Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: What do FEers, BOD deniers, and dogmatic anti-sedevacantists have in common?  (Read 2029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15207
  • Reputation: +8034/-2519
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Flat-earthism is an UNscientific opinion. There is no evidence for it.
    .

    My point is that it's a question of science and not theology.  Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17603
    • Reputation: +8111/-608
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • My point is that it's a question of science and not theology.  Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction.
    .
    Pope Leo XIII had a lot of challenges in his day. Somehow he managed to survive the storm. His was the age when Darwin's worldly success was running rampant, and apparently it was simply not the time for the Pope to make definitive pronouncements on that score. He would have been a good one to do it. That could have saved us a lot of problems. Perhaps it was not God's will that the question be settled so soon. Because evolution isn't "scientific" either.
    .
    It's really disappointing to see Catholics getting physical reality and our understanding of it mixed up with theology and morality.
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17603
    • Reputation: +8111/-608
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sedevacantists like Recusant refuse to see the contradiction of claiming, on the one hand, that the consensus of theologians is effectively infallible and a proximate rule of faith while, on the other hand, asserting that the consensus of all the Church's bishops teaching the Universal Church in Ecumenical Council failed.  So theologians can't be wrong while the entire Ecclesia Docens, the world's bishops, can teach heresy and defect en masse.  Anti-BoD sedevacantists also claim that heretical ecclesiology is the chief of Vatican II's errors while at the same time holding the same ecclesiology themselves in their obsessive neurotic attack against Father Feeney, the only man who REALLY saw what was happening in the Church.  Sedevacantists champion the cause of the Heresiarch Cushing over the faithful Traditional Father Feeney.

    Nice.
    .
    Sedes backing the heresiarch Cushing, and probably not even aware of it, eh?
    .
    Maybe they ought to become informed -- by us!
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3989
    • Reputation: +4949/-246
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • They are all hated by Recusant Sede.

    "mir aoykh zenen deyn kheytfal kin, kinder fun di tayvl"


    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 519
    • Reputation: +203/-454
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • A) they are extremely stupid
    B) they are unpleasant to be around and lack most social graces
    C) they are  "mouth breathers"
    D) all of the above

    What about the stupid people who see curve where there is none?

    Have you seen the curve?
    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017


    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 519
    • Reputation: +203/-454
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What is obvious to a rational and objective person is the fact that all three groups prefer *their* own interpretation of Scripture, tradition, and the Church’s councils to the common opinion (sometimes unanimous opinion) of what the Church’s experts (Popes, theologians, Doctors) teach.
    In a word...PRIDE.

    You are SO smart!

    What a genius!

    Therefore therefore those who see curve where there is none and refuse to look at the scientific evidence debunking the globe are perfectly humble?
    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017

    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 519
    • Reputation: +203/-454
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 1) I don’t believe that the Church has ever raised to the level of dogma that the Earth is a globe.
    2) I don’t consider those who believe in a FE to be outside the Church because of #1, however I do consider then extremely gullible people.
    3) I do believe in the geocentric model, but I don’t believe that one is a heretic if he doubts or denies it.
    4) I question your interpretation of what the authorities you cite wrote, so please cite them.
    5) Even if it is unquestionably true that a few of them believed in a FE, the vast majority disagrees.


    You're a LIAR!

    Where the Fathers spoke on the issue of the globe MOST condemned it!

    STOP LYING!
    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2706
    • Reputation: +1012/-1597
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    Flat-earthism is an UNscientific opinion. There is no evidence for it.
    .
    And flat-earthers refuse to make deliberate, controlled observations of reality.
    .
    They all worship their false-god-golden-calf pipe dream, which is nonsense.
    ..
    Why should Catholic authorities teach that the earth is a sphere?
    .
    Anyone with two eyes and a thinking mind can know that's true -- we don't need the Church for that.
    .
    The Church is here to teach on consequential matters of faith, not what we can observe with our eyes and reason with simple logic.
    .
    Anyone with two eyes can see earth is flat and stationary.  The sun, moon and stars revolve around us and there is no curve. Yet God in His wisdom chose to tell us in scripture the form of the earth, which is expounded on by ancient Catholic authors and saints none of whom describe or defend a spherical heliocentric earth, but who condemn it.


    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2706
    • Reputation: +1012/-1597
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • My point is that it's a question of science and not theology.  Pope Leo XIII taught that even if the Church Fathers were unanimous on a point of science, that was not to be taken as a matter of faith and was subject to correction.
    The Church teaches that She proscribes science.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2706
    • Reputation: +1012/-1597
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
    Pope Leo XIII had a lot of challenges in his day. Somehow he managed to survive the storm. His was the age when Darwin's worldly success was running rampant, and apparently it was simply not the time for the Pope to make definitive pronouncements on that score. He would have been a good one to do it. That could have saved us a lot of problems. Perhaps it was not God's will that the question be settled so soon. Because evolution isn't "scientific" either.
    .
    It's really disappointing to see Catholics getting physical reality and our understanding of it mixed up with theology and morality.
    .
    Evolution depends on and is based on heliocentric spherical earth.  Without pagan Helicoentric theory the Big Bang, evolution, and global warming are destroyed.

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2706
    • Reputation: +1012/-1597
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I agree with you here. The point I was making in the OP is that the FEers believe that it is dogmatic that the Earth is flat when in fact that not only science but most Church authorities believed the Earth to be a globe.
    This is laughable.  Most Church authorities believed earth to be a globe? Prove it.  Then show one teaching from one Catholic authority of the past that earth is a globe. 


    Offline kiwiboy

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 519
    • Reputation: +203/-454
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • You may want to proofread and check your grammar before you decide to attack the intelligence of others.
    ps. I am not defending RS


    Distracting from the last and most important sentence...
    Eclipses neither prove nor disprove the flat earth.

    "As for whether or not I work for NASA, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what that could possibly have to do with anything" Neil Obstat, 08-03-2017

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2706
    • Reputation: +1012/-1597
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Happenby verses St. Basil. Hmmm....

    Basil, Hexaemeron: “Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself whilst the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses. He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us. Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls? It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture. It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.”
    This is an opinion of St. Basil, not a teaching, and he doesn't say that earth is a globe. Perhaps St. Basil was unaware that many saints have presented literal interpretations of scripture, (including St. Jerome who was born a dozen or so years after Basil) based on the great cosmographer Moses, in clear and concise teachings, the geocentric and flat form of the earth.  Several came after Basil who was born in 330.
    Since when does a glancing observation by a saint warrant the dismissal of all other saints' writings on the subject?  Had it been a teaching of some sort to the contrary of geocentric flat earth all the rest teach, it might mean something.  I say 'might' because it would still be only 1 teaching against the rest. But doesn't address the issue per se, and so is certainly not a teaching on the subject. 
    Further, this line speaks volumes because Basil is casting doubt on the sphericity of earth in saying: It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference;

    Offline happenby

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2706
    • Reputation: +1012/-1597
    • Gender: Female
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I don't care about the shape of the Earth. I am in awe of God's creation no matter what it looks like or how He created it. I was pointing out the arrogance of the dogmatic Flatists; you sarcastically called him smart and a genius, yet you couldn't even proofread your own post. It was comically ironic.
    The reason I care about the shape of the earth is because God tells us everything about it in scripture.  In other words, there is a need to know about our physical foundations.  And people are trying to deny what God says is true to the point that they've re-created the earth against the descriptions of the saints and of scripture.  Knowing that the prevailing view of the world is a pagan creation at odds with tradition and scripture should incite everyone to defend the Church, the Saints, and God's Word. 

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15207
    • Reputation: +8034/-2519
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No contradiction in the least. The Council “failed” due to the lack of a pope. The whole ED did not defect as there were some who did not attend, some that did not sign the docs, some who were confused with what they were signing, and still others that were innocent in not realizing what they were actually signing.

    Except that theologians hold that the entire Church cannot defect by accepting a false pope.  Just because one or two did not attend and a couple didn't sign does not mean that the body of the Church's bishops as a whole did not fail.  In any case, this can happen, according to you, but it's not possible that theologians could embrace a false opinion.  Well, this did happen.  For over 700 years every theologian held to St. Augustine's erroneous view regarding the fate of infants who die without Baptism ... until this was overturned by the Church.  This effective infallibility of theologians nonsense (I call it Cekadism) has led to a lot of errors among sedevacantists ... and has led to the contradiction of condemning V2 ecclesiology while at the same time promoting the same ecclesiology.  As a result, sedevacantists don't even come close to understanding the true theological problem of Vatican II.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16