Welcome to episode 3 of Foundations Restored, a Catholic perspective on origins.
I'm your host, Keith Jones.
In our series introduction, we explained that origin science is best defined as the search
for the truth about the origin of the universe and its parts, and that there is no valid
reason to eliminate truth claims from outside the domain of natural science at the outset.
We also proposed that sacred scripture does make a truth claim that the universe, mankind,
and the animal kinds were supernaturally created through direct and immediate acts of God,
which excludes any kind of molecules to man evolution.
In this episode, sound Catholic principles of scriptural interpretation will be introduced
to support the proposition that the inspired author of Genesis did intend to convey how
the universe and all living things came into being.
We will also see that the conclusions drawn from sacred scripture are confirmed by sacred
tradition.
Let's get started.
The next three episodes of the Genesis Truth Claims concerning cosmological and biological
origins draws from three sources.
1.
Sacred Scripture 2.
Sacred Tradition 3.
Authoritative Declarations of the Magisterium, defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
as the living teaching office of the Church whose task it is to give an authentic interpretation
of the Word of God, whether in its written form, sacred scripture, or in the form of
tradition.
Note that several times in this series, the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church will be referenced, as Pope St. John Paul II referred to it as a sure norm for
teaching the faith.
At the same time, precisely because the Catechism is intended to be a faithful summary of Catholic
doctrine, if the Catechism lacks detail or clarity on any issue, it is appropriate to
seek more thorough information through the direct study of sacred tradition, sacred scripture,
and magisterial teaching.
The importance of this approach is indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which
explains sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected
and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.
Our examination begins with important background information regarding the Catholic teaching
on the inspiration and inerrancy of sacred scripture.
John Wynn, author of The Catholic Teaching on Scriptural Inerrancy, explains.
The Catholic Church holds and teaches that all of sacred scripture is the inspired Word
of God.
Because God inspired all of the sacred scripture, all of sacred scripture is without error.
In the encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Pope Leo XIII explained that complete scriptural
inerrancy was solemnly defined in the Church Councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I.
Complete scriptural inerrancy was also strongly affirmed in the Vatican II document, De Verbo,
as well as in multiple magisterial documents.
Among the most important magisterial documents are the three great encyclicals on scriptural
interpretation that, in addition to the already mentioned Providentissimus Deus, include Spiritus
Paracletus and Divino Afflante Spiritu.
A corollary to complete scriptural inerrancy is that the view of limited inerrancy, the
position that sacred scripture is immune from errors only in matters of faith and morals,
has been repeatedly condemned.
As directly stated in paragraph 22 of Humanae Generis.
Some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God
is the author of holy scripture, and they put forward again the opinion already often
condemned which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible
that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.
While it is common to hear of Catholic scholars taking the position that, starting with Vatican
II, the Catholic Church no longer holds to complete scriptural inerrancy, this is a very
serious error that is easily refuted.
In fact, to show that the Church does not consider the three magnificent encyclicals
teaching scriptural inerrancy to be out of date, the Second Vatican Council repeatedly
cited all three in its document De Verbo.
Sadly, these references are neglected by many Catholic scholars who have departed from the
authentic teaching of the Catholic Church in pursuit of their own agendas or due to
poor training.
This neglect is particularly unfortunate because within these encyclicals the Church has set
forth perennially valid principles for interpreting sacred scripture and approaching apparent
scriptural difficulties of historical and scientific character.
The Magisterium has also established clear limits beyond which Catholics cannot legitimately
pass, and had these principles and limits been followed, it is likely that Darwinism
never would have gained a foothold in Catholic circles.
Truly only God knows the tragic impact of departing from sound principles of scriptural
interpretation.
Having explained the Catholic position on scriptural inerrancy, we will begin building
upon this foundation by addressing three key questions.
1.
What is the objective of scriptural interpretation?
2.
What principles or guidelines are Catholics to use when interpreting sacred scripture?
3.
What conclusions are reached about origins when sound Catholic principles of interpretation
are applied to the first two chapters of Genesis?
Specific verses of interest include
Genesis 2.7
Genesis 2.21.22
Genesis 2.21.23
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made.
And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done.
And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.
Because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Father Tom Hickey now answers our first question regarding the objective of scriptural interpretation.
The relevant text of the church documents referred to by Father Hickey is provided in
full at the end of this episode.
First it is important to understand that the overriding objective of scriptural interpretation
is to seek the literal sense, which refers to the intended meaning of the inspired author.
Among other places this objective is made clear in paragraph 109 of the Catechism of
the Catholic Church.
In paragraph 23 of Divino Afflante Spiritu.
And in paragraphs 50 and 51 of Spiritus Paracletus.
While paragraphs 115 through 118 of the Catechism explain that a scriptural text can have a
sense in addition to the literal sense, interpretation in the purely figurative sense is generally
to be avoided, according to Divino Afflante Spiritu, paragraph 27.
To determine the literal sense of sacred scripture, the Catholic interpreter is aided by many
guidelines.
Three primary guidelines listed in paragraphs 112 through 114 of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church tell us, first, to be especially attentive to the content and unity of the whole scripture.
Second, to read the scripture within the living tradition of the whole church.
And third, to be attentive to the analogy of faith, which refers to the coherence of
the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of revelation.
The church has also provided the following additional guidelines.
Consider the literary genre and mode of writing.
Know the original language of the relevant scripture.
Adhere to the straightforward and obvious sense of sacred scripture unless reason or
necessity require a different interpretation.
Use the legitimate findings from other domains such as science, history, and archaeology,
but be aware that false scientific claims can be the source of destructive attacks on
the integrity of sacred scripture.
Conduct any exegesis or study of sacred scripture in a spirit of humility, through a life of
holiness, and with prayer for guidance from the Holy Spirit.
When applying these guidelines for a scriptural interpretation, it is extremely important
not to cross over the following boundaries established by the magisterium.
A. Interpretations of texts concerning faith and morals must be consistent with the mind
of the church and must adhere to the unanimous consent of the church fathers.
B. Interpretations or new findings from biblical scholarship cannot change the dogmatic sense
of inerrancy always held by the church because that sense was given by the Holy Spirit.
C. Catholics cannot take the position that given the advancement of knowledge, a sense
may be assigned to dogmas that differs from what the church has understood.
D. The position that scientific progress demands that doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation,
the person of Jesus and redemption be somehow readjusted is an error, a condemned tenant
of the modernist heresy.
E. Regarding apparent conflicts between natural science and sacred scripture, the interpreter
must
1.
Understand there can never be a true conflict between a legitimate conclusion of natural
science and sacred scripture.
2.
Not discard traditional teachings due to speculative scientific claims.
3.
Not follow conclusions from natural science that go beyond the proper limits of natural
science and intrude upon the domain of theology.
4.
Recall that the sacred author may have used common expressions that were not intended
to describe phenomena scientifically.
5.
Keep in mind that the Catholic scholar's objective should be to understand the intended
meaning of the sacred author, not to make the sacred scripture say what the scholar
wishes it to say.
6.
Never tire of trying to find answers rather than concluding that sacred scripture is an
error.
And 7.
Suspend judgment if the reconciliation of natural science and sacred scripture is not
apparent.
Q. Owen explains
When each of these guidelines and boundaries established by the Catholic Church is applied
to chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, the clearer conclusion is that the inspired author of
Genesis did intend to communicate the direct supernatural creation of mankind and the animal
kinds by God over a short period of time and the direct immediate creation of the earth
and universe.
For example, each and every time the creation events are mentioned in sacred scripture,
they are understood to be real historical events having a supernatural cause and we
must realize that essential doctrines such as the fall, original sin and the meaning
of holy marriage are linked to the historicity of the Genesis account and of Adam and Eve
as our first parents.
Indeed, sacred scripture is unified in supporting the reality that Adam was directly and immediately
created from dust or clay by God and that he is the father of all mankind.
This reality is reflected in the following New Testament and Old Testament verses.
Mark 10, 5 and 6.
To whom Jesus answering said, From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Matthew 19, 4.
Who answering said to them, Have ye not read that he who made man from the beginning made
them male and female?
Luke 3, 23 and 38.
And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years, being as it was supposed
the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Hinos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam,
who was of God.
1 Timothy 2, 13.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
Romans 5, 12.
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so death passed
upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
Acts 17, 24, 26.
God, who made the world and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, hath made
of one all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth.
1 Corinthians 11, 8.
For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
1 Corinthians 15, 39.
All flesh is not the same flesh, but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another
of birds, another of fishes.
1 Corinthians 15, 47.
The first man was of the earth, earthly, the second man from heaven, heavenly.
Genesis 18, 27.
And Abraham answered and said, Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas
I am dust and ashes.
Genesis 3, 19.
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth,
out of which thou wast taken.
For dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.
Genesis 3, 23.
And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure
to till the earth from which he was taken.
Genesis 5, 1, 2.
This is the book of the generation of Adam.
In the day that God created man, He made him to the likeness of God.
He created them male and female, and blessed them,
and called their name Adam in the day when they were created.
Job 10, 8, 9.
Thy hands have made me and fashioned me wholly round about,
and dost thou thus cast me down headlong on a sudden?
Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay,
and thou wilt bring me into dust again.
Psalms 148, 5.
Praise the name of the Lord, for He spoke, and they were made.
He commanded, and they were created.
Psalms 102, 14.
For He knoweth our frame, He remembereth that we are dust.
Serach 10, 9.
But nothing is more wicked than the covetous man.
Why is earth and ashes proud?
Serach 17, 1.
God created man of the earth and made him after His own image.
Serach 33, 10.
And all men are from the ground and out of the earth
from whence Adam was created.
Ecclesiastes 12, 7.
And the dust returned into its earth from whence it was,
and the Spirit returned to God who gave it.
Wisdom 1, 13, 14.
For God made not death,
neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living.
For He created all things that they might be.
Wisdom 7, 1.
I myself also am a mortal man, like all others,
and of the race of him that was first made of the earth.
And in the womb of my mother I was fashioned to be flesh.
2 Maccabees 7, 28.
I beseech thee, my son,
look upon heaven and earth and all that is in them
and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also.
When studying verses that speak of creation
such as those shown for Genesis in Psalm 148
it is essential to understand the meaning of the term creation.
Now, many Catholic scholars have tried to expand the meaning
to allow for progressive evolutionary development over great periods of time.
But this is an unwarranted accommodation
made to force the clear meaning of sacred scripture
to fit false evolutionary claims.
If we want to understand the true meaning of creation
we need to look no further than Saint Thomas Aquinas.
In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas explains,
Creation is the production of a thing in its entire substance,
nothing being presupposed, either uncreated or created.
Hence, it remains that nothing can create except God alone,
who is the first cause.
In the production of things an order exists,
but not such that one creature is created by another,
for that is impossible.
Guided by this understanding of the straightforward
and obvious sense of sacred scripture held by the Church,
Saint Thomas discusses the implications
with regard to the creation of mankind.
The first formation of the human body could not be
by the instrumentality of any created power,
but was immediately from God.
He alone can produce a form in matter
without the aid of any preceding material form.
Therefore, as no pre-existing body had been formed
whereby another body of the same species could be generated,
the first human body was of necessity,
made immediately by God.
Appendix A at the end of this episode
will contain dozens of additional statements
from the Church Fathers and Doctors
on the special creation of mankind.
Summarizing these teachings,
Fr. Victor Workelwitz explains,
All Church Fathers and Doctors
affirm the position of St. Thomas Aquinas
on the direct, immediate creation of our first parents.
Indeed, for 19 centuries,
the Church steadfastly proclaimed this view.
We must ask, then,
why this understanding was largely abandoned
during the 20th century,
and if this departure was justified.
We must also assess the consequences
of abandoning the traditional view of special creation.
In summary, the Old and New Testaments are in agreement
regarding the direct creation of Adam by God,
and because all things were created through Jesus,
his confirmation of the historicity
and straightforward meaning of the Genesis account
is conclusive.
A second important guideline for scriptural interpretation
listed previously
is the consideration of the literary genre.
According to magisterial pronouncements in Humanae Generis
and in the 1909 decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
the first eleven chapters of Genesis
comprise an account of true history.
This view was not invented in the 20th century
but has always been the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Only with the rise to dominance of evolutionary thought
was this understanding abandoned.
All the Church Fathers, including St. Jerome and St. Augustine,
held strongly that Genesis is an historical narrative.
In the literal meaning of Genesis,
St. Augustine explains that while there may be a spiritual sense
to the creation accounts,
there is an underlying historical reality
that we must not reject.
For example, he insists that
the account in Genesis is written in the style of history,
not in that of allegory.
And he reiterates
the narrative is not written in a literary style proper to allegory,
as in the Canticle of Canticles,
but from beginning to end,
in a style proper to history,
as in the Books of Kings.
Likewise, in the City of God, he rejects
those who maintain that the account of the flood
is not historical
but is simply a collection of symbols and allegories.
And he concludes
It could not plausibly be said that the events,
though historical, have no symbolic meaning,
or that the account is not factual but merely symbolical,
or that the symbolism has nothing to do with the Church.
No, we must believe that the writing of this historical record
had a wise purpose,
that the events are historical,
that they have a symbolic meaning,
and that this meaning gives a prophetic picture of the Church.
Similarly, the great biblical scholar St. Jerome
insists that all interpretation of sacred scripture
begin with the historical sense.
In the encyclical Spiritus Periclitus,
Pope Benedict XV calls on biblical scholars
to follow the procedure of St. Jerome
of giving priority to the historical literal sense.
In the first place, then,
we must study the literal or historical meaning.
Jerome then goes on to say
that all interpretation rests on the literal sense
and that we are not to think that there is no literal sense
merely because a thing is said metaphorically.
Indeed, he himself affords the best refutation
of those who maintain that he says
that certain passages have no historical meaning.
We are not rejecting the history,
we are merely giving a spiritual interpretation of it.
Once, however, he has firmly established
the literal or historical meaning,
Jerome goes on to seek out deeper and hidden meanings.
A third guideline previously listed
to aid scriptural interpretation
is knowledge of the original language.
Genesis was originally composed in Hebrew
and to grasp the intended meaning of the text,
it is helpful to understand certain Hebrew words
relating to the special creation of Adam
and the length of the creation period.
Concerning the creation of Adam,
Fr. Victor Worklwiz,
author of the Doctrines of Genesis 1-11,
explains,
The Hebrew words used in Genesis 2-7
are afar and adamah,
which are translated together as dust from the ground.
The word afar can be translated clay, mud, slime, or ashes.
The word adamah translates into earth or ground.
First man, Adam, takes his name from this word.
Whenever sacred scripture speaks of the origin of the human body,
it identifies the source as dust or earth.
Regarding the period of creation in Genesis
and elsewhere in sacred scripture,
the authors describe the seven days of creation
using the term yom,
which suggests days of normal length
or short periods of time.
Fr. Worklwiz explains,
Scholars generally agree that the Hebrew word yom
used in Genesis 1
was intended by the sacred author
to mean a day of normal length
and not an indefinite period of time.
The great majority of the fathers of the church
believed that God created the world
in a period lasting six natural days.
None of them professed belief
that God took eons of time to create the world.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909
allowed interpreters of scripture
to argue that yom means the natural day
or that it means a certain space of time.
But it is out of bounds to assert
that a certain space of time
means undefined millions of years
because this cannot be established
as a necessary interpretation.
Maintaining the view that creation occurred
over six normal days or short periods of time
is justified considering that,
first, yom is never used in sacred scripture
for a period of time of definite length
other than a natural day.
Second, the hermeneutical principle of Deuteronomy 13,
that scripture must be understood
in its literal and obvious sense
and as reason or necessity for its interpretation.
Third, the natural sciences are unable
to confirm or refute creation over six days.
Fourth, the near-unanimous belief
of the fathers and doctors of the church.
Fifth, the fact that St. Augustine,
who departed from the obvious meaning,
did not know any Hebrew
and could not appreciate
the literal and obvious sense of yom
when used with the expression evening and morning.
Sixth, the creation day is a prototype
of the natural day,
which sets the rhythm for our lives
and life on earth.
And because, seventh,
God himself equates the six days of work in creation
and the seventh day of rest
with the six days of work and the day of rest
in a normal week in Exodus 20.
Today, it is common to hear doubt
that the Genesis narrative
intended to convey the actual sequence
and duration of creation events.
For example, skeptics often ask
how the sequence of acts of creation
can be accurate since Genesis 1.1
says that light appeared
before the sun was created on the fourth day,
according to Genesis 1.14-19.
To understand that the sequence of events
reported in Genesis is credible
requires only the understanding
that God is all-powerful
and need not rely on the sun for light.
This is demonstrated by his provision
of a supernatural light source,
the pillar of fire,
to guide the Israelites
and to confound the Egyptians
as recorded in Exodus 13.21 and 14.24.
Likewise, Matthew's gospel
describes a supernatural illumination
in the account of the transfiguration of Christ
upon Mount Tabor.
Moreover, in chapter 21
of the book of Revelation,
when describing the renewal of all creation,
Saint John writes
that the new Jerusalem has no need of sun
for the glory of God is its light.
Unless one chooses to doubt these accounts
of a supernatural source of light,
there is no reason to reject
the same explanation
for the initial light recorded in Genesis 1.
The church fathers understood
that the light of Genesis chapter 1 verse 3
had a supernatural source.
Saint Basil explains
that for the first three days
the sun did not yet exist,
nor the moon,
lest men might call the sun
the first cause and the father of light.
The explanation just provided
about the light of Genesis 1 verse 3
is a specific example
of a more general and critical concept
called the creation providence framework,
which was held by all of the church fathers and doctors.
In fact, a clear comprehension
of the creation providence framework
when combined with an understanding
of the failure of naturalistic concepts of origins
revealed in later episodes
will dispel all confusion
for those seeking the truth about origins.
We now delve into a more detailed discussion
of the creation providence framework
compared to the discussion in episode 2.
To explain the creation providence framework
we must first consider
the church fathers in sacred tradition.
Providing this background
will take several minutes
and then we will return
to the vital concept
of the creation providence framework.
Shortly after his resurrection
the risen Christ
together with the Holy Spirit
blessed and empowered the apostles
with an extraordinary gift
an unerring understanding of the scriptures.
Luke chapter 24 verse 44
records that Jesus appeared
to the disciples in Jerusalem.
And he said to them,
These are the words which I spoke to you
while I was yet with you,
that all things must needs be fulfilled
which are written in the law of Moses
and in the prophets
and in the Psalms concerning me.
Luke continues,
Then he opened their understanding
that they might understand the scriptures.
Also, Jesus promised
in John chapter 14 verse 26,
But the paraclete, the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he will teach you all things
and bring all things to your mind
whatsoever I shall have said to you.
Again, in John chapter 16 verse 13,
Jesus promises the disciples,
But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come,
he will teach you all truth.
Over time, the apostles' understanding
of certain Old Testament scriptures
were recorded in documents
that would become the New Testament.
But not all insights
as to the meaning of the Old Testament
were reflected in New Testament writings.
Some of the apostles' understanding
of the Old Testament scriptures
were handed down orally by the apostles
and were later recorded faithfully
by holy witnesses to apostolic teaching.
These holy witnesses
These holy witnesses are the church fathers
and the apostolic oral teaching
recorded in these records
comprises one of the main elements
of sacred tradition.
Because God is the source
of all revealed truth,
sacred tradition and sacred scripture
can never be in opposition.
In fact, while Mark chapter 7
verses 7 through 8
warns against following human tradition,
1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 2
and 2 Thessalonians chapter 2 verse 15
clearly instruct the faithful
to hold fast to the teachings
of the apostles that belong
to sacred tradition.
The writings of early churchmen
confirm the importance
of sacred tradition.
In the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus
writing against the Gnostics explains,
While they argue from the scriptures,
they make a poor exhibition
of the scriptures,
because truth cannot be found
by those who do not know tradition.
For not through writing,
but by the living voice,
tradition was delivered.
In the 3rd century, Origen wrote,
The only truths that must be believed
are those which do not differ
in anything from the ecclesiastical
and apostolic tradition.
In the 4th century, St. Basil noted,
Of the dogmas and preachings
which are kept in the church,
some came to us in writing,
the scriptures.
Others we received in mysteries
from the tradition of the apostles.
Since sacred scripture
and sacred tradition
both convey revealed truths
faithfully handed down
from the apostles,
they are accepted by the Catholic Church
with equal reverence.
As explained in the Vatican II document
Dei Verbum,
The Church does not draw its certainty
about all revealed truths
from the holy scriptures alone.
Hence, both scripture and tradition
must be accepted and honored
with equal devotion and reverence.
Returning now to the church fathers
who recorded the teachings
of the apostles,
the Encyclopedia of Catholic History, 1995
lists 87 church fathers
and prominent ecclesiastical writers.
Most have been canonized
and most lived in the first 5 centuries AD.
Several church fathers
have also been named
Doctors of the Church,
including Saint Ambrose,
Saint Augustine,
Saint Jerome,
Saint Athanasius,
Saint Basil the Great,
and Saint John Chrysostom.
The Magisterium has repeatedly declared
that in matters of faith and morals,
Catholics are not to depart
from the unanimous teachings of the fathers,
for their agreement is an indication
that these teachings
are handed down from the apostles
and are therefore part of Catholic tradition.
For this reason,
paragraph 113 of the Catechism
of the Catholic Church
instructs the faithful
to read the scripture
within the living tradition
of the whole church.
This directive reflects
the church's unwavering view
which can be traced
through the centuries.
The profession of faith
of the Council of Trent,
for example, proclaims,
I shall never accept
nor interpret Holy Scripture
otherwise than in accordance
with the unanimous consent
of the fathers.
Likewise,
the Vatican I documents decree,
While Providentissimus Deus states,
Whenever they all interpret
in one and the same manner
any text of the Bible
as pertaining to the doctrine
of faith or morals,
for their unanimity clearly evinces
that such interpretation
has come down from the apostles
as a matter of Catholic faith.
With the importance of sacred tradition
and the Church Fathers explained,
we return now
to the Creation Providence Framework,
a concept to which
all Church Fathers and doctors subscribed.
Hugh Owen explains,
The term framework
describes a fundamental structure or view.
The Creation Providence Framework
refers to the understanding
of the Church Fathers and doctors
that there was a clear distinction
between the period of creation
and the period of providence.
During the period of creation,
covering the six days
as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2,
God directly created the universe,
the plant and animal kinds,
and mankind supernaturally.
Natural laws and natural processes
did not account for the creation.
In fact, the Fathers recognized
that even the laws of nature
were formed by God
during the period of creation.
These natural laws and processes
did not become fully operational
until the end of the six days of creation.
The period of God's creative activity
concluded with the creation
of the first human beings
on the sixth day.
The period of providence,
which continues to the present,
began on the seventh day
when God rested from His creative activity.
On the seventh day,
natural processes began
to fully operate in the universe,
although God continues to preserve
and sustain the universe,
and God remains free
to supernaturally intervene
when it suits His purposes.
Father Werkelwitz,
who holds a PhD in physics,
a BS in electronic physics,
a master's in divinity,
and an MA in theology,
concludes,
The creation-providence framework
is a relatively simple concept,
but the implications
are extremely profound.
The implication is that
supernatural creative acts
accounted for cosmic
and biological origins.
If we want to understand origins,
we must turn to the domain of theology,
not to natural science,
for answers.
In other words,
knowledge concerning
the events of creation week
is beyond the proper methods
of natural science.
We can only know the truth
about origins
if God chose to reveal what happened.
This revelation is found
in the early chapters of Genesis.
This revelation is found
in the early chapters of Genesis.
Father Werkelwitz
includes the creation of the universe,
the creation of life,
and the creation of plant and animal kinds,
as well as mankind,
among the supernatural events
that natural science
cannot properly address.
Similarly,
Monsignor John McCarthy,
author and editor
of the Roman Theological Forum,
explains,
The Magisterium has always maintained
the historical character
of the early chapters of Genesis.
This means that the text
does not simply contain general truths
expressed in mythical language.
It narrates a series of episodes
that really took place.
It is not enough to see
underlying these events
the doctrines taught by the church,
because these doctrines
would have no foundation in reality
if they had not been derived
from what really
and historically took place.
The first three chapters of Genesis
narrate real history.
This means that the series
of creative interventions by God
in Genesis 1-3 really took place.
Creation has to do with
the science of historical theology.
Creation is not just an abstract idea.
It is a series of real divine interventions.
Evolution is not a scientific theory at all.
It is a disproved historical theory.
The Creation Providence Framework
finds a scriptural basis
in Genesis 2-1-3.
The work God undertook
and from which he rested
involved his supernatural creative acts.
Hebrews 11-3 states
that the world was framed
by the word of God.
And Hebrews 4-3 states
that his works from the foundation
of the world were finished.
The Creation Providence Framework,
again, to which all church fathers
and doctors subscribed,
is summarized in the writings
of St. John Chrysostom
where Jesus' words in John's gospel,
My father worketh hitherto, and I work,
are contrasted with chapter 2 of Genesis.
The divine scripture indicates here
that God rested from his works.
But in the gospel, Christ says,
My father worketh hitherto, and I work.
John 5-17.
In comparing these utterances,
is there not a contradiction
to be found in them?
May it not be so.
In the words of the divine scripture,
there is no contradiction whatever.
When the scripture here says,
God rested from all his works,
it thereby instructs us
that on the seventh day
he ceased to create
and to bring out of nonexistence
into existence.
But when Christ says,
My father worketh hitherto, and I work,
it thereby indicates to us
his uninterrupted providence.
And it calls work
the preservation of what exists,
the giving to it of continuance,
of existence,
and the governance of it at all times.
Speaking to the creation of Eve
from Adam's rib,
Saint John Chrysostom
points out the folly
of trying to explain
the supernatural actions
during the period of creation
through natural processes.
God took a single rib, it is said,
but how from this single rib
did he form a whole creature?
Tell me, how did the taking
of the rib occur?
How did Adam not feel this taking?
You can say nothing about this.
This is known only by him who created.
Likewise, Saint Ephraim,
a father and doctor, writes,
No one should think
that the creation of six days
is an allegory.
Saint Basil, a father and doctor,
also explains that
when studying Genesis,
We are proposing to examine
the structure of the world
and to contemplate the whole universe,
not from the wisdom of the world,
but from what God taught His servant
when He spoke to him in person
and without riddles.
He also writes against those who
have attempted by false arguments
and allegorical interpretations
to bestow on the Scripture
a dignity of their own imagining.
But theirs is the attitude of one
who considers himself
wiser than the revelations
of the Spirit.
Let it be understood
as it has been written.
Summarizing the patristic teaching
on the framework,
Saint Thomas Aquinas writes,
The completion of the universe
as to the completeness of its parts
belongs to the sixth day,
but its completion as regards
their operation to the seventh.
Nothing entirely new
was afterwards made by God,
but all things subsequently made
had in a sense been made before
in the work of the six days.
Again,
God indeed worketh until now
by preserving and providing
for the creatures He has made,
but not by the making of new ones.
According to Saint Thomas,
the perfection of the original creation
did not preclude
a limited development of creation
to a final end,
but this was not an evolutionary development.
As he explains,
It is said, Genesis 1-1,
In the beginning,
God created heaven and earth,
by which are understood
corporeal creatures.
These, therefore,
were produced immediately by God.
Some have maintained
that creatures proceeded from God
by degrees,
in such a way
that the first creature
proceeded from Him immediately
and in its turn produced another,
and so on,
until the production
of corporeal creatures.
But this position is untenable
since the first production
of corporeal creatures
is by creation,
and it is impossible
that anything should be created
save by God alone.
Creation is the production
of a thing in its entire substance,
nothing being presupposed,
either uncreated or created.
Hence, it remains
that nothing can create
except God alone,
who is the first cause.
Saint Thomas also insists
that all the parts
of the first creation
were complete in the beginning.
The perfection of a thing
is twofold,
the first perfection
and the second perfection.
The first perfection
is that according to which
a thing is substantially perfect,
and this perfection
is the form of the whole,
which form results
from the whole
having its parts complete.
The first perfection
is the completeness
of the universe
at its first founding,
and this is what is ascribed
to the seventh day.
The creation provenance framework
is a straightforward concept,
but it is so counter
to what most Catholics
have been conditioned to believe
that it often takes some time
for its profound implications
to be fully realized,
namely, that cosmic
and biological origins
properly belong
to historical theology,
not natural science,
and attempts to explain origins
solely from a natural
science perspective
will be inadequate.
The framework also provides
the answer to those
who dismiss the Church Fathers
by reasoning that we don't
have to follow the Fathers
in matters of natural science,
or who say that viewing Genesis
as a true historical account
is to turn sacred scripture
into a science textbook.
According to the Fathers
in sacred scripture,
origins did not occur
through natural processes,
and therefore origins
does not fall under the domain
of natural science.
This means that the testimony
of the Church Fathers
and Doctors about origins
is extremely important
if we seek the truth
and want to avoid
the trap of naturalism.
The unanimous teaching
of the Church Fathers
on the direct,
immediate creation
of the universe,
mankind,
and the animal kinds by God
indicates that the Fathers
were handing on
what was preached
by the Apostles
who themselves were given
the true understanding
of the scriptures
by our Lord Jesus Christ
and the Holy Spirit.
While the origins
of the universe
and of life
are one-time events
that cannot be duplicated
in the laboratory,
there are certain
predictive implications
connected with the
Creation Providence framework.
One implication
is that the world
in which we now live,
which is in the period
of Providence,
is governed by
ordered natural laws
and is subject to investigation
through authentic
scientific methods.
This view of the universe
explains why it is
the Christian West
that throughout the centuries
advanced the natural sciences
through the work
of great Christian scientists.
Another implication
is that the forensic evidence
will not truly support
naturalistic explanations
of origins
because cosmic
and biological origins
occurred through
immediate supernatural
acts of creation
from God
during the period of creation.
When a natural scientist
studies the natural world,
he should not expect
the available evidence
to support the following
evolutionary claims.
That the fossil record
is consistent with the
traditional Darwinian
tree of life
in which simple organisms
were claimed to have
gradually given rise
to an increasingly
diverse tree of life.
That legitimate
transitional forms
will be found.
That the human body
has dozens of vestigial organs
that signal an evolutionary past.
That natural processes
could produce life
from non-life
also known as
chemical evolution.
Or that there is
an evolutionary mechanism
having sufficient
creative power
to generate new
functional genetic information
and to alter
or add information as needed
to produce sophisticated
new organs
and virtually unlimited
speciation.
We'll see in future episodes
that the predictions
of Darwinian evolution
have clearly failed
and that Big Bang cosmology
is totally inadequate
to explain the origin
and organization of the universe.
Once the creation
providence framework
is properly understood
and Catholics realize
that many have departed
from that framework
because of false
evolutionary claims
it becomes apparent
that a return
to the traditional
view of creation
is appropriate
and desperately needed.
Such a return
does not render one anti-science
it is to recognize
that natural science
has limits
and cannot explain
supernatural events.
When natural science
is forced to somehow
explain supernatural origins
we end up with
false and deceptive claims
that fail to withstand scrutiny
and which damage
the integrity
of authentic natural science.
Commenting
on the creation
providence framework
Philip E. Johnson
one of the founders
of the intelligent design movement
observes
Scientists who want
to explain everything
will always insist
on making assumptions
that permit them
to achieve their grand objective.
And they will always
be extremely reluctant
to admit
that their methods
may be inadequate
to explain
the mysteries of creation.
Science does not like
to tolerate
rival ways of understanding
but it is perfectly rational
to make other assumptions
including assumptions
that point
to the conclusion
that we can only
have knowledge
about origins
if God has chosen
to reveal it to us.
To underscore
the church fathers
and doctors view of creation
episode 3
closes with a review
of statements
illustrating
that without exception
these churchmen
understood
that the inspired author
of Genesis chapter 2 verse 7
described how
mankind came into being.
This compilation
is followed by
the specific text references
regarding the catholic principles
of scriptural interpretation.
Finally
because Saint Augustine
is wrongly said
to have viewed Genesis
as non-history
and even through
an evolutionary lens
it is important to view
part 2 of episode 3
that is entitled
Was Saint Augustine
an evolutionist?
Was Saint Augustine an evolutionist?