The Bible is As Catholic As the Rosary, the Rosary As Christian As the Bible

The above seems to be a reference to Chesterton, though theoretically there is a slight chance it could be Hilaire Belloc. And I have mislaid the reference, a fairly appropriate thing when citing someone who tried to use a corkscrew as a key, even before the proper use of the corkscrew. I have tried The Catholic Church and Conversion ... ah, here it is:

To a Roman Catholic there is no particular difference between those parts of the religion which Protestants and others accept and those parts which they reject. The dogmas have, of course, their intrinsic theological proportions; but in his feeling they are all one thing. The Mass is as Christian as the Gospel. The Gospel is as Catholic as the Mass. This, I fancy, is the fact which the Protestant world has found it most difficult to understand and about which some of the most unfortunate forms of ill-feeling have appeared.

UPON THIS ROCK
by G.K. Chesterton
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/upon-this-rock.html

Well, I recalled Rosary and Bible instead of Mass and Gospel.

Now, imagine for a moment, a Catholic Bishop in Sweden tried (say, back 100 years ago) to forbid the Rosary because Sweden is such a Lutheran country, and told a Catholic "no, you cannot pray the Rosary here, there would of course be no problem if you went to Italy or Spain, but here, we can't have the Rosary, it would be so out of place here ..."

Wouldn't happen. And in fact didn't happen (by the way, in 1922 Sweden was still an Apostolic Vicariate, Albert Bitter resigned and was replaced by Johannes Erik Müller, both born in Germany).

Or, imagine a Catholic Bishop in Texas were saying "Texas is a very macho state ... you can pray the Rosary in California or in Mééééhico, and you can pray the Rosary if you are a woman, but if you are a man, you can't pray the Rosary in Texas!" - You can try the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston or any other one ... it doesn't happen.

Obviously, therefore, it doesn't happen either that the (supposed) Archbishop of Paris says "in Paris you can't be a Young Earth Creationist," ... well, at least officially, when making a pronouncement to the whole see and its suffragan sees that anyone can read if he knows how to look it up.

But I sometimes get a queezy feeling that this is being said like behind closed doors or in private conversations.

In 1920 a Jesuit, Father Émile Mangenot, gave his reasons against the three previous views of the Six-Day-Work, the chronologically Biblical (literal six normal length days or perhaps still also one moment), the gap theory and the day age theory. In stead, he proposed what is basically identic to the framework view. He did so on a reference work, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique in the article Hexaméron. Now, this DThC did get an imprimatur, but this does not mean all and any Catholics in Paris are obliged to use Mangenot's version of the Framework Theory, even in Paris, where this work got its imprimatur. In 1968, Paris gave imprimatur or imprimi potest to Rev. Jean Colson's work on the beloved disciple, this does not mean all Catholics in Paris are obliged to take the Gospeller as not identic to the Son of Zebedee or the Beloved Disciple as a Cohen who was not one of the twelve, but had a house in Jerusalem (according to Colson, he was the probable host for the Last Supper - and carrying out the dishes when the twelve shared Christ's first Eucharist). Catholics here are free to believe the Gospeller was one of the twelve, the beloved disciple a fisherman, and similarily, Catholics here are at least free to be Young Earth Creationists. Officially.

That's why it is curious and a bit queezy that I have seen Catholic people, a few years back even hosted by a priest in a Catholic breakfast room for the homeless, who treat Young Earth Creationism as something a Catholic can't do in France or specifically the Archdiocese of Paris at least.

Obviously, they could point out a kind of Catechism by a kind of Pope in 1992 ... and I could respond that Wojtyla for that particular reason was not Catholic and neither was his "cardinal" Ratzinger, and neither of them were or became Popes, but if so, it would be illogic to insinuate to me I could try the thing in Sweden instead ...

And, if so, they would be showing they don't even believe the Council of Trent anymore (Session V said Adam was individual, a kind of Assumptionist priest openly wrote "Adam and Eve didn't exist as you and I do") which would encourage Catholics still believing Catholicism to leave the diocese.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul
25.I.2022

Conversio sancti Pauli Apostoli, quae fuit anno secundo ab Ascensione Domini.