Monday, September 5, 2022

Contending For The Faith---Part 7

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
  • 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 
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

The Cosmological Argument
(In last month's Contending For The Faith post, I wrote about the modern attack on religious belief. In this month's post, I will be writing about one of the proofs for the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument. Psalm 14:1 tells us, "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” The fool's mind doesn't say such, for as the Vatican Council of 1870 teaches,  "Canon 1.  If anyone saith that the One, True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema." It is, therefore, a dogma of the Faith that God's existence can be known by human reason alone. Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." 

The Cosmological Argument comes in many forms. It has been championed by such illustrious philosophers as St. Thomas Aquinas, Alexander Pruss, Timothy O’Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, and Richard Swinburne, among others. This post comes from the work of the aforementioned philosophers, and I take credit for none of it. I give full credit to those philosophical giants, whose intellects far exceed mine. All I did was take their expressions of the argument, and compress them into the main ideas that can fit in a post.---Introibo). 

A Simple Formulation of the Cosmological Argument

Here are the three (3) basic premises and conclusion:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. 

2.If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. 

3. The universe exists. 

Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God. 

Logically speaking, this is an airtight argument. That is to say, if the three premises are true, then the conclusion is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the conclusion; nor does it matter if you have other independent objections to God’s existence. So long as you grant the premises, you have to accept the conclusion. So if you want to reject the conclusion, you have to say that one of the three premises is false.

Which one will the atheist reject? Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth because, obviously, the universe exists. Therefore, the atheist is going to have to deny either premise 1 or 2 if he wants to remain an atheist and be rational. The whole question comes down to this: Are premises 1 and 2 true, or are they false?

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

At first, premise 1 might seem vulnerable in an obvious way. If everything that exists has an explanation of its existence and God exists, then God must have an explanation of His existence. However, that seems absurd, for then the explanation of God’s existence would be some other being greater than God, and God is defined as the "greatest possible Being." Since that’s impossible, premise 1 must be false—some things must be able to exist without any explanation.

 The believer will say that God exists inexplicably, while the atheist will say, “Why not stop with the universe? The universe just exists inexplicably.” It seems to be a stalemate. This obvious objection to premise 1 is based on a misunderstanding of what is meant by an “explanation.” According to premise 1, there are two kinds of things: (a) things which exist necessarily, and (b) things which are produced by some external cause.

 Those things which exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature; it’s impossible for them not to exist. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else, they just exist by the necessity of their own nature. By contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don’t exist necessarily; they exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category. So when premise 1 states that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, the explanation may be found either in the necessity of a thing’s nature or else in some external cause. 

Nevertheless, the objection now falls to the ground. For the explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of His own nature. As even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause. Therefore, the Cosmological Argument is really an argument for God as a necessary, uncaused Being. Far from undermining the argument, then, the atheist’s objection to premise 1 actually helps to clarify and magnify who God is. If God exists, He is a necessarily existing, uncaused Being.

So what reason might be offered for thinking that premise 1 is true? Well, when you reflect on it, premise 1 has a sort of self-evidence about it. Imagine that you’re hiking through the woods and you come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there. If one of your hiking partners said to you, “Don’t worry about it! It just exists inexplicably,” you’d either think that he was crazy or figure that he just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

Now suppose you increase the size of the ball in this story so that it’s the size of a car. That wouldn’t do anything to satisfy or remove the demand for an explanation. Suppose it were the size of a house. Same problem. How about the size of a continent, a planet, or the entire universe? Same problem—merely increasing the size of the ball does nothing to affect the need of an explanation. But couldn't the universe always have existed, that it is eternal? How do we know it's all not simply "just here"? 

There are two very strong evidences of the universe NOT being eternal, but having a beginning, and therefore, needing a Creator. One evidence is philosophical, the other scientific.

From philosophy:
If the universe never began to exist, then there have been an infinite number of past events prior to today. But an infinite number of things cannot exist; therefore, the series of past events must be finite. That is to say, the universe began to exist.

In order to appreciate this argument, we must understand the difference between a potentially infinite number of things and an actually infinite number of things. When we say that something is potentially infinite, infinity serves merely as an ideal limit that is never reached. For example, you could divide any finite distance in half, and then into fourths, and then into eighths, and then into sixteenths, and so on to infinity. The number of divisions is potentially infinite, in the sense that you could go on dividing endlessly. But you would never arrive at an “infinitieth” division; you would never have an actually infinite number of parts or divisions.

By contrast, a collection is actually infinite if the number of members in the collection is greater than any natural number 1, 2, 3… Now the argument under discussion raises no objection to the existence of merely potential infinites, for these are just ideal limits. But if an actually infinite number of things could exist, then various absurdities would result. If we’re to avoid these absurdities, then we must deny that an actually infinite number of things exist. It’s frequently alleged that this kind of argument has been invalidated by developments in modern mathematics. In modern set theory, the use of actually infinite sets is commonplace. For example, the set of the natural numbers {0, 1, 2…} has an actually infinite number of members in it. The number of members in this set is not merely potentially infinite, according to modern set theory; rather, the number of members is actually infinite. 

However, these developments in modern mathematics merely show that if you adopt certain axioms and rules, then you can talk about actually infinite collections in a consistent way, without contradicting yourself. All this accomplishes is showing how to set up a certain universe of discourse for talking consistently about actual infinites; it does absolutely nothing to show that such mathematical entities really exist, or that an actually infinite number of things can really exist. This universe of discourse may be regarded as just a fictional realm, like the world of Sherlock Holmes in the Conan Doyle stories, or something that exists only in your mind.

Moreover, the question is not whether the existence of an actually infinite number of things involves a logical contradiction, but whether it is really impossible. Two points: if there were an infinite amount of events prior to this moment in time, how did we get here? You can't get to the end of an infinite. Second, if you take all the whole counting numbers {1,2,3...}; mathematicians say it's infinite. Now, consider the set of all even whole counting numbers {2,4,6...}; mathematicians say this is also infinite when it only contains half the numbers of  the first set.  How can half of infinity still be equally infinite? Subtract all the even numbers from the original set, and you have {1,3,5...}, and it is still infinite. So infinity minus infinity equals---Infinity?? It doesn't work in the real world. Imagine having an infinite number of red books. Your neighbor has an infinite number of green book. If the books were combined (red and green) you would still have an infinite set of books, the same as when there was half as many! It is therefore probable that an actual infinite number of events is impossible, so the universe had a beginning.

From science:
During the 1920s, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and the Belgian astronomer Fr. Georges Lemaitre decided to take Einstein’s equations at face value, and as a result they came up independently with models of an expanding universe. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble, through tireless observations at Mt. Wilson Observatory, made a startling discovery which verified Friedman and Fr. LeMaitre’s theory: He found that the light from distant galaxies appeared to be redder than expected. This “red shift” in the light was most plausibly due to the stretching of the light waves as the galaxies move away from us. Wherever Hubble trained his telescope in the night sky, he observed this same red-shift in the light from the galaxies. It appeared that we are at the center of a cosmic explosion, and all of the other galaxies are flying away from us at fantastic speeds! The result is the Big Bang Theory, now accepted by almost all scientists: the universe (matter, energy, and space-time itself) began about 13.8 billion years ago from a singular event. Therefore, the universe began to exist. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial Being beyond space and time… something or someone “out there,” beyond the universe’s limitations.

 The 1st premise is shown to be much more probably true than not, which is all that is needed for a good argument.

Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
What about premise 2 then? Is it more plausibly true than false? What’s awkward for the atheist at this point is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the cosmological argument. Two statements are logically equivalent if it is impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together. So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the cosmological argument? The atheist typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

 This is precisely what the atheist says in response to premise 1: that the universe just exists inexplicably. Logically speaking, however, this is equivalent to saying:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

Therefore, you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B).

However, (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2.  So when the atheist says in response to premise 1 that the universe has no explanation, he is implicitly admitting premise 2—that if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists. Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. Think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. Once more, it follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial Being beyond space and time… something or someone “out there,” beyond the universe’s limitations.

Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description:
Either an abstract object, like a number, or an unembodied mind. Abstract objects can’t cause anything; that’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, can’t cause any effects. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what believers understand God to be.

A Necessary Conclusion
Given the truth of the three premises, the conclusion is logically inescapable: God is the explanation of the existence of the universe. Moreover, the argument implies that God is a necessary, uncaused, timeless, space-less, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This conclusion is as staggering as it is necessary. 


Conclusion
The Cosmological Argument, in its many forms, is a strong, rational proof of the existence of God. It would be good for Traditionalists to study this argument well, so they know it. Then, should a skeptic challenge your belief in God because "there is no evidence," you can say, "Really? Have you heard of the Cosmological Argument? It gives good evidence that God exists. Would you like me to tell you about it?" If he is good-willed, he will hear you out and may rethink his position. If he refuses to hear your answer to him and walks away, he stands condemned unless he repents before his life ends. Those who cannot (will not) see the proof of God in the things of Creation "are without excuse."

68 comments:

  1. Atheists say we have an "imaginary friend". You show perfectly well that it is rubbish because it is possible to demonstrate the existence of God. But most ordinary people haven't studied philosophy or theology, so they don't have solid arguments to back up their atheism. But even people who have studied theology and who hold high positions in the V2 sect claim that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.

    https://novusordowatch.org/2016/12/ganswein-no-proof-god-exists/

    On Judgment Day, those who have lived in rejection and denial of God will see Him and He will reward everyone according to their works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is so bad with "imaginary friends?" Their rockstars have "invisible friends"!

      Delete
    2. Simon,
      Those in the Modernist Vatican are indeed FOOLS!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. @anon4:54
      True enough!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. The “Big Bang” fantasy contradicts Genesis 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:16
      No, it does not. In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commisiion under Pope Pius X, was asked:
      "Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?"

      The reply (approved by Pope St. Pius X himself was:
      "In the Affirmative."

      Second, the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic priest of great learning and piety, Fr. Georges Lemaitre. Atheist scientists of his day called it "The Big Bang" to mock him. When his theory was confirmed by the scientific evidence, they were humiliated.

      Pope Pius XII POSITIVELY PRAISED Fr. Georges Lemaitre and his work.

      Hence, there is no contradiction between the Big Bang and Genesis 1, properly understood.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Atheist Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang", indeed in a mocking sense. He never accepted the theory, preferring to defend his steady-state theory, despite it never being demonstrated. He was also surprised by the fine tuning of the constants of physics. That should have put him on the path of God. How can this fine tuning be explained without resorting to a intelligent Designer ?

      Delete
    3. Simon,
      Your point is a great one. The haughty will never see the proofs of God.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Fine tuning is explained (or rather explained away) by postulating a multiverse universe in which we happen to inhabit one of an infinite (or near infinite since infinite quantities are impossible) worlds that exist.

      Don’t concede the metaphysical arguments, because then the scientists-atheist will always beat you with his imagination.

      CE

      Delete
    5. CE,
      While I never would (nor do I have reason to) give up metaphysical arguments, it must be remembered that God is the Author of true science, as well as the One True Faith, so they can never conflict.

      The "multiverse" has no scientific evidence backing it, like the Big Bang. To define terms, the multiverse means our universe is but one bubble in a wider, eternal "multiverse of worlds." Thus, the eternal, uncaused multiverse is the creator of our universe--so the fairy tale goes.

      In 1994, however, Dr. Arvind Borde and Dr. Alexander Vilenkin showed that ANY spacetime eternally inflating toward the future cannot be “geodesically complete” in the past, that is to say, there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an INITIAL SINGULARITY. Hence, the multiverse scenario cannot be past eternal; it fails on scientific grounds alone.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. I do not presume to know about cosmology, but I do recall from a scientific documentary that the Big Bang actually requires that there exist a multiverse, because of its inconsistencies of prediction and calculation. I need to refresh myself all this topic, because it is very fascinating.

      CE

      Delete
    7. CE,
      That is false, outdated cosmology. There is no necessity of a multiverse, and EVEN **IF** there were, the Vilenkin-Borde Theorem makes it so they cannot escape a beginning. The universe (multiverse) must have started from an initial singularity, and must have a cause.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. By whose standards is the multiverse outdated cosmology? If anything, a theorem from almost thirty years ago is outdated.

      Anyway, this article explains why a multiverse is inevitable if we accept a Big Bang theory, which requires the theory of inflation to explain its initial conditions: https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/physicists-multiverse-exists/

      It was written in 2021, and says quite forcefully that the multiverse is accepted by almost all cosmologists.

      CE

      Delete
    9. CE,
      Even conceding a "multiverse," it doesn't matter.

      As Vilenkin says, and I quote (this is from 2012), “There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” He says, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”
      (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXCQelhKJ7A where Vilenkin concludes, “there are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.”)

      See also, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/what-is-the-multiverse from this year:

      "Even though certain features of the universe seem to require the existence of a multiverse, nothing has been directly observed that suggests it actually exists. So far, the evidence supporting the idea of a multiverse is purely theoretical, and in some cases, philosophical.

      Some experts argue that it may be a grand cosmic coincidence that the big bang forged a perfectly balanced universe that is just right for our existence. Other scientists think it is more likely that any number of physical universes exist, and that we simply inhabit the one that has the right characteristics for our survival.

      An infinite number of alternate little pocket universes, or bubbles universes, some of which have different physics or different fundamental constants, is an attractive idea, Kakalios says. “That’s why some people take these ideas kind of seriously, because it helps address certain philosophical issues,” he says.

      Scientists argue about whether the multiverse is even an empirically testable theory; some would say no, given that by definition a multiverse is independent from our own universe and impossible to access. But perhaps we just haven’t figured out the right test."

      Translation: "Science of the gaps."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. We can't know what's going on outside the confines of the visible universe, so this multiverse hypothesis sounds like science-fiction to me. And if it is true, why would there be universes in which life would be impossible due to a lack of fine-tuning of the physical constants and others, like ours, where life could be possible? But it's a hypothesis that sounds good to atheist scientists because it saves them from having to wonder about the origin of all things.

      Delete
    11. Mr. Robbins,

      Using imagination is not a refutation of or difficulty for metaphysical arguments, it is a sign of stupidity. The empirical sciences stand upon just that: empiricism. Didn't they ever mention the scientific method back in 4th grade science class? Two of the criteria (I guess can be combined into one) for theories are *testability and falsifiability*. Modern scientist-atheists "using their imaginations" in response to metaphysical arguments only demonstrates two things: their utter lack of knowledge of philosophy and how their very own discipline operates, and 2. their ill-will and obstinacy in atheism.

      These people aren't worth using metaphysical with in the first place and they should be called out for what they are: ignorant fools.

      God bless,
      Dapouf

      Delete
  3. The idea of a perpetual universe is, in my opinion, stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have a question.
    Why are women naturally drawn to homosexuality? It's so common now a crime drama show recently stated one area which has increased female crime is women (extremely normal looking young women) fighting over sharing each other and various friends having sex without some other female friends. It was common 20 yrs ago but now it's the norm. It's why girls my age love college dorms.
    Seriously,did God create women to be homosexual just to be cruel to men?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:24
      You ask if God created women homosexual. I assure you God creates NO PERSON, MALE OR FEMALE AS A HOMOSEXUAL. In Romans 1:24-27, we read:

      "Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

      Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

      Homosexuality is a sinful condition, not one created by God. I don't for a second believe women are "naturally drawn" to unnatural vice. I agree it has become more prevalent than ever before, but that is due to several extrinsic factors, to wit:

      *the pushing of the sodomite agenda ("LGBTQIAXYZ+++") insanity in schools and universities

      * It's radical normalization by the media

      *the fear of the "cancel culture" if you dare oppose what I dubbed "The Lavender Lobby"

      *further brainwashing in job required "sensitivity training" that YOU are "abnormal" and suffer from mental illness ("homophobia") if you don't think it's normal

      * WOKE adults who tell kids unnatural acts are "normal"

      *laws prohibiting psychologists and psychiatrists from using therapy to cure homosexuals

      *mainstream Protestant sects, liberal Jews, and the Vatican II sect giving de jure and/or de facto acceptance of homosexuality

      In addition:

      *feminism tells women they are oppressed by men, and are better off with other women

      *women are naturally more sensitive than men. At a young age they may feel more at ease with women and take this as a sign they are lesbian, so they "experiment"

      *many women dabble in the occult and Wicca which exalts homosexuality

      These are evil times. There are still good, normal women. Do not be discouraged, be both prayerful and careful with whom you keep as friends.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I disagree with you, Anon. I was abused by a lesbian and I feel utter revulsion for lesbian sex.

      However, I always felt women would sacrifice their dignity for perceived fashions. For example, women cackling lewd, misogynistic hip/hop suddenly becoming feminazis.

      Please girls, don't be like this. You are a shame for humanity, and a heartbreak for cool guys who want more than just plain sex. Use your brain and ignore fashions.

      Delete
    3. A so-called German bishop claims that homosexuality is willed by God. First it was Bergoglio who claimed that false religions were willed by God and now it's sodomy ! Unbelievable ! This fake church is straight out of hell !

      https://novusordowatch.org/2022/09/bishop-helmut-dieser-homosexuality-willed-by-god/

      Delete
    4. Simon,
      The V2 sect is straight FROM Hell and leads straight TO Hell.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. I am sorry if my speech sounds as if I underestimated your work, reading, intellect, etc. This is not my goal.
    Most of my friends, and maybe everyone, for these real and false premises, would simply move their arms, because it would be barely understood for them. (I barely understand it too)
    This does not show them badly. They are simply ordinary poor people can say hard to work for their daily bread. (That is, just like me) and are more than arguments for the existence of God interested in a very complicated philosophical issue; How to survive in conditions of energy, pallow, food and inflationary crisis. (something missing?) And this is good, because fastening physical existence is our duty until we stay in our bodies.
    I did not mention global warming, because no normal (i.e. mentally healthy) man is not interested in this matter. I think so.
    Just philosophy is too distant from the problems that these people must solve every day. Most of their time consume attempts to cope with life problems that are so hard.
    That would have to be translated from the language of philosophers into the language of ordinary people.

    However, you do not need to convince them of the existence of God, because none of them has doubts about it. And this is very good. (I don't have to do anything about it)

    Unfortunately, the vast majority of them cannot be called Catholics (probably the Bergoglio's sect members are considering Catholics). Some of them are not even in the church. (Well me too) But this is not a problem because the "pope" said that everyone would be saved ...

    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas,
      I hope I'm understanding your comment correctly. It seems you are saying that speaking to the "needs of the average person" is better than writing on "academic topics." If this is your point, it has merit. However, this blog is for all, so you will see topics that appeal to different "kinds" of Traditionalists, so to speak.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  6. Introibo, I am pretty sure that the historical literal interpretation of genesis is that consistently taight by the church. Please look at the kolbe centre (the website, talks, documentaries etc): a pretty compelling case. All the best-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon11:49
      You can certainly hold that position, but as Pope St. Pius X makes clear, the opinion of a universe billions of years old may also be held.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Where does St. Pius X teach this? I was thinking about doing a post to kickstart discussion on the age of the world. I am very interested in the physical evidence for both sides of the question—young Earth versus old.

      CE

      Delete
    3. CE,
      In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commisiion under Pope St. Pius X, was asked:
      "Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes?"

      The reply (approved by Pope St. Pius X himself) was:
      "In the Affirmative." All approved theologians from 1909 until the Great Apostasy taught that "a certain space of time" can be ANY amount of time, until the Church decides otherwise.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Hello Introibo!

      I have forwarded your position to the Kolbe Centre and they have sent me a thorough reply:- if you would be interested in seeing it?
      I'll append it to this message.
      It is from the book "I Have Spoken to You from Heaven" by Hugh Owen.

      Laudetur IC!

      Delete
    5. @anon1:32
      Feel free to send it on. I'll respond either here or on next month's "Contending For The Faith" post, depending on the length of what you send.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. From Pope Leo XIII to Pope Pius XII
      As mentioned earlier in connection with attempts to reinterpret the dogmatic decree on creation of Lateran IV and Vatican I, in the nineteenth century many Catholic intellectuals believed the claims of Lyellian geology and Darwinian biology and concluded that God could not have created the heavens, the earth, the seas and all they contain in natural six days. But the Magisterium reacted strongly against this trend. In the face of efforts to legalize divorce in many once-Catholic countries, Pope Leo XIII published the encyclical Arcanum to defend the special creation of Adam and Eve as the foundation of the Church’s teaching on holy matrimony. He told the bishops:
      We record what is to all known and cannot be denied by any, 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.1

      When leading Catholic Scripture scholars openly defied Pope Leo’s teaching, he realized the need for an orthodox biblical commission. In 1902 he established the PBC as an arm of the Magisterium. In 1906, the PBC reaffirmed the Church’s constant teaching that Moses was the author/redactor of the first five books of the Pentateuch. On November 18, 1907, in the Motu proprio, “Praestantia Scripturae,” Pope St. Pius X declared that no one could contest the rulings of the PBC without “grave sin.” Then, in 1909, the commissioners published replies to eight questions concerning the first three chapters of Genesis.
      The PBC’s answers to several questions establish certain truths unequivocally.
      As noted above, its reply to Question I established that the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis cannot be called into question, and its reply to Question II established that Genesis contains “stories of events which really happened, which correspond with historical reality and objective truth,” not “legends, historical in part and fictitious in part.”
      Question III asked whether “in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question when it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters [Genesis 1-3], which pertain to the foundations of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man . . .—Reply: In the negative.”2
      This reply establishes that the literal and historical truth of the following facts cannot be called into question:

      Delete
    7. 1) “The creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time”

      Comment:
      This passage upholds the Lateran IV doctrine that all things were created by God “in the beginning of time.” This in and of itself contradicts the conjecture that the days of Genesis could represent longer periods of time than a natural day.
      2) “The special creation of man”

      Comment: This excludes any process in the formation of man and requires that the creation of man was immediate and instantaneous.

      3) “The formation of the first woman from the first man”

      Comment: This, too, excludes any process in the formation of the first woman and requires that the creation of Eve was immediate and instantaneous.

      Delete
    8. The PBC’s answer to Question V allows that some expressions in Genesis may be understood improperly when “reason prohibits holding the proper sense” or “necessity forces its abandonment.” However, according to the answer to Question VI, interpretations should be made “with the Holy Fathers and the Church herself leading the way.”
      The PBC’s answer to Question VIII establishes that the word “dies” in the distinction of the six days of Genesis Chapter One may be understood in the proper sense as a natural day or in the improper sense as “a certain space of time.”
      Answers IV and V taken together tell us that some expressions may be understood improperly when “reason prohibits holding the proper sense” or “necessity requires.” These are very strict conditions indeed! According to these criteria, the word “dies” in Genesis One may be understood improperly as a certain space of time IF and only IF reason dictates or necessity requires. In short, the Magisterium is not treating the proper and improper senses of “dies” as equals. On the contrary, the Magisterium lays the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who would challenge the proper sense. It is they who must prove that reason dictates or necessity requires that “dies” be interpreted as a “certain space of time” and not as a natural day.
      It follows that the “free discussion among exegetes” allowed by answer VIII is permitted for the purpose of allowing the advocates of the improper sense to demonstrate that the improper sense of “dies” in Genesis One is the only reasonable interpretation. But “free discussion”—being of its very nature an exchange of views—also means that attempts to defend the improper sense as the only reasonable interpretation must be subjected to critical review by other exegetes in full knowledge that failure to PROVE that the improper sense of “dies” is the only reasonable interpretation of the word in Genesis One ipso facto establishes “natural day” as the preferred interpretation. Moreover, since the answer to Question VI teaches that the interpretation of Genesis should be made “with the Holy Fathers and the Church leading the way,” the burden of proof falls entirely upon those who question the consensus of the Fathers on the interpretation of any part of Genesis 1-11.
      In this connection, there is an important—and rarely noticed—link between the patristic consensus on Genesis One and the PBC’s decree on the possible interpretation of “dies” as “a certain space of time.” According to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, the Sabbath rest of the Lord after the six days of creation marked the end of the creation period. Consequently, apart from the creation of each human soul at the moment of conception—which is not the creation of a new nature but of a new individual with the same nature as Adam—creation ceased after the sixth day of creation. Now “a certain space of time” is by definition a limited period. Therefore, the PBC decree establishes as a fact that the creation period—whether it was six natural days or a longer period (although, as we have shown, the latter interpretation is scarcely tenable)—is over. It is logically impossible, therefore, to learn anything about the events of creation week by observing present-day natural processes.

      Delete
    9. The importance of this point can hardly be overemphasized. Rightly understood, this doctrine—explicit in the writings of the Fathers and implicit in the PBC decrees—that the creation period has come to an end renders it absolutely impossible for natural science to discover anything certain about the creation week and the origin of the things created during that period. To repeat, this is because the Holy Fathers and the PBC unite in teaching that the creation period is over, that God is no longer creating new kinds of creatures, and that therefore creation cannot be observed. It is axiomatic that human science cannot arrive at certain knowledge of an order of things—in this case, the order of creation—that it cannot observe. This being the case, it is quite impossible for natural scientists to prove that the improper sense of “dies”—as a measure of the creation period—is the only reasonable interpretation of the word.
      It may be objected that this plain meaning of the PBC decree in regard to “dies” cannot be binding any longer since almost no one remembers it, understands its actual meaning, or acts as if it were in force. But this would not be the first time that the plain sense of a magisterial decree was all but obliterated from the memory of the Church leadership for an extended period of time. In 325, the Council of Nicea defined that Jesus was “God from God, very God from very God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father,” but less than a half-century later, as St. Jerome observed, “the whole world groaned to find itself Arian” and nine out of ten bishops could be found in communion with those who taught that Jesus was a creature—in direct contradiction to the Nicene formula.
      When, in 1948, Cardinal Suhard attempted to get the PBC to renounce its earlier rulings on Genesis, he was rebuffed and told that the PBC did not wish to issue “new decrees on these questions” (Denz, 2302). Consequently, the next magisterial document dealing explicitly with the historical events recounted in Genesis 1-3, Humani Generis, must be understood in the context of the 1909 PBC rulings. It is in this context—and ONLY in this context—that Pope Pius XII’s permission to inquire “into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter” can and must be understood. In view of the Vatican’s refusal to change its 1909 decrees on Genesis One, Catholics are still bound by them. Pope Pius XII himself in Humani Generis condemned those who transgress legitimate
      freedom of discussion, acting as if the origin of the human body from previously existing and living matter, were already certain and demonstrated from certain already discovered indications, and deduced by reasoning, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this thinking (DZ, 2327)

      Delete
    10. t is noteworthy that Pope Pius XII observed that the hypothesis that the human body originated from previously existing and living matter was based entirely on “already discovered indications”—in other words, on pieces of physical evidence—and on deductions from that evidence, and not on anything in “the sources of divine revelation.” Moreover, although Pope Pius XII charged “exegetes” with the task of determining in precisely what sense the first eleven chapters of Genesis are history, he insisted that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are “a kind of history” and that they contain a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people. He also upheld the constant teaching of the Church that these chapters are “free from all error” (DZ, 2329). Therefore, the PBC decrees and Humani Generis leave the very heavy burden of proof where it has always been—on those who question the plain and obvious sense of Genesis 1-3, as interpreted consistently by the Popes, Councils, and Fathers of the Church.
      It is also noteworthy, that even after the Pontifical Biblical Commission allowed free discussion among exegetes concerning the meaning of yom in Genesis One, St. Pius X ordered pastors to teach the faithful from the Roman Catechism. Indeed, the Catechism of Trent remained the most approved catechetical resource for Catholics during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The fact that these pontiffs expected the faithful to be taught the faith of the Roman Catechism of Trent even as they allowed discussion among Catholic scholars of the claims of evolutionary cosmology and biology proves that, in their official statements, the burden of proof rested not on the defenders of the traditional doctrine of six day creation, but upon the advocates for theistic evolution or progressive creation. In the light of all of the evidence presented in this book, the advocates for a non-literal interpretation of yom in Genesis 1 have failed to provide any compelling evidence to support their hypothesis that yom does not mean a 24-hour day. Therefore, there is no longer any reason why the Magisterium should not now rule definitively in favor of yom in Genesis 1 as a 24-hour day.

      Delete
    11. Sorry Introibo, not a very satisfactory way of uploading it: I have it as a word file (Kolbe centre piece)- if there is a way of sending it to you in that form, let me know-

      Delete
    12. This text, broken into pieces as it was too long, is from a chapter of the book "I Have Spoken to You from Heaven", by Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Centre. This is why it begins with "As I mentioned earlier..".
      Thankyou God Bless

      Delete
    13. GreenR,
      I did so much on this I'm making it a post for Monday, October 3--the next in this series!! Watch for it!!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    14. O good- thankyou. I look forward to it. I am pleased to have played this minor role in your series!

      Delete
  7. It really boggles my mind why some Traditional Catholics disregard the findings of Fr. Lemaitre or even consider them suspicious. Their stubbornness and quirkiness in pushing the literal sense of "day" with regards to Genesis is very imprudent, making all Traditionalists look as obscurantists. On the contrary, the Church has only benefited from real science and true scientists, as Fr. Lemaitre, making it possible to gain converts among those who (up to the point of their conversion) would chiefly look up to science for answers. Goes to show the infinite goodness of our God that He would let us know Him by the light of our natural, finite reason!

    God Bless,
    Joanna S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joanna,
      So true! Far from discrediting God, modern science points to Him all the more!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Thank you for your post, Introibo. In my "catholic" high school, we were taught apologetics. Unfortunately, I don't remember much of it at the moment, except for a few arguments: one relating to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (given enough time, everything dies, so the universe cannot be infinitely old; thus, a start and a Creator), something involving the grand design of the universe requiring a Creator, and another arguing against the random, spontaneous creation of the universe (a million monkeys typing on typewriters for one million years still would not produce the Bible randomly). Forgive me if I've botched these, just going from memory and sharing. Like with muscles, I've let some of these mental muscles go over the years due to various reasons (periods of increased apathy regarding the faith, too cowardly to want to argue over the faith and offend others, etc). I've been trying the last few years to get them going again, though.

    When I think about hypothetical conversations with atheists, I would posit a gamble, like betting on red/black in roulette without the 0/00. Either God exists or He doesn't. Bet that He doesn't, and live your life with the hubris of being better than those silly, cult-like religious folk, who don't believe in science, reason, etc. If you 'win', then when you die, that's it, you are no more, or "poof" as one well-known aspostate likes to say. If you 'lose' and you're wrong, the consequences may be horrible beyond all imagination. That's not a great risk/reward ratio. "But I get to do what I want! Without all that guilt." Fair enough, but only within the bounds of the law, and with other limitations. Yes, in believing in God, and in His infinite love, goodness, and mercy, you will give up some earthly pleasures, but, consider you will do so willingly! Well, ideally most of the time. ;-) In 'winning', you gain everything, and in 'losing' you simply don't live the sinful life of gluttony and debauchery that you may have wanted to.

    I have taken some notes on the cosmological argument, and will study it more. We must be ready to help others, and using this argument could be the first step in helping someone else to achieve sainthood. What a gift that would be! I look forward to catching up with the other articles in this series. Thanks again, and God bless.

    Please pray for me. Thank you.

    -Seeking Truth

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeking Truth,
      I enjoy your comments. You retained quite a bit of knowledge, and your excellent reasoning is a form of "Pascal's Wager." May God continue to lead you into all truth, even as you seek it.

      Be assured of my prayers always!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the kind words, and for the prayers!
      -S.T.

      Delete
  9. Hello Introibo:
    I am wondering:
    1. What do you think of Fulton Sheen in general?
    2. What do you think of the alleged disagreement between Sheen and Cardinal Spellman?
    3. What do you think of the disagreements between Peoria and New York about Sheen's burial?
    4. What do you think that Father DePauw would think of the above three questions?
    5. Did Father DePauw or you ever meet Sheen?
    Thanks. From Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon5:33
      You can find most of your answers in my post on Sheen here:
      http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/01/eternal-life-is-worth-attaining.html

      I did not discuss in the post Fr. DePauw's thoughts. Father told me he was a "Modernist wolf" and, yes, he met him both before and during Vatican II (I never met Sheen). Father did not think he was the best speaker around. He was chosen by powerful Modernist-sympathizing bishops in the United States as a "poster boy" because he was charming and knew how to flatter people well.

      Most people were unaware that Sheen was a disciple of arch-heretics Teilhard de Chardin and Karl Rahner; Fr. DePauw knew this all too well. Many thought Father was "nuts" to think he was anything but a "bastion of orthodoxy." His true colors came out at Vatican II when he sided and voted with the Rhineland bishops in pushing their Modernist agenda. Those uncharitable critics of Fr. DePauw found themselves eating crow.

      If you want more specific answers after you read the post, feel free to make another comment.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You wrote a good post on Bp. Sheen. I discovered Sheen by reading his commentary on the Antichrist and the False Church but I was surprised later by reading on Tradition in Action that he was a modernist and a supporter of the V2 heresies. I think he imagined that this false church would arise in the distant future but it happened during his lifetime and he did not understand it. Like Archbishop Lefebvre and the R&R movement, he was deceived by the devil and the V2 sect he founded.

      Delete
    3. Simon,
      Sheen was a "Modernist wolf" who fooled many!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. Hello Introibo:
    Thanks for the reply to the post.
    1. Do you think that Sheen's body should have remained in New York?
    2. Do you think that when Cardinal Spellman and Sheen had disagreements, that Cardinal Spellman was probably right?
    3. I saw something that Father William Jenkins of the SSPV said about Bishop Mendez(who consecrated Bishop Kelly and ordained Father Baumberger and Father Greenwell). Bishop Mendez I think said that he would rather not have been consecrated by Cardinal Spellman. Do you have an opinion on this?

    Also, about Father DePauw:
    1. Did Father DePauw have a Requiem Mass after his death? Who celebrated it?
    2. After Bishop Kurz died, how did the parishioners of Ave Maria Chapel get confirmed? Did Father DePauw confirm people himself?
    3. After Cardinal Spellman, Bishop Kurz, etc., died, did Father DePauw have much contact with other Catholic priests?
    4. Did Father DePauw have an opinion as to where the Ave Maria Chapel parishioners should go to Mass after he died?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon9:18
      As to your first set of questions:
      1. I have no opinion on the matter.
      2. Yes.
      3. I never heard Fr Jenkins say this, nor did I ever read/hear of this until now. Here's what I will say; Bp. Mendez was far from perfect. He allowed the Modernism in his Diocese of Arecibo to go unchecked. He was no where to be found when Fr. DePauw was looking for bishops to stand up after Vatican II. Fr. DePauw told me that Spellman used his considerable political influence to get his Catholic Traditionalist Movement tax-exempt status in record time. He told Fr. he agreed with him, but didn't have the courage to stand with him. He actually broke down and cried in front of him. Bp, Mendez did ordain Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell, and consecrate Bp. Kelly. Before that he did almost nothing. Remember what Christ said about "removing the plank from your eye."

      As to Fr. DePauw:
      1. Yes, but it was offered by his friend, a Traditionalist priest in Chicago, to ill to travel from age. There was nothing offered at Ave Maria.

      2. There were no confirmations after Bp. Kurz died. The good Bishop actually called Archbishop Lefebvre when he was sick in his native West Germany, and asked him to perform the confirmations in his place in 1973. Even though Bp. Kurz stood alongside the Archbishop at Vatican II, and helped him on numerous occasions, he refused to do it and turned his back on his friend because "it was too risky" for him to do it. Fr. DePauw could not confirm except in danger of death.

      3. Yes. Many (valid) priests and Bishops kept in touch with him. One elderly Modernist Rhineland bishop (in his 90s and on his deathbed) called and asked for father's forgiveness. He had treated Fr DePauw shamefully at the Council, and Fr. told him, "one day you'll regret what your doing to the Church." The bishop said he saw the light. "You were right, Gommar. I hope God will forgive me, but I can't stand before Him without asking your forgiveness first. If only I had listened to you." Father forgave him. He died two days later.

      4. They should find a validly ordained priest who believed as he did to replace him.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. 1. Is current Priest at Ave Maria chapel validily or Novus Ordo Ordained?
      2. Bp.Zendejas is known to Confirm at chapels not associated w the Resistance-SSPX.
      3. God willed it not to happen, hypothetically imagine if Bp.Thuc could've moved to the Bishop's house @Ave Maria chapel in 1973 till his death in 1984?
      Recently realized without Bp.Thuc & his subsequent Consecrations Ordinations,the Apostolic Holy Week and pre-51 Missal may have completely disappeared from the World.Not for nothing,CMRI offer the 1958 Missal. 1 day,only Blessed Lord Jesus Christ knows when,the clandestine muddled mysterious life of Bp.Thuc 1969-1974 will be revealed,cleared of all lies half truths & distortions and Thuc will be rightfully appreciated as a loyal son of the Church.
      -Andrew

      Delete
    3. Don't understand why one single valid Bishop never confirmed for Fr.DePauw before they began dying off quickly in late 80's? Why and what were they so scared of and made them so weary of helping his chapel?
      Were they aware post 1969 invalidated Holy Orders and their Holy Orders were last of traditional Roman Rite?
      Those last of the mohicans Bishops were an odd bunch
      -Andrew

      Delete
  11. Hello Introibo:
    1. Please see this Link from What Catholics Believe, for what Father William Jenkins said about Cardinal Spellman. It starts at about 19:00 and ends at about 32:00.
    https://youtu.be/W0FpQPx9qIY

    2. Also, what do you think about Thomas Droleskey?

    Thanks. Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon10:15
      Thank you for the link. Card. Spellman was NOT a sodomite; horrible calumny by his enemies as attested to by Fr DePauw.

      2. He's a good man. I met him when he was campaigning for US Senate from NY in 1998.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Here, here, Introibo, Dr. Droleskey is indeed a very good man, and his website is of the highest quality. Here is a link to today’s entry which is so important to understand given all the attention on Great Britain and the death of HMQ Elizabeth II.

      http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/jorge-mario-bergoglio-would-have-urged-catholics-dialogue-diocletian-part-three

      Delete
  12. Hello Introibo: I am not trying to tell any lies by asking these questions about Cardinal Spellman, Sheen, etc. I am just interested in what you have to say. Thanks so much for your answers! Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:16
      I will answer questions as long as those answers are not information that I promised not to divulge.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  13. Thanks, Introibo, for a thoughtful and intellectually invigorating post on the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

    I was hoping for an argument from design, given your background, but this is good too.

    CE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CE,
      Thank you! I'll be covering more arguments for the existence of God in the future.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. (1/2) Hi Introibo,

    Very engaging and interesting post. I wish to comment on some things (in my limited capacity, of course).


    I think the other thing worth mentioning on the notion of the universe being the necessary Being is that there is a difference between BRINGING a thing (being) into existence (becoming) and that thing REMAINING in existence (be-ing). Who would posit that a being, once it has become (been brought into existence), would continue to be (exist) of its own accord? People overlook the fact that a being existing one moment does not guarantee that it will exist the next. With what I've noted above, I think it's also easier to shut down the objection that the universe is eternal, since a necessary Being is simply that Being on which the be of others continually depends. Thus, it’s one thing for the atheist to posit that the uncaused Cause is the universe, which would mean that the ultimate cause of the BECOME of everything is the universe. However, it’s quite another thing to posit that the universe is the necessary Being, which continually sustains us in existence (acts on our be, since we as we are, we could just as easily not be). In my opinion, it is more readily seen how this latter proposition is absurd.


    "Second, if you take all the whole counting numbers {1,2,3...}; mathematicians say it's infinite. Now, consider the set of all even whole counting numbers {2,4,6...}; mathematicians say this is also infinite when it only contains half the numbers of the first set."
    I have not yet taken set theory, and I think that infinities don't exist in the real (I’m not exactly sure how the eternity of Heaven, for example, works, so I’m hesitant to outright say actual infinities are impossible), but I can't say I'm too fond of this objection, since if we're considering infinities, they are unbounded (since infinity really just means unbounded). Thus, the notion of “half of something unbounded” doesn’t really make sense. Moreover, the set of the even naturals could be produced by multiplying the set of naturals by 2 instead of "removing the odds" from the set of naturals (which seems to be what your reasoning suggests):
    2N = 2*{1, 2, 3, ...} = {2, 4, 6, …}. With this I think it's easier to see why it could make sense that these infinities have the same cardinality (“size”) (and it wouldn't make much sense to say 2N has half as many elements as N). In practice perhaps, but if we're conceding an unbounded number of elements for the sake of argument, I don't think this objection works.

    Also, I think we're generalizing too much with the actual infinities aspect, because as far as considering infinite regresses goes, a fundamental distinction between these and, say, the set of natural numbers, is that in the former each member depends on the one before it and *there is no starting point*, whereas in the set of natural numbers, this is not the case (you could consider, say, 0 as the starting point from which each other element can succeed). Thus, an infinite regress would not explain the set since if each member depends on the last and there is no first, the set could not have become in the first place, but this reasoning could not apply to the set of natural numbers (even if we took the set Z, of integers, we could still consider 0 as the starting point but then building the set would take two steps: one of adding, the other of subtracting), which can’t really be said to regress infinitely, even though the set itself is infinite (unbounded).

    ReplyDelete
  15. (2/2) Overall, I thought this was a great post and very fun to read, though I still prefer St. Thomas' Five Ways (I've only got a good grasp of the first three, so far). I think they're clearer in terminology and more succinct, even if it takes more background knowledge and time to thoroughly understand. Less accessible to people? Definitely. Though I don't think accessibility should be considered when proving the existence of God. I do think, however, that the Cosmological Argument, as you have presented it (I've seen some horrible presentations) is well suited to most people, especially those that don't have the time to study philosophy. Well done.

    Hopefully I didn't botch anything too badly in my comments.

    God bless,
    Dapouf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dapouf,
      Thank you, my friend! As for infinity, what I really wanted to discuss (but refrained from doing so as the post would be too long) was the work of Dr. David Hilbert, the great mathematician. Look up "Hilbert's Hotel" for a thought experiment which will blow your mind!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  16. Introibo,
    Great post. I love reading traditional Catholic scholastic apologetics supplemented with new discoveries of natural sciences. If there had been no unfortunate Vatican II Catholic theologians and philosophers would certainly have supplemented the traditional textbooks with new scientific discoveries, which would have been a tough nut to crack on atheistic scientists.
    Today, unfortunately, Novus Ordo theologians and philosophers (with exceptions like Dr. Edward Feser et consortes) are people who hate realistic Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy. I myself in Poland have listened to appearances by Fr. Michael Heller (b. 1936, ordained 1959), philosopher, Novus Ordo theologian, physicist-cosmologist - he is truly a powerful modernist mind. He burns with some truly irrational disgust for Aristotle, St. Thomas and preconciliar neoscholasticism. Analyzing his statements, a conservative Novus Ordo priest and theologian said they constituted apostasy.
    It's really sad how Vatican II destroyed Catholicism in the hearts and minds of the people. We, on the other hand, by God's grace, must become more and more perfect in our understanding of God's revealed Catholic truth.

    God Bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,
      I agree that if Vatican II had not happened, we would have better apologetics aided by new scientific discoveries, the likes of which would really take atheists down. Sadly, we have the V2 sect and Modernist "feelings"

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  17. Most Catholics, even many trads, don't know that both true science as well as authoritative Church teaching from the beginning, tell us that Genesis 1-11 are literally true. See www.kolbecenter.org and also the little known 1970 presentation, “Cataclysm from Space, 2800 B.C: The Cause of the Biblical Flood,” introduced by the late great G Edward Griffin. Hint: rain didn't cause the flood, it was concurrent with the flood. www.youtube.com/watch?v=oor7Cl0rN7I&t=3s

    ReplyDelete