CathInfo.com

Two links that make the Kolbe Center look not-so-good ...

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/st-maximilian-kolbe-geocentrist/

https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/st-maximilian-kolbe%E2%80%99s-disagreement-with-the-kolbe-center

Correct

Introduction
St. Maximilian Kolbe’s Disagreement with the Kolbe Center

The Kolbe Center designates itself as “a Catholic apostolate dedicated to proclaiming the truth about the origins of man & the universe”. That ‘truth’ amounts to a purportedly Catholic version of what is really just modern Protestant creationism, the idea—more properly referred to as ‘biblicism’—that God intended for the Bible to teach science through a strictly literal interpretation of the Biblical text. This idea leads the Kolbe Center to conclude that the Bible teaches geocentrism, a 6000 year age of the universe, and a Deluge that covered the entire Earth, instead of a limited part of it. Since they insist that this is what the Bible teaches, and the Bible is inerrant (as we all agree), they also conclude that this is what the Church teaches.

Ahem, ahem. The facts are that Geocentrism was the belief of all the Fathers in the Church until heliocentrism, a long held Pythagorean heresy, was introduced back into Europe by way of Cosimo de medici in 1460. Creation ex nihilo, in six days or immediately, was also traditionally held by all in the Church prior to the first theory of Evolution, the 'Nebular hypothesis' in 1796, another heresy, that THEIR solar-system evolved by way of atoms. Thus we can see these 'beliefs' are MODERN not traditional.

In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who, with a half dozen other Cardinals who presided over the trial of the heretic Bruno, wrote:



In 1616 Pope Paul V, by way of papal decree, confirmed biblical geocentrism as irreformable truth by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 because iot was the interpretation of ALL THE FATHERS, and in Pope Pius VII time in 1820 once more confirmed as papal and non-reformable, a decree never challenged by any pope since. If Fr Robinson can show us such a rejection or clarification, then he wins his case. If he cannot then in God's eyes, in His Church, Geocentrism is more than an opinion, it is a dogma.

In 1741, popes and churchmen we being criticised and laughed at for upholding the 1616 decree because they claimed heliocentrism was proven by science. Because of this philosophical criticism Pope Benedict XIV took one prohibition of heliocentric books off the Index. This was interpreted by many as an admittance that the 1616 decree was an error.
By 1820, this criticism and laughter at the Church's ban on the initial 5 pro-heliocentric books reached an all time high. Atheists, agnostics and Modernists were at the forefront of this demand that the Church admit it made an error in 1616 and should take the word of modern astronomers and philosophers and admit their mistake.

But the Catholic Church cannot reject papal decrees. So what did the Holy Office do. A guy called Fr Olivieri, a 19th century Fr Robinson, reinterpreted the irreversible decree to make it look like it called a violent heliocentrism the heresy defined in 1616, but that the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a violent one. Thus the Catholic Church had its infallible 1616 decree safe and sound in its archives while at the same time got Pope Pius VII to take the last 5 books off the index and allow heliocentrism, but always prefixed with the words 'according to modern astronomers.' This of course was a con-trick of Olivieri's because the same fixed sun heliocentrism is contained in the two heliocentric theories of 1820. This was the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY churchmen CHEATED a heresy off the books and allowed it and its OFFSPRING to INFILTRATE THE WOMB OF THE CHURCH. And what were the poisoned fruits of the heliocentric heresy?

The first was that to avoid another such 'embarrassing SCANDAL' again, no pope dared dogmatised any doctrine on Creation. Thus there was MODERNIST freedom to invent anything, call it science, and apply it to Genesis, and MODERNISM IS YOUR UNCLE. This the Freemasons did at will.

This is where they go astray.
Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that:

•  Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude.
•  The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science.
•  Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.

And here above you see the result of the 1820 'hijacking' of the Bible and science. Such was the Modernist reinterpreting of Scripture, Leo XIII had to try to stop it with an encyclical. But this Letter on Scripture HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 1820 U-TURN and the reasons given by Fr Olivieri to his Pope to allow 'modern astronomy.' So it became a heliocentric encyclical when it reiterated the EXCUSES used to bypass the 1616 decree in its infamous paragraph 15.


‘15: But [the interpreter] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’--- Providentissimus Deus.


Anyone who claims it dictates traditional Catholic exegesis and understanding is WRONG, for it a product of the Galilean reformation when it included the very words of Galileo when he said all the Fathers were wrong in their interpretation. Indeed it is an anti-all the Fathers encyclical because it had been used endlessly as a licence to promote a heretical heliocentric interpretation held by all the Fathers. Indeed it NEVER STATES TRENT'S TEACHING ABOUT ALL THE FATHERS, for me it kind of tricks its way around it by stating 'to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done.' Now anyone reading this would think it changes Trent's teaching WHEN ALL THE FATHERS AGREE especially the one it has in mind, the Out geocentric, in heliocentric one. 
We can of course add to the above any other change in interpretation based on long ages and the evolution of Flora and Fauna. More proof of its hidden bad fruits is that Fr Robinson uses it to promote his herretical nonsense. 

Notwithstanding the authority of this encyclical and succeeding pre-Vatican II encyclicals on Scripture; notwithstanding the fact that biblicism has never been a position of the Catholic Church, but rather has its origins in Protestantism; notwithstanding the clear evidence that pre-Vatican II Catholic exegetes, including those fully orthodox, did not countenance the creationist position in their Scripture manuals and scholarly Biblical journals—despite all this, the Kolbe Center claims that creationist biblicism is the ‘traditional Catholic doctrine of creation’.

So now it time to shoot the messenger, just like St Anthonasius was. Indeed if anyone want a true Traditional Catholic encyclical on the Bible, Pope Benedict XV's Spiritus Paractlitus is one. As we would expect, the Pope had to address 99% of the correctness of Pope Leo's last Letter, but he did not give licence for Fr Robinson to peervert Genesis with his heresies;

19. 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 endeavoring 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!
20. 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.

So there you have it, How the DEVIKL did it and is still at it whi Fr Robinsdon and his lot on this thread.