P
PoG
Guest
Still unable to deal with the facts, eh. Never mind. Bah to you to with a cherry on top. Ciao, wildleafblower, I have better things to do than read your nonsense.
- Status
W
wildleafblower
Guest
BENEDICT XVI, GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday, 11 January 2006
Psalm 144[143]
"He is my stronghold’
[snip]
*4. Now, for our meditation, we will reflect initially on the profession of humility made by the Psalmist, and entrust ourselves to the words of Origen, whose commentary on our text has come down to us in St Jerome’s Latin version.
“The Psalmist speaks of the frailty of the body and of the human condition”, because "with regard to the human condition, the human person is nothing. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity’, said Ecclesiastes”.
But the marvelling, grateful question returns: "“Lord, what is man that you manifested yourself to him?’… It is a great happiness for men and women to know their Creator. In this we differ from wild beasts and other animals, because we know we have our Creator, whereas they do not”.
It is worth thinking a bit about these words of Origen, who sees the fundamental difference between the human being and the other animals in the fact that man is capable of recognizing God, his Creator, that man is capable of truth, capable of a knowledge that becomes a relationship, friendship. It is important in our time that we do not forget God, together with all the other kinds of knowledge we have acquired in the meantime, and they are very numerous! They all become problematic, at times dangerous, if the fundamental knowledge that gives meaning and orientation to all things is missing: knowledge of God the Creator.
Let us return to Origen. He says: "You will not be able to save this wretch that is man unless you take it upon yourself. "Lord…, lower your heavens and come down’. Your lost sheep cannot find healing unless it is placed on your shoulders… These words are addressed to the Son: “Lord, lower your heavens and come down’… You have come down, lowered the heavens, stretched out your hand from on high and deigned to take our human flesh upon yourself, and many believed in you” (Origen-Jerome, 74 Homilies on the Book of Psalms, Milan, 1993, pp. 512-515).
For us Christians God is no longer a hypothesis, as he was in the philosophy that preceded Christianity, but a reality, for God “lowered the heavens and came down”. Heaven is God himself and he came down among us.
Origen rightly sees in the Parable of the Lost Sheep that the shepherd takes upon his shoulders the Parable of God’s Incarnation. Yes, in the Incarnation, he came down and took upon his shoulders our flesh, we ourselves.
Thus, knowledge of God became reality, it became friendship and communion. Let us thank the Lord because he “lowered the heavens and came down”, he took our flesh upon his shoulders and carries us on our journey through life.
The Psalm, having started with our discovery that we are weak and far from divine splendour, ends up with this great surprise of God’s action: beside us, with us, is God-Emmanuel, who for Christians has the loving Face of Jesus Christ, God made man, God made one of us. *
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060111_en.html
Psalm 144[143]
"He is my stronghold’
[snip]
*4. Now, for our meditation, we will reflect initially on the profession of humility made by the Psalmist, and entrust ourselves to the words of Origen, whose commentary on our text has come down to us in St Jerome’s Latin version.
“The Psalmist speaks of the frailty of the body and of the human condition”, because "with regard to the human condition, the human person is nothing. “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity’, said Ecclesiastes”.
But the marvelling, grateful question returns: "“Lord, what is man that you manifested yourself to him?’… It is a great happiness for men and women to know their Creator. In this we differ from wild beasts and other animals, because we know we have our Creator, whereas they do not”.
It is worth thinking a bit about these words of Origen, who sees the fundamental difference between the human being and the other animals in the fact that man is capable of recognizing God, his Creator, that man is capable of truth, capable of a knowledge that becomes a relationship, friendship. It is important in our time that we do not forget God, together with all the other kinds of knowledge we have acquired in the meantime, and they are very numerous! They all become problematic, at times dangerous, if the fundamental knowledge that gives meaning and orientation to all things is missing: knowledge of God the Creator.
Let us return to Origen. He says: "You will not be able to save this wretch that is man unless you take it upon yourself. "Lord…, lower your heavens and come down’. Your lost sheep cannot find healing unless it is placed on your shoulders… These words are addressed to the Son: “Lord, lower your heavens and come down’… You have come down, lowered the heavens, stretched out your hand from on high and deigned to take our human flesh upon yourself, and many believed in you” (Origen-Jerome, 74 Homilies on the Book of Psalms, Milan, 1993, pp. 512-515).
For us Christians God is no longer a hypothesis, as he was in the philosophy that preceded Christianity, but a reality, for God “lowered the heavens and came down”. Heaven is God himself and he came down among us.
Origen rightly sees in the Parable of the Lost Sheep that the shepherd takes upon his shoulders the Parable of God’s Incarnation. Yes, in the Incarnation, he came down and took upon his shoulders our flesh, we ourselves.
Thus, knowledge of God became reality, it became friendship and communion. Let us thank the Lord because he “lowered the heavens and came down”, he took our flesh upon his shoulders and carries us on our journey through life.
The Psalm, having started with our discovery that we are weak and far from divine splendour, ends up with this great surprise of God’s action: beside us, with us, is God-Emmanuel, who for Christians has the loving Face of Jesus Christ, God made man, God made one of us. *
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20060111_en.html
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Toodles PoG! Maybe I’ll cio you on that other website where you’ve been spreading to innocent minds the same stuff you’ve attempted to serve us here but have failed because of Alec MacAndrew, PhilVaz, SteveAnderson, Gottle of Geer, Tim, etc.
What a wonderful blessing of thanksgiving
What a wonderful blessing of thanksgiving
P
PoG
Guest
I have already dealt with the known facts about Origen. As for your claim that you have listed Fathers of the Church who did not believe in Creation within six, natural days, you haven’t listed any yet. You have only pointed to some who believed in instantaneous Creation rather than over a period of six, natural days. That all supports the contention of the article that I am posting in bits and bobs.
You will not be able to list any, hecd2. Such determined theistic evolutionists as Fr. Stanley Jaki have spent enormous amounts of time studying the Church Fathers to find any who could give support for the idea of theistic evolution. In Genesis I Through The Ages (p.xii), for example, he writes:
In the same text he also writes (p.154) that:
P
PoG
Guest
**FAITH & REASON **
cond. post #199
(www.kolbecenter.org - articles section)
Unfortunately, on the opposite side of the fence we have the sobering example of St. George Jackson Mivart. St. George Mivart, a distinguished Professor of Biology and a Catholic convert, had even been presented personally with his Doctorate in Philosophy from His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, in 1876. In a similar manner to the theistic evolutionists mentioned above, Mivart attempted to synthesize biological speculations concerning origins with Catholicism. Whilst opposing certain aspects of Darwin’s theory he attempted to profess his own theory of evolution more in tune with the Faith. Nevertheless, his insistence upon macroevolutionary processes led him further and further into erroneous philosophical and theological problems. Book after book began to appear on the Index, including The Catholic Church and Biblical Criticism (1887); *Catholicity and Reason *(1887); *Sins of Belief and Disbelief *(1888); and *Happiness in Hell *(1892). Eventually, after severe admonition and having refused to sign three Professions of Faith at various times, Dr. Mivart was officially denied the Sacraments by His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan. St. George Jackson Mivart died, apparently unrepentant, in 1900 and was buried in unconsecrated ground without Ecclesiastical rites. On a more hopeful note, medical opinion was later presented showing that Dr. Mivart had been suffering from a debilitating illness for many years and this was claimed as the cause of his heretical behavior and disobedience, rather than his own will. Under such circumstances of doubt St. George Jackson Mivart were finally placed in hallowed ground four years after leaving this vale of tears. [15]
The reign of His Holiness, Pope Saint Pius X witnessed the Church’s most stringent defence yet against the increasing web of Modernist intrigue and venom. To begin with Modernism directed its attack primarily upon the traditional understanding of Sacred Scripture. The consequence of such an attack was to weaken Scriptural belief for Catholic dogma and doctrine. One of those strongly suspected of Modernism was Rev. Fr. Marie Joseph Lagrange, O.P., founder of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem.
In an attempt to synthesize the Faith with the unproven ideas of modern science Rev. Fr. Lagrange introduced and successfully promoted three conceptual novelties into Scriptural exegesis - Legendary Primitive History; Historical Appearances; and Literary Genres. Kolbe Center advisor Dr. Dominique Tassot reminds us that:
cond. post #199
(www.kolbecenter.org - articles section)
Unfortunately, on the opposite side of the fence we have the sobering example of St. George Jackson Mivart. St. George Mivart, a distinguished Professor of Biology and a Catholic convert, had even been presented personally with his Doctorate in Philosophy from His Holiness, Pope Pius IX, in 1876. In a similar manner to the theistic evolutionists mentioned above, Mivart attempted to synthesize biological speculations concerning origins with Catholicism. Whilst opposing certain aspects of Darwin’s theory he attempted to profess his own theory of evolution more in tune with the Faith. Nevertheless, his insistence upon macroevolutionary processes led him further and further into erroneous philosophical and theological problems. Book after book began to appear on the Index, including The Catholic Church and Biblical Criticism (1887); *Catholicity and Reason *(1887); *Sins of Belief and Disbelief *(1888); and *Happiness in Hell *(1892). Eventually, after severe admonition and having refused to sign three Professions of Faith at various times, Dr. Mivart was officially denied the Sacraments by His Eminence Cardinal Vaughan. St. George Jackson Mivart died, apparently unrepentant, in 1900 and was buried in unconsecrated ground without Ecclesiastical rites. On a more hopeful note, medical opinion was later presented showing that Dr. Mivart had been suffering from a debilitating illness for many years and this was claimed as the cause of his heretical behavior and disobedience, rather than his own will. Under such circumstances of doubt St. George Jackson Mivart were finally placed in hallowed ground four years after leaving this vale of tears. [15]
The reign of His Holiness, Pope Saint Pius X witnessed the Church’s most stringent defence yet against the increasing web of Modernist intrigue and venom. To begin with Modernism directed its attack primarily upon the traditional understanding of Sacred Scripture. The consequence of such an attack was to weaken Scriptural belief for Catholic dogma and doctrine. One of those strongly suspected of Modernism was Rev. Fr. Marie Joseph Lagrange, O.P., founder of the École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem.
In an attempt to synthesize the Faith with the unproven ideas of modern science Rev. Fr. Lagrange introduced and successfully promoted three conceptual novelties into Scriptural exegesis - Legendary Primitive History; Historical Appearances; and Literary Genres. Kolbe Center advisor Dr. Dominique Tassot reminds us that:
By using such novel and erroneous tools of exegesis Rev. Fr. Lagrange soon wrote a Commentary Upon Genesis. As with the works of Rev. Fr’s. Leroy, Dorlodot, Bishop Bonomelli of Cremona et al, this document was condemned by the Church and the Dominican priest forbidden to publish it. Whilst many wayward souls pursuing the methods of historicism resisted our Blessed Lord in His Church and suffered excommunication or public apostasy, Rev. Fr. Lagrange apparently possessed the necessary humility and obedience to remain in the Church. His letters to the Holy Father expressed the following sentiments:
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII had previously identified the insidious current of Historicism and duly warned the Church in Providentissimus Deus:
S
steveandersen
Guest
Not really, an ad hominem would be to say I don’t like him therefore what he says is wrong.
He could be the nicest man in the world for all I know…but I still disagree with what he says on certain topics as do many people far more qualified then me.
Pointing that out is not an attack. It’s the truth.
I have checked both his personal web page and other sites. I haven’t read every last page but as far as I can tell he doesn’t use that term for himself.
He calls himself a tree geneticist. Although to tell the truth I’m not sure what that means nor am I sure what a “population geneticists” is either. His professional work has been in Forestry and his PhD was in Tree Physiology. His site only lists one publication but that is in Polish and I can’t read it.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
*3 [5] In ancient Israel a day was considered to begin at sunset. According to the highly artificial literary structure of ⇒ Genesis 1:1-⇒ 2:4a, God’s creative activity is divided into six days to teach the sacredness of the sabbath rest on the seventh day in the Israelite religion (⇒ Genesis 2:2-3) *(1)
Pope Benedict XVI was President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dean of the College of Cardinal.(2) He played a major role in updating the current American Bible. After reading the footnotes in Genesis, rest assured that Pope Benedict XVI has great confidence that his Jesuits and his Scientific Advisory Committee, which is employed by the Vatican, will assist him with scientific contributions that are of global significance in our modern world.
Time to make the pumpkin pie. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everyone.
Pope Benedict XVI was President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Dean of the College of Cardinal.(2) He played a major role in updating the current American Bible. After reading the footnotes in Genesis, rest assured that Pope Benedict XVI has great confidence that his Jesuits and his Scientific Advisory Committee, which is employed by the Vatican, will assist him with scientific contributions that are of global significance in our modern world.
Time to make the pumpkin pie. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving everyone.
P
PoG
Guest
Ad hominem is to direct an attack upon a person to attempt to undermine their credibility instead of dealing with their argument. You stated that Professor Giertych was not a population geneticist.
He described himself as a population geneticist in his letter to Nature reproduced a few posts back. This is what he said:
He could also have added that after his Ph.D he received his habilitation degree - D.Sc (something I don’t think you have in America) for the study of tree genetics.
From Wikipedia:
This is mistaken. His site lists a link to his publications which are offsite, but like most scientific papers you need special access or subscription to get there.
D
danielsgram
Guest
What is the url to Maciej Giertych’s web site?
Donna
Donna
H
hecd2
Guest
Although the way you write seems to indicate that you think that you and only you has the truth about Church teaching, I am afraid you don’t get to decide who is and who isn’t a Father of the Church. The fact of the matter is that Origen is accepted as a Church father by the New Advent Catholic Encylopaedia in their list of Church Fathers here, and in their discussion of The Fathers of the Church here. He was buried within the faith with honour: see his biography in the NewAdvent Encyclpaedia here:
The same biography points out that St Jerome was adamant that Origen was not condemned on a point of doctrine, and the biography explains the apparently petty nature of Demetrius’s quarrel with him. See also their discussion of whether or not he was anathematised.
The Catholic Information Network has a list of Church Fathers here. Needless to say, Origen is included. In fact there is no list of church fathers anywhere that I can find that includes only saints, or that includes Tertullian and excludes Origen. The fact of the matter is that Origen is considered as a Father of the Church by all who write knowledgeably about patrology.
Every biography of Origen that I have consulted stresses his extreme importance as a theologian in the early church, the respect with which he was held by many saints both during and after his life, the energy with which he worked to refute heresy in the early church, the holiness and strength of faith that he displayed througout his life and the near-martyrdom of his death. In order to win an argument you would set all this aside. Well this is all one with the rest of your approach which is to lionise cranks and marginal figures who agree with you and denigrate, no matter how great or respected, those who do not.
You don’t have to put up with anything. Your presence here is entirely voluntary. You do not, however, have the power to dictate the terms in which I refute your false claims.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
I am sure Giertych has published more than one paper - in fact, I am sure he has published many. As PoG says, this link is to a list of his papers. However, it is not off-site. It is actually on Giertych’s own site and the problem with accessing it seems to be more to do with an error in the site design than a deliberate attempt to keep people out.
One thing I am 100% sure about is that his papers will not include any published in a respectable journal claiming that humans and dinosaurs co-existed or that the earth is less 10,000 years old.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
Well, of course, the proposition that the Church made lamentable errors in attempting to censor ideas in the 19th century, does not mean that she should repeat those mistakes and attempt to censor the ideas of those Catholics who are succeeding in reconciling the incontrovertible findings of science with their faith in the 21st century. Nor indeed, is she doing so, and it’s only those few like you who long for an authoritarian, mediaeval pre-Enlightenment world who think she should. The world has moved on, the censorship of ideas has lost, rightfully, all respect and the Index no longer binds the faithful.
I hold in contempt any attempt by any person or organisation, church or government to dictate to me what ideas I may or may not entertain, what books I may or may not read, what opinions I may or may not express. Our freedom to think and say as we will was dearly bought, is wonderfully precious and we should never give it up.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
H
hecd2
Guest
This is not always a fallacious argument. If the person or organisation in question is being promoted as an authority, then it is quite acceptable to point out that they are no such thing (eg Berthault, Sungenis, Tassot, and the Kolbe Center).
It is a fallacious argument, however, if the person in question is competent to hold the views that they do, and the argument merely seeks to undermine that competence. So for example, your dismissal of Origen as a Church Father (and your dismissal of his contribution to the Church) when patrologists agree that he is one, or your attempt to undermine JPII’s opinions by claiming he was duped through incompetence into expressing views that he did not hold, do count as ad hominem fallacies.
I think that you would do well to look to your own tactics rather than pretending to be more righteous or have a surer grasp of the truth than everyone else on this list.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
P
PoG
Guest
The url is as follows:
giertych.pl/?sr=lista&m=biografia&dz=biografia&id=1
If it doesn’t come up in English you can choose the English option on the page.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I’m sorry, but PhDs can be blind and deceived just like anyone else.…DustinsDad, your remark to Alec MacAndrew who has a PhD in Physics was most unkind.…
And when the ground rules of their “specialty” mandate that they view the world first by taking God - and any reference to Him - out of the picture, puts them in a very, very vulnerable position to be both blind and deceived.
And besides all that - their arguments are unconvincing. When they start drifting into Bible commentary, their attempts to square their “findings” with Divine Revelation gets a bit ridiculous. Obviously so.
So if the penalty for receiving and holding to the deposit of faith handed to us from Christ and the Apostles means being scoffed at by the Enlightened ones, I’ll praise God for being privilaged enough to suffer such mild discomfort for His sake.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
P
PoG
Guest
FAITH & REASON
cond. from post #245
(www.kolbecenter.org - articles section)
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII had previously identified the insidious current of Historicism and duly warned the Church in Providentissimus Deus:
cond. from post #245
(www.kolbecenter.org - articles section)
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII had previously identified the insidious current of Historicism and duly warned the Church in Providentissimus Deus:
Notwithstanding the condemnations, admonitions and censures of the Church during this period, Historicism, and the Modernism that it spawned, continued to diffuse its deadly pathology. Even after the Pontifical Biblical Commission had issued its guidelines on interpreting Holy Scripture, backed up by Praestantia Scripturae, the problem persisted. So much so that His Holiness Pope Pius XII was forced to mirror the words of the Saintly Pontiff quoted at the beginning of this essay. In a speech to the International Congress of Historical Sciences, September 7th, 1955 he stated that:
O
Orogeny
Guest
Hello wildleafblower. I am very familiar with Berthault and his spokesman Peter Wilder. I have had some lengthy discussions with Wilder and other Berthault supporters on another forum. As Alec said, Berthault is a crank. His experiments were sound, but every single scientist that were involved with the testing at Colorado State strongly disagree with his conclusions. One only needs a very basic understanding of geology to see the problems with his conclusions.Hi Tim
Thank you for this valuable contribution! If you read page 4 of this topic of discussion one begins to wonder about Guy Berthault. Take a look at this letter he wrote to Kevin Henke where he states, “I directed the program of experiments at Colorado University performed by Pierre Julien resident teacher of hydraulics and sedimentology.”
As far as his claim that he directed the program at CSU, the reply will be that it was a translation error by Wilder. That seems to be the case when they are caught in a lie.
Peace
Tim
D
danielsgram
Guest
Oh Tim:
You wrote: His experiments were sound, but every single scientist that were involved with the testing at Colorado State strongly disagree with his conclusions.
Me: Prove it!!! BTW I know that you can’t because I was in a short email discussion with one of the scientists (I have saved the email) and I know that he does not disagree with the scientific conclusions of the experiment.
Donna
You wrote: His experiments were sound, but every single scientist that were involved with the testing at Colorado State strongly disagree with his conclusions.
Me: Prove it!!! BTW I know that you can’t because I was in a short email discussion with one of the scientists (I have saved the email) and I know that he does not disagree with the scientific conclusions of the experiment.
Donna
H
hecd2
Guest
I put myself in the shoes of a believer. I have been reflecting on this thread, and this has led me to wonder what PoG hopes to achieve by his argument that a literal belief in Genesis (ie the special creation of all things within six natural days, a world less than 10,000 years old, Adam breathed into life and Eve fashioned from his side; and an adamant denial of evolution as an explanation for the diversity of species) is demanded by Scripture, Revelation and Tradition and is a necessary component of orthodoxy and salvation.
There are two important relevant facts:
There are two important relevant facts:
*]PoG, along with his colleagues at the Kolbe Center and certain other ultra-conservative cults within the Church interpret the teaching of the Church in such a way as to demand exactly the same teaching and exactly the same interpretation of Scripture as would have been orthodox 1,000 years ago - that and nothing else. What is more, they reject any other interpretation, any theology that does not rely on their literal interpretation of Scripture, and they claim that no interpretation that, for example, holds that theistic evolution is an acceptable belief, is orthodox. As far as they are concerned, those who accept the probability that the world is billions of years old, that species on earth share a common ancestor, and that the body of man evolved from other progenitors are espousing heresy.
*]The current leaders of the Church do not prescribe whether the faithful should believe in special creation and a world less than 10.000 years old; or in theistic evolution and universe 13.7 billion years old and an earth 4.5 billion years old. It is clear that their sympathies lie with the latter, but since the how and when of creation lie outside the magisterium of church teaching, and are not a matter of faith or morals, the church hierarchy does not demand of the faithful that they must believe in either special creation of species and a young earth, or evolution and an old earth. It is perfectly possible to believe in either and yet be in communion with the Body of Christ, according to the teaching of the Church.
So, given these two facts, what does PoG hope to achieve? Well, clearly, he hopes to persuade readers that the position that the Church has taken with regard to an acceptance of evolution, an old world and an allegorical interpretation of Scripture is wrong to the point of heresy, and that agreeing that the evolution of species is not an impediment to orthodoxy, is, itself, heretical. So, if he succeeds in his argument, he would have the faithful set aside, as an error, the teaching of JPII, Benedict and Schoenborn who all accept, undogmatically, an old earth and common descent.
If a faithful Catholic is persuaded by PoG’s argument into believing that the current Church position on cosmology and evolution are in fundamental error, and that it is dangerous to one’s salvation to accept an old earth and common descent, in contradiction to the current teaching of the Church, (contrast this opinion with that of another faithful person who, whilst believing in a young earth and special creation, nevertheless agrees that an acceptance of an old earth and evolution also falls within the Church’s teaching, and that the person who believes in evolution and an old earth is as welcome at the altar rail as himself), then what is that person to make of all the other current teachings of the Church which address circumstances that were undreamt of by the Apostles and the Church Fathers. Are those teachings to be rejected out of hand because of the ‘heterodoxy’ of the current leaders teaching on origins?
In other words, if PoG is successful in his mission, he will persuade one or two people that an acceptance of an old earth and of evolution is heretical, against Scripture, Tradition and Revelation, and a danger to salvation. In doing so he will undermine the teaching and authority of the pope and the church hierarchy who clearly state that a belief in an old unverse and common descent is not only acceptable but reasonable. Where then are the faithful to turn for guidance on matters of faith? Perhaps they should apply to PoG and the Kolbe Center who will be able to interpret Scripture, Revelation and Tradition for them far more accurately than Peter’s heir.
(I should make it clear that, being a non-believer, I do not myself accept the authority of any religious person or institution. However, that does not, it seems to me, prevent me from putting myself in the shoes of the faithful nor invalidate my prediction about the practical effect of PoG’s mission).
Alec
evolutionpages.com
O
Orogeny
Guest
Oh, Donna. My e-mails are with Pierre Julien, the lead scientist on the project. With whom have you been corresponding?
Peace
Tim
- Status