Setting aside the fact that the "Big Bang" was originally calculated by a Physics PhD who was also a Jesuit priest...

Do you think that its invention by a Jesuit speaks in its favor?  If you believe NASA, Webb is actually currently in the process of debunking Big Bang (though it was an oversight by those faking the pictures coming in from Webb).

Speaking of bearing false witness, are your or are you not the same poster who was formerly banned as JJoseph?

Speaking of bearing false witness, are your or are you not the same poster who was formerly banned as JJoseph?

Despite his flurry of activity, he's avoided answering this question.

FYI he was banned several hours ago.

I think he had time to answer since I’ve mentioned it twice, and he didn’t deny it.  Had the same MO as JJoseph.  I would find it highly unusual for a person to join CI and engage first in FE threads, spending all his time there.  I would expect a real Traditional Catholic to engage first and foremost in matters directly relevant to the Faith and the Crisis.

In Pope Pius XII’s next encyclical Humani Generis (1950), he allowed discussion of Adam’s body coming from ‘pre-existing living matter.’ As usual, Eve’s body is never mentioned. A year later, on Nov. 22, 1951, Pius XII gave an address at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences called ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ With the immediate creation of all in their whole substance by God long dogmatised, and St Thomas’s teaching that the creative act of God cannot be demonstrated by unaided reason, both now redundant in the modern Church, Pius XII invented a new Big Bang creation theology for our time in the following holy manner:

‘In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies… It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the Earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.” It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’--- Pope Pius XII, 1951.

Now without counting the number of old long forgotten heresies of the early Church in this talk to the ‘scientists’ of the PAS, let us read what the philosopher Marcello Pera said about Pope Pius XII’s Big-Bang proof for God the Creator:

‘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 cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to [the triune] 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. 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 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 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?’--- 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.

‘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, [her Mass] and her mission from something supernatural to something secular.’ (Taylor Marshall, LifeSiteNews, October 4, 2019)

The rot began in 1820 when Pope Pius VII accepted the heliocentrism of modern astronomers and emptied the Index of the last remaining five heliocentric books. that led to Pius XII's Big Bang creation and things got worse after that as we all know.

Just to be clear.. Are saying that Pius VII was a heretic?

Was Pius XII also a heretic?

First of all Marcellinus, it was not me who defined and declared heliocentrism a Biblical heresy. It was popes since the beginning of the Church. That is why it was called formal heresy in 1616 when once more declared a heresy by Pope Paul V.

That said, Pius VII and Pius XII based their heliocentrism on their belief that heliocentrism was proven true by science. Accordingly, it became a ‘material’ heresy for those who thought it was proven, which is a kind of ‘non-punishable’ heresy. 

That said again, for a heresy to go it must be abrogated, that is, abolish it completely. For a definition of heresy to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should explain why this is being done. That never happened.

But here is the problem, now that it is known the moving-sun of Scripture was never proven wrong by science, as you are now being told, to reject the Bible's heliocentrism is a heresy.

So, be careful what you ask.

You did not answer my question.  Are Pius VII and Pius XII heretics?  Yes or no?

Yes I did, they are.

Cardinal Bellarmine wrote;

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to [all] the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. 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.’

(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 already defined as heresy] 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 the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Yes I did, they are.

Wow.  Thank you, Holy Office of Cassini.