I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Evolutionist - Skepticism of Evolution
#51
(06-06-2019, 06:47 PM)Alphonse il Segundo Wrote: To say that heretical sects who deny the true Faith have managed to preserve the Catholic faith while Catholics themselves have failed to do that is just unbelievably nonsensical.

The Brits have a word for it, BOLLOCKS!
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
#52
(06-06-2019, 05:45 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(06-05-2019, 09:29 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Of course I am not catholic and as your article says, the church has not taught dogma on the passage. But once more you are mistaking [and thus false reading some fathers] as rejecting uniformity of nature rather than Unitarianism. Unless you can get the proper definition, this discussion cannot move forward. 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Unitarianism".

If you mean Uniformitarianism—the scientific assumption that natural processes, as can be presently observed, are held to be uniform in the past and future, unless we have evidence to suggest that they have changed—then the passage from St Peter's letter actually supports the idea of a uniformity, and thus why the scoffer can scoff. If there were not such a uniformity, then his scoffing would be baseless. That uniformity is necessary for there to be any scientific study or reliable knowledge. If things do not always obey some fundamental law of nature then any true knowledge is impossible.

If the fundamental forces in nature can change over time in non-predictable ways, then there is no reason to think that while I have been writing this sentences they have not changed. There is no point to scientific study because the inductive method is not reliable, since even were I to get the same result twice or 1,000 times then there is no reason to think it will happen again that way, since the laws of natures are changable.

It is worth noting, as that article on Fr Robinson's site does, that no Catholic or Protestant before the 19th century ever held this passage to condemn Uniformitarianism.

I'm curious why you cite the Flood, unless you are trying to argue the "flood geology" notion that the antediluvian world was so radically different that we have no way to go back beyond the Flood using natural processes. Is that why you bring it up?

If so, it's a bit of a circular argument, because to claim that it was so different before the Flood that science cannot penetrate that barrier is itself a bare assertion which of its very nature is impossible to demonstrate. That might be fine if we had then some revelation to suggest this was the case, but in fact, we don't, and Scripture is of no help here, because nowhere does Scripture claim this.

Add to it, the idea that nature was so destroyed that it was radically changed in its very essential properties is to say that God re-created the world, which undermines his own Wisdom. Anyone familiar with Lutheran or Calvinist theology will see how this idea clearly is just their heretical doctrine on Original Sin applied to the natural world, so no wonder it has its source in Protestantism.

I'm also curious what you mean by the CCC "teaching" evolution. The Church teaches doctrines which must be held by the faithful, but I am unfamiliar with where the CCC (which I'm not a fan of anyway, but side point...) says that Darwinian evolution is Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you could cite the passage with which you have issues.


Once more unless you are willing to understand a difference between Uniformitarianism and uniformity of nature, than we are talking past each other. I agree with uniformity of nature, not Uniformitarianism. Here would be a great book if you are interested. 

https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Proof-Cr...0890515689


As for dating methods and the false assumptions see my first posts under Deep Time the Creator God of the evolutionist. So you said "no Catholic or Protestant before the 19th century ever held this passage to condemn Uniformitarianism."  Maybe if that is true its because that was not made popular or believed untill Darwin/Lyell.  


I mention the flood because the passage mentions the flood.  You have a solid misunderstanding of the young earth position. I recommend you read up first from creationist rather than those who disagree with them. Here are some major creation organizations. 

https://answersingenesis.org/
https://creation.com/
https://store.icr.org/
http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-c...-creation/
about:blank

If you need books/videos/articles on the flood let me know.
Reply
#53
Evolution is so absurd that no prelate could ever possibly convince me of it. However, since the Faith is not intended to be a science paper in Nature magazine, it doesn't spell out exactly what happened. So my sense is that as millions of people became convinced of evolution, the Church just left some wiggle room so as not to seem overly blinkered. Probably more of that unwise reaching-out-to-the-world stuff. But for any with eyes to see, science has completely failed to prove the notion that we evoluted. It seems quite safe, to me, to believe we did not evolute.

Quote:Evolution ... is a false philosophy which was invented in the West as a reaction against Roman Catholic-Protestant theology, and which disguised itself as "science" in order to make itself respectable and deceive people who are willing to accept scientific fact. (In the West almost all modern errors do this same thing; even "Christian Science" claims to be "scientific," so also Spiritism, various Hindu cults, etc.)  

-- From Genesis, Creation, and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision, posthumous book by Fr Seraphim Rose, sainthermanpress.com, p. 422.
[-] The following 1 user Likes TruthWhichIsChrist's post:
  • Tolkien RRJ
Reply
#54
When it comes down to evolution, I honestly don't care anymore. There is no way for it to ruin my faith in God or His Revelation through scripture.

I do not believe in a formal change of a creature that macro evolution purports because it is metaphysically absurd. But I can at least give credit to the possibility of micro evolution (ie adaptations, accidents, etc.) because that is provable through genetics.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if scientists were completely wrong about the lengths of time needed for the generation of new species. But I'm also not very knowledgeable about science, so whatever.

I would rather stand by what the Church Tradition teaches, which is a philosophical interpretation of Genesis and leave it at that. Men are not intelligent enough to understand all of the aspects of God's creation, and we never will.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes: vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.' - Ecclesiastes 1:2
[-] The following 3 users Like Augustinian's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae, TruthWhichIsChrist
Reply
#55
(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: Once more unless you are willing to understand a difference between Uniformitarianism and uniformity of nature, than we are talking past each other. I agree with uniformity of nature, not Uniformitarianism. Here would be a great book if you are interested. 

I'm not looking to buy books just to engage in an online discussion, but I am happy to discuss the point.

Since you've read the book and assert there is something different between "uniformitarianism" and "unity of nature" how about defining each as you understand them and then perhaps we can address the matter.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: As for dating methods and the false assumptions see my first posts under Deep Time the Creator God of the evolutionist.

I haven't discussed dating methods here. I can if you want.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: So you said "no Catholic or Protestant before the 19th century ever held this passage to condemn Uniformitarianism."  Maybe if that is true its because that was not made popular or believed untill Darwin/Lyell.  

The Greeks long ago asserted an eternal universe, and this would be a perfect passing against them. Aristotle and Plato also both asserted an eternal universe and both were highly influential on Christian philosophy. Plato first, then Aristotle.

Seeing as St Thomas Aquinas asserts that the only we we know that there was a beginning to the universe is by revelation, if 2 Pt 3 means we must reject the permanent uniformity of natural laws since Creation, then it escaped the greatest theologians and philosophers of Christendom, all of whom would have had reason to use it against the eternity of the universe.

So, no, it didn't start with Lyell or Darwin. In fact Darwin stole his idea from the ancient Greeks, mostly from Anaxamander.

The first to interpret this passage as in the fundamentalist Protestant manner, from my reading, is George McGready Price, the self-styled "Geologist" who was a devotee of an Adventist prophetess who claimed to have seen the Creation in a series of visions. He developed the his "flood geology" as a shortcut to attack Darwin.

The general Catholic attitude at the time was pretty much indifferent to the timing of Creation, as can be seen from the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decree, which said that Genesis 1 could be interpreted as literal days or as indefinite periods safely. That decree was under the most solidly anti-liberal anti-Modernist Pope the Church has had, St Pius X.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: I mention the flood because the passage mentions the flood.  

It does, but that does not really play into the discussion unless you are going to assert that the natural and physical laws of the universe changed as a result of the Flood.

Is that what you assert.

(06-06-2019, 09:35 PM)Tolkien RRJ Wrote: You have a solid misunderstanding of the young earth position. I recommend you read up first from creationist rather than those who disagree with them. Here are some major creation organizations.

I've read most of it, because I used to not only accept it, but teach it. It was in continuing to study Creationism in order to perfect my arguments against those who asserted an Old Earth, that I found lots of contradictions and looked at the claims of the Old Earth side who also rejected Evolution (at least a random changes that excluded an Intelligence directing them).

The more I tried to perfect my case for Creationism, the worse it got, until I finally read up on what the Church actually taught and did some seminary studies in Scripture and Philosophy. Before that I had obtained a degree in Chemistry and in Physics and worked doing university-level research, so I'm quite familiar with both the Scriptural studies and the Science. It's be an interest of mine for a long time, and no, I don't think I've misunderstood the Young Earth position.

If you think I have, however, instead of just randomly pointing me to full websites, why don't point out the problems with what I have written? Usually that's how discussion forums work.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, jovan66102
Reply
#56
(06-06-2019, 03:20 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-06-2019, 02:03 PM)cassini Wrote: In other words, according to you, in plain English, the Church defected in or around 1835 when She began to teach heresy.

Are you  guys denying HISTORY?

In 1616 an irreformable decree defined heliocentrism was formal heresy--FACT OF HISTORY.
In 1633 Galileo, after lying to the Holy Office, was found guilty of suspicion of THE HERESY decreed in 1616

In 1820 a Fr Olivieri, a Holy Office chief, who believed that heliocentrism was proven, was asked to write a reason why the Pope should allow the publication of a heliocentric book. A Fr Anfossi had forbidden this. With the 1616 Vatican documents in Napoleon's  France, Olivieri hatched up a SCAM that could let the Catholic Church have its infallible decree and an acceptance of 'proven' heliocentrism. He agreed with Fr Anfossi that the 1616 decree was a papal irreversible decree. BUT he said, the 1616 decree was against a violent orbiting Earth, whereas in 1820 heliocentrism did not have a violent earth ACCORDING TO MODERN ASTRONOMERS. He convinced Pius VII of this and in 1835 Pope Pius VII issued this decree:

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’[1]

[1] Cited by A. Fantoli: Galileo; For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.

Note Fr Olivieri's conditions marked in RED for a non-hertetical heliocentrism appears in this decree.
But here is the 1616 heliocentrism that was found heretical:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers and theologians.”

Where does it say anything about a violent movement of the Earth? Papal definitions must be clear. It was to say the sun does not orbit the Earth that was the formal heresy. And in the heliocentrism inventerd by Fr Olivieri, the one Pope Pius VII allowed, IT STILL INCLUDES THE FIXED-SUN HERESY. 

Believing heliocentrism had been proven, the Catholic Church was PLUNGED into material HERESY from 1835. This was the beginnimng of the end of Traditional Catholiocism on Earth. Freemasonry was behind the illusion that heliocentrism was proven AND THAT THE DOCTRINE OF GEOCENTRISM held by the Catholic Church until then was FALSIFIED. Freemasonry had begun its task with an agenda to REPLACE THE SUPERNATURAL RELIGION OF THE CRUCIFIED AND RESURRECTED JESUS CHRIST WITH THE NATURAL RELIGION OF HUMANISM AND GLOBALISM. 
Heliocentrism was the first heresy of Naturalism, "manipulating nature to produce somerthing above nature - just as Satan attempted to transcend his nature in order to be God."
Once accepted there could be no opposition to the Nebular theory, how that heliocentrism now accepted within Catholicism evolved. With the capitulation to false human reason, Genesis came under attack from the mid-19th centurty with modernism taking over from tradition.

Today, Catholicism is a mere shell of its past. Pope after pope failed to correct the Galilean Reformation, until they became active again under Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis. By Vatican II the majority of the hierarchy were Big Bang modernists. Global warming is now the only sin the Catholioc Pope finds worth talking about.

So Jovan,Magister, and all you blind so-called Catholiocs, I have told you the truth and you prefer to believe lying. Oh yes you wrap it up as a defence of the Catholic Church and accuse a historian of blasphemy and heresy, just like the Jews accused Christ of blasphemy. I always recall the Scriptures telling us not to cast pearls to swine, for they will not believe you. So, I am off now for a while. I will leave you with St Paul's warning, a warning that He will send error for those who will not believe. Indeed this very warning of St Paul is currently being denied by a Pope Francis in Rome who wants to change the meaning of the Our Father.

And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” --- (2 Thes 2)
Reply
#57
Yet in 1758, the Church removed books teaching heliocentrism from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, so...


That being said, this has no bearing on my faith.  Nowhere in the Apostles' Creed (which dates to the 4th century, iirc) does it mention "I believe the sun moves around the earth" or words to that effect.
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
[-] The following 1 user Likes Jeeter's post:
  • Alphonse il Segundo
Reply
#58
(06-07-2019, 01:45 PM)Jeeter Wrote: Yet in 1758, the Church removed books teaching heliocentrism from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, so...


That being said, this has no bearing on my faith.  Nowhere in the Apostles' Creed (which dates to the 4th century, iirc) does it mention "I believe the sun moves around the earth" or words to that effect.

My God, you guys really haven't a clue what this is all about. I said I was off but this has to be answered.

What the Galileo case was about was the correct interpretation of the SCRIPTURES. The Scriptuires contain the essence of the Catholic faith they teach. The subject matter is of relative consequence to the real problem. It was the damage to Scripture - not the physical sciences - that caused the VIRUS that like DRY ROT changed the meaning of Scripture in so many ways that no one took them seriously again. From 1835 history shows a massive modernising of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. That is what happened, MODERNISM.
[-] The following 1 user Likes cassini's post:
  • Tolkien RRJ
Reply
#59
(06-07-2019, 02:42 PM)cassini Wrote:
(06-07-2019, 01:45 PM)Jeeter Wrote: Yet in 1758, the Church removed books teaching heliocentrism from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, so...


That being said, this has no bearing on my faith.  Nowhere in the Apostles' Creed (which dates to the 4th century, iirc) does it mention "I believe the sun moves around the earth" or words to that effect.

My God, you guys really haven't a clue what this is all about. I said I was off but this has to be answered.

What the Galileo case was about was the correct interpretation of the SCRIPTURES. The Scriptuires contain the essence of the Catholic faith they teach. The subject matter involved in this cvase is of relative consequence to the real problem. It was the damage to Scripture - not the physical sciences - that caused the VIRUS that like DRY ROT changed the meaning of Scripture in so many ways that no one took them seriously again. From 1835 history shows a massive modernising of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics. That is what happened, MODERNISM.

Cardinal Bellarmine said:

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’
Reply
#60
Quote:Global warming is now the only sin the Catholioc Pope finds worth talking about.

So Jovan, Magister, and all you blind so-called Catholiocs, I have told you the truth and you prefer to believe lying. Oh yes you wrap it up as a defense of the Catholic Church and accuse a historian of blasphemy and heresy, just like the Jews accused Christ of blasphemy.


Are Catholiocs the forgotten third race of human beings from The Time Machine?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)