Yesterday, after word of the passing of Robert Schuller was made public, I sent the following Tweet linking my post on the topic:
@DioceseofOrange Robert Schuller has died. How long before the canonization process begins?
Less than 24 hours.
Following is the Statement from Bishop Vann on the passing of Rev. Schuller posted on the diocesan website, with my own emphasis added:
Rev. Robert H. Schuller was a man of great passion and love for Christ and the people of God. His ministry touched the hearts and minds of millions and showed the light of Christ to people all over the world. Since my appointment as the Bishop of Orange I have had the blessing to come to know Rev. Schuller and his family. Rev. Schuller and I, along with Fr. Christopher Smith, the Rector of Christ Cathedral, have been able to visit with Rev. Schuller and his family, and to pray with him on a number of occasions. I especially enjoyed our visit last year at this time, when I told him that I had seen him a number of times on television at my grandparents’ home. We reminisced together about his friendship with the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen. I thanked him for his inspiration to so many in his preaching of the Word of God. He was truly a man of great compassion and giving of his entire self to the mission of Christ in the world. We are blessed to honor his memory on the Christ Cathedral campus and to continue the mission of service, charity and evangelization begun here so many years ago. As we prepare to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord, we pray for the soul of this humble servant of God as he is welcomed into eternity.
The Most Rev. Kevin Vann
Bishop of Orange
Truly, this entire statement is an embarrassment, but let’s just focus, briefly, on the parts emphasized.
…showed the light of Christ to people all over the world.
How exactly did Schuller, an entrepreneur who dedicated his entire adult life to building his christobusiness, do this?
Where is the “light of Christ” in false biblical interpretations?
Where is the “light of Christ” in confirming people in their refusal of the Most Holy Eucharist?
…his inspiration to so many in his preaching of the Word of God.
Yes, I am sure his preaching on the Bread of Life discourse was rather inspiring.
…the mission of Christ in the world.
Apparently, Bishop Vann, like most of his post-conciliar confreres, doesn’t realize that the mission that Christ gave to His Church was to teach “everything whatsoever” that He commanded; not just the parts that fill the seats and swell the coffers.
In short, the “mission of Christ” as given is to bring all persons into His Mystical Body, the Holy Catholic Church.
Does Bishop Vann believe this?
…this humble servant of God as he is welcomed into eternity.
Yes, how humble it is to imagine that Holy Mother Church is dead wrong and you’re entirely right about such trivial matters as Holy Mass, the priesthood, the Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin Mary…
And how is it, one wonders, that Bishop Vann is so sure that Robert Schuller is being “welcomed” by Our Lord as a “humble servant,” in spite of his having led countless souls away from the Holy Catholic Church over the course of his entire adult life?
In conclusion, I would only point out that “Servant of God” just so happens to be the title given when one’s cause for canonization has officially begun.
Well said, and very clearly stated.
To the best of my knowledge, this man didn’t even preach any form of Protestantism in his Crystal monument to himself, all his blovating was about positive thinking. Hmm, I wonder how ‘positive’ he is now?
“We are blessed to honor his memory on the Christ Cathedral campus ”
We’re pretty sure we don’t really want to know what THAT line means.
-We also noticed how Bishop Vann brought Bishop Sheen into the discussion, and were surprised after researching, to find statements claiming Bishop Sheen recommended that Catholic priests read Protestant theologians interpretations of the Scriptures. One site claims he personally owned some 3,000 books on Scripture by Protestant scholars, which he read and encouraged his priests to use, and that when a priest argued that they were taught in seminary not to read Protestant commentators, Sheen is said to have laughed and responded, “Vicar, you’ve got to remember that the Holy Spirit works through them too”
Assuming that is true about him, (for what little it’s worth), it appears he must have bought into the harmful novelty of false ecumenism we so often discuss and renounce here. Perhaps he could spot error so easily himself, that he assumed it would be likewise for seminarians, but if so, he was obviously mistaken.
Homilies are what we personally consider the greatest potential threat we face today in trying to pass on the Faith seconded only by bad advice given in Confessionals (which reaches fewer people these days).
We’ve gotten a lot of good quotes from his works against Communism and socialism, and didn’t expect to find this, judging from the contents of his early work, but there it is. And we can all see how it’s being used to promote what’s going on in California, and adding to the confusion. What a shame.
“positive thinking” of that type, -which excludes the negatives like sin, vice, and Hell, is exactly the tool the Devil used to inspire the Protestant reformation.
As such, it IS a form of Protestantism which revises the image of Our Lord into a do-gooder only, who never requires Faith in Revealed Truths.
Please forgive me if this comment sounds disrespectful, but it seems to me that Bishop Vann is a Freemason without the apron. Or maybe he DOES have one? The great goal of the Masons is religious indifferentism and I would say we are experiencing that in spades.
“I, along with Fr. Christopher Smith, the Rector of Christ Cathedral, have been able to visit with Rev. Schuller and his family, and to pray with him on a number of occasions”.
2 Thes. 3:6 “We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us.”
Rom. 16:17 “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them”
am I missing something ????
To ock: Yes, sir, what you are missing is that the historical-critical method of interpreting Holy Scripture tells us that these remarks of St. Paul (Paul to the modernists) were historically conditioned and not applicable to today’s enlightened ecumaniacs. (sarcasm on)
Even the most ardent resister will soon be waking up to reality. These men arent Catholics and probably never were. I am convinced that we do a disservice to the those seeking the truth by acknowledging Franicis, or any other of his heretics-in-arms, as actual popes. We as Catholics sit back and “pray” for men who hate the Faith with some ridiculous belief that they will suddenly get it. Not me anymore…enough is enough; these men have made their choice and will suffer for it. Catholic Dogma is emphatic….we as Catholics cannot disagree with the pope on faith and morals. If the pope says Jews can die without having accepted Christ as God and still attain salvation (as Louie just spoke of in his Nostra Aetate piece), whether he speaks infallibly or not, we are to obey as is our duty as Catholics and has been declared multiple times by multiple popes. Therefore, based on what the vatican 2 “popes” have opined, we either have to accept heresy as Catholic teaching or we have to understand that the seat is most definitely vacant and there is no current pope nor has there been for a long time. Im personally done playing this juvenile game of “lets try to determine if the “pope” is right or wrong”…a real pope CANT be wrong when speaking as the head of the Catholic Church. God Bless all.
Obviously Bishop Vann is a very good disciple of the Bishop of Rome. Monkey see, monkey do. Can’t we just all get along Louie, and I love you and you love me and we are a happy family? No need for dissention and all that talk about the One, True, Catholic , Apostolic Church. That just divides us. Lets think unity. Group hug time
Thank you for the warning. I once heard from someone that Sheen bought into the post-Vatican II maxim, “Help a Muslim be a better Muslim…an atheist, a better atheist…” just like Mother Theresa. I did not want to believe it was true. But in light of this, it might be. Perhaps it is a good thing to hold off on his canonization, and Mother Theresa’s too.
rich writes: “we do a disservice to the those seeking the truth”.
This is well expressed.
In Louie’s last post, I quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Conversion”. The following extract is from the same source but with a slightly different focus:
“Every man is bound by the natural law to seek the true religion…. God by His only-begotten Son has instituted the Church and has adorned it with obvious marks so that it may be known by all men as the guardian and teacher of revealed truth…. The first step, therefore, in the normal process of conversion is the investigation and examination of the credentials of the Church, which often is a painful labor lasting for years“.
In another article (on “General Councils”) the Encyclopedia makes the following distinction between a heretical pope and a sinful one:
“[A] heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler…”.
If Catholics ignore the fact that a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the visible Church, surely we make the “examination of the credentials of the Church” a perhaps intolerably “painful labor” for the potential convert.
Here’s some of what Tradition teaches about avoiding heretics
(The list of quotes turned out to be rather long, so we posted it in the forum)
Here’s the link:
Dear Louie and all,
S.Armaticus , (God bless him) posted the (below) video on his Deus Ex Machina blog today. IOHO Michael Matt did a great job of describing what is happening in the world right now, how it relates to our Catholic Faith and our Treatment of Christ as King, and the “Good Friday” of His Church. Well worth the listen.
Dear Mary Regina,
We feel the say way. Also found this report on one of the books he wrote which we hadn’t read–which details his praise of Teillard de Chardin as pretty much of a misunderstood genius! We’ve researched deChardin enough to recognize the infiltration of his ideas into modernist agendas everywhere. Creepy, finding this out, but we’re actually glad Louie posted this info about the Bishop dropping his name like that. We need to face the truth, even when it’s bad news like this about someone we thought trustworthy.
Exactly. Its difficult enough, for me personally, to attempt to bring someone into the Catholic fold to begin with. To first have to wade through the mire of vatican 2 apostasy before even beginning to speak about the ACTUAL Catholic Church is a much more difficult endeavor.
Bishop Sheen was a huge presence in the States post-war. When I used to watch CMTV, Voris gave an account of him (having been an altar boy at the time) of how zealous Bishop Sheen was in dismissing the very idea of mixing false-faiths with the True Faith. Voris witnessed him shouting out of church a congenial young hippie who came to him exited about the prospects of mixing Catholicism with Eastern ‘ways’. Blimey. Who can say.
‘A freemason without the apron’ – there’s an image to haunt you.
“The mission that Christ gave to His Church was to teach “everything whatsoever” that He commanded; not just the parts that fill the seats and swell the coffers…In short, the “mission of Christ” as given is to bring all persons into His Mystical Body, the Holy Catholic Church…Does Bishop Vann believe this?”
Does Bergoglio believe this? Can any adherent of the Vatican II new doctrine of the Church ‘subsisting’ however and wherever a modernist chooses, believe this?
PS. interesting talk on http://isoc.ws/ about the ‘Culture of lies’ and the deceits we live under.
We remember seeing MV tell that story–and how much he liked to overdo the incense. It is rather mind boggling to think that Sheen had such strong convictions about not mixing the Faith with non-Catholic religions, yet could develop a blind spot when it came to heretical sects and modernist philosophers. It’s a blow to us who watched him for so many years in our youth–something of a folk hero, here, you know. Actually got to meet and talk with him once, a few years before he died, and got the impression he’d been generally rejected by the “establishment” and the public, as well. Asked if he was still busy with speaking engagements, he got a far-away look in his eyes, shook his head, and said, ” Nobody asks anymore.”
It is hard to figure why he wouldn’t have been more popular, rather than less, if he really caved in to the modernist mentality in the way it appears he did.
Perhaps he retained enough of Tradition in his other opinions, to rub them the wrong way?
EM, my critical thinking skills are atrophying as we speak.
Perhaps. But there’s the rub. The blind spot, polished and polished as if it’s ever gonna see anything. Possibly for him and those who were already being converted to the blind spots.
Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I am trying to respond to Mary Regina, salvemur and Indignus Famulus. (I do not know how to get my response to show up UNDER the proper persons’ names.)
You are all talking about the inconsistencies of Bishop Sheen.
The unsettling video here shows Bishop Sheen talking about Pope John XXIII. Watch where the time starts at 5:10 till 6:00 (only one minute). Bishop Sheen tells the story of when Pope John XXIII meets a death row prisoner, a man who murdered his wife. The comment that Pope John says to the prisoner is so disturbing. Instead of asking the prisoner about the state of his soul in preparation for his impending death, Pope John XXIII tells the murderer that he was never married, but had he EVER BEEN married he may have murdered his wife, too. In the video, Bishop Sheen is in admiration of the way Pope john handled this situation. So very disturbing!
I did not get my comment in the correct place once again. I wanted my last comment to go under Mary Regina, salvemur and Indignus Famulus, about the 10 comment or so.
Would any of you mind teaching me how to do this please?
Hello S of Our Lady. Sometimes it depends on when you log on to the site whether it is happy, after its cig and a cup of coffee, to put your reply where you want it!
generally log on first and then when you click reply it will go to the right comment.
PS. thanks for the link. deary me.
‘never make anything complicated…’ That’s quite a quote for a pastor of the most nuanced, complex, absolute religion of Truth on this simple, let’s forget about God, world.
PS. Bp Fulton Sheen quote: ‘This spirit (VII) is magnificent..He opened the Council, got the World into it, ‘communist, orthodox, buddhists…he (John XXIII) was the one who made us conscious.’
Thank you, salvmur! I hope it worked.
PPS. This is a bit of a shocker vid. If J23 made ‘us conscious’ then hand me ativan.
I think it has worked!
I can’t say that I have watched a lot of Bishop Sheen’s tapes, but I have never seen one like this before. Actually, this one is very disturbing. I can understand the “killing the wife” joke to “break the ice” and get the prisoner to make a final confession. It could be explained as a man thing. IMHO, it is the novelty of the superficial “love of man” thing that is really bizarre. It is as if the good archbishop deleted his memory banks where the theology was stored. Actually, it appeared as if he was overwhelmed by emotion.
I have just watched the video of Bishop Fulton Sheen posted by Servant of Our Lady. I have watched a few of his talks before. I thought/was under the impression, that he was generally regarded as a very good/holy orthodox Bishop? I can’t tell from this video, whether he is planting/promoting, at an early stage, the new modernist religion, or, in good faith, himself being hoodwinked, just enthusing about JXXIII’s love of his neighbor? Can somebody who knows him better tell me whether Bishop Sheen was a modernist, or not?
Peter, your question is my question at the mo. He was a ‘charistmatic’ public figure of his day, is mostly what I know. I guess we have the faith in front of us and need not turn around in circle regarding any mordernist concept of ‘being concscious’.
PS. Everyday we fall. Even ‘the righteous fall seven times a day’ (unlike the teachings CSLewis, who would every soul spinning in a merciful and lifelong Charybdis = maybe that’s why schimstics/Truth-haters/dissenters love him so much? who can say? Why did he never convert?). The ‘Little Office of the Blessed Virgin’ is helpful (for whichever hours one is ‘awake’ – try and get a pre VII version because they really do differ.
In his 1967 book, Footprints in a Darkened Forest Fulton Sheen wrote (among other things), “It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard’s ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.” Does anyone know of a modernist who rejects Evolution or a traditionalist who accepts it?
Many believe that Bishop Sheen was either brainwashed or silenced (such as Cardinal Mindzsenty and Father Patrick Peyton). I find it hard to believe that anyone who could write Calvary and the Mass could accept the banal N.O. Mass. Bishop Sheen hated communism and knew that Communism was infiltrating the Church. Perhaps, he was in denial when he realized this infiltration had reached the top. I don’t know the answer. However, I believe his wonderful writings and sermons will live on and may perhaps help the Church return to Tradition. Let us pray for that. Here is an interesting article re Bishop Sheen from SSPX:
A blessed Easter to all.
Just part of the coming one world church under Francis and his cronies.
Like that Kraut airline pilot who crashed his airliner, VII clerics are not content with destroying themselves, they are going full throttle to take down as many people as they can.
“Does anyone know of a modernist who rejects Evolution or a traditionalist who accepts it?”
A modernist creature is any cat who does not accept the complete inerrancy
of the Bible, and therefore, acceptance of Evolution, Big-Bang, Old Earth, etc… brands a creature with the stigma of modernism. But sadly, there are some FSSP priests who
embrace all of the above.
I found a reflection I could understand, and fully agree with…
Lovely Lady dressed in blue ——-
Teach me how to pray!
God was just your little boy,
Tell me what to say!
Did you lift Him up, sometimes,
Gently on your knee?
Did you sing to Him the way
Mother does to me?
Did you hold His hand at night?
Did you ever try
Telling stories of the world?
O! And did He cry?
Do you really think He cares
If I tell Him things ——-
Little things that happen? And
Do the Angels’ wings
Make a noise? And can He hear
Me if I speak low?
Does He understand me now?
Tell me ——-for you know.
Lovely Lady dressed in blue ——-
Teach me how to pray!
God was just your little boy,
And you know the way.
Mary Dixon Thayer
@my2cents: From the last paragraph of your link – – (+Sheen) paid a visit to Cardinal Mercier… “Your Eminence’, he asked,’ you were always a brilliant teacher; would you kindly give me some suggestions about teaching?” “I will – always keep current; know what the modern world is thinking about; read its poetry, its history, its literature; observe its architecture and its art; hear its music and its theatre; and then plunge deeply into St. Thomas and the wisdom of the ancients and you will be able to refute its errors.” Could it be that as the years went by that he spent more time in the wading pool of V2 and just floated on St. Thomas?
Regarding Pierre Teilhard de Chardin–it is amazing to see the divisions and controversy stirred by this man’s theories over this last century. Despite Bishop Sheen’s praise of him (which has the potential to be a stumbling block for many) his ideas were called “dangerous to the Faith” by the Holy See PRE-VII. The fact that they were called “brilliant” after it, appears to us to be due to Diabolical disorientation, rather than to clarification of them.
It is apparently not disputed that he rejected the account of creation in Genesis, in favor of evolution, and along with it, (the Church seemed to think) tossed out the dogma of Original Sin. To us, his theories seem to insist that everything and everyone evolves into one big “mind of the cosmos”, ending up united with Christ–WITHOUT any need for freely choosing to belong to the Roman Catholic Faith in the interim.
Thus the mandate to teach and Baptize is nullified by these “new insights” and “brilliant” discoveries of how the universe REALLY works, and the idea that we “help the Muslim be a better Muslim” and all the other false ideas ecumenists promote, becomes the only “sensible” way for Catholics and Christians to behave–if they want to cooperate with God’s plans. The novelty of GRAUALISM–(IT WILL ALL WORK OUT IN THE END, SO BE QUIET AND LET GOD WORK) takes over. We see this as right out of Hell. AND we see this everywhere today, promoted by the very same people who want us to “put dogma and doctrine and talk of sin and Hell, on the back burner” and just “walk” with one another –on this wide road which they insist leads to oneness in God–which is why they have no problem tossing out all the old mandates and teachings and instead, welcoming adulterers and sodomites to receive Holy Communion. But this “evolution” of modernism is what made the rotten fruit far easier to see and smell, and US far more certain that they are wrong.
The fact that “great” minds fall for it, -like Bishop Sheen and Benedict–might make it seem impossible that they could be wrong while we are right. BUT we remember the mandate of Our Lord to teach and Baptize all nations, and realize they say to the contrary, that we don’t need to even try to convert the Jews; we can kiss the Koran, and praise heretical sect leaders while we pray WITH them; and -thanks be to God–the Faith of our Fathers shows us the Truth.
If we are to be “one” it will be as individuals who have freely chosen to follow Christ and be Baptized into His life, death, and resurrection as part of His Mystical Body, the Church– the only thing that can really make us one. Many of our “heroes” are falling off their pedestals–but not The Lord, Who is the same, yesterday, today, tomorrow, –our Way, Truth and Life.
“As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” ( Joshua 24:15)
a little walk down memory lane:
John chapter 14……“Thomas saith to Jesus: Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: “I am the Way…”
John Paul II, Address, Feb. 9, 2001: “The human being is the way… John Paul II, Address in Poland, June 14, 1999: “Man is the primary and fundamental way..
John Paul II, Address, April 7, 1998: “… man is the first way…
John Paul II, June 21, 2002: “… in the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, I wanted to repeat that the human person is the primary and principal way
John Paul II, Letter to Families (# 1), Feb. 2, 1994: “… man is the way…
John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 10, 1989: “… make straight the way of the Lord and of man
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi Apostolatus, Oct. 4, 1903: “While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God
That is a very concise summary, that would fit comfortably into a nutshell.
“And John answered, Master, we saw a man who does not follow in our company casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him to do it. 50 But Jesus said, Forbid him no more; the man who is not against you is on your side.” Luke 9: 49-50
Just a thought.
We haven’t had a chance to review the context of the quotes you’ve cited here, but we know there is plenty of evidence of man-centered thinking among the modernists, such as these two (hopefully beginning and end) samples:
1. John XXII
After he had opened, read and resealed the 3rd secret of Fatima-refusing to make it public- claiming it did not apply to his pontificate the Pope said in his opening speech for Vatican II:
“We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand. In the present order of things, DIVINE PROVIDENCE IS LEADING US TO A NEW ORDER of human relations which, BY MENS’ OWN EFFORTS and even beyond their very expectations, are directed toward the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs. And everything, even human differences, leads to the greater good of the Church.”
2. Francis to the EU in Strasbourg:
“In addressing you today, I would like, as a pastor, to offer a message of hope and encouragement to all the citizens of Europe…to return to the firm conviction of the founders of the European Union, …to work together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship between all the peoples of this continent. AT THE HEART OF THIS AMBITIOUS POLITICAL PROJECT WAS CONFIDENCE IN MAN…”
(His lengthy speech mentioned the Lord once, God 4 times, and humans 29 times. We searched for the words Jesus and Christ, but they each came up
“no matches found”. Sad, but true.
My memory may serve me poorly here, but I remember my Mother (may she RIP) saying that Bishop Sheen was passed over to be archbishop of NY because he was a bit too controversial (Catholic) and that he was made to attend classes to help him get with the program. And he apparently did, judging by his abrupt departure from solid Catholicism to the ecumenism so in vogue in the 70s and today.
first quote–correction John XXIII
+Saint Augustine+ Sermon 92 [CXLII. Ben.]
The divine lessons raise us up, that we be not broken by despair; and terrify us again, that we be not tossed to and fro by pride. But to hold the middle, the true, the strait way, as it were between the left hand of despair, and the right hand of presumption, would be most difficult for us, had not Christ said, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.” As if He had said, “By what way would you go? ‘I am the Way’. Whither would you go? ‘I am the Truth.’ Where would you abide? ‘I am the Life.’” Let us then walk with all assurance in the Way; but let us fear snares by the way side. The enemy does not dare to lay his snares in the way; because Christ is the Way; but most certainly by the way side he ceases not to do so. Whence too it is said in the Psalm, “They have laid stumblingblocks for me by the way side.” And another Scripture says, “Remember that you walk in the midst of snares.” These snares among which we walk are not in the way; but yet they are “by the way side.” What do you fear, what are you alarmed at, so you walk in the Way? Fear then, if you forsake the Way. For for this reason is the enemy even permitted to lay snares by the way side, lest through the security of exultation the Way be forsaken, and you fall into the snares.
All together now:
There are plenty of quotes to be employed alluding to a humanist bent to the teachings of the Popes and Hierarchy since V 2 without our having to truncate some out of context. I don’t know if you made this list or found it someplace with the “clever” juxtaposition of “way”, but it’s comparing apples to oranges. Jesus is telling us He is the Way to the Father. Of (Saint) John Paul II, Benedict XVI said his message was, “man is the way of the Church, and Christ is the way of man. “
– Redemptor Hominus: This man is the way for the Church-a way that, in a sense, is the basis of all the other ways that the Church must walk-because man-every man without any exception whatever-has been redeemed by Christ, and because with man-with each man without any exception whatever-Christ is in a way united, even when man is unaware of it: “Christ, who died and was raised up for all, provides man”-each man and every man- “with the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme calling”.
– From the Vatican, 21 June 2002: “The Second Vatican Council teaches that the mystery of man finds its solution only in the light of the mystery of Christ (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 22). Following this train of thought, in the Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, I wanted to repeat that the human person is the primary and principal way that the Church must travel (cf. n. 14). As they face the tragedy of atheistic humanism, believers have the mission of proclaiming and bearing witness to the true humanism that is manifested in Christ. Only in Christ can the human person be perfectly fulfilled.”
– ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER POPE JOHN PAUL II TO AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS ATTENDING THE “UNIV ’98” CONGRESS Tuesday, 7 April 1998: 3. “Human progress and the rights of the person”. Why is the Church so energetically involved in the field of human rights? The answer stems from an assertion that is dear to me: man is the first way that the Church must take in fulfilling her mission. … the duty to safeguard and promote them is an essential part of the Church’s mission. … The Church must serve man if she wants to serve God. This is a distinctive element of her fidelity to him. Christians are therefore bound to do all they can to give evidence of this belief in their daily lives.
So, it seems to be a recurring theme of J.P.II that man is the way the Church must go to “go forth and teach all…” and bring all men to Christ, Who is the way to the Father.
Let’s not revert to the extremist tactics of ad hominem or disingenuous attacks. Remember, You shall know the Truth & the Truth shall set you free.
Anecdote from Wiki: (Raymond) Arroyo relates that “In the late 1950s the government donated millions of dollars worth of powdered milk to the New York Archdiocese. In turn, Cardinal Spellman handed that milk over to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith to distribute to the poor of the world. On at least one occasion he demanded that the director of the Society, Bishop Sheen, pay the Archdiocese for the donated milk. He wanted millions of dollars. Despite Cardinal Spellman’s considerable powers of persuasion and influence in Rome, Sheen refused. These were funds donated by the public to the missions, funds Sheen himself had personally contributed to and raised over the airwaves. He felt an obligation to protect them, even from the itchy fingers of his own Cardinal.”
Spellman later took the issue directly to Pope Pius XII, pleading his case with Sheen present. The Pope sided with Sheen. Spellman later confronted Sheen stating “I will get even with you. It may take six months or ten years, but everyone will know what you are like.” Besides being pressured to leave television Sheen also “found himself unwelcome in the churches of New York. Spellman cancelled Sheen’s annual Good Friday sermons at St. Patrick’s Cathedral and discouraged clergy from befriending the Bishop.” In 1966 Spellman had Sheen reassigned to Rochester, New York and caused his leadership at the Society for the Propagation of the Faith to be terminated (a position he had held for 16 years and raised hundreds of millions for, to which he had personally donated 10 million of his own earnings).
Sheen never talked about the situation, only making vague references to his “trials both inside and outside the Church”. He even went so far as to praise Spellman in his autobiography.
Apostolic Constitutions Sec 7 LXII …So that it is the duty of a believer to avoid the assemblies of the ungodly, of the heathen, and of the Jews, and of the rest of the heretics, lest by uniting ourselves to them we bring snares upon our own souls; that we may not by joining in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons, be partakers with them in their impiety.
This story seems to be confirmed in many places, including this interview with Sheen’s close relative :
…and while the Apostolic Constitutions are historically indicative only ; we can see their echoes in the Council of Laodicea, which is authoritative.
Council of Laodicia:
Canon 6 It is not permitted to heretics to enter the house of God while they continue in heresy.
Canon 9 The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.
Canon 32 It is unlawful to receive the eulogiæ; of heretics, for they are rather ἀλογίαι [i.e., follies], than eulogiæ; [i.e., blessings].
Canon 33 No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.
Canon 34 No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. …
Canon 37 It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.
Canon 38 It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.
Canon 39 It is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of their godlessness.
So I think its pretty clear what the Catholic Church has taught historically for thousands of years.
Michael F Poulin
In case you missed our reply to Ock, above, we’re reposting it here, as it may be of interest to you -judging from your comments here.
“Here’s some of what Tradition teaches about avoiding heretics– (The list of quotes turned out to be rather long, so we posted it in the forum) Here’s the link:
Dear IF , Yes I did see your forum quote. Many thanks, and I had already copied and pasted it here locally, so I could read and learn thoroughly. I appreciate all the careful research you bring to the discussion. Your brother in Christ, Michael F Poulin
Happy Easter. Christ is Risen. We but need claim that victory. (although the part about what is necessary to claim His victory seems always to be up for contention – especially after Vatican II).
PS. There are many many things in the world ‘…unapproved, but not overuled, by Heaven…’
We’ve got bishops bowing down to receive “blessings” from protestants…they don’t have the faith, they don’t believe in One True Church anymore. Of course they’re gonna praise them and declare them blessed in heaven after they die. It’s what they believe.
And the “faithful” bishops? Where are they? Who is speaking up for the Truth anymore? Besides an extremely small percentage of layfolk in traditionalist circles who grumble and wring our hands to no effect, none.
Even your Cardinal Burkes of the world are mute. I’m sorry folks, the Faith is more than simply being pro-life and anti-sodomite marriage. The latter two items being symptoms of the ills of today rather than the causes.
If we aren’t already living in the Great Apostasy, then tell me just how much further we have to fall before it is so.
Dear Craig V,
We may well be in the Great Apostasy, as well as few in number (relatively speaking). But we would caution you to never underestimate the “effect” of speaking out for the Truth, even though it may be perceived as grumbling or wringing of hands. On this blog alone, we’re seen a number of people log in to tell Louie how some idea or other has affecting their thinking, and thus their lives. Multiply that by all the sites on line, and the countless souls that God may direct to them, and you have only begun to imagine the possibilities for good. Never give up. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fmgCGGYqpDM/TbXCLsvfWEI/AAAAAAAAADo/Xcq63FFaP7I/s1600/defiance_frog_stork.jpg
If all were perfect, what should we have to suffer from others for God’s sake? But God has so ordained, that we may learn to bear with one another’s burdens, for there is no man without fault, no man without burden, no man sufficient to himself nor wise enough.
Hence we must support one another, console one another, mutually help, counsel, and advise, for the measure of every man’s virtue is best revealed in time of adversity–adversity that does not weaken a man but rather shows what he is.
Imitation of Christ
Book 1;chapter 16
Thomas a Kempis
Your a Modernist if ……..
you embrace the Novus Ordo milieu (liturgically and otherwise)
you believe in theistic evolution
you subscribe to the fairy tale of an “old earth”
you believe in heliocentrism
you subscribe to the fairy tale of the “Big Bang”
you believe that modern “Judaism” is a legitimate religion
you support the Americanist understanding of “religious freedom”
you support the illegitimate modern state of Israel
you support (and fund) “Catholic” Answers
you reject the complete inerrancy of Sacred Scripture
you deny the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch
you deny the existence of Limbo
you believe that Judas is (or maybe ) saved
you practice NFP and TOB
you cannot distinguish between a Protestant and a Christian.
Assuming your comment regarding the fairy tale of the old earth is referring to the greater estimates currently used in most science books;-Just curious to know what YOU consider the age to be, and how you determined it? Catholic Encyclopedia says there are approximately 200 different possibilities when determining the time of creation based solely on Biblical data, that range from about 3,500 years B.C. to 7,000 B.C.
Dear Indignus famulus,
If your referring to the same “science” texts that also advocate molecules-to-man
Darwinism, the “Multiverse” and “Climate Change” , well then, yes the comment
is in complete opposition to the statues-quo, bankrupt theories of modern scientism.
As far as an exact date goes, well who knows…why not go with the entry in the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day:
“This Day, the Twenty-Fifth Day of December
In the year, from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, five, thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine; from the flood, two thousand, nine hundred and fifty-seven….”
The notion that the Earth is billions of years old cannot be supported in
Sacred Scripture or in Sacred Tradition.
As an aside, I would exercise caution with regard to some of the articles in the
“venerable” Catholic Encyclopedia. The piece on Noah’s Flood (which rejects its global nature) reeks of modernism.
Thank You for your views on my post !!! Especially “man is the way of the Church, and Christ is the way of man. “ I did not read the homlies, which I should have, but will do now.
That’s a passage that cannot be ignored. It does not affect what was said, though: Schuller was not preaching the same Gospel as the Church – the man rebuked by the Apostles may have been preaching the same Gospel as they did.
There is a always a danger that the Church will misuse her authority to govern herself as a means to squash the action of the Holy Spirit – the persecution of St Joan of Arc comes to mind, and is but example of this happening. In the present state of the Church on earth, such calamities cannot always be avoided – one must hope that from what men do amiss, God will draw good: and that too brings us back to the persecution of St Joan of Arc.
The question remains, whether he said that, or did not – according to Catholic doctrine, everyone has a right to his good reputation, of which he must not be deprived without good and solid reason. This applies to the dead as well – all the more, perhaps, since they are in no position to defend themselves. When the evil done by someone is so certainly established as having been done by him, then in that respect that person has, in that respect forfeited his reputation.
This is why it is not calumny, detraction, slander or gossip to say that Pope Francis (with whatever motives) has committed liturgical abuses – it is simply a fact. His motives may have been admirable, and unless one has very solid reason to suppose otherwise one must presume that his intentions were good and not evil; but the acts in question are, at least materially, abuses of the Liturgy.
How does one know that last point ? Because the Church’s law regarding the Liturgy is as binding on Popes as on all lower clergy – unless a liturgical law is set aside in whole or part, by the act of a legislator with competence to do so, it is binding. So if parish priests can’t use the Liturgy to “make a statement” – neither can the Pope. If it is wrong of them to do so, it is even more, not less, wrong of a Pope to do so. This comes from the character of the Liturgy – just because it is the Liturgy, there are things that one cannot do with it or to it, regardless of one’s place in the Church.
2. As for that saying, it is perhaps worth pointing out that Catholics & Protestants have read each other’s scholarship for a long time – since the 16th century, indeed. The Catholic scholarship of Erasmus (1466-1536) & of the Catholic exiles who produced the 1582 Rheims NT, both had a considerable effect upon the English Protestant Bible of 1611 known in the US as the KJV. Chapter divisions in the Bible, and concordances to it, were both the work of Cardinals – verse numbering was the work of the Frenchman Robert Estienne (AKA Stephanus), who was a 16th-century Protestant, and, like Erasmus, but a generation later, an editor of the Greek NT.
Catholic research into the history of the text of the Vulgate owes a good deal to Anglican scholars as well as to Catholics. There are non-Catholic Thomists, and were, even before V2. On a personal note, I never understood the Catholic notion of Our Lady until I read a book (published in 1938) about her by a certain Bede Frost, an Anglican religious.
So there is no reason to be scandalised if the Servant of God did possess 3,000 Protestant books, and encourage others to read them. Unfortunately the history of Catholic & Protestant scholarship, and of how they have fed one another, is the kind of thing one learns about only if one is interested in it – but most Catholics have much more urgent concerns than the history of scholarship, so they tend not to know about such things. So it can come as a great shock to know of such things – one thinks here of the trouble that has been occasioned by the well-known photo of the six Protestant liturgical advisors at V2.
The Fathers of the Council of Trent relied, not only on St Thomas Aquinas, but also on the non-Catholic Nicolaus Cabasilas. Scholarship on the lives of the Saints is, like Liturgiology, Church History, & the study of Scripture, the work both of Catholics, and of non-Catholics. V2 has made no change in principle to any of this – it encouraged inter-confessional scholarship, not because this was not happening already, but because it had been happening for centuries: it was already an established and normal feature of the Church’s life.
Saying they were historically conditioned is a truism – and saying that they were, in no ways affects their authority. If people think that saying (truly enough, it may well be) “X is historically conditioned” is a good argument against the Divine authority of X, they are mistaken. Something can be historically conditioned – and yet be an instrument or manner of God’s action.
The history of the Biblical books is an excellent example of this – they were & are subject to the same historical conditionality as all other texts on Earth – but they differ from them as well, since it is through these writings, & not through those others, that that God has made a canonical disclosure of Himself.
The human element in things is historically conditioned because man is a creature whose natural environment is history. But because certain words of men are also – and primarily – the inspired Word of God, those words are not adequately accounted for when described as historically conditioned; they are, but they are more than that too; for they are “the Word of God in the words of men”.
Scripture, all of it, is totally Divine – and it is, all of it, totally human. Not one or other, but both. It is the human & natural aspect of Scripture, not its Divine & Supernatural Aspect, that is historically conditioned. To be human as well as natural, is to be historically conditioned. So human words, even those that are inspired by God, are historically conditioned; they do not float above the earth, like the feet of Hindu gods, but are as human as they are Divine. If they existed in a non-human, inaccessible Divine Reality and were not fully human & historically conditioned, they could not be studied by grammarians – there would be no possibility of learning Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek.
This doctrine & theology is a consequence of having a religion that is penetrated by the incarnational principle; Catholicism is pre-eminently a religion of the Incarnation – & that means one has to take God’s Work in history, & and as Creator of all things, including matter & man, with the utmost seriousness. The Church has been doing so for almost 2,000 years
“Can any adherent of the Vatican II new doctrine of the Church ‘subsisting’ however and wherever a modernist chooses, believe this?”
## “Subsists inub” affirms all that “is” affirms – and more besides. Far from weakening or denying what “is” affirms, it agrees with it, builds on it, and goes beyond it. It is simply untenable to argue that because “is” has been replaced by “subsists in”, the Church is no longer claiming what it did in 1950 – it does claim all of what it claimed it then, and more besides. The sense of this part of Lumen Gentium has been deprived of its meaning, much as Dei Verbum 11 has been. If taken in the sense that the context requires, neither part is doctrinally objectionable. But people fail to read theological documents theologically — so they see the Church eating her words, where she is doing no such thing; where she asserting what she did, and developing it.
This sooner this bogeyman is laid to rest for good, the better. There is a very good Wikipedia article on the phrase “subsists in”:
In 2007, there was this:
Very strongly recommended.
Basically, the CC is the Church of Christ – & this does not mean that non-Catholic bodies have no elements of the Church in them; they do. But only the CC has everything that Christ Wills His Church to have – these others, to varying degrees, lack those good things, even though, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, they have some of them.
ISTM that if one believes this, one has a very strong and healthy motive for share-ing the Faith – for why should others, who by God’s grace can be made able to share in all the grace bestowed on the Church of Christ, the CC, be deprived of any of it ? If anything, the Church has even better reason to be missionary than she had in the past. If Lumen Gentium 8 is to be taken seriously, the missionary efforts of the CC should be greater than ever before. There is great irony here.
“Subsists inub” affirms… = “Subsists in” affirms…
share-ing = sharing
That is not close to anything said by C. S. Lewis. He’s been very unfortunate in the U.S. – people either extol him very highly, or refuse to see any good in his works at all. This seems to happen to a lot of public figures. It’s very sad, and not exactly healthy, either. Some Catholics have a very low opinion of him – as do some Fundamentalists.
Speaking for myself, I owe a very great deal to his books – being Catholic in no way cancels, but underlines, the debts of gratitude one has, whether to an author or any other influence; whether one agrees with them or not.
“Why did he never convert?”
## There are several possible answers – he gave his reasons in an essay; I don’t whether it is on-line though. A lot of people ask that. What some Catholics forget is that he was not just Catholic-minded in some ways – he was also, in some ways, Protestant-minded.
Catholics are often not aware of the positive reality of being an Anglican – Catholics might not know anything about Anglican theology or doctrine, except Henry VIII & All That; it does not follow that there has been, & is, no Anglican theology or doctrine; there most certainly is.
This is very informative:
As for this remark:
“Lewis indicates that shortly before his death he was turning toward the Catholic Church. Lewis termed himself “very Catholic” — his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234). Lewis even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198)…”
## – he did indeed confess; to an Anglican priest. The C of E does not regard either Confession or the Anointing of the Sick as sacraments; but it allows for both practices, as the presence in the Book of Common Prayer of forms for both shows. Lewis’ Anglicanism was, in regard to the sacraments, “High Anglican” rather than “Low” – but not so “High” as to be all-but-Roman, unlike some Anglicans. Some Anglicans used the Roman Missal, while being Anglicans – it’s hard to see Lewis as one of them.
STM he was an example of a certain hue of moderate Anglicanism: neither “Roman”, nor “Evangelical”, nor “Orthodox”, but a bit of all, but Christian first & foremost.
The two quotations from Lewis himself are very informative. But his essay “Christian Reunion” is the fullest answer to the question that I know of.
He also corresponded with Blessed Giovanni Calabria – the quotation is on this page:
He foresaw the failure of the stuff that ARCIC has been trying to do:
## That last page is full of good things that help to answer the question, even though his essay seems not to be on-line.
See also this: http://mereorthodoxy.com/invisible-anglicanism-cs-lewis/
The Tolkien-Pearce explanation – that Lewis never overcame being an Ulster Protestant by birth – seems to be unfounded, as “Benchorensis” points out.
Dave Armstrong has an essay on the subject. I disagree with a lot that he says, but here’s the link: http://socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/cs-lewis-and-catholicism-iain-t-benson.html
I hope that is some help.
Another parochial American-centric blog entry, Louie.
You’re going to lose your international audience with all this American-centric coverage of what are parochial matters in the scheme of things.
But it’s your blog, I suppose.
The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
I despair when I read folk trying to claim that Earth is only 6,000 years old. It clearly isn’t.
The fact that Earth is 4.5 billion years old DOESN’T contradict Scripture.
“The fact that Earth is 4.5 billion years old DOESN’T contradict Scripture.”
Take that up with the Holy Ghost (WHO was there, not you) and His scribe
Take it up with the testimony of Tradition, in the consensus of the Fathers of the Church, who in their exegesis of Genesis 1 NEVER taught that the Days of Creation
could be anything beyond six 24hr periods of time.
Take it up with Pope Leo XIII of blessed memory, who taught officially in his encyclical Arcanum (on the Sacrament of Marriage) with regard to
the special creation of our first parents:
“The true origin of marriage, venerable brothers, is well known to all. Though revilers of the Christian faith refuse to acknowledge the never-interrupted doctrine of the Church on this subject, and have long striven to destroy the testimony of all nations and of all times, they have nevertheless failed not only to quench the powerful light of truth, but even to lessen it. We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted 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.”
Consider what the Angelic Doctor had to say about rejecting the long-standing belief and teaching of the Church regarding Creation:
“It is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, to maintain with reference to the Truths of Our Faith, that what we believe regarding Creation is of no consequence so long as one has an exact conception concerning God. Because an error regarding the nature of Creation ALWAYS gives rise to a false idea about God.” (Summa Contra Gentiles)”
The Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost would welcome the fact that man has managed to create the measurements which help validate the truth about God’s creation. Those measurements show that the Earth has existed far longer than for 6,000 years.
Today, humanity possesses artifacts from antiquity which predate 6,000 year time line.
Where in the Bible does it denominate that 24 hours = 1 calendar day? To the best of my knowledge there is no such reference throughout the Bible.
And where is it stated that it is AN ARTICLE OF FAITH to believe that Earth is 6,000 years old?
Yes, the Holy Ghost – along with the other Persons of the Most Blessed Trinity…Divine Love does not LIE. Are we supposed to believe as Catholics that God Almighty allowed the Church to be misled for so long, from the time of Moses to the early 20th century? Are we really supposed to believe that we have suffered under 34 centuries of “fundamentalist” error regarding the creation of the Earth and the universe until in the fullness of time God sent atheists such as Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Charles Lyell, and Stephen J. Gould et al to set- us straight and explain what Genesis really means?
Where in the entirety of Sacred Scripture does it indicate that a day
is millions or billions of years? More to the point, how could that be possibly extracted from a face value reading of Genesis 1?
The constant directive set-forth by the Church regarding the proper
interpretation of Biblical passage is to take them at literal, face-value
“unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise” (cf. Leo XIII”s Providentissimus Deus) neither exception which applies to the Genesis creation narrative. Why? Because the Church as always understood it to be “Sacred History” not purified myth or allegory.
As the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission under St. Pius X decreed:
“III. In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the unity of the human race; the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?”
Answer: In the negative. (Approved by Pope St. Pius X)
The Bible is not a science text book – if someone needs to look
up the periodical table of the elements or the life cycle of the cicada, he needs to search elsewhere. But the Bible is (among other things) a history text, and as such, when it gives basic historical, factual information on how God created Adam or parted the Red Sea or Walked on Water, then it is completely inerrant and Catholics must acknowledge it as such.
Moreover, it is not simple the words of Scripture itself we must consider, but how they are understood in light of Tradition. As stated previously, the Fathers of the Church (who the Church holds as the scribes of Tradition) in the consensus of their teaching held to a belief that the days of Genesis were six 24hr periods of time. And, in order reinforce the importance of that teaching (against the attacks of Protestants and others) the Council of Trent taught infallibly that when the Fathers are in consensus with regard to specific passages of Scripture (e.g. Genesis 1, Matthew 16:18-20, etc..) their teaching reflects Divine illumination and Catholics MUST GIVE their assent to it.
Well said. ‘post-catholic’ modernism is not Catholic Truth. There is a movie out called ‘The Principle’ produced by Robert Sungenis challenging the Copernican principle – using scientific evidence to do so. One very interesting fact brought out by the movie is that the entire physical universal is basically lined up with a central axis on our own (dismissed as one of billions) Earth. The evidence was consolidated only recently – and guess what the ‘scientists’ call that axis? ‘the axis of evil’ because it confounds their religion of the ‘earth is not important/God doesn’t really exist/the bible is fibs’.
interesting site if one does not subscribe in an automaton-like manner to the desperate Dawkinites: http://kolbecenter.org/
When was 24 hours deemed to be a day?
The first record of where a day was recorded as 24 hours is
from the Sumerian civilisation and they existed 2,000 BC.
Add 2015 years to 2,000 years (Sumerian) and we can account for 4,000 of the 6,000 years that Earth is said to have existed.
That leaves a gap of approximately 2,000 years, back to the time you say that Genesis is recording, where there is no evidence that time was measured, much less measured on the basis of 24 hour clock!
How the Council of Trent can say authoratively that six 24hr periods apply to a time which predates, by 2,000 years, the first instance of where time started to be measured, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Earth is not 6,000 years old. If Earth was 6,000 years old, humanity would not possess artefacts which predate that 6,000 year timeline. One or other circumstance is not factual. Both circumstances cannot be correct. It could be the case that those artefacts are incorrectly dated. However given the volume of material which apparently predates 6,000 timeline, one must therefore question the basis for applying a man-made measurement of time to try to derive how old Earth is.
I doubt that the name of the first man and the first woman, as denoted in the Bible, were Adam and Eve too. I doubt that the eating of the apple from the tree of knowledge is historically factual.
I do believe that sin committed by Adam and Eve did consign humanity to it’s fate, but it wasn’t because they ate an apple. It was because they disobeyed a command given to them from God which had nothing to do with eating apples.
Is my faith invalidated because I don’t believe that Adam was called Adam, Eve was called Eve, and that the 24 hour clock is not the basis for the measurement of time for creation? No. Because none of these details determine the substance of what Genesis teaches. They’re not articles of faith.
Literal interpretation of the early Old Testament in particular doesn’t stand up to critical scrutiny.
The Principle Movie is an excellent movie and the thesis it puts forward is correct. I don’t doubt the veracity of what the film says.
But lets not engage in revisionism here about time periods and when time periods were first measured on the basis of the 24 hour clock.
Genesis doesn’t define the measurement of a day. Nor should we expect Genesis to do so. Genesis makes no attempt to be a scientific tome. Putting human defined scientific measurements on such a tome doesn’t make sense.
Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.
Blessed John Henry Newman
Paul, you just engagaed in revisionism by stating the Moses had no concept of a ‘day’ but athiest evolutionsits do.
Meaning? I would guess Cardinal Newman had a context – he usually did.
PS. there is, or was until the 1900s, a proper philosophical distinction between ‘concept’ and ‘idea’. We live in a time of pretty much nothing but post-philosophical post-concept ideas.
You obviously don’t know Bishop Vann, if you did you would not even think of making such an accusation. Your comment is disrespectful and reveals your own ignorance.
“Literal interpretation of the early Old Testament in particular doesn’t stand up to critical scrutiny.”
Perhaps not for a modernist, or a some debauched scientist, nor for any other individual who is complete queen for Darwin. But for a Catholic who reveres the the Church’s Sacred Tradition and the authoritative teaching of the popes on the historicity of Our First Parents and EVERYTHING that went down in the Garden, guess again.