I learned something new about SSPX

[JayneK]

We all want to avoid the crazy creationists, right?

I mean, we don't want to be mistaken for looneys and such!

There are plenty of people who think I am looney for believing in God.  I do not base my beliefs on what other people will think of me.  I am not a creationist because it does not seem like the theory that best corresponds to Scripture, Church teaching and science.

[Parmandur]

We all want to avoid the crazy creationists, right?

I mean, we don't want to be mistaken for looneys and such!

There are plenty of people who think I am looney for believing in God.  I do not base my beliefs on what other people will think of me.  I am not a creationist because it does not seem like the theory that best corresponds to Scripture, Church teaching and science.

This.

[Nic]

We all want to avoid the crazy creationists, right?

I mean, we don't want to be mistaken for looneys and such!

There are plenty of people who think I am looney for believing in God.  I do not base my beliefs on what other people will think of me.  I am not a creationist because it does not seem like the theory that best corresponds to Scripture, Church teaching and science.

That's laughable.

Catholicism as a whole was Creationist until the Godless theory of evolution was furthered to promote an atheistic ethos in society.  Every single one of the early Fathers who commented on the subject were Creationists.  This is not something to ignore.

Besides, the scientific evidence - the REAL evidence, overwhelmingly supports Creationism.

[Parmandur]

We all want to avoid the crazy creationists, right?

I mean, we don't want to be mistaken for looneys and such!

There are plenty of people who think I am looney for believing in God.  I do not base my beliefs on what other people will think of me.  I am not a creationist because it does not seem like the theory that best corresponds to Scripture, Church teaching and science.

That's laughable.

Catholicism as a whole was Creationist until the Godless theory of evolution was furthered to promote an atheistic ethos in society.  Every single one of the early Fathers who commented on the subject were Creationists.  This is not something to ignore.

Besides, the scientific evidence - the REAL evidence, overwhelmingly supports Creationism.

One can believe in evolution as a means of Creation.  I refuse to cede the title "Creationist" to Young-Earthers, in point of fact.  Your science is about as good as your logic, Nic.

[Crusading Philologist]

I'm not sure if the Fathers could really be called "creationists" in the modern sense of that term anyway. Most ID advocates describe God's relationship with creation in essentially deistic terms. The Fathers certainly didn't.

[Parmandur]

I'm not sure if the Fathers could really be called "creationists" in the modern sense of that term anyway. Most ID advocates describe God's relationship with creation in essentially deistic terms. The Fathers certainly didn't.

Which is why the Young-Earthers can't exclusively clai mthe title "Creationist."  Whether the universe is 6000 years old, 15 billion, or eternal, God is the Creator, and Genesis is literally true.  That is the teaching of the Fathers and the Doctors.

[NOtard]

We all want to avoid the crazy creationists, right?

I mean, we don't want to be mistaken for looneys and such!

I think this was directed at me, so I'll respond.

No, creationism isn't an issue for me, any more than geocentrism is. God created the universe, and causes the universe to exist, both from the first moment in time, and in every instant in time, including right now. Yes, He is perfectly capable of creating the Earth 6000 years ago with the "faked" appearance that it is billions of years old, just as He could have created all of us an hour ago with "faked" memories of everything that happened before that point, but the God of Truth doesn't usually tend to "fake" things.  The fact that He seems to have used natural processes, including genetic mutation and natural selection, over billions of years, is not inconsistent with Him being the Creator and, in fact, creating every human soul directly, just as the fact that our children were conceived and born through natural processes is not inconsistent with the statement that our children were given to us by God.

Nobody seriously believes in Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent Design, unless they are trying to prove a religious point. It's easy enough to smile politely and ignore those who claim that they do. Just as, on another thread on this forum, I saw someone claiming that general relativity was obviously false because it was discovered by a Jew, yet somehow they didn't follow it to the logical conclusion that GPS units shouldn't have to take GR effects into account.

No, my problem is more with those that claim that the Eucharist is just a "piece of bread" when it has been consecrated in a Mass according to the Novus Ordo Missae.  How do we know that they aren't right? There isn't really any scientific way to tell whether transubstantiation has occurred, and in fact ther couldn't be. But if they are right, why does the Church say that it *is* the Body of Christ? In fact, they have said that for thousands of years. But, the Fisheaters reply, that only applies if you follow the traditional rite. Oh, or any of the Eastern rites. But, we ask, why does the Church claim that, even now, the bread and wine really and truly become the Body and Blood of Christ? Well, they answer, that's because the visible Catholic Church is not really the real Catholic Church. Huh? No, they say, nowadays, Catholic priests don't really intend to consecrate the elements when they say the Mass. Or maybe they do, but they're actually doing it wrong. In any case, you can never be sure that a consecration has really taken place.

So, one starts thinking, what if they're right? Maybe we are being pretty foolish, incensing a piece of bread, kneeling and praying before a piece of bread. Maybe, when we think we are receiving the graces of the Sacrament, we're just fooling ourselves? How do we know?

Those are the sorts of thoughts that it's harder to fight.

[JayneK]

No, my problem is more with those that claim that the Eucharist is just a "piece of bread" when it has been consecrated in a Mass according to the Novus Ordo Missae.  How do we know that they aren't right? There isn't really any scientific way to tell whether transubstantiation has occurred, and in fact ther couldn't be. But if they are right, why does the Church say that it *is* the Body of Christ? In fact, they have said that for thousands of years. But, the Fisheaters reply, that only applies if you follow the traditional rite. Oh, or any of the Eastern rites. But, we ask, why does the Church claim that, even now, the bread and wine really and truly become the Body and Blood of Christ? Well, they answer, that's because the visible Catholic Church is not really the real Catholic Church. Huh? No, they say, nowadays, Catholic priests don't really intend to consecrate the elements when they say the Mass. Or maybe they do, but they're actually doing it wrong. In any case, you can never be sure that a consecration has really taken place.

So, one starts thinking, what if they're right? Maybe we are being pretty foolish, incensing a piece of bread, kneeling and praying before a piece of bread. Maybe, when we think we are receiving the graces of the Sacrament, we're just fooling ourselves? How do we know?

Those are the sorts of thoughts that it's harder to fight.

I don't get why anyone would take this sort of thing seriously.  I don't think "what if they're right?" 

[NOtard]

I don't get why anyone would take this sort of thing seriously.  I don't think "what if they're right?" 

That's because we approach things in a very different way. I ALWAYS think "what if they're right?"

What if the Muslims are right? Well, they actually have some good ideas and principles, but I can come up with a bigger list of why they totally miss the point on so many things.

What if the atheists are right? Well, they actually have a good case, but there are some things that simply cannot be explained from a purely natural point of view. And even if there was no God, I would rather die believing that there is than live thinking that there isn't.

What if the New Age people are right? Well, they do point out some flaws in how mainstream society approaches things, but nobody could seriously believe them. I mean, to believe means to think that something is really true, and New Age philosophy is so obviously nonsense.

What if the Eastern Orthodox are right? Well, maybe they are. I don't think Western Christianity is actually in heresy, as at least some of the Orthodox seem to claim, but they might be more right than the West on some issues. The schism in the Church is a sad state of affairs, and we can and should hope and pray that it is healed.

What if the Protestants are righr? Well, they certainly are on some issues, and we can learn from them. On the other hand, I remember the time our friends from Ottawa commented about how one week they went to a Protestant church, and heard preaching that sure sounded like some kind of salvation by works, and the next week they came to Mass with us, and the homily was clearly teaching that we are saved by God's grace, quite contrary to the stereotype.  The disunity among Christians is indeed a sad state of affairs, and we can and should hope and pray that it is healed.

What if Ayn Rand was right, and we absolutely need to be more selfish and cruel for the species to survive? She makes a superficially convincing case, but who would want to live in such a world? And then when you start looking at her philosophy in more detail, you see that she has left out important aspects which change the whole picture.

What if I'm insane, and all the people around me who are treating me as if I'm normal are just humoring me? Well, that's possible, but it doesn't work very well as a philosophy of life, so it can be ignored on practical grounds.

What if? Why? How do we know? I'm constantly thinking of this kind of thing. I wouldn't WANT to be the kind of person who decides what he thinks and ignores all evidence to the contrary. In fact, the New Testament doesn't speak very kindly of those who were like that -- they SHOULD have known that Jesus was the Messiah, even though he was not at all like what they expected the Messiah to be. Nor do I think I even CAN be like that. I find it impossible to ignore new evidence or other points of view. In that case, I would end up in the "believing what I don't really think is true" state, which is not a state I can stay in very long.

[James02]

The fact that He seems to have used natural processes, including genetic mutation and natural selection, over billions of years, is not inconsistent with Him being the Creator and, in fact, creating every human soul directly, just as the fact that our children were conceived and born through natural processes is not inconsistent with the statement that our children were given to us by God.

There is a difference between "Old Earth" and "Evolution".  There is evidence of "Old Earth".  I do not have the training to determine if it is conclusive.  But evidence exists.

Evolution has been blown sky high.  What came first, the DNA or the protein?  DNA needs protein to function.  Protein is produced by DNA.  But the production involves other proteins like Ribosomes, which themselves come from DNA.  But the DNA also needs m-RNA to make the proteins, which needs protein.  Science is blowing up evolution sky high.  Catholics would do well to learn the basics in this argument.  The videos on YouTube of cellular machines are incredible and a good place to start.