Two indications of some dishonest workings:
- a man brought some wolfcubs before me, or rather they came to me anyway, and I explained that my sites were rather for their older siblings and parents.
I consider nearly all readable for junior scouts and girl guides, except some of it would need intellectual precocity. Obviously, their parents would not directly direct them at that parish to the very few articles that support Pope Michael (who is, like me, rejecting "John Paul II", "Benedict XVI", "Francis", whom they accept as Popes, if not good ones).
He specifically asked what was meant by the URL
Latest on Antimodernism
https://l-o-antimodernism.blogspot.com/
and I answered that Pope St Pius X had condemned Modernism as synthesis of all heresies.
He then said "don't you think that's inappropriate for them"?
I suppose even at that age they have some kind of notion on why they never go to Notre Dame de Paris for Mass? And what about the fact that I had already told the wolfcubs that it was probably more interesting to their older siblings or parents.
Most wolfcubs would indeed find an article on pmC levels a bit over their head, and for that reason would not be too bewildered by it, since leaving it to parents or older siblings. And if one actually did read such an article, he would probably be a precicious science geek, so, such an article would not be over his head.
However, the man hurried to get the wolfcubs away from me. - I am, as said, reworking the draft after leaving it alone, so I forgot which was the "second" one, here is another one, not same day: I saw a man who had several times asked me if I was well over there. And I had been thinking he had this pre-occupation from the Jesuits in St Médard (another Church close by) or possibly the priests of St. Étienne du Mont (a third Church close by), while I hadn't thought of St. Séverin or St. Julien le Pauvre (a fourth and fifth Church, this last being run by Uniate Melkites). But he goes to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet?
- This could have been the second indication for that day or it could have been from another day. One young man is curious about my blog. Another one tells him - while pulling him more or less away from me, over to Mass - "oh, he's known, I saw him over in Eleventh Town District" (Onzième Arrondissement in French, or simply Onzième for short) "where he was gluing posters" (no doubt with blog urls, if true).
I had not seen that other guy.
And I did not see either of the two after that Mass.
Now, here is perhaps part of the explanation:
Second, this book contends with Catholics, and anyone else, who have accepted the major teachings of modern science and thereby have rejected either biblical revelation, the traditional ecclesiastical consensus, or the official magisterial statements that disagree with modern science’s theories or conclusions. As one can see by the title, I have chosen to focus on the recent book by Fr. Paul Robinson, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. He is a priest of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a very conservative but embattled branch of Roman Catholicism. The reason he was chosen is normally we don’t see many examples of staunchly conservative Catholic groups being unduly influenced by the theories of modern science to the point they either reject or neutralize the biblical, traditional and magisterial teachings. If there is any group of Catholics from whom we could expect a rigid traditional Catholic view of either the Bible or its interpretation, it is the SSPX, at least in its beginnings under its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. But like many conservative groups today, the inevitable tendency is to judge scientific issues according to the world’s “status quo” and to avoid being dubbed “Fundamentalist.” Fr. Robinson’s book, insofar as he represents the SSPX, has proven to be no exception.
So, since these words were by Robert Sungenis, and he is known to be Geocentric, I suppose Father Paul Robinson is Heliocentric, perhaps even Evolution believing, very probably Deep Time believer (moyboy, as some Creationists like to dub it).
I have several times tried to reach out to Saint Nicolas du Chardonnet to verify this point, seems Father Paul Robinson is indirectly answering my question, and I only hear of this through by-ways, not being notified myself, when I see the ad for Robert Sungenis' answer to that book:
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
575 pages.
More info on the book is in the description below.
This book was written for two purposes: First, to educate the public at large by a critical examination of science and history, especially in the areas of cosmogony and cosmology. Although modern science purports to know the origin and operation of the universe, in reality it comprehends very little and actually spreads more falsehood today than it does truth. On its face, modern science is the last formidable bastion of secular society. It is touted as impregnable and invincible. Indeed, today’s scientists have the education, the grants, the sophisticated equipment, the iconic image, the universities, the newspapers and the general media on their side. Opposing voices can barely form a whisper of contention. It is truly a Goliath if there ever was one in our modern age and it is as big as the universe itself.
[followed by already quoted paragraph]
Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church provides a detailed and comprehensive rebuttal to the scientific, theological and exegetical views held by Fr. Paul Robinson, including his views on: The Big Bang; long-ages for the Universe and Earth; progressive creationism; heliocentrism; a local Noachic flood; and current views on radiometry and sedimentology.
575 pages.
There was a time when SSPX wrote a pamphlet "Quo Vadis, Vallais" about apostatic rejection of Christ the King in the canton of Vallis, and another one "Pierre m'aimes-tu?" (Peter, do you love me?) about "John Paul II". It starts to seem one can write similar pamphlets about them, by now.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Cleophas*
25.IX.2018
PS, it is possible that FSSPX has as much an excuse as Leo XIII had for indirectly encouraging Heliocentrism (not stating any support, but knowing how Providentissimus Deus would be taken), but that Pope at least refrained from directly supporting the error. He was probably concerned to avoid persecution in for instance Liberal Italy or Third Republic France - and FSSPX is present in both France and Russia, where Creationism is not exactly very well received, and where there are Marxist ideas about what should be done to parents and children in families encouraging this. So, it could be a tactic to avoid persecution. However, these days we have already seen the bitter fruit of such tactics in the past, like encouraging persecutors ... it will be interesting if FSSPX will be criticising "Pope Francis" for his deal with Red** China./HGL
* Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum. ** China is now Capitalist, and yet it is still Communist: interesting, isn't it?
