Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: ServusInutilisDomini on October 12, 2022, 02:08:02 PM

Title: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: ServusInutilisDomini on October 12, 2022, 02:08:02 PM
In light of: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-infested-with-modernist-heresy/msg850181/#msg850181

I think it would be nice if well-meaning Catholics were confronted with the truth when looking into this modernist garbage so I invite everyone who read the book or knows anything about the topics to write a review.


I haven't read the book. Here's what I wrote on Goodreads.



Standard modernist drivel.

The book purports to be Catholic while promoting the following positions:

1. The Earth is orbiting the sun at 66,600 mph, rotating at an angle of 66,6° around its axis, moving at a total velocity of around 520,000 mph and has a curvature of 8 inches per square mile or 0.666 feet per square mile.

2. A singularity of near-infinite mass and consequently near-infinite gravity exploded and over billions of years of chance and pointless death and destruction life and ultimately men were formed.

3. The Great flood was local in scope. It did not cover the whole Earth.


All of these are easily refuted, however, proposition 1 is explicitly condemned as heretical by the Church while the other two are heretical insofar as they contradict the express meaning of Sacred Scripture.


Refutation of:

1. Heliocentrism
From the 1633 Condemnation and Abjuration of Galileo:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and
mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by
command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and
universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the
Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from
its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is
expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but
that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically
and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

The Michelson-Morley experiment also soundly proves a stationary Earth.

2. Evolution
An effect cannot be greater than its cause. (https://www.kolbecenter.org/metaphysical-principles/)

It blasphemes God (https://www.kolbecenter.org/almighty-god-or-mad-scientist/) as it denies him wisdom by ascribing to him a method of creation no sane engineer would consider.

The Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA) is zero.

3. A local flood

If the flood was local why did God warn Noah a hundred years in advance and Noah spend his whole life building a huge ark to preserve all the animals? Why didn't God just tell him to move a fifty miles north? This view makes God look ridiculous.

A local Flood would make God a liar. God promised Noah never to send another Flood upon the Earth (Genesis 9:11). If the Flood was a local flood, then God lied to Noah, as there have been countless local floods during the four and a half millennia since the Flood of Noah.


Of course, there are a million ways to prove scientifically the veracity of the biblical account as well.

Oh! how low the SSPX has fallen.

For further reading on the topic of geocentrism I suggest J. S. Daly's study on the theological status of helicoentrism and Dr. Robert Sungenis' work. With regard to evolution, there are many great resources online but a good Catholic source is the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.

Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: ServusInutilisDomini on October 12, 2022, 02:12:33 PM
I tried finding a traditional quote about contradicting Scripture being heresy but couldn't. Anyone got the quote?
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: de Lugo on October 12, 2022, 02:35:43 PM
The main problems I have with Abbe Robinson's book are these:

1) While masquerading as a "realists guide," it has more an aire of acting as a "rationalists guide," insofar as

2) His being "realistic" (actually rationalistic) tends to destroy belief in miracles, and from this, inerrancy

3) All the while declaring there to be no contradiction between faith and science

4) So long as the former remains subject to the latter.

That this is being done becomes evident once we observe a consistent theme: We need to modify our naive beliefs in order to harmonize them with the latest findings of "science."

It seems not to occur to him that "science" is constantly disproven (e.g., look at the covid scam, and what was done to combat it in the name of "science"), and rather than holding firm in his beliefs in the historoicity of the bible, and concluding there must be some error in the alleged science, he takes the opposite course, accepting the conclusions of atheists and rationalist "scientists" and modifying his beliefs accordingly.

But this subjugation of religion was denounced in Pascendi by St. Pius X:

"17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds. For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant."

https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Viva Cristo Rey on October 12, 2022, 06:30:53 PM
Free masons have infiltrated everywhere  being described as just a do good social organization. There are many in traditional Catholicism too. 

A true priest isn’t concerned with the world.  A true priest serves God by saving souls. 

Anything else is distraction. 

The best priests have always been those who started out as missionary priests. 

Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Charity on October 12, 2022, 07:43:55 PM
Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on October 12, 2022, 02:08:02 PM
In light of: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-infested-with-modernist-heresy/msg850181/#msg850181

I think it would be nice if well-meaning Catholics were confronted with the truth when looking into this modernist garbage so I invite everyone who read the book or knows anything about the topics to write a review.



https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50705764-scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church

 (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/50705764-scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church)Scientific Heresies and their Effect on the Church: A Critique of 'The Realist Guide to Religion and Science'

by
Robert A. Sungenis (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/38486.Robert_A_Sungenis)


This book was written for two purposes: First, to educate the public at large by a critical examination of science and history, especially in the areas of cosmogony and cosmology. Although modern science purports to know the origin and operation of the universe, in reality it comprehends very little and actually spreads more falsehood today than it does truth. On its face, modern science is the last formidable bastion of secular society. It is touted as impregnable and invincible. Indeed, today’s scientists have the education, the grants, the sophisticated equipment, the iconic image, the universities, the newspapers and the general media on their side. Opposing voices can barely form a whisper of contention. It is truly a Goliath if there ever was one in our modern age and it is as big as the universe itself.
Second, this book contends with Catholics, and anyone else, who have accepted the major teachings of modern science and thereby have rejected either biblical revelation, the traditional ecclesiastical consensus, or the official magisterial statements that disagree with modern science’s theories or conclusions. As one can see by the title, I have chosen to focus on the recent book by Fr. Paul Robinson, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. He is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a very conservative but embattled branch of Roman Catholicism. The reason he was chosen is normally we don’t see many examples of staunchly conservative Catholic groups being unduly influenced by the theories of modern science to the point they either reject or neutralize the biblical, traditional and magisterial teachings. If there is any group of Catholics from whom we could expect a rigid traditional Catholic view of either the Bible or its interpretation, it is the SSPX, at least in its beginnings under its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But like many conservative groups today, the inevitable tendency is to judge scientific issues according to the world’s “status quo” and to avoid being dubbed “Fundamentalist.” Fr.
Robinson’s book, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has proven to be no exception.
Paperback, 574 pages
Published 2018 by Catholic Apologetics International
ISBN13

9781939856234

Also, see: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/ (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/scientific-heresies-and-their-effect-on-the-church/)


Also: https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/ (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/)

The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
May 11, 2018
0 8 minutes read
 (https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/#go-to-content)

The Realist Guide to Religion and Science
 Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX
Gracewing Publishing, 2018
556 pages
(https://i0.wp.com/www.kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RG_Religion_Science-200x300.jpg?resize=200%2C300) (https://i0.wp.com/www.kolbecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/RG_Religion_Science.jpg)
This book was written by a priest, Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX, who has a Master’s Degree in Engineering Mathematics and Computer Science from the University of Louisville, Kentucky.  He has been teaching Thomistic philosophy and theology since his ordination into the SSPX in 2006.  So you would think that a priest with a background in science, philosophy, and theology would be able to come up with a good treatment of the very controversial topic of origins.

Fr. Robinson’s way of determining the reasonableness of a position is to apply his Epistedometer to it.  Epistemology is the study of knowledge.  True knowledge comes from knowing what is real, what is in accord with reality.  The left-most position of the epistedometer is the intellect-only position; the position that denies the senses/body.  The right-most position is the senses-only position; the position that denies the intellect/soul.  The middle position is the realist position; the position that recognizes intellect/soul and senses/body.

If you want to know Fr. Robinson’s world view, all you need to do is look at the bibliography in the back of the book.  The most entries from one author, by far, are books and articles by Fr. Stanley Jaki (1924-2009).  He was a Benedictine priest who had doctorates in theology and physics.  So it is clear that Fr. Robinson held Fr. Jaki in high regard.

One problem with people who spend their lives in academia is that they have an abundance of theoretical knowledge, but a comparative lack of practical knowledge.  There are only so many hours in the day.  There is also a tendency for academians to defend each other from non- academians.  Otherwise, the institutions of higher learning look bad.  So academians are predisposed to give credit to their fellows, especially on subjects outside their own field.

This book has three sections: Reason, Religion, and Science.  Fr. Robinson spends many words on describing how you can know anything and what we take for granted.  If there were no reality or no way to know it, any discussion of it would be a waste of time.  Further, if there were no cause-effect relationship, you would not know what to expect and so you could not predict anything or develop rules of behavior.  So scientific studies assume effects have a cause.  You also do not have time to investigate everything by yourself, and your brain is limited.  So you have to trust other people, especially those in positions of authority.

Up until the modern scientific era, starting in the 1600’s, the focus of knowledge beyond basic survival was religion.  Fr. Robinson explains how most pagans are pantheists and believe everything runs in cycles, like the natural seasons.  Aristotle was the pinnacle of pagan philosophy, but his ideas about nature were mostly wrong in the details.  Muslims started off badly but did learn quite a few things from the Greeks during the decline of the Roman Empire.  Unfortunately, their god is not a god of reason.

The height of Catholic thought was reached by St. Thomas Aquinas.  He purified the ideas of Aristotle, and even though he had little interest in physical sciences, he contributed greatly to the advancement of science after his time.  He found the balance between reason and authority.  Protestants gave up the religious authority of the Catholic Church when they adopted a Bible-alone belief system.

Fr. Robinson shows that modern, atheistic scientists err when they think that there is nothing beyond nature.  It is clear that nature had an origin outside of itself, especially when you consider the odds of a living cell coming from non-life.  Atheistic scientists tend to make a god out of nature or evolution, and despise any authority other than their own.

So Fr. Robinson recognizes that life could not come from non-life naturally, and that evolution has limits in its ability to change an organism.  However, he also realizes that a literal interpretation of Genesis flies in the face of the teachings of modern science.  So what is a religious with a background in science to do?  Put God in your science!  Fr. Robinson takes the position of progressive creation, which is a form of theistic evolution.

Unfortunately, he grants too much credibility in fallible human hypotheses in natural science and not enough trust in the Word of God as understood in His Church from the beginning.  Aquinas and other churchmen have recognized that the truth of religion and the truth of science cannot be in conflict since they come from the same ultimate source.  If natural science were able to conclusively prove a fact that did not square with a given interpretation of the Bible, then the interpretation would have to be questioned.  St. Robert Bellarmine said so when he was prosecuting the Galileo case, although he did not think the movement of the earth was proven.

One concept that Fr. Robinson accepts without question is uniformitarianism, the idea that things happen now at about the same rate as they have been happening in the past.  That idea is agreeable to scientists, but contrary to the idea of a global Flood.  However, St. Peter warns that: “in the last days there shall come deceitful scoffers, walking after their own lusts, saying: Where is his promise or his coming?  For since the time that the fathers slept, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they are willfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.” (2 Peter 3:3-6) So St. Peter prophesied 2,000 years ago that people like Fr. Robinson would come along, scoffing at the Word of God, thinking everything has been the same as it ever was, and denying the Flood.
Fr. Robinson also discredits the Biblical teaching of waters above the firmament, even though it is stated three times (Gen. 1:7, Psalms 148:4, and Daniel 3:60) and scientists have detected a form of water in space.  When speaking about the waters above the heavens, Augustine said: “These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect.  Hence, whatever these waters are, and whatever their mode of existence, we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there.”  Aquinas agreed with him.  This should be our attitude when dealing with realities that are so explicitly and repeatedly stated in the Word of God.

Fr. Robinson also picks three concepts from the Bible that he thinks modern natural science has disproven: 1. geocentrism, 2. a young earth, and 3. a global Flood.  His defense of the consensus view in natural science in opposition to those ideas is weak, at best.  He cites stellar parallax (the observation of near stars in slightly different positions every six months) as a proof against geocentrism, even though a geocentric model of the universe with those stars revolving around the Sun could also account for that.  He cites radiometric dating as a proof of an old earth, even though there are many assumptions built into it, and there are very discordant dates from the various dating methods and laboratories.  Never mind the fact that dinosaur bones have been dated to thousands of years old and that some have been found with soft tissue, red blood cells, and intact proteins and strands of DNA inside of them which obviously cannot be millions of years old!  His argument against a global Flood rests on one quotation from the French Catholic Biblical scholar Vigouroux, mostly complaining about the number of animal species required to be on the ark and the amount of water needed to cover the mountains.  Those can both be reconciled by assuming that only pairs of family/genus “kinds” of animals were on the ark, and that the mountains were lower and oceans shallower at the time of the Flood. (This is a reasonable assumption, since the highest mountain ranges all over the Earth show evidence of having been uplifted after multiple layers of sediment had been laid down by the Flood and before those sediments had hardened into rock.)

The Bible explicitly says three times that the earth does not move (Psalms 92:1, 95:10, and 103:5 DRB).  It also states three times that the world was created in six days (Gen. 1, Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) and the Genesis genealogies are given in exact years.  The long account of the Flood in Genesis, the words of Our Lord and St. Peter regarding that event, the witness of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, together with the Church’s understanding of the Flood as a foreshadowing of Baptism should solidly establish the fact of a global Flood in the mind of any believing Catholic.

Our Lord said, concerning the Second Coming: “And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days before the Flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, and they knew not till the Flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matt. 24:37-39) Since the Second Coming will be a global event, Christ chose the Flood as another global event from history for a comparison.  To deny the global Flood is essentially to call Our Lord Jesus Christ a liar or mistaken about a fact of history.

So, Fr. Robinson does a good job of explaining that there is a reality created by God and how we can know it.  His advocacy for a balanced position between intellect/soul and senses/body is very good.  His criticism of the concept of life evolving from non-life and his recognition of the limits of evolution is also helpful.  However, Fr. Robinson gives far too much credit to fallible human hypotheses in natural science in thinking that geocentrism, a young earth, and a global Flood have been disproven, contrary to the Bible.  His acceptance of uniformitarianism, which was specifically condemned by St. Peter, is disturbing, especially in light of the anathema of Vatican Council I ten years after Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species against anyone who would say that “the progress of the sciences” demands that any dogma of the faith be understood in a different way. At the time that anathema was handed down, Blessed Pope Pius IX made the Roman Catechism the gold standard for teaching the dogmas of the Faith throughout the world, and the Roman Catechism clearly teaches the fiat creation of all things at the beginning of time, in direct opposition to theistic evolution or progressive creation over long ages.
It is ironic that Fr. Robinson’s main authority, Fr. Stanley Jaki, believed that special creation required God to intervene in the natural order, when St. Thomas and all of the Fathers and Doctors held that God created all of the different kinds of creatures for man in the beginning and then stopped creating new kinds of creatures.  Thus, it is progressive creation—which requires that God intervene periodically to create new kinds of creatures—which confuses the supernatural order of creation with the natural order of providence, not the true Catholic doctrine of creation which clearly distinguishes between the supernatural work of creation in the beginning and the natural order which began when the work of fiat creation was finished.  What is most disturbing is Fr. Robinson’s dismissal of the global Flood with his only defense being one quotation from Vigouroux, since the Flood is so solidly established by the Holy Bible, by all of the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints, and by the very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Eric Bermingham
May, 2018

  
 (https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://www.kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/)



Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2022, 07:52:52 PM
Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on October 12, 2022, 02:12:33 PM
I tried finding a traditional quote about contradicting Scripture being heresy but couldn't. Anyone got the quote?

St. Robert Bellarmine:
Quote
Nor can one reply that this is not a matter of faith, because even if it is not a matter of faith because of the subject matter [ex parte objecti], it is still a matter of faith because of the speaker [ex parte dicentis]. Thus anyone who would say that Abraham did not have two sons and Jacob twelve would be just as much of a heretic as someone who would say that Christ was not born of a virgin, for the Holy Spirit has said both of these things through the mouths of the Prophets and the Apostles.

Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2022, 07:57:09 PM
I love your fixing of the book's title to --

"The Modernist Guide to Religion and Science"
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 12, 2022, 08:01:17 PM
I found Dr. Sungenis' book here, though I don't know if this is a copyright violation of some kind, so please keep that in mind.
https://tinyurl.com/3xuncchr
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Charity on October 12, 2022, 10:28:31 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 12, 2022, 08:01:17 PM
I found Dr. Sungenis' book here, though I don't know if this is a copyright violation of some kind, so please keep that in mind.
https://tinyurl.com/3xuncchr
You raise an interesting point about copyright violation.

Apparently, no copyright violation exists, although I think it could understandably, although not necessarily, be a violation of one's Catholic conscience.  Dr. Sungenis lamented to me one time about the use of software such as the one seen seen here: https://calibre-ebook.com/ (https://calibre-ebook.com/.), but as I recall there didn't appear to be anything we could do about it legally.  That is the same software Geremia makes use of in a public way.  See her defense of such use here:  https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0  (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0). 
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Charity on October 12, 2022, 11:33:05 PM
Quote from: Charity on October 12, 2022, 10:28:31 PM
You raise an interesting point about copyright violation.

Apparently, no copyright violation exists, although I think it could understandably, although not necessarily, be a violation of one's Catholic conscience.  Dr. Sungenis lamented to me one time about the use of software such as the one seen seen here: https://calibre-ebook.com/ (https://calibre-ebook.com/.), but as I recall there didn't appear to be anything we could do about it legally.  That is the same software Geremia makes use of in a public way.  See her defense of such use here:  https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0  (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0).
https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0  (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0).

  • St. Isidore
    e-book library (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_list) (gigabit mirror (https://isidore.colin.coffee/#panel=book_list))
  • 🧅 .onion address (http://2qewhxzeatrh776r6qoonf5cb4jyo4bcamcoed3vhhooa2wyfztb5rid.onion/calibre/#panel=book_list)
  • 🗞️OPDS feed (https://isidore.co/calibre/opds/navcatalog/4f6e6577657374)
  • library (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/) 🔒⁠SHA256 (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/CalibreLibrary.SHA256SUMS) / rsync (http://rsync://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary)
  • Zotero (https://isidore.co/misc/Physics papers and books/Zotero/) 🔒⁠SHA256 (https://isidore.co/misc/Physics papers and books/Zotero/Zotero.SHA256SUMS) / rsync (http://rsync://isidore.co/Zotero)
  • 🧲⁠Catholic Archive (http://magnet:?xt=urn:btih:786b3ef33b238c02673291c0f51f6873fc2d14f4) / webseed (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/)
  • 🧲⁠ITOPL OCR PDFs (http://magnet:?xt=urn:btih:490c56ac788c750bf152b4aafb1e9a17a57236f6) / webseed (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/ITOPL_OCR-layer-only/)
(https://isidore.co/pix/gl.jpg) (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=4540) (https://isidore.co/pix/principle.jpg) (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/) (https://isidore.co/pix/JTTCOTU.jpg) (https://gwwdvd.com/) (https://isidore.co/pix/EOQR.jpg) (https://philos-sophia.org/about-the-film/) (https://isidore.co/pix/donation_small.png)
(https://isidore.co/pix/qr.png) (http://bitcoin:bc1qjfwc7zg4rtm28sqq3uhwaeshdsfdgra5nlk5mv?label=https://isidore.co/forum)
 What is Bitcoin? (https://bitcoin.org)
St. Isidore forum
October 12, 2022, 09:27:51 PM
News:
Whatever you do, think not of yourself, but of God. —St. Vincent Ferrer
Copyright?
Started by mhumpher, January 11, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
Previous topic (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0;prev_next=prev#new) - Next topic (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0;prev_next=next#new)
 
Print (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=53.0)
Go Down (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0 .#bot) Pages1
mhumpher (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=13)

(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) January 11, 2017, 07:21:43 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=106) 

Isn't your e-book library a grave violation of copyright?

Geremia (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1)

#1
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) January 12, 2017, 10:27:11 AM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=107) 

How so?

mhumpher (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=13)

#2
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) January 12, 2017, 02:34:30 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=108) 

Not a few of the books state "All rights reserved" which includes the right to distribute and reproduce. Others state more explicitly that the works are not to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the approval of the copyright owners. Your library seems to do that and thus appears to be a violation of copyright law.

Geremia (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1)

#3
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) January 12, 2017, 03:50:18 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=109)  Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 05:50:46 PM by Geremia

Quote
Not a few of the books state "All rights reserved" which includes the right to distribute and reproduce. Others state more explicitly that the works are not to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without the approval of the copyright owners. Your library seems to do that and thus appears to be a violation of copyright law.
Certainly it would be if I were reselling the books, no?
Is my use not "fair use (https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Fair_Use)" for educational purposes (e.g., discussing works on this forum)?

mhumpher (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=13)

#4
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) January 13, 2017, 03:57:46 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=110) 

That is a potential defense, but seems weak. First, reselling is not essential to a violation of copyright, but would be an example of it. It would be more plausible, if access were restricted to members of the forum and membership in someway restricted. However, membership is public and even the library itself does not require membership. Though you formally intend it to be solely for education uses in discussion upon the forum, you materially intend unlimited access to copyrighted works to the public.

Quotes from the wiki article:

"Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test."
If this is the essence of fair use, then the library is not fair use as the material is not being incorporated into your work.

"The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new."
Given this, it would be difficult to justify a library that includes works on C or AP Stats given that the forum is focused on Catholic and Thomistic theology and philosophy. Therefore, it seems to not pass the first test in this respect.

"The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair."
Generally, you have the whole of every work present, which would be extremely unfavorable in upholding fair use. A fair use example would be quoting from text, even a lengthy quote, posted on the forum for discussion. That would be consistent with your position, but that would not be a defense of the library as such.

"Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. ... Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. ... This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. § 107 provides fair use protection. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. ... wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. ... there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn's use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate."
This provides potential strength to your argument. However, you are not discussing all of the books nor in their entirety and at least some are on topics unrelated to the general discussion upon the forum as mentioned above. Your library is more consistent with file sharing which "the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use."

Geremia (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1)

#5
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) January 13, 2017, 05:52:47 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=111)  Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 01:56:03 PM by Geremia

The purpose of copyright was given in "Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1991) (citations omitted) (https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright):"
Quote
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.

Related to U.S. law not considering copyright (https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_General) infringement (https://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Copyright:_Infringement_Issues) theft is Stephan N. Kinsella's argument in Against Intellectual Property (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5386) that IP is not property because property rights only apply to scarce resources:
Quote
But surely it is clear, given the origin, justification, and function of property rights, that they are applicable only to scarce resources. Were we in a Garden of Eden where land and other goods were infinitely abundant, there would be no scarcity and, therefore, no need for property rules; property concepts would be meaningless. The idea of conflict, and the idea of rights, would not even arise. For example, your taking my lawnmower would not really deprive me of it if I could conjure up another in the blink of an eye. Lawnmower-taking in these circuмstances would not be "theft." Property rights are not applicable to things of infinite abundance, because there cannot be conflict over such things.
This is similar to the argument Aaron Swartz (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5994) gave in his short article "Downloading isn't Stealing (http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001112)."

Geremia (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1)

#6
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) February 17, 2017, 10:09:40 AM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=129) 

One of my YouTube videos contains a non-copyrighted performance of the Veni Creator Spiritus, and two music agencies were already making money off it, claiming I was reproducing their recording! These are the agencies:

"VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS", musical composition administered by:
SACEM
APRA_CS
SIAE_CS
PRS CS
SGAE_CS


Alainval (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=118)

#7
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) September 16, 2020, 11:11:02 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=521) 

I'm glad I found the Isidore Library, but I can't help but worry that it's illegal since books that would otherwise cost us money is offered freely to all without cost. My conscience would even go as far as to say it's a sin since it's basically akin to stealing. Am I just being scrupulous?

Geremia (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1)

#8
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) September 17, 2020, 01:07:23 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=522)  Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 01:33:49 PM by Geremia

Quote
I'm glad I found the Isidore Library, but I can't help but worry that it's illegal since books that would otherwise cost us money is offered freely to all without cost. My conscience would even go as far as to say it's a sin since it's basically akin to stealing. Am I just being scrupulous?
You're free and encouraged to support the authors.
You're also free not to download anything from here.

Geremia (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1)

#9
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) September 17, 2020, 04:28:04 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=523)  Last Edit: September 17, 2020, 04:33:03 PM by Geremia

Quote
I saw the reply but I still felt unconvinced and worried. Any other things you could say?

St. Augustine, De doctrina Christiana (https://isidore.co/calibre#panel=book_details&book_id=2974) bk. 1, ch. 1: "For a possession which is not diminished by being shared with others, if it is possessed and not shared, is not yet possessed as it ought to be possessed." (cf. Willinsky (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6729) p. 82).

Also, the internet and ease of sharing information was unknown when © law was first developed (cf. the Google TechTalk The Surprising History of Copyright... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI&index=8&list=PL7443A20A1CBFD64B)), so the virtue of epikeia (against legal pharisaism) must be applied here. II-II q. 120 a. 1 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS120.html#SSQ120A1THEP1) ad 1: "it is written in the Codex of Laws and Constitutions under Law v: 'Without doubt he transgresses the law who by adhering to the letter of the law strives to defeat the intention of the lawgiver.'" The intention of the law is "not to reward the labor of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (quoted above (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.msg111#msg111)), not restrict the sharing of knowledge.

Alainval (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=118)

#10
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) September 17, 2020, 07:21:29 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=524) 

But I though that copyright statement was to intellectual property and not to physical books which have in their front pages "All rights reserved." But on the other hand, if the intention of the author was to spread their information then its permissible to download their writings free of charge? Is that what you mean?

Kephapaulos (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=4)

#11
(https://isidore.co/forum/Themes/default/images/post/xx.png) September 19, 2020, 02:07:29 PM (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?msg=525) 

I have also been concerned about the free library here, Alainval, but it can actually promote the sale of the physical copies of the books. I know it has with me. The electronic files are cheap in themselves and incur little if any loss to the authors I would imagine.

As Geremia pointed out, the primary purpose of the author writing is to further the common good of human society and not merely produce writing only to gain monetary profit, even if it be one's livelihood. Money is not to be the aim.

"No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).

"For the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith and have entangled themselves in many sorrows" (1 Timothy 6:10).

Print (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=53.0)
Go Up (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0 .#main_content_section) Pages1




Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 12:59:49 AM
Quote from: Charity on October 12, 2022, 10:28:31 PM
You raise an interesting point about copyright violation.

Apparently, no copyright violation exists, although I think it could understandably, although not necessarily, be a violation of one's Catholic conscience.  Dr. Sungenis lamented to me one time about the use of software such as the one seen seen here: https://calibre-ebook.com/ (https://calibre-ebook.com/.), but as I recall there didn't appear to be anything we could do about it legally.  That is the same software Geremia makes use of in a public way.  See her defense of such use here:  https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0  (https://isidore.co/forum/index.php?topic=53.0).

I don't know if this individual has Dr. Sugenis' permission whether directly or else Dr. Sungeis wished to make this particular book freely available, but I'm not interested so much in the legalities of it as with the moral aspect of defrauding him of something that should be due to his labors.  So, I believe that if I were to read a substantial portion of it (vs. skimming a section or two that might be cited via Fair Use anyway), I would feel obliged to go purchase his book ... if I could afford it (and I can).  Now, for someone who can't afford it, I think the desire to nourish their faith and ward off the poison of Robinson's Modernist errors warrants accessing the book for free.

There's part of me that thinks Dr. Sungenis should not enforce his rights to a work like this, since it would be wrong to deprive people of the benefit of his defense of the faith, and perhaps should just solicit a free-will offering, like shareware with software.  [And perhaps he has done exactly that here and that's why it's out there like this?]  If I were he, I would put it out there in public, but might put something in the beginning to the effect, "If this book has benefitted you and you are able to afford it, I ask that you please make a donation of [an amount] to help support my work."
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 01:15:58 AM
I just saw the forum post after I wrote what I did.  I effectively agreed that, depite the letter of the law, it would still be immoral to defraud the author of the fruits of his labor.

But then the person responded that people are free to NOT download it and are also free to go ahead and purchase it anyway.

I almost feel like books should be in "shareware" mode, as I suggested above.  I've spent money on books that turned out later to be garbage and/or OK in themselves but of no benefit to me.  And you can't tell what it is unless you've purchased it beforehand.  In some cases, I felt that I was the one who had been defrauded.  There should be a money-back-guarantee.  But then that's the same as the shareware model in its final result.  It's like going to a store and there's a sealed box there that says there's a quality watch inside and a no-return policy.  You buy the item and find out either that it's garbage (cheap Chinese junk) or else that it does't fit or doesn't suit your taste.  That's almost how it is with books that you can't return and can't really inspect before paying for it.  You could go by reviews, but even if someone else finds it of value, I may not ... and some reviews are fake.

I think that especially given the target audience of dedicated Catholics (who else would care about this book?), if I were the author, I would trust them to do the right thing and provide a link in the book where they could make a donation if the book benefitted them.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 01:20:36 AM
If I had the time to write a good book, I would do it for free and know that if I benefitted others with it my reward would be in Heaven.  At the same time, if I could support myself by revenue from books, that would enable me to quit my current day (and night) job of writing software to write more books to do even more good.  If Dr. Sungenis were't supported by revenue from his books (lectures, etc.), then he would have to pick up a job doing something else to support his family and would therefore be unable to write more books.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: DigitalLogos on October 13, 2022, 05:07:07 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 01:15:58 AM
I just saw the forum post after I wrote what I did.  I effectively agreed that, depite the letter of the law, it would still be immoral to defraud the author of the fruits of his labor.

But then the person responded that people are free to NOT download it and are also free to go ahead and purchase it anyway.

I almost feel like books should be in "shareware" mode, as I suggested above.  I've spent money on books that turned out later to be garbage and/or OK in themselves but of no benefit to me.  And you can't tell what it is unless you've purchased it beforehand.  In some cases, I felt that I was the one who had been defrauded.  There should be a money-back-guarantee.  But then that's the same as the shareware model in its final result.  It's like going to a store and there's a sealed box there that says there's a quality watch inside and a no-return policy.  You buy the item and find out either that it's garbage (cheap Chinese junk) or else that it does't fit or doesn't suit your taste.  That's almost how it is with books that you can't return and can't really inspect before paying for it.  You could go by reviews, but even if someone else finds it of value, I may not ... and some reviews are fake.

I think that especially given the target audience of dedicated Catholics (who else would care about this book?), if I were the author, I would trust them to do the right thing and provide a link in the book where they could make a donation if the book benefitted them.
Sharing books has always been the nature of them. Libraries are essentially the original shareware, as a copy was sold but then loaned out to others ad infinitum. To me it seems that would make library books as immoral as calibre and other programs, if that is the case, because you're doing the same thing.

And with digital copies, you're not even removing the original file from ownership of anyone else like you would a tangible book; so it's difficult to justify it as theft. At best, you have a case of undermining the income of the author, but most authors are paid by a publishing house anyway (except independents like Dr. Sugenis), so even a claim of defrauding the author is not true.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 05:32:57 AM
Quote from: DigitalLogos on October 13, 2022, 05:07:07 AM
Sharing books has always been the nature of them. Libraries are essentially the original shareware, as a copy was sold but then loaned out to others ad infinitum. To me it seems that would make library books as immoral as calibre and other programs, if that is the case, because you're doing the same thing.

And with digital copies, you're not even removing the original file from ownership of anyone else like you would a tangible book; so it's difficult to justify it as theft. At best, you have a case of undermining the income of the author, but most authors are paid by a publishing house anyway (except independents like Dr. Sugenis), so even a claim of defrauding the author is not true.

Library books or sharing is a bit more borderline.  When you buy a physical book, it's like any other physical item you buy.  At some point someone has to buy the book, and there can be only one copy circulating at a time.  Meanswhile, with a digital, you can have 10,000 people reading it at the same time.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: ServusInutilisDomini on October 13, 2022, 06:19:31 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 05:32:57 AM
Library books or sharing is a bit more borderline.  When you buy a physical book, it's like any other physical item you buy.  At some point someone has to buy the book, and there can be only one copy circulating at a time.  Meanswhile, with a digital, you can have 10,000 people reading it at the same time.
Difference of degree cannot render a moral action immoral.
It must be a difference of kind.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 07:42:51 AM
So I was skimming Dr. Sungenis' book about Father Robinson.

He agrees with my contetion here on nearly every point, that Robinson's method and attitude and approach are in fact identical to that of the Modernists.  As I said, I had 8 years of experience first-hand with these Modernists, and I know a Modernist when I see one.  Father Robinson is a Modernist.

Some of the citations of Father Robinson made in Sungeis' book are downright blasphemous, irreverent and dismissive of Sacred Scripture.

There's even a passage in there where Robinson endorses and praised Lyell ... a vehemently anti-Catholic (anti-Bible) dirtbag, while attacking faithful Traditional Catholic "Biblicists".

Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 07:51:03 AM
Quote from: ServusInutilisDomini on October 13, 2022, 06:19:31 AM
Difference of degree cannot render a moral action immoral.
It must be a difference of kind.

No, it's about the intent of the author or the owner of the IP.

So, for instance, an author could refuse to sell his book to a Library.

This is typical to how movie studios work.  Initially they release the movie to theaters, where the stand to make the most money, but don't allow other distribution channels.  Then they'll put a DVD on sale.  With DVDs they make less money, as for the price of about two tickets to the theater, an unlimited number of people can watch the movie (even if not at the same time).  Then after a while they'll make the video available for rental or for streaming rental.

If they didn't release first to theaters, most movies would lose money.

So, if Dr. Sungenis wanted to sell the book to libraries, that would be his choice, knowing that he'd get less revenue from the book.

At local libraries now, they're hooked up into eBook rental services, but nearly all the eBooks have a limit on the number of people who can "check them out" and no doubt they have to pay for each available copy.

So all this puts some kind of a throttle on the amount of sharing that can take place.

In theory, Dr. Sungenis could even put a notice in the book about his not authorizing lending the book to someone who has not purchased it.  But most authors don't go there.  Not only would it be bad PR, but sometimes lending a good book is a way to encourage a sale.  I've ended up buying some books that someone else has lent me.

So, since Dr. Sungenis owns the content, he could make his will known about how he would permit it to be used (apart from "Fair Use" citations).  If he were to tell this website to pull his book, they would have to comply, both morally and legally (he could in theory sue them for posting it).

So there's no difference in degree here, as it's all driven by the same principle, the author's intent.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Charity on October 13, 2022, 11:00:37 AM
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 13, 2022, 12:59:49 AM

There's part of me that thinks Dr. Sungenis should not enforce his rights to a work like this, since it would be wrong to deprive people of the benefit of his defense of the faith, and perhaps should just solicit a free-will offering, like shareware with software.

This reminds me of Fr. Denis Fahey who it is said that he purposely did not get a copyright for his books because he wanted them to be disseminated to the maximum extent possible AND did not want (((them))) to buy up the copyright and then use that to suppress any further publication of his work.

Here is an excellent article about this incredible Catholic priest: https://catholicism.org/catholic-world-of-fahey.html (https://catholicism.org/catholic-world-of-fahey.html)
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: cassini on October 14, 2022, 02:58:39 PM
‘Does the Bible want us to read it like a science textbook using scientific language? Or is it meant to be read in another way? The answer is obvious from the very beginning of the Bible, which presents serious challenges for anyone seeking to find properly scientific information about the formation of the world, at least anyone possessing today’s knowledge of the universe’s true architecture.’ –Fr P. Robinson.-A Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Gracewing pp, 2018, p.248.

Comment: Now any priest teaching Thomism should know what the Saint said; that the creative act of God was supernatural so cannot be described by human reason, and not by way of ‘today’s knowledge of the universe’s true architecture’ which of course is a 13.5 billion year evolution.

‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science.’ --- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae (I.46.2)

‘From a scientific perspective [which I hold], it [the universe] began its infancy at time 0, 13.72 billion years ago, it is now in its middle age and is heading towards old age billions of years in the distant future.’… Fr Paul Robinson.

Comment:Had Fr Robinson tasted the wine changed immediately by Christ at the wedding feast he would have concluded, ‘this wine is so good it tastes matured so could not have been changed from water instantly.’ Similarly, if the light from the sun, moon and stars, no matter their distances in space, were made instantly visible to us on Earth at God’s Creation, as revealed in Genesis 1:14-16, then, on the word of God, no such delayed billions of years of star-times exist or ever existed. God created the universe with one time-zone for all, a 24-hour universal time zone.

In his 1913 book Galileo and his Condemnation, the Jesuit Fr Hull SJ. (1863-1952) demonstrated how the Galilean reformation made inroads to evolution, reinterpretation of the Bible and the modernism in the Church since 1820.
 
‘Down to a generation or two ago it was the general belief of Christians that the deluge of Noah covered the whole Earth, and that it is so described in the most explicit terms in the Bible. Certain new considerations, mainly drawn from geology, led specialists to the contrary conclusion that the deluge was by no means universal, but was a comparatively local phenomenon; widespread enough to cover the area occupied by mankind at that time, but not much more….. The partial-deluge-view gradually came to look more feasible, and the possibility of interpreting Scripture accordingly became more evident. The new view gradually filtered down from learned circles to the man in the street, so that nowadays the partiality of the deluge is a matter of commonplace knowledge among all educated Christians, and taught to the rising generation in elementary schools.’--- Fr Ernest R. Hull, SJ: Galileo and his Condemnation, Catholic Truth Society, 1913, p.71.

'This position of the Flood as being geographically universal meets with serious scientific difficulties. For one, how can you get enough rain to cover the entire earth?... In other words, the laws operating on the Earth today cannot be applied to the time of Noah… One of the motivations for Brown  to postulate water coming from below [the Earth] is that the Bible describes the waters of the Flood as coming both from the ‘fountains of great deep’ and the ‘floodgates of Heaven’ (see Gen, 8:2) …. Clearly this is a popular, but not a scientific description.’ --- Fr Paul Robinson

Comment:Is this priest actually questioning God’s ability to flood the Earth with water as revealed in Genesis? Is Fr Paul telling us the following is not a true history?

‘[4] I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth. And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased. [11]  all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the flood gates of heaven were opened: [12] And the rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights. [18] For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: [19] And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains were covered. [20] The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered.’ --- (Genesis Ch 7 and 8)

The false gods however, supposedly saved Egypt and her ancient buildings, temples and sanctuaries from all these ‘local’ floods. Here we see good reason why the Egyptians falsified the ages of their buildings. Contained in these ancient temples and sanctuaries was preserved knowledge of the origin of the world when man had fraternised with their pagan gods.

Comment:Again, we see Catholics divided into two; the learned educated Catholics who know the Genesis flood was local and the unscientific ‘retards’ as the two Catholic priests above call those who take Genesis chapters 6-8 literally, as Moses recorded in the Bible. Fr Paul Robinson SSPX, 100 years after Fr Hull, dismisses the Flood as a supernatural act of God, making it comply with the limits of human reason. Why then, according to Genesis, did God tell Noah to build a massive Ark over many years, a barge as big as a modern cruise ship, a barge to spend a year afloat on a local flooded plain when he and his family could have simply moved with horse and cart to a dry region in the same way as Moses was advised to move out of Egypt to save his people? Moreover, why did Genesis tell us Noah was told to take so many animals, birds etc. in the Ark to preserve such kinds on Earth after the waters receded? If there were ‘regions’ that were not flooded, then surely such creatures on them would have made God’s order to Noah totally unnecessary.

An Earth-wide flood would also result in massive mountains of earth-crust movement as well as liquid sediments made up of pieces of rock, earth, dust and other particles, into which all living creatures would fall into and become fossilised. Isn’t that what we find; 75% of the Earth’s surface is sedimentary rock strata filled with billions of similar fossils the rest made up of igneous rock and metamorphic rock. Just how many ‘local-floods’ would have been necessary to account for such global topography? So, which Noah’s Flood are Catholics now taught, the Biblical revelation or the ‘educated’ nonsense? 

‘Deluge. The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19). God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen. 6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole Earth as we know it today; some even hold that it not necessarily destroyed all the people on the Earth.’ ----- The Holy Bible: The Catholic Press Inc. Chicago, 1951.

So much for the dogma: ‘no salvation outside the Catholic Church (the Ark).’

‘The leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, Vladimir Lenin had been born into a Christian home but lost his faith as a teenager and embraced evolutionary materialism.  On his desk sat a sculpture of a chimpanzee sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s Origin of Species, contemplating a human skull.  Lenin coolly sat in the presence of that sculpture, overseeing the murders of millions of innocent people, all in the name of evolutionary progress.  Lenin’s successor as communist dictator of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, also lost his faith in God as a seminarian after reading about Darwin’s evolution and Lyell’s uniformitarianism.  He oversaw the murder of more than twenty million people, all in the name of evolutionary progress.  When communism then spread to China, Mao Tse Tung’s forces held compulsory seminars in every town they captured, not in the teachings of Marx, Lenin, or Mao, but in evolutionism, because, in the words of Passionist missionary bishop Cuthbert O’Gara, evolutionary theory could be used to destroy people’s faith in God, in the [eternal] soul, and in the after-life, and communism could then take root in the minds of the people. The evolutionary hypothesis provided a rationale for communist movements all over the world.  It also provided a pseudoscientific rationale for the eugenics movement in the United States, Germany and elsewhere. Evolutionary theory was used to justify genocide in the German colony of Namibia in the early twentieth century and to justify the ideology of the nαzι party which took power in Germany in 1933… According to Adolf Hitler, the purpose of the nαzι Party was to advance evolution.’ --- Kolbe Center report 17/7/2017.

Here below is an example of this fossil evolution propaganda coming from a Catholic priest in an interview to theistic-evolution fans in 2019, inferring Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s and Hitler’s evolution was God’s way of creation.   

‘In the fossil record, there is a series of simple to complex. Yes, it does shows there is a progression from simple to complex but it doesn’t show us how that progression happened. It could have happened through animation [evolution] by natural selection, or could have been something else [like what, miracles?].’--Fr Paul Robinson SSPX

Comment: Imagine a Catholic priest preferring a billion miracles to have his evolution rather than abide with a supernatural creation of all immediately as revealed in Genesis.

‘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.’ --- Fr Paul Robinson, SSPX. 

Comment: Pope Leo XIII was a post-1820 pope whose predecessors had decreed heliocentrism (according to modern astronomers)  was not to be forbidden by any Catholic teaching. In his Providentissimus Deus he wrote: ‘18: The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas.’

We see then, by 1893, a new hermeneutics and theology had grown in the womb of the Church based on the excuses and sophistry used to try to excuse and explain how the Church ‘got it so wrong’ when reading and defining the geocentric revelation of Scripture. Given the Galileo case is the only one of its kind in the history of such an exegesis above, all future comments on the case refer to Providentissimus Deus as ‘Church teaching’ on faith and ‘science.’

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’ --- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

Comment: All the above from Leo XIII was based on the ILLUSION that the 1616 decree defining and declaring had been falsified. It never was. But now Catholic teaching for Fr Robinson, the SSPX, and 200 years of Catholic faith and reason has been based on the HERESY never ABROGATED..

Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Charity on October 14, 2022, 03:53:40 PM
The infamous SSPX Press Release in fulll: https://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus (https://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus)


You are here:

The SSPX on geocentrism: press release

What is the SSPX's position concerning the heliocentric and geocentric scientific theories of the solar system?

PLATTE CITY, MO (8-30-2011) A recent news report implied that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teaching based upon the Bible. The SSPX holds no such position.

The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. As a religious congregation of the Catholic Church, the SSPX holds to these principles and does not teach any solar scientific theory.


The SSPX and the solar system

As declared by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html), science cannot contradict the Faith:

Quote
There can never… be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, 'not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.'"

Even today, many commonly-held tenets of natural science are merely theories, not certainties. This is not the case with the Catholic Faith, which is a certainty.

The Church’s magisterium authoritatively teaches on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. As Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflatu Spiritu (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html):

Quote
The Holy Ghost, Who spoke by them [the sacred writers], did not intend to teach men these things—that is the essential nature of the things of the universe... [which principle] will apply to cognate sciences…"

Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”). Such expressions are not scientific teachings about the cosmic world.

So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.

*************************************************************************************
And here is the infamous October 2003 Angelus Press Cover story on Galileo, penned by one Jason Winshel, a middle school teacher.
https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/galileo-victim-or-villain-october-2013-angelus.pdf (https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/galileo-victim-or-villain-october-2013-angelus.pdf)

Of special note is footnote 6 which reads as follows:
"6 There are some, including certain prominent traditional Catholic authors,who still maintain that the Earth is the center of the universe in spite of
the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Though it would appear
impossible to state definitively where the center actually is, or that there
is a center at all, given that everything seems to be in motion, to stand on
geocentrism as an article of faith is irresponsible precisely because it is not
an article of faith. To defend it as such, especially in light of the evidence, is
theologically unsound and unnecessary, while serving no positive purpose.
The Church has never defined geocentrism as a dogma binding on Catholics.
Moreover, Pope Urban VIII himself said that heliocentrism would never be
condemned as heretical. See Jerome J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the
Church, 3rd ed. (Ann Arbor, MI: 1992), p.113. That said, Robert Sungenis
puts up a good fight for geocentrism from a scientific standpoint as opposed
to a theological one. ..."


[At the time Robert Sungenis who is mentioned indirectly as well as directly in the footnote was not allowed by the SSPX to place a rebuttal to the article in the pages of the Angelus.]

9
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
Victim or Villain?
GALILEO
J a s o n W i n s c h e l
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine,
aged 70 years,...having before my eyes and touching
with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have
always believed, do believe, and with God’s help will
in the future believe all that is held, preached and
taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.1
Thus began one of the most famous–in many
circles, infamous–personal declarations of all time.
99

10
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
These are the first words in the public abjuration of the world-
renowned mathematician Galileo Galilei before the Holy Office
of the Inquisition. The date was June 22, 1633, and Galileo had
just been sentenced by the Inquisition in respect to the publication
of a book in which he clearly taught “that the Sun is the center of
the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth
moves and is not the center of the world.”3 In fulfillment of the first
part of his sentence, and to be absolved of the suspicion of heresy
and disobedience, he continued:
With sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the
aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error, heresy and
sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future
I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might
furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me.4
With the completion of his formal abjuration, Galileo was to
be imprisoned and required to recite the seven penitential psalms
weekly for three years.
This much is clear. All of the above is part of the historical
record, part in fact, of the final proceedings of the trial of Galileo
before the Holy Inquisition. But it is at this point that confusion
enters; for few trials have been as misunderstood, misrepresented,
and entirely abused as Galileo’s. Historians and scientists alike
have heralded the interaction of Galileo and the Church as the
commencement of the fight of science versus faith, reason versus
authority and superstition. In our post-Christian world, the debate
thus characterized has become one of good versus evil with the
moribund Catholic Church playing the role of antagonist.
A popular account of the Galileo Affair would proceed as
follows: Galileo, a scientist of highest rank, proved the theory
advanced by Copernicus in the 16th century, namely that the sun
is the center of the world around which the earth revolves annually
while rotating on its axis. The Catholic Church, which held to the
geocentric model wherein the earth is static, condemned Galileo
as a heretic for his claim. He was then tortured, threatened with
execution until he recanted, imprisoned for life, blinded and
refused Catholic burial. The Church, as though to prove her
intransigence and her enmity toward science, refused to allow
heliocentrism (sun-centered universe) to be taught until the 19th
century when Galileo’s book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems was finally taken off of the Index of Forbidden Books.5
The implications of this popular portrayal of events are
profound for several reasons. Firstly, in terms of apologetics, if
the Church indeed pronounced solemnly that the Earth does
not revolve around the sun, then she almost certainly would
have erred.6 Naturally, this situation would eliminate her claim
of infallibility, which would in turn destroy her claim of Divine
institution. An alternative interpretation, if we want to protect
the Church’s claim of inerrancy, might be to allow a plurality
of contradictory truths. In other words, one might say that by
faith we believe one thing, by science we believe the opposite.7
Thus, we would concede that science and religion are indeed
incongruent, but not necessarily incompatible. However, this too is
unacceptable, because there is unity in truth. The Church cannot
hold true that which is opposed to a truth of science. One or the
other must be false since God is the author of all truth and cannot
contradict Himself.
But, beyond the questions about science and religion, what
does this rendition of the Galileo case portend for the reputation
of the Catholic Church? Did she really just arbitrarily condemn
Whatever
they can really
demonstrate
to be true of
physical nature
we must show
to be capable of
reconciliation
with our
Scriptures; and
whatever they
assert in their
treatises which
is contrary to
these Scriptures
of ours, that is to
the Catholic faith,
we must either
prove it as well
as we can to be
entirely false, or
at all events we
must, without
hesitation, believe
it to be so.
–St. Augustine 2

11
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
a man to life imprisonment in order to thwart a
scientifically proven truth? Was there any reason for
what happened beyond a simple desire to continue
to freely propagate her own errors? How should
a Catholic respond when confronted with such
accusations concerning this whole affair?
In the course of this essay, we will elucidate
the answers to these questions and objections by:
1) providing the historical context outside of which
no event of this magnitude can be understood; 2)
correcting factual errors and misconceptions; and
finally 3) drawing some conclusions and inferences
based on what we have found.
Context Part I: PERSONAL
Galileo the Man
Galileo was born in the Italian city of Pisa in
1564. Though it is often overlooked, he was raised
and always remained a loyal Catholic, even joining
for a year the Vallambrosan Order as a novice around
the age of 14.8 Although he failed to earn a university
degree for financial reasons, Galileo doggedly
pursued studies of mathematics and mechanics on his
own. By the age of 25, he had invented a hydrostatic
balance, written a highly praised essay on “the center
of gravity in solid bodies,” and had won the attention
of some high-ranking scholars and clerics including
the great Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius
and the Marquise Guidubaldo del Monte, the brother
of Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte. Withal, in
1589, at age 25 he obtained a position as Professor
of Mathematics at the University of Pisa. Three
years later, Guidubaldo assisted in gaining for him
an appointment to the chair of Mathematics at the
University of Padua, where he remained for 17 years.
Later, seeking greater freedom to research and fewer
teaching responsibilities, Galileo looked to remove to
Florence in Tuscany. In hopes of gaining a position
there, he went so far as to name the moons of Jupiter,
the “Medicean Stars” after Cosimo II de Medici,
Tuscany’s Grand Duke, and dedicated his first book,
the Starry Messenger, to the same nobleman. Finally, in
1610, Cosimo appointed him “First Mathematician of
the University of Pisa, and First Mathematician and
Philosopher to the Grand Duke.” He maintained this
post while living in Florence throughout most of his
period of troubles with the Church authorities.9
Much of the dispute between Galileo and the
Church has been attributed to an innate conflict
between science and religion. Galileo has even been
referred to as a martyr for science.10 The assertions
are false. Neither are science and religion opposed–
although their methods may differ, their objects are in
agreement–nor was Galileo condemned because of a
statement of scientific truth. In reality, central to this
conflict was the messenger, not the message.
We have seen the meteoric rise of a brilliant man,
but we have not seen the man. Galileo’s personality
was a breeding ground for discord. According to
Arthur Koestler, “Galileo had a rare gift of provoking
enmity; not the affection alternating with rage which
Tycho [Brahe] aroused, but the cold, unrelenting
hostility which genius plus arrogance minus humility
creates among mediocrities.”11 He was brash, abrasive,
proud, and provocative. In his first post at Pisa, he
had already earned the moniker “The Wrangler” due
to “his choleric and disputatious temper.”12 Besides
the run-in concerning heliocentrism, he disputed with
varying degrees of success the so-called Aristotelians
at the university concerning physics and astronomy,
fellow astronomers concerning who discovered
what heavenly things first, others concerning the
composition of comets, and many others about
whatever he could find. But it was not just that he
engaged in frequent debate–that would be expected in
the inquisitive atmosphere of the late Renaissance–but
in the mode of his attacks. Galileo was a tremendously
effective writer and rhetorician, who played his
audience masterfully. His pen soaked in sarcasm, he
refused to concede even the most minute of points,
but chose to attack fiercely those with whom he
disagreed. According to Will and Ariel Durant:
He was an ardent controversialist, skilled to spear a foe
on a phrase or roast him with burning indignation. In the
margin of a book by the Jesuit Antonio Rocco defending the
Ptolemaic astronomy, Galileo wrote, “Ignoramus, elephant,
fool, dunce...eunuch.”13
J.L. Heilbron suggests that indeed “Galileo posed
a special threat to the Church because he knew how
to write. Witty, sarcastic, informative, and profound,
he occupies a place among the stylists of Italian
literature.”14 And indeed to the Italian language
he occasionally turned. Instead of writing in Latin,
the universal language of scholars, and with an eye
toward a larger, less exclusively educated crowd,
Galileo penned his most controversial works in
Italian. He was a popular polemicist quick to admit
that he did not write for pedants.15 Consequently,
instead of a simple essay swamped in figures and
equations, he textured his prose with wit and
invective and aroused the passions of the multitudes.
In short, Galileo would be a dangerous man with a
delicate message.
Context Part II: HISTORICAL
Action and Reaction
Galileo lived in an age of upheaval. He was born
in the era during which the Protestant Revolution,
shaking and shattering Christendom, reached a
mature state. In 1642 he died, a month shy of his 78th
birthday, after the Catholic Church had re-asserted
herself and the sanguinary Thirty Years’ War still
had six years to go. These were the latter years of the
Renaissance, and the beginning of what is sometimes
referred to as the “Age of Reason.”16 New worlds were
opening up as explorers, traders, and settlers scattered

The Aristotelian Universe
The Earth is at the center, surrounded by
concentric spheres on which the sun, the
moon, and the other planets revolve.
The Copernican Universe
The sun is at the center, with the Earth
and other planets in circular orbits
around it.
Tycho Brahe’s Universe
A geocentric universe where all the
planets revolve around the sun, while the
sun turns around the Earth.
Reprinted with permission from Galileo, Science, and the Church, by Langford
(Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), pp.26,38,47.
T


The Aristotelian Universe
The Earth is at the center, surrounded by
concentric spheres on which the sun, the
moon, and the other planets revolve.
The Copernican Universe
The sun is at the center, with the Earth
and other planets in circular orbits
around it.
Tycho Brahe’s Universe
A geocentric universe where all the
planets revolve around the sun, while the
sun turns around the Earth.
Reprinted with permission from Galileo, Science, and the Church, by Langford
(Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), pp.26,38,47.
THREE
SYSTEMS
12

13
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
around the globe and nations sought empires in
exotic lands. It has been justly characterized as the
“Age of Adventure,”17 for adventures are defined
by uncertainty and excitement. And these are the
things that unseated the Catholic order that had
reigned supreme in the High Middle Ages.
But the uncertainty and excitement proved
perilous. For in their midst, souls were being lost.
The Renaissance gave rise to many great advances
in the arts and sciences, but its humanism also
served as a distraction for many away from
their heavenly goal. The Protestant Revolution,
beginning in the early 16th century, not only upset
the established social order, obliterated the unity
of Faith, and brought about bloody ιnѕυrrєcтισns
and warfare, but it destroyed souls in countless
quantity. The Catholic Church, whose Divine
mission was to see to the salvation of those souls,
was compelled to react. She did so impressively.
The 1500s witnessed: the all-encompassing
Council of Trent, which had so clearly defined so
many things Catholic, and condemned so many
things Protestant; the Catholic Reformation, where
the Church cleaned house; the inception of the
Jesuits, the most rigorously intellectual order of
the day and stout defenders of orthodoxy; the
codification of the Mass by Pope St. Pius V; a
deluge of catechetical works; an unparalleled
emphasis on apologetics, most importantly and
epically by St. Robert Bellarmine; and a more
resolute protection of the Sacred Scriptures that
had been so savagely attacked by Protestantism. In
sum, the Church tightened her grip on her divine
possessions. She kept much stricter vigil over her
dogmas, her Gospels, her sacred authority, all of
which had been questioned by the “Reformers.”
Moreover, she maintained the Holy Inquisition
and added, in 1559, the Index of Forbidden Books
as means of pursuing her resolve to shepherd
as many souls as possible to Heaven. Simply
put, circuмstances were poor for the promotion
of ideas that could possibly detract from the
authority of the Church or scandalize souls.
Context Part III:
COSMOLOGICAL
Three Systems
Onto a stage thus set, Galileo brought his
pugnacious style to a debate that at the onset
of the 17th century actually involved three
competing theories of the universe. Two of these
were geocentric and the third was heliocentric.
In their details none of them were wholly true,
but each seemed to supply an explanation for
what was visible to the naked eye. In so doing,
each was plagued by a dizzying number of
epicycles, or circles upon circles, that were needed
to reconcile the theory with what was clearly
visible in the heavens. This effort to make what
was apparent agree with a theory by postulating
various speculative additions was called “saving
the appearances.” It was bulky and complex,
but saving the appearances at least made the
workings of the universe predictable if not actually
comprehensible.
The most ancient view, and one that held sway
for centuries was a mixture of the observations
and speculations of Aristotle and Ptolemy.
Known as the Ptolemaic model of the universe,
this theory gained great esteem especially in the
first half of the second millennium AD when
Aristotle reigned supreme among philosophers
and theologians. Aristotle had been reintroduced
to the western world in the 1200s by the great
scientist and theologian St. Albert the Great.
However, where Albert sought proof and,
when necessary, correction of Aristotle’s claims
through experimentation, later scholars tended
to merely take “The Philosopher” at his word.18
In this case, the word of Aristotle, adapted by
Ptolemy, proclaimed a universe with all of the
celestial bodies moving in perfect circles around
a stationary earth. But it was not just on the basis
of Aristotle’s authority that people accepted this
model. In fact, as James Brodrick writes:
It answered well enough to their daily experience.
The earth certainly seemed at rest, and any man who
sat up late at night could see for himself the majestic
wheeling of the heavens. The Scriptures, the revealed
word of God, seemed to be permeated through and
through with the same idea, though the sacred writers
had never heard of Aristotle. The Fathers of the Church
did not so much believe the geocentric theory as take
it for granted. Ptolemy’s elaboration of Aristotle did in
fact account for the celestial phenomena well enough,
and by it eclipses could be predicted and ships guided
to their destinations with reasonable accuracy.19
Thus, the geocentric model of the universe,
which was hardly questioned for eighteen
hundred years seemed satisfactory not only on a
philosophic and theological level, but also on a
practical, common-sense level.
Canon Nicholas Copernicus, saw things
otherwise. Looking to a number of ancient writers
in combination with his own observations and
those especially of Cardinal Nicholas Cusa and
others in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, he
devised a comprehensive theory that accounted
for the appearances while positing that the sun
was the center of the universe. The Copernican
model of the universe found its greatest exposition
in his work, De Revolutionibus orbium coelum,
which was published while Copernicus lay on
his deathbed in 1543. This model was known in
most scholarly circles, taught as a theory in the
universities, and believed by some, but for the
most part it aroused little interest for about fifty
years. The book itself “was and is an all-time worst

14
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
seller.”20 While the general idea of heliocentrism
was reputable, Copernicus’s system was even more
complex than the old one, containing more circles
upon circles, and it was ensconced in a book that was
almost as unreadable as it was unread. Meanwhile,
the theory as Copernicus had it figured was so
weak that he was actually afraid to publish it for
fear of public embarrassment.21 Almost in spite of it
all, the heliocentric theory would rocket back into
prominence shortly after the turn of the 17th century.
The last system to vie for acceptance in this time
period was that of Tycho Brahe. Tycho, who was
arguably the greatest, most persistent and accurate
celestial observer, opposed the Ptolemaic model
because he could not reconcile it with the supernova
of 1572 and the great comet of 1577. He also opposed
the Copernican theory because of insufficient
evidence, and because he felt it contradicted
Scripture.22 In this last he followed the lead of his
Lutheran forerunners, Martin Luther and Melancthon.
To fill the void, he suggested a model wherein the sun
and moon circled around the earth while the planets
revolved around the sun in epicycles. A latecomer to
the scene, this theory would gain greater acceptance,
especially among the Jesuit astronomers, as new
discoveries made the old Ptolemaic scheme appear
less tenable.
Galileo Ascendant
In 1608 Hans Lippershey, a Dutchman, patented
the telescope. A year later Galileo began work on
his own, and by 1609 his “spyglass” was magnifying
objects a thousand times. The calm ended. The
tempest erupted. Immediately the heavens presented
new spectacles to the aided eye and new evidence
for the astronomical debate. As it turned out, the
evidence proved devastating to the Aristotelian-
Ptolemaic cosmology. Contrary to that theory, Galileo
observed that the moon’s surface was not perfectly
round and smooth, but “full of irregularities, uneven,
full of protuberances ... varied everywhere by lofty
mountains and deep valleys,”23 concluding that it
was of the same material as the earth. He identified
four moons that revolved around Jupiter instead of
the earth, as well as the phases of Venus, the lack of
proof of which had previously been a sticking point
in the Copernican model. A year after the publication
of these discoveries, he observed, with others, the
sunspots, indicating that the sun was of changeable
matter, again contrary to the model suggested by
Aristotle. In sum, the empirical evidence provided by
the telescope clearly mitigated against the Ptolemaic
theory of the universe that had been held so dear so
long.
Galileo published his initial observations in
a small book called the Starry Messenger in 1610.
Twenty-four pages long, its message was highly
accessible, and consequently sold out rapidly. The
effect was dramatic. The cosmological debate spread
like wildfire. Galileo was “lauded as the greatest
astronomer of the age.”24 While this was certainly
an overstatement, it indicates the spirit of the day.
Meanwhile, Fr. Christopher Clavius, the highly
renowned chief mathematician and astronomer at the
elite Jesuit Collegio Romano, whom Galileo had met
years before, wrote to tell him that the astronomers
at the college had confirmed his discoveries.
(Clavius would die just over a year later convinced
in part because of the telescopic discoveries that the
Ptolemaic system had become untenable.) So Galileo
set out for Rome with high expectations of convincing
the ecclesiastics there of the virtues of the Copernican
system.25 The Jesuits, many high ranking prelates and
cardinals, and even the Pope, Paul V, who granted
him a long audience, greeted him enthusiastically. He
was admitted to the newly-formed Accademia dei Lincei
whose common goal was to “fight Aristotelianism
all the way.”26 Writing, “Everybody is showing me
wonderful kindness, especially the Jesuit Fathers,”27 he
returned to Florence in triumph.
Galileo’s Obstacles
Galileo now proceeded to work at full throttle to
gain acceptance of the heliocentric universe not as a
theory, but as a proved fact. But while his confidence
increased so too did the rumblings of dissent. In
fact, the first condemnation of heliocentrism by the
Inquisition was less than five years off.
Four serious problems plagued the Italian
astronomer: 1) First of all, and most importantly,
he neither at this point, nor ever proved his theory.
He eventually offered numerous arguments, but
they were all flawed. In the meantime, he refused,
possibly out of pride, to accept or even acknowledge
Johann Kepler’s idea that the planets’ orbits are
elliptical. If he had done so, his arguments would
have been far more palatable for having gained
the one thing lacking in all other models, namely
simplicity (since the ellipses would eliminate the
cuмbersome epicycles). But, in spite of his various
shortcomings, he clearly illustrated the weakness
of the Ptolemaic model of the universe. However,
this brings us to the second problem. 2) Galileo
never gave the Tychonic model sufficient attention.
He could have completely annihilated the theory
of Aristotle and Ptolemy, but since that was not the
only geocentric alternative, it would still be far from
logical to conclude that heliocentrism must be true.
But this is exactly what Galileo did, as though Tycho
Brahe and his ideas never existed. In the meantime,
many of the Jesuit astronomers were taking to the
Tychonic model precisely because it could still
account for the various new telescopic discoveries
just as well as heliocentrism, but it did not pose the
Scriptural difficulties inherent in the sun-centered
theory. 3) The third problem facing Galileo then was

15
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
the simple fact that his theory seemed to fly blatantly
in the face of passages in Sacred Scripture such as
Jos. 10:12-13, where Joshua commands the sun to be
still in the valley of Ajalon. Not only were statements
like this in Scripture, but the Church Fathers took
them literally. As a result, an ancient teaching of the
Church appeared to be contradicted by heliocentrism.
4) The last major problem standing before Galileo
was his own personality. By championing the cause
of heliocentrism, he was treading on potentially
perilous ground. Copernicus and others had gotten
away with discussing heliocentrism as a theoretical
construction;28 by promoting it as true, Galileo was
taking the game to a whole new level. His disputatious
nature would impede his progress throughout the
pending ordeal.
The showdown between Galileo and the
Inquisition took part in two phases. The first occurred
in 1615-1616, the second 1632-1633. We will examine
them in chronological order.
The First Showdown
By 1615, Galileo had spent years loudly preaching
the Copernican theory as truth. He had defeated
many a foe in mathematical debate, but in time
the focus of the debate shifted from mathematics
and astronomy to theology. The transition to the
theological only occurred because Galileo insisted
that Copernicanism was true, and not merely
a hypothetical but practical tool. Indeed, using
heliocentrism as a convenient construct to predict
astronomical events and to save the appearances was
one thing, but to suggest it was actually true in the
face of and contrary to the authority of Sacred Writ
was another.
Inevitably, the scriptural objections noted
above were raised both by clerics and laymen, most
importantly, the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany.
In 1613, at a dinner in which the conversation turned
toward the subject of the day, she inquired in some
detail about the Copernican model and gave voice
to the usual scriptural protestations to a disciple
of Galileo’s, a Benedictine monk name Benedetto
Castelli. Castelli related the incident to Galileo, and
Galileo took the plunge into the dangerous waters
of theology. He hurriedly wrote and circulated his
Letter to Castelli. It would prove to be the beginning
of his downfall. In the Letter Galileo made clear his
position that the Bible sometimes speaks of things
according to common parlance, even if the speech is
not technically accurate. (Thus, we still speak of the
sun rising and setting even if we know that the earth’s
rotation accounts for the appearance of the motion of
the sun.) Scripture was not intended as a mathematics
textbook, and so should not be utilized as an authority
in that field when observation seemed to contradict it.
In this vein of thought originated the saying that the
Bible was meant to teach how to go to Heaven, not
how the heavens go.
Within about a year of the circulation of the
Letter to Castelli, the attacks on Galileo moved to the
pulpit and then beyond. A Dominican, Fr. Thomas
Caccini, attacked mathematics, mathematicians, and
the Copernican theory mercilessly, using as his text
for a sermon, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing
up into the heavens?” Fr. Niccolo Lorini, on behalf
of the Dominican monks of St. Mark’s in Florence,
sent the Letter to Paolo Cardinal Sfrondato, one of
the Inquisitors General, who in turn passed it on to
the Holy Office. In the cover letter, Fr. Lorini stated
the monks’ opinion that the Letter slighted Scripture,
the ancient Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the
philosophy of Aristotle “which has been of such
service to Scholastic theology.”29 Moreover, the monks
could see that allowing individual interpretation of
Scripture contrary to the teachings of the Fathers was
precisely the origin of the Protestant Revolution and
was condemned by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).30
Aside from their place in the narrative, the
interesting point about these two episodes is that in
both cases, the higher Church authorities decreed in
Galileo’s favor. Fr. Luigi Maraffi, Preacher General
of the Dominican Order apologized to Galileo for
the attack by Fr. Caccini to which he referred as an
“idiocy.” The Inquisitor assigned to read the Letter to
Castelli determined it to be orthodox.
As Galileo was gaining these two concessions,
however, he was at work on a revised version of the
Letter. In the interim between the two Letters he had
been warned by friends (including the future Pope
Urban VIII, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini) to cease the
promotion of his theory as a fact, and to quit dabbling
in theology and speak as a mathematician only. He
refused this advice, emboldened by the publication
of a book by a Carmelite Friar named Paolo
Antonio Foscarini that claimed to have reconciled
Copernicanism and Scripture. But Cardinal St.
Robert Bellarmine, in review of Foscarini’s work and
referring explicitly to Galileo as well as Foscarini,
said they must treat the matter as a theory and that
Scripture was not to be reinterpreted unless and until
there was “a true demonstration that the sun was
in the center of the universe and the earth in third
sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the
earth....”31 Even at that point, Bellarmine said, it would
be necessary to proceed with great caution in the
reinterpretation of the difficult passages. After all, the
faith of souls was at stake. On the part of Bellarmine,
speaking, as all knew, unofficially for the Church, the
thrust of his statement was judicious and prudent. It
allowed that geocentrism was not an article of faith,
thus leaving open the possibility that it might be
shown to be false. On the other hand, he made clear
that it was not a matter to be treated lightly, and that
if heliocentrism were indeed demonstrably true it had
to be dealt with delicately.
(continued on p.34)

THE ANGELUS
October 2003
But the reckless Galileo, true to form, would
not compromise. He believed Copernicus to be
right, but he could not prove it. He wanted others to
believe the same, but he could not convince them.
And he hardly acknowledged the Tychonic model,
the one system that stood as an entirely logical
alternative. Nevertheless, in his Letter to the Grand
Duchess Christina, the revision of that to Castelli,
he disregarded all exhortations for prudence and a
tempered message. After repeating and magnifying
all of his controversial methodological practices of the
past (e.g. interpreting Scripture, asserting the reality of
Copernicanism), he went so far as to suggest that his
theory must be accepted as truth until the theologians
had disproved it. In other words, the Bible must be
reinterpreted unless the theologians could disprove
heliocentrism. In this manner he appeared to shift
the burden of proof to the theologians.32 It was a
bold move and a hazardous decision. In spite of the
apparent rebelliousness of his approach, however, he
concluded by promising submission to the Church
and her judgment on matters concerning religion.
And yet he added, “I do not feel obliged to believe
that that same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.”33
In December, 1615, against the advice of many of
his cardinal friends and Robert Bellarmine, Galileo
took his case to Rome. Rumors had spread that
Copernicanism was to be banned by the Church
authorities. In order to thwart a decision against
Copernicus and to clear his own name, Galileo
stepped into the gauntlet.34 Amidst murmurs of heresy
and blasphemy, he pleaded his case before everyone
in the ecclesiastical hierarchy who would listen. In
February of 1616, as passions flew, he pressed the
Christopher
Clavius
Aristotle
Copernicus[/siz
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 15, 2022, 10:23:14 AM
Quote from: Charity on October 14, 2022, 03:53:40 PM
SSPX:  The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. 

This is a complete and total lie, the false premise out of the gate that everything follows.  By claiming this, they smear St. Robert Bellarmine and the others who judged heliocentrism to be heresy based on its contradiction with Sacred Scripture, as interpreted by the Church Fathers.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: Ladislaus on October 15, 2022, 10:29:57 AM
Quote from: cassini on October 14, 2022, 02:58:39 PM
Comment:Is this priest actually questioning God’s ability to flood the Earth with water as revealed in Genesis?

Yes, he absolutely is.  That's why he's a Modernist heretic.  One of the hallmarks of the Modernist approach to Sacred Scripture is the refusal to acknowledge that God works miracles that might defy the laws of nature.  So they try to come up with naturalistic explanations for eveything.  So, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea was just a low tide that revealed a sand bar that allowed the Jєωs to pass through.  God's miracle consisted mostly of working out the timing of the whole thing.

It's the same Deism that Lyell promoted, and also Descartes, that God's roll in creation was simply to "kick off" the entire process (which Pasteur rightly took him to task over).

This reminds me of the exchange I had with the Modernist heretic Van Beeck at Loyola University.  VB:  "We know that the Gospels were all written after 70 A.D."  I: "Why do you say that the Gospels were written after 70 A.D.?  What's the evidence for that?"  VB:  "That's because there are references in the Gospels to the fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 70."  I :  "Ah, so you mean where Jesus foretold the fall of Jerualem.  So, you're saying that Jesus isn't God and can't know the future."  VB:  Angry scowl.

Robinson is as bad as any of the Modernist heretics that I battled for 8 years in Jesuit schools.
Title: Re: Review of Fr. Robinson's Modernist Guide to Science Refuting Scripture
Post by: cassini on October 15, 2022, 12:27:08 PM
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 15, 2022, 10:29:57 AM
Yes, he absolutely is.  That's why he's a Modernist heretic.  One of the hallmarks of the Modernist approach to Sacred Scripture is the refusal to acknowledge that God works miracles that might defy the laws of nature.  So they try to come up with naturalistic explanations for eveything.  So, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea was just a low tide that revealed a sand bar that allowed the Jєωs to pass through.  God's miracle consisted mostly of working out the timing of the whole thing.

It's the same Deism that Lyell promoted, and also Descartes, that God's roll in creation was simply to "kick off" the entire process (which Pasteur rightly took him to task over).

This reminds me of the exchange I had with the Modernist heretic Van Beeck at Loyola University.  VB:  "We know that the Gospels were all written after 70 A.D."  I: "Why do you say that the Gospels were written after 70 A.D.?  What's the evidence for that?"  VB:  "That's because there are references in the Gospels to the fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 70."  I :  "Ah, so you mean where Jesus foretold the fall of Jerualem.  So, you're saying that Jesus isn't God and can't know the future."  VB:  Angry scowl.

Robinson is as bad as any of the Modernist heretics that I battled for 8 years in Jesuit schools.

Agree Ladislaus. Do you know who was King of evolution crap being the way God created. The Protestant  who pretended to convert to Catholicism, became the Patron Saint of Evolution, and of Vatican II? None other than Henry Newman.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/a-patron-saint-of-evolution/