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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 15

Author Topic: Modern Science and the SSPX  (Read 28237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 46826
  • Reputation: +27700/-5146
  • Gender: Male
Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
« Reply #135 on: October 20, 2018, 06:24:31 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: roscoe on October 13, 2018, 04:55:55 PM
    E & S are BOTH in lateral & rotational motion. Helio & Geocentrism are BOTH wrong.. :cheers:

    You can't prove that geocentrism is wrong.  Only thing in the universe that's not in motion is the universe's center of mass, and you cannot prove that the earth is not at the universe's center of mass.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #136 on: October 20, 2018, 06:29:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 20, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
    A 200' deep shaft in the Greenland icepack to uncover and retrieve a P-38 exposed the same strata that had been thought to be millennia.
    .
    But the P-38, found at the bottom, was known to have landed on the Greenland surface in 1943, not 2,000 BC.
    The P-38s crashed in south Greenland near the shore, which accuмulates a lot of snow and has and had many melt cycles every year. An ice core was not taken and tested by standard methods.

    The GISP2 ice core was taken at a different location in central Greenland with different conditions. Melt cycles are rare there, and the layers would not look the same.

    https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf discusses this.
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #137 on: October 20, 2018, 06:30:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Stanley N on October 20, 2018, 05:58:44 PM
    Better to get some principles agreed first. Do you think it is possible for natural science to "prove" anything? If you don't, there's no point discussing it.

    Of course, I do.  Still waiting for your best shot or give it your best 3 or whatever how many best shots you want -- best shots at proving (beyond a reasonable doubt) long-ages that is.
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #138 on: October 20, 2018, 06:32:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: ihsv on October 20, 2018, 05:23:28 PM

    Banezian MUST sweep them aside, since his beliefs do not correspond to theirs.  In order to hold his modern, liberal views, he must minimize the fathers to make room for his novel interpretation of scripture.  Anyone who holds the same faith and interpretation of scriptures as that of the fathers is labeled a "fundamentalist" by him and Robinson.
    Thank you! 

    B.C.  The prophets who were sent to them got killed.  (Luke 13:34)

    A.D.  The saintly Fathers who have for centuries graced the Church with their collective wisdom and truth are now marginalized (if not totally ignored) to the point of ridicule and mockery by modern (mostly atheistic or agnostic) scientists and their adherents who are informing those rigid ....... (fill in the blank) Christians that they know better. 

    How ironic -- due to their literal interpretation of SS the Fathers are now metaphorically killed -- even by some traditional Catholics
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #139 on: October 20, 2018, 06:33:13 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Neil Obstat on October 20, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
    .
    Especially considering how modern scientists have been bowing and scraping to their idols:
    Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, who were amateurs, btw.
    .
    The vast ages of the geological record are all based on conjecture and have no basis in fact.
    .
    We have clearly seen firsthand how strata forms in a matter of seconds, not hundreds of millions of years.
    .
    Ice cores taken in Greenland have been presumed to have strata and layers that represent years, when it has been found to be otherwise.
    .
    The layers that theorists presume to be seasons or years turn out to be due to a change in wind direction, which can happen many times a day.
    .
    The same layers are observed in the built-up snowpack 2' thick on a car's windshield that was in a blizzard for ONE DAY.
    .
    A 200' deep shaft in the Greenland icepack to uncover and retrieve a P-38 exposed the same strata that had been thought to be millennia.
    .
    But the P-38, found at the bottom, was known to have landed on the Greenland surface in 1943, not 2,000 BC.
    .
    Mt. St. Helens erupted just a few years ago and formed what appears to be identical strata indicating 20 million years, in ONE DAY.
    .
    A seal's carcass washed up on a beach in Hawaii, with fresh meat stuck to the bones, obviously having recently died, perhaps one month.
    Sample bones were dried and sent to a lab for analysis.
    .
    The laboratory was not informed as to the condition of the carcass with fresh meat, and the results came back: 20,000 years old!
    .
    So much for the reliability of modern scientific dating of ancient fossils.

    Well said Neil!

    Just remember, the next time you are at the Grand Canyon and the Park Ranger solemnly informs the gawking crowd, "What you are looking at is the result of a little water and a whole lot of time," you can respond: "Nope.  What you are looking at is the result of a little time and a whole lot of water."
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46826
    • Reputation: +27700/-5146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #140 on: October 20, 2018, 06:54:34 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Banezian on October 20, 2018, 04:41:05 PM
    God could have created man through evolution. Newman and Garrigou were in agreement on that.
    ...
    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. 

    No, Scripture clearly indicates that God made man from the "clay of the earth", not from monkeys or beasts or anything of that sort.  Catholics may interpret certain things figuratively, but cannot CONTRADICT Scripture or Church teaching or the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers in doing so.  Newman and Garrigou were WRONG.

    Scripture clearly lays out the progression of the generations from Adam, right down to giving the exact lifespans of the early human beings.  There's no theory that human beings have been around for millions or even hundreds of thousands of years that does not contradict Scripture.

    That is PRECISELY how Catholics read the Bible.  So I'm not sure what that makes you, Banezian.
    Logged

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #141 on: October 20, 2018, 08:16:51 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 20, 2018, 06:15:59 PM
    Really?  I consider him [Robert Sungenis] to be a liberal.   :laugh1:

    Really?

    Well, just for the record, after favorably quoting Archbishop Lefebvre 9 separate times, Sungenis on p. 29 of his new 575 page book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of: "The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" states the following: "It is my contention that Fr. Robinson, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has abandoned the aforementioned teachings on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium that Archbishop Lefebvre left to the SSPX. As his book outlines, the escape route Fr. Robinson uses to make his departure from tradition is his 'reason,' that is, he has reasoned -- through what he understands to be the 'truths' of science -- that he cannot hold Scripture as an authority on science or history; nor can he accept the Fathers and their consensus on these issues; and he has the right, through the same reason, to ignore what the medieval Magisterium decreed on these same issues.  In this regard, it appears he is little different that the liberals coming out of Vatican II."

    Of course, as you may recall Fr. James Wathen considered the Archbishop and the SSPX way back when to be liberal.  (cf. Who Shall Ascend?)
    Logged

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +166/-821
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #142 on: October 20, 2018, 08:20:36 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 20, 2018, 06:54:34 PM
    No, Scripture clearly indicates that God made man from the "clay of the earth", not from monkeys or beasts or anything of that sort.  Catholics may interpret certain things figuratively, but cannot CONTRADICT Scripture or Church teaching or the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers in doing so.  Newman and Garrigou were WRONG.

    Scripture clearly lays out the progression of the generations from Adam, right down to giving the exact lifespans of the early human beings.  There's no theory that human beings have been around for millions or even hundreds of thousands of years that does not contradict Scripture.

    That is PRECISELY how Catholics read the Bible.  So I'm not sure what that makes you, Banezian.
    Lad, you’re free to believe that, but preeminent orthodox   theologians ( like Garrigou and Newman) disagree with you. I’m not saying you can’t believe what you believe, but you have no right to impose your interpretation of Genesis on others.
    Logged
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
    Ephesians 2:8-9

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12334
    • Reputation: +7836/-2430
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #143 on: October 20, 2018, 08:27:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1

    • Quote
    preeminent orthodox   theologians ( like Garrigou and Newman) disagree with you.
    1.  If they disagree with the Church Fathers, it's hard to call them "orthodox".
    2.  What is the foundation for their new views?  
    3.  What reason do they have for creating an anti-Church Father view?
    4.  How are they consistent with 2,000 yrs of Church teaching?

    I'm honestly curious.
    Logged

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +166/-821
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #144 on: October 20, 2018, 08:37:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2018, 08:27:47 PM
    1.  If they disagree with the Church Fathers, it's hard to call them "orthodox".
    2.  What is the foundation for their new views?  
    3.  What reason do they have for creating an anti-Church Father view?
    4.  How are they consistent with 2,000 yrs of Church teaching?

    I'm honestly curious.
    Your argumentation is silly and I’ve already answered you. The Fathers are not infallible on science. Listen to St. Augustine.

    “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”

    This quote from Augustine applies perfectly  to people like you and Lad. Geocentrism and the idea of a young Earth are no longer scientifically tenable. You embarrass Christians by holding these views
    Logged
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
    Ephesians 2:8-9

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #145 on: October 20, 2018, 08:51:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on October 20, 2018, 06:14:53 PM
    I'm not understanding it that way.  I think that it's saying that, where the Fathers and Doctors didn't agree but had differing explanations, people could hold anything consistent with Church teaching and the Catholic principles of Scriptural interpretation ... including some new opinion not held before by the Church Fathers.  It's implicitly reaffirming the principle that we must hold to any interpretation unanimously held by the Fathers, but if they didn't agree unanimously, then it's no longer a rule that we must follow.
    Thanks. Yes, that is how I understood it too.  Yet the Kolbe Center article claims that the PBC teaches that we can only take a position that has been expressed by a Father.  There have been some posters in this thread taking that position.  Perhaps they can explain why they think the PBC teaches such a thing.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12334
    • Reputation: +7836/-2430
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #146 on: October 20, 2018, 09:03:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Banezian,
    You didn't answer my question.  What scientific evidence is there to believe 1) the earth is millions of years old and 2) that the time periods in Genesis for 'day' are more than 24 hours?

    If there is no evidence which gives a REASON to re-interpret Genesis from what the Church Fathers thought, then to do so is arrogant and impulsive.
    Logged

    Offline Banezian

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 477
    • Reputation: +166/-821
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #147 on: October 20, 2018, 09:09:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 20, 2018, 09:03:33 PM
    Banezian,
    You didn't answer my question.  What scientific evidence is there to believe 1) the earth is millions of years old and 2) that the time periods in Genesis for 'day' are more than 24 hours?

    If there is no evidence which gives a REASON to re-interpret Genesis from what the Church Fathers thought, then to do so is arrogant and impulsive.
    The evidence for an Old Earth is covered in Fr. Robinson’s book. Here are some good links on evolution 
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/
    https://biologos.org/
    Logged
    "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."
    Ephesians 2:8-9

    Offline klasG4e

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2307
    • Reputation: +1344/-235
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #148 on: October 20, 2018, 09:14:27 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Banezian on October 20, 2018, 08:37:09 PM
    Geocentrism and the idea of a young Earth are no longer scientifically tenable. You embarrass Christians by holding these views

    Largely faulty, but hardly ever lacking in presumption, modern science should more often than not be an embarrassment to Catholics who are so often taken in by it all as though they were girls swooning over some latest rock star.  In most cases modern man does not possess true science.  This is particularly true in cosmogony and cosmology.  As the Russian Nobel Prize-winning physicist Lev Landau put it: "Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt."

    Contrary to popular opinion, geocentrism has never been disproven; nor has young Earth ever been disproven.

    The real issue is whether modern science itself is tenable.  The sad, but unmistaken reality is that quite often it is not.  Can you imagine grown men (our "great" iconic scientists) absurdly pontificating that BB came from nothing as a way of saying it didn't come from God?!  Well, at least they are right about it not coming from nothing in so far as there never was any BB in the first place since BB is diametrically opposed to Genesis as taught by the Fathers, the Bible and the Magisterium.

    As for our "great" atheist scientists it can well be said that if one acts like an animal (which is the case when men pretend God doesn't exist), then God will allow one to believe one is descended from an animal.
    Logged

    Offline Stanley N

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1208
    • Reputation: +530/-484
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Modern Science and the SSPX
    « Reply #149 on: October 20, 2018, 09:25:59 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: klasG4e on October 20, 2018, 09:14:27 PM
    Largely faulty, but hardly ever lacking in presumption, modern science should more often than not be an embarrassment to Catholics who are so often taken in by it all as though they were girls swooning over some latest rock star.  In most cases modern man does not possess true science.  This is particularly true in cosmogony and cosmology.
    You talk about "presumption" yet almost entirely dismiss science, and cosmology in particular.

    You might consider reflecting on that, my friend.
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 15
    « previous next »