Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Mat183 on December 10, 2025, 01:54:30 AM
-
Trolling deleted, and user banned.
I deleted this nonsense once, and you didn't take the hint.
-
Columbia Sportswear CEO (https://gab.com/NotYourPolitics/posts/115693128519933715) Tim Boyle, who is 76 years old, recently launched a viral challenge promising to give away his $3 billion company to anyone who can prove the Earth is flat.
The campaign video invites participants to photograph a literal “edge of the Earth,” with Boyle joking that the winner receives the entire company.
A spokesperson in the video clarifies that the image must show a real physical termination point of the planet.
The stunt is part of Columbia’s marketing campaign, using humor and satire to spark global attention and online debate.
-
Columbia Sportswear CEO (https://gab.com/NotYourPolitics/posts/115693128519933715) Tim Boyle, who is 76 years old, recently launched a viral challenge promising to give away his $3 billion company to anyone who can prove the Earth is flat.
The campaign video invites participants to photograph a literal “edge of the Earth,” with Boyle joking that the winner receives the entire company.
A spokesperson in the video clarifies that the image must show a real physical termination point of the planet.
The stunt is part of Columbia’s marketing campaign, using humor and satire to spark global attention and online debate.
Can we all just chip in a little bit to get a high-quality camera for Ladislaus or Matthew?
-
Flat earth is not new. It's scriptural and ancient.
The earth is a globe, a snow-globe. The land is flat.
(https://i.imgur.com/CmbyBFi.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/gVWIrm1.jpeg)(https://i.imgur.com/mJhYFen.jpeg)
-
If flat earth is a psyop, then why are we able to see things that normally should be hidden behind the curvature of the earth?
No one can answer this question satisfactorily.
-
If flat earth is a psyop, then why are we able to see things that normally should be hidden behind the curvature of the earth?
No one can answer this question satisfactorily.
Intelligent questions aren't welcome to those who are overly attached to the Globe Earth for some reason.
Some just can't break the programming. Two words: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
-
I have to wonder why a "crazy" idea like Flat Earth bothers people like "Mat183" so much.
I know, "It makes Trads look crazy". That is the BEST CASE scenario, the best answer he could give.
But even that excuse shows SERIOUS issues with him, his spiritual state, and his worldview.
Why do you CARE what Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon, thinks of us Trad Catholics? You shouldn't care at all. Do you have ANY IDEA what these men think of Our Blessed Lord? And you seek their approval WHY?
LET GO of human respect. EMBRACE the Way of the Cross. Love God and the Truth only and above all else. Let the dead bury their dead. And come, follow Jesus.
-
I just asked google how fast the earth spins lol
It's saying the impossible, that it spins +1000 mph at the equator, but instead of faster, it spins slower the closer you get to the poles - no spin at all at the poles......
The Earth spins at about 1,040 mph (1,670 km/h) at the equator, but this speed decreases as you move toward the poles, where it slows to nearly zero at the North and South Poles, because it completes one rotation in 24 hours. You don't feel it because everything, including you, the atmosphere, and oceans, moves at the same constant speed, similar to being in a smoothly moving car.
-
Columbia Sportswear CEO (https://gab.com/NotYourPolitics/posts/115693128519933715) Tim Boyle, who is 76 years old, recently launched a viral challenge promising to give away his $3 billion company to anyone who can prove the Earth is flat.
The campaign video invites participants to photograph a literal “edge of the Earth,” with Boyle joking that the winner receives the entire company.
A spokesperson in the video clarifies that the image must show a real physical termination point of the planet.
The stunt is part of Columbia’s marketing campaign, using humor and satire to spark global attention and online debate.
I'm sick of the strawman "island floating in outer space" depictions of the earth.
No flat-earth believer actually believes in such a thing.
It is a classic Straw Man if ever there was one.
While we're on the topic, the "Flat Earth Society" is a complete joke as well. Their website and main picture shows the "edge of the earth" with water flowing over the edge. An absolute joke. They are not sincere or true at all -- just a monkey wrench throw in, part of the whole package of keeping people away from the truth as much as possible.
And yes, wouldn't it be great to go to the edge and see what's there? But you see, there's a problem with that. There's the Antarctic Treaty which prevents FREE and INDEPENDENT exploration of the antarctic ice wall. If you fly or sail in, you will be threatened with various military hardware. They don't want us exploring.
The government already had Operation Dominic, where they sent several missiles up to explode on the Firmament, and needless to say they couldn't get through. God put us on this earth, and that is where we will ALWAYS stay. We are creatures. We can't manipulate time, nor can we leave this realm for other places.
But as a Creationist, that doesn't bother me. Some people are so programmed with the Molecules to Man "Big Bang" model, that is the only place they are comfortable -- of course they have "baptized it" by saying God created the Big Bang. But the model was FUNDAMENTALLY created as a last-ditch effort to explain sufficiently (for most people, anyway) how the universe could come into being from nothing.
The Big Bang cosmology is a pretty pathetic explanation with hundreds of large holes, but through "bandwagon", "authority", and insulting the competition, they manage to dazzle MOST minds into accepting it.
A created snow-globe world? Not a chance. There is no possible way to dazzle human minds into accepting that such a terrarium could just come into existence by itself.
-
A created snow-globe world? Not a chance. There is no possible way to dazzle human minds into accepting that such a terrarium could just come into existence by itself.
Yes, and the sick, twisted, demonic part of all of this is... that people believing that the beauty, wonder, and intricate nature of the world came from nothing...this is another blasphemy towards God, because it takes away the glory that is His alone. Even the pagan nations of old, glorified God for nature and the beauty of the world. Nowadays, modern man thanks "mother earth" and thinks all this complexity and wonder came about by chance. God is forgotten and ignored. This sin alone deserves that God would destroy such a wicked society.
-
Can we all just chip in a little bit to get a high-quality camera for Ladislaus or Matthew?
Hey, I'm not going to reject an expensive camera. But let's face it -- I would just become able to "see too far" and be even more convinced the earth is flat. Is that really what you want?
Based on your posting history, that would really, really bother you. Because you seem QUITE pathologically attached to the globe earth, for some reason.
-
Hey, I'm not going to reject an expensive camera. But let's face it -- I would just become able to "see too far" and be even more convinced the earth is flat. Is that really what you want?
Based on your posting history, that would really, really bother you. Because you seem QUITE pathologically attached to the globe earth, for some reason.
I doubt he is even aware of the curvature problem (or lack thereof).
-
I would like to see a model of the globe earth spinning slower as you move to the poles than at the equator.
-
I know, "It makes Trads look crazy". That is the BEST CASE scenario, the best answer he could give.
A very important and terrible consequence.
-
A very important and terrible consequence.
Catholics who eat and drink the Body and Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ are already hated by the world (as Jesus promised us).
Is that also "A very important and terrible consequence."?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/mJhYFen.jpeg)
You better junk this map since it actually *isn’t* exhibiting a flat Earth. It contradicts the FEers supposedly strongest argument, of which I certainly don’t buy, that there ISN’T any curvature in the Earth. :facepalm:
-
LET GO of human respect. EMBRACE the Way of the Cross. Love God and the Truth only and above all else. Let the dead bury their dead. And come, follow Jesus.
You keep saying this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with human respect. It has everything to do with truth and the conversion of souls. I couldn’t care less about what I look like to other people so long as I embrace the truth. I do care about how things reflect on the Church and whether a nearly indefensible position, such as FE, will affect people’s willingness to convert and I suggest you tread lightly with your almost dogmatic approach to it.
Holding the sedevacantist position for well over three decades while being disrespected and ostracized by the dogmatic R&R types, not going to family events that would possibly confuse my children, and avoiding weddings and other functions of friends and family so as not to compromise my faith, doesn’t seem to square up with your nice little reason, human respect, for us not wanting to accept this FE nonsense. Sorry Matthew, I ain’t following the self brainwashing pathway you’re taking.
-
You better junk this map since it actually *isn’t* exhibiting a flat Earth. It contradicts the FEers supposedly strongest argument, of which I certainly don’t buy, that there ISN’T any curvature in the Earth. :facepalm:
The 'lack of curvature' is the strongest and easiest to prove argument. The size of the globe, per NASA, is utterly false. It's been proven multiple times, by many different people, of various backgrounds. Technology can "see too far" past the curve. NASA has no answer for this.
-
I would like to see a model of the globe earth spinning slower as you move to the poles than at the equator.
You can spin a ball right in front of you and the physics is exactly the same.
-
The 'lack of curvature' is the strongest and easiest to prove argument. The size of the globe, per NASA, is utterly false. It's been proven multiple times, by many different people, of various backgrounds. Technology can "see too far" past the curve. NASA has no answer for this.
You posted a pseudo FE map that shows a curved Earth, look at it. As for the “lack of curvature” argument, I agree it is the best and pretty much the only decent argument in your favor, but it’s miles away from a slam dunk. First, most of the videos that seem to show a lack of curvature are probably faked, exaggerated, or done by amateurs who aren’t careful with their technique. Second, many observations can be explained by refraction, reflection, and deffraction. Third, no one on this forum has ever attested to observing the lack of (or proof of) curvature by doing an experiment on their own, except me. I used two different telescopes and a set of binoculars and can attest to the fact that a bridge that should have been visible on the other side of a 20 mile long lake was obscured. I was called a liar for stating that, by a poster on this forum.
-
Your threshold for believing in FE (i.e. one has to do personal experiments) is stupid.
-
Your threshold for believing in FE (i.e. one has to do personal experiments) is stupid.
And this is why I’ve told you before that you don’t understand the scientific method (nor common sense). Unfortunately, trads are some of the most gullible people in the world.
-
I commend you for your constancy, and I couldn't agree more.
It is crazy to me how much this position overlays the Sedevacantist position in terms of motivations, consequences, fallout, etc.
FEer: "Com'on man just stop with the human respect already it blinds you to the truth."
This ^ is actually a common explanation/argument that Sedes use to explain why some prefer to stay where they are at rather than seek the truth.
The idea of FE is pointless to me.
A rabbit hole to no effect.
A potential cover to distract from more important questions.
And yes, "Is the man currently claiming to be Pope actually the Pope?"
is an important question that one CAN come to a morally certain answer on (as I see you are quite aware).
In heaven, I don't see anyone "caring" about what Catholics think of the shape of the earth.
But I do see them "caring" about who is Pope or not and what Catholics think about the man who is claiming that office.
Thank you.
-
And this is why I’ve told you before that you don’t understand the scientific method. Unfortunately, trads are some of the most gullible people in the world.
No, no, no. You're missing the point. "I" don't have to do scientific experiments to prove every, single thing I believe in. That's what scientists are for. There are plenty of people out there doing FE experiments. I see the experiment; I see no rebuttal. To me, the experiment is proven (or at least, it's a point in favor of the idea).
Just like "I" don't need to play piano to know if one song is better/more complex than another one.
Just like "I" don't need to be an engineer to know when a concrete slab has been poured incorrectly. Nor do "I" need to be a carpenter to know when a piece of furniture was made poorly.
This whole idea that "only experts" can have critical thinking or make decisions on life, is stupid. You've been brainwashed to believe "the experts" and ignore common sense. Wake up.
-
No, no, no. You're missing the point. "I" don't have to do scientific experiments to prove every, single thing I believe in. That's what scientists are for. There are plenty of people out there doing FE experiments. I see the experiment; I see no rebuttal. To me, the experiment is proven (or at least, it's a point in favor of the idea).
Just like "I" don't need to play piano to know if one song is better/more complex than another one.
Just like "I" don't need to be an engineer to know when a concrete slab has been poured incorrectly. Nor do "I" need to be a carpenter to know when a piece of furniture was made poorly.
This whole idea that "only experts" can have critical thinking or make decisions on life, is stupid. You've been brainwashed to believe "the experts" and ignore common sense. Wake up.
This post is a total contradiction. First you say you rely on scientists because “that's what scientists are for”, and then you finish your post by saying *I’ve* been brainwashed to believe the experts! I’m the one who is telling *you* to simply observe the movements of the stars, the Sun, the Moon, to get a telescope and look at the Moon and notice that it is a sphere and reflects the Sun’s light etc… You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand this.
-
This post is a total contradiction. First you say you rely on scientists because “that's what scientists are for”, and then you finish your post by saying *I’ve* been brainwashed to believe the experts! I’m the one who is telling *you* to simply observe the movements of the stars, the Sun, the Moon, to get a telescope and look at the Moon and notice that it is a sphere and reflects the Sun’s light etc… You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand this.
Scientists include "lay scientists" who do experiments.
The movement of the sun, moon and stars does not correlate to the earth. The sun, moon and stars DO NOT HAVE HUMAN BEINGS living on them. The sun, moon and stars were created FOR EARTH.
You're using the same evolutionary arguments..."See how alike we are to monkeys...how can you say we're not evolved from them?"
The earth is as different to the sun/moon as a rock is different to a human.
-
Scientists include "lay scientists" who do experiments.
The movement of the sun, moon and stars does not correlate to the earth. The sun, moon and stars DO NOT HAVE HUMAN BEINGS living on them. The sun, moon and stars were created FOR EARTH.
You're using the same evolutionary arguments..."See how alike we are to monkeys...how can you say we're not evolved from them?"
The earth is as different to the sun/moon as a rock is different to a human.
Hardly “evolutionary arguments”.
Some of the ways we can help prove that the Earth is a sphere (not snow globe) is by observing the movements of the stars in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. For instance, the North Star, Polaris, is visible only on the Northern Hemisphere and through God’s great design it points perfectly north. It can’t be seen in the Southern Hemisphere. On a flat Earth it would be visible everywhere, but on a spherical Earth it wouldn’t be visible in the Southern Hemisphere.
We can observe the rising and setting of the Sun and the phases of the Moon. We have extremely accurate measurements of all of the land masses and oceans and we have accurate distances between them and how these measurements correlate to one another. The only way these measurements can work in a model is for that model to be a sphere, it can’t work on a flat map model.
There is so much more and these observations can be experienced by any layman. I hope this helps.
-
:facepalm: Yes we can observe the phases of the moon, but scientists still can’t explain why we see the SAME part of the moon, everyday, without change, even though the moon is supposed to be spinning, along with the earth, and sun. It makes no sense. Stop acting like everything is perfectly explained. :facepalm:
-
For instance, the North Star, Polaris, is visible only on the Northern Hemisphere and through God’s great design it points perfectly north. It can’t be seen in the Southern Hemisphere. On a flat Earth it would be visible everywhere, but on a spherical Earth it wouldn’t be visible in the Southern Hemisphere.
Your observations are based on false assumptions/facts.
1) You assume that the north star is "billions of miles" away, therefore on a FE, the southern hemisphere should see it. But...it's likely that the north star is NOT billions of miles away but only miles away, ergo the southern hemisphere can't see it because it's lower in the atmosphere and the distance/angle make it impossible.
2) There is no "space" as we are told by movies/tv. The firmament is real and the earth/creation is much, much smaller than we think. The sun/moon/stars are much closer than we think.
-
:facepalm: Yes we can observe the phases of the moon, but scientists still can’t explain why we see the SAME part of the moon, everyday, without change, even though the moon is supposed to be spinning, along with the earth, and sun. It makes no sense. Stop acting like everything is perfectly explained. :facepalm:
Cut it with the :facepalm:, ok? I’m trying to explain something to you that you admittedly don’t understand.
God designed the Moon to rotate on it’s axis at exactly the same rate as it orbits (revolves around) the Earth, thus you can only see one side of the Moon. You can tell that the moon is a round sphere by just observing it with the naked eye. If you use a telescope and look at it’s craters and their shadows, you will notice that their shape becomes more elliptical towards the edge of the Moon. This is indicative of a spherical shape.
-
Your observations are based on false assumptions/facts.
1) You assume that the north star is "billions of miles" away, therefore on a FE, the southern hemisphere should see it. But...it's likely that the north star is NOT billions of miles away but only miles away, ergo the southern hemisphere can't see it because it's lower in the atmosphere and the distance/angle make it impossible.
2) There is no "space" as we are told by movies/tv. The firmament is real and the earth/creation is much, much smaller than we think. The sun/moon/stars are much closer than we think.
Ok, so give me some numbers? How far are the stars, the Moon, and the Sun away from the Earth’s surface? Give me a model and show how this works? Do you realize how low the North Star would have to be not to be visible from the Southern Hemisphere of your FE? Think man!
-
And yes, "Is the man currently claiming to be Pope actually the Pope?"
is an important question that one CAN come to a morally certain answer on (as I see you are quite aware).
Do you know what moral certainty even is? It means you have enough certainty to ACT upon. Human actions are moral actions (right or wrong). There are no "neutral" actions. Either an action is good (to various degrees) or bad (to various degrees). Wiping sweat off my brow would probably qualify as "good", albeit a very very slight good.
Moral certainty is not to be confused with metaphysical certainty, or dogmatic certainty.
If a man leers at my daughter, I can be "morally certain" he's up to no good and would take action accordingly (not let him close to my family, etc.) and I would do well in this.
But it's theoretically possible he had a mental or physical disorder which made him APPEAR to be leering at my daughter, when he actually wasn't.
But no matter, I had moral certainty -- enough to act upon.
You can become convinced of whatever position you want -- but guess what? You can't judge other Catholics who disagree with you, as if you are "right" and they are "wrong". You can argue, sure, because only one of you can be objectively right. But unless you've been receiving visions and revelations from Heaven, I have just as much chance of being right as you.
In short, you can't condemn, look down on, or disparage fellow Catholics who disagree with you on your opinions. You have no dogmatic certainty -- only enough for YOU PERSONALLY to act on, for you and your family. That is NOT enough to compel the consciences of others, or condemn others about.
-
Stop acting like everything is perfectly explained. :facepalm:
This is precisely what the model-tards do, simply assume that their model explains everything.
But then, as we point out, they simply refuse to touch the "see too far" problem, but keep going to "muh model", "muh map".
So then after the dishonest mendacious troll demands that I show the FE map, I present him with 5 projections and demand they tell me which is the "correct" one for the "Globe model".
Globe-tards, YOUR MODEL HAS BEEN DEFINITELY FALSIFIED. Now, come up with a new one or shut up.
We're engaging in the scientific method by proposing one, the FE model, that's more consistent with observations. As with all hypotheses, it'll require additional refinement.
I've even tried to help the intellectually challenged Globe-tards out by saying ... OK, then, hypothesize that we do live on a ball, but that it's 10 times bigger that what NASA tells us. That's a new hypothesis that would attempt to explain the "see too far" problem.
Or, try to hypothesize some reason that light seems to bend perfectly around the contours of the ball ... and even suggested that they try, oh, the flow of ether that tends to bend around the suraface, since "muh refraction" is utterly ridiculous, and has been definitively falsified by two-way laser experiments.
We all know that they have a psychological (I like Matthew's term pathological), so a psyco-pathological illness somehow related to Stockholm syndrome to modern "science", the same "science" we were told to follow regarding the jab.
Intelletual dishonesty is easily exposed when you see individuals who, after one of their reasons has been refuted, simply come up with another, and then when that one has been refuted, come back with a third, and then after a while, they re-state the first one, pretending that it had never been refuted, hoping that everyone would have forgotten it by now.
Globe-tards would do well to engage in some introspection ... which is what I did on my journey toward FE. After I had decided that I could no longer refute the FE arguments, I still pushed back against the conclusion, so I asked myself WHY, and the honest answer was a combination of realizing that it would be rather painful for my psychology, a sign of programming, and that I did not relish the ridicule to which I'd be subjected by the brainwashed morons out there.
So, as I've pointed out before. If FE were indeed truly ridiculous, you wouldn't spend so much time and effort battling against it. You'd just make the circle-by-the-ear gesture and whistle while you walk past and not spend 10 minutes on it. Dr. Sungenis admitted as much. After he had been asked by Kolbe Center to refute FE, he thought it would take him an hour or so, but then realized that FE did in fact have some rather substantial arguments that could not easily be dismissed, and so it ended up taking him hundreds of pages, and a complete full-length book to ... NOT refute the FE position, since his book was an epic failure, despite his undoubtedly having accepted the stipend offered him by Kolbe (ulterior motive anyone?)
So, while the Globetards assert that FE is ridiculous, the fact that they spend so much time attacking it belies this, since you wouldn't need to if it were so ridiculous.
Secondly, the Globetards claim that the shape of the earth doesn't matter. If it dooesn't matter, then again I ask you why you spend so much time and energy attacking FE. Move along then.
Despite these claims, their behavior, their obsession with spending much time and effort attacking FE demonstrates the exact opposite of what they disingenuously claim, that there's some solid evidence for FE and that it most certainly matters.
-
Your observations are based on false assumptions/facts.
1) You assume that the north star is "billions of miles" away, therefore on a FE, the southern hemisphere should see it. But...it's likely that the north star is NOT billions of miles away but only miles away, ergo the southern hemisphere can't see it because it's lower in the atmosphere and the distance/angle make it impossible.
2) There is no "space" as we are told by movies/tv. The firmament is real and the earth/creation is much, much smaller than we think. The sun/moon/stars are much closer than we think.
Correct. Nearly every single one of their arguments assumes at least SOME aspect of the prevailing cosmology ... despite the fact that their guru Kaku admitted that there's a crisis in cosmology where never before in the history of science has there been such a huge mismatch between theory and observations, where he cited a number that had a hundred 0s after it. Yet the Globetards cling to their ball their their cold dead hands, since they are too feeble-minded to shake the programming.
I'm always open to rational arugment, but NONE OF THEM WILL EVER TOUCH THE "see too far" issue. Ever. They side-step, distract, evade, deflect, and start hurling the same hackneyed strawmen, begged questions, and gratuitous assertions over and over again.
Even the old nonsensical Eratosthenes "argument" must ASSUME a huge sun very far from the earth, since a smaller sun closer to the earth would have the same effect. That's true of nearly every one of their arguments, where they assume the modern cosmology to "prove" the modern cosmology. Then they use these circularly-demonstrated "truths" as premises for the next layer of bullcrap.
-
Cut it with the :facepalm:, ok? I’m trying to explain something to you that you admittedly don’t understand.
God designed the Moon to rotate on it’s axis at exactly the same rate as it orbits (revolves around) the Earth, thus you can only see one side of the Moon. You can tell that the moon is a round sphere by just observing it with the naked eye. If you use a telescope and look at it’s craters and their shadows, you will notice that their shape becomes more elliptical towards the edge of the Moon. This is indicative of a spherical shape.
For all you guys babble about muh science, your proof is that .. God designed the moon to work the way I claim that it works? Seriously? God designed most of nature to operate based on the laws of physics. So, what's necessary is a demonstration that this can be accomplished by the laws of nature that God has established.
Then you resort to your same old crap "you can tell ... by the naked eye". Bullshit you can. All you can tell is that there's something circular there. You tried the same garbage with sunsets. "All you have to do is see a sunset to prove globe earth." Again, bullshit. Even modern science recognize that a lot of what you see can be mere appearances, optical illusions, and whatnot. In fact, that's PRECISELY what they claim when something you "see" with "your naked eye" appears to support FE, that it was just an optical illusion. But then if you "see" something that appears to support the ball, then see! look! that's proof of globe. There's never been a more egregious case of confirmation bias in the history of illogic than this. If FE, optical illusion. If GE, then proof of globe. Absolute begging of the quesiton. We find the same thing with muh refraction. If you make observations that appear to be evidence for FE, you need merely say the word "refraction", without having to prove it ... just say the magical word, and you've refuted any observation that supports FE (even when the existence of "refraction" can be and has been definitively ruled out). Of course, when you see something that appears to favor Ball Earth, then aha! proof! muh naked eye! ... naked eye my bare ass. But when you make observations that appear to favor Ball, then suddenly "refraction" no longer exists, goes away, impossible, can't be true, and don't even bring it up ... again, classic confirmation bias.
If you can't take a step back and see the egregious fallacies that have effected your poisoned mind, then you're too far gone, and you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
-
For all you guys babble about muh science, your proof is that .. God designed the moon to work the way I claim that it works? Seriously? God designed most of nature to operate based on the laws of physics. So, what's necessary is a demonstration that this can be accomplished by the laws of nature that God has established.
Then you resort to your same old crap "you can tell ... by the naked eye". Bullshit you can. All you can tell is that there's something circular there. You tried the same garbage with sunsets. "All you have to do is see a sunset to prove globe earth." Again, bullshit. Even modern science recognize that a lot of what you see can be mere appearances, optical illusions, and whatnot. In fact, that's PRECISELY what they claim when something you "see" with "your naked eye" appears to support FE, that it was just an optical illusion. But then if you "see" something that appears to support the ball, then see! look! that's proof of globe. There's never been a more egregious case of confirmation bias in the history of illogic than this. If FE, optical illusion. If GE, then proof of globe. Absolute begging of the quesiton. We find the same thing with muh refraction. If you make observations that appear to be evidence for FE, you need merely say the word "refraction", without having to prove it ... just say the magical word, and you've refuted any observation that supports FE (even when the existence of "refraction" can be and has been definitively ruled out). Of course, when you see something that appears to favor Ball Earth, then aha! proof! muh naked eye! ... naked eye my bare ass. But when you make observations that appear to favor Ball, then suddenly "refraction" no longer exists, goes away, impossible, can't be true, and don't even bring it up ... again, classic confirmation bias.
If you can't take a step back and see the egregious fallacies that have effected your poisoned mind, then you're too far gone, and you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
Scientifically that peculiar movement of the Moon around the Earth is called tidal lock. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but it seems many FEers on this forum can’t grasp it. Without going into a 5 paragraph diatribe , do you understand the difference between the rotation of the Moon and the revolving of the Moon, if so, can you please explain it in a few sentences and without the ad hominems?
-
You can spin a ball right in front of you and the physics is exactly the same.
Thanks, yes my bad.
-
God designed the Moon to rotate on it’s axis at exactly the same rate as it orbits (revolves around) the Earth, thus you can only see one side of the Moon.
Right. Whence did you acquire this insider knowledge of God's plan/intention/etc? Why would He do that (i.e., what would the point/benefit be)? Is said "orbit" circular or elliptical?
-
Scientifically that peculiar movement of the Moon around the Earth is called tidal lock. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but it seems many FEers on this forum can’t grasp it. Without going into a 5 paragraph diatribe , do you understand the difference between the rotation of the Moon and the revolving of the Moon, if so, can you please explain it in a few sentences and without the ad hominems?
You are wasting your time. I explained this to them before, even giving the instructions for a simple experiment that anyone can do to show how tidal locking works. But of course, they won't listen nor try said experiment because they don't believe in "gravity".
You are not going to convince any of these people here, who have obviously never taken so much as a high school physics class, of anything when it comes to the natural world.
This forum contains a plethora of data confirming the Dunning Kruger effect.
-
You are wasting your time...You are not going to convince any of these people here, who have obviously never taken so much as a high school physics class, of anything when it comes to the natural world.
The reason he is wasting his time is not only because we've all taken (and aced) physics (and much else besides), but also because every single one of us used to adhere to the GE lies (Lad worked for NASA, for Pete's sake). That all changed once we actually examined the evidence, concerning both what can be seen and experienced all around us and the colossal mendacity of those within the Satanic clubs that run the world.
-
Scientifically that peculiar movement of the Moon around the Earth is called tidal lock. It’s not a hard concept to understand, but it seems many FEers on this forum can’t grasp it. Without going into a 5 paragraph diatribe , do you understand the difference between the rotation of the Moon and the revolving of the Moon, if so, can you please explain it in a few sentences and without the ad hominems?
You're using geocentric "terms" (i.e. tidal lock) to tell us why FE is wrong. Yeah, that's not biased at all...:jester:
What if 'tidal lock' isn't true? What if there's some OTHER explanation for why the moon's face never changes? Hmmm?
-
Right. Whence did you acquire this insider knowledge of God's plan/intention/etc? Why would He do that (i.e., what would the point/benefit be)? Is said "orbit" circular or elliptical?
The orbit is elliptical.
-
You are wasting your time. I explained this to them before, even giving the instructions for a simple experiment that anyone can do to show how tidal locking works. But of course, they won't listen nor try said experiment because they don't believe in "gravity".
You are not going to convince any of these people here, who have obviously never taken so much as a high school physics class, of anything when it comes to the natural world.
This forum contains a plethora of data confirming the Dunning Kruger effect.
Yes, I know. I took a break from the forum for about a year hoping that some of them would reason it out, but to no avail……
-
The reason he is wasting his time is not only because we've all taken (and aced) physics (and much else besides), but also because every single one of us used to adhere to the GE lies (Lad worked for NASA, for Pete's sake). That all changed once we actually examined the evidence, concerning both what can be seen and experienced all around us and the colossal mendacity of those within the Satanic clubs that run the world.
Yeah, I had a cousin who worked for NASA for 30 years and he believed that we landed on the Moon, so what?
-
Yeah, I had a cousin who worked for NASA for 30 years and he believed that we landed on the Moon, so what?
Did he ever mention the infestation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in NASA?
-
Did he ever mention the infestation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in NASA?
No, he wasn’t a trad and I don’t think he knew anything about the conspiracy, but he insisted that we landed on the Moon.
-
Yeah, I had a cousin who worked for NASA for 30 years and he believed that we landed on the Moon, so what?
Lad (and most FE adherents) once thought as you do now. To pretend, as your confrere does, that we clearly know nothing about physics, etc, is not only contrary to charity, it is, especially in Lad's case, unspeakably preposterous.
Disagree all you want. I used to think as you do now, but I neither think my former self was stupid nor that you are stupid for thinking now as I did then. It is akin to an intelligent, decent NO-goer trying to convince me that I was wrong to leave for the TLM, etc. He's wasting his time because I lived that which he is trying to sell me, but I left it precisely because it became clear that it is manifestly false. Could any of the 1000 intelligent adherents of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity convince me to return to my former delusion on that point? No.
As a related aside, do you have any other examples of "tidal lock" anywhere in the neighborhood? [What do you folks call the "system" since Solar System is meaningless?]
-
The orbit is elliptical.
Thank you for answering the only question you could, although I dare say proving your matter-of-fact assertion is not as easy as you'd like others to think.
We were all once where you are now. We didn't change position because of a whim. We woke up. Perhaps you will, too. Perhaps not. That is between you and God and not necessary for salvation, so...
Godspeed.
-
You're using geocentric "terms" (i.e. tidal lock) to tell us why FE is wrong. Yeah, that's not biased at all...:jester:
What if 'tidal lock' isn't true? What if there's some OTHER explanation for why the moon's face never changes? Hmmm?
Well I believe in geocentrism, is there something wrong with that?
That’s fine if the tidal lock explanation isn’t true, I’m all ears for a better explanation, but please don’t try to give an insane explanation like “the Moon is a disk”, or that it has “it’s own light source”, or that it is “made of plasma”. That is precisely what I meant when I said that you can make observations with your naked eye and with a telescope that if not prove, at least render moot those common assertions put forth by many FEers.
-
Well I believe in geocentrism, is there something wrong with that?
That’s fine if the tidal lock explanation isn’t true, I’m all ears for a better explanation, but please don’t try to give an insane explanation like “the Moon is a disk”, or that it has “it’s own light source”, or that it is “made of plasma”. That is precisely what I meant when I said that you can make observations with your naked eye and with a telescope that if not prove, at least render moot those common assertions put forth by many FEers.
:facepalm: Scripture says the Moon gives it's own light. I trust Scripture over my eyes.
-
This is the same thing SVs say to those who hold that the post-Vatican II claimants to the Throne were/are legitimate Roman Pontiffs...
So my theory is;
FE for R&R trads is a subconscience projection of the current papal issue (a supernatural mystery they feel is impossible to solve).
They project that issue onto FE ( which is a natural question they believe they have solved).
i.e., "Finally we have the answers! Now everything makes sense!" They have been "enlightened". They are "woke" to the "truth", etc. and they want you to join them, but if you remain obstinate, then so be it...
These ^ are all things SVs say to those who cling to the heretical false Popes as Pope.
Rather than spend their time researching the Church's teaching on that issue so as to resolve all doubts, they settle for eating the spoon-fed theological slop of the SSPX and direct their attention in that respect to something more manageable. Enter FE.
If there are any straight-up SVs (not sededoubtists) out there that can confirm or deny if they buy into FE please speak up.
You are delusional.
Your sedevacatism means nothing. There is no difference between how I "Catholic" vs how you do. Practically speaking, there is no difference. Why do you care so much what my personal opinion is, on the status of the recent popes? Why does it bend you out of shape?
If your conscience is bothering you or something, that's on you. Don't bother or disturb the peace of other Trads with differing opinions just because YOU aren't at peace with your beliefs.
I wish I could figure out the status of the Pope by opening my eyes, looking at level water, getting out a pair of binoculars, etc. I don't think the Crisis would still be going on for 55 years, to be honest.
-
With regard to working for NASA, they also employ janitors and security guards, so it actually means very little. Then, even if you are closer to the aerospace projects, very rarely does anyone actually work on something other than just a very small piece of something. I and about half dozen people worked on a device that was the size of a large microwave oven, that in turn fit into a rack system with about a half dozen other things of similar size. I'd say maybe .1% of people who work there get anywhere close to any kind of "big picture" perspective on anything. Having worked for NASA, by itself, is neither here nor there.
I just don't think the physics that are at the heart of the controversy are particularly difficult, so that someone who had even taken a Physics class in High School, or mathematics through trigonometry (since part of it is just mathematical in nature)
Given basic trigonometry and accepting what NASA and mainstream science tell us regarding the circuмference of the globe, the rule of thumb formula (simplified) indicates that there should be 8 inches times distance away from you in miles squared. So, after 1 mile, 8 inches of drop following the curvature, after 2 miles 2 x 2 x 8 = 32 inches, etc. Now, there's actually a precise trig formula for this, and it's slightly different, but I've seen charts which show that it's only off by a couple inches out to 100 miles, so it's just a quicker calculation. Nevertheless, there are online calculators that actually execute the genuine trig formula. Of course, you can't really come to any conclusions over land, since any kind of variations in toplogy would upset, either increase or decrease these numbers, offset them or aplify them. That's why most experiments are conducted over water, or else frozen water in the Winter ... as water tends to find its level (that's where the term sea-level comes from).
Insurmountable problem for the NASA(-sized) ball is that there are countless examples not only of experiments conducted by FEs, but of things like record long distance photographs that were taken by non-FE types who were interesed in the photographs and were paying no attention to their implications toward this particular debate, where objects are seen, videotaped, photographed, etc. at distances FAR beyond what the curvature of the ball should permit. There's one award winning photograph that shows a lighthouse that stands about 150 feel above sea level (at its peak), taken from a specific location with a known elevation, from about 240+ miles away ... when it should have been hidden by many miles of curvature, and not even close to being visible.
Now, the response to this tends to be that those are illusions caused by refraction, a known phenomenon by which changes in density can cause light to bend. But refraction invariably results in blurry, distorted images (for reasons I'll explain in a second), and it's very inconsistent, depending on time of day, temperature / humidity, etc. You can't just show up somewhere and have any realistic chance of filming some refractive phenomena. Now, the farther you get from the viewer, the less possible it would be to obtain any kind of clear, not-blurry, on-distorted image ... and that's because the index of refraction will NOT be consistent across the entire distance between you and the target object. If I'm seeing something from 150 miles away that should be hidden by miles of curvature, in order for refraction to explain it, the index of refraction between miles 150 and 149 needs to be the same as between 149 and 148 as between 148 and 147, and so on and so forth ... but that's nearly impossible in nature (despite such observations being made with great regularity). You'd have some variation in the refractive index that would cause some images to refract into and/or away from other images that are refracting at different rates, so that by the time the images had traveresed 150 miles, you'd see very little detail and nothing but a vague blurry outline of something AT BEST. Nor can the refraction be always downward toward the globe, due to increasing density, since after 150 miles of that same increasing density, you'd require such a huge increase in density that you'd need deep sea diving gear on the other end. Finally, there have been two-way laser experiments conducted where the lasers pointed in different directions (over 10 miles of water) were each / both seen from the other side, which is simply impossible, for if one of the lasers were refracting down due to increasing density, then the laser moving in the other diretion would need to refract up due to decreasing density, and so it would not be visible. You can't have both.
At that point, in order to maintain a belief in a globe, you'd either have to 1) hypothesize that the circuмference of the earth is MUCH bigger than what they say, meaning that the 8 inches per mile squared math (and longhand trig formula) are just plain wrong, 2) hypothesize some other explanation (not refraction) that might explain this phenomenon, e.g. a flow of ether, or some other such "force".
Then we factor in that Sacred Scripture would appear to be much more consistent with an FE view, and that the modern globe cosmology cannot be reconciled with the firmament as described by the Bible, and as unanimously interpreted by the Church Fathers.. That's where you'd need a theory such as the one that Dr. Sungenis has put forth ... but that too flies in the face of modern atheistic "Big Bang" cosmology, and you would then not escape subjecting Trad Catholicism to ridicule anyway, one of your chief goals in rejecting FE apparently. I suspect that it's why Dr. Sungenis and Kolbe Center stopped their "How God Made the World in Six Days" series after Day 2. Dr. Sungenis had introduced his giant cosmic ice ball theory, and I'm certain that they pulled the plug after receiving truckloads of derision and ridicule over it.
Finally, Catholics who reject the evolutionist narrative actually believe that Adam and Even had perfect knowledge of the natural world, and that if early cultures scattered around the world all have an FE cosmology, then ... well, it's not because they were a bunch of morons who had just crawled out of the primordial soupl and had not yet learned applications and uses for fire, but because it was likely knowledge handed down, i.e. what they refer to as "primitive revelation".
-
No, he wasn’t a trad and I don’t think he knew anything about the conspiracy, but he insisted that we landed on the Moon.
Then either he was a liar, a dupe, or not very intelligent.
I give 1/2 a credit to Boomers for believing in the Moon Landing nonsense. After all, it was a full-fledged no holds barred Psy-op. I mean, they were 10 year old kids and their teachers wheeled out TV sets and the whole school watched Neil Armstrong take "One Large Step for Mankind". That kind of brainwashing changes a person for life.
I mean, EVERYONE around him before, during, and after "the event" was 100% convinced. Of course it's going to be deep in his soul, having the power of nostalgia and dozens of other psychological factors going for it.
But anyone born after 1965 has no excuse. In the 1970s it APPEARED we were taking this huge step forward landing on the Moon. There was no evidence out there (media, newspapers, magazines) exposing the hoax yet. There were no websites or forums; anyone with "doubts" kept them to himself, so he wasn't considered crazy. And people really thought we were entering a new era, "The Space Age".
But today, in 2025, we have no excuse for believing that nonsense. We still don't have a $50 webcam pointed at the "globe earth" for crying out loud. Nor do we have any rocket launches with external FPV unbroken video footage. They always arc off into the distance (to dump into the ocean), and the program cuts to an obvious CGI cartoon of a rocket up in space somewhere. They seem to pass it off as actual footage too (?) which is bizarre. NASA claims they can't go beyond the Van Allen Belts of radiation, which is insane considering they supposedly did so during the Apollo missions. Everything doesn't add up. The whole story is FULL of holes.
After the "breakthrough" in 1969, it hasn't been followed up at all. We haven't landed anywhere (not even faked) since the last Apollo mission. Pretty soon, anyone who remembers the Apollo missions will be in a nursing home. If they want to keep up the "Space age" psy-op, they're going to have to do something -- and soon. Heaven help us.
Seriously, tell me about the last invention or breakthrough that wasn't repeated, followed-up on, or improved for the next FIFTY SIX YEARS. I'll wait.
Could you imagine the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane, and then no more airplanes were built, by any developed country, even 56 years later? Ha!
-
If this is my "hint" then you can show me the door now.
I'm not a woman, nor am I passive-aggressive. I'm a man who doesn't mess around.
When I'm threatening you with banning, there will be zero doubts about it.
When people bring this s*** up, bringing up banning when I never mentioned it, it's obviously to cast themselves as some kind of martyr. Then if I don't ban them, it seems like I backed down and they won. And if I do ban them, well they called it and they're a martyr. See the nonsense?
It's a lame attempt at "heads I win, tails you lose."
And you're deflecting from the conversation, specifically everything I said in my post. Nice try.
-
:facepalm: Scripture says the Moon gives it's own light. I trust Scripture over my eyes.
Proof texting Scripture is very protestant. This was obviously not the common belief of Catholics throughout the centuries and I doubt that it was the common interpretation of Scripture even before Christ.
Thank you for admitting that what you observe with your eyes is actually the sunlight reflecting on the Moon!
-
Then either he was a liar, a dupe, or not very intelligent.
I give 1/2 a credit to Boomers for believing in the Moon Landing nonsense. After all, it was a full-fledged no holds barred Psy-op. I mean, they were 10 year old kids and their teachers wheeled out TV sets and the whole school watched Neil Armstrong take "One Large Step for Mankind". That kind of brainwashing changes a person for life.
I mean, EVERYONE around him before, during, and after "the event" was 100% convinced. Of course it's going to be deep in his soul, having the power of nostalgia and dozens of other psychological factors going for it.
But anyone born after 1965 has no excuse. In the 1970s it APPEARED we were taking this huge step forward landing on the Moon. There was no evidence out there (media, newspapers, magazines) exposing the hoax yet. There were no websites or forums; anyone with "doubts" kept them to himself, so he wasn't considered crazy. And people really thought we were entering a new era, "The Space Age".
But today, in 2025, we have no excuse for believing that nonsense. We still don't have a $50 webcam pointed at the "globe earth" for crying out loud. Nor do we have any rocket launches with external FPV unbroken video footage. They always arc off into the distance (to dump into the ocean), and the program cuts to an obvious CGI cartoon of a rocket up in space somewhere. They seem to pass it off as actual footage too (?) which is bizarre. NASA claims they can't go beyond the Van Allen Belts of radiation, which is insane considering they supposedly did so during the Apollo missions. Everything doesn't add up. The whole story is FULL of holes.
After the "breakthrough" in 1969, it hasn't been followed up at all. We haven't landed anywhere (not even faked) since the last Apollo mission. Pretty soon, anyone who remembers the Apollo missions will be in a nursing home. If they want to keep up the "Space age" psy-op, they're going to have to do something -- and soon. Heaven help us.
Seriously, tell me about the last invention or breakthrough that wasn't repeated, followed-up on, or improved for the next FIFTY SIX YEARS. I'll wait.
Could you imagine the Wright Brothers inventing the airplane, and then no more airplanes were built, by any developed country, even 56 years later? Ha!
You missed the point entirely. Just because he worked at NASA means very little with this discussion. Please see my first post on this. For the record, he was a very nice fellow, but just believed what he was told and was probably compartmentalized in his job. He worked on the shielding for the Space Shuttle. He wasn’t a “boomer”, and was a WWII vet who would have turned 101 this January.
-
This is the same thing SVs say to those who hold that the post-Vatican II claimants to the Throne were/are legitimate Roman Pontiffs...
So my theory is;
FE for R&R trads is a subconscience projection of the current papal issue (a supernatural mystery they feel is impossible to solve).
They project that issue onto FE ( which is a natural question they believe they have solved).
i.e., "Finally we have the answers! Now everything makes sense!" They have been "enlightened". They are "woke" to the "truth", etc. and they want you to join them, but if you remain obstinate, then so be it...
These ^ are all things SVs say to those who cling to the heretical false Popes as Pope.
Rather than spend their time researching the Church's teaching on that issue so as to resolve all doubts, they settle for eating the spoon-fed theological slop of the SSPX and direct their attention in that respect to something more manageable. Enter FE.
In fact, they are so certain of their position on FE, that it supplies for their lack of moral certainty regarding if these men are Popes or not.
They often exude supreme self-confidence in their position because they have this certitude, and none shall deter them from their course.
Now, if R&R are right then FE has served its purpose and preserves them from a "schismatic mentality" by allowing them to shift their perplexities about one issues onto another.
But if they are wrong and the SVs are right, then FE was just a massive cope and distraction that served no purpose at all but to deflect the actual issue they are struggling to comprehend.
If there are any straight-up SVs (not sededoubtists) out there that can confirm or deny if they buy into FE please speak up.
Yes, but the FE discussions on CI serve a social purpose as well. The SV and R&R can put aside their differences once in a while and talk about FE. Then it becomes FEs vs Normies, rather than SVs vs. R&Rs. It promotes bro-bonding. It's the new huntin' and fishin' for people stuck behind their keyboards all day.
-
Proof texting Scripture is very protestant. This was obviously not the common belief of Catholics throughout the centuries and I doubt that it was the common interpretation of Scripture even before Christ.
Scripture is to be taken LITERALLY, unless the Church tells us otherwise. The Church has never said that this verse is figurative (in fact, She says most of Genesis is to be taken literally).
Thank you for admitting that what you observe with your eyes is actually the sunlight reflecting on the Moon!
No, I was referring to what YOU think you see. What I see, is the moon giving off light, while the sun is set. I believe the moon has it's own light, which is perceptible and also Scriptural.
-
Scripture is to be taken LITERALLY, unless the Church tells us otherwise. The Church has never said that this verse is figurative (in fact, She says most of Genesis is to be taken literally).
No, I was referring to what YOU think you see. What I see, is the moon giving off light, while the sun is set. I believe the moon has it's own light, which is perceptible and also Scriptural.
If you’re old enough to remember or have seen old movies or shows about a doctor, you would have seen him with a round mirror on his head, this is called a head mirror. It was used as a very excellent source of light before the advent of modern headlamps and some doctors still use them today. It can *literally* be considered a light source. The Moon IS a light source, but that does NOT mean that it produces it’s own light.
-
If you’re old enough to remember or have seen old movies or shows about a doctor, you would have seen him with a round mirror on his head, this is called a head mirror. It was used as a very excellent source of light before the advent of modern headlamps and some doctors still use them today. It can *literally* be considered a light source. The Moon IS a light source, but that does NOT mean that it produces it’s own light.
Scripture says that the moon is a light source. The first time that it was proposed that the moon reflects the sun's light is from the atheistic, satantic, anti-Isreal Greeks. The same Greeks who tried to kill the Maccabees, tried to destroy the True Religion (at the time), and who tried to create the NWO, before the Roman Empire destroyed them.
Prior to the Greeks, the prevailing notion was that the moon was it's own light source, as Scripture says multiple times.
-
Scripture says that the moon is a light source. The first time that it was proposed that the moon reflects the sun's light is from the atheistic, satantic, anti-Isreal Greeks. The same Greeks who tried to kill the Maccabees, tried to destroy the True Religion (at the time), and who tried to create the NWO, before the Roman Empire destroyed them.
Prior to the Greeks, the prevailing notion was that the moon was it's own light source, as Scripture says multiple times.
All the best to you.
-
The Greeks also pushed the heretical heliocentrism view, they were pedophiles and they worshipped the sun. All similar things found in modern-day Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
:facepalm: Scripture says the Moon gives it's own light. I trust Scripture over my eyes.
Where does it say this?
-
I still fail to grasp WHY FE even matters
Here's why it matters (in no particular order, but the list is long). If the land is flat (the earth is a globe shape)...
Practical outcomes...
1. Big-science and Big-govt have lied to the population since around the 1500s, (start of heliocentrism, Galileo, etc) or 500 years.
2. If Big-science can't be trusted, then people start questioning other things (i.e. evolution, climate change, etc).
3. If Big-govt can't be trusted, then people start questioning other things (i.e. moon landing, aliens, nasa's HUGE budget, etc).
4. Every single sci-fi/outer-space tv show, movie, was pure fiction and is a made-up story. What else is big-media lying about?
5. Most every science book is wrong and was lying. What else are science books lying about?
6. If Big-history can't be trusted, then what else are they lying about? (Egypt pyramids, Great Flood, age of the earth, Biblical miracles, etc).
Philosophical outcomes...
1. If the earth's land is flat, then Scripture is correct. If Scripture is correct in this area, then it's correct in other areas (i.e. Adam/Eve, Noah's ark, history, etc).
2. If Scripture is correct, then creation is way, way, WAY smaller than we think. There's no "outer space" because of the firmament.
3. If there's no outer-space, then earth IS THE CENTER of the universe, not the sun.
4. People on earth are NOT a little 'ol galaxy among millions of others, we ARE the ONLY galaxy.
5. The sun, moon, stars are not "just like other sun, moon, stars", no, they are the ONLY sun, moon, stars.
6. Earth is not a planet, amongst many planets, but it is a SPECIAL place, and the ONLY place where human life exists.
7. The sun, moon, stars were created ONLY for earth, and ONLY for us human beings, based on God's design.
8. The earth is it. The earth is the focus. The earth is the center of the creation. The earth is where human beings are tested to save their souls.
9. All of life, in any form ONLY exists on earth. Nowhere else.
10. Evolution is bogus and a complete lie. There was no 'big bang' because there's no outer space.
Religious outcomes...
1. Scripture is 100% correct and the ONLY way that humans originated. Evolution is a lie. Adam & Eve were real.
2. Original Sin is real. Concupiscence is real. The devil is real.
3. There's no outer space, there's no aliens, there are only humans, who need to save their souls.
4. God created the world for mankind alone. Everything that happens in history and science is meant to glorify God and to help mankind love Him.
5. The Bible is the ONLY true history and science book, given to us, by God. And it is meant to show humanity how God loves us.
6. Adam/Eve sinned, they needed a Redeemer, therefore Christ came and the story of Jesus is true.
7. All of creation, all of history, all of science is meant to revolve AROUND the story of Christ and humanity. It's meant to revolve around humanity's salvation.
8. Christ came to Redeem mankind of Original Sin and He started a Church.
9. The purpose of the Church is the same as the purpose of the OT laws/stories/miracles - to guide humanity to heaven.
10. The earth is small. Humanity's purpose is big. Evolution, outer-space, etc are all lies meant to distract from our purpose of loving God.
-
Where does it say this?
Look it up.
-
Look it up.
Genesis 1:16 (https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-16.htm)And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
Hope you don't mean this, because "lesser light to rule the night: and the stars" does not support your claim.
Also, if the moon were to give off its own light, how can we explain the phases of the moon?
-
"Flat Earth is a Psyop"
Absolutely. Haven't read the thread, but it cropped up when The Principle came out. Been meaning to cover this, but I never get around to it.
-
Hope you don't mean this, because "lesser light to rule the night: and the stars" does not support your claim.
Does it disprove it? No; far from it. Two great lights, not one.
Regardless of your own beliefs on the matter, I am more than a little surprised that you didn't even know that this is what Holy Writ says or where to find it.
-
I would rather go hunting or fishing at least that could turn out to be a productive use of time.
I think the papacy question matters...
Yet, here you are, repeatedly participating. I hunt and fish (and a great deal more), too, but that doesn't preclude my online activities, however limited.
No one here thinks the questions about the papacy, Holy Mother Church, etc., do not matter. They matter a great deal and one could easily argue that such concerns not only gave birth to CI, but also remain the raison d'etre of CI to this day. However, that's not the topic of this thread. Now we all know your theory. Thank you for sharing it. Godspeed.
-
contra, if today I acknowledge that Bobby Prevost is a non-Catholic and therefore cannot possibly be the Vicar of Christ's Church on earth - this actually implies a whole different way of viewing/thinking of the papacy (a healthy Catholic way I would argue) AND it implies action, by positively having no communion with a false Pope whatsoever and cutting all ties to the false church spawned at Vatican II. But that is where the fear kicks in and it gets "real" because they think if they view the Vatican like that for 30+years they will never be able to return if somehow things could be righted there (don't ask me how). But this isn't prudence as much as fear. And it also shows a lack of trust in God and a weak faith, IMO. Religious truth matters for it's own sake, and the papacy question goes well beyond mere Church politics - it is in the realm of do, or die in the fight for our souls (again IMO).
Again, you can have whatever opinion you want. Opinions are like a-----s (armpits), everyone has one and it stinks.
But you have a distorted, inaccurate view of how non-sede Traditional Catholics live, act, and believe on a daily basis. You either don't know any non-Sede Trad families IRL, or you only know OF a few, superficially (as names at work, names on the Internet, etc.)
But your opinion has been proven invalid. There have been sedes, large groups of them, even WHOLE CHAPELS of them since the 80's, and what is the current status of the Crisis? Still ongoing? Yeah, I thought so.
Yup, Sedevacantism and $5 will get you a cup of coffee. Sedevacantism and $10 will get you a value meal at McDonald's.
-
This thread is retarded "from the jump", or right off the bat.
Google comes down hard on this "psyop" both the search engine and Youtube (owned by Google).
If the government or whatever "They" decided that a Flat Earth psyop would be a good idea, then Google would NOT be gatekeeping the issue as they are. Google is ABSOLUTELY in lock step with the worst elements of the Media, government, and control apparatus at the very top.
Anyone who thinks the Google is neutral, or even a good guy, is a f****** idiot. I'm sorry, there's just no better way to say it.
Sorry not sorry, but I'm not convinced that the wicked, satanic Google is philanthropic, saintly even, as they fight for the TRUTH about the Moon Landings (they defend them) and the shape of the earth (they push the Globe).
They put a warning label on all Moon Landing conspiracy videos, as well as any flat earth videos.
I just don't see Google putting themselves out to defending ANYTHING that is A) good or B) true. Everything they defend with their "overlays" and/or "censorship" is invariably something FALSE and/or BAD.
-
Again, Moral certainty isn't dogma.
Let me ask this, if you will be so kind as to answer, "Are you morally certain either way if the current man claiming to be Pope is actually the Pope?
You learn well. Those are my words. "Moral certainty is not dogma".
I have enough moral certainty to act as I need to, yes. But again, all I need to do is go to Mass, believe and practice the Catholic Faith as it was always believed and practiced, and avoid the contagion of Vatican II and the Conciliar Church.
I'm doing all those things, without "sedevacantism". So apparently it isn't necessary. C'est la vie.
Moral certainty just means "enough clarity for ME to act on, to make a decision on." And I'm morally certain there is a Crisis in the Church, and that the post-V2 Popes can't be obeyed as they overstep their authority and attempt to start a literal new religion. Vatican II has proven to be destructive of the Faith, and of souls.
Now you want to get all philosophical and ask, "WHY would God allow this?", "HOW could the Pope promote a liturgy that is noxious to souls?" I'm going to have to respond "I don't know" because I have no friggin idea.
Ask God if you must demand an answer. It wasn't my idea, nor is it "my problem". My only "problem" or job is to save my soul, and those of my family, during this Crisis. Everything else is an extra, or even a distraction.
The difference between the status of the Pope and the shape of the earth, is that the latter CAN BE determined. Which is quite refreshing, I might add! Because I'm quite sick of the Pope issue, which has no definitive answer. Still waiting for God's big "reveal" on that one, to sort everything out. In the meantime, we wait, watch and pray (and keep the Faith).
-
First point, your list is mixing too many things together. Putting things in one category that seems they should be in another, or can cover both or all three! While this makes your list look "weighty" at first glance, upon inspection it is repeating itself.
Second I said, "I fail to grasp". I am not some that needs to be convinced of ANYTHING on your list - I already believe all the important points that relate to my salvation.
Cat 1 Practical outcomes... = I already believe it - FE offers me nothing.
Cat 2 Philosophical outcomes... Most of this I already believe and what I struggle with cannot be verified from Scripture infallibly.
Cat 3 Religious outcomes... I already believe it - FE offers me nothing.
So, it just looks like a quick list rattled off to make it seem like a trad Catholic would really benefit from this info.
But since I already believe in the outcomes, it offers me nothing.
Maybe to a brainwashed, secular, atheist this could be helpful. But then again, Eric Dubay...
So for me, holding FE offers me NOTHING and if I choose to believe it, gains me NOTHING.
It would be a very time-consuming "hobby" with no end in sight (kind of like the papal crisis, but I would never equate that to a "hobby" ::))
It could easily supply for all my psychological needs if I had such an important issue as the papacy unresolved in my own conscience.
It does offer Trads something, even if most of the benefit is to non-catholics.
The firmament is in Scripture. So is the creation of Adam/eve/earth. Anti-catholic science such as evolution (which is anti-original sin, anti-redemption, anti-Church) ONLY works with a heliocentric ball-earth or a geocentric ball-earth. Anti-catholic science does not work on FE.
So if you want to pretend that believing in a globe-earth is catholic, go right ahead. But it's quasi-heresy, because it denies the firmament as well as the Scriptural account of Genesis. (I don't think anyone is going to hell over this, but it does matter).
-
So it seems that you do NOT have moral certainty one way or the other, on THAT question.
You still don't understand the limitations of moral certainty. :facepalm:
-
So "geocentric earth" being the key and I embrace that with all my heart, mind, and soul.
The globe-earth model, as understood today, does not have a firmament. This is anti-scripture and heresy. I say "quasi-heresy" because only those who delve into this issue (which is complex) can be guilty of denying scripture. Those who "don't care about the shape of the earth" aren't guilty.
Since you seem to care, then you'd have to believe in a globe-earth with a firmament (which model does not exist) and thus, you have no "working model" of the solar system, the same as FE.
The point is,
heliocentrism = 100% heresy.
geocentrism = no working model.
FE = no working model.
There is no catholic working model. But people are debating the issues and working towards it. That's why it matters.
-
May one disregard a morally certain conscience on a particular matter w/o sinning?
If I am convicted in my conscience that "X" is a sin - even though it is no actual sin at all.
But I do "X" anyway - is it a sin?
Here's Matthew's explanation, again....
Do you know what moral certainty even is? It means you have enough certainty to ACT upon. Human actions are moral actions (right or wrong). There are no "neutral" actions. Either an action is good (to various degrees) or bad (to various degrees). Wiping sweat off my brow would probably qualify as "good", albeit a very very slight good.
Moral certainty is not to be confused with metaphysical certainty, or dogmatic certainty.
If a man leers at my daughter, I can be "morally certain" he's up to no good and would take action accordingly (not let him close to my family, etc.) and I would do well in this.
But it's theoretically possible he had a mental or physical disorder which made him APPEAR to be leering at my daughter, when he actually wasn't.
But no matter, I had moral certainty -- enough to act upon.
You can become convinced of whatever position you want -- but guess what? You can't judge other Catholics who disagree with you, as if you are "right" and they are "wrong". You can argue, sure, because only one of you can be objectively right. But unless you've been receiving visions and revelations from Heaven, I have just as much chance of being right as you.
In short, you can't condemn, look down on, or disparage fellow Catholics who disagree with you on your opinions. You have no dogmatic certainty -- only enough for YOU PERSONALLY to act on, for you and your family. That is NOT enough to compel the consciences of others, or condemn others about.
-
Weren't you just sh*tting all over another poster because he said FE didn't have a map (model) that worked?
Yes, because he was rejecting an idea because it wasn't "proven 100%". In matters of science, theories are often accepted even if not 100%.
:facepalm:Well, that wouldn't be true now since you have introduced heresy into the mix. It could still be a sin of willful ignorance or negligence. I only see this as one-sided in favor of FEers.
I pointed out the necessity for belief in the firmament, and globe-earther posted a picture from the 1400s where there is a globe earth with a firmament. That's great.
The globers call you out for no model.
You call them stupid and say a model isn't that important right now.
We have to agree on concepts first. We have to reject the modern cosmology (either helio or geo-centric) because both are anti-catholic. The point is, catholics need to start over on a model and go back to the 1400-1500s when there were ACTUAL CATHOLIC SCIENTISTS who made maps/models.
Then you say the globers have no model therefore they are heretics.
No, I say if globers believe in the modern-day-globe, this is believing in heresy, because the firmament is denied.
How is that working towards a consensus on a Catholic model?
catholics need to start over on a model and go back to the 1400-1500s when there were ACTUAL CATHOLIC SCIENTISTS who made maps/models.
-
If the man who appears to be the Roman Pontiff spreads false doctrines, doubtful sacraments, pernicious disciplines, and he performs heretical actions PUBLICLY - I would do well to consider him a non-Catholic heretic foreign to the Body of Christ and take action accordingly by having no communion with him whatsoever.
But it is theoretically possible there were other reasons he did what he did; he was double, he was brain-washed with mind control, he was insane and out of his mind.
But no matter, I had moral certainty - NOT only "enough" to act upon, but enough to COMPEL me to separate from his anti-communion in EVERYTHING.
And because it is a PUBLIC matter that all can see MANIFESTLY I am COMPELLED to aid others to see and act as well according to the dictates of my conscience.
Though condemnation is NOT warranted because of it's less-than dogmatic status. Compelling others is warranted. That is why it keeps coming up you know. It is NOT because there is some small subset of twisted people who make it their life's mission to force others to be dogmatic Sedes. It is because of THIS principle and the subject matter. It will keep coming up for as long as the crisis continues and the Vatican II church lives.
The example is most wonderfully illustrated in the case of removing Nestorius' name from the Mass. The bishops fought over this for about a year with Saint Cyril taking the side of those who removed his name BEFORE an official condemnation and the Pope later praised that group for acting rightly. WHY - because they had MORAL CERTAINTY and they had to act.
Let me know when you want to talk about FE.
-
If the man who appears to be the Roman Pontiff spreads false doctrines, doubtful sacraments, pernicious disciplines, and he performs heretical actions PUBLICLY - I would do well to consider him a non-Catholic heretic foreign to the Body of Christ and take action accordingly by having no communion with him whatsoever.
But it is theoretically possible there were other reasons he did what he did; he was double, he was brain-washed with mind control, he was insane and out of his mind.
But no matter, I had moral certainty - NOT only "enough" to act upon, but enough to COMPEL me to separate from his anti-communion in EVERYTHING.
And because it is a PUBLIC matter that all can see MANIFESTLY I am COMPELLED to aid others to see and act as well according to the dictates of my conscience.
Though condemnation is NOT warranted because of it's less-than dogmatic status. Compelling others is warranted. That is why it keeps coming up you know. It is NOT because there is some small subset of twisted people who make it their life's mission to force others to be dogmatic Sedes. It is because of THIS principle and the subject matter. It will keep coming up for as long as the crisis continues and the Vatican II church lives.
The example is most wonderfully illustrated in the case of removing Nestorius' name from the Mass. The bishops fought over this for about a year with Saint Cyril taking the side of those who removed his name BEFORE an official condemnation and the Pope later praised that group for acting rightly. WHY - because they had MORAL CERTAINTY and they had to act.
The FE debate is similar, though not as important as the crisis in the church.
The globe-model denies scripture, so I am compelled to reject it. I accept a "form" of FE because it aligns with scripture. I work to find a FE model that combines both globe/science and scripture/orthodoxy. That work continues... It's called the scientific method.
-
Again, Moral certainty isn't dogma.
Moral certainty doesn't cut it. Take note of the dogma of the Assumption, where the encyclical says:
45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or
to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has
fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
Person 1: "They found the remains of Christ's mother in Jerusalem."
Person 2: "It cannot be, because the dogma of the Assumption means Our Lady's body is with her in heaven"
Person 1: "Are your raising to a dogma that the body they found is not Christ's mother?"
Person 2: "It's not a dogma, but it calls into question a dogma, so it is as CERTAIN and serious as a dogma to deny it is Christ's mother"
This is the case with sedevacantists:
R&R: "A pope approved of heresy at Vatican II for the whole Church"
Sede: "A pope cannot approve of heresy to the whole Church"
R&R: "Are you raising to a dogma that these men are not popes"
Sede: "It's not a dogma, but it calls into question a dogma, so it is as CERTAIN and serious as a dogma to deny these men were/are true popes"
-
But at the BARE MINIMUM how should one view and act towards the putative Popes is an issue that can be resolved by obeying one's moral convictions - that is the base. It comes first.
Why does anyone convert to Catholicism?
Is it because the Catholic Faith is CERTAIN (as well as Revealed by God of course)? Yes.
But FIRST they had to have the moral certainty to ACT upon their convictions that it was certain.
I'm talking about the objective, not subjective.
-
The globe-earth model, as understood today, does not have a firmament. This is anti-scripture and heresy. I say "quasi-heresy" because only those who delve into this issue (which is complex) can be guilty of denying scripture. Those who "don't care about the shape of the earth" aren't guilty.
Since you seem to care, then you'd have to believe in a globe-earth with a firmament (which model does not exist) and thus, you have no "working model" of the solar system, the same as FE.
The point is,
heliocentrism = 100% heresy.
geocentrism = no working model.
FE = no working model.
There is no catholic working model. But people are debating the issues and working towards it. That's why it matters.
The Catholic Church has allowed Her school everywhere to teach heliocentrism for centuries. If it were a heresy, that would be impossible for the Church to allow.
If you want to get an R&R priest here to debate this with me one-on-one without interference, please do. You won't. They always "don't have time" for it. But certainly they do if they can stretch out a conversation for months and reply seldomly.
-
But all my points above are addressed to "subjects" as the moral certainty each individual needs to act pertains to the each subject's convictions.
I think going straight to the objective and CERTAIN is what "kills" it for many R&R, i.e., "Who the hell do you think you are telling me what I have to believe and do." etc.
But truth is OBJECTIVE. Reason is objective. Logic is Objective. That's what Catholic books write about....objective truth.
-
I'm talking about the objective, not subjective.
Moral certainty is inherently subjective. We're waiting for the Church to decide. When She does, then it's objective. Before that, it's subjective.
-
Moral certainty is inherently subjective. We're waiting for the Church to decide. When She does, then it's objective. Before that, it's subjective.
That the Catholic Church is the true Church is objective. That is the certainty of Faith. As well is the Assumption and that nobody can find the bodily remains of Our Lady on earth.
You understand?
-
Yes of course.
My only point is how does each "subject" harmonize with the objective truth?
They need to have moral convictions (and obey them) that propel them towards truth.
Yes, as with any Protestant reading the objective truth.
-
Prot: "I have a moral conviction that "X" should be believed/acted upon because it is my truth."
Catholic: "I have a moral conviction that "X" should be believed/acted upon because it harmonizes with the objective truth of the Catholic Faith."
Prot on his way to converting: "I have a moral conviction that the Catholic Church is the true Church - now I need act and convert."
All Catholic books state OBJECTIVE truth. The authors don't refrain just because there are people who are expected to struggle with it.
It is objective truth that a true pope cannot promote to the universal Church anything harmful to Faith or Morals.
-
Yes, and that objective truth acts like a seed on those of good will - and leads them to be CONVICTED TO ACT upon that truth (moral certainty).
Once the act of separating from the false Popes is consummate in its entirety (and this is KEY) then one is in full possession of the objective truth in this matter and the subject has become reconciled to the objective truth in this case, as you say, "that a true pope cannot promote to the universal Church anything harmful to Faith or Morals."
There is ALWAYS the subjective element to accepting the objective truth. But we MUST STILL PRESENT THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH AND SAY IT IS.
The objective truth is that nobody can find Our Lady's mortal remains on earth in some archaeological site.
Likewise, the objective truth is that papal claimants since Vatican II cannot be true popes if they promote the heresies of V2 to the Church.
Not a dogma, but as certain as a dogma, so the certainty is as certain as the Faith itself.
-
I agree.
And I have argued the same above about the need to convince/compel others as an act of necessary charity.
But, the subject is having difficulty reconciling his actions with the objective truth. So, they most be shown that this is the case, which becomes all the more difficult if one has substituted this issue that pertains to one's salvation for another that doesn't (FE). Not saying everyone is doing that. Maybe no one is doing that. Maybe some are. The similarities between the two issues are just too glaringly similar to overlook (IMO). Thus I am on this "Flat Earth is a Psyop" thread arguing that it actually is a Psyop of sorts - at the minimum in some cases - a potential Psyop one is running on their own subconscience.
Just press for a map. Keeping pressing. They never can present one. They look silly.
-
:jester: The shape of the earth is not on the same level as the papal question nor the Assumption. :facepalm:
-
All Catholic books state OBJECTIVE truth. The authors don't refrain just because there are people who are expected to struggle with it.
It is objective truth that a true pope cannot promote to the universal Church anything harmful to Faith or Morals.
It is also objective truth that the Catholic Church was founded upon Peter, who received Christ's promise that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." and that part of the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTION of the Catholic Church would be a visible head on earth, a vicar, a Pope.
It is obvious and common sense that a 63 year interregnum -- with no end in sight -- would seem to falsify (if not make a mockery of) Christ's promise.
A pope is not just "a nice extra" to have.
Whatever solution turns out to be the truth (spoiler: after God reveals it, that is!) will have to address both of these truths.
So we're even. Welcome to the supernaturally mysterious Crisis in the Church that has defeated every man alive from 1970 to present. What of it?
-
It is also objective truth that the Catholic Church was founded upon Peter, who received Christ's promise that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." and that part of the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTION of the Catholic Church would be a visible head on earth, a vicar, a Pope.
A pope is not just "a nice extra" to have.
Whatever solution turns out to be the truth (spoiler: after God reveals it, that is!) will have to address both of these truths.
So we're even. Welcome to the supernaturally mysterious Crisis in the Church that has defeated every man alive from 1970 to present. What of it?
Nothing mysterious about it. The Church says a pope who is an explicit heretic ceases to be pope, ipso facto. Do you reject that?
-
It is *possible* that some educated, and/or smart and/or holy man HAS uttered the truth about the Pope or the Crisis in general, however, even if this WERE the case:
1. He was unable to sufficiently explain how all the Catholic dogmas were preserved, despite the facts we know about the Crisis, and the reality that has played out the past 55 years.
2. He was unable to "use it" -- he was unable to "wield" the truth in such a way that EVERYONE of good will would recognize it, and follow that position and that position alone.
Apparently there is so much confusion, and some element we humans are missing, that it appears MORE LIKELY that God is going to have to intervene to help us sort this one out. That happens to be my opinion.
-
That is what I was saying Matthew.
I read a "not" in there for some reason. I apologize and stand corrected.
So at least you understand why I reacted the way I did! ;)
-
The Catholic Church has allowed Her school everywhere to teach heliocentrism for centuries. If it were a heresy, that would be impossible for the Church to allow.
If you want to get an R&R priest here to debate this with me one-on-one without interference, please do. You won't. They always "don't have time" for it. But certainly they do if they can stretch out a conversation for months and reply seldomly.
You are wasting your time. To the people you are arguing with, Pope Pius VII is a heretic for this:
Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius Papa VII, audita relatione Eminentissimorum Cardinalium Inquisitorum Generalium, decrevit et declaravit permitti posse imprimi et publicari libros, qui motum terrae et immobilitatem solis, iuxta communem recentiorum astronomorum sententiam, tanquam facta exponunt.
And Pope Pius XII is a heretic for this:
Quamobrem Ecclesiae Magisterium non prohibet, quin, iuxta praesentem humanarum disciplinarum ac sacrae theologiae statum, inquisitiones et disputationes, a peritis utriusque ordinis, de doctrina evolutionismi, quatenus inquirat de corporis humani origine ex praeexistenti ac viva materia, fiant; ita tamen ut rationes utriusque opinionis, videlicet faventium et adversantium, serio, moderate ac temperate perpendantur, atque omnes parati sint Ecclesiae iudicio obsequi, cui Christus munus demandavit authentice interpretandi Scripturam et fidei dogmata tuendi.
-
Nothing mysterious about it. The Church says a pope who is an explicit heretic ceases to be pope, ipso facto. Do you reject that?
If that's what you say about the Crisis, then I know for a fact you are new to Tradition, and/or have a superficial grasp and understanding of it.
As for your armchair theology, I will decline. Greater minds than mine have tried to figure out the crisis AND FAILED. It's not gonna happen without God's help at this point. Count me out.
I'd rather go clip brush along my property fence line. At least then we end up with some cozy paths we can walk hidden behind brush and trees. It's good exercise.
Arguing about the Pope, on the other hand, is a complete waste of time. It changes nothing, creates needless division within Tradition, and there is no "answer key" or way to figure out if you're even objectively correct.
-
No - it is NOT obvious.
In fact, to say the "mouths of heretics" have taken over the Church would be to make a mockery of the promise. A promise that just maybe we don't fully understand.
How long can the Church last w/o a pope Matthew? Show us the definition please.
How low can we go (in terms of clergy)? Is it written there must always be "X" number of bishops/priests/dioceses?
Those are MY questions. None of the Church Fathers or Doctors who spoke about this topic EVER envisaged a 67-year interregnum. Pius XII died in 1958.
But I'll give you the spoiler: THERE ISN'T ONE. That's why God has to intervene, see? It's NOT to be found in any ancient scrolls, dogmas, doctrines, or docuмents. It SIMPLY ISN'T THERE. We don't have the information or tools we need to solve this Crisis.
-
For my very limited money, the real issue isn't whether or not a particular man wearing a white cassock is legit. The real issue is that the society of which the man in white is unquestionably the head is a complete fraud, a counterfeit of Holy Mother Church, devouring its own members and endeavoring to eradicate supernatural faith from this world. We don't just keep our distance from one man, but from the entire, clearly-problematic society/institution/etc. The fact that we refer to it as the Conciliar Church indicates it is an illegitimate invader -- something not limited to just the one man or his predecessors. While the lack of any sort of juridical acknowledgement of this reality is a presently-insurmountable obstacle, we all know that thing headquartered in Rome is not Holy Mother Church and is to be avoided at all costs.
Just as Jesus Christ truly died, why do we think it is impossible that His Mystical Body could die a mystical death, if you will? If you argue that such a thing simply cannot ever happen, how is what has clearly already occurred substantially different?
-
If that's what you say about the Crisis, then I know for a fact you are new to Tradition, and/or have a superficial grasp and understanding of it.
As for your armchair theology, I will decline. Greater minds than mine have tried to figure out the crisis AND FAILED. It's not gonna happen without God's help at this point. Count me out.
I'd rather go clip brush along my property fence line. At least then we end up with some cozy paths we can walk hidden behind brush and trees. It's good exercise.
Arguing about the Pope, on the other hand, is a complete waste of time. It changes nothing, creates needless division within Tradition, and there is no "answer key" or way to figure out if you're even objectively correct.
Nothing armchair about reading St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, and subsequent approved Catholic works since 1870, saying a pope that is an explicit heretic automatically ceases to be pope. It's truth. Truth is important in and of itself. It's the path to be on even if you can't see around the next turn in the path.
-
Those are MY questions. None of the Church Fathers or Doctors who spoke about this topic EVER envisaged a 67-year interregnum. Pius XII died in 1958.
But I'll give you the spoiler: THERE ISN'T ONE. That's why God has to intervene, see? It's NOT to be found in any ancient scrolls, dogmas, doctrines, or docuмents. It SIMPLY ISN'T THERE. We don't have the information or tools we need to solve this Crisis.
None of them envisaged the Western Schism either, but it happened. When the Church was suffering it, they didn't know how it was going to be solved either. But they had powerful tools, they had reason, the Faith, prayer and penance. Christ IS the Head of the Church. We have to keep doing out part as best we can, and reason and truth is part of it we should never give up, without being upset that you can't see the future.
I know that some people say there's been no pope since 1958. But that claim is not perfectly reasonable because there are other possible scenarios. The evil people at the Vatican could be harboring a true pope by incarceration that we don't know about. Also, men like JP2 could have been a true pope when he first was elected and he made the final personal choice to choose heresy and cease being pope. Those two scenarios change the length of a vacant See. There is also JP1 who could have been a true pope and material heretic and based on the promise of Infallibility God saw to it that he die in 30 days rather than accidentally promoting V2 officially. That would also change the length of the vacancy.
-
Those are MY questions. None of the Church Fathers or Doctors who spoke about this topic EVER envisaged a 67-year interregnum. Pius XII died in 1958.
But I'll give you the spoiler: THERE ISN'T ONE. That's why God has to intervene, see? It's NOT to be found in any ancient scrolls, dogmas, doctrines, or docuмents. It SIMPLY ISN'T THERE. We don't have the information or tools we need to solve this Crisis.
Matthew, you are incorrect in your the bolded comment above. Here is one example from Gemini.
Which of the church fathers or doctors explain the 70 years of Jeremiah as a trial of the Church in the end times?
The Church Father and Doctor most renowned for specifically interpreting the Seventy Years of Babylonian Exile prophesied by Jeremiah as a profound trial, testing, and purifying period for the Church (or the People of God) is St. Augustine of Hippo.
He extensively dealt with this prophetic period in his writings, using it as a major historical example to develop his theology of the Church.
St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD)
Augustine did not see the 70 years merely as a historical punishment for the nation of Judah, but as a typological and spiritual trial that prefigures the sufferings and testing of the Church throughout history.
1. The Seventy Years as a Figure of the Church's Earthly Pilgrimage
Augustine uses the exile as a key example when distinguishing between the City of God (Civitas Dei) and the Earthly City (Civitas Terrena).
The Church as a Pilgrim: The Church, the earthly manifestation of the City of God, is always in a state of exile and pilgrimage in the world, living among enemies (the City of Man/Earthly City). The Babylonian Exile perfectly illustrates this state of displacement, suffering, and longing for the true homeland (Heaven/the New Jerusalem).
- A Time of Testing: The 70 years represent the fixed, determined period of testing and tribulation that the People of God must endure before their ultimate deliverance and restoration. This is a period where faith is purged of worldly attachments.
2. The City of God Citation
In his magnum opus, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), Augustine cites Jeremiah's prophecy to make the point that the Church must expect a long period of suffering on earth:
"For [Jeremiah] foretold not only that the Jews would return from Babylon after seventy years, but also that, though the earthly Jerusalem was to be rebuilt, the most glorious liberty would remain for the future."
--- The City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 35
Augustine here emphasizes that the literal restoration (the rebuilding of Jerusalem) was incomplete. The truerestoration is the liberation of the Church through Christ and the establishment of the heavenly City, making the 70 years a figure pointing to Christ's definitive victory over all worldly captivity.
3. Interpretation in Eschatology
Augustine also drew on the 70 years when interpreting the 70 Weeks of Years prophecy in Daniel, which is directly related to the 70 years of Jeremiah. He established the standard interpretation that these prophecies concern the entire period from the Exile up to the end of time and the establishment of Christ's Kingdom (the Church), viewing the whole time as a period of persecution and trial.
Other Doctors
While other Church Fathers like St. Jerome extensively commented on Jeremiah and the historical aspect of the 70 years, St. Augustine is the one who most famously and systematically used the prophecy as a powerful allegorical and typological figure for the long and purifying trial of the Church on earth.
-
Thank you for the excellent, pertinent information, Angelus. FWIW, there was no worship in the Temple during the 70 years, i.e., God took it away and did not want to receive it from His children for the duration of the period of penance and purification.
1959 to 2029...70 years. We shall see. Godspeed to all non-AI of goodwill who read these words.
-
Thank you for the excellent, pertinent information, Angelus. FWIW, there was no worship in the Temple during the 70 years, i.e., God took it away and did not want to receive it from His children for the duration of the period of penance and purification.
1959 to 2029...70 years. We shall see. Godspeed to all non-AI of goodwill who read these words.
Acts 3:1
Petrus autem et Iohannes ascendebant in templum ad horam orationis nonam
Now Peter and John went up into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer.
-
Acts 3:1
Uh, you clearly misunderstood things completely. We were/are discussing the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity. Unless I am gravely mistaken, neither Peter nor John were alive during the period under consideration.
-
It is well above my pay grade to say much at all, but clearly God was not pleased with His people both during the period leading up to the Babylonian Exile and the period preceding V2 and the imposition of the NOM. Presuming there is some sort of prefiguration/parallel between the two periods, many of the details would be and, in fact, are notably beyond my ability to speculate or understand.
-
Uh, you clearly misunderstood things completely. We were/are discussing the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity. Unless I am gravely mistaken, neither Peter nor John were alive during the period under consideration.
What did you mean by "there was no worship in the Temple during the 70 years"?
-
What did you mean by "there was no worship in the Temple during the 70 years"?
Oddly enough, I meant what I said. During the Babylonian Exile -- 500-ish years before Sts. Peter and John existed -- there was no worship in the Temple. If someone is both able and willing to confirm otherwise, I will happily consider any evidence in support of such an idea.
-
Oddly enough, I meant what I said. During the Babylonian Exile -- 500-ish years before Sts. Peter and John existed -- there was no worship in the Temple. If someone is both able and willing to confirm otherwise, I will happily consider any evidence in support of such an idea.
Understood.
-
Thank you for the excellent, pertinent information, Angelus. FWIW, there was no worship in the Temple during the 70 years, i.e., God took it away and did not want to receive it from His children for the duration of the period of penance and purification.
1959 to 2029...70 years. We shall see. Godspeed to all non-AI of goodwill who read these words.
If the 70 is significant in the current disaster, God's way are not ours. The starting date may be different.
-
If the 70 is significant in the current disaster, God's way are not ours. The starting date may be different.
Absolutely zero argument there. I was just throwing out a possible 70-year stretch. The precise beginning will likely remain somewhat unclear until it has ended, but end it will and probably pretty soon (within five to 15 years, imo).
-
Thank you for the excellent, pertinent information, Angelus. FWIW, there was no worship in the Temple during the 70 years, i.e., God took it away and did not want to receive it from His children for the duration of the period of penance and purification.
1959 to 2029...70 years. We shall see. Godspeed to all non-AI of goodwill who read these words.
Yes, I've actually put these dates together before because Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia on June 13, 2029. Shortly thereafter, Our Lord appeared to Sister Lucia complaining that the Popes would follow the examples of the Kings of France. Now, the parallel there is striking, since exactly 100 years to the day after Our Lord had requested that the King consecrate France to His Sacred Heart, the Third Estate deposed the King.
-
Uh, you clearly misunderstood things completely. We were/are discussing the 70 years of the Babylonian Captivity. Unless I am gravely mistaken, neither Peter nor John were alive during the period under consideration.
The 70 years of Jeremiah is an end times prophecy and was the subject matter of the 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel 9.
Those who say that "weeks" are not "years," need to harmonize the two descriptions. Jeremiah uses "years," while the Angel in Daniel uses "weeks," but they must refer to the same thing. How?
In the Israelite religious system, one of the major Feasts is called the "Feast of Weeks." We call the Feast Pentecost. That Feast happens once every year.
So 70 years = 70 Pentecosts. Same amount of time.
And in the true Third Secret, Sr. Lucia says at the end:
"Our Lady told us that this is written, [in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44."
Daniel 9:24-25 is the 70 Weeks prophecy. So her true Third Secret is referring to the 70 year period starting "before 1960." Here is the text again:
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret;
This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us a Church, but this was a
Church of hell, and an individual who I describe as the 'holy
Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil,
but there was a difference from a true holy Father, the gaze,
this one had the gaze of evil.
Then we saw the same Pope entering a Church,
after some moments, but there is no way to describe the
ugliness of that place, it looked like a gray cement fortress
with broken angles and windows similar to eyes;
it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who
said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority
will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be
destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's tomb
will be removed and transferred to Fatima.
This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be
announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its
abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written, [in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44.
(thumbprint)
-
"Rome continues its abomination."
The, "Pope leading the people in devil worship."
"The dogma of faith is not preserved in Rome"
These ^ are all reasons I think TIA is keen to endorse this alleged 3rd secret as the authentic one.
It lines up well with the seeming MISTRANSLATION of Fr. Palau's vision in that it is "R&R friendly".
These outlandish (and I would argue heretical) claims within the alleged secret are what enable them to persist in their errors concerning indefectability.
Years ago I sent them a string of emails asking them to show me one teaching or discipline that was promulgated by a Pope for the Universal Church that was heretical. They had nothing...So we ended the communication.
I have already shown that TIA either;
A) didn't know the translation of Fr. Palau's vision they posted is inaccurate.
Or,
B) The author of the piece and/or TIA itself has most likely altered the text.
Though, I am open to some other explanation.
Do you happen to know the source of this "3rd Secret."
Who else is really presenting it as "authentic"?
Here we can see they know Portuguese so, why couldn't they get that Fr. Palau translation right?
In Palua's vision the Angel of Rome says it is its PRIESTS that he will destroy, not the city...
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html (https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html)
Originally, the TIA thought it was a hoax and put the docuмent aside for about 7 years. Then the handwriting was confirmed to be Sr. Lucia's by a forensic handwriting expert. Only after that did the TIA give it a second look.
I have no contact with these TIA people. I am not promoting them. Look at the docuмent yourself and confirm the Portuguese with a dictionary if you think they have mistranslated. I did so, and did not find any problems.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm
-
No. The mistranslation is in TIA's version of Fr. Palau's work that my other thread shows:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/francisco-palau's-prophecies/
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/francisco-palau's-prophecies/) I would describe them as vehemently against any form of sedevacantism.
They definitely have Portuguese translators they can turn to - so why does it seem they so badly mangled the Fr. Palau vision in a way that supports their dogmatic R&Rism?
I would only trust their docuмents SLIGHTLY more than that of the Masons. Your sources are dubious.
Then don't trust the TIA translations. Verify the translation yourself by looking at the original facsimile. You don't need to TIA. Take them out of the picture altogether. The Third Secret has nothing to do with the TIA.
-
Absolutely zero argument there. I was just throwing out a possible 70-year stretch. The precise beginning will likely remain somewhat unclear until it has ended, but end it will and probably pretty soon (within five to 15 years, imo).
I tend to think the start year would be the invalidation of the Holy Sacrifice.
-
I tend to think the start year would be the invalidation of the Holy Sacrifice.
I agree that such makes sense, at least from our limited perspective. In such a case, we'd be looking at either the NOM dates, possibly 1969, or the days surrounding the vernacular usages in the pre-NOM days, such as October 1967, etc. I admit that 1969 to 2039, for example, would be harder to grasp/accept because then we'd be facing 14 more years of trial. God's ways are not our ways and we don't deserve His assistance whatsoever, but it is also difficult to see how the rapidly-disintegrating world situation could even hold together that long. The final, third part of the Secret of Fatima was supposed to be released no later than 1960, so it is also entirely sensible to look at that period as the beginning of the Great Apostasy, etc.
God willing, we will find out soon enough. May we both accept and even willingly embrace His adorable will, whatever it happens to be, now and always. Godspeed.
-
Yes, I've actually put these dates together before because Our Lady requested the consecration of Russia on June 13, 2029. Shortly thereafter, Our Lord appeared to Sister Lucia complaining that the Popes would follow the examples of the Kings of France. Now, the parallel there is striking, since exactly 100 years to the day after Our Lord had requested that the King consecrate France to His Sacred Heart, the Third Estate deposed the King.
Do you mean to say "1919"?
-
Do you mean to say "1919"?
He meant 1929, which is when Our Lady appeared to Sr Lucia in her convent and officially asked for the Consecration to be done.
1929 + 100 = 2029
Pius XII's death 1958; John23 calls for Vatican 2 council in 1959.
1959 + 70 = 2029
NWO Elites' plan called "Agenda 2030".
D-day is 2029. Too many things line up.
-
He meant 1929, which is when Our Lady appeared to Sr Lucia in her convent and officially asked for the Consecration to be done.
1929 + 100 = 2029
Pius XII's death 1958; John23 calls for Vatican 2 council in 1959.
1959 + 70 = 2029
NWO Elites' plan called "Agenda 2030".
D-day is 2029. Too many things line up.
Yes, and 2029 is exactly what the true Third Secret hints at as the culminating event of the end times.
She says:
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret;
This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us a Church, but this was a
Church of hell, and an individual who I describe as the 'holy
Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil,
but there was a difference from a true holy Father, the gaze,
this one had the gaze of evil.
Then we saw the same Pope entering a Church,
after some moments, but there is no way to describe the
ugliness of that place, it looked like a gray cement fortress
with broken angles and windows similar to eyes;
it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who
said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority
will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be
destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's tomb
will be removed and transferred to Fatima.
This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be
announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
If 69 weeks [Feast of Weeks/Pentecosts] after this order is announced, Rome continues its
abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written, [in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44.
(thumbprint)
(https://i.imgur.com/rf6LcSn.jpeg)