I see that picture of the seminarians processing with their cassocks and surplices, where they exhibit the exterior trappings of traditional religion, but do they have the faith?
I was just watching a set of videos from the Kolbe Institute (Foundations Restored), and they tie Modernism directly to Evolution ... a connection which I did not clearly see, but was obviously there. Evidently St. Pius X stated that evolution was the biggest weapon of the Modernists, which then led to the undermining of Scripture. So we get this new book by Fr. Robinson which basically caves to modern science. They're literally one logical step away from full-blown Modernism ... if they're not already there.
Is XavierSem representative of their mindset, proclaiming that Protestants are "real Christians." Is so, what's the beef with Vatican II? That's 90% of what Vatican II was about.
Before I write a word, let me say I am quite happy to attend our SSPX chapel, get Mass, get the sacraments and pray. Another benefit is that you get to meet like-minded people going there also and lots of good friends as a result.
But then I heard about a Fr Paul Robinson who taught the seminarians philosophy in Australia. He wrote a book called The Realist Guide to Religion and Science published
by Angelus Press, a
publishing body that produces some marvellous traditional Catholic books. I read Fr Robinson's book and I could not believe that this priest's philosophy was being taught as traditional and that it had the support of the SSPX. Needless to say it lowered my respect for the Society, filling their seminarians with Traditional and Modernist philosophy together under the guise of Church teaching and all that.
As I have repeated endlessly and written in the book The Earthmovers
, modernism began when popes of the Holy Office in 1820 allowed a once defined and declared heretical heliocentric meaning of Scripture to be accepted by Catholics. This 1820 heliocentrism (that had already come under this natural evolutionary theory by the Nebular theory of 1796) was a Trogan Horse designed to rid supernatural belief in human beings replacing it with natural secular belief. It worked, and fooled everyone, even Pope St Pius X who knew the heresy of all heresies was evolution, but it was too late. You see once popes went along with a 'correction' of Biblical understanding in 1820, they DID NOT CONDEMN A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AFTER THAT LEST THEY BE CAUGHT OUT IN ANOTHER GALILEO DISASTER as they believed.
So, when Pope Leo XIII wrote his Providentissimus deus
in 1893, he had to set out Church teaching on Biblical meaning according to the decision of 1820
, a U-turn on Tradition. In this encyclical, the Pope said, or the Mason who wrote it said, some meanings in Scripture must change if science shows they are wrong.
Fr Robinson, and the SSPX, now share this pot-pourri of tradition and Modernism. On his website Fr Robinson has Aquinas and Stanley Jacki as two who influenced his philosophy. In a sɛƖɛctıon of Q&A, I picked out the following to show readers what the seminarians in the SSPX are getting>
Question: Why shouldn’t theological arguments be made for something like geocentrism?
Answer Fr Robinson: For two reasons: a) geocentrism has no direct bearing on matters of faith; b) geocentrism has been soundly disproved by empirical evidence. [Missing here is that all the Fathers held the geocentrism of Scripture to be divinely revealed. If that has no bearing on faith, then nothing else revealed by God in Scripture has either. As for geocentrism being 'disproved,' who are you kidding Fr Robinson. God's word cannot be proven wrong. Anytime you want to take me on about this, let me know]
In regard to a), it is true that Catholic authors of old have drawn some spiritual reflections from the idea of the earth as being at the center of the universe. However, this is not to use geocentrism as a support for the faith, but rather as a means to stimulate reflection in a faith that is already believed.
It is not the practice of the Church to bind her members to believe in a certain interpretation of the Bible, unless a dogma of faith is concerned. [So, are you saying the 1616 decree and 1633 trial of Galileo for heresy never happened, or that they were all drunk at the time they defined and declared to deny a geocentric reading of Scripture was formal heresy?]
But there is no direct connection between geocentrism and any dogma. This is why medieval scholastics, centuries before Copernicus, were able to treat in all freedom both theological and scientific arguments for heliocentrism. This is why Copernicus himself, in his famous book arguing heliocentrism on scientific grounds, also gave arguments why heliocentrism was not against the Bible and also why it redounded more to the glory of God. [More ignorance. Copernicus's book was allowed because in its preface it said only the Bible has the truth asnd this book is for calculatiion only.]
With regard to b), the Catholic Church allows arguments of human reason to sway her interpretation of the Bible. The reason for this is that she jealously defends both faith and reason. And so, once there was solid empirical evidence that geocentrism was false—the most solid evidence did not come until the 19th century, long after the Galileo case—the Church was quite happy to accept that the Bible does not teach geocentrism, the conclusion that Galileo had wanted to force on the Church prematurely. At that point, it was clear to Catholics that they should no longer try to force a literal interpretation on passages of the Bible that speak of the earth being fixed and unmoving.
Question: Does your position on scientific questions represent the position of Society of St. Pius X? Answer: The SSPX does not hold official positions on science. The SSPX is a Catholic organization that holds to all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, full stop. But the Catholic Church has never mandated that Catholics hold to geocentrism or heliocentrism, or that they hold to the Big Bang Theory or any other theory
Question: What do you think of the position of the Kolbe Center on the Bible and science?Answer: While I respect the good will of those at the Kolbe Center, I cannot but remark that they adopt the fundamentalist Protestant stance on the relation between the Bible and science. As I explain in great detail in chapter 7 of The Realist Guide, that exegetical stance has several terrible effects:
- It makes the Bible out to be an enemy of science.[like evolution?]
- It makes religion out to be an enemy of reason.
- It makes God out to be an arbitrary ruler of the universe.
For these reasons, Catholics should adhere to the exegetical principles of the Scriptural encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, which indicate that the Bible is not to be treated as a science book. [Pius XII in Humani Generis said Adam's body could have come from pre-existing matter. Like a living monkey?]
To argue geocentrism on the basis of the Bible today is, then, contrary to the Catholic spirit in reading the Bible.
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
"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."