Leviticus 11:46-47
[46] You shall be holy, because I am holy. This is the law of beasts and fowls, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and creepeth on the earth: [47] That you may know the differences of the clean, and unclean, and know what you ought to eat, and what to refuse.

Did you not read the replies to this topic in the thread.  You are making it go backwards for no reason.  TL:DR read Acts 10:9-16  and 1 Corinthians 8:7-9.  The Church has already ruled on old Law.

I see that TiE has rejoined the forum as Martyr.

Promoting or practicing the Mosaic Law today makes vain the Cross of Christ, which alone has any saving or propitiatory power (power to forgive sins).

It's not a small heresy!

It also happens to be the very first major heresy in the Church.  You kept characterizing his view as material heresy.  I would say more that it's objectively heretical.  I know what you're trying to say, but using the term material actually precludes the possibility that it's formal (they're opposite terms).

And formal heresy does not equate to "sincerity", something in the internal forum that cannot be judged publicly.  If it has become manifest that someone is pertinacious in the belief, and persists in it after it has been shown to him that the Church has condemned it, then it can be judged in the external forum to be formal heresy.  Heresy goes from material into formal as soon as one even implicitly rejects the authority of the Church behind the teaching, since the authority of the Church teaching is the formal motive of faith (that's the argument I was having with Drew on the other thread).  That's the reason for the saying that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all.  That's because in rejecting one of them you are rejecting the teaching authority that's behind them all, and whatever ones you do still believe, you are not longer believing with the formal motive of faith, the authority of the Church, but just because you have found them agreeable based on your own private judgment.

This transmogrification of the term "formal heresy" into insincerity is yet another product of the phenomenological subjectivism that Bishop Williamson has always rightly railed against.  I can be as sincere as anyone can be, but if I do not believe the dogmas of the Church based on the teaching authority of the Church, I am a formal heretic.  Material heresy can only be due to ignorance regarding what the Church teaches (cf. Saint Augustine).  And the outward sign, again according to St. Augustine, of heresy being only material is the immediate willingness to change one's mind after being corrected and the ignorance of what the Church teaches has been removed.  Now, it's more complex with truths that have not been directly defined, because one might BELIEVE that his propositions (logical conclusions drawn from defined truths) are consistent with Church dogma, and hold to them based on this assessment.  Someone else might then come along and dispute it, arguing that it does in fact contradict Church teaching.  So the dispute there is about whether the argument is sound.  If the person drawing the false conclusions were corrected by proper authority, who could definitively rule against his opinion, he would show that the heresy or error was only material by willingly retracting his prior opinion.  Problem is that when it's a dispute among peers, the person holding the opinion might conclude that the rebuttals are wrong without necessarily compromising their willingness to yield to the Church.

That's why the V2 errors are more slippery.  Papal claimants prior to Francis claimed that these teachings WERE in conformity to Tradition and felt that they could be reconciled to the past with a "hermeneutic of continuity".  That suggests that they care about whether these propositions are reconcilable with Tradition.  Bergoglio on the other hand has made statements about how what he's saying is probably heresy, but then went on as if he didn't care.

So, in short, the difference between formal and material heresy is that material heresy pertains to WHAT you believe, while formal heresy speaks to WHY you believe it.  Now, some truths are necessary to believe even materially, so that there cannot be supernatural faith without believing in those things ... usually that God exists and is a Rewarder along with basic belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.  Without those basic things, as St. Thomas teaches, there can be no supernatural faith, not faith with the supernatural motive.  You can't have form without some matter in this case.

Truth is Eternal
Lover of Truth

Looks like persons calling themselves truth is a warning flag.

If I had TiE's contact info, then I would write to him and ask him to stop signing up for new accounts. But I don't have his contact info.

If the flat earth is forever tainted by TiE's error, then I suppose there's no use in debating the subject any longer (for me). One flat earther goes ballistic, and that means that the earth isn't flat. Hum....

On the other hand, I've noticed sedevacantists who have exhibited similar behavior, and they have been banned, but it doesn't seem to forever taint sedevacantism. What's up with that?

I'm not threatening you or speaking for myself personally. I'm reminding you (and all the other Flat Earth proponents) how human nature works. If human nature says that you have an uphill battle when some of "your own" do something stupid, then that's unfortunate but it has nothing to do with me.

I could be as nice as possible, giving all of you the benefit of the doubt and even embracing Flat Earth myself -- but that wouldn't change the fact that most people will LIVE, BELIEVE, and ACT based on the "bad taste in their mouth" from individuals in your camp (being obsessive, rude, misbehaved on forums, etc.)

When you have any position, especially an unpopular one like Flat Earth (just stating a fact here), and a few idiots attach themselves to the position and then do something stupid (whether it's minor like spamming up a forum, or major like setting off bombs and killing people) it tends to taint the public's general impression of that position.

Okay, I see what you mean. I know that you're not threatening me personally, and I appreciate that you've been patient with me even though I can be a trouble-maker (I'll try to change that).

It does have to do with emotion, I agree. Maybe if TiE hadn't become so angry after his thread was locked, he wouldn't have been banned. Flat earthers do have the tendency to be emotional.

And yes, you're right about the same thing going for sedevacantism, but they do seem have more "rights" here, if it can be called that. It seems to be far more acceptable, but that's okay. But still, I can see now that it was a good idea to not have flat earth threads show up on the main forum page. It is a contentious subject, which cause too strong a reaction from both sides.

I don't see how we can now have any debates on the flat earth subforum now. It seems that those who are against it will not let us debate it.

And yes, you're right about the same thing going for sedevacantism, but they do seem have more "rights" here, if it can be called that.

Not so.  Matthew locked the Father Ringrose thread, deleted many of my posts, and asked me to refrain from being hostile to R&R.  So Matthew is not singling out Flat Earth by any means.  Even though I don't always agree with him on particular issues, Matthew tends to be consistent in his approach.  He could have banned Flat Earth entirely, as many forum mods would have, but I appreciate the fact that he hasn't.  I respect him for that.  And if he hasn't banned sedevacantism, it's for the same (consistent) reasons.  Matthew has shut down and banned dogmatic sedevacantists, but he also called out SeanJohnson as a dogmatic [mod edit: sedeplenist].  Flat Earth got sidelined because 95% of the "Recent Thread" list ended up being Flat Earth threads.  I did feel that, if it was technically possible, there should have been a limit imposed of one thread relating to Flat Earth in the Recent list ... because I do find the issue to be of great interest.  I enjoy and am open to all manner of subjects.  I didn't become a geocentrist until I started getting involved with various threads here.  And many forums would have banned the subject.

Not so.  Matthew locked the Father Ringrose thread, deleted many of my posts, and asked me to refrain from being hostile to R&R.  So Matthew is not singling out Flat Earth by any means.  Even though I don't always agree with him on particular issues, Matthew tends to be consistent in his approach.  He could have banned Flat Earth entirely, as many forum mods would have, but I appreciate the fact that he hasn't.  I respect him for that.  And if he hasn't banned sedevacantism, it's for the same (consistent) reasons.  Matthew has shut down and banned dogmatic sedevacantists, but he also called out SeanJohnson as a dogmatic [mod edit: sedeplenist].  Flat Earth got sidelined because 95% of the "Recent Thread" list ended up being Flat Earth threads.  I did feel that, if it was technically possible, there should have been a limit imposed of one thread relating to Flat Earth in the Recent list ... because I do find the issue to be of great interest.  I enjoy and am open to all manner of subjects.  I didn't become a geocentrist until I started getting involved with various threads here.  And many forums would have banned the subject.

Did I make a typo?