Man was a heretic who openly rejected the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.  I passed over the comments of the man who wrote the article, as they are his spin, but when they quote Fr. LeMaitre, it couldn't be more clear.

Nevertheless a lot of otherwise intelligent and well-educated men do go on believing or at least acting on such a belief [that the Bible teaches science].  When they find the Bible's scientific references wrong, as they often are, they repudiate it utterly.

Answering a question about what to make of the Bible saying that creation was accomplished in six days.

What of it?  There is no reason to abandon the Bible because we now believe that it took perhaps ten thousand million years to create what we think is the universe.  Genesis is simply trying to teach us that one day in seven should be devoted to rest, worship, and reverence--all necessary to salvation.

  So it's just a fairy tale, like Aesop's Fables or the story of Santa Claus, to be an entertaining way to talk about the Lord's Day.

When asked about the story of Jonah in the whale:

I admit that a whale cannot swallow a man and that a whale could not survive the swallowing of a man whole.  But what of it?  The real lesson is that by faith and righteousness a good man may attain security and salvation whatever his perils may be.

Notice his arrogant repeated use of "But what of it?" ... So WHAT if there's "historical and scientific error" in Sacred Scripture?  Well, the WHAT is that by attributing error to Sacred Scripture, you attribute error to the Holy Ghost.  But since the Holy Ghost can't err, that means that the Holy Ghost is not really the Author of Sacred Scripture.  And if that's the case, why couldn't the Bible be "wrong" about other stuff too?  And the WHAT is the massive loss of faith by millions of people as a direct consequence of this type of heretical trash.  And if the interpretation of the Church Fathers means nothing, then who's to say what anything in the Bible means?

Literally just a collection of Aesop's Fables.  Let's call them Holy Fables (or Holy Ghost's Fables).  Just a fairy tale collection calculated to teach a lesson.  What lesson?  Whatever lesson you want to derive from it.  Or not.

As a matter of fact neither St. Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.  The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less--some more than others--on the question of salvation.  On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation.

Wait.  I thought that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible?

Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to event that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.  The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.

OK, so St. Luke's "story" about the Annunciation could be completely wrong, since he didn't directly observe it.  But what of it?  That's "unimportant".  Talk about Gnosticism, where HE pretends that he has the "complete understanding" of the Bible, whereas the Robinsonian "Biblicists" do not.

Asked about Galileo:

Oh, Galileo was mildly disciplined for being an indiscreet reporter of private conversations in the Pope's household and for using some of his scientific findings to promote a veiled attack on the teachines of the Church.

  Talk about historical error.  This man was some kind of "genius"?

Why was this man not excommunicated?  Why was Cushing not excommunicated?  Or at the very least silenced?  Father Feeney was excommunicated, while Mr. "No salvation outside the Church?  Nonsense." walked around in red.  And Father's Jesuit superiors blatantly rejected EENS also, as did probably most US prelates and priests.

Pius XII was truly asleep at the switch ... although LeMaitre did a lot of his damage under Pius XI.

If I were pope, I would suppress the Jesuits once and for all.  With all due respect to St. Ignatius, he screwed up.  Something was not right about the constitution of his order.  Sure, there were some heroic Jesuits, but 95% of them have been a trainwreck.  St. Pius V disliked them and did not like having to take off his cap and bow his head at the mere mention of them, and was very upset with them for requesting to be dispensed from the Divine Office so they could focus more on their activities (i.e. teaching heresy, Modernist, and moral perversion).  From the Illuminati to Modernism, these guys were behind nearly all of it.

Spot on Ladislaus. I put up this website to show all where faith and science (reason) had gotten to in the early 20th century. First another fact of history. 

‘Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before. For over a century, the organizers of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church in order to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.’ (Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, October 4, 2019)

Now, as Ladislaus asked, why were the likes of Fr Lemaitre, Fr Brendan Purcell (From the Big Bang to big Myster0  2011, Fr Paul Robinson,SSPX,  (The realistic Guide to Religion and Science) 2018, allowed to get away with their Changing Genesis into a load of secular interpretations?

Because popes were the ones who started this reformation that I call the Galilean Reformation. In 1616 and 1633 a Biblical, and consequently a scientific heliocentrism was defined and declared as FORMAL HERESY.

But then, in 1744, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo that contained this formal heresy. This implicit reform of the 1633 sentence became explicit in the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index which, in the Bull Sollicita ac Providathat removed from the 1758 edition of the Index works favouring the heliocentric theory…’(Pope John Paul II Galileo Commission report, 1992.

‘This implicit reform of the 1633 sentence became explicit in the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index which removed from the 1757 edition of the Index works favouring the heliocentric theory.’ --- 1981-1992 Galileo Papal Commission.

Now whereas the decree 'prohibition of “all books, booklets, commentaries, epistles, glosses, sermons, tractates, etc., whether written or printed, which discoursed on the mobility of the Earth and the immobility of the sun.” was removed 5 books on heliocentrism remained on the Index.

So, what was the heliocentrism adopted in 1757?
First:‘A model of star and planet formation in which a nebula contracts under the force of gravity, eventually flattening into a spinning disk with a central bulge. A protostar [the sun] forms at the nebula’s centre. As matter condenses around the protostar in the bulge, planets are formed from the spinning matter in the disk. This theory is widely accepted to account for the formation of stars and planetary systems such as ours. The first version of the nebular hypothesis was proposed in 1755 by Immanuel Kant [small and cold particles evolved into a solar-system] and modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace.’--- The Free Dictionary.


Heliocentrism from 1755 was AN EVOLVED one, the first modern evolutionary theory. Adopt one, you get the other.

In 1820 there began a successful attempt to remove the five heretical books from the Index. Here is what happened. '1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of 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….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 [non-violent?], even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above-mentioned affirmation, as it is 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 be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the 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.’

In 1822 another decree by Pope Pius XII was issued.

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] 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 [the defined heresy in 1616], 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.’

That was it, the only heretical U-turn in the history of the Catholic Church with popes accommodating it. By 1820, their newly adopted heliocentrism was EVOLVED.

So, when Charles Darwin proposed all his evolution theories, his book was NOT put on the Index. The popes involved had shot themselves and their Church in the foot.

But that was only the beginning. More next post.

Yes, it all goes back to heliocentrism. Give an inch, they'll take a mile.

https://therealistguide.com/q%26a

Fr Paul Robinson SSPX gives answers below on his Q&A in above website. Let us examine them to see their worth to Catholics.


Fr Robinson: Theology – the Church has us believe in a creation in time by an all-wise, transcendent God, as well as the direct creation of Adam and Eve, who are the parents of all humans living on Earth. All questions of the age of the universe and its development, however, are left to science.

Cassini: 'I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus Christ teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He said the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was thirty-one years old.’ --- Blessed Katarina Emmerick. 

Katarina’s age for Jesus Christ is the exactly the same as found in the Scriptures: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941BC), Abraham 1950 after Creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, the world on 2000AC was 5997 years old, 2022 years after Christ was the year 6,018AC and so on. Why in God's name them did Moses place all these false dates in Genesis?

Fr Robinson: Since science has now provided substantial evidence that universe and earth are much older than 6000 years, and that they developed over long periods of time, instead of having been created fully formed, then I suggest that we should, in the spirit of the Fathers, reject Youn Earth Creationists as incompatible with a proper understanding of Scripture.

Cassini: And what is Fr Robinson's scientific evidence for the age of the Earth? It is the distance they say the furthest star is from the Earth, 13.5 billion light years away. Now Fr Robinson's Big Bang belief tells him that the creation must have happened 18.5 billion years ago for that star to reach 13.5 billion light years away. The only other explanation is that Moses said God created them that far away and that their light was visible on Earth from the creation. Its a question of believing Moses, Fr Lemaitre and Fr Robinson. Oh, I'll go with the one that Jesus Christ gave the thumbs up to.


Fr Robinson: Besides, none of the Popes who rejected YEC considered themselves as censoring the Fathers. It is not a question here of choosing either the teaching of the Fathers or choosing the late 19th and early 20th century magisterial teaching on Scriptural exegesis. Rather, it is a question of choosing both or choosing neither.

Cassini: Let us see what the Church teaches about the Fathers. Remember if geocentrism is a revelation it goes with the time revelation of Genesis;

Teaching of Trent:‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, [such as a geocentric wording] even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)

1616 decree:(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”

Vatican I: ‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutary decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ (Vatican 1, Denz. 1788)

1893 Providentissimus Deus: Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scriptures against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress….

Cassini; So, the geocentric revelation is upheld by all the Fathers. Now try to turn that into a Big Bang 13.5 billion years ago.

Fr Robinson: It is true that it is part of Catholic belief that Adam was created directly by God, while it is not part of Catholic belief that God created the universe in a fully formed state.'My claim is that a problem arises if we hold, with Protestant creationists, that the Bible teaches that God created the universe fully formed, while our senses are telling us that heavenly bodies have a long history of formation [the distance of Big Bang stars?]. The problem is that this creates (no pun intended) a conflict between faith and reason. A person has to choose between what God is supposedly saying in the Bible and what his reason is telling him about the universe. The Catholic Church never places her children in such an either-or situation with faith and reason, while Protestants have historically not only been content with such a situation, but some of their leading lights, such as Luther, consider such a situation to be a mark of true religion. The reason for this is that they often see reason as being outside the realm of faith or even as being inimical to faith, while Catholics see reason as being an important aspect of religion and faith.

Cassini: ‘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 Council I, 1870) ---.
‘Substance,’ we know from classic philosophy, means ‘what something is’ and not what something can become or is becoming as evolution has it.

Q: Why shouldn’t theological arguments be made for something like geocentrism?
Answer from Fr Robinson: For two reasons: a) geocentrism has no direct bearing on matters of faith; b) geocentrism has been soundly disproved by empirical evidence.
In regard to a, it is true that Catholic authors of old have drawn some spiritual reflections from the idea of the earth as being at the center of the universe. However, this is not to use geocentrism as a support for the faith, but rather as a means to stimulate reflection in a faith that is already believed.

Cassini: '. Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’--St Robert Bellarmine Letter to Foscarini, 1615.

On February 24th 1616 the assessments were declared:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”

All of the above, according to Fr Robinson is PROTESTANT FUNDAMENTALISM and according to the SSPX website is not to be believed or taken seriously. Didn't Vatican II say:
‘The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians). deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

Cassini: Here then is proof that Vatican II was not presided over by the Holy Ghost. It states that  all the Fathers, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and St Robert Bellarmine for example, didn't know a matter of Faith from a pig's foot. It says they all caused conflict in the Catholic faith and actually caused many to opposing the Catholic faith. Kind of like caused atheism.

Fr Robinson: It is not the practice of the Church to bind her members to believe in a certain interpretation of the Bible, unless a dogma of faith is concerned. Thus, Catholics are bound to believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve, that they are the parents of the entire human race, and that they committed a sin that is passed on to everyone. These historical truths are closely connected to important dogmas of faith.
But there is no direct connection between geocentrism and any dogma. This is why medieval scholastics, centuries before Copernicus, were able to treat in all freedom both theological and scientific arguments for heliocentrism.

Cassini: Tell that to all the Fathers, popes and theologians who for centuries forbid the Pythagorean heresies. Oh, the above was also one of these heresies held by BRUNO. And you know what happened to him an ex priest. But you are OK Fr Robinson, they don't do that to priests any more. That is not to say you will have to answer to God for your 'Catholic teachings.'

Fr Robinson: This is why Copernicus himself, in his famous book arguing heliocentrism on scientific grounds, also gave arguments why heliocentrism was not against the Bible and also why it redounded more to the glory of God.

Cassini: Bull. Copernicus got away with his book because Osiander had put in a preface that said: ‘To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,’ otherwise known as the ‘Ad lectorem’ introduction, that included the following:

‘And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only that they provide a correct basis for calculation… Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’ --- De rev.

Cardinal Bellarmine said.
'‘First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke.' --Letter to Foscarini, 1615.

Fr Robinson: With regard to b, the Catholic Church allows arguments of human reason to sway her interpretation of the Bible. The reason for this is that she jealously defends both faith and reason. And so, once there was solid empirical evidence that geocentrism was false—the most solid evidence did not come until the 19th century, long after the Galileo case—the Church was quite happy to accept that the Bible does not teach geocentrism, the conclusion that Galileo had wanted to force on the Church prematurely. At that point, it was clear to Catholics that they should no longer try to force a literal interpretation on passages of the Bible that speak of the earth being fixed and unmoving.

Cassini: It only allowed that after the U-turn 1835 when the 'empirical evidence' fooled the world into believing geocentrism was proven false. It never was. ask Einstein;

‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73.)

In other words Fr Robinson, you are deceiving everyone with your illusions. You are fooling everyone with you as a priest supposedly telling all you represent the Catholic faith.

If I were pope, I would suppress the Jesuits once and for all.  With all due respect to St. Ignatius, he screwed up.  Something was not right about the constitution of his order.  Sure, there were some heroic Jesuits, but 95% of them have been a trainwreck.  St. Pius V disliked them and did not like having to take off his cap and bow his head at the mere mention of them, and was very upset with them for requesting to be dispensed from the Divine Office so they could focus more on their activities (i.e. teaching heresy, Modernist, and moral perversion).  From the Illuminati to Modernism, these guys were behind nearly all of it.

I thought the Jesuits only requested to be dispensed from the communal (choral) chanting of the Divine Office, but still obligated to recite the Breviary. http://goodjesuitbadjesuit.blogspot.com/2009/10/jesuits-and-divine-office.html

"Taking off his cap and bow his head" must be referring to the Holy Name of Jesus, and not to the Jesuits themselves.