Explicit Heresy Concerning Evolution of Dogma

Whereas during the “reigns” of John Paul II and Benedict XVI there was a certain hesitation about going too far in their heretical pronouncements and practices — although there were some blatant cases of heterodoxy and heteropraxis (actions which bespeak heresy) — we have seen in the “reign” of Francis a new boldness. Francis, for example, has recently denied the divinity of Christ and Transubstantiation (He said: “Christ becomes the bread”). Earlier he has denied the existence of hell, saying that bad souls are merely annihilated at death, has denied the unity of God (calling the single divine essence merely “God Spray”), has called the Church’s mission to preach the gospel “solemn nonsense,” has stated that atheists can go to heaven, said that sometimes God wants you to commit adultery “in order to keep the family together,” and has taught that those who live in adultery can approach Holy Communion. These are merely some of his outrageous statements. Add to this the introduction of the Pachamama idolatry into the Vatican.

Recently, in the context of the idolatrous worship, the Vatican website produced an article which explicitly teaches the heresy of evolution of dogma, condemned by Saint Pius X. Read this from the Vatican News website:

It is necessary to understand when a development of doctrine is faithful to tradition. The history of the Church teaches us that it is necessary to follow the Spirit, rather than the strict letter. In fact, if one is looking for non-contradiction between texts and documents, they’re likely to hit a roadblock. The point of reference is not a written text, but the people who walk together. [emphasis added]

So the Vatican is now saying through this article on its website that there will be contradictions found between texts, i.e., between what was taught before, and what is taught now. The author cites the ludicrous example of the Council of Jerusalem, in which it was decided that the ritualistic rules of the Old Law would not apply any more. He gives a better example, however: that of the contradiction concerning the teaching about the salvation of unbaptized babies. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, upheld by the Catechism of Saint Pius X, excludes the possibility of the beatific vision for unbaptized babies. The Catechism of the Koran-kissing “Saint” John-Paul II, however, gives a nebulous and typically Modernist gobbledygook answer that would lead you to believe that they do achieve the beatific vision.

So the Vatican, albeit informally, now admits that there is contradiction in dogma. This is a historic admission, for it is precisely what the sedevacantists have been saying all along. We have been criticized mercilessly by Novus Ordo conservatives as being “off the wall” and “too far.” But now they must face the facts as they are uttered by Vatican Modernists.

It all goes back to Vatican II. In response to the Pachamama scandal, a spokesman for the SSPX made the comment saying essentially that there is nothing new here. This is just more of the same.

I completely agree with him. Pachamama has permission to be in the Vatican Basilica from Vatican II, which says that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. Remember that there was the worship of fire permitted at Assisi in 1986, as well as the worship of the Great Thumb by the American Indians. There is nothing new. That is absolutely correct. It means that SSPX ought to condemn Vatican II instead of trying to make peace with it.

For this reason, Fr. Cekada recently said it perfectly in his recent blog: Instead of throwing the Pachamama idol in the Tiber, they should have thrown the documents of Vatican II in the Tiber. And this time put weights on it.

No Fossil Record

[Taken from the September issue of the MHT Seminary Newsletter]

Recently a noted computer scientist at Yale University, by the name of David Gelernter, came out against Darwinism. He said that the fossil evidence just was not there to support it.

He explains that according to Darwin’s theory, the fossil evidence had to show fossils of very simple beings which eventually evolved into higher beings.

Darwin himself expressed concern about the absence of these fossils, but was sure that in the course of time (now about 150 years) the fossils which prove the theory would be found.

They have not been found.

Continue reading

An interesting discovery

On November 24th, Fox News carried an article which says that scientists in the U.S. and Switzerland have discovered that “all humans alive today are the offspring of a common father and mother.”

“Mark Stoeckle at Rockefeller University and David Thaler at the University of Basel” the article said, “reached this striking conclusion after analyzing the DNA ‘bar codes’ of five million animals from 100,000 different species. The bar codes are snippets of DNA that reside outside the nuclei of living cells – so-called mitochondrial DNA, which mothers pass down from generation to generation.”

They added that the evidence shows that this original couple existed a mere 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, which is a very short time, apparently, in the evolutionary clock. They attribute this “Adam and Eve” phenomenon to some catastrophic event in which everyone perished except these two people.

They also concluded that about 90% of all animal species alive today descend from the same parents giving birth at roughly the same time.

What evolutionists expect us to believe. This finding, if accurate, means either (1) that two gorillas graduated from gorilla-hood into humanity at exactly the same time and in exactly the same place, so close in time and place that they were able to reproduce, or (2) that after some horrific catastrophic event, these two individuals managed to survive, alone on the entire planet, in exactly the same place.

Already evolution has required that we believe that none of the life forms on this planet was either designed or created by anyone, but that they all came from a body of water that was struck by lightning and/or cosmic rays. Gradually they made their way up the evolutionary ladder, after billions of years, and this through a series of mutations which are caused by radiation and cosmic rays. The whole earth, therefore, including all that inhabits it, is the result not of design, but chance.

Those who hold to evolution ridicule the account in Genesis about the creation and fall of man. Too fantastic to believe. Yet they are not abashed to require of us to believe in the infinitesimally tiny chance of the earth’s evolving, together with its living contents, by hazard and mutation. It is an act of faith which is too absurd for me to make.

Does it not make much more sense, even apart from religion, to say that the structure of the human body, for example, which is so astonishing in its complexity, efficiency, and beauty of engineering, was in fact designed by a very intelligent being? Would we not say this about the Golden Gate Bridge

In fact, the design of all plant and animal life cries out for this same designer.

The finding, as well, shows that 90% of all animal species on earth “come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than a quarter-million years ago,” as the article said.

Evolution would demand that each one of the innumerable species of animals existing today — when we think of the insects, for example — all at the same time and in exactly the same place found mates and reproduced successfully so as to make a separate species. This supposedly happened after a catastrophic event that wiped out everything except these animal couples who managed to survive and reproduce.

So in addition to the leap of faith we must make to accept that the order and design of animal life happened by chance, against virtually infinite odds, we are now required to add onto this evolutionary Credo the fact that 90% of animal species were wiped out by some unknown and mysterious calamity, but that, by chance, these animal species survived and reproduced because the last male and female happened to find each other and fall in love.

This is incredibly absurd.

Why evolution makes no sense. Common sense, what in philosophy we call the first principles of reason, knows that from nothing, nothing comes. It is impossible, in other words, that being come from nothing. This same common sense tells us that the cause of anything must have a perfection more than the effect has it. For example, a young pine tree cannot reproduce itself, since it does not yet have the perfection of its nature. When it achieves maturity, it is able to produce pine cones and reproduce the species. So the nature of pine must be more perfect in the mature tree than in the seedling which it reproduces. This is true of all living things. Reproduction occurs when the nature achieves perfection. In children, for example, the nature is not yet perfect, and unable, therefore, to reproduce. In old age, the nature is declining and unable to reproduce. (1)

Evolution requires that something higher come from something lower. The gorilla becomes a man. They attribute this to mutations caused by cosmic rays. While it is true that accidental mutations may occur within a species (change in color, for example), it is impossible that a higher species evolve from a lower one, since this would mean that something more is produced from something less, or that something comes from nothing.

Constancy. Evolution, furthermore, cannot explain the constancy of the order of nature. Chance is something that comes and goes. It cannot produce a constant order. In fact, the very word chance is not even intelligible except by comparing it to order. That “something happen by chance” can only be understood in comparison to what happens by ordinary causation. For example, we might say that someone by chance found a buried treasure when he was digging in his yard. “Chance” here is only meaningful when we consider that in 99.9% of cases, you do not find a buried treasure when you plant your roses.

Constancy demands a cause, a constant cause.

Eternal matter? Evolution, in rejecting the Creator, requires that matter be eternal. For from nothing, nothing comes. They reject as absurd the idea of a God who is Subsistent Being, eternal, infinite, without beginning or end. Yet in their system they must posit a matter which is eternal, which had no beginning, which existed from all eternity. If the Supreme Being with no beginning is absurd, then why is not eternal matter absurd? Or shall we say that one day matter just “poofed” into existence, the so-called “Big Bang?” But common sense objects: From nothing, nothing comes.

Intelligent design. Quite a few prominent atheistic scientists have come to assert something called intelligent design. They feel comfortable in this assertion since — they think — it preserves their atheism but at the same time preserves them from the absurdities which I have described.

Intelligent design, however is a logical rocket ship which goes straight up to an Infinite Supreme Being, who has no beginning and no end, and who is Subsistent Being itself. For the obvious question is: Who designed the designer? This question is relentless in its demands. Nor can it be satisfied by saying there is an infinite series of designers. For again from nothing, nothing comes. An infinite number of falling dominoes, for example, does not explain their movement. Someone had to push the first domino.

In other words, the existence of our finite world, which can so easily perish, requires the existence of a Being who is Being itself, Being by His very nature, who can never lose being, and who always possessed it, and who therefore had no beginning and will have no end.

(1) It is for this reason that sexual attraction — which is ordered to reproduction — increases as the perfection of the nature increases, and decreases as the perfection of the nature decreases. People in their old age are not as attractive as they were in their youth.

Answers to a College Student, Part I


Earlier this spring I received a letter from a college student who told me that he had been raised in a “very liberal Catholic Church” and at present he was an agnostic. He felt, however, a certain urge within himself to seek some answers concerning the Christian faith, as he put it. Here are his questions and my answers to them.

Question 1. Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Christianity and all religions is something I call “the size of the universe problem.” This problem is the fact that the universe is so infinitely large and expansive, it is very hard for me to believe that one earthly religion out of thousands is the correct one. Plus, how can one religion that sprang up on a four billion year old rock floating in a thirteen billion year old universe be correct? How do you recognize the earth’s insignificance in the universe, and how can one faith manage to stand out? Continue reading