Amazing! It looks like the SSPX is really going into overdrive in doubling down in its defense of Fr. Paul Robinson's book including its acceptance of BB. When (and why) in the world did traditional Catholic laymen, let alone TradCat clergy, start defending Big Bang which runs contra to the traditional Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture? One more valid reason for the existence of the TradCat Resistance!
See: https://angeluspress.org/collections/church-teaching/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/collections/church-teaching/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)
Most useful book to avoid "catholic fundamentalism", and be faithful to the Fathers of the Church
Fr François Laisney, Apr 2019
I read the whole book, and truly consider its contribution to the defense of the Faith very important in our modern world.
St Augustine very explicitly says that the "DAYS" in Gen. I are NOT as the days of which we are used to ("non tamen talem [diem] qualem hic novimus"), marked by sunset and sunrise... for the very simple reason that the sun was created on the 4th day. Read "de Genesis ad litteram", 5:2.4
In the Scriptures, the word "day" is often used for periods of time (see Heb. 4:7). 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. Anyone knowing Scriptures would know the parallel between the seven days in Gen. I and the chapters 1-2 of St John's Gospel; also the parallel between the waters vivified by the Spirit of life in Gen. 1:2 and the waters of baptism.
Note that Father Robinson does not support evolution. The big-bang theory, which Father shows as compatible with the faith, should rather be put in parallel with the growth of a baby in the womb: it starts very small (the primeval atom / the first cell) and unfolds in a most marvellous way, yet perfectly PLANNED by the Divine Intelligence. Both unfolding manifest in a beautiful way the Wisdom and the omnipotence of God as the Author of Nature. And that is much better than the notion of God as a fairy with a wand making all things on the spot as we see it today: this is imagination, and not theology.
Note that it is the accordist priests who defend Fr. Robinson (himself an accordist).
I'm not taking an opinion on this, but what do people of this forum think of Humani Generis? Humani Generis was an encyclical by Pius XII (so pre the Vatican II popes) and it allowed this topic to be debated. So why is it illegitimate that some SSPX priests would take a position on something that Pius XII said could be debated?
I don't know so much about Humani Generis but personally, the fact that SSPX outlets such as the Angelus Press do NOT allow debate and only keep pro-"Catholic Big Bang" priests reviews is a bigger problem. Had they kept Fr Rusak's I would take less issue with Fr Laisney's. I still wouldn't agree with it but I also wouldn't resent its presence.OK that seems much more of a problem.
Pius XII was a transitional pope (willingly or otherwise).Regardless, you don't get to pick and choose which decrees of a Pope apply or not, much less decide if they apply to others. If the Pope says debate is allowed, then it's allowed(within the parameters the Pope defined, of course).
He said a lot of good, traditional things.
But he also promoted (or allowed to be promoted) many things detrimental to the Church (e.g., new breviary; new Holy Week; modernist biblical exegesis in Divino Afflante Spiritu; etc.).
Regardless, you don't get to pick and choose which decrees of a Pope apply or not, much less decide if they apply to others. If the Pope says debate is allowed, then it's allowed(within the parameters the Pope defined, of course).Honestly, the perameters were a lot looser than most trads probably would prefer. But they are a lot stricter than most modernists would prefer. I personally think it was pretty well balanced. I usually more enthusiastically recommend it to people who are moving toward the skeptical side moreso than strict young earthers, but honestly I think its worth reading in general.
Regardless, you don't get to pick and choose which decrees of a Pope apply or not, much less decide if they apply to others. If the Pope says debate is allowed, then it's allowed(within the parameters the Pope defined, of course).
That was the first thing I remembered about him and it made me wary of his opinion when I read it.
I don't appreciate the insinuation that anyone believing God could have made things on the spot must believe He is "a fairy with a wand". Intellectual pride always betrays itself with that kind of tone. It's exactly the tone that declares the Middle Ages the Dark Ages. It's the tone that declares the Crusades a blot on the Church's history. We could go on with what "progressive" modernist thought comes through in that tone. I understand the point of a baby developing in the womb in a planned and ordered manner but is there really something in theology that forbids God creating the world as is? If not, he is really overstepping his bounds in a bid to put us little people in our places.
Honestly, the perameters were a lot looser than most trads probably would prefer. But they are a lot stricter than most modernists would prefer. I personally think it was pretty well balanced. I usually more enthusiastically recommend it to people who are moving toward the skeptical side moreso than strict young earthers, but honestly I think its worth reading in general.Here are a couple of books you may wish to buy:
Laisney: And that is much better than the notion of God as a fairy with a wand making all things on the spot as we see it today: this is imagination, and not theology.
In a move that could be aimed at healing a rift between science and religion, Pope Francis has said that evolution and the Big Bang are consistent with the notion of a creator. And according to the pontiff, believers should not view God as "a magician, with a magic wand."
For those who know his writings, Fr. Laisney is the consummate sycophant.
Let me help ---
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand)
I want to apologize to Fr. Laisney and to the other posters for this post. I have been thinking about it a lot today. I cannot take back the truth that is in it. I know what it sounds like when modernists try to paint Catholic tradition or thought as backwards and unenlightened. There is no mistaking that. But I should have found a way to write the post without accusing Father of intellectual pride. That is not my place at all and was not necessary to the comment.
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,"
Big Bang Defended by Fr. LaisneyHe's likely paying back Fr. Robinson for the free book he got from him.
Really, who cares what Fr. Laisney thinks?
Let me help ---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
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand)
Ah, predictably, the neo-SSPX shill has popped in.Just can't resist taking a cheap shot at the Society and at me, can you, Ladislaus?
It isn't just the notion of a God-directed drawing of matter from a single particle that's in question with regard to the book. Please see the previous threads about this trainwreck of a book; it's Modernist through and through. That book rejects young-earth theory ... .among many other things that had been taught and believed since the Church Fathers.I've expressed disagreement with Fr. Robinson before, as you would know, if you had actually read those threads yourself.
Ah, predictably, the neo-SSPX shill has popped in.What's your take on humani generis?
It isn't just the notion of a God-directed drawing of matter from a single particle that's in question with regard to the book. Please see the previous threads about this trainwreck of a book; it's Modernist through and through. That book rejects young-earth theory ... .among many other things that had been taught and believed since the Church Fathers.
I'm not sure what I believe about the exact mechanics of Creation, but I always assumed "day" was meant in more metaphorical terms as akin to "era". Going by days before the Sun was made seems a bit strange, and I read that the Hebrew of day is used to mean undefined periods of time in other parts of the Bible too, although examples escape me at the moment.
What's your take on humani generis?
I ask because I don't think you can have "evolution of the human body" and a young earth at the same time, and Pius XII did allow those with competence in science and theology to debate the evolution of the human body within certain parameters.
I'm not sure what I believe about the exact mechanics of Creation, but I always assumed "day" was meant in more metaphorical terms as akin to "era". Going by days before the Sun was made seems a bit strange, and I read that the Hebrew of day is used to mean undefined periods of time in other parts of the Bible too, although examples escape me at the moment.
Based on the Sacred Scriptures, one cannot hold that human beings have been around for more than 6,000+/- years. That's absolutely clear from the Biblical chronologies. It's heresy to hold otherwise, a implicit denial of the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.
Pius XII was vague enough that no one, not even he himself possibly, knows what he meant. Micro-evolution? Macro?
But, no, a THEISTIC evolution would not require millions of years for the human body to evolve ... even if you're speaking in Macro terms. Despite what Bergoglio says, God can do anything. So, no, there's no issue reconciling chronology with a limited "evolution of the human body" (whatever that means).
To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy. Sorry, but Scripture clearly states that God formed Adam from "the clay of the earth", i.e., directly from matter ... and this precludes "God formed Adam from a monkey." "Clay of the earth" can either be taken literally or as a quasi-scientific way to describe "raw matter" (and my personal opinion is the latter). But in no way is it reconcilable with "ape". Now, could human bodies, once so constituted by God, have evolved in a micro sense? Of course.
Pius XII did a heck of a lot of damage. No only in setting the table for evolution, but also for the floodgates of NFP, for letting Father Feeney get persecuted for upholding the Catholic dogma of EENS, for setting Bugnini up with his initial liturgical experimentations (John XXIII was even more conservative and kicked him out), and for appointing during his long reign nearly every single bishop that eventually brought us the glories of Vatican II. St. Pius XII he was not.
Evolution is based on the atheistic premise that because the design is similar between the bodies of apes and human bodies, that the one must have come from the other. How about they're similar because they have a common Designer?
Even the Holy Office under St. Pius X stipulated that it is permitted to take the notion of "day" more loosely ... since the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. God could have created the world in one instant, or in 6 24-hour days, or in 6 5-minute "periods, or over millions of years (since time means nothing to God). But it's clear from Sacred Scripture that human beings have only been in existence for roughly 6,000 years.
- Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.- Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?
Answer: In the negative to both parts.- In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?
Answer: In the negative.- In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?
Answer: In the affirmative.- Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
Answer: In the negative.- Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
Answer: In the affirmative.- As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of Creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
Answer: In the negative.- In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative. [3] (http://kolbecenter.org/faith-and-reason/#fn3)
To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy.Though I can certainly understand why Fr. Robinson, Fr. Laisney, and Francis the Clown and many others like them would believe that they are descendants of apes.
Based on the Sacred Scriptures, one cannot hold that human beings have been around for more than 6,000+/- years. That's absolutely clear from the Biblical chronologies. It's heresy to hold otherwise, a implicit denial of the historicity and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.This isn't a subject I know much about, but I've heard some people argue that in Hebrew chronologies sometimes generations were skipped. Is this inaccurate, or has this view been condemned somewhere?
Pius XII was vague enough that no one, not even he himself possibly, knows what he meant. Micro-evolution? Macro?Pius XII Humani Generis:
36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.TBH I have no particularly strong agenda here. I've always been in the young earth camp and haven't seen anything to convince me that I need to change my mind. I'm mostly concerned about this from an ecclesiastical perspective. Most trads on this board seem to think that theistic evolution is heretical or close to it at least, but Pius XII seems to allow it to be debated within certain perameters. And in this case, since he contrasts evolution of the human body with evolution of the soul, it does seem like he thinks the idea that God guided a process of biological evolution, and used biological evolution as the means by which Adam and Eve were brought about, is something that is allowed to be debated. And the idea that that's what's being allowed is strengthened by the next paragraph, where he condemns the idea of polygenism (the idea that all humankind does not desecend from just two people) and says the sons of the Church *do not* have liberty to discuss that.
But, no, a THEISTIC evolution would not require millions of years for the human body to evolve ... even if you're speaking in Macro terms. Despite what Bergoglio says, God can do anything. So, no, there's no issue reconciling chronology with a limited "evolution of the human body" (whatever that means).Yeah my only concerns are what God actually does do, and what interpretive liberty the children of the Church have in speculating on how he did in fact do such things. I certainly have no qualms about the idea that God could have created the earth in six 24 hour days, or instantaneously. My only concerns here relate to what is, not what could be.
To say that human bodies evolved from apes, for instance, would be heresy. Sorry, but Scripture clearly states that God formed Adam from "the clay of the earth", i.e., directly from matter ... and this precludes "God formed Adam from a monkey." "Clay of the earth" can either be taken literally or as a quasi-scientific way to describe "raw matter" (and my personal opinion is the latter). But in no way is it reconcilable with "ape". Now, could human bodies, once so constituted by God, have evolved in a micro sense? Of course.
Pius XII did a heck of a lot of damage. No only in setting the table for evolution, but also for the floodgates of NFP, for letting Father Feeney get persecuted for upholding the Catholic dogma of EENS, for setting Bugnini up with his initial liturgical experimentations (John XXIII was even more conservative and kicked him out), and for appointing during his long reign nearly every single bishop that eventually brought us the glories of Vatican II. St. Pius XII he was not.
Evolution is based on the atheistic premise that because the design is similar between the bodies of apes and human bodies, that the one must have come from the other. How about they're similar because they have a common Designer?I definitely grant that some evolutionists do indeed argue this way, and I think its plain wrong for the reason you stated. I'm personally not informed enough on this topic to say whether there are better arguments. But again, my concern here is over evolution's status in terms of to what extent it violates Catholic teaching, not so much whether its remotely sound. Most modern day Catholics believe Young Earth Creationism is scientifically baseless, but not heretical. Someone could easily believe the same thing about theistic evolution.
Is there one shred of evidence that man “evolved” from an ape, or a “humanoid”, or some other soulless beast? I want evidence. A fossil that has not been faked. Some kind of proof that such an evolution occurred is needed before you can twist Sacred Scripture.That's separate from what I'm asking though.
And in case anyone is wondering, there is no evidence.
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?Let's say that you're right that that's completely absurd. That doesn't really answer my question.
It defies common sense and Catholic sense.
Who can believe that God breathed His Spirit into an ape and it became Man!
How can the first man that God created, namely Adam, have ancestors?Not that I agree, but they would argue it's no more absurd than God breathing life into clay.
It defies common sense and Catholic sense.
Who can believe that God breathed His Spirit into an ape and it became Man!
Don't worry about it.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.
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.
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
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.
Note that Father Robinson does not support evolution.
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.
I don't see why its inherently absurd. Like, God could do this.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 cautiouslyI 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)?
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)?What I mean is this.
... "that evolution and the Big Bang are consistent with the notion of a creator".
... "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.
Like for instance, Sola Scriptura is heresy, but there's no logical inconsistency between believing in sola scriptura, and believing in God.I suspect the answer is there is none, necessarily anyway. The Church hasn't dogmatically defined much in specific about Creation. Although if there is an irreconciliable inconsistency between orthodoxy ans these theories, I'd suggest it probably lies in the problem of death. Death is supposed to have come into the world with Original Sin. People try to explain it in different ways, metaphorically or otherwise, but it may be irreconciliable with Church teaching, idk I've not read enough. Look into it if you're interested.
There's no logical inconsistency between believing in evolution and the Big Bang, and believing in God. Whether those former two beliefs are also heresies is what I'm trying to figure out. I don't see how they could be heretical.
Which is a separate question from whether or not its true.
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.Hi ByzCat. You may like this article, why Human Evolution can never become part of the Deposit of Faith : http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html (http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html)
What I mean is this.Rearranging the wording of your second paragraph to help me make more sense of it:
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.
Like for instance, Sola Scriptura is heresy, but there's no logical inconsistency between believing in sola scriptura, and believing in God.You should read this book to see if there is "logical inconsistency between believing in evolution and the Big Bang, and believing in God"
There's no logical inconsistency between believing in evolution and the Big Bang, and believing in God. Whether those former two beliefs are also heresies is what I'm trying to figure out. I don't see how they could be heretical.
Which is a separate question from whether or not its true.
God did not create the sun and stars until AFTER He fashioned the earth ... and plants. That is simply not consistent with Big Bang.Amen!
God did not create the sun and stars until AFTER He fashioned the earth ... and plants. That is simply not consistent with Big Bang.An overly literalistic reading of the sun being created after the light does not make sense. God called the light day and the darkness night, before he created the Earth and before he created the Sun. What exactly would this day look like then? Half the sky being light and half the sky(or heavens rather, as the sky hadn't even been created yet) dark, with it rotating 360 degrees every 24 hours? Then it says the stars God just created separated the days from the nights, the previous separation seeming to have been undone. Referring to the Moon as a "light" would also imply it was luminescent if taken purely literally.
An overly literalistic reading of the sun being created after the light does not make sense. God called the light day and the darkness night, before he created the Earth and before he created the Sun. What exactly would this day look like then? Half the sky being light and half the sky(or heavens rather, as the sky hadn't even been created yet) dark, with it rotating 360 degrees every 24 hours? Then it says the stars God just created separated the days from the nights, the previous separation seeming to have been undone. Referring to the Moon as a "light" would also imply it was luminescent if taken purely literally.
Some may try to assert the position that because the Church allows Catholics to discuss or even argue two different points of views on an issue that therefore the Church is thereby -- at least tentatively --validating the supposed worthiness of both sides. The speciousness of this claim can be seen by one simple example. The Church allows Catholics to discuss or even argue (for either side) whether or not God exists, as for example in a classroom debate in a Catholic school. The purpose in doing this could be a very noble one in showing the Catholic students how to best counter the argument for atheism. At the end of the day, however, it never grants a Catholic any license to actually believe that God does not exist. Error has no rights!Your interpretation of humani generis is obviously false here for two reasons. One: Pius XII explicitly rules out debate on the point that human souls were directly created by God. The only thing you're allowed to debate (according to Pius XII) is the evolution of the human body. Furthermore, polygenism is also not allowed to be debated.
Hi ByzCat. You may like this article, why Human Evolution can never become part of the Deposit of Faith : http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html (http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/creation/cbutel/humanevo.html)I'll need to look into that bit from Vatican I and think about it. At the moment I'm not sure if the notion of theistic evolution is definitively at odds there. But perhaps it is.
An excerpt: The Magisterium Teachings of Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X
Pius IX. The year after the publication of Darwin’s evolution thesis, the Provincial Council of Cologne issued the following canon, which was approved by Pope Pius IX:“Our first parents were immediately created by God (Gen.2.7). Therefore we declare as quite contrary to Holy Scripture and the Faith the opinion of those who dare to assert that man, in respect of the body, is derived by spontaneous transformation from an imperfect nature, which improved continually until it reached the present human state.” [10]
Pius IX also approved the following teaching of the first Vatican Council :“This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power, not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows upon creatures with most free volition, immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature, out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely the angelic and the mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body.” [11] ... This part of the Vatican 1 teaching therefore cannot be reconciled with any theory of biological evolution of mundane creatures, which asserts that such life was not created immediately from the beginning of time but arose some millions or billions of years after that beginning and then only as amoeba (a unicelled organism), which then took millions of years to evolve into the kinds of living creatures specified in Genesis 1. Nor can it be said that God used an evolutionary system to create mundane creatures out of nothing."
On the whole, even Humani Generis by Pope Ven. Pius XII is very skeptical of evolution: "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism. 6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences. 7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas ... 9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions." At this time, no explicit ex cathedra decision forbidding evolution to be taught has yet been made; but it's very likely one will be made by a Pope or Council in future. And one could argue Pope Bl. Pius IX and the First Vatican Council, especially in light of that 1860 Provincial Council's decision which the Pope approved, had implicitly rejected evolution in these words, "9. Hence 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." (Vatican I Council, Session 3 : 24 April 1870, Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason.)
If by "evolution of the human body" one means the evolution of the human body from an ape, I cannot see how this is not heretical. It clearly contradicts Sacred Scripture. It must be some amazing stretch to say that when Scripture states God created Adam's body from the "clay of the earth", that this "clay of the earth" was actually an ape.Not that I agree, but I imagine they'd argue the clay of the Earth became the creatures that became Adam.
Not that I agree, but I imagine they'd argue the clay of the Earth became the creatures that became Adam.
Right. That's why I said it's a huge stretch. With that logic, I fashioned a hamburger from the clay of the earth yesterday. Ridiculous. There's probably an overwhelming amount of Patristic consensus in favor of a literal interpretation here.I agree completely, but Humani Generis still allows debate regarding the evolution of man regardless. If it was dogmatic fact that Adam came straight from the matter of the earth, then how is there any room for evolution whatsoever?
If by "evolution of the human body" one means the evolution of the human body from an ape, I cannot see how this is not heretical. It clearly contradicts Sacred Scripture. It must be some amazing stretch to say that when Scripture states God created Adam's body from the "clay of the earth", that this "clay of the earth" was actually an ape.How would you reconcile this with the fact that you've argued the ordinary magisterium can't be harmful to souls, and Pius XII pretty clearly allows this issue to be debated in an encyclical?
How would you reconcile this with the fact that you've argued the ordinary magisterium can't be harmful to souls, and Pius XII pretty clearly allows this issue to be debated in an encyclical?
How does something contradicting sacred scripture in and of itself make it heretical without an ecclesial pronouncement?
I'll assume for the sake of argument that you're right that this clearly contradicts sacred scripture. I think you might well be right. But my questions remain.
While it's objectively heretical, it's true that a Catholic wouldn't be a formal heretic because of Pius XII's "permission".Right, I know he didn't teach or define anything. He just gave permission. So I agree that a future Pope or council could anathematize theistic evolution and that if they did Catholics would be bound to submit to it. Pius XII agreed to that as well, by demanding that all who engage in the discussion do so with the willingness to submit to the Church.
So the difference between objective heresy and formal heresy. It's always been a dogma, for instance, that Our Lady was immaculately conceived, and it's denial objectively heretical. But St. Thomas was not a heretic because it had not been defined yet.
We're a similar spot with this issue (and a few others).
Pius XII neither taught nor defined anything here. He did lots of harm, but none of it is protected by infallibility. If anything he's in the same boat as Honorius when it comes to tolerating heresy.
I recommend (in book form): http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/ (http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/)I have read G. Keane's Creation Rediscovered. It contains many mistakes and misunderstandings in science, as well as some poor argumentation in theology. I would not recommend this book to anyone who wants to know clear, solid arguments.
and http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/ (http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/)
It was Augustine who began the modernising of Genesis with his no light before the sun. This in spite of Genesis revealing on the first day God created Earth, space and light, and that this light separated day and night on Earth. Now light is but one effect of electromagnetism and it would light up darkness even in Augustine’s time as could be witnessed if he ever saw lightning bringing light at night lighting up the sky, or for that matter a fire lighting up a place. Would Augustine believe in street lighting, or that we could turn a dark room into a daylight room with one switch of the electric light.
Tell us about them! What are those "many mistakes and misunderstandings in science, as well as some poor argumentation in theology".The book gives the idea that radiometric decay rates have changed substantially. That's a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence of significant variation - definitely not enough to change radiometric dates. The book says similar about the speed of light changing. Again, that can be checked observationally, and the evidence isn't there. The book implies that radiometric dating methods assume starting isotope ratios. Isochron methods definitely don't The book has stuff about polonium halos. At minimum, that part is out of date.
C14 .... has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]"Um, about this.
The book gives the idea that radiometric decay rates have changed substantially. That's a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence of significant variation - definitely not enough to change radiometric dates. The book says similar about the speed of light changing. Again, that can be checked observationally, and the evidence isn't there. The book implies that radiometric dating methods assume starting isotope ratios. Isochron methods definitely don't The book has stuff about polonium halos. At minimum, that part is out of date.No idea why you're getting downvoted. Catholics should be lovers of the Truth, even if it means convenient "facts" must be discarded.
All of this is explained in other books. Keane's book doesn't show much awareness of counterarguments.
If someone really wants to know the truth on this topic, that someone should read widely from a range of views. We don't need to defend poor arguments.
The book gives the idea that radiometric decay rates have changed substantially. That's a testable hypothesis, and there is no evidence of significant variation - definitely not enough to change radiometric dates. The book says similar about the speed of light changing. Again, that can be checked observationally, and the evidence isn't there. The book implies that radiometric dating methods assume starting isotope ratios. Isochron methods definitely don't The book has stuff about polonium halos. At minimum, that part is out of date.
All of this is explained in other books. Keane's book doesn't show much awareness of counterarguments.
If someone really wants to know the truth on this topic, that someone should read widely from a range of views. We don't need to defend poor arguments.
I have read G. Keane's Creation Rediscovered.1991 version or updated and expanded 1999 version?
P.P.S. Our sixth annual leadership retreat will take place at St. Anne Retreat Center in Melbourne, Kentucky, from June 16 to June 22. The retreat is open to all Catholics (and their families) who are committed to advancing the mission of the Kolbe Center in their spheres of influence. If you would like more information about the schedule, facilities, and suggested donations for the retreat, please email me as soon as possible athowen@shentel.net .The email address should read howen@shentel.net
Notice the title - use of diamonds in AMS instrument backgrounds. They were testing background C14 readings. A background reading is a low-level reading due to sources and effects other than what is being tested. In this case it could come from several things. Small amounts of contemporary CO2 (due to imperfect vacuum) and left-over residue in the test tube, even from the cleanser, add some C14. These and various other sources are all small but contribute to a background reading that has nothing to do with the sample tested.
Hi Stanley. Thanks for your objection. Creation Scientists are well aware of this explanation of the test resulted and have answered it:Hello Xavier.
...
Defenders of evolutionary time scales will have to assert that the radiocarbon all came from some sort of contamination, where recent or modern carbon somehow crept into all these samples. This has been argued before, but the testing process itself is loaded with procedures that rigorously remove contaminants. [so all 5 academic laboratories failed to account for contaminants?]
Please see some demonstrably baneful effects of the false theory of evolution on Faith and Morals. What is true cannot bear evil fruits.
What does this say about "Baptism of Desire", the chief fruit of which is religious indifferentism?Hello Ladislaus-
1991 version or updated and expanded 1999 version?1991. Does it really matter?
1991. Does it really matter?Thanks for your reply Stanley. I think that if you compared them you would certainly agree that it does matter. Big improvement in the laler TAN edition!
I was hoping that you would weigh in, Cassini. Thank you for your explanation of Gerry's reticence on the theological side of Forlorn's comments. I vaguely remember this reasoning, whether from Gerry himself or from you, I don't recall.
Thankfully Hugh saw the problem and accepted geo but did not make it part of their ongoing programme.
What does this say about "Baptism of Desire", the chief fruit of which is religious indifferentism?Even if baptism of desire didn't exist, you could still have denominational indifferentism. TBH I don't really understand this mentality. I saw it all the time when I was in Protestantism, whatever issues were deemed "non-essential" were also often considered pretty much indifferent. But I never really understood why this should be the case. Shouldn't maximizing glory of God in all things be pursued *even if* someone could be saved deficiently? Not every sin against a marriage completely destroys the relationship, but we wouldn't say lesser sins are OK. And even if Feeneyism is wrong, and someone *could* be saved through baptism of desire, that shouldn't lead to religious indifferentism. I'd say this even if it was the case that being non Catholic didn't endanger the soul (which of course is obviously false.)
Hello Xavier. My post was specific to the paper about AMS and diamonds, and you respond with a shotgun approach about "7 different dinosaur bones", wood, coal, and even collagen!
2. Creation of the Earth
Immediately after the prayer of the faithful choirs and that movement in the Godhead, I saw below me, not far from and to the right of the world of shadows, another dark globe arise.
I fixed my eyes steadily upon it. I beheld it as if in movement, growing larger and larger, as it were, bright spots breaking out upon it and encircling it like luminous bands. Here and there, they stretched out into brighter, broader plains, and at that moment I saw the form of the land setting boundaries to the water. In the bright places I saw a movement as of life, and on the land I beheld vegetation springing forth and myriads of living things arising. Child that I was, I fancied the plants were moving about.
Up to this moment, there was only a gray light like the sunrise, like early morn breaking over the earth, like nature awakening from sleep.
And now all other parts of the picture faded. The sky became blue, the sun burst forth, but I saw only one part of the earth lighted up and shining. That spot was charming, glorious, and I thought: There's Paradise!
While these changes were going on upon the dark globe, I saw, as it were, a streaming forth of light out of that highest of all the spheres, the God-sphere, that sphere in which God dwelt.
It was as if the sun rose higher in the heavens, as if bright morning were awakening. It was the first morning. No created being had any knowledge of it, and it seemed as if all those created things had been there forever in their unsullied innocence. As the sun rose higher, I saw the plants and trees growing larger and larger. The waters became clearer and holier, colors grew purer and brighter—all was unspeakably charming. Creation was not then as it is now. Plants and flowers and trees had other forms. They are wild and misshapen now compared with what they were, for all things are now thoroughly degenerate.
Before the sun appeared, earthly things were puny; but in his beams they gradually increased in size, until they attained full growth.
The trees did not stand close together. Of all plants, at least of the largest, I saw only one of each kind, and they stood apart like seedlings set out in a garden bed. Vegetation was luxuriant, perfectly green, of a species pure, sound, and exempt from decay.
Nothing appeared to receive or to need the attention of an earthly gardener. I thought: How is it that all is so beautiful, since as yet there are no human beings! Ah! Sin has not yet entered. There has been no destruction, no rending asunder. All is sound, all is holy. As yet there has been no healing, no repairing. All is pure, nothing has needed purification.
The plain that I beheld was gently undulating and covered with vegetation. In its center rose a fountain, from all sides of which flowed streams, crossing one another and mingling their waters. I saw in them first a slight movement as of life, and then I saw living things. After that I saw, here and there among the shrubs and bushes, animals peeping forth, as if just roused from sleep. They were very different from those of a later day, not at all timorous. Compared with those of our own time, they were almost as far their superior as men are superior to beasts. They were pure and noble, nimble, and joyous. Words cannot describe them. I was not familiar with many of them, for I saw very few like those we have now. I saw the elephant, the stag, the camel, and even the unicorn. This last I saw also in the ark. It is remarkably gentle and affectionate, not so tall as a horse, its head more rounded in shape. I saw no asses, no insects, no wretched, loathsome creatures. These last I have always looked upon as a punishment of sin. But I saw myriads of birds and heard the sweetest notes as in the early morning. There were no birds of prey that I could see, nor did I hear any animals bellowing. (Aw, so the mosquito, cockroaches, scorpians, etc. were never meant to be. Sin caused them)
3. Adam and Eve
I saw Adam created, not in Paradise, but in the region in which Jerusalem was subsequently situated. I saw him come forth glittering and white from a mound of yellow earth, as if out of a mold. The sun was shining and I thought (I was only a child when I saw it) that the sunbeams drew Adam out of the hillock. He was, as it were, born of the virgin earth. God blessed the earth, and it became his mother. He did not instantly step forth from the earth. Some time elapsed before his appearance. He lay in the hillock on his left side, his arm thrown over his head, a light vapor covering him as with a veil. I saw a figure in his right side, and I became conscious that it was Eve, and that she would be drawn from him in Paradise by God. God called him. The hillock opened, and Adam stepped gently forth. There were no trees around, only little flowers. I had seen the animals also, coming forth from the earth in pure singleness, the females separate from the males.
And now I saw Adam borne up on high to a garden, to Paradise.
God led all the animals before him in Paradise, and he named them. They followed him and gamboled around him, for all things served him before he sinned. All that he named, afterward followed him to earth. Eve had not yet been formed from him.
I saw Adam in Paradise among the plants and flowers, and not far from the fountain that played in its center. He was awaking, as if from sleep. Although his person was more like to flesh than to spirit, yet he was dazzlingly white. He wondered at nothing, nor was he astonished at his own existence. He went around among the trees and the animals, as if he were used to them all, like a man inspecting his fields.
Near the tree by the water arose a hill. On it I saw Adam reclining on his left side, his left hand under his cheek. God sent a deep sleep on him and he was rapt in vision. Then from his right side, from the same place in which the side of Jesus was opened by the lance, God drew Eve. I saw her small and delicate. But she quickly increased in size until full grown. She was exquisitely beautiful. Were it not for the Fall, all would be born in the same way, in tranquil slumber. (Reproduction without lust and possibly without the physical act but a supernatural act of will between man and woman.)
Anne Catherine Emmerich:
Man that sounds really beautiful compared to all of the scientific gobbly gook spit out every where. I am satisfied. The discussion so far leaves me cold. Anne Catherine's description raises my spirit to the heavens. Thank you Anne.
As for science, if it doesn't help man survive here on earth so that he can reach heaven it is worth nothing in the eyes of God. Praised be Jesus Christ!
| The Spanish soldiers and missionaries had been exploring our vast Southwest for almost one century when the Pilgrims, members of a radical Protestant sect, established their first stable colony at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Unlike those Puritans, who aimed only to find a safe place for their sect to prosper, the Spaniards had a dual mission. They definnitely aimed to explore and settle the West, but another mission of equal import to the Crown was to convert the native Indians to the Catholic Faith. By 1598 the Franciscan friars who accompanied the Spanish explorers and settlers had established a chain of missions to work with the Pueblo Indians and other tribes in the unsettled Colony of New Mexico. In 1623, Fray Alonso de Benavides arrived from Mexico to the Santa Fe Mission as the first Superior of the Franciscan Missions of New Mexico and the first commissioner of the Inquisition for the Colony. He was known not only for his capacity and energy, but also for his great missionary zeal. He arrived with a small reinforcement of other Franciscan friars who would embark on the dangerous missionary labor in the expansive, unsettled territory of New Mexico. As in so many epic works in History, a few men, moved by supernatural zeal for the cause of God, undertook a work much larger than their human forces. One of the most fascinating episodes of this time involves the missionary efforts of a Spanish Abbess who worked in New Mexico, Arizona and Texas from 1620 to 1631. She instructed various Indian tribes in the Catholic Faith and told them how to find the Franciscan Mission to ask for priests to come to baptize their people. Her name was Mother Mary of Jesus of Agreda, a Conceptionist nun who, nonetheless, never left her Convent in Spain. An Abbess living in Spain bilocates to America
In his Memorial of 1630, a report on the state of the missions and colony, Fr. Benavides made a precise account of the Indians who had been instructed by the “Lady in Blue.” His Memorial of 1634, written after he had met and visited with Mother Mary of Agreda in 1631, also describes that meeting and his favorable impressions of the Conceptionist Abbess (see Part Two). When he left Agreda, Fr. Benavides asked Mary of Agreda to write a letter (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_015_Agreda_3.html)addressed to the missionaries of the New World. Her words inspired religious to labor in the American missionary fields for many years to come. That Mary of Agreda played an influential role in our country is undeniable. Some years later Fr. Eusebio Kino found old Indians in New Mexico and Arizona who told stories about how a beautiful white woman dressed in blue had spoken to them about the Catholic Faith. Fr. Junipero Serra wrote that it was the “Seraphic Mother Mary of Jesus” who had inspired him to work in the vineyard of the Lord in California. (1) Today Mother Mary of Agreda is better known for her momentous work on the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, The Mystical City of God. Perhaps one reason that American Catholics know so little about her well-docuмented bilocations to America is because for centuries Friar Benavides' Memorials were concealed in the Archives of the Propaganda Fide in Rome and unknown to the English speaking world. His expanded 1634 Memorial was only translated into English and made available to the public in 1945. (2) Many of the details from this article were taken from that docuмent, as well as from several scholarly articles on the topic. (3) A command for an inquiry In 1627, Fr. Sebastian Marcilla, the confessor of Mother Mary of Agreda in Spain, sent a report about her work among the American Indians to the Archbishop of Mexico, Francisco de Manso. He told the Prelate that the young Abbess – age 25 - said that she was visiting Indian villages in New Mexico in some supernatural manner and was teaching the natives the Catholic Faith. Even though she spoke Spanish, the Indians understood her, and she understood them when they replied in their native dialect. The confessor had a favorable impression of the Conceptionist nun and was inclined to believe her words. The Archbishop ordered Fr. Benavides, who was being transferred from New Spain to New Mexico, to make a careful inquiry to be carried out “with the exactness, faithfulness and devotion that such a grave matter requires.” It is noteworthy that Fr. Benavides had been invested with two offices in New Mexico – that of Superior and that of Inquisitor – and had all the resources available to make a serious inquiry. The Archbishop asked that he should find out whether new tribes - the Tejas [Texans], Chillescas, Jumanos and Caburcos - already had “some knowledge of the Faith” and “in what manner and by what means Our Lord has manifested it.” Indians requesting Baptism In the summer of 1629, a delegation of 50 Jumanos arrived at Isleta, a Pueblo mission near present day Albuquerque, requesting priests to return with them and baptize their people. The Jumanos were an as yet uncatechized tribe who hunted and traded over a wide area in the Plains east of New Mexico – today the Panhandle or South Plains region of Texas.
To travel from Isleta to the eastern Plains was a long and dangerous trek – over 300 miles through the hostile lands of the Apache. At that time, the missionaries lacked both the priests and the necessary soldiers to make the trip and establish a new outpost, so the mission to the Jumanos was delayed. This year, when the Jumanos party arrived, Fr. De Salas was at the chapter meeting at the Franciscan headquarters in Santo Domingo. A messenger was sent to him with the news about the delegation, and he informed the new Superior about the strange story of a lady who was supposedly teaching the Catholic faith to the Indians. Fr. Benavides, who had received specific instructions from the Franciscan general regarding this very topic, was very interested to know more. He decided to return with Fr. De Salas to Isleta in order to question the Indian party and ask how they had come to have knowledge of the Faith. In his Memorial to Pope Urban VIII, he reported the results of his inquiry: “We called the Jumanos to the monastery and asked them their reason for coming every year to ask for baptism with such insistence. Seeing a portrait of Mother Luisa [another Spanish Franciscan sister in Spain with a reputation for holiness] in the monastery, they said, ‘A woman in similar garb wanders among us there, always preaching, but her face is not old like this, but young and beautiful.’ “Asked why they had not told us this before, they answered, ‘Because you did not ask, and we thought she was here also.’” The Indians called the woman the “Lady in Blue” because of the blue mantle she wore. She would appear among them, the Jumanos representatives said, and instruct them about the true God and His holy law. The party, which included 12 chiefs, included representatives of other tribes, allies of the Jumanos. In Fr. Benavides’s 1630 Memorial, he notes that they told him “a woman used to preach to each one of them in his own tongue” [emphasis added]. It was this woman who had insisted they should ask the missionaries to be baptized and told them how to find them. At times, they said, the 'Lady in Blue' was hidden from them, and they did not know where she went or how to find her. Missionaries find a field ready for harvest Fr. Benavides sent two missionaries, Fr. Juan de Salas and Fr. Diego López, accompanied by three soldiers, on the apostolic mission to the Jumanos. After traveling several hundred miles east through the dangerous Apache territory, the weary expedition was met by a dozen Indians from the Jumanos tribe. They had been sent to greet them and accompany them on the last few days journey, they affirmed, by the 'Lady in Blue' who had alerted them of their proximity.
“They learned from the Indians that the same nun had instructed them as to how they should come out in procession to receive them, and she had helped them to decorate the crosses," Fr. Benavides wrote in his Memorial. Many of the Indians immediately began to clamor to be baptized. The missionaries found that the Indians were already instructed in the Faith and eager to learn more. Their astonishment increased as messengers arrived from neighboring Indian tribes who pleaded for the priests to come to them also. They said that the same lady in blue had catechized them and told them to seek out the missionaries for baptism. After a while the missionaries had to return to the San Antonio Mission to report to Fr. Benavides the astounding things they had found before he traveled to New Spain, where he would report to the Archbishop and Viceroy on the missionary work and potential in New Mexico. A great miracle Before they left, Fr. Juan de Salas told them that, until new missionaries arrived, “they should flock every day, as they were wont, to pray before a Cross which they had set up on a pedestal.” But this did not satisfy the Jumanos Chief, who entreated the priests to cure the sick, “for you are priests of God and can do much with that holy cross.” The infirm, numbering about 200, were brought together in one place. The priests made the Sign of the Cross over them, read the Gospel according to St. Luke and invoked Our Lady and St. Francis. To reward their faith and prepare the way for great conversions, God worked a miracle. All the sick arose healed. Amid great rejoicing, the missionaries left the village to begin the long and risky return journey to New Mexico. Along the way, they were met by “ambassadors” from other tribes, the Quiviras and Aixaos. These Indians also asked for the priests to come to baptize their people and told them the 'Lady in Blue' had told them where to find the missionaries. These ambassadors accompanied the priests to New Mexico. Report to the Viceroy and Archbishop The missionaries returned shortly before Fr. Benavides departure for Mexico. When he heard the extraordinary account of what the missionaries had found, he included the story of the “Lady in Blue” and her miraculous work to convert the Jumanos in his report.
The Viceroy and Archbishop Francisco de Manso were very impressed with his account and dispatched him to Madrid "to inform his Majesty, as the head of all, of the notable and unusual things that were happening.” There were many pressing matters pertaining to the Mission Colonies that Fr. Benavides needed to address with the authorities in Spain. He also hoped to meet Mother Mary of Agreda in order to question her and learn for certain if she were the 'Lady in Blue' who had brought the Gospel of Christ over the oceans to the Indians of New Mexico. Quote 1. Francisco Palou, Evangelista de la Mar Pacífico, ed. by M. Aguilar, Madrid, 1944. p. 25.Continued (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_014_Agreda_2.html) (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#facebook) |
Do you think all the results of the RATE Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) are incorrectly interpreted?Again, I started replying specifically about AMS and diamonds. But if RATE is not subtracting background (or not subtracting enough), then yes, they are probably treating instrument background readings as intrinsic when they aren't. On the things I know about, I find the ICR science rather bad, and that doesn't help their credibility on other things.
They show from their investigations that contamination from CO2 and other carbon-containing species adhering to the diamond surface can now be effectively ruled out as well. This means that contamination from ion source memory is largely removed from the table. [Does this answer your objection, listing ion source memory as a possible source for extrinsic radiocarbon, Stanley?]No, not really.
Wow, just WOW, Incred! Very impressive!
Here's some true American history: Link (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_013_Agreda_1.html)Mary of Agreda in America - Part I
Thanks for your reply Stanley. I think that if you compared them you would certainly agree that it does matter. Big improvement in the laler TAN edition!I got Keane’s Creation Rediscovered (1999). Unfortunately, I found it makes substantially the same claims about radiometric dating that I mentioned from his 1991 edition.