Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science  (Read 7637 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 511
  • Reputation: +153/-210
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • So you are now the arbitrator of facts?!  Stanley, your real grudge is not with me.  It is with Robert Sungenis who you have showed disrespect to in this thread.

    As for honor and integrity, it is because of any honor and integrity that I possess that I do not retract my accusation of defamation.  I publicly stand up here for the honor and integrity of Robert Sungenis which you have attacked in this thread.  He, himself, has defended himself concerning the type of accusation you have made against him and I am in complete agreement with his defense.
    You may agree with Sungenis' take on this - that's an opinion. Perhaps he didn't really realize how bad it looks to take a degree for Calamus. He does have a legitimate Master's degree. He could have stayed with that.
    But he did get a PhD from Calamus and Calamus is generally regarded as a diploma mill. Feel free to look that up yourself. You should find pages like 
    http://board.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB 
    A diploma mill does not mean absolutely zero standards. Most diploma mills have some standards, but they are lower than regular universities. And diploma mills obviously award diplomas - that's their business.
    As an aside, where I work we had a candidate for a job who had an online undergrad. Our HR department told us it would not let us hire someone who listed on their resume any entirely online degree at any level beyond high school, even if it was accredited! (Unaccredited degrees are also disqualifying.)

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2000
    • Reputation: +1128/-162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You may agree with Sungenis' take on this - that's an opinion. Perhaps he didn't really realize how bad it looks to take a degree for Calamus. He does have a legitimate Master's degree. He could have stayed with that.
    But he did get a PhD from Calamus and Calamus is generally regarded as a diploma mill. Feel free to look that up yourself. You should find pages like
    http://board.thecb.state.tx.us/index.cfm?objectid=EF4C3C3B-EB44-4381-6673F760B3946FBB
    A diploma mill does not mean absolutely zero standards. Most diploma mills have some standards, but they are lower than regular universities. And diploma mills obviously award diplomas - that's their business.
    As an aside, where I work we had a candidate for a job who had an online undergrad. Our HR department told us it would not let us hire someone who listed on their resume any entirely online degree at any level beyond high school, even if it was accredited! (Unaccredited degrees are also disqualifying.)

    You refer to my agreement with Sungenis as an opinion.  My opinion is irrelevant to the matter at hand.  What is relevant is the truth. 

    On page 6 of this thread you stated in reference to me: "So thank you for pointing out that Sungenis appears to have a fake PhD."  The truth of the matter is that I only referred to the fact that he had a Ph.D., never to anything indicating that it was fake.  It was entirely you who jumped to the conclusion that his Ph.D appeared to be fake.  Since then you have doubled down and not retracted your assertion that Sungenis' Ph.D. appears to be fake.  You would rather refer to links such as the one you provide above to support your belief rather than to what Dr. Sungenis has stated to the contrary.  So be it.

    Defamation can be express or implied.  Your defamation lies in implying that Robert Sunenis is a dishonest person because he is running around with a fake Ph.D.  It saddens me to see this defamation spread on CathInfo.  I have tried to defend Dr. Sungenis' good name in this thread and I leave it to the readers of same to decide for themselves where they stand on the issue.


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2000
    • Reputation: +1128/-162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • At about 3 minutes into this audio which can be heard at either of the two following links Fr. Robinson gives a very superficial and incomplete response to the issues raised by the article posted on the Kolbe Center's website (http://kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/): https://gloria.tv/video/CzBzjNRHbFr84xUbveKNKCjQZ  orr  https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/sspx-podcast/e/56585744?autoplay=true

    The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
    Admin / Media Reviews / 0 comments
    The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
     
    Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX
    Gracewing Publishing, 2018
    556 pages


    This book was written by a priest, Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX, who has a Master’s Degree in Engineering Mathematics and Computer Science from the University of Louisville, Kentucky.  He has been teaching Thomistic philosophy and theology since his ordination into the SSPX in 2006.  So you would think that a priest with a background in science, philosophy, and theology would be able to come up with a good treatment of the very controversial topic of origins.

    Fr. Robinson’s way of determining the reasonableness of a position is to apply his Epistedometer to it.  Epistemology is the study of knowledge.  True knowledge comes from knowing what is real, what is in accord with reality.  The left-most position of the epistedometer is the intellect-only position; the position that denies the senses/body.  The right-most position is the senses-only position; the position that denies the intellect/soul.  The middle position is the realist position; the position that recognizes intellect/soul and senses/body.

    If you want to know Fr. Robinson’s world view, all you need to do is look at the bibliography in the back of the book.  The most entries from one author, by far, are books and articles by Fr. Stanley Jaki (1924-2009).  He was a Benedictine priest who had doctorates in theology and physics.  So it is clear that Fr. Robinson held Fr. Jaki in high regard.

    One problem with people who spend their lives in academia is that they have an abundance of theoretical knowledge, but a comparative lack of practical knowledge.  There are only so many hours in the day.  There is also a tendency for academians to defend each other from non- academians.  Otherwise, the institutions of higher learning look bad.  So academians are predisposed to give credit to their fellows, especially on subjects outside their own field.

    This book has three sections: Reason, Religion, and Science.  Fr. Robinson spends many words on describing how you can know anything and what we take for granted.  If there were no reality or no way to know it, any discussion of it would be a waste of time.  Further, if there were no cause-effect relationship, you would not know what to expect and so you could not predict anything or develop rules of behavior.  So scientific studies assume effects have a cause.  You also do not have time to investigate everything by yourself, and your brain is limited.  So you have to trust other people, especially those in positions of authority.

    Up until the modern scientific era, starting in the 1600’s, the focus of knowledge beyond basic survival was religion.  Fr. Robinson explains how most pagans are pantheists and believe everything runs in cycles, like the natural seasons.  Aristotle was the pinnacle of pagan philosophy, but his ideas about nature were mostly wrong in the details.  Muslims started off badly but did learn quite a few things from the Greeks during the decline of the Roman Empire.  Unfortunately, their god is not a god of reason.

    The height of Catholic thought was reached by St. Thomas Aquinas.  He purified the ideas of Aristotle, and even though he had little interest in physical sciences, he contributed greatly to the advancement of science after his time.  He found the balance between reason and authority.  Protestants gave up the religious authority of the Catholic Church when they adopted a Bible-alone belief system.

    Fr. Robinson shows that modern, atheistic scientists err when they think that there is nothing beyond nature.  It is clear that nature had an origin outside of itself, especially when you consider the odds of a living cell coming from non-life.  Atheistic scientists tend to make a god out of nature or evolution, and despise any authority other than their own.

    So Fr. Robinson recognizes that life could not come from non-life naturally, and that evolution has limits in its ability to change an organism.  However, he also realizes that a literal interpretation of Genesis flies in the face of the teachings of modern science.  So what is a religious with a background in science to do?  Put God in your science!  Fr. Robinson takes the position of progressive creation, which is a form of theistic evolution.

    Unfortunately, he grants too much credibility in fallible human hypotheses in natural science and not enough trust in the Word of God as understood in His Church from the beginning.  Aquinas and other churchmen have recognized that the truth of religion and the truth of science cannot be in conflict since they come from the same ultimate source.  If natural science were able to conclusively prove a fact that did not square with a given interpretation of the Bible, then the interpretation would have to be questioned.  St. Robert Bellarmine said so when he was prosecuting the Galileo case, although he did not think the movement of the earth was proven.

    One concept that Fr. Robinson accepts without question is uniformitarianism, the idea that things happen now at about the same rate as they have been happening in the past.  That idea is agreeable to scientists, but contrary to the idea of a global Flood.  However, St. Peter warns that: “in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying: Where is his promise or his coming?  For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they are willfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” (2 Peter 3:3-6) So St. Peter prophesied 2,000 years ago that people like Fr. Robinson would come along, scoffing at the Word of God, thinking everything has been the same as it ever was, and denying the Flood.

    Fr. Robinson also discredits the Biblical teaching of waters above the firmament, even though it is stated three times (Gen. 1:7, Psalms 148:4, and Daniel 3:60) and scientists have detected a form of water in space.  When speaking about the waters above the heavens, Augustine said: “These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect.  Hence, whatever these waters are, and whatever their mode of existence, we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there.”  Aquinas agreed with him.  This should be our attitude when dealing with realities that are so explicitly and repeatedly stated in the Word of God.

    Fr. Robinson also picks three concepts from the Bible that he thinks modern natural science has disproven: 1. geocentrism, 2. a young earth, and 3. a global Flood.  His defense of the consensus view in natural science in opposition to those ideas is weak, at best.  He cites stellar parallax (the observation of near stars in slightly different positions every six months) as a proof against geocentrism, even though a geocentric model of the universe with those stars revolving around the Sun could also account for that.  He cites radiometric dating as a proof of an old earth, even though there are many assumptions built into it, and there are very discordant dates from the various dating methods and laboratories.  Never mind the fact that dinosaur bones have been dated to thousands of years old and that some have been found with soft tissue, red blood cells, and intact proteins and strands of DNA inside of them which obviously cannot be millions of years old!  His argument against a global Flood rests on one quotation from the French Catholic Biblical scholar Vigouroux, mostly complaining about the number of animal species required to be on the ark and the amount of water needed to cover the mountains.  Those can both be reconciled by assuming that only pairs of family/genus “kinds” of animals were on the ark, and that the mountains were lower and oceans shallower at the time of the Flood. (This is a reasonable assumption, since the highest mountain ranges all over the Earth show evidence of having been uplifted after multiple layers of sediment had been laid down by the Flood and before those sediments had hardened into rock.)

    The Bible explicitly says three times that the earth does not move (Psalms 92:1, 95:10, and 103:5 DRB).  It also states three times that the world was created in six days (Gen. 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) and the Genesis genealogies are given in exact years.  The long account of the Flood in Genesis, the words of Our Lord and St. Peter regarding that event, the witness of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, together with the Church’s understanding of the Flood as a foreshadowing of Baptism should solidly establish the fact of a global Flood in the mind of any believing Catholic.
    Our Lord said, concerning the Second Coming: “And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, and they knew not till the Flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matt. 24:37-39) Since the Second Coming will be a global event, Christ chose the Flood as another global event from history for a comparison.  To deny the global Flood is essentially to call Our Lord Jesus Christ a liar or mistaken about a fact of history.

    So, Fr. Robinson does a good job of explaining that there is a reality created by God and how we can know it.  His advocacy for a balanced position between intellect/soul and senses/body is very good.  His criticism of the concept of life evolving from non-life and his recognition of the limits of evolution is also helpful.  However, Fr. Robinson gives far too much credit to fallible human hypotheses in natural science in thinking that geocentrism, a young earth, and a global Flood have been disproven, contrary to the Bible.  His acceptance of uniformitarianism, which was specifically condemned by St. Peter, is disturbing, especially in light of the anathema of Vatican Council I ten years after Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species against anyone who would say that “the progress of the sciences” demands that any dogma of the faith be understood in a different way. At the time that anathema was handed down, Blessed Pope Pius IX made the Roman Catechism the gold standard for teaching the dogmas of the Faith throughout the world, and the Roman Catechism clearly teaches the fiat creation of all things at the beginning of time, in direct opposition to theistic evolution or progressive creation over long ages.

    It is ironic that Fr. Robinson’s main authority, Fr. Stanley Jaki, believed that special creation required God to intervene in the natural order, when St. Thomas and all of the Fathers and Doctors held that God created all of the different kinds of creatures for man in the beginning and then stopped creating new kinds of creatures.  Thus, it is progressive creation—which requires that God intervene periodically to create new kinds of creatures—which confuses the supernatural order of creation with the natural order of providence, not the true Catholic doctrine of creation which clearly distinguishes between the supernatural work of creation in the beginning and the natural order which began when the work of fiat creation was finished.  What is most disturbing is Fr. Robinson’s dismissal of the global Flood with his only defense being one quotation from Vigouroux, since the Flood is so solidly established by the Holy Bible, by all of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, and by the very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

    Eric Bermingham
    May, 2018

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1740
    • Reputation: +985/-113
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • But do not blame the Fr Robinson's of this time, for they have inhereted this nonsence by way of popes. I recently came across a website book on papal speeches to the Academy of Sciences. What I read from popes in the last century would make your hair curl. Copernicus Galileo, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Voltaire Einstein and others are God's gift to mankind and religion. You read 'science' enhanced people's faith in the Creator and Catholicism. Look up the index on Galileo, the new St Science of the popes and you will not believe what they say about faith and science.

    http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv100.pdf
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I am surprised that no one responded to my latest find on this subject of Genesis and origins. The Fr Robinson's are only following the instructions given by popes since 1835 at least if not since 1741. Some of the stuff in their 'addresses' to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, cloaked in pious language, plunged the Catholic faith to 'modern science,' science that began when they all rejected the real cause of Creation and built it around the science of heliocentrism, uniformitarian long ages, Big Bang evolution over billions of years.

    Go read some of Pius XII's stuff and it puts Fr Robinson into the half-penny place. Here are a few examples.

    On December 3rd 1939, Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences within a few months of his election to the papacy, was again praising Galileo as a great scientist and Roman Catholic. No one involved in this scientific academy it seems, could put two and two together, i.e., and recall that science had long admitted Galileo’s heliocentrism was never proven a scientific fact, nor that the scientific evidence favoured the geocentrism upheld by the Bible, the Fathers and the popes of 1616 and 1633. Of interest is that the Pope’s address was named ‘Man Ascends to God by Climbing the Ladder of the Universe,’ which was practically a copy of the name Cardinal Bellarmine gave his book of 1614, The Mind’s Ascent to God (by the Ladder of Created Things), a book that has a geocentric ‘ladder’ to God. Alas Pope Pius XII’s ladder was ‘heliocentric.’
    In his talk Pope Pius XII had this to say;

    ‘With the joy of knowledge, you, elected geniuses, add the art of the search of truth, and then return to your studies and laboratories, rich in the thought which is the result of having conquered an enigma, so as to add to the admirable treasure-store of science. This is the way of human progress, a difficult avenue to take, marked by the footprints of the most audacious heroes of research from Thales, Aristotle, Archimedes, Ptolemy, from Galileo to Bacon, to Leonardo da Vinci, to Copernicus, to Kepler, Newton, Voltaire, Pasteur, Curie, Hertz, Edison, Marconi and one hundred more names that one could add; and to you who, having received the flame of investigation and knowledge, will pass it on with greater brilliance to even younger heroes, who are not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks of the way nor are they fearful of the funereal monuments erected to the glorious souls who have died along its path.’

    Just as a reminder, here is what Voltaire had to say in 1771 about the Catholic Church when it defined geocentrism as formal heresy.

    ‘Miserable human beings, whether in green robes, turbans, black robes or surplices, cloaks and neckbands, never seek to use authority when it is a question only of reason; or consent to be scoffed at throughout the centuries as the most impertinent of all men, and to suffer public hatred as the most unjust. A hundred times has one spoken to you of the insolent absurdity with which you condemned Galileo, and I speak to you for the hundred and first, and I hope you will keep the anniversary of it for ever; I desire that [this] be engraved on the door of your Holy Office:
        “Here seven cardinals, assisted by minor brethren, had the master of thought in Italy thrown into prison at the age of seventy; made him fast on bread and water because he instructed the human race, and because they were ignorant.”’ --- Selected and Translated by H. I. Woolf, New York: Knopf, 1924.
    On 8th February 1948, Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Academy

    ‘”I do not know how I appear to the world, but to myself I appear like a child, who plays on the shore of the sea and rejoices, because he finds every now and then a smoother pebble and a less well-known shell than usual, while the great ocean lies before him unexplored”. These words of Newton, today, after three centuries, in the modern ferment of the physical and natural sciences, sound more than ever true. Of Simon Laplace we hear that, while he was lying ill and the friends who where around him were remembering his great discovery, he replied, smiling bitterly: “that which we know is small, but that of which we are ignorant is immense.”’

    Recall Bonaparte asked Laplace - who modified Immanuel Kant’s Nebular theory, the first ever evolutionary theory as to how the heliocentric solar system came about - where God fits in with his theory. Laplace replied: ‘Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.’ The Pope then moves on to Edwin Hubble and his billions of years of an expanding universe. Next comes the age of the Earth, with radioactive dating the Earth five billions of years, followed by meteorites aged also at five billion years.  

    ‘Although these figures are astonishing, nevertheless, even the simplest believer would not take them as unheard of and differing from those derived from the first words of Genesis, ‘In the beginning …’, which signify the beginning of things in time. These words take on a concrete and almost mathematical expression, and new comfort is given to those who share with the Apostle an esteem for that Scripture, divinely inspired, which is always useful– to teach, to prove, to correct, to educate...
    How different and reflecting great vision is the language of a modern top grade scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, a Pontifical Academician, when he speaks of his researches concerning the age of the world…“We may perhaps without impropriety refer to it as the Creation. It supplies a concordant background to the view of the world which is suggested by the geological evidence, that every organism ever existent on the earth has had a beginning in time. If this result should be confirmed by later researches, it may well come to be regarded as the most momentous discovery of the age; for it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, such as was effected four centuries ago by Copernicus”








    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2000
    • Reputation: +1128/-162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • But do not blame the Fr Robinson's of this time, for they have inhereted this nonsence by way of popes. I recently came across a website book on papal speeches to the Academy of Sciences. What I read from popes in the last century would make your hair curl. Copernicus Galileo, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Voltaire Einstein and others are God's gift to mankind and religion. You read 'science' enhanced people's faith in the Creator and Catholicism. Look up the index on Galileo, the new St Science of the popes and you will not believe what they say about faith and science.

    http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv100.pdf
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I am surprised that no one responded to my latest find on this subject of Genesis and origins. The Fr Robinson's are only following the instructions given by popes since 1835 at least if not since 1741. Some of the stuff in their 'addresses' to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, cloaked in pious language, plunged the Catholic faith to 'modern science,' science that began when they all rejected the real cause of Creation and built it around the science of heliocentrism, uniformitarian long ages, Big Bang evolution over billions of years.


    On pp 1-2 of Robert Sungenis' new 564 page book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Sicence" we find this remarkable passage: "A good friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX confided the following to me: 'Let me just note that being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation, and who would not even have considered geocentrism as an option , and who were open to certain forms of evolution.  The SSPX has always been a mix of ideas of everything that was still considered orthodox in the 1960s.  Those in authority have feared to accept new creationist and geocentric proofs which have come forth since the 60's, and have willed to keep a 60's - 70's mentality, despite new proofs, or have not been willing to consider as serious science anything which has come forth from geocentric or creationist arguments.  I know, however, several priests open to geocentrism, etc., in the SSPX.  You will also note that Father Robinson's book was curiously published by Gracewing Publishers and not an SSPX publisher such as the Angelus Press.  Perhaps Father Robinson wanted a wider readership, at the same time Angelus Press might have realized that such a book would rock the boat among SSPX faithful."

    I personally know of one SSPX priest who in a seemingly rather daring move a few years ago not only invited Dr. Robert Sungenis to his parish to speak on geocentrism, but also set up a public debate between Sungenis and another individual on the subject of geocentrism at the local state university.  The university audience was initially rather hostile to Sungenis, but in the end he carried the day when a final vote tally was taken of all those in attendance.


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2000
    • Reputation: +1128/-162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • In all seriousness, can anyone think of a worse (and more dangerous and more scandalous) book that has ever been officially sold by the SSPX in their entire history than The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX?  Surely, this is one of the greatest testaments to how far astray the leadership in the SSPX has gone.  They need to be made aware in the strongest of terms that the book is outright modernism, plain and simple.

    https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science

    Offline Geremia

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3026
    • Reputation: +835/-174
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation
    What's wrong with that? There's not unanimous consent among the Fathers on the exact duration of "day" (yom) in Genesis.
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5539
    • Reputation: +3027/-135
    • Gender: Male
    • Love God and Play, Do Good Work and Pray
      • Julian Moore
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • What's wrong with that? There's not unanimous consent among the Fathers on the exact duration of "day" (yom) in Genesis.
    I don't think that allows for what they believe though. They do not just say a "day" meant a billion years, they reject everything about the creation account, not just the length of a "yom." And they do not accept any of the other theories proposed by other Church fathers, whatever they were. What is the point of God giving a creation account that is not true, and not only not true, but so false that no Christian ever found out what it really meant until three thousand years later after Darwin came around and nearly all Christians believed it meant pretty much what it said and none of them found the true meaning. Such a God would be a deceiver to me. So much for a God "who can neither deceive or be deceived." We would have a trickster god who tells us lies and tests our faith by lying to us about the world and when the lies turn out to be false, asks us to still believe in him not knowing what is true or false and just saying blindly "I believe" without knowing what you are believing.
    I Love Watching Butterflies . . ..


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2000
    • Reputation: +1128/-162
    • Gender: Male

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • In all seriousness, can anyone think of a worse (and more dangerous and more scandalous) book that has ever been officially sold by the SSPX in their entire history than The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX?  Surely, this is one of the greatest testaments to how far astray the leadership in the SSPX has gone.  

    They need to be made aware in the strongest of terms that the book is outright Modernism, plain and simple.


    https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science
    .
    Anyone who isn't sure just what this "Modernism" is ought to hear Fr. Jenkins' 3 videos on Pascendi.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2000
    • Reputation: +1128/-162
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Anyone who isn't sure just what this "Modernism" is ought to hear Fr. Jenkins' 3 videos on Pascendi.
    Amen!


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Amen!
    .
    One small part of the Kolbe Center's response to Fr. Robinson's reaction --- 
    .
    St. Maximilian Kolbe: A Suitable Patron for the Kolbe Center?
    .
    In Fr. Robinson’s critique of the Kolbe Center, he acknowledges that St. Maximilian Kolbe rejected microbe-to-man evolution but demonstrates that in one of St. Maximilian’s articles he wrote that “science teaches” some kind of natural development of stars and galaxies over long ages of time.  Fr. Robinson notes that the Kolbe Center gives seven reasons for having chosen St. Maximilian as its secondary patron after the Immaculate Conception, but he finds it extremely ironic that the Kolbe Center would chose as its secondary patron a man who was willing to entertain the possibility of long ages of cosmic development and something along the lines of Big Bang cosmology.
    .
    In reality, far from being an embarrassment to the Kolbe Center, the fact that our secondary patron was mistaken in his acceptance of long ages only underscores the folly of tracing the roots of the current crisis of faith to Vatican II, since the pseudo-scientific assault on the literal historical truth of the sacred history of Genesis appears to have entered the seminaries of Europe during or soon after the pontificate of St. Pius X, and clearly affected St. Maximilian’s understanding of the development of stars, galaxies, and the solar system.
    .
    However, this knowledge makes us even more confident of St. Maximilian’s intercession on our behalf, since from Heaven we know that he intercedes all the more fervently on behalf of our efforts to restore the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation as the foundation of our faith and of all effective evangelization.  Indeed, if St. Maximilian were on Earth today, we have no doubt that he would eagerly support the work of the Kolbe Center and join us in defending the traditional doctrine of creation in every respect, including the traditional Biblical chronology of the world and the special creation of all things at the beginning of time.  We say this for several reasons, the most important of which revolve around the single most important concept in the theology of St. Maximilian Kolbe—after the Incarnation—the Immaculate Conception.
    .
    In his writings on the Immaculate Conception, St. Maximilian predicted that theologians would continually derive new insights from their meditation on this mystery.  In the last piece of writing that he penned before going to the starvation bunker in Auschwitz, St. Maximilian demonstrated that, with the words “I am the Immaculate Conception,” Our Lady of Lourdes gave the lie to the diabolical deception of human evolution.  He explained:
    .
    Who then are you, O Immaculate Conception?
    .
    Not God, of course, because he has no beginning. Not an angel, created directly out of nothing. Not Adam, formed out of the dust of the earth (Gen. 2,7). Not Eve, molded from Adam’s rib (Gen. 2,21). Not the Incarnate Word, who exists before all ages, and of whom we should use the word “conceived” rather than “conception”. Humans do not exist before their conception, so we might call them created “conceptions.” But you, O Mary, are different from all other children of Eve. They are conceptions stained by original sin; whereas you are the unique, Immaculate Conception (St. Maximilian Kolbe, Sketch: Feb. 17, 1941).
    .
    With these words, St. Maximilian revealed the consoling truth that in 1858 at Lourdes the Immaculate Conception, our Blessed Mother, gave the lie to the diabolical deception of human evolution on the very eve of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Indeed, if theistic evolution is true, then Adam and Eve must have been conceived in the womb of a sub-human primate.  And since theistic evolutionists must believe in the dogma of Original Sin as defined at the Council of Trent, they must hold that Adam and Eve were “conceived without sin.”  Therefore, if theistic evolution were true, the Blessed Mother would have had to say, “I am AN Immaculate Conception,” or “I am Immaculate Conception Number Three.”  But She did not say that—because, as St. Maximilian explained in the passage quoted above, Adam and Eve were created, not conceived.
    .
    If St. Maximilian Kolbe had been allowed more time to ponder the mystery of the Immaculate Conception, we have no doubt that his meditation would have led him to the realization that the long ages of progressive creation, with its conflation of the order of creation with the order of providence, cannot be harmonized with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, rightly understood.  We say this for several reasons.  In the first place, it is important to recognize the profound connection that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church made between the first created world and the Immaculate Conception.  St. Bridget of Sweden, Doctor of the Church, beautifully illuminates this connection in the office that the Bridgettine Sisters have prayed for more than six hundred years and which they pray to this day:
    .
    God’s creation of the world and all it contains
    took place in the instant of His Will’s expression;
    and with that design and perfection foreseen by Him.
    Yet there remained still uncreated another work of creation which would surpass what He had already done . . . Mary, we may see in God’s act of creation . . . an image of your creating.

    .
    With these words, St. Bridget acknowledged that the only thing more beautiful, more perfect, than the first created world is the Blessed Virgin Mary herself.  In light of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, this insight underscores the impossibility of death, deformity, disease, or other natural defects, like harmful genetic mutations, in the first created world before the Original Sin, because the existence of these natural evils in the first created world would render it incapable of serving as a type of the Immaculate Conception.  Yet progressive creationists, like Fr. Robinson, teach that God intervened to create the different kinds of plants and animals in a world that he himself (the god of evolution or progressive creation) filled for hundreds of millions of years with death, deformity, extinctions, and disease.
    .
    The collapse of Big Bang cosmology and its fantastic and evidence-less conjectures regarding the formation of stars and galaxies, the undisputed reality of genetic entropy within the biosphere, and the overwhelming evidence for the centrality of the Earth in relation to the rest of the universe, would only have confirmed for St. Maximilian the first perfection of the first created world as an essential element of its character as a type and foreshadowing of the Immaculate Conception.  Indeed, in light of these considerations, the founder of the Militia Immaculatae who was always quick to defend the immaculacy of the Blessed Virgin against the slightest slander would have been the first to insist on the completeness of the universe at its first founding, meaning that all of the different kinds of creatures, each one perfect according to its nature, necessarily existed together at the same time, with man, and for man, in perfect harmony at the beginning of creation.  In one of his writings, St. Maximilian observed that:
    .
    The proximate purpose of a creature is the particular purpose for which it is made. This particular purpose serves as a means of attaining the ultimate goal. Now (as we have said) the reflection of God’s perfections is the purpose of all creation (St. Maximilian Kolbe, KW 1248 ).
    .
    In light of the fact that the diseased, deformed, and defective creatures contained in the fossil record cannot reflect God’s perfections as completely as the first of each kind of creature that God created in the beginning of time, progressive creation appears to be quite incompatible with St. Maximilian’s understanding of the purpose of creation as “the reflection of God’s perfections.” Indeed, contemplating the current state of the scientific evidence in the light of the Immaculate Conception, it is safe to say that no one would have been quicker than St. Maximilian Kolbe to acknowledge the absurdity of attributing natural evils to the universe before the Original Sin, as all progressive creationists and theistic evolutionists do.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18156
    • Reputation: +8248/-633
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Where Fr. Robinson is so hasty to presume that present-day observations of stellar changes in distant places in deep space necessarily translates to changes that must have been taking place millions of years ago so as to form our present universe, he presumes too much. For our current understanding of gravitational attraction leads us to think inherent gravity is insufficient to bring scattered dust clouds in outer space together to form planets. At the time of St. Kolbe, however, that was not yet the common thought of astronomers and scientists. So the saint could have easily been mistaken based on inadequate science of his own time.
    .
    In Fr. Robinson’s critique of the Kolbe Center, he acknowledges that St. Maximilian Kolbe rejected microbe-to-man evolution but demonstrates that in one of St. Maximilian’s articles he wrote that “science teaches” some kind of natural development of stars and galaxies over long ages of time. 
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Online Struthio

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 617
    • Reputation: +153/-107
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • @klasG4e

    The link does not work.


    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16