Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: cassini on May 10, 2018, 08:40:03 AM

Title: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 10, 2018, 08:40:03 AM

Just finished reading this book on Faith and Science by Fr Paul Robinson (SSPX), a book now advertised on THE ANGELUS website and I am sure promoted in their journal.

As philosopher, Fr Robinson is unable to say anything in short clear language. Instead one has to labour through page after page and you end up not knowing exactly what his view on many things are. Having made faith and science my own interest for the last 40 years, nearly every conclusion I have come to, Fr Robinson tries to dismiss in many ways.

Before I say any more let me summarise the two differences between us. My position is that the Catholic position as regards faith and science today has be shaped 100% by the 400 year old Galileo case, a conflict of faith and reason that for 400 years has been understood by all to have been lost by the Church. 6,000 books, millions of papers, articles and websites since 1636 tell us the Church was proven wrong by science and it had better REFORM its position on faith and science.
     In other words there are two versions of faith and science within Catholicism, pre-Galileo faith and science and post-Galileo faith and science, a traditional position and what I call the Modernist one. Alas popes since 1835 at least have been sucked in to the post-Galileo position on faith and science, the Modernist one.

There is also today a divide in many other spheres of Catholicism, a divide that has caused traditionalists to separate themselves from the Modernists to the extent that many traditionalists now refuse to go to their parish churches and go to different churches to receive the sacraments in different rites, and to hear traditional Catholicism taught from the pulpits. 

On the matter of faith and science, well there is a dilemma for traditionalists here. You see the thing is that most traditionalists believe all popes were traditional in the Church until Vatican II, so when it is said popes considered within the traditional time played their part in the faith and science reformation that led to Modernism, that upsets them and truth is lost to ideology.

In the last 50 years or so, it has emerged, with evidence that is absolute, that the Church of 1616, with its tradition of geocentrism, was never proven wrong. Now this fact should have caused dancing in the streets of Rome, for the Church, having been ridiculed for hundreds of years, could now be vindicated as never having been wrong in its tradition, it traditional way of reading Scripture, its papal decrees, in its trial of Galileo, in its ban on heretical heliocentric-favoured books etc. Instead the assault on those churchmen of 1616 continues. 

‘The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

Alas, this admittance by science that the 1616 Church was never wrong presented a far worse scenario to the Church in that it means churchmen since 1741 , especially popes, were the ones who committed a far worse error than the 1616 Church was supposed to have committed. The Church of 1616 was following tradition, but the popes in the post-1741 era who accommodated the rejection of a geocentric doctrine for a heliocentric one did so in opposition to papal decrees, the Fathers defending a geocentric interpretation of the Bible. But even worse than that, for they had created a pro-Galileo exegesis and hermeneutics of Scripture. In so many ways, an excegesis for the church BASED ON THE LIE THAT GALILEO WAS PROVEN RIGHT BY SCIENCE.

So, what happened, did the truth prevail, no. By then the whole world, in both Church and State, accepted a heliocentric philosophy and theology, so if they left well enough alone, who would be the wiser. It was Albert Einstein the Pantheist who gave them a way out, as Pope John Paul Ii demonstrated in 1992. Einstein said that science had now to accept there is no proof for Heliocentrism, nor geocentrism. So science offers a CHOICE. Now if churchmen chose heliocentrism they can carry on as before with their pro-heliocentric exegesis and hermeneutics, just as they did before, contrary to the Church of 1616. The Encyclicals are thus saved and all the ridicule against the Church of 1616 and 1633 is also seen as vindicated.

And that is what this Book by Fr Robinson tries to do. Defend the post-Galileo exegesis, a book I will discuss in later threads. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 10, 2018, 05:52:43 PM
Fr. Robinson appears to continue in the way of the junior high school teacher Jason Winschel whose cover article about Galileo appeared in The Angeluls.

The following is an excerpt from the article: ‘On the other hand Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’   J.T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.

Winschel was an ex-seminarian at STAS in Winona!

Winschel's article can be seen here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2235 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2235)


Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 11, 2018, 06:34:13 AM
In the preface of this book, Fr Robinson sets out his task, 'a well guided tour of realism's take on religion and science disputes,' adding philosophical meat to Fr Stanley Jaki's writings as a scientific historian. Fr Robinson tells us he has taught 'various branches of Thomistic philosophy.' When I read of such philosophers I immediately think of of what Andrew White wrote about St Thomas;

 ‘With great power and clearness,’ wrote Andrew White, ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas, the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the “Angelic Doctor,” brought the whole vast [Geocentric] system, material and spiritual, into its relation to God and man,’ a composite of theology and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church.’

Search as you might, none of these philosophers acknowledge any such geocentrism of St Thomas. Indeed the opposite is the case, for Fr Robinson uses St Thomas, and St Augustine, another geocentrist, to argue the case against such a literal interpretation of Scripture. More on that later in the book.

Fr Robinson's REALISM, how we relate to reality. Quoting St Thomas he adds 'All knowledge has its starting point with sensation of the outside world.'
There is a chapter on realism, one being the senses. great I thought, he will have to deal with one contradiction at least, we see a geocentric universe, we live in it. I cannot help knowing later he will explain how we must ignore this particular sense even after portraying it as the no 1 physical KNOW.

Next chapter 2 is on CAUSES. Given the heliocentric fraud has as its ROCK causes invented by Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, I noted this chapter of 36 pages..
Next chapter 3 sets out ways of KNOWLEDGE. I don't think we need go over its 40 pages, do we?
We are now over 100 pages into the book.
Next chapter 4 PAGAN PANTHEISM. 44 pages. We know about their gods etc.
Next chapter 5 CATHOLIC CREATIVITY. Faith and science. God created natural laws.  Aristotle cleansed of pagan ideas etc.
Finally, on page 167 we come to Catholicism and the Bible. Begins well, placing the Church first, the Bible second, that is, it is the Church that teaches Catholics us about the Bible. A 'Jaki points out' is here and there. What you will not find in this book is that Church teaching that the Bible reveals a moving sun. But more on this ommission later. We are still in the learning pages, how to think up heliocentrism stage of the book.

Aquinas's contribution to science and philosophy that helps us understand things.One is that Aquinas anticipated the same (HELIOCENTRIC) mentality with which the great names of modern science would approach. [Einstein?] Then arises MOTION, another ROCK upon which Newton built up his heresy. Fr Robinson tells us  Fr Jean  Burdian French scholastic philosopher of the 13th century opened up this subject of causes of physical motion. Fr Robinson then begins to show how all this Burdianism adds up 'The Newtonian and Einsteinian phases of science which later postulated laws for the universe as a whole were steeped in that same epistemology.' All this stuff is building up to show it was CATHOLIC THINKING that led to true science of cosmology, helio big bangism. 41 pages of it

Next chapter 6  MUSLIM MONOTHEISM. no interest, 32 pages. page 232 now, all philosophical talk so far, yes 232 pages of it.

Next chapter 7 PROTESTANT BIBLICISM. Things getting heated up. More later.



Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 11, 2018, 11:57:06 AM


 ‘With great power and clearness,’ wrote Andrew White, ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas, the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the “Angelic Doctor,” brought the whole vast [Geocentric] system, material and spiritual, into its relation to God and man,’ a composite of theology and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church.’

Search as you might, none of these philosophers acknowledge any such geocentrism of St Thomas. Indeed the opposite is the case, for Fr Robinson uses St Thomas, and St Augustine, another geocentrist, to argue the case against such a literal interpretation of Scripture.

I wonder what take, if any, Fr. Robinson has on the Doctor of the Church St. Hildegard who wrote extensively and with profound insight on the nature of the geocentric universe.  Possibly one of the very best books on this from a traditional Catholic perspective is The Geocentric Universe According to St. Hildegard by Dr. Rober Sungenis.

St. Hildegard, an eleventh century German mystic and Benedictine Abbess, was called the most gifted woman of the epoch and was gifted with insight into cosmology that far exceeds the theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.  (The fullest exposition of the St. Hildegard's cosmological writngs is found in her Liber Divinorum Operum or Book of Divine Works.)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 11, 2018, 12:15:19 PM

Fr Robinson's REALISM, how we relate to reality. Quoting St Thomas he adds 'All knowledge has its starting point with sensation of the outside world.'
There is a chapter on realism, one being the senses. great I thought, he will have to deal with one contradiction at least, we see a geocentric universe, we live in it. I cannot help knowing later he will explain how we must ignore this particular sense even after portraying it as the no 1 physical KNOW.



Mark Twain, although no apologist for Christianity, nevertheless spoke and wrote rather wisely at times.  The following might be apropos here:  "You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus."  (From Twain's,  A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 11, 2018, 02:43:21 PM
CHAPTER 7, Protestant biblicism.

Begins with 'reason is the devil's greatest whore! (Martin Luther)

Exactly what Fr Robinson meant by quoting Luther I do not know, especially when it comes to the Bible and reason. In this sphere, Luther was spot on

This chapter begins with a debate between Bill Nye (atheist) against Ken Ham, 'arch-creationist' as Fr Robinson calls him. Fr Robinson tells us that Nye pressented 'a barrage of scvientific arguments supporting the Big Bang model of the universe' '13.7 billion years ago and the solar system 4.6 billion years ago.' Nye used science to preach atheism, Ham used the Bible to preach science.' 'Where we may ask, was the truth of all this.'

Let me digress. Here is one of the best talks about atheists and their Big Bang.
https://youtu.be/kdLQheSRA70 (https://youtu.be/kdLQheSRA70)

Now while Fr Robinson had his Fr Buridan and his excommunicated Franciscan William of Occam  working on a Catholic, Big Bang 13.7 million year old universe and 4.6, yes, 4.6 billion year old solar system, not 4.25 billion years old, 13.7, Luther is a Scripture alone, faith alone creationist.

On page 246 we get our first lesson about the Bible and science from Fr Robinson. 'What truths did God and the authors intend to convey in the Bible' Fr asks, for those who do not know that every word in the Bible is true. Two paragraphs later, he gives reasons why you cannot teach faith language and science language at the same time. 'FOR EXAMPLE,' (I bet you can guess the example he uses) after a long detailed story about Sally taking place in the early morning, even if the term sunrise is used, we would 'err scientifically.' Fr Robinson, as a heliocentrist of course, is giving us the very same EXCUSE conjured up since 1700 by churchmen to turn the sunrise of Scripture into a metaphor. What Sally really experienced, according to Fr Robinson was of course her turning around with the whole earth.

Next he call the firmament of Genesis as a roof, and points out the absurdity of God being able to create plants before He creates the sun. God it seems, is not as omnipotent as we we Catholics were led to believe. Only the likes of Luther would fall for that absurdity using faith alone. Oh no, biblical creration must be scientifically plausable

'The answer is obvious from the very beginning of the Bible which presents serious challenges for anyone seeking to find properly scientific information about the formation of the world., at least to anyone possising today's extensive knowledge of the universe's true architecture.' (p.248)

CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE.

Now remember there is a pre-Galileo case interpretation (Pope Paul V, Urban VII and Bellarmine's)and a post-Galileo interpretation. The pre Galileo one said it reveals a moving sun, the post-Galileo interpretation says the sun doesn't move.

'Principles of interpretation. Only for salvation, Fr Robinson teaches, everything else  falls outside the Bible's scope. 'This is not to say the Bible does not teach natural truths; it is to say that the Bible  teaches natural truths only insofar as they are needed to support supernatural truths.' Did you get that?
Let us find an example. God stopped the sun for a day to allow a battle to be won. Would you say that was a natural truth of physics or a supernatural truth. Is a miracle of a stopped sun not a supernatural event and a physical truth?

More tomorrow
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 12, 2018, 07:49:31 AM
P251 Catholic understanding of Genesis 1.

To summarise Fr Robinson's thinking, God created the world. That is all Catholics need to believe after Galileo showed the Church how to read the Bible. Catholics can now think what they like. Protestants on the other hand, can interpret it literally, just as God told us when, how, and in the order it happened. Poor Protestants, totally ignorant that it started with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and evolved thereafter. This makes creation more like 13.7 bíllion miracles ago. These Protestants actually believe God created all ex nihilo, that is, not by way of miracles that would be necessary to turn dust into sponges and then into elephants. It seems, as Fr Robinson infers, Protestants are less 'educated' that members of the Catholic Church.
   
Let us now read some of the now redundant literalism that Fr Robinson would have his Catholioc readers believe. It is from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

‘I Believe in God, Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth. He followed no external form or model; but contemplating, and as it were imitating, the universal model contained in the divine intelligence, the supreme Architect, with infinite wisdom and power – attributes peculiar to the Divinity – created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created.’ The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of His fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations [Psa. 103:5: You fixed the Earth upon its foundations, not to be moved forever], and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place that He had founded for them…. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plants and flowers, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of creatures…. Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes.’

We can now DUMP TRENT'S version of Genesis. Then there are other accounts that can now be dumped into the Catholic FAIRY-TALE BIN. There is St Hildegard as GlasG4e says, and Mary of Agreda. Here is some of her revelations of 1637, FOUR YEARS AFTER GALILEO WAS FOUND GUILTY OF SUSPICION OF HERESY.:

'Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them…. [Genesis: creation of heaven, Earth, sun, stars, flora, fauna and mankind.] ....Of the first day Moses says that “In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.” And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men; and the Earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the Earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18, 2). The heavens in their beauty manifest His magnificence and glory, because in them is deposited the predestined reward of the just. And the Earthly firmament announced that there would be creatures and man to inhabit the Earth and that man should journey upon it to their Creator. Of the Earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights. God created the Earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned. The Lord was presently to divide the light from the darkness and to call the light day and the darkness night. And this did happen not only in regard to the natural night and day, but in regard to the good and bad angels; for to the good, He gave the eternal light of his vision and called it day, the eternal day, and to the bad, the night of sin, casting them into the eternal darkness of hell.'

Are we to take most of the abover as NONSENSE, like Hell at the centre of the Earth, as Our Lady of Fatima showed the children?

St Augustine Fr Robinson points out, was one of the first to question the six day creation. He tells us Augustine 'was puzzled as to how the light created on the first day could exist without there being light bearing bodies that were only created on the fourth day.' How could there be days without the sun to cause them. Accordingly he concluded all must have been created immediately and recorded in Genesis as spread over a week. Well, today we really do know light is only an effect of electromagnetism, and can be created without the sun. If St Augustine saw an electric bulb lighting up a dark room he would be amazed. The idea that God could not create light before the sun is to be putting a limit to God's omnipotence, and I am surprised to read St Augustine questioned this. Anyway, from 7 literal days to an immediate creation, hardly gives Catholicism licence to turn 7 days into a ten billion year creation, does it?

More later
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 12, 2018, 09:02:04 AM
Fr Robinson continues page 251:
'Up to the 18th century there was not overwhelming evidence against a literal understanding of Genesis,'
Now what evidence does Fr Robinson give us to show God couldn't have created all in six days? None here at any rate.
In his chapter on Protestant Biblicism as he spells it, Fr Robinson really gets down to his efforts to undermine the 'creationists' the young earthers and geocentrism. He singles out Robert Sungenis and makes a joke of the $1000 for anyone who can prove geocentrism false, writing no one has ever done this 'in his mind.' We then get a lesson on the Flood of Noah. A global flood presents 'scientific difficulties' he says, listing the reasons why Genesis was exaggerating when it said it was global.

Finally in his geocentrism Fr Robinson illustrates STELLAR PARALLAX giving it an exclusive heliocentric interpretation as proving the earth orbits the sun and can give us a distance for many near stars. At this stage you can DUMP this book as a science book. The book then goes into radioactive dating, usuall stuff. What he does not refer to is Robert Gentry's book that shows the rock formed on earth in a year (of the flood).

http://www.halos.com/books.htm (http://www.halos.com/books.htm)

http://www.halos.com/book01/book.htm (http://www.halos.com/book01/book.htm)

When Fr Robinson addresses Gentry's (Dsc. hon) findings, then I will listen to him.

Next chapter is SCIENCE SUICIDE p.305. In it we get the lot, the history of the universe from Copernicus to Newton, 40 pages of their anti-geocentric illusions presenterd ass SCIENCE.

Next chapter GODLIKE UNIVERSE, p.350 to 390.
Beginning with Hubble's interpretation of red-shifts, and ignoring Gentry's list of scientists who differ in interpretation, even that Copernicus said a geocentric universe would result in an expanding universe, his readers are offered the Big Bang extrapolation as SCIENCE. Fr George Lemaitre is the CATHOLIC SCIENTIST that we can rely on to prove a big bang happened and is is Catholic, and what was good enough for Pope Pius XII should be good enough for all catholics. He goes into a philosophical story of an infinite universe that is also not an infinite universe if you can know what he means.  Then we get Einstein, with not a word about the fact that Einstein admitted a geocentric universe is as plausable as a heliocentric one. He does not tell his readers that Einstein's special theory of relativity - the one that kept the 1887 M&M experiment from showing the earth is NOT IN ORBIT - has been FALSIFIED TO DEATH. No, his SSPX readers are given the whole bundle as SCIENCE.

On page 386 Fr Robinson credits Christians (like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton?) as overthrowing pagan ideas of the universe. 'Astounding discoveries were made about the LAWS of the universe.' Fr Robinson asserts. THIS IS NONSENSE, HIS LAWS ARE INVENTIONS, AND INVENTIONS ARE NOT LAWS. If science says the universe can be geocentric or heliocentric, then the LAWS of the universe ARE NOT DISCOVERED.This is a book offering SCIENTIFIC FICTION.

There is another 100 pages on the evolution of everything. Without bothering to read it I know it is an effort to support theistic evolution in preference to evolution by chance. Any 100 pages on evolution is pure waste of paper, trying to make nonsense worthy of debate.

What is ABSENT from this Book is the Church's 1616 and 1633 position on the heliocentric heresy Fr Robinson is trying to get his readers to believe. Nor do we find the Church's teaching on creation like so:
‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) --- Vatican I.

Faith in this book is optional, science is its GOD.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 12, 2018, 03:55:47 PM
Faith in this book is optional, science is its GOD.

Father Denis Fahey C.S.Sp.
  so rightly stated: "The world must conform to Our Divine Lord, not He to it"

And a properly/correctly informed Catholic is to view science through the lens of his true faith not to view his true faith through the eyes of science.  For a pagan what one day may be considered true according to science may the next day be considered falsified by that same science.  Our objective and absolute -- yes absolulte! -- doctrinal Catholic faith, however, is timeless.  Its truth is absolute.  It does not change and like God it cannot change.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on May 12, 2018, 07:12:05 PM

There is another 100 pages on the evolution of everything. Without bothering to read it I know it is an effort to support theistic evolution in preference to evolution by chance. Any 100 pages on evolution is pure waste of paper, trying to make nonsense worthy of debate.
.
Perhaps after you calm down you can at least go through those 100 pages and hit some highlights for us?
If Fr. Robinson is mixing truth with error that would be worth pointing out.
Or where he contradicts any of the dogmatic Councils of the Church or definitions of the Popes, that would be good to know about.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 13, 2018, 05:07:08 PM
.
Perhaps after you calm down you can at least go through those 100 pages and hit some highlights for us?
If Fr. Robinson is mixing truth with error that would be worth pointing out.
Or where he contradicts any of the dogmatic Councils of the Church or definitions of the Popes, that would be good to know about.

And I thought I was getting away easy Neil.

Fr Robinson begins with a 2008 documentary by Ben Stein called Expelled exploring the repercussions falling on academics who dissent from ‘the standard conclusions of modern empiricist science. While this is the main focus of the documentary, it has for its leitmotiv the investigation of life origin expectations.’ This leads to intelligent design or by chance.

Now I am only on the first page and I see already what I am about to read, Fr Robinson using his mind to rubbish the possibility of chance, and argue for intelligent design. You see if you are a 13.7 billion year old big Banger, as Fr Robinson is, and a Catholic, you have to rubbish chance evolution and have God operating the evolutionary machine. Now Genesis says God finished all on the sixth day, but does even theistic evolution ever finish? Isn’t evolution a never ending process, I wonder if Fr will address this.

Anyway he lists four chancers:

Biologist R.Dawson ; ‘Intelligent design people are not genuine scientists.’

Biologist P.Z. Myers: ‘Intelligent design is a racket!’

Philosopher of science M. Ruse: ‘It’s really very stupid.’

Cosmic origins, Chemicals hit with lightening give it life.

Ruse says it was evolving crystals.

Dawking says he doesn’t know how it started.

Here is a philosopher on Dawkins:  https://youtu.be/kdLQheSRA70 (https://youtu.be/kdLQheSRA70)

There followed Fr Robinson’s eight page philosophy of life. Finally we come to a paragraph Forming a place for life. ‘How do you get the raw atomic stuff and make a plant? For one thing you are going to need a third generation solar system… the reason is that all life is carbon-based… So, how do you get carbon if you start with a big bang? Fr quotes The Privileged Planet, explosions after explosions. Fr comments: ‘So, only massive stars form heaver elements like carbon… This cycle would have to take place at least twice before our sun and planet Earth could be formed if that took place 4.55 billion years ago.. to get the elements needed for life on Earth.’…. but we grant our planet could have formed by merely natural processes without direct intervention by God or an immaterial agent.

Formation of CellsAs for the Earth, life had to get started quite soon after the planet’s formation. Scientists have found fossils in rocks 3.5 billion years old. That is an awful lot of time, surely enough for a nice, simple. little life form, like a bit of mould or a clump of alge or a juvenile protoza.’ ‘There is no such thing as a simple life-form. Fr goes into the problems we are all aware of, cells, DNA etc.. ‘Chance is 1 in 000000000000000000000000’

Pages later Fr says under paragraph Irrational Attachments to Unintelligence; ‘The fact is that evidence for a non-material origin for life is overwhelming.’ Fr then goes into pages of stuff debating the problems, but does not tell us directly.how he gets life in the Big Bang. Its as if he is allowing God to make the breakthrough somehow, using the already evolved chemicals etc.

Before you know it on page 421 he has The Search for Aliens. Again he quotes others and says aliens  is a product of the natural origin of life myth. He ends saying  it is only possible if a higher intelligence causes it. Again we see him sitting on the fence, simply dismissing a natural cause for these evolutions.

Chapter Summary To try to get a sentence in this book that tells you something is a hard job. Here is what you have to read: ‘The universe has a basic order in that all non-living things have a certain configuration that makes them act in a most consistent way. Because of their homogenous matter, their regularity, and their consistency, human minds are easily able to quantify and measure them. This makes them most apt for the consideration of the exact sciences, specifically physics. In that sense, their material and efficient causality is more evident to us than their final causality.’ Now how in God’s name are your ordinary guys and gals to make any sense of that lot? He ends with : ‘In the next chapter, we will conclude our analysis of scientism by considering materialistic explanations for the evolution of life forms and human intelligence.’

11 UNSPECIFIED SPECIES. P433. Begins with Dawkins quote. Then he goes on to Darwin, his story, his philosophy.
Ten pages later he has paragraph Evolution and Empirical Evidence. ‘My criticism of evolutionary theory thus far have only considered its capacity to explain all reality solely through material efficient causes – this is empiricist evolutionism… if this were true it would in no way detract from the glory of God.’ He then agrees there is evidence of micro-evolution, even if he takes a page or two to say this. He agrees with the fossil records like sponges in 3,000,000,000 year old strata. Goes into detail, pages on DNA, mutations, proteins, cells etc. to find out his opinion is impossible, its all about  examining what others say.

Evolution and the Origin of the Human Species.

‘history of life on Earth is that of an extremely gradual stepwise progression from a single cell to human beings, with no breaks or jumps to be found at any time, no sudden introduction of life forms more complex than previous life forms. Humans cannot be detached from this scheme, and so they too must be a long-term result of gradual process.’ One minute Fr Robinson writes about Darwin’s theory and then he writes the above. Is the above based on Darwin’s theory or his own? Again and again one does not know if he is stating another’s belief or his own. From Animals to Humans.  Can Animals Speak? Two more chapters of pages of analysis debating the pros and cons of these ideas. Then ‘At the end of the day, establishing the precise origins of the human species is beyond the reach of empirical science.’

Summary of this section (chapters 8-11)

Fr begins with praising Kepler, Galileo and Newton ‘accompanied with empirical proofs.’ There are no proofs, but try telling him that. But natural evolution is discrediting science (2 pages).

EPILOGUE

Begins with Dante, who describes modern man as ‘off the track of truth’ ‘Ironically today’s empirical science has become today’s religious ideology. P.501

It seems Fr spent 100 pages showing natural evolution of all is full of problems. Nowhere does he say how God filled the universe over that 13.7 billion years, so maybe we are simply to accept it, theistic evolution by way of miracles. If someone else finds a clear, one sentence written by Fr Robinson telling us how theistic evolution works, then I am listening. Telling us nature cannot do it is only half the story.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 13, 2018, 10:53:12 PM
Thanks much cassini for plowing on with this unpleasant (to say the least) and laborious task.

Perhaps, you would like to add a comment on the issue of plausible denial.

I am not going to call anyone names here, but I know that modernists are very adept when it comes at writing in such a way that allows them some plausible denial when they are confronted.  If you were to put yourself in the shoes of Fr. Robinson do you think you could make a good case of plausible denial on various issues and if so just how actually plausible would it be?

Was it not for their skilled exercise in plausible denial that allowed a lot of their modernist trash to sneak under the Index radar back when that radar was in effect?

I just read (for the umpteenth time) the Oath Against Modernism, the document instituted by a great saint only to be wiped away in the post Conciliar Revolution.  Query as to how Fr. Robinson's book would hold up to the letter (or if not the letter than at least to the spirit) of the Oath?!

P.S. On a somewhat interesting (and ironic?) side note of sorts, I mention here that Fr. Robinson's stepfather authored the article The Heliocentric Hoax.  It can be found at https://jeranism.com/the-heliocentric-hoax-written-by-james-v-forsee/ (https://jeranism.com/the-heliocentric-hoax-written-by-james-v-forsee/)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 14, 2018, 02:33:14 PM
Plausible denial:

Interesting subject klasG4e. In this case we are dealing with a matter of formal heresy. In 1741 after Isaac Newton and the discovery of stellar aberration, most intellectuals began to reject faith (the Church's 1616 decree) and favour human reason. By 1820 the vast majority in Church and State believed heliocentrism was proven, and this came to a head in the Holy Office of that time. But there were some still defending the papal decree of Pope Paul V, expecially Fr Filippo Anfossi, Master of the sacred Palace and a few others of the Holy Office. On the other side was Fr Benedeto Olivieri who was pushing for a heliocentric ban to be abandoned in favour of heliocentrism. As we know, by then popes were making pro-heliocentric decisions, ending up with their accepting heliocentrism over geocentrism completely.
Any recollection of these facts result in the likes of the following: 'Are you saying popes were responsible for bringing heresy inside the Catholic Church? For even inferring this you are banned from this Catholic forum!'

Now interesting how such accusers react to anyone retelling history as it is. Not even Galileo was found guilty of heresy because unless you know what is in anyone's heart and mind, they cannot be accused of personal heresy. It is not the messenger who called heliocentrism heresy, but the Church of the 17th century. So if it was introduced into the womb of the Church, then it was popes who allowed it in. But then we have to distinguish between formal heresy and material heresy. According to the rule, formal heresy is deliberate, a direct denial of a dogma. But what if the denial is not deliberate, but based on a belief that the heresy cannot be a heresy because one believes it is proven not to be a denial of a papal decree? Then it is material heresy with no sinful consequences for that person. Not one churchman involved, do we accuse of a deliberate denial, for all were fooled into ignorance, thus material heresy.

But then there is another side to this dilemma. Fr Anfossi in 1820 insisted there was no proof, and that the 1616 papal decree was irreversable. For him it was a matter of faith not human reason. Had he believed in heliocentrism his would have been formal heresy because he knew the decree was irreversable and never proved wrong by science. Indeed other lay philosophers of the time knew the 1616 decree defining belief in a fixed sun solar system was never falsified. In other words at the time when the popes gave the go ahead for heliocentrism, there was not a 100% agreement that the 1616 decree was proven wrong. So, can one abandon a defined definition on the basis of something that was not 100%? Does this doubt not make the fear of formal heresy a consideration? When a person is told heliocentrism was never proven and that it was decreed formal heresy to believe in it, is one not risking some degree of consequental heresy by chosing to believe in it anyway? Can one claim non-consequental material heresy without it being 100% certain?  

Now Fr Robinson is well aware that geocentrism was never proven wrong. He read Sungenis's book but laughed at it. He is a fan of Einstein who admitted to the world it was as plausable as heliocentrism. and, just like every person that went to school on Earth, he knows about the Galileo case and the fact that the Church ruled heliocentrism formal hersey. So is he guilty of heresy, and is it 100% material, or 99% material or 98% or what? If I told him to his face it was formal heresy, never abrogated, could he claim material heresy when he goes before his God to be judged for what he wrote about and taught in his SSPX seminaries?

These are the contradictions brought about by that 1741-1835 rejection of the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V. Satan drew the elect into a trap that had many consequences, the elimination of God's visibility in His creation, Modernism, and now that the fact that the Church's 1616 decree was never falsified is known, a situation in God's Church that in fact the DOCTRINAL ERROR was in 1835 and not in 1616. Indeed it has been known since 1835 that the Church's decree was never falsified by science, but ignored by every single churchman so as to be at one with the secular world. Intellectual pride took over from the truth.

I will end here KlasG4e with a most interesting quote that says it all:

‘Christ warned us that life on Earth is a test, full of temptations. God’s enemy, Satan, will do anything to keep us from reaching heaven. Therefore, whoever wants to follow God must restrain themselves in this life and concentrate all efforts on finding a way to heaven. No wonder that during the Middle Ages Christians were occupied with the afterlife. Such thoughts occupied the minds of the majority, but in all societies there are those who try to approach the matter from a different angle. Such men tried to reconcile the simple teachings of Christianity with ancient pagan theories of philosophy, astronomy and science, to gain full knowledge of God.

    Then came the Renaissance, the rebirth of pagan culture, philosophy, literature, and art, and the thousand years’ peaceful development of Christianity was over. More and more, mankind took their eyes from heaven and focused them on the Earth. The Renaissance changed considerably the way of thinking. Those, who earlier had readily sacrificed their lives to gain in exchange the Eternal One, suddenly discovered the sweet pleasures of Earthly life. Adopting the pagan, mainly Greek and Roman, ways of life and thinking, many aristocrats, princes and kings gradually became sceptical about religious truths. Soon they started to question the authority of the Church over them. The first target of the worldly rulers was the Earthly property of the Church, but soon her spiritual authority became the subject of profane inquiry, which leads to the open rebellion of the Protestant Luther against the spiritual authority of the Church.

    At the Protestant Reformation, both the temporal and spiritual power of the Church was destroyed. No wonder that in such an atmosphere the knowledge of God (theology) also became the subject of heated debates. The most vulnerable part of theology [we now see was creation as literally depicted in Genesis]. Copernicus, [Bruno and Galileo] with his heliocentric theory, caused an Earthquake that shattered the foundation of the accepted theology of St Thomas. And that shattering coincided with the Reformation. These two major blows set the Church, together with all accepted values, on a course that eventually led her to defeat and humiliation, in our own century. With Copernicus, science started a war against religious truth. Science [rather pseudo-science] went on triumphantly to achieve a complete victory and, in our days, the unconditional surrender of Catholic theology. Nowadays Christianity is regarded as a major obstacle to scientific progress, which blocked the way for the development of science for a thousand years, as Edward Gibbon, a philosopher, put it in the last century. Andrew White went a little further, calling the saints of the Church mild mental cases who saw hallucinations. The father of psychology, Freud, generalised this idea by calling religion a mass neurosis to be cured; and Marx called it simply the opiate of the masses.

    The tendency of the scientific war – or revolution if you like – is clear; to destroy religious truth, and replace it with new perspectives, views, theories, and hypotheses entirely different from [Catholic] beliefs man [held for centuries], and replace it with an outlook on a universe where God no longer has any place,’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)



[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Stephen Foglein, MS: The Apple of Knowledge, Two heart Books, California, USA 1981..

And Fr Robinson, with his defence of the old Pagan heresies under the guise of science, shows us what is being taught to would-be-priests who went to SSPX seminaries so as to defend the truth and the true faith of Catholicism.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 14, 2018, 08:31:37 PM
I just noticed for the first time today that Father Robinson's book is highlighted on the Angelus Press website at https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)


People are free to submit a review on the book at the site.  There are 9 reviews presently listed.  Of the 9 listed so far 8 of them rate the book with 5 stars.  (I tried to copy and paste the stars below, but was unable to do so.)  The other rates it at one star and perhaps safe to say due to that fact  alone as well as what the person actually wrote in the review, the author Father Robinson has responded underneath that review and that review alone.  For the convenience of anyone reading this, I have pasted all the 9 reviews seen so far as well as Father's aforementioned response to one of them.
**************************************************************************************************************************(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1527/1691/products/REALIST-GUIDE-TO-RELIGION-AND-SCIENCE_3d_1024x1024.jpg?v=1519326702)

The Realist Guide to Religion and Science

Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX (https://angeluspress.org/collections/vendors?q=Fr.%20Paul%20Robinson%2C%20SSPX)
SKU: 8716
$35.00  
Qty  


NOW AVAILABLE!
Why do some religious believers slaughter those who refuse to convert to their faith, refuse scientific evidence for an ancient universe, or hold God to be an utterly arbitrary being? Why do some scientists believe that universes pop into existence from nothing, that aliens seeded life on earth, or that fish turn into reptiles by chance processes? The answer, for both, is the same: the abandonment of realism, the human way for knowing reality. In The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Fr Robinson explains what realism is all about, then undertakes an historical exploration to show how religion and science become irrational when they abandon realism and how they are intellectually fruitful when they embrace it.
Fr. Paul Robinson, a native of Kentucky, USA, received a Masters in Engineering Mathematics and Computer Science from the University of Louisville. After two years in the field, he entered St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary to discern his vocation. Since his ordination into the priestly fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X in 2006, he has been teaching Thomistic philosophy and theology at Holy Cross Seminary in Australia. Visit his site here  (https://therealistguide.com/)to learn more.

Customer Reviews

Read 9 reviews (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#) Write a review (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#)


Realist Guide to Religion and Science
Steven Lantier MD, Apr 2018
Destined to become a classic for people who care about the maladies of the current culture and where it went wrong. Fr. Robinson does a great job taking you on a tour of philosophy from ground zero, through the roof. He clearly shows how these errors of philosophy have led to the false religions, false gods and inconsistencies of the many Christian denominations. This isn't an easy read, but well worth the effort.

Reconciliation Confirmed
Stephen Mattia, Apr 2018
This is not a book by a priest supporting evolution, relativism, or new are nonsense. Far from it...it is a book based on sound Catholic Philosophical thinking by a true son of the Church. In a sweeping analysis of what Realism is - as a way of knowing reality - Father Robinson brings the reader from pagan thinking through to the Middle Ages then to modern thought. The author presents to the lay reader not only an analysis of what Realism is but how historical errors in how we know reality have sidetracked not only religious belief but scientific progress. All throughout the book Father Robinson maintains that the Truth is one...contending that there is not a truth for religion and another for science. Indeed, his efforts at a reconciliation between religion and science go a long way in restoring the traditional Catholic view of intellectual discovery - bringing us an injection of St. Thomas Aquinas' system of thought. "Blessed are the peace makers" - I believe that Father Robinson has successfully restored a lost trust shared by those who believe in God and who also believe in Science based on right reason. Wonderful book for those of Faith and Reason.

This is very good - get it and read it
Anthony Massey, Apr 2018
Re my earlier review - the third last word should be foreword not forward. I'm waiting for a Fr Robinson book on the English language.
This is very good - get it and read it

Anthony Massey, Apr 2018
I wish I could have more than 1500 characters to review this book. It's scholarly and exceptional both in its thoroughness and its dispassionate adherence to logic and Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. Fr Robinson's philosophical discussion and assessment of the major religions and atheistic empiricisim is a bright light shining in the darkness. It is irrefutable because it remains perfectly loyal to logic. It is also loaded with mountains of really interesting information and scientific facts (not opinions). Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell et al. are convicted with their own words. Darwinian evolution is refuted with pure science, something macro-evolution is not. Being a 500 page scholarly work it required some hard work to get through it but that doesn't mean it wasn't hugely entertaining and engaging and it was definitely worth the effort. One more thing, just reading bits of it will lead to misunderstanding. One or two negative reviews I have seen so far misrepresent what Fr says because I suspect they have just read bits or maybe have not read any of it beyond the forward. Happy reading.

Apologists Secret Weapon
Carol Massey, Apr 2018
Fr Robinson's book is truly a Godsend in explaining creation from a Catholic perspective in a well explained manner, which has been much needed for quite some time.

Wow! In-depth analysis beyond my expectations
Rob Riforgiate, Apr 2018
I must admit, when I purchased the book I was expecting, perhaps, a practical guide to resolving the science vs. religion divide currently prevalent in our culture, assuming "Realist" just meant "practical".

Instead, this book is takes a step-by-step progression from showing the philosophical school known as Realism, contrasting it with other schools, and showing the basis of what we humans know and how we know it. Only then does Fr. Robinson move on to resolving the apparent divide, and showing how there is no divide after all.

Fr. Robinson doesn't shy away from communicating difficult concepts, but does so in the manner of a true teacher, by breaking them down so even someone with almost no background in the subject matter can understand and apply them.

I highly recommend this for anyone struggling with the apparent dichotomy between science & faith, and also anyone wanting to get a good working understanding of philosophy.

Surprised to say the least [At the time of my post this is the only 1 star rating.  The other 8 give it a 5 star rating! Ugh!]
John Hoff, Apr 2018
Pros: Fr. Robinson gives the reader a very articulate description of realism, as well as numerous examples and practical application. Despite the need to by very " philosophy heavy" Fr. Robinson explains things very well to a simple dumb sheep like myself.
Cons: Oh boy. Well for starters, one might notice the book is published by a liberal publisher instead of Angelus press. The forward is particularly hard on those whom I expect to be Fr.'s core group of readers ( saint jp2, saint Paul ect.) I am also exceedingly troubled by the open aceptance of an ancient creation. This is a position based on, shall we say, dubious evidence. The way Fr. portrays it, if you think it is maybe possible for a "young earth", you are obviously an irrational religious like the kind who goes around slaying those who refuse to convert.
In conclusion: I personally was shocked by some of the positions Fr. Robinson takes, so conservative's may not be interested. However if things of that nature do not bother people, this is certainly a very well explained philosophical study of the titled subject.
FROM THE AUTHOR:
Thanks for your review, John.
To be honest, I myself, at one time, considered Young Earth Creationism (YEC) to be a ‘conservative’ viewpoint. However, I had to change my mind when I did an in-depth study of the Scriptural encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII, Benedict XV, and Pius XII, as well as the classic pre-Vatican II Scripture manuals: authors like Steinmueller, Simon-Prado, Gigot, Renié, and Vigouroux. What I discovered was that YEC is not a ‘conservative’ viewpoint, but a Protestant viewpoint, motivated by Protestant principles of Scriptural exegesis and the Protestant notion of God. The closest that Catholics ever came to YEC was a position called ‘concordism’, but this is quite different from YEC, and concordism was almost universally abandoned by Catholic exegetes well before Vatican II.

Since the last thing that we should want to do as Catholics is source our cues for Scriptural interpretation from Protestants, I wanted to make clear, in The Realist Guide, how foreign YEC is to the Catholic mindset, theologically, philosophically, and scientifically. This does not mean that Catholics are forbidden to be YEC, as the Church permits it as an opinion. It does mean, however, that it seems to be dangerous for Catholics to be YEC, because it is an opinion that harmonizes with the Protestant spirit and conflicts with the wisdom of papal teaching on Scripture.
- Angelus Press

Religion and Science. A Pathway to Their Reconciliation
Wolfgang Koch, PhD, Bonn, Germany , Mar 2018
Dr. Koch, was kind enough to write a thorough review of The Realist Guide unfortunately, there simply wasn't enough room to post it all here. To read the full review, you can do so in our blog, https://angeluspress.org/blogs/blog/religion-and-science-a-pathway-to-their-reconciliation, or read it in our reply, below.

A Short biographical sketch of Dr. Koch: After his studies in Physics and Mathematics, Wolfgang Koch graduated with a PhD degree in Theoretical Physics at Aachen Technical University (RWTH) and a habilitation degree at the University of Bonn in Computer Science. He is head of a research department the Fraunhofer Society, Professor for Computer Science at Bonn University, Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEEE, IEEE Distinguished Lecturer, and active in the Board of Governors of IEEE Aero-space and Electronic Systems Society AESS and the International Society of Information Fusion ISIF.
Book Review of The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by, Wolfgang Koch, PhD.

Sedi Sapientiae, Reginae coeli et terrae, Matri universae, to the Seat of Wisdom, to the Queen of Heaven and Earth, to the Mother of all, an important new publication has been dedicated. It has the potential of becoming a substantial contribution to a healing of philosophical thinking about religion and science that our intellectually and spiritually broken time needs. In his own way and covering a certain aspect, the author, Fr. Paul Robinson FSSPX, Her servant and son, is preparing the promised triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.

What reward is awaiting the reader? Being very readable even for non-native speakers, Fr. Robinson’s book does not require any specific prior knowledge, but it does require patience in following the lines of thought from the first to the last page – it is not a book for page hoppers! Its fruit is a unified, unifying, and at the same time joyful view of the universe as a whole, where in an intellectually coherent and satisfying way, religious and scientific thinking co-exist in harmony without excluding but supporting each other.

However, can there exist such an integrity of human reason after all the intellectual and spiritual revolutions since the times of “Enlightenment”, a wisdom where even the highest objects of knowledge come into the view, in whose light all other things begin to shine? Yes - argues Fr. Robinson. Every other answer is logically inconsistent and ultimately leads to despair. Only the realist is an optimist.

After studying engineering, mathematics and computer science at the University of Louisville in Kentucky, U. S. A., where he graduated with a Master's degree, Fr. Robinson spent two years in his profession before joining the American seminary of the Society of St. Pius X. Since his priestly ordination in 2006, he has taught Thomistic Philosophy and Theology, currently at the Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.

His intellectual pathway from the rigorous discipline of reasoning in the realm of science and technology, where "right" and "wrong" is relentlessly valid, has led Fr. Robinson through the school of classical western and ecclesiastical thought, into philosophical realism as mentality, as an intellectual and spiritual way of life. The reviewer had the pleasure of personally meeting with this gracious, humble, and pious priest, who is marked by a deep inner life.

Realism as a mentality refers to a basic mental attitude in which people are able to know something reliably and to relate themselves validly to reality. Why is this mentality no longer indisputably normal? It is due to the abuse of free will, argues Fr. Robinson, which chooses other mentalities. Such a wrong preference then limits the natural ability to perceive the world as it really is – darkening the eye of reason, blurring intellectual perception.

However, whenever reasoning goes wrong, because the will has not chosen a mentality appropriate for human beings, a person’s thinking about the objects of faith and the facts of science also diverges. The apparent incompatibility of religion and science, which has characterized western thinking since the Copernican revolution, is not so much caused by the mutual incompatibility between these two ways of thinking, but by the fact that those who do religion or science or both have made their mindset incompatible with reality. Fr. Robinson therefore seeks to reconcile religion and science with one another, but not through religion or science. He rather seeks to reconcile human reasoning with reality itself.

If there is a single origin of the entire universe as the realistic view of the world suggests, reality is a single whole. Moreover, if that one origin has given man the ability to perceive reality, then there is no reason to assume that this very perception does not also focus on the whole of reality. For the great realist philosopher Josef Pieper, human beings have the potential of “being able to live in the face of and in the midst of the whole of reality. The created spirit is capax universi, open to the whole of truth". (Die Wahrheit der Dinge, 1947).

Elsewhere, Pieper speaks of “the uncharted territory that awaits conquest today, one might say more precisely, the already conquered land that would finally be taken over and used for philosophical world interpretation". It has a vast extension. Which country is it? “First of all, it is the world region opened up by physics and biology”, Pieper explains (Die Aktualität des Thomismus, 1953).

Fr. Robinson’s book is a travel guide to this adventurous country, an intellectual frontier, waiting for its spiritual settlement: The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. With a smiling wink of the eye, the title alludes to a cult novel of the science and technology community, Douglas N. Adams' satirical science fiction series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 1979.

In the first part of his travel guide entitled REASON, Fr. Robinson looks as a realist on reality. Analyzing the logical structure underlying pagan pantheism, the Catholic doctrine of creation, Muslim monotheism and Protestant biblicism, the second part of the book, RELIGION, shows how religion is reasonable as long as it remains realistic but becomes unreasonable as soon as it turns away from reality. The same applies to the interpretation of scientific facts, the theme of the third part, SCIENCE.

For readers from the science and technology communities, the first part is particularly instructive. Shortly and precisely, Fr. Robinson calls upon the three witnesses of reality, the senses, from which all knowledge about the particulars emanates, reason, to recognizing the universals, and authority, which complements all knowledge – for all knowledge needs trust. Starting from the principle that science is certain knowledge through insight into the causes, he then convincingly discusses Aristotle’s analysis of the four aspects of causality, the material, formal, efficient and final causes. An outline of the three ways of knowledge, science, philosophy, religion, concludes this compact and concise introduction to realistic thinking.

The second part offers insights into the inner structure of Muslim and Protestant thinking, which is put into contrast to the balanced character of the Catholic doctrine of creation according to St. Thomas Aquinas which has been called Thomas a Creatore by G. K. Chesterton. These sober insights are particularly valuable in the current debate with intelligent fundamentalists that may seriously inflict injuries to religion and block the pathways to it for many.

In most countries, popularized representations of physical cosmology and evolutionary biology dominate the public mainstream and even the unconscious of modern man, where scientific facts are mixed up with ideologically charged interpretations that usually turn against the Christian faith. Against this backdrop, special emphasis is to be placed at the third part of the book. Fr. Robinson sharply distinguishes between the facts that are scientifically sound and their interpretations that are open to discussion and correction. This distinction could perhaps have been made even sharper.

Right in the beginning of part three, Fr. Robinson addresses a core problem when he cites Albert Einstein: "The man of science is a poor philosopher". Note that Einstein underlined the importance of sound philosophical thinking even though he followed philosophical strands that are unacceptable for Christians. In the first of the four chapters of this part, Fr. Robinson critically analyses the development of philosophical thinking on nature from the late Middle Ages to modern times. The reader realizes how much progress towards the ever more important scientific discoveries coincides with a progressive disintegration of philosophically clear and valid thinking.

The reviewer is able to technically evaluate the content of the chapter on physical cosmology beginning with the important discoveries of Einstein, Hubble, and Lemaître, which he considers convincing, thorough and serious. The representation of the universe in its highly specific peculiarity is comprehensibly presented also for the non-scientist, by which the inhabitability of the universe for living creatures is made possible (keyword: cosmic fine-tuning). Fr. Robinson sharply refutes, by philosophical reasoning, on the other hand, experimentally non-falsifiable cosmologies (keyword: multiverses), which are highly controversial even among physicists because these cease to be part of natural science at all.

Thoroughly in the spirit of Pius XII and his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), the two biological chapters on the origin of life and evolution provide, on the one hand, verified facts of biology. On the other hand, they document the internal contradictions of “biologistical” ideologies, which are associated with names such as Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin. Obviously, the same person can make significant biological discoveries and at the same time make serious “biologistical”, i.e. philosophical errors. Fr. Robinson’s discussion seems to be convincing. Since the reviewer has no specific training in biology, a review from a professional biologist would be desirable. Teilhard de Chardin is not an issue for Fr. Robinson. However, his sound realistic principles may prove themselves valuable in the debate about his rehabilitation.

Besides being a sound philosophical book on the realist mentality, Fr. Robinson’s travel guide has at the same time also a profoundly missionary impulse. May his guide open up again pathways to the Catholics faith, especially for the science and technology communities, and may it light the love for the Queen of Heaven and Earth and the Mother of the Universe and be blessed by Her!
- Angelus Press

A great book on thinking
Joseph Strong, Feb 2018
In a very accessible style, Fr. Robinson shows the reader what it means to think rationally No one who knows the teachings of the Church regarding the age of the universe or other strangely controversial topics will be surprised by his analyses. True science and true philosophy work together to give the correct view of God's creation - that is Father's point. One without the other leads to cramming intellectual round pegs into square holes. Father's book will help the reader not fall into that trap.


 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 14, 2018, 11:13:08 PM
I get the impression that at some point in time the SSPX decided to double down behind this book, but perhaps not before they lined up some public backers of same.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on May 15, 2018, 03:18:25 AM
Maybe someone will send them my review.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on May 15, 2018, 06:37:53 AM
Maybe someone will send them my review.
They only take a maximum of 1,500 words.  Your review clocked in at 16,648 words.  
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on July 01, 2018, 12:23:02 PM
I notice on THE ANGELUS's website Fr Robinson's book on modernist faith and science is having an impact according to the comments on the site:

https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)I note from THE ANGELUS PRESS website

In my earlier comments I spoke of the Pythagorean heresies that the early Fathers faught for 300 years. It was fear that these heresies, many of which Bruno was accused of at his trial, would reappear that Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII condemned heliocentrism as formal heresy and led to Galileo's trial art which he was found guilty of 'suspicion of heresy.'
The story of the Fathers' fight against the Pythagorean heresies was first told in AA Martinez's book PYTHAGORAS, BRUNO and GALILEO. This book, which I read, was only a buil;d up to another which Alberto told me is now published'

'Anyhow, my final, revised, polished book is now published! Abridged in some parts, but expanded in others: 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Burned-Alive-Giordano-Galileo-Inquisition/dp/1780238967/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530389794&sr=1-1&keywords=burned+alive%3A+giordano (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Burned-Alive-Giordano-Galileo-Inquisition/dp/1780238967/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1530389794&sr=1-1&keywords=burned+alive%3A+giordano)

Anyone interested in the subject - now brought into our times by Fr Robinson SSPX's Book THE REALISTIC GUIDE TO RELIGION AND SCIENCE under the guise of theistic evolutionary Big Bang, Billuions of years, Nebular story of a heliocentric solar system, and the never ending theistic evolution of everything - should read Martinez's book.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Incredulous on July 03, 2018, 08:08:16 AM


Does anyone know if Fr. Robinson watches TV?

(https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.EZ0K8qYeFYWmWDMtLd7wkwHaHP&pid=15.1&P=0&w=159&h=156)

It's tragic to see a traditional Catholic priest influenced by our judaic media.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 01, 2018, 03:17:13 PM
Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succumbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.) 

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days.  A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 01, 2018, 04:09:35 PM
Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succumbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.)  

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days. A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

Shame on the SSPX (which "hasn't changed" and "won't compromise") for promoting this modernist trash.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Merry on August 01, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
The first time I was at a Fr. Robinson sermon, he started with the words, "Let's get real."

Really!
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 01, 2018, 09:11:13 PM
Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succumbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.)  

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days. A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

I sent Fr. Robinson a request for a reply to the above critique.  I am not holding my breath for an answer, but if I get one I will try to post here unless Father requests that his reply be kept confidential.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 01, 2018, 11:18:39 PM
The first time I was at a Fr. Robinson sermon, he started with the words, "Let's get real."

Really!

When ABP Lefebvre once had to leave Africa, a candidate for baptism uttered worries, fearing that Lefebvre might not return in time to baptize him. Lefebvre reports that he had to explain the poor catechumen about BoD to ease him. Unfortunately there is no tradition concerning the question who had trained the catechumen. 

Fr. Robinson is roughly 200 years late. I don't really think that he is a conscious agent of the foe. Such agents are harder to detect.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 02, 2018, 06:36:56 AM
Here is a very cogent comment taken from pp. 90-91 of Dr. Robert Sungenis truly outstanding 700 plus page work, Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical and Scientific Analysis: "What does this blatant historiography in modern biblical scholarship mean for the flat-earthers?  It means that they have collectively fallen into the trap set by the modern hermenutic.  These aberrant scholars have convinced the world, and especially the flat-earthers, that the original, and thus correct way that Genesis was written was to depict a flat Earth covered by a dome.  Even 'conservative' scholars have succumbed.  The late and popular scientist Fr. Stanley Jaki, former professor at Seton Hall University, totally disregards Genesis 1 as accurate history, citing a purported 'conflation' between Day 1, when the 'Light' was made, and Day 4 when the sun and stars were made, as evidence that Genesis cannot be historically accurate since, in his view, the two days are redundant. (footnote 138 -- Genesis 1 Through the Ages,  Stanley L. Jaki, Thomas More Press, 1992.  See my book, Genesis 1-11, for a thorough critiques of Jaki's hermenutical theories.)  

This conclusion has spawned a whole cadre of Catholic 'scholars' who, following Jaki, have sided with modern sciences' wild and unproven theories about the origins of the universe instead of honestly trying to figure out why the inspired author of Genesis insists on two light sources divided by three days. A recent example of the effect of the 'Jaki cult' is the book written by Fr. Paul Robinson, a priest of the embattled Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), titled: A Realist Guide to Religion and Science.  The ploy in this work, like many other modern works, is to convince the audience that Genesis 1's 'intent' was not to transcribe accurate history.  He does so by making it appear that Genesis 1 teaches the dubious concept of a firmament as a dome over the Earth, which means that the Earth must necessarily be flat.  Robinson's intent, if you will, is to make the Genesis account look silly.  With this presupposition, he concludes that hardly anything in Genesis 1 can be true (except, as Ray Brown taught, that God created the world) and that to be a 'realist' we must use our 'reason' and come to the conclusion that modern science's advocating of the Big Bang theory must then be true, along with all its accouterments (e.g., evolution, relativity, copernicanism)."

(On p. 89 of Sungenis above cited book he explains how it was that liberal theologians back in the 1800's actually started the idea that the firmament of Genesis was a dome above a flat earth.  He continues, "They did this to make it appear that Genesis 1's description of the origin of the world is no more accurate and believable than a caveman's drawings.  The whole scheme was designed to discredit the six days of Genesis as accurate history so as to make room for a vast universe of time and chance that evolved over billions of years....Essentially the liberal theologians of that day paved the way for Darwin by relegating Genesis to the realm of Aesop's Fables.)

Well said GlasG4e, excellent logic and reasoning.

But as the Bible says, ' There is nothing new under the sun.'  A six day creation might now be a dogma if St Augustine had read your post. Did you know it was he who poured doubt on the six day creation based on the idea that you could not have light for day and night before the sun was created. St Augustine must never have seen lightening at night, lighting up the sky without the sun. If St Augustine went to a football match at night today, he would not believe what electric lights can light up.

In Genesis it tells us God created LIGHT on the first day, no doubt material light (electromagnetism) and ‘the intellectual or angelic light,’ a metaphor for the angels, ‘signifying the angelic nature and mystically the light of their science and grace with which they were endowed at their creation.'

Light as we now know, is but one effect of electromagnetism. Having filled the universe with invisible electromagnetism (LIGHT) God was well able to turn on light and no light on earth without the sun.

As for the dome, well what does every person on global Earth see in the sky above him or her? a dome that is the sky. One does not need to be on a flat earth to view this dome, just as heaven does not need to be a flat heaven for Christ and others to ascended up to heaven.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: SeanJohnson on August 02, 2018, 06:52:18 AM
Somewhere online I ran across a Bishop Williamson conference or sermon, in which he made the following comment on the modernist Fr. Teilhard de Chardonnay, which seems equally applicable to Fr. Stanley Jaki:

“If you ask a scientist about de Chardin, they will say, ‘Well, he might be an excellent theologian, but he’s certainly no scientist.’

And if you ask a theologian about de Chardin, they will say, ‘Well, he may be an excellent scientist, but he’s certainly no theologian.’”

Meaning, of course, that he is neither scientist nor theologian, but simply a modernist dreamer.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Incredulous on August 02, 2018, 08:32:59 AM
The first time I was at a Fr. Robinson sermon, he started with the words, "Let's get real."

Really!

Reminiscent of Bishop Williamson's lecture comment to describe the mindset of existentialists...
(http://www.fathercekada.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Robinson.jpg)
           "It's Reality man!"
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: hollingsworth on August 03, 2018, 04:36:21 PM

Cassini:
Quote
Alas popes since 1835 at least have been sucked in to the post-Galileo position on faith and science, the Modernist one….
 
 ...On the matter of faith and science, well there is a dilemma for traditionalists here. You see the thing is that most traditionalists believe all popes were traditional in the Church until Vatican II, so when it is said popes considered within the traditional time played their part in the faith and science reformation that led to Modernism, that upsets them and truth is lost to ideology.

 
Thanks, Cassini, for this input. Personally, I wouldn’t spend 10 minutes reading Fr. Robinson’s book. But someone’s got to do it, (I guess.). Aside from the helio/geo- centric arguments raging for centuties, you point out a very painful reality, i.e. most traditionalists accept the great traditionalist/modernist divide occurring directly after V2. Most Pre-V2 popes were models of Catholic orthodoxy, though some of them were a bit murderous, promicuous and up to their ears in court intrigue. After V2, pop.es have been, to a man, evil and bad to the bone.

 
It is all rather simplistic. But the average sspxer seems able to live with the simple notion. And the Society, since its inception, has done little to dispel it. In fact. I would say, it has done much to encourage it.  Much easier to compartmentalize church history, and not to have to do deal with ragged edges of that history.

 
Though Michael Hoffman is demonized by many trads, I would tentatively recommend his latest book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. I don’t like the way he treats particular saints like St. Alphonsus and others. Nevertheless, he has an historical perspective sorely lacking among many trads. I could be wrong. Maybe he’s the arch heretic that some rabid trads portray. But his latest work, IMO, should at least deliver folks from the idea that the Church fell off the edge of the earth at Pius XII’s death or thereabouts. A precipitate decline had commenced centuries earlier.  The heliocentric argument is just one of many of the church's capitulation to error down through the centuries.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 03, 2018, 06:13:40 PM
But as the Bible says, ' There is nothing new under the sun.'  A six day creation might now be a dogma if St Augustine had read your [GlasG4e] post. Did you know it was he who poured doubt on the six day creation based on the idea that you could not have light for day and night before the sun was created.

That's a misrepresentation of facts. St. Augustine identified the pre-solar light with spiritual/angelic light.

St. Augustine has several reasons to reject a six day creation, including textual reasons. He argued that time cannot be created on the fourth day. He asked, how does Gen 2,4-6 fit with days in Gen 1. And he saw Sir 18,1: "He that liveth for ever created all things at once."

I think you grossly underestimate St. Augustine.

What are your interpretations of Gen 2,4-6 and Sir 18,1?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 03, 2018, 08:02:26 PM

 
Though Michael Hoffman is demonized by many trads, I would tentatively recommend his latest book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome. I don’t like the way he treats particular saints like St. Alphonsus and others.

Hoffman in my opinion is definitely a mixed bag.  Over the years he has written some very good things (and he put up a very admirable defense of Bishop Williamson regarding the Holohoax affair), but to call into question the very sanctity of some of the great pre-Vatican II saints including that Doctor of the Church (and founder of the Redemptorists and patron of confessors and moral theologians) St. Alphonus Liguori in my opinion is definitely beyond the pale.  For documentation of same scroll down a bit at this thread: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-hoffman-quotes/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-hoffman-quotes/)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 04, 2018, 01:51:07 AM
@cassini

A pope does not have a binding duty to ban a book containing heresy. It may be more prudent to have them scientists find out for themselves that there is no ether wind. So, releasing a book from the index is not in principle a problem.

You have studied the history concerning the Galilei-case and later history. Do you have any proof, or evidence, or hint, that a pope since 1633 was (in your view) (objectively) heretic by not confessing, what Galilei had to confess?

I see the relevance of the Galilei-case for the situation today. (the clown) Ratzinger confirmed that, too. Can you prove any indubitable fault of any relevant churchman? Is there any relevant papal pronunciation (before the 1960s), which conflicts with what Galilei had to confess?

Or asked in a different way: Do you have evidence, that the single most candidate event for the "abomination of desolation" was before the 1960s?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: hollingsworth on August 04, 2018, 10:21:43 AM

Quote
klas: Hoffman in my opinion is definitely a mixed bag.  Over the years he has written some very good things (and he put up a very admirable defense of Bishop Williamson regarding the Holohoax affair), but to call into question the very sanctity of some of the great pre-Vatican II saints including that Doctor of the Church (and founder of the Redemptorists and patron of confessors and moral theologians) St. Alphonus Liguori in my opinion is definitely beyond the pale.  
(https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/michael-hoffman-quotes/)
I agree.  Hoffman's seeming disdain for the Fatima message is equally troubling.  I mention this author only in connection with the Church's historical decline.  I think he is a bit more accurate and honest about the downward trajectory than the average sspx leader is.  That it all fell off after V2 is kind of a ridiculous summation of the facts.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 04, 2018, 06:04:27 PM
.
If Fr. Robinson fails to explain in his book that it's impossible to be a believer in evolution and big-bangism, while at the same time be a believer in creation as the Bible clearly teaches and likewise does the Church, then he has seriously failed as a priest author. 
.
And if he has seriously failed, then the SSPX has seriously failed by featuring his book. 
.
There are plenty of Protestants around who are quite confident that someone's belief in theistic evolution is not an impediment for salvation, because it's not "the salvation issue" (i.e., Do you have a personal relationship with the Father through the Son?). So then the SSPX would basically be promoting the same line the Baptists teach. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 06, 2018, 06:26:55 PM
.
If Fr. Robinson fails to explain in his book that it's impossible to be a believer in evolution and big-bangism, while at the same time be a believer in creation as the Bible clearly teaches and likewise does the Church, then he has seriously failed as a priest author.
.
And if he has seriously failed, then the SSPX has seriously failed by featuring his book.
.
There are plenty of Protestants around who are quite confident that someone's belief in theistic evolution is not an impediment for salvation, because it's not "the salvation issue" (i.e., Do you have a personal relationship with the Father through the Son?). So then the SSPX would basically be promoting the same line the Baptists teach.

It would seem that an SSPX seminarian would have to either go with the flow in accepting Robinson's book or risk expulsion if he openly criticized it.  If on the other hand, he inwardly rejected it, but openly tried to look the other way one can only wonder what kind of a product he would be once he would be ordained.  Would he continue to play the game or would he openly speak out against the book?  This example would seem to present a microcosm of the world of potential conflicts a TradCat seminarian would have to deal with as he maneuvered through the obstacle course to ordination in the rebranded SSPX.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 07, 2018, 10:40:19 AM
That's a misrepresentation of facts. St. Augustine identified the pre-solar light with spiritual/angelic light.

St. Augustine has several reasons to reject a six day creation, including textual reasons. He argued that time cannot be created on the fourth day. He asked, how does Gen 2,4-6 fit with days in Gen 1. And he saw Sir 18,1: "He that liveth for ever created all things at once."

I think you grossly underestimate St. Augustine.

What are your interpretations of Gen 2,4-6 and Sir 18,1?

Hi Struthio, just spotted your post.

Given most, if not all of the Fathers, took Genesis as Moses wrote it down, St Augustine actually found reasons to object to it. If his reasons were so obvious to him why did so many Fathers believe in a seven day creation? Now while it may not be a dogma, the Church allows us to believe it was a six day creation and a seventh day of rest. But they also allow a 13.5 billion year creation, which makes the doctrine on creation absurd.

Having seen how popes rejected the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers of an orbiting sun in Scripture, it reminds me of St Augustine's part in preventing a six day creation from becoming a dogma, a dogma that would have stopped dead the loss of millions of souls who were allowed to believe in a Bib Bang creation billions of years ago, an idea that eliminated God from the minds of so many.

Throughout the U-turn, St Augustine's quotes were used by all those who wanted the Church to reject the 1616 papal decree. You may not know this but Cardinal Baronius, another quoted to dismiss biblical geocentrism, held that Hermes (the heliocentrist) was a pagan profit heralding the birth of Christ. They got away with this because St Augustine, before his conversion, taught that Hermes Trismegistus (the Heliocentrist), whose writings were put forward as replacing Moses, came after Moses when in fact Hermes preceeded Moses.

Gen 2 4-6. History of man. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made heaven and Earth, and every plant of the field before it sprung up....................
In the day seems to me to be the basis upon which (you and Augustine?) suggest the previous chapter that describes the seven days of creation can be eliminated as poetry. Now that is some U-turn.
In the day above surely can really mean the day that God created heaven and Earth (day 1) and every plant (day 3)

"He that liveth for ever created all things at once." At once also fits in with a once finished seven day creation.

‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.

If at once meant NOT A SEVEN DAY CREATION then Augustine's version would be dogma. But it is not a dogma so at once does not eliminate a seven day creation.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 07, 2018, 12:44:50 PM
@cassini

A pope does not have a binding duty to ban a book containing heresy. It may be more prudent to have them scientists find out for themselves that there is no ether wind. So, releasing a book from the index is not in principle a problem.

You have studied the history concerning the Galilei-case and later history. Do you have any proof, or evidence, or hint, that a pope since 1633 was (in your view) (objectively) heretic by not confessing, what Galilei had to confess?

I see the relevance of the Galilei-case for the situation today. (the clown) Ratzinger confirmed that, too. Can you prove any indubitable fault of any relevant churchman? Is there any relevant papal pronunciation (before the 1960s), which conflicts with what Galilei had to confess?

Or asked in a different way: Do you have evidence, that the single most candidate event for the "abomination of desolation" was before the 1960s?

The question you ask Struthio, in the context of the Galileo case, is probably the most important one in the light of our Catholic faith.

There is no doubt but that there was a terrible loss of faith by popes and churchmen once it was proposed science had proven heliocentrism right and geocentrism wrong. Here once again is a summary of this loss of faith by a poster.

‘Having studied the history of the 1758-1835 ‘decisions’ [to take heliocentric books off the Index], I think we would all agree the current miasma does not constitute a formal teaching of Copernicanism by the Magisterium. Nonetheless, a very efficacious appearance of official backtracking (not to mention the appearance of a perceived admission by Rome of having made a grievous error on a matter involving interpretation of Divine Revelation) has been the principal cause of incalculable deleterious effects.
Quoting Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris: “Who so turns his attention to the bitter strife of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For, since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all his will soon follows; and thus it happens that false opinions, whose seat is in the understanding, influence human actions and pervert them.” We may say that [Galileo’s reformation] with its manifold implications for both Faith and Reason constitutes the principle error by which the world is now fallen into so low a state. Therefore, while we should strongly affirm that the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the Church, they have nevertheless prevailed upon countless poor souls who have been damned in no small part because they came to believe, through science falsely so called, that Divine Revelation was not merely irrelevant, but positively mythology, which is, by definition, worthy of no intellectual assent upon authority. From 1758 the faith of the Churchmen grew cold as they began to doubt the motives for credibility of the Divine Revelation. Had they been men of unswerving faith [like Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825) Master of the Sacred Palace, Rome, 1820] they would have gladly risen to the challenge presented by the emerging scientism establishment. From 1616 onwards, Jesus Christ threw down the gauntlet to his ministers. They had well within their power the means of combating the two super errors of Copernicanism and Darwinism. As we can now agree – science has never falsified the Revelation. What we see in the churchmen, therefore, is not ultimately a problem in the rational natural order. It is ultimately a problem in the supernatural order. They lost their faith through the art of temptation and deception [as Albert Pike described]. They were tempted to believe in another kind of revelation – that which comes through demons. In this they are no different than Adam and Eve. They began to believe the report of science on its own authority. They gave human reason a higher decree of credibility than Divine Revelation. This is a sin against Faith.

Admittedly, faith builds upon nature. And we may conjecture that had not the churchmen first fallen into the errors of naturalism and rationalism, which have for their express purpose the annihilation of the supernatural order, they would have succumbed to the metaphysical errors that propound absurdly as the truth. First went their faith, and then went their reason. We tear off the roof to get to the foundation. [Who cannot] affirm that “the granting of Imprimaturs [to heliocentric books] is not an exercise of the teaching office, of the divinely protected office of the sacred magisterium.” We say Deo Gratias, but we also lament because the innumerable damned who were/are not able to make such subtle distinctions.

[Some] say that the issue is now coming to a head. We think [they] are correct. We think the cat is out of the bag now. We think the conspiracy of all conspiracies is shortly to become common knowledge. You say these falsifications will expose the Church to an Earthquake of shocking proportions because it will force a full and honest examination of the process whereby the magisterium at Vatican II imposed upon the faithful an obligation of “religious submission” to teachings that were predicated upon an attempted harmonization of apostolic and Catholic metaphysics, with inherently contradictory Darwinian and relativistic metaphysics. Contrast this with the teaching found in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Vatican Council I. There is an extremely interesting defined doctrinal decree articulated in that beautiful document. It reads: “All faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.” There is one error – the principal and primary error, the source of all the hellish lies and deceits swallowing up [those in] Church and State, and the first principle of its sterile offspring evolutionism – that falls under this magisterial pronouncement; and it is the error of Galileoism. By definition this error is science falsely so-called, is contrary to the Catholic Faith and has been formally condemned [as heresy] by the Church. We know that Vatican Council I is an unfinished business. It was violently curtailed by the onset of the Franco-Prussian war. What it did accomplish, however, was magnificent. Most think of its importance in terms of its authoritative definition of papal infallibility. I see its import under another aspect. It firmly establishes the bedrock principles of the two highest sciences – Sacred Theology and Natural Philosophy, and in particular Metaphysics. These principles, in turn, are the weaponry of the true and efficacious counter offensive. These are principles upon which we will rest the full restoration of the hierarchy of the sciences, which will, in its turn restore the proper orders of Faith and Reason. The principle errors are not merely doctrinal. They are philosophical and metaphysical. Metaphysical error causes doctrinal error. Faith builds upon nature. Philosophy is known as the Preamble or Disposition of the Faith. As Pope Leo XIII affirms: If the intellect sins at all, the will follows. If the intellect is dark, then the soul is not disposed to receive the motives of credibility.

The purpose of the Church is twofold: Define and reaffirm the particular immutable principles necessary for the age, and then apply them by way of canons and condemnations. Vatican II failed on both accounts. It failed to restate and redefine the most important principles of both Faith and Reason necessary for this age, and it failed to make appropriate condemnations. Many believed that the fruit of the Vatican II would be, in addition to the long-awaited definition of the Dogma of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, an official condemnation of communism. But this was impossible because within the ambiguities of the Council documents are found the poorly concealed, erroneous principles of Marxism, relativism, and evolutionism. Satan does not caste out Satan. Vatican Council I is still on hold. It has not yet been consummated. The principles it reaffirmed are yet to be applied to particular errors. When we finally see the great healing Council, the great Flood Council, and the great Cadaver Synod as some call it, the great work of the Church that will away the filth of false science like a new Deluge, we will see the principles of Vatican I explicitly applied to the two errors of Galileo and Darwin.’    
--------------------------------------------
Finally Struthio, I will answer your question. First of all not one pope of the U-turn in history actually challenged or rejected as papal the 1616 decree. Neither did God allow any pope to give Galileo an official retrial. As Catholics we have God's promise that popes do not make mistakes when using their office to define a heresy or a dogma.

On a personal note, I have no doubt every pope involved in moving the elimination of heliocentric books did so in their belief that heliocentrism was proven by science. Thus their heresy was MATERIAL, carrying no guilt or sin against faith.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 07, 2018, 02:34:58 PM


On a personal note, I have no doubt every pope involved in moving the elimination of heliocentric books did so in their belief that heliocentrism was proven by science. Thus their heresy was MATERIAL, carrying no guilt or sin against faith.
I think you meant to say removing, not moving.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 07, 2018, 10:29:46 PM
Quote from: Cassini
First of all not one pope of the U-turn in history actually challenged or rejected as papal the 1616 decree. Neither did God allow any pope to give Galileo an official retrial. As Catholics we have God's promise that popes do not make mistakes when using their office to define a heresy or a dogma.

Yes, true. If a pope had done that, he wouldn't have been pope in the first place, or would have ceased to be pope when he did. That is obvious, given God's promise.

Additionally, it is against basic reason to imagine that someone could be a Catholic, confessing the faith, and be a heretic at the same time. This applies to any Catholic, including any pope. So if a pope would have believed that the propositions, which Galilei was asked to confess, were wrong, he would not have been a Catholic.



Quote from: Cassini
On a personal note, I have no doubt every pope involved in moving the elimination of heliocentric books did so in their belief that heliocentrism was proven by science. Thus their heresy was MATERIAL, carrying no guilt or sin against faith.

First a note on terminology: The expressions "material heresy" and "formal heresy" are (to say the least) somewhat awkward. There is no matter without form and no form without matter. The whole philosophical concept of form and matter seems to be misunderstood. I know there is literature using these terms, but one should question the authors' way of thinking.

A distinction between "material heresy" and "formal heresy" is absurd. A proposition contradicting a dogma or affirming what has been anathematized is always a heresy (and never "only a material heresy" whatever that may be).

A person affirming a heretical proposition may be a heretic or in error. That is a useful and relevant distinction. He is a heretic in case he is aware of the dogma he contradicts, or "just erring", in case he is not aware of the existence of the dogma.

Now back to the said popes. Obviously you assume, that the said popes knew well, what dogmas Galilei had to confess. Practically, that's the only reasonable assumption. If you were right, and they had rejected these truths, they would have been heretics and not Catholics. In case they were heretics "only in their hearts", we wouldn't mind, how could we mind what we ignore?! We ignore what is only in peoples hearts. But if you're right and they had said or shown what is in their hearts, we would know they were heretics and not Catholics. (I recommend to never think "heretic" but always "heretic and not Catholic", maybe one should even say and write it exclusively that way.)


I don't agree with your assessment. I think you imagine these popes like many modern folk with a lack of philosophical education, who are fallen for a scientism, who make science their idol, who think fallible science was infallible. Who don't know about falsifiablity,
who are thrilled by steam-engines, cars, planes, rockets, space stations and other "magic" or magic.

Aeterni Patris of Leo XIII is about philosophy and not about natural science. It is a call to return to Thomas Aquinas and to reject the new philosophies of the obscuring "enlightenment". Not about Galilei, Newton, or the hilarious Foucault pendulum. About Kant, Hegel, Marx etc. Aeterni Patris was published two years before the 1881 first Michelson-Morley Experiment in Potsdam, adjacent to Berlin. You can imagine, that belief in the hypnotizing pendulum must have been at the upper limit. Leo mentions the already then much beloved natural science and puts it below philosophy. Both are useful but both suffer from the same problems fallen man suffers. Both must submit to dogma. Should he think of the hypnotizing pendulum, he seems to be quite sure that the conclusions are based on bad philosophy. Today we know, he was right. I don't see any reason to assume that his predecessors where blinded by the pendulum.

Do you have any hints or even quotes for your assessment? Or what is your reason to suspect disbelief?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 08, 2018, 09:14:48 AM
Do you have any hints or even quotes for your assessment? Or what is your reason to suspect disbelief?

Again Struthio, great post. My study of the circumstances that brought about the U-turn showed the popes involved didn't seem to have a clue about what happened one hundred and two hundred years earlier. In 1820 the records had been taken away by Napoleon and they only had some records of 1741 to consult. The 1741 papers were full of their 'proofs' for heliocentrism and what most philosophers of the time thought. You distinguish between science and philosophy but in Galileo's time both were considered the same. There were hundreds of books written up to then with hundreds of different versions of what happened. The popes of 1741 1820, 1835 had been assured by members of the Holy Office that the 1616 decree had no authority at all, and for those who knew it had they agreed it was papal and binding. That said they then told the popes that the heresy remained condemned but that the 'heliocentrism of modern astronomers' was different and thus not condemned. So Pius VII gave his permission to allow the 'non-hertetical' heliocentrism while acknowledging the heretical heliocentrism of 1616 remained the heresy. In all their decrees the tern 'according to modern astronomers' is emphasised to distinguish it from the old heretical heliocentrism. Olivieri got his Catholic cake and eat it also.

The difference, Olivieri of the Holy Office told Pius VII, was that the heretical heliocentrism was a VIOLENT one, where the earth would be full of wind and storms as it flew around the sun. But Olivieri told the pope that the heliocentrism of modern astronomers was NOT a violent one, so not heretical.
Such was their ignorance of the affair that Olivieri got away with the greatest scam in the history of the Church. First the heresy condemned in 1616 was to say the sun DID NOT MOVE around the Earth, and nothing to do with 'violence.' That contradicted the Scriptures and the interpretation of all the Fathers, thus formal heresy.
So Olivieri was chancing his arm, whether a deliberate lie or not we don't know. What I do know is that anyone checking Copernicus's book and Galileo's Dialogue would have founf BOTH DENIED THAT THEIR ORBITING EARTH WOULD BE VIOLENT. So how could Galileo's heliocentrism be condemned as a heretical violent one.

We see then that no pope actually believed they were giving permission to heretical books. Knowing the story now Struthio, where does that leave things for you.

What I do know is that sedevacantists have a profound interest in making sure the 1616 decree had no authority at all. For them, sedevacantism began at Vatican II, and not 1741 which would mean that Catholicism was not divine.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 09, 2018, 11:19:05 PM
Thank you, cassini.

Quote from: cassini
What I do know is that sedevacantists have a profound interest in making sure the 1616 decree had no authority at all. For them, sedevacantism began at Vatican II, and not 1741 which would mean that Catholicism was not divine.

I agree with the view that non-Catholics can't hold offices in the church, that heretics lose offices ipso facto, that Vatican II was a solemn collective declaration of heresy. On the other hand, I disagree with all sedevacantists and sedevacantist groups I know of on one or more crucial topics. The main and most common problem I see is: They typically do not hesitate to adduce all sorts of fallible arguments or quotes from fallible sources to reject defined dogma or to accept anathematized heresy. To be fair: This way of rejecting dogma is in no way limited to sedevacantists.

My understanding of the 1616 decree and of the 1633 verdict is: As far as the faith is concerned they bind every Catholic including popes. As far as the Index of forbidden books is concerned, it's a question of jurisdiction, which is fallible. I don't think, it can be regarded as an outward act positively indicating heresy, like an act of worship in a temple of the Heliocentrists (or Relativists) would be.

I think the reason for most sedevacantists to reject geocentrism, is the same as for everyone else. Geocentrism and Flat-Earthism as cusswords have been synonymous before the recent renaissance of Flat-Earthism.


The verdict against Galilei could be abrogated or declared unjust, as far as the person Galilei is concerned. But condemned errors


Quote
The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
Quote
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

cannot be exchanged by a declaration that the errors aren't errors and that the pope erred when condemning them. Thus we know for sure what is absurd and false philosophically and heretical or erroneous in faith. To be aware of these condemnations and to contradict one or more of them, implicitly includes the heretical proposition that the Church could err when condemning false propositions.


Quote from: cassini
You distinguish between science and philosophy but in Galileo's time both were considered the same.

Yes, I am aware of that. Newton's "principia mathematica" were those of his "natural philosophy" not "natural science". But Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century is speaking of philosophy in a more modern sense. The text shows it and he has a separate paragraph (#30) about "natural science", calling it "natural science". Under the titel "On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy" there is one of 34 paragraphs about natural science. Francis has posted the complete text on his blog (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_04081879_aeterni-patris.html).

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 09, 2018, 11:22:36 PM
...
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 14, 2018, 02:02:09 PM
I do not have a copy nor have I had access to a copy of Fr. Robinson's book.  Thus, it was that I wanted to establish a degree of certainty with him in setting the record unequivocally clear on two questions.

I presented these two questions to him in an email I sent him yesterday.  Today I received his response.  My inquiry and response to same are both set forth below.  If anyone can comment on what is found on pp. 252-3 of his book as regards my first question I would be most appreciative.

My first question was this -- I asked him which of the following he believed in.
1) Progressive creationism -- where God uses His divine power intermittently to help the creation develop over billions of years

2)  Theistic evolution -- where God built into the creation the power, by itself, to develop over billions of years

3)  Secular evolution  -- where matter created itself and developed over billions of years

4)  Six day creation by divine fiat

My second question was where exactly in the book would I be able to find his belief expressed.

Fr. Robinson's reply was quite brief: "If you do read my book, you will find my position on this question expressed on pages 252-253. You can also find my position expressed on the book's website (https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism) and in my Amazon exchange (https://www.amazon.com/Realist-Guide-Religion-Science/product-reviews/0852449224/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1) with Christian."

I found the website and Amazon exchange which Father provided to be quite helpful in delving more into the material of the book.  I hope you do as well. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 14, 2018, 06:24:10 PM
I do not have a copy nor have I had access to a copy of Fr. Robinson's book.  Thus, it was that I wanted to establish a degree of certainty with him in setting the record unequivocally clear on two questions.

I presented these two questions to him in an email I sent him yesterday.  Today I received his response.  My inquiry and response to same are both set forth below.  If anyone can comment on what is found on pp. 252-3 of his book as regards my first question I would be most appreciative.

My first question was this -- I asked him which of the following he believed in.
1) Progressive creationism -- where God uses His divine power intermittently to help the creation develop over billions of years

2)  Theistic evolution -- where God built into the creation the power, by itself, to develop over billions of years

3)  Secular evolution  -- where matter created itself and developed over billions of years

4)  Six day creation by divine fiat

My second question was where exactly in the book would I be able to find his belief expressed.

Fr. Robinson's reply was quite brief: "If you do read my book, you will find my position on this question expressed on pages 252-253. You can also find my position expressed on the book's website (https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism) and in my Amazon exchange (https://www.amazon.com/Realist-Guide-Religion-Science/product-reviews/0852449224/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1) with Christian."

I found the website and Amazon exchange which Father provided to be quite helpful in delving more into the material of the book.  I hope you do as well.  

I'm not sure what happened, but this is the way the third to last sentence above should read:  "You can also find my position expressed on the book's website (https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism) and in my Amazon Exchange with Christian."  (The phrase Amazon Exchange was hyperlinked, but it simply vanished from the sentence when I tried to paste it as a hyperlink.  Therefore, just go to Amazon and look up Fr. Robinson's book and you will find what he is referring to.)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2018, 01:34:50 AM
It would seem that an SSPX seminarian would have to either go with the flow in accepting Robinson's book or risk expulsion if he openly criticized it.  If on the other hand, he inwardly rejected it, but openly tried to look the other way one can only wonder what kind of a product he would be once he would be ordained.  Would he continue to play the game or would he openly speak out against the book?  This example would seem to present a microcosm of the world of potential conflicts a TradCat seminarian would have to deal with as he maneuvered through the obstacle course to ordination in the rebranded SSPX.
.
I agree. ------- And you touch on the larger issue as well, for this principle applies to other topics equally.
.
If the NeoSSPX is going to backslide into Newchurch, it will do so affecting many doctrines of the traditional Faith of Catholics.
.
Any seminarians who resist on any front will be penalized or expelled.
And anyone who keeps quiet just so as to be ordained, will be making himself into one who habitually compromises. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 15, 2018, 06:38:53 AM
I do not have a copy nor have I had access to a copy of Fr. Robinson's book.  Thus, it was that I wanted to establish a degree of certainty with him in setting the record unequivocally clear on two questions.

I presented these two questions to him in an email I sent him yesterday.  Today I received his response.  My inquiry and response to same are both set forth below.  If anyone can comment on what is found on pp. 252-3 of his book as regards my first question I would be most appreciative.

Fr. Robinson's reply was quite brief: "If you do read my book, you will find my position on this question expressed on pages 252-253. You can also find my position expressed on the book's website (https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism) and in my Amazon exchange (https://www.amazon.com/Realist-Guide-Religion-Science/product-reviews/0852449224/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_viewpnt_rgt?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=critical&pageNumber=1) with Christian."

I found the website and Amazon exchange which Father provided to be quite helpful in delving more into the material of the book.  I hope you do as well.  

Wow klasG4e, first time I read https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism (https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism)

Boy would I love to comment on every chapter in this site but I am shocked that the SSPX seminarians are still being indoctrinated with what we call THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE.
Then again, who can blame them. Note his reference to Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, an encyclical supposed to teach how the Bible is to be understood.

Here is what Fr Robinson quoted from the Letter:
'Outside of those matters touching the faith, the Church grants to her children freedom in interpreting the Bible. This is especially true in matters of science. Because Catholicism is jealous of the rights of reason, when it began to become clear, in the 19th century, that a strictly literal interpretation of some passages of Scripture would come into conflict with ‘settled science’, Pope Leo XIII instructed Catholics not to read the Bible that way. The Bible is not, he said, meant to teach us scientific truths but truths of faith, supernatural truths. Here are his exact words:
[T]he sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Spirit ‘who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.’ [St. Augustine] Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.'

Now Pope Leo XIII wrote many wonderful things and is considered by Catholics as a flawless traditional pope. But Leo was but another victim of the Galileo case, a pope who was led to believe the Church erred in its decree condemning heliocentrism as formal heresy. This paragraph was designed to prevent any more such ERRORS in faith and science. Proof of this are the many references to it by the Earthmovers throughout the 20th century.

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’---
James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.

‘Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine; but his restatement and development of Augustine’s teaching were destined to be influential in the future. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’ Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68.

‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy.’---[1] Catholics United for the Faith – what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010

‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’---Vatican Observatory website 2013.

We see then How the GALILEAN REFORMATION entered the Catholic Church and how it continues to this day in SSPX seminaries. Fr Robinson's 'Catholic science' is based on that of the suspected heretic Galileo. 
Sorry about the different sizes of quotes but they just happen when I post.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 15, 2018, 06:57:31 AM
Here is more of Fr Robinson's indoctrination.

'Moreover, Pope Leo made clear that Catholics are not in any way obliged to follow the opinions of the Fathers on questions of science. In those matters, the Fathers had freedom; in those matters, we have freedom (emphasis mine):
The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith—what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are," according to the saying of St. Thomas.'

The above only applies to differences between the Fathers. The Council of Trent made it clear when ALL the Fathers UNANIMOUSLY agree on a particular interpretation then that is infallible and cannot be changed.
Now what has been ABANDONED AS INCORRECT? Why a geocentric reading of the Bible of course. ABANDONED AS INCORRECT by WHO? Did Pope Leo XIII believe Galileo, Lyell, voltaire and Darwin had more knowledge than the Bible, but by his time the whole of Genesis history had been ABANDONED AS INCORRECT, thanks to the papal U-turn on the teaching of their predecessors.. All based on Galileo's false science that is. Remember now, the popes also had a DUTY to protect the FLOCK FROM FALSE PHILOSOPHY. Once they failed to defend the Church of 1616 and 1633 they plunged the Flock into philosophical error. So Fr Robinson's plea to Leo XIII is where the Church is at at the moment.

The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc. [1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)

‘The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,  - keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament - seeing that one God is the author of both - as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema…. Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denz – 783/786)

The literal orbiting sun of Scripture was held by ALL the Fathers. So Fr Robinson's ROCK heliocentrism and its evolution, is the heresy upon which Fr Robinson's 'Catholic science' is built.

Now anything that has a heretical foundation cannot be Catholic truth.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 15, 2018, 09:22:48 AM
If Sherlock Holmes studied the matter, "The Case of The 6 day creation", he would undoubtedly conclude that the Genesis account of a 6 day creation is true, from the simple fact that all other theories have yet to be proven and have many logical inconsistencies.  As Sherlock famously said:  "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 15, 2018, 11:26:35 AM
Introduction
In The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, I make a series of criticisms against what is unfortunately and misleadingly called “creationism”. As I explain in the book (p. 234), the term is not used to indicate a belief that the world was created by God. It is rather used to indicate a certain way of interpreting the Bible. In the view of this creationism, the Bible is authoritative over all other sources of knowledge, including science, reason, and especially the Catholic Church. Thus, the creationist position does not allow for any flexibility in the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. The literal sense of those chapters is the immovable point, to which everything else must conform. In this sense, “biblicism” is a much better term than “creationism” and one that I will use frequently in this article (the title of chapter 7 of The Realist Guide is “Protestant Biblicism”).


Was it not the Catholic Church that authored and therefore "is
authoritative over'  the Bible rather than the reverse as is advocated
in this the 4th sentence of the Chapter headed Introduction?


I have no problem being called a 'creationist' and for me it means God created all instantly or over seven days, end of story. That is the only logical explanation of Genesis, and Catholic teaching that tells us the ex nihilo creative act was not a series of miracles, but a once off act of God.
Fr Robinson wants his cake and eat it, he want to show the world how the creative act can comply with evolutionary nonsense. The clever SSPX priest tries to paint all 'creationists' as little more than Protestants, hoping that will persuade his readers to go down the 'Catholic' route and feel superior intellectually to those silly Protestants who do not know theirt science.


Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on August 15, 2018, 02:32:22 PM
@cassini

Leo XIII is neither endorsing Darwinism nor Heliocentrism in Providentissimus Deus.

Also, Leo XIII does not say "today abandoned as incorrect". He rather says "in our time less endorsed" ("quae mine minus probentur").

Finally, he talks about "opiniones aetatis" (opionions of the time [of the Fathers / of our time]) with respect to science, and not with respect to decisions of the Church concerning the Faith. Leo XIII does not call Catholic dogma an opinion. Specifically he does not call the 1633 decision of the Holy Inquisition an opinion.

Leo XIII quotes St. Augustine:

Quote
« Quidquid, inquit, ipsi de natura rerum veracibus documentis demonstrare potuerint, ostendamus nostris Litteris non esse contrarium; quidquid autem de quibuslibet suis voluminibus his nostris Litteris, id est catholicae fidei, contrarium protulerint, aut aliqua etiam facultate ostendamus, aut nulla dubitatione credamus esse falsissimum (S. Aug., De Gen. ad litt., I, 21, 41) »

"Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be entirely false."

Darwinism must be rejected as entirely false without the smallest hesitation, Heliocentrism and Relativism must be rejected as entirely false without the smallest hesitation.



Robinson is part of a whole legion misreading Providentissimus Deus. Why join him?

Providentissimus Deus, latin, on vatican.va (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
Providentissimus Deus, english, on vatican.va (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 15, 2018, 05:48:38 PM
In order to facilitate a closer examination of Fr. Robinson's email response to me of two days ago in which I had asked him two questions, I have pasted below what you would find at Amazon under Father's book were you to look for the review (as of today one of 13 reviews seen there) of Father's book by an individual going by the name "Christian" along with the exchange between Father and "Christian" included in the comments pertaining to that particular review.  This can all be seen under the asterisks below.

For your convenience, I repeat here what my two questions to Fr. Robinson were in the above referenced email and his answer in the reply email the next day:

My first question was this -- I asked him which of the following he believed in.
1) Progressive creationism -- where God uses His divine power intermittently to help the creation develop over billions of years

2)  Theistic evolution -- where God built into the creation the power, by itself, to develop over billions of years

3)  Secular evolution  -- where matter created itself and developed over billions of years

4)  Six day creation by divine fiat

My second question was where exactly in the book would I be able to find his belief expressed.

Fr. Robinson's reply was quite brief: "If you do read my book, you will find my position on this question expressed on pages 252-253. You can also find my position expressed on the book's website (https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/catholicism-and-creationism) and in my Amazon exchange with Christian."
********************************************************************************************************************************************
Review by Christian


[Updated Aug. 8] - Fr. Robinson promotes the idea of replacing atheistic evolution with a form of “theistic evolution”, i.e., God created the Big Bang and then directed the evolution of the universe towards intelligent design through secondary causes over billions of years, by the “fine-tuning of the universe necessary for stars, galaxies and planets to form.” (p. 456). As Fr. Michael Chaberek, O.P. says: Theistic evolution "affirms the divine origin of the world—that in the first moment of creation, the world was brought forth out of nothingness. However, this approach further assumes that the world had been programmed in such a way that it progressed to its current form by virtue of its own laws and capacities (secondary causes). Evolution—cosmic, chemical, and biological—has developed the world we live in today, along with all living organisms, which share a single common ancestor." (See “Catholicism and Evolution: A History from Darwin to Pope Francis,” pp. 59-60). Fr. Robinson supports the theory of Intelligent Design, but also promotes a form of theistic evolution with regard to cosmic and chemical evolution.

Fr. Robinson makes some good points to refute the false arguments of atheists who say that blind, non-intelligent forces produced the intricate order and intelligent design we see in the universe (p. 415). He also makes good arguments against macro evolution of one life form into another (p. 456, p. 466). However, along with his promotion of the Big Bang theory (pp. 366-67) and cosmic theistic evolution (Ch. 9), he accuses scientific Creationists (p. 292) of creating “a new notion of God, a God Who cannot be found in the Bible,” simply because they oppose the Big Bang Theory, they believe in a young universe and earth, and they believe in a geographically universal flood of Noah.

In reality, however, cosmic theistic evolution is not possible. For as Fr. Robinson himself explains, God moves and directs all secondary causes according to their natural mode of operation, i.e., according to the natural forces given to them by God (p. 263). But the secondary causes of the universe, or matter and energy, e.g. atoms, the elements, gases, gravity, magnetism, electricity, wind, heat, etc., are non-intelligent and blind forces. Their actions and interactions with other forces are governed by their intrinsic properties and by the Laws of Physics. Furthermore, according to scientific evidence, they are not predetermined or pre-programmed to organize and develop themselves into the complex intelligent design we see in the universe.

Consequently, even though these secondary causes can produce various effects with beauty and simple design (e.g., the formation of mountains, landscapes, oceans, lakes and rivers, waterfalls, the Grand Canyon, etc.), they cannot become organized and develop into the intricate order and intelligent design of stars, galaxies, solar systems and planets without the direct and supernatural intervention of God. This supernatural action of God is precisely His “six-day” work of creation and formation of all things in the universe – including biological life – as revealed in Genesis and explained by St. Thomas Aquinas and the Fathers of the Church. Thus, the intelligent design of the universe cannot be the result of the evolution (natural or theistic) of secondary causes of the "Big Bang” working over 13.7 billion years.

Many modern Thomists and some recent popes (e.g., Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis) have promoted various forms of theistic evolution, but this is a result of the poison of Modernism which has been trying to subvert traditional Catholic teaching for over 100 years. And even if Pope Pius XII allowed the discussion of evolution in his encyclical "Humani Generis" (Aug. 12, 1950), it was most likely due to the hoax of the Piltdown Man and false information about the Peking Man, and it was before the scientific findings of the Law of Genetics, i.e., the "genetic blueprint" (DNA) of plants and animals, which may allow for great variation within a species, but does not allow the evolution or spontaneous generation of one life form into another. (Note: Also, we shouldn't forget that Pope Pius XII’s confessor and advisor was the modernist Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea. And another famous modernist Jesuit, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, actually participated in the investigations surrounding the Piltdown Man and the Peking Man).

Theistic evolutionists don’t realize that it is a pantheistic idea to propose that non-intelligent, blind secondary causes/forces of the universe can act in an intelligent manner unto the production of complex order and design by their sole natural forces, without the additional need of God's supernatural or direct intervention. For this would logically mean that the universe is evolving intelligently and with purpose by some kind of natural union with God’s intelligence and action, which is a form of pantheism - and is similar in some ways to the evolutionist "Omega Point" theory of Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., (1881-1955).

Perhaps evolutionists will say that plants and animals, which are non-intelligent, do evolve from seeds/embryos into fully developed plants and animals. However, the difference is that God, the Intelligent Designer, already placed determined or "programmed" potentialities (e.g., DNA codes) in their forms when He created them, so that their so-called "evolution" is simply their natural development from potentiality to actuality by means of secondary causes (e.g., sunshine, air, food, water, etc.). This kind of process, however, cannot apply to the universe, since the universe does not have a determined substantial life form.

According to Fr. Robinson and theistic evolutionists, since the galaxies, stars and planets of the universe have the appearance of being formed over millions/billions of years, God could not have created them as described in Genesis, otherwise He would be intentionally deceiving us by making the universe look old when it is actually very young, thereby "preventing His rational creatures from using their reason to understand what He had created” (p. 263). This opinion is also taught by Protestant "old-earth creationists" such as Hugh Ross and Rich Deem. However, this kind of thinking is not correct, for not only does it deny God’s right to give supernatural formation to His creation without the need of long periods of time, it also goes contrary to the reality that God did bring into existence many creatures already formed and developed. For example, Adam and Eve were created in their adult state without the need of 25-30 years to grow into adults. Also, God created all the animals in their adult state, since infant animals cannot be born and survive without their adult "parents."

Fr. Robinson doesn't realize that his opinion about "God intentionally deceiving us" can be used the other way around, because Christians could say that God has been deceiving them for almost 2000 years by allowing His Church to promote a false interpretation of Genesis, only to be corrected by the scientists of the Big Bang theory (many of whom are atheistic evolutionists), who have finally discovered the “evidence” for the right interpretation of Genesis. This would be much worse, for it would promote the idea, especially among high school/college students, that since the Bible and Church got it wrong about the history of the universe and creation, then maybe they are also wrong about God and Religion.

With regard to Young Earth Creationism, St. Thomas Aquinas gives the reason why God can create the universe in a highly developed condition without the need of long periods of time to develop into stars, galaxies and planets. He says: “God produces being in act out of nothing, and can, therefore, produce a perfect thing in an instant, according to the greatness of His power” (STh, I,66,1,2). This principle applies to all being, whether organic or inorganic. Thus, if God created the universe this way, then even though it would have the physical perfection of an ancient universe, it would actually be very young. For example, the light produced by stars and galaxies would have extended great distances quickly across the universe without the need of millions/billions of years. Similarly, the human body of Adam and Eve, along with the formation and development of the brain, vital organs, etc., did not need the normal 25-30 years necessary for development from an embryo to adulthood. Then, once God’s work of creation was finished and He rested on the “seventh day,” the universe - with its cosmic, chemical and biological perfection - would simply continue in its existence and operation according to the normal laws of physics established by God.

It is disturbing to see Fr. Robinson's attempt to discredit the work of some highly qualified creation scientists, especially Dr. Walter Brown, who received his Ph.D. from MIT and was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In his online book “In The Beginning” – which everyone should be encouraged to read – he uses clear scientific evidence from all over the earth to support the theory of a young earth/universe as well as the global Flood of Noah. Many of his scientific predictions, based on his “Hydroplate Theory,” have already been verified by recent scientific discoveries (documented in his book). Dr. Brown was actually an evolutionist for much of his life, and then, after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation science and a global flood. Some of his debates against atheists and evolutionists are available on YouTube.

It is true that the Catholic Church, the Fathers of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas. etc., teach that Christians should not promote interpretations of Sacred Scripture which are contrary to scientific fact. For this reason, on June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission states that the Hebrew word “Yom” used in the first chapter of Genesis may be understood as either a natural 24-hour day or longer periods of time (8th decree). Most Catholics who believe in a young universe/earth probably realize that the "days" of creation were more likely longer periods of time. (For example, on the "sixth day," God created all the animals; then He created Adam; then He had Adam give a name to each animal; then He created Eve. All these things seem to point to a very long "sixth day"). But the Biblical Commission never said that these six "periods of time" should be understood as millions or billions of years, or that God did not exercise His supernatural causality in the formation of the universe during that time. The Big Bang theory is not a scientific fact, but only a theory. And many modern scientific explanations of the universe are not facts, but only theories and opinions. Recent scientific discoveries, such as galaxies and nebulae, only point to their "existence," not to their "evolution" over millions/billions of years. Therefore, the traditional Christian interpretation of Genesis should be maintained. As the 4th Lateran Council (1215) teaches: “From the beginning of time, [God] made at once out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then the human creature.”

[Update: Aug. 8] Fr. Robinson, like most modern scientists, subscribes to the Big Bang theory. However, this theory, which says that the universe formed and developed over 13.7 billion of years solely by natural causes and the Laws of Physics, is actually contrary to scientific evidence. For scientists themselves admit that, according to the Laws of Physics and the scientific evidence they have, there is no way that galaxies, nebulae, stars and planets could have formed and developed in the universe. In fact, they have found that the known Laws of Physics cannot account for the way the universe actually works, because there is simply not enough matter in the universe to have provided the gravitational forces and effects necessary to produce galaxies, stars and planets. Scientists say that the universe would need 80% more matter to produce sufficient gravity – but this matter is missing. It’s not there.
--- In their attempt to solve this dilemma, modern scientists have invented the theory/hypothesis of Dark Matter, i.e., matter that must be there, but is invisible, undetectable and cannot be found. It’s an unknown substance which emits no light, heat, radio waves, nor any other kind of radiation. Scientists say that the presence of Dark Matter can be “inferred” from the gravitational pull it exerts on visible matter. But when you ask them to prove how this undetectable Dark Matter is exercising these gravitational effects, they say that the explanations about Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the Big Bang can’t be tested and proved or disproved but must be taken on faith. Well, this is not true science, because true science is based on clear evidence, not faith.
--- At least these scientists recognize that the universe cannot be explained without recourse to an incredibly powerful cause. The problem is that they have no scientific evidence to support the existence of the powerful cause they believe in, i.e., Dark Matter. However, for creationists, the answer is clear--and revealed in the book of Genesis, i.e., God is the Cause of the creation and formation of the universe, with all its galaxies, nebulae, stars and planets, and all forms of life.

Fr. Robinson also seems to make contradictory statements. First of all, he says that it is metaphysically impossible for blind forces to produce intricate order, and that “the earth is a result of such complex causes that it is most likely the only habitable planet in the universe” (p. 415). But then he says: “but we grant that our planet could have formed by merely natural processes without a direct intervention by God or an intelligent agent. The theory has reputable, mathematical models behind it.” However, even Isaac Newton shows opposition to this opinion in his Principia Mathematica: “Though these bodies [planets] may indeed continue in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws… This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

Secondly, Fr. Robinson states that natural selection cannot produce macro evolution, i.e., one life form evolving into another (p. 456). But in another place he says: “Once God has created, for instance, animals with all five senses, like dolphins, then secondary causes—such as dolphins, natural selection, humans, and even good and bad angels—can modify dolphins to make other animals that are new to some degree” (p. 405); and he also says: “Once a biologist admits the existence of formal causes outside the mind, he can then propose a coherent naturalistic evolutionary process for one life form changing into another” (p. 449). These statements are ambiguous and need to be clarified.

Consequently, I would not recommend Fr. Robinson's book because of its promotion of cosmic theistic evolution, its contradictory statements, some of which seem to promote evolutionist ideas, and because of his opposition to all creation science, which is supported by many examples of scientific evidence and is more in line with the traditional Catholic understanding of the book of Genesis.
*****************************



Hi, Christian,
Thanks for your thoughts on my book. I am happy to see that you made it to the end and I am glad that you enjoyed the critiques of atheistic science and macroevolution. On the other hand, I am sorry to see that the parts of the book that you agreed with were not enough, in your eyes, to merit at least two or three stars. I suppose you found that the critique of creationism outweighed all other considerations. I realize how important the creationist position can be in the minds of some Catholics, and this was the first motivation I had in writing the book.

That being said, I hope you don’t mind if I clarify some of the points that you made in the review. The first and most important point is that you seem to confuse the Big Bang Theory with Evolutionary Theory, when in reality they are quite different. I am always pointing this out at book launches (like the one I did yesterday). Evolution, in common parlance, refers to a theory about biology; the Big Bang Theory, on the other hand, refers to a theory about physics. A theistic evolutionist, therefore, is one who believes that God designed the created order such that it is able to produce more complex living things from less complex living things by purely natural processes. A Big Bang theorist, on the other hand, holds that the certain chemical processes led to the development of stars and galaxies over long periods of time, after the universe began with an initial burst of energy 13.7 billion years ago.

Thus, the label of “theistic evolutionist” would not apply to someone, such as myself, who believes in the Big Bang Theory but not in macroevolution. The members of the Intelligent Design movement, for instance, typically accept the Big Bang Theory, but they constantly attack theistic evolution.

Also, you seem to be under the impression that I accuse creationists making a new notion of God solely on the basis of their strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. But, really, my main basis for making that accusation in the book is that they think of God as being inconsistent in His design of the universe, a God who is periodically changing the laws of the universe and so making it inaccessible to scientific discovery (see p. 272). This God, as I point out, is a voluntarist God, whose will need not conform to the principles of reason. That God-idea had its origin with Catholic philosophers like William of Occam, at the time of scholastic decadence, and found its full flourishing in the theologies of Luther and Calvin. It is a God that has more of an affinity with the Allah of Islam than the God of the Bible. That is why the Church has always fought against such a God-idea and really any God-idea that would undermine the power of reason to understand God’s reality.

You mention St. Thomas and the Fathers as supporting the creationist view of Biblical exegesis. This is a common misperception and I am at pains in chapter 7 to show that neither the Magisterium, nor St. Thomas, nor the Fathers, nor pre-Vatican II Scripture manualists interpreted the Bible as modern Protestant creationists do. Rather, they all held that the Bible is to be interpreted in agreement with scientific fact and not against it. St. Thomas, relying on St. Augustine explains this best when he says (quoted on p. 250):
Two things must be observed in questions of this sort, as Augustine teaches. First, one must hold unshakably that Scripture is true. Second, since Sacred Scripture can be interpreted in many ways, one must not hold to a given interpretation so firmly that, once that interpretation is clearly shown to be false, he presume to assert that the false interpretation is Scripture’s meaning, lest, by doing so, he expose Scripture to ridicule by non-believers, and close off for them the path to belief.

As far as contradiction in my book goes, you probably realize, Christian, that the gravest accusation that can be made against an author is that he falls into contradiction. It is even a more serious accusation than that he has fallen into error. If a man falls into error in this or that fact, you may readily excuse him, for ‘to err is human’. But if a man contradicts himself, you may rightly wonder whether anything at all that he says is trustworthy. A man who is not consistent with himself can be trusted to hit on the truth in the same way that a blind man may be trusted to hit a target when shooting an arrow. (Consider, in this light, how important it is that we see God as being consistent!)

You will not be surprised, then, that I find your perception of my inconsistency to rest on a misunderstanding. For instance, I do say that it is metaphysically impossible for blind forces to produce intricate order on p. 415. But I am speaking there about *life*, which, as I explain in the book, is massively more ordered and complex than anything found in the *inanimate* world (see p. 410). It is quite plausible that planets have formed from merely natural processes, but that is not the case with plankton. Thus, I do not fall into contradiction saying that natural forces can produce the non-intricate order of stars and galaxies, but cannot produce the intricate order of life. Accusing me of contradiction in that context would be somewhat like saying, “It is a contradiction to say in one place that you cannot throw a ball into outer space, but in another to say that you can throw a ball into the air.”

But even if we were to say that stars and galaxies have *some* degree of order, it would not be pantheistic to say that God designed matter to develop into stars and galaxies. The reason is that God can give matter a certain nature by which it is able to act on its own. As I mention in the book (p. 62), God gives beings to things and then creatures are able to use their being. Even humans are able to do this to a certain degree. For instance, a computer programmer can write a program and then execute it. The program executes the instructions of the programmer in an ordered way, to modify things on the computer. When this happens, we do not infer that the programmer is actually inside the computer, because the non-intelligent, blind computer is acting intelligently unto the production of complex order. Similarly, God can pre-load or fine-tune the universe such that it will develop in an ordered way, merely by means of creatures acting in the way that God made them to act and without Him having to intervene directly. This does not imply that He and the universe are one.

As far as the second apparent contradiction goes, I think we would all admit that some variation is possible in the biological world. I mention the famous example of the Galapagos finches on p. 439. We can also think of animal breeders, who manage to “create” new breeds by means of selective breeding. This sort of microevolution is all that I am referring to on pages 456 and 405, which you reference; I am not accepting the possibility of macroevolution on those pages. And, in the citation from p.449, I am just saying that if someone wants to even attempt to make a case for macroevolution, he has to accept the existence of formal causes.

I hope that this helps clear up some misunderstandings, Christian. While I don’t expect to have dissuaded you from creationist views, I hope at least that you understand where I am coming from in not finding them compelling myself.
God bless,

Fr. Robinson
**************************




Fr. Robinson,
After reading your comments, I have made some updates in my review to clarify some of the points I made. For example, you can see the quote from Fr. Chaberek, O.P., that theistic evolution can refer not only to biological evolution, but also to chemical and cosmic evolution. Also, I think your statements that seem to be contradictory need to be clarified, so that it's clear that you are referring to "variation" within a species rather than macroevolution. Additionally, since there's no such thing as a coherent scientific theory that contradicts the principles of reason, I think it's not possible to say: “Once a biologist admits the existence of formal causes outside the mind, he can then propose a coherent naturalistic evolutionary process for one life form changing into another.” Also, it seems that you forget that the Big Bang theory is not a scientific fact, but only a theory, and that many modern scientific explanations of the universe are not facts, but only theories and opinions. As you know, the literal interpretation of Genesis was commonly held by a great number of Church Fathers and early Apologists. Surely, they can't be accused of having the wrong idea about God because they believed in the six-day creation, a young earth and universe, and a geographically universal flood of Noah.
**************************


Hi, Christian,
Thank you for the clarifications in your review, and also for mentioning the excellent work of Fr Chaberek, which I quote in The Realist Guide and highly recommend. Since you accept the authority of Fr. Chaberek on this question, I thought I might refer more to his work than my work in this reply.

With regards to terminology, Fr. Chaberek makes clear, in the section of Catholicism and Evolution which you cite, that my view would be referred to as “progressive creationism” and not “theistic evolutionism”. Here is how he defines “progressive creationism” on page 61:
“This concept assumes that both the universe and different species, including man, were created by means of special operations performed directly by God rather than in the course of natural processes or as a result of secondary causes. this view adopts the scientific concept of deep time (old age of the universe), currently estimated at about 13.7 billion years.”

Fr. Chaberek himself is a progressive creationist and accepts the Big Bang Theory. He also holds that the human race may have begun as long ago as 2 million years. Yet he is not a theistic evolutionist.
With regard to the Fathers and Young Earth Creationism, I think that it is important to note, with Fr. Chaberek, that YEC “has its roots in 17th century Protestantism” (p. 63). It is a particular way of interpreting the Bible in contradiction to solid scientific evidence, something that the Fathers never did and something that is contrary to the Catholic spirit of exegesis. As Father points out, the young earth views of Catholic theologians prior to the 17th century “were not put forward in opposition to scientific data, but rather stemmed from the poor scientific knowledge of the time” (Ibid.).

Meanwhile, “progressive creationists interpret Genesis in such a way that, while preserving the literal and historical sense, they leave room for justified criticism of the text, and acknowledge true scientific discoveries (e.g., old age of the universe, heliocentrism, multitude of galaxies)” (p. 62). This position is actually more in line with the spirit of the Fathers, who did not want to interpret the Bible in contradiction with the science of their times. If the Fathers had thought that science showed that the earth was old and yet the Bible taught that the earth was young, they would then be entangled in the problem of having a voluntarist, Allah-like God on their hands. But they did not fall into this error, as modern-day creationists have.

Finally, Christian, I just wanted to provide a more detailed clarification of this sentence from The Realist Guide: “Once a biologist admits the existence of formal causes outside the mind, he can then propose a coherent naturalistic evolutionary process for one life form changing into another.” Consider if I met someone who had the idea that pigs fly, but also the idea that pigs don’t exist. To such a person, I would say, “Before you can propose a coherent theory for pigs flying, you must first admit that they exist.” Similarly, empiricist Darwinians claim that species evolve, while seeming to deny the very existence of species. This is why I say to them, “You must first admit that species or formal causes actually exist outside the mind before you can propose a coherent theory about those species evolving.” Once an evolutionist admits that species actually exist, then he can proceed to speculate coherently about how they might evolve.

In my view, as expressed in my book, such speculation should lead to the conclusion that they do not, in fact, evolve. But the sentence to which you refer is only meant to say that the evolutionist is caught in a contradiction before he even begins to speculate – as the person who does not believe in pigs is caught in a contradiction before he even begins to speculate about whether or not they can fly. I do not mean to suggest that evolutionary theory is viable given the actual evidence. Nor do I believe that it is viable even on philosophical grounds. The sentence was merely intended to highlight one glaring contradiction which places the evolutionist in a state of incoherency even before he begins to speculate.

I hope that this helps clear some things up, Christian.

God bless,
Fr. Robinson
****************************


Hi, Fr. Robinson,
I understand your points about progressive creationism and theistic evolution. However, I think if you support the theory of progressive creationism, you should have explained that clearly in your book, for then the reader would understand that your idea of God “fine-tuning and pre-programming” the universe actually refers to His direct and supernatural causality on secondary causes to enable them to produce the universe’s intelligent design.

You claim that, since the universe has the appearance of being formed over millions/billions of years, God could not have created it as described in Genesis, otherwise He would be intentionally deceiving us by making the universe look old when it is actually very young. But the same argument can be used the other way around, because Christians could say that God has been deceiving them for almost 2000 years by allowing His Church to promote a false interpretation of Genesis, only to be corrected by the Big Bang theory of modern scientists (many of whom are atheistic evolutionists), who have finally discovered the “evidence” for the right interpretation of Genesis. I think this is much worse, for it promotes an idea among the people, especially among high school/college students, that since the Bible and Church are wrong about the universe and the history of creation, then maybe they are also wrong about God and Religion.

With regard to Young Earth Creationism, St. Thomas Aquinas gives the reason why God can create the universe in a highly developed condition without the need of long periods of time to develop into stars, galaxies and planets. He says: “God produces being in act out of nothing, and can, therefore, produce a perfect thing in an instant, according to the greatness of His power” (STh, I,66,1,2). This principle applies to all being, whether organic or inorganic. Thus, if God created the universe in this way, then even though it would have the physical perfection of an ancient universe, it would actually be very young. For example, the light produced by stars and galaxies would have extended great distances quickly across the universe without the need of millions/billions of years. Similarly, the human body of Adam and Eve, along with the formation and development of the brain, vital organs, etc., did not need the normal 25-30 years necessary for development from an embryo to adulthood. Then, once God’s work of creation was finished and He rested on the “seventh day,” the universe - with its cosmic, chemical and biological perfection - would simply continue in its existence and operation according to the normal laws of physics established by God.

In his outline of the main theories of Creationism, Fr. Chaberek also explains Young Earth Creationism. In his explanation, he cites certain Catholic scientists who support this theory, such as J.W.G. Johnson (who wrote “The Crumbling theory of Evolution” and “Evolution?”) and Rev. Victor P. Warkulwiz. However, he does not accuse these scientists, or other Catholics who support this theory, of being Protestant Fundamentalists; he does not accuse them of harming the work of conversion to the Catholic Religion; and he does not accuse them of promoting a false idea about God. I think we must remember that the Church Herself allows Catholics to believe in Young Earth Creationism according to the common teaching of the Church Fathers.

I was also disappointed to see your attempt to discredit the work of some highly qualified creation scientists, especially Dr. Walter Brown, who received his Ph.D. from MIT and was a professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy. In his online book “In The Beginning” – which everyone should be encouraged to read – he uses clear scientific evidence from all over the earth to support the theory of a young earth/universe as well as the global Flood of Noah. Many of his scientific predictions, based on his “Hydroplate Theory,” have already been verified by recent scientific discoveries (documented in his book). Dr. Brown was actually an evolutionist for much of his life, and then, after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation science and a global flood. Some of his debates against atheists and evolutionists are available on YouTube.

Lastly, I’ve been thinking about your analogy between the universe and a computer programmer, but I don’t think it really works. For in a computer, there is both software and hardware, and it is the computer processor (intel/AMD) that is the efficient cause continuously executing the “intelligent program” in the computer. But what is the universe’s external efficient cause executing God’s pre-programmed intelligent blueprint on the elements and secondary causes? The elements/secondary causes cannot be this efficient cause, since being non-intelligent and blind forces themselves, they would require an external efficient cause – above and beyond their natural power – to move and direct them in an organized and harmonious manner. But wouldn’t this efficient cause be God in His supernatural/special work of creation and formation of the universe?






Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 15, 2018, 10:16:17 PM
.
Thank you for posting that exchange, klags. 
This Fr. Robinson is a piece of work. 
.
Quote
Many modern Thomists and some recent popes (e.g., Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis) have promoted various forms of theistic evolution, but this is a result of the poison of Modernism which has been trying to subvert traditional Catholic teaching for over 100 years. And even if Pope Pius XII allowed the discussion of evolution in his encyclical "Humani Generis" (Aug. 12, 1950), it was most likely due to the hoax of the Piltdown Man and false information about the Peking Man, and it was before the scientific findings of the Law of Genetics, i.e., the "genetic blueprint" (DNA) of plants and animals, which may allow for great variation within a species, but does not allow the evolution or spontaneous generation of one life form into another. (Note: Also, we shouldn't forget that Pope Pius XII’s confessor and advisor was the modernist Jesuit Cardinal Augustin Bea. And another famous modernist Jesuit, Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, actually participated in the investigations surrounding the Piltdown Man and the Peking Man).

Theistic evolutionists don’t realize that it is a pantheistic idea to propose that non-intelligent, blind secondary causes/forces of the universe can act in an intelligent manner unto the production of complex order and design by their sole natural forces, without the additional need of God's supernatural or direct intervention. For this would logically mean that the universe is evolving intelligently and with purpose by some kind of natural union with God’s intelligence and action, which is a form of pantheism - and is similar in some ways to the evolutionist "Omega Point" theory of Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., (1881-1955).
.
Here, Christian makes some pithy observations. Notice Fr. Robinson doesn't dare recognize his similarity to the thinking of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Augustine Cardinal Bea. Heaven forbid. Or would that be Limbo forbid?
.
Nor does Fr. Robinson have a word to say against Modernism. I would expect if he ever does, it is a flaccid, minimalist opposition of appearance only. 
.
He manages to ramble on and on at great length while he appears to be trying to hide his little digs against Catholic tradition amidst the volume of his words.
.
I'd like to see where he addresses the infallible teaching of St. Paul, for example, that death entered into the world at the time of original sin, and that before Adam sinned, the animals (and man for that matter) did not die. So how could there have been vast ages, as in millions (or billions!) of years with many generations of animals and plant life, when there was no death?
.
All in all, Fr. Robinson may have done us a favor by providing a kind of road map where we can see where the SSPX is headed! 
We would be wise to read his book with a duly critical eye, in order to be more aware of the opposition! 

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on August 15, 2018, 11:04:08 PM
I'd like to see where he addresses the infallible teaching of St. Paul, for example, that death entered into the world at the time of original sin, and that before Adam sinned, the animals (and man for that matter) did not die. So how could there have been vast ages, as in millions (or billions!) of years with many generations of animals and plant life, when there was no death?
I like you, Neil, but I have to say I think this is a rather poor argument. In the state of original justice before the Fall, people and animals ate food, right? Eating any living thing, including plants, would require those things to die.

The death referred to by St. Paul can be human death as the punishment for Adam's sin. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 17, 2018, 08:02:14 AM
I like you, Neil, but I have to say I think this is a rather poor argument. In the state of original justice before the Fall, people and animals ate food, right? Eating any living thing, including plants, would require those things to die.

The death referred to by St. Paul can be human death as the punishment for Adam's sin.

Death before the Fall is a complicated question Stanley, but I doubt plants come into that category.

I do know that some say even animals did not die before the fall which I find equally difficult to believe. Most animals, insdects and fish live off other animals and fish and to say all were plant eaters before the fall and changed into carnivores after is contrary to their kinds.

So yes, I think death refers to humans.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 17, 2018, 08:11:27 AM
I now see even the ARK is getting its new 'Catholic' interpretation. What is not noted is that catastrophism, the present topography of the Earth depends on the global flood being correct.

Jordan Peterson (https://www.lifesitenews.com/tags/tag/jordan+peterson), Noah's Ark (https://www.lifesitenews.com/tags/tag/noah's+ark)
August 14, 2018 (National Catholic Register) – Having previously looked at his understanding of Adam and Eve (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/04/21281/) as well as Cain and Abel (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/06/21861/), we turn now to Jordan Peterson's interpretation of the story of Noah and the Flood.
While acknowledging reports of an ancient flood present in many different cultures, Peterson, the Canadian clinical psychologist and author of the influential best-seller, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (https://www.amazon.com/12-Rules-Life-Antidote-Chaos/dp/0345816021), focuses on what the story of Noah means for us today.
In offering an interpretation (https://catholicexchange.com/ten-ways-noahs-ark-prefigured-church) that goes beyond the historical, Peterson follows in the footsteps of Jerome, Origen and Cyprian.


St. Augustine once said, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send you the Holy Spirit who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.' For he willed to make them Christians, not astronomers." [Now the helios use this quote to dismiss the Church's right in 1616 to make a fixed sun dogma. But it confirms the sun moves, it doesn't tell us in what shape that oerbit is, it took man to discover that.]


The purpose of the story of Noah is not to make us historians of ancient rainfall patterns.
So, what can we learn from Noah and the Flood?
The story begins with a claim as fresh as this morning's news — "the wickedness of man was great in the earth" (Genesis 6:5). In considering the Soviet gulags and the Nazi concentration camps, it is hard to deny the existence of human wickedness. Nor do we not have to look to Soviet communists or Nazi brownshirts to find deep depravity. Sooner or later, notes Peterson, "You'll tangle with someone who's malevolent right to the core, and maybe it'll be you that is malevolent."
The story continues, "And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them'" (Genesis 6:7-8).
God goes from delighting in creation earlier in Genesis to sorrowing over creation. Does God really change? Peterson does not take up this question, but let us consider it.
Classic Christian theology holds that God's love is unchangingly faithful. The love of God is like the heat of the sun. The heat of the sun feels heavenly when we are beside the pool, sipping a 7-Up on the Fourth of July. The heat of the sun feels hellish when we have to walk 20 miles to the nearest gas station along an abandoned desert road. The heat of the sun does not change. But we do change, and therefore our relationship to the sun's heat changes.
In a similar way, God's love is unchangingly faithful. Our relationship with the God who is Truth feels heavenly or hellish depending on our spiritual condition. As Augustine noted, "They love Truth when it enlightens them. They hate Truth when it accuses them." The unjust perceive God as an angry enemy.
Not everyone, however, viewed God as an enemy.
"Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9).    What does it mean to walk with God? Peterson describes Christ's Sermon on the Mount as "the closest thing we have to a fully articulated description of what it would mean to walk with God, so that you're in the ark when the flood comes."
To be merciful, to be pure of heart, to be a peacemaker is to walk with God. To imitate Christ daily, according to Peterson, is to build an ark as to save ourselves, our family and the goodness of creation.
But whether we are like Noah or his corrupt contemporaries, Peterson highlights an undeniable reality – "There are floods coming. You can bloody well be sure of that." The downpour of diseases, disasters and deaths will surely afflict us all. Our suffering is a certainty.
To obey conscience is to prepare for the flood. Peterson suggests, "This is a form of prayer. Sit on your bed one day and ask yourself, what remarkably stupid things am I doing on a regular basis to absolutely screw up my life?" When we honestly ask what we can do better, we quickly find out that we are not living according to our highest and best ideals.
"To build an ark" is to live in accordance with our highest and best ideals.
"Every day is judgment day," in Peterson's view. "The part of you that's equivalent to the logos, the part of you that's your own ideal, sits in eternal judgment on your iniquity." In this, Peterson echoes the thought of John Henry Newman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10794a.htm), who said, "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ."
The story continues, "The Lord said to Moses, 'For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights'" (Genesis 7:4).
The chaos emerging from disharmony with the Creator is poetically represented by the primordial waters (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/04/21281/) falling from the sky.
The story of the Flood, in other words, is not a tale of God becoming frustrated and lashing out at human beings.
The flood represents the consequences of disharmony with God. In acting out of harmony with Divine Love, we cause primordial chaos within ourselves. When we act against our ideals, we create within ourselves an inner schizophrenia. We pit the best of ourselves against the rest of ourselves.
This inner chaos spills out. As Eleonore Stump points out in her magisterial book Wandering in Darkness (https://www.amazon.com/Wandering-Darkness-Narrative-Problem-Suffering/dp/0199659303), self-alienation undermines our relationships with other people. When we are self-divided, we are double-minded and mixed in motive. We cannot wholeheartedly love others, since our heart is itself divided. Our inner division afflicts the ones we love, causing "floods" in their lives and ours. And even when our actions do not directly cause the flood, our actions (including our failure to prepare) can make the inevitable floods of life much worse.
According to Genesis, the rains and the flood do not last forever.
Fellow psychologist Martin Seligman's work on learned helplessness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness) develops Peterson's interpretation. When encountering the floods of life, some people believe that their troubles will last forever, that the rains will ruin everything, and that there is nothing they can do about it.
A person with Christian hope has a remedy for learned helplessness. No rain lasts forever, since no earthly suffering continues after death. Nor can any flood undermine the hope of eternal life.
And finally, there is always something that we can do about the chaotic waters of life. God helps his people to build an ark, to make the best of the worst.
After 40 days, the rain stops, and the flood recedes. God says to Noah, "Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you" (Genesis 16:8).
By obeying conscience, by building an ark, Noah saves himself, his family and the created order. Peterson says, "If you walk properly, aim properly, act properly, and act with God in the manner that we've been discussing, perhaps that isn't only for you. Perhaps it's also the thing that will save your family. And then, by implication, perhaps it will also save society."
The good that we do has ramifications beyond our calculations.
Published with permission from the National Catholic Register (http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/jordan-peterson-noah-and-the-flood).
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 17, 2018, 02:38:16 PM
I like you, Neil, but I have to say I think this is a rather poor argument. In the state of original justice before the Fall, people and animals ate food, right? Eating any living thing, including plants, would require those things to die.

The death referred to by St. Paul can be human death as the punishment for Adam's sin.
.
I'm not making it up. I'm only referring to what I have been taught by priests who have studied the topic.
A related topic is the question of rainfall on earth before the Flood of Noah.
One might wonder what manner of ridicule Noah and his family endured for 100 years while they built the Ark.
That's a long time for other people to come from far and wide to scoff and howl at their efforts.
But why would they attack him that way in the first place?
.
We know that there was widespread corruption at the time because Scripture says that's what happened.
We don't have to wonder how news spreads because we see that happen today.
It is one of the greatest passions of mankind to seek news from distant lands, especially bad news.
Why do you suppose videos can "go viral" on the Internet? It is because "inquiring minds want to know."
They did not have the technological messaging power we have today but they had the same human passions.
.
The reason they would have been obsessed with Noah's enormous ship was because they could see no reason for it to exist.
Here was this man and his family going to enormous expense to build the biggest ship EVER, and it was inland.
Nobody had ever built such a huge seafaring vessel.
Any large vessels of any kind were always built close to the body of water where they would be used.
We do this today, and when it's time to launch the ship, we let gravity do the work for us.
The ship (or submarine!) slides off its rails into the water pulled downhill by gravity.
.
But there was no body of water anywhere near this Ark.
And this behemoth had no means of propulsion, no sails, no rudder, no oars, no place to add them later!
Not only was it by far the largest ship ever built, it was being constructed without any possibility of ever being used.
This whole project was one huge JOKE... Or so they thought.
So it was a really big topic of public interest, especially for those who took pleasure in dreaming up clever slogans.
If there were any Communists around they would have had a heyday.
.
The point is, no one could have imagined that heavy rainfall would provide the water to float the Ark.
They could not have imagined it because they had never seen any rainfall whatsoever.
They did not know that water could fall from the sky in heavy torrents.
They were entirely ignorant of a deluge, for the word deluge had not been coined.
But there was no need for "deluge" because there was no such thing as rainfall ("rainfall" was not a word, either).
.
How do we know that? Because the Bible tells us so.
"These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: ... for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth. But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth" (Gen 2:4-6).
.
There was not a man to till the earth because there was no man yet.
.
Then it tells how God created Adam, both body and soul at the same time. Or, as St. Augustine likes to say, "at once."
.
No one could have imagined heavy rainfall because it had never been known to occur.
This is why Noah building the Ark on dry land far from any body of water was a great situation for scoffers to attack him.
.
FURTHERMORE, just as in the days of Noah, today we have scoffers who ridicule those who believe today as Noah believed then.
It is a fulfillment of prophesy that this would occur, that in the last times it will be as it was in the days of Noah, with scoffers.
It was not specifically foretold HOW the scoffers would deride those with faith.
But being apprised of their coming long ago, we can be ready for them when they arrive.
They would be so proud of themselves they would be unable to see that they are the fulfillment of prophesy.
But beyond that, even if they DO recognize they fit the pattern foretold, they continue nonetheless, because of their pride.
How many wild and crazy guys do you see who proudly tattoo 666 on their bodies, knowing full well the Scripture?'
How commonplace has satanism become, among those who believe it is their right to practice freedom of religion?
Some do these things because they take pleasure in shocking others, but some do it for more nefarious purposes.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 17, 2018, 03:12:31 PM
A friend sent me this about Robinson's book.

"I suspect that with this hormonal sweep of history Robinson is aiming
for the worldly 'Templeton prize' that established the
dumping-on-the-world-credentials of his mentor Stanley Jaki.

He's a bit over-awed by Philosophers who seem to care only about how
to frame questions rather than how to answer them.

To a guilt-ridden conciliar-catholic who can now - in the wake of JP-2
having shared his pathology on Galileo - openly express embarrassment
about the church supposedly 'loosing' a round to science, this
apparent championing of 'reason' will be psychological soothing
fertilizer to furrow the way into the NWO.

The book will make good ammunition for churning up so-called
traditionalists who still believe they lost that round to science on
the subject of Galileo.

If Robinson was living in the time of his Spiritual ancestor
Pythagoras he would not have had too much remorse about Hippasus being
supposedly bumped off by the Pythagoreans for having given oxygen to
the realism that root-2 was irrational!

As a medium for sharing his feelings about realism I'd say 'Let him at it'
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 17, 2018, 03:14:10 PM
I like you, Neil, but I have to say I think this is a rather poor argument. In the state of original justice before the Fall, people and animals ate food, right? Eating any living thing, including plants, would require those things to die.

The death referred to by St. Paul can be human death as the punishment for Adam's sin.
.
Certainly the death referred to by St. Paul was human death as punishment for original sin.
At the same time, it does not have to be limited to this realm.
Recall that Holy Baptism not only washes the soul of original sin, but also extinguishes even the temporal punishment due to sin.
So then why do the baptized continue to be subject to death as punishment for original sin?
.
We have no way of knowing how much time transpired between God's creation of the animals and Adam's sin.
Nor can we be absolutely certain of how many hours (or days?) occurred between Adam's creation and his fall into sin.
All we have is "the afternoon air" of Gen. 3:8.
If they were created in the morning they could have sinned at noon and had been expelled by evening, all in one day.
In which case it doesn't leave much time for animals to die, even in our current understanding of the lives of animals.
But that was not a time like our own.
.
Many Fathers and Doctors of the Church have taught that nature itself was a different order prior to Adam's sin.
Adam was created in a state of natural perfection, and he could not get sick.
Animals were in the same state of perfection and animals could not get sick.
It is not a great difficulty to know that he could not age either, nor could he die.
And if Adam was immune from death, it's not a huge leap of faith to grasp the doctrine that animals were likewise immune.
He could not be injured, such that falling down even from great height, could not break a bone.
Our Lord, the "second Adam" was crucified and not a bone was broken, if you recall.
Adam was created immune from the everyday physical problems that we endure.
Adam lived among lions and other great beasts, none of whom were any threat to his physical safety.
So in a manner of speaking, Adam was perhaps unaware that the animals could be capable of turning against him.
In a way he was like those who would later ridicule Noah because they would be unaware of the danger a Flood presents.
.
If we take a minute to absorb all this reality of the Church's infallible teaching, we might be able to appreciate God's truth.
And when we do, we won't be tempted to fall into the ridiculous conformity with modern errors like Fr. Robinson does.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 17, 2018, 04:09:24 PM
If Sherlock Holmes studied the matter, "The Case of The 6 day creation", he would undoubtedly conclude that the Genesis account of a 6 day creation is true, from the simple fact that all other theories have yet to be proven and have many logical inconsistencies.  As Sherlock famously said:  "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
.
To be historically accurate, Sherlock Holmes was a fictitious character made up by Arthur Conan Doyle, the author, and Doyle's source has been speculatively identified as a real life physician and professor who had the uncanny ability to deduce a man's historical past merely by observing his personal appearance, actions and speech. The principle or proposition you quote, above, is one Doyle learned from his mentor. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on August 17, 2018, 08:39:55 PM
From the Summa Theologica, I, 96, 1 ad 2: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm
Quote
In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state [of innocence], have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30 say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals. They would not, however, on this account have been excepted from the mastership of man: as neither at present are they for that reason excepted from the mastership of God, Whose Providence has ordained all this. Of this Providence man would have been the executor, as appears even now in regard to domestic animals, since fowls are given by men as food to the trained falcon.
I assume we can agree St. Thomas was not a modernist.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 17, 2018, 09:28:26 PM

Quote
To be historically accurate, Sherlock Holmes was a fictitious character made up by Arthur Conan Doyle, the author, and Doyle's source has been speculatively identified as a real life physician and professor who had the uncanny ability to deduce a man's historical past merely by observing his personal appearance, actions and speech. The principle or proposition you quote, above, is one Doyle learned from his mentor. 
Precisely, Dr Watson!
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 17, 2018, 10:10:08 PM
From the Summa Theologica, I, 96, 1 ad 2: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1096.htm I assume we can agree St. Thomas was not a modernist.
.
True, St. Thomas was not a modernist. Just the same, St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings. He awoke from a dream in which he had been shown the consequences of his errors and immediately ordered his servant to burn the Summa in the fireplace. Fortunately for us, his servant disobeyed him.
.
St. Thomas does not have to be "a modernist" in order to make a mistake. 
.
You'll have to try a lot harder.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 17, 2018, 10:47:16 PM
.
True, St. Thomas was not a modernist. Just the same, St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings. He awoke from a dream in which he had been shown the consequences of his errors and immediately ordered his servant to burn the Summa in the fireplace. Fortunately for us, his servant disobeyed him.
.
St. Thomas does not have to be "a modernist" in order to make a mistake.
.
You'll have to try a lot harder.

What an incredible story!  I've never heard it before.  Hard to believe it actually happened (without very strong and solid documentation for same) assuming the saint was a very disciplined and discerning one.  (I've never heard anything to indicate otherwise.)  You would think he would check with others (at least a spiritual advisor) before he took such a drastic and immediate action and an action of such grave magnitude.

Neil, would you be able to provide some documentation for the story?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 02:49:19 AM
What an incredible story!  I've never heard it before.  Hard to believe it actually happened (without very strong and solid documentation for same) assuming the saint was a very disciplined and discerning one.  (I've never heard anything to indicate otherwise.)  You would think he would check with others (at least a spiritual adviser) before he took such a drastic and immediate action and an action of such grave magnitude.

Neil, would you be able to provide some documentation for the story?
.
Sorry, no source, going on memory. So don't quote me. I did a quick check and found some vaguely similar stories saying he had had a vision while saying Mass and then told his assistant that all his writings were as so much straw. That isn't a directive to burn them, but what do you do with straw but use it to start a fire? Ironically, that's the same kind of reasoning he used to say that "there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals," and the nature of animals was not changed by the sin of Adam. He has no reference for those, if you didn't notice. Perhaps because there isn't any. But footnotes and sources were not his strong points. Anyway, St. Thomas is entitled to his theological opinions, but he doesn't have the authority to demand that everyone agrees with him is the point. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition that says we are to believe that animals of today known to be carnivorous animals were in the Garden of Eden as carnivorous as well. When Adam and Eve were cast out, what happened to the animals -- were they cast out too? Not a word of that. Were they all destroyed? Don't know. Do they still exist? Don't know that either. Did they all perish in the Flood? Was the still-existing Garden of Eden in any way unprotected from the Flood waters? Lots of unanswered questions.
.
From our present point of view the Garden of Eden couldn't have been much fun without a weekend barbecue of pork, beef or perhaps chicken. But it's not all about our present point of view, because theology is not an exercise in subjective reality.
.
Saints and mystics have said that no snake or scorpion could have harmed Adam in his state of perfection. St. Thomas has no mention of that topic. Nor does he weigh in on whether the animals in the Garden of Eden were subject to disease. He mentions the feeding of a falcon with what would seem to be raw meat (today falconers feed their birds little slices of raw rats or mice -- not the most fun part of the whole gig), but curiously has no way of being sure whether Adam was a falconer. Who knows, maybe he was. It is a great example of man's superiority over exotic animals! Falcons are extremely cool birds. But one would think that to become a falconer, Adam would have needed a lot more than one day, because it generally takes about 2 years for someone to train for that, and that's WITH supervision, which Adam did not have. It could easily have taken the whole first day just to catch a falcon so he could get started.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on August 18, 2018, 03:06:17 AM
.
Have you ever heard how it is we can be absolutely 100% certain that Adam was not a black man?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on August 18, 2018, 08:29:41 AM
.
Have you ever heard how it is we can be absolutely 100% certain that Adam was not a black man?

No, but if Christ was the second Adam in appearance, and we know from the shroud he looked European.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4RBXVs70_g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4RBXVs70_g)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on August 18, 2018, 09:35:29 AM
True, St. Thomas was not a modernist. Just the same, St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings. He awoke from a dream in which he had been shown the consequences of his errors and immediately ordered his servant to burn the Summa in the fireplace. Fortunately for us, his servant disobeyed him.
.
St. Thomas does not have to be "a modernist" in order to make a mistake. 
.
You'll have to try a lot harder.
Let's remember the context. You were arguing that St. Paul's "by sin death entered the world" meant there was no death before Adam's sin and so disproves evolution. I said I think that's a poor argument. St. Thomas said the view that animals would not have killed other animals before Adam's sin is "quite unreasonable". Since St. Thomas didn't buy the argument, do you really think it's persuasive? Do you think the argument would mean anything at all to an agnostic?
I didn't really expect you to just reject St. Thomas out of hand. You might want to reflect on that. Seriously.

Finally, it's commonly said that near the end of his life, St. Thomas had a vision - like St. Paul's being lifted to the third heaven - and after that vision he viewed his writings as straw in comparison to the reality. Not that they were wrong, but that they paled in comparison. St. Thomas did have some mistakes, but excepting the natural science of the time (which he accepted and did not really investigate), I can only think of two things now viewed as mistakes that are well-known.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 23, 2018, 03:58:38 PM
.
 St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings.

Neil, could you state for the record what they were, (where they can be found in his writings if you have the time), and whether he retracted them before he died?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Smedley Butler on August 23, 2018, 06:16:42 PM
.
True, St. Thomas was not a modernist. Just the same, St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings. He awoke from a dream in which he had been shown the consequences of his errors and immediately ordered his servant to burn the Summa in the fireplace. Fortunately for us, his servant disobeyed him.
.
St. Thomas does not have to be "a modernist" in order to make a mistake.
.
You'll have to try a lot harder.
I'd wager the "serious consequences" of his errors had to do with what he took from the Greeks.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 24, 2018, 04:17:25 PM
St. Thomas was not free from error. He made several serious errors in his writings.

One week later -- 2nd request:

Neil, could you state for the record what they were, (where they can be found in his writings if you have the time), and whether he retracted them before he died?

P.S. Sorry, if this is giving you any grief Neil, but after all that's a pretty heavy duty assertion you are making. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 24, 2018, 05:32:32 PM
St Thomas did not believe in the Immaculate conception as is taught today.  He thought there was a delay between conception and the infusion of the soul, which was a common medical understanding in the Middle Ages. But still, he was wrong.  
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on August 25, 2018, 01:58:35 AM
St Thomas did not believe in the Immaculate conception as is taught today.  He thought there was a delay between conception and the infusion of the soul, which was a common medical understanding in the Middle Ages. But still, he was wrong.  
Just one more, and I think we will hit 3 and cross the threshold number for "several." 

Before we get to #3 (whatever that may be) let's take a closer look at the 2 you mention, however.  If we are to concede -- and not everyone does -- that Aquinas erred on the Immaculate Conception, it is thought by some that he corrected his error before he died.  (See Garrigou Lagrange, for example: https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html. (https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html)

In terms of Aquinas' alleged error on ensoulment, the issue is not quite so black and white as many would suggest, if not even assume.  See, for example, the excellent thread on this topic at https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/when-is-the-soul-created/msg233394/#msg233394 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/when-is-the-soul-created/msg233394/#msg233394) 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on August 31, 2018, 07:55:37 AM
If we are to concede -- and not everyone does -- that Aquinas erred on the Immaculate Conception, it is thought by some that he corrected his error before he died.  (See Garrigou Lagrange, for example: https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html. (https://taylormarshall.com/2010/12/did-thomas-aquinas-deny-immaculate.html)
These are the two well known items considered today as mistakes in St. Thomas.
But let's be a little careful about saying St. Thomas "denied" the Immaculate Conception. I think that's unlikely, given that the feast of the Immaculate Conception is very old. The issue was not about whether it was true, but about how to explain it. So perhaps we should say that the explanation of St. Thomas (at least at some point in his life) is not quite the explanation used today.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Pax Vobis on August 31, 2018, 08:27:24 AM
Quote
But let's be a little careful about saying St. Thomas "denied" the Immaculate Conception.
Absolutely agreed.  He didn't deny this doctrine, he only proposed details about the "how", as you pointed out.  In the common understanding, we can say that he was "wrong", but in reality, he was only wrong in a few details.  Substantially, he didn't deny the dogma.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 08, 2018, 04:02:43 PM
Apparently, it is not a problem now for a SSPX priest to throw into question traditional Catholic exegesis of the Book of Genesis.  Such thought may even be lauded by the new (and improved?!) SSPX via its promotion of the priest's book pushing same.  On the other hand, a cleric (even a bishop) may be severely dealt with by this new (and improved?!) SSPX for exposing the tenets of the "sacred" Holohoax.  (A veritable and major disconnect if there ever was one!)  See SSPX Bishop Fellay: If Bishop Williamson 'Denies the Holocaust' again he will be Expelled from the Society (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sspx-head-on-holocaust-denial-williamson-apology-a-step-in-right-direction-a-610700.html)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on September 15, 2018, 10:51:00 PM
Apparently, it is not a problem now for a SSPX priest to throw into question traditional Catholic exegesis of the Book of Genesis.  Such thought may even be lauded by the new (and improved?!) SSPX via its promotion of the priest's book pushing same.  On the other hand, a cleric (even a bishop) may be severely dealt with by this new (and improved?!) SSPX for exposing the tenets of the "sacred" Holohoax.  (A veritable and major disconnect if there ever was one!)  See SSPX Bishop Fellay: If Bishop Williamson 'Denies the Holocaust' again he will be Expelled from the Society (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/sspx-head-on-holocaust-denial-williamson-apology-a-step-in-right-direction-a-610700.html)

Just to bring the thread to its climax: Hitler.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 16, 2018, 05:55:30 PM

Perhaps, you were just trying to be tongue in cheek.  Actually though, Hitler -- it should be obvious -- is not a part of the thread, let alone does he bring it to its climax.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 17, 2018, 09:50:05 PM
Perhaps, Fr. Robinson laments missing this conference where he could join speakers such as Stacey Trasancos who professes a belief in the Big Bang and professes her unbelief in geocentrism: http://www.catholicanswersconference.com/speakers/dr-stacy-trasancos/ (http://www.catholicanswersconference.com/speakers/dr-stacy-trasancos/)

I think his book would be a popular one at the conference.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on September 17, 2018, 10:09:12 PM
Perhaps, you were just trying to be tongue in cheek.  Actually though, Hitler -- it should be obvious -- is not a part of the thread, let alone does he bring it to its climax.

Sorry, I get fed up with this holo-stuff, though it should be mentioned where the SSPX is heading as you did.


@cassini
They are trying to make your children and grandchildren earth-movers.




Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on September 25, 2018, 07:16:10 AM

My oh my, how is Fr Robinson going to take this? Imagine writing a book only to find someone else writing a book dismissing it.

http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)

Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)
flatearthflatwrong.com
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views …


Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
This book was written for two purposes: First, to educate the public at large by a critical examination of science and history, especially in the areas of cosmogony and cosmology. Although modern science purports to know the origin and operation of the universe, in reality it comprehends very little and actually spreads more falsehood today than it does truth. On its face, modern science is the last formidable bastion of secular society. It is touted as impregnable and invincible. Indeed, today’s scientists have the education, the grants, the sophisticated equipment, the iconic image, the universities, the newspapers and the general media on their side. Opposing voices can barely form a whisper of contention. It is truly a Goliath if there ever was one in our modern age and it is as big as the universe itself.
Second, this book contends with Catholics, and anyone else, who have accepted the major teachings of modern science and thereby have rejected either biblical revelation, the traditional ecclesiastical consensus, or the official magisterial statements that disagree with modern science’s theories or conclusions. As one can see by the title, I have chosen to focus on the recent book by Fr. Paul Robinson, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. He is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a very conservative but embattled branch of Roman Catholicism. The reason he was chosen is normally we don’t see many examples of staunchly conservative Catholic groups being unduly influenced by the theories of modern science to the point they either reject or neutralize the biblical, traditional and magisterial teachings. If there is any group of Catholics from whom we could expect a rigid traditional Catholic view of either the Bible or its interpretation, it is the SSPX, at least in its beginnings under its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But like many conservative groups today, the inevitable tendency is to judge scientific issues according to the world’s “status quo” and to avoid being dubbed “Fundamentalist.” Fr. Robinson’s book, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has proven to be no exception.
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
575 pages.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on September 25, 2018, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: http://flatearthflatwrong.com
[...]
If there is any group of Catholics from whom we could expect a rigid traditional Catholic view of either the Bible or its interpretation, it is the SSPX, at least in its beginnings under its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But like many conservative groups today, the inevitable tendency is to judge scientific issues according to the world’s “status quo” and to avoid being dubbed “Fundamentalist.”
[...]

Did Abp Lefebvre comment on the topic? I have read some of his books and I don't recall that he mentioned scientific issues.

Ten years ago I read an anonymous comment in a forum saying that Bp Williamson was the only one of the four SSPX bishops ordained by Lefebvre believing that the flood was worldwide.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 25, 2018, 10:59:22 AM
My oh my, how is Fr Robinson going to take this? Imagine writing a book only to find someone else writing a book dismissing it.

http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)

Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)
flatearthflatwrong.com
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views …


Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
This book was written for two purposes: First, to educate the public at large by a critical examination of science and history, especially in the areas of cosmogony and cosmology. Although modern science purports to know the origin and operation of the universe, in reality it comprehends very little and actually spreads more falsehood today than it does truth. On its face, modern science is the last formidable bastion of secular society. It is touted as impregnable and invincible. Indeed, today’s scientists have the education, the grants, the sophisticated equipment, the iconic image, the universities, the newspapers and the general media on their side. Opposing voices can barely form a whisper of contention. It is truly a Goliath if there ever was one in our modern age and it is as big as the universe itself.
Second, this book contends with Catholics, and anyone else, who have accepted the major teachings of modern science and thereby have rejected either biblical revelation, the traditional ecclesiastical consensus, or the official magisterial statements that disagree with modern science’s theories or conclusions. As one can see by the title, I have chosen to focus on the recent book by Fr. Paul Robinson, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. He is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a very conservative but embattled branch of Roman Catholicism. The reason he was chosen is normally we don’t see many examples of staunchly conservative Catholic groups being unduly influenced by the theories of modern science to the point they either reject or neutralize the biblical, traditional and magisterial teachings. If there is any group of Catholics from whom we could expect a rigid traditional Catholic view of either the Bible or its interpretation, it is the SSPX, at least in its beginnings under its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But like many conservative groups today, the inevitable tendency is to judge scientific issues according to the world’s “status quo” and to avoid being dubbed “Fundamentalist.” Fr. Robinson’s book, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has proven to be no exception.
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
575 pages.


May God abundantly bless Dr. Robert Sungenis for all the heroic work he has done and continues to do in the defense of the Catholic Faith, and that amidst many ongoing scurrilous, dishonest, and even irrational attacks on that work and even upon his character.  A significant part of that work has involved his clearly written and very edifying material in the area of modern science and how scientism with its many erroneous notions has been used to subvert Sacred Scripture and the Church.

On a personal note, I can say that I have learned a tremendous amount -- and been quite inspired in the process -- by reading a good number of Dr. Sungenis' books including his mulit-volume Galileo Was Wrong -- The Church Was Right and Flat Earth -- Flat Wrong.  Robert has most definitely used the talents God has given him.   I suspect very few of us have done anywhere near as much.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 25, 2018, 11:15:30 AM
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Front-Cover-Scientific-Heresies.jpg)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on September 25, 2018, 12:24:03 PM


Did Abp Lefebvre comment on the topic? I have read some of his books and I don't recall that he mentioned scientific issues.

Ten years ago I read an anonymous comment in a forum saying that Bp Williamson was the only one of the four SSPX bishops ordained by Lefebvre believing that the flood was worldwide.

A friend tells me he read that Archbishop Lefevbre said we should read Genesis 'in its simplicity.'

That to me means literally as written by Moses according to the inspiration of God. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Geremia on September 25, 2018, 01:16:11 PM
Did Abp Lefebvre comment on the topic? I have read some of his books and I don't recall that he mentioned scientific issues.
Yes, Sungenis quotes on p. 27 from Abp. Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics p. 130 (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-17.htm):
Quote from: Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 17. What is Tradition?
In this respect, the Modernists have got what they wanted and more. In what passes for seminaries, they teach anthropology, psychoanalysis and Marx in place of St. Thomas Aquinas. The principles of Thomist philosophy are rejected in favor of vague systems which themselves recognize their inability to explain the economy of the Universe, putting forward as they do the philosophy of the absurd. One latter-day revolutionary, a muddle-headed priest much heeded by intellectuals, who put sex at the heart of everything, was bold enough to declare at public meetings: “The scientific hypotheses of the ancients were pure nonsense and it is on such nonsense that St. Thomas and Origen based their systems.” Immediately afterwards, he fell into the absurdity of defining life as “an evolutionary chain of biologically inexplicable facts.” How can he know that, if it is inexplicable? How, I would add, can a priest discard the only explanation, which is God?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on September 25, 2018, 07:54:25 PM
Yes, Sungenis quotes on p. 27 from Abp. Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics p. 130 (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-17.htm):

Quote from: Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 17. What is Tradition?
[...] Immediately afterwards, he fell into the absurdity of defining life as “an evolutionary chain of biologically inexplicable facts.” How can he know that, if it is inexplicable? How, I would add, can a priest discard the only explanation, which is God?

“An evolutionary chain of biologically inexplicable facts” is explained by “the only explanation, which is God”.

Sounds like theistic evolution.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 26, 2018, 11:34:58 AM

Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
575 pages.


As for the false idea of "progressive creationism," it can perhaps be best summed up as God having used His divine power intermittently to help the creation develop over billions of years.  (A summing up of the summing up -- a modernistic sophistry!)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on September 26, 2018, 11:50:25 AM
As for the false idea of "progressive creationism," it can perhaps be best summed up as God having used His divine power intermittently to help the creation develop over billions of years.  (A summing up of the summing up -- a modernistic sophistry!)

Three other alternative views with the third one, of course, being the traditional/true Catholic view:


1) Theistic evolution (God built into the creation the power, by itself, to develop over billions of years)


2) Secular evolution (Matter created itself and developed over billions of years)


3) Six day creation by divine fiat
 

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 06, 2018, 01:49:51 PM
I recently received my copy of Dr. Sungenis' (I always refer to him as a doctor because he earned his very legitimate PhD by way of a very hard earned and extraordinary 700 page thesis on geocentrism) 564 page book Scientific Heresies and Their #Effect on the Church --A Critique of: [Fr. Paul Robinson's] "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. This book is clearly an outstanding achievement by -- if the truth be known -- a prodigious Catholic mind.

That said, the book is an absolutely devastating -- and I can't overemphasize the word devastating -- and highly documented critique at what is being and has been mainstreamed into the Catholic Church and now into the SSPX.  This mainstreaming is being done in terms of trying to square the circle by trying to conform the dictates of modern heretical science with the truth taught by our tradition based, scripture based, and Magisterium based Catholic Church.  It is that truth which has been passed down to us all the way from the time of the Fathers of that Church.

We owe Dr. Sungenis a real debt of gratitude for this book.  I hope and pray that it causes some real shock waves througout the SSPX and the Catholic Church and beyond.  They would be most well deserved.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 06, 2018, 04:18:44 PM
I recently received my copy of Dr. Sungenis' (I always refer to him as a doctor because he earned his very legitimate PhD by way of a very hard earned and extraordinary 700 page thesis on geocentrism) 
Thank you for sharing this. This ends up explaining a lot.
If his "dissertation" were academically rigorous, he could have taken it to a real academic institution, perhaps taken some classes in bible studies and theology, and received a recognized, accredited degree.
Instead, he apparently went to Calamus International University. It no longer exists, but was registered in  Venuatu (an island nation in the south Pacific) at the time. Registration as a business does not mean it was accredited as a university. CIU degrees are not recognized in the US, and it was not really accredited. CIU is generally recognized as a "diploma mill" with at best, very low standards. As an example, a reviewer for his "dissertation" was Bennet, who was coauthor of GWW, which as you imply was substantially his "dissertation". That alone would look like a conflict of interest at most real universities. Furthermore, did people with appropriate credentials ever approved his dissertation? I see zero evidence it ever received peer review.
So thank you for pointing out that Sungenis appears to have a fake PhD.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 06, 2018, 08:01:42 PM
Thank you for sharing this. This ends up explaining a lot.
If his "dissertation" were academically rigorous, he could have taken it to a real academic institution, perhaps taken some classes in bible studies and theology, and received a recognized, accredited degree.
Instead, he apparently went to Calamus International University. It no longer exists, but was registered in  Venuatu (an island nation in the south Pacific) at the time. Registration as a business does not mean it was accredited as a university. CIU degrees are not recognized in the US, and it was not really accredited. CIU is generally recognized as a "diploma mill" with at best, very low standards. As an example, a reviewer for his "dissertation" was Bennet, who was coauthor of GWW, which as you imply was substantially his "dissertation". That alone would look like a conflict of interest at most real universities. Furthermore, did people with appropriate credentials ever approved his dissertation? I see zero evidence it ever received peer review.
So thank you for pointing out that Sungenis appears to have a fake PhD.

Stanley, you like many, many others have a very distorted and largely erroneous idea of the Sungenis PhD issue.  If you are of good faith I would ask you to communicate directly with Dr. Sungenis so that you could hear his position directly from him.  For the time being, I will merely point out that many, many individuals are running around with a PhD from prestigious universities that are not worth the paper they are written on.   For the purposes of this thread which I don't want to go down a rabbit hole by your defamation of Sungenis, I hope you will let us know whether or not you will act honorably and reach out to Dr. Sungenis personally like a good truth seeking Catholic and seek to find out his position as regards what you have stated above.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 07, 2018, 10:26:19 AM
klasG$e, did Sungenis get his PhD from Calamus International University?
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 07, 2018, 01:03:39 PM
klasG$e, did Sungenis get his PhD from Calamus International University?

Why don't you ask Dr. Sungenis, but before you do why not tell me why you put the $ sign in my Username.  I've been participating on CathInfo for years and as far as I know you are the first person to ever do this.  If you are trying to imply that I make money (or derive any other benefit) from the sale of any of Dr. Sungenis' material you are in gross error.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 07, 2018, 02:06:24 PM
$ is shift 4. I hope you never type a single letter incorrectly.

Why would anyone need to ask Sungenis anything about this - he published "My PhD from Calamus International University".
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 07, 2018, 06:45:25 PM


Why would anyone need to ask Sungenis anything about this - he published "My PhD from Calamus International University".

Then, why in the world are you asking me: "klasG$e, did Sungenis get his PhD from Calamus International University?"
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: rosenley on October 07, 2018, 06:57:03 PM
Here is the link to the essay mentioned by the previous commenter: https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf (https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 07, 2018, 07:15:06 PM
Here is the link to the essay mentioned by the previous commenter: https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf (https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf)
Thanks much for your intervention rosenley!  Hopefully, the thread can continue on without any further attempted trashing of Dr. Sungenis' academic credentials, much less by extension his good name.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 07, 2018, 09:47:45 PM
Then, why in the world are you asking me: "klasG$e, did Sungenis get his PhD from Calamus International University?"
You accused me of defamation. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 08, 2018, 12:44:24 AM
You accused me of defamation.
Quote from: klasG4e on October 06, 2018, 01:49:51 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/comments-on-fr-robinson's-new-book-the-realistic-guide-to-religion-and-science/msg629406/#msg629406)
Quote
I recently received my copy of Dr. Sungenis' (I always refer to him as a doctor because he earned his very legitimate PhD by way of a very hard earned and extraordinary 700 page thesis on geocentrism)
Stanley N: Thank you for sharing this. This ends up explaining a lot.
If his "dissertation" were academically rigorous, he could have taken it to a real academic institution, perhaps taken some classes in bible studies and theology, and received a recognized, accredited degree.
Instead, he apparently went to Calamus International University. It no longer exists, but was registered in  Venuatu (an island nation in the south Pacific) at the time. Registration as a business does not mean it was accredited as a university. CIU degrees are not recognized in the US, and it was not really accredited. CIU is generally recognized as a "diploma mill" with at best, very low standards. As an example, a reviewer for his "dissertation" was Bennet, who was coauthor of GWW, which as you imply was substantially his "dissertation". That alone would look like a conflict of interest at most real universities. Furthermore, did people with appropriate credentials ever approved his dissertation? I see zero evidence it ever received peer review. So thank you for pointing out that Sungenis appears to have a fake PhD.

klasG4e: Yes, Stanley I did accuse you of defamation based on your above earlier response to me.  Having already been aware of what Dr. Sungenis stated in the following link, I stand by that accusation and will leave it to the readers of this thread who care to check out what Dr. Sungenis has publicly stated in his defense as to whether they would consider your words a smear (i.e., defamation) of Dr. Sungenis or not.  The link to Dr. Sungenis position is here: https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf (https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf)  
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on October 08, 2018, 05:55:30 AM
I too have read Robert Sungenis's book. It is indeed a very comprehensive rebuttal of Fr Robinson's book which I also read. How he had the patience to write such a LONG book is beyond me.

As one who has had a long interest in the subject of creation, heliocentrism and geocentrism, long ages, evolution and Big Bangism, I find when we get to a point where only PhDs or those with similar degrees in astronomy, physics, biology, Earth sciences etc, are looked upon as the 'experts' who can answer questions relating to whether Genesis was metaphorical or literally true, most readers are out of their comfort zone.

Personally, I am a Genesis for beginners man. In my many years of research I will remember the day when I read an article on Albert Einstein by Martin Gwynne. Now remember Einstein has been regarded as having been a scientist beyond human reason, a man gifted by God with a brain and a half. In it he said Einstein's version of relativity was more than nonsense, it was SIMPLE nonsense. Searching through university book on modern physics i came across a question for a astudent's exam. It was 'HOW CAN A MAN CARRYING A 20FOOT LONG POLE FIT INTO A 10FT SQUARE ROOM AND CLOSE THE DOOR BEHIND HIM.' According to Einstein's theory of relativity he can do it if he enters the room at the speed of light. you see the pole shrinks at the speed of light etc.

So too is evolution simple nonsense. Ever see how complex a single cell is? If you want I will show you. How did that cell gain accumulation and 'life'? Next we have to imagine any creature 'evolving.' Now evolution means something staying alive with its parts evolving. Science fiction couldn't make it up.
Theistic evolution is where Catholics like Fr Robinson bring in such nonsense and try to make it a matter of FAITH. They use God to solve their nonsense, BILLIONS of miracles to get zombie evolution look Catholic.

Catholic creation however is an act of God that he finished. It is not miracles, miracles happen only after all was created, finished. Evolution never finishes. What in God's name is hard to believe in the immediate or seven day creation act? Why try to make creation concord with scientific nonsense? What you end up with Fr Robinson is Catholic nonsense. Catholicism teaches many things happened beyond scientific understanding, so why single out direct creation as Genesis tells us?

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

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 08, 2018, 09:31:17 AM
Quote from: klasG4e on October 06, 2018, 01:49:51 PM
 (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/comments-on-fr-robinson's-new-book-the-realistic-guide-to-religion-and-science/msg629406/#msg629406)Stanley N: Thank you for sharing this. This ends up explaining a lot.
If his "dissertation" were academically rigorous, he could have taken it to a real academic institution, perhaps taken some classes in bible studies and theology, and received a recognized, accredited degree.
Instead, he apparently went to Calamus International University. It no longer exists, but was registered in  Venuatu (an island nation in the south Pacific) at the time. Registration as a business does not mean it was accredited as a university. CIU degrees are not recognized in the US, and it was not really accredited. CIU is generally recognized as a "diploma mill" with at best, very low standards. As an example, a reviewer for his "dissertation" was Bennet, who was coauthor of GWW, which as you imply was substantially his "dissertation". That alone would look like a conflict of interest at most real universities. Furthermore, did people with appropriate credentials ever approved his dissertation? I see zero evidence it ever received peer review. So thank you for pointing out that Sungenis appears to have a fake PhD.

klasG4e: Yes, Stanley I did accuse you of defamation based on your above earlier response to me.  Having already been aware of what Dr. Sungenis stated in the following link, I stand by that accusation and will leave it to the readers of this thread who care to check out what Dr. Sungenis has publicly stated in his defense as to whether they would consider your words a smear (i.e., defamation) of Dr. Sungenis or not.  The link to Dr. Sungenis position is here: https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf (https://isidore.co/misc/Physics%20papers%20and%20books/Cosmology/Copernican%20principle/Sungenis%20&%20De%20Lano/about%20Sungenis%27s%20%22Diploma%20Mill%22%20PhD.pdf)  

If anyone cannot access or does not wish to access the above linked article (dated 1-28-2007), they may simply read Dr. Sungenis' note to me dated 10-7-2018.  It reads as follows: "Regarding my Ph.D. degree, Calamus International University (CIU) issued bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. degrees under the governmental authority of the Republic of Vanuatu. Therefore the degrees issued were not “fake.” They were legal degrees, as official as degrees from any other institution under governmental authority. However, the CIU degrees were not accredited in the United States, and that is because CIU did not seek accreditation from governments outside of Vanuatu, and Vanuatu did not require accreditation, similar to Denmark. Further, CIU was not a “diploma mill,” since diploma mills are facilities that issue fake degrees for money but require no previous or current academic work, nor previous bachelors or masters degrees. CIU required both previous accredited bachelors and masters degrees, as well as significant academic work from each of its Ph.D. students, as well as a monitored and graded Ph.D. dissertation, judged and approved by other Ph.Ds in the same field. My dissertation took over two years to write and was approved “Excellent” in nine out of nine categories. For the past 12 years I have freely divulged all these details to the public since I received the Ph.D. degree from CIU in 2006. I went into the CIU program knowing full well it was non-accredited, and I did so because, after investigating what was available, I could find no accredited institution that would allow a Ph.D. in geocentrism. What I didn’t expect is that my ideological enemies would exploit CIU’s non-accreditation in the fierce defamatory manner they have. These kinds of people judge from appearance, not from substance. The substance of my work for the past 30 years has been acknowledged both nationally and internationally, by peer and foe alike, and that work took much more time and effort than my Ph.D. The high academic quality of my work is obvious for all to see, at least those who are not filled with animosity and prejudice against me simply because I sometimes deal with esoteric issues with which they don’t agree. Over the past 25 years of service I have given to the Catholic community in teaching and defending the Catholic faith, I have written over 45 books; produced three movies; hosted two television shows; was a guest on 45 radio shows; participated in 30 formal debates; written hundreds of articles; ran an apologetics organization and was one of the best apologists in my field. What counts is the quality of my work, and that work speaks for itself, including my most recently published book, Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church."

But that the defamation of Dr. Sungenis via attacks on his Ph.D. degree from Calamus International University by Catholics and others would finally come to an end -- at least on this thread.  I would encourage others who support Dr. Sungenis and his work to file away the link above as well as the note from him I have quoted verbatim above.  I believe it is safe to say that Robert Sungenis is the most preeminent and renowned geocentrist in the world today.  For that reason if no other I sadly suspect the attacks on him and his work will continue until the day he dies.  
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 08, 2018, 09:51:41 AM
klasG4e: Yes, Stanley I did accuse you of defamation based on your above earlier response to me.  Having already been aware of what Dr. Sungenis stated in the following link, I stand by that accusation
Defamation is saying false things. He did receive his PhD from Calamus, and it is generally regarded as a diploma mill. Your failure to retract demonstrates something about you.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 08, 2018, 10:38:35 AM
Defamation is saying false things. He did receive his PhD from Calamus, and it is generally regarded as a diploma mill. Your failure to retract demonstrates something about you.

Sungenis addresses the accusation of Calamus being a diploma mill in the quote of his which I am again pasting for you below.  He denies that it was and explains the reason for his denial.  I believe that what Sungenis says is true (I have known him personally for many years and have found him to be a very truthful and honorable Catholic gentleman) and therefore I do not retract my charge of defamation.  By the way, it appears from what you have posted on CathInfo that you do not believe in geocentrism.  I have found over the years that those who do not believe in geocentrism have spread all sorts of defamation against Dr. Sungenis.  No surprise there.

Dr. Sungenis states: "Regarding my Ph.D. degree, Calamus International University (CIU) issued bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. degrees under the governmental authority of the Republic of Vanuatu. Therefore the degrees issued were not “fake.” They were legal degrees, as official as degrees from any other institution under governmental authority. However, the CIU degrees were not accredited in the United States, and that is because CIU did not seek accreditation from governments outside of Vanuatu, and Vanuatu did not require accreditation, similar to Denmark. Further, CIU was not a “diploma mill,” since diploma mills are facilities that issue fake degrees for money but require no previous or current academic work, nor previous bachelors or masters degrees. CIU required both previous accredited bachelors and masters degrees, as well as significant academic work from each of its Ph.D. students, as well as a monitored and graded Ph.D. dissertation, judged and approved by other Ph.Ds in the same field. My dissertation took over two years to write and was approved “Excellent” in nine out of nine categories. For the past 12 years I have freely divulged all these details to the public since I received the Ph.D. degree from CIU in 2006. I went into the CIU program knowing full well it was non-accredited, and I did so because, after investigating what was available, I could find no accredited institution that would allow a Ph.D. in geocentrism. What I didn’t expect is that my ideological enemies would exploit CIU’s non-accreditation in the fierce defamatory manner they have. These kinds of people judge from appearance, not from substance. The substance of my work for the past 30 years has been acknowledged both nationally and internationally, by peer and foe alike, and that work took much more time and effort than my Ph.D. The high academic quality of my work is obvious for all to see, at least those who are not filled with animosity and prejudice against me simply because I sometimes deal with esoteric issues with which they don’t agree. Over the past 25 years of service I have given to the Catholic community in teaching and defending the Catholic faith, I have written over 45 books; produced three movies; hosted two television shows; was a guest on 45 radio shows; participated in 30 formal debates; written hundreds of articles; ran an apologetics organization and was one of the best apologists in my field. What counts is the quality of my work, and that work speaks for itself, including my most recently published book, Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church."
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 08, 2018, 11:20:02 PM
Sungenis addresses the accusation of Calamus being a diploma mill in the quote of his which I am again pasting for you below.  He denies that it was and explains the reason for his denial.  I believe that what Sungenis says is true (I have known him personally for many years and have found him to be a very truthful and honorable Catholic gentleman) and therefore I do not retract my charge of defamation.  
You may to some extent be entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Calamus is generally regarded as a diploma mill. Defining diploma mill in a peculiar way doesn't change that.
If you had any honour or integrity, you would retract your false and malicious accusation.
Getting a degree of any sort from that institution is evidence of poor judgment in and of itself, quite independent of the subject matter involved.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on October 08, 2018, 11:32:43 PM
Calamus is generally regarded as a diploma mill.

You, Stanley N, insist that Calamus is generally regarded as a diploma mill.

On the other hand, you have not been impressed by quotes of physicists and astronomers who are regarded as gods by your same standards (godless academia). Rather, you acted as if the quotes hadn't even been presented to you.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 09, 2018, 04:39:24 AM
You may to some extent be entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Calamus is generally regarded as a diploma mill. Defining diploma mill in a peculiar way doesn't change that.
If you had any honour or integrity, you would retract your false and malicious accusation.
Getting a degree of any sort from that institution is evidence of poor judgment in and of itself, quite independent of the subject matter involved.

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.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on October 09, 2018, 06:34:33 AM
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.)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 09, 2018, 11:04:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 09, 2018, 12:58:29 PM
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/):  (http://kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/)https://gloria.tv/video/CzBzjNRHbFr84xUbveKNKCjQZ  orr   (https://gloria.tv/video/CzBzjNRHbFr84xUbveKNKCjQZ)https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/sspx-podcast/e/56585744?autoplay=true

The Realist Guide to Religion and Science (http://kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/)
Admin (http://kolbecenter.org/author/barbarab/) / Media Reviews (http://kolbecenter.org/category/c11-media-reviews/) / 0 comments (http://kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/#respond)
The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
 
Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX
Gracewing Publishing, 2018
556 pages
(http://kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RG_Religion_Science-200x300.jpg) (http://kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RG_Religion_Science.jpg)

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
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on October 10, 2018, 06:00:18 AM
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 (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”







Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 10, 2018, 11:45:51 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 13, 2018, 03:58:48 AM
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
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Geremia on October 13, 2018, 12:22:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Matto on October 13, 2018, 01:08:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 14, 2018, 05:04:36 PM
Good associated discussion of the OP at https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/modern-science-and-the-sspx/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/modern-science-and-the-sspx/)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 14, 2018, 10:47:17 PM
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  (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/modernism-fr-william-jenkins-teaches-pascendi-dominici-gregis-1/msg630466/#msg630466)Pascendi (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/modernism-fr-william-jenkins-teaches-pascendi-dominici-gregis-1/msg630466/#msg630466).
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 14, 2018, 11:15:03 PM
.
Anyone who isn't sure just what this "Modernism" is ought to hear Fr. Jenkins' 3 videos on  (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/modernism-fr-william-jenkins-teaches-pascendi-dominici-gregis-1/msg630466/#msg630466)Pascendi (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/modernism-fr-william-jenkins-teaches-pascendi-dominici-gregis-1/msg630466/#msg630466).
Amen!
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 15, 2018, 11:09:26 AM
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.
.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 15, 2018, 04:26:53 PM
.
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. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 02:42:48 PM
Seen on Amazon.com:



View Image Gallery
The Realist Guide to Religion and Science

Save your money and buy Carl Sagan's book "The Cosmic ...
By Mike Holman  (https://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AN1BHI90T2Z5P)on Jul 02, 2018

Save your money and buy Carl Sagan's book "The Cosmic Connection: An Extraterrestrial Perspective"
Fr. Robinson can't explain and rationalize the "Big Bang" theory as well as Carl did.
If you really want a deeper understanding, get Sagan's video, "Cosmos"
The reality of "Talmudic science" will become much clearer to you then.
Images in this review

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71oGvRu9FvL._SL1600_.jpg)

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Struthio on October 16, 2018, 04:41:55 PM
@klasG4e

The link does not work.


Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 07:49:01 PM
@klasG4e

The link does not work.
I know!  Just go to Amazon and click on the one star reviews for the book.  It's one of the one star reviews.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 08:41:13 PM
At the following link we read Fr. Robinson's below words: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2474173646 (https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2474173646)

"My book was written to popularize the thesis of this book [The Road of Science and the Ways to God] by Fr Jaki."

Information on Fr. Jaki's book is seen here: https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/road-science-and-ways-god (https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/road-science-and-ways-god)


The Road of Science and the Ways to God
Lecture: 
The Road of Science and the Ways to God (https://www.giffordlectures.org/lectures/road-science-and-ways-god)

(https://www.giffordlectures.org/sites/default/files/styles/book_cover_300/public/1502075.jpg?itok=Rvkrk4mk) (https://www.giffordlectures.org/sites/default/files/1502075.jpg)

Chicago, IL

University of Chicago Press

1978

ISBN: 
978-0226391441


Summary

Part I: Twice Twenty Centuries

Lecture 1: Pattern in Blind Alleys
Introduces the lecturer’s aim: to show that ‘the road of science, both historically and philosophically, is a logical access to the ways to God’ (4). The ways are Aquinas’ five proofs of God, or more broadly, natural theology. Lectures 1-10 cover pre-20th-century foundations, dead-ends and developments in science. Attacks on the traditional proofs have been myopic about epistemological issues, and this myopia would destroy science itself if rigorously applied. This is because the proofs are ‘the embodiment of reflections on what is the ultimate in intelligibility and being’ (5), and science begins from the same reflections. Previous historiographies of science, indebted to variations of Enlightenment rationalism and deistic anti-supernaturalism, have failed to understand that ‘from Copernicus to Newton it was not deism but Christian theism that served as a principal factor helping the scientific enterprise reach self-sustaining maturity’ (11). Despite long periods of economic and political stability, science failed to rise in any other culture for religious and metaphysical reasons: a ubiquitous belief in the divinity of the heavens and the eternal recurrence of all. These produced an epistemology filled with inconsistency that destroyed belief in humanity’s power to discover the laws of the cosmos. In contrast, medieval theism offered the only successful venue for the birth and rise of science, providing foundational themes necessary to that success: an intelligible cosmos, created, not divine; therefore contingent; and time as linear. These themes are entirely indebted to distinct theological tenets.

Lecture 2: A Lesson in Greek
Science began but eventually withered in ancient Greece. Their insight was that mechanistic physics, concerned only with the configuration and succession of events, is not an argument against purpose, since discovering the mechanics is itself a most purposeful enterprise. Their failure was that their desire to save purpose for humanity and the world overrode their study of actual phenomena. Where phenomena are not studied for themselves without a priori precommitments to what must be found, one may be blind to what is actually there. The Greek focus on human intellect turned their science into philosophy, bypassing empirical research into nature and blinding them to ‘deeper patterns of intelligibility’, effectively killing nascent science.

Lecture 3: Steps to God as Stepping-Stones to Science
The worldview of the Middle Ages included key Christian beliefs in the personal, transcendent God, and the created, orderly and contingent cosmos. These were shared as cultural convictions, not just intellectual fashion. Competing worldviews did not recognize nature’s creaturely and contingent status. Aquinas corrected Aristotle with three principles: ‘the existence of the transcendent God, the creation out of nothing and the freedom of man rooted in the immortality of the soul’ (39). The cosmos’s contingency points to a transcendent source and eliminates the usefulness of a priori discourse, while its rationality makes it open to rational and empirical investigation, though only in a posteriori fashion. These beliefs were indispensable to the progress of science out of infancy in the 17th century. There were many Renaissance dead-ends for science – Ockham’s nominalism, astrology, magic, cabbala, Bruno’s pantheistic cyclic cosmos, Plato, Aristotle, and even Archimedes. In contrast, the rise of science from the genius of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo was rooted in very distinctly Christian foundations.

Lecture 4: Empirical Scouting
The empiricist movement of the early 17th century, including Bacon and Hobbes, failed to inspire maturing science. Rejecting metaphysics from natural science, it noted a connection between knowledge and the world of the senses, but failed to provide a sound scientific method, or to show that science could indeed be divorced from metaphysics. Regarding the world as noncontingent and necessary decapitates cosmology, since not only is the cosmos a nonnecessary inference from the empirical data, but empiricism disallowed framing theories about any such potentially entire entity as the cosmos.

Lecture 5: Rationalist Road Charting
Descartes’ rationalism used a priori reasoning based on human self-knowledge, supposedly invalidating a posteriori proof. But under such subjectivism, natural theology withered, and so too did the advance of science. Without the linking of sense and rationality, science, world, God and soul all appeared to be illusory according to Cartesian logic. This generated the scepticism of Hume, but no progress in physical science. Likewise, Spinoza’s pantheism, Malebranche, Berkeley and his categorical denial of an external world and the pure materialism of Diderot were all abortive to science.

Lecture 6: Instinctive Middle
Natural theology and progress in science were intimately related in the 17th century, having a shared epistemological basis. This is especially evident in Isaac Newton, who took a middle road between Bacon’s undirected empiricism and Descartes’ a priori theorizing, inspiring ordinary science for two centuries. He believed the existence of a coherent and noncontingent Being, ‘whose essence is existence itself’ (89), explained the world’s coherence and contingency. Science could only progress with this view of the world. It was to be understood by experimental investigation, rather than by a priori theories, but understood nevertheless. Clarke, Leibniz and Locke rejected this middle road in favor of nominalist empiricism and gave nothing new to science.

Lecture 7: Bricks without Mortar
Hume allowed only sensory impressions to build ‘truth’ in his system. His writings about science badly misrepresent Copernicus and Galileo as cursory empiricists. In fact, they were willing to follow with their minds a direction contrary to their senses and believed the cosmos’s rationality was a reflection of the Creator’s rationality, and so accessible to his highest creation, the human mind. This link to natural theology led Hume to insist there was no mind, only distinct thoughts strung together in the appearance of consciousness, with no intrinsic connection of sensations to either mind or the objective world. Such a mystifying and unintelligible vision of the cosmos is an attack on both the ways to God and the possibility of science.

Lecture 8: Arch without Keystone
Kant insisted a priori philosophy could be used to discover the nature of the cosmos, advocating an infinite cyclic universe. His efforts at science in terms of his Critique of Pure Reason are a failure, leaving the seeker of truth trapped in his own mind, since it was impossible to know things in themselves. His keystone uniting the mind with the phenomena is a priori subjective mental assumptions and imagination. He aimed to destroy natural theology, but did not touch its heart in the cosmological argument: nonnecessary beings imply a necessary Being. His principle that the Creator must ‘bring into existence all conceivable possibilities’ destroys ‘the possibility of a logically consistent cosmology,’ and renders both God and cosmos unintelligible (120). The lesson: rejecting the ways to God also prevents travel on the road of science.

Lecture 9: The Illusions of Idealism
Examines 19th-century philosophical idealism in Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche and the Marxists. Many advocated the eternal return, and all rejected the ‘empirical given of nature’, including empirical evidence of God, using variations of Kant’s subjectivist arch or keystone of knowledge. Such idealism, wherein the subjective trumped the objective and the connection between the two was broken, was inimical to science. Where knowledge is regarded as complete in structure in a priori fashion, a posteriori science is unlikely. These related illusions about the world, humanity and God would have ended the progress of science if followed: without contingency, no science is logically possible.

Lecture 10: The Price of Positivism
The philosophy of positivism in Comte, J. S. Mill and Ernst Mach was an epistemological failure for science. The positivists rejected metaphysics and the idea that there is anything objective in the relations of cause and effect. These assumptions destroy the basic motivation to do physical science. Science is only possible where there is ‘unrestricted consistency’ – which Mill’s empiricist positivism saw as an epistemological impossibility. Historical accounts of science produced by the positivists ignore the contribution of medieval natural theology.

Part II: The Twentieth Century

Lecture 11: The Quantum of Science
Part II begins with an analysis of Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, who was committed to belief in the ‘absolute embedded somehow in the physical’ (167). His efforts to match theoretical physics with observation eventually led to his breakthrough to quantum theory. He saw pure reflection on the laws of nature as helpful, but also that science only truly advanced where the cosmos was regarded as objective and its laws as unchangeable, ‘independent of the scientist’s culture and habitat’ (175). He noted the religious and intellectual convictions of science’s early giants. Planck’s contribution, the h of quantum physics, points to nature’s unity, contingency and its source beyond.

Lecture 12: The Quantity of the Universe
Einstein had metaphysical faith in objective reality. He rejected positivism and embraced metaphysics as necessary, since the goal of science was to discover both how nature worked and why it was the way it was and not otherwise. The triumph of modern cosmology showed that our notion of the universe as a totality of all interacting material entities was valid. This is a death’s-blow to Kant’s claim that universals are not valid knowledge, and it reopens the supposedly discredited subject of natural theology. Although claiming no religion, Einstein repeatedly marveled at both the god-like quality of a brilliantly ordered universe and the miracle of human intellect that made understanding possible (192).

Lecture 13: The Horns of Complementarity
Examines inconsistencies in the ‘Copenhagen school of epistemology’, the semi-philosophical interpretation of quantum theory followed by Niels Bohr and others. Claiming that objective knowledge of reality is impossible because observation influences phenomena, they believed their methods were sufficient to explain the phenomena as an accident of sense experiment without actually describing reality itself. Yet the concurrence of their mathematical models with nature is itself a marvel to be explained. By rejecting a common-sense grasp of reality, their epistemology fails at the ontological level.

Lecture 14: The Ravages of Reductionism
The logical positivism of the Vienna Circle inspired by Mach, including that of Schlick and Neurath, was rooted in a superficial understanding of the connection between epistemology and the type of knowledge available in the ‘exact sciences’. Its failure in such soft sciences as psychology is evident in its inability to address the questions of freedom and dignity. Metaphysics is rejected as meaningless as a basic assumption, not as a result of their work. This systematic exclusion of metaphysics also means the exclusion of science. For example, without the deeply metaphysical assumption that nature obeys mathematical simplicity, science and modern cosmology are stranded.

Lecture 15: Paradigms or Paradigm
Koyré and Kuhn cast psychology and sociology in the role of metaphysics in their histories of science. Koyré saw scientific revolutionaries as ‘sudden mutations of intellect’ (233), suggesting that science creates patterns, but does not follow any grand overall pattern. Kuhn’s Structures of Scientific Revolutions usefully describes science’s advance in terms of paradigm shift, but reduces that advance to political and sociological processes and ultimately to irrationality, ignoring the thought and genius of the contributing scientists. His theory cannot explain the growing correspondence of scientific paradigms to physical reality or the unparalleled consensus of scientific knowledge in the past four centuries. The assumptions science must make about reality to progress require that an honest history include epistemology and metaphysics.

Lecture 16: The Reach of the Mind
Feats of the mind are basic to the history of scientific discovery. Histories that neglect this mental aspect or credit it to pure empiricism or reduce it to sociology are inadequate. The greatest scientists from Copernicus to Einstein were none of them pure empiricists. They believed in two propositions as essential truths: there is an objective truth embodied in the universe; and our minds are able to grasp that truth ‘ever more comprehensively’. Metaphysical questions remain unavoidable, but the tendency has been to avoid the highest metaphysical answer. Without an implicit reference to the underlying divine cause, science must rest upon the ‘paradoxical experience of the unintelligibility of intelligibility’ (259).

Lecture 17: Cosmic Singularity
Modern science begins with cosmology: a consistent discourse about the whole universe. The post-Newtonian science of the Enlightenment followed a false vision of a closed eternal cosmos until the 20th century, avoiding the cosmological question. Since cosmology has become the basis of modern legitimate science, that question reemerges as central. The contingencies of the cosmos, from the big bang singularity on, demand explanation, but an explanation is not self-contained within physics. The logical anchoring for a science of contingent singularity requires a rationale pointing beyond the cosmos. It is therefore illogical to espouse science while rejecting fundamental questions about the world that have only metaphysical answers.

Lecture 18: Pointers of Purpose
This chapter examines the question of purpose in the contingencies of nature. The contingent and fragile existence of life in the cosmos is a problem for the pure materialists who reject belief in purpose. From the beginning the scientific quest for understanding is purposeful in the fullest sense. The precise boundary conditions necessary for the actual unfolding of the cosmos and the processes of life are evidence of contingency, a feature central to Aquinas’ arguments. Efforts to isolate life from other aspects of nature are bad science, since the basic boundary conditions of the cosmos are the necessary prerequisite of life. Nature’s uniqueness and contingency are difficult to explain without reference to God.

Lecture 19: The Ethos of Science
Science entails a resolute ethical break ‘with subjectivist, irrational world views and the acceptance of the consistency of nature and the consistent exercise’ of human freedom, an ethic science did not create. Inspired by evolutionary and pragmatic philosophy, Marxism, National Socialism and capitalism have all victimized persons. Difficult for the materialistic naturalist to defend, freedom of thought and conscience is usually defended by religious, not scientific, organizations. Cultural relativism is unable to honestly accommodate the scientific ethos of love of truth. It cannot explain why one culture gave birth to science, or why when science is introduced into other cultures it is not science but those cultures that are faced with the problem of major adjustment.

Lecture 20: Teaching by Examples
Christian theism has provided an indispensable light for the rise and success of science. Western anti-Christian sentiment has led to the despising of natural theology and metaphysics, but only by wilfully ignoring the history of science and the unanswered questions left by mechanistic naturalism. Natural theology was at the heart of successful scientific epistemology during ‘its first phase of maturity . . . from Galileo to Kelvin’. Those who rejected the connection between the proofs and scientific epistemology, such as Hume, Kant, Hegel, Comte and Mach, all failed to produce decent science themselves. Only Planck and Einstein, with their conviction of the world’s coherence and singularity, were able to take science out of its Newtonian ‘inland sea’ to the ‘wide ocean’ of modern physics (322).

‘Real science is the science of a contingent universe’ (324). That this only makes sense within Christian theism is a key truth to pass on to each generation. The actual history of science is ‘vibrant with metaphysics’. But its teaching in the modern secular state increasingly strips away this essential element and leaves only the bare skeleton behind, a tool of half-truth for the agnostic and atheist agenda. When such an intentional avoidance of ultimate questions is pushed as a core academic and scientific ideal, the future will not be science’s improvement, but its death. True inspiration for the advancement of science is only possible “from unreserved commitment to the very same inner logic which gives life to theism as well as to science” (331). Our chief cultural task is to transmit to the next generation ‘the tie binding the road of science to the ways to God’ (331).
Contributor(s)


Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 11:19:12 PM
As seen here the book is starting to spread its wings throughout different libraries: http://www.worldcat.org/title/realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/oclc/1030401423?loc= (http://www.worldcat.org/title/realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/oclc/1030401423?loc=)


Saint Louis University - Main Campus (http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/1030401423?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Flibcat.slu.edu%2Fsearch%2F%3Fsearchscope%3D3%26searchtype%3Do%26searcharg%3D1029887355%26checksum%3Dbe5e03664baa066393999ee1e50196a1&title=Saint+Louis+University+-+Main+Campus&linktype=opac&detail=XII%3ASaint+Louis+University+-+Main+Campus%3AAcademic+Library)
Pius XII Memorial Library
St Louis, MO 63108 United States

National Library of Scotland (http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/1030401423?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmain-cat.nls.uk%2Fvwebv%2Fsearch%3FsearchCode1%3DISBN%26searchType%3D2%26argType1%3Dany%26searchArg1%3Disbnbegin9781781820131isbnend%26checksum%3D6a843215c1a2c167677def0b5c64d755&title=National+Library+of+Scotland&linktype=opac&detail=NLE%3ANational+Library+of+Scotland%3AState+or+National+Library)
NLS
Edinburgh, Scotland, EH1 1EW United Kingdom

Württembergische Landesbibliothek (http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/1030401423?page=frame&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwlb.ibs-bw.de%2FaDISWeb%2Fapp%3Fservice%3Ddirect%2F0%2FHome%2F%24DirectLink%26sp%3DS127.0.0.1%3A23002%26sp%3DSAKFreitext%2Bisbnbegin0852449224isbnend%26checksum%3D7515ba3a1f67fb87636c401c0b6c46ff&title=Wu%CC%88rttembergische+Landesbibliothek&linktype=opac&detail=DESWL%3AWu%CC%88rttembergische+Landesbibliothek%3AState+or+National+Library)
Stuttgart, 70173 Germany

Moore Theological College Library (http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/1030401423?page=frame&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcat.library.moore.edu.au%2Fuhtbin%2Fcgisirsi.exe%2Fx%2F0%2F0%2F5%2F%3Fsrchfield1%3D020%255ETITLE%255EGENERAL%255E%255EISBN%26searchdata1%3Disbnbegin9781781820131isbnend%26checksum%3Da7f713537ac3b897464a5ab6489be4a7&title=Moore+Theological+College+Library&linktype=opac&detail=TLQ%3AMoore+Theological+College+Library%3AAcademic+Library)
Moore College Library
Newtown, AU-NS 2042 Australia
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 17, 2018, 12:12:39 PM
In the context of this thread the following are worth taking a look at:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html)
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

Faith Subject to Science [as understood by the modernists]
17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds. For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.


http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm)

Lamentabili Sane

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 23, 2018, 11:36:21 AM
Here we find Fr. Robinson's answer as to why he published his book with a non-SSPX publishling house.
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-your-book-published-by-a-non-SSPX-publishing-house/answer/Paul-Robinson-410?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3392257316 (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-your-book-published-by-a-non-SSPX-publishing-house/answer/Paul-Robinson-410?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=3392257316)
Why was your book published by a non-SSPX publishing house? (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-your-book-published-by-a-non-SSPX-publishing-house)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-thumb-486820927-50-mmxeshkmygvklpqjudpdcasahawqocsh.jpeg) (https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410)
Paul Robinson (https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410), Author of The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
Answered 8h ago (https://www.quora.com/Why-was-your-book-published-by-a-non-SSPX-publishing-house/answer/Paul-Robinson-410)

For two reasons. The first reason is audience. It is the desire of every author that as many people as possible read his book. This is especially true if you feel, as I did, that you were making a new contribution to an old topic.

Now, the likelihood of people reading my book, or at least purchasing it, would go up in proportion to the distribution of the publisher. At first, I was thinking (dreaming?) of having a press like Regnery, with its global market, publish the book. After some investigation, I realized that I would need much better connections than I do to make that happen.

The next best thing would be to have a publisher that could market to the mainstream Catholic world. I thought this would be at least a possibility, despite my membership in the SSPX, because of the fact that my book is not about the crisis in the Church, but rather is about the intersection of religion and science.

Thus, with the approval of my superiors, I submitted the manuscript to Gracewing. The rest, as they say, is history.

It turned out that Gracewing (http://www.gracewing.co.uk/) was a particularly apt choice, at least from one point of view, and this is the second reason. The priest who runs Gracewing, Fr Paul Haffner, is, in a sense, the intellectual heir of Fr Stanley Jaki (1924-2009), the late, great physicist theologian. Fr Haffner did his dissertation on the work of Fr Jaki, “the only book on Father Jaki approved by him during his lifetime”. He is also the founder of the Stanley Jaki Foundation (http://paulhaffner.org/).

My own book seeks to deepen one of the important insights of Fr Jaki, namely, that both science and natural theology have the same basic epistemological structure. He gave the greatest elaboration to this insight in his Gifford Lectures of 1974-75 and 1975-76, published as The Road of Science and the Ways to God (http://www.realviewbooks.com/catalog8.html). Because of Gracewing’s connection to Fr Jaki through Fr Haffner, it was particularly appropriate that, of all the mainstream Catholic publishers, it be the one that publish my book.

The result has been that my book has a much easier entry into parish book shops that it would have otherwise. The diocese of Armidale here in Australia, for instance, kindly put a notice in all of their bulletins about my book, and placed flyers in the churches. Besides this, certain Catholic publications have offered to print reviews. Other Catholic media outlets have offered to do interviews.
Some people have been critical of the fact that I have attempted to popularize an idea of Fr Jaki, because they accuse him of being a Modernist. This accusation is certainly false, as anyone who has read his writings would realize. He was attached to his Catholic faith, and even belligerently attached to it, in his feisty Hungarian way.

The main beef against Fr Jaki is that he was a theistic evolutionist. This is true. However, I explicitly differ from Fr Jaki on that question in my book, and besides, theistic evolution is a position allowed to orthodox Catholics. If Catholics want to argue against theistic evolution, the Church has them do so on scientific grounds, not theological ones. Catholics are free to be strict creationists, progressive creationists or theistic evolutionists.

I could go on about why Fr Jaki favored theistic evolution, but that is really for another question. It was mainly because of his desire to reduce all science to physics, and his favoring of theistic evolution did not at all prevent him from leveling some very sharp criticisms against Darwinism.
In the end, the main thing is the salvation of souls. If a person is able to assist the salvation of souls better by one means than another, without committing sin or compromising his faith, then it is prudent to do so. This was my ultimate consideration in seeking to find a publisher with a wider distribution.

Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 24, 2018, 02:31:33 PM
This question was submitted to Fr. Robinson today via https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410 (https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410) : "Would you be willing to accept a public debate on geocentrism with Robert Sungenis, a devout and long time Catholic apologist who is widely recognized to be the world's most preeminent geocentrist?"
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 26, 2018, 10:25:24 AM
Is the SSPX playing some game?  Why do we not see a single named endorsement from anyone in the SSPX?  https://therealistguide.com/endorsements (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)

I sent them a negative review here quite some time ago, but it has not been posted: https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#shopify-product-reviews (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#shopify-product-reviews)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 26, 2018, 12:03:59 PM
The one and only priest (a Maronite) giving an open public endorsement (quite superficial though it may be) of Fr. Robinson's book on Fr. Robinson's website (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)) has his own website which has some rather unusual stuff on it.
Fr. Joseph Azize
(https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/be041786-0638-4702-8262-80efb99dfec3/0ae9141c-f524-4d08-abc3-a161025044bb.jpg/:/rs=w:360,h:180,cg:true,m/cr=w:360,h:180)A sound philosopher, able to move with confidence from Plato to quantum, Fr Paul Robinson here explains, in clear terms, with illustrative examples to facilitate effective understanding, why and how it is that we can attain to knowledge, find truth, and grasp reality. With this volume, the student will be able to safely navigate through the busy halls of philosophy, seeing where and how errors arise, and how to vindicate the truth.

Fr. Joseph Azize, Ph.D (University of Sydney), Honorary Associate, Dept of Studies in Religion, University of Sydney; Adjunct Assoc. Prof. University of Notre Dame, Australia.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Fr. Joseph Azize's website: http://www.josephazize.com/category/adie/ (http://www.josephazize.com/category/adie/)

****************************************************************************************************************
Here is a photo and description of Fr. Azize found at https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Joseph-Azize_bymfg_54-0-1.html (https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Joseph-Azize_bymfg_54-0-1.html)
Joseph Azize
(https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/assets/images/joseph.jpg)
Joseph Azize (Fr Yuhanna Azize) is a Maronite Catholic priest serving at Our Lady of Lebanon Co-Cathedral, Harris Park, and is research officer at the Chancery (the bishop’s office). He has authored or co-authored another eight books and many academic articles, especially on religious topics. He is an honorary associate in Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, and an adjunct Associate Professor in Theology and Ancient History at Notre Dame University, Australia.
********************************************************************************************************************

The same Fr. Azize who Fr. Robinson has featured on his website is the author of a book about the deceased singer John Lennon.  The following description of Fr. Azize can be seen on the Amazon webpage showing this book.  Also included is the following description of the book.

John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain
by Joseph Azize (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Joseph+Azize&search-alias=books&field-author=Joseph+Azize&sort=relevancerank) (Author)

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41JRweyUyzL.jpg)

John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain was written for people who both love enough of John Lennon's music to care about its maker, and also feel that there is something deep at work within themselves, that there is something sublime to be learned about ourselves and the world. While many books have been written about Lennon, this is the first time someone has looked at Lennon from the inside.

As Joseph Azize works through the various themes in the book, he arrives at an objective look at an extremely complicated man. As John Lennon found his way towards being a Normal Man certainly one who has had an impact on the entire world and extraordinary in that manner inside he struggled like anyone else with his demons and angels and fought the good fight, just as Jacob wrestled all through the night ending up with a broken hip and a promise. John Lennon also ended up scarred and wounded, but whole.

While there are many books about John Lennon which are really just jingoism and gossip the dish and the dirt this book is about John Lennon in the light of the Gurdjieff Work. Although Lennon was probably not a student of G.I. Gurdjieff or his ideas, the course of his life until his untimely death is ripe with material for pondering his state of being during those times.

Those readers who do not know anything about the Fourth Way Gurdjieff s path in life will be amply rewarded by reading this book, and those who take a serious interest in Mr. Lennon s work will also be amply rewarded by sharing the insights of the author who truly has a genuine and heartfelt love for Lennon s music.
********************

About the Author
Joseph Azize is a priest in Sydney, Australia. He is active in spiritual direction, especially contemplation and vocational askesis, while also working as an academic and writer of church music. His life was transformed when he met and studied under George and Helen Adie, who had been personal pupils of G.I. Gurdjieff, and embodied the path of mysticism in daily life. Fr. Azize s other books include: How to Spot a Fraud, The Phoenician Solar Theology: An Investigation Into the Phoenician Opinion of the Sun Found in Julian's Hymn to King Helios, and George Adie: A Gurdjieff Pupil in Australia.
************************************************************************************
If you are wondering who in the world G.I. Gurdjieff is please take a look at the Wikipedia article on him.  It is quite telling!
 


Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 26, 2018, 12:05:25 PM
.
Is the SSPX playing some game? 
.
Maybe the SSPX is taking a page from the Bergoglio plan book, how to ignore questions you don't want to answer. 
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 26, 2018, 12:59:48 PM
The one and only priest (a Maronite) giving an open public endorsement (quite superficial though it may be) of Fr. Robinson's book on Fr. Robinson's website (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)) has his own website which has some rather unusual stuff on it.
Fr. Joseph Azize
(https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/be041786-0638-4702-8262-80efb99dfec3/0ae9141c-f524-4d08-abc3-a161025044bb.jpg/:/rs=w:360,h:180,cg:true,m/cr=w:360,h:180)A sound philosopher, able to move with confidence from Plato to quantum, Fr Paul Robinson here explains, in clear terms, with illustrative examples to facilitate effective understanding, why and how it is that we can attain to knowledge, find truth, and grasp reality. With this volume, the student will be able to safely navigate through the busy halls of philosophy, seeing where and how errors arise, and how to vindicate the truth.

Fr. Joseph Azize, Ph.D (University of Sydney), Honorary Associate, Dept of Studies in Religion, University of Sydney; Adjunct Assoc. Prof. University of Notre Dame, Australia.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Fr. Joseph Azize's website: http://www.josephazize.com/category/adie/ (http://www.josephazize.com/category/adie/)

****************************************************************************************************************
Here is a photo and description of Fr. Azize found at https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Joseph-Azize_bymfg_54-0-1.html (https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Joseph-Azize_bymfg_54-0-1.html)
Joseph Azize
(https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/assets/images/joseph.jpg)
Joseph Azize (Fr Yuhanna Azize) is a Maronite Catholic priest serving at Our Lady of Lebanon Co-Cathedral, Harris Park, and is research officer at the Chancery (the bishop’s office). He has authored or co-authored another eight books and many academic articles, especially on religious topics. He is an honorary associate in Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, and an adjunct Associate Professor in Theology and Ancient History at Notre Dame University, Australia.
********************************************************************************************************************

The same Fr. Azize who Fr. Robinson has featured on his website is the author of a book about the deceased singer John Lennon.  The following description of Fr. Azize can be seen on the Amazon webpage showing this book.  Also included is the following description of the book.

John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain
by Joseph Azize (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Joseph+Azize&search-alias=books&field-author=Joseph+Azize&sort=relevancerank) (Author)

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41JRweyUyzL.jpg)

John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain was written for people who both love enough of John Lennon's music to care about its maker, and also feel that there is something deep at work within themselves, that there is something sublime to be learned about ourselves and the world. While many books have been written about Lennon, this is the first time someone has looked at Lennon from the inside.

As Joseph Azize works through the various themes in the book, he arrives at an objective look at an extremely complicated man. As John Lennon found his way towards being a Normal Man certainly one who has had an impact on the entire world and extraordinary in that manner inside he struggled like anyone else with his demons and angels and fought the good fight, just as Jacob wrestled all through the night ending up with a broken hip and a promise. John Lennon also ended up scarred and wounded, but whole.

While there are many books about John Lennon which are really just jingoism and gossip the dish and the dirt this book is about John Lennon in the light of the Gurdjieff Work. Although Lennon was probably not a student of G.I. Gurdjieff or his ideas, the course of his life until his untimely death is ripe with material for pondering his state of being during those times.

Those readers who do not know anything about the Fourth Way Gurdjieff s path in life will be amply rewarded by reading this book, and those who take a serious interest in Mr. Lennon s work will also be amply rewarded by sharing the insights of the author who truly has a genuine and heartfelt love for Lennon s music.
********************

About the Author
Joseph Azize is a priest in Sydney, Australia. He is active in spiritual direction, especially contemplation and vocational askesis, while also working as an academic and writer of church music. His life was transformed when he met and studied under George and Helen Adie, who had been personal pupils of G.I. Gurdjieff, and embodied the path of mysticism in daily life. Fr. Azize s other books include: How to Spot a Fraud, The Phoenician Solar Theology: An Investigation Into the Phoenician Opinion of the Sun Found in Julian's Hymn to King Helios, and George Adie: A Gurdjieff Pupil in Australia.
************************************************************************************
If you are wondering who in the world G.I. Gurdjieff is please take a look at the Wikipedia article on him.  It is quite telling!
 

.
Your hyperlinks are all messed up.
You have to leave a SPACE before and after any Internet address or else the system doesn't know what you're trying to write.
.
leave a space before ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff <--- leave a space after
.
.
.
As for the Wiki article --- this section is worth noting:
.
Responses[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Gurdjieff&action=edit&section=20)]
Louis Pauwels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pauwels), among others,[73] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-73) criticizes Gurdjieff for his insistence on considering people as "asleep" in a state closely resembling "hypnotic sleep". Gurdjieff said, even specifically at times, that a pious, good, and moral person was no more "spiritually developed" than any other person; they are all equally "asleep".[74] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-74)
Henry Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Miller) approved of Gurdjieff, not considering himself holy but, after writing a brief introduction to Fritz Peters' book Boyhood with Gurdjieff, Miller wrote that people are not meant to lead a "harmonious life" as Gurdjieff claimed in naming his institute.[75] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-75)
Critics note that Gurdjieff gives no value to most of the elements that compose the life of an average person. According to Gurdjieff, everything an average person possesses, accomplishes, does, and feels is completely accidental and without any initiative. A common everyday ordinary person is born a machine and dies a machine without any chance of being anything else.[76] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-76) This belief seems to run counter to the Judeo-Christian tradition that man is a living soul. Gurdjieff believed that the possession of a soul (a state of psychological unity which he equated with being "awake") was a "luxury" that a disciple could attain only by the most painstaking work of over a long period of time. The majority—in whom the true meaning of the gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel) failed to take root[77] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-77)—went the "broad way" that "led to destruction."[78] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-78)
In Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson (see bibliography), Gurdjieff expresses his reverence for the founders of the mainstream religions of East and West and his contempt (by and large) for what successive generations of believers have made of those religious teachings. His discussions of "orthodoxhydooraki" and "heterodoxhydooraki"—orthodox fools and heterodox fools, from the Russian word durak (fool)—position him as a critic of religious distortion and, in turn, as a target for criticism from some within those traditions. Gurdjieff has been interpreted by some, Ouspensky among others, to have had a total disregard for the value of mainstream religion, philanthropic work and the value of doing right or wrong in general.[79] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-79)
Gurdjieff's former students who have criticized him argue that, despite his seeming total lack of pretension to any kind of "guru holiness," in many anecdotes his behavior displays the unsavory and impure character of a man who was a cynical manipulator of his followers.[80] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-80) Gurdjieff's own pupils wrestled to understand him. For example, in a written exchange between Luc Dietrich and Henri Tracol dating to 1943: "L.D.: How do you know that Gurdjieff wishes you well? H.T.: I feel sometimes how little I interest him—and how strongly he takes an interest in me. By that I measure the strength of an intentional feeling."[81] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-81)
Louis Pauwels wrote Monsieur Gurdjieff (first edition published in Paris, France in 1954 by Editions du Seuil).[82] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-82) In an interview, Pauwels said of the Gurdjieff work: "... After two years of exercises which both enlightened and burned me, I found myself in a hospital bed with a thrombosed central vein in my left eye and weighing ninety-nine pounds... Horrible anguish and abysses opened up for me. But it was my fault."[83] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-83)
Pauwels claimed that Karl Haushofer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Haushofer), the father of geopolitics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolitics) whose protegee was Deputy Reich Führer Rudolf Hess (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess), was one of the real "seekers after truth" described by Gurdjieff. According to Rom Landau, a journalist in the 1930s, Achmed Abdullah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achmed_Abdullah) told him at the beginning of the 20th century that Gurdjieff was a Russian secret agent in Tibet who went by the name of "Hambro Akuan Dorzhieff" (i.e. Agvan Dorjiev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agvan_Dorjiev)), a tutor to the Dalai Lama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama).[84] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-84) However, the actual Dorzhieff went to live in the Buddhist temple erected in St. Petersburg and after the revolution was imprisoned by Stalin. James Webb conjectured that Gurdjieff might have been Dorzhieff's assistant Ushe Narzunoff (i.e. Ovshe Norzunov (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovshe_Norzunov&action=edit&redlink=1)).[85] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-85)
Colin Wilson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wilson) writes about "Gurdjieff's reputation for seducing his female students. (In Providence, Rhode Island, in 1960, a man was pointed out to me as one of Gurdjieff's illegitimate children. The professor who told me this also assured me that Gurdjieff had left many children around America)."[86] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-86)
In The Oragean Version, C. Daly King surmised that the problem that Gurdjieff had with Orage's teachings was that the "Oragean Version," Orage himself, was not emotional enough in Gurdjieff's estimation and had not enough "incredulity" and faith. King wrote that Gurdjieff did not state it as clearly and specifically as this, but was quick to add that to him, nothing Gurdjieff said was specific or clear.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
According to Osho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_(Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh)), the Gurdjieff system is incomplete, drawing from Dervish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish) sources inimical to Kundalini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini_energy). Some Sufi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufi) orders, such as the Naqshbandi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naqshbandi), draw from and are amenable to Kundalini.[87] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff#cite_note-87)
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 26, 2018, 01:10:36 PM
.
Your hyperlinks are all messed up.

Sorry, about that Neil.  They worked for me at first, but now I see some are messed up.  The good news is that all the info I provided is legitimate and I have done the leg work so anyone can check the material out with the info I have provided.  If there is still some specific linked info that you can not get to after a few minutes of an Internet search please let me know and I will try again.  In any event, I hope the main point I was getting at has not been lost.  This one priest who Fr. Robinson has chosen to highlight as having endorsed his book is certainly a bit unusual to say the least!

Oh -- and thanks for your helpful advice!
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Neil Obstat on October 26, 2018, 01:22:20 PM
Sorry, about that Neil.  They worked for me at first, but now I see some are messed up.  The good news is that all the info I provided is legitimate and I have done the leg work so anyone can check the material out with the info I have provided.  If there is still some specific linked info that you can not get to after a few minutes of an Internet search please let me know and I will try again.  In any event, I hope the main point I was getting at has not been lost.  This one priest who Fr. Robinson has chosen to highlight as having endorsed his book is certainly a bit unusual to say the least!

Oh -- and thanks for your helpful advice!
.
You're welcome.
This Gurdjieff character looks like a NewAge guru about 50 years before it became a movement. 
The allusion to John Lennon is not out of place. 
It all boils down to Modernism, where reality is in the mind. Subjectivism is at the root of all these weird rabbit holes, like BoR Francis, etc.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on October 26, 2018, 08:10:43 PM

The same Fr. Azize who Fr. Robinson has featured on his website is the author of a book about the deceased singer John Lennon.  The following description of Fr. Azize can be seen on the Amazon webpage showing this book.  Also included is the following description of the book.

John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain
by Joseph Azize (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Joseph+Azize&search-alias=books&field-author=Joseph+Azize&sort=relevancerank) (Author)

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41JRweyUyzL.jpg)

John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain was written for people who both love enough of John Lennon's music to care about its maker, and also feel that there is something deep at work within themselves, that there is something sublime to be learned about ourselves and the world. While many books have been written about Lennon, this is the first time someone has looked at Lennon from the inside.

As Joseph Azize works through the various themes in the book, he arrives at an objective look at an extremely complicated man. As John Lennon found his way towards being a Normal Man certainly one who has had an impact on the entire world and extraordinary in that manner inside he struggled like anyone else with his demons and angels and fought the good fight, just as Jacob wrestled all through the night ending up with a broken hip and a promise. John Lennon also ended up scarred and wounded, but whole.

While there are many books about John Lennon which are really just jingoism and gossip the dish and the dirt this book is about John Lennon in the light of the Gurdjieff Work. Although Lennon was probably not a student of G.I. Gurdjieff or his ideas, the course of his life until his untimely death is ripe with material for pondering his state of being during those times.

Those readers who do not know anything about the Fourth Way Gurdjieff s path in life will be amply rewarded by reading this book, and those who take a serious interest in Mr. Lennon s work will also be amply rewarded by sharing the insights of the author who truly has a genuine and heartfelt love for Lennon s music.

This is something Fr. Azize has on his own website about the book which he authored.  See
http://www.josephazize.com/2015/12/16/john-lennon-harmony-out-of-pain/ (http://www.josephazize.com/2015/12/16/john-lennon-harmony-out-of-pain/)

John Lennon: Harmony out of Pain
Posted on December 16, 2015 (http://www.josephazize.com/2015/12/16/john-lennon-harmony-out-of-pain/) by Joseph Azize (http://www.josephazize.com/author/joseph/)
This is a note from Milton Heiberg, the brilliant photographer who took the cover shot on this book. “My photo of John Lennon is now on his latest biography. It is not just another Lennon biography. This one gets inside John’s head and explores the evidence of his inner thoughts on philosophy, religion, pain, and ecstasy. I’ll stop there since I just pulled the first five copies from my mailbox—and have not yet read it. But the cover photo is the one I took of him.” https://ternmedia.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/100-my-john-lennon-book-cover/
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on November 07, 2018, 01:58:57 PM
In an amazing act of strong and courageous public admonishment Fr. Gerard Rusak of the SSPX has leveled a blistering critique of the recently published book, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by fellow SSPX Priest Fr. Paul Robinson.  It was actually published this month as a review on the SSPX website wherein the book is being advertised.  Here is the link: https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)    Once there simply click on Read 14 reviews (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science) to see the actual review which I have pasted below.

Failure to consider all the evidence
Father Gerard Rusak, FSSPX, Nov 2018

While Father Robinson excels on philosophical points in the first six chapters of his book (1 star), he accepts the unproven hypotheses of the Big Bang (with its long ages needed for evolution) and he rashly embraces heliocentrism. Meanwhile, he brushes aside those who do not agree with him using insufficient arguments (see below). His interpretation of the Bible is more in accord with a liberal interpretation of Vatican II's Dei Verbum #11 rather than with the traditional teaching of the Church on the inerrant nature of Holy Scripture. This allows him to pick and choose among facts related in the book of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. He also ignores the longstanding the decrees of the Church against Galileo and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church these same questions. On these last issues, his insufficient arguments have been completely refuted by a book by Robert Sungenis: "Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church" (564 pages).

I thank the Angelus Press in advance for posting this review and request them to add to their list of books the above book of Robert Sungenis so that both sides of the question may be heard. Or should they not wish to do so, to withdraw Father Robinson's book from sale from this their website.
I may add that I know other SSPX priests and faithful like myself who are shocked at the publication of this book for at least some if not all, of the above reasons.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on December 01, 2018, 08:37:03 PM
The Angelus Press website ( https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science) ) has added 2 more 5 star reviews of Father Robinson's book.  One of them directly slanders/defames Robert Sungenis by name.   The reviewer who goes by the name Jeanette Daher is apparently some sort of a proxy warrior for Fr. Robinson as can be seen on the following links:

1.)  https://twitter.com/GuideRealist (https://twitter.com/GuideRealist)

2.)  https://plus.google.com/109099222303871237875 (https://plus.google.com/109099222303871237875)

3.)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c)

In addition to the above, Fr. Robinson has been allowed to promote his book in a seemingly unprecedented -- for any SSPX author -- manner as can be seen from the following links:


 1.)  His own website: https://therealistguide.com/ (https://therealistguide.com/)

 2.)  His own blogsite: https://therealistguide.com/blog (https://therealistguide.com/blog)

 3.)  His own facebook: https://www.facebook.com/realistguide (https://www.facebook.com/realistguide)

 4.)  His own goodreads account: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18237620.Paul_Athanasius_Robinson (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18237620.Paul_Athanasius_Robinson)

 5.)  His own Quora account: https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410 (https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410)

 6.) Possible Vimeo Account -- https://vimeo.com/248750177 (https://vimeo.com/248750177)


A copy of the review by Daher is seen below.


************************************************************************************************************************

A brilliant book for ALL Catholics, providing a balanced view to Science and Religion.
Jeanette Daher , Nov 2018

"The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" is a fantastic read, both thoughtful in its approach and style. The book is contemporary, as it tackles issues from creationist theories to Darwinism. It analyses famous atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. On the other side of the irrational spectrum, Fr Robinson tears apart self proclaimed apologist Robert Sungenis who misleads Catholics with his conspiracy theories and embarrasses the church, whereby belief is based on emotion. Robert attracts those individuals who do not think objectively, hence creating a "mob lynch" mentality. These idealists cannot take constructive criticism, they write reviews despite not reading the book and create havoc because their "leader" is questioned.
"Science was born of Christianity", the book shows how the church in the middle ages gave birth to modern science. He explains how St Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in this movement. The book shows that the realist mentality comes from a catholic perspective whereby both intellect and sense are used. He takes you on a fascinating journey through history to the present day, explaining the influences that shape our worldview.
Fr Robinson is a credible source, with the authority and expertise to inform us on what Catholics are bound to believe.
His blog has many articles explaining the position of the church. www.therealistguide.com
This book has deepened my faith and knowledge on what is catholic and what is not. !!

*************************************************************************************************************************
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on December 02, 2018, 12:16:31 PM
The problem with the modernism of Fr Robinson goes back to 1741 when churchmen lost faith in the word of God, and succumbed to false human reason. Modern science is now entrenched so much that there is little chance of its being rejected by anyone as false science. Fr Robinson is no worse that Pope Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and all popes since. Every one of them , some knowingly like the three here, most unknowingly, presided over the progress of Modernism, the heresy of all heresies. Oh Yes, we know how Pius IX, Pius X, and Benedict XV tried to stop modernism in its tracks, including Vatican I, but to no avail as all had to abide by the concessions of the Church to the heliocentric science and biblical interpretation of 1741-1835.

The Galilean reformation contradicts what I and many others thought could never happen in the Catholic Church. To fall into formal or material heresy is not what I thought God would allow popes to do. But He allowed it to happen. What I found is that He never allowed the 1616 decree to be officially contradicted. But He allowed his popes to ignore it and all the heresies that it supported, heresies condemned for 1000 years and condemned as heresies again at the trial of Giordano Bruno in the 1590s.
Today, these heresies are totally ignored as fundamental nonsense or non existent by the Church. Other worlds, defined many times as a heresy that contradicts the word and intention of the Trinity, is now part of Rome's work. We now have a pope who calls himself Francis who said in public he would baptise a Martian. How many Pythagorean heresies are inherent in that remark? Another world; a soul outside the 'Go teach ye all nations;' that the Bible must have erred, disregarding a papal decree defining formal heresy in 1616 and accusing the Church of falsely putting Galileo on trial for heresy in 1633? All these heresies and false accusations have been part of the false teaching that began like so:

1820. His Holiness  [Pope Pius VII] has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’      

1822. ‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’

In other words, you will be punished if you deny the heliocentrism of modern astronomers. In truth it states you will be punished if you insist heliocentrism is heresy or the true revelation of Scripture.
Now all records of this loss of faith were placed out of sight from the Flock. Well today we know why they were. Heresy after heresy had to be ignored because Rome had approved of the rock upon which these heresies were built upon. Reinterpretations of Genesis were changed and Rome could do nothing about, having approved such changes in two Encyclicals. And all this happened before Vatican II. So now we know why the Fr Robinsons have no problem claiming tradition and orthodoxy while regurgitating science that is inherestly heretical.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on December 02, 2018, 01:24:41 PM
We now have a pope who calls himself Francis who said in public he would baptise a Martian.

**************************************************************************************

In other words, you will be punished if you deny the heliocentrism of modern astronomers.


That's OK, but heaven help him if he had said he would baptize a Jew.  That would be called anti-Semitic.  Contrast that with what Pope St. Pius X said in a face to face encounter with the Jewish founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl:  " And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”

The SSPX leadership in effect denies geocentrism, but it dares not deny the "sacred" six million gas chamber version of what is commonly referred to as  the Holocaust.  Former SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson dared to deny the Six Million Gas Chamber myth and was punished by the SSPX leadership for denying this de facto, albeit faux dogma of the Conciliar Church. As a consequence of this denial Pope Benedict XVI via the Vatican's Secretariat of State refused to grant Bp. Williamson license to perform any episcopal functions.

I don't mean in any way for this thread to be sidetracked into any discussion of WW II history, but only to use the above example of Bp. W to highlight an aspect of the diabolical disorientation that has affected the SSPX, not to mention the entire Church.  The Galilean reformation (i.e., revolution) in the Church which Cassini speaks of certainly set the stage for the massive diabolical disorientation which Sr. Lucia of Fatima spoke of.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: cassini on December 02, 2018, 01:32:19 PM
Correction;

In other words, you will be punished if you deny the heliocentrism of modern astronomers. In truth it states you will be punished if you insist heliocentrism is heresy or NOTthe true revelation of Scripture.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on December 02, 2018, 06:20:13 PM
What I found is that He never allowed the 1616 decree to be officially contradicted. But He allowed his popes to ignore it and all the heresies that it supported, heresies condemned for 1000 years and condemned as heresies again at the trial of Giordano Bruno in the 1590s.
If you think Popes ignored a defined dogma of the Church since 1820 (1758, more likely), then you are saying the Church abandoned the Truth and positively misled the faithful for 200 or 260 years. This is not traditional Catholicism anymore.

However, you still have not shown that the 1616 decree defined doctrine.

Furthermore, one could argue on a strict reading that it doesn't apply to a cosmology which considers both the earth and the sun in motion.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on December 03, 2018, 10:05:47 AM
If you think Popes ignored a defined dogma of the Church since 1820 (1758, more likely), then you are saying the Church abandoned the Truth and positively misled the faithful for 200 or 260 years. This is not traditional Catholicism anymore.

However, you still have not shown that the 1616 decree defined doctrine.

Furthermore, one could argue on a strict reading that it doesn't apply to a cosmology which considers both the earth and the sun in motion.

Stan, again we (Cassini & myself) ask you, "For the record, are you a Big Bang heliocentric guy?"  As for geocentrism, as of 1616 and 1633 it was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Church officially designated the heliocentric view as a "formal heresy."  The status of that doctrine has not changed, since there has been no official statement from the Church in nearly 400 years that has rescinded it in any form or degree.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on December 05, 2018, 11:03:10 PM
Great response from Robert Sungenis to the SSPX's 2011 Press Release on Geocentrism and Fr. Robinson's November 2018 Australian Interview is seen here: https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/ (https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/)


The interview video is publlished by Fr. Robinson's promoter (https://yt3.ggpht.com/a-/AN66SAzcaHg9J3dJHmq5VSpFQgrScx5qrzQR34blEQ=s288-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no)  who as can be seen dubs herself "The Realist Guide" and can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: Stanley N on December 06, 2018, 07:46:51 PM
Stan, again we (Cassini & myself) ask you, "For the record, are you a Big Bang heliocentric guy?"  As for geocentrism, as of 1616 and 1633 it was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Church officially designated the heliocentric view as a "formal heresy."  The status of that doctrine has not changed, since there has been no official statement from the Church in nearly 400 years that has rescinded it in any form or degree.
Cassini claimed it was the 1616 decision of the Index that established doctrine. I don't see that it did, and I provided several reasons.
You two are the ones claiming the Church defined a doctrine back then that the Church has not taught in some 200 years. Not me. What I believe or don't believe won't make your arguments any better.
Title: Re: Comments on Fr Robinson's new book The Realistic Guide to Religion and Science
Post by: klasG4e on December 07, 2018, 09:32:37 AM
 What I believe or don't believe won't make your arguments any better.

Of course, we know that.  So.......what's the big deal?  Why can't you simply be candid/transparent and answer the question?