Author Topic: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE (Read 1665 times)

cassini · « **on:** March 01, 2018, 07:40:09 AM »

The very idea that an SSPX priest is trying to portray a scientific THEORY as the Catholic ex nihilo creative act, a divine act of faith, is to me lowering this dogma to the level of scientism, putting it on the same level of a theory that currently represents an atheist beginning for an evolved universe. I accuse this synthesis as accommodating many of the Pythagorean heresies condemned for centuries by the Early Church Fathers, heresies that reappeared in the 16th and 17th centuries under Bruno, Kepler and Galileo and were once again condemned. For example, a Big Bang beginning precedes a solar-system that includes a moving earth around a stationary sun, condemned in 1616 as formally heretical. This moving earth the Pythagoreans said was caused by a soul, a previously condemned heresy that led to Pantheism, a heresy held today by Big Bang pantheists and atheists.

Another, if one evolved solar-system that includes an Earth full of life can have happened as a Big Bang creation implies, then other such 'worlds' with Earth-like planets cannot be ruled out. This heresy was also condemned by the early Fathers. In the year 748AD Pope Zacharais condemned the heresy that other worlds exist and that men and women lived on them. This censure was repeated by Pope Pius II in 1459. Big Bangism resurrects this condemned heresy, one now believed by modern science, the Jesuits in charge of the Vatican Observatory, and God knows how many others:

[1] ‘In 2009 the Vatican hosted a conference bringing scientists, astronomers and religious leaders together to discuss the implications for religion and human consciousness if the discovery of extraterrestrial life is found. One of the statements made was the fact that extraterrestrials would be part of God’s creation and therefore regarded as our “extraterrestrial brothers.”’ In Sept. 2014, The Christian Post reported that the Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, the new president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation, proposed the eventual discovery of alien life forms after Pope Francis used the analogy that even Martians, should they visit Earth, would be welcome to be baptised. Baptism of course is a sacrament that erases Original Sin found exclusively in the descendants of Adam and Eve. Introducing this sacrament into science-fiction is outrageous.

Oh yes, I know the attitude as depicted in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, that the early Fathers were scientifically IGNORANT and that all these condemnations were totally over the top and that CATHOLICISM CAN NOW IGNORE THEM.

To resurrect even one heresy into the creative act of God by association is enough, but there are other Q&A demoting the Catholic faith to a minimum that need to be aired, which we will do.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2018, 07:58:42 AM »

Agreed.

Not surprised at SSPX resurrecting this heresy since they teach heliocentrism in their schools.

The Soul-Lure System:

https://imgur.com/gjlujOb

cassini · « **Reply #2 on:** March 01, 2018, 08:31:41 AM »

Fr Robinson’s Q&A

So, if you wanted to argue a proposition like "The human race started no later than 10,000 years ago" as being part of the Catholic faith, you would try to build a case from the following authorities:

Sacred Scripture
The writings of the Fathers
Docuмents of the Magisterium

In addition, you would make an argument of reason, but, in the theological argument, the argument from reason alone would not hold as much weight as the arguments of authority.

According to the strength of the argument of authority, theologians give a grade of certainty to the conclusion being drawn. That grade can vary from a mere theological opinion (lowest) to a dogma of divine and Catholic faith (highest). In the case of the proposition mentioned above, I believe it would fall into the category of a theological opinion.
…………………………………………………………………………

SACRED SCRIPTURE:

Katarina Emmerick (1774-1823) for example, the Augustinian nun, wrote

'I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus Christ teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He told them that the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was Himself thirty-one years old.’ ---

Katarina’s age for Jesus Christ is the exactly the same as found in the Scriptures: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941 BC), Abraham 1950 after creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, world on 2000 AD was 5997 years old, 2018 years after Christ was the year 6,014AC and so on.

These are the dates that Moses included in his Genesis. Are we to think he took them out of his head, or was he writing under the inspiration and revelation of the Holy Ghost? Every word of the Bible is TRUE. How then can dates and facts be dismissed as FALSE by 'science theories?

(1) An investigation into Chinese palaeography called God’s Promise to the Chinese by 3 authors (1997) . In a summary of this book, the reviewer states:

‘The three joint-authors have clearly demonstrated, to this reviewer’s satisfaction at least, that the inventor of the original Chinese characters, which were inscribed on tortoise shells and bones, knew and believed in an identical account of creation and Earth’s beginnings to that found in Moses’ Book of Genesis….

The Chinese have always revered their writing system. Calligraphy ranks supreme in their artistic scale of values… Just 142 of the earliest hieroglyphic pictograms contain, in a highly condensed (and therefore mentally portable and ineradicable form) key components of the Book of Genesis. Since the truth or otherwise of the Flood has profound implications for the study of geology, in the Book of Docuмents (Sha Ching), written 3,000 years ago, we read: “The flood waters were everywhere, destroying everything as they rose above the hills and swelled up to Heaven.” ’[2]

The authors go on to show how the earliest Chinese were monotheists who worshiped ShangDi or the ‘God Above.’ For more than 4,000 years they sacrificed to Him in the imperial city of Beijing in what was called the ‘Border Sacrifice.’ Confucius (551-479BC) thought this sacrifice so important that he compared an understanding of it to the efficient ruling of the Chinese empire. The Border Sacrifice ended with the Manchu Ch’ing dynasty in 1911. ]

(2) In his book After the Flood,[3] a 25-year study into Middle Eastern/European palaeography, Bill Cooper traces the early post-Deluge history of the Middle East and Europe. His task was to see if the ‘Table of Nations’ (Genesis Chapter 10 and 11) could be verified in the history of nations prior to Christianity. If he could find a lineage from the Japhetic line in these histories, it would confirm the Bible also recorded true history. Cooper found ample evidence in eastern and western archives to confirm Middle East and European lines are both descended from the Japhetic tree. In Britain, Wales and Ireland he found the records of the early settlers went back 2,000 years, with the same genealogy to European differing only in language. What amazed Cooper was that the records of this history were so easy to find and so evident that he concluded its absence from textbooks, schools and universities had to be a deliberate conspiracy by modernists to uphold their version of things.

Likewise, no bones, buildings, artefacts, cloths etc., should be found older than the dates given in Genesis if the Bible is to be authentic. The usual method of dating such short-life (10,000 years maximum) things is Carbon-14 dating.[4] This dating method however, relies on many assumptions to be accurate[5] and sometimes produces some erroneous dating.[6] Even so, try as they did with it, no trace of any civilisation could be dated with certainty as being more than 5,000 years old. Dr Walter Libby, who won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the Carbon-14 dating method, and who thought his discovery would reveal ‘prehistoric’ times, never found any human artefact older than 5,000 years.

‘“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.”’ [7]

We could go on, but that should be enough to show that, whatever about the propaganda to the contrary, asserting the opposite, the Bible cannot be falsified in its natural revelations by investigations using true science.

[2] Tim Williams: Christian Order, November 2001, pp.629-631.
[3] Bill Cooper: After the Flood, New Wine Press, 22 Arun Business Park, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO22 9SX, England, 1995.
[4] To obtain ‘millions-of-years’ dating, different radioactive materials are used.
[5] Radio-carbon dating relies on two major assumptions: a 32,000-year cycle that may never have been if we do live in a 6,000+-year world: and no other carbon entered the system in its cycle.
[6] In one case for example, a living turtle was dated at 1000+ years old.
[7] A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.

cassini · « **Reply #3 on:** March 01, 2018, 08:59:25 AM »

Fr Robinson’s Q&A

The writings of the Fathers

Of interest is the website:

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_days_church_fathers.html

Dr Millam writes:

'Mook also takes aim at Dr. Hugh Ross’ claims on this subject. Ross’ earliest statements claim that Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas taught that the creation days were long periods of time, which Mook rejects as incorrect. In later books, Ross has backed away from many of those claims but still argues that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and several others taught that the days of creation were 1,000 years each. Mook concludes that while Ross become more nuanced in his claims, he remains substantially wrong.

Unfortunately, few old earth creationists have written about the church fathers and what little they have written is often poor quality (with Stanley Jaki as a notable exception). This scarcity of solid resources is part of what motivated me to research this issue for myself.’

‘Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century. This seems like a fatal blow to old-earth creationism and a strong vindication of Mook’s position but closer examination shows otherwise.'

Personally I have no problem with Augustine's all created together and spread over six days, and the Fatghers who held it as completed in six days as described in Mary of Agreda'a ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’

I also agree with Dr John Millam's research that cannot find any FATHER interprerting Genesis as creation over 13.5 Billion years as Fr Robinson tries to get his readers to accept.

cassini · « **Reply #4 on:** March 01, 2018, 09:32:33 AM »

Fr Robinson’s Q&A

(3) Docuмents of the Magisterium

'As to the Roman Church, about 1580 there was published by authority of Pope Gregory XIII the Roman Martyrology, and this, both as originally published and as revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, declared that the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ.’ - A. White: A History.

Here is a modern website for example:

http://www.unitypublishing.com/prophecy/martyrology.htm

'For two thousand years the Catholic Church has held a traditional belief about the precise age of the world. Ancient Catholic scholars used the best histories and calendars available to meticulously calculate the precise age of the world. The traditional Julian and Gregorian calendars do correspond in many ways to the traditional Jєωιѕн lunar calendar. In 1582 A.D., the Church altered the method of adjusting the calendar, so that it more accurately predicted the earth's actual cycle of rotation around the sun. (bull, the Church held it was the sun that rotated around the Earth in those days)
The Christian time-line of the age of the world changed only slightly in 1582, when astronomers determined the way to improve the calendar. At the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., the Church fixed the Solemnity of the Resurrection to correspond with the Vernal Equinox. Historically, the Resurrection of Christ actually did occur almost simultaneously at the time of the Vernal Equinox. Though the Julian calendar was very accurate, it became annoying to the Catholic Church because it caused the Solemnity of the Resurrection to keep moving further and further into the summer. The changes enforced by the Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, enabled the Church to consistently fix the precise day of the vernal, and autumnal equinox, (the two times during the year when the sun crosses the celestial equator, and when the length of day and night are equal). The older Julian calendar was unable to fix the days of Equinox. This problem was also annoying to scientists and agriculturists, who intended for men to know exactly when to plan to plant crops at optimal times.

The most recent accounting of the age of the world according to Catholic tradition is over 400 old at this point, though it's present form is still almost exactly what it was 1000 years ago. As it is presented below, it reflects the latest change to the Calendar made by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 AD.
This reading has been incorporated into the Liturgy of the Christmas Mass for many, many centuries. It is customary for this to be publicly read from the pulpit, before the beginning of midnight mass on the Solemnity of Christmas. The reading can be found in any complete Roman Missal, (also called: The Sacramentary), under the section of readings for Christmas.'

The Roman martyrology however has now to be brought under Big Bangism's 13.5 billion years. This site does that by saying it took 13.5 billion years to get the earth ready for man when God created Adam.

Liturgical Reading of Midnight Mass
Solemnity of the Nativity
From the Roman Martyrology
In the twenty-fourth day of the month of December;
In the year five-thousand one-hundred and ninety-nine from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
In the year two-thousand nine-hundred and fifty-seven from the flood;
In the year two-thousand and fifty-one from the birth of Abraham;
In the year one-thousand five-hundred and ten from the going forth of the people of Israel out of Egypt under Moses;
In the year one-thousand and thirty-two from the anointing of David as king;
In the sixty-fifth week according to the prophecy of Daniel;
In the one-hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad;
In the year seven-hundred and fifty-two from the foundation of the city of Rome;
In the forty-second year of the reign of the Emperor Octavian Augustus;
In the sixth age of the world, while the whole earth was at peace— JESUS CHRIST eternal God and the Son of the eternal Father, willing to consecrate the world by His gracious coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and the nine months of His conception being now accomplished, (all kneel) was born in Bethlehem of Judah of the Virgin Mary, made man. The birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the flesh.

I have no idea if this martyrology is said at Fr Robinson's christmas Mass or if he has his corrected.

Oh, and by the way, did you know the world has decided to get Christ out of the age of the world. I have seen books now presenting BCE for BC and CE for AD when presenting dates.

cassini · « **Reply #5 on:** March 01, 2018, 12:09:42 PM »

Question: If God could have created the world as explained in the Scriptures, why would he use the Big Bang? Wouldn't that mean that God was trying to hide the way He created things? It could seem that this wouldn't make sense, especially since this way of Creation is much more likely to give impression that the Earth is accidental than the literal Creation?

Answer: In my view, things are exactly the opposite of the way that you portray them. If God created everything fully formed, as described in Genesis, then, based on what we know about planets and stars, they would have the appearance of having been formed over millions of years, but the Bible would be telling us that they were formed in an instant. In other words, the reality that God has created would be telling us one thing and the Bible would be telling us another. That is, in fact, the Protestant position, as I explain in chapter 7 of The Realist Guide. Their idea of God is that He wanted to deceive our minds by creating a world in an instant that appears to have developed over long periods of time. Why would He do this? In order to convince us that the reason that He has given us is useless! I would argue that this is not the God that we worship as Catholics and not really a God that anyone would want to worship.

As for your last question above, no, a divinely-commenced Big Bang, far from making the development of the Earth seem accidental, rather makes it seem extremely carefully choreographed. Look up "fine-tuning of the universe" and you will see what I am talking about. Or read chapter 9 of my book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'If God created everything fully formed, as described in Genesis, then, based on what we know about planets and stars, they would have the appearance of having been formed over millions of years, but the Bible would be telling us that they were formed in an instant.'

Have you ever read such NONSENSE in all your life? 'What we know about the planets and stars,' Fr Robinson says, have the appearances of billion-year-old cosmic bodies. What then do we know about the planets and stars that give the appearance of billions of years old things, NOTHING. Oh, sorry, I know something:

Consider this for what its worth: When it became clear that men could be sent to the moon, scientists said that the moon is 4.6 billion years old, so, because of meteors and falling cosmic dust at today’s calculated rate of bombardment, with no atmosphere to burn them/it, no rain or water to cement or scatter them/it, no wind to pack them/it, there could be up to 50 to 180 feet of dust in places on its surface, making it difficult to land. Two probes, Ranger and Surveyor, constructed with long legs for the deep dust, were sent to investigate. Indeed, Neil Armstrong, first man on the moon, stated to his brother that his greatest fear was the lunar dust awaiting him. As it turned out they found only an inch of powder evenly distributed on the moon’s surface, 6,000 years of it if current calculations of dust falling on the moon are accurate and correct.

Then again maybe Fr Robinson bases his 'what we know about planets and stars' is that they have to be old in appearance if they evolved from a Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago. It seems Catholicism is to REJECT the dogma that 'all that exists outside of God, was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God.' (de fide), in its LITERAL SENSE (like Genesis) and should be read like 'all that evolved into its whole substance, was produced by God out of nothing.' This is MODERNIST CREATION PERSONIFIED as demonstrated by Pope Francis.

‘Vatican City, 27 October 2014 (VIS) – This morning the Holy Father attended the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the Casina Pio IV, during which he inaugurated a bust of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, whom he described as “a great Pope. Great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence, great for his important contribution to theology, great for his love of the Church and of human beings, great for his virtue and religiosity”. He recalled that Benedict XVI was the first to invite a president of this Academy to participate in the Synod on new evangelisation, “aware of the importance of science in modern culture”. Pope Francis chose not to focus on the complex issue of the evolution of nature, the theme the Academy will consider during this session, emphasising however that “God and Christ walk with us and are also present in nature”. “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation,” Pope Francis said, “we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But it is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive and their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the Universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”’ --- Vatican Info Office.

‘God is not a magician, waving a magic wand creating things,’ says Pope Francis. Indeed He is not, for magicians are full of tricks and illusions. God does not need a magic wand; He simply created things immediately, complete according to its kind. Nevertheless, the comparison suggests that God did not, could not, create things complete and in working order. But Genesis tells us that is exactly what God did, one creation after another in a certain order, each depending on the former, over six days in which no development was at all necessary. Such demeaning is the consequence of the Galilean reformation, bringing everything preternatural down to the level of mere scientific theories.

Galileo de-sanctified where we live.

Darwin de-sanctified where we came from.

Explaining consciousness will de-sdajnctify what we are.

(Adam Carley, quoted in ‘love and Curiosity.’)

Mr G · « **Reply #6 on:** March 01, 2018, 12:58:41 PM »

Thanks "cassini" for these posts, you should submit a question to Fr. Rboninson, see if he publishes it.

I wonder if John Salza is going to keep silent about Fr. Robinsons, or would he be brave enough to confront him?

cassini · « **Reply #7 on:** March 01, 2018, 01:28:19 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on March 01, 2018, 12:58:41 PM

Thanks "cassini" for these posts, you should submit a question to Fr. Rboninson, see if he publishes it.

I wonder if John Salza is going to keep silent about Fr. Robinsons, or would he be brave enough to confront him?

I have long learned Mr G that intellectual pride is near impossible to overcome. I have already mailed a question and got my answer. Cosmic evolution is OK, but Darwinism is out. Fair enough, but you cannot have your cake and then reject its contents. The Big Bang is the mother of all evolutionary theories. A friend bought the book and is reading it. I am very angry that the SSPX allowed their society to have anything to do with theistic evolution. Archbishop Lefebvre adhered to 'Genesis in its simplicity.'
I have one more Q&A to discuss.

klasG4e · « **Reply #8 on:** March 01, 2018, 02:02:01 PM »

Quote from: cassini on March 01, 2018, 07:40:09 AM

In Sept. 2014, The Christian Post reported that the Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, the new president of the Vatican Observatory Foundation, proposed the eventual discovery of alien life forms after Pope Francis used the analogy that even Martians, should they visit Earth, would be welcome to be baptised.

Francis who is apparently not adverse to baptizing some nonsensical Martian does not appear to share that enthusiasm when it comes to baptizing those who regard themselves as Jєωs. Let us compare Francis to Pope St. Pius X. In a meeting with Theodor Herzl on 1-26-1904 the saint told the founder of modern day Zionism: "And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready
to baptize all of you."

In terms of Francis being OK with baptizing made up Martians, I am reminded of the story of the uninformed Catholic man who asked his pastor to baptize his dog. The priest said, "Absolutely not! I can't possibly baptize your dog." The uninformed Catholic was highly chagrined at his pastor's response so he went to a Protestant minister who said after a bit of haggling over the price that he could certainly do it, but it would cost $1,000. The date was set for a week ahead and the man immediately went back and righteously informed his priest of the arrangement. The priest blanched and suddenly said, "Well, wait -- perhaps, I didn't quite understand you at first. As long as I baptize it as a Catholic dog, it won't be a problem and I could do it for just half the price." $$$ talks big time in the Protestant Churches as well as in Francis' Novus Ordo world.

klasG4e · « **Reply #9 on:** March 01, 2018, 02:16:40 PM »

Quote from: Mr G on March 01, 2018, 12:58:41 PM

I wonder if John Salza is going to keep silent about Fr. Robinsons, or would he be brave enough to confront him?

He did confront the SSPX school teacher up in Wisconsin who was erroneously teaching heliocentrism as opposed to geocentrism to one of his children, but that was a good number of years ago. Since then he most unfortunately scrubbed his website of all its superb geocentrism material for reasons which I won't review here. I think some of you may already be well aware of one or more of those reasons. Hopefully, he will one day put the geocentrism material back up. It was an outstanding source of concise information and truth.

cassini · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2018, 03:21:15 PM »

Question: Do you no longer believe in the creation story in Genesis?
Answer: I read Genesis in the way that the Catholic Church has directed her children to read it. The Church indicates that Genesis 1 is meant to teach us important dogmas of faith, but is not meant to teach us science. Here is a summary of what we are held to believe and what we are not held to believe.
What Catholics are held to believe from Genesis 1-3

There is one God, outside of the universe, who created that universe from nothing, such that it had a beginning in time.
God created man directly and Eve was formed from Adam.
Monogenism – the entire human race has a single set of first parents.
Our first parents were created in a state of original justice, with gifts of integrity and immortality.
They fell from that state by sin and the wound of their sin was communicated to the entire human race.

What Catholics are not held to believe from Genesis 1-3

the universe is a certain age, the Earth is a certain age, the human race is a certain age.
the universe developed in a certain way

This is why Cardinal Ruffini, a staunchly orthodox Cardinal at Vatican II, wrote the following in his book The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith:
"God could very well reveal (and who doubts it?) in what order and in what time He made the various things appear in the world; but in His inscrutable wisdom He preferred to leave such questions to human research."

The above 'Catholic teaching,' is what I call POST-GALILEO 'teaching,' whose history can now be understood by way of long study and docuмentation that came available from the Vatican in the 20th century. It is without doubt the dogma of Modernism, for if the bible can be made comply with fraud and lies, then so too can any other teaching be brought up to date.

When popes were conned into believing what the Fr Robinsons of the 18th and 19th century were telling them SCIENCE had proven about the universe, there was a Galilean Reformation within the Church. The Bible reveals a moving sun. This was the reading and belief of all the Fathers. To them THEOLOGY WAS THE QUEEN OF SCIENCES. That the sun moved around the Earth was a REVELATION OF SCRIPTURE. Revelation in Scripture is infallible teaching, no matter what it REVEALS, whether it is the Virgin Birth or that it was water and not milk that Jesus turned into wine. Now the Council of Trent, called by the Church that accepted the geocentrism revealed in Scripture, decreed that any Scriptural revelation held by all the Fathers must be held by Catholics even though "interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light."

From 1741 to 1835, churchmen and philosophers began to believe science had proven the FATHERS GOT IT WRONG. After 1835 when the last heliocentric book was taken off the index and Rome ordered all who deny the earth moves around a fixed sun WERE TO BE PUNISHED, the "teaching" of the Church had to undergo a REFORMATION with regard to the Scriptures and their new found QUEEN OF SCIENCE, ie., Galileoism.

The history of this reformation is now known. Because of the LIE that the Fathers, popes and theologians up to 1741 supposedly got the geocentric wrong, the 'teaching "the Bible is not meant to teach us science,' as Fr Robinson repeats above, became a "teaching of the Catholic Church.' Well now, this new teaching let loose an army of biblical reformists, hitting on anything in the Bible that smacked of 'science.' Noah's Flood became a local flood with Noah and his big Ark that took a 100 years to build floating on a LAKE. Genesis was likewise dismissed as a story made up for religious purpose. In response to this attack on every 'scientific' aspect of Scripture Pope Leo XIII wrote the first Encyclical trying to stop the ROT. He said every word of the Bible was truth. But then he had to address the hidden Galileo reformation and address that infamous biblical U-turn of 1741 to 1835. In went the infamous paragraph, never mentioned Galileo, but undermined every word he had written (if he did write that encyclical). Accordingly, all one had to do was quote Leo XIII on Galileo and it was reinterpret at will.
And that is why 27 years later Pope Benedict XV had to write another encyclical on biblical interpretation. This work was magnificent, never gave an inch to science, and reiterated the Bible is true in every word it says. But the Fr Robinsons still quoted Leo XIII and carried on with Lemaitre and his Big Bang creative act. Finally, Pope Pius XII, a public Big Bang believer, in a third encyclical, bowed down to the Galilean Reformation and opened the Bible up to modern science.

The flock could now believer any idiotic and imbicilic theory of science and still call themselves Catholic. THEOLOGY AS THE QUEEN OF SCIENCE no longer prevails in the Catholic Church. Then the heliocentrists of Vatican II took over, with their Big bang and their other worlds. The Church is now an EMPTY SHELL of its pre-Galilean Reformation, and it all came from WITHIN, just as Fr Robinson's MINIMAL CATHOLIC BELIEF ABOVE SHOWS.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2018, 06:14:11 PM »

Anyone besides me laughing at the absurd irony of an SSPX priest using the "Bible doesn't mean to teach science" schtick used by Jaynek?

Mr G · « **Reply #12 on:** March 02, 2018, 09:42:12 AM »

Here is what I found on Fr. Jaki, whom Fr. Robinson is using as his inspiration for this book...

http://www.catholicstand.com/fr-stanley-jaki-on-the-fatima-miracle/

Father's conclusions: The Miracle of the Sun was not the sun, but ice crystals! The main miracle was that the event inspired so many people! Read for yourself and see if that is how you understand it also.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2018, 11:19:15 AM »

Quote from: Mr G on March 02, 2018, 09:42:12 AM

Here is what I found on Fr. Jaki, whom Fr. Robinson is using as his inspiration for this book...

http://www.catholicstand.com/fr-stanley-jaki-on-the-fatima-miracle/

Father's conclusions: The Miracle of the Sun was not the sun, but ice crystals! The main miracle was that the event inspired so many people! Read for yourself and see if that is how you understand it also.

The SSPX teaches that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. If after reading all the dogmas on EENS, they can come to that conclusion, then there is nothing that they can write about that is not suspect. There is no teaching of the Catholic Church, that is as dogmatically defined as EENS, yet the SSPX completely denies all those dogmas in their teaching that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards. What is one to make of their teachings on other subjects which are still speculative like the sedevacantes question, the Vatican II church, Vatican II, the validity of new bishops and priests, and in this case Creationism?

Well, my answer is that I totally dismiss everything they teach, just like Fr. Robinson's book. I would not read the first page. The SSPX are blind guides and dupes, at least those that teach that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards, I have not found one SSPX priests that does not go along with the teaching that that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards.

They are so blinded by their love of smells and bells that they do not realize that Vatican II was all about brainwashing Catholics to believe that non-Catholics can be saved by their belief in a God that rewards.

Author Topic: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE (Read 1665 times)

cassini

Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Smedley Butler

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

cassini

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

cassini

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

cassini

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

cassini

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Mr G

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

cassini

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

klasG4e

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

klasG4e

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

cassini

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Smedley Butler

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Mr G

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE

Last Tradhican

Re: Fr Robinson's (SSPX) Q&A ON HIS REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE