Author Topic: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney (Read 7804 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #45 on:** May 01, 2019, 01:02:30 AM »

Quote

Another Catholic replies with: "I actually don't think this passage is incompatible with the idea that God guided a process by which ape-like ancestors of man evolved into the current form of the human body and God specially created Adam's soul" and gives you a reason why. His reason why does not deny the inerrancy of scripture, but rather gives you some kind of explanation for how the two can be reconciled.

How can the first man that God created, namely Adam, have ancestors?
It defies common sense and Catholic sense.
Who can believe that God breathed His Spirit into an ape and it became Man!

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #46 on:** May 01, 2019, 02:15:16 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on May 01, 2019, 01:02:30 AM

How can the first man that God created, namely Adam, have ancestors?
It defies common sense and Catholic sense.
Who can believe that God breathed His Spirit into an ape and it became Man!

Let's say that you're right that that's completely absurd. That doesn't really answer my question.

forlorn · « **Reply #47 on:** May 01, 2019, 02:22:17 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on May 01, 2019, 01:02:30 AM

How can the first man that God created, namely Adam, have ancestors?
It defies common sense and Catholic sense.
Who can believe that God breathed His Spirit into an ape and it became Man!

Not that I agree, but they would argue it's no more absurd than God breathing life into clay.

Francisco · « **Reply #48 on:** May 01, 2019, 02:37:46 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on April 28, 2019, 09:13:44 PM

Don't worry about it.

For those who know his writings, Fr. Laisney is the consummate sycophant.

He's been known to blindly defend and spin for Bp. Fellay and his jew lawyer, Max Krah.

You could say, Fr. Laisney is one of the SSPX's stand-by spin men.

In the bombshell article, "Maximilian Krah & Menzingen, a cause for concern?", Fr Laisney was first to defend his Superior General.

His defense was non factual lip service and in the Resistance rebuttal, rhetorically, he had his head handed to him.

When in India he is said to have walked into a Railway office to tell them how to schedule their trains. Luckily for that country none of those workers either spoke English or understood the frog's one.

Nadir · « **Reply #49 on:** May 01, 2019, 03:55:42 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on May 01, 2019, 02:22:17 AM

Not that I agree, but they would argue it's no more absurd than God breathing life into clay.

Ah! But He didn't breathe life into clay. He breathed the breath of life into Adam's face, having already formed him from the slime of the earth, "and the man became a living soul." Gen 2:7

claudel · « **Reply #50 on:** May 01, 2019, 05:28:24 PM »

Whatever else may be said or written about Father Laisney and whatever crimes or misdemeanors he is actually guilty of or simply may have been found guilty of by the Supreme High Council of CathInfo, the fact remains that Father Laisney was plainly truthful in writing this

Quote

There is nothing against Faith to consider that the six days of creation are six periods of time, put in parallel with the week for many spiritual reasons.

and this

Quote

Note that Father Robinson does not support evolution.

about Father Robinson's book.

Yet despite his plainspokenness, Father Laisney has been accused of heresy and blasphemy and—most egregious of all—of failing to conform to what a man at the limit of his patience might call the "every mole is a melanoma" doctrine of CI's two principal theological monstres sacrés of the present moment, Ladislaus and X. Least excusable of all, Father Laisney has been accused of supporting evolution because he acknowledges as unstigmatized the scientific and theological admissibility of the Big Bang theory despite the fact that there is no necessary connection whatsoever between the two theories and despite the even more obvious fact that nothing in what Father Laisney wrote supports this slander.

Must commenters really be reminded that "Bad, bad, bad people believe in evolution and the Big Bang" is not an argument that carries weight in law, science, or Christian doctrine? If, alas, they must, be so kind as to take this as that reminder. Almost everyone here would laugh derisively at someone who said that Wagner or vegetarianism was bad because Hitler liked it, but when the ox being gored is one's own, sense and decency rapidly become expendable hereabouts.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 01, 2019, 05:32:01 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on May 01, 2019, 02:22:17 AM

Not that I agree, but they would argue it's no more absurd than God breathing life into clay.

I don't see why its inherently absurd. Like, God could do this.

The counter argument would be that God did in fact tell us what he did, and it was in fact that God breathed life into clay, and not through evolution. Fair, but my question isn't really whether there's a good exegetical argument for theistic evolution. What I'm trying to grasp is the basis for saying its heretical.

forlorn · « **Reply #52 on:** May 01, 2019, 05:35:41 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 05:32:01 PM

I don't see why its inherently absurd. Like, God could do this.

The counter argument would be that God did in fact tell us what he did, and it was in fact that God breathed life into clay, and not through evolution. Fair, but my question isn't really whether there's a good exegetical argument for theistic evolution. What I'm trying to grasp is the basis for saying its heretical.

That was my point. There's no reason to think that God breathing a soul into an ape and turning it into a human is any more absurd than God literally breathing life into clay. It doesn't mean the former is true, but just calling the former absurd doesn't mean it is and nor does it mean it didn't happen. There issue of whether or not it actually is the case is a separate issue that I don't know the answer to and don't want to dive into, it's just in my interest to nip any flawed arguments in the bud here before they get used in evangelism, lest they get called out and impede the efforts.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #53 on:** May 01, 2019, 05:46:00 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on May 01, 2019, 05:35:41 PM

That was my point. There's no reason to think that God breathing a soul into an ape and turning it into a human is any more absurd than God literally breathing life into clay. It doesn't mean the former is true, but just calling the former absurd doesn't mean it is and nor does it mean it didn't happen. There issue of whether or not it actually is the case is a separate issue that I don't know the answer to and don't want to dive into, it's just in my interest to nip any flawed arguments in the bud here before they get used in evangelism, lest they get called out and impede the efforts.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. But people here keep arguing for why it didn't happen. Whereas all my questions have related to why/by what standard you aren't allowed to believe that it happened. Which is a separate question, as it seems you realize.

homeschoolmom · « **Reply #54 on:** May 01, 2019, 06:22:43 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 05:46:00 PM

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. But people here keep arguing for why it didn't happen. Whereas all my questions have related to why/by what standard you aren't allowed to believe that it happened. Which is a separate question, as it seems you realize.

Would that answer be found somewhere in the difference between the nature of an ape and the nature of man? A thing of one nature cannot become a thing of another nature. They are two distinct creatures. God obviously made them as two distinct creatures. What purpose would it serve to then blur the lines and have one descend from the other? Why go against all the laws of science and nature that He Himself created, and most perfectly? Creatures are what they are, it's just reality. Ironically I think it comes down to science and acknowledging two very distinct natures that are not interchangeable, even if we have some superficial similarities. I do not know what official standards there would be but wanting to stay in touch with reality and good science might be a start? Scientists have yet to prove that any creature can turn into another, as much as they try to push it. Just today I saw an article explaining how dinosaurs going extinct is a myth because the ones that didn't die just turned into birds. They have yet to show a shred of proof that nature works this way. Every day that we live without half-creatures running around is additional proof that it doesn't. So why would God Himself work against His own laws of nature? It just doesn't make sense. Sometimes God works above nature, but He does not work against nature, which is what turning an ape into a man would be.

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #55 on:** May 01, 2019, 09:08:04 PM »

Quote from: homeschoolmom on May 01, 2019, 06:22:43 PM

Would that answer be found somewhere in the difference between the nature of an ape and the nature of man? A thing of one nature cannot become a thing of another nature. They are two distinct creatures. God obviously made them as two distinct creatures. What purpose would it serve to then blur the lines and have one descend from the other? Why go against all the laws of science and nature that He Himself created, and most perfectly? Creatures are what they are, it's just reality. Ironically I think it comes down to science and acknowledging two very distinct natures that are not interchangeable, even if we have some superficial similarities. I do not know what official standards there would be but wanting to stay in touch with reality and good science might be a start? Scientists have yet to prove that any creature can turn into another, as much as they try to push it. Just today I saw an article explaining how dinosaurs going extinct is a myth because the ones that didn't die just turned into birds. They have yet to show a shred of proof that nature works this way. Every day that we live without half-creatures running around is additional proof that it doesn't. So why would God Himself work against His own laws of nature? It just doesn't make sense. Sometimes God works above nature, but He does not work against nature, which is what turning an ape into a man would be.

Again, I'm not competent to discuss the scientific merits of it, but that's another issue. Flat earth is obviously scientifically absurd, but the Church doesn't censure people for believing in it. Its stupid, but its not heretical.

What I'm trying to pry at with my questions, is whether theistic evolution is actually contrary to doctrinal orthodoxy, and if so, why, since Humani Generis seems to allow it to be debated within certain parameters.

That's it. That's my only concern. At least at the moment.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #56 on:** May 01, 2019, 09:19:34 PM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 09:08:04 PM

Again, I'm not competent to discuss the scientific merits of it, but that's another issue. Flat earth is obviously scientifically absurd, but the Church doesn't censure people for believing in it. Its stupid, but its not heretical.

What I'm trying to pry at with my questions, is whether theistic evolution is actually contrary to doctrinal orthodoxy, and if so, why, since Humani Generis seems to allow it to be debated within certain parameters.

That's it. That's my only concern. At least at the moment.

A starting point:

http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/

Nadir · « **Reply #57 on:** May 01, 2019, 10:02:29 PM »

I recommend (in book form): http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/
and http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/

Both excellent, the latter being concise (96 pages) inexpensive and specifically related to Church teaching.

Review of former:
Gerry Keane has been involved with the Catholic creationist movement for many years. This book is the fruit of his research in the field. It covers the topic of origins from many different angles. We are indebted to Gerry for this work.
Today’s world for the most part rejects the authority of the Church and the Bible and will listen only to science when it comes to questions about the natural world. However, reality includes both the supernatural and the natural and it is practically impossible to separate the two, especially when it comes to the issue of origins.
Recognizing this, Gerry not only shows how the Church and the Bible proclaim that the world was created directly by God only thousands of years ago, but he demonstrates that natural science itself lends support to a literal interpretation of Genesis and argues against the idea of a world formed by chance or accident billions of years ago. Gerry also shows how Theistic creationists – those who would like to believe that God used evolution in the creation of the world – unnecessarily compromise the teachings of the Church and the Bible while bowing to evolutionism.
In the section on discoveries of science, it is established that the fossil record contains fully formed animals with no transitional links to simpler forms. The sheer quantity of fossils and the evidence of their rapid burial support the idea of a global flood only thousands of years in the past. Studies of DNA show that living organisms could not have arisen by chance and do not naturally have the ability to accuмulate additional genetic information.
The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics show that nature cannot create itself and must have had its beginning sometime in the not-to-distant past. Dating methods are not a reliable method for indicating the age of rocks or fossils. There is much scientific evidence to suggest that the world is only thousands of years old.
This book points out how acceptance of the molecules-to-man theory of evolution has led to the destruction of morals in society. The rise of nαzιsm was in large part due to the idea of a master race that was more highly evolved than other, inferior races. Marxism and Communism depend heavily on evolution and naturalism for their Godless theories. Humanism starts with the proposition that God is not necessary for existence and ultimately leads to the culture of death.
Creation Rediscovered is a must-read for any Catholic with a serious interest in the origins debate within the Church and in the secular world. Although it is not light reading, those who persevere to the end will be greatly rewarded. The detailed scriptural, theological, philosophical, and scientific support for a literal interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis is presented. It shows clearly that a rediscovery of the truth of the Genesis creation account is key to a restoration of the Church and society.
Gerry has also written a condensed version of Creation Rediscovered entitled Special Creation Rediscovered – Catholicism and the Origins Debate, which is 96 pages and is available for $6. This could serve as an excellent introduction to the topic for the person who did not need all the details.
Reviewed by Eric Bermingham, February 2, 2006

Review of latter:
Gerry Keane (May God rest his soul - me Nadir) is was an advisory board member of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation. He has been involved with the movement to defend the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation for many years. Special Creation Rediscovered is somewhat of a condensed version of his Creation Rediscovered.
Gerry starts off by showing how important the Origins debate is in society and in the life of the Church. What we believe about God has much to do with what we believe about creation and vice-versa. The more one believes in a materialistic origin of the universe, the less one believes in a loving Creator.
The teachings of the Catholic Church concerning origins are detailed from a biblical and theological point of view. Various papal and conciliar docuмents are quoted to show the consistent doctrine of the Church on this point.
Gerry shows how the theory of Evolution depends heavily on the idea of long ages to support the concept of small changes over time. He also illustrates how churchmen have attempted to read these contrived long ages into the clearly short history of Genesis in order to give the appearance that faith and Evolution are compatible. Unfortunately, by bringing a godless and scientifically unsupported system of thought into the Church, untold damage has been done to the Faith. He also shows how Evolution has greatly contributed to the philosophies of Communism, nαzιsm, Humanism, Existentialism, and the New Age movement.
Special Creation Rediscovered – Catholicism and the Origins Debate, is an excellent introduction to the topic of Origins in the Catholic Church. If there were only one book on creation that you could read in this year of Darwin, this would be the one to pick.
Reviewed by Eric Bermingham
February, 2009

Nadir · « **Reply #58 on:** May 02, 2019, 01:17:17 AM »

Quote from: ByzCat3000 on April 29, 2019, 11:08:40 PM

The first part of his statement is strictly speaking true (even if its heterodox, but I think Humani Generis says it isn't.) The second part is ridiculously incendiary, and a far cry from Pius XII allowing the issue to be debated cautiously

I am not sure I understand. Do you really mean to say that this statement of Pope Francis is true (in spite of its being heterodox)?

... "that evolution and the Big Bang are consistent with the notion of a creator".

ByzCat3000 · « **Reply #59 on:** May 02, 2019, 01:24:14 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on May 02, 2019, 01:17:17 AM

I am not sure I understand. Do you really mean to say that this statement of Pope Francis is true (in spite of its being heterodox)?

... "that evolution and the Big Bang are consistent with the notion of a creator".

What I mean is this.

Quote

... "that evolution and the Big Bang are consistent with the notion of a creator".

At a strict, logical level, this is true. There is no inconsistency between believing in a Creator, and believing that said Creator used evolution and the Big Bang to create the world.

That's a separate question than whether God did in fact do this, and whether the belief that God did this is a belief that an orthodox Catholic can hold. Most of the answers to me have addressed that first question, but I've really been asking about the second one.

But EVEN IF it was a heresy to believe in evolution and the Big Bang, that would just make it a heretical belief, it wouldn't mean that it was inconsistent with theism.

Author Topic: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney (Read 7804 times)

Nadir

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

ByzCat3000

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

forlorn

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

Francisco

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

Nadir

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

claudel

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

ByzCat3000

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

forlorn

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

ByzCat3000

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

homeschoolmom

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

ByzCat3000

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

SeanJohnson

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

Nadir

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

Nadir

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney

ByzCat3000

Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney