Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)  (Read 1647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline klasG4e

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 962
  • Reputation: +571/-61
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

  • Thankfully the eminent Catholic writer, Miss Paula Haigh (RIP), in her seminal works on the subject of evolution, devoted a series of articles to exposing Fr. Jaki, who, as she termed it, was a sophist, a revisionist, a surrealist, and an evolutionist.




    A real debt of gratitude is owing as well to the great author Solange Strong Hertz.  As a traditional Catholic writer she was to such a great extent so much on the same page with Miss Haigh on her very insightful and informative views concerning science, scientism, modernism, and more.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3248
    • Reputation: +3302/-28
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Elsewhere on this forum, I showed that Fr. Jaki questioned the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (i.e., the first 5 books of the Old Testament), which was condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi (#34)

    Here is the link to Fr. Jaki saying, "Does this mean that Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis 1...": http://www.hprweb.com/1993/08/genesis-1-a-cosmogenesis/

    And Here is Pope St. Pius condemning that rationalist/modernist exegesis:

    34. The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration - by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labour to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.

    We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who embraces it and employs it, makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic faith. This being so, one cannot but be greatly surprised by the consideration which is attached to it by certain Catholics. Two causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance, independent of all differences of nationality or religion, which the historians and critics of this school have formed among themselves; second, the boundless effrontery of these men. Let one of them but open his mouth and the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward; let an outsider but hint at a desire to inspect the new discovery with his own eyes, and they are on him in a body; deny it - and you are an ignoramus; embrace it and defend it - and there is no praise too warm for you. In this way they win over any who, did they but realise what they are doing, would shrink back with horror."

    Pride sits in modernism as in its own house, eh?

    And there's that pesky evolutionism again, for which the old earth is an a priori necessity.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline wallflower

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1847
    • Reputation: +1956/-77
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

  • Cassini did a nice job of exposing this error under the general topic Crisis in the Church: Fr. Robinson's pagan cosmology


    As someone who was originally enthusiastic to see Catholics and particularly "trusted" priests take up this topic, I have been wanting to thank Cassini for everything he has done here. I had no idea and would have swallowed it up, much to my embarrassment. I will admit I was a bit put off when I read the book's website because I am quite convinced of the literal biblical account, so it "felt" uncomfortable to read such an open interpretation, if I can put it that way. I don't want to cede vocabulary to the evolutionists, even if we say "God made the big bang." But I probably would have pushed passed the reservation and opened up to what he had to say had it not sparked such interesting and well-researched rebuttals here. 

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3636
    • Reputation: +4681/-169
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • By the way:

    VLM has 24 posts in 21 months (all in defense of the SSPX)

    TKonkel has only 6 posts in 2 years (3 of which are on this subject in the last couple days), all of which defend SSPX priests.

    Are you smelling what I'm cooking?

    Looks like the trolls are bringing the "sleeper accounts" back to life.

    But is it really just the SSPX defending the SSPX again (i.e., Activating their assets to run damage control)?

    Does anyone with more than 200 posts have anything to say in favor of Fr. Robinson's book?

    Yes, this is indeed interesting.  More like a psychology project.

    We see two neo-SSPX gentlemen have come to the defense of "Robinson/Jaki" science.

    However, both men failed to address the substance of the Resistance trad arguments?

    We see the same behavior manifested by neo-SSPX faithful.

    They accept almost any compromise the neo-SSPX superiors make, without question or logical thinking.

    When natural protests are made over Bp. Fellay and Fr. Wegner compromises to the Faith, the neo-trads have a blank stare on their faces.

    Be it re-branding, marriage jurisdiction or an unprecedented visit by the flaming Novus ordo Bp. Foys to the SSPX Walton, KY school.

    The neo-trads don't care!  They do whatever Menzingen and the US District Superior tells them to do.

    It is as if they are all dumbed down ? :facepalm:


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3248
    • Reputation: +3302/-28
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0


  • We see two neo-SSPX gentlemen have come to the defense of "Robinson/Jaki" science.

    However, both men failed to address the substance of the Resistance trad arguments?

    Once they receive their coaching, they will be back.

    It takes a bit of time to confer.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3636
    • Reputation: +4681/-169
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Are you at all concerned that you pit all of modern science (physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, biology etc) against your reading of what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter of the age of the earth and universe?  Is there not even just a little bit of fear and trepidation that you may perhaps be in the position of doing what Augustine and Aquinas warn us about, i.e. making a mockery of the faith by essentially telling others that their choice is between God and Catholic truth on the one hand and what reason seems to tell us regarding the natural world on the other?  Many (most?) who recognize that we do obtain truth through scientific analyses of the natural world are left with the choice of either denying what reason seems to show and accepting Catholic truth, or denying Catholic truth.  We can only hope that they will understand that your reading of Catholic truth might be a be a bit defective and that the choice is not faith or reason but faith and reason.        
    Prior to the 19th century, most everyone, including scientist with no particular religious bent had no reason not to assume that the universe was young.  Beginning in the 19th century evidence from all of the various sciences began to show quite conclusively that the earth and the universe was in fact very old.  This leaves two choices for a young earth proponent (1) recognize what reason shows with regard to the age of the earth as a truth revealed by the God of nature to man's rational faculty and incorporate that truth in our understanding of science, philosophy, and theology or (2) reject what reason seems to show and claim that reason's investigation of nature is faulty since it is at odds with our reading of Scripture, the Fathers etc.  
    Young earth creationists opt for the second.  It should be recognized that even most young earth creationists accept that all the evidence at least "appears" to indicate an old age.  For instance, one of the most famous young earth creationists, Henry Morris, in his "Genesis Flood," states the following:  "There are many cases now known where the age estimate has been checked by two or more different methods, independently.  It would seem improbable that the elements concerned would each have been altered in such a way as to continue to give equal ages; therefore such agreement between independent measurements would seem to be strong evidence that alteration has not occurred and that the indicated age is therefore valid."(p.343-344)
    How do Morris and others solve the conundrum?  They do a 180 and explain that this is exactly what we would have expected from the Biblical account:  "We reply, however, that the Biblical outline of earth history, with the geological framework provided thereby, would lead us to postulate exactly this state of the radioactivity evidence.  We would expect radiogenic minerals to indicate very large ages and we would expect different elements in the same mineral, or different minerals in the same formation to agree with each other."(p.344)  "...all such elements would, when created, give an "appearance" of the same degree of maturity or of age." (p.354)
    So scientists spent 100's of years to lay the foundation for modern geology, the discovery of radioactivity, the development of technology for radiometric dating, and the young earth creationists knew all along what the answer would be.  They knew all along that the earth would "appear" old.  This is curious.
    So on this reading we go back approximately 10,000 years to creation week and God decided, not just to make the earth appear old, but to make it appear a specific age.  He intentionally fashioned the earth to look 4.5 billion years old.  
    When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past.  The nearest star other than the sun is 4 light years away.  So it takes four years for that light to reach our eye and what we are seeing is the star as it was four years ago.  The same goes for stars millions of light years away.  Since, it seems, God wanted Adam to enjoy the starry night sky, He not only created the stars, but He also created the intervening protons at the same time.  Further, every event witnessed at a distance (anything more than 10,000 light years away)by the Hubbell space telescope and other astronomical instruments are absolutely fictitious.  This includes the disintegration of stars, the gravitational effects of black holes, etc.  None of these things actually happened.  They were all constructed, artificially in order to give the cosmos an appearance of old age.  On this reading every astronomical event greater than 10,000 yrs old is a fiction.  The Creator intentionally fashioned a bogus astronomical history extending as far back into space as our instruments can probe.  
    This sort of view is anything but Catholic and it finds its roots in some of the worst strains of Protestant thought.  This sort of thinking has profound consequences for science as well as theology.  
    St. Thomas had very harsh words to say regarding those in his day who wanted to deny secondary causality in nature in order to attempt to elevate divine causality (See SCG BK III, ch 19).  This view undercuts the very attempt of reason to understand the world we live in insofar as it posits that reason cannot but be deceived in its investigations of the natural world.  And what does it say about a Creator who intentionally fashions a universe with a consistent but fictitious appearance of age seemingly meant to fool us as inhabitants of this universe?  
    I consider myself to be a Thomist and I take St. Thomas as my chief teacher in matters of philosophy and theology.  I am pretty confident that if St. Thomas was around today he would attempt to incorporate our scientific understanding of the world into his philosophical / theological principles.  He would no doubt take science to have corrected some of the scientific thoughts of his day which he accepted (though not necessarily his philosophical principles).  In today's world I would think that he would not hold, for instance, that light was instantaneous, that the heavenly bodies are eternal and incorruptible in themselves, that the most fundamental elements are earth, air, fire, and water, etc.  He would be very interested in hearing about new discoveries and what they tell us about our world and the amazing and vast Cosmos which God has given us wonder at and explore in an attempt to understand.  
    May I ask a serious question?  Are you at least open to the possibility that perhaps what reason seems to show us with regard to the age of the earth and universe (that it is very old) can be reconciled with a sound reading of Scripture and traditional Catholic thought?  
    From the trad farm to TKonkel :farmer:

    I note that in your reply to my post you did not address the substance of what I wrote.
    I wrote about the hierarchy of the sciences, about the pre-eminence and binding authority of Sacred Theology and Metaphysics, in relation to all of the lower sciences.

    My reply was directly responsive to the points you brought up; whereas your reply was quite an ad hominem. 

    Do you have anything to say regarding the hierarchy of the sciences?

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline TKonkel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 10
    • Reputation: +19/-6
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Mr. Konkel-

    You are an interesting peerson to me.

    Kind of like a science project of sorts.

    May I ask you some questions?

    1) Are you an SSPX Catholic?

    2) Are you sure that a so-called "modern science" which opposes the common understanding of most of the Church Fathers is really science so-called?

    3) "Is there not even just a little bit of fear and trepidation" that most of the world's scientists who hold the "old earth" theory are not traditional Catholic (and that consequently, their work is not guided by the conclusions of faith)?

    4) Does that last question secretly revolt and embarrass you (i.e., to think that the conclusions of faith should set parameters to scientific inquiry)?

    5) Is there not just a little bit of fear and trepidation within you that the old earth argument -like the evolution hoax- is really a thinly veiled attack on the Faith, and that it is a necessary underpinning of evolution (i.e., no old earth, no evolution)?

    6) Is there not just a little fear and trepidation within you that if the nearly universally anti-Christ, anti-Catholic "scientific" community can "err" (in parenthesis because it is usually a deliberate attack, not a good faith err) in the matter of evolution, it can err in the matter of the age of the earth?

    7) Does it not fill you with at least a little bit of fear and trepidation that the global so-called scientific community accepts the legitimacy of evolution?

    8 Does it not fill you with at least a little bit of fear and trepidation that if the so-called "scientific" community arrives at conclusions like evolution (which directly contradicts the doctrine of monogenism), that by the very logic of your argument, you ought to be conforming to that opinion (rather than dismissing it in favor of the faith)?

    9) Do you accept evolution?

    10) Has you faith been damaged, such that were you forced to accept the Patristic understanding of the 6,000 year-old earth, you would apostatize?

    11) Is the old earth theory a dogma for you?

    12) If the faith must conform itself to the latest so-called scientific findings, and those findings are constantly changing, are you not thereby endorsing (at least implicitly and unwittingly) doctrinal evolution?

    13) Notice how evolution keeps popping up, in one context or another?

    14) When "scientific" discoveries arise which contradict previously "discovered" principles, will you have to disavow all those you so revere today, admitting they erred, and you were wrong to have sided with the atheists and modernists against the Fathers of the Church?

    15) Is there not even a little bit of fear and trepidation within you that many of those you revere as scientists offer arguments in favor of a young earth?  Are such as those somehow nonobjective, uneducated, and biased embarrassments to science, despite their credentials?

    16) Do articles like this one cause you not even a little fear and tredpidation, or are they somehow "unscientific" for having arrived at an undesirable conclusion: https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/

    17) Is there not even a little fear and trepidation within you that you have been deceived, and may be on the way to eroding your faith to the tenets of rationalism and modernism (of the Fr. Jaki variety) if you don't reconsider some of the fundamental errors of your false principles (e.g., That we must accept the so-called scientific conclusions of atheistic or modernist "scientists," and conform the faith to their conclusions, which is already evolution)?

    I will answer your questions but I would also be interested in hearing your response to issues I posed.  You simply responded with your own questions but I do not see that you considered the points that I raised.  
    1. Yes, I teach philosophy at St. Marys College.
    2.  I do not think that science really opposes the Fathers properly understood.  Do I think modern science is "science so-called"?  I am not sure what you mean here.  If you are asking whether I think the methods of modern science give us insight into the workings of the natural world then I would say yes.  But we should also recognize that science is always in a process of revision and updating as knowledge and understanding develops.  This is how science works.  
    3. It does not bother me in the least that scientists who hold to an old earth are not Traditional Catholics any more than I am worried about the fact that a modern scientist doing a differential equation might get his numbers wrong because he is  or is not a Traditional Catholic.  Please re-read the quote by Augustine.  
    4. No, the question does not "embarrass" me.
    5. No, I do not think that the recognition of an old earth is a conspiracy against the Catholic faith.  
    6. Science and scientists can err and often do as I am sure any scientist would agree.  But there are certain conclusions of science that are very well established.  
    7.  It does not bother me in the least that the notion of evolution has been the primary principle of all of the life sciences for nearly 150 years now since I think it is true, properly understood.
    8.  I do hold to that opinion, so no, it does not bother me.  I should note though that my argument was never that a theory is right because a certain number of people hold to it.  Rather, I believe that nearly all biologists hold to evolution because they are well informed and the evidence for it is overwhelming.
    9.  By now you probably know the answer to this.  Yes, properly understood.
    10.  No, I do not believe my faith has been damaged as you say.  If all of a sudden the facts showed that the earth was very young, I would accept it.  Also, if, for instance, the evidence from the geological record showed that organic types actually were present all at once in the beginning of earth's history I would reject the notion of evolution immediately.  For the last 150 years though we have found over and over again that the contrary is true: more complex and diverse organic types appear later while simpler forms appear earlier.
    11.  Dogma pertains to Theology while the question of the age of the earth is a scientific one.  No it is not a dogma for me.
    12.  No
    13.  Yes
    14. If new scientific data corrects a current understanding I of course would accept that assuming I thought the evidence was good.  I do not think it is a question of atheism and modernism vs the Fathers of the Church as though an old earth and evolution belong on the side of atheism and modernism.  In fact, I think this way of seeing the question reveals an acceptance by young earth and anti evolution proponents of the same faulty premises of atheists and modernists that I think we both find fault with.  It is really the young earth and anti evolutionists who are more akin in their thinking to the atheists and modernists.  
    15.  I do not believe that there are "many" scientists who hold to young earth.  If they do so, it is not qua scientist but rather qua creationists who hunt around for supposed "scientific" evidence for a young earth - there is none.  
    16.  No, articles from fundamentalist Protestants who are absolutely deficient in philosophy, theology, and science do not worry me a bit.  
    These 6 Protestant Fundamentalist "evidences" are bogus.  Let's look at the first one.  Supposedly carbon dating of diamonds reveals an age of 55,000 years old.  First off, this is a bit older than 10,000 years old.  The real points though are the following: any scientist will tell you that carbon dating has a threshold of about 40-50,000 years.  For dates older than that, carbon dating is not a good tool because after that period of time there is not enough C-14 left in order to do the dating.  Further, the carbon dating of diamonds theory indicates a failure to understand how carbon dating actually works.  Radiocarbon dating is based on a measurement of C14 decay of once living organisms (plants and animals that eat them).  A living plant takes in carbon from the atmosphere.  While it is alive it will have the same ratio of C14 and C12 (and C13) as that present in the atmosphere.  C12 and C13 are stable while C14 is radioactive.  When the plant (or animal that eats the plant) dies, the C14 will begin to decay and by measuring the amount of decay in comparison with the original ratio and the known decay rate, we can tell when the plant or animal died.  
    As you probably know, diamonds are not alive.  They do not form from taking carbon from the atmosphere; they form deep in the earth.  As mentioned, carbon dating is based on a measured ratio of C14 to C13 and C12 in the atmosphere.  The original ratio of these isotopes in a newly created diamond are unknown and thus there is no way to measure the decay based on this unknown ratio.  A shorter answer is that carbon dating measures how long it has been since a plant or animal has died.  Diamonds do not die. 
    17. No, I do not fear becoming a rationalist or modernist.  I do not recall stating as a principle that we must conform our thoughts to modernists and atheists.  

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3248
    • Reputation: +3302/-28
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Greetings Mr. Konkel-

    Thank you for your very candid responses.

    Before I respond, I would just like to ask a few clarifying questions:

    1) May I presume that if you are willing to defend evolution publicly on Cathinfo, you are likely doing the same in your classes and/or conversations at St. Mary’s College?

    2) May I presume that if you are willing to defend evolution publicly on Cathinfo (which is almost constantly monitored by the SSPX), you perceive no reason to fear repurcussion for your public endorsement of that position?

    3) If it is true that you have no reason to fear repurcussion, is it because you understand the College and District officials to share your belief in evolution?

    4) How do you respond to the article “The Devolution of Evolution” by Dr. Terry Jackson published on SSPX.org, which directly contradicts many of the claims you are making (both in the matter of evolution, and in regard to the old earth theory which underpins it)?

    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3636
    • Reputation: +4681/-169
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quick comment:

    Mr. Konkel's point:

    8.  I do hold to that opinion, so no, it does not bother me.  I should note though that my argument was never that a theory is right because a certain number of people hold to it.  Rather, I believe that nearly all biologists hold to evolution because they are well informed and the evidence for it is overwhelming.

    Darwinian evolution, defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    But then, "most" biologist are weak in the hard sciences, so they would be prone to thinking small things drive to be more complex.

    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline TKonkel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 10
    • Reputation: +19/-6
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • Greetings Mr. Konkel-

    Thank you for your very candid responses.

    Before I respond, I would just like to ask a few clarifying questions:

    1) May I presume that if you are willing to defend evolution publicly on Cathinfo, you are likely doing the same in your classes and/or conversations at St. Mary’s College?

    2) May I presume that if you are willing to defend evolution publicly on Cathinfo (which is almost constantly monitored by the SSPX), you perceive no reason to fear repurcussion for your public endorsement of that position?

    3) If it is true that you have no reason to fear repurcussion, is it because you understand the College and District officials to share your belief in evolution?

    4) How do you respond to the article “The Devolution of Evolution” by Dr. Terry Jackson published on SSPX.org, which directly contradicts many of the claims you are making (both in the matter of evolution, and in regard to the old earth theory which underpins it)?

    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson
    Your "clarifying questions" have nothing to do with the issue at hand: the age of the earth, evolution, science and philosophy and feel a bit more like an attempt to dig up "dirt" on the SSPX.  I have zero interest in getting into discussions regarding the SSPX, the "Resistance," etc.  If you have a genuine interest in discussing science and philosophy then I am happy to discuss them as I am very interested in these topics.    
    1. My views, especially regarding questions of evolution and the age of the earth, are my own.  My general feel is that most traditional Catholics, including those in the SSPX, have opinions much closer to yours rather than mine on these issues.  I am not on a crusade to win converts to my way of thinking and I am aware of the strong feelings / opinions that surround these issues and thus I do not go out of my way to try to bring the topics up, especially in my classes.  I do not teach biology or any of the other sciences.  If the issues come up in conversation I am more than happy to discuss them.  
    2.  I guess we will find out if I have reason to fear repercussion.  If it turns out that I should have such reason to fear repercussion that would be, in my opinion, most unfortunate given the fact that these are real and important issues of philosophy, theology, and science and there is a lot of misunderstanding  surrounding these issues.  Speaking openly and honestly about them with the hope of arriving at clarity and truth seems to me to be a proper Catholic attitude.  If these conversations can be had with civility and with respect I would hope that there should be no reason for fear.
    3.  As I said, my feel is that most traditional Catholics, including those involved at the College and District likely have opinions closer to yours than to mine though I suspect that most have not thoroughly explored the issues.  
    4.  I have not read the article but I assume that, if it argues for a young earth and the impossibility of evolution, I would find fault with the arguments.  
    Now that your "clarifying questions" have been answered, are you ready to address my initial points?  

    Offline TKonkel

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 10
    • Reputation: +19/-6
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quick comment:


    Darwinian evolution, defies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    But then, "most" biologist are weak in the hard sciences, so they would be prone to thinking small things drive to be more complex.


    This argument is very old and very weak.  Most creationists have stopped using it.  It is certainly not that biologists are "weak in the hard sciences" or that they have failed to walk down the hall to talk to their Physics colleagues.  
    The argument is basically that the second law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy (disorder) of a closed system will increase over time so how can evolution and natural causes produce the order we see on earth.
    If I left my house today, never to return, one would suspect that 50 years from now, if one were to enter my house, he would witness more disintegration and disorder.  Why doesn't the same thing apply to the earth?  
    Answer: the earth is not a closed system.  Just as I can input energy into the house when I call the cleaning service or pick up a mop, so too energy input on the earth comes for instance from the sun.  


    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 246
    • Reputation: +215/-26
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Your "clarifying questions" have nothing to do with the issue at hand: the age of the earth, evolution, science and philosophy and feel a bit more like an attempt to dig up "dirt" on the SSPX.  I have zero interest in getting into discussions regarding the SSPX, the "Resistance," etc.  If you have a genuine interest in discussing science and philosophy then I am happy to discuss them as I am very interested in these topics.    
    1. My views, especially regarding questions of evolution and the age of the earth, are my own.  My general feel is that most traditional Catholics, including those in the SSPX, have opinions much closer to yours rather than mine on these issues.  I am not on a crusade to win converts to my way of thinking and I am aware of the strong feelings / opinions that surround these issues and thus I do not go out of my way to try to bring the topics up, especially in my classes.  I do not teach biology or any of the other sciences.  If the issues come up in conversation I am more than happy to discuss them.  
    2.  I guess we will find out if I have reason to fear repercussion.  If it turns out that I should have such reason to fear repercussion that would be, in my opinion, most unfortunate given the fact that these are real and important issues of philosophy, theology, and science and there is a lot of misunderstanding  surrounding these issues.  Speaking openly and honestly about them with the hope of arriving at clarity and truth seems to me to be a proper Catholic attitude.  If these conversations can be had with civility and with respect I would hope that there should be no reason for fear.
    3.  As I said, my feel is that most traditional Catholics, including those involved at the College and District likely have opinions closer to yours than to mine though I suspect that most have not thoroughly explored the issues.  
    4.  I have not read the article but I assume that, if it argues for a young earth and the impossibility of evolution, I would find fault with the arguments.  
    Now that your "clarifying questions" have been answered, are you ready to address my initial points?  
    Hi Mr. Konkel,
    To be clear, when you say "evolution" you mean from one species evolving into another, such as the typical understanding of evolution in which all life started from a pool of biological goo and crawled out and slowly developed into the creatures we have now? Thus you believe their is a missing link between man and ape, etc. Is that the type of evolution you believe in?

    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 246
    • Reputation: +215/-26
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • http://www.catholicstand.com/fr-stanley-jaki-on-the-fatima-miracle/

    Below is some of writings of Fr. Jaki on Fatima, but I think we can see the problem summarized in this statement:

    "According to St. Thomas Aquinas a miracle in the strict sense is “something done outside the order of the entire created universe.” According to Jaki, the fact that the event occurred and still inspires the faithful to this day is the greater miracle.

    Now here if Fr. Jaki on the Miracle of Fatima, with my comments in bold:

    However, enough data are on hand to force one to recognize the meteorological nature of “the miracle of the sun” and to look askance at the phrase, “the sun danced over Fatima.” That the miracle was not solar, that it did not imply any “solar activity” in the scientific sense of that term, is indicated by the fact that nothing unusual was registered by observatories about the sun at that hour. Prior to that hour rain was coming down heavily over the area from the late morning hours on, with the clouds being driven fast by a westerly wind across the sky. A cold air mass was obviously moving in from the Atlantic, only at about 40 kms from Fatima, which itself is at about 15 kms to the east from the line where the land begins to form a plateau well over 300 meters above sea level. The hollow field, Cova da Iria, outside Fatima is itself at about 370 meters. An actual view of the geographic situation is a great help for an understanding of the true physical nature of “the miracle of the sun,” especially when one takes a close look at cloud patterns typical over the Cova.

    I feel that at this juncture I must summarize my explanation of the miracle. It began at about 12:45 pm, solar time, after the rain suddenly stopped, and lasted about ten to fifteen minutes. During all that time, the sun, that had not been seen for hours, appeared through thin clouds, which one careful observer described as cirrus clouds. Suddenly the sun’s image turned into a wheel of fire which for the people there resembled a “rodo de fuogo” familiar to them in fireworks. The physical core of that wheel was, as we now have to conjecture, an air lens full of ice crystals, as cirrus clouds are. Such crystals can readily refract the sun’s rays into various colors of the rainbow.

    The references to the strong west-east wind and to the continued drift of clouds may account for the interplay of two streams of air that could give a twist, in a way analogous to the formation of tornadoes, to put that lens-shaped air mass into rotation. Since many present there suddenly felt a marked increase in temperature, it is clear that a sudden temperature inversion must have taken place. (Fr. Jaki downplays the miracle here as the people were wet and muddy and the ground soaked, but after the miracle, everyone was clean and dray, even the ground was dry, which would have taken a tremendous amount of heat energy that would have normally incinerated everyone! Yet, he fails to explain that part of the miracle or even bring it up.)  The cold and warm air masses could conceivably propel that rotating air lens in an elliptical orbit first toward the earth, and then push it up, as if it were a boomerang, back to its original position. Meanwhile the ice crystals in it acted as so many means of refraction for the sun’s rays. Some eyewitnesses claimed that the “wheel of fire” descended and reascended three times; according to others this happened twice. Overwhelmed by an extraordinary sight that prompted most of the crowd to fall on their knees,(because they saw the sun about to fall on them and believed they were all going to die) even “detached” observers could not perform as coolly as they would have wished. Only one observer, a lawyer, stated three decades later that the path of descent and ascent was elliptical with small circles superimposed on it.


    Such an observation would make eminent sense to anyone familiar with fluid dynamics or even with the workings of a boomerang. There is indeed plenty of scientific information on hand to approach the miracle of the sun scientifically. This is, however, not to suggest that one could reproduce the event say in a wind tunnel. The carefully co-ordinated interplay of so many physical factors would by itself be a miracle, even if one does not wish to see anything more in what actually happened. Clearly, the “miracle” of the sun was not a mere meteorological phenomenon, however rare. (at least he admits that) Otherwise it would have been observed before and after, regardless of the presence of devout crowds (plus non believers and those who came to mock the seers and faithful) or not. I merely claim, which I did in my other writings on miracles, that in producing miracles God often makes use of a natural substratum by greatly enhancing its physical components and their interactions. One can indeed say, though not in the sense intended by some Fatima writers, that the fingers of the Mother of God played with the rays of the sun at that extraordinary hour at Fatima.(What do you mean by that Fr. Jaki?)

    Stanley L. Jaki. A Mind’s Matter: An Intellectual Autobiography (Cambridge U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), Chapter 13 “A Portuguese Proverb.”

    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1000
    • Reputation: +758/-3
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • … is it really just the SSPX defending the SSPX again (i.e., Activating their assets to run damage control)?

    Does anyone with more than 200 posts have anything to say in favor of Fr. Robinson's book?
    Dear Sean,
    With regret and reluctance, I am coming out of "retirement" from this site just this once to comment upon this topic, even though I cannot answer either of the quoted questions—that is, I have not read Robinson's book nor am I privy to SSPX defense strategies and postures.

    I am very sympathetic to the comments of VeritasLuxMea, especially his seemingly inarguable assertion that as the misquotation of the foreword's language places the discussion in the straw man category, the conclusions drawn are ipso facto at least suspect and perhaps utterly false. Has it truly been forgotten by all and sundry that a fundamental principle in logic—one adopted by the Schoolmen and at least deducible in Aristotle—is that contra factum non valet argumentum? On this basis alone, the first words in response typed by everyone else on this thread ought to have been "mea culpa." Yet they weren't, to all his antagonists' shame. Had "fair point; I'm sorry" been typed just once, the ensuing attacks on VLM's bona fides would have been unobjectionable responses (i.e., within the context of morally motivated argument or dispute) rather than what they look like to someone without a dog in this fight: the CathInfo version of the street tough's sneer of "faggot" at everything he dislikes or is unable to respond to or comprehend.

    As for the comment of TKonkel time-stamped April 11, 12:25:13 p.m., I am in essentially full agreement with it, but suggesting that agreement with the comment necessarily implies an embrace of macroevolution is, to exercise Christian discretion and politeness in word choice, a red herring. What TKonkel implies there and openly states later—in paraphrase, that the bulk of pre-twentieth-century science is not a priori dismissible as Jewish, atheist, or otherwise Christophobic in motivation and outcome—strikes me as the only conclusion any reasonably sedulous, intelligent, and properly tutored student of the history of science can arrive at.* If, however, TKonkel did not mean his comment to imply what I just wrote, I apologize to him while continuing to assert the foregoing as my own closely considered and, yes, informed opinion. Surely no one here, even that arrogant blockhead Cassini, would claim that TKonkel is erroneous in his account of Augustine's and especially Aquinas's condemnation of those who spurn the maximization of the use of reason and the quest for secondary causality.

    May I add here that a bit more precision in vocabulary would have been helpful throughout. Specifically, the universal failure to distinguish between microevolution, in which everyone (including me) with eyes and a functioning brain "believes," and macroevolution, the form that posits interspecies leaps over huge time spans—hence, various "missing links" between man and ape or whatever (here I am oversimplifying radically, of course)—is lamentable. Nor is it particularly adult—but then, this is CathInfo, where adultness has never exactly lain thick on the ground (as you yourself, Sean, have frequently experienced).

    For the record, I am not an adherent of macroevolution, but I share TKonkel's opinion that it is not illicit for a true Catholic to accept it as a functional basis for scientific analysis and evaluation of bio-archeological evidence. I think that those who hold the view may with justice point to Providentissimus Deus and Divino afflante Spiritu as offering them support. Still, I have little doubt that, in time, macroevolution will join flat-earthism in the dustbin of really warped ideas.
    _____________________

    Finally, flat-earthism calls to mind geocentrism, and geocentrism calls to mind Cassini (whom I have called an arrogant blockhead with formal purpose and intent) and Cassini's scandalously and culpably ignorant misrepresentation of the entirety of the Galileo affair and, far worse, his blasphemous attacks on every orthodox pope from Benedict XIV through to Pius XII (and obviously, beyond Vatican II into our own degenerate times) as apostates for "rehabilitating" heliocentrism after it had been infallibly declared heretical. The problem for Cassini and other roll-your-own-dogma Catholics, of course, is that no pope ever formally declared heliocentrism heretical, and to claim that Paul V or any pope did so is to promote mortally sinful scandal. For this alone, Cassini should have been banned from this site, as he already has been from several others.

    What is more, although Cassini has published several hundred thousand words of Galileo-phobic polemics here, he shows no evidence of ever having read any of the primary source documents that he ought to feel morally obliged to read before shooting off his big mouth: at a bare minimum the formal interrogatives of the 1633 trial, the draft of the sentence, and Galileo's reply to the sentence (preceded by his formal statement to the judges that if they did not withdraw the charge that he had acted in bad faith or had lied to get the license to publish the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he would refuse to accept the sentence and instead accept death because he would be perjuring himself before God to do otherwise). Cassini, however, might possibly have read Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini and the letter (1616) he gave to Galileo formally declaring Galileo free of any suspicion of heresy or contumely. But if he has indeed read them, he is guilty of willfully twisting their words and distorting their plain signification on many more occasions than one.

    Of this topic I say no more, now or ever again. Anybody who has the wits to figure out how to scour this site's archives will be able to discover that I commented on these matters at some length in various threads in what will seem the distant past to this site's prepubescent majority. Though few will give a hoot, I add here that Galileo and the trial have been objects of serious documentary study for me for almost fifty years. I have found that what may simplistically be described as the pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic positions are both characterized by poverty of evidentiary support, poverty of reflection, unpersuasiveness of reasoning, and a shortfall of argumentation from hard evidence and reasonable supposition. These are the hallmarks of 90 percent of the published Galileo material with which I am familiar and of 100 percent of Cassini's comments. I have no reason to believe that the even larger body of material of which I know little or nothing does any better, at least if one credits what both its friends and foes say about it—and I am referring by no means to this blog alone!
    _______________________________________
    *Any reader who suspects that I am hinting that I myself fill the bill I've just laid out would be quite right. Guilty as charged, Your Honor.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3248
    • Reputation: +3302/-28
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Dear Sean,
    With regret and reluctance, I am coming out of "retirement" from this site just this once to comment upon this topic, even though I cannot answer either of the quoted questions—that is, I have not read Robinson's book nor am I privy to SSPX defense strategies and postures.

    I am very sympathetic to the comments of VeritasLuxMea, especially his seemingly inarguable assertion that as the misquotation of the foreword's language places the discussion in the straw man category, the conclusions drawn are ipso facto at least suspect and perhaps utterly false. Has it truly been forgotten by all and sundry that a fundamental principle in logic—one adopted by the Schoolmen and at least deducible in Aristotle—is that contra factum non valet argumentum? On this basis alone, the first words in response typed by everyone else on this thread ought to have been "mea culpa." Yet they weren't, to all his antagonists' shame. Had "fair point; I'm sorry" been typed just once, the ensuing attacks on VLM's bona fides would have been unobjectionable responses (i.e., within the context of morally motivated argument or dispute) rather than what they look like to someone without a dog in this fight: the CathInfo version of the street tough's sneer of "faggot" at everything he dislikes or is unable to respond to or comprehend.

    As for the comment of TKonkel time-stamped April 11, 12:25:13 p.m., I am in essentially full agreement with it, but suggesting that agreement with the comment necessarily implies an embrace of macroevolution is, to exercise Christian discretion and politeness in word choice, a red herring. What TKonkel implies there and openly states later—in paraphrase, that the bulk of pre-twentieth-century science is not a priori dismissible as Jewish, atheist, or otherwise Christophobic in motivation and outcome—strikes me as the only conclusion any reasonably sedulous, intelligent, and properly tutored student of the history of science can arrive at.* If, however, TKonkel did not mean his comment to imply what I just wrote, I apologize to him while continuing to assert the foregoing as my own closely considered and, yes, informed opinion. Surely no one here, even that arrogant blockhead Cassini, would claim that TKonkel is erroneous in his account of Augustine's and especially Aquinas's condemnation of those who spurn the maximization of the use of reason and the quest for secondary causality.

    May I add here that a bit more precision in vocabulary would have been helpful throughout. Specifically, the universal failure to distinguish between microevolution, in which everyone (including me) with eyes and a functioning brain "believes," and macroevolution, the form that posits interspecies leaps over huge time spans—hence, various "missing links" between man and ape or whatever (here I am oversimplifying radically, of course)—is lamentable. Nor is it particularly adult—but then, this is CathInfo, where adultness has never exactly lain thick on the ground (as you yourself, Sean, have frequently experienced).

    For the record, I am not an adherent of macroevolution, but I share TKonkel's opinion that it is not illicit for a true Catholic to accept it as a functional basis for scientific analysis and evaluation of bio-archeological evidence. I think that those who hold the view may with justice point to Providentissimus Deus and Divino afflante Spiritu as offering them support. Still, I have little doubt that, in time, macroevolution will join flat-earthism in the dustbin of really warped ideas.
    _____________________

    Finally, flat-earthism calls to mind geocentrism, and geocentrism calls to mind Cassini (whom I have called an arrogant blockhead with formal purpose and intent) and Cassini's scandalously and culpably ignorant misrepresentation of the entirety of the Galileo affair and, far worse, his blasphemous attacks on every orthodox pope from Benedict XIV through to Pius XII (and obviously, beyond Vatican II into our own degenerate times) as apostates for "rehabilitating" heliocentrism after it had been infallibly declared heretical. The problem for Cassini and other roll-your-own-dogma Catholics, of course, is that no pope ever formally declared heliocentrism heretical, and to claim that Paul V or any pope did so is to promote mortally sinful scandal. For this alone, Cassini should have been banned from this site, as he already has been from several others.

    What is more, although Cassini has published several hundred thousand words of Galileo-phobic polemics here, he shows no evidence of ever having read any of the primary source documents that he ought to feel morally obliged to read before shooting off his big mouth: at a bare minimum the formal interrogatives of the 1633 trial, the draft of the sentence, and Galileo's reply to the sentence (preceded by his formal statement to the judges that if they did not withdraw the charge that he had acted in bad faith or had lied to get the license to publish the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he would refuse to accept the sentence and instead accept death because he would be perjuring himself before God to do otherwise). Cassini, however, might possibly have read Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini and the letter (1616) he gave to Galileo formally declaring Galileo free of any suspicion of heresy or contumely. But if he has indeed read them, he is guilty of willfully twisting their words and distorting their plain signification on many more occasions than one.

    Of this topic I say no more, now or ever again. Anybody who has the wits to figure out how to scour this site's archives will be able to discover that I commented on these matters at some length in various threads in what will seem the distant past to this site's prepubescent majority. Though few will give a hoot, I add here that Galileo and the trial have been objects of serious documentary study for me for almost fifty years. I have found that what may simplistically be described as the pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic positions are both characterized by poverty of evidentiary support, poverty of reflection, unpersuasiveness of reasoning, and a shortfall of argumentation from hard evidence and reasonable supposition. These are the hallmarks of 90 percent of the published Galileo material with which I am familiar and of 100 percent of Cassini's comments. I have no reason to believe that the even larger body of material of which I know little or nothing does any better, at least if one credits what both its friends and foes say about it—and I am referring by no means to this blog alone!
    _______________________________________
    *Any reader who suspects that I am hinting that I myself fill the bill I've just laid out would be quite right. Guilty as charged, Your Honor.
    Greetings Claudel!

    Long time, my friend.

    Regarding your post, it is directed towards me, but some of the content is from Incredulous, and other content from Cassini.

    Could you please specify precisely which statements I have made that you object to?

    Semper Idem,
    Sean Johnson
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


     

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