Compendium of the Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church: Approved by His Excellency Bishop Fernando Areas Rifan from Campos Brazil

By Roniel Aledo

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the sure norm for teaching the faith (Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum ). Still the language and wording of both the Catechism and the Second Vatican Council is one full of poetic beauty and soft diplomacy. This style of poetry and diplomacy is not the most appropriate for clarity. In many places the language results hard to understand and multiple contradictory interpretations are possible due precisely to the language full of charity but not of clarity. The purpose of the Compendium of the Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church is to provide absolute clarity about the Faith of All times and less room for open interpretations and ambiguity.

The world today in order to keep the Faith of All times needs more than poetic words. It needs clear teachings with full power, strength, and clarity above: no room for misinterpretations, no wiggle room for heretical interpretations at all. That is the purpose of this work: high clarity above all.

With total clarity several subjects are covered: the definition of schismatic, the Limbo, Freemasons, heretic, the so called marriage among homosexuals, the doctrine of the Church regarding the liberal freemasonic Democracy, the responsibility that Catholics must have when voting or taking action on the political field, the so called New Atheists movement, the Consecration of Russia according to Our Lady of Fatima, the future of the world according to the City of God of St. Agustin, etc. All of these subjects of today and many others are addressed in this work with extreme and total clarity. Here there is no room for error and no room for misunderstanding. This is the Traditional Catechism that is really needed in the Year of the Faith and in any year!

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Sep 27, 2013
• ISBN: 9781491705766

Roniel Aledo

Roniel Aledo is a Knight of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem living in Washington DC. He is an expert in military affairs, strategic analysis, and international relations and a former European champion of Brazilian Jujitsu. He studied Apologetics and Dogmatic Theology in Puerto Rico, Spain, Germany and the USA. He is a personal friend of Bishop Fernando Rifan of Campos Brazil.

Book preview

CONTENTS

Part One The Profession Of Faith

Section One

Chapter One

God Comes To Meet Man

Chapter Two

Man’s Response To God

Section Two

Chapter One

I Believe In God The Father

Chapter Two

I Believe In Jesus Christ, The Only Son Of God

Chapter Three

I Believe In The Holy Spirit

Part Two The Celebration Of The Christian Mystery

Section One

Chapter One

The Sacramental Economy

Chapter Two

The Sacramental Celebration Of The Paschal Mystery

Section Two

Chapter One

The Sacraments Of Christian Initiation

Chapter Two

The Sacraments Of Healing

Chapter Three

The Sacraments At The Service Of Communion

Chapter Four

Other Liturgical Celebrations

Part Three Life In Christ

Section One

Chapter One

The Dignity Of The Human Person

Chapter Two

The Human Communion

Chapter Three

God’s Salvation: Law And Grace

Section Two

Chapter One

You Shall Love The Lord Your God With All Your Heart, And With All Your Soul, And With All Your Mind

Chapter Two

You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself

Part Four

Christian Prayer

Section One

Chapter One

The Revelation Of Prayer

Chapter Two

The Tradition Of Prayer

Chapter Three

The Life Of Prayer

Section Two

The Lord’s Prayer

PART ONE

The Profession of Faith

SECTION ONE

26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: I believe or We believe. Before expounding the Church’s faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy and lived in observance of God’s commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what to believe means. Faith is man’s response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life. Thus we shall consider first that search (Chapter One), then the divine Revelation by which God comes to meet man (Chapter Two), and finally the response of faith (Chapter Three).

I. THE DESIRE FOR GOD

27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:

The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.[1]

28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:

From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.[2]

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God’s image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of converging and convincing arguments, which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These ways of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world’s order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.[7]

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky… question all these realities. All respond: See, we are beautiful. Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?[8]

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God’s existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material,[9] can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality that everyone calls God.[10]

35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

A1 The scientific and logical evidence for God is key and of extraordinary importance. The foundation of liberalism and modernism is Atheism. The Godless worldview is the foundation of all ideologies that oppose the Church and Good in the world: freemasonic liberalism, modernism, Marxism, feminism, etc, etc. A strong foundation in Apologetics is key today in order to defend the Faith against attacks of non believers and the cuasi absolute power of liberalism.

I do recommend some concrete books to gain a strong foundation on apologetics. The evidence of God based on the beginning of the Universe and as cause of the Big Bang, the fine tune of the Universe that allows matter and the existence of life must be familiar to all educated Catholics. I recommend to begin with:

1. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by protestant writer Dr. William Lane Craig. Actually I recommend all writings from Dr. Craig as his brilliant intellect provide a solid philosophical foundation against all Atheist objections. I strongly recommend his books and articles!

2. New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Catholic priest Father Dr. Robert J. Spitzer.

3. There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind by the late Dr. Antony Flew (formerly the worlds most famous Atheist) and Roy Abraham Varghese.

3. Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

4. The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions By Dr. David Berlinski.

5. The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

6. The DVD Cosmic Origins presented by Father Dr. Robert J. Spitzer and directed by Martha Cotton. This DVD featured some of the greatest scientists of our times that are also religious people such as Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias (who discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang), Templeton Prize winners Dr. Father John Polkinghorne (Cambridge) and Dr. Father Michael Heller (Vatican Observatory), Owen Gingerich (Harvard), Lisa Randall (Harvard), Jennifer Wiseman (NASA) and Stephen Barr (University of Delaware).

7. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer.

8. Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute Vol. 9) by Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer

—A2 There are five logical philosophical ways to prove God’s existence according to St. Thomas Aquinas:

The first method proceeds from motion. It is certain that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause—which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things—which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan—and this we call God. (St Thomas of Aquinas Five Ways to prove the existence of God).

—A3 The design way, is also called today by scientists and philosophers as Intelligence design. This Design argument of St Thomas Aquinas can be understood in modern scientific terms on two senses: design of the Universe as a whole (Fine Tuning of the Universe) and design of life itself or living creatures which is an alternative to radical Darwinism and Macro evolution (contrary to proven fact of Micro evolution).

St Thomas argument is: The order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer. All things have an order or arrangement, and work for an end. The order of the universe cannot be explained by chance, but only by design and purpose. Design and purpose is a product of intelligence. Therefore nature is directed by a Divine Intelligence or Great Designer. This Great Designer is what we can call God.

While literal Creationism, that is taking the book of Genesis in a literal way, is absurd, illogical and contrary to science, intelligence design is a true notion that establishes that the Universe is actually designed by a Designer (God) in order to sustain matter and life. Basically the concept is that Universe did NOT began by itself out of wild chance or random accident but the Bing Bang and the Universe began because of a mass of energy with free will and intelligence, that we call God, created it and was the reason for the Bing Bang and the Universe. Also that it was created with an extreme fine tune or design in order to sustain matter and life that it is impossible that such a thing happens by accident or random chance. The same about life: it did not create by itself (Abiogenists) but it needed that mass of energy with free will and intelligence to be created. That is in a nutshell Intelligence Design: that both life and the Universe needed an Intelligence (God) to design and create them.

As far as the Cause of the Big Bang and God as Creator of the Universe we must recall what Pope Benedict said on January 2, 2011: The universe is not the result of chance, as some would like to make us believe. In contemplating it, we are asked to interpret in it something profound; the wisdom of the Creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God, his infinite love for us. We must not let our minds be limited by theories that always go only so far and that—at a close look—are far from competing with faith but do not succeed in explaining the ultimate meaning of reality. We cannot but perceive in the beauty of the world, its mystery, its greatness and its rationality, the eternal rationality; nor can we dispense with its guidance to the one God, Creator of Heaven and of earth. If we acquire this perception we shall see that the One who created the world and the One who was born in a grotto in Bethlehem and who continues to dwell among us in the Eucharist, are the same living God who calls us, who loves us and who wants to lead us to eternal life.

—A4 The GREAT Atheist Dilemma: Atheists say they do NOT know how the Universe began BUT at the same time they DO know God was NOT the cause of the Universe. It is impossible to KNOW and NOT know and at the same time!

Many people believe that the CAUSE of the Bing Bang and the Universe is a Mass of Energy with free Will and Power that some call God. Atheists do not take this theory in consideration but NOT because they have ANY scientific evidence against it, but just because BLIND IRRATIONAL FAITH.

Atheists disregard the God Theory with NO scientific evidence and no empirical proof against it and go against the Scientific Method that states that ALL possibilities/theories must be on the table. The ONLY reason why Atheists reject this Theory is IDEOLOGY or what is the same illogical fanaticism, and blind irrational faith. Atheists have NO evidence against God existence but believe that God does not exists based on blind faith.

The truth is that any person who is not persuaded by the indirect scientific and logical evidence for God’s existence but TRULLY follows the Scientific Method canNOT be an Atheist, but at the MOST can be an Agnostic. Having an alternative Godless theory is not scientific proof and it is not empirical evidence. Beliving that the Universe was created by itself, that the Big Bang was caused by itself, that there are Multiverses, or that life originated by itself out of wild chance, luck and random accident is NOT knowledge and is NOT empirical evidence nor proof: it is just wishful thinking, giant leap of faith, and ideology. Basically Atheists (those so say they know) that God does not exists, say so with 0 scientific evidence and 0 empirical proof!

Logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. Strong atheists have just violated one of the main rules of atheism—that all beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon empirical evidence of some kind. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html)

—A5 Dr. Father Lemaitre, the Catholic priest and scientist that developed the concept of the Big Bang said: Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes… The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses (Dr. Father Lemaitre)

Fr. Dr. Georges Lemaître, who taught at the Catholic University of Louvain, is a massive stumbling block to those who suffer from the delusion that science and religious faith cannot (or should not) be compatible. Neither the fundamentalists of atheism nor the followers of false religions—which, by their very nature tend to be irrational—want to accept that, as Pope Benedict XVI recently taught, there is friendship between science and faith, and that scientists can, through their vocation to study nature, follow an authentic and absorbing path of sanctity.

Father Lemaitre’s idea was that the Bing Bang (and the Universe) was caused by Energy with intelligence and free will (something that we call God). This caused beginning was Lemaitre’s ideas for God as First Engine or First Mover of the Universe is just another way to refer to the MOTION Argument of St. Thomas Aquinas that EVERY Catholic priest study and believe. Lemaitre only CONFIRMED the argument of St Thomas and gave scientific credibility to what Catholics have believed since the Middle Ages. Lemaitre realized that the universe had expanded from an earlier state. Indeed, Lemaitre electrified the world by coining the term the expanding universe and his math was so persuasive that the biggest name in astronomy, Sir Arthur Eddington, championed it. This is how the Big Bang theory was born. Many scientists now agree with the Bible and St. Thomas Aquinas that the universe had a distinct Beginning and will have an End. They have shown that literally dozens of conditions in the early universe had to be exactly right (Fine Tune) for the universe to support both life and the existence of matter. This led some astronomers to see the hand of God at work. Even Einstein, who did not believe in a personal God, said about Lemaitre’s thesis: This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.

—A6 Is it really true that entire universes can appear from nothing? This science is based upon the real science of quantum mechanics, which has shown that particles can appear from nothing and disappear into nothing. Atheist scientists say that nothing is unstable and spontaneously produces somethings. Although the statement is true in a limited sense, atheists aren’t telling you the whole story. Why is that? Although these virtual particles appear based upon some probability statistic, they also disappear spontaneously, based upon the same probability. In other words, these particles are not stable and do not behave like the stuff we regularly encounter in our macroscopic world. One would never expect a tennis ball to spontaneously appear or disappear, although it is theoretically possible. The reason why a macroscopic object would never behave like a quantum particle is that so many unlikely events would have to transpire simultaneously for such an event to occur. The fallacy that Victor Stenger and other anthropic principle antagonists promote is that probabilistic quantum events apply to the macro world. They never provide any evidence that such an assumption is true. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_is_there_something.html)

—A7 1. Whatever begins to exist requires a cause. If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law. The universe began to exist. The universe came into being. If the atheist denies this they are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology. As much as atheists would love to get rid of a beginning to the universe, it is apparent that it did begin to exist some time in the past. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that there is no way to get rid of a beginning to any universe that is characterized by cosmic expansion (Hav > 0). Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning. So, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem eliminates the eternal inflation model, which is based upon an ever expanding multiverse. Cyclic universe models fail because the entropy of a collapsing and expanding universe would render all parts of the universe as thermally dead within a few cycles (obviously, an eternal number of cycles is more than a few!). The cosmic egg model fails because the egg could not have existed forever, since quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/beginning.html)

—A8 According to many scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so finely-tuned, and so many coincidences have occurred to allow for the possibility of life and the creation of the universe that the universe must have come into existence through intentional and designed planning and intelligence. This fine-tuning is so pronounced, and the coincidences are so numerous, that many scientists have come to espouse the Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even if this principle is not accepted many scientist admit the fine-tuning and conclude that the universe is too contrived to be a chance event.

—Dr. Dennis Scania, the distinguished head of Cambridge University Observatories: If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature—like the charge on the electron—then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop.

—Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all.

—Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly. Even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life—almost contrived—you might say a ‘put-up job’.

—George Ellis (British astrophysicist): Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.

—Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all… It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe… The impression of design is overwhelming… The laws [of physics] . . . seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose.

—Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.

—John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures… If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.

—George Greenstein (astronomer): As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?

—Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.

—Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.

—Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.

—Tony Rothman (physicist): When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.

—Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

—Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics Former Atheist and NOW Christian): When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/quotes.html)

—A9 If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect. Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the ANTI DESIGN movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec), the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is: 1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143 So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html)

—A10 It is very important to understand that the book of Genesis, is just a figurative symbol that must not be taken in a literal sense. The book and its six days is just symbolic language. Even the literal reading of the Genesis’s story of Adam (that means life) and Eve (that means Earth) with the snake, the apple, etc is also figurative and symbolic despite the fact that the human race actually descended from a single original human pair, as monogenism is true doctrine and polygenism is false as stated in the Catechism 390 and Pius XII Human Generis.

Only uneducated people take the book of Genesis in a literal sense! This is possible because the Bible is made of different books and they have different interpretations: some like Genesis are just poetic symbols, others are historical, others are prophetical, etc, etc.

The Genesis’s six days tale is just a metaphor and poetic symbolism for God’s power. Those who believe in six literal days of Creation and that the Earth is a few thousand years old are called the YOUNG EARTH Creationist and are obviously uneducated people that are very wrong. We all know very well that planet Earth is more than 4.5 Billion years old. But the key point is that Creationism is NOT Young Earth Creationism (just like America is not only South America of the country known as America). Creationism is a lot bigger than just YOUNG Earth Creationism. Actually in its TRUE SENSE the Catholic understanding of Creationism is just the belief that the Big Bang and the Universe had a CAUSE, a MOVER, with intelligence and free will that CAUSED/initiated that Universe and Big Bang. The correct definition of Creationism is just the theory that the Big Bang and the universe was caused by an intelligence and that the Universe is NOT result of an accident, luck or wild chance and randomness; the Creation (the Universe) is the result of a Creator we call God.

Q. Smith contends an atheistic interpretation of the Big Bang is better justified than a theistic interpretation because the latter is inconsistent with the standard Big Bang model and (ii) his atheistic interpretation offers a coherent and plausible account of the origin of the universe. But Smith’s argument for is multiply flawed, depending on premises which are false or at least mootable and a key invalid inference. Smith’s attempt to demonstrate the plausibility of the atheistic interpretation on the basis of its greater simplicity is based on false parallels between God and the initial cosmological singularity. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/xdimgod.html)

—A11 The supernovae results suggested that there was a springiness to space, an energy density often referred to as dark energy or the cosmological constant, that causes the universe to expand at a faster rate the more it expands. Often described as an anti-gravity force, it doesn’t really oppose matter, but only affects matter as it is associated with the fabric of space. The balloon-borne microwave telescope (called Boomerang) examined the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The angular power spectrum showed a peak value at exactly the value predicted by the inflationary hot Big Bang model dominated by cold dark matter. The Bible describes an expanding universe model and the Creator being personally involved in the design of the universe, so that we would expect to see this kind of design in His creation. This is the SAME EXPANDING Universe of Dr. Lemaitre, the Catholic priest that actually corrected Einstein! (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/cosmoconstant.html)

—A12 The fourth chapter of The God Delusion is what Richard Dawkins considers to be his most convincing argument that no gods exist. He calls this argument the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Dawkins asserts that the The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. However, as we shall see, Dawkins’ argument is formally fallacious. Dawkins, of course, believes that evolution (biological or cosmological) can explain all of nature, and presents arguments to support his views in this chapter. Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion Chapter 4: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion4.html)

—A13 According to Carl Sagan, the universe (cosmos) is all that is or ever was or ever will be. However, the idea that the universe is all is not a scientific fact, but an assumption based upon materialistic naturalism. Since Carl Sagan’s death in 1996, new discoveries in physics and cosmology bring into questions Sagan’s assumption about the universe. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as dark energy). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html)

—A14 Based on the discoveries of the Father of modern Astrophysics and the person who corrected Einstein about the Expansion of the Universe: The father of the Big Bang: Dr. Monsignor Lemaitre, the Holy Father Pope Pius XII explains evidence for God from science:

Thus stimulated and guided, the human intellect approaches that demonstration of the existence of God which Christian wisdom recognizes in those philosophical arguments which have been carefully examined throughout the centuries by giants in the world of knowledge, and which are already well known to you in the presentation of the five ways which the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas, offers as a speedy and safe road to lead the mind to God. We have called these arguments philosophical." This does not mean that they are a prioristic, as they are accused of being by a narrow—minded and incoherent positivism. Even though they draw their demonstrative force from the power of human reason, they are nevertheless based on concrete realities established by the senses and by science.

4. In this way both philosophy and the sciences, by means of activities and methods which are analogous and mutually compatible, carry on their work. Though in different measures, they all make use of both empirical and rational elements and cooperate in harmonious unity for the discovery of truth.

5. But if the primitive experience of the ancients could provide human reason with sufficient arguments to demonstrate the existence of God, then with the expanding and deepening of the field of human experiments, the vestiges of the Eternal One are discernible in the visible world in ever more striking and clearer light. Hence it seems helpful to re-examine on the basis of new scientific discoveries the classical proofs of the Angelic Doctor, especially those based on motion and the order of the universe (S. Th., 1 p., q. 2, art. 3); that is to say, to inquire if, and in what degree, a very profound knowledge of the structure of the macrocosm and the microcosm contributes toward strengthening these philosophical arguments.

6. It is also helpful to consider, on the other hand, if and to what degree these proofs have been weakened, as is not infrequently affirmed by the fact that modern physics has formulated new basic principles, ruled out or modified certain ancient ideas, whose content was perhaps judged in the past to be fixed and definitive, such as time, space, motion, causality, substance all of which concepts are supremely important for the question which now occupies us. The question, then, is not one of revising the philosophical proofs, but rather of inquiring into the physical foundations from which they flow although limitations of time will oblige Us to restrict Our attention to only some few of these foundations. There is no reason to be fearful of surprises. Not even science itself aims to go outside that world which today, as yesterday, presents itself through these five modes of being whence the philosophical demonstration of the existence of God proceeds and draws its force.

TWO ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COSMOS: 7. From these modes of being of the world around us which, in greater or lesser degrees of comprehension, are noted with equal evidence by both the philosopher and the human mind in general, there are two which modern science has, in a marvelous degree, fathomed, verified and deepened beyond all expectations: (1) the mutability of things, including their origin and their end; and (2) the teleological order which stands out in every corner of the cosmos.

8. The contribution thus made by science to the two philosophical arguments which hinge on these facts and which constitute the first and the fifth ways of St. Thomas, is most notable. To the first way, physics especially has provided an inexhaustible mine of experiments, revealing the fact of mutability in the deepest recesses of nature, where previously no human mind could ever even suspect its existence and vastness. Thus physics has provided a multiplicity of empirical facts which are of tremendous assistance to philosophical reasoning. We say assistance, because the very direction of these same transformations, precisely in view of the certainty afforded by physics, seems to Us to surpass the value of a mere confirmation and acquires almost the structure and dignity of a physical argument which is in great part new, and more acceptable, persuasive and welcome to many minds.

9. With similar richness other sciences, especially the astronomical and the biological sciences, have in our own day contributed to the argument from order such a vast array of knowledge and, so to speak, so stupefying a vision of the conceptual unity animating the cosmos, and of the teleology directing its movements, as to anticipate for modern man the joy which the poet imagined in the empyrean heaven when he beheld in God

Into one volume bound by love, the same that the universe holds scattered through its maze (Alighieri Dante, Paradiso, Canto 33, 85-87).

10. Nevertheless, Providence has disposed that just as the notion of God, which is so essential to the life of each individual, can be gathered easily from a simple look at the world-in such a way that not to understand the voice of creation is foolishness (Wis., 13, 1-2)-so also this same idea of God finds confirmation in every new development and progress of scientific knowledge.

11. Wishing to give here only a rapid summary of the priceless services rendered by modern science to the demonstration of the existence of God, We shall limit Ourselves, first of all, to the fact of changes, pointing out principally their amplitude and vastness and, so to speak, their totality which modern physics meets in the inanimate cosmos. We shall then dwell on the significance of their direction, which is likewise verified by science. Thus, in Our treatment of these points, we shall, so to speak, be lending an ear to a miniature concert of the immense universe, which nevertheless has a voice strong enough to sing the glory of Him who moveth all that is. (Dante, Paradiso, 1, 1).

A. THE MUTABILITY OF THE COSMOS: The Fact of Mutability

(a) in the macrocosm: 12. At first sight it is