Author Topic: Interesting history leading up to the new mass one should know. (Read 1711 times)

cassini · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2022, 02:39:29 PM »

Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, the changes all began with Copernicus. Well, not really, had the pope studied Church history as well as their Big Bang evolution of the world he would have found in the secret archives records of these same heresies being condemned in the early centuries of the Catholic Church, just as Professor A. A. Martinez found and recorded in his book Burned Alive. But there are other philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of the Big Bang of theoretical physicists.

Marcello Pera writes: ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’ (Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.)

ServusInutilisDomini · « **Reply #6 on:** July 04, 2022, 05:37:12 AM »

Quote from: cassini on July 03, 2022, 02:39:29 PM

Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, the changes all began with Copernicus. Well, not really, had the pope studied Church history as well as their Big Bang evolution of the world he would have found in the secret archives records of these same heresies being condemned in the early centuries of the Catholic Church, just as Professor A. A. Martinez found and recorded in his book Burned Alive. But there are other philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of the Big Bang of theoretical physicists.

Marcello Pera writes: ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’ (Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.)

Great quotes, thanks.

cassini · « **Reply #7 on:** July 04, 2022, 06:35:20 AM »

Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on July 04, 2022, 05:37:12 AM

Great quotes, thanks.

Not for one second however, do I suggest that any pope involved in modernist scientism acted out of wrongful intention or outright malice. Rather they acted in ignorance, receiving false information from those advising them, and through pressure ‘to do the right thing for the Church’ as they thought. Little did they know what they were contributing to as the following comment from an atheist in 1879 reveals!

‘The scientific Christians now admit that the bible is not inspired in its astronomy, geology, botany, zoology, or in any science. In other words, they admit that on these subjects, the bible cannot be depended upon… If the people of Europe had known as much of astronomy and geology when the Bible was introduced among them, as they do now, there never could have been one believer in the doctrine of [divine] inspiration. If the writers of the various parts of the bible had known as much about the sciences as is now known by every intelligent man, the Bible never could have been written. It was produced by ignorance and has been believed and defended by its author. It has lost power in the proportion that man has gained knowledge. A few years ago, this Bible was appealed to in the settlement of all scientific questions; but now, even the clergy confess that in such matters, it has ceased to speak with the voice of authority. For the establishment of facts, the word of man is now considered far better than the word of God. In the world of science, Jehovah was superseded by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, [Newton, Darwin, Lyell, Einstein and Teilhard de Chardin]. All that God told Moses, admitting the entire account to be true, is dust and ashes compared to the discoveries of [science]. In matters of fact, the Bible has ceased to be regarded as a standard. Science has succeeded in breaking the chains of theology. Some years ago, Science endeavored to show that it was not inconsistent with the Scriptures. Now, Religion is endeavoring to prove that the Bible is not inconsistent with science. The standard has been changed’ (Robert G. Ingersoll: Some Mistakes of Moses, Book Tree, 1879)

We see again, in this diatribe, reference to the part ‘intellectuals’ played in the move from sensory and Biblical geocentrism to ‘scientifically proven’ secular naturalism. Intelligence, the extent or ability of one’s reasoning, while a great gift from God comes with a high price tag, especially when engaging in matters challenging traditional Catholic dogma, theology, and metaphysics. Saint Augustine once affirmed: ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’ In 2015, an exorcist in Barcelona said of all the sins preferred by Satan, pride was the greatest. We all want to be clever, and the cleverer the better; fallen man revels in ‘vainglory in one’s own reasoning’ as Galileo boasted. Such a talent produces an interior, personal and social satisfaction that is irresistible to those that have it. It can bring honour, glory, respect, advantage, reward, and fame to some who excel in any given field of knowledge, especially when telling all in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences I am with you all the way with your science. Sir Francis Bacon understood this very well with his ‘knowledge itself is power.’ However, conforming and contributing to a consensus can be a path to success among one’s peers, but in regard to origins, the temptations involved here are enormous, for intelligence can also be the source of pride. The great intellectual saints such as Augustine, Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Bellarmine all knew that intellectual pride is an area that Satan has not neglected. These men refused accolades and honours, preferring instead to embrace humility and exalt divine authority and teaching.

For if you did believe Moses, you would believe Me also;
for he wrote of Me.(John 5:46)

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Interesting history leading up to the new mass one should know. (Read 1711 times)

cassini

Re: Interesting history leading up to the new mass one should know.

ServusInutilisDomini

Re: Interesting history leading up to the new mass one should know.

cassini

Re: Interesting history leading up to the new mass one should know.