The ironically named "Truth is Eternal" got all angry and upset, and wouldn't take correction for his material heresy.You're 100% right in saying this is Protestant. It's called Theonomy.
He believes that 100% of the Mosaic Law is still binding on Catholics today. This is a clear cut heresy, so it is not tolerated on a Traditional Catholic forum.
He also de-facto believes in private interpretation of Scripture, even when those interpretations go against Catholic Church teaching. That is Protestantism!
He needs prayers.
As a reminder, CathInfo only allows debate on DISPUTED topics. Anything defined by the Church is off-limits. You either assent to it, or get banned as a pertinacious material heretic. (We can't condemn anyone as a formal heretic, none of us has the authority). But you can stubbornly cling to a material heresy -- and such persons are not welcome on CathInfo.
For the good of his soul, I have not IP-banned him from the forum, so he can still read the posts on CathInfo.
It's others here who have accused him of "Judaizing." I can't see that TiE is in any way Jєωιѕн or has any affinity for Judaism. He does, however, have an affinity for Sacred Scripture, whether it's the OT or NT.
I don't care if you like it or not, or if Truth Is Eternal was a major Flat Earth proponent. Facts are facts. Insisting that Catholics follow Jєωιѕн laws, or placing the Jєωs on a higher pedestal than the rest of the (unclean, Gentile?) Catholics is the textbook definition of Judaizing.While the right to interpret Scripture belongs to the Church, Scripture is the highest authority/source on doctrine
And you can't dismiss his heresy as, "he has an affinity for Sacred Scripture". So do I. I love Scripture and revere it as the Word of God. However, I am a Catholic so I look to Tradition -- the Catholic Church -- for the TRUE interpretation of what I read there. For me, a Catholic, Scripture is only one of the two pillars of the Faith. And even then, it only contributes to the body of doctrine (the Catholic Faith) what the Catholic Church says it does.
Are we going to praise ALL Protestant HERETICS for their "love of Holy Scripture"? Of course not! They are heretics who don't possess the truth, and often persecute the True Church. Their so-called love of the Bible won't save them.
If a man takes a bomb and blows up a bunch of atheists or protestants, can you dismiss it as, "Well, he is zealous for the Catholic Faith"? No, he's a maniac who certainly needs the Death Penalty for committing mass murder.
If TIE believes Catholics are bound by the Mosaic law (not just the 10 commandments) he is definitely in the wrong because that is a serious heresy. Council of Florence is clear.
Never mind, I found it. Its true the Council of Florence condemned the Mosaic Law:
It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circuмcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circuмcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.
This is a matter of salvation. The Jєωιѕн Mosaic law is forbidden for Catholics. From the seders, to the food restrictions to circuмcision.
Okay, but where does the above quote from the Council of Florence refer to food restrictions? The above quote describes circuмcision, of course. And it also mentions the matter pertaining to Mosaic law being divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments. But I don't see anything about food.St. Paul says the food restrictions are now meaningless
Now, if you would only ban Meg... ;D
Okay, but where does the above quote from the Council of Florence refer to food restrictions? The above quote describes circuмcision, of course. And it also mentions the matter pertaining to Mosaic law being divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments. But I don't see anything about food.The teaching of Florence is based on many things as the Fathers have expounded on it to say the whole Jєωιѕн law is defunct. But Scripture cuts to the chase for us.
I suppose it could fall under the category of "other requirements" mentioned also above, but it doesn't say what those other requirements are.
St. Paul says the food restrictions are now meaningless
The teaching of Florence is based on many things as the Fathers have expounded on it to say the whole Jєωιѕн law is defunct. But Scripture cuts to the chase for us.
Acts 10:9-16
Peter’s Vision
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
Yes, I know about the above quote, but a bit farther in Scripture it is said that Peter realized that the vision meant that he wasn't to dismiss other people, such as Gentiles, for being unclean. Even though the vision had animals in it, it was referring to humans. I can't really understand why a vision about animals would really mean humans (it doesn't really make a lot of sense), but that appears to be the case.Its the same principle and applies to animals and men insofar as the Mosaic Law is concerned. The passage spoke of animals included in the Mosaic Law. The problem with Peter is that he respected only those who were circuмcised out of respect and fear of the Jєωs--more Jєωιѕн law. Paul resisted him to his face because, as Scripture said, "he was to be blamed".
Its the same principle and applies to animals and men insofar as the Mosaic Law is concerned. The passage spoke of animals included in the Mosaic Law. The problem with Peter is that he respected only those who were circuмcised out of respect and fear of the Jєωs--more Jєωιѕн law. Paul resisted him to his face because, as Scripture said, "he was to be blamed".
Circuмcision belonged to the old law and was no longer applicable since it was replaced by Baptism. What Paul objected to was identical to what Peter was shown in the scroll. The Mosaic Law ceased.
Where does he say it? That's definitely helpful.1 Corinthians 8:7-9
Paul understood that the Old Law had ceased. The Old Covenant is out. The new law of love is the New Covenant and is binding. Practicing the Old Law is damnable according to the Council of Florence since it was tolerated at first, if no one placed faith in it, but then it was abolished and makes one practicing it in any of its forms, anathema.
[....]
Acts 10:9-16
[....]
13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
Oh! Butter-sauteed abalone! Crispy bacon! Fried catfish! Steamed Dungeness crab! Crawfish boils! Seafood gumbo! "Boiled"[×] lobsters! Raw oysters![†] Pulled pork! Shrimp & grits! Uni! Yaaay!Yum! Not to mention the entire week is a feast for Pentecost.
-------
Note ×: The classic book Joy of Cooking (1973 paperback) fussily insists that in this instance, the cooking method is technically not "boiling" but poaching.
Note †: Harvested with appropriate caution, heeding any quarantines by health officials that might be in effect at the time; customary rules invoking the presence or absence of 'R' in the name of a month are dangerously inadequate.
“Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”.
Leviticus 11:46-47Did you not read the replies to this topic in the thread. You are making it go backwards for no reason. TL:DR read Acts 10:9-16 and 1 Corinthians 8:7-9. The Church has already ruled on old Law.
[46] You shall be holy, because I am holy. This is the law of beasts and fowls, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and creepeth on the earth: [47] That you may know the differences of the clean, and unclean, and know what you ought to eat, and what to refuse.
I see that TiE has rejoined the forum as Martyr.Yep. Matthew, banning the IP address might not be a bad idea.
Promoting or practicing the Mosaic Law today makes vain the Cross of Christ, which alone has any saving or propitiatory power (power to forgive sins).
It's not a small heresy!
If I had TiE's contact info, then I would write to him and ask him to stop signing up for new accounts. But I don't have his contact info.
If the flat earth is forever tainted by TiE's error, then I suppose there's no use in debating the subject any longer (for me). One flat earther goes ballistic, and that means that the earth isn't flat. Hum....
On the other hand, I've noticed sedevacantists who have exhibited similar behavior, and they have been banned, but it doesn't seem to forever taint sedevacantism. What's up with that?
I'm not threatening you or speaking for myself personally. I'm reminding you (and all the other Flat Earth proponents) how human nature works. If human nature says that you have an uphill battle when some of "your own" do something stupid, then that's unfortunate but it has nothing to do with me.Okay, I see what you mean. I know that you're not threatening me personally, and I appreciate that you've been patient with me even though I can be a trouble-maker (I'll try to change that).
I could be as nice as possible, giving all of you the benefit of the doubt and even embracing Flat Earth myself -- but that wouldn't change the fact that most people will LIVE, BELIEVE, and ACT based on the "bad taste in their mouth" from individuals in your camp (being obsessive, rude, misbehaved on forums, etc.)
When you have any position, especially an unpopular one like Flat Earth (just stating a fact here), and a few idiots attach themselves to the position and then do something stupid (whether it's minor like spamming up a forum, or major like setting off bombs and killing people) it tends to taint the public's general impression of that position.
TiE, your trolling efforts aren't going to get anywhere. You're only wasting your time. It is so easy to ban and IP ban someone with the current CathInfo software. You're fighting a losing battle and making yourself look like a 3 year old child at the same time.
TiE is acting like a misbehaved brat throwing a temper tantrum. I should point out that he is also one of the most fervent Flat Earth supporters.
Flat Earth supporters: I suggest you write to TiE if you have his contact info, and talk some sense into him. Because in the eyes of most people, his behavior DOES reflect on your whole position. It's a shame that's how it is, but I believe that such is the truth. It's simply how human nature works.
And yes, you're right about the same thing going for sedevacantism, but they do seem have more "rights" here, if it can be called that.
Not so. Matthew locked the Father Ringrose thread, deleted many of my posts, and asked me to refrain from being hostile to R&R. So Matthew is not singling out Flat Earth by any means. Even though I don't always agree with him on particular issues, Matthew tends to be consistent in his approach. He could have banned Flat Earth entirely, as many forum mods would have, but I appreciate the fact that he hasn't. I respect him for that. And if he hasn't banned sedevacantism, it's for the same (consistent) reasons. Matthew has shut down and banned dogmatic sedevacantists, but he also called out SeanJohnson as a dogmatic [mod edit: sedeplenist]. Flat Earth got sidelined because 95% of the "Recent Thread" list ended up being Flat Earth threads. I did feel that, if it was technically possible, there should have been a limit imposed of one thread relating to Flat Earth in the Recent list ... because I do find the issue to be of great interest. I enjoy and am open to all manner of subjects. I didn't become a geocentrist until I started getting involved with various threads here. And many forums would have banned the subject.
Did I make a typo?
You made a word-o.
You said "dogmatic R&R" but I never said that. I referred to Sean as "dogmatic sedeplenist" which is actually more accurate.
I'm a stickler for accuracy.
I don't see how we can now have any debates on the flat earth subforum now. It seems that those who are against it will not let us debate it.How are we stopping you? You (and others) label as trolls those people who are prepared to debate with you. The flat-earthers encourage each other to ignore the people who are against it.
That's right, you did use the word sedeplenist. I used the word R&R because that's what he is, since there are dogmatic Novus Ordo sedeplenists too.Who would be an example of dogmatic NO sedeplenist? I always equated sedeplenism with R&R, but maybe I am wrong.
Who would be an example of dogmatic NO sedeplenist? I always equated sedeplenism with R&R, but maybe I am wrong.
Who would be an example of dogmatic NO sedeplenist? I always equated sedeplenism with R&R, but maybe I am wrong.
Most conservative Novus Ordites are dogmatic sedeplenists. You know what the term means, right?, that Holy See is legitimately occupied (currently by Francis).Yes, I do. I just think that in order to be called "sedeplenist" wrt the Crisis, that the person would have to recognize that Vatican II was not Catholic. Most, if not all, conservative NO's believe, at best, that Vatican II is "ambiguous".
Yes, I do. I just think that in order to be called "sedeplenist" wrt the Crisis, that the person would have to recognize that Vatican II was not Catholic. Most, if not all, conservative NO's believe, at best, that Vatican II is "ambiguous".