Saturday, May 4, 2024

Aliens, Catechism called "CCC"

My Response to Jimmy Akin on @PintsWithAquinas w/ Matt Fradd (Aliens, Catholicism, the Catechism)
Daniel O'Connor | 18 April 2024

I have never claimed to have seen actual aliens.

I have claimed to have seen three falling stars in formation.

If natural causes can be ruled out (behind my back and over my head), could it have been bearing a prophetic meaning of:

a) end times (Matthew 24:29) and
b) since only three stars fell, of three particular souls in danger?

Because, at the time, I was absolutely not thinking in terms of UFO's, and that was how I took it.

15:30 What were the paragraphs 283 and those around 390 in his original edition?

Because, if they were the same, the man you are citing was a heretic, and not a Pope.

16:19 If §§ 283 and those around 390 were the same in the 1st edition as they are on the 2nd edition I can find online from St. Charles Borromeo Church, other alternatives would be to burn it on a bonfire or put it in a poison cupboard (you know where Seminaries used to put Luther or Loisy and similar).

19:24 I am glad you acknowledge Adam and Eve were two real people.

How do you square it with, quotiting second edition, since that's what I can access online:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."


Original sin - an essential truth of the faith

388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin", by revealing him who is its Redeemer.

389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.


399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

The only mention of Adam and Eve as two individuals is where Scripture "portrays" ... not narrates the facts, but "portrays" ... in 390 the story is said to be told in a figurative way, which need not exclude individualising collective facts.

Meanwhile, back to 283, the modern "scientific" views on the appearance of man (the ones that "many scientific studies" naturally refers to) are incompatible with the Biblical message.

I am a believer in the traditional doctrine, and I reject those modern views as pseudo-science. Yes, Neanderthal skeleta exist, and they were arguably buried a bit before the Flood. That they are never dated more recent than 40 000 BP was my clue for taking 38 000 BC as the carbon date for 2957 BC (should have been 2958 BC, as Jesus is born in 1 BC, but OK).

But if we take a Biblical interpretation of human archaeological data, a k a Young Earth Creationism, we are anyway going against the idea that the majority of scientists (recall "many scientific studies") have a knowledge comparable to that of King Solomon, or that they are dealing with "the appearance of man" ... rather than with the disappearance of pureblooded Neanderthals, Denisovans, Erectus Soloensis (the latter possibly Nephelim) by the Flood of Genesis 6—9.

25:05 Good point.

You have just made an argument for Geocentrism.

Why so? Well, Bible doesn't just limit itself to things below the stratosphere. Habacuc. "in their orbits" in the reference back to Joshua 10.

Heavenly Jerusalem doesn't seem to be a space ship, surrounded by stars on all sides, and also doesn't seem to be below the stars. Therefore, it is above them.

Therefore, the scope of fix stars is a limited sphere, not a whole space without limits, nor to the outer limits of a limited space either.

26:27 There is also St. Virgil of Salzburg, who was under temporary suspicion of heresy for the word "antipodes" ...

He had used the word to refer to places where someone standing would have his feet the opposite way, but was temporarily understood as meaning a population that actually did have their feet the other way; unknown, presumed to not descend from Adam, which is what would have caused the suspicion of heresy.

As it happens, 47°48′00″S 166°57'18" W, the exact Antipode of Salzburg, has no human inhabitants, as it is all sea.

And 41°53′36″S 167°29′02″E is the exact antipode of Rome, between Tasmania and New Zealand.

27:12 That's not Savonarola, that's Giordano Bruno.

He also proposed God the Son was the Sun of basically our Solar System and so on.

He also proposed the universe of stars was infinite, and this happens to contradict the tenet of heaven beyond the sphere of fixed stars.

27:29 The one condemnation of Galileo that has been lifted by an undoubted Pope is his books off the index by Pope Gregory XVI.

The guy who pretended "Galileo was right" in 1992 (if that was the year) was not Pope.

28:33 The canonic trial in 1633 involved a Magisterial statement about his teaching, precisely the same form as the canonic trial of Leonard Feeney, as the Dimond Brothers like to mention (probably the reason why they pretend the teaching is not upheld).

29:51 Ah, it's Pope St. Zachary.

As it's about St. Virgil of Salzburg, Canonized 1233 by Pope Gregory IX, Feast 27 November, I think it is very important that St. Zachary inserted a clause "if the report of his having spoken thus is true" ...

30:23 I don't think Virgil had to repent, he simply had to clarify.

The wording he had used about antipodal places had been unclear, he clarified.

32:13 Here are a few thoughts about Zaninus and Wojtyla:

"L’Église conciliaire va encore plus loin que Zaninus de Solcia: non seulement tous les chrétiens, mais même tous les hom­mes sans exception sont sauvés. « Par son incarnation, le Fils de Dieu s’est en quelque sorte uni lui-même à tout homme » (déclaration conciliaire Gaudium et Spes, § 22, reprise dans le C.E.C., no 521). Jésus-Christ « s’est uni pour toujours à chacun » (Wojtyla, 22 dé­cembre 1979). Donc ou bien Jésus brûle en union avec les damnés, ou bien tous les hommes sont sauvés. Quelle que soit l’option retenue, c’est hérétique."

K. Je crois qu'Il "reviendra juger les vivants et les morts" [HÉRÉSIE DE ZANINUS DE SOLCIA AMPLIFIÉE PAR WOJTYLA]

If you have some clarification that would clear Wojtyla of this, feel free to share it.

34:33 Several relevances to faith and morals.

1) Joshua 10:12 — are the miracle working words of Joshua (distinct from his previous and unquoted prayer), inspired by God, directed at what needs to change the normal / previous behaviour or not? If not, Lutherans in Sweden (19th C.) have concluded that Jesus didn't drive out any demons either.
2) Where are Jesus and Mary physically now? Galileo didn't offend on this point, but Bruno and modern cosmology do, since there is no place beyond the fix stars to see heaven as a material place, which it certainly is, since three dimensional bodies are and will be there.
3) Romans 1, Riccioli considered that Prima Via was the proof from God moving the Universe around Earth, and I concur. Since this version of Prima Via was abandoned (and Riccioli though a Geocentric contributed), Atheism has come to the forefront.
4) Belief in experts is kind of Gnostic. Not belief in observations they make or calculations they make, but believing their powers of logic are beyond ours is Gnostic. Or perhaps rather a superstition like that of the Delphic Oracle. 95 % do not think through the supposed proofs for Heliocentrism, they accept the conclusions of experts as magical thinking.
5) Heliocentrism was popularly, beyond the appeal to experts, also promoted, by Kepler, Euler, Swedenborg, Ellen Gould White, by appeals to the perspective of aliens. Our perspective isn't privileged, they were saying "because aliens have another perspective" ...
6) Distant Starlight Problem for Young Earth Creationism
7) and from there on attacks on Adam created directly and as the first Man, individual fairly recent originator of original sin in all men.
8) Since parts of the actual proof for Heliocentrism are a) God and angels do not exist or b) do not regularly on a daily basis "interfere" in nature, the presumed premises are suggestions to further beliefs of Atheism and Deism, both of which are obviously condemned in 1870.

If Jimmy Akin would dismiss items 6 and 7 as irrelevant, you wouldn't do that with 7, I suppose?

34:43 I think Sungenis cites 9 Papal teachings against Geocentrism.

39:00 Speaking of this, I'm not questioning whether a Catholic can enjoy reading Narnia, but can a Catholic write Narnian fan fiction?

I tried to write one, Aslan became not a parallel incarnation, but the substance of Christ's human body, present under the accidents of a talking lion.

I even underlined it, when Susan Pevensie visits Bethlehem, the chapter heading is "where Aslan was a Lion Cub" ... the problem is, this goes against what CSL himself wrote, specifically the dialogue of Aslan and Bree in HHB.

41:50 I'm sorry, but "among all creatures" would imply that angels were not made in the image of God.

So, Compendium of Social Teaching is in error.

Speaking of which CCC § 390 is also erroneous. "marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

Apart from whether it means Adam and Eve or a bigger group, only 399 mentions them individually, the fauly committed by the one first man is replaced by a fault committed by more than one, so at least two, "first parents" ...

59:15 I would say, some Catholics are not quite fine with me stating Young Earth Creationism is a Theological must ...

We have a thing in common.

No comments: