Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX  (Read 4294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3136
  • Reputation: +1923/-971
  • Gender: Male
Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2018, 04:00:19 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Quote
    Your mind is  just clouded by fundamentalist thinking. That’s not how Catholics read Scripture
    Define fundamentalist.  If you are saying a fundamentalist is one who accepts the Church Fathers’ views and the 1,800 yrs of consistent teaching of the Church in regards to creation, then yes, I’m a fundamentalist.  

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3136
    • Reputation: +1923/-971
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #16 on: October 13, 2018, 04:25:51 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  •  
    Quote
    It is statements like this that cause many of our chlldren to leave tradition.

    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”.


    Quote
    I don't believe in evolution, but I won't condemn everyone who does.
    This is relativism.  


    Online roscoe

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6929
    • Reputation: +400/-150
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #17 on: October 13, 2018, 04:55:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • E & S are BOTH in lateral & rotational motion. Helio & Geocentrism are BOTH wrong.. :cheers:
    There Is No Such Thing As 'Sede Vacantism'...
    nor is there such thing as a 'Feeneyite' or 'Feeneyism'

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 157
    • Reputation: +38/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #18 on: October 13, 2018, 05:17:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    The PBC has no authority at all. It is purely a consultative body.
    .
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_en.html
    Perhaps that's how it is with the modernist Church, but not so before. To quote Pope St. Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae:
    Quote
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588)]After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.

    Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.
    [/color]
    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10prasc.htm

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 157
    • Reputation: +38/-29
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #19 on: October 13, 2018, 05:20:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • This is relativism.  
    The Church has explicitly allowed discussion in this field.
    What's the phrase, "in essentials, unity, in doubtful matters, liberty"?


    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5164
    • Reputation: +2888/-107
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #20 on: October 13, 2018, 06:55:48 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Perhaps that's how it is with the modernist Church, but not so before. To quote Pope St. Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10prasc.htm
    [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)]It's a sad fact that the Pontifical Biblical Commission established by Pope St Pius X no longer exists.[/color]

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5164
    • Reputation: +2888/-107
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #21 on: October 13, 2018, 07:13:45 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sungenis Is a ridiculous fundie who makes the Church look bad with his fundamentalism. Fr. Robinson’s work is excellent, and he makes a good point when he argues that too many Trads are being sucked into fundamentalist Protestant understandings of science. The Bible is not a science manual. There is no conflict between modern science and orthodox Catholicism.  Read Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII.
    The Church always looks "bad" to the ill-willed!
    .
    Of course, there is no conflict between science and Catholicism, but your understanding of both science and Catholicism has been somehow warped most probably by a modernist education. You are far from alone in that. Most of us have been it.
    .
    I'd like to hear how you define fundamentalism also, and while you are at it, can you define "modern" science and how it differs from science.
    .
    Meanwhile you do well to read up at the Kolbe Center.
    There is a particularly relevant article here:
    http://kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx/

    Offline Struthio

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 376
    • Reputation: +86/-56
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #22 on: October 13, 2018, 07:48:22 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I don't believe in evolution, but I won't condemn everyone who does. The Biblical Commission made it clear that Catholics could interpret days as periods of time. (And if anyone thinks the Biblical Commission can be easily dismissed, remember that Lamentabili was a decision of the Holy Office approved in forma specifica by St. Pius X, same as decisions of the Biblical Commission.)

    Furthermore, as to the claim that it's "modernist philosophy", most leading Thomists of the 20th century, including Garrigou-Lagrange, taught that some form of evolution from pre-existing matter was conceivable, within limits. Ott, another author trads should be familiar with, says "while the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Fundamentals, p95).

    That's correct.

    On the other hand, the ideas of modern scientists clash with other statements of the same Biblical Commission.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896


    Offline Struthio

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 376
    • Reputation: +86/-56
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #23 on: October 13, 2018, 08:05:45 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • E & S are BOTH in lateral & rotational motion. Helio & Geocentrism are BOTH wrong.. :cheers:

    That's an opinion rejecting never abrogated condemnations of the church.

    Besides: It is a preposterous statement. You're not able to prove what you claim.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline Struthio

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 376
    • Reputation: +86/-56
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #24 on: October 13, 2018, 08:12:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church has explicitly allowed discussion in this field.

    That's true.

    On the other hand, modern ideas of evolution since Darwin contradict the Biblical Commission anyway. E.g. they have no room for an Eve who does not have father and mother.
    It is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church — Leo XIII., Satis Cognitum, 1896

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17680
    • Reputation: +8120/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #25 on: October 13, 2018, 08:30:22 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church always looks "bad" to the ill-willed!
    .
    Of course, there is no conflict between science and Catholicism, but your understanding of both science and Catholicism has been somehow warped most probably by a modernist education. You are far from alone in that. Most of us have been it.
    .
    I'd like to hear how you define fundamentalism also, and while you are at it, can you define "modern" science and how it differs from science.
    .
    Meanwhile you do well to read up at the Kolbe Center.
    There is a particularly relevant article here:
    http://kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx/
    .
    Good stuff, Nadir. Thanks for the Kolbe Center link!
    .
    Scoffers will arise in the last days!
    .
    St. Paul must have been privileged to see some amazing visions of the future.
    .
    II Tim. 4:3-4
    [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.
    .
    The Kolbe title (scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days) more specifically refers to Chapter 3 of the First Epistle of St. Peter, a short letter, just one page, which is shown to have been written a very short time before his martyrdom, and is thus seen as his final act of instruction for those who would be saved, an exhortation toward godliness. BTW evolution is not godly. In this very Epistle, St. Peter refers to St. Paul's prophesy and words of caution, saying the "unlearned and unstable" (the new Biblical Commission?!) wrest the words of St. Paul, with other Scriptures, to their own destruction! Not only that, St. Peter touches on several aspects of evolutionism, Modernism, our current conflict of faith vs. so-called science, the historical reality of the Flood of Noah (which evolutionists are famous for "scoffing" at!), the manner of the end of the world (by fire, with "heat," and the heavens rolled up like a scroll, which evolutionists are famous for "scoffing" at), and so on.  It's veritably packed with hot topics relevant for us in our own time!
    .
    The error of the unwise, in our age, are the "errors of Russia" that Our Lady warned us about: Modernism, scientism, denial of original sin (and therefore the necessity of Baptism and sanctifying grace!), evolutionism, abortion, euthanasia, atheism, materialism, willful ignorance, and pride. All of these are virtually identical with the literal words, "denying the second coming of Christ."
    .
    Second Epistle Of Saint Peter
    Chapter 3
    Against scoffers denying the second coming of Christ. He declares the sudden dissolution of this world and exhorts to holiness of life.

    [1] Behold this second epistle I write to you, my dearly beloved, in which I stir up by way of admonition your sincere mind: [2] That you may be mindful of those words which I told you before from the holy prophets, and of your apostles, of the precepts of the Lord and Saviour. [3] Knowing this first, that in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, [4] Saying: Where is his promise or his coming? for since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. [5] For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.

    [6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. [7] But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of the ungodly men. [8]But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. [9] The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but dealeth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance. [10] But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up.

    [11] Seeing then that all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness? [12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat? [13] But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.[14] Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. [15] And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:

    [16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. [17] You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. [18] But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17680
    • Reputation: +8120/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #26 on: October 13, 2018, 09:44:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Church always looks "bad" to the ill-willed!
    .
    Of course, there is no conflict between science and Catholicism, but your understanding of both science and Catholicism has been somehow warped most probably by a modernist education. You are far from alone in that. Most of us have been it.
    .
    I'd like to hear how you define fundamentalism also, and while you are at it, can you define "modern" science and how it differs from science.
    .
    Meanwhile you do well to read up at the Kolbe Center.
    There is a particularly relevant article here:
    .
    http://kolbecenter.org/scoffers-will-arise-in-the-last-days-a-reply-to-fr-paul-robinson-fsspx/

    .
    .
    A very impressive article from the Kolbe Center!
    .
    Fr. Robinson identifies his account of the origins of man and the universe as “progressive creation,” as defined above.  However, he contends that his account is the one most in harmony with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching and that the Kolbe Center’s defense of the fiat creation of all things at the beginning of time less than ten thousand years ago actually deviates from the Magisterial teaching of the Church on creation and represents a form of “biblicism,” an over-literal interpretation of the Bible derived from Protestantism rather than from the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church.  He then scoffs at the Kolbe Center for choosing St. Maximilian Kolbe as its secondary patron, after the Immaculate Conception, because, while rejecting molecules-to-man evolution, St. Maximilian acknowledged that the science of his day taught that the universe was hundreds of millions of years old, that the solar system was not specially created, and that the Earth revolves around the sun, as in the Copernican model of the solar system. We will address each of these points in turn...
    .
    It is tragic that Fr. Robinson gives great weight to statements of Pope Leo XIII that seem to allow for a revision of the traditional Catholic understanding of the sacred history of Genesis but no weight at all to the much more authoritative statements of the Magisterium that support the traditional reading.  In this respect, Fr. Robinson has much in common with the mainstream modernist Catholic exegetes who cite Paragraph 36 of Humani generis as their charter to embrace and teach theistic evolution in the face of the plain statements of Pope Pius XII elsewhere in Humani generis that uphold fundamental tenets of the traditional doctrine of creation which clash with the evolutionary hypothesis.  These include the requirement that Bishops must teach that all of Genesis 1-11 is true history (HG, 38-39); that Bishops must teach that the Bible is inerrant in all that it teaches, not just in matters of faith and morals; and that the literal sense of Scripture must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires. (HG, 24); that the metaphysical principles of traditional Catholic philosophy must be maintained in the examination of the evolutionary hypothesis (HG, 29); and that Speculation is sterile, while investigation of the Deposit of Faith is fruitful (HG, 21).  Moreover, in Humani generis Pope Pius XII explicitly stated that the Pontifical Biblical Commission refused to abrogate its prior decrees on Genesis at the request of the Archbishop of Paris, thus confirming that those decrees, cited above, are still binding on Catholics...
    .
    When the testimony of the Church Fathers and Doctors is taken seriously, it becomes apparent that the fiat creation of all things at the beginning of time is absolutely integral to the true Catholic doctrine of creation and that the insertion of long ages of time into the creation period involves a denial of the goodness of God and of the goodness of the first created world before the Original Sin and calls into question the inerrancy of the chronological information contained in the sacred history of Genesis...
    .
    With their distinction between the supernatural work of creation and the natural order of providence, the Fathers and Doctors expose the principal error of the progressive creationists—their mixing of the order of the supernatural work of creation and the natural order of providence which are always kept separate in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors.  Indeed, the progressive creationist makes a second error in tandem with the first when, by the introduction of long ages, he inserts supernatural creative acts of God into the natural order of providence but also into a fallen world, thus denying the unanimous testimony of the Fathers to the fact that God created a perfectly complete and harmonious universe for our first parents in the beginning of creation (...all of the different kinds of creatures, angelic and corporeal, each one perfect according to its nature, existed together with man and for man, in perfect harmony, at the same time, in a world that was completely free not only from human death, but from deformity, disease, man-harming natural disasters or any kind of disorder in nature, all of which “natural evils” only came into the world because of the Original Sin of Adam).
    .
    Both of these errors flow from the uniformitarian error that St. Peter warned us would enter the Church in the last days—the false assumption that things have always been the same from the beginning of the universe and that therefore we can legitimately extrapolate from the material processes that are going on now all the way back to the beginning of time to determine the age of the universe. With this in mind, we will now examine the rise of the uniformitarian scoffers during the so-called Enlightenment to see how the revolution against the true Catholic doctrine of creation began outside of the household of the faith before eventually infiltrating the highest levels of the Church in the form of theistic evolution and progressive creation...
    .
    St. Thomas Aquinas summed up the framework within which all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers of the Church understood the relationship between the natural order and the order of creation when he wrote in the Summa Theologiae of the “first perfection of the universe” which he defined as its “completeness at its first founding.”  By this he meant that all of the different kinds of creatures were created for man, and they existed together with him in the beginning of creation, in perfect harmony.  Thus, he defined the relationship between the work of creation and the operation of the natural order which began after its completion as follows:
    .
    The completion of the universe as to the completeness of its parts belongs to the sixth day, but its completion as regards their operation, to the seventh (ST I, Q. 73, Reply to Obj. 2).
    .
    In other words, the origin of the different kinds of creatures—stars, plants, animals and men—cannot be explained in terms of the activity of created things—that is, in terms of the same material processes that are going on now.  Thus, according to all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers, in their authoritative teaching, it is impossible to extrapolate from the present order of nature and from the material processes that are going on now to explain how these things came to be in the past.
    .
    This framework was not based on human reasoning or experience. It was based on God’s revelation to Moses in which He clearly stated that the work of creation was a fiat creation and that it was finished on the sixth day with the creation of Adam and Eve. Therefore, ALL the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers drew the boundary between theology and natural science AFTER the creation of Adam and Eve. From this starting point, they recognized that the work of creation was the proper realm of the theologian. The natural order—which began AFTER creation was finished—was the proper realm of the natural scientist.
    .
    Those who defend atheistic or theistic evolution do not accept this premise from Divine Revelation. They believe that the same material processes that are going on now have been operating in the same way since the BEGINNING of creation—in contradiction to all of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers in their authoritative teaching.  Progressive creationists like Fr. Robinson reject the evolutionist error that one kind of living organism can generate one of a different kind but accept the uniformitarian chronology for the Earth and the universe which is based on assuming that the material processes that are going on now have been operating in more or less the same way since the beginning of creation.
    .
    We have seen that St. Peter the first Pope actually predicted this revolution in men’s ideas when he wrote that scoffers would come in the latter days, asserting that “things have always been the same since the BEGINNING of creation.” St. Peter went on to predict that these scoffers—[Rene] Descartes, [Immanuel] Kant, [James] Hutton, [Charles] Lyell, [Charles] Darwin, [Pierre] Teilhard de Chardin and all other theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists and their modern disciples— would have to deliberately ignore the FACT—not the pious belief—that it was the Word of God that brought the heavens and the Earth and all they contain into existence, NOT a material process like what we observe in the world today. And this is, indeed, the fundamental error of all evolutionists, theistic or atheistic. Progressive creationists avoid the most egregious error of the evolutionists but still accept the false uniformitarian framework of the Enlightenment philosophers and deny the fiat creation of all things from the beginning of creation as well as the radical distinction between period of Creation and the period of Providence and between the pre-Fall and post-Fall world.
    .
    No one exposed the folly of a uniformitarian approach to the origins and antiquity of man and the universe better than St. Augustine. In The City of God, he reflected on the creation of Eve from Adam’s side and observed that:
    .
    This [the creation of Eve] He did as God…some people use the standards of their own daily experience to measure the power and wisdom of God, by which he has the knowledge and the ability to make seeds even without seeds. And so they regard the account of man’s Creation as fable, not fact; and because the first created works are beyond their experience, they adopt a skeptical attitude. (St. Augustine, The City of God, (London, Penguin Books, 1984), p. 504).
    .
    In this passage St. Augustine lays bare the error that St. Peter warned us against in 2 Peter 3 and which remains the fatal flaw in all accounts of origins put forward by theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists.  Both of them regard the account of creation at least in part as a “fable,” precisely because the “first created works are beyond their experience,” and they “adopt a skeptical attitude” toward the literal historical truth of Genesis 1-11 in regard to the chronology of the world.
    .
    René Descartes (1596-1650) was the first Catholic thinker of note—i.e., the first Baptized Catholic “scoffer”—to propose that it would be “more reasonable” to explain the origin of stars, galaxies and other kinds of creatures in terms of the same material processes going on now than by fiat creation. In his Discourse on Method (of Rightly Conducting the Reason), Part V, Descartes wrote:
    .
    But it is certain, and it is an opinion commonly received by the theologians, that the action by which He now preserves is just the same as that by which He at first created it. In this way….we may well believe…that by this means alone all things which are purely material might in course of time have become such as we observe them to be at present; and their nature is much easier to understand when we see them coming to pass little by little in this manner, than were we to consider them as all complete to begin with (emphasis added) (Great Books of the Western World, Robert Maynard Hutchins, Editor, Vol. 31, Descartes / Spinoza, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, William Benton, Publisher, pp. 55-56.)
    .
    In reality, Descartes wittingly or unwittingly distorted the “common opinion” of theologians which identified the creative action of God in creating the universe with His action in maintaining it. Rightly understood, this common opinion held that God created and sustained the universe by His divine omnipotent power, but it distinguished (on the side of the effect) between the exercise of that power to create the corporeal and spiritual creatures ex nihiloand the maintenance of the universe after it was finished and complete.
    .
    To appreciate the importance of this conflation of the order of creation with the natural order of providence, consider the following statement by humanist philosopher John Dewey about the pivotal importance of this concept in Descartes’ writing and its link to Darwinism:
    .
    When Descartes said: “The nature of physical things is much more easily conceived when they are beheld coming gradually into existence, than when they are only considered as produced at once in a finished and perfect state,” the modern world became self-conscious of the logic that was henceforth to control it, the logic of which Darwin’s Origin of Species is the latest scientific achievement (John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 997), p. 8.)
    .
    In light of the fact that John Dewey (1859-1952)—the man most responsible for destroying the moral integrity of public education in the United States—identified Descartes as the one who laid the FOUNDATIONS of modern evolutionary thought, we might ask ourselves: WHY was René Descartes the first Catholic thinker of note to embrace this idea? Was he really so much smarter than St. Augustine, St. Thomas and all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church? Is it a coincidence that Descartes dabbled in the occult and then had three “mystical dreams” brought to him by a “spirit of truth” which gave him the key to igniting a revolution in men’s thinking— a revolution that would overturn the traditional teaching that “the past—as revealed in Divine Revelation—is the key to the present” with the new mantra of the evolutionists, “the present is the key to the past”?
    .
    Perhaps we need look no further for an answer than to Descartes’ devout Catholic contemporary Blaise Pascal. Pascal was as great a genius as Descartes but, unlike Descartes, he had true piety and he saw the terrible consequences that would result from Descartes’ arrogant denial of the traditional teaching on fiat creation in favor of a naturalistic account of origins. Hence, Pascal wrote in Pensees:
    .
    I cannot forgive Descartes; in all his philosophy he did his best to dispense with God. But he could not avoid making Him set the world in motion with a flip of His thumb; after that he had no more use for God (Blaise Pascal, Pensees, 669) Sect. 4, No. 6.).
    .
    St Thomas followed Aristotle in teaching that a small error in the beginning becomes a huge error later on. But in the case of Descartes, a huge error in the beginning became an unimaginably monstrous error in the end. And this explains why highly intelligent and virtuous people can be completely wrong in their conclusions about origins—because in regard to the origins of man and the universe they have accepted the false premise of Descartes and unwittingly rejected the premise that was held by ALL of the Fathers, Doctors, Popes and Council Fathers in their authoritative teaching. Indeed, a man could be the smartest person in the world—and virtuous and well-intentioned to boot—yet if he starts from a false premise, he will always reason (perhaps even sincerely and brilliantly) to a false conclusion—as all evolutionists do.
    .
    In the fourth century, one generation after the Council of Nicea defined the divinity of Christ as “of the same substance as the Father,” a still larger council approved a watered-down version of the Creed which styled Him only “of like substance with the Father.” Of this dark moment in Church history, St. Jerome wrote that “The world groaned and found itself Arian.”
    .
    Less than 150 years ago, Vatican Council I reaffirmed the teaching of Lateran IV verbatim—that God created all the different kinds of corporeal and spiritual creatures by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time—but it went further. In response to the errors of Descartes, Hutton, Lyell, Darwin and other evolutionists, already gaining widespread acceptance among intellectuals in Europe and North America, the Council condemned the following proposition:
    .
    If anyone says that it is possible that to the dogmas declared by the Church a meaning must sometimes be attributed according to the progress of science, different from that which the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema (Vatican I, Faith and reason – Canon 3).
    .
    In the light of this forgotten and most charitable anathema, the case is clear: No Catholic is permitted to argue that the progress of the natural sciences requires that the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation be changed. Therefore, if the fiat creation of all things at the beginning of time IS the traditional teaching of the Church—as even theistic evolutionists admit—then the progress of the sciences may not be used as grounds for changing that teaching. And yet, if St. Jerome were walking the earth today, he would surely say of our time, “The whole world groaned . . . and found itself Cartesian”!
    .
    .
    [And so on -- the article is several times longer than the excerpts above! ...
    ... FYI -- "Cartesian" means based on Descartes' work. The Cartesian plane, for example, is the basis of all higher mathematics, and as such is indispensable to physics, engineering, modern methods of transportation, technology and science, among others.]
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Online Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5164
    • Reputation: +2888/-107
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #27 on: October 13, 2018, 10:03:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • ....
    I don't believe in evolution, but I won't condemn everyone who does. The Biblical Commission made it clear that Catholics could interpret days as periods of time. (And if anyone thinks the Biblical Commission can be easily dismissed, remember that Lamentabili was a decision of the Holy Office approved in forma specifica by St. Pius X, same as decisions of the Biblical Commission.)

    Furthermore, as to the claim that it's "modernist philosophy", most leading Thomists of the 20th century, including Garrigou-Lagrange, taught that some form of evolution from pre-existing matter was conceivable, within limits. Ott, another author trads should be familiar with, says "while the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Fundamentals, p95).
    Ah! Here is the problem with the traditional and the novus PBC. Which one to follow? (facetious question)
    .
    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.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17680
    • Reputation: +8120/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #28 on: October 13, 2018, 10:08:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • .
    I'd like to hear how you define fundamentalism also, and while you are at it, can you define "modern" science and how it differs from science.
    .
    .
    Asking a neo-Catholic liberal to define anything is like asking for blood out of a turnip. 
    .
    They're all about steering clear of definition, and abhor the preeminence of doctrine, that is, unless the doctrine is liberalism.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1556
    • Reputation: +834/-132
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #29 on: October 14, 2018, 12:03:39 AM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • As far as I know Catholics including clerics of the SSPX have generally agreed that it is axiomatic that error has no rights.  They also hold as far as I know that macro evolution including theistic evolution is error and no small one at that.  Fr. Robinson pushes a form of theistic evolution in his book.  In doing this Fr. Robinson is most unfortunately in grave error regardless of whether he realizes it or not.

    Fr. Robinson promotes other serious errors as well which are subversive of the Catholic Faith.  Amazing, absolutely amazing, how the leadership of the SSPX has not only permitted Fr. Robinson to have his book published, but then has actually "blessed"/promoted/sold it on at least one its websites!  A book that would surely have merited to be placed on the Index of Forbidden Books when that Index was still operating is now given a wide open green light by the SSPX.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16