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...

Ah, hello roscoe, I always thought you were an earth around the sun machine. So, you are a person who can use words.
Pope Saint Pius X is not free from all blame with regard to the progress of Modernism. As you know well he presided over the progress of biblical heliocentrism, the ROCK of biblical and thus theological modernism.

In 1906 Pope Pius X entrusted the Vatican Observatory to the Jesuits and thus it acquired a central role among Jesuit observatories. The first Jesuit director of the Observatory was Johann Georg Hagen (1847-1930).’


‘The Rev. William F. Rigge, S. J., professor of physics and astronomy at Creighton University, has a long article running through the April and May [1913] numbers of Popular Astronomy on “Experimental Proofs of the Earth’s Rotation.” It is an abridged and popular presentation of the book published by Father Hagen S.J., [1847-1930] director of the Vatican Observatory. It is divided into four parts. The first treats of bodies falling from a height, which on account of their being farther from the Earth’s axis of revolution when on the top of a tower, move eastward faster than the ground and must therefore fall east of the point directly below them. The second mentions various forms of pendulums, especially Foucault’s, whose plane of vibration, while really fixed, appears to shift on account of the Earth’s rotation. The third part treats of gyroscopes, and shows how they are used to prove that our Earth turns on an axis. The fourth part explains various other apparatus, including two machines of Father Hagen’s own invention. “It looks like an amende honorable [English law. A penalty imposed upon a person by way of disgrace or infamy, as a punishment for any offence, or for the purpose of making reparation for any injury done to another, as the walking into church in a white sheet, with a rope about the neck, and begging the pardon of God, or the king, or any private individual, for some delinquency],  to the Galileo imbroglio [An acutely painful or embarrassing misunderstanding.],” says Fr. Rigge in the Creighton Chronicle “that the Pope’s own astronomer should come openly before the world with such a learned work and should even produce two new experiments to prove the fact of the Earth’s rotation. Not that we imply that Galileo was condemned for the sole reason that he upheld this doctrine of the Earth’s motion — for which however he had absolutely no proof whatever — but that we have now one argument more, and one that fully offsets any fault that may have been committed before.”’

In other words, the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory in Pope Pius X’s time and after were now hell-bent on asserting Galileo was right and the Church of 1616 wrong, regurgitating all the so-called proofs for a rotating Earth

What are you talking about here?
There are many old earth creationists in our chapels, and they don't hold the old earth part without reason.

I said, "... modern science has no proof of long-ages."  Do you disagree with that statement?  If so I would ask that you please try to present your case with some scientific and or theological precision.  What exactly is your proof?

Your statement that, "There are many old earth creationists in our chapels, and they don't hold the old earth part without reason" is about as useless to the discussion as me saying, "There are many young earth creationists in our chapels, and they don't hold the young earth part without reason."

I had an idea about how to look for the Latin original and it worked:  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_docuмents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19090630_genesi_lt.html

Here is the Latin for the 3 passages I quoted above:

IV. Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat, salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam?
Resp. Affirmative.

VI. Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorumdem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit?
Resp. Affirmative.

VIII. Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yom (dies), sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?
Resp. Affirmative.

VIII. Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yom (dies), sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?
Resp. Affirmative.

This is all we need.  I as a Catholic am free to hold this opinion.  No bigger proponent of the inerrancy of Scripture can be found than myself, but figurative use of language is not error.

Ah, hello roscoe, I always thought you were an earth around the sun machine. So, you are a person who can use words.
Pope Saint Pius X is not free from all blame with regard to the progress of Modernism. As you know well he presided over the progress of biblical heliocentrism, the ROCK of biblical and thus theological modernism.

In 1906 Pope Pius X entrusted the Vatican Observatory to the Jesuits and thus it acquired a central role among Jesuit observatories. The first Jesuit director of the Observatory was Johann Georg Hagen (1847-1930).’

So, what were Fr Hagen and the Jesuits up to at the Observatory? Was he, as a champion of Pope Pius X and then Pope Pius XI, doing what he should have been doing, looking at the sun, moon and stars doing what they are seen doing, moving around the Earth and  confirming the fact that the Church’s 1616 condemnation was never falsified?

‘The Rev. William F. Rigge, S. J., professor of physics and astronomy at Creighton University, has a long article running through the April and May [1913] numbers of Popular Astronomy on “Experimental Proofs of the Earth’s Rotation.” It is an abridged and popular presentation of the book published by Father Hagen S.J., [1847-1930] director of the Vatican Observatory. It is divided into four parts. The first treats of bodies falling from a height, which on account of their being farther from the Earth’s axis of revolution when on the top of a tower, move eastward faster than the ground and must therefore fall east of the point directly below them. The second mentions various forms of pendulums, especially Foucault’s, whose plane of vibration, while really fixed, appears to shift on account of the Earth’s rotation. The third part treats of gyroscopes, and shows how they are used to prove that our Earth turns on an axis. The fourth part explains various other apparatus, including two machines of Father Hagen’s own invention. “It looks like an amende honorable [English law. A penalty imposed upon a person by way of disgrace or infamy, as a punishment for any offence, or for the purpose of making reparation for any injury done to another, as the walking into church in a white sheet, with a rope about the neck, and begging the pardon of God, or the king, or any private individual, for some delinquency],  to the Galileo imbroglio [An acutely painful or embarrassing misunderstanding.],” says Fr. Rigge in the Creighton Chronicle “that the Pope’s own astronomer should come openly before the world with such a learned work and should even produce two new experiments to prove the fact of the Earth’s rotation. Not that we imply that Galileo was condemned for the sole reason that he upheld this doctrine of the Earth’s motion — for which however he had absolutely no proof whatever — but that we have now one argument more, and one that fully offsets any fault that may have been committed before.”’

In other words, the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory in Pope Pius X’s time and after were now hell-bent on asserting Galileo was right and the Church of 1616 wrong, regurgitating all the so-called proofs for a rotating Earth

E & S are Both in two types of motion-- lateral & rotational.
You are hilarious trying to pin Modernism on the very Pope who identified it. LOL LOL :baby:

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 fundamentalist is one who takes an unnecessarily   literalist view of the entirety of Scripture while ignoring its other senses. Scripture has several senses. Genesis 1 does have a literal sense( in that it tells us that God created man) but it also has an allegorical sense. The days in Genesis May very well be thousands or millions of years. God is outside of time. God could have created man through evolution. Newman and Garrigou were in agreement on that.
Nadir, you may not appreciate this, but I really don’t think a woman should be arguing theology on these forums. I see mothers at Traditional parishes talking nonsense about theological topics all the time, and I understand why St. Paul said “I bear not a woman to teach.”
Lads idea that it’s “de fide” that men have only been on the Earth for a few thousand years because “that’s what Scripture says” is a clear example of fundamentalism. That’s not how Catholics read the Bible. I’m not saying one mayn’t interpret Genesis 1 literally, but it most certainly is not de fide. Here’s a great critique of the Kobe Center from Fr. Robinson
https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/st-maximilian-kolbe%E2%80%99s-disagreement-with-the-kolbe-center

Since your and Fr. Robinson's ideas concerning the interpretation of Genesis are novelties, not seen in Catholic theology prior to the 19th Century, I challenge you to back up your interpretation of Genesis using the Fathers of the Church.  Your view is new, it is novel, and shows that you (and Father Robinson) have been infected by the liberalism that was slithering its way into the theology manuals of the last century and a half.  You will not find your interpretation of Genesis reflected in any of the writings of the fathers, doctors, popes, saints or councils.

A theological view originating in the 19th century does not mean its wrong or bad. Novelty in the bad sense started after Vatican 2. The Fathers are not infallible on science. You’ve been infected by Fundamentalism 

The Fathers are not infallible on science. 

The length of a day is not science, it's math and/or history, or a combination thereof.  The account of Genesis and the length of creation is ALSO a matter of HISTORY, not STRICTLY science.  The Church Fathers are called "fathers" because they learned directly from the Apostles.  We cannot sweep away their opinions on a whim.