@SSPX He did not say that anywhere, but the entire premise is that it is not dogma - but there are many things that are not dogma. The rosary for example, the apparition of Fátimá and so on. They are neither dogma, but one would be entirely mad to not encourage catholics to adhere to these messages or practice the rosary. It's the entire premise of his argumentation that is problematic here. We cannot reduce the Catholic faith to 255 dogmas. The Church has taught YEC for a reason along with instantaneous creation. Wonder why, probably because it is true and good for the soul.
@@SSPX It's seems as if the defensiveness of those promoting YEC leads them to not want to broch any dissent over it. It should be ok for catholics to have disagreements in some areas outside dogma and high level doctrine. In fact, there have always been such vigorous debates.
The question being added is whether Catholics are bound to accept the YEC position. The SSPX cannot go beyond the Magisterium on this issue. So, unlike, say, the Assumption, which is a defined dogma, there's no requirement to believe in Young Earth Creationism. If you want to hold that position, you are free to do so.
It’s very sad for the SSPX to be promoting theistic evolution. 👎🏻
They aren't... they are promoting old earth creation is a valid opinion and in the realm of orthodoxy. They did say that Pius XII open the door to investigating evolution but said that the theistic evolution view had philosophical problems.
They are not promoting it. Father cautioned against certain ideas that come out of TE.
When did we?
The Bible is in errant what is written is literal geocentric model is of God. Heliocentric is Sun worship which is not God.The battle of Joshua the sun stood still to help him in the battle he asked god to help them with more day light and he made the sun stop orbit. This would clearly not work on a heliocentric model, but makes sense on a geocentric model due to the sun not rotating and not being the center of the universe. The Bible is inerrant Galileo before he died denied the heliocentric model and signed it on a letter