Fr. Robinson, Part 2

[Published on Pentecost Day:] New blog on the kid: Can Old Earthers Still Believe Mankind Was Created 10 000 Years Ago? · Creation vs. Evolution: Why is Fr. Robinson against Young Earth Creationism? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: SSPX News (feat. Andrew and Fr. Robinson) Try to Defend Old Earth Creationism · Fr. Robinson, Part 2 · Fr. Robinson Attacking Biblical Chronology (But Not Special Creation of Man) (the last one was actually for the afternoon, but here we go)

Didn't the Church Say...? Young Earth Creationism Pt. 2 - Questions with Father #43 - Fr. Robinson
SSPX News - English | 27 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGLkulpmkp0

1:11 Your view of the Galileo case is making a case for Leonard Feeney and for the Dimond Brothers.

I mean, insofar as a decision of the Holy Office in common form is not an authoritative condemnation of a position, on your view.

Here is more:

"but he was very uh 5:05 politically motivated in in the sense that Galileo was putting pressure on the church to conform its interpretation of 5:12 scripture to his ideas um and the problem is that he he didn't really have 5:19 solid proofs for heliocentrism"

This is not so much making the case for Leonard Feeney as making it for the Protestants who pretend the Church was corrupt.

Galileo was obviously arguing for the Church to change her mind and conform to his views, but this by itself, or with lack of solid proofs (a lack still persisting), is not an aggression on the Church, and furthermore, the judgement didn't even say so, it said, simply, his positions were heretic for the one and at least erroneous for the other. I e, both of them are at variance with the deposit of the faith.

On top of giving the Church of back then an objectively bad name, you are also giving yourself subjectively a pretended precedent to marginalise for instance Geocentrics, so they don't "put a lot of pressure" on you while, on your view, not really having solid proofs.

In other words, you pretend the Church back then was committing acts of tyrannic censorship, so that you can commit acts of tyrannic censorship and cover that by the pretended precedent, all the while voiding the decision of its real and stated content.

5:41 "Copernicus was not censured"

He presented his idea as a kind of "diagram" rather than as physical reality.

6:01 For Nicolas Oresme, the full detail would go as follows.

1) He presents Heliocentrism. Defines what it means.
2) He answers common sense objections to its details.
3) AND he ends it all by turning around and saying that it is a completely superfluous hypothesis, that by common sense, what appears to us, directly to our senses, has a higher priority claim on our reason than anything else it could be interpreted as, as long as there are no cogent reasons for preferring the less obvious interpretations.

So, he treats Heliocentrism as some philosophers today treat "the shrinking universe" hypothesis. Each day the universe and everything in it is only half as big in every dimension as before. Observers don't notice because they are also shrunk. Physics doesn't reveal it, since constants are adjusted. On each hard line logic objection, the hypothesis can be defended, but, I think most and all sane philosophers conclude, the universe remaining roughly speaking the same size and above all things around us remaining roughly speaking the same size is actual knowledge, since the alternative hypothesis is less apparent, indeed in and of itself non-apparent, and therefore has no equal claim on our reason. Nor is there any other cogent reason to suppose the universe shrinks. That's the equivalent on Nicolas Oresme on Heliocentrism, i e he is not very respectful of it.

Since he became Bishop of a city hallowed later on by St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus, I hold his view in high regard.

I hold that Heliocentrism is still a superfluous hypothesis.

Buridan I am less well informed on, whether it was my sources or is my memory.

"the holy office were were receiving pressure from 6:10 Galileo to uh basically make official that the the church um adopt Galileo's 6:20 interpretation of the passages of scripture"

This is totally unhistorical.

Beyond the logic of things (and logically Galileo was in the wrong) he had absolutely no means to put pressure on the Holy Office. It's not like Harvard putting pressure on the Vatican today if that were to happen, since science as an institution was so much smaller.

It can also hardly be shown that he even tried to "put pressure" on the Holy Office.

But even if that had been the case, even if the Holy Office had been in a tight spot (you are basically presenting them as Goliath feeling threatened by David!), if they represent the Church, we cannot lightly suppose they simply overreacted this once.

Especially as there were two trials, the one in 1616 only condemning the thesis, the one in 1633 obliging the author to abjure as well. Fr. Robinson would need to explain two miscarriages of ecclesial justice to get away with this.

This view of the Holy Office is more worthy of an Orthodox theologian writing his "against the errors of the Latins" thesis, than of a priest who is supposed to represent Roman Catholic teaching.

The ahistoricity also matches that of the accounts of "St. Peter the Aleut" if this anti-Catholic canard is known (he may have been a real saint in the end, but his martyrdom is bogus, perhaps his fellow Aleuts wanted to protect a friend who had received Catholic communion (under one species and that one azyme) against the curse of Hermann of Alaska (who had specifically warned them before they went off to California)). A canard which was obviously used in diplomacy for saying Russia would be better suited to administrate California than Catholic Spain was.

"one of the things is 6:32 is that Galileo was putting forth bad Arguments for heliocentrism um he was he was arguing 6:39 from like the movement of the tides and and some phases in Venus uh for 6:46 heliocentrism and the Jesuits knew that these these arguments were not 6:51 conclusive um there there were not there were no conclusive Arguments for heliocentrism until like two centuries later"

I) In fact not even two centuries later.

The Catholics who interpreted the Bessel phenomenon as "parallax" (i e as the same phenomenon which can be described as "I saw trees swish away beside the train") were omitting the question whether the movements in question could be some kind of elaborate and ceremonial dance performed by angelic movers.

If it can't, if angels don't move heavenly bodies, contrary to Daniel 3 and Job 38 (the passages could also be interpreted as angels being heavenly bodies, but that view is less well seen among at least Latin rite Catholics since at least the Scholastics) well perhaps the annual orbit of earth is a more obvious explanation for parallax than a gravitational field as suggested by Sungenis.

But the key factor is, the reason why nothing was asked about angelic movers was, the Jesuits had survived under régimes of Enlightened Despotism. Régimes which promoted a Deistic view on God's role as creator. "The good clockmaker doesn't need to constantly meddle with his clockwork" ... to which St. Thomas would have answered "the good violin builder is not dishonoured by playing his own violin" ... the question is whether the visible universe is more of a clockwork of blind mechanics, or more of instruments of beauty wielded now (if far away) by actual spirits with actual wills.

In this latter case, which is the historic stance of the Church, Ia Pars, Question 110. How angels act on bodies, there is no reason to consider parallax as an illusion due to earth itself moving, or in other words, there is no reason to consider the Bessel phenomenon as parallax, even if it is commonly so named. So, the exact moment when Galileo's lack of proof was supplemented by actual proof, on your view, is when it actually wasn't, there was in 1838 as little reason to believe Heliocentrism as there was in 1633.

II) But above all, he was in reality not condemned to abjuration and to lifelong house arrest for having argued badly, he was condemned to submit to those measures because he had argued for a bad idea or rather two of them. The ones he was obliged to abjure.

6:53 It is sloppy to state "the Jesuits knew these arguments were not conclusive" ...

It's as sloppy as Pius XII (if still such) in 1951, when stating "these measurements are very exact" ...

The measurements of lead and uranium isotopes in the samples as to present content are no doubt very exact, but there is no measuring of the original content, there is only estimate, a) back in his time probably that all lead of a certain isotope was from uranium, b) in our time, perhaps already then, that all lead of a certain isotope above the statistically normal content of that isotope when found together with uranium, comes from uranium, and as to the halflife, even observing the sample a years supposedly gives 1 billionth of a halflife worth of decay, which is not enough to be exact about.

In the case of Galileo, you are right, however. Let's show why:

I) Galileo had imagined what the movements of the tides should be, and a Portuguese Jesuit knew what the Atlantic coast tides actually were. I e, the theory, even the proof, contradicted the observed facts.

II) The phases of Venus are totally inconclusive between Copernican (roughly speaking) and Tychonian (roughly speaking) cosmologies. The relative movements of the three bodies is the same.

NOW, once again, Galileo was not forced to abjure as a penalty for being a bad scientist, he was not put into a house arrest, where only family, clergy and strangers who were anyway heretics could visit him, for not fully proving his point. He was condemned to these things for being in error. And for nothing else.

IF the Church was right on those passages of the Scriptures back then, that reading remains right now. Geocentrism remains obligatory.

If the Church was wrong back then, what guarantees the Church is better off now? Namely with general acceptance of Heliocentrism or rather, since the Solar System is supposed to not be the centre of the Universe, and that centre to be unknown, if even extant, Acentrism.

7:15 The data of telescopes of our time are still compatible with Tycho Brahe's system, at least if slightly updated, as per Riccioli.

Nothing in any telescope observation directly contradicts the expectations of Tycho Brahe, if, as Riccioli did, you adjust for admitting Kepler was right that the orbits are slightly elliptic.

The crux of the Tycho Brahe system however is, it involves Venus or Jupiter moving in what can best be described as Spirograph patterns. Copernicus thought them unaesthetic, they are not easy to describe mathematically. Modern (at laast amateur) astronomers usually consider them more like impossible, because they refuse to take into account that they could be performed by angelic movers.

8:03 "Scientists today" (if you arbitrary exclude the Geocentric ones) certainly believe the second clause, that the earth is mobile.

He was not just told not to teach, he was required to repent, and not just both theses conjunctly, but each separately.

So, mobility of the earth certainly still is condemned and certainly still is what Heliocentrism or any other name of modern cosmology believe.

You seem to be even conflating two different processes. In 1616, he was required not to teach. In 1633, he was required to abjure.

Your history of the Galileo case is as erroneous as your history of the Fundamentalist dispute which is more recent.

8:22 Yes, exactly, modern cosmology is better called Acentrism than Heliocentrism.

Now, Acentrism ascribes more movement to the Earth than Galileo did, not less, so therefore conflicts with his second abjuration.

9:20 I happen to know David Palm, have in the past interacted with him, myself defending Geocentrism.

He is willing to resort to an Atheist Scientist who is willing to argue from Atheistic principles in "debunking" Geocentrism. Alec Mc Andrew.

I had "Alec Guiness" in my head, knew that was wrong, Alec Guiness played Father Brown and more famously Obi Wan Kenobi in 1977, and he converted to Catholicism.

Now, unlike him, Alec McAndrew is an Atheist. David Palm is basically willing to assume Atheism in order to argue against Geocentrism.

At the very least he is assuming profane sciences should be done with methodological Atheism. Otherwise a fairly great guy, but he's hugely wrong on that one, as well as, I think, in supporting Old Earth.

9:52 Are you making a case for Fr. Leonard Feeney?

The Dimond Brothers love to state that Pius XII condemning Fr. Leonard Feeney does not fall under the infallibility of a Pope, since it was made in exactly the same form as the 1633 condemnation of Galileo.

10:33 Two problems with the thing.

a) The dicastery need not have the same canonical status as the Holy Office had, even if "Francis" is Pope;
b) if Bergoglio is not the Pope, the dicastery putting out Fiducia Supplicans is anyway not the Holy Office in any way shape or form.

11:38 I am now noting, even the assumption that the Dicastery has, and formerly the Congregation had exactly same status, Fiducia Supplicans is not comparable as a document.

Why? The sentence of the Holy Office in 1633 contains an actual statement "this is heresy, this is at least error" .. Fiducia Supplicans doesn't.

I think the Pontifical Biblical Commission falls under it, and I note "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" is also not containing anything resembling an actual canon of the faith.

So, how about not agreeing with that one?

12:01 The reasons why the grade of theological certainty was not far below De Fide is that for the one of the statements, the Holy Office actually used the contrary term "formally heretical" ... the one concerning the position of the earth however was "at least erroneous" which makes Geocentrism "at least vera sententia" ... in theology.

And the reason that the grading was lower was because some of the Biblical verses actually do speak of the earth in some ways moving like "exsultet terra" and "at his wrath the earth shall tremble" which makes for some kind of relativisation of "non movebitor in aeternum" ... if the Holy Office had had the idea, "what matters is not the text, but the interpretation of the text" well, they would have gone for it and dogmatised there too. Credits to Sungenis on this one.

12:40 This is not what I had read about the 1820 decree.

But I note, it is still not a decree allowing to believe Geocentrism, just a decree allowing to "sustain" it, i e in teaching or debate. Precisely as in Humani Generis.

It can be noted, that the cited passage does not forbid to sustain that Geocentrism is true and obligary, any more than to believe it, as per the 1633 decision.

Anfossi was denied to censor Settele, he was not himself censored.

Likewise, the 1822 decree does not force any printer to censor books defending Geocentrism.

13:51 In fact, the injunction of 1616 to Galileo is the only thing "corrected" in 1820 or 1822.

The decisions on doctrine, both then and in 1633, were not.

And when it comes to "irreformabiles" I think the oldest or one of the oldest statements about that say "nisi quid subreptum sit" which may apply to 1820~1822, since, as Sungenis claims, unless he's wrong, the Holy Office had no access to the actual decrees from 1616 and 1633, since Napoleon had stolen the archives.

13:56 "it's for everyone, not just for Galileo"

Actually not for Galileo until 1836, under Gregory XVI, when his works were lifted from the Index Librorum.

Now, I looked up the 1820 decree, namely concerning "sustain" and I found this, speaking about the work of Settele:

He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace

[Decree of Approval for the Work "Elements of Astronomy" by Giuseppe Settele, in support of the Heliocentric System
Pius VII 1820, August 16 [Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science]
https://inters.org/approval-Settele-heliocentric]

The problem is, the Pope may have been misinformed about the exact nature of the difficulties in former times, as Sungenis has stated, and he may have been naive about the proof value of the recent astronomic observations as to proving Heliocentrism.

I think they absolutely do not prove Heliocentrism, and also, he doesn't directly say they prove Heliocentrism, he simply states they have "lifted difficulties" ... like as if he had been told, falsely, that the only problem for Galileo was, he couldn't prove his doctrines scientifically. Which is egregious.

15:01 The second decree in fact does not censor people who argue against Geocentrism.

It censors printers who censor Heliocentric books. It nowhere censors argument, and even vehement argument against Heliocentrism.

At least as per the quote you have so far given.

15:09 No, they are not doing that today. They are not papal printers or ecclesiastic printers elsewhere, and they are not Masters of the Sacred Palace, and they do not refuse Heliocentrics permission to print or make youtubes.

Proof? They have not tried to stop you from making this youtube!

There is something deeply flawed in your reading of texts, if you can read "don't censor books for heliocentrism" as "do censor appeals for geocentrism" ....

15:26 I am not the least denying the canonic validity of the 1909 decree, I am just saying, it does not apply to modern Old Earth Creationist positions, except that of the Watchtower Society.

In the Old Earth positions of Hugh Ross and Swamidass far more is involved than just reading "day" as extended periods of time. Far, far more. Things Fulcran Vigouroux would never have dreamed of endorsing.

It's a bit inconsistent, perhaps not just a bit, that you can state "it was ok to overturn the decrees of 1616 and 1633 because new data came forth" (even if only minor parts of those decrees were overturned, and that in favour of debate) while at the same time denying that new data can have made the permission (not obligation) in 1909 obsolete.

15:46 A purely permissive decree cannot be binding forever in and of itself.

And the decree in 1909 in favour of a very specific Old Earth position (not exhausting your own, I am positive) was purely permissive.

16:28 Noting on his wording.

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18).

Which ones precisely?

The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering.

He said "the truth of Scripture" and not "the truth of faith as contained in Scripture."

The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.

He said about the "particular explanation" in regards to the senses in which a given passage (verbatim Holy Scripture) can be explained, not in regards to such in which it textually speaking cannot.

17:25 Now, there is at least one passage in Scripture in which Geocentrism is a necessary sense.

Joshua 10:12. Note, I am not speaking about 13, which gives the result, and that result could by the narrator have been described in phenomenal language. No, I am speaking of the wording of the miracle worker. Joshua worked a miracle after praying. The words of his prayer are not given, the words "Sun" and "Moon" are not ways in which he would have adressed God, so the words that are given must be the subsequent words of Joshua as working the miracle.

If Joshua thought or allowed surrounding Hebrews to think, and this was an error, that Sun and Moon ordinarily circled Earth and were stopping, why stop there? Why not say demonic possession is a bad explanation of mental illness, and Jesus when driving out unclean spirits was in error or allowing surrounding Hebrews to be in error about the existence of demons, especially in the context of possession?

By working miracles immediately on such words, it would have made God Himself a deceiver, if either Earth is what rotates each day, or mental illness is all there is to demonic possession.

It's not like Columbus praying "let us arrive to India" and naturally navigating, ships arrived on Hispaniola, it's like if Columbus had stood up on ship, and commanded the waves "bring us speedily to India" and suddenly waves had started driving the ships onward at motorboat speed (a clearly miraculous speed) and they had arrived at Hispaniola. God would have in such a miraculous case endorsed that Hispaniola was India.

17:42 You don't want to muddy the waters between theology and science?

But censoring arguments for the scientific side of either Geocentrism or Young Earth Creationism, as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet has in practise done when it comes to my writing (yes, I have lots of articles that are technical, how Genesis is history, not on how it is God's word, how Geocentrism works with gravitation, not just how it's required by Joshua 10, how the Geocentric view allows to prove God philosophically but also do away with the distant starlight problem), "because the whole matter is theology" when it comes to defending the traditional view, that's OK?

Now, that's hypocritical.

To be precise about the censoring. No one there stopped me from physically writing. No one there has so far stopped me directly from spreading my blogs. But they definitely did put a shadow of suspicion around my writings, so as to make it very unlikely that people there, especially young people, would dare to read them.

"but I would just say that that 17:45 those who like cling desperately to geocentrism thinking that they're saving 17:50 scripture um should understand that they're they're not saving the inherency of scripture scripture can be understood 17:56 in multiple senses and those passages seem to point point to geocentrism can be understood as as not teaching 18:03 geocentrism and that's the prudent interpretation of those passages"

Apart from me just showing at least one passage which can not be so understood, not without damage to theology as a whole, Joshua 10, specifically verse 12, this is a huge strawman of Geocentrism.

"Desperately" "thinking they're saving Scripture" ...

There is in fact no desperation about me being Geocentric, and there are much wider issues involved than just the inerrancy of the "passages that seem to teach Geocentrism" — I actually enumerated 8 of them on the post and in the comments section commenting on a video by Daniel O'Connor:

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.

Two of them are obviously already mentioned, numbers 1 and 6.

"that's similar to the 20:53 young Earth creation to say that if you want to be Catholic you have to believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old"

I look up the quote. The exact cipher of 6000 years seems totally irrelevant to the quote, you could go beyond 6000 years by LXX chronologies and speak of 7200 years old or 7500 years old, no contradiction.

The exact quote is this:

Deus…creator omnium visibilium et invisibilium, spiritualium et corporalium: qui sua omnipotenti virtute simul ab initio temporis utramque de nihilo condidit creaturam, spiritualem et corporalem, angelicam videlicet et mundanam: ac deinde humanam, quasi communem ex spiritu et corpore constitutam.

God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body (D.428).

Each creature would not imply each individual cat. But it would imply that cats and dogs did not evolve from a common ancestor.

Again, from the beginning of time, cats were there from the beginning of time, so were dogs, and so were dinosaurs. The cats and dogs did not have to wait to be created until God had first created and then extinguished dinosaurs.

You could go beyond Biblical chronology with this quote. You could pretend the Sumerians had the right history just the wrong theology, and Sumerian King List tells us the earth was

28,800 + 36,000 + 43,200 + 28,800 + 36,000 + 28,800 + 21,000 + 18,600 = 241,200 years old when the Flood came.

Or you could take the timespan of Silmarillion or the timespan of Hyperborean Age in Conan after King Kull had ruled a much older age.

What you do not get is dinosaurs dying out millions of years before dogs and cats were created.

25:49 I would definitely say it proves there was no succession of faunas or of floras or of celestial objects prior to life in the biological sense.

Biblical chronology is not exactly what we prove here.

Did Fulcran Vigouroux adress this one?

26:22 It's from a 1920's volume of this work that I know that Young Earth Creationism persisted up to 1890's in the Germanies.

Now, 1895, Fr. Vacant is obviously partial to Fulcran Vigouroux who has already pronounced himself in around 1880.

29:17 OK, first, there is a Biblical parallel to the quote.

He that liveth for ever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king for ever
[Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:1]

I think that too rules out dinosaurs lived in their eco-systems complete while there were no cats and dogs, and cats and dogs arrived in theirs, when there were no longer any dinos, and not yet any men.

29:17 bis. There is actually some danger in believing a council will only condemn the heresies that are there.

Trent condemned lots of things that are not held by Protestants.

First four or even five councils are a mess, in a way, because 1 subject was divided into two councils (Trinitarian theology) and another one (Christology) into five.

Groups were splitting off believing they had been faithful to the previous council. One should not read Lateran IV as only condemning Albigensian error. Especially, I think the quote is from a creed, that was imposed on converting Waldensians and Albigensians. (Firmiter credimus?)

30:56 I think this is by now 12 minutes that you have not once spoken about how the wording of the decree excludes successive faunas.

But you have more than just once pretended the Young Earth Creationist party were using this specifically for the Biblical timeline.

[The Firmiter of Lateran IV in Its Historical Context Defines the Fiat Creation of All Things
November 9, 2019 by Hugh Owen
https://kolbecenter.org/the-firmiter-of-lateran-iv-in-its-historical-context-defines-the-fiat-creation-of-all-things/]

"the young Earth creationists they take this word simul the 31:10 Latin word seo simul which can mean at once and they say well see this decree 31:17 is saying that God created uh the universe and the angels at the same 31:24 time um I don't know how they get from there saying to say saying that it was 6,000 years ago"

In November 9, 2019, Hugh Owen wrote a pretty long essay on this, and the mention of Biblical timeline simply isn't in it.

It just mentions that creatures were not created with great intervals, there was not for instance any succession of faunas.

"but St 32:14 Thomas aquinus in commenting on on this passage from scripture this quotation 32:19 from scripture he explains it as meaning that God created all things according to 32:24 the same plan"

In his language, that's probably how he would describe an eco-system.

In other words, St. Thomas also supports the idea that there were no successive very different eco-systems, with lots of things getting added later on.

32:18 Now, in Classical as well as Ecclesiastic anno 1200 Latin, "simul" means "at once" ...

In the Vulgate, it is actually ambiguous. St. Jerome translated it from a Greek word meaning "together" which would in Classical Latin have been "iunctim" ... very archaic in his time. He had been told to be popular, so he used "simul" — in the sense of "insimul, insieme, ensemble" ... in St. Augustine's popular, it would have been different.

But even "together" excludes typical Old Earth beliefs, since Old Earthers typically deny that Dinos and men were ever creatures on earth together.

32:33 No, St. Thomas was not commenting 50 years before Lateran IV. You put him in the wrong century.

"there have been fathers of the church who believed in geocentrism there' have been fls of the church who who believed um in 36:10 a young Earth young Earth I would say most of the fathers of the church believed in a young Earth"

No one didn't.

"at the same time the the fathers had very 36:24 different readings of Genesis 1 and they admitted clearly that they they didn't know exactly how to 36:30 interpret it"

No one proposed the Day Age solution.

"there was effectively you know three major different36:36 interpretations of um Genesis 1 one one was considering that um you know it's it 36:44 should be read exactly as it is there is 6 24hour periods um the the other held 36:51 that there there was basically um an instantaneous creation um and then and then a third 36:57 position was basically the allegorical position is saying that that uh the six 37:04 day description is purely a teaching tool used by God to make us understand 37:10 that he created everything and that he ordered all of creation"

Can you show your position "2" (one moment creationism) differs from and was held by different fathers from your "3" the days were allegorical tools (and anyway, was anyone using "allegorical" in that context?)?

37:51 If Protestants in the United States start a pro-life movement, while Catholics are temporarily more discreet, would that make pro-life un-Catholic?

But if Protestants start a pro-life movement while Catholics are very active, that means, Protestants are just catching up with Catholics, which is a good thing.

The movement by Wilberforce was somewhat more radical than Catholic crusaders just fighting against slave hunters, notably Muslim such. Even so it's not anti-Catholic.

Wilberforce was doing basically what Queen St. Bathilde had done.

Same here. Now, it's very clear that when the Young Earth Creationist movement started, it was actually Protestants who had started the Old Earth Movement. Abraham Gottlob Werner was buried at the churchyard of a Protestant Church in Dresden. James Hutton was a Deist after starting as a Calvinist. Georges Cuvier was a Protestant from Montbéliard and ...

Prior to the fall of Napoleon (1814) he had been admitted to the council of state, and his position remained unaffected by the restoration of the Bourbons. He was elected chancellor of the university, in which capacity he acted as interim president of the council of public instruction, while he also, as a Lutheran, superintended the faculty of Protestant theology. In 1819 he was appointed president of the committee of the interior, an office he retained until his death.

while his associate Alexandre Brongniart was buried on the Père Lachaise Cemetery, not blessed by the Church. Like Oscar Wilde, since his death bed conversion did not involve full formal incorporation into the Church. So, Alexandre Brongniart is also close to the nearly Freemason Augustin-François de Silvestre. More precisely, he was in the Société philomathique de Paris, which was meant as a scientific transposition of freemasonry.

If Deep Time had been a political movement, you'd be condemning it.

Meanwhile, the generation in Paris before Vigouroux was primarily Young Earth Creationist, even if that changed when he was active. In the Germanies explicit defenses of Young Earth Creationism held out to 1890's and have obviously not been banned after an initial publication with Nihil Obstat. Your historiography is misleading.

38:26 No, the earth being 4000 years old when Christ was born did not originate with the Protestants, and if you think it was 5200 or 5500 years instead, you have very famous Catholic timelines for the Biblical history, by St. Jerome and by George Syncellus.

However, some did in fact prefer 4000 years, even before the Reformation, like Bede in Six Ages of the world. Dito for the author of Postilla in libros Geneseos, which I think is by St. Thomas Aquinas before he became a Dominican, and on my view revised his Latin. Others have discarded his authorship, but hardly proposed much of a case for any other.

38:51 "we don't know exactly how the Fathers would respond"

I would say, the burden of proof is on the one who's proposing they would disagree with their known writings.

40:08 Yeah, part of the modern confusion starts when Vigouroux, as you put it "channels" the Fathers. For my part, I'm content to cite them.

"we certainly know that they paid attention to the science of their times and they were careful about um not 40:22 putting forward an interpretation that was clearly contradicted by obvious facts"

That's two very different things.

And the first of them is even a non-thing. "The science of their day" is an entity that does not exist. It's like saying THE language of Switzerland. Or THE language of Europe. In questions we would now classify as scientific, there were several competing schools of philosophy. Not ONE exclusive school of science. Nor is there now, since we have Creation Science. Which in and of itself is also not a SINGLE but a MULTIPLE phenomenon.

"the position of some of the fathers that everything was 41:33 created instantaneously fully formed LED them to hold the Six-Day 41:39 description was purely allegorical that there was nothing historical about it"

That's your resumé, I'd like to know which fathers and read their own words.

42:14 Interpreting Genesis 1 as history over a long period of time would be OK (and I was OK with it, starting some time after I converted, ending when I read City of God) if it was only a question of Genesis 1. It's not.

a) Biblically it's not, since a long period between the first matter and Adam is excluded by Mark 10:6 and Luke 17:50,51, and arguably already by Exodus 20.
b) Scientifically it's not, since the Deep Time arguments we have and which are presented as "science" are not compatible any more with a first man coming billions of years after Earth was formed but only 10 000 years ago. In Vigouroux' day, it was still an option. I see the dispensation of 1909 like as if Noah had made a special law about Atlantis. It would have ceased to be applicable when Atlantis sank. Carbon dates have sunk the Vigouroux / Guibert version of Old Earth.

42:39 Again, there is a difference between feeling obliged to start the six days at "6000 years ago" (standin for any Biblical chronology) and feeling obliged to end them there.

Adam fell after Creation was finished, not some time midway through the millions of years long day six.

43:28 Do we regularly find Fathers exposing one and the same doctrine or Bible passage with the four humours?

Or are you just concluding they "all" believed it because it was "the" science of the day?

Again, "the" science of the day doesn't really exist even now, but back then it was obvious.

Plus, as the Fathers actually were divided on the shape of the Earth, some being Flat Earth and St. Basil being flippant and disrespectful about why the philosophers even bothered, it is pretty clear not all fathers believed in Crystalline spheres, as that was part of the Aristotelic view. Ptolemaic as well. Not shared by St. Hippolytus.

So, bloodletting is a medical procedure which actually has some effect in alleviating high blood pressure and fever. That sometimes is useful. That it was abused and that George Washington died from its overuse is no argument against that.

But when I look up Bloodletting, it is clear that Galen is known, but the fathers are not known in this context.

So, I am not holding my breath for upcoming quotes from them.

44:39 You are always so eager to state how your own position doesn't really affect the faith, and always hinting that the Young Earth Creationist position is harmful ...

Seems very imbalanced if you want my view.

45:18 Thanks for the analysis, but ... Young Earth Creationists these days tend to believe in Baraminology, which the Old Earther Hugh Ross has described as "hyper-evolution" ...

Then there is perhaps a kind of scientific circumspection you lack.

If the man of Tautavel is within the last 10 000 years, his date at 300 000 BP from K-Ar is very off, suggesting other K-Ar dates could be very off.
If the Neanderthal of El Sidrón is dated to 40 000 years old ... my bad ...

Torres et al. (2010) published a series of radiocarbon, AAR, ESR and OSL dates from the site of El Sidrón, northern Spain, which is notable for the discovery of the partial remains of 12 Neanderthals. Whilst the non-radiocarbon methods suggested an age beyond 32 600–46 300 years, direct radiocarbon dates on the human fossils were inconsistent, ranging between 10 000 and 50 000 bp. This study uses the ultrafiltration pre-treatment protocol to obtain a date of 48 400 ± 3200 bp (OxA-21 776) on a bone fragment and confirm the antiquity of the Neanderthal assemblage. Moreover, it demonstrates the comparability of the ultrafiltration and ninhydrin bone radiocarbon pre-treatment protocols, and highlights the need for appropriate screening methods where valuable collections with poor biomolecular preservation are sampled for collagen extraction.

A new date for the Neanderthals from El Sidrón Cave (Asturias, northern Spain)
February 2013 Archaeometry 55(1):148-158, Rachel Wood et al.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236615998_A_new_date_for_the_Neanderthals_from_El_Sidron_Cave_Asturias_northern_Spain

So, I take it this means, dates were at first differring very widely bc of contamination, the ultrafiltration got rid of that, and the "clean" dates are around 48 000 BP.

So, if the NeanderthalS of El Sidrón ARE dated to 48 000 BP, and if they descend from an Adam alive 10 000 years ago (at most), they are no older than 10 000 years, arguably younger.

48 000 - 10 000 = 38 000. However, that would mean an atmosphere down in 1.008 pmC. An impossibility in an atmosphere that is that much older, like a billion years old, and also not reckoned on by mainstream scientists. They think the samples started at c. 100 pmC and are consequently really 48 000 years old, give or take.

49:04 "He didn't just create the billions of light years of our current universe"

Did he create billions of light years at all?

"billions of galaxies"

Do we find that?

Both propositions depend on an interpretation problematic for a Heliocentric, but near senseless for a Geocentric.

49:23 "the universe tells a history" "the universe has a life cycle"

These are metaphors. No linguist learned the six cases of the universe's noun grammar. No text critic joined the most authentic versions of that story into a book. No biologist studied the life cycle of the universe or even of a star.

Believers in this ideology may do well to reflect what the real "texts" or "cycles" are meant as, and how different their so called knowledge is from linguistic or medical

51:55 I think after you have accused "Protestants" as in Young Earth Creationists as in including Catholic ones of having too high a view of God's freedom, it's a bit startling if you turn around and say God has the freedom to contradict His own statements by doing them differently from what the text actually says.

And after gassing on how you pretend Protestants use "their own interpretation of the Bible" it's unbecoming to turn around and say the Church can arbitrarily change the interpretation of the Bible by a statement of 1909.

What the Church could do and did was give a dispensation.

52:21 As Young Earth Creationist, I offer you the butterfly effect of the Flood.

God sends a meteor to Yucatan, the fountains of the deep are opened, the heat is producing lots of evaporation and therefore lots of rain over 40 days and nights, the continents are set in motions for which remainders are still seen ...

both as rise of Himalayas and as continental drift

52:59 "He does not do anything in a rushed manner"

Is healing leprosy or providing wine in seconds "rushed"?

53:12 The waiting time for the Messias:
a) is motivated by Adam having sinned, the need equals a non-right which needed to be offset by prayer -- a situation which did not prevail before Adam sinned;
b) is an excellent resumé about Deep Time as applying after Adam and before Abraham.

5199 years, given the evils before the Flood and at Babel and around the captivity in Egypt and around apostasies of Israel caused further delay, fine.

750 000 years, as William Lane Craig wants it, not fine.

On this item, even Vatican II is more Orthodox than you.

God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

Dei Verbum, § 3 of the English text.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Note, ceaselessly.

Between Babel and Abraham, it was diluted in the gentile tribes, but didn't fully disappear until the times of Abraham. His pharao would have been a pre-dynastic one. Ruling only Lower Egypt, that is the North. That way, though he may have participated in idolatrous acts, he was not yet taking idolatry for granted, as the Pharao of the Exodus was.

As to doctrine, Amerindian paganism is closer to Christianity than Classic paganism, but it often involves gravely immoral rites, of course. This relative better preservation of the original revelation is more explicable if the time between the Flood and the settling of the Americas was relatively short.

53:41 "there is a clarification of Catholic dogma over time"

Usually done by checking and double checking the Bible.

55:29 While a Christian believing Deep Time and Deep Space is at least at first likely to draw your conclusion (which is true, but not because of that premise), Atheists are more prone to treat these as the Universe having some Ersatz version of attributes of God.

And Christians do apostasise.

"a vast conspiracy has to have taken place"

Low key conspiracies can easily get vast.

It's a low key conspiracy to treat a mere permission which is worded in preliminary language, as if it were a ban on considering the permitted version either banned or even bannable per se, irrespective of canonic status.

It's also a low key conspiracy to treat people proposing a rare epxlanation as if they were conspiracy theorists.

All such a conspiracy takes is laziness, haughtiness, knowledge of the precedent.

"The Modernists were so subtle that they were able to trick St. Pius X"

Not so, what he allowed Fr. Vigouroux to reaffirm is actually a curtailing of Fr. Vigouroux' position, since non-global Flood and extended genealogies are not included.

Again, he canonised Fr. Hofbauer, whose close associate was an explicit Young Earth Creationist.

"St. Pius X was a closet Modernist"

Even if none of his personal statements involve Old Earth?

Even if Old Earth back then was compatible with Adam created 10 000 years ago? I don't think so!

Thanks for showing a very clear proclivity to straw manning of opponents/

57:23 "when in fact they know the world is Geocentric"

This is a very extreme strawman.

58:01 In most of the 100 years before Vatican II, holding Adam and all men as within 10 000 years was intellectually an option for Old Earthers.

59:27 Young Earth Creationists are a minority both Catholic and Protestant.

But we exist, yes, Catholics.

1:00:53 I would liken Fr. Vacant and Vigouroux to the sequels of St. Augustine, when he denied the absolute immaculate conception.

He didn't deny the personal sinlessness, but he did deny the total lack of even Original Sin, from the very first moment.

1:01:29 I do not listen to that kind of Protestant pastors, and neither does the CMI. Or the AiG.

Nor does the Kolbe Center.

Could Andrew (if not Fr. Robinson) be lying for Darwin?

1:02:39 For the Moon landing, 20 would suffice if it was a conspiracy.

For Deep Time, oe Heliocentrism, conspiracy is not needed, and there is competence issues to go around.

It's a bit like all Protestant scholars (with very few exceptions) think they are finding confirmation for Marcan rather than Matthean priority.

[Ah, they are past that number]

Some Counterpoint to Fr. Robinson:

The Truth About Creation: What You Need to Know w/ Hugh Owen
Radio Immaculata | 9 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMiS1qlbVc

"you cannot separate the Immaculate Conception from the 1:44 immaculate creation"

[He referenced:

That the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, who was slain between the altar and the temple: Yea I say to you, It shall be required of this generation
[Luke 11:50-51]
Foundation of the world = not just human history!]