Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 5832 times)

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #30 on:** April 12, 2018, 05:42:13 PM »

Quote from: TKonkel on April 12, 2018, 08:57:05 AM

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?

Greetings Mr. Konkel-

In order to make this exchange productive, rather than a distraction for me, you will find my responses to you in the form of an article on my blog in a day or two.

For now, suffice it to say that your opening statement that my "clarifying questions have nothing to to the the issue at hand: the age of the earth, evolution, science..." is contradicted by my question #4 regarding Dr. Terry Jackson's 1997 SSPX.org/Angelus article "The Devolution of Evolution," which deals precisely with the age of the earth, evolution, and science.

It is interesting to me that on the one hand, you say you are interested in discussing the science of these issues, but on the other hand, mention you have not read the article, and made a comment that implied nevertheless that should scientists make arguments in favor of young earth or against evolution, you would be ill-disposed to entertain them a priori.

Suspecting you had precisely such a mindset, this is why I asked you if old earth theory and/or evolution were dogma to you (as they are to all evolutionists).

You deny it, but certainly act as though it they are, if to you they are unquestionable, and are ill-disposed to hearing anything which runs contrary to them.

You would seem to perfectly fit St. Pius X's description, who says evolutionists think anyone who questions their hoax is an ignoramus.

So despite your claim not to be crusading for evolution, you come out of a 2-year slumber to do precisely that: If you really wanted to have a discussion, you would not have ignored Dr. Jackson's study, and dismissed it out of hand a priori.

But enough for now.

I will let you know when the article is complete, and you will have plenty of time for rebuttals.

Pax tecuм,
Sean Johnson

claudel · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2018, 06:34:55 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 12, 2018, 05:16:28 PM

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

I apologize for the misunderstanding I inadvertently created, Sean. I addressed you solely with specific reference to the brief comments of yours that I quoted, along with the direct Q&A that ensued between you and TKonkel. I did not intend to ascribe to you the content that you justly point out comes from Incredulous or Cassini, and I apologize to you and anyone else who came away thinking that that was what I was doing.

I also addressed you, I am sorry to say, because I actively wished to avoid the appearance of (1) directly addressing other participants on this thread or (2) directly addressing the issue that the thread putatively concerns itself with but which, as usual, some on the thread treat with cavalier disregard for the issue's seriousness and with disdain for the critical importance of getting all the facts straight.

Put otherwise—that is to say, apart from who said what, when it was said, and to whom—my overriding concern was to say that on the basis of what I read in this thread, I found merit in Konkel's statements to the extent noted and merit in VLW's claim that the people who declared that the postconciliar "saints" were being cited for support for Father Robinson and by extension Father Jaki were either careless or less than fully honest in their citations.

What underlies this concern of mine is the conviction that people who understand little or nothing about science are yet prepared to generalize with frightening freedom about it. As I know nothing of Jaki's work, I regard myself as unfit to comment upon it, yet by and large, CI members have never let wanton ignorance slow them down when it comes to the expression of opinion on this or any other matter—and I do not exclude doctrine, dogma, and theology, matters where circuмspection and moral and intellectual humility ought to be considered binding under pain of sin.

As for Cassini, I seized upon him because of the words of praise others used about him. I think that any man who calls more than half a dozen utterly orthodox popes liars and apostates and is allowed to go his way uncorrected and unreprimanded represents a proximate danger to the faith of every Catholic who doesn't know better. Also and specifically, in misrepresenting time and again the nature and details of the Galileo trial (it was more a plea bargain than a trial, but this isn't the place …), he wantonly misrepresents the actions and motivations of the many honorable churchmen who participated in it—not least, of course, Francesco Cardinal Barberini, Urban VIII's nephew, and the other two cardinals (out of ten) who refused to sign the Holy Office's sentence because they thought it unjust and contrary to truth.

If you deem the Cassini comments out of context, I shan't argue with you. Mea culpa.

To the extent that this comment and the one preceding place me in opposition to you on this matter, I am regretful. But please note that that opposition is quite as localized as I have taken pains to make it. Although I have no fear that you, Sean, might jump to unwarranted conclusions regarding my approach or attitude to the Big Picture issues of present-day Traditionalism, that fearlessness extends outward not at all. I am of course not the first to have learnt to his dismay that CathInfo is not the venue for those who prefer to think before they write.

Yours in Christ.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2018, 06:44:04 PM »

Quote from: claudel on April 12, 2018, 06:34:55 PM

I apologize for the misunderstanding I inadvertently created, Sean. I addressed you solely with specific reference to the brief comments of yours that I quoted, along with the direct Q&A that ensued between you and TKonkel. I did not intend to ascribe to you the content that you justly point out comes from Incredulous or Cassini, and I apologize to you and anyone else who came away thinking that that was what I was doing.

I also addressed you, I am sorry to say, because I actively wished to avoid the appearance of (1) directly addressing other participants on this thread or (2) directly addressing the issue that the thread putatively concerns itself with but which, as usual, some on the thread treat with cavalier disregard for the issue's seriousness and with disdain for the critical importance of getting all the facts straight.

Put otherwise—that is to say, apart from who said what, when it was said, and to whom—my overriding concern was to say that on the basis of what I read in this thread, I found merit in Konkel's statements to the extent noted and merit in VLW's claim that the people who declared that the postconciliar "saints" were being cited for support for Father Robinson and by extension Father Jaki were either careless or less than fully honest in their citations.

What underlies this concern of mine is the conviction that people who understand little or nothing about science are yet prepared to generalize with frightening freedom about it. As I know nothing of Jaki's work, I regard myself as unfit to comment upon it, yet by and large, CI members have never let wanton ignorance slow them down when it comes to the expression of opinion on this or any other matter—and I do not exclude doctrine, dogma, and theology, matters where circuмspection and moral and intellectual humility ought to be considered binding under pain of sin.

As for Cassini, I seized upon him because of the words of praise others used about him. I think that any man who calls more than half a dozen utterly orthodox popes liars and apostates and is allowed to go his way uncorrected and unreprimanded represents a proximate danger to the faith of every Catholic who doesn't know better. Also and specifically, in misrepresenting time and again the nature and details of the Galileo trial (it was more a plea bargain than a trial, but this isn't the place …), he wantonly misrepresents the actions and motivations of the many honorable churchmen who participated in it—not least, of course, Francesco Cardinal Barberini, Urban VIII's nephew, and the other two cardinals (out of ten) who refused to sign the Holy Office's sentence because they thought it unjust and contrary to truth.

If you deem the Cassini comments out of context, I shan't argue with you. Mea culpa.

To the extent that this comment and the one preceding place me in opposition to you on this matter, I am regretful. But please note that that opposition is quite as localized as I have taken pains to make it. Although I have no fear that you, Sean, might jump to unwarranted conclusions regarding my approach or attitude to the Big Picture issues of present-day Traditionalism, that fearlessness extends outward not at all. I am of course not the first to have learnt to his dismay that CathInfo is not the venue for those who prefer to think before they write.

Yours in Christ.

Dear Claudel-

Thank you for your clarification, my friend.

Well, regarding the merits of Mr. Konkel's posts, we shall have to part ways, but what two friends have ever agreed on everything?

In truth, I agree with many of the things you say above.

But my arguments, I shall save for Mr. Konkel (and VLM).

With respect,
Sean Johnson

Incredulous · « **Reply #33 on:** April 13, 2018, 05:32:59 PM »

Part 3, Miss Paula Haigh's argument that Fr. Jaki is an evolutionist is valid,
but in this topic, SSPX supporters hit us with a surprising twist:

They too, like JP II, believe in evolution... or some morphed form of it.

Consider for a moment, how sad the neo-SSPX's condition is?

Their theology teachers believe the same thing that the atheist, Charles Darwin and the тαℓмυdic father of Communism, Karl Marx, believed.

Karl Marx even tried to dedicate his book to Charles Darwin:
“From a sincere admirer, Karl Marx.”
Marx knew his Communist theories would not survive without evolution.

Ask yourself, how can the SSPX be supporting evolutionary theory, when it is the main support of all communist errors?

In 2017, we witnessed a serious sex-perversion infiltration at the SSPX Post Falls Academy.
(That scandal was quashed with German efficiency).

In 2018, we see St. Mary's is feeding their traditional Catholic children a different poison.
Modern science, including the acceptance of evolutionary theories.

In 2013, the brash Fr. Themann posed the question: "Resistance to what?"

I say... in your face Fr. Themann:

"Resistance to neo-SSPX modernist corruption... til our dying breath!"

hismajesty · « **Reply #34 on:** April 16, 2018, 02:00:02 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on April 11, 2018, 06:52:18 PM

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

Considering you thought yourself above Cathinfo until recently, I think it's a bit rich that you are lauding those with lots of posts on the forum.

Mr G · « **Reply #35 on:** April 17, 2018, 08:34:00 PM »

http://sodalitium-pianum.com/evolution-and-the-sspx-part-i/

Here is part 1 of the reply from Sean to Todd Konkel:

Evolution and the SSPX (Part I):

by

Sean Johnson

4/14/18

“In the year, from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety-nine; from the flood, two thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven; from the birth of Abraham, two thousand and fifteen; from Moses and the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, one thousand five hundred and ten; from the anointing of King David, one thousand and thirty-two; in the sixty-fifth week, according to the prophecy of Daniel; in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad; in the year seven hundred and fifty-two from the founding of the city of Rome; in the forth-second year of the empire of Octavian Augustus, when the whole world was at peace, in the sixth age of the world, Jesus Christ, eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, desirous to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and nine months having elapsed since His conception, is born in Bethlehem in Juda, having become man of the Virgin Mary.”

–Martyrologium Romanum (reading for the 25th day of December)

Things are getting wild in the SSPX.

In late March, St. Mary’s College professor, Mr. Andrew Senior (son of the late, great author and professor, John Senior) went public to rebut the accordist writings of Fr. Paul Robinson, by submitting a strong objection to The Remnant (a rebuttal which also more or less accused the SSPX US District Superior Fr. Jurgen Wegner of lying about being surprised by Rome’s having taken steps to “remove all doubt” about the validity of SSPX marriages), which Mr. Senior flatly says he believes was all pre-arranged.

We quite agree, since we had previously been told by another Society priest that Fr. Angles had been in Rome for some time, working with the Romans to find the right “solution” (i.e., face-saving compromise) to the “problem” of SSPX marriages.

More recently, another St. Mary’s College professor (Mr. Todd Konkel) has gone public in an attempt to come to the rescue of Fr. Robinson’s new book on the Cathinfo forum; an attempt which ended not only in Mr. Konkel’s defense of the “old earth” theory against the most common traditional and patristic interpretations of the Creation account in Genesis (and which also contradicts the idea of sentire cuм ecclesia -“thinking with the Church”- as evinced by the quoted selection above contained in the Roman martyrology, which itself constitutes part of the liturgical office of Prime), but which ultimately ended in a defense of….evolution.
On the one hand, we admire the candor and courage of Mr. Konkel: He says plainly what he thinks, and was willing to enter into hostile territory (i.e., Cathinfo) in order to do it, knowing the opposition he would encounter.
We wish there was more of that courage and candor in Tradition!

Yet, having an open and public evolutionist teaching philosophy at an ostensibly traditional Catholic college, and therefore being placed in a position of formative influence over those minds which will one day form traditional Catholic families and shape Catholic attitudes in the future, and who presumably chose to attend St. Mary’s College in the hopes of receiving a good education, protected from the vileness of the secular and conciliar universities, seems somehow dangerous and incongruent.

In fairness to Mr. Konkel, he has yet to define what kind of evolution he is endorsing (despite a request from Cathinfo’s “Mr. G” to do so): Micro, macro, or some other variant. Perhaps he will walk through the escape hatch I have just opened for him, and all will be well. Or perhaps this a debate tactic, which will allow him the final opportunity to distinguish and counter, so he holds his peace. Or perhaps he is simply unaware of the request to clarify. But in the absence of that clarification, we will make the presumption that Mr. Konkel promotes evolution as that term is commonly understood by most people (“macro evolution”), and we shall be most relieved if he should later disclaim it:

That over billions of years, life evolved from single-cell species into higher and more diverse, distinct species, eventually culminating in man.

And though Mr. Konkel has stated he does not teach evolution in his classes, that no longer matters:
He came out publicly, and his vigorous endorsement and promotion of evolution is now inextricably attached to his status as a professor at an SSPX college. His continued presence there is a sign of continuing revolution and evolution within the SSPX.
If Mr. Konkel should never breath one word of evolution on campus, he will nevertheless remain a symbol of the SSPX’s new openness (another parallel to the crisis in the conciliar church!).

In truth, I wish no ill consequence to Mr. Konkel. I hope he believes that. I already stated he has some admirable, virile qualities. Likely as not, he has a family depending on him, bills, and all the responsibilities and stresses of the rest of us. But it was Mr. Konkel who freely chose to come out in public and make his position known. I did not force him to do that. Presumably, he considered all the possible consequences beforehand, and after mature reflection, decided defending evolution was more important than all those other concerns.

Or, he knows he has nothing to worry about from the SSPX (which has said nothing in response to his promotion of evolution at the time of this article), and my concerns for his welfare are misplaced and unnecessary.

In any case, the welfare of the students (and faithful) needs to be considered, and that is the highest consideration.
As regards the SSPX, they must consider what message they are sending by maintaining a public evolutionist on staff. Perhaps they are sending precisely the message (especially to Rome) they want to send: The old “ignorant” SSPX is gone.
Incidentally, this distinction between the “paleo-SSPX” and the “neo-SSPX” is no longer a distinction used exclusively by Resistance bloggers. Rather, the same distinction was recently made by Mr. Nicolas Lessard (i.e., the groom in the recent Canadian marriage debacle, in his comments to The Remnant):

“This next generation is free from the bitterness and resentment that it’s predecessors are carrying.” here
The neo-SSPX has contempt for (and is embarrassed by) the old SSPX.

But that these new attitudes and perspectives are indeed novel within Tradition is beyond dispute, and insofar as the SSPX will tolerate or permit those closely allied to its apostolate to promote evolution, it is a development (I almost said “evolution”) which stands in stark contrast to its own former positions (e.g., as evinced by the irrefutable February/1997 Angelus article by Dr. Peter Jackson, The Devolution of Evolution, still archived on SSPX.org here).

In Part II of this article, I will address a number of questions and observations Mr. Konkel initially made to “Incredulous” (i.e., A personage on the Cathinfo forum), but subsequently addressed to me after I came to the latters’ defense (the substance of which comprised Sodalitium Pianum’s previous article, A Response to VLM).

In Part III, I will post a number of questions which I addressed to Mr. Konkel (At which point the conversation was still fixed on his endorsement of “old earth theory,” and he had not yet admitted to being an evolutionist, which is not to suggest he was hiding it), and the frank answers he provided, which confirmed my suspicion that he was defending “old earth theory” as a support for his belief in evolution, and offer some comments to those responses.

Finally, Part IV of this series will contain scientific articles and refutations of “old earth” theory and evolution (science which Mr. Konkel has already announced he is ill-disposed to entertain).

PS: I will also create an “evolution” category, from whence readers can easily access all installments/articles on the topic.

cassini · « **Reply #36 on:** April 18, 2018, 03:55:39 PM »

Quote from: TKonkel on April 11, 2018, 12:25:13 PM

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

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.
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?

Centuries before Big Bangism those who were promoting heliocentrism as compliant with Catholicism were quoting the same comments of St Aquinas and St Thomas in their efforts to use these saints against any opposing the Galilean heresy, two geocentrists I may add. It could be equally said they were warning against the heliocentrists who did introduce a false science into the world that evolved into Big Bang evolutionism, that in turn began Modernism, an anti-Catholic heresy prophesised by Pope Urban VIII, and condemned to death by Pope Pius X. So do not be fooled when the Big Bangers try to use them again to defend their theories and assumptions of Big bang Evolutionism.

Once they made up a ‘natural’ explanation for the existence of a spinning-orbiting Earth they then had to try to explain the topography of the Earth, the physical structure of its surface as we find it today. History records it was Charles Lyell (1797-1875), Adam Sedgwick, Sir Roderick Murchison and many other like-minded men of the Geological Society of London - founded in 1807 - that ‘solved’ this problem. He/they proposed that slow processes acting over long periods of time formed everything, including sedimentary rock, with each of its layers representing its own age of millions of years. In his book The Rise of the Evolution Fraud (, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1982) , Malcolm Boden quotes an 1830 letter from Lyell to one Poulette Scrope - who was about to review the first volume of Lyell’s The Principles of Geology, a thesis on uniformitarianism for rocks - saying ‘I am sure you may get into Quarterly Review what will free science from Moses.’ Boden goes further and presents a record of this geological and biblical revolution, one exactly similar to the heliocentric fraud wherein assumptions and theories were upheld as empirical probabilities and facts by powerful men who filled all the important ‘scientific’ administrations in universities and teaching institutions and who in turn ensured the uniform method was placed in all textbooks since that time.

Two scientific studies show the earth is not the billions of years old claimed by the well paid scientists and professors who teach their unprepared students their ‘evidence for Big Bangism and the slow, slow evolution of the universe and the Earth. Robert Gentry’s investigation into radio halos, http://www.halos.com/books.htm and find video on his work. and the French geologist-sedimentologist Guy Berthault

(https://archive.org/details/TheFormationOfSedimentaryLayers

We see then, the evidence is not exactly proof for anything. My favourite question for the long agers is why is there only 6.000 years of dust on the Moon. Then there is radioactive dating, more evidence they say for an old Earth. Well not according to Robert Gentry’s investigations. Ever read of some of the dating putting Islands of 100 years at millions of years.

The usual method of dating such short-life (10,000 years maximum) things is Carbon-14 dating. Radio-carbon dating relies on two major assumptions: a 32,000-year cycle that may never have been if we do live in a 6,000+-year world: and no other carbon entered the system in its cycle. Assumptions are not science. Other dating methods also rely on many assumptions to be accurate and sometimes produces some erroneous dating (In one case for example, a living turtle was dated at 1000+ years old.) Even so, try as they did with it, no trace of any civilisation could be dated with certainty as being more than 5,000 years old. Dr Walter Libby, who won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the Carbon-14 dating method, and who thought his discovery would reveal ‘prehistoric’ times, never found any human artefact older than 5,000 years.

‘“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.”’ A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.

Finally Tkonkel ‘When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past.’ This ‘science’ was invented by Einstein and I will leave that until tomorrow but it can be summed up with the following, hardly the stuff to concord with Catholicism:

‘There was a young lady named Bright.

Whose speed was far faster than light.

She went out one day, in a relative way

And returned on the previous night.

Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.

cassini · « **Reply #37 on:** April 18, 2018, 03:56:09 PM »

Quote from: TKonkel 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.

Well for me anyway, from the introductions on the book on websites and what I have been told by a friend who is trying to read what he describes as one of the most difficult and boring books he ever tried to read - it mirrors most of speculations and assumptions you portray above under the auspices of ‘science.’ Like you with your ‘evidence’ for an old Earth, Fr Robinson asserted there was conclusive evidence for a Big Bang, which precedes an old Earth. Now for those who have not studied this evidence, Fr Robinson has a free ride. But I have and there is as much evidence for a geocentric and thus Scriptural young Earth as there is for a Big Bang. The first evidence given to the uninformed was Hubble’s finding of Red-shift. He and fellow physicists claimed this was the stars expanding. An expanding universe is not evidence for a Big Bang as Fr Robinson claims, as Copernicus predicted an expanding universe if the universe is twirling around. In his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery, (http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-17-i.htm) scientist Robert Gentry (DSc. Hon.), shows many scientists dismissed Hubble’s interpretation, even that they are caused by the turning stars of a geocentric system. Now Fr Robinson’s Big Bang is the mother of the billions of years needed for the evolution of the universe and an old Earth. Moreover, his, your, Catholic Big Bang places God creation under the label of ‘origins’ science, an exercise that can prove nothing and a God who can be removed from His creation if science changes its mind for one reason or another. So Fr Robinson’s Big Bang goes with all that baggage, when the Catholic Church has its teaching:

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

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

If all things were created whole ‘at once’ how could the creation of all things have evolved over 13.5 billion years? One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe, Earth and life began by inanimate matter evolving cell by cell over millions of years and continues to evolve. ‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming.

klasG4e · « **Reply #38 on:** April 18, 2018, 08:04:34 PM »

Quote from: cassini on April 18, 2018, 03:55:39 PM

Centuries before Big Bangism those who were promoting heliocentrism as compliant with Catholicism were quoting the same comments of St Aquinas and St Thomas in their efforts to use these saints against any opposing the Galilean heresy, two geocentrists I may add.

Ah, so many ironies in life!

Thomas Aquinas College (named after the Angelic Doctor who as rightly pointed out above was and is a geocentrist), that hybrid Catholic institution in Santa Paula, California has on display a big expensive Foucault Pendulum which sits there as a supposed testimony to the supposed truth that the Earth spins on its axis. It proves absolutely nothing of the sort, but just imagine its effect on the students there who witness it, some for 4 years straight!

The Foucault Pendulum is, of course, powerful evidence of something (that the universe goes around the Earth approximately once every 24 hours), but unfortunately that evidence is interpreted in an erroneous way both at Thomas Aquinas College and almost universally throughout the world.

Let us hope that one day Thomas Aquinas College will catch up to the example set by Saint Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia. . In 1931, it was turned into the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, the dove sculpture was removed, and replaced by a Foucault pendulum.^[6]^[7] On April 12, 1931, the first public demonstration of the Foucault pendulum was held to visualize Copernicus’s theory. After the fall of communism the museum was gotten rid of along with the Foucault Pendelum and the church was restored. When will Thomas Aquinas College take a wake up call from this.

I communicated with the administration of the college regarding their continued wrong headed use of the Foucault Pendulum a few years ago, but my pleas have gone unheeded even to this day.

cassini · « **Reply #39 on:** April 19, 2018, 05:04:22 AM »

Quote from: klasG4e on April 18, 2018, 08:04:34 PM

Ah, so many ironies in life!

Thomas Aquinas College (named after the Angelic Doctor who as rightly pointed out above was and is a geocentrist), that hybrid Catholic institution in Santa Paula, California has on display a big expensive Foucault Pendulum which sits there as a supposed testimony to the supposed truth that the Earth spins on its axis. It proves absolutely nothing of the sort, but just imagine its effect on the students there who witness it, some for 4 years straight!

The Foucault Pendulum is, of course, powerful evidence of something (that the universe goes around the Earth approximately once every 24 hours), but unfortunately that evidence is interpreted in an erroneous way both at Thomas Aquinas College and almost universally throughout the world.

Let us hope that one day Thomas Aquinas College will catch up to the example set by Saint Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg, Russia. . In 1931, it was turned into the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism, the dove sculpture was removed, and replaced by a Foucault pendulum.^[6]^[7] On April 12, 1931, the first public demonstration of the Foucault pendulum was held to visualize Copernicus’s theory. After the fall of communism the museum was gotten rid of along with the Foucault Pendelum and the church was restored. When will Thomas Aquinas College take a wake up call from this.

I communicated with the administration of the college regarding their continued wrong headed use of the Foucault Pendulum a few years ago, but my pleas have gone unheeded even to this day.

https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/is-foucaults-fraudulent-pendulum-a-religious-tool/

cassini · « **Reply #40 on:** April 19, 2018, 03:24:42 PM »

Quote from: TKonkel on April 11, 2018, 12:25:13 PM

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.

When using God to assist one in ‘proving’ the universe must be old, I think it prudent as a Catholic to first see what God told us about the creation of the stars.

Day 3: And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. And to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

O.K., So two days later God created Adam with the stars visible to him.

Today, as Professor Tkonkel says above, ‘When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past.’ Not according to Genesis, written by Moses under the inspiration of the same God who supposedly fooled the lot of us with His Genesis for the ‘uneducated’ of Moses time. In Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, he says:

‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican , Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”………

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture…..’

No error in one single word of Scripture, now I wonder what Pope Benedict XV meant by that? Surely he knew that Genesis is only metaphor and whereas all Christians up to modern times actually believed every word of the six days of creation, ‘we now know’ (the favourite con of modern Pythagoreans) that in fact God really meant even the opposite of what he inspired Moses to write (Genesis reveals a geocentric universe but now, according to churchmen Moses meant heliocentric and millions of years in the making, not six days). Gee, I wonder what else in the Bible is metaphor, ‘The virgin birth’ as Cardinal Bellarmine said? According to Moses Adam was created with the sun, moon and stars of the universe already visible to him. For Adam then, and me and a few others, the whole universe exists in our time. Every minute of the day on earth, no matter how far away a star is, it moves in time with us. God created it that way and Einstein can go to hell.

But then came the discovery of stellar parallax. Having convinced the world, both in Church and State, that it was proof for a rotating Earth, the geometry of this ‘proof’ could give us the distance of all those stars that show a similar rotation against the background of stars further away. So, by use of a fraudulent measuring triangle (not proven, could be moonshine) science had the tool to measure all stars.

Here is confirmation from a Stardate website

Astronomers have developed several techniques to indirectly measure the vast distances between Earth and the stars and galaxies. In many cases, these methods are mathematically complex and involve extensive computer modeling.

Parallax is the visual effect produced when, as an observer moves, nearby objects appear to shift position relative to more-distant objects. This common event is easily reproduced; hold your finger out at arm’s length, and look at your fingertip first with one eye closed, then the other. The "motion" of your fingertip as seen against background objects is caused by the change in your viewing position -- about three inches from one eye to the other. As Earth orbits the Sun, astronomers invoke this same principle to determine the distance to nearby stars. Just like your fingertip, stars that are closer to us shift positions relative to more-distant stars, which appear fixed. By carefully measuring the angle through which the stars appear to move over the course of the year, and knowing how far Earth has moved, astronomers are able to use basic high-school geometry to calculate the star’s distance. Parallax serves as the first "inch" on the yardstick with which astronomers measure distances to objects that are even farther. For example, they use a class of variable known as Cepheids [a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.], which pulsate in and out like beating hearts. There is a direct relationship between the length of a Cepheid's pulsation and its true brightness. Measuring a Cepheid's apparent brightness -- how bright it looks from Earth -- allows astronomers to calculate its true brightness, which in turn reveals its distance. For this technique to work correctly, though, astronomers must first use the parallax method to get the distances to some of the closer Cepheids. This allows them to calibrate a Cepheid's true brightness, which then can be used to calculate its distance. Cepheids are especially bright stars, so they are visible in galaxies that are tens of millions of light-years away. For more-distant galaxies, astronomers rely on the exploding stars known as supernovae. Like Cepheids, the rate at which a certain class of supernovae brighten and fade reveals their true brightness, which then can be used to calculate their distance. But this technique also requires good calibration using parallax and Cepheids. Without knowing the precise distances to a few supernovae, there is no way to determine their absolute brightness, so the technique would not work.'

We see then that measuring stars billions of supposed light-years away, both Chepeids and protons all depend as a fact of the assumption that the Earth orbits the sun, defined as heresy by the Church.
But then the Airy and M&M tests put a stop to their certainties, and Einstein, with his Theories of Gravity had to rescue their heretical heliocentrism as a possibility only, not a fact of science. Now

It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. If I have time I will try to explain the multi-time universe of Einstein and the Black holes of new-science and the invisible matter they need to make it all viable.

Given there is proof for nothing my preference is to follow Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIIII and Pope Benedict, stick with Genesis, reason upon its revelations, and I know I cannot go wrong because theology is the Queen of all the sciences.

But try and get a job today with such beliefs that no science can falsify and you will STARVE. And that is why our Professors and teachers in any college today, be they SSPX or atheist, must try to make heresy Catholic.

TKonkel · « **Reply #41 on:** April 19, 2018, 05:13:52 PM »

Quote from: cassini on April 19, 2018, 03:24:42 PM

When using God to assist one in ‘proving’ the universe must be old, I think it prudent as a Catholic to first see what God told us about the creation of the stars.

Day 3: And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. And to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

O.K., So two days later God created Adam with the stars visible to him.

Today, as Professor Tkonkel says above, ‘When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past.’ Not according to Genesis, written by Moses under the inspiration of the same God who supposedly fooled the lot of us with His Genesis for the ‘uneducated’ of Moses time. In Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, he says:

‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican , Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”………

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture…..’

No error in one single word of Scripture, now I wonder what Pope Benedict XV meant by that? Surely he knew that Genesis is only metaphor and whereas all Christians up to modern times actually believed every word of the six days of creation, ‘we now know’ (the favourite con of modern Pythagoreans) that in fact God really meant even the opposite of what he inspired Moses to write (Genesis reveals a geocentric universe but now, according to churchmen Moses meant heliocentric and millions of years in the making, not six days). Gee, I wonder what else in the Bible is metaphor, ‘The virgin birth’ as Cardinal Bellarmine said? According to Moses Adam was created with the sun, moon and stars of the universe already visible to him. For Adam then, and me and a few others, the whole universe exists in our time. Every minute of the day on earth, no matter how far away a star is, it moves in time with us. God created it that way and Einstein can go to hell.

But then came the discovery of stellar parallax. Having convinced the world, both in Church and State, that it was proof for a rotating Earth, the geometry of this ‘proof’ could give us the distance of all those stars that show a similar rotation against the background of stars further away. So, by use of a fraudulent measuring triangle (not proven, could be moonshine) science had the tool to measure all stars.

Here is confirmation from a Stardate website

Astronomers have developed several techniques to indirectly measure the vast distances between Earth and the stars and galaxies. In many cases, these methods are mathematically complex and involve extensive computer modeling.

Parallax is the visual effect produced when, as an observer moves, nearby objects appear to shift position relative to more-distant objects. This common event is easily reproduced; hold your finger out at arm’s length, and look at your fingertip first with one eye closed, then the other. The "motion" of your fingertip as seen against background objects is caused by the change in your viewing position -- about three inches from one eye to the other. As Earth orbits the Sun, astronomers invoke this same principle to determine the distance to nearby stars. Just like your fingertip, stars that are closer to us shift positions relative to more-distant stars, which appear fixed. By carefully measuring the angle through which the stars appear to move over the course of the year, and knowing how far Earth has moved, astronomers are able to use basic high-school geometry to calculate the star’s distance. Parallax serves as the first "inch" on the yardstick with which astronomers measure distances to objects that are even farther. For example, they use a class of variable known as Cepheids [a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.], which pulsate in and out like beating hearts. There is a direct relationship between the length of a Cepheid's pulsation and its true brightness. Measuring a Cepheid's apparent brightness -- how bright it looks from Earth -- allows astronomers to calculate its true brightness, which in turn reveals its distance. For this technique to work correctly, though, astronomers must first use the parallax method to get the distances to some of the closer Cepheids. This allows them to calibrate a Cepheid's true brightness, which then can be used to calculate its distance. Cepheids are especially bright stars, so they are visible in galaxies that are tens of millions of light-years away. For more-distant galaxies, astronomers rely on the exploding stars known as supernovae. Like Cepheids, the rate at which a certain class of supernovae brighten and fade reveals their true brightness, which then can be used to calculate their distance. But this technique also requires good calibration using parallax and Cepheids. Without knowing the precise distances to a few supernovae, there is no way to determine their absolute brightness, so the technique would not work.'

We see then that measuring stars billions of supposed light-years away, both Chepeids and protons all depend as a fact of the assumption that the Earth orbits the sun, defined as heresy by the Church.
But then the Airy and M&M tests put a stop to their certainties, and Einstein, with his Theories of Gravity had to rescue their heretical heliocentrism as a possibility only, not a fact of science. Now

It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. If I have time I will try to explain the multi-time universe of Einstein and the Black holes of new-science and the invisible matter they need to make it all viable.

Given there is proof for nothing my preference is to follow Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIIII and Pope Benedict, stick with Genesis, reason upon its revelations, and I know I cannot go wrong because theology is the Queen of all the sciences.

But try and get a job today with such beliefs that no science can falsify and you will STARVE. And that is why our Professors and teachers in any college today, be they SSPX or atheist, must try to make heresy Catholic.

I think you have your Genesis days mixed up. Those are both day 4

 Pope Pius VIII HERETIC! Decree 1820
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.
And Again- HERETIC!
The most excellent [cardinals] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary. 1822

Pope Benedict XV – HERETIC!

Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum April 20, 1921: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

"It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. "

So is it your position that light in fact does not travel? It is not a motion?
Out of curiosity, do you also hold one to be heretical if he denies that each of the creation days were distinct 24 hour periods of time?

Incredulous · « **Reply #42 on:** April 20, 2018, 06:59:16 AM »

REPLY TO T. Konkel (Concerning the Hierarchy of the Sciences)

CONSIDERATION ON THE HIERARCHY OF THE SCIENCES

Some time ago, in a reply to Mr. Konkel, I asked if he had anything to say about the hierarchy of the sciences. He did not respond, perhaps because he did not see my question.

Some additional thoughts on this subject have occurred to me; and I am posting them here as they relate to this discussion.
In any consideration of the sciences, it is of paramount importance to categorize them according to the source of the knowledge contained in their principles and demonstrations, and according to the degree of credibility they can properly claim.

The infallible teaching of Vatican Council I sheds a great deal of light in this area. Per the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith,

"There is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source,but also as regards its object.With regard to the source,we know at the one level by natural reason,at the other level by Divine Faith.With regard to the object,besides those things to which natural reason can attain,there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known."

Thus we have an infallible first principle which guides the inquiries of all branches of science, namely that both Divine Revelation and human reason cause true science, i.e. true knowledge of reality, to exist in the mind. The Church nowhere teaches that the certitudes of Faith are not by definition true science. The Church does not relegate the substance of her doctrine to the subjective order. Those revealed truths that are inaccessible to unaided reason, are nonetheless objective truths, the possession of which is identical to true science existing in the mind - the possession of which is identical to the conformity of the intellect with the objective reality.

The First Vatican Council infallibly taught other principles which lend themselves to a consideration of the hierarchy of the sciences. From the same Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith:

"Even though Faith is above Reason, there can never be any real disagreement between Faith and Reason, sinceit is the same God Who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and Who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
"The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of Faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

"Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened Faith is totally false. Furthermore the Church, which,together with its Apostolic Office of teaching,has received the charge of preserving the Deposit of Faith,has by divine appointment the right and dutyof condemningwhat wrongly passes for knowledge,lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit.

"Hence all faithful Christiansare forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of Faith, particularly[but not exclusively] if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

"Not only can Faith and Reason never be at odds with one another, but they mutually support each other. For on the one hand, right reasonestablished the foundations of the Faithand, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things. On the other hand, Faithdelivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
"Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the Lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of His grace.

"Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method. But while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or,by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to Faith and engender confusion.
"For the doctrine of the Faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,but as a Divine Deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."

The teaching is clear. Confusion enters in only because modernism now enjoys a veneer of authoritativeness, and because false science now enjoys a veneer of certitude.
We can sharpen the focus on the teaching of the First Vatican Council by highlighting certain points made in the above cited paragraphs, and thereby more clearly elucidate the reality of the hierarchy of the sciences. Note that the Church infallibly teaches that Almighty God is the "Lord of sciences."

That is a powerful attribution. Given the Church's teaching, no material science could ever legitimately claim to be independent of Catholic dogma. The truth is that all branches of science are absolutely subject to divinely revealed truth, and are capable of being guided and corrected by theologians. The flowering of true material science centuries ago under the auspices of the Church, is a direct demonstration of this principle in effect.

Consider what is revealed in the Book of Genesis. On the Second Day of Creation, God created a firmament "amidst the waters." He said "Let it divide the waters from the waters." And so this firmament, which God called "Heaven," divided the waters into two parts: the waters above, and the waters beneath.

What are the waters? The waters are the sciences. The waters above the firmament - above the divider - are Sacred Theology and her handmaiden, Scholastic Philosophy. St. Thomas teaches that Sacred Science is "knowledge revealed by God, besides philosophical science,[which is] built up by human reason." The waters below the firmament are the lower material sciences, such as Cosmology, Astronomy, Biology, Geometry, Medicine, etc.
The Church teaches infallibly that, while the lower branches of science "employ, each within its own area, their own proper principles and methods," nevertheless these same lower sciences are governed by the Church - are "held back" by the Church, by the Heaven, by the Firmament. The Heaven "takes particular care" that the waters beneath, the lower sciences, "do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to Faith, and engender confusion."

Indeed, we see this divine provision clearly revealed in Genesis, for God said: Let the waters that are under the heavenbe gathered together into one place; and let the dry land appear.

These waters that are beneath, are not to "go beyond their proper limits." As Psalm 103 affirms, "Above the mountains shall the waters stand.At Thy rebuke they shall flee; at the voice of Thy thunder they shall fear ... Thou hast set a bound which they shall not pass over. Neither shall they return to cover the earth."

The Church is the Heaven, the Firmament which sets the bound over which the lower sciences shall not pass. The Church stands amidst the waters: Sacred Theology and Scholastic Philosophy above her to guide her; and the lower sciences, the waters beneath her feet, subject to her guidance.

The First Vatican Council also taught that the lower material sciences, "if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of His grace." For all things are delivered to the Son by the Father. In the Book of Genesis, the Holy Ghost reveals that God "gathered together into one place" the waters that are beneath the firmament, in order that the "dry land appear." And God called the dry land "earth."

God gave commandment that the waters beneath the firmament shall not go beyond the bound He has set for them, nor shall they return to cover the earth. They shall not be permitted to obscure the earth.

What, then, is earth? Earth is truth. Earth is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The meaning of these Scriptures is clear: By the commandment of Almighty God, the lower material sciences may not go beyond their bounds to cover over and obscure the Truth - to cover over and obscure the Redeemer of the world and the doctrine of His Church.

In the Haydock Bible, Psalm 84 has a caption to illustrate its significance: "The coming of Christ, to bring peace and salvation to man. In this Psalm, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, "the dry land," appears in these beautiful verses: "Mercy and truth have met each other: justice and peace have kissed. Truth is sprung out of the earth, and justice hath looked down from heaven. For the Lord will give goodness: and our earth shall yield her fruit. Justice shall walk before Him, and shall set His steps in the way." Psalm 66 echoes the strain: "The earth hath yielded her fruit."

Our Lord taught us to measure everything by His yardstick - the fruits. Does modern evolutionary science bring forth good fruit? Does modern evolutionary science make Jesus Christ known, loved, and served among the nation?

cassini · « **Reply #43 on:** April 20, 2018, 08:15:52 AM »

Quote from: TKonkel on April 19, 2018, 05:13:52 PM

I think you have your Genesis days mixed up. Those are both day 4

Pope Pius VIII HERETIC! Decree 1820
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.
And Again- HERETIC!
The most excellent [cardinals] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary. 1822

Pope Benedict XV – HERETIC!

Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum April 20, 1921: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

"It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. "

So is it your position that light in fact does not travel? It is not a motion?
Out of curiosity, do you also hold one to be heretical if he denies that each of the creation days were distinct 24 hour periods of time?

Great to have you aboard TKonkel, yes you are correct, both belong to fourth day. Copied and pasted them from some source without noticing.

It is a pity your posts reproduce all that data that appears between your quotes. My problem is putting together a post that has the same size reading. Often it comes up small and huge.

Now I can only presume you posted Pope Pius VII's HERETIC decrees of 1820 and 1822, and Pope Benedict XV's HERETIC 1921 encyclical or rather papal Letter on Dante Aligheri in order to show us all that, like Claudel, my synthesis accuse these popes of being HERETICS. Sure it is no wonder I have been banned from two or was it three Catholic forums, and as Claudel said, I should be banned from Catholic Info Forum.

The above is of course is inference; because like Galileo at his trial, I do not know what was in these popes hearts so cannot judge them as heretics. I leave such accusations up to others. But thank you TKonkel for highlighting the most serious problem for Catholicism arising out of the Galileo case, a never-ending controversy on the subject of faith and science.

Thankfully, due to the opening up of the Secret Archives in Rome by popes, plus the finding of other records by scholars, anyone who studied them in detail will know the circuмstances that led to the 1741-1835 U-turn by popes (not the Church because none of these popes abrogated or denied the ‘irreversible’ 1616 decree of Pope Paul V defining a fixed-sun solar system formal heresy because it is contrary to Holy scripture and its interpretation by all the Fathers (a sign of infallibility as declared by the Council of Trent.)
As I said in a previous post, the key phrase in both the above decrees by Pope Pius VII HIGHLIGHTED BY YOU is

“His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors.” (1820).

“there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers,” (1822)

Now why do both decrees include the words that amount to “the manner in which it is affirmed today” and more explicitly “according to the common opinion of modern astronomers”?
Well I will tell you, but first a brief history of the infamous heretical U-turn. By that I mean the 1616 decree's heresy being U-turned into non heresy.In 1741 the first realisation by churchmen that heliocentrism was proven began an attempt to back track on the 1616 decree that was deemed a serious error and that the ban on heliocentric books had to be removed. Dozens of famous astronomers, philosophers and churchmen were highlighting the Church’s stand as absurd and ‘embarrassing.’ In 1757, Pope Benedict XIV, under advice of members of the Holy Office and Boscovich, dropped the ban on ‘all books’ leaving only the five banned after the 1616 decree. The U-turn had begun

Then in 1820, another attempt was made to get rid of the ban altogether, and the then Pope Pius VII asked the Holy Office to investigate. This led to a lengthy argument between Fr Filippo Anfossi, a Dominican friar, as censor of the press in Rome, and Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri who became to Commissary General of the Inquisition. Both compiled their reasons for continuing the ban, and getting rid of it. These docuмents are, no doubt, the most important records of the whole Galileo story. Now picture the situation in the Church at the time. To remove the ban, the 1616 decree had to be addressed, for the ban was directly related to the decree and its defining a fixed-sun formal heresy and a moving Earth erroneous in faith. Be aware that at that time, 1820, the records of the 1616, 1633 decrees had been removed from Rome by Napoleon, so all they had then were the records of the 1741 ban's removal.

So, how did they manage to ignore the 1616 decree and how did Pope Pius VII make the decrees above? Well Olivieri convinced the Pope and most of the Holy Office of the time, that the 1616 decree, which he confirmed to all as ‘irreversible,’ was that Galileo’s heresy was a ‘violent’ movement of the Earth, and that ‘modern astronomers’ no longer held that cosmology, but knew that the Earth orbits the sun with a ‘non-violent’ movement. This hoax convinced the Pope and in his ignorance issued the above decrees noting that the heliocentrism he allowed was the non-heretical one, the one according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.

Now let us expose the hoax that has you Professor TKonkel, Fr Robinson, and so many others of the Catholic faith defending as orthodox that 1741-1835 U-turn that showed the 1616 MUST HAVE HAD NO PAPAL AUTHORITY AT ALL. First of all, the ‘non-heretical’ heliocentrism of Fr Onfossi, Pope Pius VII, and God knows how many other popes since, still retains the formal heresy of the 1616 decree still held as ‘irreversible,’ that is the sun remains fixed (the Heresy condemned in 1616) relative to the Earth, whether it is ‘violent’ or 'non-violent’ Earth.
Moreover, even Olivieri’s conjuring trick of inventing Galileo’s ‘violent’ orbiting Earth, is not true. In Copernicus’s book ‘De revolutionibus’ he states quite clearly that his orbiting earth is NOT A VIOLENT ONE.

‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered.’ --- On the Revolutions, 1543, Book 1, par 8.

Moreover, if Olivieri had read Galileo’s Dialogue he would have found Salviati arguing that the movement of the Earth could be “circular” and “eternal, and therefore natural” in opposition to the “violent motion” argument.

Be thankful as a Catholic that no attempt was made to try to abrogate the 1616 decree by any pope, for it would have had to contain a reason for this abrogation, and if the reason was as Olivieri invented, what then? So in effect, as even Olivieri admitted to, the 1616 decree remains infallible teaching and the fact that the geocentrism in it has never been proven wrong, confirms no one can or needs to challenge its authority or its truth that is protected by God as promised by him.

I will address Pope Benedict XV’s Letter later in the above context, and you question about the motion of starlight. But enough for the present.

klasG4e · « **Reply #44 on:** April 20, 2018, 09:45:00 AM »

Quote from: cassini on April 20, 2018, 08:15:52 AM

Great to have you aboard TKonkel, yes you are correct, both belong to fourth day. Copied and pasted them from some source without noticing.

It is a pity your posts reproduce all that data that appears between your quotes. My problem is putting together a post that has the same size reading. Often it comes up small and huge.

Now I can only presume you posted Pope Pius VII's HERETIC decrees of 1820 and 1822, and Pope Benedict XV's HERETIC 1921 encyclical or rather papal Letter on Dante Aligheri in order to show us all that, like Claudel, my synthesis accuse these popes of being HERETICS. Sure it is no wonder I have been banned from two or was it three Catholic forums, and as Claudel said, I should be banned from Catholic Info Forum.

The above is of course is inference; because like Galileo at his trial, I do not know what was in these popes hearts so cannot judge them as heretics. I leave such accusations up to others. But thank you TKonkel for highlighting the most serious problem for Catholicism arising out of the Galileo case, a never-ending controversy on the subject of faith and science.

Thankfully, due to the opening up of the Secret Archives in Rome by popes, plus the finding of other records by scholars, anyone who studied them in detail will know the circuмstances that led to the 1741-1835 U-turn by popes (not the Church because none of these popes abrogated or denied the ‘irreversible’ 1616 decree of Pope Paul V defining a fixed-sun solar system formal heresy because it is contrary to Holy scripture and its interpretation by all the Fathers (a sign of infallibility as declared by the Council of Trent.)
As I said in a previous post, the key phrase in both the above decrees by Pope Pius VII HIGHLIGHTED BY YOU is

“His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors.” (1820).

“there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers,” (1822)

Now why do both decrees include the words that amount to “the manner in which it is affirmed today” and more explicitly “according to the common opinion of modern astronomers”?
Well I will tell you, but first a brief history of the infamous heretical U-turn. By that I mean the 1616 decree's heresy being U-turned into non heresy.In 1741 the first realisation by churchmen that heliocentrism was proven began an attempt to back track on the 1616 decree that was deemed a serious error and that the ban on heliocentric books had to be removed. Dozens of famous astronomers, philosophers and churchmen were highlighting the Church’s stand as absurd and ‘embarrassing.’ In 1757, Pope Benedict XIV, under advice of members of the Holy Office and Boscovich, dropped the ban on ‘all books’ leaving only the five banned after the 1616 decree. The U-turn had begun
Then in 1820, another attempt was made to get rid of the ban altogether, and the then Pope Pius VII asked the Holy Office to investigate. This led to a lengthy argument between Fr Filippo Anfossi, a Dominican friar, as censor of the press in Rome, and Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri who became to Commissary General of the Inquisition. Both compiled their reasons for continuing the ban, and getting rid of it. These docuмents are, no doubt, the most important records of the whole Galileo story. Now picture the situation in the Church at the time. To remove the ban, the 1616 decree had to be addressed, for the ban was directly related to the decree and its defining a fixed-sun formal heresy and a moving Earth erroneous in faith. Be aware that at that time, 1820, the records of the 1616, 1633 decrees had been removed from Rome by Napoleon, so all they had then were the records of the 1741 ban's removal.
So, how did they manage to ignore the 1616 decree and how did Pope Pius VII make the decrees above? Well Olivieri convinced the Pope and most of the Holy Office of the time, that the 1616 decree, which he confirmed to all as ‘irreversible,’ was that Galileo’s heresy was a ‘violent’ movement of the Earth, and that ‘modern astronomers’ no longer held that cosmology, but knew that the Earth orbits the sun with a ‘non-violent’ movement. This hoax convinced the Pope and in his ignorance issued the above decrees noting that the heliocentrism he allowed was the non-heretical one, the one according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.
Now let us expose the hoax that has you Professor TKonkel, Fr Robinson, and so many others of the Catholic faith defending as orthodox that 1741-1835 U-turn that showed the 1616 MUST HAVE HAD NO PAPAL AUTHORITY AT ALL. First of all, the ‘non-heretical’ heliocentrism of Fr Onfossi, Pope Pius VII, and God knows how many other popes since, still retains the formal heresy of the 1616 decree still held as ‘irreversible,’ that is the sun remains fixed (the Heresy condemned in 1616) relative to the Earth, whether it is ‘violent’ or 'non-violent’ Earth.
Moreover, even Olivieri’s conjuring trick of inventing Galileo’s ‘violent’ orbiting Earth, is not true. In Copernicus’s book ‘De revolutionibus’ he states quite clearly that his orbiting earth is NOT A VIOLENT ONE.
‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered.’ --- On the Revolutions, 1543, Book 1, par 8.

Moreover, if Olivieri had read Galileo’s Dialogue he would have found Salviati arguing that the movement of the Earth could be “circular” and “eternal, and therefore natural” in opposition to the “violent motion” argument.
Be thankful as a Catholic that no attempt was made to try to abrogate the 1616 decree by any pope, for it would have had to contain a reason for this abrogation, and if the reason was as Olivieri invented, what then? So in effect, as even Olivieri admitted to, the 1616 decree remains infallible teaching and the fact that the geocentrism in it has never been proven wrong, confirms no one can or needs to challenge its authority or its truth that is protected by God as promised by him.

I will address Pope Benedict XV’s Letter later in the above context, and you question about the motion of starlight. But enough for the present.

Robert Sungenis should be covering a lot of this material in his up coming film
The Church Versus Galileo ,but the film is apparently running into major delays. Has anyone heard about the present status of the film which is briefly described in one of Sungenis' websites at the below link.
https://gwwdvd.com/2016/07/28/the-church-versus-galileo-official-trailer/

Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 5832 times)

SeanJohnson

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

claudel

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)

Incredulous

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

hismajesty

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

Mr G

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

cassini

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

cassini

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

klasG4e

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

cassini

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

cassini

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)

cassini

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

klasG4e

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