Have Catholics of both the present and previous century been subtly taught to seek and find intellectual proofs to buttress their assent of faith? Do the post conciliar faithful want to know how God made the world, and what exactly he did to create man? Do they look for explanations of an infinite God that a finite mind cannot comprehend? Have Catholics succumbed to a peculiar mentality of searching to discover God’s blueprints, as it were, because they think that absolute knowledge will increase their faith? The habits of belief developed from the finite mind’s trying to comprehend the omnipotent God tend to undermine that very believer’s internal act of faith. Reading conciliar Catholic publications on the creation of the universe, and the of creation of man quickly makes manifest that many want to be able to explain creation to themselves and to others. In two Latin words, the traditional answer is ex nihilo, and from that point the will engages in the exercise of the theological virtue of faith, and the question is resolved. But what if the curious, conciliar Catholic wants to know what happened at the beginning, and how God created from nothing, even going so far as expecting the empirical sciences to uncover the answer?
While God, in his essential existence and omnipotence, can easily explain; the finite mind of man could never comprehend the answer. God creates out of nothing, and further creates things from his original ex nihilo action, foremost among them our first parents. Not being divine, man in himself cannot comprehend as man would, for example, ascertain a how to build a house from a set of blueprints, that precise divine action which directly causes being from non being, or our first parents’ living matter being created from the extant slime of the earth. The knowledge that God made us (because of His desire to love) out of nothing forms the basis on fruitful meditiations and an excellent reason for man to love Him in return. On the other hand, the knowledge of how He made us is unattainable (due to our created, limited nature’s inability to comprehend Him as He comprehends His Triune Self). When novus ordo man unwittingly puts as prerequisite to faith that he know and explain how God creates, and subsequently embarks upon an inquiry with no possible resolution, his ability to make a meritorious act of faith is thereby diminished. When knowing the cosmos, or the moment of Adam’s rising from the slime is put out as an implied condition of a full assent of the will, and that knowing is impossible, then the act of loving God is incomplete. Incomplete love leads to corrupted faith.
In the Beginning There Was Nothing, and Then It Blew Up
They’re out there; honest-to-goodness pastors of souls who have brought themselves to the Catholic mass at great personal cost, yet still cling to ideas such as revolutionary cosmology. Quite oddly, otherwise sound doctrine can be heard and read springing from explicit references to the Big Bang. Similarly, well-catechized laymen give unhesitating assent to such thinking. Neither Scripture nor Tradition, nor Fathers nor doctors teach of any supposed Divine, creative, cosmic blowout. How is it that such a concept has come to attract the intellect of both priests and ordinary men? Again, these are well-formed and well-read Catholic minds leading edifying lives. These are intellects that want to know more. Having professed the Faith all their Catholic lives, while at the same time taking in as regular repast from secular thinking and the post-conciliar Church the wonders of what science does now reveal, a unique mindset is formed that the holy religion can be authenticated by advances in modern knowledge of the cosmos. For decades and for example, from the musings of the late Carl Sagan, to today’s benign stylings of Michio Kaku, the flood of information from sources with an atheistic bent have piqued interest regarding the latest data from space probes and telescopes and what it all means for humans on earth. The obedient Conciliar Church jumped right on board, baptizing man’s amazing capability to discover his random, lonely and meaningless existence in a cold and constantly re-shaping universe/multiverse, etc. With such hirelings delivering man-centered novus ordo homilies once a week, Catholics would be on their own to both drink from the fire hose of modern ideology’s sciences, and yet somehow persevere in faith on a seeming island of rising tides of scientific proof adverse to religion. Thus for Catholic minds having accepted modernity’s intellectual presuppositions about such things as the universe’s vast, shapeless indifference to human existence, one logical and self-defensive response would be to discover from Catholic friendly sources that somewhere in all this science must lie scientific confirmation for the act of faith.
Man and Woman He Evolved Them?
A similar conciliar cave-in and resulting self-defense-of-faith dynamic can be described in the understanding of the origin of man. Here again, baseless philosophical assumptions, fraudulent anthropology (cf Teilhard de Chardin) and brutally subtle indoctrination coalesce to form an intellectual ambience against truth itself; namely: that man evolved at random across millions of years of time, from brute, stone-throwing simians. Today this psychological operation starts kids out young, using T.V. to induce fascination with dinosaurs from millions of years past, who then died out, leaving the world to fuzzy critters that eventually became hominids. In this arena, even before the all-hallowed Council, defense of the faith took the form of surrender in conceding that espousing evolution would be permissible as long as one maintained God as its author and Adam and Eve as its first human products. As a holy priest preached not long ago, apparently no one ever considered that if God evolved our first parents into being by conceiving them into the womb of an ever-so-slightly-non-human beast, then ipso facto Adam and Eve must have been immaculately conceived! So here an implicit blasphemy against the Blessed Virgin comprises the retreat, and Catholic minds are hit with a one-two combo of secular onslaught followed by conciliar stab in the back. This post conciliar merger of profane and supposedly Catholic thinking abandoned the faithful to fabricate their own synthesis of the disparate elements of undefended faith with secular ideology. Attempting to reconcile the voluminous babble of worldly thinking regarding man’s origin with the Genesis history of creation by God’s hand may have created an internal conflict in the minds of the faithful. The result of this conciliar truce with the worldly viewpoint was to set Catholic thinking on a course of looking to science not only to vindicate the Faith against a hostile ideology, but also to harmonize two directly opposed lines of thinking in accord with the spirit of the Council. The intellectual violence of squaring the circle for the sake of obedience to the hierarchy and its aggiornamento had thus begun, and here another logical result was that Catholics would to look to the wonders of scientific discovery to resolve the inherent contradiction.
Novus Ordo: Love To Know
The problem with attempting to alloy empirical inquiry with certain theological matters, such as the manner or explicit Divine acts undertaken in creation, is deeper than the already serious problem of doctrinal confusion. This approach to such theological questions has formed a habit in the minds of post-conciliar believers desirous of explanations on matters that surpass human understanding. The faithful who seek to know what exceeds man’s understanding not only fail to satisfy their own inquiries, but the failure to do so in itself tends to undermine the act of faith.
Attempting to make an object of study from the divine act of creation is illicit when the desire to know the means of that action is caused by the desire to possess the power to perform autonomously the act in question. This desire to possess power as yet unknown makes its object, knowledge (or intellect) into the servant of the will. Those who do so commit materially the same error as Simon the Magus, who sought to know and possess for his own gain the power of the Holy Ghost. The corrupted will, in this case loves its own being as an end in itself. The ultimate end of self-love is self worship, and the permanent refusal to either love or serve God. This refusal forms the cruel underbelly of Gnosticism whose fountainhead since Calvary has been the revolutionary synagogue and its ad hoc oral tradition, which centuries later precipitated into the Babylonian Talmud. Saying this is not to impute to misled Catholics the deadly culpability of Simon, but rather to point out the path upon which the kabbalistic conciliar religion tends to guide them.
In fact, a valid counterargument to these criticisms of a scientistic approach to faith would be to say that these intellectual inquiries have as their object a deepening of the faith of the believer, because the mind of man is ordered toward the truth, and therefore they are unobjectionable. Where such a rebuttal fails, however, is to acknowledge the finite nature of man’s created intellect. As a creature, man can comprehend the act neither by which his creator has made him, nor the divine act of creating the universe which has become the arena of his salvation. To attempt to do so is to grasp at the incomprehensible, something rather pointless and foolhardy, the desire to know for the sake of knowing. True faith is the evidence of things which appear not, such things as possessing a direct understanding of how the universe came to be. There is merit in its practice, and all the more pleasing to God is its perfection. The risk is ever present, however, that the Catholic unwittingly make of his God a sort of unsolvable problem, or hidden gnosis, which jeopardizes his faith. His will to fulfill this disordered desire to know that which is beyond him can never be satisfied, thereby making his internal act of faith incomplete. If disordered faith like this were likened to a ship, it would be unseaworthy and at risk of foundering when tested by the stormy sea.
At this can be sensed the opponent’s drawing down with his rhetorical bow, letting the following dart fly, “so, why not just have a dumbed down faith that never asks any questions about creation or science, then?” The rejoinder is teleological: we seek knowledge of God with the explicit intent to love him more fervently. This is the proper ordering of the two, knowledge of God and love of Him. Inevitably, the course for such quests for properly ordered knowledge guide the pilgrim first through the desolate reaches of penance, then oases of recuperation, and onto mystical heights. His knowledge and its object are thus rewarded. The disordered mind seeking knowledge for its own sake however, like how God creates, finds neither what he wants, nor the union with God so desperately needed. The right way leads to Christ straightaway, while the wrong opens wide the maw of the sinister mysteries found in the kabbalah. The difference between these two, loving to know versus knowing in order to better love God, is as vast as that between gnosis and logos, light and darkness, heaven and hell.