An Ignatian, huh? De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Von Speyr? That explains it.
As for Evolution, that is a Scientific question, not theological, and if you reject the basic premise that animals and other living organisms “evolve” that is your business and right. I don’t. It is just I don’t believe that believing in the basic notion of evolution means that I am an atheist-pagan-Communist and that believing in the basic theory of Evolution means I reject the theology rooted in Genesis that God created everything from nothing which is the first statement of the Nicene Creed......I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth and things visible and invisible.....
We're not talking about "the theology of Genesis." We're also not talking about whatever is going on now in the fully-created world. We're talking about the veracity of the Genesis narrative and the historicity of the events described.
:Sigh: I know from past experience that you won't understand this, but I'll try for the hundred millionth time anyway.
Just pretend (humor me, please) that some scientist came to you and said that J*sus was not born of a virgin because such a thing is scientifically impossible. Now I hope you will agree that it is fully within the province of science to tell us how babies are conceived and come into the world. So . . . are you going to roll over and say "all right; that's science, so I guess it didn't really happen, but I still believe in the theology of the virgin birth narratives."
Are you going to say that?
No you are not. You are going to become, just for the moment, an "illiterate, inbred trailer park redneck" and insist that G-d can do anything and that this was a "miracle," and the Holy Mother Church teaches this (your version of "Bobble sez!") and that's good enough for you, and you feel sorry for him because he doesn't have the "gift of faith."
Now come on, admit it. That's exactly what you'd say.
Now, what is the difference in my belief in the literal veracity of the stories narrated in the first eleven chapters of Genesis and your belief in the scientifically-impossible virgin birth because your Church or your "new testament" teach it? What is the difference . . . huh? Why is it so foreign to you to consider the possibility that just as the chrstian "gxd" allegedly "intervened" to bring about a pregnancy without the participation of a human male, even so (lehavdil!) G-d created everything from nothing in six days in a purely supernatural manner, after which the laws of nature became fully operational?
Really, what is the difference? Is Genesis 1-11 somehow metaphysically "more impossible" than any other miracle/supernatural phenomenon? Just what is Catholics' deal here? I've never seen any theistic evolutionist Catholic try to find any purely natural means used by the chrstian "gxd" to bring about the "virginal conception" (such as in vitro fertilization or something). Really, what is the difference? Why not be satisfied with "gxd" using purely natural means to bring this about just as you do with the creation story, or the rest of Genesis 1-11?
I'll bet you don't even see the irony. Your mind is just so locked into the possibility of the supernatural and miracles when it comes to the "new testament" and equally locked into naturalism when it comes to the "old."
Well prepare to learn a lesson, because I'm going to tell you exactly why Catholics will insist on one scientific impossibility while denying another (after all, it's a "scientific impossibility," isn't it?). You don't even have to thank me.
It's sociological. Yep. That's it right there. Bluntly, the "virgin birth" inspired the intellectuals of the Middle Ages and the "glories of chrstendom" whereas the miracles of Genesis are the "trailer park miracles." And for that reason alone you can't even consider the possibility that they may be just as literal as all the other miracles you believe in supposedly are. "Virgin birth=Thomism; Genesis=trailer trash. And you aren't trailer trash, are you? Never mind that the "virgin birth" and the "resurrection" and the "loaves and fishes" and "walking on water" are all scientifically impossible; indeed, not one whit less so than the world being supernaturally created in six days.
Think that's not true? Go to any Catholic forum. Any attacks on evolution or affirmations of Genesis are greeted with cries of "that's Protestant!!!!!" No argument. No logic. No reasoning. Just "that's Protestant!" Now what does that tell you?
Before closing, one incontrovertible fact: whatever else you may think of what I have said, it is undeniable that the fathers of Trent were literalist creationists. The Catholic Church of that era taught creationism. The contemporary Catholic Church rejects creationism. The Catholic teaching on creation has changed. Truth in advertising, dude.
Excellent points...
Zionist:
I do accept the Virgin Birth, to deny it would make one unorthodox in terms of Christology and not Christian. It is a tenant of the Faith. No Church Council in the early Church has ever taught “Creationism or Evolution.” When the Church makes statements about Science, it is outside of its sphere so to speak. The Church has the authority to speak about Faith questions, not scientific questions, although a many a great Catholic Priests and Theologians were great Scientist.
De Lubac and Von Balthasar are modern theologians. If you mean Ignatius of Antioch, yes, he would indeed be Patristic. So by Patristic, I am talking about the Church Fathers in the Western-Roman-Latin Church till the time of St. Isidore of Seville [died circa 636 AD] and in the Byzantine-Greek-Eastern Church, till the time of St. John Damascene [died 749 AD]. So my primary mode of reading Sacred Scripture is to read it in the context of the Church Fathers in the periods prior to the dates above, which of course would include the Councils of Nicea 325AD, Constantinople 381 AD, Ephesus 431AD and CHalcedon 451AD.
The Historical Critical Method has the benefit of looking at recent manuscript findings, i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls and some of the NT fragments that were found in the last 100 or so years as well as using archeological findings that can help us better understand aspects of the time of CHrist and the Apostles. However, in no context do I take the Historical scholarship and use it for primary commentary on the OT and NT.
So not trying to be flippant, but by Patristic I am referring to the Church Fathers and the theological writings from that period as my primary mode of reading Sacred Scripture.