Why is Fr. Robinson against Young Earth Creationism?

[Published on Pentecost Day:] New blog on the kid: Can Old Earthers Still Believe Mankind Was Created 10 000 Years Ago? · Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Fr. Robinson against Young Earth Creationism? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism · Fr. Robinson, Part 2 · Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man) (the last one was actually for the afternoon, but here we go)

Catholicism and Creationism
June 25, 2018 THE REALIST GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism

Links to:

Scripture and Science: the voices of authority
https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/be041786-0638-4702-8262-80efb99dfec3/downloads/1cgr0k1k5_480336.pdf

This document involves this statement:

Two exegetical principles to be held – St. Thomas says: “Two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.” I, q. 68, a.1

Here, we have expressed two great boundaries for Catholic interpretation of Scripture. Firstly, no interpretation can stray from the truths of the faith, as it is absolutely certain that Scripture teaches nothing contrary to the Faith. Secondly, with regard to other truths, no interpretation should be held to that has been manifested to be false, e.g. by one of the profane sciences.

OK, the thing is like some kind of invocation, both of St. Augustine and of St. Thomas that:

• in faith, we stick to Scripture
• in all other questions, we stick to some of the sciences or other certain natural things, even in interpreting Scripture.

That's not really what St. Thomas says, however. Especially not in relation to "one of the profane sciences" being Big Bang Cosmology and Deep Time, not to mention Deep Space. Here is the reference, corpus of the article:

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. They may be understood, first, of the starry firmament, on which point it is necessary to set forth the different opinions of philosophers. Some of these believed it to be composed of the elements; and this was the opinion of Empedocles, who, however, held further that the body of the firmament was not susceptible of dissolution, because its parts are, so to say, not in disunion, but in harmony. Others held the firmament to be of the nature of the four elements, not, indeed, compounded of them, but being as it were a simple element. Such was the opinion of Plato, who held that element to be fire. Others, again, have held that the heaven is not of the nature of the four elements, but is itself a fifth body, existing over and above these. This is the opinion of Aristotle (De Coel. i, text. 6,32).

According to the first opinion, it may, strictly speaking, be granted that the firmament was made, even as to substance, on the second day. For it is part of the work of creation to produce the substance of the elements, while it belongs to the work of distinction and adornment to give forms to the elements that pre-exist.

But the belief that the firmament was made, as to its substance, on the second day is incompatible with the opinion of Plato, according to whom the making of the firmament implies the production of the element of fire. This production, however, belongs to the work of creation, at least, according to those who hold that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation, since the first form received by matter is the elemental.

Still less compatible with the belief that the substance of the firmament was produced on the second day is the opinion of Aristotle, seeing that the mention of days denotes succession of time, whereas the firmament, being naturally incorruptible, is of a matter not susceptible of change of form; wherefore it could not be made out of matter existing antecedently in time.

Hence to produce the substance of the firmament belongs to the work of creation. But its formation, in some degree, belongs to the second day, according to both opinions: for as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), the light of the sun was without form during the first three days, and afterwards, on the fourth day, received its form.

If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,24), and not succession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day.

Another possible explanation is to understand by the firmament that was made on the second day, not that in which the stars are set, but the part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected, and which has received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air. "For a body is called firm," that is dense and solid, "thereby differing from a mathematical body" as is remarked by Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). If, then, this explanation is adopted none of these opinions will be found repugnant to reason. Augustine, in fact (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), recommends it thus: "I consider this view of the question worthy of all commendation, as neither contrary to faith nor difficult to be proved and believed."

Ist Part, Question 68. The work of the second day Article 1. Whether the firmament was made on the second day?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm#article1

OK. The overall setting is literalism as to creation days, alternatively one-moment creation as per St. Augustine's notion.

The objections don't come from modern science, they come from ancient philosophers, whose opinions in scientific matters are often considered as obsolete.

The solution is, whatever the exact meaning, the sentence in the Bible is literally true.

It is not "it's not of the faith, therefore we don't follow the Bible, but science" but "insofar as philosophy objects this or that, we can solve it in this manner and we hold steadfastly that the sentence here in the Bible is literally true" ... sounds quite a bit less like Fr. Robinson, and quite a bit more like Ken Ham, if you ask me.

And even more. Philosophers are not cited as authorities in a science that has dogmas, but each philosopher has his opinions. For any given subject, what would be one of the sciences, or a subquestion in it, philosophy has no definite answer, typically, but a diversity of opinions. Far from stating that the Bible interpretation should adapt to "set science" it's more like philosophy opinions are scrutinised for compatibility with the Bible. Sounds very much more like Ken Ham, and very much less like Fr. Robinson.

What is my own opinion on the question? For me, the aether is indeed a fifth element, at its most basic a kind of fluid in which particles are suspended or projected, and in which light and radio waves are ripples. It is also the substance of "space" or as some would now instead prefer "spacetime" ... while the firmament is made of it, it is a particular subset of the aether, one that from the height just above the surface of earth to the height of the fix stars and some beyond, has its geometric parts at one moment in the same relation as next moment. God is turning it from the East to the West. Another possibility is, the magnetic field could be considered as "raqqiya" (hammered) because it is hammered on every day by cosmic radiation, and firmly repels it.

I think my main solution is most consistent with the uses we find.

• And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. The waters down in hollow parts of the sea, whether open as the Mediterranean, or covered, like underground cavities, are "under the firmament" because they do not move west with it, or only marginally at equatorial streams.
• And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done. Heavenly bodies move with the aether from East to West each day, and therefore are "in the firmament" — note that the fix stars are moving locally faster than light speed around the earth, but this is no problem, because they are moving if at all much slower through the aether, this is their local speed with the aether.
• God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. The Hebrew basically has "over" and not "under"
  
  

  way·yō·mer ’ĕ·lō·hîm, yiš·rə·ṣū ham·ma·yim,		and God said, let the waters abound
  še·reṣ ne·p̄eš ḥay·yāh;		with an abundance of creatures of life
  wə·‘ō·wp̄ yə·‘ō·w·p̄êp̄		and let birds fly
  ‘al-hā·’ā·reṣ,		over the earth
  ‘al-pə·nê rə·qî·a‘ haš·šā·mā·yim.		over/across the face of the firmament of the sky

  
  
  and this is allowed for if the firmament of aether is actually turning even below the sky where the birds fly, as the Coriolis effect would suggest.

Now, what is Fr. Robinson claiming this means "in practise"?

In practice – What is important is not so much what the Bible says, as what is its proper interpretation. It cannot err in the latter, and it is the work of exegetes to find out that proper sense of the Bible. St. Augustine lays down the principle that exegetes are to start with the obvious literal sense and only abandon it when there is a strong reason or necessity for doing so.

The direct literal sense can prove to be untenable by the fact that:

1. It conflicts with the Faith, e.g. we cannot hold that Our Lord is a plant when He says “I am the Vine” and so we move to a metaphorical literal sense.

2. It conflicts with the obvious context of the passage, e.g. it is clear in Judges 9 that Joatham intends to tell a fable about trees and bushes talking, and does not intend to say that plants talk.

3. It makes Scripture look foolish by its conflict with knowledge obtained through the profane sciences, e.g. when Ps. 92:1 says that “The Lord hath established the earth and it shall not be moved”, we cannot conclude that Scripture is intending to say that the earth does not rotate, since science has long established this rotation of the earth.

Well, stating in nearly so many words that the proper interpretation is more important than the actual text is a bit cavalier, since all interpretations (including the proper one) should depend on the actual text, and this idea hardly found in the passage in St. Thomas, as cited, nor elsewhere. Points 1 and 2 are correct. Point 3 is however not correct and also not found in St. Augustine. His overfamous quote, cited by quotemining quoteminers, is about Flat Earth vs Round Earth, or more precisely semiglobe versus disc versus globe shaped Heaven, and the two quotes that would allow for alternatives to globe Heaven are misinterpreted if excluding a globe one, as they probably exclude each other then too. Psalm 103:2 vs Isaias 40:22 (LXX).

His solution is actually not to exclude literalists, but to challenge them:

Sed si forte illud talibus illi documentis probare potuerint,		But if perchance they could prove that with such documents [prooftexts]
ut dubitari inde non debeat,		that it was not to be doubted about it
demonstrandum est hoc,		this is to be proven
quod apud nos de pelle dictum est,		how what was said about the skin
ueris rationibus non esse contrarium ...		is not contrary to true reasons.

(book II, chapter IX:21)

Precisely the challenge that Creation Science takes upon itself to meet, right? Here is the thing. He doesn't say "you must prove it with genuine, peer reviewed science" or "it can't be 'fake science'" as in alternative science. He doesn't live in a world where "Science" is treated as a Registered Trademark. He requires you do a model that fits your interpretation of the text, and show, somehow, that this model does not contradict the observed facts. Now, the facts about the starry heaven can be seen with the naked eye. Even from just the temperate and subtropic zones of the Northern Hemisphere, which is what could be accessed back then. It's probably a globe, certainly more than a demiglobe, since stars pop up in winter and go below the horizon in summer and vice versa. THIS as opposed to a very impressionistic view, roughly equated with a Bible passage, is what St. Augustine means concretely by "reason and experience" ... not "Science" as a registered trademark.

In Josue 10:12-13, it relates that Josue commands the sun and the moon to stand still and that they obey. We could take the direct literal sense as indicating that both the sun and the moon move around the earth. But, when this meaning has been excluded by science, we take the direct literal sense as meaning that Josue commanded the sun and the moon to stop their movement as it appears to us in the sky and that they obeyed.

First, as you have already seen, I disagree that science has excluded geocentrism.

But second, I dispute that this is a possible reading. If the sun and moon have a movement appearing to us, because earth has a real movement which does not appear to us, it would be earth obeying, and it should have been earth he commanded. The fact that he obeyed sun and moon rather than earth does show that it normally is precisely sun and moon that do move.

Third, the reading that it was just their appearance from earth that changed is actually excluded by the prophet Habacuc looking back at the event.

Habacuc 3:11 reads: The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

The key word "in their habitation" is zə·ḇu·lāh in Hebrew, referring to Strong's entry 2073. zebul. Where it is translated: elevation, height, lofty abode. It refers to the verb 2082. zabal which means probably "to dwell" ... yiz·bə·lê·nî in Genesis 30:20 is translated "will dwell" or "will be/abide" ...

And said: God hath endowed me with a good dowry: this turn also my husband will be with me, because I have borne him six sons: and therefore she called his name Zabulon.

So, the key is, sun and moons stood still where they were, where they are, where they habitually are, they did not just appear to stand still from Josue's perspective. St. Robert Bellarmine noted this in response to Galileo, and Robert Sungenis has brought attention to this.

Fr. Robinson pretends, that Scripture's religious purpose excludes a scientific sense, and that not just anthropomorphism, but also popular "scientific language of Biblical times, i.e. according to the appearances of the senses," and he gives as first example:

referring to the earth as being supported by columns (Ps. 74:4, 103:5),
which are rooted in a great abyss of water (Gen. 7:11, 8:2, 49:25),

The columns and the water reservoirs are obviously NOT according to the appearances of the senses. If they are wrong, Scripture here would be using a false guess.

What exactly does Genesis say on a "great abyss of water"?

7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noe, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened:
8:2 The fountains also of the deep, and the flood gates of heaven were shut up, and the rain from heaven was restrained.
49:25 The God of thy father shall be thy helper, and the Almighty shall bless thee with the blessings of heaven above, with the blessings of the deep that lieth beneath, with the blessings of the breasts and of the womb.

Whatever popular theory may have prevailed in Egypt or Sumeria, Genesis does not state that there is a deep abyss of water beneath us. The examples in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 are about water reservoirs that Young Earth Creationists usually consider to have been depleted and to now be present in deeper Oceans than before the Flood. The one in 49:25 doesn't even mention water, and we must recall that if the Church Triumphant consisting of angels was already in Heaven, there was a Church in Waiting, in the Bosom of Abraham, in Sheol, which was back then in the deep. This verse should be added to proof texts that the departed human saints pray for us, not to those "proving" the Bible uses erroneous scientific concepts because they were once popular.

The rest of the pdf gives quotes from Providentissimus Deus where the phrase "appears to the senses" is from. And a few more things on general principles. The reference to standing on pillars, however, is interesting. I made a post linking to a video where pillars of the earth was answered with salt pillars, and I made a screen shot showing these.

somewhere else: "Pillars of the Earth"
Hans Georg Lundahl, 13:31 Tue 13 Sept 2022
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2022/09/pillars-of-earth.html

Now, to the blog post by Fr. Robinson, rather than the pdf:

The first stage of the conflict is, as I have mentioned, the adoption of the worldview of biblicism. The second stage is the rejection of the principle of uniformitarianism. This principle states that the laws of the universe have remained constant throughout its entire history. Thus, the laws of nature as we observe them today are exactly the same as they have always been.

Why would biblicists reject uniformitarianism? The reason is that uniformitarianism does not fit the so-called science of the Bible.

Say, for example, we take the light from stars. Astronomers are able to learn fascinating pieces of information about the stars from a single ray of light, such as the elements that are burning in the star, the speed at which the star is moving away from Earth, and age of the star. Most importantly for our discussion, however, is the fact that astronomers are also able to determine the distance of the star from Earth. It turns out that some stars are billions of light years away.

The problem here is that Fr. Robinson presumes that "rejection of uniformitarianism" = as he sees it, basically Setterfield. The speed of light was different, along with speeds of radioactive decay, on this view. Here is how Fr. Robinson assesses it:

When biblicists claim that the universe is not uniform over time, they are also claiming that God’s management of the universe is not uniform over time. What we must realize is that the idea of a God who is consistent in the running of the universe and one who is not consistent are two very different ideas of God. The inconsistent God is more willful than reasonable. He is what is called a ‘voluntarist’ God, a God who does not have to be reasonable in His activity.

And he ties this to Calvin and Karl Barth ...

The problem is, this is a total strawman about Young Earth Creationism. It may be a strawman about Setterfield, who is not my go to, I suspect he would say God has consistently slowed light speed and decay speeds down over time, but it is certainly a strawman about Young Earth Creationism of other schools.

Also, reason does not require that God be absolutely consistent, since there is a kind of "inconsistency" in first NOT having a creation and then having one. There is a kind of wilfulness in the very act of creating, since God was under no obligation to create.

It is also a strawman about what "rejecting uniformitarianism" actually means. Here is a quote from CMI:

Uniformitarianism is the concept that only processes observed today (slow sedimentation, slow erosion) should be used to explain the history of the rocks. It has been the primary way geological data has been interpreted for the last 200 years. Learn its anti-biblical origin and see how it has lead geology astray since its inception into mainstream science.

Source of the quote:

CMI : Videos / Uniformitarianism and the age of the earth
14 Sep, 2016 (length 28:30)
https://creation.com/en/videos/uniformitarianism-and-the-age-of-the-earth-creation-magazine-live-5-19

Slow sedimentation and slow erosion are in fact not laws of nature. Anything like the Flood being actual history would radically change that, precisely within current laws of nature. And disputing God sent the Flood is not rejecting the "wilful" of Calvin's God, but embracing the "reasonable" of Voltaire's God. Certainly less orthodox than Calvin's.

Fr. Robinson seems to feel free to completely distort what his opponents on a given question are actually saying. Just so he can demonise them.

His ascription of Nominalism to Young Earth Creationists contrasts starkly with Jonathan Sarfati more than once endorsing St. Thomas Aquinas. Here is about the scientific consequences:

Now, think about time. In order for the historical sciences to work, scientists have to be able to model the processes that are working in nature today and apply them back in time. If the laws of nature were fundamentally different in past ages, because they have been changed by God, then there is no way for science to guess what those laws were, and so how things behaved at that time.

Now, Fr. Robinson supposes there are such things as historical sciences. The fact is, even forensic science, which deals with much more recent and much more familiar things than the historic science here involved, is not properly speaking a science. Denying they are scientific has nothing to do with denying uniformity of the laws of nature. Even without miracles, there are often more than one scenario that can explain the traces that have been analysed. Creation science is about finding how the Biblical history finds even more faithful reflection in the traces we analyse than Evolutionist prehistory.

A bit like finding use for that extra clue that the other party of the court couldn't explain.

The primary reason that the Catholic Church is not biblicist is that she came into being before the Bible did. The Church could not be based on the Bible, because there was no Bible when she was born, at least in the sense that the New Testament was not written yet, and there was no authoritative statement as to what books should be included in the Bible. The Church is rather based on Jesus Christ and the Apostles to whom He confided all of the truths necessary for salvation. Everything that the Church has done since her inception—including the writing of the New Testament—has been done to maintain and pass down those truths. This is why the Church has the Bible serve the truths of the Catholic Faith, rather than renounce the tradition she has been charged with passing on, in order to invent a new one as each interpreter pleases.

It was very clear when the Church was founded (as the Catholic Church, the stage we are now in) that the entire Pentateuch was part of the Bible. Not only did Jesus clearly believe that, or if you prefer, know that, but He also acted as if it were clearly to be taken at face value, statement by statement. Some laws were made to be surpassed, but some truths were not made to be reinterpreted.

Because Catholicism is jealous of the rights of reason, when it began to become clear, in the 19th century, that a strictly literal interpretation of some passages of Scripture would come into conflict with ‘settled science’, Pope Leo XIII instructed Catholics not to read the Bible that way.

In fact, not really. No passage in Providentissimus Deus opposes biblicism as Fr. Robinson understands it.

15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires;(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense, more especially when such interpretation is justified by the literal, and when it rests on the authority of many. For this method of interpretation has been received by the Church from the Apostles, and has been approved by her own practice, as the holy Liturgy attests; although it is true that the holy Fathers did not thereby pretend directly to demonstrate dogmas of faith, but used it as a means of promoting virtue and piety, such as, by their own experience, they knew to be most valuable. The authority of other Catholic interpreters is not so great; but the study of Scripture has always continued to advance in the Church, and, therefore, these commentaries also have their own honourable place, and are serviceable in many ways for the refutation of assailants and the explanation of difficulties. But it is most unbecoming to pass by, in ignorance or contempt, the excellent work which Catholics have left in abundance, and to have recourse to the works of non-Catholics - and to seek in them, to the detriment of sound doctrine and often to the peril of faith, the explanation of passages on which Catholics long ago have successfully employed their talent and their labour. For although the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind-as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages(41) - that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.

We learn a few things here:

• we can go beyond the Fathers
• we must not depart from the literal (as in obvious) sense unless there is clear necessity
• novelties abound and errors arise these days (has not changed since back then)
• the passages which have been understood allegorically by the Fathers should not be neglected, presumably in literal exegesis, especially when the literal one justifies the allegorical one
• other Catholic writers are not as great as the Fathers
• non-Catholics should be used on occasion, and this must not allow Catholic doctrine to languish
• especially where Catholic writers have already long since given the explanation.

When he wrote, the non-Catholics were more prone to Framework Theory or Deep Time (especially as concerns mankind) than Catholics.

I do not go to Creation Ministries International to know what Jesus did on Calvary, I go to them for hunches on how Genesis 5 and 11 harmonise with the evidence we have from natural sciences, and from observations of very old things. The technical solutions are less about the Bible text and its meaning (and when they are, they are agreeing with the fathers) and more about how empiric evidence doesn't contradict it.

But the Magisterium has told me that Scripture does not teach science and that the Fathers are not authoritative in science.

That's a somewhat overestimated opinion. Especially since the subject of Young Earth Creationism is less the true Science of Scripture than the true History of Scripture.

Providentissimus Deus also states:

The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for ...

The word missing in the English translation is "refutation" ... see the Latin original:

Sane, quamquam ea, quae speculatores naturae certis argumentis certa iam esse affirmarint, interpres ostendere debet nihil Scripturis recte explicatis obsistere, ipsum tamen ne fugiat, factum quandoque esse, ut certa quaedam ab illis tradita, postea in dubitationem adducta sint et repudiata. Quod si physicorum scriptores terminos disciplinae suas transgressi, in provinciam philosophorum perversitate opinionum invadant, eas interpres theologus philosophis mittat refutandas.

In other words, Pope Leo XIII held that a philosopher could refute a scientist, and that a scientist could overstep the boundaries of his science. This is precisely what I claim against Deep Time and also against Heliocentrism and Deep Space. Since everyone "knows" that Leo XIII had Geocentrism / Heliocentrism in mind, it may seem paradoxical for me to invoke it in my defense of Geocentrism. But precisely, the Pope never gave a ruling that Heliocentrism should be held. Providentissimus Deus is another one of the occasions on which the Magisterium from 1820 never said Heliocentrism could be actually believed — until such a period as when the holders of it were already disputed as such, by Sedevacantists and Orthopapists, or suspect of overstepping their powers, by the FSSPX.

Fr. Robinson has a highly noble motive, ultimately, but it falls short of true obedience to the Church, to God through His Church, the virtue he invoked:

Upon entering the seminary, I was taught Catholic principles of Scriptural exegesis. To this day, I still have the notes from our class on Genesis, taught by a wise and learned professor, with a seemingly exhaustless knowledge on the topic. He said nothing about the Big Bang, but he thoroughly explained to us the wide and varied opinions of the Fathers on the ‘scientific sense’ of Genesis 1, and the clarifications of Leo XIII on how it is to be interpreted. The strictly literal interpretation, he noted, “is now rejected, because of scientific problems in astronomy and geology” (quotation from my notes). I myself had nothing to do but admit my ignorance and change my mind on this question. Quite simply, I realized that I had not known the mind of the Church.

The same teaching that I was taught is the same teaching that I have given, whenever I have taught Scripture here at Holy Cross.

Sounds like "tradidi quod et accepi" — right, if you look at the last sentence. But if you look at what his "wise and learned" professor taught him, if you look at what he copied from his notes, it says about the strictly literal interpretation that it ...

“is now rejected, because of scientific problems in astronomy and geology”

May I quote my own professor in Latin? He noted* that the passive voice is typically used, when you want to avoid to mention the doer of the process spoken of. "It's being leaned against walls" fails to specify who's leaning against walls. And "it is considered" or its inverse here "it is rejected" is a figure of speech meant to elevate the actual ones considering or the actual one's rejecting a thing to the status of "voice of the totality" ... Pope Leo XIII did himself in Providentissimus Deus not reject the strictly literal interpretation. Though Fulcran Vigouroux as author rejected it in favour of Day-Age, Fulcran Vigouroux as judge in 1909, did not reject it, so, Pope St. Pius X is not the one doing the rejecting of it either. In fact, he canonised a saint who was friends with a defender of it:

Johann Emanuel Veith, cited in the above passage was a Redemptorist and physician and friend of Saint Clement Mary Hofbauer (who was canonised in 1909, same year as the decision you quote, and Pope St. Pius X is a higher authority than Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux).

This Johann Emanuel Veith, in Vienna in 1865, published the book Die Anfänge der Menschenwelt which argues for a recent creation.

But there is more to it than the obfuscation. What is not obfuscated is, the rejection of the strictly literal sense is recent. And this is where it cannot command full authority of Catholic teaching. Trent session IV and the Vatican Council both affirm we are bound to what the Church "tenuit atque tenet" ... not to what it "tenet sed non ante" being implied. We do not need an authority of the Church to override all of previous tradition in order to defend the papal dogmas given, including the one of the Immaculate Conception, which while denied by many theologians following St. Augustine up to their contradictor in the West, Venerable Duns Scotus, this does not seem to have been the case in the East, Gregory Palamas among schismatics seems to have defended it, and by tradition, and it remained believed by the Orthodox up to the Skirzhal of 1666. One could say that the West had received it from Eastern Christians, via the Crusaders, but one could also say that Paris had received it from Anne of Kiev, a French Queen, born before the Schism (and who in my view more represents Ukraine than Russia, in French relations to the East). Or one could hold there was a line in the East not guilty of schism up to when Duns Scotus by rational argument concluded the Immaculate Conception.

What one does not have is a situation where "this was universally denied by all Christians, and then Catholicism invented it later on and made it obligatory" that would be a Protestant accusation, which I obviously recuse. Hence, 1854 is not a counterexample against the "tenuit atque tenet" principle.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pentecost Eve**
18.V.2024

* In a discussion about when the passive voice or the agent of it is used. ** To be published tomorrow morning. / Was published.