Listen to the Voice of God

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Apologists for Joseph Ratzinger's legitimacy as a Successor of Saint Peter probably will be going into overdrive to point out that his, Ratzinger's, remarks of July 26, 2007, concerning evolution represent his "private" views and as such do not touch directly upon Faith and morals. This is, of course, if such apologists, still glowing in the wake of Summorum Pontificum's false assertion that any version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service are "two forms of the one Roman Rite," even want to acknowledge that the man who "liberated" Angelo Roncalli's version of the Mass of Tradition has a mind that is possessed of one fundamentally false idea, both supernatural and natural, after another.

Here is a report from an Australian news service, News.com.au, about Ratzinger's remarks on evolution:

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution. 

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

Climate change

Benedict is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.

A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued yesterday.

“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said.

“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the Pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.

World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.

The Pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment.

"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that wilfully damaging the environment is sinful. Ratzinger and Evolution

 

Saving a discussion about Ratzinger's lunacy about evolution for just a moment, it is necessary to point out this Modernist's fundamental disregard for Catholic Faith and the omnipotence of God in this one remark:

We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth."

 

Here is a newsflash for you, Father Ratzinger: the earth is not the foundation of human existence. God is the foundation of human existence. Neither the earth or anything on it, including the human beings whose first parents, Adam and Eve, were created specifically and specially by God Himself, exists without having been willed in to existence by God, Who is Omnipotence. The earth was created by God to be the temporal home of His visible creation, including the crowning glory of His creative work, man, who was given the power by Him to use the earth responsible for his good purposes. Man does not exist for the earth. The earth exists to serve man as he seeks to save his immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church and thus return to his true home, Heaven, in the presence of the Beatific Vision of God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

God spoke specifically about man's right to steward the earth:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30)

 

It must be noted furthermore that man can never destroy the earth. Oh, he can do great damage to certain parts of the earth, to be sure. Not even nuclear war, which would kill millions of people and make it difficult for survivors in some parts of the world, would destroy the earth. The earth will end when God chooses to do so by His own power at a time known to Him alone. God created the earth when He spoke the word as is recorded in The Book of Genesis:

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 1-10)

God created the earth. He alone has the power to end its existence. Those who contend that man can destroy the earth demean the omnipotence of God and do not understand Catholic teaching on eschatology.

Listen to the "Voice of the Earth"? We are not pantheists, thank you. We listen to the voice of God, Who has spoken to us in Divine Revelation, which consists of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which speaks to us of how God created the world. Even honest secular scientists have disproved evolutionism as the prototype of junk science (see Gerard Keane's masterful collection of data on this subject in Creation Rediscovered, TAN Books and Publishers). This is beyond any serious argument at this late date. The facts of true science are all arrayed against evolutionism.

Indeed, Father Peter Damien Felhner, quoted in Creation Rediscovered, noted the following:

Good arguments can actually be adduced in fact to show that evolution is simply not a scientific hypothesis. It is a dogma providing the context for all scientific endeavors. And it is just this assumption of evolutionism as the universal paradigm that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church. . . . The doctrine of creation, in general and in all its detail, is intimately bound up with the mystery of salvation. That is why the Catholic may not call into question any aspect of the doctrine of creation which in fact the Church believes is related to the mystery of salvation without also doubting that latter mystery.  (Quoted in Creation Rediscovered, p, 192.)

God willed each species of plant and animal into existence, admitting that there have been genetic developments within species. This is something that should fill us awe and should impel us to show others how omnipotent God is, that none of the brilliant colors or varieties of the fishes in the water or the animals that walk the earth could have developed by chance. God, Who is intelligence, order, power and beauty, willed each thing into being. Although science, which has rules and limits of its own, cannot prove empirically the things we accept as articles of Faith, it can disprove propositions that have no rational foundation in scientific fact. True science has disproved evolutionism in a resounding manner, forcing the evolutionists to try to come up with everchanging variations of their pseudo-religion.

Truth be told, therefore, the propagation of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection in the Nineteenth Century led liberal Protestant Scripture scholars, eager to adopt a pantheistic view of life, to doubt the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and/or to attempt to conform the believer's understanding of Sacred Scripture to the dictates of allegedly "scientific" insights. A belief in naturalistic evolutionism coincided nicely with a rise in naturalism culturally as a result of Judeo-Masonry and the potpourri (yes, I did watch a lot of the original Jeopardy!, hosted by the late Art Fleming) of anti-Incarnational, naturalistic political ideologies, each of which contends that man is the center of the world and that there are no religious or moral absolutes to govern his daily existence. Marxism is the "synthesis," if you will, of the philosophical evolutionism of Georg Hegel and the biological evolutionism of Charles Darwin. One who believes in biological evolutionism will find it easy to dismiss the Book of Genesis and thus to believe that there is no God and that human society must evolve "socially" just as the human species had evolved biologically.

Believers in strict biological evolutionism have a little problem that they are incapable of answering: why aren't human beings evolving biologically into another species at present? Indeed, the reverse is true. Those who believe that they are descended from monkeys devolve over the course of time into acting like monkeys. A belief in the evolution of the human species leads to a devolution of human behavior to the level of barbarism and bestiality that would offend a lot monkeys, points I covered three years ago in The Fruits of Evolutionism (actually written in 2001, well before I began to examine sedevacantism.

Modernist theologians in the Catholic Church, not wanting to be considered "irresponsible scholars" by their peers in the Protestant and secular worlds. sought to "reconcile" the Catholic Faith with the junk science of evolutionism, seeking to use all manner of false exegetical methods to deconstruct the Book of Genesis of its plain meaning. Pope Saint Pius X was quite aware of this when he wrote the following in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

We have proceeded sufficiently far, Venerable Brethren, to have before us enough, and more than enough, to enable us to see what are the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science -- including, as they are wont to do under that name, history. And in the first place it is to be held that the object-matter of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object-matter of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be for it unknowable. Hence each has a separate scope assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with phenomena, into which faith does not at all enter; faith, on the contrary, concerns itself with the divine, which is entirely unknown to science. Thus it is contended that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never can be in contradiction. And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and transferred into material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into Heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as a philosopher speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the believer as a believer speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.

It would be a great mistake, nevertheless, to suppose that, according to these theories, one is allowed to believe that faith and science are entirely independent of each other. On the side of science that is indeed quite true and correct, but it is quite otherwise with regard to faith, which is subject to science, not on one but on three grounds. For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when one takes away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer go out of the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it, whether he like it or not, he cannot escape from the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, although it is contended that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality, not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which, while it philosophizes in what is called the logical order, soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form its knowledge concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may have entered into it. Hence we have the Modernist axiom that the religious evolution ought to be brought into accord with the moral and intellectual, or as one whom they regard as their leader has expressed it, ought to be subject to it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in himself, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonize faith with science that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brethren, is in formal opposition to the teachings of Our predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: "In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly."

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.

 

Consider this last sentence once again:

Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.

 

This is exactly the goal of Modernism as a "species" and the "New Theology," examined briefly in Has Not God Revealed Them All? two days ago, that is at the heart of understanding who Joseph Ratzinger is and how he sees the Church and the world. No matter the residual Catholicism that may be more calculated than genuine residue, the mind of Joseph Ratzinger, steeped in contradiction and paradox and synthesis, has sought to blot out the old theology in order to "introduce a new theology which supports " the aberrations of philosophers" and of alleged theologians, it should be added. This is part and parcel of his particular nature as a man. This is who he is, which is why he is predisposed to accept the junk science of evolutionism even fifty-four years after the completion of the model of DNA. He accepts uncritically as a proven fact that which so authentic scientists, some of whom are agnostics religiously, have disproved so thoroughly.

Although some seeking to defend Ratzinger might seek to point Pope Pius XII's Human Generis, August 12, 1950, a careful reading of Pope Pius's words demonstrate only an openness to the scientific study, not an endorsement of evolution, whether biological or theistic:

It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

 

Pope Pius XII's openness to studies in evolution came, however, three years before the completion of the model of DNA, which makes it impossible for there to "evolution" from one species to another  It was the discovery of DNA that caused one fervent group of evolutionists in 1980 to admit that Darwin's theory of natural selection was no longer supportable. That did not stop them from believing in evolutionism, which could be "proved" by other disproved explanations offered by their fellow junk scientists.

Moreover, Gerard Keane's Creation Rediscovered reports that Pope Pius XII expressed "serious reservations about the scientific credibility" of evolutionism in an address delivered to the First International Congress of Medical Genetics, September 7, 1953:

In recent works on genetics one reads that the connection between living things cannot be explained better than by supposing a common genealogical tree. It is, however, necessary to remark that we we have here is an image, a hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact. . . . If most researcher workers speak of genealogical descent as a fact, they are premature in doing so. Other hypotheses are possible [in addition to that of evolution] . . . [Besides] scientists of repute have pointed out that in their opinion one cannot as yet say what is real and exact meaning of terms such as "evolution," "descent" and "transmission"; that we know of no natural process by which one being can beget another of a different kind; that the process by which one species begets another is altogether unintelligible, no matter how many intermediate stages be supposed; that no experimental method for producing one species from another has been found; and finally that we have no idea at what stage in the evolutionary process the hominoid suddenly crossed the threshold of humanity  . . . [In conclusion] one is forced to say that the study of human origins is only at its beginnings: there is nothing definitive about present-day theory. (Quoted in Gerard Keane, Creation Rediscovered, p. 201.)

 

It is perhaps the case that Pope Pius XII's 1953 allocution was an effort to further qualify the openness to the study of evolution that had been expressed in Humani Generis, which was unjustified, some believe, even on the basis of what was known by true secular science in 1950. Nevertheless, everything in true science since 1950 has debunked evolutionism, making Ratzinger's endorsement of it all the more laughable and inexcusable.

Those who would seek to exculpate Joseph Ratzinger's acceptance of evolution on "Theistic" grounds had better consider nasty little things such as facts about "Theistic Evolution." Most people think of Theistic evolutionism as describing the process by which God created the world and then let everything "evolve" according to its own principles until He implanted a human soul in Adam after he had descended from the apes. Gerard Keane points out that such a conception of evolutionism actually contradicts itself:

Despite any claims to the contrary, the logic of Theistic Evolution does necessitate the abandonment of Evolution Theory in favor of divine intervention. Because of the problem of the death of Adam's forebears, Christians who prefer to believe in Evolution are forced ultimately to abandon standard theories and to appeal implicitly to divine intervention on innumerable occasions over billions of years. Since there are no credible "missing links" found in the fossil record, it is necessary for Christian evolutionists to introduce an act of divine intervention each time a creature is deemed to "jump" to a new and more complex type.

Macro-scale Evolution, with new "higher" genetic information, is now widely regarded as impossible, and its ever-elusive mechanism remains missing. Further, the idea of punctuated equilibria to explain each "jump" is lacking in credibility because of the immensity of odds against which so many rapid beneficial mutations.

Therefore, for changes to occur which result in the gaining of new "higher" genetic information in each species, genetic "jumps" are required and one must resort to claiming repeated Theistic Intervention for its accomplishment. But to label this as "Evolution" tends toward deception, since it is very misleading to those who assume that the commonly understood concept of Evolution is involved. The Naturalistic process of Evolution--belief in which ironically gave rise initially to the quest in search of an acceptable version of Theistic Evolution--is not involved at all.

It can be argued, of course, that God intervened and cause a series of beneficial mutations to occur concurrently in the germ cells of two ape-like progenitors as they conceived an offspring. In this way, the body of Adam could have been brought into existence. The animals would not then be truly regarded as his parents since he differed from them in kind and not in degree. But is this valid reasoning? Apart from the fact that this concept has nothing to do with standard Evolution theories, the following objections can be raised:

Firstly, if the body of Adam was in any way derived from animal "parents," then he would have arrived as a baby boy. There would be no one to nurture him, talk to him, hug him and so on--all of the things that we know are vital for infants to cultivate their intelligence. (The feral children, raised in India by wolves, were found culturally impoverished, so one could hardly argue that Adam would have been raised by ape-like creatures. They are not his kind.)

We know that Adam must have possessed a very high level of intelligence; after all, the destiny of mankind was at sake in the decision which rested upon him. Therefore, his body must have been brought into existence in adult form. Alternatively, there seems little point in arguing that God may have changed an adult ape into that of a human being. This also is unrelated to Evolution Theory; one may as well believe that Adam was specially created as an adult human being, which Genesis strongly indicates.

Secondly, if a similar divine intervention occurred in the creation of the body of Eve, with animal "parents," then how could she in any way have been derived from the body of Adam?

Any evolutionary concept requiring divine intervention effectively means that Evolution Theory is no longer the issue under consideration. Even if an interventionist scenario is not specifically advanced by theistic evolutionist writers, nevertheless their beliefs require it and so a completely different concept of Origins is at issue. Whatever else may be its merits, it does not relate to Evolution Theory as commonly understood by scientists. It would have to be accepted on faith, with only a tenuous basis in Scripture, if any at all.

The concept of Special Creation also incorporates intervention on some occasions, but only as can be reasonably inferred from Scripture (e.g., when God brought on the Flood events).

Pope Leo XIII declared that the literal-as-given sense [in Scriptural exegesis] should be held until rigorously disproved, and the concept of Special Creation harmonizes neatly with the account revealed in Genesis. In contrast, Theistic Evolution has to be read into Scripture and imposed upon it, but the the sacred writer(s) of Genesis (including God as the principal Author of Scripture) gave no clue that this was how the Universe was created. (Gerard Keane, Creation Rediscovered,  pp. 182-184.)

 

A belief in "Theistic" evolutionism leads to all kinds of mischief, including that propagated by the late Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., who believed that God Himself was in the "process" of evolving (a theme common to Modernism in general):

According to Professor Wolfgang Smith, Teilhard was convinced that God could only create "evolutively," and he thus believed the Church was wedded to an outmoded scientific outlook. Teilhard believed it was vital to revise doctrine and adapt theology to harmonize with Evolution. In contrast to the objective view of reality, which olds that the Universe is composed of real, distinct things, he proposed a very vague concept of "unification." Everything apparently is evolving through supposed convergence toward a future goal called Omega.

For Teilhard, God is a transcendent reality, but not in the sense as usually understood in traditional Christianity. Rather, it seems that god is a secondary to the primary reality, which is the evolutionary unfolding of all things. "God" somehow inserted Himself into this evolving force, and Christ is now the force drawing everything toward Omega. In such a concept God is clearly not the transcendent Creator of all things:

As early as in St. Paul and St. John we read that to create, to fulfill and to purify the world is, for God, to unify it by uniting it organically with himself. How does he unify it? By partially immersing himself in things, by becoming "element," and then, from this point of vantage in the heart of the matter, assuming the control and leadership of what we now call evolution. Christ, principle of universal vitality because sprung up as man among men, put himself in the position (maintained ever since) to subdue under himself, to purify, to direct and superanimate the general ascent of consciousness into which he inserted himself. (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, quoted in Creation Rediscovered, p. 304.)

 

He [Chardin] envisioned a synthesis of the Christian "God up above" with the Marxist "goal up ahead," and in so doing raised the question whether God is a still-evolving entity. Not surprisingly, his words were, and still are, rejected by the teaching Magisterium. He was prohibited by ecclesiastical fiat from publishing his theories during his lifetime and on June 30, 1962, the Holy Office issued a Monitum (or warning) against the writings of Teilhard on the grounds that they gained ambiguities and doctrinal errors. (This warning is still current, having been reaffirmed again on July 20, 1981.) But Teilhard was too shrewd to leave the Church or to get excommunicated, and was effective in subversion from within.

 

Not that it matters all that much, it should be pointed out, however, that Joseph Ratzinger, who is also quite shrewd at times (and very bold on other occasions) did not become head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Conciliar Faith until November 25, 1981, the same date that he become the head of the "Pontifical" Biblical Commission. Ratzinger has criticized the influence of Chardin on the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes, saying that the council fathers should have relied upon Martin Luther instead, but he is not averse to praising Chardin's disciples lavishly, as he did in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005, when he referred to the late Abbe Paul Courtuier (1881-1953) as the father of "spiritual ecumenism" (Courtuier had been cited by Karol Wojtyla in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995). As it has been two years since I last referenced this material, perhaps it is good to do so once again:

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ

The Divine Milieu - The Unity of God, the Unity of Humanity

A third influence on Couturier was Teilhard de Chardin. Both men were scientists, and Teilhard's vision of the unity of creation and humanity expressed in the unity of Christ and the life of the Church appealed both scientifically and spiritually to Couturier. A reasoned consequence for him was that the unity of Christians was the sign for the unity of humanity, and that praying for the sanctification of Jews, Muslims and Hindus, among many others, could not fail but to lead to a new spiritual understanding of God where Christ could at last be recognised and understood. Couturier felt this keenly as he was partly Jewish and had been raised among Muslims in North Africa. It is worth noting that among Couturier's voluminous correspondents were Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, as well as every kind of Christian, all caught up in the Abbé's spirit of prayer, realising the significance and dimensions of prayer for the unity of Christians. Coincidentally, years later Mother Theresa spoke of the considerable number of Muslims who volunteered and worked at her house in Calcutta: 'If you are a Christian, I want to make you a better Christian - if you are a Muslim, I want to make you a better Muslim'. It cannot be denied that what those Muslims were seeing in Mother Theresa was Jesus Christ himself, just as the Abbe attracted so many to prayer across previously unbridgeable divides by his humility, penitence, and joyful charity in the peace of Christ.

2003-2004 also marks the 50th Anniversary of the launch of the Week of Prayer in Morocco as an act of charity and prayer among the people of Islam, a significant milestone in the experiences of today as much as then. The Abbé Paul Couturier and Spiritual Ecumenism

 

Does one begin to see a "convergence" in the direction of the the "Omega point" of the "synthesis of faith" in Joseph Ratzinger's mind? A belief in some form of the evolution of the species is necessary to justify the evolution of dogma, to justify "evolving" the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition into a form of the Novus Ordo service by means of Summorum Pontificum. He wants traditionally-minded Catholics to "evolve" to a blithe acceptance of the Novus Ordo service and of conciliarism's novelties. (Father Paul Aulagnier, a former priest of the Society of Saint Pius X who and is now in the Good Shepherd indult community in France, wants no part of this synthesis, making him one of very few in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who recognize Summorum Pontificum as an Hegelian trap to "evolve" Motu traditionalists into "regular" conciliarists. Alas, "evolution" of dogma and worship is part of the price of being in "good standing" with the conciliarists, something that should give priests such as Father Aulagnier pause to consider whether they are in "good standing" with the Catholic Church or with its diabolical ape, the conciliar church, that is certainly devolving into the One World Ecumenical Church.)

Joseph Ratzinger used his tenure as the prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Conciliar Faith to overturn a past decision he did not "like" (see Beatifying Their Own) and to speak out against "obsolete" doctrinal formulations and past papal pronouncements, doing this as well in his capacity as the president of the "Pontifical" Biblical Commission. His very own words testify as to his justification in treating past papal pronouncements and decisions of the congregation and commission he headed with contempt:

The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.

“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)

 

Apart from papal condemnations of the separation of Church and State and of religious liberty, Joseph Ratzinger had in mind the Pontifical Biblical Commission's Response on the Book of Genesis, issued on June 30, 1909. Although several of the responses leave certain areas (including the meaning of he world "day" in the Book of Genesis in the context of the six days during which God created the world) open for examination by Scriptural exegetes, the first three responses are galling for any true Modernist desirous of reconciling junk science, such as evolutionism, with the Catholic Faith:

 

Question 1: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: In the negative.

Question 2: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? -- Reply: In the negative to both parts

Question 3: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative.

 

These responses are galling to Ratzinger and his fellow Modernists who believe in some form of evolutionism, thereby demonstrating themselves yet again to have fallen from the Faith in addition to be completely and totally ignorant of how true science continues to debunk evolutionism. Although it entirely possible, if not entirely probable, that some sort of "clarification" on this matter will be issued by Father Federico Lombardi, Ratzinger's spokesman, do not believe for one second that millions upon millions of Catholics will read this report and will say, "See that? The Church does believe in evolution," before they return to their bagels or their discussions about Barry Bonds. The harm that is done by these "papal" statements is tremendous, compounding the harm done by conciliarism every day, including the offense given to God in the Novus Ordo, an instrument of sacrilege and of the deformation of souls.

Those seeking to conform the Catholic Faith to any sort of evolutionist theory do not believe in the omnipotence of God. Even though the matter of the length of the "days" during which God created the world is an open question among Scriptural exegetes, even true scientific evidence is showing that the earth is far younger than "billions upon billions" of years old, perhaps even as young as somewhere between six and ten thousand years old. Again, admitting the openness of the question, is it not possible for God to have created the world in six twenty-four hour clock days?

Why limit the omnipotence of a God Who become Man miraculously in His Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Holy Ghost? Why limit the omnipotence of a God Who turned water into wine at the wedding feast in Cana, the God Who restored sight to the blind, speech to the mute, hearing to the deaf, live to the dead, the God Who multiplied loaves and fishes on several occasions? Why limit the omnipotence of a God Who rose from the dead and Ascended to the Fathers's right hand in glory forty days thereafter? Why limit the omnipotence of a God who transforms the souls of mere men to make it possible for them to pronounce mere words over mere elements of this earth and to make Himself Incarnate under the appearance of those elements? Why limit the omnipotence of a God Who can heal the inner man of his sins in the baptismal font and in the confessional? Why seek to conform this all-powerful God to a disproved ideology, evolutionism, if not to debunk His omnipotence and His very immutability (and that of His Deposit of Faith)?

As noted on the home page this morning, having to deal with such tripe as "the Voice of the Earth" is very wearying. It is very saddening. Catholics don't talk about the "voice of the earth," however. Catholics talk about the Voice of God, who speaks only in the Catholic Church. It is the voice of the adversary, who lives under the earth, that speaks in and through the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Our Lord has undergone, some believe, His Mystical Passion and Death. He is in the tomb, mystically speaking, as His children are scattered in the catacombs. All the more reason, therefore, to cling to His Most Blessed Mother to ask her to make each day count so that we can give our daily prayers and penances and mortifications to her Divine Son's Most Sacred Heart through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as her consecrated slaves. She will assist us in these times of apostasy and betrayal. She promised that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. May we help to plant the seeds for that triumph with our daily Rosaries and by our fulfilling the terms associated with the Enthronement of our homes to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

These days of darkness will end. The conciliarists will be put to flight. May we put sin to flight in our own lives as we keep Our Lady company at her Divine Son's tomb, as we permit ourselves to be shepherded by true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the legitimacy of the conciliar shepherds who believe in fables and fairy tales and ideologies rather than the Catholic Faith.

 

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

 

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Saint Anne, pray for us.

Saint Pantaleon, pray for us.

Saint Christopher, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Simon Stock, pray for us.

Saint John of the Cross, pray for us.

Saint Teresa of Avila, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Irenaeus, pray for us.

Saints Monica, pray for us.

Saint Jude, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, pray for us.

Saint John Bosco, pray for us.

Saint Dominic Savio, pray for us.

Saint  Scholastica, pray for us.

Saint Benedict, pray for us.

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Antony of the Desert, pray for us.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.

Saint Bonaventure, pray for us.

Saint Augustine, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, pray for us.

Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini, pray for us.

Saint Lucy, pray for us.

Saint Monica, pray for us.

Saint Agatha, pray for us.

Saint Anthony of Padua, pray for us.

Saint Basil the Great, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Saint Cecilia, pray for us.

Saint John Mary Vianney, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Athanasius, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, pray for us.

Saint John Lalonde, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemont, pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, pray for us.

Saint John DeBrebeuf, pray for us.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, pray for us.

Saint Dominic, pray for us.

Saint Hyacinth, pray for us.

Saint Basil, pray for us.

Saint Vincent Ferrer, pray for us.

Saint Sebastian, pray for us.

Saint Tarcisius, pray for us.

Saint Bridget of Sweden, pray for us.

Saint Gerard Majella, pray for us.

Saint Bernadette Soubirous, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Pope Saint Pius X, pray for us

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.

Saint Rita of Cascia, pray for us.

Saint Louis de Montfort, pray for us.

Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, pray for us.

Venerable Pauline Jaricot, pray for us.

Father Miguel Augustin Pro, pray for us.

Francisco Marto, pray for us.

Jacinta Marto, pray for us.

Juan Diego, pray for us.

Sister Teresa Benedicta, pray for us.

 

The Longer Version of the Saint Michael the Archangel Prayer, composed by Pope Leo XIII, 1888

O glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against principalities and powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in His own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.  Fight this day the battle of our Lord, together with  the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in heaven.  That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the Name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay, and cast into eternal perdition, souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  That wicked dragon pours out. as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.  These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on Her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered.  Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen.

Verse: Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

Response: The Lion of the Tribe of Juda has conquered the root of David.

Verse: Let Thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

Response: As we have hoped in Thee.

Verse: O Lord hear my prayer.

Response: And let my cry come unto Thee.

Verse: Let us pray.  O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon Thy holy Name, and as suppliants, we implore Thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin, immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel Saint Michael, Thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of our souls. 

Response:  Amen.