Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: klasG4e on April 28, 2019, 04:05:41 PM

Title: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on April 28, 2019, 04:05:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on April 28, 2019, 04:14:00 PM
Yes I noticed that just the other day. I don't know why they couldn't leave up Fr Rusak's review and at least be honest about this being a controversial topic with differing opinions. Let people follow the arguments for themselves.

I've been reading Geocentrism for Dumskies btw. I am very grateful for it. Still have a way to go but I plan to finish by the end of the summer.  
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on April 28, 2019, 04:19:01 PM
Note that it is the accordist priests who defend Fr. Robinson (himself an accordist).

St. Pius X used to write about how the modernists defended each other.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 28, 2019, 04:37:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on April 28, 2019, 04:38:27 PM
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.

I am going to presume Fr. Laisney is merely ignorant of the subject matter of which he speaks, since the only other option would be that he is deliberately deceiving his readers:

He creates the impression that "the Fathers" (plural) back Fr. Robinson's modernist exegesis, when in truth it is ONLY St. Augustine who offers an alternative (and an alternative to the other Fathers which, moreover, he acknowledged was merely a possibility).

ALL the other Fathers agree with a 6 day creation, and if it so happens that the Prots agree with the Catholics in this regard, shall I reject the truth because they accept it?

Shall I reject baptism because Prots accept it as well?

Here is Sungenis with regard to St. Augustine:

"Augustine’s view of the light of Genesis 1:3 as possibly referring to the angels, as well as his idea that the whole creation was made instantaneously rather than six days, is the only major break with the rest of the Fathers on Genesis 1. Even then, Augustine was not dogmatic about his views. In The Literal Meaning of Genesis he concedes:

“Whoever, then, does not accept the meaning that my limited powers have been able to discover of conjecture but seeks in the enumeration of the days of creation a different meaning, which might be understood not in a prophetical or figurative sense, but literally and more aptly, in interpreting the works of creation, let him search and find a solution with God’s help. I myself may possibly discover some other meaning more in harmony with the words of Scripture. I certainly do not advance the interpretation given above in such a way as to imply that no better one can ever be found, although I do maintain that Sacred Scripture does not tell us that God rested after feeling weariness and fatigue” (Bk 4, Ch 28, No 45).

Other than that, there was a consensus among all the Fathers who spoke on Genesis 1. Opponents of a literal six-day creation account have readily admitted that simple fact. They just don’t think it holds any weight in the discussion, since they raise the objection that the Fathers did not have the same scientific acuмen as we today."
http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/ (http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/)

OK, well, can Sungenis back up his contention that all the other Fathers (which would suffice for moral unanimity on the subject) backed a literal 6-day creation?  Does he have the evidence?

Yes, and a veritable mountain of it:

"But of significant importance is the following: Of the Fathers who commented on Genesis 1, the majority specify that they understand the “day” as a 24-hour period, many even using the very phrase “twenty-four hours.” Those who do not use “twenty-four hours” refer to the Creation days as a fraction of a week, or some other literal designation which cannot be misconstrued as a long or indefinite period of time.

In fact, one contemporary researcher, noting his exasperation in not finding anything but a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 in the Fathers, stated: “It was too speculative and difficult to appeal to the majority, who preferred to believe that the six days were really periods of time” (F. E. Robbins. The Hexaemeral Literature. University of Chicago, 1911, p. 22). Similarly, even theistic evolutionist, Fr. Stanley Jaki, admits: “As I reviewed one after another the great commentaries on Genesis 1, I could not help feeling how close their authors were, time and again, to an interpretation which is strictly literal…” (Genesis 1 Through the Ages, p. xii).

Let’s see what Jaki was talking about. Observe how close and specific the interpretation of the Fathers is on Genesis 1:

Basil (329-379): “Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8.)

Gregory of Nyssa (335-394): Gregory confirms the views of Basil on the details of the Creation in the following passage: “Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed. They should suffice and alone take second place to the divinely inspired Testament. Let anyone who hearkens to our attempts through a leisurely reading be not dismayed if they agree with our words. We do not propose a dogma which gives occasion for calumny; rather, we wish to express only our own insights so that what we offer does not detract from the following instruction. Thus let no one demand from me questions which seem to fall in line with common opinion, either from holy Scripture or explained by our teacher. My task is not to fathom those matters before us which appear contradictory; rather, permit me to employ my own resources to understand the text’s objective. With God’s help we can fathom what the text means which follows a certain defined order regarding creation. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth’ [Gen 1.1], and the rest which pertains to the cosmogenesis which the six days encompass.” (Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69, translated by Richard McCambly).

Eustathius (270-337), Bishop of Antioch, called Basil’s commentary on Genesis 1 an “overall great commentary” (PG 18, 705-707).

Ambrose (340-397): “But Scripture established a law of twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent.” (Hexameron 1:37, FC 42:42).

“In the beginning of time, therefore God created heaven and earth. Time proceeds from this world, not before the world. And the day is a division of time, not its beginning.” (Hexameron 1:20, FC 42:19).

“But now we seem to have reached the end of our discourse, since the 6th day is completed and the sum total of the work has been concluded.” (Hexameron 6:75, FC 42:282).

Victorinus (c 355-361): “The Creation of the World: In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men’s labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. “On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night… (cf. (NPNF1, vol. 7, pp. 341-343).”

Ephrem the Syrian (306-373): “‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,’ that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic.” (Commentary on Genesis,1:1, FC 91:74)

Theophilus (c 185): “Of this six days’ work no man can give a worthy explanation and description of all its parts…on account of the exceeding greatness and riches of the wisdom of God which there is in the six days’ work above narrated” (Autolycus 2,12).

Irenaeus, (140-202): “For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded…For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year” (Against Heresies 5, 28, 3).

Among the Fathers, several of them show the same chronology in their eschatological view: that, prophetically speaking, a day equates to one thousand years. Regardless whether the Fathers’ view of a six-millennium span for the world is correct, the only important fact for our purposes is that the ‘day = 1000 years’ schema confirms the Fathers’ belief that a day in Genesis 1 is less than one thousand years, and more specifically, that the day is precisely 24-hours. In other words, these Fathers did not believe that a day of Genesis was 1000 years. Their formula is certainly not 1000 years in Genesis 1 = 1000 years of the earth’s longevity; rather, a single day of 24 hours in Genesis = 1000 years of the earth’s longevity.

Lactantius (250-317): “God completed the world and this admirable work of nature in the space of six days, as is contained in the secrets of Holy Scripture, and consecrated the seventh day…For there are seven days, by the revolutions of which in order the circles of years are made up…Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years…For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In Thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day.” …And as God labored during those six days in creating such great works, so His religion and truth must labor during these six thousand years… (Institutes 7, 14).

Here we notice how Lactantius, as other Fathers, believes in a six thousand year time-span for the existence of the present heaven and earth. In order to arrive at this calculation, Lactantius must first understand the days of Genesis as twenty-four hour periods, which can then, by application of the “prophets” words, be an analogical prediction to the time of the demise of the Creation.

Methodius (c 311): For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth, in agreement with which, even until now, the world is perfectly ordered, most beautifully in accordance with a perfect rule, until the Lawgiver Himself having re-arranged it, wishing to order it anew, shall break up the first laws of nature by a fresh disposition. But, since it is not fitting to leave the demonstration of the argument unexamined – and, so to speak, half-lame – come let us, as it were completing our pair, bring forth the analogical sense, looking more deeply into the Scripture; for Paul is not to be despised when he passed over the literal meaning, and showed that the word extended to Christ and the Church. (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Ch 2).

Clement of Alexandria (150-216): One can get a clearer picture of how literally Clement interprets Scriptural numbers in Book 1, Ch. 21 of the Stromata. There he enumerates a long series of chronological data. For our purposes, Clement specifies the length of time from Adam to Noah’s Flood to the very day: “From Adam to the deluge are comprised two thousand one hundred and forty-eight years, four days” (ANF, Vol. 2, p. 332).

This would necessarily mean that Clement would have considered the first day of the above enumeration as beginning on the sixth day of creation, which would mean that the seventh day would be the second day, and so on.

Epiphanius (315-403): “Adam, who was fashioned from the earth on the sixth day and received breath, became a living being (for he was not, as some suppose, begun on the fifth day, and completed on the sixth; those who say have the wrong idea), and was simple and innocent, without any other name.” (Panarion 1:1, translated by Phillip R. Amidon).

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): “In six days God made the world…The sun, however resplendent with bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment…The sun was formed by a mere command, but man by God’s hands” (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5).

“…but the earth is from the waters: and before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world…” (Catechetical Lectures, 3, 5).

Hippolytus (160-235): “But it was right to speak not of the ‘first day,’ but of ‘one day,’ in order that by saying ‘one,’ he might show that it returns on its orbit, and, while it remains one, makes up the week….On the first day God made what He made out of nothing.” (Genesis 1:5, 1:6; ANF, vol. 5, p. 163).

Hippolytus also critiques the Greek philosophers for allegorizing the days of Genesis. He writes:

“When, therefore, Moses has spoken of ‘the six days in which God made heaven and earth’…Simon, in a manner already specified, giving these and other passages of Scripture a different application from the one intended by the holy writers, deifies himself. When, therefore, the followers of Simon affirm that there are three days begotten before sun and moon, they speak enigmatically…”(Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI, Ch IX).

Hippolytus, as did some of the other Fathers who believed that the world would end in 6,000 years, shows his belief in a literal six days of creation by equating them with the 6,000 years. He writes: “Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled.”

Chrysostom (344-407): “Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a single moment,’ he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts’…so that, accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings” (PG, Homily 3, col 35).

Athanasius (295-373): “For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second, but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants; thus too has the race made after God’s Image come to be, namely men; for though Adam was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole race” (Discourse Against the Arians, Discourse II, 48; NPNF2, vol. 4, pp. 374-375).

Notice that Athanasius specifies that on the day the stars were made they were not made separately; rather, “in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being…” The same, of course, would be true on the fifth day when, as Athanasius says, “the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle…” were made. By the words, “same command” Athanasius is not saying that the stars and animals were created together, but that each category of creation was made in one day by a specific command on that day. This is confirmed also in II, 49 as he says, “for it was not first one and then another, but all at once were constituted after their kinds.” “Kinds” refers to the specific creatures being made, as Athanasius goes on to say in the remainder of the context. “We begin the holy fast on the fifth day…and adding to it according to the number of those six holy and great days, which are the symbol of the creation of the world, let us rest and cease from fasting on the tenth day of the same…on the holy sabbath of the week” (Easter Letter, 10). END

http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/ (http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on April 28, 2019, 04:40:38 PM
Note that it is the accordist priests who defend Fr. Robinson (himself an accordist).


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.    
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on April 28, 2019, 04:44:32 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 28, 2019, 04:49:54 PM
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.  

I recommended Humani Generis to someone who was struggling with serious skepticism recently, as a serious overreaction to some Young Earthers he perceived as anti-intellectual.

I am not a scientist.  I don't have a strong scientific background.  I was raised with six day creationism.  I haven't yet been persuaded that there is sufficient proof of some other view, though I realize some fathers, such as Augustine, believed in instantaneous creation and thus also did not believe in a "literal six days." I  absolutely believe its heretical to deny a real, literal Adam and Eve, or to affirm polygenism (these things are condemned in Humani Generis).  But *to the best of my knowledge* its not heretical to speculate on the evolution of the human body, within certain perameters.  I personally don't feel qualified to do so, seeing as I'm a new Catholic, and certainly not a scientist.  But Pius XII did seem to leave that door open.  

I don't see how anything but a papal or conciliar decree could take the issue from "allowed to be debated" to one side or the other being considered heretical.  While I realize its not the same thing, I'd agree with you that not allowing priests to publish anti-evolution/big bang perspectives is uncomfortably close.  And seems much more of a thorough capitulation to secularism than just allowing the issue to be debated.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on April 28, 2019, 04:54:28 PM
Pius XII was a transitional pope (willingly or otherwise).

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.).
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on April 28, 2019, 06:01:55 PM
Pius XII was a transitional pope (willingly or otherwise).

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).
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 28, 2019, 06:10:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on April 28, 2019, 06:11:05 PM
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).

What exactly are you talking about?

You are suggesting that if Pius XII was a pope, then I must accept the higher criticism of Divino Afflante Spiritu?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on April 28, 2019, 08:31:18 PM
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.    
 
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: 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 Jєω 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on April 28, 2019, 09:37:36 PM
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/archive/index.php?thread-42005-3.html (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/archive/index.php?thread-42005-3.html)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Mr G on April 29, 2019, 12:23:17 PM
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:
http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/Humani-Generis-on-Evolution/p/25884210/category=3268836
"In Humani Generis on Evolution, Fr. Victor Warkulwiz demonstrates that Pope Pius XII in Humani generis upheld the fundamental tenets of the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation and the validity of the literal historical interpretation of Genesis.  Humani generis did not endorse theistic evolution or allow it to be taught. Instead, Pope Pius XII laid down firm guidelines to insure that Catholic scholars who examined the evidence for and against the claims of the evolutionary hypothesis would be able to confirm and defend the truth of the traditional doctrine of creation."

http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/Theory-of-Evolution-Judged-by-Reason-and-Faith/p/13975841/category=3268836
Fr Francis O'Hanlon (Translator), Ernesto Cardinal Ruffini (Author), Archbp Thomas Boland (Preface)

"Though published in 1959, this work is more important than ever in our times since the question of evolution is central to the errors of Modernism. A scholarly study, Cardinal Ruffini (1888-1967) expounds what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject, and then ably demonstrates how modern science contradicts the theories of evolutionists." 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 29, 2019, 01:13:13 PM
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.

Hmmmmm.  Where have we heard this before?

Buehler? .... Buehler?  ....
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 29, 2019, 01:14:40 PM
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)


Quote
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."


Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 29, 2019, 01:19:50 PM
For those who know his writings, Fr. Laisney is the consummate sycophant.  

Correct.  It is precisely why he rose to such prominence within the Society.  Sycophant behavior can be the hallmark of a plant, an infiltrator if you will.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 29, 2019, 01:21:06 PM
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'm just so glad the SSPX will never compromise...

Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 29, 2019, 01:21:18 PM

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.

While I applaud your humility, you were right the first time, namely, in stating that it is precisely this kind of tone which is a precursor for full-blown Modernism.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 29, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Let's look at Francis' quote, to which Father Laisney alludes --

Quote
"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," 

So Francis denies the omnipotence of God?  God is indeed capable of doing everything, and He requires NO WAND do do it ... all He needs is to will it.

homeschoolmom put it well.

God CAN do it however He wants.  It's our human pride that causes us to claim:  "well, this way would be more elegant".  It's no different than the people who might question, say, the requirement of Baptism for salvation, because it doesn't jibe with his preconceptions (Father Laisney, that you?)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 29, 2019, 07:06:22 PM
Quote
Big Bang Defended by Fr. Laisney
He's likely paying back Fr. Robinson for the free book he got from him. 

Really, who cares what Fr. Laisney thinks?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 29, 2019, 07:44:31 PM
Really, who cares what Fr. Laisney thinks?

Father Laisney?

His handlers?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 29, 2019, 11:08:40 PM
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)
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
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on April 30, 2019, 03:04:29 AM
What is today the so-called "Big Bang Theory" (one can thank Sir Fred Hoyle, a skeptic of the theory, for the somewhat derisory name) was actually proposed by Belgian Catholic Priest Father Georges Lemaitre in 1927. Father called it "The Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom". And Fr. L actually intended it to be somewhat similar to what the Prophet Moses taught us by revelation in Genesis.

Unfortunately, atheists and deists, who historically had denied anything like a creation moment, have somewhat warped the "Big Bang Theory" into a naturalistic origin from a supposed singularity where everything breaks down. A much better recent alternative proposed by Creation Scientists is the "Big Stretch".

"As one big bang authority, Andrei Linde, stated: In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15-billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion—called inflation2]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.3 [emphasis added]" ... The stretching proposal, in contrast to the big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point (a mathematical fiction).7 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ19.html#wp10287674) Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens mysteriously come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10-32 second), as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 420,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were present near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. You can decide which explanation the following, surprising evidence supports." http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ14.html (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ14.html)

For myself, I have no doubts that Creation was less than 10,000 years ago, the 6 Days in Genesis are literal and that science will eventually catch up to what Scripture and Tradition have revealed to us. Another very interesting discovery of the last 25-30 odd years is what evolutionists call ancient DNA, or a-DNA which they are themselves stumped by, as their models say DNA should not survive more than 10,000 odd years, which is true. They just wrongly assume that millions of ages have passed, and therefore cannot explain their own result; instead of realizing that less than 10,000 years have transpired for this DNA to decay.

"68.  Old DNA, Bacteria, Proteins, and Soft Tissue?
DNA. When an animal or plant dies, its DNA begins decomposing.a Before 1990, almost no one believed that DNA could last 10,000 years.b This limit was based on measuring DNA disintegration rates in well-preserved specimens of known age, such as Egyptian mummies. DNA has now been reported in supposedly a 400,000-year-old hominin femur from Spain,c 17-million-year-old magnolia leaves,d and 11-to-425-million-year-old salt crystals.e Dozens of plants and animals have left DNA in sediments claimed to be 30,000–400,000 years old.f DNA fragments have been found in the scales of a “200-million-year-old” fossilized fishg and possibly in “80-million-year-old” dinosaur bones buried in a coal bed.h Frequently, DNA is found in insects and plants encased in amber samples, assumed to be 25–120-million years old.i" http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences30.html)

DNA's half life was calculated by the Journal Nature to be around 521 years. In about 10 half lifes itself (a half life is the period after which only half of the original substance is left, then 25%, then 12.5% etc), the original substance is almost completely deteriorated. It is impossible that DNA survives millions of years. And thus the fact that it is found in very ancient fossils is a clear scientific proof that the earth is indeed <10,000 years young, not the millions of alleged years the evolutionists claim.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 30, 2019, 07:23:20 AM
Ah, predictably, the neo-SSPX shill has popped in.

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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on April 30, 2019, 08:07:15 AM
Quote
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?  

Quote
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.

But leave that: why don't you first of all affirm that you agree with this, from the Office at Prime on Christmas Eve, posted on the Society website, "One of the hallmarks of the Christmas liturgy according to the traditional Roman Rite is the celebration of three distinct Masses on this day preceded by a Vigil liturgy on Christmas Eve, the highlight of which is the solemn reading of the Martyrology at Prime:

In the year 5199th from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, in the year 2959th from the flood, in the year 2015th from the birth of Abraham, in the year 1510th from the going forth of the people of Israel out of Egypt under Moses, in the year 1032th from the anointing of David as King, in the 65th week according to the prophecy of Daniel, in the 194th Olympiad, in the 752nd from the foundation of the city of Rome, in the 42nd year of the reign of the Emperor Octavian Augustus, in the 6th age of the world, while the whole earth was at peace, Jesus Christ, Himself Eternal God and Son of the Eternal Father, being pleased to hallow the world by His most gracious coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and when nine months were passed after His conception, [all kneel down] was born of the Virgin Mary at Bethlehem of Juda made Man, Our Lord Jesus Christ was born according to the flesh." https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/spanning-east-and-west-christmas-liturgy (https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/spanning-east-and-west-christmas-liturgy)

So the Incarnation happened in the year 5199 After Creation, which is 1 B.C., Our Lord being Incarnated in March and born on Dec. 25th. This is in agreement with a literal reading of the genealogies given in Genesis and the rest of Scripture, from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Our Lord Jesus. It is the same date of the world's creation given by Bp. Eusebius, who wrote Church history, and which the Lord Jesus and His Blessed Mother also confirmed to Ven. Mary of Agreda as the true year of the world's creation. Ussher's date is basically a miscalculation based on a corrupted text in the Masoretic. Now, Ladislaus, before you go accusing others of Modernism, first tell us, do you yourself believe in young earth? Do that first before you accuse Fr. Robinson of anything.

"138. At the pronouncing of this “fiat,” so sweet to the hearing of God and so fortunate for us, in one instant, four things happened. First, the most holy body of Christ our Lord was formed from the three drops of blood furnished by the heart of most holy Mary. Secondly, the most holy soul of the same Lord was created, just as the other souls. Thirdly, the soul and the body united in order to compose his perfect humanity. Fourthly, the Divinity united Itself in the Person of the Word with the humanity, which together became one composite being in hypostatical union; and thus was formed Christ true God and Man, our Lord and Redeemer. This happened in springtime on the twenty-fifth of March, at break or dawning of the day, in the same hour, in which our first father Adam was made and in the year of the creation of the world 5199, which agrees also with the count of the Roman Church in her Martyrology under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. This reckoning is the true and certain one, as was told me, when I inquired at command of my superiors. Conformable to this the world was created in the month of March, which corresponds to the beginning of creation. And as the works of the Most High are perfect and complete (Deut. 32, 4), the plants and trees come forth from the hands of his Majesty bearing fruit, and they would have borne them continually without intermission, if sin had not changed the whole nature, as I will expressly relate in another treatise, if it is the will of the Lord; now however I will not detain myself therewith, since it does not pertain to our subject."
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Francisco on April 30, 2019, 10:30:11 AM
So is Fr Laisney an animal, vegetable or mineral?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 30, 2019, 10:32:04 AM
Ah, predictably, the neo-SSPX shill has popped in.

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.
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.  
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on April 30, 2019, 12:03:22 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on April 30, 2019, 12:14:52 PM
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.

http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/ (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/)

Determined to reconcile Genesis with the majority view in the natural sciences, including its acceptance of biological evolution, Fr. Jaki argued that Genesis 1 was a “post-exilic” work whose sole purpose was to show that God is the creator of all things, without conveying any information as to when or how He created the world.  Since this view contradicts the constant teaching of the Church Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils, it is not surprising that Fr. Jaki’s argument for his thesis breaks down quickly under scrutiny.  And since an exhaustive critique of Fr. Jaki’s exegesis of Genesis 1 is beyond the scope of this article, it will suffice to show that the two pillars of his interpretation have no foundation whatsoever.  These pillars are 1) the impossibility of light before the sun, and 2) the use of the word bara in Genesis 1.

Light before the Sun?
Like all theistic evolutionists, Fr. Jaki discounted the notion of correspondence between the “days” of Genesis and actual solar days.  As Robert Sungenis explains:
[The Theistic evolutionist argues] that there can be no day/night sequence on the so-called first day of Creation, since the sun was created afterward, on the fourth day. He will reason that, since it is obvious today that the sun is what causes the day/night sequence on earth, there could have been no day/night sequence before the sun was created, and therefore, the days of Genesis are neither literal nor chronological.
On the surface, this sounds like a cogent argument. Fr. Stanley Jaki . . . considers it his strongest argument to deny a chronological, 24-hour period, creation sequence. For him, if the sun is missing from the first day, then there can be no darkness and light, and thus the days of Genesis are symbolic of long periods of time. Either that, or the sun existed on the first day and is recapitulated on the fourth day.[2] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn2)
We will answer this objection from two perspectives, the first from science, the second from Scripture.
Scientifically speaking, any honest physicist will admit that light is an absolute enigma. My physics professor in college told me that on Monday, Wednesday and Friday he calls light a wave. On Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday he says it is made up of particles. On Sunday he gives up and takes a rest from trying to figure it out . . . [M]an’s puzzlement over the very nature of light . . . should give anyone pause in making hasty conclusions about its form and origin.  Indeed the Christian should seriously consider that, because the Bible says so, light does not necessarily need the emanating bodies of the sun or stars to exist, nor does the absence of the sun or stars mean darkness will result.
At the least, in respect of Scripture’s veracity, we should accept that the sun merely took over the duties of the light on the first day.[3] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn3) For example, being consistent with his literal hermeneutic, Thomas Aquinas postulated that the effusive light on the first day was created as the sun and stars on the fourth day,[4] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn4) perhaps similar to God fashioning man on the sixth day from the dirt He created on the first day.[5] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn5)
In reality many of the Church Fathers had anticipated Fr. Jaki’s objection to the creation of light before the sun and had answered it with profound wisdom.  For example, St. John Chrysostom held that God had created the light before the sun so that men to whom the creation account was revealed would never in future times succuмb to the temptation to deify the sun.

A New Meaning for Bara: Fact or Fantasy?
Ultimately Fr. Jaki rested his case for jettisoning the constant teaching of the Fathers and Doctors on creation on his interpretation of the word bara in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1.  Fr. Jaki argues that:
of the forty or so cases when bara occurs in the Old Testament, it is used to denote in five cases a purely human action. . .  Of the three other cases the ones in the book of Joshua (17: 15, 18) refer in the tense Piel to the cutting down of trees . . . In Ez 23: 47 we see the prophet use bara to denote a gruesomely human action, prompted as it could be by Yahweh’s utter displeasure with idolatry . . .  n all these cases the taking of bara for an exclusively divine action, let alone taking it for creation out of nothing, can only be done if one deliberately ignores those three uses of it that span more than half a millennium. . .  The verb bara means basically “to split” and “to slash” or an action which conveys that something is divided and that the action is done swiftly.[6] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn6)
As convincing as this might sound at first blush, Robert Sungenis shows that Fr. Jaki’s examples cannot bear the weight of his argument:
Jaki is suggesting that since bara means “to split”, such a process implies evolution, apparently because matter is “splitting” from matter and undergoing some kind of subsequent development, as opposed to being created whole out of nothing. Ironically, in the same vicinity Jaki recognizes that the majority opinion holds bara as meaning creation “out of nothing”, even citing P. Heinisch’s cataloguing of bara in the Qal and Nifil stems as evidence.[7] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn7) So what, then, leads Jaki to the conclusion that bara “means basically ‘to split’ and ‘to slash’” if it only occurs in three instances out of forty? A hint to Jaki’s reasoning is found in the beginning of the paragraph:
It should seem significant that both in the book of Ezechiel, certainly a post-exilic product, and in the book of Joshua, a product quite possibly some seven hundred years older, one is confronted with a very human connotation of bara. . . uses of it that span more than half a millennium.
So Jaki’s main argument, it seems, is that we should accept the meaning of bara as “to split” or “to slash” simply because three uses of the Piel stem are separated by 700 years. As an aside, we will alert the reader to our previous critique of Jaki’s dating of Ezekiel, which pointed out that Jaki’s view would make the prophecies of Ezekiel regarding the Babylonian captivity mere reminisces of the past rather than predictions of the future. This becomes a handy little polemic for Jaki, since he also claims that Genesis is a “post-exilic” writing just like Ezekiel. Thus, if someone were to counter Jaki’s thesis by claiming that the same amount, or more, years separate the use of bara in Genesis, meaning created “out of nothing”, from, say, the use of bara in Isaiah 40: 26, Jeremiah 31: 22 where it also means created “out of nothing”, we might be told that the comparison has no merit because Genesis is “post-exilic” just like Isaiah, Jeremiah. In other words, to Jaki, the meaning “created out of nothing” for bara is a late development of vocabulary in Israel, at least compared to the supposed indigenous meaning of bara as “to split” appearing during the conquest of Canaan. This is so because, to Jaki, Joshua was written long before Genesis was written. All this, of course, is at best mere speculation and at worst another indication of the overly-enthusiastic exploits of historical criticism to which Jaki and many of his colleagues have fallen victim.[8] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn8)
Fr. Jaki’s sweeping dismissal of all of the Fathers and Doctors on the strength of such poor exegesis becomes even more embarrassing when one considers that his re-interpretation of Genesis 1 in relation to bara had already been evaluated and found wanting by the great Jesuit scholar Cornelius a Lapide in the seventeenth century.  In his commentary on Genesis 1, Cornelius evaluates the very interpretation put forward by Fr. Jaki three centuries later and calls it a “fantasy”, “rejected by all of the Fathers and the Doctors”.  He writes:
Hieronymus ab Oleastro translates the Hebrew word ברא, bārā, as “He divided”, and so he renders the verse “in the beginning God divided the heaven and earth.”  In fact, he thinks that God first of all created the waters with the land, and they were very large and vast; from them He then brought forth the heavens (something this verse does not speak about, and which Scripture presupposes).  Finally, He divided them from the earth and the waters, and the event was represented solely in this verse.  But this fantasy is rejected by all the Fathers and the Doctors, who translate bārā as He created.  This is what the word properly means, for it never means He divided, as those who are competent in Hebrew know.  For in this verse Moses describes the first work and production, and, what is more, by means of the work of Genesis (that is, the birthday of the world), he initiates history.  The passages from Joshua and Ezechiel that Hieronymus ab Oleastro cites for his argument prove nothing.  For in those passages bārā does not mean to divide but to cut down and to destroy.[9] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn9) Indeed, this is one of his wrong definitions (emphasis added).[10] (http://kolbecenter.org/the-sad-legacy-of-father-jakis-writings-on-evolution/#_edn10)
In short, Fr. Jaki’s rejection of almost two thousand years of exegesis of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church turns out to be based on flights of exegetical fancy without any solid foundation.  Yet his dismissal of the traditional exegesis of Genesis continues to contribute greatly to the erosion of faith in the reliability of Scripture as understood by the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Councils from the foundation of the Church.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 30, 2019, 12:21:21 PM
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.  

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?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 30, 2019, 12:24:24 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 30, 2019, 12:33:43 PM
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?

"Ah, well, Ladislaus, you see, those chronologies weren't meant to be understood literally.  They had a moral meaning, but did not intend to convey historical, literal truth," blah, blah, blah.

Of all the deviations of the reoriented, semi-conciliar SSPX, the promotion of evolution is the worst:

Worse than saying the new Mass.

Worse than anything else they have done, because for all the rest, the SSPX has the appearance of weak, scrupulous, naive dupes.

But in the promotion of Fr. Robinson's book, they are on the attack: They are attacking the Church Fathers, traditional exegesis, removing the barriers to evolution, and in all of that, undermining the certitude of faith rightly held by the faithful, thereby themselves becoming a threat to the faith.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 30, 2019, 12:37:13 PM
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.

I believe the post by X a couple posts before yours (citing Sungenis, via the Kolbe Center) addresses the matter of the sun/light/4th day modernist objection.

It also recognizes that St. Augustine was the only one to offer such an interpretation, and notes that he himself allowed that he could be wrong.

As for whatever the Holy Office may have said under St. Pius X, I would have to look into that (but surely they would not have said anything contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, councils, popes, doctors, and saints?  Merely on the basis of St. Augistine's lone, well-hedged and skiddish "opinion")?

And if it did, how authoritative would its acts be?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: SeanJohnson on April 30, 2019, 12:51:38 PM
Here is the ruling of the Pontifical Biblical Commission of 1907 (or 1909?) prefaced by comments of the Kolbe Center, and subsequent commentary by Sungenis:

"Theistic evolutionists often claim that paragraph IV allows them leeway for their belief in biological macroevolution because there was not a strict consensus of the Fathers in relation to the Creation period consisting of six, twenty four hour days. Whilst the overwhelming majority of the Fathers did believe in the distinction of six, natural days a minority of Fathers believed that the six days represented a certain space of time, or hierarchy, of instantaneous Creation as revealed to the angels. Theistic evolutionists are mistaken in this regard because none of the Fathers believed that the Creation period was of a duration any longer than six, natural days. The sought for consensus lay in that respect and constitutes the traditional belief of the Church throughout the ages; a belief proclaimed by Popes, Doctors, Scholastics and the humblest peasant.

Likewise, paragraph VIII is also claimed by theistic evolutionists to allow leeway for an unorthodox belief in billion year ages for the Earth, an absolutely necessary requirement for the evolutionary concept within the natural sciences. It is clearly the consensus of the Fathers that Creation took no longer than six, natural days and so the claim is without Patristic foundation and therefore invalid. Furthermore, Kolbe Center Advisory Council member Robert Sungenis, Ph.D, tells us that:

The Biblical Commission of June 30, 1909, laid down very strict guidelines for Catholics to read and understand the first three chapters of Genesis.

Quote
  • 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)

Sungenis on IV and VIII:

"…the word “day” is used in Num 20:15, but it is the Hebrew plural YOMIM (“days”), followed by the quantitative adjective RABBIM, which means “many.” In other words, the translation says “long time” because it IS a long time. It is “many days” in Hebrew. But that is not the word used in Genesis 1. Each reference to YOM in Genesis 1 is singular, referring to one day, with no adjectives.

As for the meaning of YOM in Genesis, the textual and grammatical evidence is quite overwhelming that it refers to one solar day of 24 hours. First, whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number in Scripture, it never refers to an indefinite or long period of time. In Genesis 1, there are six ordinal numbers enumerated: the first day…the second day…the third day…and so on to the sixth day. There is no instance in Hebrew grammar in which “day” preceded by an ordinal number is understood figuratively or as a long period of time. One of the most famous Hebrew grammars known to scholars, Gesenisus’ Hebrew Grammar, elaborates on this point (Editor E. Kautzsch, second English edition, revised by A. E. Crowley, 1980, pp. 287-292; 432-437).

The most conclusive evidence that the word “day” in Genesis 1 is to be interpreted literally as a 24-hour period is confirmed by the consistent use of the phrase “and there was evening and morning,” which appears in each of the days of Creation (cf., Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). The use of “evening and morning” in Scripture shows that it always refers to the sequence of darkness and light comprising a single period of a day, a 24 hour period. Outside of Genesis, there are only eight appearances of “evening and morning” in Scripture (cf., Ex 16:8-13; 27:21; 29:39; Lv 24:3; Nm 9:21; Dan 8:26).

There are some cases in which the words “morning” or “evening” appear separately with the word “day,” some of which refer to a literal solar day and some which are indefinite of time. But in Genesis, and the other aforementioned passages “evening and morning” are coupled together and are specified as one unit of time.

If the writer of Genesis intended to teach that YOM meant an indefinite period of time, such that he desired to convey long ages of process and change, he had numerous ways to convey such an idea. He could have used the plural YOMIM, as Mr. Young suggested of Num 20:15, or as Moses does in Genesis 1:14 (“let them be for days and for years”) or Genesis 3:14 (“dust shall you eat all the days of your life”). But even then we must interject that, of the 702 uses of the plural YOMIM in the Old Testament, literal days are always in view.

As an alternative, the writer could have connected YOM with other Hebrew words of indefiniteness, such as DOR, OLAM, NETSACH, TAMID, or any of a dozen similar words and concepts in Hebrew. But the writer of Genesis 1 chose none of these possibilities; rather, he chose the most specific phrase for a 24-hour day that one can find in the Hebrew Scriptures. [4] (http://kolbecenter.org/faith-and-reason/#fn4)
http://kolbecenter.org/faith-and-reason/ (http://kolbecenter.org/faith-and-reason/)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on April 30, 2019, 02:08:37 PM
Thank you, Seán. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on April 30, 2019, 02:15:17 PM
I'm pretty sure God didn't need the sun to keep track of the hours or days or evenings. That is for our benefit. Since we didn't exist yet, no harm-no foul in having light but no sun yet. Perhaps the sun would have interfered with those first steps of creation. God would have made all things in perfect order, right? So the sun was made directly before any living creature because we are the ones who need it for all of the reasons we do. Light, time-keeping, health, warmth to name a few.

God also didn't need millions of years. Modernists need millions or billions of years because they are also trying to prop up two other theories involving Godless dinosaur days and evolution. Why are Catholics even giving this the time of day? Trying to put Catholic ideas on a modernist theory is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. Let's see... bible … ugly pig … bible … ugly pig. As Fr's review title aptly demonstrates, there is a lot of human respect going into choosing the ugly pig. Are we supposed to be worried that modernists are going to label us "Catholic Fundamentalists"? Because we believe the bible? It's absurd that any Catholic, especially traditionalist, should be concerned one bit about that. Talk about feeding into modernist machinations if we do.   
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Mr G on April 30, 2019, 02:16:33 PM
As on FSSP Priest put it, evolution (both biological and cosmic) is an "agenda driven fairy tale for adults". If Pius X or XII, or any pre-Vatican II Pope really knew who was pushing this agenda, you can bet they would have denounced this evolution hoax.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Last Tradhican on April 30, 2019, 03:08:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on April 30, 2019, 05:01:08 PM
I wasn't meaning to go more deeply into the woods about the "DAY" question, but the interpretation of DAY as a "certain period of time" doesn't directly and inherently contradict Sacred Scripture.  If it did, the Holy Office would not have allowed discussion of the subject, and St. Augustine would not have speculated about it.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 30, 2019, 05:28:20 PM

Quote
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?


Quote
Pius XII was vague enough that no one, not even he himself possibly, knows what he meant.  Micro-evolution?  Macro?
Pius XII Humani Generis: 


Quote
 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.  



Quote
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.



Quote
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.

Honestly, this seems Protestant to me.  By which I mean, accusing people of heresy based on one's own interpretations of scripture, rather than based on official ecclesial pronouncements, seems Protestant to me.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I grew up Protestant and this was a big part of the reason why I left, heresy accusations are in essence postmodern, one person reads scripture and thinks it absolutely rules out someone else's viewpoint, so they slap the label "heresy" on it, even apart from any authoritative teaching of the Church.

TBH I'm not interested in arguing against your view of scripture here, because its very possible you're right.  But say the following conversation takes place.

You say what you said above.

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.

I can see you still disagreeing, and saying that there's just no way to reconcile that.  I can see how you can hope that the Church would eventually condemn that alternate view as heresy.  But I don't see how you can condemn it as heresy, apart from the Church making a definite ruling on it.  What am I missing?



Quote
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.

How do you reconcile all this with the point you regularly make against R + Rs that the magisterium can't be harmful to souls?  



Quote
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Simple as Doves on April 30, 2019, 09:16:58 PM
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. 

And in case anyone is wondering, there is no evidence. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on April 30, 2019, 10:46:15 PM
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.

And in case anyone is wondering, there is no evidence.
That's separate from what I'm asking though.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir 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!

Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 02:15:16 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 01, 2019, 02:22:17 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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Francisco on May 01, 2019, 02:37:46 AM
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 Jєω 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 01, 2019, 03:55:42 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

Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: claudel 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 05:32:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 01, 2019, 05:35:41 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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 05:46:00 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 01, 2019, 06:22:43 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 01, 2019, 09:08:04 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 01, 2019, 09:19:34 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/ (http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 01, 2019, 10:02:29 PM
I recommend (in book form): http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/ (http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/)
and http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/ (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 (http://www.kolbecenter.org/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
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 02, 2019, 01:17:17 AM
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". 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 02, 2019, 01:24:14 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 02, 2019, 01:25:22 AM
Like for instance, Sola Scriptura is heresy, but there's no logical inconsistency between believing in sola scriptura, 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 02, 2019, 02:56:18 AM
Like for instance, Sola Scriptura is heresy, but there's no logical inconsistency between believing in sola scriptura, 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.
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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 02, 2019, 04:14:50 AM
Quote from: ByzCat
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)

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.)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 02, 2019, 05:10:41 AM
What I mean is this.
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.
Rearranging the wording of your second paragraph to help me make more sense of it:
.
“Whether God did in fact do this (use evolution and the Big Bang to create the world) is a separate question from
Whether an orthodox Catholic can hold the belief that God did use evolution and the Big Bang to create the world.” (I hope I got that right!)
.   
Now if you believe that said Creator is none other than the Holy Trinity know to us through Revelation, and explained to us through Tradition of the Church, the Holy Fathers and the Scriptures, and there is no one of any import in the whole setup to give any evidence to the contrary, (that God did what Genesis said He did) how is it possible to believe a cock-and-bull story of our God using evolution or loud noises to create the world, when Scripture, the Church Fathers and Tradition say not one word about evolution and "big bangs".
.
Who are we Catholics to believe (if we are truly orthodox)? If we give such importance to the word of fallible men in opposition to Truth Himself, we would certainly be opposed to the constant Church teaching about creation in Holy Scripture, the Tradition and the Holy Fathers (which absolutely excludes evolution), even if a prohibition on the belief in evolution is not officially formulated.   
.
You need to study more, as this question is crucial to your faith. Do get hold of Gerry Keene's books (previously recommended) especially the "Special Creation Rediscovered". It's cheap as chips and well worth having in your reference library. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Mr G on May 02, 2019, 10:14:16 AM
Like for instance, Sola Scriptura is heresy, but there's no logical inconsistency between believing in sola scriptura, 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.
You should read this book to see if there is "logical inconsistency between believing in evolution and the Big Bang, and believing in God"

http://kolbecenter.org/store-2/#!/The-Metaphysics-of-Evolution/p/15921009/category=3268836
In his encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII stressed the importance of preserving the traditional Catholic approach to philosophy. In his work The Metaphysics of Evolution, Fr. Chad Ripperger demonstrates that the theory of evolution is incompatible with the metaphysics of the Catholic tradition.

Also look up and watch 
Metaphysical Principle in Relation to Creation & Evolution (Part 1)  Fr Ripperger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiKGZYOI0q0)
Metaphysical Principle in Relation to Creation & Evolution (Part 2)  Fr Ripperger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiKGZYOI0q0)
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on May 02, 2019, 12:17:07 PM
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!
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on May 02, 2019, 01:20:35 PM
God did not create the sun and stars until AFTER He fashioned the earth ... and plants.  That is simply not consistent with Big Bang.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on May 02, 2019, 02:01:07 PM
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!

Also, the SSPX did not start promoting and selling Fr. Robinson's modernist book until after the organization started to assume a lot of liberal makeover.  As hard as it may be to believe (although seeing is believing) that the SSPX is acutally promoting and selling Fr. Robinson's book now, it would be fairly impossible to imagine it being promoted and sold by the SSPX not that many years ago.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 02, 2019, 04:21:28 PM
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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 02, 2019, 08:14:36 PM
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.

Not at all. Jesus tells us in John 8: I am the light. So light is uncreated. Light has been always. All of creation reflects light. Sun moon and stars are not light, but reflect light. Day is the presence of light and night is its absence so to speak to allow creation rest.

Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 02, 2019, 11:30:55 PM
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.

I'm not going so far as to say that Pius XII is saying that theistic evolution is a worthy opinion, he's clearly being cautious about it, but he clearly doesn't see it as equivalent to atheism where you can debate it as an academic exercise but you're a heretic if you believe it.  If that was the case, he wouldn't have explicitly contrasted with polygenism, and implicitly contrasted with evolution of the human soul.

The only possible methods by which I can see saying that belief in theistic evolution is heretical are twofold:

1: Pius XII was straight up wrong.  He wrongly allowed this to be debated, when in actuality he should've dropped the hammer on it.  What the implications of that would be, I'll leave for someone more competent than me.

2: Pius XII was not wrong to allow this subject to be debated, but at some point the issue was/will be definitively settled by the Church, against theistic evolution.  

Possibility #2 definitely hasn't happened yet, but it could happen in the future, and as Pius XII said, if that happened, to refuse to submit to it would be heresy.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 02, 2019, 11:32:12 PM
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)

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.)
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.

That being said, to be clear.   You said Pius XII is "very skeptical" of theistic evolution.  So am I.  I don't believe in it.  If I had to take a position, I'd say I don't believe in it.  I'm trying to figure out whether its heretical or not.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2019, 08:57:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 03, 2019, 09:21:49 AM
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. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2019, 10:50:20 AM
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.  Then Scripture specifically says that God took Even from Adam's rib.  Why mention that in detail, since she too by that logic was made from clay?   There's probably an overwhelming amount of Patristic consensus in favor of a literal interpretation here.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 03, 2019, 10:58:23 AM
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?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 03, 2019, 02:33:50 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on May 03, 2019, 04:20:20 PM
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".

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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 03, 2019, 05:24:02 PM
While it's objectively heretical, it's true that a Catholic wouldn't be a formal heretic because of Pius XII's "permission".

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.
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.


Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 04, 2019, 12:13:15 AM
I recommend (in book form): http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/ (http://kolbecenter.org/creation-rediscovered/)
and http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-creation-rediscovered/ (http://kolbecenter.org/review-of-special-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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 04, 2019, 01:02:28 AM
Tell us about them! What are those "many mistakes and misunderstandings in science, as well as some poor argumentation in theology". You'd better let the Kolbe Foundation know too. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 04, 2019, 04:48:33 AM
Catholics, especially Traditional Catholics, should first and foremost be firmly convinced from their Faith and from Divine Authority that Evolution is a False Theory and is Objective Heresy against Divine Revelation, which almost certainly will be struck with anathema one day. Even before Nicaea, many Fathers knew and said it is dogma that Christ is God and the opposite is heresy, based on Scripture and Tradition. Similarly, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition do not by any means give those who seriously study them leeway to believe death and destruction continued for aeons before Adam was supposedly even created, from an ape; and in practice almost all evolutionists are polygenists anyway. Polygenism is totally heresy and denies Original Sin and all of Christianity. There was that discovery of "Y Chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve" not that long ago, which again Confirms Creation.

Evolutionists will absurdly say "Adam never met Eve", "Adam and Eve were not the only parents", there were other persons, and other silly excuses, but they are all wrong. True Science confirms True Tradition of the Special Creation of Mankind less than 10,000 years ago.

"Using the new, more accurate rate, Mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago ... In 2010, a comprehensive comparison was made between the DNA on the male Y chromosome of humans and chimpanzees. The differences were more than 30 percent! 13
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ318.html#wp7074454

Please see the link to learn more: the other absurdities evolutionists rely on to evade the truth of monogenism are answered there.

The best way to decimate evolution once and for all is to demonstrate scientifically the Scriptural Fact that Humanity, the Earth and All of Creation is Young. If there were not millions or billions of years for the alleged evolution to take place, evolution will die a natural death.

Creation has 101 excellent proofs that the Earth is Young. https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth I will summarize just 3 here (1) The Fact that DNA cannot survive 10,000 years, as mentioned earlier, and almost universally admitted even by evolutionists; combined with the fact that DNA has been found in some of the earth's most ancient fossils is proof that millions of years just simply never passed. (2) Tissue, Blood Cells, Haemoglobin etc being found still intact in Dinosaurs and other ancient animals is another proof of a young earth. "Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation." https://creation.com/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report (3) C-14 is radioactive with a short half-life of around 5730 years. It is certain that C-14 cannot survive in ancient materials more than 100,000 years old, yet it is repeatedly found in those claimed to be several millions or even billions of years old, see this from St. Kolbe's Centre: "Carbon 14 is an isotope formed by the radioactive decay of carbon atoms, which is not supposed to be detectable in organic material older than about 50,000 to 60,000 years because of its short half life. However, it is often found in materials dated by other methods to be millions of years old, including petroleum, coal, wood, and bone, and has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]" Please see http://kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/ for the full article.

Next, consider the known disproofs of the false methodology that evolutionists use: "This dating technique was recently tested for accuracy and failed.15 Three independent laboratories were sent a sample of basalt produced by an Hawaiian volcanic eruption less than 200 years ago. The testing results varied from 20 million years to 3 billion years.16, 17". So a rock of known age that was in fact less than 200 years old was "computed" to age between 20 million-3 billion years! http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm (http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/devolution_of_evolution.htm) There were independent disproofs of that wrong age.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: cassini on May 04, 2019, 12:10:36 PM
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.

Given all the Fathers must agree on an aspect of Scripture for it to become an infallible revelation of Scripture, or a pope decreeing it as an infallible dogma, the six-day creation became the first literal wording of Genesis left an open question. All you need is one exception to point to and nothing in Genesis literal wording was safe after that.

Now the first dogma of the Catholic faith in Ott’s history of Dogma’s is ‘God can be known with certainty from the things that He made.’ Pagans and believers in God as Person alike found this sign of God. One of the signs that had no other explanation other than man was special, the Earth was special, and that only a God could have arranged this, was what man witnesses every day of their lives, the sun, moon and stars turning around the Earth we lived on. For centuries Pythagorean heretics tried to convince man this was an illusion and that the Earth was not special, and that many other worlds like ours exist around the stars. These heresies were suppressed for 300 years because they made nonsense of many dogmas and an understanding of the Catholic faith.

But Satan does not give up; he was determined to rid of God out of natural things. By 1600AD the old Pythagorean theories were back, but this time under the pretence that science affirmed a heliocentric universe. Take Bruno for example; here is one of his beliefs:

“I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, but half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions.”

Perhaps now, from this one passage, we can see the damage the new cosmology could cause. HOW MANY CHRISTS WOULD BE NECESSARY TO REDEEM ALL? And that is why Cardinal Bellarmine’s Inquisition had Bruno burned at the stake lest he spread his heresies that threw Catholicism into chaos.

After Bruno, it was Galileo who tried to make Genesis comply with human reasoning rather than divine creation. AGAIN, Bellarmine and popes of the time put a stop to it. By 1835 'Modern' popes, in spite of the 1616 decree, conceded to heliocentrism, and from then on, SCARED NOT TO MAKE ANOTHER GALILEO 'MISTAKE' AGAIN,  DARED NOT DOGMATISE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CREATION OR DECREE theories AS HERESY LIKE THEY DID IN 1616 WITH HELIOCENTRISM. Once popes conceded to a solar system they had nothing to stop furter literal dismissals at the behest of 'scientific proofs'. When the first ever evolution theory of modern science was proposed - the evolution of THEIR heliocentric solar system - it was mouth shut time. Then came evolution of everything, including man, and finally Big Bang beginning, the MOTHER OF ALL EVOLUTION BELIEFS.
In our time, science is the dogma, and Genesis has to be made to comply with it. Faith doesn't come into it for if science can prove creation Catholic faith is not necessary.

The literal Genesis requires faith, Catholic faith in God doing exactly what he reveals. Big Bangers, from popes down, lost this faith. But worse than that for they allowed the heresies be believed as scientific facts. So, just as they tricked Genesis out of its literal geocentruc creation, they used the same tricks to allow evolution and all its contradictions to be believed also as Catholic faith truths.

Read Bruno's Genesis above and see what the modern Catholic are up to today.

[font=Segoe UI, Segoe UI Web (West European), Segoe UI, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, Roboto, Helvetica Neue, sans-serif]https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/23/catholicism-handle-discovery-extraterrestrial-life/ (https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/02/23/catholicism-handle-discovery-extraterrestrial-life/)[/url][/font][/size]
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: B USC90 on May 04, 2019, 12:33:26 PM
"Big Bang" Theory was founded by a Belgian Catholic priest and physicist - the Jesuit Fr. Georges Lemaitre.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: homeschoolmom on May 04, 2019, 12:34:06 PM
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.

Would bioluminescent creatures work as examples as well? They can light up the dark ocean or a night sky. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 04, 2019, 10:06:30 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 04, 2019, 11:07:50 PM
C14 .... has even been detected in diamonds otherwise dated at billions of years of age.[10],[11],[12]"
Um, about this.

One of the links points to an Answers in Genesis page, which has links to other creationists, and this one, which I think is the paper this claim is based on:

R.E. Taylor, and J. Southon, Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259:282–287, 2007.

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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: forlorn on May 05, 2019, 08:51:24 AM
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.
No idea why you're getting downvoted. Catholics should be lovers of the Truth, even if it means convenient "facts" must be discarded. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 05, 2019, 09:20:18 AM
In the practical realm, regardless of what related issue was brought to me (6 days/24 hours, helio v geo, local v universal flood; light on 4th day; etc), my universal advice to any and all inquirers would be:

"Read the Sungenis book.  The answers are there."
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: cassini on May 05, 2019, 11:14:28 AM
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 knew Gerry well and he gave me his book to read before publishing it. I myself was writing a similar book on the absurdity of a Big Bang world as we find it today. Then out came Pope John Paul II saying 'evolution was more than a hypothesis.' That's enough I said, putting my book into the bin. When one has to try to compete with popes and their Big Bang evolution, then the devil has won hands down on that subject.

At that time a man called Paul Ellwanger had also contacted me to say that evolution is but an offspring of the Copernican theory, and that the creation account offered to Catholics for 200 years has long departed from the ex nihilo dogma of Catholic theology. That creation theology is simplicity itself, as Archbishop Lefebvre said, God creating all in perfection (that is finished) at the beginning of time, just as Genesis said, understandable to the simplist of minds.
So, in order to understand why a pope like Francis will get up and tell the flock God is not a magician, and receive such applause from Professor Queres in the front row

https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/royal-baby-watch-prince-harry-cancels-official-visit-to-the-netherlands-58819653917 (https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/royal-baby-watch-prince-harry-cancels-official-visit-to-the-netherlands-58819653917)

one has to know that long history from Faith to fiction. Without a return to the dogma of biblical geocentrism, Catholic creation doctrine can never return to a faith based doctrine. I told Gerry Keane if he went along with the story of Galileoism as put out for 200 years by Churchmen, then you are really wasting your time. Gerry said it was hard enough to get Catholics today to believe no such evolution took place without asking them to accept geocentrism. When he published, he walked into it, quoting a Protestant to dismiss the authority of the 1616 decree and every other trap set up to undermine the faith. His paragraph on Galileo did a lot more harm that his arguments against evolution achieved.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on May 05, 2019, 12:43:43 PM
I have read G. Keane's Creation Rediscovered.
1991 version or updated and expanded 1999 version?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: cassini on May 05, 2019, 01:46:28 PM
Dear Friends of the Kolbe Center,
Christ is risen! Alleluia!
It is no secret that young Catholics have been leaving the Church in droves for decades. The Fellowship of Catholic University Students (FOCUS) estimates that only 15% of Catholic young people in the United States continue to practice the Faith when they leave home. One prominent researcher at Georgetown University who has conducted numerous interviews with young Catholics about their reasons for abandoning the Faith has observed that the apparent conflict between the findings of the modern science and the Holy Bible and the traditional teaching of the Church has been a major factor in the mass exodus of young Catholics out of the Catholic Church. Not surprisingly, he argues that if more teachers in Catholic schools could show the harmony between the pillars of modern science - like Big Bang cosmology and biological evolution - and the Catholic Faith, the Church would keep more of its youth. But this reminds me of Planned Parenthood representatives who attribute the large number of teen pregnancies to a lack of sex education and who assure us that if only every school in the world included sex education in its curriculum, the teen pregnancy numbers would surely come down!
The fact of the matter is that most Catholic schools and universities have been teaching Big Bang cosmology and biological evolution for the last 60 years. Teaching more of this "science, falsely so called" will not slow the mass exodus of young Catholics out of the Church because the teaching of evolution does more to erode or destroy the faith of young Catholics than any other false teaching.   On the other hand, teaching the true Catholic doctrine of creation, demonstrating its perfect harmony with sound theology, philosophy, and natural science, and exposing the fatal flaws in the evolutionary accounts of the origins of man and the universe in their theistic and atheistic forms is a sure-fire way to shore up the foundations of the faith of Catholic young people and equip them to stand firm against the world, the flesh and the devil. Indeed, our experience with young Catholics all over the world has confirmed our conviction that the current crisis of faith could be quickly resolved if we simply taught the whole Catholic Faith to our youth on the foundation of the true Catholic doctrine of creation.
(https://files.constantcontact.com/99e23de0101/cb5ebfb4-05f8-495b-b493-e29d5ad64dbd.png)
We recently witnessed a striking example of the power of the Catholic doctrine of creation to strengthen the Faith of Catholic young people when four Kolbe scientists and I had the privilege of spending three days with students and faculty at Immaculate Heart of Mary School in Still River, Massachusetts. In addition to three consecutive days of presentations to all of the students from third through 12th grade, we were also able to give two evening presentations to parents, the first of which was made mandatory for all of the parents at the school by the headmaster, Brother Thomas Augustine. As a testimony to the good fruits brought forth from these three days, I would like to share a few excerpts from papers written by high school students highlighting the most important points they learned from the presentations.

I hope you will join us in praying that we will soon be able to achieve our goal of ensuring that every Catholic young person in the world has at least one opportunity to hear a good defense of the true Catholic doctrine of creation, the foundation of the Holy Gospel.   If you can use your influence with the leadership at any Catholic seminary, university, chaplaincy, school, home-school co-op, or other youth centered community to obtain an invitation for us to offer a seminar or series of seminars, we will gladly go anywhere in the world - even if the hosting organization cannot afford to cover our expenses - to share this precious knowledge. We have also designed a confirmation retreat with a creation-focus, designed to be supported by the personal testimony of some of our young adult members who can testify to their slightly younger brothers and sisters as to the fundamental importance of the true Catholic doctrine of creation as the foundation of the faith and of a healthy spiritual life. We are ready and willing to go anywhere in the world to offer this confirmation retreat, as long as the local pastor is willing to give us at least one entire day with the confirmandi.
I am happy to report that our videographer is on track to complete the final editing of the DVD series by the end of June, God willing! Once the final editing has been completed, we plan to give the DVD series to some Church leaders for their review so that we can market the series more effectively with their endorsements. If you have influence with any influential Catholic clergy or lay leaders who might be willing to review the DVD series, please let me know, and we will be happy to arrange to give them a chance to preview the series as soon as it is available.
Finally, we have discovered that if you forward this newsletter to someone who "unsubscribes," that "unsubscription" will "unsubscribe" you! What is worse, once an email is "unsubscribed," our email server will never subscribe that email address again. It seems we have lost quite a few subscribers this way over the years! If you forward an email, it might be a good idea to ask the recipients to let you know if they don't want to receive any more forwarded emails from the Kolbe Center, but to please not "unsubscribe" lest they inadvertently "unsubscribe" you.
Please keep the Kolbe Center in your prayers.
Yours in Christ through the Holy Theotokos,
Hugh Owen
P.S. We have been granted a permit for our outreach to the public near the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., on Sunday, May 19, to expose the evolution fraud and to proclaim the truth of Creation and of Our Lord's Life-giving Passion, Death and Resurrection. If any of our readers would be willing and able to come to Washington, D.C. to participate in this project, please send me an email at howen@shentel.net If you live too far away to commute to the venue but would like to participate, we can find you a place to stay at our home in Virginia or with another family closer to Washington, D.C.
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 .
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 05, 2019, 04:56:51 PM

Quote
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
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 05, 2019, 05:00:57 PM

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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 06, 2019, 01:30:08 AM
Quote from: Stanley
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: "Because radiocarbon decays relatively quickly, fossils that are even 100,000 years old should have virtually no radiocarbon left in them.1 But they do ... The CRSQ study authors tested seven dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops from Montana, hadrosaurids, a cartilaginous paddlefish, a bony fish, and fresh-looking wood and lizard bones from Permian layers in Canada and Oklahoma. Five different commercial and academic laboratories detected carbon-14 in all the samples, whether from Cenozoic, Mesozoic, or Paleozoic source rocks. How did that radiocarbon get there?

The team also compared the results to several dozen published carbon-14 results for fossils, wood, and coal from all over the world and throughout the geologic column. Comparable amounts of radiocarbon showed up in almost 50 total samples.2

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?]

Secular researchers routinely detect radiocarbon in carbon-containing materials like coal, oil, marble, and diamond—materials they would like to use as "carbon dead" standards. If contamination is really to blame for these results, then why does it appear in such supposedly old material as well as in every single fossil in the CRSQ report? Broad-brushed claims of contamination weaken with every new docuмented carbon date from really old material." https://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/ (https://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/)

The presence of collagen remaining in "ancient fossils" is another proof that those fossils are only several thousands of years young.

Abstract: The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal Science. Its geologic location was the Hell Creek Formation in the State of Montana, United States of America. When it was learned in 2005 that Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered by the Glendive (MT) Dinosaur & Fossil Museum, Hugh Miller asked and received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for C-14 testing of any bone collagen that might be extracted. Indeed both bones contained collagen and conventional dates of 30,890 ± 380 radiocarbon years (RC) for the Triceratops and 23,170 ±170 RC years for the Hadrosaur were obtained using the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS). Total organic carbon and/or dinosaur bone bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for megafauna." http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

Can collagen survive millions of years, Stanley? Can DNA? Surely you will not appeal to "external contaminants" here, I hope.

God bless.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 06, 2019, 01:43:19 AM
Please see some demonstrably baneful effects of the false theory of evolution on Faith and Morals. What is true cannot bear evil fruits.

"So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen ... A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation [written in 1920. Can someone say this hasn't really happened today]. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers. The answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and universities to Prof. Leuba's questionnaire, show that while only 15% of the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the Juniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian faith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory ... Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or infidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God nor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding Christianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the Senior. What more proof is needed?"

This book by Williams written around 1920 also exposes the hoax that was "Piltdown Man" which deceived evolutionists (assuming many of them were not deceivers themselves) for 40 years as a "missing link". It was a fraud. After 1953, this was admitted by all.

Another two simple disproofs of evolution are (1) the extraordinary number of missing intermediate forms. If thousands and millions of apes allegedly gave birth and evolved to thousands and millions of men over millions of years, we would find millions upon millions of intermediate ape-men. This is how Williams knew Piltdown man was a fraud, "There are countless relics of apes, but none of ape-men. Even Wells says: "At a great open-air camp at Solutre, where they seem to have had annual gatherings for many centuries, it is estimated there are the bones of 100,000 horses." Would we not expect as many bones of ape-men? While Wells says the bones of 100,000 horses were found in a single locality, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka says that the bones of 200,000 prehistoric horses were found in another place. Why should we not find, for the same reason, the bones of millions of ape-men and ape-women in 750,000 years? Instead of mullions we have the alleged fragments of 4, all of which are of a very doubtful character."

And (2) The example of living fossils, which shows evolution either will not take place even in the supposed millions and billions of years timeframe, which means the whole sorry theory is moot anyway. Or that the millions of years never passed, and Genesis stands. A more detailed examination of Living Fossils can be read here: https://creation.com/werner-living-fossils (https://creation.com/werner-living-fossils)

Those who are interested can consult "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" and its recently updated follow up "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis" by British Australian Bio Chemist Prof. Michael Denton. Prof. Denton is more an ID type than a young earth Creation Scientist.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/633004.Evolution (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/633004.Evolution) But his book on evolution is a thorough demonstration of its utter falsity.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 06, 2019, 07:38:50 AM
Hi Stanley. Thanks for your objection. Creation Scientists are well aware of this explanation of the test resulted and have answered it:
...
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?]
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! I would ask you to stick to one point, but my sense is you are copy-pasting these texts from somewhere else and you don't really have much background in the science.

The Taylor and Southon paper is not saying the diamonds have intrinsic C14, and gives reasons for taking the readings as background, not intrinsic. I find it rather curious that the groups "citing" this paper don't seem to understand this when it should be obvious from the title and abstract.

Background is anything that would cause the testing process to appear to say the sample has C14 that it doesn't have. That's not exactly "contamination" in the way you're suggesting. Yes, the examples I gave for background - for simplicity of explanation - were a sort of low-level contamination. Labs work to limit this but it is impossible to completely avoid with current technology. But the instruments and AMS process itself are a source of background. One effect is called "ion source memory", in which radiocarbon sticks to the ion source and gets transferred to another sample. Another issue is that non-C14 ions can sometimes be identified as C14. Every lab has some background and knows about it. Decent labs do regular testing to monitor and correct for it.

For more info see: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.pdf
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Ladislaus on May 06, 2019, 08:40:45 AM
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?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: X on May 06, 2019, 08:56:40 AM
What does this say about "Baptism of Desire", the chief fruit of which is religious indifferentism?
Hello Ladislaus-
Would you disagree with an extremely limited implicit baptism of desire, for example, as described by my two short posts here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/prayers-for-Jєωιѕн-people-who-were-attacked/msg653131/?topicseen#msg653131 (https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/prayers-for-Jєωιѕн-people-who-were-attacked/msg653131/?topicseen#msg653131)
I don’t want to argue.  Just curious.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 06, 2019, 09:36:24 AM
1991 version or updated and expanded 1999 version?
1991. Does it really matter?
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on May 06, 2019, 10:27:45 AM
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!
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: cassini on May 06, 2019, 11:19:33 AM
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.

Indeed Nadir. I took out Gerry's 1991 300-page edition this morning to read.
 
At the moment I am on day 13 after having had my two knees replaced. Swelling, pain and discomfort 24 hours a day. I am best walking around, its when one sits down that the cementing takes place.

Anyway, Gerry's book covers every aspect of evolution one could think of as a student or Catholic. He introduced me to Gentry's book and it does challenge those 'proofs' for long ages claimed by the evolutionists. I will let Gentry argue his point.

As I read through I came across 'planet Earth,' the first evolution theory (the Nebular theory-1735-96) Gerry was told by me to avoid in his book. This of course led on to his description of the Galileo case when he wrote his chapter on The Sense of Scripture. Poor Gerry hadn't a clue and regurgitated the usual tripe that the Church banned the helio system until it could be proven. he hail;s the 'scholars Kepler and Isaac Newton. he then quotes the humanist koestler saying the 1616 decree was 'a judicial opinion, without papal endorsement.' Knowing nothing about the Holy Office at the time, he did not refer to Bellarmine telling Galileo that 'on order by the Pope' stop spreading heresy. He ends by saying Pope urban VIII 'was not directly involved in the trial of Galileo. In fact Urban VIII directed every move of the Inquisition during Galileo's trial.

As I said, you cannot write a book or give a lecture on evolution and creation without taking in the influence of the Galileo U-turn of 1741-1835 on the matter.Gerry did as much to promote heliocentrism as anyone, but in his case, while trying to dismiss evolution, shot himself in the foot.

I recall having a similar problem with the Kolbe Center, like Gerry, thinking that geocentrism would undermine their efforts to protect literal creation and their anti-evolution efforts. Thankfully Hugh saw the problem and accepted geo but did not make it part of their ongoing programme.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on May 06, 2019, 12:27:53 PM
 Thankfully Hugh saw the problem and accepted geo but did not make it part of their ongoing programme.

I am very glad that Hugh has so openly incorporated much of the work of Robert Sungenis.  I believe Robert to have been instrumental in having Hugh accept geo.  Hugh has even said that he  believes Robert will actually one day be named a Doctor of the Church!  Surely, the army of Sungenis' detractors will scoff at this notion.  That said, I imagine many of the Doctors of the Church would have been ridiculed in their own time if the notion of them one day being named a Doctor of the Church was raised.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: cassini on May 06, 2019, 01:34:15 PM
The SSPX I believe, take the Oath against Modernism.

In 1910 Pope Saint Pius X, in an effort to prevent further evolution of Catholic dogmas and teachings, introduced by way of motu proprio the ‘Oath against Modernism,’ to be sworn by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries. Hereunder a few selected paragraphs .

 I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated….I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality, that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticisms the one and supreme norm.’

Any yet they tolerate the likes of Fr Robinson and Fr Laisney denying the geocentrism all the Fathers (and I am sure DOCTOR'S) upheld as revealed in Scripture and papal decree of 1616. 

Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 06, 2019, 01:56:03 PM
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.)

To be clear, this isn't an argument for the theology of BOD, I just don't see how BOD and not being an indifferentist are at odds.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nishant Xavier on May 07, 2019, 07:46:13 AM
Quote from: Stanley
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!

Well, Stanley, we can always come to them one by one if you wish, but if you recall, C14 in Diamonds was only the 3rd point in the summary in my earlier post, and only the 51st of 101 in Creation.com's list of evidences. Thanks for the article by Kirk Bertsche. Bertsche says: "The ICR (Institute for Creation Research) recently spent eight years on a project known as RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The RATE team claims the results have yielded convincing and irrefutable scientific evidence of a young earth. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist with expertise in tectonic modeling, presents experimental data claiming to show that all biological material contains intrinsic radiocarbon, no matter how old that material may be thought to be [1, 2]. He makes additional claims that even non-biological carbonaceous material contains intrinsic radiocarbon. He suggests that this radiocarbon is residual from the material’s creation. If true, his claims would have far-reaching implications for the ages of these materials. Baumgardner presents two classes of data. The first is a set of 90 previously published radiocarbon AMS dates of old samples (most >100k years) that he has re-analyzed. The second is a set of new samples that the RATE team collected and sent to a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory to be dated. In both cases, I am convinced that the “intrinsic radiocarbon” is nothing more than contamination and instrument background." I'm aware that Taylor and Southon list 7 possible sources, 6 claiming the radiocarbon is somehow extrinsic to the sample itself, but it seems that most of them can be eliminated.

Dr. Baumgardner has responded: "Regardless of the actual cause, the glaring fact remains that Taylor and Southon detected levels of 14C in the diamonds they analyzed that were all well above the intrinsic sensitivity of their AMS hardware. That intrinsic sensitivity, typically observed with a blank aluminum sample holder (with no sample or silver powder present) is on the order of 0.00056 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 years under the standard assumption of a constant past atmospheric 14C level. Note that the level measured for samples 12674 and 12675 are more than 25 times greater than this normal instrument background. [that is to say, instrument background is insufficient to account for the observations. Therefore, one of the other 6 sources listed by Taylor and Southon must have contributed]

It is important to emphasize that placing the diamonds directly in holes bored in the instrument's cathode sample holder eliminates all of the potential sources of 14C contamination listed in Table 1 of Taylor and Southon's paper except for items (1), 14C intrinsic to the sample itself, and (7) instrument background.

 The authors argue that most potential sources of instrument background can be excluded for their system. 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?]

What then is left? It is item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the sample itself! [when all has been eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable it is deemed a priori, must be the truth?] ... Despite the conflict it raises for Bertsche’s worldview, the Taylor and Southon paper tangibly strengthens the case that AMS instrument background can be eliminated, to a high degree of certainty, even as a remotely possible explanation for the substantial 14C levels measured so routinely in carbon-bearing samples from deep within the geological record. 

Furthermore, despite Bertsche’s emphasis on the diamond measurements, to me whether or not there is 14C in diamonds is a relatively minor issue. The dramatically more important issue, as emphasized in our RATE report, is the consistent presence of even higher levels of 14C in all fossilized living things which still retain some carbon. That fact is powerful and indisputable support that the earth is young and that the Genesis Flood really did occur not so long ago.John Baumgardner
November 2014". For more, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/are-the-rate-results-caused-by-contamination/

Do you think all the results of the RATE Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) are incorrectly interpreted? For the diamonds, it seems to me we can eliminate instrument background as the only source when the portion of percent per modern carbon is relatively high, therefore not exclusively caused by "instrument background", item 7. Would you disagree? And if Dr. Baumgardner is right that placing the diamonds directly in holes of the instrument's cathode sample holder eliminates all other sources for the results than item 1 and item 7, it seems we could reasonably infer, to a fair degree of certainty, that item 1 also contributes.

I am only a student of Creation Science, I freely admit that. My professional training and work experience is Investment Analysis. I have an MBA, I'm not a scientist and have never claimed to be. I am a pre-seminarian due to enter priory in July, and my only interest in evolution is because it seems to harm the Faith.

For me, it was the study of the Liturgy and of Tradition, even more than Sacred Scripture and the holy Fathers, and also of the Lord's Words to His Saints, that convinced me that Special Creation less than 10000 years is the true history of man and creation. Recall also (1) After the original sin, the world changed dramatically, as our Faith teaches. (2) There was also a global flood, which we have independent evidence for, and which many researchers don't take into account.

What do you think of the Divine Office on Christmas Eve, Stanley? In the Traditional Office, it says the world was created some 7220 years ago. In the modern one, they changed it to "unknown periods of time" or something like that. As Traditional Catholics, we should at least be skeptically cautious of evolutionism and its kindred relationship with atheism. Perhaps not every evolutionist is an atheist, but virtually every atheist is an evolutionist. I believe young earth, though the Church has not yet dogmatically condemnd old earth. I believe further study in the next few decades will show more clearly that young earth creation is right. God bless.

Ladislaus, would you like to start a thread in the BoD sub-forum to discuss what are the fruits of Baptism of Desire? God bless.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: King Wenceslas on May 07, 2019, 12:48:36 PM
Anne Catherine Emmerich:


Quote
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)


Quote
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.)

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!
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: cassini on May 07, 2019, 01:20:57 PM
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!

My choice of reading for this purpose comes from the private revelations to Sister Mary of Jesus, known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). The following insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Her three volume work was entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ also known as ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These revelations to Sr Mary, whose body now lies incorrupt in the Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have withstood many years of investigation, bans and then approvals, receiving approbations from popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of the Catholic faith completely in line with traditional Church teaching. We chose the passages most relevant to our synthesis.


29. ‘I learnt also to understand the quality of these perfections of the highest Lord: that He is beautiful without a blemish, great without quantity, good without need of qualification, eternal without the duration of time, strong without any weakness, living without touch of decay, true without deceit, present in all places, filling them without occupying them, existing in all things without occupying any space [no Pantheism here]….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….I understood that this order comprises the following instants. The first is: God recognizing his infinite attributes and perfections together with the propensity and the ineffable inclination to communicate Himself outwardly… The second instant was to confirm and determine the object and intention of this communication of the Divinity ad extra, namely… to set in motion his Omnipotence in order that He might be known, praised and glorified…The third instant consisted in selecting and determining the order and arrangement, or the mode of this communication, so as to realize in an adequate manner the most exalted ends….The fourth instant was to determine the gifts and graces, which were to be conferred upon the humanity of Christ, our Lord, in union with the Divinity….In this fifth decree the creation of the angelic nature which is more excellent and more like unto the spiritual being of the Divinity was determined upon, and at the same time the division or arrangement of the angelic hosts into nine choirs and three hierarchies was provided and decreed.…To this instant also belong the predestination of the good, and the reprobation of the bad angels. God saw in it, by means of his infinite science, all the works of the former and of the latter and the propriety of predestination by his free will and by his merciful liberality, those that would obey and give honour, and of reprobating by his justice those who would rise up against his Majesty in pride and disobedience on account of their disordered self-love. In the same instant also was decreed the creation of the empyrean heaven, for the manifestation of his glory and the reward of the good; also the Earth and the heavenly bodies for the other creatures; also in the centre or depth of the Earth, hell, for the punishment of the bad angels….In the sixth instant was decreed the creation of a people and the congregation of men for Christ, who was already formed in the divine mind and will, and according to his image and likeness man was to be made, in order, that the incarnate Word might find brethren, similar but inferior to Himself and a people of his own nature, of whom He might be the Head. In this instant was determined the order of creation of the whole human race, which was to begin from one man and woman and propagate itself, until the Virgin and her Son should be born in the predestined order….In the same instant, and as it were in the third and last place, God determined to create a locality and an abode, where the incarnate Word and his Mother should converse and dwell. For them primarily did He create the heaven and Earth with its stars and elements and all that is contained in them. Secondarily the intention and decree included the creation of the members, of which Jesus was to be the Head, and of whom He would be the King; in order that with kingly providence, all the necessary and befitting arrangements might be made beforehand….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. The angels were created in the empyrean heavens and in the state of grace by which they might be first to merit the reward of glory. For although they were in the midst of glory, the Divinity itself was not to be made manifest to them face to face and unveiled, until they should have merited such a favour by obeying the divine will. The holy angels, as well as the bad ones, remained only a very short time in the state of probation; for their creation and probation with its result were three distinct instants or moments, separated by short intermissions. In the first instant they were all created and endowed with graces and gifts, coming into existence as most beautiful and perfect creatures. Then followed a short pause, during which the will of the Creator was propounded and intimated, and the law and command was given to them, to acknowledge Him as their Maker and supreme Lord, and to fulfil the end for which they have been created. During this pause, instant or interval, Saint Michael and his angels fought that great battle with the dragon and his followers, which is described by the apostle Saint John in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. The good angels, persevering in grace, merited eternal happiness. The disobedient angels, rebelling against God, merited the punishment, which they now suffer….During the whole first week of the creation of the world and its contents Lucifer and the demons were occupied in machinations and projects of wickedness against the Word, who was to become incarnate, and against the Woman of whom He was to be born and made man. On the first day, which corresponds to Sunday, were created the angels. Laws and precepts were given to them, for the guidance of their actions. The bad ones disobeyed and transgressed the mandates of the Lord. By divine providence and disposition then succeeded all the other events, which have been recorded above, up to the morning of the second day, corresponding to Monday, on which Lucifer and his hosts were driven and hurdled into hell. The duration of these days corresponds in the small periods, or delays, which intervened between their creation, activity, conquest and fall or glorification…. The most High looked upon His Son, and upon His most holy Mother as models, produced in the culmination of his wisdom and power, in order that They serve as prototypes according to which He was to copy the whole human race. He created also the necessary material beings required for human life, but with such wisdom that some of them act as symbols, to represent, in a certain way these two Beings. On this account He made the luminaries of heaven, the sun and the moon so that in dividing the day and the night, they might symbolise the Sun of Justice, Christ, and His holy mother, who is beautiful as the moon (Cant: 6, 9) for these two divide the day of grace and the night of sin.     

The sun illuminates the moon; and both, together with the stars of the firmament, illume all other creatures within the confines of the universe…. He created the rest of the beings and added to their perfection, because they were to be submissive to Christ and the most holy Mary and through them to the rest of men. Before the universe proceeded from its nothingness, He set it as a banquet abundant and unfailing, for he was to create man for his delight and to draw him to the enjoyment of his knowledge and love. Like a most courteous and bounteous Lord He did not wish that the invited guests should wait, but that both the creation and the invitation to the banquet and love by one and the same act. Man was not to lose any time in that which concerned him so much; namely, to know and to praise his almighty Maker….
‘On the sixth day he formed and created Adam, as it were of the age of thirty-three years. This was the age in which Christ was to suffer death and Adam with regard to his body was so like unto Christ, that scarcely any difference existed. Also according to the soul Adam was similar to Christ. From Adam God formed Eve so similar to the Blessed Virgin that she was like unto her in personal appearance and in figure. God looked upon these two images of the great Originals with the highest pleasure and benevolence, and on account of the Originals He heaped many blessings upon them, as if He wanted to entertain Himself with them and their descendants until the time should arrive for forming Christ and Mary. But the happy state in which God had created the parents of the human race lasted only a very short while. The envy of the serpent was immediately aroused against them, for Satan was patiently awaiting their creation, and no sooner were they created, than his hatred became active against them. However, he was not permitted to witness the formation of Adam and Eve, as he had witnessed the creation of all other things: for the Lord did not choose to manifest to him the creation of man, nor the formation of Eve from a rib; all these things were concealed from him for a space of time until both of them were joined. But when the demon saw the admirable composition of the human nature, perfect beyond that of any creature, the beauty of the souls and also of the bodies of Adam and Eve; when he saw the paternal love with which the Lord regarded them, and how He made them the lords of all creation, and that He gave them hope of eternal life: the wrath of the dragon was lashed to fury, and no tongue can describe the rage with which that beast was filled, nor how great was his envy and his desire to take the life of these two beings. Like an enraged lion he certainly would have done so, if he had not known that a superior force would prevent him. Nevertheless he studied and plotted out some means, which would suffice to deprive them of the grace of the Most High and make them God’s enemies….’ --- Mary of Agreda: The Mystical City of God.

Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Incredulous on May 07, 2019, 02:09:41 PM


Here's some true American history: Link (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_013_Agreda_1.html)



Mary of Agreda in America - Part I

 A ‘Lady in Blue’ Instructs Indians
in the Southwest


 Margaret C. Galitzin

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


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/B_013_Agreda.jpg)
Without leaving her convent in Spain Mother Mary of Agreda instructed Indians in the U.S.
Her extraordinary bilocations to the New World were a source of wonder to the Spanish Church and Crown. The authenticity of the miracle of her more than 500 visits to America was carefully examined and docuмented by the proper authorities to ensure that there was no fraud or error. She was also carefully examined twice by the Inquisition in the years 1635 and 1650.

 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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/B_013_Agreda2.jpg)
Mary of Agreda teaching the Indians
For the past six years, smaller delegations of Jumanos had come at about the same time to Isleta to speak to Fr. Juan de Salas, a much respected missionary who had established the church in Isleta in 1613. Each year, the Indians made the same plea and spoke about a woman who had sent them. They were the first to report the visits of the “Lady in Blue.” But the story was disregarded as impossible.

 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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/B_013_Isleta.jpg)
The Church of Corpus Christi at the Isleta Mission, the oldest operating church in the U.S.
As the friars drew near the tribe, they saw in amazement a procession of men, women and children coming to meet them. At its head were Indians carrying two crosses decorated with garlands of flowers. With great respect the Indians kissed the crucifixes the Franciscans wore around their necks.

 “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.


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/HistImages/B_013_CityGod.jpg)
Mary of Agreda is better known for her work The Mystical City of God
His Memorial of 1630 gives a careful description of the missionary work that had been accomplished in the New Mexico Colony. The 111-page docuмent described over 60,000 Christianized natives residing in 90 pueblos, divided into 25 districts.

 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.
 2. The Benavides Memorial of 1634, trans with notes by F. W. Hodge, G. P. Hammond and Agapito Rey, Albuquerque, 1945.
 3. Donahue, William H., “Mary of Agreda and the Southwest United States,” The Americas, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Jan., 1953), pp. 291-314; Nancy P Hickerson, “The Visits of the “Lady in Blue’: An Episode in the History of the South Plains, 1629,” Journal of Anthropological Research 46.1 (Spring 1990), pp. 67-90
Continued (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_014_Agreda_2.html)


  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#facebook)
Facebook (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#facebook)  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#twitter)Twitter (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#twitter)  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#google_plus)google_plus (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#google_plus)  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#linkedin)LinkedIn (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#linkedin)  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#pinterest)Pinterest (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#pinterest)  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#email)Email (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#email)  (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#print)
Print (https://www.traditioninaction.org/#print)
Posted January 20, 2010


(https://www.traditioninaction.org/images/burbtn.gif)


Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 08, 2019, 09:34:07 PM
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.

You quote Dr. Baumgardner as giving 0.00056 pMC for instrument sensitivity and seem to think that's background. AMS is sensitive to well below background values. If that is actually "background" then it is much lower than I would expect, and would likely have earned Dr. Baumgardner some grant money.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Nadir on May 08, 2019, 10:19:02 PM

Here's some true American history: Link (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_013_Agreda_1.html)



Mary of Agreda in America - Part I
Wow, just WOW, Incred! Very impressive!

[7] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=3&l=7-#x) And seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them: Ye brood of vipers, who hath shewed you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=3&l=8-#x) Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance. [9] (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=3&l=9-#x) And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father. For I tell you that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham. 
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: Stanley N on May 19, 2019, 10:07:25 PM
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.

He claims decay rates may have changed. That would have consequences. Experimentally, extreme temperature and pressure have produced at most perhaps a couple percent change in some decay rates. (And these were with a sort of "decay" that isn't used in radiometric dating.) To make 4 billion-year dates become 4 thousand-year dates would require decay rates changed not by a couple percent, but by a factor of a million - or even more, if the decay rates were different only during a brief time. Changes that huge would mean a corresponding huge difference in fundamental material properties, which would produce effects we could still observe. For just one example, if the light from a star is 4 thousand years old, it reveals details of physics from 4 thousand years ago, which would show up in radiation, light spectra, and even orbital motions.

He also claims that radiometric dating methods assumes starting ratios, with the same quote from Gish as in the 1991 edition. No, in general, they don’t. Isochron methods definitely do not assume a specific starting isotope ratio. Even C-14 dating does not assume that historical atmospheric isotope ratios were the same as today. Its developers were aware above-ground nuclear testing affected atmospheric C-14! C-14 dates were calibrated by reference to various “clocks” such as tree rings and corals.

He has a similar short bit that the speed of light might have changed. The 1999 edition has added some counterpoint, but the intent of this section appears to be to suggest again that radioactive decay rates may have changed.

Finally, the 1999 edition still has a section on “polonium halos”, discolorations allegedly caused by polonium decay. However, other explanations have been proposed for these phenomena (even before 1999). There is some expansion including a new paragraph of counterpoint noting that Gentry’s samples came from intrusions that imply age, but this section still looks out-of-date.
Title: Re: BIG BANG Defended by Fr. Laisney
Post by: klasG4e on May 20, 2019, 08:39:19 AM
Thanks for your follow-up comment Stan.  Presumably, it shows good faith on your part .