The Recusant - Jan/Feb 2018
Mar 5, 2018 20:05:31 GMT
Post by Admin on Mar 5, 2018 20:05:31 GMT
The Recusant 45 - JanFeb 2018.pdf (7.53 MB)
Inside:
- “Mass of All Time vs. Mass of Our Time” (Abp. Lefebvre)
- Remembering the English Martyrs (Jan. - March)
- Open Letter to Fr. Ortiz (re. Russian Orthodoxy)
- A Closer Look at Vladimir Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church (Digest)
- “The Heresy of Evolution” (Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer)
Excerpt (pages 1-5):
FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR:
Dear Reader,
The world around us believes lies, the father of whom, says sacred Scripture, is Satan. It believes them, one suspects, not so much through pure ignorance, but because it wants to believe them. It likes the lies. It enjoys them. That may well be why it can feel so difficult and frustrating trying to lift the veil from the eyes and hearts of those around you. If they want to believe the lie, what can you do?
Many of the problems of our modern era can be correlated with (and seen to be caused directly or indirectly by) the continued weakening of the Church. Modernism is the disease of our time. It is what is causing the current crisis in the Church. We are in a fight to the death with this deadly poison, and we need to fight it tooth and nail and not give any ground. And the root of modernism - what caused it, where does it come from? Evolution. Therefore, it seems to me, if we are serious about fighting modernism, the “sewer of all heresies” as St. Pius X called it, and to roll back its tide, then we probably ought to get serious about eradicating the error which spawned it. If we want to make progress in the fight against modernism, surely we ought to get serious about converting people away from the monstrous lie of evolution and back to the truth of Almighty God’s creation as taught by Sacred Scripture.
The Root of Modernism
In her book “A Handbook of Heresies”, the author M L Cozens describes the origins of modernism thus:
“Nearly every heresy, however far reaching its final denials, begins as an attack on one particular dogma. In the opening years of this [i.e. 20th] century however, appeared a heresy which attacked not one dogma but the very roots of dogmatic theology.”
“The two sciences which made the most apparent progress during the nineteenth century were biology and textual criticism. Biology and textual criticism were therefore the idols of the universities and schools. To them every other science must resign precedence: by their latest results must the truth of every other department in life be judged.”
“This spirit not only filled the non-Catholic world, but crept among the faithful and alas! even into the priesthood.
Among the clergy ordained during the past quarter of the century were some who, finding it impossible to reconcile the dogmas of certain modern scientists with the Dogma of the Faith, despaired not of modern science but of the Faith. Instead of holding firmly that God’s revelation is infallibly true, and that all other truth must eventually be found in harmony with it, they decided that whatever in Christian doctrine was out of harmony with the spirit of the age must go - or, as they would say, be so reinterpreted as to harmonise it.” (“Handbook of Heresies, XVI Modernism - p.79)
Among the clergy ordained during the past quarter of the century were some who, finding it impossible to reconcile the dogmas of certain modern scientists with the Dogma of the Faith, despaired not of modern science but of the Faith. Instead of holding firmly that God’s revelation is infallibly true, and that all other truth must eventually be found in harmony with it, they decided that whatever in Christian doctrine was out of harmony with the spirit of the age must go - or, as they would say, be so reinterpreted as to harmonise it.” (“Handbook of Heresies, XVI Modernism - p.79)
Plan of Attack
So, do we really want to fight modernism? Then we need to attack it at its root: evolutionism. And how do we do that? How do we go about undoing the monstrous lie of evolution in the popular mind? It seems to me that the first obvious step is to become educated ourselves in what exactly is wrong with the heresy of evolution and why. What are the arguments against it. Where are its fallacies to be found. What is the evidence which points directly in the opposite direction? Once you are more familiar with all of that, you can start to undo the lie in the minds of those around you. Of course, many will not be persuaded. But in my own experience it seems there are plenty of good people, intelligent people, people who are sceptical of the modern world and its superstitions and oracles (the mainstream media, for example) and who are not afraid to stand out from the crowd and be Athanasius contra mundum who nevertheless believe the lie of evolution. The reason, it seems to me, is really that they have never had the contrary case put convincingly to them by someone who is convinced of it himself. That could be you. There may be different approaches, and with a quick prayer to the Holy Ghost I am sure you will somehow find the right words. But you and I have a duty to play our part in this war, and we need to take it seriously and get into training for it.
Where will you find good resources? Do a search on ‘youtube’. There are a number of evangelical Protestant scientists and apologists out there who are very good and easy to understand. Anything by Kend Hovind for example, particularly from roughly 2001-2004 is very good; Dr. Jason Lisle is also very good. There are plenty of others. They are not right about everything, but the obvious and easy-to-make arguments against evolution are what you are looking for, and they are there in abundance. Once someone points it out to you, you wonder why you didn’t see that all along. First of all you yourself must be convinced. Then you will be able to convince others. In some cases it may be easier than you think. Your main obstacles will be peer pressure and a conformist spirit, so with the right person your task is relatively straightforward: all they need is the other side of the argument (which almost certainly, they will never have heard before). If you are looking for something to show others, not just to get your own understanding in place, the Ben Stein documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is very slick and acceptable to moderns. Again not everything in it is 100% infallible, but its main points are very well made and it would open more eyes if only it had a wider audience.
Modern Superstitions
Here is my own poor contribution. By way of giving you something you may find useful for starting a discussion, this is a quick run-down of what it is that the modern world expects us to accept and believe. Hint: it’s a lot more than just the idea of monkeys becoming humans.
Modern “science” in particular and the modern world in general demands that you believe the following:
1. Time, Space and Matter spontaneously began to exist at a given moment. Don’t ask, they just did.
2. A “big bang” happened, even though up to that point there was nothing to go bang, nor anything to give any kind of scale, come to think of it, which makes words like “big” and “small” meaningless, but never mind...
3. After nothing had finished going bang, the entire periodic table somehow “evolved” from whatever elements had gone bang (Hydrogen? Helium?), including Uranium and all the rest…
4. The stars and planets spontaneously formed. Also, notice that the laws which govern the universe (motion, gravity and so on) must also have come from somewhere by this point - presumably they too spontaneously sprang into existence along with time, matter and space?
5. The earth which had been a fire ball cooled down, it rained a lot, the earth turned to rock. From this bubbling “primeval soup” (in which there was no living, organic matter) over the course of billions of years there emerged a single-celled organism. Never mind how that happened, it just did. How does one get living matter from non-living matter? “True, rock plus water does not equal amoeba, but didn’t you hear? It happened over billions of years!” Take note - the timescale (itself wholly unproven and unprovable) is there solely to boggle our simple minds into accepting what we would not accept if someone proposed that it happened in a few hours. But it will do no good the laws of nature are fixed. That’s why they are laws. Lead doesn’t turn into gold even if you wait billions of years.
6. The amoeba somehow managed to become a fish, complete with gills and eyes and all the rest. Then the fish grew feet in order to get out of the water and walk on the land. And so on.
2. A “big bang” happened, even though up to that point there was nothing to go bang, nor anything to give any kind of scale, come to think of it, which makes words like “big” and “small” meaningless, but never mind...
3. After nothing had finished going bang, the entire periodic table somehow “evolved” from whatever elements had gone bang (Hydrogen? Helium?), including Uranium and all the rest…
4. The stars and planets spontaneously formed. Also, notice that the laws which govern the universe (motion, gravity and so on) must also have come from somewhere by this point - presumably they too spontaneously sprang into existence along with time, matter and space?
5. The earth which had been a fire ball cooled down, it rained a lot, the earth turned to rock. From this bubbling “primeval soup” (in which there was no living, organic matter) over the course of billions of years there emerged a single-celled organism. Never mind how that happened, it just did. How does one get living matter from non-living matter? “True, rock plus water does not equal amoeba, but didn’t you hear? It happened over billions of years!” Take note - the timescale (itself wholly unproven and unprovable) is there solely to boggle our simple minds into accepting what we would not accept if someone proposed that it happened in a few hours. But it will do no good the laws of nature are fixed. That’s why they are laws. Lead doesn’t turn into gold even if you wait billions of years.
6. The amoeba somehow managed to become a fish, complete with gills and eyes and all the rest. Then the fish grew feet in order to get out of the water and walk on the land. And so on.
The rest, I’m sure you already know. You may wish to ask just exactly how it is that we can know for certain that this or that took place “billions of years ago” as we are constantly being told. You may wonder out loud why it is that over the recent decades, “science” has been constantly pushing the timescale back, making it bigger and bigger. The secret, of course, which no one wants to admit, is that time is everything for the evolutionist. It is the magic ingredient without which his entire edifice, laughable though it already is, collapses into a heap of ridicule. That being the case, make sure you thoroughly acquaint yourself with the many, many evidences for a young earth (as in, 6000 years old) and for the flood (4,400 years ago, since you ask). And also for the existence of dinosaurs along side men, such as the soft tissue recently discovered to be inside dinosaur bones which were supposed to be 65million years old. The evidence is overwhelming and it’s out there. They’ve tried hard to hide it from us, but if you look for it, it’s not that hard to find.
It is also worth pointing out that all these fairy-stories which we are supposed to believe with a holy awe and reverence are entirely free of evidence. Can they really be called “science”? They are not observable. The magic spontaneously appearing amoeba, the evolving periodic table, the big nothing which went bang - none of it can be observed. Godless moderns like to think of themselves as sceptics and will refuse to believe in an actual miracle, but the truth is that ours is the most gullible era to have existed and quite happy to believe in these fantasies without a shred of evidence! At least miracles can be observed! Anyone can go to Naples and see the blood of St. Januarius liquefy; plenty of people witnessed for themselves that the girl with no pupils in her eyes could nevertheless see. What our religion proposes is reasonable. What their religion - make no mistake, it is a religion - demands of us is not. No reasonable person should believe it. If only we were braver and less prone to falling victim to human respect, surely no one would.
Vladimir Putin - Good Guy or Bad Guy?
Allow me to pre-empt a criticism. Am I going over the top with the news articles about Putin? I don’t think so. I hope not. He’s not all bad and may well be less bad than other world leaders. But is he really “a follower of Christ”? Methinks we need to set the bar a little higher. The point is not whether he is, on balance, a “bad guy” or a “good guy”, but whether he really is a follower of Christ. A real Catholic ruler would look somewhat different.
Fr. Marshall Roberts
In the last issue, I wrote that a man is innocent until proven guilty and that he has the right to a proper defence. Father Marshall Roberts, who recently joined Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko at Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Boston, Kentucky, is an innocent man unjustly accused. He has effectively been tried in the court of public opinion by men who ought to know better or who have no scruple, no conscience and a very large axe to grind. I am still waiting to see some serious evidence. God bless those who have been good and principled enough to stick up for him. Shame on those who have not. As Catholics we have a serious duty to defend the innocent. That some of the chattering classes of the Fake Resistance (side note: isn’t it interesting that the Fake Resistance exists largely on the internet?
Remember what Fr. Pfeiffer said in 2012 about an incarnational religion…) have been swift to publicly condemn Fr. Roberts on little to no evidence for the most obviously base motives: never let a good opportunity to attack Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko go to waste. That the Fake Resistance themselves considered Fr. Roberts as more-or-less one of them not so long ago is glossed-over and dropped down the memory hole. When the Fake Resistance bishops came visit Fr. Roberts at his former chapel and confirm his faithful, these people did not criticise them for it and neither did we. Who is being inconsistent now?
For anyone out there still undecided or tempted to abdicate their moral responsibility, throw their arms up in the air and with a sigh declare “How am I supposed to know who is right!?” please consider the following.
1. Fr. Roberts returned from the Indult back to the SSPX as a priest-friend more than ten years ago. The scandal-mongering goes back at least as far in time. The SSPX US District at the time investigated and gave him the green light. We are the continuation of the SSPX, the true SSPX, the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre. We only left in 2012 because we had to. Therefore we ought to abide by the decisions made before that time. Fr. Roberts’ superiors exonerated him just as Fr. Abraham’s superiors suspended him. We abide by the decision in each case.
2. I asked if serious evidence would be brought forward. Have you seen any? I have not. The man himself says he is innocent. There is a noticeable lack of evidence to the contrary. That ought to be ‘case closed.’ That there exist some people who are up-in-arms is all the more reason to ask why no serious evidence has been forthcoming.
3. In the meantime, here is some serious evidence for the other side. Most of the criticism I have seen has been going around privately by email. I really don’t like the way the same quotes from the same page of the same books are always recycled in these arguments. “Someone once wrote something in a book” is not a very strong argument at the best of times, less so when what was written is itself suggestive and vague. I recently came into contact with someone who might be able to throw some new light onto matters. If Fr. Pfeiffer’s word counts for nothing and if mine counts for nothing (since everyone knows I am the puppet of Fr. Pfeiffer - or vice-versa?), perhaps this will cause a few more brains to tick. The cleric to whom I spoke was a seminary classmate of Fr. Roberts in the early 1990s at Gricigliano. He says:
“Yes, I remember Marshall Roberts, he played the organ at my diaconal ordination. I never remarked anything amiss with him and only heard that he was dismissed for some matter that didn’t actually involve homosexual activities. I then heard he went to the SSPX where he was ordained and then to the Society of St John in Scranton Pennsylvania.”
“I repeat that I have not seen at first-hand any evidence of Fr Roberts behaving in an immoral way when he was a seminarian at Gricigliano.”
“I repeat that I have not seen at first-hand any evidence of Fr Roberts behaving in an immoral way when he was a seminarian at Gricigliano.”
He adds that there were other seminarians at Gricigliano who were dismissed for that sort of thing, and he gives names. Perhaps not very surprisingly he has asked that I keep his identity to myself, not wishing to be publicly embroiled in any controversy. In gratitude and justice I intend to respect his wishes. One always hates to see ones fellow Catholics behaving badly. Let’s have no more of this nonsense, please. There are serious battles to be fought.
Welcome to the front line of the Resistance, Fr. Roberts. If you were looking for a quiet life you’ve come to the wrong place!
- The Editor