Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX  (Read 14419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 41908
  • Reputation: +23946/-4345
  • Gender: Male
Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
« Reply #30 on: October 14, 2018, 12:21:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, theistic evolution is the ultimate compromise ... from people trying to make peace with the errors of the world.  Isn't that how Vatican II billed itself?


    Offline MarylandTrad

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 223
    • Reputation: +244/-51
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #31 on: October 14, 2018, 01:41:01 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • My favorite argument that the Kolbe Center has made against theistic evolution is their pointing out the implications of Our Lady of Lourdes referring to herself as “the Immaculate Conception”. The language used by Our Lady implies that her privilege of being immaculately conceived was singular and unique. Now if Eve was not literally created by God from the rib of Adam as an adult (as Scripture and Tradition clearly teach), but was instead conceived from some kind of sub-human primate, then Eve would also have been immaculately conceived because at this point there was no original sin. One of the antiphons of the Little Office of the BVM makes reference to Our Lady's role as the destroyer of heresies, “Rejoice, O Virgin Mary thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in all the world.” It is not irreverent to speculate that Our Lady said what she did at Lourdes precisely to destroy the heresy of evolution. In all of Our Lady's major modern apparitions she has done something to destroy one or more of the modern heresies. For example, at Fatima she destroyed the heresy of universal salvation by showing the children the vision of hell and by instructing us to say the “Oh my Jesus” prayer at the end of each decade of the Rosary.


    Leo XIII wrote the following in his encyclical Arcanum:
    Quote
    We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.


    It is not all that surprising that the SSPX is supportive of theistic evolution given their high esteem for Pope Pius XII. Pius XII's undermining of the Genesis creation account was just one of his many faults. More traditionalists are starting to wake up to this fact as is evident by even the FSSP criticizing the Holy Week “reforms” that took place under his pontificate. And of course Pius XII's greatest offense was his failure to defend the thrice defined dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation, despite his having been informed by Fr. Leonard Feeney and the other members of the St. Benedict Center that this particular dogma was being either ignored, denied, or made meaningless by the vast majority of the clergy in the United States. Father Feeney's The Point was a newspaper written in the 1950's that is very much worth reading for those who want to get a better sense of the existence and extent of the crisis in the Church in that decade. Here is a link to the articles https://fatherfeeney.wordpress.com/

    "The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a man who thinks other people can get along without It. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who thinks he needs It but someone else does not. The Blessed Eucharist means nothing to a communicant who offers others any charity ahead of this Charity of the Bread of Life." -Fr. Leonard Feeney, Bread of Life


    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #32 on: October 14, 2018, 02:17:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Anyone who leaves tradition (ie the only true Catholicism) because they can’t accept that “catholic evolution” doesn’t exist and is an error, has a superficial faith.  Their love of the Church and Truth is weak, and easily lost, because they are infected with worldliness which causes them to want to explain Divine Truths with natural reason - both an impossibility and a heresy.  Further, if they would leave the Faith for these petty reasons it is easily supposed that these persons fall prey to human respect because wanting to believe in “catholic evolution” is just a way for people to “fit in” with our godless, science-worshipping, freemasonic society.  True Catholicism is ALWAYS at odds with the world, the flesh and the devil and its teachings do not change over time nor are they “updated for modern man”.
    I didn't say this in a vacuum. It's not specifically about what you call "catholic evolution", but as I said "statements like this". That is, statements imposing a restriction the Church does not.

    Consider Galatians 1-2, where St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for implying the Mosaic law was binding. When St. Paul had taught otherwise he was not trying to "fit in" and please men (Gal 1:10)! No, it was St. Peter who was trying to "fit in" with the Hebrew Catholics by adopting restrictive practices contrary to the true Faith.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #33 on: October 14, 2018, 04:59:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • In all seriousness, can anyone think of a worse (and more dangerous and more scandalous) book that has ever been officially sold by the SSPX in their entire history than The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX?

    Still no contending nominations?  Just one drop of modernism can poison the well and Fr. Robinson's misguided and misinformed work has a lot more than one drop.

    Robert Sungenis in his thoroughly docuмented 564 page book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of: "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" repeatedly quotes Archbishop Lefebvre, himself, to show how at variance the thinking of the founder of the SSPX was from that of Fr Robinson.  Sungenis states on p. 29: "It is my contention that Fr. Robinson, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has abandoned the aforementioned teachings on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium that Archbishop Lefebvre left to the SSPX.  As his book outlines, the escape route Fr. Robinson uses to make his departure from tradition is his 'reason,' that is, he has reasoned -- through what he understands to be the 'truths' of science -- that he cannot hold Scripture as an authority on science or history; nor can he accept the Fathers and their consensus on these issues; and he has the right, through the same reason, to ignore what the medieval Magisterium decreed on these same issues.  In this regard, it appears he is little different than the liberals coming out of Vatican II."  

    Sungenis goes on to state on p. 29 that Fr. Robinson in publishing his rather lengthy book and then obstinately doubling down when challenged on his views expressed therein "becomes somewhat of a Poster Boy for all those in the Catholic Church today who have abandoned the Church's traditional interpretation of the Bible in favor of current scientific theories (the Big Bang, long-ages, evolution, heliocentrism, uniformitarianism, radiometry, sedimentology, etc.)."

    The last thing the SSPX needs is a Poster Boy for scientific heresies!

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3306
    • Reputation: +2086/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #34 on: October 15, 2018, 06:56:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your mind is  just clouded by fundamentalist thinking. That’s not how Catholics read Scripture

    It is perfectly clear reading this thread that confusion reigns with regard the subject of faith and reason, also called faith and science, and the part Scripture plays in this subject.

    Now you would think after 2018 years of Catholicism the flock should know WHAT the Church teaches. Yet, look at the profound differences of opinions here among mostly 'traditional Catholics,' and all those likes and dislikes on this one thread, and it looks like an argument that one would find in a boxing ring.

    What I have learned from my own research and more recently from reading the 2013 book on the papal speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is that the argument going on in this thread began in 1616 when Galileo and his friends decided to read the Bible according to their own opinions just liker the Protestants. Oh Yes, he said the very same things I see repeated here, that the Bible is not a science book and those sorts of subjects in it belong to science not revelation. Cardinal Bellarmine put him right when he said that the problem is not the subject matter but what the authors of the Scriptures said. In other words, it is heresy to contradict the revelations of Scripture no matter what the subject matter.

    Now we all know what happened. Heliocentrism was defined as formal heresy in 1616, confirmed as irreversible in 1633, and further confirmed as 'infallible' in the records of the Holy Office in 1820. Meanwhile all those proofs for heliocentrism came pouring in from astronomers and philosophers and all attacked the Church for condemning Galileo and for impeding the progress of science. As it turned out no such proof was ever found as science had to admit no human science can confirm for certain the helio or geo order of the universe. Thus they began to treat it as a metaphysical matter. Now Metaphysics is a matter belonging to the Catholic Faith. Catholics believe things on faith alone and that is why the Church and all the Fathers believed in their senses and the revelation of Scripture that the sun moves around the Earth. Their proof was because God said it in His Scriptures.

    In 1835, after near a 100 years of Church battering by proud 'intellectuals' and the Masonic Royal Socierty of London that the papal decree was wrong in science, the popes conceded and allowed the flock to believe heliocentrism as a truth of nature thus inferring in no uncertain manner that the moving sun of Scripture really meant a fixed sun. In other words, popes now gave science, or rather theories because there are no proofs in science, the ability to change the literal meaning of Scripture, especially Genesis.

    The very first evolutionary theory arose when Laplace modified the Nebular theory in 1796. This theory speculated how that solar systen, the one defined as formal heresy that was adopted as a scientific FACT (not as a heresy) by popes later in 1835. So, having fallen for their false scientific proofs, popes were now COMPELLED to ignore the evolution of their new natural and biblical solar system. Carried along with the FLOOD of origin theories now, popes had to accept billions of years of evolution in the creation act of God whether they liked it or not. Oh yes, in their speeches which you can read in the book below, they made this pot-puree of Catholicism and billions of years of evolution look as Catholic as they could.

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

    So, from 1835 it was popes who were fooled  into dismissing the traditional ex nihilo immediate creation as revealed in Genesis, and MODERNISE it make the billions of years of evolution look like it is the very same teaching.

    Three Encyclicals have been weritten by three popes on the subject of Scriptural interpretation. Leo XIII gave licence for changes if science showed they were needed. Benedict XV tried to put a stop to these changes stating the Bible is without error in EVERYTHING it says, but Pope Pius XII the evolutionist came back with a third encyclical, opening the doors to 'scientific' changes and understanding once again if any changes were needed.

    If you do not believe me study the history of it all and read how all these 'scientists' are praised by them over the years, some anti-Christs like Voltaire are mentioned as champions in the speeches in the book above.

    Vatican I decreed the Church was to prevent the flock from heresy and false philosophy. Popes failed to save the Church from false assertions that geocentrism was proven wrong. The Creative act of God was turned into a nonsense billions of years of evolution, an insult to human intelligence. Heretical aliens were reintroduced as probable.

    The evolution popes allowed creep into Catholic belief became the bedrock of Communism and atheism. Millions of souls did not fall for the claims of popes that God was behind all these billions of years on miracles turning sponges into the body of Adam. No, they, like Laplace, praised by Pope Pius XII, who, when asked where God fits into natural evolution of their heliocentric solar system, coined the phrase 'I have no need of that hypothesis.' If both Popes and science, allow as a truth a natural evolution of all, then who need God?  
    Finally, ever read Ratzinger's book In the Beginning? Well Adam and Eve are Gone and Original Sin is gone in its traditional meaning. Pope francis would baptise a Martian if asked. And we thought only the descendants of Adam needed Baptism.

    Today it is faith and science-fiction. For me and others it is simple immediate creation of all by God in the beginning. How simple is that, even a child could understand its simplicity.


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #35 on: October 15, 2018, 10:07:12 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Today it is faith and science-fiction. For me and others it is simple immediate creation of all by God in the beginning. How simple is that, even a child could understand its simplicity.

    Matt 18: 1-3
    At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven?
     And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them,
     And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #36 on: October 15, 2018, 10:48:17 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • the argument going on in this thread began in 1616 when Galileo and his friends decided to read the Bible according to their own opinions just liker the Protestants. Oh Yes, he said the very same things I see repeated here, that the Bible is not a science book and those sorts of subjects in it belong to science not revelation. Cardinal Bellarmine put him right when he said that the problem is not the subject matter but what the authors of the Scriptures said. In other words, it is heresy to contradict the revelations of Scripture no matter what the subject matter.

    Cardinal Inquisitor Bellarmine  (later to be canonized and declared a doctor of the Church) wrote to Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini on 4-12-1615: "Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] has prohibited interpretation of Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the Holy Fathers.  And if Your Reverence will read not only the Holy Fathers but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find that they all agree on the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and rotates around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the world.  Ask yourself then how could the Church, in its prudence, support an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to all the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one reply that this is not a matter of faith, because even if it is not a mater of faith because of the subject matter [exparte objecti], it is still a matter of faith because of the speaker [ex parte decentis].  Thus anyone who would say that Abraham did not have two sons and Jacob twelve would be just as much of a heretic as someone who would say that Christ was not born of a virgin, for the Holy Spirit has said both of these things through the mouths of the Prophets and the Apostles."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #37 on: October 15, 2018, 11:06:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Stanley N said:
    The Church has explicitly allowed discussion in this field.  What's the phrase, "in essentials, unity, in doubtful matters, liberty"?

    Nadir's post (below) answered your question.  Yes, the Church has allowed discussion.  No, this does not mean you are free to believe whatever you want but MUST discuss Genesis WITHIN THE PARAMETERS of what the Church Fathers debated - i.e. 6 day creation or instant creation.

    ---

    According to the given link from Kolbe:
    .
    Pope Leo XIII founded the Pontifical Biblical Commission to combat modernism in the realm of Scriptural exegesis, and Pope St. Pius X made the PBC an arm of the Magisterium and declared dissent from its decrees a serious sin.  In 1909, the PBC replied to eight questions about Genesis 1-3 and declared that no Catholic could deny three “facts” contained in Genesis 1-3 that pertain to the foundations of the Christian Faith.  These were the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of Adam body and soul; and the creation of Eve from Adam’s side. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how the creation of “all things” at “the beginning of time” can be reconciled with Fr. Robinson’s Big Bang cosmology in which the only things created at the “beginning of time” are some hydrogen, helium and lithium.
    .
    Moreover, in its other answers, the PBC ruled that all of Genesis 1-3 is historical and that exegetes must adhere to the proper, or literal and obvious, sense of the text of Genesis 1-3, unless reason dictates or necessity requires. Indeed, while allowing scholars to discuss whether “day” in Genesis 1 refers to a 24-day or an indefinite space of time, the PBC insisted that the only acceptable interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1 was one in which “the Church and the Fathers” “lead the way.”  But the Fathers held that the days of Genesis were either 24-hour days—the overwhelming majority view—or an instant—the Augustinian minority view.  Hence, rightly expounded, the PBC decrees of 1909 leave exegetes without any choice for the length of the creation period except for “six 24-hour days” or an instantaneous creation.*

    Emphases mine.
    *In other words, why did creation take so long as 6 days. It seems a Catholic may opt for 6 days or he may opt for a shorter time span - an instant, but not a longer time span. I go for 6 days myself.




    Quote
    That is, statements imposing a restriction the Church does not.

    Consider Galatians 1-2, where St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for implying the Mosaic law was binding. When St. Paul had taught otherwise he was not trying to "fit in" and please men (Gal 1:10)! No, it was St. Peter who was trying to "fit in" with the Hebrew Catholics by adopting restrictive practices contrary to the true Faith.

    The Church's PBC said that Catholics are allowed to debate based on what the Church Fathers had debated.  They also "left the door open" for the Church to redefine parts of Genesis if science/facts add additional insights.  To date, there are NO FACTS which support "catholic evolution" (yet Fr R presumes that science has proven evolution, which is a false foundation).  Also, Fr R continues with his false starting point and then takes the PBC out of context to re-define "day" as millions of years, because he argues that science has "proven" evolution, so the PBC allows a re-defining of Genesis.

    Fr R's acceptance of the lies of modern science is at the heart of his error.  If a catholic accepts the reality that there is NO scientific evidence for evolution and those "evidences" which exist are hoaxes, then he will easily see that 1) there is no reason to re-define "day" apart from the allowed debate of the Church Fathers and 2) there is no reason to doubt Scripture's creation account as it is taught and understood by 4 yr olds.

    And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18:3)


    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #38 on: October 15, 2018, 11:23:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In 1835, after near a 100 years of Church battering by proud 'intellectuals' and the Masonic Royal Socierty of London that the papal decree was wrong in science, the popes conceded and allowed the flock to believe heliocentrism as a truth of nature thus inferring in no uncertain manner that the moving sun of Scripture really meant a fixed sun.

    Although Galileo's name came off the Index of Forbidden Books in 1835 it must be noted (perhaps, contrary to popular albeit mistaken opinion) that imprimaturs cannot change Catholic doctrine.



    Offline Merry

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 628
    • Reputation: +362/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #39 on: October 15, 2018, 11:58:41 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Fr. R. was taught and believed the Biblical 7 days of Creation, and Geocentrism.

    He changed after he got involved with the Society.  Now he thinks going "back with Rome" is a good thing.

    His book is a useful tool for the "New Society" - they can show it at Rome and say, "See, you can trust us - we are coming along!"

    Fr. R. is also himself, a useful tool.  He is in over his head. 
    If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and on that account wrests to some sort of metaphor those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...,"  Let Him Be Anathama.  -COUNCIL OF TRENT Sess VII Canon II “On Baptism"

    Offline cosmas

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 486
    • Reputation: +277/-141
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #40 on: October 15, 2018, 04:46:14 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any SSPX Priest that teaches Evolution is acceptable to be taught in their schools should be kicked out. Don't  let the door hit you in the butt either. Whats wrong with teaching what the church always taught from the beginning. Evolution is a communist invention to usurp the faith of christians. Its purpose is to get them to deny their "GOD " . to get them to put everything they've been taught by the church in doubt. Any Pius X Priest that promotes evolution is knowningly or unknowingly useful idiots.


    Offline TKonkel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +26/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #41 on: October 16, 2018, 12:25:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •  It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how the creation of “all things” at “the beginning of time” can be reconciled with Fr. Robinson’s Big Bang cosmology in which the only things created at the “beginning of time” are some hydrogen, helium and lithium.

    One way to do the reconciliation would be in the manner of Augustine.  For Augustine all things where included in the act of creation but some in act and others in potency.  In act was created the fundamental elements, the angels, and the "eternal" heavenly bodies.  The plants, and animals where created only in potency.

    Offline TKonkel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 25
    • Reputation: +26/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #42 on: October 16, 2018, 12:33:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, theistic evolution is the ultimate compromise ... from people trying to make peace with the errors of the world.  Isn't that how Vatican II billed itself?
    May I ask Ladislaus, do you believe in a young earth?  

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3306
    • Reputation: +2086/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #43 on: October 16, 2018, 05:49:59 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • May I ask Ladislaus, do you believe in a young earth?  

    While not directed to me, I believe in biblical timing.

    The Scriptures state: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941BC), Abraham 1950 after creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, world on 2000AD was 5997 years old, 2018 years after Christ was the year 6,014AC and so on.

    Just as popes fell for the false science that biblical geocentrism was proven false, so too did they fall for uniformitarianism and Einstein's age for the stars. And just as biblical geocentrism was discarded by 'intellectual' Catholicism, sciences theories caused them to discard the very timing given by Scripture itself.

    Go read the teachings of Councils and the three encyclicals on the Scriptures and you will see them tell us every word of Scripture is true. Then, when James Hutton Charles Lyell and the boys in the Geological Society of London around 1830, just before Pope Gregory XV got rid of the last five books advocating heliocentrism from the Index 'without comment,' proposed that sediments were laid down over millions of years. In his book The Rise of the Evolution Fraud Malcom Bowden quotes a letter from Lyell saying his theory will 'free science from Moses.' In our time, mount St Helens erupted forming millions of years of their layers of sediments in a few days.

    As a consequence of this theory, the Flood of Noah that the Bible tells us laid down the strata we now find filled with 100% perfect Fossils of all Kinds, had to go into Uniformitarian mode. So, today it is portrayed in Catholic encyclopedias as a LOCAL flood. This in turn makes a joke of Noah building an Arc and all that when he could have gone elsewhere on holiday for a year. The Arc, as a divine type of the Church as the only way to salvation now looks like another fairy tale.

    As for Einstein's multi-aged universe, well go read Genesis and you will see God created Man with all the visible stars visible. Thus there is no time necessary for starlight to reach Adam. In other words God created the universe in one time zone, all revolving in the same time.


    Earlier the question as to why God created all in seven days; As we know the theology of God is infinite and there had to be a reason why he chose six days and rested on the seventh to show creation was complete. Here is one account of the theology of seven day creation.:
     
    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….      
         Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them…. [Genesis: creation of heaven, Earth, sun, stars, flora, fauna and mankind.]
         I understood that this order comprises the following instants. The first instant 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 [who was to crush his head (Gen. 3,15)] 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 (Gen. 1,16) 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….’ ---- ‘The Mystical City of God.






    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #44 on: October 16, 2018, 06:48:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Indeed, while allowing scholars to discuss whether “day” in Genesis 1 refers to a 24-day or an indefinite space of time, the PBC insisted that the only acceptable interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1 was one in which “the Church and the Fathers” “lead the way.”  But the Fathers held that the days of Genesis were either 24-hour days—the overwhelming majority view—or an instant—the Augustinian minority view.  Hence, rightly expounded, the PBC decrees of 1909 leave exegetes without any choice for the length of the creation period except for “six 24-hour days” or an instantaneous creation.*
    According to the Kolbe Center interpretation, the PBC decision to permit "day" to be considered a certain space of time, actually meant that it couldn't be considered a certain space of time? That a decision which apparently permits "free disagreement among exegetes" actually left those "exegetes without any choice"? What are they talking about? They seem to be interpreting the words of the PBC decision to mean the opposite of the plain sense of the PBC decision.. 

    The PBC decision in question:

    Quote
    Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? -- Reply: In the affirmative.