[Meg]

.

[Meg]

How many R&R schismatics and deniers of the Newtonian physics are logged in right now?


Looks like we have at least one double whammy.

I get that sedes believe that R&R's are schismatics, but really....deniers of Newtonian physics? I suppose you consider the Newtonian deniers to be schismatic, right? That's hilarious!

Only 3 out of 12 logged on are sedes. Not bad. I think that they mostly patrol the forum in the morning. I'll check back then. 

[Nadir]

How do you know who is a sede and who is not, apart from remembering what each poster says on the subject. Sure some declare themselves but no all by a long shot. And you'd have to read every post, just in case they swing to the other side.
Do you know, for example where I stand? You must have a lot of time on your hands. 

[Meg]

How do you know who is a sede and who is not, apart from remembering what each poster says on the subject. Sure some declare themselves but no all by a long shot. And you'd have to read every post, just in case they swing to the other side.
Do you know, for example where I stand? You must have a lot of time on your hands.

I only count the sedes with whom I have debated sedevacantism, and I know they are sedes. There are probably more of them than what I can count at any given time. It's not meant to be a precise account of how many sedes are on the forum at any particular time. But it gives a good indication. 

[2Vermont]

 

[JPaul]

[Meg]

If I were to start another Bergoglio "Vicar of Christ" poll, 75% of Cathinfo would cast their votes with the "he is not the Vicar of Christ on earth" option.

Yes, you may be right. You started a Bergoglio "Vicar of Christ" poll? I hadn't ever noticed it. Was it about 75% then, would you say? (Against Bergoglio being Pope, I mean). 

[Maria Regina]

Devotees of Father Paul Kramer do not believe that Francis is the Vicar, but that Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
Others believe that Paul VI is still alive even at 120 years, so that he is technically still the Pope as he never resigned.

Neither of these two groups would be considered sedevacantists.

[happenby]

How many R&R schismatics and deniers of the Newtonian physics are logged in right now?


Looks like we have at least one double whammy.

I'm definitely not schismatic but I thoroughly deny Newtonian physics because his work was at least in part, plagiarized. This might sour Kreuz, but we all can't live apart from truth, can we?

Isaac NewtonAlthough he is much deserved of scientific credit for at least providing mathematical formulas of motion that, within the margin of error are quite accurate, his personal life was little to be admired. Kepler’s jealousy of Brahe was just slightly worse in comparison to Newton’s avarice that led him to confiscate the work of his contemporaries and credit it to himself. Astronomer John Flamsteed was the owner of voluminous notes charting the moon’s movement and the positions of the stars, notes Newton desperately needed to bring the moon within his gravitational theory for the publishing of his famous Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. A bitter feud resulted between the two men wherein Newton, using his influence with government officials, forced Flamsteed’s hand. Not only did Newton surreptitiously wrest Flamsteed of his painstaking work, he did the same to Stephen Gray and Robert Hooke. In 1674 Hooke published the Inverse Square Law for the force of gravity in his book An Attempt to Prove the Motion of the Earth by Observation. Newton then tried to claim it as his own, feigning that he had thought about it many years earlier but only decided to publish it in his own book thirteen years later. As Ellen Tan Drake notes:
Newton, however, claimed to have arrived at his universal law of gravitation at his country home in Woolsthorpe during the plague years 1665 or 1666 (it is not clear which), during his annas mirabilis(this “marvelous year” when the legendary apple fell). This date, of course, would clearly predate Hooke’s expression of the law except that there is clear proof that as late as 1675, Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by “some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,” and that gravity was due to a circulating ether that had to be replenished in the center of the Earth by a process like fermentation or coagulation. (Restless Genius: Robert Hooke and his Earthly Thoughts, Ellen Tan Drake, Oxford University Press, 1966, pp. 32-33. Drake’s source is Newton’s letter to Oldenberg, Dec. 7 1675, as cited in Turnbull, 1959, vol. 1: 368; Patterson, 1950).
Newton won the day against Hooke by using his influence at the Royal Society, just as he did in heading off the new discoveries of Robert Boyle, all in an effort to advance his own career. (David Clark and Stephen P. H. Clark, Newton’s Tyranny: The Suppressed Scientific Discoveries of Stephen Gray and John Flamsteed, New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 2001; Richard S. Westfall,Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, pp. 471f, 601f; on Robert Boyle see False Prophets, Alexander Kohn, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986, p. 39). On at least three separate occasions, Newton introduced fallacious figures into the Principia in order to increase its apparent power of prediction (“Newton and the Fudge Factor,” Richard S. Westfall, Science, 179, 751-758, 1973; False Prophets, Alexander Kohn, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1986, pp. 36-39). Ironically, it was considered an “epoch-making” work long before it was thoroughly reviewed, the highly influential John Locke having accepted it based merely on the word of Newton (Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, pp. 469-470; Morris Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture, Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 230. See also Kline’s Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Oxford University Press, 1982).
In addition to the ill-treatment of his scientific colleagues, Newton was rumored to have had a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ relationship with one John Wickins, a friend with whom he had lived for twenty years; and a later liaison with Nicholas Fatio De Duillier, a man twenty years his junior and with whom he exchanged intimate letters, many of which were later censored by Newton or a confidant. Newton was also deep into alchemy (illegal at the time) and the Kabbalah, the occult musings of medieval тαℓмυdic authors. Although he was reputed to have Christian moorings, Newton embraced the heresy of Arianism (i.e., the denial of both the divinity of Christ and the Trinity). Westfall writes: “In Newton’s eyes, worshiping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin” (Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, p. 314; On Newton’s intimacy with Wickens and Fatio, see Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, Michael White, MA: Perseus Books, 1997, pp. 235-254).
Voltaire had accused Newton of using his niece to entice politicians so that Newton could gain various positions of prestige. Voltaire writes: “I thought in my youth that Newton made his fortune by his merit. I supposed that the court and the city of London named him Master of the Mint by acclamation. No such thing. Isaac Newton had a very charming niece, Madame Conduitt, who made a conquest of the minister of Halifax. Fluxions and gravitation would have been of no use without a pretty niece” (Dictionnaire Philosophique, as cited in N. Martin Gywnne’s Sir Isaac Newton and Modern Astronomy, Britons Catholic Library, n. d., p. 8). Biographer Richard Westfall, although an admirer of Newton and predisposed to dismiss any hearsay, adds: “The wider ramifications with Halifax, and Newton’s involvement in it, do not evaporate with equal ease,” although “With Halifax the libertine, Victorian eulogizers could not bear to associate Newton. Nor could they bear the thought, the point of Voltaire’s jibe, that Newton used the degradation of his niece to advance his own career” (Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 1983, pp. 596-597).
Unknown to most, Newton spent most of his time interpreting biblical prophecy, writing over a million words on the subject. One of his more intriguing predictions is the date of 2060 AD as the end of the world, but that date surfaces only because Newton decided that the Roman Catholic Church was the Antichrist. As Westfall says, Newton “hated and feared popery,” and as Koestler concludes, Newton was “a crank theologian like Kepler…and held that the tenth horn of the fourth beast of the Apocalypse represented the Roman Catholic Church.” Since he reasoned that the Church’s peak occurred in 800 AD, upon which, if one adds the 1260 days of Apocalypse 11-13 but changes them from days to 1260 years, then one obtains 800 + 1260 = 2060. Newton borrowed the ‘1260 days = 1260 year’ scheme from the Puritan mystic Joseph Mede. Mede added the 1260 years to 400-455 AD and held that the end would come around 1760-1815 AD. Others began at different dates (e.g., Bengel at 576; Ellicott at 608; Melanchthon at 660, et al, most trying to bring the terminus to the Reformation). Newton believed that the Second Coming of Christ would follow plagues and war and would precede a 1,000-year reign of Christ and the saints on earth, otherwise known today as “chiliasm” or “premillennialism” He spent close to 50 years delving into biblical prophecy, writing over 4,500 pages and a million words in an effort to determine the end of the world. Many of these papers had lain undisturbed in the hours of the Earl of Portsmouth for 250 years, which were eventually sold by Sotheby’s in the late 1930s. Newton proposed various dates for the end, but one of the last, which he apparently wrote on a separate piece of paper, was 2060. This collection of papers was purchased by Abraham Yahuda, and was stored in the Hebrew National Library. It was among these docuмents that the date 2060 was found. (See also Michael White’s The Last Sorcerer, pp. 156-157).

[Meg]

There appears that total incapacity for logical thought once again. I swear your mind is like a bear riding a tricycle around a circus ring with a monkey on its back playing the concertina.
1. Flat Earth cranks explicitly or implicitly deny Newtonian physics and not just in its application to orbital mechanics.
2. You're a schismatic because you refuse to submit your intellect and will to the man you call pope in his authentic magisterium.
These things are logically unconnected.

I'm used to Pharisedes who insult and make accusations against non-Sedes. That's what they (you) mainly do. When they aren't accusing the Pope, they are accusing non-sedes. 

Tell me, do you judge every Catholic you meet as to whether or not they are schismatics? 

[Mithrandylan]

Consider thyself reminded:

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!

God bless!

[Meg]

Consider thyself reminded:

Thanks for the reminder. Which I will disregard. 

[Ladislaus]

Devotees of Father Paul Kramer do not believe that Francis is the Vicar, but that Benedict XVI is still the Pope.
Others believe that Paul VI is still alive even at 120 years, so that he is technically still the Pope as he never resigned.

Neither of these two groups would be considered sedevacantists.

Yeah, there are about 2 or 3 people who believe either of the above theories.

[TKGS]

Tell me, do you judge every Catholic you meet as to whether or not they are schismatics?

Interesting question.  I've never met a Catholic schismatic nor a Catholic heretic.

[Meg]

Right now, at least 3 of 4 members are Sedevacantist. Maybe the 4th.

Hope this helps Meg, I don't know the purpose of this thread, but it sure is fun.

Glad you think so AeS.

Apparently, not all sedes think as you do on the subject, judging by all the downvotes I'm getting (which is fine - I can see that they don't like what I have to say about their sede religion).