How many subscriptions are quietly draining your bank account every month?
Netflix. Spotify. YouTube Premium. ChatGPT. Disney+. Before you know it, you're paying hundreds every year for services you use every day. See if you can cut those costs without giving them up. Find out here.
RELIGIOUS ORDER: THE OLD FROM THE NEW for Archbishop Vigano.Archbihop
I quote:
“Saint Pius X defined Modernism as the heresy that derives from this philosophical error. Whatever is new is considered an absolute good simply because it is new. And this despite the evidence of the disastrous effects that the cancellation of the past in the Church would cause – on the doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary levels, but also on the cultural, artistic, and popular level as well – as predictably happened…
Cancel culture is inevitable wherever what is new must be accepted uncritically, and where what is ancient – dismissed as being “old” – must be forgotten so that it does not hang over the present as a severe warning. And it is not a coincidence if George Orwell’s novel 1984 foretold the censorship of information ex post, after the fact, making corrections to past news according to its changing utility in the present.
“ “BRAVO WELL SPOKEN” “
“Deep church and deep state move in parallel and in sync, because what moves them both is hatred for Jesus Christ. The antichristic matrix resides in deception, which is the mark of the Liar: a deception that began of the Liar: a deception that began with making Adam and
Eve believe that their disobedience would make them similar to God, when in reality they had been created “in the image and likeness of God” precisely in freely conforming to the divine cosmos impressed by the Creator in creatures and in creation. We find the same deception in making us believe that man can deny God and rebel against his Holy Law without consequences, when Satan first of all, sinning through pride, has damned himself for eternity.
The myth of liberty, of which license and libertinism are counterfeits, is a lie. The secular state, which denies the Lordship of Christ the King in society, is a lie. Ecumenism, which places the Truth of God on the same level as error in the name of a peace and fraternity that cannot exist outside the one Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, is a lie. It is a lie to have erected progress as an absolute good, because what it considers a good is in reality an evil that affects individuals and society, both secular society and spiritual society. It is a lie to pass off as a victory of popular demand something that an elite of conspirators has decided to impose on the masses, with the sole intent of dominating them and leading them to perdition.”
Friday, 7/8/2022 6:57:56 AM
What I would like to know Archbishop Vigano is, are you and the Vatican and the Pope good copping and or bad copping me?
There are three forces science, government, and genesis in motion.
The bible as the beginning and end cannot be changed, only interpreted. If prophecy must be delivered, then what purpose does the church have in an end it cannot change and, in a world, where science knows more about the beginning of the Universe from a math reality-based fact from observations of properties of objects.
Genesis should never be given an inferior rank and the new covenant was a prophecy given in Genesis and was delivered. They are the same. The new in secular society is a forgotten past. We were told do this in memory of me. This is the full truth of God that was delivered and made us one. The one is all in the church of the faithful and salvation that receive his word through the gospel.
The purpose of the church is in the fruit of the faithful. The purpose for God is man and his creation. In this purpose there is an order. That order is in genesis.
In this sense the new; the end, comes from the old; the beginning. It cannot be escaped or separated.
This fundamental understanding is lacking in man, the world, science, and governments.
To understand genesis we must start at a beginning. Since the universe was first in the order this is where I will begin. First, some context on Sean Carrol then the Beginning of Time Space as revealed by man through my PowerPoint.
First the Adversary: Science and Government
Sunday, 11/14/2021 10:46:35 AM
Mr. Sean Carroll,
I am writing to you because in the year 2011 or around there I was taking a computer class to learn how to use PowerPoint. I decide to do my presentation on the beginning of the Universe. Once I started, I realized I knew nothing about it. Be that as it may I began to research it and found that it was difficult to put into simple terms as an idea to a class of people who were like me.
They did not have a PhD and would not understand terms like phase transition, closed time like curves, entropy, scientific determinism, Hilbert space, vector space and so on. I still do not know any of this. This is what makes it a difficult thing to do in a short time and say something simple enough that they could understand. I had to understand at least what I wanted to say and that was difficult because then what do you include into a presentation that is only to be 20 slides long as a limit.
In any case I happened on a site with you and as I remember you were saying we are receiving light from the future on the beginning of the universe. Then you explained how sequence of events as time, is a construct of the brain. Then you say that is the way it is for ordinary experience. This is why I remember you.
I have recently watched your videos on “What if time really exists” and “God does not make a good theory.” You draw some interesting comments, but I feel you do not fully appreciate the why of the Universe. Allow me to explain God first.
He is the god of no beginning and no end of the supernatural. Obviously in that context there are no properties we can measure and suggest reality from the natural world, therefore, according to science he does not exist. I take this reasoning from Stephen Hawking’s definition of scientific determinism.
Second you have taken your discussion on God, based on the reasoning of the philosophers, meaning the stoics, therefore your reasoning is based on their thoughts. I will say they did not know him and or understand him other than what would have been said as a part of biblical history.
But in their reasoning of the logos and the form or the Theory of Ideas and form they included him into the philosophy because it went well with their frame of thought as to the beginning of everything in reality. Or they were just a bunch of cowards in trying to grasp a hold on a society that could possibly rebel, if they said anything different.
I believe this is the reason for the unmoved mover and what else could that be at the top of their reasoning logos from the dialectic. The form was the beginning to all generation and thus species for them. I think they were thinking about before an existence possibly, without saying it.
In their world view,
To have a beginning they would have need of a cause and that would give them generation based on what they could see which would be knowledge from induction and transformed by deduction. Like it or not their intelligence wanted to know the beginning of what? You seem to run from the idea that this is in man’s nature to know.
Otherwise, our senses do nothing for us in reality and if you subtract deduction then it would be a true wonder that man has made it this far without reason in doing so. I would ask if our senses that give us the first-round view of reality whatever reality is without reason, then, why there would be no reason for a universe to create itself for no reason. If the universe created itself for no reason, then we mankind have no reason or purpose either. But it seems there is purpose in one more breath of life and money.
I would call that the no reason argument. This would reduce mankind to nothing but not the universe because even in no reason for being here it does not need us to feel important about itself. It has you to do that. Unless you subscribe to the idea that the universe and mankind as we know it are linked together for no reason.
Then Satan will whisper in your ear to you; but what about all that ordered space man? What a waste of a universe. The fact that it is that ordered in structure astounds you but the order in all things does not. I am sure you have the power to create such a vast magnitude of matter and the order is all in you.
I believe this is why science only talks about what it can see, touch, feel, smell and hear because there is no purpose in talking about things that have no properties because they do not exist because we do not see them. To talk about nothing is a pointless exercise but it was Stephen Hawking’s that said everything came from nothing, meaning that primeval atom that created the whole universe for no apparent reason. In this is the problem of time. Does it exist? If it has no properties, the answer is simple.
The true problem of the universe is not the no need of reason for its existence. It is much more pedestrian. I would ask where did it come from? This is the nutcracker because if that tiny point always was and was not created then it is God. But it was created so where it came from is important to understand that it was not in a or an existence before the big bang.
And the whacky world of science does not have the math of no, no how, no way and nowhere, because that atom came from somewhere. I will ask the question properly. How did that primeval atom get to the no-where or somewhere of nothing? I will ask another question without the universe how does that leave man? Where would he be?
This is a much more difficult of a question to answer than; if it needed a reason to do that very, major thing. Because we know according to you, things do not need a reason to be. In the real world if everything is without reason then why does everything become is? One no reason answer; is because it continues to be as it is. But why does this happen with everything to be continually, without anything just coming apart or disintegrate.
Existence and nonexistence has always been a problem to understand because everything we talk about is in an or a existence. But when science talks about time or space does existence have any meaning? I suppose one could ask why does space need time, to be with any meaning; or without time would space exist?
I would argue just because we have a world of reality with data, input objects, and properties does not elevate us to a world of knowledge without reason. I would suggest ignorance is the real goal of information. Ignorance does not require a God, nor does it need reason to.
Their problem (the stoics) is the science and technology that was available to them to investigate and discover knowledge as we have it today. By that last sentence I mean their world of knowledge is different than ours, but they did give us science. The one true evil in the world.
Third in your discussion of ontology and should God be included in our empirical hypothesis and does including God provide the best explanation of the data. There is no empirical data that science has on God, other than the supernatural events recorded as part of biblical record, so science cannot say it can observe God.
The ontology would be more about man and his epistemology of his truth in universal laws and how he acquired them. In other words, ontology is more about man and his natural world reality then a transcending reality of God that is of a supernatural source. Which, I would say science; or, not anyone can know God which would be substantiated from the bible because no one has ever seen the face of God, we just know that he is.
Fourth, your explanation of motion is not adequate from the philosophers. All philosophers had their version of reality or the principles. It was the principles that become the outline to hang the 4 causes.
The 4 causes were air, fire, water, earth that everything came from according to Aristotle because they are in their end state and in that state, nothing can be created or destroyed. The elements are the end state, and the principles is how Aristotle arrived at that. These are the terms of the principles I made up of which there are 4. 1.Essence, 2. Matter, 3. Change and 4. End. Change is equivalent to motion moving to its end state which is what everything in nature does apart from the elements that are already in their end state. For example, we are born as a baby, and we move to our end state which is to become an adult then die or die before old age. But die we must and or do one way or another.
Fifth, life you explain as biology and really ignore life as where it comes from.
Then the question would be created from what? Spontaneous generation would be the answer in the substance of the parts as the beginning to life from the beginning of the parts. The parts have to have substance or the whole will be without life. That means the parts are the elements that bring their own life force. It is in the love of these parts that we find ourselves from or in today.
If I am practicing intellectual mortification, then the elements with their own life force are reduced to what beginning? When we are born where did we come from because before conception we were not here. This is why all organic matter is different from each other and any other types of matter.
Also, this is why cloning such as science from chemistry or biology fails in reproducing a life form that is just like us and it never is the same as when and how life is born or reproduced from the normal means that was a result of it’s original genesis. If life came from the parts such as in spontaneous generation, then where did the parts receive their life force from and where did the parts come from? It cannot be from the conditions that explains nothing.
Once the system is here, we can observe and explain this system but not before we hypothesize with our theories from what we see and observe only. Otherwise, reproduction does not exist only our theories do because what reason would life have to produce and reproduce in all of its forms and continue to be connected or not connected as we see it all the time? Being here seems pointless except of course if you are a result of and a part of Universal Law and truth or self-generating systems.
Sixth, the mind is because we have our central nervous system in the inside of us and not on the outside. This is why the senses are important in the first layer of reality as we know it and also why holograms work on us because reality is constructed to be stable. It is called same input should be coupled with the same output. This how we the organism learn and become one with our environment. Maybe not all at the same level but within a normal range one would hope.
Seventh, I think you are confused for some reason as to the beginning of the universe. If you do not believe the big gang is the beginning of the universe, then you have no proof of how where or when the universe began other than the bible as a record of that history and that it did.
This conversation is really elementary. Either it began or it was always here. We have no theories that it was always here. If it was always here, then that would mean something did not come from nothing and it would also mean that an expanding universe which we can now see it is expanding was always here and there was no beginning to its expanding or reason for its expanding or its beginning.
I would say these are really unsuitable hypothesis. But I understand that if you cannot say how the universe got here than you cannot say how it began. If you cannot say how, it got here than you also, cannot say how man got here.
Ninth, I now understand your entropy idea of order and how God does not figure into that much order in the entire Universe for us to (life) exist. While I can understand your reasoning in that explanation which you are deeply entrenched in science, I find your understanding of the god of no beginning and no end; irrational and not to exist in your intellect. Still, I believe if you could find a way to understand the theology of life as was produced from the supernatural it would not change your mindset. Where I believe you are reasonable is in your view of the importance of life as it would relate to science and or a God.
Where you become irrational in your understanding is suggesting that God created the whole universe just to give us life and you surmise it is a waste of a lot of space for us and was not needed. You would not make a good God of that power. I have no idea why he created the whole universe but without it we are not here, and that part is true and simple.
The beauty of that argument is that in genesis and the order of the creation is how we were given life and that is a supernatural theology of life in all created matter, man and life. That is the importance of the Old Testament which is spiritual knowledge but the New Testament is married to the Old in that knowledge by the Gospel of Saint John who gives a different version of the same subject of the beginning.
My understanding is that when you say the entropy to be 10-10120 is the reason why god did not create it for us to exist is an argument from no-where and is irrelevant to the understanding of the unknown god. You have no idea what his purpose for life was. Yet you relay his reasoning as if it would be yours in understanding order in the universe as it would relate to the creation of man and somehow, he made a mistake. As if you could really make all the sound reasonings in how, what, where and when to do this but you do not need reason for anything if I hear you.
The low entropy state in the early universe in your theories of its beginning or its importance to created matter and life which are not necessarily the same thing was for you to have something to say to your students. Your understanding of life is more from biology which is organic. But a human without a soul is why cloning does not work.
I am afraid the philosophers were crude in their understanding. You end your video by saying all the things that God is he is not a good ontological argument for science, and I agree because the problem of ontology is for the natural world of science in these epistemological rantings of the truth called creation.
But when you put God on trial for not doing as good as the natural world of men in science is really the work of the coming antichrist. He is not going to be so misinformed in his judgment of you as you have been in your judgement of him, that I can tell you.
If I may, besides, not having a fundamental understanding of the soul, life, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the supernatural and its knowledge you are not rational in equating ontology with it being a god problem; it is a natural world problem of man in his musing over his intelligence and what he knows and can predict about the universe which is nothing. Even Stephen Hawking’s understood that eventually.
There was a book called the human potential and world problems and that is where all the problems have come from since the beginning from the potential of man and you blame God for that. Ignorance is not an excuse for poor reason. Yes, he did create everything and just because you cannot understand all the order your math tells you; is not a reason to think you could create a better world.
It seemed to many years ago that science thought of itself as all the solutions to the world and I can now see it is not only not the solution but part of the problem. There were some that thought science was a problem for man at that time and they wrote about it.
I will say this for you Mr. Sean Carroll, God, and the supernatural is real and I know that it is not something I delude myself with. I once argued that time is universal and actual at the same time. The problem with man is that he constrains meaning toward his foundation of thought. Then he creates theories that can be proven by the reality of the world that was created by God not by him because he has never created anything of that magnitude. He is more like an order taker that puts himself in charge of explaining that of what he had nothing to do with and it was some else’s work. Not very humble.
It is disappointing to see this state of man especially in this time we are in. I really believe that Kurt Gödel made the best argument of ontology about the epistemology of the Einstein spacetime of relativity on time travel. He said Einstein’s equations could describe a rotating universe and in that universe time travel would be possible. He based his thoughts on the ontology of epistemology of our world. While he was largely ignored, he was brilliant, but he did go nuts and snuffed himself out of existence, unfortunately.
If reality is different from where or what position I see it from then is it real if no one sees it the way I do; or does that mean I am not real if I do not see it as they do. If reality is not real, as I see it; then maybe I do not exist as if this were important to time.
I think he said a past that does not conclude is a past that never happened. If the past does not exist, then the future does not exist. Because it has not happened since it has not reached its conclusion.
Another problem you have is in the block universe. If the distance between two points is light years, then for them to be at the same time is not a reasonable expectation of a common body of habitation.
But a point that moves/expands in all directions in equal length at the same speed will have the same time because it is the same space is illogical as concluding time does not exist due to sameness and to suggest that the outer edge is the future is ridiculous as an idea because future of what? Space? This tells you that time as the future is not a direction of movement it is a location on a plane in time that would need to have coordinates otherwise time travel as to space is not time and is a fool’s paradise. But if that location of time on that plane has a concluded history, then there is only the space that remains? If time is discreet then there is no existence only separate realities moments apart.
If two points that are observed at a distance from each other are moving away from each other are they doing this at the same time or at different times? If two points observed from each other are at rest at a distance from each other are they at rest at the same time or at different times? Then is time about motion, at rest, or universal?
If they move away from each other or are at rest; which point contains the future and which point contains the past?
What the most brilliant big mind guys seem to ignore is that time as a sequence of events is a construct of the brain/ mind because if the senses could not have that input processed through the central nervous system them our world would never make any sense because our memory would be useless. Consider if things or events were changing every split second then nothing would last long enough for our memory to work, and our world would never make any sense. So, the design is useful since even cells have memory to group together and communicate as cells.
But if I hear you correctly that would depend on which universe they live where the laws of science are different. Right of course that is how it works with things we do not observe.
Maybe most of the matter in the universe was created with memory that way it would stay as a unity and function and purpose would be consistent, least of all the integrity of its nature as a system. But what is difficult to figure is how the particles knew this was the design from the big bang in all that radiation before they became elements then molecules then cells then I am afraid to say became us. Wow A lot of conditions for the parts to behave in search of the whole in the survival of the fittest and get it right to be life of science as you know it.
I say there are an infinite amount of paths to get it right and only one path to get it wrong. Without induction life is nothing but chance.
It would seem to me that the math would eventually come up against the brick wall and that being there are only two sides to a wall. The side where there is everything that is known and can be seen and the side that cannot be seen. But if we do not see it that means it is not there and that is naturalistic security and no need to talk about what we cannot see. Unless it be on moral grounds in which we think much better from our human potential.
For the universe and matter to form real quick like, is reasonable to listen to, but for man that is a different story about the true nature of time; and quite possibly that is in the memory of the cells in the DNA and or the Garden of Eden.
I hope that you will not misconstrue as my being harsh with you since you have an education and a PhD and are a really intelligent person. I have no degree but the little I think I understand, and I try to say. I understand the supernatural as well as can be understood in a normal way and I know the supernatural/God/Jesus is real. But I cannot prove what I say, and it is not a theory. It is just what it is. The first recorded history comes from the time of Abraham so where is your recorded history from the ontological proof god is not real and that he ever talked about the universe in a meaningful way?
Having a chip on your shoulder about God is common among men of science. I will not try to make you a believer because you are to smart for that but if you could at least read some interesting works so that you can get a handle what religion, faith and the supernatural is about and how that relates to genesis outside of it being the revelation of how things were in the creation it would be nice if it gives a better balance in your discourse in science and how it does relate to science and only where it does not in suppositions of you own making.
I understand your problem in reading those kinds of material it does not have the vigor of math, and a provable argument that could be supported by predictions form the theory.
Yet it has prophecy that has been fulfilled. God does not need the math of science to know what the state of the future from any given point and science with all its ontology does not know that. For this reason, there is no; the future, only a future that is fulfilled by prophecy.
A counter argument to God is the order from chaos theory where some cheap undirected energy creates order. God does not need proof and he has no interest in entropy after all, he made everything, and he does not need to consult with anyone on how he made unusual order judgments about life. As if this were a serious argument against an external power source.
But create it he did, so when is the last universe you created or life. If you have created a life, did you ever think that somehow God was connected with your ability to do that?
But science now is into the abnormal things such as transhumanism and cloning and the rest. In other words, the biggest evil in life now and for some time is and has been science. As Ross Ashby would say “Wake up man it is yourself.”
I hope that the very least I have given you something to think about that you have not thought about before and I do thank you for the work you have done that I have been interested in and that I can understand even if it is in a small way. Science is really vast and there is no simple way to understand it.
Sincerely, and best regards,
Antonio C. Villa Jr.
Georges Lemaitre
These are notes from a video of the Big Bang by Stephen Hawking on the science channel. I took notes and created a narrative for my friend on what he said. Then in the timeline it is text from the Smithsonian Universe and how they have captured what happened in this beginning from this tiny primeval atom as was put forth by a Belgium Catholic Jesuit Priest, theoretical physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and professor of physics named Georges Lemaitre
Monday, 11/15/2021 7:31:52 PM Page 1
Dear Melissa,
This is the presentation I promised to give to you that I did in around 2011.
I decided to write some notes to go along with the presentation that I printed out for you. Since I found these notes that I had written in a subject notebook at that time I decided to copy and print them out for you. It will help be an information narrative in what you will see from the book of the presentation slides I am giving you.
At that time when I was in process doing the research, I wrote these notes as a guideline and from these notes I created the PowerPoint presentation into 21 slides.
I can see as I review these notes that it was also a video from the science channel at that time in where Stephen Hawking’s is doing an introduction into the beginning of the Universe.
One thing in the information leads to another thought as to what to use in a presentation on a subject you know nothing about and so even when you have information from the research it is still difficult to know how to organize and order the input to make a unity in the product as would be said by what science had known in that time. Of course, understanding what they mean in what they are saying is another problem in comprehension in a subject you do not really know.
For example what do they mean by quantum gravity, weak and strong nuclear force, energy into matter and matter into energy, mass, massless particle, antimatter, dark energy, time and all these concepts or terms and are they really understandable so that in a simple format of a presentation you can understand what the big mind people are thinking and saying other than just talking to themselves or people like themselves.
Those terms I just gave you are in the theory of the universe in what happened and how science tries to understand what they see in their investigations of motion, space, time gravity and particles as they relate to a universe that is forming matter from or after its beginning. But how it began is not fully explained in my view. They do understand in the Planck era which is the time when the universe was still unified with the four forces and when it expanded, they say it did not explode, and gravity was the first force to separate from the four. This separation of gravity caused the inflation of the universe. They need the theory of inflation to explain a space that is expanding faster than the speed of light. Otherwise, they will not be able to explain time.
Staying current is always a challenge because what science did know or knew then they add to their knowledge, even so the foundation remains. The reason I say this to you is because at that time I remember a person named Sean Carroll and he was and is still famous.
Page 2
As I remember about the project; and when I review the hyperlinks I copied as reference material for the information or material I copied and used, I can see these links are useless today because they are current and the actual material on the site at that time I could not find again. Therefore, having these handwritten notes are of value to me, since I wrote them in a sequence as a structure, in what to say, and enough of what I remember is in the notes. Oh, happy day. I can trace the steps.
Another reason I mention this to you is because that Sean Carroll whom I mentioned earlier I researched him to try to find that article he wrote then (no luck). What I found was two classes in where he talks about “What if time really exists,” and “God is not a good theory.” On the God theory, I could not help myself and I wrote him what ended up as a 7-page letter going point by point in how he addresses God as not being a good ontology of the big bang and that science knows better. What I took issue with is in how he addresses the creator of the universe and furthermore it is clear he has no idea of who he is talking about, nor does he care.
In that letter I say to him I agree that the ontology of man’s creation of ideas and knowledge is not a god problem it is the problem of the musings of man and his intelligence and God is not responsible for that. But the reason he does that is because all men and women of science do that since they do not believe that in the creation of the universe; that an external power source was needed and that is how science protects their intellect in how they reason. God did create the universe and I know how he did it, but I do not have all the theoretical skill of math and their experiments to prove that he did it. Or the proof to prove what I say.
What I did say to him is that God does not need proof of his existence and that he has no knowledge of God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, supernatural events, soul, life and how this works in religion, faith and to mix that with the discussion of the universe is more than ignorance, it is a poor use of reason. This is an excerpt of what I said to him. I have his email address and I am thinking of sending the whole letter to him. Should I? yuk, yuk.
A counter argument to God is the order from chaos theory where some cheap undirected energy creates order. God does not need proof and he has no interest in entropy after all, he made everything, and he does not need to consult with anyone on how he made unusual order judgments about life. As if this were a serious argument against an external power source.
I really do not care in what the men and women of science believe according to their investigations, discoveries, and theories and well they may be true according to their world of objects, properties and observations’, along with their math which seems to be their holy spirit of truth. But when you say that the order the universe has is too much just to create life for us is poor judgment by God is such a ridiculous argument to make to anyone let alone a class of yuppy students that want to be the next Sean Carroll or Einstein. But create it he did. So, staying current is necessary.
Page 3
When I look at my presentation it is a good visual product and hangs together well for anyone that wants to know how it began according to science and my presentation is with interesting information in a not so complex way while being solid, fundamental, and with substance. I hope you like it, and I hope it is of some benefit for you, with good information for you to keep and to have. It is also not biased, it is science based.
Sincerely, your friend,
Tony C. Villa Jr.
General comments:
It is my hope these notes shed some good light about the theories and how they “science” think about their ideas. When I started to copy them down for you, years later after making them I can understand what they are saying better now and how they explain something they did not see happen but look into space to compose their narration according to their theory and math and ideas from their investigation and discoveries in physics, chemistry, and biology.
What they do and say is fundamentally not bad until they say according to relativity, or quantum mechanics or whatever it is that the universe did not need an external power source and that is my dear sweet Melissa just not true at all. If you read my notes, you may be able to see that they do not really know what time is, if it is anything that is useful to science about reality.
The problem with time is if the speed of light was not faster at the beginning, then now then it is not real. The second problem with time is entropy which is the direction of time. In this case ordered states move to disordered states, only one direction. But when they look at the universe there is too much order in everything, they see such as galaxy structures and clusters into filaments and the universe is 13.7 billion years old. In this much time you would think a little disorder would be in order according to their laws.
This seems to me against the law of entropy.
This is the problem with the observer and his theories. If the laws of his theories do not match the observation, then they have to jimmy rig their facts to fit their puzzle with previous mutterings. When they say time does not exist simultaneously and there is only a moment to moment, I think they are trying to say the past, present, and future do not exist at the same time. They call this a block universe. That would be static time because it is not changing. A lot of nutty conclusions can arise if you do not know how to think about what you are thinking. That is an art.
A correction for you. I just read Einstein relativity and simultaneity is about perception using the propagation of light when you are in motion as compared to being at rest. It is
Page 4
related to a coordinate system body of reference to do the math from to describe distance and velocity in space in reference as it would relate to time.
This is my own set of thoughts about time.
Melissa if you and I are an arm’s length apart then are we at the same time? If we move away from each other who has the future and the past? If we are not moving and in a state of rest an arm’s length apart who is the present? If nothing moves there is no sequence of events. But they create experiments that reveal universal law and when the facts do not fit it is jimmy the rig time. Just keep an objective and open mind in what you take in as information and knowledge. Just because they use words like quantum or Einstein does not mean it is gods truth. For that we do need proof. They have created some good knowledge, but I think they still think the universe created itself from where or what and for no reason at all. This, even if I did not know about a god, for me would still seem nonsensical for big mind people to do or even say it.
I believe if you can understand what they have said in this presentation because they are not my words only my presentation of what the research provided it is a good foundation in understanding what happened and in this, they have done some good work.
Melissa “nothing” is something that happens twice in their understanding of the universe, and I noticed this, in reading the notes that were taken by me from what Stephen Hawking’s said in the video from the science channel.
First the Universe itself came out of nothing. This is what I have always said and that I understand. This I do not think they say directly.
Second when they talk about created out of nothing. What I think Stephen Hawking’s is talking about is when in the stages of the universe when it exploded in too energy and then from energy to matter this violent raging energy is what he means when he says everything was created out of nothing. In those stages the universe is creating matter from energy and then in the next stages with the elements the building blocks of life are present within the first 10 minutes I think it is this what he is saying. This is what I now think they mean when they say from nothing, and their laws allow for this. Melissa, I am so good, so true.
What they do not account for in there models is before that Planck time or era when that tiny point in which everything was in, did come out of nothing.
According to the big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. This is an artist’s concept illustrating the expansion.
Page 5
The Big Bang: Notes for the presentation.
Saturday, 11/20/2021 9:37:46 AM
This is basically a Stephen Hawking’s narration from the video.
Light travels 6 trillion miles in one year.
GALAXIES:
Galaxies come from the big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Stars form Clusters that form galaxies. Gravity shapes galaxies. They evolve into organized structures from Gravity.
Dark matter holds stars together in black hole but is not enough strength to keep stars from flying apart in galaxies. Dark Matter holds everything together. Black holes are at the center of galaxies. It is the matter of the Universe.
Galaxies live in groups called clusters. The Universe is connected in structures called filaments. This all bound together by Dark Matter. It is the glue, holding structure of the Universe. Galaxies never stop changing, they are dynamic. Dark Energy has opposite effect of Dark Matter. It pushes them apart.
Everything created from matter comes from the Big Bang. It is the beginning of space and time the how and why. What was before?
At the beginning of the 20th century we thought, our Universe was static and unchanging. In 1929 we discovered everything was moving away from us. We can see the beginning by looking into space.
The laws of physics allow things to arise out of nothing.
[Infinite density and Infinite mass went from nothing to something. It was a point of raging energy]
13.7 BILLION YEARS AGO:
The first force to emerge was Gravity from the four forces that were unified before the Big Bang. The early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. In a few Planck times the universe was born. In one Billion, Billion, Billion, Billionth, of a second. The violent explosion transforms into subatomic particles. Energy can be converted into matter and matter to energy. Dark energy transformed into Matter, in a fraction of a second the building blocks of life were transformed.
There were no atoms but there was tiny subatomic particles.
Random quirky motion energized the universe, as the universe cools the particles changing back into energy.
Page 6
Then the battle between matter and antimatter. Everything in the universe is made of matter. Anti-matter is the mirror image of matter. Matter has a positive charge, Antimatter negative. Equal parts of each cancel out into radiation.1 billion and 1 matter to 1 billion matter. That was the cause of the Big Bang.
The universe is still one second old. The tiny particles formed into atoms. As temperatures cool particles bonded, first hydrogen then helium and lithium formed within first 3 minutes. It took 380,000 years for electrons to slow down to form atoms.
TIME:
Time orders events so they happen sequentially, a construct of the brain.
Time was absolute according to Newton. We cannot detect absolute time only relationships between time of events that occur in the world. Gravity effects time. Time and Space are one thing. Gravity warps space time. Time does not exist simultaneously. They are different moments in space. Time may not exist at all.
If the speed of light is different at the older part of the universe or at the beginning then time is real. The increase of entropy is the reason for the direction of time. We move from states of order to disorder.
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not mix. If the Quantum Universe is static and nothing changes that means everything is happening at the same time. If the physics of light are different at the beginning of the Universe than now, it would prove that time is real.
BLACK HOLES:
Their gravity is absolute. The end point of everything. They can bend light, as you get closer it eats light. And atoms collapse. They form by gravity by large stars, Hyper Nova is the biggest. In a millisecond when Hydrogen burns off from a star, gravity will win.
Gamma Ray Bursts are a result, they are linked to the Big Bang. Inside a black hole, reality breaks down and time stands still. The Laws of physics breakdown and gravity becomes infinite.
THEN IT HAPPENED:
The Big Bang occurred in darkness. Space and light did not exist then. The only place there was, was inside a tiny point. We are made of the smoke of the Big Bang. 330,000 years passed before the fog cleared, within 10 minutes the universe evolved. Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon, Oxygen, Iron, Gold, Platinum, or lead are forged from the explosion from Iron core of a star from 10 million degrees, it was nuclear fusion.
Page 7
(Stars fuse lighter elements into heavier by nucleosynthesis and gravitational collapse of the core and by the upper layers of a star collapsing into the core.)
A sea of particles from the big Bang, antimatter, and matter bump into each other and diffuse into a flash of energy. Everything was made out of nothing. Black Hole behavior plays a huge role in the forming of our Universe.
ELEMENTS:
Elements are always in combined forms. They are never found isolated because they are highly reactive. Spectrometers measures light from stars. Sun emits light and absorbs light. The Sun is 70% hydrogen, 28% Helium, 2% all the rest. When the universe cooled structures emerged and something gave mass. At one billionth of a second at the Big Bang all matter was formed. After a few seconds all the building blocks were formed and after that the process of coming together came. The simplest elements are Hydrogen one proton then Helium two protons. Nuclear fusion was the process of creating elements. Quarks formed protons and neutrons. In stars elements form because of heat and can only happen there. Hydrogen and Helium fuse at 15 billion degrees. Fusing one element into another causes us to exist. There are over 90 elements. There are over a billion, billion, billion carbon atoms. Carbon comes from the stars. In order for us to live stars must die. The heaviest elements need greater heat. For them to live it can only happen at star death.
When a star loses all its Hydrogen, it does not cool, it heats up and shrinks and explodes, because of gravity. The star becomes denser and hotter.
At the core stage 1, while there is mass to fight gravity all elements are born. Stage 2, then carbon and oxygen is produced. When helium runs out Stage 3 begins. The core collapses to gravity. Each stage is hotter and shorter. In 4 days when Iron is formed it explodes and the elements are born. We look far into space to find the conditions that support those elements.
Stars nine times our sun can reach the heat to form those elements.
in abundance. 100 billion degrees last only 15 seconds but it is enough to form our heaviest elements. This kind of star is called a supernova. They are rare. Orion could go supernova. Betelgeuse will go bright. When that happens, new stars will be born from the death of old ones. The universe created us. Carbon chemistry is happening in deep space from that explosion.
Page 8
WHAT IS THE UNIVERSE MADE OF?
Baryonic matter 4.6%
Dark Matter accounts for 23%
Dark Energy makes up to the rest 72%
In 1970 scientist tried to determine the masses of galaxies by measuring the acceleration of clouds orbiting on the outer edges of a galaxy, which enabled them to calculate the mass required to cause that acceleration.
What they found was surprising. The mass behind the acceleration of a galaxy s cloud was 5 times large then the mass of stuff you could see. They concluded there must be some invisible material surrounding a galaxy and holding it together. They called this matter dark matter.
20 years later Scientists noticed that type 1a supernova dying stars that have the same intrinsic brightness were farther away from our galaxies then they should have been. To explain this observation, they suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually speeding up.
This was perplexing because gravity in dark matter should have been strong enough to prevent such an expansion.
Was some other material with an anti-gravity effect causing the rapid expansion of the universe? The astronomers believed so and called this material Dark Energy.
CANDIDATES FOR DARK MATTER.
They regard brown dwarfs as on supermassive black hole. Brown dwarfs are star like and are not luminous, but they are intense gravity which affect near by objects and provide clues about their existence and location. Super massive black holes may power quasars and may be far more abundant than ever imagined.
Finally dark matter could consist of a type of particle not yet described. These tiny bits of matter could exist somewhere deep in an atom and may be identified in the large Hadron Collider.
WHAT IS DARK ENERGY?
Dark Energy is the name given to an unexplained force that is drawing galaxies away from each other against the pull of gravity at an accelerated pace. Dark Energy is a bit like anti-gravity. Where gravity pulls things together at the local, Dark Energy tugs things apart on the grander scale. Its existence isn’t proven. But it is the scientists best guess to explain the confusing observation that the universe expansion is speeding up. Experts still don’t know what is driving this force. It was discovered in 1998. They measured the objects red shift.
Page 9
The universe is expanding faster than any time in the past. To help explain, (jimmy rig?) they revived an old idea by Einstein that had been discarded that the vacuum of space has energy that acts repulsively and accelerates the expansion of the universe. He called it the cosmological constant.
In the Big Bang model visual graphic it starts with the time scale of what happened in the beginning of this explosion and or expansion only. They still do not know which it was that it began from. I do it was both. It was already expanding then the explosion.
This is the timeline from its beginning.
“The Super force:
Gravity,
Strong nuclear force,
Weak nuclear force,
Electromagnetic force
The Planck Era:
No current theory of physics can describe what happened in the universe during this time. They do not know what happened in the first instant of the big bang, known as the Planck era, but at the end of this Era they believe gravity split from the other forces of nature, followed by the strong nuclear force. Many believe this triggered inflation—a short but rapid expansion. If inflation did occur, it helps explain why the universe seems so smooth and flat. During inflation, a fantastic amount of mass energy came into existence in tandem with an equal but negative amount of gravitational energy. By the end of inflation, matter had begun to appear.
The Grand Unified Era:
During this time matter and energy were completely interchangeable. Three of the fundamental forces of nature were still unified.
Strong nuclear force, Weak nuclear force and Electromagnetic force.
The Inflation Era:
Part of the universe expanded from billions of times smaller than a proton to something between the size of a marble and a football field.
The Quark Era:
Sometimes called the electroweak era, this period saw vast numbers of quark and antiquark pairs forming from energy and then annihilating back to energy. Gluons and other more exotic particles appeared. Separation Of The Electroweak Force.
By the end of the quark era, the electroweak force had separated from the
Page 10 electromagnetic force and the weak interaction. From then on, the forces of nature and physical laws were as they are now experienced.
Hadron Era:
Around the beginning of this era, quarks and antiquarks began to form particles called hadrons. These included baryons (protons and neutrons) antibaryons and mesons.
Lepton Era:
During this era, leptons (electrons, neutrons, and their antiparticles) were very numerous. By its end, the electrons annihilated with positrons (antielectrons)
Nucleosynthesis Era:
Neutrons gradually converted into protons as the universe cooled, but when there was about one neutron for every seven protons, most remaining neutrons combined protons to make helium nuclei, each with two protons and two neutrons.
Opaque Era,
During this relatively lengthy era, the ocean of matter particles (compromising mainly electrons, protons, and helium nuclei) were in a continual state of interactions with photons (radiant energy) making the universe foggy.” Balance of Elements, at the end of the opaque era, many more free protons existed then helium nuclei. The scene was set for the first atoms to form. When they did, about nine hydrogen atoms were make for each helium atom. A few lithium and deuterium (heavy hydrogen) atoms were formed.
Matter Era: (300,000 Years)
At the start of our present era, photons were free to travel through the universe. Most electrons were bound to atoms until the first stars formed reheating matter.
[The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the unknown subatomic particles. It is regarded as the theory of almost everything.
But still it falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of gravitation as described by general relativity.]”
A study and knowledge of the beginning of time space and life begins with the universe and then man as this is the approach by science. In this endeavor they can only use what they see in reality and trace it back to the beginning.
The Pieces of this puzzle rest with the theories such as classical physics, relativity, quantum mechanics, the four forces of nature, matter, dark matter, dark energy, the
Page 11
atom, particles, gravity, {anti-matter, anti-gravity, anti-particles} light, space, motion, and time. These are some of the pieces that need to be understood to be able to conceptualize an understanding of a beginning as science does with its theories.
The good news is there is always something that is missing, or they did not know, or they cannot match theories in a common direction because of conflict. In that good news they know that, while, at the same time they ignore real proof and use renormalization to reconcile their math with what they see because it is not ever exact.
Things they really cannot explain is the beginning, or the expansion, or if the universe is bound or not. But it would be a shame to say they have not done some good work.
They consider particles forming into atoms as space dust and in that, the forming of stars, which, in the death of a star through fusion is the creation of elements. This is their cosmic evolution. I would consider it clever that the primeval atom that they claim was the big bang knew to create space dust and thus form stars and matter was all in its beginning is a marvel at best. But not unreasonable.
Even so if any of this is true and I have no reason to doubt it, what I find interesting is what the particles cannot tell us or give us is how they created life itself. It is one thing to create matter but to create a matter that has life is not a natural world explanation of life that can be said from science because when they clone to create life forms, they fail and are never as we are. This understanding is missing from all their theories. The true understanding of life and that it is as we are and only, we have it.
What they are proving through this ignorance is that there is no soul only mind in the natural world. I believe, as much as I disagree with the platonic philosophers, they would not say such a thing, or do this kind of thinking.
If science were able to prove that the soul exists then they would find a way to incorporate it into their cloning techniques. This world would be of the Anti-Christ.
They currently deny that the creation of the universe did not need an external power source. What do you think that means?
It is not my endeavor to become supernatural on you know, just to keep a steady handle on what does belong to science and what does not. In other words, my belief is that what gives the body life is the soul without it we would immediately annihilate and not exist. Atoms, molecules, and cells are organic structures of matter by science. But Life and its true explanation is in the supernatural not the natural world.
This is where properties and objects have nothing to do with what life is other than a physical representation of matter as was created in the beginning by the men and
Page 12
women of science with their theories. It was a Jesuit catholic priest and two other men that created the idea of the big bang.
I believe to truly round out the understanding of where we came from must have a sound understanding of the theology of life as I wrote it last year. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
It will not hurt you the person and cause conflict in the mind or personality, and just maybe balance will prevail. It is the supernatural that most ordinary people are afraid of any way. Also, I hope the knowledge I am imparting to you will hold and last you for the rest of your life and be of some help.
When my instructor said that day in the 80’s after the first cloning by Berkley California, that this changes how we look at what life is. I did not know what to say to him because I could not believe that man could know that much and then fool around with what life was. I now know the answer. If it comes from science, he does not have a clue, but is man and his science a friend of life or its enemy?
This is for the next generation of people to decide and that is the worry as it has always been. This is what my instructor was saying then and he wrote a book about this. I somehow believe I am in the book. This is also what science was saying then in the Proceedings for the International Society of General Scientific Research.
Lastly when God calls you there is nothing science and medicine can do to stop that, if we lose sight of that we lose our dignity now, and what is to come in the next life. These things are tied together. When you believe science and medicine can stop God from calling you do not believe in God or that he exists anymore. I believe there is name for that kind of person. Life is about balance in all things. The true balance is how do you know what he wants you to do? The true believer follows their faith in those big decisions. Here I am to save your day Melissa. Yuk, yuk, yuk.
Smithsonian Universe:
A definitive visual guide
Citation
Smithsonian Universe
General Editor, Martin Rees
published by DK publishing, 375 Houston Street, New York, New York. 10014
14 109876543
004-184784- Oct/2012
copyright 2005, 2012 Dorling Kindersley Limited
Published in Great Britain by Dorling Kindersley Limited
ISBN 978-0-7566-9841-6
Page 48-51
1. The Planck Era:
2. The Grand Unified Era:
3. The Inflation Era:
4. The Quark Era:
5. Hadron Era:
6. Lepton Era:
7. Nucleosynthesis Era:
8. Opaque Era,
9. Matter Era: (300,000 Years)
Now Archbishop Vigano,
I believe the old will be replaced by the new was just an analogy about the new covenant when God gave us his full truth in the crucifixion when prophecy was delivered. In this respect I guess there is not much more to know about God other than just to believe because of what was done by Jesus for us from God.
It would seem man needs to understand what the new from the old really means and where we have been led. I have written a paper to help us understand where we are in the new and what it means for the real purpose of our knowledge for those that want and need to believe.
BUT FIRST POPE JOHN PAUL II
in the basic questions
such as salvation and how,
does god exist, proof of God,
is God hiding, does the eternal exist.
CROSSING THE THRESHOLD
OF HOPE
By
HIS HOLINESS
JOHN PAUL II
DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?
page 27
The Faith of those Catholic Christians,
for whom you are Shepard and Teacher (in the
name of the One Shepherd and Teacher), has three
“degrees,” “ three levels,” each linked to the others—
God, Jesus, Christ, and the Church.
Every Christian believes that God exists. Faith is certainly
a gift, a divine grace. But another gift is reason,
According to the ancient exhortation of the saints and
doctors of the Church, the Christian believes
“in order to understand”; but he is also called “to
understand in order to believe.”
Your question ultimately concerns Pascal’s distinction
between the Absolute—that is, the god of the philosophers
(the rationalist libertins)—and the God of Jesus Christ;
and prior to Him, the God of the Patriarchs—from
Abraham to Moses. Only the God of Jesus Christ
is the only living God. As has always been stated
in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation
Dei Verbum (no. 3), the first God mentioned
above—the God of the Philosophers—is the fruit
of human thought, of human speculation,
and capable of saying something valid about God.
In the end all rationalist arguments follow the same
path indicated in the Book of Wisdom and the Letter
to the Romans—-passing from the visible world to the
invisible Absolute.
Aristotle and Plato follow this same path,
but in a different manner. The Cristian tradition
before Thomas Aquinas, and therefore also
Augustine, was tied to Plato, from whom it nonetheless
rightfully wanted to distance itself.
The theology of the fathers, especially in the East
broke away more and more from Plato and from
philosophers in general. Philosophy itself, in the
Fathers ends up in theology.
Saint Thomas, however, did not abandon the
philosopher’s approach. He began his Summa
Theologica with the question “an Deus sit?”
—“Does God Exist?”
At this point it is necessary to cite an entire
passage from the Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes of the Second Vatican
Council: “In truth, the imbalances existing
in the modern world are linked to a more
profound imbalance found in the heart of man.
It depends on a multitude of situations in which
man searches for the significance and the
meaning of his own existence. Questioning
God’s existence is intimately united with the
purpose of human existence. Not only is it a
question of the intellect; it is a question of the
will, even a question of the heart.
“PROOF”: IS IT STILL VALID?
page 33
Positivism has not only been a philosophy
or a methodology; it has been one of those
schools of suspicion that the modern era has
seen grow and prosper. Is man truly capable of
knowing something beyond what he sees with his
eyes or hears with his ears? Does some kind of
knowledge other than the strictly empirical exist?
Is the human capacity for reason completely
subject to the senses and internally directed
by the laws of mathematics, which have been
shown to be particularly useful in the rational
ordering of phenomena and for guiding technical progress?
If we put ourselves in the positivist perspective,
concepts such as God or the soul simply lose
meaning. In terms of sensory experience, in fact,
nothing corresponds to God or the soul.
The fact that human knowledge is primarily
a sensory knowledge surprises no one.
Neither Plato nor Aristotle nor any of the
classical philosophers questioned this.
Nevertheless, the limits of “senses”
are not exclusively sensory. We know in fact,
that man not only knows colors, tones, and forms:
he also knows objects, not only the parts that
comprise the object “man” but also man in himself
(yes, man as a person). He therefore knows
extrasensory truths, or, in other words,
the transempirical. In addition, it is not
possible to affirm that when something is
transempirical it ceases to be empirical.
It is therefore possible to speak from a solid
foundation about human experience, moral
experience, or religious experience. God himself
certainly is not an object of human empiricism;
the Sacred Scripture its own way emphasizes this:
No one has ever seen the face of God (cf.Jn1:18).
If God is a knowable object as the Book of Wisdom
and the Letter to the Romans teach —He is such
on the basis of man’s experience both of the visible
world and his interior world.
For contemporary thought the philosophy of religion
is very important. We are witnesses of a symptomatic
return to metaphysics (the philosophy of being)
Saint Thomas defined this
as actus essendi (essential act), in the language
of existence. The Philosophy of religion expresses
this with the categories of anthropological experience.
IF GOD EXISTS WHY IS HE HIDING?
page 37
The question you ask— and which many ask—do not
refer to Saint Thomas or to Augustine, or to the great
Judeo-Christian tradition. It seems to me they stem from
another source, one that is purely rationalist, one that is
characteristic of modern philosophy—the history
which begins with Descartes, who split thought
from existence and identified existence with
reason itself: “Cogito, ergo sum”
(“I think therefore I am”).
Your question would only be legitimate if
man with his created intellect and within the
limits of his own subjectivity, could overcome
the entire distance that separates creation
from the Creator, the contingent and not
necessary being from the Necessary Being
(“she who is not,” according to the well-known
words Christ addressed to Saint Catherine
of Siena, from He who is”; cf. Raimondo da
Capua, Legenda Maior 1, 10, 92).
Nevertheless, your questions contain statements
that re-echo the Old and New Testaments.
When you speak of God as hiding,
you use almost the same language as Moses,
who wanted to see God face to face
but could only see his “back” (cf. Ex 33:23).
Isn’t knowledge through creation suggested here?
God’s self-revelation comes about in a special way
by his becoming man.” Once again, according
to the words of Ludwig Feuerbach, the great
temptation is to make the classical reduction
of that which is divine to that which is human.
Even the day before the Passion the apostles
asked Christ: “Show us the Father” (Jn 14:8).
His response remains fundamental:
“How can you say, “Show us the Father?
Do you not believe that I am in the Father
and the Father is in me? . . . Or else believe
because of the works themselves. . . . The
Father and I are one” (cf. Jn 14:9-11; 10:30)
Let’s try to be impartial in our reasoning:
Could God go farther in his stooping down,
in his drawing near to man, thereby
expanding the possibilities of our knowing Him?
In truth it seems he has gone as far as possible.
In a certain sense God has gone to far!
Didn’t Christ become a stumbling block to Jews
and a foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Cor 1:23)?
Precisely because he called God his Father,
because He revealed Him so openly in Himself,
He could not but elicit the impression that it was too
much. Man was no longer able to tolerate
such closeness, and thus the protests began.
This great protest has precise names—first it
is called the Synagogue, and then Islam.
Neither can accept a God who is human.
“it is not possible to speak of God this way,”
they protest. “He must remain absolutely
transcendent; He must remain pure Majesty.
Majesty full of mercy, certainly, but not to
the point of paying for the faults of His own
creatures, for their sins,”
From one point of view it is right to say that
God revealed too much of Himself to man, too much
of that which is most divine, that which is His
intimate life; He revealed Himself in his Mystery.
WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE
“HISTORY OF SALVATION”?
Page 52
The French Revolution during the Reign of Terror,
knocked the altars dedicated to Christ, tossed
crucifixes into the streets, introduced the cult
of the Goddess Reason. On the basis of this
there was a proclamation of Liberty, Equality,
and Fraternity. The spiritual patrimony and in
particular the moral patrimony of Christianity
were thus torn from their evangelical foundation.
In order to restore Christianity to its full vitality.
it is essential that these return to that foundation.
Nevertheless, the process of turning away from the
God of the Fathers, from the God of Jesus Christ,
from the Gospel, and from the Eucharist did not
bring about a rupture with a God who
exists outside of the world. In fact, the God of the
deists was always present; He was even present
in the French Encyclopedists, in the work of Voltaire
and Jean Jacques Rousseau, and even more so in
Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Mathematica,
which marked the beginning of modern physics.
This God, however, is decidedly a God outside of the
world. To a mentality shaped by a naturalistic
consciousness of the world, a God present in the
world appeared useless; similarly, a God working
through man turned out to be useless to modern
knowledge, to the modern science of man, which
examines the workings of the conscious and the
subconscious. The rationalism of the enlightenment
put to one side the true God—-in particular
God the Redeemer.
The consequence was that man was supposed to
live by his reason alone, as if God did not exist.
Not only was it necessary to leave God out of the
objective knowledge of the world, since existence
of a Creator or of Providence was in no way
helpful to science, it was also necessary to act as if
God were not interested in the world.
The Rationalism of the Enlightenment was able to
accept a God outside of the world primarily
because it was unverifiable hypothesis. It was
crucial, however, that such a God be expelled
from the world.
IS ROME ONLY RIGHT?
Page 136
Here before all else, we need to explain the
Christian doctrine of salvation and of the mediation
of salvation, which originates in God. “For there is
one God. / There is also one mediator between
God and the human race, / Christ Jesus,
himself human” (1 Tm 2:5). There is no salvation
through any other name” (Acts 4:12).
It is therefore a revealed truth that there is
salvation only and exclusively in Christ.
The church inasmuch as it is the body of
Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation.
In the first words of Lumen Gentium, the
Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the
Second Vatican Council, we read: “The Church
is in Christ as a sacrament, of a sign and
instrument, of intimate union with God and of the
unity of the entire human race” (Lumen Gentium 1).
As the people of God the Church is thus, at the
same time, the Body of Christ.
In the Church’s visible structure they are joined
with Christ—who rules the Church through the
Supreme Pontiff and the bishops—by the bonds
of profession of faith, the sacraments
ecclesiastical government, and Communion.
those who do not persist in charity, even if they
remain in the ‘body’ but not in ‘heart,’
cannot be saved. All of the Church’s children
must remember their privileged condition
is not the result of their own merits, but the result
of the special grace of Christ. Therefore if
someone does not respond in thought, word,
or deeds, not only will that person not be saved,
he will be more severely judged. This mystery
is larger than the visible structure and organization
of the Church. Structure and organization are at
the service of the mystery.
The Church as the mystical body of Christ,
penetrates and embraces all of us. The spiritual
mystical dimensions of the Church are much
greater than any sociological statistics
could ever possibly show.
Does “Eternal Life” Exist?
Page 186
The Holy Scriptures include the concept of the
purifying fire. The Eastern Church adopted it because
it was biblical, while not receiving the Catholic
doctrine on purgatory.
Besides the bull of Benedict XII from the fourteenth
century, the mystical works of Saint John of the
Cross offered me a very strong argument for
purgatory. The “living flame of love,” of which Saint
John speaks, is above all a purifying fire. The
mystical nights described by this great Doctor of the
Church on the basis of his own experience correspond,
in a certain sense, to purgatory. God makes man pass
through such an interior purgatory of his sensual and
spiritual nature in order to bring him into union with
Himself. Here we do not find ourselves before a mere
tribunal. We present ourselves the power of love itself.
Before all else, it is Love that judges. God, who is Love,
judges through love. It is Love that demands purification,
before man can be made ready for that union with God
which is the ultimate vocation and destiny.
Perhaps this is enough. Many theologians, in the
East and the West, including cotemporary theologians,
have devoted their studies to the Last Things.
The Church still has its eschatological awareness.
It still leads man to eternal life. If the Church would cease
to do so, it would cease being faithful to its vocation, to the
New covenant, which God has made with it in Jesus Christ.
CITATION
CROSSING THE THRESHOLD
OF HOPE
By
HIS HOLINESS
JOHN PAUL II
Pages 27, 33, 37, 52, 136, 186, 225, 226
published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
© 1994 by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
ISBN 0-679-44058-5