A Catholic Creationist Cannot be Compared to a Catholic Doing Glossolalia

Just in Case ANYONE Confuses Young Earth Creationism with Megachurches · Or with JW's · A Catholic Creationist Cannot be Compared to a Catholic Doing Glossolalia · A Reflection on Glossolalia

I just heard a guest on EWTN say that the post-Vatican II movement within Catholicism which encourages or prescribes glossolalia (in the sense of unintelligible words) was directly inspired by Protestant writers (like, obviously those connected to Asuza Street).

But whatever a Catholic Young Earth Creationist can learn from Protestants on purely technical issues, the issue of accepting the Biblical timeline, and of extending it substantially neither at Genesis 1:2 by Gap Theory, nor by extending the ensuing Days into long period by Day Age Theory, is in fact one of the schools that was around in Catholicism, prior to many of these Protestant writers.

Henry Morris and John Whitcombe The Genesis Flood only came after a list that I gave more in detail in French*, these being:

C. F. Keil, Biblischer Commentar über die Bücher Mose's, Leipzig, 1866; P. Laurent, Études géologiques, philosophiques et scripturales sur la cosmogonie de Moïse, Paris, 1863; A. Saignet, La cosmologie de la Bible, Paris, 1854; J. E. Veith, Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt, Vienna, 1865; A. Bosizio, Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie, Mainz, 1864 and Die Geologie und die Sündfluth, Mainz, 1877; V. M. Gatti, Institutiones apologeticae-polemicae, 1867; A. Trissl, Sündfluth oder Gletscher ; Das Biblische Sechstagewerk 2nd edit., Munich, Ratisbonn, 1894; and finally G. J. Burg, Biblische Chronologie, Trier, 1894

And obviously, before the technical issues leading back in the 19th and early 20th CC some to Gap Theory, some to Day Age, and allowing some to remain "Literalist" the previous position was, all along Church Fathers and Scholastics, literalist.

Do not be misled by some mention of "allegorical interpretation" this meaning, not another view on what really happened in the Genesis history itself, but instead a view on how Genesis history prophetically forebodes New Testament truths, about Christ, about the Blessed Virgin, about the Church, about the Antichrist and the False Prophet and so on. And similarily for Exodus and the rest of the Books of Moses and similarily for Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two books of Paralipomena and so on.

So, the view of what happened within Genesis or within Joshua or withing the history of King David, all of that was strictly literalistic. Allegory is a sense added to and not alternative to the historic literal sense, and this is so because allegory is aboubt the relation of history to what was to come.

So, no, a Catholic Young Earth Creationist (or generally literalist) cannot be compared, even if he does consult Protestant writers, with the specific Charismatics who ended up demanding glossolalia.

Meanwhile, Catholic Evolutionists are getting technical solutions and arguments from "scientists" who are often enough also Atheists, therefore worse than Protestants in doctrine.

Next question?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Samson of Brittany
28.VII.2022

In Britannia minore sancti Sampsonis, Episcopi et Confessoris.

* This post: Φιλολoγικά / Philologica : Les Prédécesseurs catholiques de Henry Morris (jusqu'à 1920)
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/11/les-predecesseurs-catholiques-de-henry.html