Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 13492 times)

TKonkel · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2018, 01:57:53 PM »

It is difficult to get a handle on what exactly it is that some here are objecting to regarding Fr. Robinson's book. For Sean Govan and others the problem seems to be the forward of the book and the association with a Novus Ordo publisher. Regarding the forward, Fr. Robinson had an insert placed in many of the books distributed around St. Marys indicating that the forward was put in without his knowledge and approval and his insert indicated that he and the SSPX have issues with the recent canonizations. Sean, it seems prefers to essentially call Fr. Robinson a liar ("That is hardly believable"; "But I am to believe, apparently...") when he explains the situation regarding the forward. So under this reading of the situation, the SSPX in general and Fr. Robinson in particular really had / have no issues with speaking about "Blessed Paul VI" and "St. John Paul II" and we have no good reason to believe them when they tell us that they do have issues in this regard. We are supposed to take them as duplicitous because Sean Govan tells us we should. Do we have any other evidence to bring to bare on the issue of Fr. Robinson's take on recent canonizations? Is there any evidence which would show that Fr. Robinson really is just fine with speaking about St. John Paul II? It seems that prior to attributing duplicity to Fr. Robinson, one would want to have some firm evidence at hand.
Regarding the issues of the publisher: Perhaps Fr. Robinson thought that a different publisher would allow for a wider distribution of the book than would be possible had the book been published by the Angelus Press. I do not know but one could simply ask Fr. Robinson if this is such a burning question in the minds of some. I have no idea whether or not Fr. Robinson would be inclined to answer the question though one suspects that no matter how he were to answer the question some would find a way to find fault with the answer.

What is more interesting to me is the actual science / philosophy / theology that is at issue. Mrs. Haigh notes the following:

"A fatal flaw of our culture is its commitment to a world view which rejects any knowledge other than the “scientific”. That science itself in no way warrants this savage reductionism is the crux of Fr. Jaki’s message.

If this is really the crux of Fr. Jaki’s message, then no one could disagree with him on any rational grounds.

However, it is my contention that what Fr. Jaki means by science and the progress of science is not entirely clear. That he accepts the scientific method of empiricism seems evident from all his works, and it is also my contention that this method, by rigorously and on principle, ruling out God is a self-inflicted reductionism, not only savage but diabolical in origin."

Various sciences have their own proper subject matters, principles, and methods of proceeding and they proceed with different degrees of certitude. This is pure Aristotle and St. Thomas. In the Nic Ethics for instance Aristotle points out that it is a sign of a lack of wisdom to demand the same method and certitude be applied to one science as to another. He also mentions, when looking for the good of man, that a consideration of Plato's Subsisting Goodness Itself really belongs to another science (metaphysics) and so it is inappropriate to consider in the Ethics. While the carpenter who proceeds by way of hammer and saw makes an "exact" fit for the window to 1/16th of an inch, the neurosurgeon finds his patient dead if he is within 1/16th of an inch. He uses different tools (methods).

The methods of modern experimental science are very different than science as outlined in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, although I do think that modern experimental science falls under Aristotle's natural philosophy since it has the same goals and subject matter though it proceeds by a very different method. Modern science focuses on the quantitative / metric aspect of matter insofar as it can be measured. Modern experimental science by definition is approximative and could never conclude demonstratively as in demonstrative science as understood by Aristotle (Aristotle and St. Thomas did recognize a relationship similar to that between natural science and modern experimental science when they spoke about the relationship between natural science and the "applied sciences" of astronomy and optics for instance). Modern science examines nature in light of natural principles and would have nothing to say regarding philosophical notions such as the ultimate purpose of nature, man's order in nature, ontological causes, etc. This is not "reductionism" it is the recognition that various sciences have various subjects, principles and methods. It belongs to the philosopher to understand how these various sciences fit together and what the various conclusions / theories can tell us in light of more philosophical / theological questions. The problem is not modern science as such but rather when modern scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, put on their philosopher's cap and start attempting to tell us about what their discoveries mean for questions such as the purpose (or lack of) of life, the existence of God etc. "Creationists" make the same fundamental error when they essentially agree with the premises of atheistic scientism (really philosophy, not science) and instead of rejecting God and purpose, reject science.

Out of curiosity... Are most creationists here of the opinion that the universe is quite young (6-10,000 yrs old)? Is that the "modernist problem" with Fr. Robinson's book?

A couple quotes to keep in mind:

Augustin Literal Meaning of Genesis BK I, ch.19

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this 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 in 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."

St. Thomas Aquinas II Sent., dist. 12, q. 1, art. 2, corp. Whether all things were created simultaneously, distinct in species?
“For certain things are per se the substance of the Faith, as that God is three and one, and other things of this kind, in which no one is authorized to think otherwise. Thus the Apostle says in Galatians 1 that if an angel of God preached diversely from what he had taught, let him be anathema. But certain things (pertain to the faith) only incidentally (per accidens), inasmuch, that is, as they are handed down in Scripture, which faith supposes to have been promulgated under the dictation of the Holy Spirit. And these things can without danger remain unknown by those who are not held to be knowledgeable about the Scriptures, for example, many items of history. In these things even the Fathers have thought differently and have explained the Scriptures in different ways. So, therefore, with regard to the beginning of the world, there is something which pertains to the substance of the Faith, namely, that the world was created to begin with. And this all the Fathers agree in saying. But how and in what order it was made does not pertain to the Faith except per accidens, inasmuch as it is presented in Scripture, the truth of which the Fathers retained in their varying explanations as they arrived at different conclusions.

For Augustine maintains that at the very beginning of creation certain things were separated out by species in their own proper nature, such as the elements, the celestial bodies, and the spiritual substances, while other things were distinguished in seminal reasons only, such as animals, plants, and men, and that all of these latter things were later produced in their own natures in the activity by which after those six days God governs nature created beforehand. Concerning this activity in Jn 5:17 it is stated: "My Father works even until now, and I work." (For Augustine) in the distinguishing of things the focus is not on an order of time, but of nature and of teaching. Of nature, just as sound precedes song by nature but not in time, thus things that are prior in nature are recorded earlier, as the earth is mentioned before the animals and water before the fish, and so with the other things. And of teaching order, as is evident in the teaching of geometry, for although the parts of a figure make up the figure without any order of time, nevertheless, geometry teaches that the construction is made by extending line after line. And this was the example of Plato, as it is said at the beginning of the De caelo et mundo. Thus also Moses, in instructing an unlettered people regarding the creation of the world, divided into parts the things that were made at the same time.

Ambrose, on the other hand, and other Fathers claim that an order of time was observed in the cutting out of things, and this position is both more common and seemingly more in keeping with the surface of the literal sense (littera). But the former opinion (that of Augustine) is more reasonable and defends Sacred Scripture more from the derision of non-believers, a factor which Augustine, in his Letter of Genesis (bk. I, ch. 19) teaches us is to be kept well in mind, so that the Scriptures may be expounded in such a way that they not be mocked by nonbelievers. This opinion pleases me more. Nevertheless, replies in support of both positions will be given to all of the objections.”

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2018, 08:56:26 PM »

My Dear Mr. Konkel-

If you can't even pay enough attention to the article to get my name right, what hope have I that you have paid enough attention to understand or reflect upon the arguments?

It seems your greatest argument against what I have written is the accusation of dishonesty pertaining to the alleged denial of knowledge regarding the content of the Foreward to Fr. Robinson's book (i.e., You accuse me of accusing Fr. Robinson of lying)?

First, let me point out to you that Fr. Robinson, to the best of my knowledge, has not said anything publicly on the matter of the Foreword: It has been the SSPX which has put the words into his mouth, and it is therefore with them that my accusation rests (on this count, anyway).

I had a good belly laugh when you responded that Fr. Robinson had placed disclaimers inside the copies of his book sold in St. Mary's. Quite a long reach, doing that all the way from Australia (and doing it in St. Mary's, but nowhere else?)! Any thinking person realizes that the District placed those disclaimers there.

But I do understand your reaction, since in your very own town, one with a name greater than mine has levied the very same accusation of lying against the District:

The following was posted on the Irish Resistance blog Tradcatresist.blogspot.com" by Mr. Andrew Senior (Professor at St. Mary's College, and son of the late, great Dr. John Senior, and man I hold in perpetual esteem):

"By a not so strange coincidence, I received in the mail today a fundraising letter from Fr. Wegner. It begins by saying: "It was tumultuous year, filled with great expectations and great confusion. . . Indeed it was a year in which so much confusion emanated from Rome that our own Bishop Bernard Fellay signed a public filial correction of the Pope for the grave errors presented in Amoris Laetitia." So far so good, but then he goes on to add to the confusion by saying: "In March, we received the surprise announcement that Pope Francis had taken the steps to remove all doubt concerning the validity of marriages celebrated by priests of the Society."

I contend that this announcement was not a surprise at all, it was a pre-arranged trap. And there never was any doubt about the validity of marriages, or confessions (or the bogus excommunication!) certainly not in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre!"

In other words, Mr. Senior -a man from good stock- also sees fit to question the honesty surrounding these recent maneuvers and scandals.

The apple does not fall far from the tree.

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2018, 09:57:29 PM »

Sorry, the 14 second editing window closed before I could clarify:

Mr. Senior did not post the words on tradcatresist.blogspot.com, but rather, that blog posted his words.

Semper Idem,
Sean Johnson

TKonkel · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2018, 10:52:49 PM »

Yes, please note the correction and my apology to Sean Govan insofar as I inadvertently typed Govan instead of Johnson.

Incredulous · « **Reply #9 on:** April 11, 2018, 06:58:49 AM »

From the trad farm :farmer:

Rebuttal to TKonkel's critique of Miss Paula Haigh analysis of Fr. Jaki's "science"

Quote from: TKonkel

Various sciences have their own proper subject matters, principles, and methods of proceeding and they proceed with different degrees of certitude. This is pure Aristotle and St. Thomas. In the Nic Ethics for instance Aristotle points out that it is a sign of a lack of wisdom to demand the same method and certitude be applied to one science as to another. He also mentions, when looking for the good of man, that a consideration of Plato's Subsisting Goodness Itself really belongs to another science (metaphysics) and so it is inappropriate to consider in the Ethics.

You point out that the various sciences are distinguished according to their formal objects, foundational principles or laws, and methods. But all the branches of science, both speculative and empirical, are unified by their relationship to and participation in objective truth. Nothing calling itself a science can depart from truth and yet retain the name of "science."

The various branches of science are far from equal in dignity of formal object, source of knowledge, degree of certitude, and universality of principles. It does absolutely no good to point out that there are distinctions among the sciences, and that each science enjoys a certain scope and latitude within its own sphere of activity, if the fact that they exist in a real hierarchy, and the fact that the principles of the two highest sciences, Sacred Theology and Metaphysics, apply to and govern all of the principles, laws, axioms, and theses of the lower sciences, is not also brought forward.

I must point out that you are applying a strawman argument to the theses of Miss Haigh. In none of her papers does she "demand that the same method and certitude be applied to one science as to another." Rather she demands that all scientists - from the theologian to the philosopher to the biologist to the physicist - respect the hierarchy of the sciences, and give place to Sacred Theology, the Queen of all the sciences, and to Metaphysics, the Handmaiden of the Queen.

Sacred Theology is the highest of all the sciences because it has the Omnipotent Creator for its formal object, and because the source of its knowledge is Divine Revelation. See the Summa, Part 1, q. 1.

It is categorically impossible for a principle or axiom of any lower science to contradict Sacred Theology and be true. Likewise, Metaphysics, whose formal object, existence as such, is the most universal of all the formal objects of all the other sciences, and which is a speculative rather than an empirical discipline, holds the first place among the natural sciences; and its principles necessarily govern their inquiries and findings.

As we find in all the legitimate endeavors of men, so we find in the sciences hierarchical structure and binding authority.

Paula Haigh's overarching thesis is simple, straightforward, and eminently Catholic: The truths and principles of Sacred Theology and Thomistic Metaphysics apply to, and are implicitly contained within the body of knowledge of each and every lower science. These two supreme sciences, one supernatural and the other natural, govern and oversee the operations of the lower disciplines, thereby maintaining order, clarity, and unification of truth.

If an axiom, hypothesis, or theory belonging to a lower material science contradicts Sacred Theology, Catholic Doctrine, or one of the Twenty Four Thesis of Thomistic Philosophy, they are categorically false, pernicious, and dangerously contagious.

Miss Haigh's overarching thesis is that the revolt against the Lord and against His Christ (the great apostasy prophesied in Psalm 2) is especially active and deadly in the sciences, from the top to the bottom. Modernism has infected Theology. Phenomenology, Hegelianism, and a host of other vicious falsities have invaded Metaphysis and Philosophy. Darwin has sullied the biological sciences. Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein and others have grossly perverted Cosmology, Physics and Mathematics. Came the revolt; came the chaos, came the disorder, came the distopia.

Quote from: TKonkel

Out of curiosity... Are most creationists here of the opinion that the universe is quite young (6-10,000 yrs old)?

The age of the world is not the subject matter of opinion. It is the constant teaching of the Church. See the entire Patristic Deposit, the entire Sacred Liturgy (Mass and Divine Office), and the Roman Martyrology for December 25th. It is so difficult for us moderns to wrap our minds around the fact that the "long ages of the earth" myth has never, ever belonged to the mind of the Church. Only the children of this age find themselves perplexed.

Regarding your quote from St. Augustine on the disgrace of Christians who don't know their natural science.methinks you insert, by implication, a fact not at all in evidence; namely that creationists, in believing the silly things they believe, are ignorant of the grand and penetrating truths the evolutionists possess. You are arguing both from logical fallacies and from propaganda talking points, if you are arguing at all.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 13492 times)

TKonkel

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

SeanJohnson

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

TKonkel

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

Incredulous

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)