Interesting New Book on Creation


#1

The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11: A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins
By Fr Victor Warkulwiz

$6 for the e-edition.

*Today the Catholic Church has well-developed theologies of redemption and sanctification but no well-developed theology of creation. That is because so many of her influential thinkers have abandoned the sound creation theology of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and have embraced instead the false principles of evolutionism. The purpose of this book is to help restore traditional Catholic theology on origins to its rightful place in the belief of Catholics. The traditional teaching of the Church on Creation, the Fall, and the Great Flood and its aftermath is clearly presented in the form of sixteen doctrines abstracted from the text of Genesis 1-11. The doctrines are defended on theological, philosophical and scientific grounds from assaults made on them from the sectors of biblical criticism and scientism. The author attempts to present a story of origins that evokes true and vivid images of the creation of the world and the primal history of the human species. Accurate, thorough and readable answers are given to many questions about origins that perplex the modern Catholic. The exposition is kept as non-technical as possible so that the book will be accessible to everyone. Not everyone will be able to understand everything that is presented, but every reader will find enough to set his thinking straight and to nourish his Catholic faith.

Foreword by Most. Rev. Robert Francis Vasa, Bishop of Baker*


#2

That is because so many of her influential thinkers have abandoned the sound creation theology of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and have embraced instead the false principles of evolutionism. The purpose of this book is to help restore traditional Catholic theology on origins to its rightful place in the belief of Catholics.

That sounds superb – it’s a very important topic. Very necessary for Catholics today, as some of the threads here on CA will show. :wink: I’ll enjoy reading that one, thanks for posing this info.


#3

I noticed that the book asserts the Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine of creation in six literal days, which contradicts much of traditional Catholic teaching on creation. St. Augustine, for example, taught that the days were allegorical, and that creation was instantaneous. While there is no definitive teaching on the issue, it is a misrepresentation to present a literal six day creation as the traditional Catholic belief.

I notice also that the book drifts far from the Magisterium in discussing the polonium haloes issue that so badly discredited some who had argued for a young Earth.

It seems to be sort of a grab bag of personal views and junk science, presented as tradition.


#4

That’s a weird statement? Are SDA’a the only ones who hold a literal 6 days? I thought a lot of other Protestants also do, as well as every Father except Augustine.

What is the Church’s official declaration on polonium halos?


#5

Well I know where they can stick it too…HAHA…right in that Creationist museum where they have humans and dinosaurs picnicing in the park. What some are willing to do to make a buck. It’s tragic isn’t it?


#6

They aren’t the only one. Most who adher to a heavily fundamentalist interpretation believe that as well. But no mainline Protestant church’s do I don’t believe. It’s mostly a fundamentalist phenomenon except for the few Catholics here. I’ve never heard any of this creationist stuff in any parish I’ve been in. It’s not taught in either RCIA or RE either.


#7

(Barbarian on Seventh-Day Adventist YE creationism)

That’s a weird statement? Are SDA’a the only ones who hold a literal 6 days?

Not any more. YE creationism started with the visions of an SDA “prophetess”, and the resulting “flood geology” was proslytized by James McCready Price to fundamentalists. You can get a good academic history of YE in “The Creationists” by Ronald Numbers.

I thought a lot of other Protestants also do, as well as every Father except Augustine.

Some other Protestants do, but most rejected it. And of course, a literal six-day creation was never the consensus among Christians theologians. Origen, Augustine, and others pointed out the logical inconsistency of Genesis with a six-day creation.

Barbarian observes:
I notice also that the book drifts far from the Magisterium in discussing the polonium haloes issue that so badly discredited some who had argued for a young Earth.

What is the Church’s official declaration on polonium halos?

There is none. And yet the book presents it as traditional Catholicism. How absurd.

Hey, Spiritmeadow, I was in Iowa for the holidays. How nice to have a white Christmas again, with all my family reunited.

From “Field of Dreams”:

“Is this Heaven?”

“No, it’s Iowa.”

Even in the dead of winter, it’s a great place, with wonderful people.


#8

lol…don’t tell me about it. We’ve been snowed in back here in the holler for near on 2 weeks. Couldnt even get a 4x4 in here to get us for the caucuses, though two different campaigns tried. She’s melting fine now though, a couple more days, and we’ll be back to bare ground.


#9

No. I think that The Barbarian’s point was that modern YEC creationism originated with the SDAs. In the 1920s OEC was more common; William Jennings Bryan from the Scopes Trial was an OEC for example.

I thought a lot of other Protestants also do, as well as every Father except Augustine.

Origen was also not a six day literalist:“What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? … I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way.”

(De Principiis IV, 3, 1)

There may have been others, I am not an expert on the ECFs.

rossum


#10

We are going to the Creation museum this Spring. They can have my bucks. It’s better than giving it to aithiest supporters. A denial of God’s ability to Create in seven days is a denial of God.


#11

Just because historical events are alagorical it does not mean they did not really happen. God has the ability to write history with many analogies. This is one of the ways that the Word made Flesh teaches us. Is the Word made Flesh an alagory or is He reality?


#12

Just because historical events are alagorical it does not mean they did not really happen.

It just means that they didn’t happen literally. There was a creation, but it wasn’t a literal six-day creation.

Is the Word made Flesh an alagory or is He reality?

Would it surprise you to know that some things in the Bible are literally true, and other things are allegories?


#13

We are going to the Creation museum this Spring.

Could I suggest the “creation evidences museum” near Glen Rose, Texas? I stopped there last year, and it was very interesting. My wife left, because she was embarassed that my daughter and I were shaking with supressed laughter.

It’s better than giving it to aithiest supporters.

You do understand that science isn’t an atheistic method, right?

A denial of God’s ability to Create in seven days is a denial of God.

I don’t think any Christians deny that God could have done it in six days if He has so willed. We just leave that kind of thing up to Him. It’s accepting His creation as it is. Wouldn’t it be better to do that?


#14

If you were God I would have to would agree with you, but since you weren’t there I’ll take God’s word for it. He can speak alagorically and literally at the same time. Your view of Him seems to be very limited.


#15

Thanks for the suggestion but Texas is a little far right now. My children and I have had a similar experiences to what you have had in the museam of natural “history” in New York. It is very comical, but what do you expect from a bunch of New York liberals.

Emperical science is not an atheistic method but theoretical science very much can be. Emperical science is based upon what is observable and repeatable. Theoretical science takes a little bit of emperical science and then fills in the blanks of a theory with assumptions. For instance methods of radio dating are observable and repeatable when we know what the initial mass of the specimen is. Since they often don’t know the initial mass of very old items they assume an initial mass based upon where they found it in the ground. So the whole premise of what the age is depends upon the assumed age at that location in the ground is. I call this circular logic or cooking the books. This type of faulty science is used throughout evolutionary theory because it is an impossible theory to prove.


#16

Science may not be. The philosophy of science and many of the scientists, ie., that which shapes what is even considered in the more speculative sciences (i.e., cosmology, cosmogony, evolution, etc.) are a dfferent story.


#17

Please don’t take your kids if you have them. They have a bad tendency to drop religion completely when they grow up and learn the truth. Teaching kids untruths has very bad results and of course you don’t wish to drive people from the Church do you?


#18

Two popes accept the basics of evolution. You wouldn’t be opposing Church teaching now would you? I’m told that means you are calling Jesus a liar. Apparently he likes evolution just fine and finds it quite compatible with Himself.


#19

This is your field of expertise no doubt. ?


#20

Because a pope accepts evolution does not make it Church teachings

I, too, have read articles claiming that the Catholic Church officials endorses the Big Bang Theory, but this is not true. The Church has no official teaching or position either for it or against it

Although this is about the Big Bang it applies equally to evolution. The Church has no official teaching on evolution. I could not paste the entire answer as it was copyrighted but it does support the theory as being in tuned with our faith. BUT it is not officially taught and can be disagreed with without fear that you are calling Jesus a liar. Don’t over state your case there is NO official teaching and one should not claim there is.

link


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.