Difficulties and Modernism

[SeekingCatholic]

In the first place, I am Catholic because only the Church has provided satisfactory answers to deep questions regarding conscience, right and wrong, sin and redemption, and so on.

However, I do not and cannot accept what appears to be a Catholic worldview, or ethos. In many cases it appears to me to be either way too simplistic, just plain wrong, or pathetic, and its proponents to be childishly petulant in the face of intelligent opposition. (This is why Modernism is still around. Its questions are never answered intelligently, but only usually with a wave of the hand with arguments to authority.) I’ll give a few examples (there are plenty more). But I, for one, refuse to turn off my brain and will always say the argument to evidence trumps the argument to authority.

I reject the God of St. Augustine. We now know that somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion. According to the “Doctor of Grace”, these are now in the fires of hell. For all I know, this may be one of my own children. Any God who could do such a thing is an enemy of mine and unworthy of my love and worship but only of my contempt. Expecting me to love Him while He hates my children? Not a chance. Moreover, I do not have respect for any theologian, as a theologian, who takes such a position. The Church can laud St. Augustine with as many praises as it chooses. I don’t care. His God is pathetic.

I reject the God of St. Thomas. To be sure, the fate of unborn infants is much more palatable. However, it is still true here that the saved are chosen a priori, to which God wills to give the efficacious graces which infallibly ensure their salvation, graces efficacious in themselves. The salvation doctrine of St. Thomas in fact only differs from Calvinism by an intellectual parlor trick. God doesn’t positively will the damnation of the condemned, but only allows it. Yes, but He could have willed to do something about it, and failed to do so; moreover, His action was absolutely necessary to bring about their salvation. And, no one would have anything better than another did not God love Him more; it follows then that God hates the damned, and prior to their actual damnation, and prior to their sins.

Now I can just hear the chorus of mock indignation and condemnation: “How dare you criticize Sts. Augustine and Thomas, Doctors of the Church, far more holier and learned than you; and how dare you measure and judge God according to your feeble human conceptions?” Yes, I do dare. It was the young little girl in Hans Christian Anderson’s tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” who was right, and not the “experts”. The “experts” here have woven a theological tale out of imaginary cloth. If Sts. Thomas and Augustine are right, then God is powerful, yes; but not love. He clearly does not love every human. Love is the willing of another’s good; which He clearly does not do in the vast majority of cases (also according to traditional doctrine, in which the vast majority of humans are damned). So, if I am to love my fellow human, but I can see that God hates him and leaves him to a horrible fate, I cannot but hate this God and hold Him in contempt. I cannot prove, rigorously speaking, St. Thomas or Augustine to be wrong; but I can say this, if they are correct, the claim that God has this great love for humanity or for every human in particular is simply a grand lie. Clearly (to me anyway) God must have willed to limit His omnipotence.

Of course St. Thomas’ doctrine on predestination is largely predicated on his philosophical system, which I reject as well. Scholasticism has simply taken a pounding from modern science in recent centuries. Very few with any physics literacy really maintain the doctrine of the “First Mover” really can be held. It was a head-scratching moment to read Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (who would have to be classified as the most prominent Thomist of the last century) attempt to uphold this doctrine with the analogy that object A attracts object B; object B attracts object C, and so on; but this cannot go on to infinity, there must be some unmoved center of attraction. ??? Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was obviously an extremely intelligent man; but here he fails Physics 101. Much less is it a trivial matter to incorporate things like evolution into scholasticism (or even things like germ theory of disease or “brain” theory of mental illness, to give a similar name to modern neurology).

Then some dig in their heels (some on this very forum) and decide to fight science. For instance, there is, they claim, no real evidence for evolution. Sorry, but that is simply a bold-faced lie. And there is nothing more dismaying, to me, than to attempt to use lies in defense of “truth”. Many in the Church throughout recent centuries have done similarly. Yet in every conflict (e.g. heliocentrism, old earth, global flood, comets as signs of Divine wrath, etc.) the Church (or at least, certain elements within her) has lost and been forced into sullen retreat. Yet they comfort themselves with the thought that this is “atheist” science performed by prideful, atheist scientists who will be “humbled” when God sees fit. Well, scientists will be humbled for whatever pride they may have; but not for seeking scientific truth and finding it. This is just ungracious hubris on the part of “traditional” apologists.

 

[rwoehmke]

Do you hold a similar contempt of Bohr’s theory of atomic structure, the concept of “the ether” or say classical mechanics? Theology and philosophy like every other field of human knowledge grow and develop with time and study. The idea of unbaptized babies going to hell were steps along the way and even to this day we are unable to say with sure knowledge what happens to them, but it would seem we have reached a stage where we don’t think God is so unloving as to condemn them to hell. I am not sure, but I think mathematical infinity and theological infinity may not be identical concepts.

You do sound a bit angry about this whole business. I hope that the peace of God’s love will blanket you.

 

[Lazerlike42]

SeekingCatholic,

That was certainly a very aggressive post! I think you’d get much better responses if you were to approach the issue in a more calm manner. As it is, unfortunately, many people are not going to want to get involved with this discussion because of it. But more importantly, if you choose to criticize unloving ideas - which is certainly a right and upstanding thing to do and for which I applaud you - then don’t do so in an aggressive, angry, or unloving manner. It makes you sound like - if not truly be - a hypocrite.

There are a lot of good people here. Relax, you don’t need to be so aggressive. People will help you out kindly. Some won’t, but that’s their choice. Don’t let yourself be bothered by them. Focus on those who show love for you.

---

Now, as to your post, I think you really need to step back for a minute. I don’t say this with any anger or criticism, but merely as a statement of fact: your post is full of misunderstandings and errors. You’re getting very upset, and rightly so, at ideas that are unloving and bad. The fact is, though, that the ideas you are criticising aren’t the real ideas of the people you cite. It sounds as though you may have come across some very misinformed, and perhaps more importantly, uncharitable Catholics who are clouding your view of things. In other words, I get the impression someone’s said stuff to you before like “how dare you criticise Augustine!” That’s not Catholicism. That’s personal pride.

Let me just briefly address these things.

First, Augustine’s theory does not say that unbaptized infants or spontaneously aborted children are burning in Hell. It says they are in a place of natural happiness but not enjoying the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. The flames and fires of hell - which are called the pain of the senses - are punishments and are reserved for those guilty of personal sin - those who have done evil. An infant or a spontaneously aborted child or some such thing would never have done anything to deserve this. God doesn’t punish people for things they didn’t do. The hell this theory holds that they would be in would be hell in the sense that there is no beatific vision, but it would not be a place of fire, flames, and punishment for sin. That would be, as you said, unjust and unloving. They’d be getting what human beings, in and of themselve, deserve: happiness. And in truth, human beings don’t deserve anything at all, insofar as they owe all of their existence to God Himself. They don’t even deserve existence. We exist just because God chose to make us exist. So in fact, those children are getting even more than they deserve - existence and happiness. They’d be essentially in a type of paradise. Opinions have been divided, in fact, as to whether these folks would even know they were missing anything more and so really suffer from it.

As for St. Thomas, I think you’re certainly misunderstanding what Thomas said, but also what his followers said. The truth is that the idea of predestination you’re talking about that is commonly referred to as ‘Thomism’ is really not what you see when you read Thomas’ works. It’s stuff that was developed over the years by followers of Thomas based on his work and their interpretations of it. Some lengthy articles have been written to criticize whether or not these Thomists got it right, and today as many Dominicans go back to Thomas’ work, they are beginning to agree with the idea that he didn’t in fact teach this thing. The other point is that I don’t think their system is really as bad as it sounds. It sounds an awful lot like those God didn’t choose had no chance, but I believe most followers of that idea would reject it. Many would say that those people did have a chance in some way which we do not understand. Personally I think its a bit of a cop-out answer. Some try to explain it. A friend of mine - who does not buy into the theory - has actually come up with an interesting way of looking at it that does help to explain how their contention may be so. In any case, I think you’re right to reject the idea, because I just think it certainly sounds like God is not being just. But the key to remember is that the Church doesn’t teach this. In fact, when a Pope was about to declare the Thomistic predesination true, something stopped him. I forget if he died or something, but in any case, it was one of those things that happens that makes you think God prevented him from declaring a falsehood. What matters about the Church is not what Thomas said, or even what people said Thomas said, but what the Church says, and the Church rejects the notion that anyone does not have a chance.

I’m going to have to ask you to explain how modern science makes the first mover theory fail. I’m not aware of any such argument. I’d be much appreciative if you could try to explain it to me; maybe I’ll learn something new.

Lastly, your statements about the Church and science seem to be out of touch with what’s going on in the world and the Church. The Church doesn’t require rejection of evolution, and in fact most members - clergy included - accept it, including, if I’m not mistaken, JPII and B16. Now I do disagree with you that criticisms of evolution are flat out false. I think there are some very powerful ones, but I don’t say that as a theological statement at all. I almost always refuse to even discuss evolution in a context of religion because I don’t think it matters and I think it’s divisive. God could have made us however He wanted to. If someone wants to believe evolution, fine. If they don’t, fine. I do, however, on scientific grounds question the theory. I just think it’s in many cases bad science. In any case, it really has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, other than a few fringe folks or groups.

 

[Lazerlike42]

So far as some of the past “losses” of the Church are concerned, I think this is another case where you just haven’t been properly informed. For example, the Church was promoting research on heliocentrism years before Galileo ever set eye to telescope. The Church helped Copernicus, the originator of the theory, to do his research and the pope happened to think it was a pretty nifty concept. You also have to realize that at Galileo’s time, the entire scientific community rejected heliocentrism because the telescope technology at the time caused the evidence to fail. Most of Galileo’s peers rejected his thoughts. When the Church condemned him, it didn’t even have anything to do with science, but with his interpretation of the Bible.

I am not familiar with the Church ever having a controversy over the age of the earth, the flood of Noah, and especially comets as Divine wrath. I honestly never heard of that one before. When did that happen?

Just in general, remember that one priest or bishop does not the Church make. You will certainly be able to find, for example, some bishop that taught comets were Divine wrath. That doesn’t mean the Church ever said any such thing.

Try to remember the Church’s contribution to science, too. Take Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, who was a Catholic monk. Think about how the Church started the first university, and how She funded scientific research for centuries, even at times when nobody else would do it.

I hope this helps you out a bit. I’m looking forward to your answers, because I’m really not sure what your talking about and I’m really pretty curious.

Peace and God bless

 

[Bert68]

Peace be with you. God have mercy on you. God bless you.

 

[Deconi]

Bravo and thank you Lazer! But for you, I was about to reply in kind with the indignant tone of the OP.

Thank you for reminding me about charitability.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Do you hold a similar contempt of Bohr’s theory of atomic structure, the concept of “the ether” or say classical mechanics?

No, because scientific theories are provisional, always open to being amended by new data, and their proponents revised the theories when it was clear they were not supported by the data.

Theology and philosophy like every other field of human knowledge grow and develop with time and study.

Yes, except practitioners of theology (and practitioners of philosophy who hold to the so-called philosophia perennis) deny that these are merely fields “of human knowledge” but claim these are “sacred sciences” which can direct the so-called “profane sciences” like a slavedriver directs a slave. To the argument that data doesn’t support their theories, taken to be immutable truths, their response is “Data? We don’t need no stinkin’ data!”

You do sound a bit angry about this whole business. I hope that the peace of God’s love will blanket you.

That’s all very nice. But do you have any real intellectual response to what I’ve asked above?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

SeekingCatholic,

That was certainly a very aggressive post! I think you’d get much better responses if you were to approach the issue in a more calm manner. As it is, unfortunately, many people are not going to want to get involved with this discussion because of it. But more importantly, if you choose to criticize unloving ideas - which is certainly a right and upstanding thing to do and for which I applaud you - then don’t do so in an aggressive, angry, or unloving manner. It makes you sound like - if not truly be - a hypocrite.

I’m sorry but I must disagree. It is not “hypocritical” to criticize “unloving” ideas in an “unloving” manner - “unloving” ideas should be hated, don’t you agree? Yeah, there was some passion involved. So what? This is an internet forum, not a professional journal.

Now, as to your post, I think you really need to step back for a minute. I don’t say this with any anger or criticism, but merely as a statement of fact: your post is full of misunderstandings and errors.

No, it isn’t. My post is factually correct and I understand quite well what I am talking about.

You’re getting very upset, and rightly so, at ideas that are unloving and bad. The fact is, though, that the ideas you are criticising aren’t the real ideas of the people you cite.

Yes, they are.

It sounds as though you may have come across some very misinformed, and perhaps more importantly, uncharitable Catholics who are clouding your view of things. In other words, I get the impression someone’s said stuff to you before like “how dare you criticise Augustine!” That’s not Catholicism. That’s personal pride.

Then St. Pius X was guilty of “personal pride” and not promoting Catholicism in Pascendi Domenici Gregis for that is just the attitude he took towards the “Modernists” who were criticizing the Fathers of the Church in matters of Scriptural interpretation. “How dare they criticize the Fathers, so much more learned and holy than they!” That’s what he said. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Let me just briefly address these things.

First, Augustine’s theory does not say that unbaptized infants or spontaneously aborted children are burning in Hell. It says they are in a place of natural happiness but not enjoying the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision.

No, that’s the modern theory of Limbo - not Augustine’s theory. Let me quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of “an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness” (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (De peccat. meritis I, xxi; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.).

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

As for St. Thomas, I think you’re certainly misunderstanding what Thomas said, but also what his followers said. The truth is that the idea of predestination you’re talking about that is commonly referred to as ‘Thomism’ is really not what you see when you read Thomas’ works.

I think not. I think I understand quite well what is meant by:

…Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. **So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them. **

…I answer that, Predestination presupposes election in the order of reason; and election presupposes love. The reason of this is that predestination, as stated above (1), is a part of providence. Now providence, as also prudence, is the plan existing in the intellect directing the ordering of some things towards an end; as was proved above (22, 2). But nothing is directed towards an end unless the will for that end already exists. **Whence the predestination of some to eternal salvation presupposes, in the order of reason, that God wills their salvation; and to this belong both election and love:–love, inasmuch as He wills them this particular good of eternal salvation; since to love is to wish well to anyone, as stated above (20, 2, 3):–election, inasmuch as He wills this good to some in preference to others; since He reprobates some, as stated above (3). Election and love, however, are differently ordered in God, and in ourselves: because in us the will in loving does not cause good, but we are incited to love by the good which already exists; and therefore we choose someone to love, and so election in us precedes love. In God, however, it is the reverse. For His will, by which in loving He wishes good to someone, is the cause of that good possessed by some in preference to others. Thus it is clear that love precedes election in the order of reason, and election precedes predestination. **Whence all the predestinate are objects of election and love.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

…Reply to Objection 3. The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (22, 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. **God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. **

…I answer that, As stated above (2), man’s preparation for grace is from God, as Mover, and from the free-will, as moved. Hence the preparation may be looked at in two ways: first, as it is from free-will, and thus there is no necessity that it should obtain grace, since the gift of grace exceeds every preparation of human power. But it may be considered, secondly, as it is from God the Mover, and thus it has a necessity–not indeed of coercion, but of infallibility–as regards what it is ordained to by God, since God’s intention cannot fail, according to the saying of Augustine in his book on the Predestination of the Saints (De Dono Persev. xiv) that “by God’s good gifts whoever is liberated, is most certainly liberated.” Hence if God intends, while moving, that the one whose heart He moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it, according to John 6:45: “Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to Me.”

All straight from the Summa.

It’s stuff that was developed over the years by followers of Thomas based on his work and their interpretations of it. Some lengthy articles have been written to criticize whether or not these Thomists got it right, and today as many Dominicans go back to Thomas’ work, they are beginning to agree with the idea that he didn’t in fact teach this thing.

Well, according to Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange that is what is the case. He is the pre-eminent Thomist of the last century.

The other point is that I don’t think their system is really as bad as it sounds. It sounds an awful lot like those God didn’t choose had no chance, but I believe most followers of that idea would reject it. Many would say that those people did have a chance in some way which we do not understand. Personally I think its a bit of a cop-out answer.

Yeah, well, cold, hard, logic intervenes here. God has decided - prior to their existence - not to bestow on them the good of eternal beatitude. From the teaching of St. Thomas himself. Because, according to St. Thomas, He wishes to manifest His justice. This is an unloving, megalomaniac God and I will maintain this opinion until my dying breath.

In any case, I think you’re right to reject the idea, because I just think it certainly sounds like God is not being just.

Ah, no, don’t switch the argument to what is “just”. I’m talking about what is “loving”.

But the key to remember is that the Church doesn’t teach this… What matters about the Church is not what Thomas said, or even what people said Thomas said, but what the Church says, and the Church rejects the notion that anyone does not have a chance.

Sure, but the Thomists admit this much - sufficient grace yields the “possibility” or “potency” but not the “act” which takes efficacious grace. The question is whether the realization of the chance is a priori dependent on what God decides to do. The Church has not rejected the opinion of St. Thomas.

I’m going to have to ask you to explain how modern science makes the first mover theory fail. I’m not aware of any such argument. I’d be much appreciative if you could try to explain it to me; maybe I’ll learn something new.

With regard to physical motion, quite simply. Object A is put in motion by object B, but object B need not also be in motion itself for this to occur, which is the implicit premise underlying the argument. In fact, object B can also be put in motion by object A. So the question “infinite regress or first mover” is a false dichotomy.

Lastly, your statements about the Church and science seem to be out of touch with what’s going on in the world and the Church.

Then how is that some members of this forum argue vociferously against evolution on the evolution threads - despite the fact they get their hat handed to them continuously by the scientifically literate members of the forum. It’s clear they aren’t going to accept evolution NO MATTER WHAT evidence is presented.

I do, however, on scientific grounds question the theory. I just think it’s in many cases bad science. In any case, it really has nothing to do with the Catholic Church, other than a few fringe folks or groups.

Oh, really. Let’s hear these “questions” on scientific grounds. Be sure you have a reasonable explanation for endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes.

 

[Deconi]

It seems you are Catholic until something else convinces you with some satisfactory answers to your understanding. The presumption then is that you do, by default, believe in a God!

That being the case, you hold Him to account for what He does with what He creates; i.e. Babies.

What any holy person surmises about the understanding of babies and baptism, salvation and damnation, is confined to human knowledge. What God knows and does is not only beyond that premise, but you must allow, beyond us!

Must you know everything now?

 

[Deconi]

Two things I’ve noticed. If your stance is that St.Thomas believed and taught predestination, you are in error already.

If the ‘scientific members’ have handed the dissenters their hats on the evolution theory, why then does the question itself remain in scientific forum?

Also, the ‘first mover’ view you put forward is the residue of the “if God made everything, who/what made God”? Sure. The understanding that God CANNOT be God if He had a creator is a headspinner. But philosophically and logically, it is correct! Without a revelation and an understanding of it, we wouldn’t know that, anyway.

Hows this for cold logic? Since God made and gave ‘us’ the babies, don’t you think as ‘owner’ He would know what He does with them? LOVE? Can anything exist without LOVE first, babies included?

Do you hold God to account because human knowledge muses over WHY He does anything, or because in your opinion He is without LOVE?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

So far as some of the past “losses” of the Church are concerned, I think this is another case where you just haven’t been properly informed.

Uh, no, I’m quite well-read about these issues and have no patience for any history revisionism.

For example, the Church was promoting research on heliocentrism years before Galileo ever set eye to telescope. The Church helped Copernicus, the originator of the theory, to do his research and the pope happened to think it was a pretty nifty concept.

Sure, but only as a model, or hypothesis “to save the appearances” - not as real reality.

You also have to realize that at Galileo’s time, the entire scientific community rejected heliocentrism because the telescope technology at the time caused the evidence to fail. Most of Galileo’s peers rejected his thoughts. When the Church condemned him, it didn’t even have anything to do with science, but with his interpretation of the Bible.

So what? And yes, it did have something to do with science, that being the motion of the earth, directly condemned by the Holy Office as “at least erroneous in faith”.

I am not familiar with the Church ever having a controversy over the age of the earth, the flood of Noah, and especially comets as Divine wrath. I honestly never heard of that one before. When did that happen?

You are unaware that the received opinion for centuries has been of a young earth, six-day creation, and global deluge? And this has shown up in the Roman Martyrology? (Date of creation of the world: 5199 BC). Even after the global deluge was contradicted, the Church’s theologians continued to insist on the anthropological universality of the flood.

Just in general, remember that one priest or bishop does not the Church make. You will certainly be able to find, for example, some bishop that taught comets were Divine wrath. That doesn’t mean the Church ever said any such thing.

No, the Church never said any such thing officially. But it was more or less the received opinion.

Try to remember the Church’s contribution to science, too. Take Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, who was a Catholic monk. Think about how the Church started the first university, and how She funded scientific research for centuries, even at times when nobody else would do it.

I hope this helps you out a bit. I’m looking forward to your answers, because I’m really not sure what your talking about and I’m really pretty curious.

Peace and God bless

The point of all this is not a polemic against the Church as being anti-science in itself (e.g. in her nature or essence). My point is that scientific findings, from Galileo onwards, have chipped away at the traditional, scholastic understanding of things. And bitterly fought against by theologians from Galileo’s time until today.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

It seems you are Catholic until something else convinces you with some satisfactory answers to your understanding. The presumption then is that you do, by default, believe in a God!

That being the case, you hold Him to account for what He does with what He creates; i.e. Babies.

What any holy person surmises about the understanding of babies and baptism, salvation and damnation, is confined to human knowledge. What God knows and does is not only beyond that premise, but you must allow, beyond us!

Must you know everything now?

Don’t know what you mean here. Yes I do “hold God to account” if by that you mean that I will deny that He is a loving God if He condemns unbaptized babies to the fires of hell. I do not go beyond that and demand knowledge about exactly what God in fact does do.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Two things I’ve noticed. If your stance is that St.Thomas believed and taught predestination, you are in error already.

He sure did believe and teach predestination. Quoted right from the Summa itself. As we like to say, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. That St. Thomas taught predestination is a fact.

If the ‘scientific members’ have handed the dissenters their hats on the evolution theory, why then does the question itself remain in scientific forum?

Because the dissenters won’t give up. There are still dissenters promoting the laughable and many-times debunked “dinosaur and man foot tracks together” at Paluxy River. There are still dissenters promoting the PRATT (Point Refuted a Thousand Times) about “no transitional fossils” and other things. I agree it would be convenient for Catholicism if evolution weren’t true. Unfortunately it is.

Also, the ‘first mover’ view you put forward is the residue of the “if God made everything, who/what made God”? Sure. The understanding that God CANNOT be God if He had a creator is a headspinner. But philosophically and logically, it is correct! Without a revelation and an understanding of it, we wouldn’t know that, anyway.

No, this isn’t the ‘first mover’ view I put forward.

Hows this for cold logic? Since God made and gave ‘us’ the babies, don’t you think as ‘owner’ He would know what He does with them? LOVE? Can anything exist without LOVE first, babies included?

Do you hold God to account because human knowledge muses over WHY He does anything, or because in your opinion He is without LOVE?

He must be different than the God of St. Augustine or St. Thomas. Otherwise He is without LOVE. He creates humans He knows He is going to withhold the graces they need to save themselves, because He does not love them enough to will the good of eternal salvation, according to the theology of St. Thomas. And this, only just so He can have His justice made manifest. This God is love? I deny it.

 

[Deconi]

You seem to have overlooked that neither men, Sts Augustine or Thomas, were Popes!

They are lauded in high esteem with good reason. But the bottom line is that they were both Holy men musing over subject matters of doctrine and issues of Catholicism.

St.Thomas taught predestination? He must have left Catholicism then! Ahh…wait ! He didn’t…meaning he subjected himself to what The Church actually holds and professes.

Similarly, Corpenicus and heliocentrism. The Church has not adopted what he put forward from his studies, but he was a great Catholic. Galileo too died a Catholic, inspite what he thought his discoveries showed him.

Evolutionists have laughed at many dissenters, the same way Christians laughed at evolutionists when the theory first commenced. I’m sure you’ve studied the theory enough to have your stance. Many others have also studied it and come away with a different view. I am one of them, I might add. Until 5years ago, I was an evolutionist to the bone, until ‘forced’ back to the data and re-examined everything I knew. But that’s me.

Regarding God and His LOVE, there is creation! Why create at all if there is no love? Why bother with billions and billions of human existence when ONE WILL DO?

Think! If you yourself built or made a living thing to love you, wouldn’t you ensure that the prototype is ‘obedient’ first before enabling the multiplication programme? And if it is just to LOVE you, wouldn’t you make them the same? Is this LOVE though?

If it is a living thing you’ve made, is the love found in the programming to turn around and ALWAYS love you? Or is it found IN YOU when you set it free to do what it wants and can love you if it chooses?

 

[Deconi]

On the evolution front, there are NO transitional fossils! Yeah, I know! There’s mountains upon mountains of evidence of transitional fossils…blah blah blah.

The last paleontology conference that I am aware of was in 2005. Guess what? Yup. NONE found yet! Zero! Zilch! Nada! You wouldn’t think so though with the way the evolutionist world carry on about it. THAT’S FINE THOUGH. Study should continue and be encouraged. Our faith is not out of ignorance, although we are often accused of it.

I noted that you think Catholicism finds it convenient not to believe in evolution. I find it convinient that the gaps of evolution is explained by the postulation that 99% of life forms were wiped out! Convinient that it only wiped out the “links” of the gaps. And they say the believers cite The Creator as “God of the gaps.”!!!

I do not participate much in evo threads out of boredom and repetitive argumentations. My circle of acquaintances include opposing arguments, fence sitters, religious nuts and mad scientists. That’s enough for me on arguments. Life will end soon enough. I just read some of the arguments for a laugh from time to time, here and elsewhere.

God Bless

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You seem to have overlooked that neither men, Sts Augustine or Thomas, were Popes!

They are lauded in high esteem with good reason. But the bottom line is that they were both Holy men musing over subject matters of doctrine and issues of Catholicism.

St.Thomas taught predestination? He must have left Catholicism then! Ahh…wait ! He didn’t…meaning he subjected himself to what The Church actually holds and professes.

It’s just been shown to you that St. Thomas did in fact teach predestination. If you fail to admit this after being shown the evidence you are simply intellectually dishonest.

Evolutionists have laughed at many dissenters, the same way Christians laughed at evolutionists when the theory first commenced. I’m sure you’ve studied the theory enough to have your stance. Many others have also studied it and come away with a different view. I am one of them, I might add. Until 5years ago, I was an evolutionist to the bone, until ‘forced’ back to the data and re-examined everything I knew. But that’s me.

What’s your explanation for endogenous retroviruses and pseudogenes? What’s your explanation for the fossil record? I may say flat-out that I do not believe most people who claim they do not believe evolution “because of the data”. The data is, objectively speaking, very strong. They have a prior wish not to believe in evolution for religious reasons so they shoehorn the data and make the most preposterous claims and ad-hoc explanations.

If it is a living thing you’ve made, is the love found in the programming to turn around and ALWAYS love you? Or is it found IN YOU when you set it free to do what it wants and can love you if it chooses?

But in the scenarios of Sts. Thomas and Augustine, God is still behind the scenes, pulling the strings like a marionette. Is this love, according to you?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

On the evolution front, there are NO transitional fossils! Yeah, I know! There’s mountains upon mountains of evidence of transitional fossils…blah blah blah.

The last paleontology conference that I am aware of was in 2005. Guess what? Yup. NONE found yet! Zero! Zilch! Nada! You wouldn’t think so though with the way the evolutionist world carry on about it. THAT’S FINE THOUGH. Study should continue and be encouraged. Our faith is not out of ignorance, although we are often accused of it.

There’s only word to describe this type of argument: LIE. Yes there have been boatloads of “transitional fossils” found… for which the creationist simply moves the goalposts and demands an animal with half a heart or half a lung. (I’m waiting for the obligatory quote-mine of Stephen Jay Gould. Oh, and what paleontology conference was that, that of AIG or ICR?)

I noted that you think Catholicism finds it convenient not to believe in evolution. I find it convinient that the gaps of evolution is explained by the postulation that 99% of life forms were wiped out! Convinient that it only wiped out the “links” of the gaps. And they say the believers cite The Creator as “God of the gaps.”!!!

Even if such “gaps” in fact existed, this would merely show saltationism and/or punctuated equilibrium to be the case, rather than gradualism. The same PRATTs come up and again and again, and are refuted again and again.

Again, what’s your explanation for the fossil record?

 

[rwoehmke]

I have to apologize because I am not intelligent enough to give the intellectual answers requested. Yes both Thomas and Augustine did do some writing/teaching on predestination and like some of Origen’s work the Church has never accepted it as infallible teaching.

I am still bothered as to what is behind what comes across to me as some deep seated anger towards the Church and some of its earlier theologians. Is it merely an anger at ignorance or is something else pinching that isn’t yet on the table?

 

[FrRJBoyd]

In the first place, I am Catholic because only the Church has provided satisfactory answers to deep questions regarding conscience, right and wrong, sin and redemption, and so on.

Dear SeekingCatholic,

I found this post of yours after you posted on the thread about limbo. I think we might be able to engage in a good conversation. I am a priest, and hold a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Princeton. I am Catholic because God has given me the gift of faith through Baptism, to which I have assented. And faith is certain, and faith is true. Faith is always compatible with reason, though it does at times go beyond what could be known from reason alone.

However, I do not and cannot accept what appears to be a Catholic worldview… (This is why Modernism is still around. Its questions are never answered intelligently…

I disagree that there has been no intelligent answer to modernism. I hope this will be fleshed out during our conversation.

I reject the God of St. Augustine…

Indeed, St. Augustine places those children who die before baptism in the hell of the damed (even if it be only a slight poena sensus). And he himself had such a child out of wedlock. However, the Church never adopted this opinion of Agustine.

I reject the God of St. Thomas. To be sure, the fate of unborn infants is much more palatable… The salvation doctrine of St. Thomas in fact only differs from Calvinism by an intellectual parlor trick…

God has given us all the gift of free will, without which we could not love. As with the angels, some men will choose to love God, some will not. The sin of Adam with which we are all born makes it such that we cannot achieve salvation without both grace and our consent. The efficacious graces of which you speak are only given after one has given consent. Without that consent, God would be forcing people to go to heaven, which is incompatible with His gift of free will. The problem is not with predestination, which the Church affirms (i.e., that God wills all to be saved, though He knows past, present and future with certainty), but with the double predestination of Calvin (that God wills some people to go to heaven and some to go to hell), which the Church denies.

Now I can just hear the chorus of mock indignation and condemnation: “How dare you criticize Sts. Augustine and Thomas, Doctors of the Church, far more holier and learned than you; and how dare you measure and judge God according to your feeble human conceptions?” Yes, I do dare…

We must remember that we do not have a right to heaven. God does not owe salvation to anyone. He is not unjust if He fails to save someone. However, we know that God desires that all men be saved, and we trust in His providence, even when we don’t understand why many things happen in this world. He has proven His love for us by taking on our human nature and suffering and dying for us. How can this be anything other than love?

Of course St. Thomas’ doctrine on predestination is largely predicated on his philosophical system, which I reject as well. Scholasticism has simply taken a pounding from modern science in recent centuries. Very few with any physics literacy really maintain the doctrine of the “First Mover” really can be held…

If we did not have scholasticism, we probably would not have modern science. The emphasis on truth and the belief in a reality which is objective and not merely subjective is constant in Greek and Scholastic thought, but not in many epistomologies post-Descartes. Catholic clerics such as Medel (genetics), Copernicus (heliocentrism), and LeMaitre (Big Bang theory) have made enormous advances in science. Indeed, I am often amazed at how well the Big Bang Theory agrees with the unmoved mover proof of God’s existence.

Then some dig in their heels (some on this very forum) and decide to fight science…

Truth cannot contradict truth. Pope Leo XIII, e.g.,
in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, stated, “There can never, indeed, be any real
discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his
own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, ‘not to make rash assertions, or to assert
what is not known as known.’” I am glad you have said that it is only some elements in the Church that have overstepped their boundaries were slow to accept some scientific truths. I’m sure you are aware that Galileo overstepped his boundaries and tried to say that miracles in the Old Testament of the sun “standing still” or “moving backward in the sky” were impossible, and it was for this that he was officially condemned. Miracles, are, of course, by definition outside the realm of scientific theory. And I’m certain you are aware of Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis, whereby he said that scientist are free to investigate the possibility even of human evolution, provided they admit that the rational soul (which is not physically observable and separates man from the animals) is created immediately by God.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd