- The existence and attributes of God
- The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all
- The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
- The truth of Catholic moral teaching
- The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II
...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).
Day of Rest (Genesis 2:3): Moses employed a period of a week for the Creation to impress upon the Jews the fact that the seventh day of the week was holy and a day of rest. Catholic exegetes [interpreters] are unanimous in rejecting the old theory that God accomplished everything in the space of six twenty-four hour periods. (See theologian Cevetello, Getting to Know the Bible, [1957], pg. 64; Emphasis mine).
On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as above) issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation").
Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?" Answer: In the negative.
Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?" Answer: In the affirmative.
We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account as theologian Cevetello notes. God created the universe in six yom, or time periods, the exact duration of which may be much more than 24 hours. Nor is it necessary to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.
Objection: Don't the Church Fathers unanimously teach a literal six day Creation?
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in question six of its decision of 1909, says that we should follow the example of the Fathers in making allegorical and prophetical interpretations, after having determined the literal and historical sense. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to make allegorical interpretations, not that we have to follow the Fathers in all of their interpretations. The Commission declared:
...in interpreting those passages of these chapters [of Genesis] that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving anything definite or certain, it is permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct.
There is Magisterial authority that the Fathers do not present a doctrinally-binding, unanimous consensus on the first chapters of Genesis.
In his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII taught:
...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (para. #47; Emphasis mine).
Pope Pius XII also teaches that the first chapters of Genesis are not among those "few texts" settled by the Fathers of the Church:
Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis;...(Ibid, para. #31; Emphasis mine).
Objection overruled!
Objection: The "Plain Meaning" of Genesis shows a Young Earth and Six-day Creation
When it comes to "the plain meaning" of Scripture, those untrained in Catholic exegesis fall into serious errors. According to 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...
Actually the immense flowering of Catholic biblical research during the past fifty years has done much to eliminate unnecessary bewilderment on the part of the ordinary Bible reader trying to reconcile his own reading of the "obvious" meaning of Scripture with the findings of modern science. This bewilderment has been caused by an almost total ignorance of what is meant by "scriptural inerrancy," "inspiration," and "revelation."
It has been further nurtured by a failure to enter sympathetically into the mentality of the ancient Semitic world, a lack of knowledge of ancient languages and history, a total unawareness of literary genres, and a lack of theological insight into what in the Bible pertains to "matters of faith and morals" and what is merely "accidentally inspired."
Such readers, lacking both biblical and theological training, when coming across ancient cosmological viewpoints, unconsciously reflected by the sacred writers, have taken such viewpoints to be revelation by God on matters of science. Hence, a whole rash of unnecessary problems, concordism and the like. (See Dogmatic Theology, 3:223-225 [1960 English edition]; Emphasis in bold and italics from the original text--bold, italicized, and underlined is mine. N.B. Theologian Van Noort died in 1946. His original Latin edition was published with full ecclesiastical approbation prior to his death).
In reference to true biblical scholars, Pope Pius XII condemns those who would oppose them simply because they propose a new solution to a difficulty:
Let all other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all, moreover, should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. (See Divino Afflante Spiritu [1943]; Emphasis mine).
The Church permits belief in an old Earth. It does not conflict with Holy Scripture or Sacred Tradition. If it did, the Holy Ghost would have prevented Pope St. Pius X from approving the permission for the whole Church, since a true pope cannot give heresy or evil to the whole Church. The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church demands such.
The Big Bang and Science: The Best Theory
As a former NYC science teacher (with a Masters Degree in science education), there is some nomenclature I want to clarify. I find it sad that, here in America, there are many people who do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. The common (and incorrect) notion is that a theory is a "hunch" or an "idea." A law is something true. Scientific theories can become scientific laws with enough facts proving them true. All of this is wrong.
Just as theology has words with specific meanings within the discipline, so does science. A scientific theory is a description of the natural world that scientists have arrived at by means of rigorous testing. It tries to explain the "why" about something. Scientific laws explain the "what" that has always been observed and tested. So, for example, gravity is both a theory and a law. The law of gravity explains what happens between objects depending on mass and distance. Laws also usually describe what happens in the terms of a mathematical formula.
An accepted theory is the one that has the most evidence in its favor from multiple sources. Both theories and laws can change when/if new evidence is found which causes the theory or law to be undermined or in need of revision due to the newly discovered evidence. The BBT is not some "hunch" that isn't true because it's not a law. It is the best scientific theory backed up by multiple lines of evidence as to the origin of the universe. Over 98% of cosmologists, and over 95% of all scientists subscribe to it because of the evidence.
Of course, the usual objection to follow is the disparaging of science by declaring that the scientific establishment gave us COVID vaccines and climate change nonsense. While science can be abused and misused, two points must be made: (1) most scientific advances have been genuine and wonderful. Think of neurosurgery that routinely saves lives and wasn't available a mere 40 years ago. (2) the establishment has every reason to be against the BBT because it was discovered and promoted by Catholics, and it points to God.
The Catholic Origin of the Big Bang
Father Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Roman Catholic priest and physicist from Belgium, was the scientist who proposed the BBT. The notion that the universe had a beginning did not sit well with many at that time. Some were even disgusted by it. Renowned English astronomer and physicist Arthur Eddington said that “philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant.” (See Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (March 21, 1931): 447–53).Notice that Eddington didn’t claim the science was bad or that these new scientific discoveries were repugnant. Rather, he was bothered by the philosophical implications of the discovery.
The prevailing scientific theory in cosmology prior to Fr. Lemaitre, was The Steady State Theory (SST), which claimed the universe always existed from eternity. The Communists and other atheists loved the SST because if someone asked, "What created the universe?" the answer was straightforward---"The universe was always there. It didn't need or have a creator." Fr. Lemaitre's theory was met with derision and horror by Communists/atheists. A beginning of the universe clearly implied a Creator. The question of how the universe was created was back on the table.
Schools in Communist countries banned the teaching of the BBT so young Communists wouldn't doubt atheism. In fact, it was an opponent of the theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the name for Lemaitre’s theory, referring to it mockingly as “this big bang idea” during a radio broadcast. Over the years, many theories were proposed to get rid of this “definite beginning” of the universe, and a war of theories was waged until, finally, in the 1960s, the BBT displaced the SST as the accepted cosmological theory. (N.B. Although the formal SST was developed by Hoyle in response to the BBT that he so hated, it was held that the universe was "always there" --a form of the SST--a long time prior. Einstein himself subscribed to it until Fr. Lemaitre's work changed his mind).
Note well why Hoyle rejected the BBT; he was an atheist and anti-Catholic.
Hoyle did not want to believe that the universe was created from a big bang, because that would imply that there was a creator, and to him, that idea wasn’t a possibility because he was an atheist. He believed that, “religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves…No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory” (positiveatheism.org). His belief, in his own words, was that “‘every cluster of galaxies, every star, every atom...had a beginning, but the universe, itself, did not’” (Willick 2003). This is why he proposed that the universe has been around forever, and that we were not created from some all powerful deity, but from the right combinations of heavy elements that were fused through the nuclear reactions that take place in the center of stars, a process that he named “nucleosynthesis."
(See csueastbay.edu/philosophy/reflections/2004/contents/jon-brix.html; Emphasis mine).
This puts the lie to the contention that the BBT was "used by atheists to deny God" as some assert. It is actually the opposite---it was opposed by atheists in academic circles until the manifest weight of the credible evidence was too great to hold the BBT back from acceptance. An assertion by those who oppose the BBT on religious grounds is an ad hominem attack on Fr. Lemaitre as a "Modernist." This is rank calumny. Father was never under suspicion of Modernism or any heresy by the Holy Office. He was praised by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII.
In 1951, Pius XII gave an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science,” offering an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory with Fr. Lemaitre present in a place of honor.
With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter busting with energy. It would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.
The Supreme Pontiff asserted that the BBT proved the existence of God.
Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists! (See ucatholic.com).
Evidence for the BBT
I strongly suggest reading the four page summary of evidence which I now condense. It comes from the University of Western Australia.
Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:
• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and
• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation
1. Early in the 20th century the Universe was thought to be static: always the same size, neither expanding nor contracting. But in 1924 astronomer Edwin Hubble used a technique pioneered by Henrietta Leavitt to measure distances to remote objects in the sky. Hubble used spectroscopic red-shift data to measure the speeds these objects were travelling then graphed their distance from Earth against their speed. He discovered that the speed at which astronomical objects move apart is proportional to their distance from each other. In other words, the farther away objects are from Earth, the faster they are moving away from us. This became known as Hubble’s law
2. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot and dense. As it expanded, it cooled (your refrigerator works on the same idea, expanding a liquid into a gas to cool the inside). Cosmologists were able to calculate the theoretical temperature of today’s Universe and began to search for evidence of it.
It was eventually discovered by accident in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson as ‘noise’ in an antenna they had built to research how radio signals could be reflected off orbiting satellites. They first thought it was radio interference from nearby New York City, but eventually recognized it as radiation from beyond the Milky Way. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that Penzias and Wilson observed is leftover heat radiation from the Big Bang. Today, CMBR is very cold due to expansion and cooling of the Universe. It’s only 2.725 Kelvin (-270.4 °C), which is only 2.725 °C above absolute zero. Cosmic microwave background radiation fills the entire Universe and can be detected day and night in every part of the sky.
(Condensed from "Evidence for The Big Bang;" uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf).
Philosophical Argument for God from the BBT
The BBT shows that all which exists in the universe--all matter, energy, and even space and time itself--started from nothing in an amazing singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The Kalam Cosmological Argument runs thus:
Premise 1: Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
This is common sense and proven from all experience. No scientist (or anyone else) believes things pop into existence out of nothing. Atheists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have redefined "nothing" to mean "space" and "gravity" respectively. This is disingenuous to say the least. If I say, "I had nothing for breakfast today." It means I didn't have anything. It doesn't mean I ate something and that something I call "nothing." Krauss and Hawking do NOT believe something comes from "not anything;" they just want to escape the beginning of the universe and its theistic implications.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
This we know from the BBT.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
It follows logically from the two premises. The First Cause must be space-less (because there was no space), timeless (because there was no time), immaterial (because there was no matter--or even energy), and a Mind of great Power (because if all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe to exist were present, then it would have existed from eternity--therefore, it must have been willed into existence at a certain point). You just described God. Welcome to theism.
Objection: Then who created God? Answer: God wasn't created. Notice that the first premise is whatever begins to exist must have a cause. God, unlike the universe, is eternal. Moreover, the question is irrelevant. Once, I had a very bad gastrointestinal issue that couldn't be resolved. My doctors were stumped. One very intelligent gastroenterologist thought it was a rare bacteria that's hard to diagnose even with extensive tests. The cure, if that was the cause, was to take a powerful medication for ten days, along with some other protocols. Desperate for a cure, I agreed. After the ten days, I was cured. When I asked him, "Where could I have gotten this bacteria?" he replied, "Who knows? The fact that the cure worked means we found the cause." Analogously, even if God "needs a creator" (He doesn't) it wouldn't mean He didn't create the universe.
Conclusion
The BBT was the brainchild of a devout Roman Catholic priest. It was embraced by two true popes. It was opposed by Communists, other atheists, and anti-Catholics. It is a powerful indicator that God exists. If you want to believe in a literal six day (24 hours each) creation, you can certainly do so. However, the almost unanimous consent of the theologians and exegetes reject it in favor of an old Earth. You may reject the BBT, but you may not disparage as "not Catholic" those of us who do.
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your article on the Big Bang. We had been taught by mainstream conservative Protestants that the Big Bang was taught by the atheists/secularists who hate God. Meanwhile, check my blog about a post that refutes not only the LGBT agenda, but also the Protestants who are against LGBT. The article is titled, ''Protestantism, a religion founded on Pride''. Father Augustine Walz is coming to Cebu to celebrate mass for us.
Sincerely, Ryan
AMDG.
Ryan,
DeleteThank you for your comment and your blog to help spread the One True Faith. I will check out your post!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I've had an interest in astronomy since childhood, but I put it aside to concentrate on matters of faith. Today's world has rejected God and pits faith against science, even though the two are not opposed, as you demonstrate so well. I believe that not only does the Big Bang point to God, but so does the origin of man. It's impossible for man to have evolved accidentally and blindly, but it's clear that there's an intention in man's origin. The universe and its laws are too complex to be the result of chance. But the world of our time has lost faith and come to believe that sexual identity is not based on biology and genetics, but rather on what a person "feels".
ReplyDeleteSimon,
DeleteSo true! The facts of biology about male and female are displaced for subjective feelings of mentally ill "trans-" people. So much of science is now experiencing the same disarray as theology in this time of Great Apostasy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
And yet we're asked to listen to science on climate change, as if biology and genetics weren't real science. This shows that these people have selective faith in science.
DeleteIntroibo, you said in the comments a few posts ago that you believe in non-Darwinian evolution. Out of curiosity, could you explain your reasons for believing in it? I'm personally against any formulation of evolution, especially since it has caused many today to abandon supernatural faith and doubt the Bible (I was a victim of this as a teenager, but by God's grace He pulled me out of the abyss of atheism and led me to the Catholic Church).
ReplyDeleteAnd are we as Catholic laity allowed to even believe in evolution? I know Humani Generis "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", but does that permit simple laypeople today to believe in it?
Thanks, and I hope you have a blessed month of the Sacred Heart of Jesus!
Formulation? "Evolution" = "Change over time".
DeleteThings obviously change over durations of time.
Ergo, "evolution" is, quite simply, really real. QED.
I'm a non-(neo)-Darwinian and L14 Sneede too.
Sneedevacantist,
DeleteYes, a lay Catholic can believe in Non-Darwinian evolution.
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?" DE is to be rejected. That is godless, not the idea that God permitted and guided the development of the first human body.
The human body can develop and change. It does not mean we "came from monkeys." Sadly, since Vatican II, science has been hijacked by Modernists to help them "de-supernaturalize" the Faith. This does lead to atheism in many cases. When we see that science, rightly understood, does point to God (God is Creator of both science and the Church, and the two can never contradict each other) it actually can strengthen Faith.
There are five lines of evidence: fossil evidence, biogeographical evidence, anatomical evidence, molecular evidence, and developmental evidence. These lines of evidence demonstrate that organisms have changed over time and share common ancestry. It does not mean there was no Creator, or that it was blind chance (natural selection as proposed by Darwin), or that one creature "becomes something else"--like monkey "turning into humans." You need not believe in evolution at all. I might dedicate a post to this in the future as it is a lot of information which I cannot do justice to in a simple comment.
Just don't let anyone tell you that "science" proves the Faith to be false. It does no such thing!!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Darwinian evolution is a lifeline for atheists, allowing them to say: “See, there is no God; we are descended from monkeys !” However, monkeys themselves have an origin. And when we trace the ancestry of all living beings, we arrive at the Creator.
DeleteThis 55 minute video debunks DE mathematically; it's simply impossible.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE?si=T2gJn6cA190bJG6q
Thanks for your response, Introibo. I agree that a dedicated post on this topic would be better to present the argument in-depth. I don't think the evidence presented will convince me otherwise since I believe that there are faulty presuppositions baked into the conclusions drawn about the evidence, but nevertheless it would good to lay it all out in a proper post.
DeleteIntroibo,
ReplyDeleteYou have done a good job defending reasons why the Big Bang is not contrary to church teaching. I would like to offer some evidence to the contrary for a young/Earth and young universe.
Evidence for a Young Earth/Universe:
Dating methods don’t work. Carbon dating is used. C14 is within all living things. C14 is released when living things die. C14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. DNA has a half-life of 521 years. Keeps getting cut in half. Developed in 1949. The founder even admitted carbon dating can’t be used for anything over 50,000 years. A fresh seal skin was shown to be 1,300 years old, though it was still living. 750 year difference in the outside and inside of a mastodon living 7,820 years ago. Dating bones – geologic chart is most common way used. Different periods of time are used. Geological column doesn’t exist in the Earth in real life like it does in books. Use the chart to date the bones, not date it themselves. Willard Libby (the founder of carbon dating) admitted carbon dating doesn’t work >50,000 years ago. Mudslides from Noah’s Ark would have had multiple layers of rock, which is what we find. Send press release saying this bone was “X” amount of time old. All they use is a chart. No dating of bones. Determine the age of the rock by the fossils found in them. It’s all circular reasoning. Rocks are based on the fossils in them and the age of the fossils are determined in the age of the rocks they are found in. A few rocks can be radiometric dated. Carbon dating is only for living things. Igneous rock (lava) can be radiometrically dated. Potassium decays into Argon in the rock. They measure the rate of decay from Potassium into Argon. Cannot assume a constant rate of decay. Mt. St. Helens erupted in 1980. In the 1990’s, creation scientists took 5 samples to be tested. Potassium Argo dated it-1) 340,000 2) 350,000 3) 900,000 4) 1.7 million 5) 2.8 million. These rocks were less than 30 years old (<30 years old). Another study used 11 samples. Same huge span. 1801 volcano erupted in Hawaii. Rock was 200 years old. 12 samples were taken. Dated millions to billions of years old. 1.41 billion years old was one result. No known rock has been correctly dated using radiometric dating. Why trust the age of an unknown rock when 100% of the time, the age of a known rock has never matched the radiometric age? Coal and oil do not take millions of years to form. They are the result of Noah’s flood. Volcanic ash fell on log marsh- coal and oil were formed quickly in a short amount of time. Coal can be formed in 36 weeks in controlled laboratories. > Temperature, coal forms faster. Oil continues to develop every day. Wall Street Journal in 1999 reported oil continued to grow, even as it was trapped.
Polonium halos in granite. Studies have showed the Earth was created quickly. 0.000164 seconds is the half-life of this granite. This contradicts the evolutionists theory granite needed millions/billions of years to form. These halos would disappear very quickly.
CONTINUED…The Mountains. After the Flood, the mountains were raised up. If true, invertebrates at the bottom of the sea should be at the tops of mountains. At the tops and sides of mountains are clams, jellyfish, oysters, and other invertebrates. Mountains erode over time. After 14 million years, all mountains would erode. Yet, they are still here – points to a young Earth.
ReplyDeleteThe Water. Mississippi River dumps mud into The Gulf of Mexico. 4,500 years of mud has been dumped into the Mississippi River – just like the Flood. No river has dumped mud > 4,500 years. Mud in oceans would be choked with mud if billions of years old, dozens of miles thick. We don’t see that. Mud in oceans corresponds to mud deposit <5,000 years. Volcanic water is another factor. 20% of erupted volcanos can be this water. 340 billion years ago, the Earth would have been dry, but we know that’s not true. Oldest tree is about 4,300 years old – Bristle Cone Pine Tree. Why nothing older? 4,500 hundred years of erosion in Niagara Falls. Coincidence?
Human history doesn’t support long ages. 1) Not enough Stone Age skeletons. 4 billion Stone Age skeletons should be around. We only find a few thousand. 2) Agriculture reason. Stone Age men show they were just as intelligent as we are. 3) History is too short. Why wait several years before recording history? Dr. Henry Morris did a population study. Exponential curve. He factored in death and disease. He went back 4,500 years ago and started with 8 people in Noah’s Ark. Population today equated to over 6 billion people. Supports the biblical evidence. He went back 41,000 years as evolutionists say and it hit an exponential curve. 2 X 10 (to the 89th power) was the known growth rate according to the evolutionist’s numbers. Where are all the other bodies on Earth? 1:1 ratio of birth and death rate is illogical over billions of years. A decrease in humans would die off over a long period of time. An increase and we would hit an exponential curve. Clearly, we haven’t been around millions and billions of years, but just a few thousand years.
Further Proofs of a Young Earth and Young Universe:
The early church fathers were quite adamant that the Earth and universe were between 5,300-10,000 years in age. Many of them said that the age of the Earth and universe was under 10,000 years old. Many medieval theologians said the same thing. Why is there no (at least to my knowledge) early church father or medieval theologian talking about the Earth and universe being billions and billions of years old? This seems like a recent phenomenon in the last 100-200 years. In addition to these theologians who spanned many centuries, there are many other theological works that back them up and are in agreement. Ven. Mary of Agreda being just one of them. In “The Mystical City of God”, she describes the Earth as being just a few thousand years old. Again, why the lack of billions of years throughout the centuries? Shouldn’t at least some of them have talked about these long ages, and yet it is a huge void where this is not even discussed by any of them. That is strange.
CONTINUED…One of the topics that goes along with the age of the Earth and universe is Geocentrism. They are partially tied together. The early church fathers, theologians, and several popes discussed these matters. Pope St. Pius V, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, and Pope Alexander VII maintained the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Geocentric model. Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in 1633 condemned Heliocentrism as heresy, as it went against the faith (not science). Heliocentrism was further condemned by Pope Alexander VII in 1664 in “Speculatores Domus Israel”, where he issued a condemnation of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Zuniga, Fr. Foscarini, and all who held to the Heliocentric model. Cardinal Bellarmine was in complete agreement in opposing Heliocentrism when he issued the following condemnation of Fr. Foscarini:
ReplyDelete“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators”(Bellarmine to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, April 12, 1615).
We know that faith and science cannot contradict each other. If the Catholic Church condemned Heliocentrism that clearly and repeatedly, then science must back the faith. After all, the two are never opposed to each other. The question is: Does science back the Catholic Church in defense of a Geocentric universe? The answer would appear to be a resounding “Yes.” The experiments done in the 19th and 20th century to detect the Earth’s movement around the sun all failed to actually do this. Airy, Fresnel, Fizeau, Arago, and many others in their individual experiments never demonstrated that this planet was moving in space. The most famous experiment done by Michelson-Morley in 1887 further confirmed this, when to their astonishment, they saw the Earth wasn’t moving in space. Newton’s problem was that he confined his mathematics to the solar system and in that system, we would have to agree that the Earth having less mass would travel around the sun with more mass. But when Mach and Einstein came along a few centuries later, they said that Newton didn’t take it far enough. He needed to expand his mathematics beyond the solar system and in that system, the Earth could easily be a pivot point where everything could go around it. It doesn’t matter if it’s Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe’s Geocentrism model. Both could easily be viable using today’s astrophysics. The Michelson-Morley experiment shocked Lorenz and Einstein alike. This is the whole reason Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity, because without putting things in motion, he had to admit the natural interpretation was that the Earth was sitting still in space. What is so wrong with that? He was so desperate that he had to put things in motion. This led him 10 years later to creating his General Theory of Relativity. He needed to add in gravity. Once he did, it made Geocentrism viable, a fact he admitted. His 1938 book said the sun could easily go around the Earth as the Earth could go around the sun.
CONTINUED…Planetary perturbations are another huge problem. The rate of 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds has not really changed. But it should vary if the Earth is rotating. Considering all the earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, meteor showers, cosmic winds, tidal friction, planetary perturbations, etc., the rotation should have slowed significantly, and especially if we have been around for billions of years. Venus’s rotation has slowed its rotation by almost 6 minutes. If this were the case on Earth, life would be over as we know it.
ReplyDeleteThe Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation in the last few decades has actually demonstrated that the Earth is in the center of the universe with the hot and cold spots, as they form an “X” throughout the universe. Robert Sungenis has demonstrated this in his work on this subject. He has shown that no fewer than 3 probes have all confirmed that the CMBR shows the Earth is in the center of the universe.
Present Big Bang Cosmology has a big problem with Newton’s Laws, for it claims that the universe is expanding, but if it is expanding what is the force making it do so? According to Newton’s second law, F = ma (force = mass x acceleration). In other words, in order to have an expanding universe (i.e., the force) you must have the proper amount of mass.
But Big Bang Cosmology doesn’t have the mass it needs. In fact, with the little mass that is in their universe there should be no expansion but an implosion, and rather quickly. So what does modern science do in this dilemma? It creates the mass it needs. Big Bang cosmology says that the universe is composed of 95% “Dark Matter and Dark Energy.” They call it “Dark” because they have never seen it. When Fr. Lemaitre proposed his theory in the late 1930’s, he wasn’t aware of this problem.
It is very strange how faith and science seem to very clearly indicate a young Earth/Universe and Geocentrism, yet scientists continuously go out of their way to avoid the natural interpretation. Why? It seems academically dishonest. Yes it is true that Fr. Lemaitre was a brilliant scientist and the Big Bang is a very interesting theory to counteract the Steady State Theory. But I think that the evidence for a Young Earth/Universe and Geocentrism is that much stronger. Both faith and science have clearly demonstrated that the preponderance of evidence lies here. This is not to discredit Pope St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII in allowing Genesis 1 to be interpreted in different ways (along with the PBC in 1909). I think the evidence is stronger for a Young Earth/Universe and a Geocentric model.
One final interesting point: The Son of God incarnated on Earth. It seems fitting that everything would revolve around Him. Just saying…
-TradWarrior
To TradWarrior : We can all see that you have "cranked out" 4 lengthy comments in 4 minutes, from 6:15 to 6:19. Your typing speed is impressive! Then again, perhaps, at this point, so-called "AI" could replicate your effort(s) in 4 seconds?!?! (Just saying...) ... In regard to your last paragraph, some people claim that Jerusalem IS the geographic center of earthly land. And the Catholic religion revolves around Golgotha, doesn't it?
DeleteWhat an audacious suggestion. TradWarrior is not 'AI', nor one to pass off the musings of such a contraption as those of his own.
DeleteHi Trad Warrior. As I was reading your post and was going to respond with your last sentence.
DeleteIt would seem that the earth is the center of the universe. This is where Christ chose to do His Incarnate work. The whole reason for His Incarnation was for the people that inhabit this planet.
In a manner of speaking, at least, it seems the earth is the center of God's universe. All of creation revolves, literally and figuratively, around man on this planet. God created man so that His happiness could overflow on to us, the center of His universe.
The earth was not created so the sun could shine on it. The sun was was created for the sake of the earth. Not the earth for the sake of the sun.
It seems fitting therfore, that the sun would revolve around the earth and not the earth around the sun.
@anon12:32am
DeleteNo, I did not use AI. I typed my 4 lengthy comments in Microsoft Word and published them quickly. I was afraid that they would not all be posted together because of how lengthy they were. I always type them in Word first and then post them. I assure you, I am a real person, not a robot. Lol!
-TradWarrior
@anon6:01am
DeleteThank you for sticking up for me. I appreciate you. I really do! As I noted above, my comments are written in Microsoft Word and then posted. When I write something lengthy, I am afraid they may not all appear together, but fortunately Introibo has always posted my lengthy comments together. It is part of the reason I wrote “CONTINUED…” so that everyone knows they came from the same person. Thank you again for saying I am not AI. You made my day!
-TradWarrior
John Gregory,
DeleteThank you for the great comment. I appreciate your writing. Yes, I do think there is ample evidence to take the opposing position here. That is all I was trying to say. Introibo does FANTASTIC work here and he could be correct on his position. I like to write lengthy comments from time to time to 1) Enhance Introibo’s blog (which is already magnificent!) and 2) Allow people to see the other side and learn more in the process. One day in eternity (God willing we all get there!), we will see which side was correct. If it is Introibo, I will thank him for all eternity for having revealed this on Earth. His writing is wonderful and I can honestly say that I have learned more from him than any other Catholic that I have ever come across. High compliments to him!!!
-TradWarrior
Evidentally I hit the wrong button, my comment elsewhere belongs here in this thread.
DeleteTradWarrior and others, I enjoy your comments. Thank you for posting.
-S.T.
Interesting comments, thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteRegarding typing speed, I believe that TradWarrior copied and pasted from notes he collected, as many of us do, and then added some comments.
I think it's all about the reference point or frame, as I believe you mentioned. I'm here, so Earth is my reference point. If we just look at the solar system, then yes, it appears the Sun would be the center. You could then look at galaxies, etc. It depends on the purpose of study, some things are easier to study from a heliocentric perspective, some from a geocentric one.
Regarding the Church Fathers, Introibo wrote this last September:
"In regard to the Fathers, theologians, and the UOM, please remember Fr. Melchior Inchofer, the anti-Galileo theological consultant for the Holy Office in 1633 said this, “Regarding the Holy Fathers it must be noted that they presupposed, rather than argued, that the earth is at rest, in agreement with the common opinion of the philosophers” (See R. J. Blackwell, "Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial," p. 119). It was not therefore, "taught" but presupposed. Neither were the unanimous consent of the theologians behind geocentrism either. "
-S.T.
Seeking Truth,
DeleteRight on!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I thought this was a challenging but very instructive read, Intro.
ReplyDeleteI am really glad you made this post.
I had been waiting for your in-depth treatment of the BBT and you did not disappoint; you gave an important explanation of what differentiates theory from law (which has confused or flown over some of us - myself for sure LOL!). And you cut through so much of the hazy jargon used by the atheistic scientists, as well as quoted approved theologians and their writings.
(It is obvious, too, how the N.O. are their bedfellows when it comes to pedagogy as they all live on ambiguity.)
This discussion showed me quite clearly that their plan was to muddle the topic of the origin of the universe - that their SST opinion was an agenda from the get-go, not just a different one with equal merit.
I believe you have closed the case on every point!
I will remember the points you made for BBT if/when the topic comes up in conversation with others, linking your post to them as well.
Thank you, and God bless you and your readers.
-Jannie
Jannie,
DeleteI'm glad you learned got something out of my post! One of the biggest lies is the BBT was used by atheists, when the exact opposite is true! They hate the idea of a beginning of the universe so much, they now try to escape it by positing a so-called "multiverse"! At least you and those with whom you now speak will know the truth.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I do think the old earth is part of the communist evolution lie. I have read more evidence along the lines of Trad Warrior comments. But as always, appreciate all this blog and Introibo have to offer. All of your.comments are much appreciated!
ReplyDelete@anon2:09
DeleteThank you my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteLet’s say for the sake of argument that you are correct, the Earth and universe are billions of years old and the Heliocentric model is correct. This would raise many questions that I would love to have the answers to. They include (but are not limited to) the following:
*The half-life of Carbon 14 and DNA are very short (compared to billions of years). How do we reconcile this with billions of years?
*The founder of carbon dating said that this method of dating will not work for anything over 50,000 years old. How do we reconcile this with billions of years?
*The Potassium Argon dating method has been proven to be VERY inaccurate. The Mt. St. Helens example is just one of many examples that showed that the known age of a rock was never accurately measured using this method, yet we are supposed to take scientists at their word that this dating method works for unknown ages. That makes no sense. Nothing has been accurately measured at the billions of years level. How do we reconcile this with billions of years?
*Coal, oil, Polonium halos, and several other things in the Earth have been seen to develop very rapidly and not take millions and billions of years to form. How do we account for this in an old age Earth and universe?
*How do we account for the mountains and water issues I raised if the Earth has been around for billions of years? This is problematic too.
*Where are all the Stone Age skeletons (corpses covering this planet) if the Earth has been around for billions of years? The entire planet should be one huge graveyard, yet we do not see this.
*The early church fathers spoke about the Earth and universe being <10,000 years old. Some put it around 5,200-5,300 years old. It was literally one theologian after another after another. This continued into the medieval theologians. Why do we not have any theologians for well over 1,000 years (unless there are some that I am not aware of) that spoke about billions of years? Even a half dozen or a dozen would give us a little consensus where we could say, “Okay, here are some guys that take the opposing opinion.” But we see none of this. Why?
*The natural interpretation from Scripture was that the Earth was not moving in space. The literal sense of Scripture is how the church’s theologians for many centuries took this. They went with the obvious sense, not the allegorical sense, etc. Shouldn’t we have some theologians that disagreed here? Among the early church fathers and later theologians, they are pretty much in agreement on this.
CONTINUED…*Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, and Pope Alexander VII very clearly defended the Catholic Church’s teaching that the universe revolves around the Earth. Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in1633 condemned Heliocentrism as heresy as it contradicted the faith. They made this very clear. If it wasn’t a matter of faith and either the Heliocentric or Geocentric models were equally viable, I don’t think they would have cared that much. No, the condemnation was very clearly because the faith was at stake here and they took these matters very seriously (as we should too). Pope Alexander VII’s bull “Speculatores Domus Israel” backed them up further. Robert Sungenis has demonstrated very clearly from his work that neither Pope Benedict XIV, Pope Pius VII, nor Pope Gregory XVI reversed the Catholic Church’s teachings on this in favor of a Heliocentric universe. I agree with him that they could not change this teaching even if they wanted too.
ReplyDelete*If Newton was correct (even though his mathematics were limited to the solar system and he didn’t take it out to the stars) that we revolve around the sun, then why did Mach and Einstein both disagree that his mathematics were extremely limited and that he NEEDED to expand his mathematics to the stars, in which case anything could occupy that pivot point, including the Earth? If we are moving around the sun, then why didn’t any of the 19th and 20th century experiments clearly demonstrate this? They should have easily shown us in motion around the sun. Case closed at that point. No, they were horrified when they saw the Earth standing still in space. Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 to put things in motion because the modern scientists could not have a motionless Earth. Why not? The only problem was light was a constant. 10 years later in 1915, he created his General Theory of Relativity. He had to add in gravity and he knew it. Once he did, it made Geocentrism (and Heliocentrism to be fair) viable, a fact he admitted. Lorenz and Hubble themselves saw evidence of the Earth being in the center of the universe. But they had to explain this away. Creating Dark Matter and Dark Energy to account for 95% of the missing matter in the universe showed how desperate they were to avoid a motionless Earth. Again, why were they so desperate? Without doing this, they knew there wasn’t enough matter and that the universe would not expand, but implode very quickly as was previously noted. The real reason is because scientism has become a religion. To have this planet in the middle of the universe, as many experiments (and the CMBR) have now demonstrated is to show intelligent design. Someone had to put it there and that is what they are scared of. Many atheistic scientists cannot have this. Sungenis (and others) have noted how angry scientists have been to see the Earth’s unique position because it would make them be forced to be faced with bigger questions – Is there a God? If so, then I would have to follow Him? Is there a heaven and a hell? I may have to change my life now to conform with His teachings. Questions like this would naturally haunt the unbelieving atheist who believes there is no God, or rather there is a God, and it is the individual scientist himself who believes that he is God. Scientism has become its own religion and many scientists are arrogant enough to believe they are God. Very sad.
Again, perhaps we do live in a world with an old age Earth and universe and we are moving around the sun. Perhaps Pope St. Pius X (the PBC in 1909), Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII are correct that these long ages are correct. I just think you have to concede and explain away A LOT to make that claim when most of the evidence points the other way. If you can provide answers to the objections that I have raised I am all ears and all eyes. I just think there is a mountain of evidence that one has to somehow explain away to go the other way on all of this.
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteThank you for all your comments! I have read them all, and it would take an entire post to respond and do them justice--yet I will address some major contentions.
1. Geocentrism is not taught by the Church. here is a post I once wrote on the topic:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/heliocentric-heresy.html
2. Robert Sungenis is neither a theologian nor a scientist, yet tries to pass himself off as both, and declares himself to be the only person in the world who is so smart and honest that he can expose the "vast scientific conspiracy" to hide the "truth" of geocentrism from the world.
This is not ad hominem. Sungenis is uniquely unqualified to make the pronouncements he does. As a lawyer, it is not only permissible, but vital to a client's case to impeach the credentials of a person who claims expertise when he doesn't possess such.
Sungenis does not hold a doctorate in physics or cosmology (or theology for that matter). He has made many HUGE gaffs, such as declaring the Earth to be "more massive" than the Sun (!)
Geocentrism is pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is not a coherent, working theory which has explanatory power and makes valid predictions. It is false assumptions, special pleading and conspiracy theories rolled into one.
Sungenis believes:
*the moon landing was faked
* NASA makes crop circles from space to get “our minds off the Bible and Christ”
* 9-11 was an "inside job" perpetrated by (who else?) the Jews
*dinosaurs and humans lived together
If he's changed his mind on any of this mind-numbing insanity, good for him. I will never be citing this man as an expert in anything.
I have always maintained that I am NOT a theologian and this blog wouldn't exist but for the Great Apostasy. I'm using my knowledge gained from Fr. DePauw to cite to the teaching of the Church, and my background in science education to cite to the principles of science.
Humility will never be a virtue of Sungenis.
Continued Below
3. You cite "The Mystical City of God" as a "theological work." It is no such thing. A theological work is one written by an approved theologian, not something based on private revelations which never need to be believed.
Delete4. Much of what you write has no citation, but gratuitously asserted (I don't mean you TradWarrior, but from whatever source this information comes).
If an old Earth were so easy to debunk, how has it remained the accepted theory among almost all scientists? Conspiracy theories?
I may do a post on the evidence for an old Earth in a post. Let me just list a few now:
1. Plant and animal fossils – there are different plants and animals for each layer of the fossil record. 99% of the animals in the fossil record are extinct today. We are able to consider the durability of species today and how long it normally takes animals to go extinct. It takes a lot longer than 6000 years!
2. Astronomy – the number of bodies in the universe is immense beyond number: galaxies, nebulas, star clusters, supernovas, etc. They all form pieces of a puzzle that tell a history of development from the initial creation of the universe to the present moment. It is clear that that development requires millions if not billions of years. Moreover, the distance of the various bodies in the sky can be measured with a certain accuracy from the light coming from them to earth.
Both 1 & 2 come from a standard science text--I take no credit.
I hope this helped, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
911 was an inside job. I don't know about the Jews' involvement or otherwise, but you'd have to be a nutter not to recognise it as the clear and unmistakable work of US Govt. agencies.
DeleteAnd I don't think man ever made it to the moon either.
You are correct 4:31. So many are deceived by so much. Even those that discover the Novus Ordo scam can't seem to see any other scams...including the "health industry"! This is why I can barely trust any sede priest because they don't know about the rest of the lies. They praise "modern medicine"...and forget about modernism. Many sedes have no clue how bad and evil all really is...
DeleteHaha! Yes! Buzz admitted they never went. They will just say conspiracy!
DeleteOnly the NO is a conspiracy, absolutely all else is true and real!
@anon2:24 and @2:07
DeleteSo the advances in heart transplants, brain surgery, etc are fake or dangerous like COVID vaxx? Yeah.
Buzz Aldrin NEVER made such an admission. Conspiracy-everywhere advocates took his words out of context when speaking to an eight year old. He was also misrepresented on Conan O'Brien. For the full video and context of what was said, see https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/
I was personal friends with John Schmidt, one of the top engineers that put together the lunar module. The moon landing was very real. Consider the lunar laser retro-reflector left on the moon by Aldrin. To this day, you can bounce a laser off it to make calculations--and proof we were there on the moon.
See https://wtop.com/science/2019/07/the-experiment-still-running-on-the-moon-and-tv-re-runs-50-years-later/
---Introibo
So...a traditional Catholic believes heart transplants are permissible? Seriously? Any transplant...patient must be killed alive to get organ. I am seriously questioning this blog altogether.
DeleteThere are no advances in anything! All a scam. Brain surgery? Go for it if people in white butcher coats tell you you need it. I have seen many killed in this system you seem to trust I know no real Catholics who stand behind transplants! Oh my!
DeleteScary comment! On many levels
DeleteI hope he doesn't believe this nonsense.
If he does, I cannot read this blog anymore.
@anon5:01
DeleteWrong. A man in Manhattan was riding his motorcycle near my firm about ten years ago. He was hit by a delivery truck, and a car in the next lane decapitated him. The head was then run over by another car. Three things of which I am certain: (a) no doctor killed him; (b) he was really dead; (c) his chance of recovery was 0%.
He donated his heart and it was given to someone needing a transplant. The Church has NEVER condemned organ transplants as evil per se.
@anon5:15
So MRIs don't detect problems that can be fixed? Really?
Open heart surgery doesn't unblock arteries? All fake?
While there are many unethical doctors, some are excellent and have saved countless lives; including the Traditionalist doctor who is my PCP.
@anon5:25
If common sense, actual science, and the true teachings of the Church frighten you, then I agree you should stop reading. Fr. DePauw also did what was right even when unpopular. He would tell his detractors, "If you don't like it, you can leave the Chapel. No one is held here against their will." I write this blog as I feel called to do it--whether it's read by ten people or thousands, it makes no difference to me. I have not made one red cent from this blog since its inception in 2010.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Ok thanks for input. I think you are wrong on so many levels. Don't even care to try fo teach folks at this level, so deceived.
DeleteTo 5:25PM Anon : I'm just another Anon, different from the above Anons of this thread starting at 9:21PM. I don't know how you could possibly know the gender of anyone of this thread other than Introibo. If you despise what he says, you are free to focus your two (partially blind?) eyes elsewhere. I suspect it might be you, who is "commenting" on your (?) two previous 5:01 & 5:15 pieces of hysterical gibberish. Are you "Troll-Anon"?
DeleteWe are fortunate that Introibo gives us a place, gratis (!), to swap ideas. You might want to consult his earlier blog posts of 12 Sept. 2022 (= "A Flat Denial") dealing with our orbi (= globe); and "Rationality and the Church" (15 July 2019) dealing with Galileo, young earth deja vu, and also Geo-Sungenis-hype (in the comments).
As for the "Dark Side of the Moon" stuff, that can be debated on the merits, by those with enough expertise to do so in detail. There is a smorgasbord of recent (and lengthy!) youtube videos which argue that issue both ways. None other than then President Obama, in verbal satire mocking Donald Trump, joked that the Apollo moon missions were faked, just like his birth certificate was. But how much relevance does the truth about moonism or birtherism, have, in regard to whether any of us ends up in heaven or hell?
@anon8:29
DeleteYou're right on---and a regular reader I see!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Pls prayers for my brother, who is slightly sick and at risk of an infection
ReplyDelete@anon6:44
DeleteI will keep him in my prayers and ask all my readers to do the same.
God Bless,
---Introibo
No infection, pls remember him anyways and God bless
Delete@anon10:56
DeleteWill continue to pray and Deo gratias he has no infection!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello Introibo and TradWarrior from DownUnder
ReplyDeleteHave you read the book -The realist Guide To Religion And Science by Father Paul Robinson of the SSPX.Your thoughts?
Father Robinson has just preached a sermon availabe on youtube called The Dangers Of Sedevacantism.He brings up the usual weak positions of the Society.
I like some of the viewers comments
*So many contradictions that it sounds if Father doesn't agree with his own opinion because it isn't logical
*You state that the Pope is the highest authority.Then I suggest your organisation(SSPX) show full obedience to him as required and fully embrace the Novus Ordo in it's teaching on Faith and Morality
I am sure Father is worried because the number of faithful in the Society is growing who in their heart are Sedevacantists.They also don't want to have doubtful "priests" offering Mass and giving them the Sacraments.
God bless you
TradSedeCath,NZ
TradCathSede,
DeleteFr.'s book is excellent in science--unfortunately he can't connect the dots in theology!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hi TradSedeCath, NZ,
DeleteI have not read that book. I agree with the viewers comments. The SSPX tries to have it both ways. They want one foot in the Novus Ordo and one foot in Sedevacantism. It doesn’t work that way. Despite the differences between the Sede camps, it is they who possess the True Faith. As the Great Apostasy accelerates, those in the SSPX are going to have to eventually make a choice on which side of the fence they want to belong. I believe most will side with the Novus Ordo. Some will come over to Sedevacantism but most will not. They will side with the Novus Ordo which is slowly but surely being absorbed into the World One Church/Religion, which Pope St. Pius X forewarned about in “Notre Charge Apostolique.” Even now, there are many Novus Ordo “bishops” who are eliminating “Latin Masses” in their various dioceses. Leo XIV is a man of the council. He will continue to push the Vatican II agenda. It is my hope that as many people as possible see the light and realize that the V2 sect is a sham. Many people will not see it though. Remove their “Latin Masses” and they will still go along with the new religion, thinking that somehow it is fully Catholic. We need to make use of all of the spiritual weapons that God has given us: the Sacraments (for those of us who are within a reasonable distance of a traditional church/chapel), the holy rosary, devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, devotion to the Passion of Christ, the Chaplet of St. Michael, prayers for the release of the poor souls in purgatory (so that they can help us on Earth once they are freed from Purgatory, as we need the help so desperately now), etc. Prayer and sacrifice goes a long way with God. We do not always see the fruit of our prayers but God does and puts them to good use in ways that He sees fit.
-TradWarrior
Thank you Introibo and TradWarrior
ReplyDeleteListen to the sermon which is 20 mins.
Prayers for you both.I love your writings and comments.What a breath of fresh air to listen to sane people.
TradSedeCath,NZ
TradSedeCath
DeleteThank you, my friend!
---Introibo
Q.) Where was St. Peter CRUCIFIED upside down?
ReplyDeleteA.) At what nowadays, is "the Vatican City State".
GOLGOTHA = "... la tua e (la) sua (vera) gloria sta sul/nel GOLGOTA" (from St. John Bosco [1870]). Pius IX was the pope at that time, and talked in person with St. John Bosco many times, including an audience in 1870 where those very Italian words just quoted, were discussed at some length. The pope was quite well aware that the man he was talking to, was a miracle worker in various ways, and also that he (= JB) had close to an infallible skill set, when it came to making prophetic predictions. This same pope wrote in his encyclical "Inter Multiplices" (1853) : "This Chair [= of Peter, located in the city and at the site of his "Golgotha"] is the center [= "geo-centric" or "orbi-centric" and also "urbi-centric", and in every other way, centric] of Catholic truth and unity... Now you know well that the most deadly foes of the Catholic religion... are by no means ignorant of the fact that religion itself can never totter or fall while THIS CHAIR remains intact, THE CHAIR which rests on THE [ROCK SOLID] ROCK which the proud gates of hell cannot overthrow and in which there IS [= NOT "sort of subsists" (!)] the whole and perfect solidity of the Christian religion."
(My own emphasis added using both [ ] and CAPS.)
I don't understand fully the substance and or significance of your post; what precisely are you saying and what is its consequence?
DeleteIt is noteworthy that most Blessed Peter was crucified - as I understand it - on the site of the graveyard, right next to the Basilica. It is also noteworthy that the utterly, flagrantly demonic Montini assembly hall is right next door to this site, with the serpentine eye peering over, down upon the site of St. Peter's crucifixion.
If I'm not mistaken, the Wikipedia entry for that loathsome building carries an image which captures the proximity.
To Anon 5:49 (and any others interested) : I'm 9:59 above. I'm rather busy at the moment, but ASAP, I'll set forth a further chain of comments here, to supply some more details, in response to your question. Stay tuned.
DeleteDoes anyone know if Bishop Pivarunas works with Bishop Roy of Canada?Is it correct that Bishop McGuire did not accept this consecration.Do you think Bishop McGuire has changed his views?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bp. Pivarunas and Bp. Roy do associate with each other. Bishop Roy is scheduled to speak at the Fatima Conference this year.
ReplyDeleteThere are conspiracy theories out there, a significant number of them which are outlandish. There is also conspiracy reality. For people to put their head in the sand and just sit there and nod there heads in agreement with all the official stories the media churns out to explain major historical events like 9/11, COVID, etc. just shows how easily people can be duped. These media narratives are created by powerful hegemonic forces who control things behind the scenes. It’s even becoming more apparent what these malevolent forces have done over the years since we now have more whistleblowers and more ways to investigate the official stories surrounding certain psychological operations and false flags. It’s not hard to look into MK-Uktra, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD lie that got US into a war with Iraq, CHAOS, The Plandemic etc. Are we to believe the official 9/11 story too? That a guy living in a cave with a bunch of goat herders planned such an elaborate attack with no help? Who benefitted from 9/11? Israel. Anyone ever hear of Larry Silverstein and the massive insurance payout he received after The Twin Towers collapsed? He took out a policy not long before the event. He was not there that day either. I don’t think his daughter, who worked there, was present either. The officials were are supposed to trust supposedly found a passport perfectly intact that was linked to a hijacker a few blocks away. Really? Israeli spy agents working in the building posing as art students. The dancing Israelis. Bin Laden was a CIA asset. Mossad and CIA work with Jihadist groups all the time and infiltrate them and use them for thier own devious objectives. I’m not saying there was a controlled demolition at the site and that parts of the official story are not accurate. But there are many many contradictions and things that do not add up about 9/11. There are more than just a few anomalies in these official narratives you are fed by ZOG, Mossad, Deep state and other powerful actors involved. The mainstream dupes gobble up this garbage and then call other people who question the story, quacks and conspiracy nuts. Conspiracies and plots to control people and consolidate more power for the people in control is not something new and it’s very real. Just because they create a story to sell you and package it up in a shiny box tied with a bow doesn’t mean it is true.
ReplyDelete@anon6:33
DeleteThank you for a very intelligent comment. I am in basic agreement with you. I am not saying there are no conspiracies or that we should buy into everything the media and government sell us---WE SHOULD NOT!!
On the other hand, my problem is with people that see everything as "one big conspiracy" as we live in a fantasy world. As you stated, "There are conspiracy theories out there, a significant number of them which are outlandish."
In medio stat veritas!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hello my friend. I was introduced to the book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood:" by Dr. Walt Brown
ReplyDeleteIt is a fascinating book that has all the scientific explanations for a young earth. Brown is no slouch. His credentials are pretty high if that means anything.
As for whether 9/11 was an inside job, I highly recommend the documentaries "In Plane Sight - Sept 11" which shows all the news outlets on the day of the event and how it was forgotten and/or wiped away.
The other documentary is from Alex Jones: 911 Road to Tyranny which you can check out at: https://rumble.com/v120e90-911-the-road-to-tyranny.html
Hope you and your commenters check them out!
God speed!
Hi Steven,
DeleteThank you for the sources that you cite. They look very interesting. The book by Dr. Walt Brown looks very good! I may have to add that to my reading list. I hope to see you comment more on Introibo’s blog!
-TradWarrior
Steve,
DeleteThanks for commenting, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Yes, thank you, there are plenty of resources out there to find the Truth re 911 amd many other lies. Freemasons love numbers too. Alex Jones is controlled opposition but yes, he tells some truth like many do to appease truthers. But still no one rises up against these tyrants and globalists. 911 is part of new world order agenda...slowing stripping "rights" so we all comply with their agenda. Amazing how covid scam worked so well. They now know people will comply with the most outrageous commands. Their end game is not just depopulation, it is transhumanism. They are well on their way with so many being injected willingingly with MRna. Many of those good but deceived doctors also told people to get the shots, not just your local NO priest or shop owner. And the freemasonic Vatican is their partner in crime.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo, I think we all know most transplants do not happen like your example. I hope you all aren't organ donors and land in a hospital "brain dead". I learned the hard way. When you enter a hospital via ambulance, one has no "rights."
Many people are deceived in their occupations, whether they work for the Vatican or NASA.
Nope, not a troll. Not intelligent. Don't know how to write gibberish. Just trying to alert others to the many lies out there, that a few other commenters seem to be aware of. Right, being deceived by all these "conspiracies" may not land us in hell but since most go there, it isn't looking good for any of us, even those few who know about the novus ordo abomination. Most NOers accuse me of gibberish too, especially when I say novus ordo. Wishing all the best. Hope we all make it to heaven.
To Anon 8:43 : I can only say "Amen" to your last 2 sentences, and to just about everything else of 8:43 too. Just as you indicate, the biggest global problem of all at the moment, is at the Vatican. All the rest of the "conspiracy stuff", is secondary to deciphering the "V2 conspiracy facts" in light of divine providence. You used the word "nope". No, you're not a dope. You are actually quite astute and wide awake (but NOT "woke")! "Woke" = "brain dead", to ping-pong your own words right back at/to you. And BTW, the recent May 2025 conclave result can summarized by the words: "Pope? Nope." -- Pithy? 2-to-too pithy? Pardon me. Please.
DeletePope? Reflect upon "faith, charity and hope". Jesus can intervene at the Vatican anytime He wants to. And He will do so. Soon. At the appointed time. And "it" will be VERY obvious, to everyone, when "it" happens. There is no need to "trust me" about that. "Trust but verify"?! It will be verified. Seeing is believing. And hearing is too. When you see "it" and hear "it", there will no doubt about it. At least for those who are not woke. And you definitely are not woke, 8:43. Thank God for that. And may God bless you.
You used the word "hope" twice! Have hope!
So excited that Steven Speray made notes!
ReplyDeleteAnon 959...you made me laugh out loud! Love it! Thank you for that! God bless you as well!
ReplyDeleteThe appointed time, yes. That reminds me of Mario's talk. One of my favorites. The Papacy and the Passion of the Church.
https://novusordowatch.org/2017/02/papacy-passion-of-church-fatima-conference-2016/
I am also excited Steven Speray commented!
Please post the stuttering apostate Speray explaining how Christopher Hitchens might have been Catholic when he spoke with Bro. Peter Dimond. Speray is a John 3:5 mocker and a scandal to The Catholic Faith.
ReplyDelete@Feeneyite5:17
DeleteSteve Speray is an intelligent and devout Traditionalist, whom I am proud to call my friend. I highly recommend his blog "Catholic Top Gun." You couldn't possibly recognize someone who is Catholic (or intelligent) if you're a heretical sycophant of Fred and Bobby Dimwit.
Here's the post Steve and I wrote taking Bobby apart:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-dimonds-ensoulment-and-baptism-of.html
Bobby Dimwit himself actually comes into the comments to have me further rip into him. The following week was even better, please read:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/03/contending-for-faith-part-25.html
Bobby cites theologian Cartechini in "De Valore Notarum Theologicarum." Bobby tells us how the great Cartechini bears witness to St. John 3:5 and that it necessitates belief in baptism by water only. It's bye-bye BOD and BOB. Or is it? On pgs. 68-70, theologian Cartechini writes:
"...joining the Church is necessary for salvation and yet one can be saved even if one explicitly knows nothing about the Church; baptism is necessary for all and confession for those who have sinned mortally after baptism and yet by an act of contrition and love one remits present and original sin..."
That's theologian Cartechini teaching Baptism of Desire!
Wouldn't the very same theologian who "admits" St. John 3:5 has no exceptions to water also know that BOD is heretical? Now, was that heretical or was it just "an innocent mistake"? Better ask Bobby, he can discern the state of souls, past and present. If the manual of Cartechini is heretical, how can you trust anything it says?
Fred and Bobby never let reason and the Faith get in the way of their beliefs. Please disseminate those two links far and wide--I have no doubt that anyone seeking the truth will realize Feeneyism is a joke! The Feeneyites know this and will never publish these links on X or their websites/social media.
Over and out,
---Introibo
AnonymousJune 7, 2025 at 5:17 AM
DeleteIt's amazing how ignorant Dimond followers are! If you paid attention to what I said you would know the answer.
I was clear that from all appearances Christopher Hitchens died an atheist and probably in hell, but we can't read souls. We can't "infallibly" say he's in hell as Dimond and his silly followers think. Hitchens could have converted in the internal forum where no one sees at the moment of death because God could have given him the grace of final penitence for him to accept. We don't know. There's also the slim possibility that Hitchens was not in his right mind. We just don't know. The point is we can't say with infallible certainty that anyone is in hell.
As for being a mocker of John 3:5, Christopher Hitchens was validly baptized. He didn't need baptism of desire in the strict understanding of the doctrine. He just needed final penitence which obviously comes from God's grace or else no one could repent. It's blasphemy to say God would give the grace where it's accepted and then God says sorry it doesn't have the effect it was designed for. John 3:5 actually works in Hitchens favor insofar as he was actually baptized.
It's sad that Dimond and his followers are so nasty and dishonest about the facts!
Speray,
DeleteYou are being very disingenuous and you are conflating two separate issues in regards to your John 3:5 mockery and the wicked atheist Hitchens. In that debate you are argued that Jews who reject Christ can be saved IN their false religions but BY the Catholic Church. This is heresy. You believe a Kabbalistic Satanic Jew can be Catholic in his heart while he reads the Talmud and spews blasphemy and AntiCatholic malice. This is absurd. True Catholics know this. The Church teaches dogmatically that ALL pagans, ALL Jews, ALL heretics will be condemned to the fires of Hell if they do not join themselves as visible members to the Church BEFORE their death. Not at death or after death. This is why you are a heretic and you had to even say Bp. McKenna was wrong in his erroneous statements on the issue, but that you actually know what he meant and that’s all that matters. You have no credibility on these issues.
Furthermore, pagans, cannibals in Africa, voodooists are left in their ignorance because God can read their hearts and knows they are of bad will and they have not accepted the graces to come to The True Faith. Ignorance is a punishment for their sins against the natural law and infidelity.
Hitchens was a wicked atheist. He didn’t convert before he died in the external forum. There is no mysterious internal forum revelation. So you are a John 3:5 mocker because you believe Aztec demon worshippers can be saved in their false religions and you are a heretic because you believe Hitchens might have been Catholic as he lived, or at or after death. You don’t even know how or when BOD works because it’s a man made theory and it’s not true.
@Feeneyite,
DeleteSteve showed how you twisted him out of context. That's why I will only debate on a neutral forum in writing where things can be quoted precisely. That's why your cult masters--the Feeneyite Fiends of Fillmore, Fred and Bobby, will never do such. Bobby violated his own rule and was exposed for the heretical idiot he is. He cited theologian Cartechini as the definitive death blow for BOD and yet OMITTED the part of the same manual wherein Cartechini TEACHES BOD! Was he that culpably ignorant that he correctly check his source, or was he hoping that most people don't have/can't read the manual which is available only in Italian and Latin?
As to your statement, "There is no mysterious internal forum revelation." it is patently false.
According to Dr. Niedermeyer with theologian Buonanno, Compendium of Pastoral Medicine, [1961]:
"In many cases surprising facts have become known by discovering before imminent death a richness of mental life---buried under the surface---that was hidden in completely demented persons. We also do not know what takes place in the dying. We merely perceive that the last moments are of decisive importance. These last moments can bring to many dying persons a great amount of grace and can still save an apparently lost soul."
The staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite Mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable (invincible) ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite Mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the Truth of the Catholic Faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation.
Praying for your conversion.
---Introibo
AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 11:56 PM You have proved that you don't pay attention. In the phone conversation at timestamp 7:25 to 7:30, I make it very clear that no one is saved IN THEIR false religion. The internal forum is the issue. BOD is in an internal forum issue, not an external forum issue. Dimond refused to acknowledge this basic concept. St. John Vianney tells of a story of a Jew who refused to become Catholic in the external forum, but converted in the internal forum and was saved. Many, many saints and popes taught that men can be saved in the internal forum without baptism of water. See St. Alphonsus Liquori explain how Trent taught Baptism of Desire:
Deletehttps://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/st-alphonsus-liguori-the-council-of-trent-and-baptism-of-desire/
It comes from the Church, which you refuse to hear.
See also:
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-2/
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-3/
It's too bad you can't think for yourself, but need the Dimonds to think for you! Pay attention to what is actually stated before making stupid comments!!!!
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post.
A blessed Pentacost to all!
God Bless,
-S.T.
Seeking Truth,
DeleteA Blessed Pentecost to you as well, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
CREATIONISM
ReplyDeletehas been hijacked
By Young Earthism.
So there is a new ism
creating a schism
and the division
has induced a collision
and merited derision
that we did not envision
fifty years ago.
********
So reads the entire contents of page ix of the book "The Gap Fact and Out-of-Whack Creation Scientism", by Michael Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries; Pleasantville, TN; 2018). The author states in his "Personal Conclusion" on p. 146 that: "I must confess... I began my research by reading everything I could find published by the Young Earthers, expecting the material to be quite challenging, and answering it to be difficult. But I was shocked to discover the absolute weakness of their arguments..."
Googling up ngj@nogreaterjoy.org results, will show you some of the books this publisher offers for sale. More than one of them looks somewhat whacky, but that particular 2018 book just cited, WOULD be of great use as a scholarly resource to Introibo (or others) who want to critique YET (= Young Earth Theory). It doesn't deal with FET. Pearl notes on p. 26 that: "Both the Roman Catholic Church and the newly formed Protestants were rabidly anti-science." - Ahem?! And there are some other problematic statements in that 2018 book too. So caveat emptor = There are some weeds among the (it looks like mostly very good) wheat.
And so, without further ado, I dedicate this particular comment and especially the poetic jab punch, to the TradWarrior of this blog, who seemingly is not, an AI bot.
@anon9:45pm
DeleteYou dedicate a comment and poetic jab punch to me? Okay. Like I said, I like to offer the opposing view from time to time. Both Young and Old Earth theories are possible. There are good reasons that support both theories. Only in eternity will we see how this all worked. Until then, the debate continues!
-TradWarrior
Introibo
ReplyDeleteWhat are thoughts on the writings of Griff Ruby.He has published three books which we have.Thank you and God bless
@anon7:59
DeleteI think he has an interesting take on things. While I don't think anything he writes is heretical (at least the articles and books I've read), I don't subscribe to his idea of "pan-Traditionalism," so to speak.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hi everyone!
ReplyDeleteThank you, Introibo, for an excellent post! I wish you were my science teacher back in high school!
It boggles me why many Traditionalists see the idea of an old Earth absurd and inadmissible in the light of the Revelation (or maybe "less Catholic" at least if there could be a distinction between something being less Catholic or more Catholic).
Isn't a billion years a flickering instant compared to eternity?
Young Earth is promoted vastly by Protestants who a) are generally biased against the Catholic Church and could dismiss the work of a Catholic priest-scientist based on just that anti-Catholic prejudice; b) have no idea of what the Magisterium of the Church is and so their reading of the Bible, unguided by the Magisterium, is necessarily flawed.
I don't dismiss serious scientific work of a Protestant per se, of course. Nevertheless, we need to be careful about people who mingle their flawed theology with science.
On a different note but related to the comments made to this post:
anyone remembers the third installment of the Rambo franchise?
The Cold-War military conflict in Afghanistan back in the 1980s where the Soviets clashed with the Mohammedans, the latter being supplied with weapons by the US government? The CIA could have have gained valuable assets among the Afghan Mohammedans back then.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Joanna,
DeleteAlways great to see you comment! By the 1940s, all approved theologians had abandoned the idea of a literal 24-hour day, six days of creation. Only the Protestants who read the Bible literally and have no Magisterium clung to the idea.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, I might have a little idea using the BBT and when I get further along and if it makes any sense I'll send another comment on that.
ReplyDeleteGod bless! +JMJ+
I have a friend who has a doctorate in Archelogy, so it outranks your science bachelors, and the old earth is bogus she says. Carbon dating is not accurate.
ReplyDelete@anon8:54
DeleteA doctorate in Archeology is higher than a Masters in Science Education. However, your archeologist friend is in the 2% minority among scientists. Has she written any books or papers on the subject? If not, it is an opinion unsupported by the manifest weight of the credible evidence. Theologically, you may believe in a young earth--I certainly don't, and neither does the overwhelming consensus of science. I'm not relying on carbon dating for the age of the Earth.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
DeleteDo SSPV believe in old earth?
@anon10:11
DeleteThey have no official stance. As the Church allows for belief in an old Earth as well as a young Earth, each member of the SSPV may decide for themselves.
God Bless,
—-Introibo