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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 25

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book  (Read 23065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2018, 10:22:59 PM »
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #46 on: November 18, 2018, 03:54:09 PM »
I see Angelus Press have now discarded the comment by Fr Rusak. Let us see if he ends up in the African Jungle where he can do no harm to Big Bang SSPX.

They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This amounts to a hoax getting people to buy a Modernist book on the back of the SSPX. I wonder if there is an American law that covers such censorship of negative comments?
Logged

Offline klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #47 on: November 18, 2018, 07:43:49 PM »
Quote from: cassini on November 18, 2018, 03:54:09 PM
I see Angelus Press have now discarded the comment by Fr Rusak. Let us see if he ends up in the African Jungle where he can do no harm to Big Bang SSPX.

They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This amounts to a hoax getting people to buy a Modernist book on the back of the SSPX. I wonder if there is an American law that covers such censorship of negative comments?

And here is the latest review they have posted.  I wonder how long it stays up!


This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2018, 04:28:52 AM »
Quote from: klasG4e on November 18, 2018, 07:43:49 PM
And here is the latest review they have posted.  I wonder how long it stays up!


This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.

Feel free to post the following on Angelus's website. Let us stop this Big Bang creation nonsense. 

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists [or the SSPX's Fr Robinson]. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.


Logged

Offline klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2018, 09:29:03 AM »
Quote from: cassini on November 19, 2018, 04:28:52 AM
Feel free to post the following on Angelus's website. Let us stop this Big Bang creation nonsense.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists [or the SSPX's Fr Robinson]. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
They are now blocking submission by putting up "Not all the fields have been filled out correctly!"  even though I filled out all the fields properly.  Also, I noticed that they are now down to a total of 13 reviews.  What a bunch of games they are playing!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 25
« previous next »