This can be true. .. God's Holy Spirit can indeed speak to individuals. Thing is, when and if, said individual must obey them.. and if pertinent enough, bring them before the Community. That said, b/c it's private revelation, others are not bound to believe the message.
I used to follow Charlie, but obviously lost touch. When it went awry, he should have given it up. I do owe it to Charlie that I found this site through him. I wouldn't knock him for being in agreement with the world being millions, or billions, of years old. The Book of Genesis is about 'how to go to Heaven', 'not how the heavens go'. We have this from St. Augustine who said that if genuine science makes an observed discovery that contradicts the Bible, the latter should be reinterpreted in the light of the new scientific evidence. Of course, Augustine understood the limits of science and believed that nothing could or would be discovered that contradicted our Faith. Both Augustine and Aquinas wrote of the possibility of the Universe being very ancient and it is generally a Protestant stance to take Genesis absolutely literally-its truths are moral (such as 'male and female He created them'), not physical (otherwise, we'd have to believe the Earth is flat). Bear in mind that science is the profession of measurement-if a scientific claim does not involve a demonstrable, repeatable measurement, it is not science. So far, St Augustine has being proven right, provided one can distinguish hard, proven scientific fact from the amount of scientistic speculation that abounds. I'd recommend the late Fr Stanley Jaki, (very) orthodox Catholic priest, doctor of physics and theology, philosopher and historian as the primary source for these matters. His work has certainly strengthened and rounded out my own faith.
I liked Charlie, I was on the phone to him twice and we used to email frequently. He always struck me as someone who represented the very best in America. He bombed in his prophesies. But I think he did wind his neck in after that and fair play to him for doing so. I think he taught me that it is possible for someone honestly and sincerely believe themselves called by God in a certain way and yet being mistaken. An honest mistake. I admit I am biased in this in that I like Charlie.
It's just one of the many quirks that didn't sit well with me. A pundit is entitled to their opinions, but pretending to be a prophet he made it sound like Genesis was a error. On your other point, I believe there's more than two positions on Genesis. I once asked a Jewish scholar about the problem of the two views, and his reply was: "There's only a problem in the English translations, when looking at the Hebrew text, there's lots of room for a old universe and a old lifeless Earth, as the 6 days of creation in Genesis was about the creation of life only." I kind of like that view, as it doesn't require throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially these days when the scientific community is hijacked by so many God & Bible haters. Recent studies of Mount St. Helen after it blew up in 1980 has called into serious question the huge errors for dating objects. Why are the fossil layers so flat with barely any signs of erosion between layers? It is plausible that those are Noah's flood layers... As for the age of things, we can't expect good & honest science when there are those who reject the facts that don't reject God & the Bible. Science is supposed to be about the unbiased facts, and evolutionists are the furthest thing from unbiased or honest about the facts.
Looking for God’s salvific purpose in Genesis is the key. Everything else is like a haystack around a needle. The needle here (God’s salvific purpose) is what we definitely do know and if we concentrate on that, whatever else (outside of Sacred Scripture and Tradition) aligns with the teachings of the Church, or at least does not contradict them, is plausible. What we know: God created everything Good (only God is Good). God created humanity in His own image and said it was Very Good. Before Adam and Eve committed the original sin, there was no death (separation from the Creator). There was no corruption of body or soul present for Adam and Eve. The animals and other living creatures did not have the image and likeness of God, but they were created Good and had a much higher state than after the fall due to original sin. Adam and Eve’s sin caused death and without this sin (or before this sin) there was no death. Creator and Creation were at peace. God’s Son, the 2nd person in the Most Holy Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, became incarnate and died for our sins so that we could rise with Him and once more be at peace with our Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the love of the Holy Ghost. Do not let the hay makers confuse or hide the beautiful needle that God used and is still using, to weave a salvation history created by Him, redeemed by His Son, and sanctified by His Spirit. If any hypothesis states that there was corruption in creation, before the original sin (and excluding the angels), then this hypothesis should be examined scrupulously by Holy Mother Church to see if any truth is in it. One last thing. We remember that St Paul said all creation is groaning to be back in union with its purpose to serve God. If sin did not cause natures corruption, then what is it longing for? In and through Christ, it finally will be restored when the new heavens and earth come at long last. Peace. Ed
You're right there. Science is based on measurement. If the measurements are wrong, it's bunk. I read a book on human anthropology a few years back by an Evangelical Creationist which, in spite of the abuse that is usually thrown at creationism, I found very plausible and it raised a lot of profound questions against the conventional narrative. The aforementioned Father Jaki is very emphatic about the significance of the effect of Kurt Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem of Mathematics upon hard science, which is by definition completely mathematics-founded. The theorem implies that maths as fundamental as basic multiplication has facets that are unprovable. Science is generally in denial over this reality, but it greatly undermines its unjustified, self-proclaimed reputation as the explanation of everything. I'd recommend Jaki's "Questions on Science and Religion"-he takes no prisoners! According to reliable sources, Goedel himself, who was an atheist from an atheist family, became a Christian on the strength of the consequences of his theorem.
Science is not just observation. It is also based on premises that are unproven. For example, everywhere you look out from earth, there is a red shift. Because of the Cosmological Principle, that there is no special place in the universe, they say the entire universe is expanding. Or take uniformitarian geology. They claim that the earth’s formation was the gradual application of the same processes over time. When you point them to underwater cities all over the world, they interpret it to mean that humans abandoned these cities; no sudden great flood. You can’t prove these principle they assume. But if you doubt them you are just crazy.
By Stanley Jaki's very rigid definition of science, if a theory isn't measurable and replicable without any reasonable doubt, it isn't science, it's metaphysics. Unfortunately, most people accept science as 'gospel'.
The problem is these assumptions are philosophical. They’re like axioms. They aren’t proved. But you are not allowed to discuss these axioms or whether they are correct. You’re just supposed to submit to scientific consensus like it a cult with dogma and leaders. The saints are prior great scientists or sages. How dare you, a nobody without a degree, question the elders? Trust the experts, even though skepticism is pretty much what science in theory is about. In practice, modern scientists are not like truth seekers who consider every angle and are willing to abandon their theories if something better shows up. They’re more like a statistician testing a hypothesis: until the facts that contradict the theory cannot be explained away they won’t let go of their precious theory. This means considering true facts false and ignoring counter factual evidence if it is not conclusive.
Thank you Ed for this beautiful reflection on God’s plan of salvation. It is something I often reflect on myself- both in the big sense - the whole world and also in a personal way- my own salvation. I hope you don’t mind me sharing a few additional thoughts here. The role of the serpent (devil) in the Garden to trick Adam and Eve is still much the same today. As we see in Genesis 3, Eve started conversing with the devil and fell for his lies. I see this as a great lesson and warning in our own lives. And yes because they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they subjected themselves to physical death but more importantly to spiritual death- separation from God forever. Even in this verse, God gave them freedom to choose. He respects his creatures so much that he allows choices to be made. But, even with bad choices his creatures made, His mercy and as Ed said, His Salvation was existent. I honestly cannot get my human mind around it. We hear every Holy Saturday when the Church is in total darkness as the Paschal Candle is lit - the Great Exultant is sung, And the words… “oh glorious fault, oh necessary sin of Adam” is proclaimed. This great mystery to me- God knew the sin of Adam and Eve was needed to save us all. It was because of this sin, that Christ became incarnate and needed to pay the price of redemption with His Blood on the Cross. And throughout all the years before Christ was born, God was working his plan of salvation again in a mysterious way through the cooperation and yes the weaknesses of his creature. He worked through Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, and many other human and weak people. And then of course ultimately through his most perfect (and sinless) creature - Mary- the new Eve - to help restore us all back to the Garden. All of this is such a hopeful sign on the personal path to salvation. Just as God used imperfect and weak humans in his plan of salvation, he sees my own fault and weaknesses and yet it is through those that he is saving me too. It’s a matter of recognizing these faults and always turning back begging him for mercy - which he abundantly gives. Thank you again Ed for sharing your reflection.- it is truly a Good News to think about and be thankful for.
I am always struck by the essential road map of the devil's strategy. It doesn't change. "Did God say..." it always starts with a subtle invitation to doubt God's word. Our world has for the most part taken the bait hook line and sinker. Fulton Sheen said it all boils down to Christianity without the Cross. "Come down off that Cross and we will believe..." The Church of Nice runs from the cross. Nothing changes. Humans don't change. Yesterday's gospel spells it out. "Unless you take up your cross and follow Me...." Ah well. Praying always for the grace to stay faithful as the crosses get heavier and the way gets narrower.
I think most scientists are engaged in scientism, rather than science. I suspect many decide on their result, which is generally a function of their atheistic ideology and direct their research and experimentation in the direction that best suits their argument. Ultimately, science amounts to nothing more than the abstraction of certain predictable and consistent mathematical constants from physical objects, information that can be used to harness related properties from such objects. This has enabled the development of many technologies, both for good and evil, but it tells us nothing of how most of the world works nor does it answer any questions beginning with 'why?' Technology is really a form of magic, confounding and amazing those who see more in it than it contains. As you say, best to remain entirely sceptical. The broad interpretation of Goedel's theorem is that the universe cannot be explained within itself, which leaves two alternatives: either the universe is irrational, in which case we might as well abandon all debate about everything, or the complete explanation of the universe must be sought outside it.
Our Most Blessed Mother Mary is our personal example here and also for the entire Church. She had complete free will and never sinned. She is the new Eve who did not succumb to temptation although She faced it head on Her whole life. Most Glorious Blessed Virgin Mary, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
So true! Mary was given the singular honor to be conceived and born without the stain of original sin. But, then as Ed said, she lived in this world with all its temptations and with her free will never gave in - never sinned. So yes , it’s our model to strive to. But most, if not all, will fall short which is why God is so good in giving us the sacrament of reconciliation.
The Free Will which Our Lady exercised, in so doing freely choosing not to sin and becoming the model for the inspiration of us all, was offered by God to Adam and Eve. I wonder could this be the moment when they became fully created in the image of God, by being granted a quality, free will, given to no other earthly creature? Just speculating here and anyone can feel free to pull me up on it if I'm going in a wrong direction.
But there is a difference between the Blessed Virgin and the rest of us. She was immaculately-conceived. She did have free will and did not sin. As you say, she is "the New Eve." Before the Fall, Eve's soul was not stained with Original Sin. Her soul, like Mary's was immaculate. But Eve freely chose to disobey God, even in her immaculately-created state. Original Sin was the result of that Fall. The Blessed Virgin Mary was a "do-over" for Eve. She was "full of grace," like Eve and given the "free will" to sin. She did not make the same mistake that Eve made. That is her triumph. We and the rest of non-immaculately-conceived humanity are in a different position. We are born with the stain of Original Sin. And even after Baptism the wound is not completely healed and still inclines us to sin. That is why we need Jesus and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the other Sacraments so much. We are easily tempted and fail often. We need the Sacraments to strengthen us on the earthly pilgrimage.
It could be easy for us to think that, although Mary was the first woman, born into the world, to be without sin and never to sin, that She had the advantage over Eve to know what the consequences of sin are. This is a misconception born of our fallen minds limits of thinking. Adam and Eve possessed many gifts that were lost to them and us after the fall. And even if Eve did not fully know, Adam did know (the consequences of not obeying the Creator) and he could have stopped her if he wanted to. He was right there also, next to her, totally failing to protect his wife and then even doing what she did in opposing God’s only limit on them. I would go so far to say Mary had it much harder than them by being brought into an already fallen world and by being opposed by so many, and even joined, Immaculate Heart to Sacred Heart, in the sufferings of Jesus to and to help give birth to Him again in the Mystical Body of His Church until the last day. It comes down to this: Who is a bigger threat to satan? Mary or Eve? This is the great part that God has chosen to give Her as His daughter, His Son’s mother, and His Spirit’s spouse.
It is a great truth that our Lady is the one who has a unique relationship with the Holy Trinity unlike any other created creature, human or angelic. Only the mind of God could will such beauty in a creature.
This is a wonderful response to my post. Thank you. I can only add that Adam's sin can be regarded as a blessed fault in its leading to the necessity of the Incarnation and of the Immaculate Conception, therefore providing us with the Saving Cross and she who will push her heel upon the head of the serpent.
