Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX (Read 14362 times)

klasG4e · « **Reply #90 on:** October 17, 2018, 12:14:45 PM »

In the context of this thread the following are worth taking a look at:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

Faith Subject to Science [as understood by the modernists]

17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds. For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

Lamentabili Sane

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #91 on:** October 17, 2018, 12:31:08 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 16, 2018, 07:23:42 PM

.
I recall hearing that one of the early Church Fathers believed that the young boy in Matt 18:2 grew up to become St. Ignatius of Antioch.
It's not too difficult to understand how having that experience (v. 1-10) in youth could affect the rest of one's life:
.
"See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that
their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven."
(Matt. 18:10)
.

.
This October 17th date must be the Newchurch newfangled date, pulled out of a hat like a magician's rabbit. It has nothing to do with any of the historical dates associated with St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. I heard Brother Francis of the St. Benedict Center say, that the only possible reason (for changing so many dates and feast days on the traditional calendar) could have been to instigate confusion.
.
In the Roman Martyrology, there are 3 dates relative to this saint, December 20th, the date of his martyrdom, December 17th, the translation day of his relics, and February 1st, the day his feast has been observed for many centuries. Curiously, that puts his feast, which was moved from December 20th in Advent (the vigil of the Apostle Thomas, and very close to Christmas Day) to a later day (Feb. 1) which is the very last day still within the season of Christmas (which ends on Candlemas, Feb.2).
.
For December 20th we read: "In the same city (Rome), the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, bishop and martyr. He was the third (bishop of Antioch) after St. Peter the Apostle to rule the church of Antioch, and in the persecution of Trajan was condemned to the beats. By order of Trajan he was sent to Rome in fetters, and there tortured and afflicted with the most cruel torments in the midst of the assembled Senate. Finally he was cast to the lions, and being round by their teeth became a sacrifice for Christ. His feast is observed on the 1st of February."
.
For February 1st, we read: "St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, who gloriously suffered martyrdom on the 20th of December."
.
For December 17th, we read: "...Also, the translation of St. Ignatius, bishop and martyr, who, the third after the blessed Apostle Peter, governed the Church of Antioch. His body was taken from Rome, where he had suffered martyrdom under Trajan on the 20th of December, and deposited in the church cemetery near the Gate of Daphne at Antioch. St. John Chrysostom, on that solemn occasion, preached the sermon to the people. Afterwards his relics were carried back to Rome and placed with the highest reverence in the church of St. Clement, together with the body of that blessed pope and martyr."
.
.
.
Reading this, it crossed my mind, "when was the last time the 'greatest reverence' was on display in Rome, for something other than honoring false religions, Sodomites, environmentalism, or wild animals in their natural habitats?"

cassini · « **Reply #92 on:** October 17, 2018, 12:59:58 PM »

Quote from: cassini on October 17, 2018, 08:08:04 AM

When we read the account of Creation in Genesis we risk imagining that God was a magician, complete with an all powerful magic wand. But that was not so. He created beings and he let them develop according to the internal laws with which He endowed each one, that they might develop, and reach their fullness.... And thus Creation has been progressing for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until becoming as we know it today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives life to all beings.

"Day 7: So the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the furniture of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made: and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Genesis.)

‘God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, both of the spirit and the body.’ - - - Lateran Council IV, 1215.

‘All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De fide.) --- Vatican I.

According to the 'intellectual JESUIT' (yes Neil, they are the worst Modernists of all) called Pope Francis, God did not create all, complete at once in the beginning of time according to the Word of God and the Pope's predecessors. Not at all, that is Moses up to his fairy-tales again. 'We now know,' as they love saying, 'that the universe was created by a Big Bang billions of years ago and all evolved since then. At Vatican I the Cardinals were ignorant of the Big Bang, just like the popes and Cardinals of 1616 were ignorant of the heliocentric evolution.'

Now evolution does not stop, it is never completed, it goes on forever, no happy Sunday's rest for evolution. No need for Mass day with evolution. As I said, it is POPES who have led the flock down the road to where they now have to try to make evolution Catholic. Vatican I decree above is De fide. This makes the opinion of the Bog above heresy.

The theory of evolution undermines divine Catholic Faith, poisons the mind in which it takes residence, obscures the supernatural truths of Faith and warps the natural powers of reason. It is incompatible with divine Catholic Faith and in its theistic form, constitutes a major heresy infecting the Church today.’ --- Paula Haigh: ‘30 Theses against Evolutionism, 1976.’

Evolution is nonsense. Here is my favourite reasons for its nonsense:

What part of any creature evolved first from an evolved cell? Was it tissue, bone, muscle, blood, skin, hair or what? Which organ evolved first, the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the spleen, the glands, the eyes? Which organ system evolved first, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the lymphatic system, the muscular system, the skeletal system, the urinary system, the reproductive system? Could any creature function with an evolving endocrine system, an evolving digestive system, evolving senses etc.? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the other? The answer is no and to argue otherwise is to indulge in discussing simple nonsense.

cassini · « **Reply #93 on:** October 17, 2018, 01:34:14 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 16, 2018, 09:16:38 AM

#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?

It was this problem that caused St Augustine to propose creation of all immediately rather than six days of creation.
But hadn't God/Moses told us in the first words of his Bible:

"Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day."

In other words, God used light and darkness to cause days and nights. For Him, no bother. On the 4th day he created the sun and moon to do the job as we see below . I do not have a problem with a six day Genesis based on the sun not being created until day four.

"Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth, to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. "

See,
Are they saying that right from the beginning of revelation the Bible cannot be taken literally? For many thousands of years this simple account was accepted in the manner it was told. It was only when the long-agers and evolutionist proposed their theories that the literal was discarded. And, like popes (the elect) were deceived into discarding the long-held literal geocentric revelation, more popes were deceived into discarding the literal immediate creation for that joke of a theory, evolution.

klasG4e · « **Reply #94 on:** October 19, 2018, 04:03:29 AM »

To key back to the title of this thread (Modern Science and the SSPX), it has been astutely observed that, "Unfortunately, the SSPX, since its inception in 1970, has never had a leader with a professional or academic scientific background who could provide a critical eye toward the major scientific theories of the last few centuries. As a result, it has more or less been every-man-for-himself with regard to science in the SSPX." If that be so the question which arises is how in the world can the leadership of the SSPX (or Fr. Robinson, himself, for that matter) be convinced that his book is in serious error and that the printing/distribution cord should be yanked posthaste.

We have gone from junior high school teacher Jason Winschel's cover story in the October 2003 issue of The Angelus wherein heliocentrism was given a clear and unequivocal acceptance to the 2018 book by Fr. Robinson wherein he goes full throttle in his endorsement of Big Bang. By the SSPX sale and promotion of Fr. Robinson's book it looks like it will take a real movement of grace and humility to get them to reverse course.

Interesting to note how Bp. Williamson was sacked from seminary rector and sent into internal exile, having been stripped of his public ministry, all for his sincere and honest questioning of the "official" narrative of something said to have taken place in Europe more than sixty years ago. On the other hand, Fr. Robinson has in effect been made the SSPX Science Poster Boy for his one book, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.

Bishop Williamson had the temerity to write up and send out a short column (Eleison Comments) once a week to an email subscriber list. No doubt, these ECs have consoled, informed, and generally helped a lot of people as they struggle to keep the faith. Still others may have come for the first time to the Catholic Faith or come back to the Faith by way of these fatherly words from the Bishop. I can't imagine anyone having lessened their fervor in, much less lost their faith as a result of these comments. Ironically, however, it was these comments which helped seal the Bishop's fate so to speak in being expelled from the Society.

Contrast His Lordship's persecution, ridicule, and general humiliation by the SSPX leadership sparked by his taking a small hatchet to the sacred h0Ɩ0h0αx tree with that of the SSPX adulation bestowed upon Fr. Robinson in the wake of his taking a liberal blow torch to 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.). Fr. Robinson has a lot more than a weekly Eleison Comments. Why should that be surprising? Isn't it only right that the SSPX Science Poster Boy have some special perks (along with a whole lot of social media followers/"friends") such as seen below?

1.) His own website: https://therealistguide.com/

2.) His own blogsite: https://therealistguide.com/blog

3.) His own facebook: https://www.facebook.com/realistguide

4.) His (by proxy -- Jeanette?) own twitter: https://twitter.com/GuideRealist

5.) His (by proxy -- Jeanette?) own Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/109099222303871237875

6.) His own goodreads account: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18237620.Paul_Athanasius_Robinson

7.) His own Quora account: https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410

Ladislaus · « **Reply #95 on:** October 19, 2018, 07:57:01 AM »

Quote from: cassini on October 17, 2018, 01:34:14 PM

In other words, God used light and darkness to cause days and nights. For Him, no bother. On the 4th day he created the sun and moon to do the job as we see below . I do not have a problem with a six day Genesis based on the sun not being created until day four.

Indeed, days and nights were defined as alternating periods of light and darkness. But the MEASURE of a day (a period of light) as 24 hours remains in doubt. Also, there's nothing to say that at that point in Creation, even after the sun was created on the 4th day, the sun did not have a much longer period of rotation around the earth. People also lived much longer before the flood.

I guess that my point is that, as per the Holy Office also, it's not heretical to speculate that the days of Genesis may have been longer than 24-hour periods. Of course it's no bother for God to make alternating periods of light and darkness without the sun.

So a good Catholic could hold that creation in general has been around longer than 6,000 years plus or minus. But it would be heretical to assert that human beings have been around for more than about that period of time.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #96 on:** October 19, 2018, 08:08:23 AM »

Quote from: ihsv on October 16, 2018, 03:27:10 PM

I added quotes around the word "science", but to be clear, I hold the absolute inerrancy of scripture, including what it relates concerning the natural sciences.

Regarding Adam and Eve, I hold to what Genesis says. Literal dust/earth, a literal rib, since the Church in her liturgy (e.g., Ash Wednesday, "I saw water flowing from the right side of the temple..." etc.,) and the fathers themselves don't go beyond what is stated there.

I too believe in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture. But the understanding of the Hebrew term "clay" as referring to a more abstract notion such as "raw material that is then shaped into something" does absolutely nothing to undermine the inerrancy of Scripture. What does an artist who works in clay do? He takes a formless lump of material and FORMS it (adds form to the matter). In fact, the term "clay of the earth" as referring to matter is incredibly profound and only enhances the credibility of Scripture. Hebrew did not have terms for the later scholastic (and Aristotelian) terms "matter" and "form". But a shapeless material to which form is added describes the notion of matter quite profoundly.

klasG4e · « **Reply #97 on:** October 19, 2018, 04:01:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on October 19, 2018, 07:57:01 AM

Indeed, days and nights were defined as alternating periods of light and darkness. But the MEASURE of a day (a period of light) as 24 hours remains in doubt. Also, there's nothing to say that at that point in Creation, even after the sun was created on the 4th day, the sun did not have a much longer period of rotation around the earth.

The word "Day" in the original Hebrew refers to a 24 hour period.

Jaynek · « **Reply #98 on:** October 19, 2018, 04:28:34 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on October 19, 2018, 04:01:24 PM

The word "Day" in the original Hebrew refers to a 24 hour period.

There are many occurrences in the Bible of the Hebrew word being used to mean "time" rather than a 24 hour period. For example, the expression "day of harvest" means the time of harvest.

klasG4e · « **Reply #99 on:** October 19, 2018, 07:19:34 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 04:28:34 PM

There are many occurrences in the Bible of the Hebrew word being used to mean "time" rather than a 24 hour period. For example, the expression "day of harvest" means the time of harvest.

Of course! The word day in the English language as well is used to mean other things besides a 24 hour period. The traditional meaning of the word day in the first book of Genesis, however, was and continues to be a 24 hour period. Some folks such as Fr. Robinson, however, do not wish to adhere to this traditional interpretation. Evolutionists including those of the theistic stripe can obviously and absolutely not abide by the traditional meaning of the word day in the first book of Genesis.

roscoe · « **Reply #100 on:** October 19, 2018, 08:41:19 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on October 13, 2018, 10:03:13 PM

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.

Sorry to interrupt this topic but the Forum should be reminded that AFTER the 1903 Conclave fiasco Pope Pius X appoints Cardinal Rampolla as Chmn of Pontifical Biblical Commission.....

Nadir · « **Reply #101 on:** October 19, 2018, 10:08:47 PM »

Quote from: roscoe on October 19, 2018, 08:41:19 PM

Sorry to interrupt this topic but the Forum should be reminded that AFTER the 1903 Conclave fiasco Pope Pius X appoints Cardinal Rampolla as Chmn of Pontifical Biblical Commission.....

.... and so?

roscoe · « **Reply #102 on:** October 19, 2018, 10:25:20 PM »

In case you haven't heard, there continues to be a fanatical faction seeking to indict the great cardinal as a Knights Templar--OTO-- freemason.....

It just might be a problem if a saintly pope is appointing a freemason to interpret the Bible...

roscoe · « **Reply #103 on:** October 19, 2018, 10:38:23 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 19, 2018, 04:28:34 PM

There are many occurrences in the Bible of the Hebrew word being used to mean "time" rather than a 24 hour period. For example, the expression "day of harvest" means the time of harvest.

This is exactly why the PBC allows us to debate the age of Universe.... :cheers:

klasG4e · « **Reply #104 on:** October 20, 2018, 01:15:15 AM »

Quote from: roscoe on October 19, 2018, 10:38:23 PM

This is exactly why the PBC allows us to debate the age of Universe.... :cheers:

Ah, huh -- debate, debate, debate. Well, while some wish to debate, debate, debate just remember that the Fathers, the Bible, and the official teaching of the Church don't debate the matter. They have never taught long-ages, and modern science has no proof of long-ages.

Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX (Read 14362 times)

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Neil Obstat

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

cassini

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

cassini

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Ladislaus

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Jaynek

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

roscoe

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

Nadir

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

roscoe

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

roscoe

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX

klasG4e

Re: Modern Science and the SSPX