CHARITY posted:
Here's some more of Fr. Scott. You can see how this kind of thinking in the SSPX helped set the stage for Fr. Paul Robinson's modernist book
The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. At 10:01 Fr. Scott starts strongly deriding geocentrists. In the process he even confuses the words rotate and revolve. (Geocentrism, of course, holds that the Earth is motionless. It neither rotates nor revolves.)
Again Charity, thanks for putting up this video on creation as taught within the SSPX these days. I thought Fr Paul Robinson SSPX was the 'faith and science' spokes-priest for the Society and was not aware Fr Peter Scott was another. Now I have listened to his talk on this video and, like Fr Robinson's book, I cannot believe the ignorance of it in so many ways.
I deliberately started a new thread on this post because I notice the original thread it was on was soon dominated by flat-earth posts, a subject that, unlike other aspects of cosmology, has never had any part in Catholic creation theology or heresy in the Church's history. I also wanted to show readers of CIF the damage done to Creation theology by way of the Galilean reformation, when their 'science' took over from supernatural faith. Yes, straight from the beginning in the above video, this Fr Scott (SSPX) asserted that any understanding of God's immediate creation must now be 'science-friendly.'
In 1981, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (b.1927) later elected Pope Benedict XVI (2005-15 retired), attempted a Creation catechesis for adults in four Lenten homilies in the cathedral of Munich. These talks were later published in a book called
In the Beginning. The reason for the subject matter, he wrote, was that the Creation account is noticeably and nearly completely absent from Catholic catechesis, preaching and even theology today. He then went on to make a joke of the literal Genesis, even saying
‘The account [in Genesis] tells us that sin begets sin, and that therefore all the sins of history are interlinked. Theology refers to this state of affairs by the certainly misleading and imprecise term ‘original sin.’ What does this mean? Nothing seems to us today to be stranger or, indeed, more absurd than to insist upon original sin, since, according to our way of thinking, guilt can only be something very personal and since God does not run a cσncєnтrαтισn cαмρ, in which one’s relatives are imprisoned, because he is a liberating God of love, who calls each one by name. What does original sin mean, then, when we interpret it correctly?....
That then is the thinking that got Cardinal Ratzinger elected as Pope Benedict XVI. I can show you more of his modern 'science' thinking if you want.
The six days of creation - Catechism of Trent - Fr. Peter Scott SSPX begins by naming his talk after
the Catechism of Trent. This is the first modernist trick and needs to be exposed for what it is, .
Let us actually see what the original Catechism of Trent taught::
‘The words heaven and Earth include all things that the heavens and the Earth contain… He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.
He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety…. The Earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations (Psa. 103:5).’--- The Catechism of Trent:
Fr Scott begins his talk with the usual pro-Galilean encyclical of Leo XIII that was written in 1893 to try to stop the huge reinterpretation of Scripture that occurred after Pope Pius VII in 1820 allowed a heliocentric meaning to those literal geocentric revelations in Scriptures defended by the Church in 1616 and 1633. That was a signal to 'Biblical scholars' that scientific facts could be used to correct hereto mistaken readings of revelations in the Bible. Here is what Pope Leo XIII wrote:
‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence, they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. ----
Providentissimus deus.That paragraph above became
the teaching of the Church from 1893 onward, not since Christ or Trent, but since 1893 as can be found everywhere in Catholic opinion, right in the middle of the 'science' driven Modernist reformation of the time as Pope St Piux X's Pascendi was aware of. So, with all the new theories of the 'enlightenment' like heliocentrism, the evolution of the universe, the Earth and all on it, the direct supernatural creation by God was replaced by a Big Bang evolved one that removed Genesis from true supernatural and natural history to a book of myths and tales. From then on any catechesis on creation had to involve the Big Bang origins, all trying to make both a Big Bang creation or a God arranged creation as Catholic as they could. Long gone was the direct creation by God alone.