Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX (Read 28245 times)

ihsv · « **Reply #60 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:20:07 PM »

Quote from: JayneK

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.

When it comes to Genesis (and virtually every other part of scripture), we're dealing with history, not "science". The modernist "exegetes" of the last century or so have hidden their treachery behind the mantra "the bible isn't a science book", and then proceed to claim that it (or our "understanding" of it) is in error when it doesn't conform to their new-fangled, modern "scientific" ideas, none of which can be subjected to the scientific method.

To be clear, I'm not calling you a modernist, JayneK, I'm simply pointing out the fact that scripture is an historical book. Genesis is a history of what took place at the creation. If it says six days, it means six days.

The notion that Genesis can be interpreted contrary to the literal, historical sense was squashed by the same Pontifical Biblical Commission docuмent that Fr. R loves to cite.

Quote from: Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909

Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?
Answer: In the negative.

happenby · « **Reply #61 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:21:16 PM »

Most if not all Catholic teaching is based in Scripture, or at the very least, not contrary to it. So to suggest information about creation is not contained in Scripture, or that Scripture should not be referenced for things related to creation, or that the Fathers who agree with each other on what Scripture says about creation were wrong simply because their teachings touch on science, is obviously false.

"(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so." --Providentissimus Deus

happenby · « **Reply #62 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:27:57 PM »

Notice, PD equates Scripture with Catholic Faith.

which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, ...

ihsv · « **Reply #63 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:29:10 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 16, 2018, 01:17:45 PM

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.

If the fathers understand a given passage as a figure of speech, then that is how it must be read. If the fathers understand it literally, then we are not free to understand it otherwise.

happenby · « **Reply #64 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:32:24 PM »

Quote from: ihsv on October 16, 2018, 01:29:10 PM

If the fathers understand a given passage as a figure of speech, then that is how it must be read. If the fathers understand it literally, then we are not free to understand it otherwise.

Absolutely.
Often however, people believe something to be a figure of speech not knowing, or not believing, that the Fathers have interpreted the passage(s) literally.

klasG4e · « **Reply #65 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:37:14 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 16, 2018, 12:53:11 PM

My position is that since the Church teaches that Scripture does not intend to teach about natural science

The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is totally inerrant. It should go without saying that since the ultimate author of SS is God who can neither deceive nor be deceived that SS intends to teach us the truth and only the truth. Part of the truth it teaches us does indeed touch on natural science. Hence, is it not somewhat misleading to say that "Scripture does not intend to teach about natural science"?

happenby · « **Reply #66 on:** October 16, 2018, 01:48:55 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 01:37:14 PM

The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is totally inerrant. It should go without saying that since the ultimate author of SS is God who can neither deceive nor be deceived that SS intends to teach us the truth and only the truth. Part of the truth it teaches us does indeed touch on natural science. Hence, is it not somewhat misleading to say that "Scripture does not intend to teach about natural science"?

Pope Benedict XV assures us in Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
"... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff."

Interesting that Jaynek referenced this a few comments ago, yet it denies her entire premise. In fact, the Church teaches that She *the Church* reserves the right to proscribe false science.

Jaynek · « **Reply #67 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:12:15 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 01:37:14 PM

The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is totally inerrant. It should go without saying that since the ultimate author of SS is God who can neither deceive nor be deceived that SS intends to teach us the truth and only the truth. Part of the truth it teaches us does indeed touch on natural science. Hence, is it not somewhat misleading to say that "Scripture does not intend to teach about natural science"?

This statement summarizes the Church teaching in this passage from Providentissimus Deus by Leo XIII:

...the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this teaching is misleading, but there is no question that Modernists misinterpreted it. That is why, when Benedict XV issued Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920, he addressed the misinterpretations. It is probably a good idea to read both docuмents together to make sure that one is understanding the passage as intended.

At any rate, I was not introducing this as relevant to this thread. Genesis is full of essential theological concepts that are tied to the historical events that it relates, so this passage does not reallly apply. This passage is more of an issue in the flat earth discussion, where people are taking figurative passages literally in order to make assertions about natural science. I only wanted to illustrate that Ladislaus was not presenting my views accurately. Anyone interested may look at the exchange that he remembers as a debate here: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg586732/#msg586732

Jaynek · « **Reply #68 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:17:42 PM »

Quote from: ihsv on October 16, 2018, 01:29:10 PM

If the fathers understand a given passage as a figure of speech, then that is how it must be read. If the fathers understand it literally, then we are not free to understand it otherwise.

When the Fathers teach unanimously it is a guide to Faith. Their individual opinions, however, may be wrong and just about every Father has taught something that was later overturned.

klasG4e · « **Reply #69 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:26:52 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on October 16, 2018, 01:37:14 PM

The Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is totally inerrant. It should go without saying that since the ultimate author of SS is God who can neither deceive nor be deceived that SS intends to teach us the truth and only the truth. Part of the truth it teaches us does indeed touch on natural science. Hence, is it not somewhat misleading to say that "Scripture does not intend to teach about natural science"?

One of the categories of natural science, for example, is natural cosmology and there are many references in SS which indicate that the Earth is motionless, but not a one that indicates that the sun is. Thus, it was certainly no mere coincidence that the Fathers believed in geocentrism as opposed to heliocentrism.

As per Fr. Robinson's book, Robert Sungnis spoke wisely when he said: "Much of Fr. Robinson’s book is not “Catholic.” It is filled with
modernism and liberalism. Anyone who ignores the consensus of the Fathers
on these particular subjects (as Fr. Robinson does) is not being Catholic.
Anyone who ignores the magisterial decrees against these particular subjects
(as Fr. Robinson does) is not being Catholic. Anyone who accepts, uncritically,
the views of modern science on these particular subjects (as Fr. Robinson does)
is not being Catholic."

happenby · « **Reply #70 on:** October 16, 2018, 02:37:19 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 16, 2018, 02:12:15 PM

This statement summarizes the Church teaching in this passage from Providentissimus Deus by Leo XIII:

...the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this teaching is misleading, but there is no question that Modernists misinterpreted it. That is why, when Benedict XV issued Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920, he addressed the misinterpretations. It is probably a good idea to read both docuмents together to make sure that one is understanding the passage as intended.

At any rate, I was not introducing this as relevant to this thread. Genesis is full of essential theological concepts that are tied to the historical events that it relates, so this passage does not reallly apply. This passage is more of an issue in the flat earth discussion, where people are taking figurative passages literally in order to make assertions about natural science. I only wanted to illustrate that Ladislaus was not presenting my views accurately. Anyone interested may look at the exchange that he remembers as a debate here: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/what-do-flat-earthers-believe-is-the-single-most-compelling-piece-of-evidence/msg586732/#msg586732

Jaynek said:
"At any rate, I was not introducing this as relevant to this thread. Genesis is full of essential theological concepts that are tied to the historical events that it relates, so this passage does not reallly apply. This passage is more of an issue in the flat earth discussion, where people are taking figurative passages literally in order to make assertions about natural science."

Two things: 1. Jaynek, you introduced this into THIS thread and it undermined your argument. Then you say it wasn't relevant. Why post it if it is not relevant? 2. Who are you to say people are taking "figurative" passages literally? What proof do you have?

Ladislaus · « **Reply #71 on:** October 16, 2018, 03:01:34 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 16, 2018, 12:53:11 PM

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.

I brought you up because this quote from St. Robert dovetails into an earlier disagreement I had with you. I did not misrepresent your views. In fact, it was I who pushed you into your latter affirmation that there's no error in Scripture. You had said that Scripture was only infallible and inerrant in things that it "intended" to teach, and that it did not intend to teach about natural science. I took exception to that and stated that there can be no error in Scripture period. I explained that one COULD understand a metaphorical use of language, where "rising" of the sun can just be a relative description from the vantage point of the one viewing it ... but metaphorical language is not the same as error. Do you really want me to go back through those threads to dig it up?

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #72 on:** October 16, 2018, 03:11:04 PM »

Quote from: ihsv on October 16, 2018, 11:42:29 AM

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.

Shameful indeed.
A blackening of the SSPX that they would allow a book promoting Stanley Jaki's errors.
This is what associating with the Novus Ordo gets you: modernism & errors.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #73 on:** October 16, 2018, 03:15:26 PM »

Quote from: ihsv on October 16, 2018, 01:20:07 PM

When it comes to Genesis (and virtually every other part of scripture), we're dealing with history, not "science".

In either case, Scripture cannot be in error about history OR science. I think that there's an admixture of both in Genesis. I firmly believe that metaphorical language was used to describe scientific things in some cases where the Hebrew language lacked specialized terms. So, for instance, when Scripture states that God created man from the clay of the earth, IMO He did not actually use "dirt" but rather the term "clay of the earth" refers to MATTER, the building blocks of all things physical and thus described as a "clay". But this clearly states that God did not create man ex nihilo but from pre-existing matter (that He had created earlier). Woman, on the other hand, came from God's modification of male DNA either literally taken from the rib ... or else the rib was metaphorical from some other scientific thing. So what Scripture describes is God creating man from matter (note, not from chimps or other animals) and woman from man (using material already pre-formed with DNA, not ex nihilo and not from plain matter or "clay of the earth"). Anyone who would deny either of these things and speculate that man came from chimps or that woman was created independently of man ... would be a heretic, implicitly denying the inerrancy of Scripture (as per St. Robert Bellarmine).

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #74 on:** October 16, 2018, 03:24:17 PM »

Quote

When the Fathers teach unanimously it is a guide to Faith. Their individual opinions, however, may be wrong and just about every Father has taught something that was later overturned.

Jaynek, the Church Fathers do disagree on some things, but many times, the disagreement comes down to 2 or 3 options, which are very similar. Your logic would argue that there is no consensus on the time period of a “day” in Genesis, so, you say, we are free to interpret as we like. No! This is wrong.

As the PBC pointed out, yes, there was no consensus but there were 2 main opinions and ALL Catholics are to interpret WITHIN THOSE 2 options ONLY. Catholics are NOT free to come up with a 3rd option which is contrary to the Church Fathers.

So it is with scripture verses which the Church has not decided. We (laity) must still look to the Church Fathers (and the Doctors of the Church) and even if there is no consensus, our personal interpretation can ONLY be ONE OF the options which is supported by them, or part of them.

It doesn’t make any sense nor is it in keeping with the Church’s love of Traditions and Consistency that some new interpretation of scripture is going to come “out of left field”. It’s more likely that some future saint or saints will prove that this or that Church Father’s EXISTING opinion is true.

Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX (Read 28245 times)

ihsv

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

happenby

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

happenby

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

ihsv

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

happenby

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

happenby

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Jaynek

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Jaynek

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

happenby

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Smedley Butler

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Pax Vobis

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX