I was visiting Mark Shea again and saw this:
[on Catholic and Enjoying It]
Proclamation of the Birth of Christ
Today, the twenty-fifth day of December, unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image.
Several thousand years after the flood, when God made the rainbow shine forth as a sign of the covenant. ...
I commented under it and got an answer:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image"
Roman Martyrology has year 5199 ... (and 2957 after the Flood)
- BillyT92679 > Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Mark used the proclamation as stated in the OF.
[OF = Ordinary Form]
- WesleyD > BillyT92679
- The revision is actually more recent than that: it first appeared in a USCCB text published in 1994. Perhaps only in the USA are there two different versions?
An argument in favor of the new version can be found here*, and an argument in favor of the new version can be found here**. Silly me -- I like them both.
I tried to reply to the WesleyD:
|[Quoting from his first link*] In this and similar cases, less precision is actually better, since it more closely reflects contemporary church teaching and biblical scholarship. Proclaiming exact numbers of years inevitably gives most people the impression that we know exactly when these biblical events took place, thereby unwittingly reinforcing a type of biblical fundamentalism or pseudo-historical literalism that does not conform to the principles of Catholic biblical interpretation. Considering how long ago these events are said to have taken place and how few historically reliable sources we have for events of the distant past (especially anything before the time of King David), it is better not to give the impression that dates are or can be known with great precision.
I do not think the commentators cited in the Haydock Comment would have agreed. And I do not think they agree from Heaven either.
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Whose Work - Humanly Speaking - is the Haydock Commentary?
I have no idea who condemned "biblical fundamentalism" as a heresy, only it was NOT Pope Pius IX or Pope Leo XIII or Pope St Pius X. Also I have no idea when "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth" became loaded with issues such as "contemporary church teaching"...
I think Kent Hovind might enter heaven well before Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. - if the latter gets there at all, that is.
Then I tried to post this, all I wrote above.
|You do not have permission to post on this thread|
Then I looked from Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D. to Jimmy Akin. The comments are already closed, so I cannot answer there.
Here is a quote from the blog post:
The dates he gives for the earlier events in the Chronology are probably not right, and in any event we wouldn't claim today to be able to establish these dates with the exact precision that he did. In one case–the date of the Exodus–modern biblical scholars have generally dated it a couple centuries after the traditional date.
Here is in full a publicity on top of his blog. It also includes my answer to the quote I just gave, so I will quote it:
Start reading Jimmy's best-selling book The Fathers Know Best in under a minute!
If you believe that The Fathers Know Best, you will obviously support anno mundi date 5199 against Ussher's 4004 fr the birth year of Our Lord. But you will equally support it against the "unknown ages" stuff.
Now, there is a problem also with the Exodus revision. Dating Exodus to 13th C. BC implies more or less making Ramses II the Pharao of the Exodus - which arguably he was not. He has a grave in Egypt, not a corpse in the Red Sea for one. And for another, the Hyksos invasion fits in very well with an Egypt that lacks an army, while the Hyksos tyranny was the perfect occasion to forget traumatisation by the Ten Plagues brought on by Moses through traumatisation by a harsh tyranny. A "fundie" Egyptologist has identified Moses as Amenemhet IV (up to when he hit the Egyptian, that is, and probably rather than with perfect certainty***) - which if anything would bring the Exodus further back than 1510 years BC. His conclusion is that Egyptian time line needs crushing. With Exodus in 1510 BC Egyptian timeline still needs crushing but less than according to Protestant or Jewish Bibles.
I can relate this issue to my general distaste for "OF", since "OF" also removed a few Saints from the Calendar, not as was suggested on a morning when I was too tired to really notice because names were little in use, but in reality because some Saints, such as Philomena or Christopher or Barbara were deemed by commissionaries as "too uncertain", which they had obviously not been to the judgement of previous Catholic scholarship of previous centuries. And Christopher and Barbara are a bit more popular than Paphnutius (who would however sound better in French than in Anglicised Latin form).
Rainer Maria Rilke Library
St Sylvester, Pope
[who may well have cured
Constantine of leprosy]
* Christmas Proclamation
[on Catholic resources, by Fr. Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.]
** Bad Liturgical News, Folks
[on Jimmy Akin's blog]
*** CMI : Egyptian history and the biblical record: a perfect match?
By Daniel Anderson
Published: 23 January 2007
I usually link to articles in the above format, same for CMI as for any other link including my own, but since they have a logo, for linking, here is one to their site in general. I have some cautions, notably when they defend Malthus and Galileo, and of course they would prone Ussher rather than Septuagint based Chronologies like Roman Martyrology, or rather actually do so, but often they are a very good resource:
Just think of it, if George Orwell had waited to 1949 with publishing and called the novel 1994, he would have hit the nail for the "newspeak" date!