Monday, August 26, 2019

Adam And Eve


 There is an old story (whether apocryphal or not, I can't be certain), which tells of a prominent atheist riding on a train. In the seats just across the aisle from him is an Orthodox rabbi and the rabbi's granddaughter who was about 17 years old. The atheist and the rabbi knew each other and had publicly debated over the existence of God. The atheist always gave the cold shoulder to the rabbi, as he detested anyone who believed in God. Both men were in their early 70s, and they did not acknowledge each other.  During the long train ride, the rabbi's granddaughter made quite the fuss over her grandfather, helping him to and from the bathroom, adjusting his pillow behind his head, asking him if there's anything he needed, and asking how he was feeling. The girl left her grandfather to use the bathroom, and much to the rabbi's surprise, the atheist turned and spoke to him.

"I must admit, rabbi, that your granddaughter is a well-mannered and respectful young lady who really loves you. I'm jealous. My granddaughter is the same age as yours, and she doesn't have the time of day for me. I don't think she even cares if I'm still alive or not." The rabbi replied, "That's the real difference between someone who believes in God and someone who does not!" The atheist, looking perplexed, asked, "What do you mean by that?" The rabbi responded, "When my granddaughter looks at me, she sees someone two generations closer to the wonderful creation of the world by God. When your granddaughter looks at you, she sees someone two generations closer to the monkey." The story, true or not, has at its core a vital lesson: ideas have serious consequences, and our beliefs really do matter.

The world (in general) and Modernists (in particular) try to reduce the truth of the descent of humanity from a single pair of First Parents into a reason to mock religion, especially Christianity. I was a middle school science teacher here in New York City before going to law school. One time, one of my students asked me, point blank, if I believed in Adam and Eve. I simply said, "I do," without further elaboration. The next day, I was called into my principal's office and warned never again to mention "my personal beliefs" in class. I asked if it was OK to respond to that question in the negative. "That's not a belief, that's science." To him, denial of Adam and Eve's existence was "scientific." That's actually scientism (the belief that only science can obtain true knowledge) and not science. As I was not yet tenured, I simply said "OK" and left his office.

Upon completing my Master's Degree in science education and receiving tenure, I submitted a paper to an organization of science teachers in New York and in which I was a dues paying member. My thesis was that there is evidence in nature of a guiding force in Creation (this was before the real advent of the Intelligent Design Movement), and it contained no reference to any religious authorities, just scientific fact and philosophic argumentation. The editor of the journal refused to publish it. When I asked the reason, he would not respond in writing, but called me on the phone. He gave three reasons; (1) it would "confuse our membership" [people with Master's degrees and doctorates? Really?], (2) it's a "national issue" and we only want what's relevant in New York [the origin of life on earth isn't relevant in NY?], and (3) it's "not what we espouse" [that was the only real reason]. I offered to debate him in front of the membership; after all, he had a doctorate in biology and was in his 50s, and I only had just obtained my Master's, being in my 20s. He ended the call, and refused further communication with me. I became the first NYC science teacher to resign his membership from that organization in protest over academic censorship.

When we defend the truth of monogenism from our First Parents, we must steer a careful course between exaggerations and things not taught by the Church, and denying or minimizing essential truths of Faith. This post will set forth Church teaching on this subject, and demonstrate how scientific evidence---even when interpreted by Darwinian scientists-- does nothing to disprove our common descent from Adam and Eve.

What the Church Does and Does NOT Teach regarding Human Origin
Why do the Modernists attack Adam and Eve with such vehemence? Two words: Original Sin. All Catholic dogma must be believed, and if any one is denied, others will begin to tumble down, much like the game dominoes. If there is no Adam and Eve, there is no Original Sin. People are born good, and there is no need for a Redeemer. Christ is called "The Second Adam" precisely because he came to rescue us from the Fall caused by the First Adam. If there is no need of Redemption, Christ and His One True Church are rendered needless at best. The Sacrifice of the Cross was not redemptive, and the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not an unbloody presentation through space and time of the Bloody Sacrifice of Our Suffering Savior. It is now a "celebration of the assembly" and a mere commemoration of the Last Supper (think: Vatican II sect Novus Bogus "mass").  All of this supports the idea that one religion is as good as another, and everyone gets saved ("universalism").

Modernists hate the supernatural, and attacking the historic Adam and Eve is easy game because people ignorantly claim that science has "disproved" such an idea. The truth is also not helped by those who continue to claim that Adam ate "an apple," and other particulars for which there is no support. (Neither the Bible nor Tradition talks about Adam eating an apple). Let's examine what the Church does and does not teach on this subject.

In his encyclical Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII teaches:

...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.  For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.  Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (See para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).

The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism. Most Traditionalists will be "scandalized" by the idea that the human body could have been developed over time through a process of evolution. However, Pope Pius XII and the approved theologians saw no problem.

According to theologian Tanquerey:

It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…

The opinion which asserts that the human body has arisen from animality through the forces of evolution is not heretical, in fact in can be admitted theologically…

Thesis: The universal human race has arisen from the one first parent Adam.  According to many theologians this statement is proximate to a matter of faith. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:394-398; Emphasis mine).

Theologian Ott says similarly:
The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing.  As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God cannot be maintained with certainty.  Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…

The Encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…

Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism).  The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).

The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X.

"...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer." (See Acta Apostolis Sedis, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).

Finally, the basic gist of Church teaching in this area is set forth by the eminent theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224; Emphasis in original).

From the above we can know the Church teaches us as truth:

  • the Creation of the world ex nihil (out of nothing) by God at the beginning of space-time
  • the special creation of the First Man
  • the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man
  • the souls of human beings are created immediately ex nihil by God
  • the entire human race descends from a single man and a single woman; our First Parents
  • our First Parents were in a state of Original Justice and by disobedience brought us Original Sin
  • Original Sin is passed down by being a descendant of the First Man (Adam)
  • Original Sin came about at the instigation of Satan
  • God promised to send a Redeemer Who is the Lord Jesus Christ
We are not required to believe that the body of the first human was prepared by a kind of evolution, but neither is the idea heretical, censured, or opposed to the One True Church and Her authoritative teachings. In the words of theologian Ott, "While the fact of the creation of man by God in the literal sense must be closely adhered to, in the question as to the mode and manner of the formation of the human body, an interpretation which diverges from the strict literal sense, is, on weighty grounds, permissible." (Ibid, pg. 95). 

How Would Catholic Teaching Harmonize With Evolution of the Body?

We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" 

Much scientific data is skewed by those who are driven by Darwinian evolution and must preserve it at all costs. Frequently, we will hear statistics such as "humans and chimpanzees share DNA that is 99% similar." This is not accurate. The 99% figure arises from using a number of restrictions on the data:

1. it ignores repetitive portions of the DNA sequence
2. it compares only sequences which can be aligned naturally with one another
3. it considers only what is called "base-pair substitutions" and ignores "indels"--(insertions/deletions)

As my posts are not about technical science, I will not go into detail explaining those three points, as it would take another whole post. However, it shows how the evidence can be slanted by those who interpret it. According to Dr. Ingo Ebersberger, et. al, in their study "Mapping Human Genetic Ancestry,"Molecular Biology and Evolution 24, 10 (2007), "For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as inter-genetic regions." This study analyzed similarities with orangutans, gorillas, and rhesus monkeys, and found cases in which human DNA aligns better with one of those primates. Depending upon how the data is interpreted, only 77% of our DNA is held in common with chimps, as opposed to 99%. Since 99% comports with the Darwinian view of evolution that we are "practically the same as apes," that's all the media will report, thus pushing the agenda of the enemies of God. 

For the Protestants and members of the Vatican II sect who think the idea of a real Adam and Eve is "ridiculous," a slight majority of Protestants, and many V2 sect members, at least pay lip service to the dogmas of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. They thereby acknowledge that Christ was like us in all things but sin, which implies He was a true human male with XY chromosomes even though He had no human father. Furthermore, He rose from the dead by His own power after being dead for three days. Clearly, these are Divine interventions in the natural world by God. So why couldn't God, impose upon a hominid lacking a rational soul, by giving him one?

It is possible for Adam and Eve to have lived about 40,000 years ago, in the time of the Upper Paleolithic cultural explosion when culture "took off" and when Homo sapiens began to fashion much more sophisticated stone tools and began to practice ritual burial of the dead. Moses, who wrote Genesis, is describing an actual historical event -- the creation of the first creatures who were fully human. The fall occurred through the sin of Adam and Eve; they were the first to have fully human brains and to be animated with a rational soul. 

There are those who object that this scenario is impossible because animals died prior to Adam and Eve, and it was sin that brought death into the world. Going back as far as 1847, a Protestant geologist, Edward Hitchcock, wisely saw nothing wrong with positing non-human death before Adam and Eve. He wrote:


Not only geology,but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the Fall of Man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food. [Even herbivores] must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant, [not to mention the destruction of]  millions of animalcula [microscopic organisms], which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe.

In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic [Genesis] account, took place when man fell. (See Hitchcock, Elementary Geology, 8th edition [1847], p. 299ff). 

Anthropological data is so general that it cannot oppose particular facts about an Adam and Eve. Speculation based upon present data can, at best, indicate the nature and activities of early humans, pointing to largely undefined populations and imprecise time periods. It cannot address with precision the conditions of existence of a single pair of humans at a particular, distant-past time. Neither anthropology, nor genetics, nor DE can exclude, a priori, the possibility of miraculous divine intervention whose reality falls entirely outside the fossil record. God could have produced a one time miracle to change the molecular structure of a prepared body into a human nature with a rational soul. 

Conclusion
Were Adam and Eve real? Absolutely. It can even be made to harmonize with evolution. We are all descended from our First Parents, and Christ was the Second Adam who rescued us from sin and death caused by the first Adam. I'm not claiming that Adam and Eve had to have occurred in the way I described in my post. I'm merely positing a scenario that  comports with Church teaching and the view of science which many wrongly claim excludes humanity having First Parents. It will hopefully cause those who call it "unscientific" or "mythology" to rethink their position.  I submit all I have written to the judgement of Holy Mother Church, if and when the papacy is restored, and will conform to Her judgments, as always. 




  


159 comments:

  1. Introibo,

    Thanks much for the pertinent and timely article! The article gives one pause as to the current state of society's ills and the humanistic solutions to such ills while society is denying original sin and it's evils.

    Unfortunately, we live in a time when hardly anyone wants to speak of original sin and evil. Mass shootings are blamed on mental illness not as a direct result of original sin and evil. All we need to ally the mass Mass shootings according to our humanistic society is more federal money for mental illness, an increase on bans of guns and more social media monitoring. The devil and demons are laughed at scorned as some myth from a by gone era. Baptisms are at an all time low. No need to baptize as there is no original sin anymore. Unless and until society gets back to belief in God, original sin, the Sacraments (the True Faith), society is on a highway to hell - which is in direct contradiction to society's humanistic and relative belief of a non-existent hell due to the absence of original sin and evil. My 2 cents.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      Exactly! Our society will not even consider spiritual remedies for the ills that plague us. As long as this happens things will never improve.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Because of the effects of the Novus Ordo and the rest of the atheistic/pagan world, sometimes I wonder if gorillas, chimps, and other ape like species are smarter than most people. Here is an example: https://novusordowatch.org/2019/08/sin-disposal-container/

      Need I say more?

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Lee,
      No more need be said!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  2. Joann,
    You're exactly right and the only ones preaching this are
    underground traditional Catholic chapels.
    Watched a show last night about Aaron Hernandez from New England Patriots.
    Not one mention of our society and the bad influence it gives to young Men/Women,just bits of brain injury and some type of
    "Mental Illness."
    Great post thank you for your efforts!
    God bless,
    Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have always wondered who did Adam’s sons take for wives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      As the Bible itself states, there are many things that are not recorded. Two theories have been advanced:
      1. Adam and Eve has daughters and God permitted inbreeding for the first few generations

      2. They mated with the hominids which prepared the human bodies. They produced true humans and because of their relationship to humans, relations would not be considered beastiality. The hominids died out and humanity progressed as we do now.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. I believe theory #2 is called “6th Day Creationism.” Of course all these hominids would have been wiped out in the flood.

      Delete
    3. I had never heard of the hominid theory; I like it better. The idea of pairing with one's relatives under any circumstances---gross!

      Delete
    4. See Saint Augustine's City of God, Book XV Chapter 16 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

      "As, therefore, the human race, subsequently to the first marriage of the man who was made of dust, and his wife who was made out of his side, required the union of males and females in order that it might multiply, and as there were no human beings except those who had been born of these two, men took their sisters for wives — an act which was as certainly dictated by necessity in these ancient days as afterwards it was condemned by the prohibitions of religion."

      Where on Earth, or should I say under the Earth, did you come up with that ridiculous theory that Adam and Eve's sons mated with hominids? That sounds like something out of the Talmud.

      Delete
    5. Actually I think #2 is pretty gross. When you say hominid are you referring to an ape like species which is close to being a human but really isn't and is of animal (ape) origin? That sounds a little far fetched compared to number one. Pius XII may permit one to believe either or but it doesn't mean either or are both right and I highly doubt that Cain an Abel mated with a hominid since a hominid as I understand it is an ape. In fact I'm sure Darwinist would tolerate that belief to a certain extent only because it partially agrees with his belief that we come from apes. It also sounds like something you would hear either in the Novus Ordo or a public school.

      Delete
    6. Even modern science has identified Neanderthals and Denisovans.

      Delete
    7. Neanderthals and Denisovans are a peculiar issue and difficult to understand, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the false notion that we are descended from "missing links". The idea that we are an advanced species of apes is freemasonic horsecrap. There has never, not once, been any example of macroevolution. If anything, all we have evidence for is devolution. But that doesn't stop scientism from continuing to teach the lie of Lucy and the Piltover Man, just as the teach the lie of the Niels Bohr atom and the lie of the heliocentric globular Earth and the lie of the big bang.

      These and others are pseudoscientific fairy tales that get passed off as scientific purely by consensus. There is no scientific evidence for any of it.

      It may be that Neanderthals, Denivosans, giants, and others existed in the antediluvian era, but that has nothing to do with the lies of modern science.

      Delete
    8. @anon4:45
      The City Of God is not divinely inspired and does not settle the issue. Without a Pope we cannot settle it. Certainly, the theory is very viable and is one that I stated may be believed. The second was advanced by some bible scholars to explain certain discoveries in genetics.

      @anon5:48
      They would not be brutes, they would be very close to humans minus the soul.

      @Tom
      Good point.

      @ianintaiwan,
      You do a disservice to the Faith by throwing out science as a “tool of Satan.” It makes Traditionalists look foolish and does not comport with the facts.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. Canon 5:48 here

      If #2 is a possibility then you're saying the descendants of Cain and Abel would also be very close to human minus the soul, which means everybody from that point onward until the present are descendants of Cain and Abel's baby monkey making mothers. Don't get me wrong Planet of the Apes was an interesting sci-fi movie, but it was just that (science fiction). The human race does not come in any form from apes just like the Ape Church does not have in any form the Catholic Faith.

      Delete
    10. @anon8:27
      I’m not talking about “monkeys.” I’m talking about those human-like creatures from whom God (may have) fashioned the human body.

      From this union, God would bestow upon them rational, human souls. They would all be descendants of Adam as you could trace the paternal genealogy back to him, so the dogma of both the existence and propagation of Original Sin remains untouched.

      Please remember that you need not believe this and I’m not claiming it as fact. It’s simply a theory which can comport with Catholic teaching when rightfully understood.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    11. Introibo, which "Bible scholars" advanced this hominid theory? Are they pre-1958 or are they some Talmudic or Protestant whack jobs? Can you please give their names and citations to their work so that we may review it?

      Did Cain and Abel say to their children, "Mommy is a soulless assortment of body parts thrown together for the sake of creating you and she won't be with us in Heaven"? The idea is utterly satanic.


      Delete
    12. @anon8:57
      See Henry Koren, “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animate Nature” [1955].

      See also J. F. Donceel, in “Philosophical Psychology” (1961), who writes:

      Until a hundred years ago it was traditionally held that the matter into which God for the first time infused a human soul was inorganic matter (the dust of the earth). We have now very good scientific reasons for admitting that this matter was, in reality, organic matter -- that is, the body of some apelike animal.

      Aquinas held that some time during the course of pregnancy God infuses a human soul into the embryo which, until then, has been a simple animal organism, albeit endowed with human finality. The theory of evolution extends to phylogeny what Aquinas held for ontogeny.

      Hence there is no philosophical difficulty against the hypothesis which asserts that the first human soul was infused by God into the body of an animal possessing an organization which was very similar to that of man. (p. 356) The idea of special breeding is hinted at later in this book.

      The idea has been elaborated upon by Vatican II sect “conservatives.” Of course they have ZERO authority, but they are simply (in this case) elaborating upon an idea that was gaining traction beginning in the early 20th century until the Great Apostasy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    13. You originally said hominid. A hominid is defined as a primate. They are not human like because a hominid is an animal. So if the theory is true it would have to mean that we are all a hybrid species descendants of a "human like" (even though it's not human) species. Absurd even to merely suggest such a theory!

      Delete
    14. Also the idea is discussed by Vatican II sect philosopher Edward Fesser who uses these same sources. Fesser write a brilliant tome “Five Proofs for the Existence Of God” which I highly recommend. How a man of such intelligence and a Thomist remains in the Vatican II sect is a mystery to me.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. @anon9:24
      Could not God have intervened genetically, as must have been the case with Christ, having no human father? Again, YOU NEED NOT BELIEVE IT AND I’M NOT CLAIMING IT IS TRUE, only A POSSIBILITY that does not contradict Church teaching. Nothing more.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    16. I would say God could have intervened genetically but there is no evidence that He did. God can change stones into the sons of Abraham as St. John the Baptist once said but the point is He didn't even though we know He is Almighty and could.

      From your article I gather that Pius XII did not forbid discussions from talking about how man evolved " in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter." I don't think he meant anything in reference to how we eventually came from a hominid species because he wouldn't have said as you pointed out "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty."

      When Ott says animal body I almost wonder if he means interchangeably mammal body (as in we are warm blooded like animals) but I'm not sure.

      I hate to say it, but the problem is Tanqueray where he said "The opinion which asserts that the human body has arisen from animality through the forces of evolution is not heretical, in fact in can be admitted theologically…"

      It may not be heretical but why is he even suggesting such an opinion to be possibly right theologically when has no way of explaining that is?

      Delete
    17. @anon10:19
      Theologian Tanqueray was suggesting something that comports with Church teaching. It is meant to show that objections to Adam and Eve on evolutionary grounds must fail.

      The fact that God could have intervened is enough to offer a defeater. We can’t explain everything, but we can show scenarios to prove the viability of doctrine.

      There’s an old adage, “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    18. Sorry, but evolution, dinosaurs, big bang, heliocentrism, and much more that is passed off as science today are all pseudoscience. Science is a method of investigation involving observation AND experimentation that includes an independent variable, dependent variable, and control variable(s). Evolution has none of this. Heliocentrism fails. There is no science behind these beliefs. They are just as religious in nature as the one true faith, and yet of course they are wrong.

      I will pray that one day you wake up and see the world for what it is: not a giant rock with a molten core (that has never been demonstrated) hurtling through the fake medium of space at absurd speeds (some of which smack of Satanic numerology) but a flat, motionless plane with a firmament above *as the Bible clearly states over and over*.

      Delete
    19. @ianinTaiwan,
      So was Pope St Pius X a heretic for allowing the six days of creation be be thought of as consisting of many years? Was Pope Pius XII a heretic for supporting Fr. Georges Lemaitre who developed the Big Band Theory and teaching that the evolution of the human body could be real?

      @Joann,
      Yes. I'm using "hominids" in a special sense as it refers to the origin of humanity.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    20. Introibo,

      "shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return."
      Genesis, 3-19

      How do you explain the above verse from Genesis??

      JoAnn

      Delete
    21. Joann,
      It could be literal, for those who believe in the literal account of man from slime of the earth. If the body evolved, it was nevertheless produced by the earth, and will be reduced to its constituent parts.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    22. Of course. The word "day" is not the best translation for the periods of creation in Genesis. This is pretty basic exegesis. But to suggest that it refers to billions and billions of years based on pseudoscience superseding Sacred Scripture? No thanks.

      I will link this again:
      https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

      And I will repeat again: if you believe in the Big Bang, heliocentrism, evolution, dinosaurs, etc., then you believe in ideas that are in 100% disagreement to Sacred Scripture and that are promulgated by Jews and Freemasons, both of whom are now and have always been enemies of the Church. Your appeal to your science degree just proves that you have been indoctrinated.

      One of the most troubling things for me is to see Catholics fall for Satanic lies when Protestants and other pseudo-Christians do not.

      As a final note, where do you think Hell is? Do you think God put Hell within a "spinning rock flying through space"? Or do you think Hell is in some other dimension outside of this universe? I am being serious. If you buy the Freemasonic lies, where are Hell and Heaven? It seems to me like they must necessarily be outside this whole universe. The idea of Hell being below us and Heaven above is as Scripture tells it, is on its face absurd if you accept the heliocentric lie. You must necessarily have more in common with simulation theory and multiverse theory "scientists" (ie, quacks) than you do with Christians. I will pray that your eyes are able to see.

      Delete
    23. @ianintaiwan,
      Once more, Pope St Pius X did not put a limit on the amount of time “yom” could represent. Pope Pius XII supported both the Big Bang and evolution of the body. Yet I should believe some whacky website over the Vicar Of Christ and the approved theologians. You know more than they do.

      As to the location of Hell, the theologians are not unanimous and the Church has not settled the matter.

      Personally, I believe the earth is flat, Bigfoot is real, the moon landing was fake, Donald Trump is controlled by aliens, and you know more than the popes and the approved theologians.

      I’ll pray for you that your next shipment of lithium comes quickly.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    24. The Bible says that Earth is a plane, and science proves it: no measurable curvature, no gas pressure without a container (the cough, FIRMAMENT, cough), sonoluminescence (star in a jar) is an observable testable phenomenon, local sun and moon proven by basic observation and geometry (hence why the sun danced at Fatima), no proof of a molten iron core at the center of a presupposed spherical Earth, no proof of the distance to the sun, no proof of gravity (nevermind that Einstein's conceptual bending of space-time is the accepted replacement for Newton's lie--yes, a CONCEPT is the best explanation the Freemasons and Jews have to explain their gravity lie), the Coriolis Effect proves a stationary Earth, and the list goes on. I bet you think the fact that the constellations and Polaris never wavering in all of recorded history is pure coincidence, too. We are hurtling through the fake medium of space at unimaginable speeds, and yet night after night, no matter where we are on our trajectory around the sun, the stars behave the same. Well, except for the "planets", which literally means "wanderers". Hmmm...big think time!

      You have yet to explain how you can reject Sacred Scripture in favor of Freemasonic pesudoscience--ie, lies from Satan.

      The moon landing was absolutely 100% fake. If Joe Rogan can reach this conclusion, anyone can. Bigfoot, who cares. And by aliens, do you mean Jews? If so, then you are correct.

      The fact that you resort to insulting my mental state is proof you are losing this argument. I bet you also think 9/11 was totally just a handful of radical Arabs and the Dancing Israelis, Lucky Larry, $3 trillion missing from the Pentagon, the collapse of Tower 7, our armed forces casually dumping Bin Laden's body in the ocean, etc. are just happy coincidences, right?

      It is sad to see that, based on these exchanges, apparently every Boomer is hopelessly lost--even those such as yourself who profess the one true Faith. I will pray for you that you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

      Delete
    25. @ianintaiwan,
      I allowed this comment specifically to show my readers how far gone some people are mentally. Conspiracy theories are all you have to offer. I could counter EVERY ONE OF YOUR CONTENTIONS, but that would require another post.

      Answer these simple questions:
      Was Pope Pius XII who supported the Big Bang Theory and allowed for evolution of the body part of your Masonic conspiracy, or he didn’t understand Catholic Truth as well as you? What of the approved theologians I cited? Part of the conspiracy? What about Pope St Pius X allowing YOM to mean ANY time period, setting no limit? Part of the conspiracy?

      Far from losing the argument, you’re proving that, like Richard Ibranyi, you’ve got problems for which I sincerely hope you get help.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    26. All you have proven is that you don't understand how deep the rot in the Church--and in the world--is, and that you think Vatican II sprang into existence. It was well-planned in advance.

      Let's also point out that you use CIA terminology to attack people. Not a good look. You have correctly sussed out the *conspiracy* within the Church to overthrow Her, yet you, with no real research or knowledge on other topics, dismiss out-of-hand other *conspiracies* because the TV told you to. I have no idea what level of cognitive dissonance you are operating on, but it has to be high indeed.

      Here's some *conspiracies* that are baby-tier and easily verifiable:
      *Freemasonic conspiracy to overthrow French Catholic monarch;
      *Jewish conspiracy to overthrow Russian Orthodox monarch (Bolshevism);
      *Freemasonic founding of USA (Ben Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, et al were Freemasons);
      *Jewish conspiracy to destroy Twin Towers;
      *Jewish conspiracy to flood America with opioids (Sackler Family);
      *Freemasonic conspiracy to go to the moon (all the astronauts were Freemasons);
      *worldwide conspiracy to heavily regulate Antarctica and disallow any and all civilians from exploring it;
      *Jewish conspiracy to create Israel via WWI and WWII (Balfour Declaration and German Transfer Agreement);
      *Jewish conspiracy to assert that 6 million Jews were exterminated by Germany as it fought a two-front war (6 million is an important number for their eschatology--it is why Jews now claim that 6 million Jews in USA are at risk due to outbreeding with goyim);
      *Jewish conspiracy to deny Christ's divinity (Arianism);
      *Jewish conspiracy in USA to create a private bank to issue fiat currency aka the Federal Reserve (London has the same thing);
      *Jewish conspiracy to genocide the Armenian Christians (Young Turks were cryto-Jews known as Donmeh--descendants of followers of Sabbatai Zevi, a self-proclaimed Messiah who "converted" to Islam under threat of death);
      *Jewish-Saracen conspiracy to overthrow Catholic rule in Spain, specifically in Toledo;
      *Jewish conspiracy to allow Muslims to conquer Constantinople (they let the Saracens into the city);
      *The Lucis Trust vis-a-vis the UN (earlier known as the Lucifer Trust);
      Jewish conspiracy to murder the opponents of the Federal Reserve by sinking the Titanic;
      Freemasonic conspiracy to propagate the lie of dinosaurs;
      Freemasonic conspiracy to propagate uniformitarianism over catastrophism;
      Freemasonic conspiracy to propagate heliocentrism over geocentrism;
      government conspiracy to fluoridate all drinking water (the fluoride is a chemical byproduct of fertilizer production--sure sounds healthy!);
      the Jewish conspiracy of mass vaccination.

      I could go on, but I'll stop there for now.

      Do you honestly think that the secular did not fall under total control of the prince of this world and his servants before the Church was infiltrated? Oh, the Church has anti-popes now, but science and medicine, politics, history, it is all above-board!

      Your naivety is beyond troubling.

      Delete
    27. @ianintaiwan,
      I thank you for that list of conspiracies that proves the Grand Conspiracy.

      You have yet to directly answer what I posed to you in a comment below. I will not publish anything further from you unless you do:


      1. Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught that evolution of the human body is possible and therefore not in conflict with the Bible. All the approved theologians taught the same.

      My question remains: was Pope Pius XII And ALL the approved theologians secret Masons and part of the Conspiracy? He also fully supported the Big Bang Theory.

      Let’s see where this conspiracy nonsense takes you. You must either (a) declare Pope Pius XII a heretic because he did not understand the Truth about Scripture as well as you. He was not protected by the Holy Ghost either. The Big Bang and evolution of the human body were considered viable by all the approved theologians and not one pope, nor the Sacred Congregation Of The Holy Office, nor even one bishop with Ordinary jurisdiction censured ANY OF THEM.

      That makes Pope St Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, And Pope Pius XI complicit in propagating this Satanic lie of the world-wide Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy.

      You have yet to answer: A true pope cannot teach that which is erroneous or evil to the whole Church (like in an encyclical) even when not ex cathedra).

      Question to be answered: Did Pope Pope Pius XII teach error because he was a secret Masonic Jew and not pope, or was he pope and you will “recognize and resist” (welcome to the SSPX). Were all approved theologians heretics and part of the Conspiracy? Were ALL the bishops and Roman Congregations who approved and/or allowed their works to remain uncensored heretics?

      PLEASE ANSWER THE ABOVE.

      As I said before:

      YOU KNOW MORE THAN ALL THE APPROVED THEOLOGIANS AND FOUR POPES.

      You’re the “chosen one” selected by God to try and save the rest of us who are duped.

      And you wonder why I seriously call into question your mental state?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    28. Introibo,

      Are these conspiracy people related to the Dimonds in any way?

      Delete
    29. @anon10:08
      They might be. If not they are ideological cousins, so to speak. These people who see science as a conspiracy deny the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, just like Feeneyites, Apparitionists, etc. They reject the theologians and substitute their own opinions.

      See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-source-of-problem.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    30. I know enough about the Dimonds to know that they hold your same belief in the fake vacuum of space, and the globe lie. So no, I am not "related" to them. I do enjoy their montages of modernist cardinals and anti-popes' numerous heresies, though. Oh, and they did a great video on magicians.

      Anyway, @introibo

      http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

      Your desire to shove evolution into the Faith and believe it into reality is something JP II embraced while Pius XII begrudgingly allowed to be a possibility. Now, I can see a scenario wherein a Wurmtongue within the Vatican misled Pope Pius XII on this matter. He was not a man of science, and poor counsel could have led him to the erroneous impasse of evolution being a possibilty.

      Yet here we are in 2019 with no a single solitary "missing link" in the fossil record. The lie they taught me in public school was Lucy, which is now known to be a fraud perpetrated by some "researcher" who had received a grant to go digging, found nothing, and then when his grant was almost up, he magically found some monkey bones and human bones and fused them together. To think that in 2019 with the complete and utter lack of evidence for speciation/macroevolution that you, a Catholic, would continue to demand that the lie be considered a possibility is mind-boggling. Indeed, we are in a better position to judge the lie than Pope Pius XII, seeing as we have decades upon decades of additional research, and still not a single example of one species "evolving" into another. Changes in kind do not exist. Evolution is a lie.


      As for the Big Bang, I understand the context of the issue while you don't. "Scientists" back in the 1800s were promoting an eternal universe with no beginning or end. You see this in the men who promulgated uniformitarianism over catastrophism in creating the "science" of geology. (Polystrate fossils alone debunk geology's contention that rock layers formed over millions upon millions of years. Fossilization is evidence of the Flood.)

      Anyway, it was in this context that you had men like Pius XII hearing about the Big Bang, about a moment of creation, a definite beginning to the universe, and cheering. Observation had shown that the universe did have a beginning! Just like the Bible stated. Problem is, everything to do with the Big Bang apart from the simple fact that it demonstrates a beginning to creation is absolute, unmitigated lies.

      The fact that you are told the Big Bang as it is understood is a perversion of Jewish mystics (ie, rabbis) that "science" reifies and Holy Scripture rejects, and you shrug your shoulders as if that is no big deal is shameful. You ought to know better.

      The fact that the Church was unaware of the Talmud for centuries while I am acutely aware of it and the blasphemies it contains does not make me "better" or "smarter" than the Early Church. I simply have the luxury of hindsight, the tools to access information, and the accumulated knowledge of others to help me understand the Synagogue of Satan. You know, the exact same people who concocted the Big Bang that you believe in. The ones who have taught for centuries that Our Lady was a harlot and Christ's father was a Roman centurion? Those guys are the same guys who are responsible for your cosmology.

      To conclude:
      Here is a long-form dismantling of the major points of evolution that our youth are indoctrinated into believing as fact:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te3aShKST1A&list=FLcFKNo-eE6V3uFJVOXwxmIA&index=38&t=0s

      And, most important of all, in the exchanges thus far you have not once approached this crucial link:

      https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

      wherein three Popes are said to have declared heliocentrism to be against Scripture. The world does not move. The lights in the sky move.

      I will enjoy the company of the saints, the Church Fathers, the divinely-inspired authors of the Bible, the Church and actual science.



      Delete
    31. @ianintaiwan
      You and the Dimonds are much alike because you substitute your private judgement for the decrees of the popes and the teachings of the approved theologians.

      You write:
      "Now, I can see a scenario wherein a Wurmtongue within the Vatican misled Pope Pius XII on this matter. He was not a man of science, and poor counsel could have led him to the erroneous impasse of evolution being a possibility." This is impossible for the pope cannot teach error to the whole Church.

      If the subject was decided (clearly against the truth of the Faith) the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing Humani Generis. You have adopted the false ideas of the "recognize and resist" crowd, which simply is not Catholic teaching.

      He was therefore not pope, or you must admit that evolution is compatible with Catholic dogma. What difference does it make if he is "not a man of science"? An what, exactly, constitutes a man of science? You discount my advanced degree in science? Why should a degree you have (assuming you had one) count? Isn't that all part of the Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy where they teach you lies? Or maybe a "man of science" is one who reads the same wacky websites and watches the same YouTube videos as you.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    32. You write: Indeed, we are in a better position to judge the lie than Pope Pius XII, seeing as we have decades upon decades of additional research, and still not a single example of one species "evolving" into another.

      There is ample evidence of the human body being formed:
      There is Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which is some 6 or 7 million years old. Then there is Ardipithecus ramidus, which is 4.5 million years old. We also have Homo rudolfensis, at 2.5 million years old. Australopithecus sediba,1.9 million years. Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo habilis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and I could go on. Every fossil that has been discovered is shown to be a transitional fossil. This means that the fossils have traits in common with other fossils, some more primitive and some more advanced, as the case may be. There idea of a "missing link" is therefore false as stated.

      Finally, God can intervene in a special way to make the final transition, and most theologians saw it that way too. Many of the theologians did have extensive backgrounds in science--yet since their educations came from the Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy.


      You write: "As for the Big Bang, I understand the context of the issue while you don't."

      Really? Based on what? Your science education (which you claimed was irrelevant, and it would come from those who follow the Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy). Or was it from your doctorate in Sacred Theology or Canon Law? My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A DePauw was an approved pre-Vatican II canonist and had no problem with the theory of evolution as a viable theory as taught by Pope Pius XII.

      Finally, you write:
      I simply have the luxury of hindsight, the tools to access information, and the accumulated knowledge of others to help me understand the Synagogue of Satan. You know, the exact same people who concocted the Big Bang that you believe in. The ones who have taught for centuries that Our Lady was a harlot and Christ's father was a Roman centurion? Those guys are the same guys who are responsible for your cosmology.

      Yes, a secret Masonic Jew behind every door and only an elite few--like you--have the tools to discern it. You have just denied the teaching authority of Pope Pius XII and the approved theologians for a conspiracy theory.

      As to the "Scripture Catholic" link--I've read it and it is factually wrong. Protestants were the strongest supporters of geocentrism and the Church actually supported heliocentrism. The theologians explain this in great detail. I wrote a brief post on the topic here.

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/galileo-papacy-and-modern-science.html

      You may indeed enjoy the company of the saints, the Church Fathers, the divinely-inspired authors of the Bible, and the Church whether you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, or other theories not condemned by the Church--which is actual science.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    33. It is a good thing the sources I have provided establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Popes and the Church Fathers established that, yes, the Bible correctly describes the Earth as an unmoving plane. You have not a single source to lean on, not one Church Father, that supports your heliocentrism and your evolution lies.

      That you persist in promoting these lies, which have led countless souls to Hell, and that you in the next breath claim to be an actual Catholic and not an NO sect acolyte, is shocking no matter how many times you type it out. You have not once wrestled with the fact that your vaunted "scientists" whose formulae you memorized were all Freemasons or Jews, every last one, and you have not even attempted to broach the contemporary state of "science" with its dark matter, dark energy, lack of gravity, promotion of insanity like string theory, the multiverse, panspermia, etc., all of which derive from the lies of heliocentrism (which is nothing but pagan sun worship), the big bang, and evolution. Physics at this point is so far off the rails that it has more in common with the Satanic New Age movement than it does with actual science.

      You also do not understand scriptural exegesis in the slightest, as you seek to privilege the metaphorical over the literal when the Church Fathers taught that the opposite hermeneutic was correct--that is, the literal is to be accepted and the metaphorical relied upon only in certain cases. You make the atheists' argument for them when you declare that the hundreds of verses in the Bible that refer to the Earth as a motionless plane are "metaphorical", just as the Creation of Adam and Eve was "metaphorical".

      Your rote recitation of fossil dates is not impressive, and there are no transitional fossils. None. You have shown yourself once again to be a liar spreading modernist "science" and deceiving people. Also, you clearly haven't the first clue what Neanderthals were.

      You have been taken to task by a few people in the comments so far, and I have not seen you craft a single response that wasn't ham-handed nonsense. Now I see that you are relying on a statue to prove that the Earth is a spherical ball? Ha!

      Tell me, when Jesus ascended into Heaven, what do you think happened? He broke through our atmosphere into the fake nonexistent "vacuum of space" and then...what? Was there a portal that opened? Did the Father send a spaceship to fetch him? I am being serious. You have admitted to denying the location of Hell as below us, so where then is Heaven in the MODEL of the universe (a reification fallacy that is a non-starter for anyone with some sense) you have faith in? No pictures exist of space, friend, only cartoons. No pictures of satellites, either, only cartoons.

      Delete
    34. @ianintaiwan
      Every time you comment, you prove my contention better than before.

      1. You write "That you persist in promoting these lies, which have led countless souls to Hell, and that you in the next breath claim to be an actual Catholic and not an NO sect acolyte, is shocking no matter how many times you type it out."

      reply: Leading souls to Hell? You mean geocentrism is DOGMA? Then Pope Pius XII and all approved theologians lead people to Hell pre-V2. Welcome to being a "Vacancy Pusher." Call Richard Ibranyi.

      2. You write: "You have not once wrestled with the fact that your vaunted "scientists" whose formulae you memorized were all Freemasons or Jews, every last one,..."

      Reply: The Great Conspiracy which only you can see through! Jews and Masons behind every door! The pope approved Copernicus--no doubt a Jew and a Freemason.

      3. You write: "You also do not understand scriptural exegesis in the slightest, as you seek to privilege the metaphorical over the literal when the Church Fathers taught that the opposite hermeneutic was correct--that is, the literal is to be accepted and the metaphorical relied upon only in certain cases."

      According to theologian Scheeben, "That God created the world, made it good, and made it for the service of Man, is contained in the narrative of the origin of the world in the Book of Genesis. But the Church has never defined, and consequently has left open to discussion, how far the Mosaic narrative, besides these three points, is of a doctrinal character, and how far it is simply rhetorical or poetical." (See "A Manual of Catholic Theology" [1890], 1:393-394)

      Scheeben wrote prior to the decree of Pope St Pius X, and proves that these matters HAVE NEVER BEEN SETTLED. Had the Church Fathers settled it, he would not be an approved theologian of whom Cardinal Manning wrote in the Preface, "Scheeben has fully and luminously exhibited the mind of the [1870] Vatican Council.."

      4. You write,"Also, you clearly haven't the first clue what Neanderthals were."

      Reply: At the risk of sounding uncharitable; guys like you who accuse others of "leading people to Hell," when you're the one who is clueless?

      As to the location of Hell, according to theologian Pohle, "..these [Biblical] texts no more prove Hell is beneath or in the Earth than the ancient conception of Heaven is 'above' proves that the abode of the Blessed is located somewhere above the sky. The ancients had a geocentric universe...It is easy to ridicule these naive ideas from the standpoint of modern science, as Draper and Flammarion have done. But no sane philosopher will argue Hell does not exist because there is 'no place for it in the heliocentric system...' Holy Scripture and the Fathers speak the language of the common people, and such phrases as take the geocentric system for granted, MUST NOT BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY." (See "Dogmatic Theology" [1917], 12:pgs. 49-51)

      Let me guess--approved theologian Pohle was a Masonic Jew also?

      As St. John Chrysostom said, "Don't worry about where Hell is, worry about keeping out of it."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    35. 1. Your approved theologians are in rebellion against the Church Fathers and the Bible itself. You think quoting modernist theologians makes your arguments true? Unsurprisingly, you have as yet still provided exactly zero scientific or scriptural evidence for your pagan sun worship aka heliocentrism (also, such a faith-based belief is much outdated nowadays seeing as the sun is but one star in the universe full of billions and trillions of other stars, but that is another facet of the lie that we don't need to delve too deeply into). Why do you privilege 19th century theologians over the Church Fathers and Popes who wrote authoritatively on scriptural exegesis and the plane we live on?

      2. Copernicus was a 100% verifiable Freemason, as was Kepler and Galileo. Kepler in fact murdered his mentor, an actual genius by the name of Tycho Brahe, and then perverted all the careful work Brahe had done to support the Satanic lie of heliocentrism.

      3. I see you privilege Scheeben over Augustine, Aquinas, Ambrose, Athanasius, and others. You are the textbook example of someone who has fallen prey to modernist weasel wording.

      4. You have provided another modernist theologian tainted by scientism who, with no actual citations (a running theme for these people you are so fond of quoting), declares that the Church Fathers made erroneous statements because they were simpletons and naive. Nevermind the fact that you scientism worshipers enjoy referring to an "experiment" done by an ancient Greek as evidence for the Earth being a globe (too bad the experiment is malformed and presupposes both a distant sun and a globe a priori).

      No marshaling of science once again, no grappling with actual hypothetical questions exceedingly relevant to your Freemasonic lies, just random quotes from modernist theologians that do not guide us into how we should "metaphorically" interpret not only Sacred Scripture but also the Church Fathers so as ensure the divinely inspired words align with Freemasonic math formulae. Such an exhortation is hideous on its face, and you should be ashamed of quoting such risible nonsense as if it is authoritative. Any good Catholic would submit to the interpretations of the Church Fathers over some academic from the modern era, especially in matters of scriptural exegesis. But please, share with us exactly how these modernists demand we metaphorically interpret Aquinas and the other saints as well as the Bible such that they all allow for a belief that the Earth is a planet spinning around the sun at 66,600 some miles per hour (encoded numerology) at an angle of 66.6 degrees (oh my!)

      You have made no effort to find the truth outside of these clearly hideously modernist theologians, not in science or in the works of the Church Fathers. Shame on you.

      You make a weaker argument for your lies than a Jew like Lawrence Krauss.

      Delete
    36. @ianintaiwan
      1. You write:"Your approved theologians are in rebellion against the Church Fathers and the Bible itself."

      Reply: Thank you for exposing yourself as a non-Catholic who rejects the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. You don't understand how the Church teaches us, just like the Feeneyites, and if an approved theologian is in rebellion against the truth, the Church has defected. What good is a Church that cannot teach? The Magisterium assures us there is nothing contrary to Faith and Morals in the writings of approved theologians.

      2. You write: "Why do you privilege 19th century theologians over the Church Fathers and Popes who wrote authoritatively on scriptural exegesis and the plane we live on?"

      Reply: Pohle wrote in 1917; the last time I checked that was the 20th century. Nevertheless, it is to show that a theological giant of the Vatican Council of 1870 knew that the Fathers had not settled the question. Pope Leo XIII would never have approved his writings or allowed him to teach uncensured.

      3. You write: "I see you privilege Scheeben over Augustine, Aquinas, Ambrose, Athanasius, and others. You are the textbook example of someone who has fallen prey to modernist weasel wording."

      Reply: None of those you cite declared geocentrism DOGMA. The popes who approve the theologians would be guilty of heresy. Still got Richard Ibranyi's phone number?

      4. You write, "You have provided another modernist theologian tainted by scientism who, with no actual citations..."

      Reply: There are plenty of citations and theological argumentation. Get the manual. I'm not going to type it all out for you.

      5. You write, "Freemasonic lies, just random quotes from modernist theologians.."

      Reply: No. The theologians were approved by the popes which make them approved and non-Modernist. Ratzinger, Rahner, Kung, were ALL CENSURED. They were the ones causing the Great Apostasy. If Pohle and company were Modernists, the Church defected, or you need to become a Vacancy Pusher--Richard Ibranyi has room in his New Mexico cult (I'm sure) where they pushed the last pope back to 1130AD--Pope Honorius II.

      6. You write, "Earth is a planet spinning around the sun at 66,600 some miles per hour (encoded numerology) at an angle of 66.6 degrees (oh my!)"

      Reply: Who writes your material? Seriously. Maybe you can write the screenplay for an updated "Omen" movie.

      Enough! Time for a new week's post! My Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy leader in Manhattan just called in and wants me to write something to hide the fact that the Internet doesn't really exist--the IP address for all computers is 666, a direct line to Hell.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Wow, this has been a wonderful lesson in science, philosophy and theology all rolled in one!
    Speaking of academics, the story you relate points up the importance of getting youngsters accustomed to using a truly rational approach to their studies and of supporting their right to free inquiry when it comes to them.
    There is actually a private K-12 school in my own area where the Headmaster and faculty hold the view that the students must be trained in logic and reasoning, as well as be thoroughly proficient in Latin, which starts in grade 2. The curriculum is rigorous and there are no fluff courses or sex ed. Slang isn't allowed in school. Some teachers address the students as Mr or Miss Last name, while others use first names. Politeness is expected and uniforms are always worn. Debate teams are sponsored to sharpen the students' critical thinking. What's remarkable to see is that all of the boys and girls appreciate their education, and strive to excel. How good to see these green patches in an increasingly withered up moral and social landscape!
    These kind of educators, independent RC Chapel schools, and home-school parents give us hope for turning out future generations of a more well-ordered society, while we pray for the restoration of a fully Catholic one.

    You haven't lost your knack for teaching, either - yours are among the most worthwhile "classes" I've ever taken; I cant wait til the bell rings on Monday mornings.
    Thank you so much, Intro.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jannie,
      You are too kind. Comments like yours let me know the time and effort I put into this blog is worth it! It keeps me writing.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Jannie I think you have to graciously mention this school you speak about and location? I may have to send someone there? Thank you

      Delete

  5. Introibo,
    You quote Van Noort:
    "For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc."

    By his own words he has condemned both his and your position. He has admitted that all of these are part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but nevertheless has the audacity to denigrate parts of them to the extent that they can be questioned, doubted and denied. Don't you know that we are required to assent to ALL of the teachings of the Magisterium with childlike docility?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      Of course you are correct in accepting the teachings of the Magisterium with docility. However, there are nuances brought out; namely that while the basic teachings MUST be accepted, the manner and mode may be pushed aside for “weighty reasons” since Moses was writing for the people of his time who would not understand things like DNA, etc.

      The Ordinary Magisterium cannot contradict itself. You do not NEED to believe the evolution of the human body, but you certainly CAN. If what you’re saying were true then how does Pope Pius XII escape the charge of heresy? He clearly taught that creation of the human body by evolution was possible; the matter is not closed to debate as is the FACT of the special creation of humans by God, and the creation of the soul immediately and ex nihil by God.

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Sacred Scripture states in black and white that God created Adam from the Earth (Genesis 2:7) and Eve from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21-22). How can evolution of the body even be entertained without casting doubt on the veracity of Sacred Scripture and therefore undermining the faith?

      When Pius XII wrote: “However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for BOTH OPINIONS, that is, those FAVORABLE AND THOSE UNFAVORABLE TO EVOLUTION, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…,” he is giving equal time to truth and error. He seems to be conceding that it is at least possible that the body of man could have come about through evolution, asserting that more research is needed, while maintaining that the soul of man comes from God, in other words holding the line on one dogma while being ready to concede in another area.

      My 1955 edition of Denzinger (thirtieth edition) translated by Roy Deferrari and edited by Karl Rahner, shows paragraph 36 of Humani Generis to begin with “Wherefore, the magisterium of the Church does not forbid that the TEACHING of “evolution” be treated in accord with the present status of human disciplines and of theology, by investigations and disputations by learned men in both fields; insofar, of course, as the inquiry is concerned with the origin of the human body arising from already existing and living matter; and in such a way that the reasonings of both theories, namely of those in favor and of those in opposition, are weighed and judged with due seriousness, moderation, and temperance; and provided that all are ready to yield to the judgement of the Church….”

      This language does not match what is on the occupied Vatican’s website, so I do not believe this translation is accurate, but if it is then he seems to be saying that evolution of the body can be taught if the scientific research supports it, which it will, because science is controlled by the adversary’s agents.

      I would expect Catholic doctrine on evolution to be something like “If anyone says that God did not create Adam from the earth or if anyone says that Adam was created in the womb of a subhuman primate by means of evolution, let him be anathema.” Of course Catholic scholars should be allowed to study the arguments of the evolutionists for the sake of refuting them, but the possibility of the evolution of the human body should not be entertained. If human evolution had been proscribed as dogma back then, then perhaps it would not be the mainstream explanation for human origin that it is today, with the consequent undermining of faith. If you go into any “Catholic” school or university today, there is a good chance you will find evolution being taught.

      Have you considered that Pius XII lost his Papacy through heresy (or never was a valid pope to begin with as a result of pre-election heresy)? Is it any more far-fetched to believe that the Papal vacancy began with Pius XII and not John XXIII? If the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, and it teaches that Adam was created from the Earth and not from evolution, and Pius XII is contradicting that, then it would seem to be the smoking gun proving Pius XII was a heretic.

      I notice you don’t seem to go any earlier than the 1950s in the theologians you quote, except you quote a Protestant from the Nineteenth Century, as if his theological opinion carries any value. If Pius XII wasn’t a true Pope in the 1950s, then they wouldn’t be valid. Why not go back to Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Saint John Chrysostom, or any of the other Doctors and Fathers of the Church and see what they had to say about human origins?

      Delete
    3. @Young Earther,
      When it comes to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, it’s not a matter of reading the literal meaning. That’s what Fundamentalist Protestants do. The Magisterium teaches the authentic teachings of the Sources of Revelation (Bible and Sacred Tradition).

      You do not HAVE TO accept the evolution of the body. George R, above does not, and that is perfectly fine. However, Adam and Eve does not conflict with what science says even when interpreted by Darwinians.

      In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission answered the following questions and said answers were solemnly approved by Pope St Pius X:
      V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?
      Answer: In the negative.

      VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?
      Answer: In the affirmative.

      VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?
      Answer: In the negative.

      VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
      Answer: In the affirmative.

      (Continued below)

      Delete
    4. Here we have a pope and a saint, The Foe Of Modernism advancing these ideas about the First Three Chapters Of Genesis. The answer to question V clearly stated that the “black and white reading” (literal) need not always be retained.

      Theology, like any other discipline, develops (not in the Modernist sense) and as it does, we can understand the creation of humans with greater clarity. The special creation of humans by God is an unchanging truth; the exact mode used is not so defined.

      Pope Pius XII was building upon Pope St Pius X, so I don’t question the validity of the Great Pope Pius XII.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. The cited work of the Pontifical Biblical Commission proves nothing. It merely says that the Bible is not a scientific textbook, which is true; that not EVERY SINGLE word and phrase has to be interpreted literally; and that the six days of creation might not be six actual days as measured by our current calculation. In fact, it recommends using the Church tradition and Fathers as an example. All of this is reasonable. You seem to be saying that, because one doesn’t have to accept EVERYTHING in the referenced chapters of Bible literally, one doesn’t have to accept ANYTHING in the said chapters literally.

      You didn’t answer my question of why you did not review the work of the great Doctors and Fathers of the Church on human origins, especially since the source you cited above recommends using them as an example. Didn’t they all consider the Biblical story of Adam’s and Eve’s creation to have been literal? For example, see the quote from Saint Augustine above about Adam having been created from dust. He is the greatest Doctor after Aquinas. Doesn’t the work of these early Church Fathers carry far more weight than some little-known twentieth-century theologian?

      You also didn’t answer George’s question to my satisfaction. Did the Ordinary Magisterium, which is infallible, teach that the Biblical creation story of Adam having been formed from the Earth and Eve from his rib is literal, as you quote Van Noort as having written? If so, how can Pius XII even open this up for debate and to what end?

      Delete
    6. @Young Earther,
      I’m NOT claiming that EVERYTHING is not literal. No dispassionate reading of what I wrote would show otherwise.

      I once wrote a post on Limbo and a reader asked me in the comments why I didn’t go into all the theologians’ teachings in detail. I reminded the person (as I’m reminding you) that I’m writing a post, not a doctoral thesis. I’m a lawyer with a family, a demanding job, and other obligations as well. It’s a small miracle I get one post out every Monday.

      I mention this because while I do possess and extensive theological library, I do not have the time to locate all the teachings of the Fathers, etc.

      However, I have a simple answer for both you and George. The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is indeed infallible. However, there are not the required conditions for a settled matter on every point. There must be at least moral unanimity among the Fathers. On the special creation of humans we have that ON THE MODE WE DO NOT.

      As theologian Van Noort himself states in the citation used in this post:

      Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-224).

      There’s your answer. Van Noort was one of the most eminent theologians of the 20th century whose works were approved by the bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction for use in the seminaries. He was never censured or questioned on any of his teachings and his scholarship was held in high esteem by some members of the Supreme Sacred Congregation Of The Holy Office.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  6. Evolution is a massive lie. It is not science because it is mere observation--and shoddy observation at that. It is a necessary outgrowth from the other massive lies that have infected our minds via Freemasonic and Kabbalistic/Talmudic infiltration of our societies. The Big Bang is a lie based on Kabbalah. You can find mainstream scientists admitting this (the latter half, that is). The heliocentric model is a lie. Evolution is a lie. Dinosaurs are a lie. All of these are part of the Beast system. There are plenty of people who have woken up and embraced the Bible and Christianity, but sadly they reject the Catholic Church because of not only the recent Modernist infiltration but also the infiltration of the Jesuits. Elements within the latter have been marranos since its foundation. This does not discount the great saints that were produced from the order, but instead it contextualizes the order as what it really is--and that includes an avenue of subverting the Church.

    If you are a Catholic and you exclude Biblical cosmology and genesis, you are being misled by the Beast system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ianintaiwan,
      I think you’re reading too many Malachi Martin novels. The Big Bang was formulated by a faithful Catholic priest praised by Pope Pius XII. It was banned from being taught in Communist countries precisely because it entails BELIEF IN GOD.

      While I know first hand that the scientific community is discriminatory, it is not “Satanic” per se. We must avoid conspiracy theories behind everything we don’t like and discern what is true from what is false.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. With all due respect, you need to dig deeper on this topic. The Big Bang is found firstly in Kabbalistic texts and then was later articulated by a Jesuit priest, the most notorious order for crypto-Jewish infiltration. I would hope that, as a Catholic, you do not privilege pseudoscience derived from Jewish mysticism over Sacred Scripture. The Bible describes the world as it is: motionless, flat, planar. To buy into the Big Bang and the heliocentric model is to buy into the Beast System. Have a look at the nonsense it has descended into: dark matter, dark energy, made-up cosmological constants, etc. It is all pure theoretical math--none of it is grounded in science, which is purely a method of investigating natural phenomena via observation AND experimentation. Ergo, astronomy and other such disciplines are pure pseudoscience as there is no experimentation, only observation.

      As a sidenote, I know who Malachi Martin is, but I have not read any of his novels. I would appreciate it if I wasn't strawmanned.

      https://qz.com/1375015/jewish-mysticism-offers-a-poetic-explanation-of-the-big-bang-and-black-holes/

      https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

      If you choose to believe Kabbalistic-derived pseudoscience instead of the Bible, that is on you. Just know that that is what you believe when you accept the Big Bang "theory".

      Delete
    3. @ianintaiwan,
      I don't need to stawman someone so ignorant of science. There are two broad categories of science--empirical and forensic. You have correctly identified empirical science, but there is also forensic science. Imagine a crime scene. We cannot go back in time to observe who committed the murder, but by piecing together DNA evidence, fingerprints, etc, we can find out with a high probability as to who committed the crime. Geology works this way.

      Geologists can plumb the oldest rocks on earth for evidence of the first life, but they can also go to the lab and recreate the conditions of early earth to test predictions of hypothesis about events billions of years ago. And those results from a modern laboratory will send researchers back to the field to test predictions about historical events generated in the laboratory.

      So too can physicists test origins of the universe.
      Physicists at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland are testing theories about the origin of the universe:

      At the earliest moments of the Big Bang, the Universe consisted of a searingly hot soup of fundamental particles - quarks, leptons and the force carriers. As the Universe cooled to 1000 billion degrees, the quarks and gluons (carriers of the strong force) combined into composite particles like protons and neutrons. The LHC will collide lead nuclei so that they release their constituent quarks in a fleeting 'Little Bang'. This will take us back to the time before these particles formed, re-creating the conditions early in the evolution of the universe, when quarks and gluons were free to mix without combining. The debris detected will provide important information about this very early state of matter. (See, e.g., https://stfc.ukri.org/research/particle-physics-and-particle-astrophysics/large-hadron-collider/lhc-large-hadron-collider-resource-portal/)

      Second, you commit the genetic fallacy in logic. Just because an idea comes from somewhere we don't like doesn't make it automatically wrong. The Steady State Theory (loved by Communists) was the dominant scientific model until the Big Bang (which they hated as it points to God, and they banned it. If the Kabbalah teaches "the Big Bang" you offer no support that it does. The Kabbalah teaches there exists the supernatural realm. Is that wrong because it comes from the Kabbalah? The Bible also teaches a "Big Bang" when God created the world from nothing.

      If you accept to remain ignorant and believe debunked and archaic ideas that make you sound like the ultimate ignoramus and you hurt the Faith--that is on you. You should join Fred and Bobby Dimond or Richard Ibranyi. There is no shortage of ignorance and stupidity posing a "Catholicism" with those men.

      I was a science teacher for five years and hold a Master's Degree in the subject. I have studied the relationship of science to Catholicism for years as it is an interest of mine. When I "dig deeper" unsupported conspiracy theories and false ideas of science is all that is to be found.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. And now you are engaging in false equivalency, suggesting that people going over a crime scene is somehow the same as people "investigating" rocks. Sorry, but the tests these "scientists" perform on rocks and fossils have all been proven to be unreliable and/or based upon unsupported presuppositions. They have dated living creatures' shells to thousands of years old with these "scientific tests". Sorry, science is a method of investigation that requires observation AND experimentation. Like so many others, you like to play fast and loose with the word.

      Am I to understand that not only do you believe in the Kabbalistic Big Bang but also the laughably absurd uniformitarianism? Not only do you deny the creation but also the Flood? Have you not hear of the Cambrian explosion? Why do you insist on supporting this Luciferian system? Oh, right, because you have bought into it wholesale, as you yourself admit. Having a degree and experience teaching "science" is not an argument for anything but is an appeal to (self-)authority. It really is neither here nor there.

      It really is a sad sight to see Catholics so lost on fundamentals while Protestants and other pseudo-Christians actually do grasp that dinosaurs are a myth, that the Earth is a flat, motionless plane, that the "universe" is not billions of years old, etc.

      By the way, did you even read the links I posted? Also by the way, defending Kabbalah is not a good look. In fact, it is perhaps the worst look possible for a Catholic. You of all people ought to understand that it comes from the enemies of the Lord our God.

      Delete
    5. @ianintaiwan,
      You cite no authority for your baseless (and quite frankly absurd) contentions. Pope St Pius X did not put a limit on the number of years “yom” could signify. Pope Pius XII supported the Big Bang theory and the development Of The human body via evolution. Too bad he didn’t understand the Luciferian conspiracy as well as you do.

      Having a degree in science means I actually know about the topic. If you ever need surgery don’t go to a doctor with a medical degree—that’s a science degree and he buys into the evil of Satan. Go to someone who never went to medical school yet thinks he understands science.

      BOTH science and theology are against you. Like I said, I’m sure Richard Ibranyi has openings in his New Mexican cult.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    6. I find it incredulous that people actually believe the earth is flat and are geocentrists!

      Delete
    7. @Joann,
      I find it downright scary!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    8. Actually, there is no evidence based on the scientific method that proves one way or another geocentrism or heliocentrism. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that Earth is even moving at all. The whole system we are taught is merely conjecture based on observations. We do not know anything for sure since there is no fixed point to measure movement from. We can only describe relative motion. As far as flat earthers, well they are just as dogmaticaly guilty of promoting flat earth as “science” promotes a round earth. We the average Joe have to accept it on faith what the science community has told us about the Earth. While I personally believe the evidence points to a round earth, I must continually remind myself that this information comes from a scientific community that is wholly in opposition to the Catholic Faith.

      Delete
    9. @Tom,
      Sorry, you’re wrong, and what would any person opposed to the Faith have to gain from telling us the Earth is round, and the like?

      Two proofs the earth is round (there are many more):

      1. We have pictures taken from the moon by the astronauts (Please don’t tell me it was faked in the Arizona desert by Masons)

      2. According to a 2008 paper in “Applied Optics” by David K. Lynch, the curvature of the earth becomes somewhat visible at an elevation of 35,000 feet (with a >60° field of view) and more easily visible at an elevation of 50,000 feet. So if you're on the right airplane flight, you might be able to see the curvature of the earth with your own two eyes.

      In the event that you're not high enough, though, you can still experience the curvature of the earth another way. For example, if you were to fly all the way around the world, you'd find that it would be nighttime in part of the world and daytime in another part. In that way, the existence of time zones itself is proof that the Earth is round.

      Taken another way, you wouldn't even need to travel through different time zones. Time zones are wide enough that you will see the sun rising and/or setting later in the western part of a time zone than in the eastern part. According to the Farmers' Almanac, the sun will rise and set roughly four minutes later for every 70 miles you drive from east to west.

      If you wanted to combine this experiment with the previous one, you could note how much more of Earth you can see when you begin your ascent into the air than you can while you are sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.”— Another conspiracy? I expect better from you, Tom!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    10. I am not disputing any evidence that points to a round earth. I am simply bringing up the point that we Catholics have to accept the findings of the scientific community on these issues. This is the same scientific community that is highly opposed to the existence of God. In other words, we Catholics accept the testimony from the scientific community on faith. What makes their testimony on round earth any more credible than their testimony on evolution or global warming? I do not trust modern science at all these days. I am by no means a flat earther or believe the moon landing was a conspiracy. Their theories are based on absolutely nothing more than their own observation and does nothing to explain the observations that points to a round earth. As Catholics, we should not dogmatically pronounce on any scientific issue unless it contradicts Catholic dogma. Heliocentrism and round earth are the models that best predict the relative motions man observes in nature. But because it best predicts those motions, does not mean it is objectively true. There is no fixed reference point to measure motion of celestial bodies. This all goes back to Galileo.

      Delete
    11. Tom,
      I agree with you on many points—but as to the roundness of the Earth, we do have empirical evidence from the photos taken from space.

      I fully agree that as “Catholics we should not pronounce dogmatically on any scientific issue unless it contradicts Catholic dogma”
      Science is always in flux. We must go by the best models, and it seems you do.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    12. The medical profession states that "addiction", abusing drugs or alcohol is a disease. The psychiatric profession states that homosexuals are not mentally I'll, but born that way. How can "addiction" be a disease?? The addict did it to themselves by over using a drug or alcohol. Whenever I hear adverts for rehab and addiction, I cringe. To me this is nothing but gluttonous behavior. It is a spiritual problem in my opinion. The point I am trying to make is the medical/science profession will look at all avenues to soothe the conscience of the substance abuser and the homosexuals. The medical profession are the ones responsible for the birth control pills which have had a very destructive and demonic influence on society.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    13. @Tom

      You are exactly right. The author of this blog seems to think that Freemasons and other Luciferians have wrecked havoc on our faith but have been entirely honest in their scientific endeavors. A few hours of research will easily show that Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, and the other big heavyweights in the heliocentric model were all Freemasons. Newton was a Freemason, as well. The author of this blog seems to think they have conducted their assault on the one true Faith merely in the religious realm. He has a lot to learn.

      Do you not understand that roundness is not equivalent to spherical? Declaring the Earth is round is not the same as declaring the Earth is spherical. Show me north-south circumnavigation of the Earth. Oh, right there is none. A basic understanding of flight paths reveals that a planar Earth oriented around Polaris at the center makes the most sense. A proper understanding of actual science proves we are in an enclosed realm with no measurable curvature. Sun spots recorded from amateur weather balloons and the angles of sun rays through cloud breaks both prove that the sun is a local object.

      And an afternoon of research will display the fraud of NASA for what it is. Bubbles in outer space (they film ISS footage in water tanks). CGI. Wires. And this is the modern day attempts at faking space. I can't imagine attempting to follow the Catholic faith and then believing that some men went to the moon, through the supposed Van Allen Radiation Belt with a tin foil-covered module on a ship called APOLLO 11 (encoded symbolism both in the name and number). Oh, and then NASA misplaced all the telemetry data and in 2019 admit they can't get out of low Earth orbit.

      I would love to demolish your absolutely absurd, indoctrinated views on Earth and the fake medium of space fully, @Introibo, but this isn't the best venue. Suffice it to say, you reject the Bible and embrace Freemasons. And "photos from space" are all cartoons. They are admitted to be composite images by the people at NASA themselves.

      You have been lied to your whole life--we all have--and sadly you appear to not be strong enough to confront the lies. I will pray that one day you are, for defending Freemasonic inventions against Sacred Scripture is about the worst possible thing one can do.

      Delete
    14. Joann,
      On that point, I agree with you!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    15. @ianintaiwan,
      Yes, you’ve “taken the red pill.” Like in the movie “The Matrix” all reality is faked by those in control, and only YOU—The Chosen One understandis. You’re what I call a “science denier.” See my post on how the Church teaches and how you get it wrong like the Feeneyites, Vacancy Pushers, etc.
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-source-of-problem.html?m=1

      Here’s how it works:

      1. Everything is controlled by Masonic Jews.

      2. The conspiracy is so tight knit that no one can detect it except an enlightened few.

      3. Any evidence you produce to prove their lunacy wrong (e.g. photos from space stations and the Moon) are discounted because it’s all part of the Masonic Jewish conspiracy that lurks behind every door. The Moon landing was fake. Yet not one person has come forth with incontrovertible evidence of this HUGE coverup. The only ones who know the truth are a few enlightened ones, who operate little know websites. If you disagree you’re part of the conspiracy and don’t understand science as well as they do, even as they are devoid of any scientific training and education.

      Now here comes the hard part:
      Pope Pius XII believed in, and supported, the Big Bang Theory. He also declared evolution of the human body to be a viable opinion. Pope St Pius X allowed the word “Yom” to be interpreted as meaning “a period of time” not excluding even billions of years. The approved theologians who had Magisterial assurance that their teachings were free from error, also claimed evolution of the body to be viable and in no way heresy. See Theologians Ott, Tanquerey, Van Noort, above—just to name three.

      1. Were Pope St Pius X and Pope Pius XII part of the Satanic-Masonic-Jewish conspiracy? If so, they couldn’t have been popes, and the last pope would be Pope Benedict XV in 1922.

      2. If they are NOT part of this huge conspiracy, then you must accept the possibility of both the Big Bang and evolution.

      3. Which is it? Do you know better than two popes and all the approved theologian? Was Fr. Georges Lemaître a Freemason who advanced Satanic theories while Pope Pius XII didn’t know (with both a doctorate in Sacred Theology and the guidance of the Holy Ghost) this was wrong??

      4. Isn’t it true Bigfoot is part of the Conspiracy to make people believe in evolution?

      5. Isn’t it true Trump is also controlled by the Conspiracy?

      6. Isn’t it true that Elvis faked his death and makes appearances to mock the Resurrection?

      If you thought questions 1-3 are ones you can’t answer without exposing your utter lack of knowledge regarding Catholic teaching, you’re correct. If you thought 4-6 were sarcastic and serve to expose where this kind of “thinking” leads, you’re correct. Sadly, you might actually take them seriously.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    16. Judeo-Masonry does control the world and is preparing the way for the Antichrist (their Moshiach).

      The fiftieth anniversary of the Moon landing passed this year, and we haven't been back. When a hundred years have gone by without our returning, will people still believe we went using 1960s technology? What about when 150 years have gone by?

      Incontrovertible evidence that the Moon landing was faked was provided by the poster "Truther" in this blog post: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/10/islamophobia-or-misogyny.html

      If you make yourself willfully ignorant and refuse to review the evidence, that is one thing, but don't lie to the world and say the evidence doesn't exist. Lying is a sin.

      Delete
    17. Anon@1:44
      Lying is a sin, so you should stop doing it. Although you may not be subjectively guilty if you buy into your delusion.

      I will grant that there are evil conspiracies, but what you are pushing goes way beyond that. You would have us believe that 99.9% of the entire world is living in a kind of alternate reality where EVERYTHING is “fake news,” and only an enlightened few can understand what is really going on.

      No “truther” will answer my questions about Pope Pius XII And Pope St Pius X. Either they were part of the world-wide conspiracy, or they must be believed regarding the evolution of the body being viable and the compatibility of the Big Bang Theory with Genesis. This also holds true for the approved theologians.


      —-Introibo

      Delete
    18. See, you don't get to declare that because "day" in Genesis is not actually a 24-hour period of time but an indefinite period of time that that allows for the Big Bang. It doesn't. Are you unable to parse that there were six distinct periods of time in Creation? The onus is on you to demonstrate that your Satanic belief in the "Big Bang" can fit into the Genesis account, and appealing to "day" as "indeterminate period of time" is not even the first part of the first step. Again, you sully Sacred Scripture to believe in Freemasonic lies.

      And if you want to appeal to a Jesuit priest who was great pals with the most laughable "intellectual" ever--one Albert Einstein, known plagiarist and promoter of such absurdities as the concept of space-time and the cosmological constant--then you are making it crystal clear that you have nothing.

      As far as evolution of the body being "viable", you still have provided nothing other than a single Pope allowing for it to be a possibility. No scientific evidence, no Scriptural citations, nothing. I have not read a weaker argument.

      Also, are we to understand that you think the Church was just fine prior to Vatican II? Do you not think that perhaps--just perhaps--the infiltration began earlier and the plans were made to create an amenable scenario wherein Vatican II would be possible? I have been reading "Liberalism Is a Sin", and the modernist rot was so great in the 19th century that this book speaking out against it written by a priest had the priest's bishop order a book written that was pro-liberalism! What's more, the Bishop even sent "Liberalism Is a Sin" to the Vatican in the hopes that it would be censored! Pope Saint Pius X, also in the 19th century, was so aware of the threat that he promulgated the oath against modernism.

      Yet here you are uncritically accepting modernist "scientism" because a 20-th century Pope said it was a "possibility".

      Here is that link yet again to actual Catholicism regarding cosmology:

      https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

      You have chosen the side of Galileo the Freemason over the Church. That much is painfully obvious.




      Delete
    19. Anon @1:44 - Why in the world would the moon Moon landing be faked? What is there to be gained by faking a moon landing??

      Delete
    20. @ianfromtaiwan,

      1. Pope Pius XII authoritatively taught that evolution of the human body is possible and therefore not in conflict with the Bible. All the approved theologians taught the same.

      My question remains: was Pope Pius XII And ALL the approved theologians secret Masons and part of the Conspiracy? He also fully supported the Big Bang Theory.

      Let’s see where this conspiracy nonsense takes you. You must either (a) declare Pope Pius XII a heretic because he did not understand the Truth about Scripture as well as you. He was not protected by the Holy Ghost either. The Big Bang and evolution of the human body were considered viable by all the approved theologians and not one pope, nor the Sacred Congregation, nor even one bishop with Ordinary jurisdiction censured ANY OF THEM.

      That makes Pope St Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, And Pope Pius XI complicit in propagating this Satanic lie of the world-wide Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy.

      You have yet to answer: A true pope cannot teach that which is erroneous or evil to the whole Church (like in an encyclical) even when not ex cathedra). So did Pope Pope Pius XII teach error because he was a secret Masonic Jew and not pope, or was he pope and you will “recognize and resist” (welcome to the SSPX).

      YOU KNOW MORE THAN ALL THE APPROVED THEOLOGIANS AND FOUR POPES.

      You’re the “chosen one” selected by God to try and save the rest of us who are duped.

      And you wonder why I seriously call into question your mental state?

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    21. @anon841
      It’s part of the Jewish Masonic Conspiracy to make us think the world is round in contradiction to (their private interpretations of) Scripture. Really sad.
      —-Introibo

      Delete
    22. Introibo,

      What does the Jewish-Masonic gain by making us think the world is round?

      Delete
    23. @anon12:18
      In the messed up minds of the Conspiracy promoters, they get us to deny the “truth of the Bible” That the world is flat.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    24. What lie did I tell? YOU lied and claimed that no one has presented “incontrovertible evidence” that the Moon landing was fake. You want incontrovertible evidence? How about video of Neil Armstrong and the other Apollo astronauts faking being halfway to the Moon while still in low Earth orbit, at the very time they were supposed to be traveling to the Moon? Someone at NASA who must have cared about the truth sent it to Bart Sibrel in a mislabeled package. See 32:03 of Bart Sibrel’s A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

      You can hear the astronauts’ overseers giving commands and explaining that they want images to corroborate the story they are selling to the public. If that is not conclusive evidence, I don’t know what is. If you are of goodwill, you will watch it. It will take less than 10 minutes of your time.

      And if you have another 10 minutes, you can watch how Buzz Aldrin pretty much admits it’s true when shown it at minute 4:00 of Astronauts Gone Wild: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr6Vcvl0OeU

      He says “This makes you the real famous person that has discovered this and revealed all this stuff. What an ego you must have to want to propel yourself like this!”

      Beyond that, there are a number of scientific papers using hard science and hard math written by scientists with doctorates from accredited institutions proving aspects of the Apollo mission could not have been carried out using the technology NASA says or that aspects were fake. Any one of those proves that Moon landing could not have happened as NASA says it did. A few of those papers were linked in the comment section of the other article I linked to above.

      The likely reasons for the faking of the Moon landings were to provide a distraction from the Vietnam War, to provide cover for the development of new technology, because these Talmudists get kicks out of deceiving people, and especially to provide opportunities for the Talmudic billionaires to make lots of profit.

      You keep using the Moon landing as evidence that people who believe in the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy are crazy. It really irks me, not only because the Moon landing belief is contrary to truth, and because the world created by the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy has made my life miserable, but most especially because it helps along the war on Christ and His Church and is therefore contributing to the damnation of people. This whole conspiracy survives by deceiving people, and you are helping them stay deceived.

      Most all of the major media are owned by six or so companies, which are ultimately owned by Talmudic billionaires. I would say that pretty much everything in the news media, at least above the local level, is staged and fake. I would also say that pretty much all entertainment media – the movies, novels, comic books, video games, etc. – most of which contains immodesty and much of which is either openly or subtly anti-Catholic, or at best indifferent to the faith and a waste of time – are also owned and controlled by the Talmudic billionaires. The only truly independent media are very small operations and people like Bart Sibrel making their own videos and publishing their own books and websites.

      The Talmudic billionaires also control pretty much all industry, law enforcement, the military, the intelligence service, the education establishment, science, religion (most prominently the Novus Ordo sect), social organizations and everything else. All of the trends and fads are created. The whole direction of society is set in advance by Judeo-Masonry.

      Delete
    25. Regarding your question above, you keep trying to use Pius X to prop up Pius XII. You were already asked whether it is possible that Pius XII lost his Papacy through heresy. Why is Pius XII so sacrosanct? If he is guilty of heresy, why shouldn’t he be treated like John XXIII and his successors? Look at the hominid origin crud emanating from Pius XII’s theologians like Koren.

      Van Noort states that the creation of Adam and Eve has already been defined by the Ordinary Magisterium. I interpret his remarks as meaning that the WAY man was created is less important than the FACT that man was created, not that the way man was created is suddenly open for debate.

      The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission states that Catholics must accept “…the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man….” How can anyone say that this doesn’t necessitate belief in the Biblical narrative of man’s creation, because man’s creation was special and the first woman was created from the first man’s rib?

      The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission said that not every single thing in the specified chapters had to be interpreted literally. Nowhere in the excerpts you gave does it cast doubt on the Biblical narrative of Adam’s and Eve’s creation. Your introduction of the Yom-24-hour creation day issue is meant to confuse the debate. The Yom issue is irrelevant to the issue of man’s creation. Just because the creation day might not be an actual 24-hour current Earth day doesn’t mean that the story of Adam’s and Eve’s creation is false. I don’t think it gives anyone free reign to contradict dogma or the Magisterium. You wouldn’t say that it gives anyone permission to question Original Sin or the descent of all humanity from Adam.

      You seem to be pushing a particular agenda to reinforce mainstream science and to bend Church teaching to comply with mainstream science.

      Delete
    26. @anon7:56
      I'm not "bending" anything, I'm just showing how Church teaching comports with contemporary science. The problem with science-denying conspiracy theorists is that they usually become "Vacancy Pushers"--i.e., they push back the time of the Vacancy, like Michael Bizzaro (his real name) who claims Pope St. Pius X was the last pope. Then we have Richard Ibranyi who claims the last pope was Pope Honorius II in 1130 AD!! What's wrong with this? Plenty. See my post:

      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/pushing-back-time-of-vacancy.html

      Van Noort, if you read the whole section of his manual, means that HOW Adam was formed is not a settled matter. Pope Pius XII confirmed this fact. The Pontifical Biblical Commission did state that woman comes from man, but nowhere do you see any mention of a "rib." I never said the creation of Adam and Eve was false. My conclusion says the exact opposite; however the way it happened need not be exactly "as written."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    27. @anon7:54
      Bart Siebrel is the ultimate "Looney Tune" out to "prove" the Moon landing fake. He provoked Buzz Aldrin to the point where Aldrin punched him. Here's an interesting read:

      https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a28434260/moon-landing-hoax-conspiracists/

      An some common sense about the Moon landing:

      https://www.popsci.com/proof-moon-landing-not-fake/

      However, we must discount it because its all lies perpetrated by the Jewish-Masonic Conspiracy.

      Siebrel is many times debunked.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    28. DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO CLIP INTROIBO??!!

      Delete
    29. @anon9:43
      Yes, nearly 50 minutes of spin-doctoring. Nothing new under the sun--or moon!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    30. Introibo,

      I like science, but I don't have as much interest as some of these people do about all the issues. Believing in a flat earth is completely stupid. I guess we should throw away all those Infant of Prague statues where Jesus holds a round Earth in His hand or that picture of Our Lady standing on the serpent (the devil) on a round earth. I'm sure there is more. I guess we should believe the moon, the sun, and the other planets are just all round flat pancakes suspended in different parts of the sky at different times of year. Imagine that.

      As far as the moon landing conspiracy I've heard there is a radiation belt that is so far up and that would make it hard for a human to pass through but is it impossible? This guiness book of world records person might debunk that theory when he completed the highest skydive (he was in space) https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=QYUZCqpTN0g but I guess that didn't happen according to some. Why haven't they been back to the moon in 50 yrs. Don't know and don't care. What I do care about is the question as to why so many people are still in the Novus Ordo after so many years.

      As far as the heliocentric/geocentric beliefs, I tend to believe in the geocentric. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong about it, if I am. I'm not against the heliocentric beliefs. I find them both interesting. I do have a problem with how the public/private school systems condition its students to believe a certain way such as in Darwinian evolution, the big bang from the atheist point of view (not Pius XII understood it), etc. Hence the reason the Church condemns public and other non Catholic schools here: https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2017/09/19/papal-teaching-on-non-catholic-and-public-schools/

      BTW the most amazing thing I've ever seen is the Total Solar eclipse in 2017. The moon was beautiful. I wish it could have lasted longer than a little of over 2 minutes. The weird thing is my camera didn't do it justice nor did anybodies video recordings because it just showed a black dot with a bright ring around it. When you see it in person the moon is actually very colorful. I don't know if it has to do with the Sun's ring when it's fully covered but it seems like it brings out more mildly darkish colors unlike we are used to seeing at night from the sun's light reflection. Anyways as JoAnn would say, my two cents.

      Lee

      Delete
    31. Lee,
      Thank you for your comment! You’re level-headed and made excellent points about the Statue of the Blessed Mother and the Holy Infant Jesus Of Prague!

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    32. So, do you think the video of Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts faking being halfway to the Moon is genuine? If so, why isn't it proof that they didn't go?

      As far as the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy you now seem to be ridiculing, you intimated repeatedly in previous posts and comments that the Masons have the power to and would persecute and kill traitors to Masonry:

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/double-agent.html

      https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-synagogue-of-satan.html

      So why are you now ridiculing the idea that there is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy? Is the "Judeo-" prefix you take issue with?

      Delete
    33. @6:49
      Do I think the video is genuine? No, for various reasons. Masons do have the power to kill traitors to Masonry and I'm not saying there are NO conspiracies. However, we must steer the middle course. While there are conspiracies, there is not some wild-eyed GREAT CONSPIRACY whereby the entire world (at least 99%) is deluded into some kindof alternate reality.

      And, yes, I've been accused (as you seem to be implying) that I'm a "secret Jew." One commenter about three years ago had "proof":

      1. I live in New York City
      2. I'm a lawyer
      3. I don't like Adolph Hitler

      That's what I call PROOF alright! Almost as convincing as the world-wide Great Conspiracy

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. Thanks for finally talking about >"Adam And Eve" <Loved it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. As disgusting as the thought of Adam and Eve's children having incestous relations, it is even more disgusting to even contemplate the thought of their having relations with homindis to procreate. I always wondered where the theory came from that states we are descendants from monkeys. Now I know, and it is beyond disgusting.

    JoAnn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joann,
      It's not "descending from monkeys" but having a common ancestor. That does not derogate from Adam and Eve being true. Thinking about it though, where else other than by inbreeding or with the human-like creatures did they procreate? It would not be disgusting in the beginning for the conditions would be under the Providence of God and would not be like the revulsion we would all rightfully feel about incest which is sinful and forbidden.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,

      I guess I'll take the inbreeding over the human like creatures theory.

      JoAnn

      Delete
    3. JoAnn,

      Even though inbreeding is gross what other choice did Cain and Abel have in the beginning? Like Introibo said in the beginning the conditions would be under the Providence of God. So in that sense it's not really gross. It would actually be gross if they were homosexual, mated with a creature such as a primate or had to multiply through Eve (if per se Adam and Eve didn't have a daughter) which would be possible (not saying I believe it happened that way).

      Delete
    4. Anon @6:09
      After Introibo and you explained, I understand and agree. Thanks.

      JoAnn

      Delete
  9. I've seen feeneytes practically calling Pius XII an antipope because of this passage from Humani Generis.

    Jose Ribeiro Junior

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jose Ribeiro Junior,
      Yes. The Feeneyites have more problems than a math textbook!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. I speak under correction and I am certainly not up on this, but I remember reading that it has been scientifically proven via mitochondrial DNA that every human has descended from a single mother. Later it was proved that all humans descended from a single father. I took this to be scientific proof and confirmation of the existence of the biblical Adam and Eve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Dr. Lamb,
      You are referring to Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam. The evidence seems to point to a greater unity of the human race than Darwinians once thought, but it doesn't prove Adam and Eve genetically either,

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. Here is a quote from Bishop Sanborn commenting on Humani Generis of Pius XII:

    "If I were the pope, I would define solemnly that Adam was made from the slime of the earth, because it says that in Genesis."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And if he were Pope, the matter would be settled, his definition would be infallible, and all Catholics would be bound to assent under pain of mortal sin.

      Delete
    2. George,
      That’s the opinion of a bishop without Ordinary jurisdiction and who is neither an approved theologian or canonist. He holds an opinion which is perfectly acceptable. However, that’s all it is—an acceptable opinion. Bishop Sanborn’s declaration on “what I would do if I were pope” means nothing. His opinion is equally as valid as yours or mine.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. @Tom,
      But his isn’t pope so it’s all irrelevant.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    4. My point was not whether Bp Sanborn is correct or not, my point was that if a real Pope ever defined this issue, we would have to cease opposing the definition. This is a problem the R&Rers have created. Trads who think they can question Papal teachings.

      Delete
    5. True, Bishop Sanborn does not have magisterial authority. But here's someone who did:

      "We record what is to all known, and is doubted by none, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep." Pope Leo XIII Arcanum 1880

      Delete
    6. George,
      Are you claiming this defined or settled the question? If so, how could Pope Pius XII, also the Vicar Of Christ, keep the idea of the evolution of the body viable? Wouldn’t he have the solemn duty to keep that teaching free from doubt? There were Theologians during the reign of Pope Leo who held that the evolution of the body was viable and were not censured, condemned, or excommunicated by him.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. Yes, I do believe this settled the question. The pope taught it, therefore Catholics are bound to assent to it. Roma locuta est, causa finita. Of course, it wasn't defined ex cathedra, so one is not automatically expelled from communion for denying it. But I believe we should strive to do a little better than just avoiding excommunication. Don't you?

      As far as Pius XII tolerating the contrary opinion is concerned, the Church has always allowed some opinions contrary to Catholic truth to be entertained. After all, if all errors were expressly condemned all the times, how would we be able to distinguish the truly faithful Catholics from those who are just trying to avoid condemnation?

      Delete
    8. Yet the pope, SUBSEQUENT to Pope Leo allowed an opposing opinion. You’re claiming he advocated for an opinion CONTRARY TO CATHOLIC TRUTH which is impossible. Only unsettled questions can have varying opinions, because, indeed, when Rome has spoken the matter is closed. Moreover, the theologians who taught the contrary from Leo were never censured, meaning he did NOT settle it.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  12. Introibo,
    Our views of the papacy are obviously different. I believe that anything that the Vicar of Christ teaches as revealed Catholic doctrine is precisely that and can never be discovered to be otherwise, even if all the theologians oppose it, and none of the subsequent popes defend it. As they say, Rome has spoken, case closed. This is because the exercise of the teaching authority of the pope on faith and morals is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

    Your view, on the other hand, is apparently, Rome has spoken, let's wait and see if the Vatican-approved theologians agree with it, then we'll decide. And it's clear that you do not believe that the Holy Ghost had anything to do with the teaching of Leo XIII, and others like it. Unfortunately, this attitude obstructs you from perfectly assenting to any papal teaching that you are not already inclined to accept (unless it be ex cathedra), because, after all, it might one day be shown to have been false by some clique of theologians. Thus, it seems to me that you must needs always lack that docility that is so pleasing to God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George,
      I urge you to read what, e.g., St Alphonsus, the great Doctor Of The Church, wrote about the papacy. This is Catholic teaching:

      1. If the pope has settled the matter he must do so in an authoritative manner; not necessarily ex cathedra.

      2. If Pope Leo did so, then Pope Pius XII was a heretic as he would be against the UOM. He specifically stated the matter was NOT decided and closed.

      3. The theologians who were contemporaries Of Pope Leo and Pope Pius did not think it closed either. Why wouldn’t they be excommunicated or censured? Don’t tell me Pope Leo XIII was a “liberal” or afraid.

      I will always be docile when a matter is closed. Pope Pius XII proves it was not closed.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. That is also the reason I’m a Sedevacantist. Real popes cannot “undo” a matter definitely settled by a prior pope. That’s what Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, etc. did—and they are false popes!!

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    3. Introibo @2:44,

      No truer words were ever spoken!!

      JoAnn

      Delete
  13. Hello JoAnn, I see you are quite the follower of this blog. If I may ask a favor, when you've time, to read from this other blog and tell us what you think:
    http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com
    .. and what he says about the popes who have succeeded Pius IX.
    I'm not asking you, Introibo, since I assume you would outright dismiss that blog altogether.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony,
      I’ll let Joann speak for herself, but this person is another Conspiracy science denier. Pope Pius IX was the last pope in 1878. Why? Because Leo (as Cardinal Pecci) believed the heliocentrism—the earth moves around the Sun!!

      See his lunacy:
      http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2010/12/leo-xiii-was-never-pope.html?m=1

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Anthony,

      I am not into vacancy pushing. I believe the last Pope was Pope Pius XII who died in 1958.

      JoAnn

      Delete
  14. In any system of mass, there is always a singular point that is the center of gravity. This concept is very important, especially in aviation. In the universe, there too, must be a singular point that is the center of mass. Seeing how God Himself, incarnated Himself into nature, on the planet Earth, I see no reason not to believe that the Earth just may be the center mass of the whole universe, around which all other mass revolves. Of course this is not dogmatic and the believe in is not necessary for salvation. So no one who professes the Catholic Faith should be telling anyone else which celestial body revolves around which other celestial body. This objective truth, which none of us may ever know in this life, simply is not required to profess in order for salvation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      I'll agree that scientific theories that do not endanger dogma are "not required to profess in order for salvation."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Google the Michelson-Morley experiments of the 19th Century. These experiments resulted in no motion whatsoever of Earth. To explain this inconvenient result, science came up with the theory of Relativity. I find it strange that actual scientific fact was tossed aside and an unprovable theory accepted all because it fit the narrative of an Earth in motion. I just do not trust the agenda on modern science and neither should any traditional Catholic. At the end of the day, none of their theories are necessary to save our souls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      I'm aware of the experiment, but there's much more to it. As this is not a science blog, I will agree with your last sentence:

      At the end of the day, none of their theories are necessary to save our souls.

      Delete
  16. Thanks for your opinion.
    I retract my recommendation to visit that website I mentioned.
    It is diabolical! Very similar to the Dimonds, he will try to convince souls to be home aloners, despise some holy priests, bisops, and pontiffs, and give up your entire Fatima devotion among other things.
    So sorry I went there. Stay away. It is a snare.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pius XII cannot annul the doctrine of the IV Lateran Council and the Catechism of Trent, etc. The Church before Humani Generis has never, in any official document, allowed the possibility of bodily evolution.
    This has been a tremendous awkwardness of Pius XII. You cannot start from an encyclical and forget definite dogmas. Also, what was the way Catholics thought for centuries and centuries? Everyone understood the direct creation of bodies. Introibo, you are very wrong in your approach.
    Modernism had already advanced greatly during the time of Pius XII. Also from Pius XI. Who has approved the Council? Virtually all the bishops and cardinals of Pius XII.


    Lateran IV had defined the relative simultaneity of the creation of all things, perhaps the most authoritative was St. Lawrence of Brindisi (1559-1619), Doctor of the Church. In his commentary on Genesis, St. Lawrence wrote:

    the Holy Roman Church determined in the Fourth Lateran Council that the angels along with the creatures of the world were at once created ex nihilo from the beginning of time.

    This precise meaning of the words of Lateran IV was also explained by the most authoritative catechism in the history of the Catholic Church—the Roman Catechism—which taught that God created ALL things by his Fiat instantaneously “in the beginning” without any natural process:

    The Divinity ­­ created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made: He commanded and they were created.

    http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ja isti,
      St Thomas Aquinas, who wrote after the Fourth Lateran Council, believed that there could have been developments in Creation in accordance with what Pope Pius XII taught.

      You can certainly believe as you do, but the matter was never settled or defined. If Pope Pius XII taught something contrary to settled dogma, then he could not be pope.

      Who he appointed as bishops and cardinals is not protected by the Holy Ghost. His teachings are. The approved theologians also taught the possibility of bodily evolution.

      Do you want to declare as non-popes those on St Peter’s Throne for years going back centuries?

      That’s the only logical option if you believe Pope Pius XII And the approved theologians went against dogma.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. “St Thomas Aquinas, who wrote after the Fourth Lateran Council, believed that there could have been developments in Creation in accordance with what Pope Pius XII taught.”
      It is not so:
      “But in the first production of corporeal creatures no transmutation from potentiality to act can have taken place, and accordingly, the corporeal forms that bodies had when first produced came immediately form God, whose bidding alone matter obeys, as its own proper cause. To signify this, Moses prefaces each work with the words, "God said, Let this thing be," or "that," to denote the formation of all things by the Word of God, from Whom, according to Augustine [Tract. i. in Joan. and Gen. ad lit. i. 4], is "all form and fitness and concord of parts."”
      http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1065.htm#article4
      On the other hand, Pius XII does not teach evolution, he only states that the Church must pronounce itself. The point is that the Church has already ruled on many occasions: IV Lateran Council, Council of Trent, Vatican I, etc.
      Development in Creation cannot be producing new species, but rather adapting some individuals to the circumstances, which is not creation.
      “If Pope Pius XII taught something contrary to settled dogma, then he could not be pope.”
      Pius XII did not teach something contrary to dogma, but in his teaching he was very clumsy - Infallibility does not imply the best possible explanation; It is a negative protection against error. It does not mean the best way to talk about an issue. It does not imply an "optimal" expression - . In practice he allowed the belief in evolution. As in fact most of the theologians of his time. But that is not the teaching of the Church. A phrase from an encyclical could not have the same doctrinal value as a definite truth. In addition, the statement of Humani Generis is not defining. Start with "in the current state of science." That is no definition.

      Delete
    3. I think that Pius XII and many other theologians were impressed by the fraud of the Piltdown man, which proved to be a miserable fraud three years after the encyclical. By consulting a manual of preconciliar theology, I can verify that evolution was taught as a fact by most theologians. Of course it is a catastrophe, but it does not condition infallibility either. What did St. Pius X teach about the modernists in Pascendi? That they had chairs at the seminars. And they were approved to teach by the authority.

      Humani Generis, de facto, allowed John Paul II to take a step in recognizing evolution as a theory. Evolution is a typically modernist concept, as Pascendi teaches. It is one of the main causes of atheism in the USA.

      On the other hand, weren't Roncalli, Montini, Bugnini, etc., approved by Pius XII? And also having very important positions? That catastrophe does not corrupt infallibility either. But the virus of modernism was accommodated among the people of the Church.

      “The approved theologians also taught the possibility of bodily evolution.”

      See Pascendi about “approved theologians”.

      “Do you want to declare as non-popes those on St Peter’s Throne for years going back centuries?”
      Absolutely not. But the evil was inside. Cardinal Rampolla, very liberal, was the right hand of Leo XIII. Thank God he was not elected pope in 1903. Despite having the support of most cardinals already in his time. But his influence extended to the future Benedict XV, Pius XI and also Pius XII.
      This is the important thing: you cannot with a single phrase of an encyclical bury all the previous doctrine and tradition of the Church. Not all documents have the same teaching value. This answer also applies to the following: “That’s the only logical option if you believe Pope Pius XII And the approved theologians went against dogma.”

      Delete
    4. @ja isti,
      I’m at work so I’ll provide the citation to Aquinas later.

      Infallibility extends to whenever a pope teaches something to the Universal Church. He taught the evolution of the body could be entertained meaning that THE CHURCH HAD NOT SETTLED THE MATTER. Otherwise, the current state of science, or anything else, could not be an occasion to throw doubt on what has been definitively settled.

      The approved theologians cannot defect as a body. What Pope St Pius X said was that Modernists needed to be weeded out, which they were to a large extent during his reign. Individual theologians can be wrong but not the common or universal teaching of them as a whole.

      All the theologians at V2 who wrote the heresy were CENSURED and rehabilitated by Roncalli. To suggest that such big names as Van Noort, Tanquerey, and Segues could maintain a position contrary to Church dogma without censure is to believe in a Church that can defect.

      If Creation was defined by Lateran IV, the declaration of Pope Pius XII And the teaching of the approved theologians cannot possibly escape the condemnation of heresy.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    5. One cannot interpret dogma differently from how it was defined at the time.
      How do you think the authors of the fourth Lateran council (1215) have understood the text ?:
      “...creator of all visible and invisible things of the spiritual and of the corporal . . . by his own omnipotent power at once (simul) from the beginning of time createdeach (utramque) creaturefrom nothing, spiritual and corporal namely angelic and mundane and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body”
      This text was obviously understood very clearly, without resorting to any evolution, of course. God has created the body of the first man directly. That is the meaning of this dogmatic statement. Unfortunately, the theory of evolution and Humani Generis had to come saying that the doctrine must be finally laid ...
      A phrase from Humani Generis cannot have the doctrinal value of a dogma, Scripture, Church Fathers and the teaching of so many popes and councils. The Catholic religion does not start with Pius XII. His teaching, or rather the interpretation of his teaching, cannot ignore the perennial teaching of the Church.
      You have to read carefully:
      http://catholicorigins.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/CREATION-AND-TIME-Full-Booklet-v-1014.pdf

      Delete
    6. @ja isti
      From Aquinas:
      “On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially.”

      See Question 74: All Seven Days In Common. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm

      Aquinas therefore left the door open to a potentiality needing to be developed.

      Who is interpreting dogma differently? The Church tells us what documents mean. You don’t simply use private judgement on Denzinger as Protestants do on Scripture.

      Bottom line:
      1. If the Lateran Council IV, has dogmatically excluded bodily evolution, then Pope Pius XII was a heretic for allowing for the possibility.

      2. Yet a true pope cannot teach error or evil to the Church.

      3. Ergo, either Pope Pius XII was a heretic and not pope, or the question was not settled.

      Can you imagine a true pope allowing for considering a spiritual presence in the Holy Eucharist in light of modern philosophy and chemistry? Even to openly allow questioning of Transubstantiation is heretical.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    7. “See Question 74: All Seven Days In Common. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm”

      Please, that refers to creation through second causes, as the son comes from the natural father.

      “If the Lateran Council IV, has dogmatically excluded bodily evolution, then Pope Pius XII was a heretic for allowing for the possibility.”

      If you look carefully at the text, Pius XII does not allow that possibility, but says that the Church is the only one that can sentence that matter. That is so, but the Church has already ruled that matter. That is the serious inaccuracy of Pius XII.

      On the other hand, Pius XII in that text does not give any definition, so infallibility is not in question. But it has contributed greatly to the dissemination of the theory of evolution in seminars.

      On the "all that the entire body of approved theologians cannot err," think that the vast majority of theologians and bishops of Pius XII’s time they have approved 2VC. You tell me: "But there were some who did not approve." Okay, but the vast majority did approve of that garbage.

      In any case, an encyclical cannot have the doctrinal value of a dogmatic statement.

      Delete
    8. @ja isti,
      Like a Feeneyite, you seem to think a decree needs to be ex cathedra for the protection of the Holy Ghost. Such is not the case.

      You write:
      If you look carefully at the text, Pius XII does not allow that possibility, but says that the Church is the only one that can sentence that matter. That is so, but the Church has already ruled that matter. That is the serious inaccuracy of Pius XII.

      On the other hand, Pius XII in that text does not give any definition, so infallibility is not in question. But it has contributed greatly to the dissemination of the theory of evolution in seminars.

      Reply: All the approved theologians, approved by Pope Pius XII himself, did not give that meaning to the encyclical. They taught that it allowed for the evolution of the body. I guess they didn’t read it as carefully as you and Pope Pius XII didn’t bother to correct them about the meaning of his own words! Please.

      This does involve Infallibility because:
      1. If the Lateran Council IV, has dogmatically excluded bodily evolution, then Pope Pius XII was a heretic for allowing for the possibility.

      2. Yet a true pope cannot teach error or evil to the Church.

      3. Ergo, either Pope Pius XII was a heretic and not pope, or the question was not settled.

      As to the body of approved theologians not being able to err, as theologian Scheeben explains, this is true as long as they are united to the pope and his bishops. But Montini was not a true pope, and the bishops followed him into Apostasy. Hence, the protection of the theologians was gone, and the vast majority—-like the bishops—went into Apostasy. Such was not the case with Pope Pius XII. The fact that he appointed many bishops who went bad at V2 in no way derogates from this principle. Origen became a heretic, but his works WHEN CATHOLIC continued to be used by the Church and only his works after he became a heretic were discarded.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    9. "Like a Feeneyite, you seem to think a decree needs to be ex cathedra for the protection of the Holy Ghost. Such is not the case."

      I do not think so. But every phrase in an encyclical cannot be compared to a dogma.

      "If the Lateran Council IV, has dogmatically excluded bodily evolution"

      Yes, it excludes it. The Council said so, and it was understood for centuries. Until Darwin and the modernists appeared.

      "...then Pope Pius XII was a heretic for allowing for the possibility."

      I repeat that he did not allow it. He said you can investigate, but it is different.
      Although his expression was very unfortunate, because he implied that the Church must sentence that matter. The problem is that the Church did sentence, as I said before. And as many Popes, Fathers and Doctors said.

      "Hence, the protection of the theologians was gone"

      We agree on this, but those people were the same people as before. Montini, Bugnini, Roncalli, etc. The Council is not held in one day. It was in those people's minds. That does not affect infallibility, but the corruption that was brewing in many aspects. One of the very important aspects was the question of evolution. And not only that.

      "...but his works WHEN CATHOLIC continued to be used by the Church and only his works after he became a heretic were discarded."

      Not only the work of Pius XII, but of all the Popes of all time. That teaching has to be consistent. And a phrase from an encyclical cannot change the meaning that the Lateran Council Fathers, and others, gave to dogma at that time. Everyone perfectly understood what that sense was.

      We believe in God, and in every word that comes out of his mouth. But not in EVERY word that comes from the mouth of a Pope. This is the key to this whole discussion. And the difference in the doctrinal value of a dogmatic text, and one that is not.

      Delete
    10. @ja isti,
      We are at an impasse. Why would Pope Pius XII allow for anything that would cast doubt on an allegedly infallible decision? Answer : He cannot do to the protection of the Holy Ghost. The fact that he allowed for evolution to be considered and not condemned is PROOF it was NOT a dogma. I explained in my last comment that all approved theologians during the reign of Pope Pius XII interpreted it I explained. Pope Pius XII knee this and did NOTHING TO CORRECT WHAT WOULD BE FALSE TEACHING REGARDING HIS OWN WORDS. Your contention to the contrary is therefore without merit.

      “Everyone perfectly understood what that sense was.” Apparently the most learned approved theologians including Van Noort, Tanquerey, etc. were all heretics. Cardinal Ottavianni never censured or rebuked them. They didn’t understand as you do, despite the highest level of knowledge and orthodoxy in theology. That includes even the great Garrigou-Lagrange who WROTE THE ENCYCLICAL!! He never defected either, having dies in 1964, and falling very ill before the Council began.

      You hold an old R&R position, what Pope Pius XII write was “not infallible” so the infallible decree trumps it. No, a pope is incapable of opposing dogma which is why I’m Sedevacantist.

      I repeat for the final time:
      1. If the Lateran Council IV, has dogmatically excluded bodily evolution, then Pope Pius XII was a heretic for allowing for the possibility.

      2. Yet a true pope cannot teach error or evil to the Church.

      3. Ergo, either Pope Pius XII was a heretic and not pope, or the question was not settled.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  18. Only this:

    "The fact that he allowed for evolution to be considered and not condemned is PROOF it was NOT a dogma."

    No, because in that part of the encyclical it does not make any definition.
    In other Popes we can find cases in which they did not express themselves well. For example Pope Honorius. It was not very accurate. But he also did not use any definition in the letter to Patriarch Sergius. San Bellarmin cites many cases like these, but always underlines or that it was an act of government, or it was not a definition.

    You absolutize every phrase of a pope. That is wrong.

    And that body evolution is nonsense, we see it today with the help of science better than ever. But not only science was necessary, but faith first.

    Unfortunately, the impression of Pius XII contributed greatly to the dissemination of the theory of bodily evolution among Catholics, with the consequent loss of faith. I think that is evident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ja isti,
      Pope Pius XII doesn’t need to make a definition. Any Pope who would attempt to teach the Church that the Immaculate Conception is not settled would be a heretic.

      Your analogy to Pope Honorius is inapposite because his letters —if heretical —would have made him a heretic but according to theologian Hurter, it is certain that:
      “the letters of Honorius were unknown [ignotae] until the death of the Pontiff and [the Patriarch] Sergius.” (Medulla Theo- logiae Dogmaticae, 360.)
      Hence, even if heretical, Honorius’ statements could not have constituted the “public” heresy required for a pope to lose office. In the instant case, you have an encyclical addressed to the whole Church and promulgated.

      Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange confirms it allows for evolution of the human body and he wrote the encyclical which Pius subsequently read and promulgated.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. When the 1VC talks about infallibility, it uses the term "define", or propose to the whole Church.

      All parts of an encyclical do not have to be definition, as in HG.

      Pope Honorius was not clear in his letter to Sergius. Although private, that letter was of great importance. That letter was not known in public during the life of Pope Honorius. Therefore, it is not a problem in itself. However, it was not clear and could lead to error. That is why Pope Honorius was condemned posthumously. Naturally, we cannot expect from those who accept the 2VC, that they correct Pius XII's lack of clarity. However, many who do not recognize the conciliar popes do not accept this teaching of Pius XII on bodily evolution. Rather, this (serious) lack of clarity.

      Most theologians at the time of Pius XII accepted bodily evolution as a fact, and I have been able to read these statements in a preconciliar manual of dogmatic theology. In that sense, HG was a brake on that position because it warns that body evolution is not proven.

      Where Pius XII does commit inaccuracy is in expressing himself in such a way as if the non-existence of bodily evolution (because the human body was also created directly by God) was not taught so many times before.

      That is why John Paul II will say (practically the same as you say, introibo):

      "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points."

      Barnabas was carried away by Peter's mistake, but Paul did not. Because not every word of a pope is a definition or a teaching to the whole Church.

      Finally, we must not be sedevacantist, but simply Catholic.

      Delete
    3. @ja isti
      Sedevacantism is simply a Catholic position—the only tenable one in this time of Great Apostasy. Yes, we are simply Catholic, yet I use the term Traditionalist for proselytizing purposes and not to be confused with the Vatican II sect.

      That Wojtyla took something open as a possibility and took it to a wrongful conclusion in many aspects, in no way detracts from Pope Pius XII. In like manner, Montini (Paul 6), used the Pian Holy Week changes as an excuse to implement the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. To claim one somehow “logically follows the other” is just wrong—as well as ridiculous.

      1. If creation excluding bodily evolution was dogma, it cannot be open to discussion or debate. It can only be reaffirmed.

      2. Pope Pius XII DID allow for the teaching of bodily evolution.

      3. We know this from the most orthodox Thomist theologian Garrigou-Lagrange who wrote the encyclical for Pope Pius XII. Garrigou-Lagrange never accepted the decrees Of V2 having died in 1964.

      4. We know it also because the most eminent approves theologians taught that Pope Pius XII meant this and neither Pius XII nor the Holy Office ever corrected or censured them.

      5. Pope Pius XII was teaching the whole Church through an encyclical properly promulgated.

      6. If evolution of the human body was Dogmatic, he would have willfully called into doubt a truth of Divine and Catholic Faith.

      7. However, a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching evil or error to the whole Church.

      8. Therefore, EITHER:

      (A) Creation that excludes the evolution of the body was never Infallibility settled

      OR

      (B) Pope Pius XII was not a true pope.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  19. First of all:

    We do not believe in a Pope, but in God. Every word of a Pope is not infallible. That's the key of everything.

    Yes, Pius XII with HG gives rise to the acceptance of bodily evolution, and that logically uses John Paul II. In addition, most theologians - they are not infallible - at the time of Pius XII they accepted bodily evolution. They have simply succumbed to a false science.

    "2. Pope Pius XII DID allow for the teaching of bodily evolution."

    It is not like this. He allows the study of evolution, which is different.

    Garrigou-Lagrange, like other theologians, has succumbed to a false science, which was then very fashionable. Wasn't he also the author of the sedeprivacionist thesis? That thesis has many detractors.

    "5. Pope Pius XII was teaching the whole Church through an encyclical properly promulgated."

    Again: but not every phrase in this encyclical, as in other encyclicals, is an infallible teaching.

    "6. If evolution of the human body was Dogmatic, he would have willfully called into doubt a truth of Divine and Catholic Faith."

    It simply does not give the best explanation.

    Therefore, the premises are false, and the conclusion is incorrect.

    Can you understand that you cannot reduce all the teaching of the Church on the bodily creation of man, with all that it means, to a phrase of Pius XII? In addition, a non-defining phrase.

    Finally, you tie Pius XII to a philosophy of absurd and ridiculous evolution, which day after day receives more criticism. All for your wrong approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ja isti,
      Wrong. You claim creation excluding the evolution of the body is infallible. Pope Pius allowed for the possibility of bodily evolution. We know this from the TESTIMONY OF THE THEOLOGIAN WHO DRAFTED THE ENCYCLICAL. Are you suggesting Garrigou-Lagrange needs to be infallible to know what he wrote and what it meant? The popes pre-V2 always went over every word of an encyclical with the drafting theologian prior to promulgation. There is no way he could be wrong about what he wrote and what it meant—and the pope knew it also.

      If something is infallibly defined, no amount of science could ever change it. The corporate body of theologians ARE INFALLIBLE. You implicitly believe in a Church which can defect.

      It DOES NOT MATTER IF POPE PIUS XII TAUGHT INFALLIBLY. If he allowed for something to be a possibility when the matter was defined HE IS A HERETIC. Period.

      Moreover, the pope cannot teach the whole Church something erroneous or evil even if not infallible as he has the protection of the Holy Ghost.

      The sedeprivationist Theory was by theologian Guerard de Lauriers not by Garrigou Lagrange.

      One of the surest signs Roncalli was not pope was that he called a commission to study the ban on artificial contraception. What’s to “study”? The matter was settled by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

      The premises I propose are air-tight, therefore the conclusion (one or the other) is inescapable. I repeat:

      1. If creation excluding bodily evolution was dogma, it cannot be open to discussion or debate. It can only be reaffirmed.

      2. Pope Pius XII DID allow for the teaching of bodily evolution.

      3. We know this from the most orthodox Thomist theologian Garrigou-Lagrange who wrote the encyclical for Pope Pius XII. Garrigou-Lagrange never accepted the decrees Of V2 having died in 1964.

      4. We know it also because the most eminent approves theologians taught that Pope Pius XII meant this and neither Pius XII nor the Holy Office ever corrected or censured them.

      5. Pope Pius XII was teaching the whole Church through an encyclical properly promulgated.

      6. If evolution of the human body was Dogmatic, he would have willfully called into doubt a truth of Divine and Catholic Faith.

      7. However, a true pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching evil or error to the whole Church.

      8. Therefore, EITHER:

      (A) Creation that excludes the evolution of the body was never Infallibility settled

      OR

      (B) Pope Pius XII was not a true pope.
      Please do not say, “But Pope Pius XII was not speaking infallibly.” IT DOES NOT MATTER. He would be teaching the Church something that runs counter to dogma (according to you).

      Do not say, “That’s not what the pope meant”
      As if you know better than the theologian who wrote it and discussed it with Pius prior to its promulgation. The pope never corrected or censured the theologians who taught that he allowed for the possibility of the evolution of the body. Why would he allow for such a misrepresentation of what he meant? Answer: He didn’t because that is exactly what he meant.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Pius XII could think one thing, but said another.

      He did not give permission to believe that bodily evolution is possible. He only said that you can study, which is different.

      It's true, it didn't help prevent Christians against an absurd ideology like evolution, as we can see today. But that does not affect infallibility.

      Delete
    3. @ja isti,
      Infallibility, as I have explained several times now, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. He gave permission to believe in evolution as the theologian who wrote the encyclical declared.

      Yet YOU know better than the theologian who wrote it and conferred with Pius? Please.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  20. "One of the surest signs Roncalli was not pope was that he called a commission to study the ban on artificial contraception. What’s to “study”? The matter was settled by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium."

    He cannot lose the papal office for that reason. Letting study a subject, although already defined, is not a formal pronouncement. It is not teaching. He had to be corrected for that, something not all theologians of Pius XII's time did, but he doesn't lose his office (if he was the Pope) for it.

    On the other hand, in the encyclical "IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM" by Benedict XV states:

    "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation,...

    ...and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought."

    that is, that the Earth may not be at the center of the universe, contrary to what the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Scripture, the Fathers, etc. teaches.

    But here Benedict XV does not teach geocentrism nor pronounce himself on the subject in a defining way. But it does not say well about it.

    It is possible to find other similar examples. That is why the Pope's office is not lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ja isti,
      No, it means that geocentrism CAN be believed but is not required. Ditto for Pope Pius XII, who allowed for the Study and belief in the evolution of the body because it was never settled.

      You don’t “study” Transubstantiation to see if it’s still true. That’s willful doubt of an article of Faith and heresy can be expressed not just in words but in deeds.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Pius XII allowed for the study and not belief in the evolution of the body.

      It is the doctrine of the Church, firm and settled, and it is also pure logic, that the meaning of dogmas cannot be changed, as they were defined at the time.
      Do you think that in the thirteenth century the Lateran Fathers admitted bodily evolution? That's crazy. They said "at once", as is logical, because that is creation. Because God is omnipotent. They did not wait for Darwin "to explain the Scriptures."
      The same all the Fathers of the Church, from the beginning.
      The same as Holy Scripture.
      Finally, to say that Jesus Christ took the human body of the descendants in the bodily evolution of beasts, is blasphemy.
      God created man from the dust of the earth, directly. And he should not die, nor suffer illnesses. Adam's father in the last instance, bodily, cannot be a monkey. Saying that is blasphemy. That man falls, but Jesus Christ rescues him.
      Yes, evolution was responsible for the loss of faith of millions of Catholics. That did not prevent Pius XII. His responsibility was enormous.

      Delete
    3. Benedict XV contradicted what was said by the Catechism of Trent. He did it in an encyclical. But with that he did not teach.

      Delete
    4. @ja isti,
      St Augustine himself taught that Genesis in all parts need not be literal. The Pontifical Biblical Commission Under Pope St Pius X allowed for the universe to be billions of years old in interpreting the word “Yom.” Pope Pius XII believed in the Big Bang Theory And it was proposed by a Catholic priest!

      You do NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT POPE PIUS XII TAUGHT ABOUT EVOLUTION OF THE BODY.

      Answer this: “Why would he allow the study of something that cannot be true?” Why not simply condemn it?

      Read theologian Segues and see what is meant. It does NOT mean Adam “came from a monkey.”

      Pope Benedict XV did not contradict Trent, but I won’t even go there because you are not willing to understand Church teaching.

      The pope IS INCAPABLE OF CONTRADICTING OR CALLING INTO DOUBT THAT WHICH THE CHURCH HAS DEFINED AND SETTLED. Either Benedict And Pius XII contradicted dogma—or called it into doubt—and therefore were not popes OR the matter was NOT settled as was the case (and which you deny).

      I’m now ending this thread as the teaching of the Church has been made clear.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  21. Please see this blog post on how the Catholic Church dealt with the theory of evolution and Catholic authors who attempted to reconcile evolution and Catholicism in the nineteenth century.

    http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/theology/81-theology/451-catholic-solemn-enthronement-of-evolution.html

    The important points are these:

    There was a non-dogmatic local council called the Council of Cologne in Germany that affirmed the immediate creation of man and that said the theory of random evolution contradicts Scripture and the Catholic Faith.

    The Vatican Council intended to address evolution and likely would have denounced it but was cut short by the Franco-Prussian War before it could examine evolution. However, the Vatican Council seemed to have obliquely condemned evolution with this anathematization:

    "If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their WHOLE SUBSTANCE, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema" (Vatican I, Session 3, Canon 1:5)

    Evolution conflicts with the Aquinian theological idea that all beings have an immutable essence, input by God when he created them ex nihilo, that defines what they are since through evolution, their fundamental substance would transform. Corroborating this idea, the Holy Office castigated French Dominican Fr. Léroy’s The Evolution of Organic Species, which promoted an early theory of intelligent design, and put it on the Index of Prohibited Books, precisely because it contravenes the Catholic axiom of immutable substances. The Holy Office banned other books by Catholic authors promoting forms of evolution as well. When their writings were condemned, these Catholic authors abjured their previous ideas and submitted to the Church.

    Nineteenth century theologians supported the Biblical narrative of man’s creation rather than evolution. German theologian Fr. Matthias Scheeben’s “Dogmatica” labeled the idea of man’s evolution heretical, and Cardinal Mazzella's taught that Revelation provided as “most certain truth” Adam’s immediate bodily creation.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have a question about monogenism. Does it have any confirmation in natural science?
    God bless you!

    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,
      Yes. There is established evidence that the whole of humanity today has one common female ancestor, named “Mitochondrial Eve,” whose mitochondrial DNA is integral to the genome of every human being around the world (without exception). Mitochondrial DNA is transmitted through mothers, but all human beings possess it. We also have a common male ancestor named “Y-chromosomal Adam,” who is the origin of the male “Y” chromosome.

      Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam probably lived around the same time and came from a similar region (southwestern coastal Africa – around the border between Angola and Namibia near the Atlantic Ocean).

      You can look up those terms for more in-depth treatment. The fact remains that there is proof for monogenism AFTER the idea was initially scoffed at and rejected by the scientific community. I would say this is an incredible development in favor of monogenism.

      —-Introibo

      Delete
    2. Introibo,
      Could this be the plan of creation:
      1. There are hominids.
      2. God infuses two hominids - Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve a human soul (these are biblical Adam and Eve).
      3. From the marriage of Adam and Eve children are born (Cain, Set, etc.) who are mated with the hominids. Children of Cain, Set, etc. they are descendants of Adam and have original sin.
      4. We all have a genetic link with Adam and Eve (these are our common ancestors), therefore we all have original sin (and a human soul created directly by God).
      Is such a plan to create man possible from the point of view of Catholic doctrine and natural sciences?

      God bless,

      Paweł

      Delete
    3. Pawel,
      I have no Magisterial authority to declare that opinion safe to hold or not. You could possibly hold it if you resolve “that I will adhere to the Teaching of the Church and will submit myself to Her authority should this be shown as incompatible with the Faith or if the papacy is restored, I will humbly submit to the judgements of a True Pope.”

      God Bless,

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  23. I am doing research. Could you provide the source that the theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange wrote or drafted “Humani Generis” and the source where Garrigou-Lagrange said that the encyclical meant that Catholics could believe in bodily evolution?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:46
      That theologian Garrigou Lagrange was a guiding force (most likely the main drafter) behind the encyclical, See Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange: Defending the Faith from Pascendi dominici gregis to Humani generis", Michael Kerlin, US Catholic Historian, Vol. 25, No. 1, Winter, 2007, 111.

      2. Theologian Garrigou Lagrange never corrected his contemporaries on their interpretation of Pope Pius XII’s encyclical (not did the Pontiff himself correct them, thereby allowing the teaching. See, e.g., theologian Sagues, “Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB” [1955], pg.237).

      —-Introibo

      Delete
  24. Is it a sin against the Catholic faith to believe that certain human body parts that evolved are now useless? (I'm thinking about the tail bone and others)

    (Sorry if extending this very long thread annoys you) Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Introibo,
    I apologize in advance for extending the theme of evolution. If you have time, please answer me.
    1. In your opinion, is the hypothesis presented by Dr. Edward Feser on monogenism possible? (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/knowing-ape-from-adam.html) I mean the point of view of natural sciences. In my opinion, this hypothesis cannot be excluded from the point of view of view of natural sciences, but at the same time it is impossible to confirm monogenism on the basis of the knowledge of reason without revelation. Although, of course, materialistic scientists will say that if science doesn't prove it, it is false doctrine.
    2. What arguments would you make to support Mongenism in the discussion? The Feser hypothesis, the Y-chromosomal Adam and the mitochondrial Eve or something else?

    God bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
  26. Doesn't this teaching of Pope Pelagius I in his letter "Humani generis" of 557 teach as revealed truth that God created Adam's body immediately from inorganic matter and not from some organic matter?
    "For I confess that all men from Adam, even to the consummation of the world, having been born and having died with Adam himself and his wife, who were not born of other parents, but were created, the one from the earth, the other [al.: altera], however, from the rib of the man [cf. Gen. 2:7, 22]" (Denzinger 228a).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:32,
      No. Pope Pelagius simply says what Scripture says, that man was created "from the earth." What exactly is meant by "from the earth, " and there is room for latitude in understanding.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Cardinal Gasparri's "Catholic Catechism" states:
      "65 How did God make man's first parents?
      God made the body of Adam out of the slime of the earth and the body of Eve from a rib taken from Adam, but the souls of both He created out of nothing, joining them to their respective bodies in a wonderful union of substance.77
      77 Gen. ii, 7ft; St. John Chrysostom, Horn., xiii, i, in Genesim (p. if, below)."

      So are these words to be understood in the same way as the words of Pope Pelagius I, that this is just quoting Scripture? That is, God could have created Adam's body either directly or indirectly (through evolution) from the dust of the earth?

      Delete
    3. @anon8:05
      Yes. In the same way catechisms teach the universe was created in six days, yet the Pontifical biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X allowed "yom" to be understood as a "period of time" not necessarily 24 hrs long.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete