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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15

Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX  (Read 14364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 10299
  • Reputation: +6212/-1742
  • Gender: Male
Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2018, 07:20:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • You can’t look at the PBC’s “affirmative” in isolation of the Church Fathers or the past.  The PBC was opening the door to change, based on the false assumption the science would prove that a change in “day” is necessary.  However, modern science has proven no need to redefine “day” as longer than 24 hrs because they can’t prove evolution.  So, we’re back to square one - the opinions of the Church Fathers.  
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #46 on: October 16, 2018, 08:03:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 16, 2018, 07:20:32 AM
    However, modern science has proven no need to redefine “day” as longer than 24 hrs because they can’t prove evolution.  So, we’re back to square one - the opinions of the Church Fathers.  
    This doesn't directly concern "evolution". But are you saying the PBC decision is now obsolete?
    // I find the acronym PBC somewhat funny because to me it means peanut butter cookie.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41843
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #47 on: October 16, 2018, 08:37:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: klasG4e on October 15, 2018, 10:48:17 AM
    Bellarmine:  "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."

    I had this argument with JayneK in the context of flat earth.  Thanks for this quote, because St. Robert is saying the exact same thing I was arguing.  JayneK was essentially saying that because the Scripture didn't "intend to teach" about natural science, whatever Scripture has to say about it should be taken with a grain of salt (implying that Scripture could be in error)."  Later she backed off when I pushed against this, but kept subtly implying the same thing throughout the argument.  What's lost by most people contaminated with Modernism is that the Holy Spirit is the primary author of Sacred Scripture and there can be NO error in Scripture, even with regard to historical facts or statements regarding natural science.  Now, one could INTERPRET Scripture in difference senses.  So, for instance, if the Scriptures said the earth is flat, that doesn't necessarily mean that the entire earth is a flat plane, but might be no different than if I were looking out over a 10,000-acre flat cornfield in Kansas and stated that it's flat (i.e. relatively flat).  But to attribute ANY ERROR to Scripture, even on matters of history or natural science, was considered heretical by St. Robert Bellarmine and the theologians of his time.  Even if the subject itself is not a matter of faith, the implied attribution of error to Scripture is heretical.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41843
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #48 on: October 16, 2018, 08:42:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: TKonkel on October 16, 2018, 12:33:05 AM
    May I ask Ladislaus, do you believe in a young earth?  

    Absolutely.  I certainly believe that it's de fide that human beings haven't been in existence for more than about 6,000 years (give or take).  To say otherwise would be to attribute error to Scripture and therefore heretical (as per St. Robert Bellarmine).  One could make an argument that the "days" in the description of Creation meant something other than what later came to be measured by the rising and setting of the sun ... since the sun wasn't created until the 4th "day".  So day could be a metaphorical use of a common term in lieu of scientific terms that were missing from the Hebrew language.  But I certainly don't believe this was millions of years.  You have lots of scientific evidence that backs up young earth, with fossils of dinosaurs and what even scientists consider to be "modern" humans found within the same strata.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #49 on: October 16, 2018, 08:51:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    This doesn't directly concern "evolution". But are you saying the PBC decision is now obsolete?


    The only reason to re-define "day" to mean a period of millions of years is because evolution is proven to be true, which hasn't happened.  The entire reason why the PBC opened the door to "theistic evolution" was because it was thought, in 1909, that evolution had facts to prove it was correct.  (Remember, in 1909, you were a few decades removed from Darwin's book on evolution, electricity had just been invented, the steel industry was taking off, the automobile was in development, - all of the industrial revolution and modern inventions were taking the world by storm.  Science and engineering were growing exponentially and changing the world.)

    So Pope Leo XIII, i'm sure, when faced with the THEORY that science had proven x, y and z about a change in the creation story, decided to call the PBC so the Church could study the matter.  But the Church moves slowly because She is wise.  So the PBC said that certain parts of Genesis could be interpreted to agree with science...if the science was true.  But evolution is a lie and we know this with certainty 100 years later. So, yes, I think the PBC opinion is obsolete, when it comes to re-defining "day".  If evolution is false, what need is there to re-define day?  Science has given us no reason to believe evolution, therefore, there's EVERY reason to believe the creation account as the Church Fathers said - either a literal 6 days or St Augustine's instant creation.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41843
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #50 on: October 16, 2018, 09:16:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 16, 2018, 07:20:32 AM
    You can’t look at the PBC’s “affirmative” in isolation of the Church Fathers or the past.  The PBC was opening the door to change, based on the false assumption the science would prove that a change in “day” is necessary.  However, modern science has proven no need to redefine “day” as longer than 24 hrs because they can’t prove evolution.  So, we’re back to square one - the opinions of the Church Fathers.  

    #1) this PBC decision has nothing to do with the question of how long human beings have been in existence

    #2) it's a not a redefinition of day.  In Scripture the sun was created on the 4th day.  So what did "day" mean during Days 1 - 3?
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41843
    • Reputation: +23907/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #51 on: October 16, 2018, 09:20:28 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 16, 2018, 08:51:58 AM

    The only reason to re-define "day" to mean a period of millions of years is because evolution is proven to be true, which hasn't happened. 

    No, that's not the only reason.  Yes, I grant that it's why most people want to redefine day.  I am seeking a definition because of the problem that the sun wasn't created until the 4th day.  I understand that this plays into the hands of the evolutionists.  BUT ... we MUST hold de fide that human beings have been around for only about 6,000 years.  I doubt you'll find anyone who redefines day who also believes that human beings haven't been around very long.
    Logged

    Offline ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 690
    • Reputation: +931/-118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #52 on: October 16, 2018, 09:59:17 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Sacred Scripture is very clear and detailed about what it means by the term "Day"

    Quote from: Genesis
    "And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day....and the evening and morning were the second day... And the evening and the morning were the third day" etc.

    How much clearer can you get?  These arguments about "how long a day is" are senseless and cloud the faith.  Take God at His Word.
    Logged
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #53 on: October 16, 2018, 10:09:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    #2) it's a not a redefinition of day.  In Scripture the sun was created on the 4th day.  So what did "day" mean during Days 1 - 3?
    If the same word “day” was used to describe the pre-Sun periods as the post-Sun periods, then logically, the word “day” means the same in both instances and that means that each day of creation is the same amount of time.  
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10299
    • Reputation: +6212/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #54 on: October 16, 2018, 10:12:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    How much clearer can you get?  These arguments about "how long a day is" are senseless and cloud the faith.  Take God at His Word.
    Totally agree. 
    Logged

    Offline ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 690
    • Reputation: +931/-118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #55 on: October 16, 2018, 10:20:21 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pontifical Biblical Comission
    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.


    This simply gives permission to scripture scholars to discuss the matter, it does not change anything, define anything, or instruct that what is discussed among the exegetes is to be taught to the faithful.
    Logged
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Merry

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 628
    • Reputation: +362/-99
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #56 on: October 16, 2018, 11:06:55 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • It is distressing to see so-called traditional Catholics (re: supposedly orthodox, "true/real/old fashioned," Bible-believing Catholics) discuss Creation as though it cost God an effort to create the world.  This isn't Howdy Doody we are dealing with! It's God Almighty!  He could have created it all in a nano second - had it all up and running all at once - animals on the earth, Adam and Eve, sun circling, etc., and it would have cost Him no effort, not a grunt or a heave-ho.  He didn't even need the time that He did take - He could have created all at once. 

    Instead He created with wisdom, with thought, with deliberation - in sections - to establish the hours, the days, the morning, the night, the seasons.  To establish ORDER for us, and the rhythm of the world and seasons.  To establish the WEEK.  Where do we think the week comes from?  God laid it all out for us.  He "set us up" - and that He would need millions or billions of years, or "long" 7 days that aren't really 24 hours - is a blasphemy.  

    How can one pray, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth" - and not know that we are supposed to be telling Him that we believe in the Biblical 7 day creation of the Catholic Church, and as the Church has always taught it?  He does not want to hear us tell of any other creation "type" of belief.  

    When the Sisters of St. Joseph taught us our catechism in the early 60's, it was a 7 day creation, just as laid out in the Bible.  We all understood that.  And had no problem with it.  It was our delight.  

    "Unless ye become as little children...".       
    Logged
    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 ihsv

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 690
    • Reputation: +931/-118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #57 on: October 16, 2018, 11:42:29 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Exodus 20:8-11
    Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

    Notice the reason God gave us for the third commandment of the decalogue.  These are the very words of God Himself, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  

    On a side note, I knew Fr. R quite well before he went into the seminary.  He knows better.  Shame on him.
    Logged
    Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. - Nicene Creed

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #58 on: October 16, 2018, 12:53:11 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 16, 2018, 08:37:32 AM
    I had this argument with JayneK in the context of flat earth.  Thanks for this quote, because St. Robert is saying the exact same thing I was arguing.  JayneK was essentially saying that because the Scripture didn't "intend to teach" about natural science, whatever Scripture has to say about it should be taken with a grain of salt (implying that Scripture could be in error)."
    I neither said nor "essentially said" that Scripture should be taken with a grain of salt. I have clearly said many times that Scripture is inerrant, so it is unfair and unreasonable to claim that I have ever implied that it could be in error.  

    My position is that since the Church teaches that Scripture does not intend to teach about natural science, that is a principle to keep in mind when interpreting Scripture.  Of course, it could not possibly mean that Scripture can be in error.

    I am not sure why Ladislaus is dragging my name into a thread that I am not even part of, apparently to misrepresent my views.  If you want to agree with St. Robert, please do so without making me the heretical side of an imagined debate with you.
    Logged

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3874
    • Reputation: +1993/-1112
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #59 on: October 16, 2018, 01:17:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here is my position on Scripture in my own words, from a post written on Dec 30, 2017.  I am explaining a passage from Spiritus Paraclitus:

    This section is about people who were misusing the teaching of Providentissimus Deus to claim that only the parts of Scripture concerning faith were inspired and without error.  But we must not ever claim that there are errors in Scripture.  Understanding that Scripture is not intended to teach science does not mean there are errors in it.  

    Let's say for example there were a passage of Scripture that said Joseph set out on a journey as the sun was rising in the east.  According to Providentissimus Deus, the intended meaning would be that he started his journey early in the morning and this meaning would be true, inspired and without error.  It would not be its intended meaning that the earth stays still while the sun moves around it because Scripture does not have the intent to teach about physical science.  A phrase like "the sun was rising in the east" may be understood as a sort of figure of speech based on how it appears.  It does not oblige us to believe anything about the nature of the earth.  

    Understanding Scripture this way in no way implies there are any errors in it or that any part lacks inspiration, but modernists were twisting Providentissimus Deus to claim that it does.  Benedict XV was correcting the modernists' errors, not disagreeing with Leo XIII.


    https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/galileo-was-wrong-and-the-church-was-right-to-condemn-him/msg586688/#msg586688
    Logged
    Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 15
    « previous next »