Thomistic Institute Doesn't Answer?

I

Me to Thomistic Institute

1/28/2022 at 5:49 PM

was already sent to Fr Nicanor Austriaco, OP

https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2022/01/more-thorough-answer-to-rev-nicanor.html
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2021/12/niche-argument-revisited.html

II

Me to Thomistic Institute

2/1/2022 at 1:31 PM

I get a somewhat iffy feeling, if you are the ones recommending those videos

Apart from the one for Evolution, not bad ones.

I get the feeling, you are perhaps (or someone else is, but using you) avoiding the actual debate on the relative weight of Genesis 5 and 11 versus samples with 25 pmC (implying as uncalibrated raw carbon dates an age of 11460 years).

You seem to - or someone else seems to be trying to foist hours of prolegomena on me, as if it were some kind of given I was not as yet qualified to discuss either aspect, as long as I don't agree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSUfieX401Q

The video on Sola Scriptura includes the observation that the Protestants had a great optimism about exegesis. Fine. They would obviously (some to this day) say "if a truth had been lost to all of the Church from lack of reading, it could easily be restored by reading" - and I'd agree, but I'd just answer that such a case could not happen, there is a proof text against it, for the Catholic system. This would perhaps to some seem as if I were guilty of "sola scriptura" heresy, but the thing is, "sola scriptura" is the Protestant (more Calvinist than Lutheran, as said) catchword. It is not the exact wording of what the Catholic Church de facto and de jure condemned at Session IV of the Council of Trent. Prof. Michael Root never actually says that the Catholic Church condemned exegetic optimism. But it is left to the imagination.

Then I get this recommendation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AgfgDmgogA

Now, we must keep in mind, "shadow" and "reality" are here not used in the perspective of humdrum epistemology, as Aristotle would in the Organon. On the contrary, they have a highly Platonic flavour. BOTH are what Aristotle would consider realities, but one of them is a higher one, of a type that Aristotle would dispute on the Tritos Anthropos argument, and the other is a participation in it. Like the Aaronite and even (though less so) Melchisedecian priesthoods were participations of a shadowy type, in the priesthood of Christ, in which Catholic priests have a more direct share.

In other words, the idea of "shadow" doesn't warrant Adam being some kind of metaphor or genealogies from him to Noah or Shem to Abe some kind of mythology.

But even more, the argument I made against Fr Austriaco was in fact that pretending Evolution is before sin a fitting process subservient to creation is turning upside down what St. Thomas meant by God giving creatures the dignity of being real causes. That (as some observations on impossibility of human language evolving from non-human oral communications and so on) really has no side open to questions of exegesis. It means Evolution is rotten in sound Thomistic Philosophy even before being in historic narratival conflict with the Bible.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Me to Thomistic Institute

2/3/2022 at 6:31 PM

Can't Fr. Simon Gaine make up his mind to be Catholic?

I watched his video here:

Did Christ Die For Neanderthals? | Fr Simon Gaine, OP
14th Febr. 2020 | The Thomistic Institute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKcwCpWOZhk

I answered at time signatures under video, and the comments are also here:

https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/02/neanderthals-were-human-and-lived-after.html

The extremely implicit and unargued dependance on the dating methods, the "we must enlarge our understanding of the Bible" and "we can't enlarge our understanding of dating methods, they aren't just by God, you know, they are by S C I E N T I S T S" is annoying to an actual Catholic Christian, and on top of that, in Paris I have to do with an actual apostate who openly wrote he doesn't believe Adam and Eve existed as you and I do, and he hasn't been censured by his hierarchs either of Assumptionist order or of the Archdiocese.

Autour de Sébastien Antoni qui a nié l'individualité d'Adam et d'Ève

Hans Georg Lundahl