Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Yesterday, Dr. Thomas Seiler and I had a debate with Catholic podcaster Timothy Gordon and his brother on the age of the universe in light of the answers that the Pontifical Biblical Commission gave to eight questions on the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis in 1909. You can watch the video of the debate at this link.
The debate recalled one of the objections to the traditional reading of Genesis that we answered in Volume II in our series Replies to Common Objections:
Objection: The Magisterium has never required Catholics to believe in creation in six 24-hour days. St. Augustine’s non-literal interpretation of “day” in Genesis One sets a precedent for all Catholics and shows that it is perfectly permissible to formulate a non-literal interpretation of “day” in Genesis One. Moreover, the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909 explicitly allowed Catholic scholars to hold that “day” in Genesis One meant a 24-hour day or an “indefinite space of time.”
In our Reply, we answered that to say that two interpretations of Sacred Scripture are permitted is not the same thing as to say that they are equally valid. In 1853 the interpretation of Genesis 3:15 which held that the Blessed Virgin Mary was NOT immaculately conceived was “permitted”—and this continued to be the case until Blessed Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854. However, it would be quite wrong to claim that these two interpretations had equal support within the Church in 1853. In reality, the overwhelming weight of evidence from Catholic Tradition supported the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, long before Blessed Pope Pius IX defined the dogma. The same thing is true of the “permission” to interpret “day” in Genesis One as “an indefinite space of time.”
It could be argued that the nineteenth century debate over the definition of the Immaculate Conception bears no resemblance to the current situation in regard to the meaning of “day” in Genesis One—because the majority of theologians supported the definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1853, whereas the majority of theologians do not endorse the literal and obvious meaning of “day” in 2023. But this argument would be irrelevant and false. The consensus among avant garde theologians in 1853 who had embraced naturalism would have been that the Virgin Birth was “scientifically impossible,” and that the testimony of Tradition to the Immaculate Conception needed to be “corrected” in the light of modern science. But it would have been disingenuous for any of them to assert that the overwhelming weight of Tradition did not testify to the truth of the Immaculate Conception. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of theologians today hold that literal and obvious sense of “day” in Genesis One has been shown to be “scientifically impossible”; but they cannot honestly deny that the overwhelming weight of the testimony of Tradition supports that interpretation.
The Burden of Proof Remains on Those Who Reject the Literal Meaning “Day”
The 1909 PBC rulings on the interpretation of the book of Genesis are—together with Humani Generis—the last authoritative magisterial statements on the subject. In the Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae,” on November 18, 1907, Pope St. Pius X declared that no one could contest the rulings of the PBC without “grave sin.” The following are the questions submitted to the Pontifical Biblical Commission on June 30, 1909 “Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis”:
I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.
III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.
IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.
V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.
VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.
VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.
VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.
The PBC’s answers to these questions establish certain truths unequivocally.
Its reply to Question I establishes that the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis cannot be called into question.
Its reply to Question II establishes that Genesis contains “stories of events which really happened, which correspond with historical reality and objective truth,” not “legends, historical in part and fictitious in part.” In short, the PBC definitively excludes the possibility that even a part of the Genesis narrative could be fictitious and non-historical.
The PBC’s answer to Question III establishes that the literal and historical truth of the following facts cannot be called into question:
1) “The creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time”
Comment:
This passage upholds the Lateran IV doctrine that all things were created by God “in the beginning of time.” This in and of itself contradicts the conjecture that the days of Genesis could represent longer periods of time than a natural day.
2) “The special creation of man”
Comment: This excludes any process in the formation of man and requires that the creation of man was immediate and instantaneous.
3) “The formation of the first woman from the first man”
Comment: This, too, excludes any process in the formation of the first woman and requires that the creation of Eve was immediate and instantaneous.
The PBC’s answer to Question V allows that some expressions in Genesis may be understood improperly when “reason prohibits holding the proper sense” or “necessity forces its abandonment.” (Of course, to understand expressions in Genesis 1-3 “improperly” does not mean “incorrectly”; it means to understand them in a non-literal, non-obvious sense.) However, according to the answer to Question VI, interpretations should be made “with the Holy Fathers and the Church” herself leading the way.
The PBC’s answer to Question VII establishes that the word “dies” in the distinction of the six days of Genesis Chapter One may be understood in the proper sense as a natural day or in the improper sense as “a certain space of time.”
Answers IV and V taken together tell us that some expressions may be understood improperly when “reason prohibits holding the proper sense” or “necessity requires.” These are very strict conditions indeed! According to these criteria, the word “dies” in Genesis One may be understood improperly as a certain space of time IF and only IF reason dictates or necessity requires. In short, the Magisterium is not treating the proper and improper senses of “dies” as equals. On the contrary, the Magisterium lays the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who would challenge the proper sense. It is they who must prove that reason dictates or necessity requires that “dies” be interpreted as a “certain space of time” and not as a natural day.
It follows that the “free discussion among exegetes” allowed by answer VIII is permitted for the purpose of allowing the advocates of the improper sense to demonstrate that the improper sense of “dies” in Genesis One is the only reasonable interpretation. But “free discussion”—being of its very nature an exchange of views—also means that attempts to defend the improper sense as the only reasonable interpretation must be subjected to critical review by other exegetes. Moreover, this free discussion must be undertaken in full knowledge that failure to PROVE that the improper sense of “dies” is the only reasonable interpretation of the word in Genesis One ipso facto establishes “natural day” as the preferred interpretation. Moreover, since the answer to Question VI teaches that the interpretation of Genesis should be made “with the Holy Fathers and the Church” leading the way, the burden of proof falls entirely upon those who question the consensus of the Fathers on the interpretation of any part of Genesis 1-3.
Fundamental Importance of the Creation-Providence Distinction
In this connection, there is an important—and rarely noticed—link between the patristic consensus on Genesis One and the PBC’s decree on the possible interpretation of “dies” as “a certain space of time.” According to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the Sabbath rest of the Lord after the six days of creation marked the end of the creation period. Consequently, apart from the creation of each human soul at the moment of conception—which is not the creation of a new nature but of a new individual with the same nature as Adam—creation ceased after the sixth day of creation. Now “a certain space of time” is by definition a limited period. Therefore, the PBC decree establishes as a fact that the creation period—whether it was six natural days or a longer period (although, as we have shown, the latter interpretation is scarcely tenable)—is over. It is logically impossible, therefore, to learn anything about the events of creation week by observing present-day natural processes.
The importance of this point can hardly be overemphasized. Rightly understood, this doctrine—explicit in the writings of the Fathers and implicit in the PBC decrees—that the creation period has come to an end renders it absolutely impossible for natural science to discover anything certain about the creation week and the origin of the things created during that period. To repeat, this is because the Holy Fathers and the PBC unite in teaching that the creation period is over, that God is no longer creating new kinds of creatures, and that therefore creation cannot be observed. It is axiomatic that human science cannot arrive at certain knowledge of an order of things—in this case, the order of creation—that it cannot observe. This being the case, it is quite impossible for natural scientists to prove that the improper sense of “dies”—as a measure of the creation period—is the only reasonable interpretation of the word.
It may be objected that this plain meaning of the PBC decree in regard to “dies” cannot be binding any longer since almost no one remembers it, understands its actual meaning, or acts as if it were in force. But this would not be the first time that the plain sense of a magisterial decree was all but obliterated from the memory of the Church leadership for an extended period of time. In 325, the Council of Nicea defined that Jesus was “God from God, very God from very God, begotten not made,” but less than a century later, as St. Jerome observed, “the whole world groaned to find itself Arian” and nine out of ten bishops could be found in communion with those who taught that Jesus was a creature in direct contradiction to the Nicene formula.
When, in 1948, Cardinal Suhard attempted to get the PBC—no longer an arm of the Magisterium as it had been in 1909—to renounce its earlier rulings on Genesis, he was rebuffed and told that the PBC did not wish to issue “new decrees on these questions” (Denz, 2302). Consequently, the next magisterial document dealing explicitly with the historical events recounted in Genesis 1-3, Humani Generis, must be understood in the context of the 1909 PBC rulings. It is in this context—and ONLY in this context—that Pope Pius XII’s permission to inquire “into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” can and must be understood. In view of the Vatican’s refusal to change its 1909 decrees on Genesis One, Catholics are still bound by them. Pope Pius XII himself in Humani Generis condemned those who transgress legitimate
freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking (DZ, 2327)
It is noteworthy that Pope Pius XII observed that the hypothesis that the human body originated from previously existing and living matter was based entirely on “already discovered indications”—in other words, on pieces of physical evidence—and on deductions from that evidence, and not on anything in “the sources of divine revelation.” Moreover, although Pope Pius XII charged “exegetes” with the task of determining in precisely what sense the first eleven chapters of Genesis are history, he insisted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “a kind of history” and that they contain a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people. He also upheld the constant teaching of the Church that these chapters are “free from all error” (DZ, 2329). Therefore, the PBC decrees and Humani Generis leave the very heavy burden of proof where it has always been—on those who question the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-3, as interpreted consistently by the Popes, Councils, and Fathers of the Church.
The only patristic warrant for rejecting the literal interpretation of “day” in Genesis One as a 24-hour day can be found in the writings of St. Augustine. However, as demonstrated in Volume One of our series of “Replies to Common Objections,” St. Augustine had to rely on the flawed Vetus Latina translation of Genesis which made it seem that there would be a contradiction between Genesis One and Genesis Two if “day” in Genesis One were interpreted as a 24-hour day. In St. Jerome’s accurate Vulgate translation of Genesis, the apparent contradictions disappear!
Through the prayers of the Mother of God, may the Holy Ghost guide us all into all the Truth!
In Domino,
Hugh Owen
P.S. June is the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart, but the demonic forces have tried to divert attention from the infinite love of Our Lord’s Sacred Heart to the false and perverted affections of men and women who have rebelled against God and His natural law. The Kolbe Center’s beloved webmaster Keith Jones and his family run an amazing apostolate that produces and distributes Catholic flags and banners. Please visit their website at this link and prayerfully consider purchasing and flying a Sacred Heart flag or banner this month.
