Bergoglio on Genesis 1

On quora I saw this link:

"'When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,' Francis said."

USA Today : Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real
Josephine McKenna, Religion News Service Published 11:47 a.m. ET Oct. 28, 2014 | Updated 2:56 p.m. ET Oct. 28, 2014
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/10/28/pope-francis-evolution-big-bang/18053509/

Before we can use this as proof against Antipope Bergoglio, we need a better source, since the article is claiming erroneously:

"In 1950, Pope Pius XII proclaimed there was no opposition between evolution and Catholic doctrine."

He claimed the Catholic Church does not forbid that ... somewhat different from saying Catholic doctrine can endorse that.

Here is a better source:

"When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so."

PLENARY SESSION OF THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS ON THE OCCASION OF THE INAUGURATION OF THE BUST IN HONOUR OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
Casina of Pius IV, Monday, 27 October 2014
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/october/documents/papa-francesco_20141027_plenaria-accademia-scienze.html

Note, this is evasive. God is all powerful, but He does not need an all powerful wand to be so. The denial of the all powerful wand is orthodox. Whether God Himself is all powerful, you cannot deny it with retained orthodoxy.

The question is, does the reference to magician and wand mean anything apart from God Himself being all powerful? Linguistically, grammatically, yes. If there were any known sect who claimed God was not all powerful in Himself, but He had in some other universe learned magic and acquired a wand making Him all powerful over ours, the words would certainly be to the point, and merit a respect as perfectly orthodox expression of Catholic teaching.

But not only is there no sect with that conviction (Mormons might be an exception according to what I have heard said from others, I have not heard it from them). The reference to Genesis, the fact he starts the sentence with "When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining," means he is referring to a normal reading by a normal reader, if not the best one.

And in such a normal reading by a normal reader, the real issue is, God comes off as being in fact all powerful - and as doing things which have no natural and preexistent root, like magic pretends to do, but ordinarily cannot achieve.

This means, the words are in fact an attack on the Traditional reading of Genesis.

A very polemic one.

Now, the actual words of Pius XII do allow (supposing he was Pope and had that authority) that a non-Traditional view be defended, by someone both experienced in science and in theology. Same as with someone defending the Traditional one.

There are two conditions attached:

• doing so with measure;
• being willing to submit to the judgement of the Church

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith"

ENCYCLICAL HUMANI GENERIS
OF THE HOLY FATHER PIUS XII ...
[Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.]
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

I am not only willing to submit to the Church's judgement, I am already doing so, that of the Council of Trent.

One can argue Pius XII had no right to formulate the words so that anyone might be tempted to think the condition necessarily meant a future judgement rather than the already existing one. But at least he did not claim directly to be referring to a future one.

As for doing so with measure, this cannot, given the already existing judgement by Trent on exegesis in general - with the implicatons this has for this matter - mean desisting from well merited rejection of ill thought through or not thought through or Atheist objections to the Traditional understanding.

It could mean ignoring an argument rather than dealing with it - and those who best know my work as a Creationist know I am not doing so.

In these recent days, I was printing and also scanning a booklet about how the evidence from carbon 14 present in a sample is consistent with Biblical chronology, and especially, on the outer limits or close to such supposing the Biblical chronology to be counted with St Jerome, as in the Traditional Christmas Liturgy.

However, the words of Bergoglio seem, unwilling to submit to the Council of Trent and therefore the Church Fathers, and lack of respect for a Creationist claiming God who is all mighty was very well equipped in Himself, not by any wand, to do exactly what the text says, and seems to say prima facie.

In other words Bergoglio seems to be not fulfilling the conditions as given by Humani Generis for defending one or other option.

But perhaps his words are "a judgement of the Church"?

Look again in Humani Generis:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

Pius XII, supposing he was Pope, named Encyclical Letters and the act of deliberately judging, as criteria of what constitutes a judgement by a Pope (supposing Bergoglio could by some still be considered such).

Now, the act of 27 October 2014 was not an Encyclical Letter, was not directed to Theologians but to Scientists, was not pretending to judge, but to bow down to their judgement "You are addressing the highly complex subject of the evolution of the concept of nature. I will not go into the scientific complexity, which you well understand, of this important and crucial question." It cannot remotely be construed as constituting even on his part any attempt to definitely judge in favour of Evolutionist over Traditional reading of Genesis.

In other words, as it was not valid as a debaing defense against a Traditional exegete of Evolutionary exegesis, since being without measure, it is also not valid as a judgement of the Church. Even to those who suppose Bergoglio is "Pope Francis" and supreme judge.

Since I do not so suppose, I cannot consider this as a Filial Correction. I am not Filial to the man I already since 2014 consider as Antipope Bergoglio.

Note, the occasion was uncovering of a bust of a still living predecessor. One possibility is, Ratzinger whose bust was uncovered is "the first beast" and Bergoglio, who honoured it, is the second one. If so, accepting his "God is not a magician with an all powerful wand" would be part of taking the mark "on the forehead" (that is, imbibing the ideology into one's thoughts).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Edward the Confessor
13.X.2017

Ps, my booklet is in French:

Publié en ligne, imprimable, à partir de ce blog ci, sur les limites de la récalibration de C14
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2017/10/publie-en-ligne-imprimable-partir-de-ce.html