Faith and science according to SSPX priest.
#1
Quote:
Quote:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx...ence-35276
 
https://therealistguide.com/big-bang-theory-reactions
Will comment later.
Reply
#2
(02-18-2018, 05:19 PM)cassini Wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx...ence-35276
 
https://therealistguide.com/big-bang-theory-reactions
Will comment later.

This book has been written by others, he accepts all the scientists biased conclusions accept the fact that they don't include God.I wish some of these priests were as loyal to the Catholic faith as they are to the conclusions of scientists who don't hold the faith.
[-] The following 1 user Likes salus's post:
  • cassini
Reply
#3
(02-18-2018, 05:19 PM)cassini Wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/sspx...ence-35276
 
https://therealistguide.com/big-bang-theory-reactions
Will comment later.

It was Pope Pius XII who began the Big Bang god of Catholicism. No doubt Fr Robinson felt safe when offering another dose of it as Catholic.

‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
     My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]


[1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.

Having placed the Catholic faith into the hands of this Big Bang god, the Creation of the Trinity now has to comply to Big Bang 'science.' It means an evolved universe, an evolved heliocentric solar system and consequently as many solar systems with other earths and living intelligent creartures as is found on this earth. How many already condemned heresies and false doctrines are inherent in Fr Robinson's Catholic Big Bang Creartion? From 150AD to 450 AD the Fathers, popes and saints were fighting to rid the world of 'Pythagorean' heresies, that the earth moves, that there are many worlds, that there exists other intelligent creatures etc. Under the Big Bang theory these heresies are all back in action again. 

And what abiout Genesis? What followed is an inferred endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer today, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the all the Church Fathers; (2) theories that denied the biblical age of 6-7,000 years for the universe; (3) theories that denied the global Flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. It makes nonsense of Moses's revelation and Popes who defended its literal meaning:
a total rejection of Catholic Martyrology, first published in 1580 by authority of Pope Gregory XIII, and revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, a biblical dating that declared the creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ, a timescale similar to the spiritual writings of the Augustinian nun, Katarina Emmerick for example, written in 1820: Katarina’s age for Jesus Christ is the exactly the same as found in the Scriptures: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941 BC), Abraham 1950 after creation (AC), Exodus 2540AC, birth of Jesus 3997AC, death of Jesus 4030AC at 33 years, fall of Jerusalem 4070AC, world on 2000 AD was 5997 years old, 2018 years after Christ was the year 6,014AC and so on.

I cannot believe the American SSPX could endorce these inherent creation heresies as Catholic education..
Reply
#4
You still at it, cassini?
Someone must be paying you a heap to keep coming back every now and then trying to beguile the naïve with your apparently erudite misrepresentations of both science and theology.
 I have no difficulty with the Augustinian version of a "Big Bang" where the whole Universe came into existence in an instant (of our time) complete and fully functional to proceed (from our point of view) by a succession of events (time) thereafter. Why would an omnipotent Creator muck about for a whole week to do something He does just by thinking about it? (This is a simplistic view to accommodate "churchy" fundamentalists who cannot allow any distinction between temporal and eternal.)

Lemaitre's version of a "Big Bang" is fraught with difficulties... that Pius XII was, perhaps, (most likely) not aware of.

Anyhow, since God can do anything but contradict Himself (i.e. not be what He is, know what He knows, do what He does, etc.) He is not subject to your fanciful proclamations and decrees however plausible you might make them appear.

Physical and metaphysical reality is what it is and it is an harmonious whole because it all comes from the same Mind.
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Oldavid's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#5
(03-02-2018, 12:12 AM)Oldavid Wrote: You still at it, cassini?
Someone must be paying you a heap to keep coming back every now and then trying to beguile the naïve with your apparently erudite misrepresentations of both science and theology.
 I have no difficulty with the Augustinian version of a "Big Bang" where the whole Universe came into existence in an instant (of our time) complete and fully functional to proceed (from our point of view) by a succession of events (time) thereafter. Why would an omnipotent Creator muck about for a whole week to do something He does just by thinking about it? (This is a simplistic view to accommodate "churchy" fundamentalists who cannot allow any distinction between temporal and eternal.)

Lemaitre's version of a "Big Bang" is fraught with difficulties... that Pius XII was, perhaps, (most likely) not aware of.

Anyhow, since God can do anything but contradict Himself (i.e. not be what He is, know what He knows, do what He does, etc.) He is not subject to your fanciful proclamations and decrees however plausible you might make them appear.

Physical and metaphysical reality is what it is and it is an harmonious whole because it all comes from the same Mind.

Good lord, I thought you had rertired Oldavid. OK then, but what are you on about here? Fr Robinson 's book tries to get the readers to believe it is Catholic to believe in a Bib Bang creation 13.5 Billion years ago with the universe evolving from its dust and all that goes with it.

You then start telling us you have no problem with Augustine's version of Genesis that God created all, 'in all its substance,' at the beginning of time. Neither have I, but Fr Robinson book tells us it took 13.5 billion years to become all in its substance. That is why I try to warn anyone who might be thinking of buying into this evolution tale.

I prefer however the literal version, the one believed by the majority of the Fathers. That God created as he did, in perfect sequence, each depending on the previous day's creation. Here is some of Mary of Agreda's insight that she said came from Holy Mary herself.

      ‘Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them…. [Genesis: creation of heaven, Earth, sun, stars, flora, fauna and mankind.]

'God is not subject to your fanciful proclamations and decrees however plausible you might make them appear' you say. It is Fr Robinson who is subjecting God to the Big Bang you agree with me 'is fraught with difficulties...'

So Oldavid, I suggest you get off your prejudiced horse and stop accusing others without cause just for the sake of it.
Reply
#6
Popcorn
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#7
(03-06-2018, 05:23 PM)cassini Wrote:
(03-02-2018, 12:12 AM)Oldavid Wrote: You still at it, cassini?
Someone must be paying you a heap to keep coming back every now and then trying to beguile the naïve with your apparently erudite misrepresentations of both science and theology.
 I have no difficulty with the Augustinian version of a "Big Bang" where the whole Universe came into existence in an instant (of our time) complete and fully functional to proceed (from our point of view) by a succession of events (time) thereafter. Why would an omnipotent Creator muck about for a whole week to do something He does just by thinking about it? (This is a simplistic view to accommodate "churchy" fundamentalists who cannot allow any distinction between temporal and eternal.)

Lemaitre's version of a "Big Bang" is fraught with difficulties... that Pius XII was, perhaps, (most likely) not aware of.

Anyhow, since God can do anything but contradict Himself (i.e. not be what He is, know what He knows, do what He does, etc.) He is not subject to your fanciful proclamations and decrees however plausible you might make them appear.

Physical and metaphysical reality is what it is and it is an harmonious whole because it all comes from the same Mind.

Good lord, I thought you had rertired Oldavid. OK then, but what are you on about here? Fr Robinson 's book tries to get the readers to believe it is Catholic to believe in a Bib Bang creation 13.5 Billion years ago with the universe evolving from its dust and all that goes with it.

You then start telling us you have no problem with Augustine's version of Genesis that God created all, 'in all its substance,' at the beginning of time. Neither have I, but Fr Robinson book tells us it took 13.5 billion years to become all in its substance. That is why I try to warn anyone who might be thinking of buying into this evolution tale.

I prefer however the literal version, the one believed by the majority of the Fathers. That God created as he did, in perfect sequence, each depending on the previous day's creation. Here is some of Mary of Agreda's insight that she said came from Holy Mary herself.

      ‘Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them…. [Genesis: creation of heaven, Earth, sun, stars, flora, fauna and mankind.]

'God is not subject to your fanciful proclamations and decrees however plausible you might make them appear' you say. It is Fr Robinson who is subjecting God to the Big Bang you agree with me 'is fraught with difficulties...'

So Oldavid, I suggest you get off your prejudiced horse and stop accusing others without cause just for the sake of it.

All right, but none of that can make the Universe revolve around a stationary Earth.
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus.
Reply
#8
'All right, but none of that can make the Universe revolve around a stationary Earth.'

No Oldavid, only God can do that.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)