Continuing the interview with Fr Robinson, Second Fifth

"Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX" First Fifth Reviewed · Continuing the interview with Fr Robinson, Second Fifth · Third Fifth of Same Interview · Fourth Fifth, Same Interview · Fifth Fifth, a Few Arguments and Strawmen to Round it Up

Same video as previous post in this series.

10:46 Tuas Libenter states we cannot (safely) dissent from things thought by all theological schools over centuries ... we are less than a century after 1952, he wrote between Humani Generis and Vatican II, and I'm not sure the genre "hand books in dogmatic theology" has really been a thing for all that long.

How many were there back in the time of Tuas Libenter?

Would those ones have pointed to Heliocentrism / Geocentrism as sth not falling under the inspired statement of anything in the Bible or infallible judgement of any ecclesial judgement? Would all of them have done so?

11:59 In order to understand the deposit better, it is indeed useful to have lots of discussion.

Tuas Libenter seems to have targetted sth like Döllinger, and to have been on Mariology, and we know there was lots of discussion centuries before Tuas Libenter, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas stating there was a moment before Our Lady was immaculate (but not more than just a moment) and Palamas and Duns Scotus answering there was NOT EVEN that, She was immaculate and saved from all sin in the very moment of Her conception. Over the centuries more than one argument on the Augustinian side had been answered. For instance, if She was immaculate and did not die for our sins, which Her Son did, why did She die?

It was the common opinion that She indeed did in some sense (though not necessarily in a penal sense) die, and up to Pius XII, "Dormition of Our Lady" was the 14th of August, Vigil of Her Assumption, while in some Eastern Rites it is the name of the Feast (15th of August) itself. Whether or not Pius XII intended to dogmatise that away (and whether if so he could do so) is another matter, for all those centuries, the common opinion, shared by St. Alfons Maria Liguori, was, She did not simply continue to live and to breathe, there was a Dormition.

Now, it is clear She did not die for Our Sins, whether She's in any sense "co-redemptrix" at least She is not so in that sense. The best case for the title would be, what God definitely owed the suffering of Jesus, ex condigno, He generously granted also to Her suffering below the Cross, ex congruo. And that suffering did somehow not involve Her death, by a real miracle. So, if She was also not dying for Adam's sin, what was She dying for? The answer given is in fact helpful and totally just: when She saw Her Son die, She wanted to die. As He is a good Son, He finally granted Her this, at least in some sense. Therefore, the Dormition does not disprove the Immaculate Conception.

Answers about Luke 1:47 are even more elementary. Apart from saving someone who's already in trouble, there is also saving someone from even getting into trouble, and that is how She meant it.

So, in the case of the Marian henceforth dogma of Immaculate Conception, there was a very full theological discussion, and it hadn't really left any stones unturned.

This is the very opposite of what we find in the case of "turning around" on Geocentrism.

First of all, there really was a complete, not just a near Western consensus, as measured by preserved writers (one theory on how the Immaculate Conception survived the Eastern schism is, Anne of Kiev brought the idea to Paris prior to the schism, when she became a French Queen, so, live Ukraine and live France!).

Second, there was no full discussion theologically at the time of the turning around. There was a revisiting of certain instances in the "first Galileo process", 1616 but St. Robert had been far from exhausting the loci in disfavour of Heliocentrism. And those turning around were far from an exhaustive comprehension of the scientific implications.

Third, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception was a triumph against Protestantism and Secularism. Turning around on Geocentrism was rather a concession, like it's a concession after Cum ex Apostolatus Officio to not make insurrections every generation or even twice a generation against non-Catholic rulers ruling Catholic populations. One which Pope Innocent X was not totally willing to make, see how Rinuccini was sent to Confederate Ireland.

Fourth, the reversal within Western Christendom on the Immaculate Conception was steeped in a very deep sensitivity to the spiritual side of things, while the reversal (to mostly only within Western Christendom, at first) on Geocentrism was done in forgetfulness of arguments on God's moving of Heaven and of Angels' moving of individual Celestial Bodies.*

Fifth, the Immaculate Conception doesn't change the view on any miracle of Christ, from fuller to shallower. But if Joshua in verse 12 of chapter 10 was talking to the wrong entity, what does that make of Christ's Omniscience and Veracity when He drove out demons? Lutherans of the 19th C. explained the words of Joshua by "accomodation" of God to a common error, and the more progressives affirmed a similar "accomodation" to a similarily common "error" when Christ drew out demons. The Immaculate Conception, far from denying the existence of demons, makes Her victory over them all the more complete.

12:49 That something may be dogmatic and then widely forgotten is in fact not impossible.

I forget which council, but the ban on taking interest is in fact inscribed in one of the Medieval councils. By now, "taking more than one lent out for the sole reason of the time that has lapsed" is not commonly seen as mortally sinful. And yet, it is.

If you want to make restitution of interest taken, it's arguably not primarily owned by the bank which is also taking interest, and on a scale which I think surpasses what Lateran V granted the montes pietatis, so it would be to the poor or to the Church. One could very definitely from the amount to be restored subtract what's simply replacing what one is losing on inflation. Or if the account one has gives low interest and the inflation was higher, even nothing at all. But the point is, while inflation exists, interest is not indexed on inflation, but on the passing of time ... the definition still falls within the definition of the sin.

13:28 "the Church is not binding"

If taken about the contemporary part of Ecclesia Militans, and prior to the elections of Popes Michael I and Michael II, at least the former of whom was an outspoken Young Earth Creationist when I first heard of him, you would be right for the period of Ludwig Ott.

May I remind you the book is 72 years old. It's not 172 years old saying the same things as another book 272 years old, it is just 72 years old. A time span reminiscent of the Babylonian Captivity.

Not only those of us who would consider as valid the past papacy of Michael I and the ongoing one of Michael II, but even a somewhat thoughtful FSSPX-er might find reason to doubt it is adequate today.

It came out ten years before the "Council" of ill repute, and it came out in one of the Rhine federation countries as they were dubbed by Wiltgen. Ludwig Ott was in 1962 rector of the University of Eichstätt, and his bishop was Joseph Schröffer, who was hardly part of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum. Indeed, the same year that "Paul VI" is supposed (by those taking him as actually Pope) to have suspended Monsignor Lefebvre from divine liturgy, with all priests ordained by him, the same Joseph Schröffer on 24 May 1976 was elevated to Cardinal-Deacon of San Saba.

Note, a note like "the Church is not binding" is a weasel word, and if Honorius I was not guilty of actual Monotheletism, he was definitely guilty of sth like this. So, a statement, even by the Pope, that "the Church is not binding" might need some circumspection. Humani Generis is also famous or infamous for one of the "the Church is not binding" sentences, and I would say infamous.

[tried to add]

"with all priests ordained by him" = and still aligned with his work.

Some might have taken their distance, gone novus ordo, and were not suspended.

I mean if someone comes to me and says I'm 14:03 a Geocentrist then I'm not going to say "well you're a heretic," I'm 14:08 just going to say "well as as long as you understand this is opinion an opinion uh and it doesn't concern the faith"

Now, is that a fair condition to impose?

I don't think so.

What if Heliocentrism is not just de facto a heresy, but also bound up with lots of other heresies?

A year and a half ago, on Ascension Day 2023, one sermon in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet on where Jesus went was stating such a belief in modern astrophysics that the young priest was actually invoking the impassibility of the resurrected glorified bodies to motivate they could live where Heaven is.

For someone like St. Robert Bellarmine, in common with opponents like Calvin, Jesus is, and the righteous among us will be, in a place above the fix stars, but perfectly breathable, normal temperatures, pleasant food, and with no hunger like in this valley of tears at least an occasion to taste, with trees being around and waters that flow, i e are neither gas nor ice, principally. Both St. Robert and Calvin would back then say this is where Jesus is, as a living body, they would only differ on whether Our Lady is there too (Body and Soul) and whether His Body is also on altars and in tabernacles and in the bodies of communicants and hands of priests by a miracle reminiscent in some ways of bilocation.

I've told Father Marsden (ordained, if such, Novus Ordo in 1986, in the UK) that Heliocentrism involves a reversal of this view.

So, it would conflict with the traditional understanding of "sedet ad dexteram Patris" ... which is a dogma of the faith.

Please note, up to Parallax and Stellar Statistics (main series and all that) the acceptance of Heliocentrism did not automatically entail an infinite universe filled with stars and void between the stars. Kant had this view of the universe from Newton and from Giordano Bruno, but he was not a Catholic author, as those mentioned by Pius VII. While it was falling out of fashion, it was still possible in 1820 to consider there was a sphere of fix stars, within which our Sun was one, and outside that sphere, fairly close, there was another sphere, the Empyrean Heaven.

I think this was the (by then somewhat old fashioned, scientifically) view of Cardinal Newman when he wrote Dream of Gerontius.

Since then, trigonometry on the supposed parallax, as the phenomenon observed by Henderson, von Struve and Bessel was analysed as being, has led to the idea of a "main series" within an order of magnitude of the size of the Sun and which has therefore a possibility to assess distance by apparent sizes. That in turn brings us to by now and several other methods of distance away a universe supposed to be 13.8 billion light years in radius, which apart from the problem of Eschatology also brings on a problem on Creation.

Note very well, I'm a Geocentric precisely because I do not subscribe to the "omphalos" theory, of God creating not just starlight but even stellar extinction events in transfer. Light from Vega was not emitted 25 years before it reaches our eyes, more like (at least in Creation week) 24 hours before it reaches our eyes. Light from Betelgeuse was not emitted 400 to 600 years ago, but also 24 h ago. Kappa Crucis was not emitting light 8500 years before it reaches our eyes, a date which would be before creation, but also 24 hours ago.

Note further, Henderson, Struve, Bessel when analysing that exact value as parallax were measuring against another bigger value, which had once been proposed as parallax, but rejected as such and reanalysed as Aberration of Star Light. The aberration is about 20 arc seconds in medium. Let's for arguments sake say it is precisely 20 arc seconds, probably wrong, the parallax of alpha Centauri is not observed as 0.75 arc seconds absolutely, it's more like observed 20.75 or 19.25 arc seconds or as deviating by 0.75 arc seconds from stars in the back-ground which are presumed to be 20 arc seconds compared to six months earlier or later.

The one observation which gives two analysable types of illusory movement, can also be analysed as one real movement, namely if an angel is moving the star. The reason this is not done is the forgetting of the scholastic view of nature.

14:33 "I would give my evidence"

Father Robinson has already been challenged by me, he hasn't taken it up.

Is the reason my non-fulfilment of his condition?

Or is the reason that he looks smarter by siding with Heliocentric consensus science than by taking up a discussion or debate with me (over line) which he could risk losing?

it's not 14:49 prudent for the church to make a decision on a scientific question because of the fact that the science is 14:56 um something that is changing all the time

Is the politics something that is changing all the time?

Can the Church endorse and disendorse political ideologies?

Can the Church decide the idea "all power is from the people and doesn't answer to any religion or god" is a heresy? I think that was a fairly big part of what Monseigneur Lefebvre stood for. I have read Ils l'ont découronné. That book was all about this exact question. Precisely like the Feast of Christ the King, which like Motherhood of Mary is a feast instituted by Pius XI in a somewhat more exceptional format than adding Ste Thérèse Martin to the saints celebrated by all of the Church.

One has objected to Monseigneur that Jesus did not come to divide heritages or object to paying taxes to Caesar.

Well, taxation rules (within certain due limits) and inheritance rules (same observation) are variable in and of their nature. But should a state with Catholic population endow and protect and privilege the Church, should a state with any population ban abortion? Yes, those are questions that belong to BOTH spheres, the spiritual and the secular at once.

So, there are truths that are BOTH Catholic truths, AND truths very relevant for or even derived from the correct conduct of sciences.

And I think St. Robert and the Inquisitors of Pope Urban VIII were very well aware of this and did both theology and science a service, for some time, in 1616 and in 1633. A service we are not socially profitting from in schools, but which we need not individually forsake.

15:22 "that doesn't concern the faith"

Not how St. Robert and Pope Urban VIII saw things.

They were acting more freely and with less outside pressure (or none at all) compared to Pius VII.

If there were a real disagreement between the decisions, over more than just the disciplinary questions "can one read Settele, can one print Settele, can one read Galileo, can one reprint Galileo" then the ones of 1820 and 1822 are the ones less likely to be valid, since less likely to be freely taken.

15:37 "it could change and make her look bad over time"

As opinions on abortion and on same sex marriage have changed and over time made Catholicism look bad?

Or on the taking of interest?

16:10 "we now realise that everythings moving out there"

Panta rhei ...

You adopt the philosophy of Heraclitus.

Now, if you had said "everything except the Empyrean Heaven and Earth" that would have been something else.

16:24 As you mention very aptly they did not define the Sun was immobile, Anfossi very arguably remained a Geocentric.

Do you know if Father Filippo was son or nephew of the composer Pasquale?

Both were from Taggia ...

The thing is, neither did Geocentrism become illicit, nor believing it followed from the Bible or from other theological truth, it just became illicit to actively censor people who wrote either way on Heliocentrism as then understood.

And by the way, the decree of 1822 stated that "immobility of the Sun" was a licit subject, not that the movement of everything out there was so. So technically, what Fr. Robinson holds, does not even fall under the decree of 1822.

17:20 Well, the Church was precisely not telling Galileo "you're getting ahead of yourself"** ...

The Church was telling him, "you have uttered words apt to express X and Y, and we condemn X and Y" ... that's a very different call from "you are getting ahead of yourself" ...

You can condemn someone to lifelong captivity as you can condemn someone to the stake for believing and for (in the former case) giving the impression to believe things that are absolutely false, but not just in abstract mathematics, but horribly false. For something which just might be right, but which the guy simply hasn't proven yet, you can not condemn someone either to the stake or to lifelong captivity. No one was sentenced to years in the prison of the Inquisition for saying "Mary was conceived Immaculate" those centuries well before 1854, when it was not yet "legally" proven as a dogma. No one was even sentenced for saying "there is vacuum" before Otto von Guericke had proven it, correct me if I'm wrong.

17:59 "He was trying to do theology for the Church"

• 1) Lots of people do "theology for the Church" without being in the Ecclesia docens. Galileo and Father Foscarini were doing so on the Heliocentric side, but Father Cosimo or Tommaso Caccini was doing son on the Geocentric side.
• 2) According to comments on Trent Session IV, this is licit, as long as one is ready to submit to the Church.
• 3) Galileo was at least pro forma showing willingness to submit to the Church.
• 4) The final verdict in 1633*** was not primarily against his de facto (or presumed) insubmissions, but against precisely his doctrine:
  
  

  We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.

The two accusations he was absolved from by abjuration were:

• 1) believing the Sun does not move from east to west each day;
• 2) believing a thing can be held when in conflict with Scripture.

Those were the gravest accusations. Error, not deviousness. False theology, not "doing theology for the Church" ...

18:14 First of all, I'm not sure Galileo ever actually asked for a theological decree, does Father Robinson have a source, or is he dramatising and inserting fictional detail for this?

Second, if that had been so, given the relatively small circulation of Galileo's work prior to the processes in the Catholic world (as opposed to after and in the Protestant one), this would hardly have been even a threat.

Thirdly, even if it had been a threat, it would not have been a punishable sin.

In 430 or 429 a bishop in Constantinople, a Patriarch, was saying "She is certainly Christotokos, but not Theotokos" ... a layman directly shouted "HERESY!" (which it is) and was therefore implicitly asking the Church for a theological decree dondemning his thitherto Patriarch. That came in 431 at the Council of Ephesus, but not before Pope St. Coelestine I (in 430) had stated that Nestorius had already lost office as soon as he began preaching heresy.

The Church really and truly did get on the bandwagon of a layman on that council, and the Church did right in doing so.

18:23 At a given moment, they were certainly saying "give us conclusive proof of your theory" and he was certainly not providing it.

A few centuries later, the Church men were less scholastic in outlook and had forgotten how to ask "give us conclusive proof of your theory" ... it would have been great to see Pius VII push back on Settele, and ask "where is the proof" ...

Presumably, Settele did some kind of vulgarisation of Newton, in which the procedure is, "an orbit directed by inertia and gravity and therefore by masses can only have the smaller mass orbit the larger one" ... fine and dandy.

How if Pius VII had allowed Father Anfossi to pose the Million Dollar Question to Settele: "can you prove that objects in the universe are moved only by orbits directed by inertia and gravity?"

He didn't. It was just presumed that Angelic movers were out of the reckoning. Probably around the time demons were supposed to no longer have anything to do with where a lightning strikes, after Benjamin Franklin did his experiments.

Well, from what we know of electricity, a lightning was certainly going to strike some time around the time it struck, but pretending it had to strike to the milli-second that moment, that it could not have struck any time sooner or any time later, is pretending demons cannot exercise control over the density of clouds. They jolly well can, since part of angelic nature is the ability to locally move material objects and parts of objects, and clouds are material objects and density is a matter of placing of the parts, so, yes, a demon could at least by something like five minutes speed a lightning up or slow it down. And therefore have a decision, under the permission of God's providence, on what its destructive forces fall on.

But this idea with demons involved in lightnings was felt at the time as "outdated" and defending Geocentrism and Angelic Movers would have involved defending the use of exorcism against lightning.

18:34 "don't go around teaching theology, giving your own exegesis"

Sounds very much more like the attitude of FSSPX toward me, than that of the Church towards Galileo.

I do a quick F-search in the condemnation, signed*** by seven out of ten cardinal judges in 1633, and promulgated to world wide notoriety by the Pope (whose relative had abstained), it neither has "exegesis" nor "interpret" ... it does however hold:

and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:

The beef which they really take is not Galileo giving his interpretation, but that interpretation being against the true one. Note that this is not the first part of the "whereas" (aka "narratio" in rhetoric), but only a follow up on this:

for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true;

Again, the personal initiative in exegesis is not the point. The doctrine being false and consequently the exegesis being false, is.

I think that was prudent in a time when the Protestant Revolt was going on 18:38 and Protestants were trying to say well Catholics don't respect scripture uh we we are the first ones to respect 18:44 scripture

This motivation is actually hilarious given that Protestant Reformers were very far from today's Bible thumpers who want to look in every nook and cranny of Scripture to find an unpopular doctrine to uphold against the world, they were much more like Liberal Theologians, pretending Catholics were overreading things (notably Matthew 26 or Luke 1) and also given that Galileo had little influence so far among Protestants, Protestants had no influence in Italy, the Catholic Church in Italy was not like today's United States' Catholics stranded in a sea of Protestantism, and thirdly, given that Protestants were actually fairly OK with Heliocentrism. Luther and Calvin weren't, but in the day of Kepler, their stance was less important. When Kepler tried to boost Heliocentrism by a story of his mother doing a dream journey, instead of his getting attacked for false doctrine, the mother got suspected of witchcraft.

It was far more grieveous to the Protestant authorities in Germany if she had held communication with demons than if Heliocentrism was true or false.

And "holding communication with demons" in traditional Protestantism as per like back then, that would to them cover St. Bridget and the seers of Fatima, simply because the Bible is already closed, and on top of that, they were all cessationist, unlike Catholics and Pentecostals today, they all believed miracles had ceased either at the time when the last apostles died, or some time after that, but well before the Reformers.

But Heliocentrism ??? The kind of scholastic question they had decided wasn't all that important.

Fr. Robinson is overestimating the need of Catholicism to defend itself before Protestantism, back then, projecting back the kind of situation when some want to say "we shouldn't say 'pray to Mary' because Protestants could take that wrong" he is overestimating the contacts between Catholics and Protestants, and he is vastly overestimating the importance of the Bible in Protestantism. Especially on this issue.

While I was not yet a Geocentric when deciding to convert, I did convert partly because I saw that on this issue, it was the Catholics who were the Fundamentalists, ready to stand up for Scripture. Taken in its most obvious sense. I saw this as a teen, and I have not changed my mind. Unfortunately, Wojtyla and Ratzinger in 1992 and Fr. Robinson now are not living up to this heritage.

if the church had come out and said oh well you know um 18:49 scripture is not saying that the Earth is the center of the universe scripture is not saying uh that the Earth doesn't 18:55 move then Protestants would have used that against the church

What Protestants? Where?

The exact type of Protestants who would say that type of thing, like Rob Skiba II, were simply not around.

Kepler had perfect liberty to say that kind of thing, and in 1633, the Thirty Years war was ongoing. The relative fates of Catholicism and Protestantism in certain countries hung on weapons, not on outcomes of debates, or incriminations.

The German mathematician with which Galileo had corresponded (before the war) was apparently not a Protestant, but the Jesuit Christoph Scheiner.

At the utmost, one could think of Catholics in England, but on the one hand, they were already persecuted, and on the other James I and VI (with whom St. Robert had corresponded) doesn't seem to have been a Geocentric from what a quick google can provide me with. If you know of any passage of the Controversies between him and St. Robert where the king actually comes out as Geocentric, tell me, that would be beyond my measures to verify, I'd trust you, with citation (and I am able to check the translation from Latin).°

19:31 The sentence from 1633 certainly has the stronger views against strict immobility of the Sun, but one of the words about its mobility is the movement "from east to west" ... meaning the daily movement.

So, the Holy Office in 1633 took a strong stance against stating the Earth has a daily rotation and that the apparent movement of the Sun is an optic illusion.

the sun is not the center of the 19:42 universe um so a strict Heliocentrism would have the Sun at the center of the universe we know now there is no Center

No, that is making the universe infinite in the three dimensions, and doing that is attributing to the created material universe a property that belongs to God alone.

The negation of centre also negates periphery and negates traditional Uranology or Eschatology.

This is one way in which your confrère in Paris came to deny traditional views of Heaven, on Ascension Day last year.

20:20 What was Brian McCall just saying about Geocentrics and goodwill toward the Church?

I think that applies to David Palm.

A gentle man, but he has a superiority complex about Modern Science. Registered Trademark. He'll even ask an Atheist to assess things for him, because that Atheist is a scientist. Alec McAndrew.

* On Angelic Movers, see:

New blog on the kid: What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
Thursday 28 August 2014 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 17:24
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

** Here it is actually the interviewer Brian McCall who made the suggestion. On next timestamp "doing theology for the Church" it is however Fr. Paul Robinson.

*** Cited from:

Famous Trials Trial of Galileo Galilei 1633
Papal Condemnation
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

The title "papal" is both apt and inept. The pope was not signing the document, and was not one of the judges, the judge who was his relative, abstained, but he did thereafter send it to all Catholic Universities.

° To show I actually am capable of translating from Latin, see these posts of mine:

deretour: Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)
jeudi 22 octobre 2009 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 05:08
https://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/pseudoquote-identified-what-de-romano.html

Creation vs. Evolution: St Augustine Didn't Say So ... or He Did, But St. Thomas Said Otherwise
jeudi 24 janvier 2019 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 05:14
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2019/01/st-augustine-didnt-say-so-or-he-did-but.html

Creation vs. Evolution: What did St. Thomas Really Say?
vendredi 11 juin 2021 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 07:18
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-did-st-thomas-really-say.html

I think I did another translation from Postilla in Libros Geneseos to show that there was no Patristic-Scholastic unity about the tower being one tower in the architectural sense, I wonder where that one is ... correction, I actually just quoted the text:

New blog on the kid: Quaesiui an contra patres loquutus sim, dicendo de Turri Babel quod sit intenta ut navis spatialis?
Wednesday 16 November 2016 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 15:18
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2016/11/quaesiui-contra-patres-loquutus-sim.html

Appendix:

The sermon I mentioned:

Où se trouve le ciel ? - Abbé A. Rampon - 18/05/2023
Eglise Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDc6v6Je1aY

Dealt with in the comments to the following post:

Répliques Assorties : Une prêche pour la fête d'hier, avec mes commentaires
vendredi 19 mai 2023 | Publié par Hans Georg Lundahl à 08:43
https://repliquesassorties.blogspot.com/2023/05/une-preche-pour-la-fete-dhier-avec-mes.html

The sermon by Fr. Puga was incomplete, I dealt with that one in the main post, before the comments./HGL