We know the earth is billions of years old. To say you must take it literally is to ignore the genre, the scientific data and the very fact that there’s contradictions within genesis.
@@danielclingen34 Denzinger 1818 "3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema" Vatican I In Pachendi His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X also warns us that the Modernist INSIST that scared history be subservient to modern "science" and commands us not to permit it.
@@EarlyChristianBeliefs This makes no sense. St Pius X was open to the possibility of an Old Earth. Pius XII even believed in the Big Bang. Maybe they didn't understand their own teachings so good as you? Let's stop making dogmas out of theological opinions.
We know nothing. Science cannot measure the past. If you knew how flimsy the foundations of all the disciplines which claim to study the past are, you wouldn't be so proud of our "knowledge"
My priest (FSSP) said believing in the literal days is not a requirement of the faith. Additionally, there was no sun or moon the first few days, as this clip states
@@jsmith108 we are obligated to believe the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Pope Saint Pius X reiterated that Genesis must be understood in the historical and literal sense as understood by the Fathers and Doctors. All of the Fathers and Doctors are young earth Creationists. No one can permit on to contradict the Fathers, not even a priest. My parish priest teaches that God intended Genesis to be understood as allegorical. I had to tell him that he was mistaken and I made a video for him. This s it. Quotes from 29 early Christian writers ruclips.net/video/4Xxa_NMTIpE/видео.htmlsi=Za0nlNOxgXMD63E4
What you say is correct that it is not a requirement for faith. But is it true (certain things are up for discussion)? When did time begin? When the Sun and Moon were created or when God said let there be light? Each section of creation ended with “evening and morning”. There was evening and morning before the Sun and Moon were created. There was light and darkness defining the evening and morning before the Sun and Moon were created. It wasn’t necessary for the Sun and Moon to have Evening and Morning. Why was the Sun and Moon Created? “It was for signs, and seasons and for days and years.” It was for man to calculate. It established the pattern for what was taking place with the light and darkness during the first three days of creation. Here is how the commentary of the Douay Rheims states it “God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.”
You're STEALING my bit! 😂😂 also, thank you Mr. Heiner for doing this, because it really helps for content reasons to have something where we can superchat questions in.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad The Old Testament is not a strict book of history (it has elements of historical narrative and mythos interwoven), so why would it firstly be a historical question? The age of the Earth, put literally is a scientific question well within the scientific domain.
@@bobaphat3676 the catechism of Trent calls the Genesis narrative sacred history. It is first and foremost and historical question because it actually took place in history and in time.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I understand what you're saying and I agree it is sacred history. My point to you is, you can extrapolate any number of insights from Genesis as the Fathers did but if one wants to quantify the 'age of the earth' one needs to be scientifically literate and this scientific literacy didn't exist in those days, scientific truth is not the highest form of truth but it is a truth when it comes to quantifying questions such as these.
@@bobaphat3676 science is subject to error and bias. The scripture and the teachings of the Church are not subject to error. Vatican one teaches that what the Fathers of the Church are unanimous on is certainly true. Vatican one is true in what it teaches. It is unanimous that the fathers and doctors of the church all held to a young earth. So, I trust what they have taught in the regard. I don’t trust the basis of secular scientists, who (because of their atheism had to come up with some way to answer for how the world came to be). The billions of years theory fits their narrative. How can science answer if the world was created with the appearance of age or not,like the first man? They discount that because of their own agenda and bias. Not taking genesis as historical narrative is only a recent idea. It wasn’t until modern secular science that this began to be questioned. That is when the “not understanding genre” argument began.
Hugh Owen has done fantastic research on what the Church Father's believed and taught on this topic. Robert Sungenis has also some great research into geocentricim which is definitely worth a look into as well Unfortunately both are yet to fully understand the problems of Vatican 2
2:05 I'm looking at the question: _"__0:08__ what is your position on the age of the __0:10__ Earth or the age of man"_ In fact two questions. Some held to Day Age theory 100 years ago, i e that Creation Days of Genesis 1 were long periods of time. But they also held to Biblical chronology from Creation of Adam onward. This was the position of Father Fulcran Vigouroux. He was open to gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy, but didn't want to use it before further "datings" were pushing a prolongation of the age of man beyond what Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies suggest (he held to a Septuagint reading of them). That could possibly mean sth like up to 10 000 years. Most Old Earthers (Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists) today would extend the age of man very much beyond this. I'm very glad that this apparently is not Bishop Sanborn's own position.
1:53 St. Augustine actually answers that one in book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII. God miraculously upheld a light without a light sources, shining on half of earth each moment, and the delimitation rotates, and the creation days count as per Time Zone of Jerusalem, where Adam was created.
Retired teacher here. I always taught my students literal days, although how many exact hours in those days, the Bible does not say. And the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. The flood of Noah was literal. For that we have “scientific” evidence. Even the young ones have been taught heresy from kids’ tv shows. True science and the Bible do not conflict. If they seem to, then God is right, man is wrong and needs to do further study into the matter.
0:58 Depending on version of LXX text (Lamech engendered at 187 or 167, Genesis 11 has or hasn't a second Cainan) and on choices of interpretation (all Christians traditionally believe in the short soujourn, but differ on the years between Exodus and Temple (both Roman Martyrology and Syncellus tend to there being more than just 480, but unequally so), and between the Temple and Christ (Syncellus puts the Temple in 1032 BC, which is when Roman Martyrology for Christmas day puts the anointing of King David), the LXX will NOT be compatible with Christ born 10 000 Anno Mundi, but with Christ born more than 5000 and less than 6000 Anno Mundi (Roman Martyrology has 5199, Syncellus has 5500 and 5509 as low and high counts). Sorry, but Bishop Sanborn should have checked the facts better.
1:29 No, St. Augustine didn't prolong creation over a long period of time. Not if it's meant as anything like "day age" .... The time when all creatures were present was sth like same moment when all was created. The time when all creatures involved bodily mature examples (and mentally, for man) may have been the exact same, may have been normal gestation periods and matruing periods, may have been miraculous speeding up of them. On St. Augustine's view we can at most add 33 years between Adam's creation and the creation of Eve. Not "long periods of time" ... unless 33 years counts as that. St. Thomas by the time of the Summa Theologica said that Adam could have been created in the very first moment, but taken up to day VI to get a miraculously speeded up maturation.
@@EarlyChristianBeliefs You are welcome! The misconception is probably between St. Augustine himself and Father Fulcran Vigouroux, the latter saying "if St. Augustine thought it fine to deviate from six litteral days one way, doing so the opposite way couldn't hurt either" ... with no direct support from St. Augustine's actual words for the latter part!
Thank you so much for sharing this video! It is so encouraging. I assumed that His Exelency Bp Sanborn tought an Old Earth position on Creation, because CMRI does. I was very seriously considering the Home Alone position as a result. So encouraging. He is off on the LXX Timeline. It is apparently 5500 BC, almost unanimously according to the Fathers. So the Creation is appropriately 7500 years old. But he is clearly intending to communicate a literal, historical understanding as understood by the Fathers. The Church permits nothing less. I am so grateful for his orthodoxy in these modern times!
@@LP-ri4xp The first three videos on this play list are a discussion of the book the CMRI hands out to both layman and priests and the use it at the seminary. Kevin Davis or I can email you a copy of it. ruclips.net/p/PLhWyojC82dfqL0PhlZK0qDiyJlJl0hiZ1&si=J4o-7F78ifwmuyjI
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob Good and fair question. But no, not my opinion. It is the unanimous position of all Saints, Doctors and Fathers as well as all of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium up to the Modernist infiltration in the late 19th and 20th century. But please show me otherwise.
Bishop Sanborn. Faithful guide in these days. ❤
We know the earth is billions of years old. To say you must take it literally is to ignore the genre, the scientific data and the very fact that there’s contradictions within genesis.
The Fathers took it literally and they understood the genre.
@@danielclingen34
Denzinger 1818 "3. If anyone shall have said that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema" Vatican I
In Pachendi His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X also warns us that the Modernist INSIST that scared history be subservient to modern "science" and commands us not to permit it.
@@EarlyChristianBeliefs This makes no sense. St Pius X was open to the possibility of an Old Earth. Pius XII even believed in the Big Bang. Maybe they didn't understand their own teachings so good as you? Let's stop making dogmas out of theological opinions.
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob please show me where His Holiness Pope Saint Pius X is open to an Old Earth interpretation. Thank you.
We know nothing. Science cannot measure the past.
If you knew how flimsy the foundations of all the disciplines which claim to study the past are, you wouldn't be so proud of our "knowledge"
My priest (FSSP) said believing in the literal days is not a requirement of the faith. Additionally, there was no sun or moon the first few days, as this clip states
@@jsmith108 we are obligated to believe the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Pope Saint Pius X reiterated that Genesis must be understood in the historical and literal sense as understood by the Fathers and Doctors. All of the Fathers and Doctors are young earth Creationists.
No one can permit on to contradict the Fathers, not even a priest. My parish priest teaches that God intended Genesis to be understood as allegorical. I had to tell him that he was mistaken and I made a video for him.
This s it. Quotes from 29 early Christian writers
ruclips.net/video/4Xxa_NMTIpE/видео.htmlsi=Za0nlNOxgXMD63E4
What you say is correct that it is not a requirement for faith. But is it true (certain things are up for discussion)? When did time begin? When the Sun and Moon were created or when God said let there be light?
Each section of creation ended with “evening and morning”. There was evening and morning before the Sun and Moon were created. There was light and darkness defining the evening and morning before the Sun and Moon were created. It wasn’t necessary for the Sun and Moon to have Evening and Morning.
Why was the Sun and Moon Created? “It was for signs, and seasons and for days and years.” It was for man to calculate. It established the pattern for what was taking place with the light and darkness during the first three days of creation.
Here is how the commentary of the Douay Rheims states it “God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.”
You're STEALING my bit! 😂😂
also, thank you Mr. Heiner for doing this, because it really helps for content reasons to have something where we can superchat questions in.
4.5 billion years, the age of the earth and for that matter, the universe is a scientific question.
It is first and foremost a scriptural and historical question.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad The Old Testament is not a strict book of history (it has elements of historical narrative and mythos interwoven), so why would it firstly be a historical question?
The age of the Earth, put literally is a scientific question well within the scientific domain.
@@bobaphat3676 the catechism of Trent calls the Genesis narrative sacred history. It is first and foremost and historical question because it actually took place in history and in time.
@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I understand what you're saying and I agree it is sacred history. My point to you is, you can extrapolate any number of insights from Genesis as the Fathers did but if one wants to quantify the 'age of the earth' one needs to be scientifically literate and this scientific literacy didn't exist in those days, scientific truth is not the highest form of truth but it is a truth when it comes to quantifying questions such as these.
@@bobaphat3676 science is subject to error and bias. The scripture and the teachings of the Church are not subject to error. Vatican one teaches that what the Fathers of the Church are unanimous on is certainly true. Vatican one is true in what it teaches. It is unanimous that the fathers and doctors of the church all held to a young earth. So, I trust what they have taught in the regard.
I don’t trust the basis of secular scientists, who (because of their atheism had to come up with some way to answer for how the world came to be).
The billions of years theory fits their narrative. How can science answer if the world was created with the appearance of age or not,like the first man? They discount that because of their own agenda and bias.
Not taking genesis as historical narrative is only a recent idea. It wasn’t until modern secular science that this began to be questioned. That is when the “not understanding genre” argument began.
Hugh Owen has done fantastic research on what the Church Father's believed and taught on this topic.
Robert Sungenis has also some great research into geocentricim which is definitely worth a look into as well
Unfortunately both are yet to fully understand the problems of Vatican 2
Kolbe institute also
2:05 I'm looking at the question:
_"__0:08__ what is your position on the age of the __0:10__ Earth or the age of man"_
In fact two questions.
Some held to Day Age theory 100 years ago, i e that Creation Days of Genesis 1 were long periods of time.
But they also held to Biblical chronology from Creation of Adam onward. This was the position of Father Fulcran Vigouroux. He was open to gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy, but didn't want to use it before further "datings" were pushing a prolongation of the age of man beyond what Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies suggest (he held to a Septuagint reading of them). That could possibly mean sth like up to 10 000 years.
Most Old Earthers (Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists) today would extend the age of man very much beyond this. I'm very glad that this apparently is not Bishop Sanborn's own position.
1:53 St. Augustine actually answers that one in book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII.
God miraculously upheld a light without a light sources, shining on half of earth each moment, and the delimitation rotates, and the creation days count as per Time Zone of Jerusalem, where Adam was created.
Retired teacher here. I always taught my students literal days, although how many exact hours in those days, the Bible does not say. And the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. The flood of Noah was literal. For that we have “scientific” evidence. Even the young ones have been taught heresy from kids’ tv shows. True science and the Bible do not conflict. If they seem to, then God is right, man is wrong and needs to do further study into the matter.
I was right it was you who did ask...i was listening to this channel also
0:58 Depending on version of LXX text (Lamech engendered at 187 or 167, Genesis 11 has or hasn't a second Cainan) and on choices of interpretation (all Christians traditionally believe in the short soujourn, but differ on the years between Exodus and Temple (both Roman Martyrology and Syncellus tend to there being more than just 480, but unequally so), and between the Temple and Christ (Syncellus puts the Temple in 1032 BC, which is when Roman Martyrology for Christmas day puts the anointing of King David), the LXX will NOT be compatible with Christ born 10 000 Anno Mundi, but with Christ born more than 5000 and less than 6000 Anno Mundi (Roman Martyrology has 5199, Syncellus has 5500 and 5509 as low and high counts).
Sorry, but Bishop Sanborn should have checked the facts better.
1:29 No, St. Augustine didn't prolong creation over a long period of time. Not if it's meant as anything like "day age" ....
The time when all creatures were present was sth like same moment when all was created.
The time when all creatures involved bodily mature examples (and mentally, for man) may have been the exact same, may have been normal gestation periods and matruing periods, may have been miraculous speeding up of them.
On St. Augustine's view we can at most add 33 years between Adam's creation and the creation of Eve. Not "long periods of time" ... unless 33 years counts as that. St. Thomas by the time of the Summa Theologica said that Adam could have been created in the very first moment, but taken up to day VI to get a miraculously speeded up maturation.
Thank you very much for pointing out the very important about St. Augustine not supporting an Old Earth interpretation.
@@EarlyChristianBeliefs You are welcome!
The misconception is probably between St. Augustine himself and Father Fulcran Vigouroux, the latter saying "if St. Augustine thought it fine to deviate from six litteral days one way, doing so the opposite way couldn't hurt either" ... with no direct support from St. Augustine's actual words for the latter part!
JOHN 8:44 & COHN 8:44
Thank you so much for sharing this video! It is so encouraging. I assumed that His Exelency Bp Sanborn tought an Old Earth position on Creation, because CMRI does. I was very seriously considering the Home Alone position as a result. So encouraging.
He is off on the LXX Timeline. It is apparently 5500 BC, almost unanimously according to the Fathers. So the Creation is appropriately 7500 years old. But he is clearly intending to communicate a literal, historical understanding as understood by the Fathers. The Church permits nothing less. I am so grateful for his orthodoxy in these modern times!
can you point me to sources on CMRI's position?
@@LP-ri4xp
The first three videos on this play list are a discussion of the book the CMRI hands out to both layman and priests and the use it at the seminary. Kevin Davis or I can email you a copy of it.
ruclips.net/p/PLhWyojC82dfqL0PhlZK0qDiyJlJl0hiZ1&si=J4o-7F78ifwmuyjI
@@EarlyChristianBeliefs Thank you!
Were you considering Home Alone because the CMRI disagrees with your private interpretation of the fathers?
@@MichaelHellmann-jy9ob Good and fair question. But no, not my opinion. It is the unanimous position of all Saints, Doctors and Fathers as well as all of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium up to the Modernist infiltration in the late 19th and 20th century. But please show me otherwise.