CathInfo.com

So, SJB has provided another interesting resource.  The oldest theology book I own is circa 1908.  I haven't thought to look to see if it covers geocentrism.  SJB, however, has posted several pages of a dogmatic theology manual from 1894 HERE.

It says 'no unanimous consent of the Fathers, if such existed, would bind us to accept the Ptolemaic hypothesis'.

Just thought you guys would enjoy seeing that.  Also look on the previous page to see the author (with imprimatur) making exactly my continual point about geocentrism very clearly.

I thank SJB for his contribution.  

Here is something else to post at the bottom of your posts icterus - you really do not catch on, do you?

First of all nowhere in the history of the Copernican revolution IN THE CHURCH was the PTOLEMAIC SYSTEM mentioned, let alone made compulsory. So of course If you are as well informed as your think, go find out what was condemned and what was not.

As for your 1894 manual, your 1908 theology book, well these do not have the infallibility of the Bible. Just as I was told - correctly - that Denzingers dogmatic theology book of today is a private publication. They were written by Copernicans and as such of course they would deny their beliefs were defined and declared as formal heresy. But more than that, for the heresy turned them all into TRICKSTERS.

Let me demonstrate. Having CONNED the Church out of its geocentric dogma from 1741-1835, they continues their CON in your theology book.

'no unanimous consent of the Fathers, if such existed, would bind us to accept the Ptolemaic hypothesis'.

Of course the Fathers were not unanimous in their defence of the Ptolemaic hypothesis, so here you have the CON. They were unanimous in their interpretation of Scripture that states the sun moves and the earth is still in the centre of the universe. At no time did the Church ever insist on any particular GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM. But by giving us the truth the way they did, they were CONNING readers into believing that the Fathers were not unanimous in their GEOCENTRIC reading of the Scriptures.

And that, I can assure you, is child's play compared to how they CONNED the Church out of its dogma of a geocentric Scripture from 1741 to 1835.

Quote

Of course the Fathers were not unanimous in their defence of the Ptolemaic hypothesis, so here you have the CON. They were unanimous in their interpretation of Scripture that states the sun moves and the earth is still in the centre of the universe. At no time did the Church ever insist on any particular GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM. But by giving us the truth the way they did, they were CONNING readers into believing that the Fathers were not unanimous in their GEOCENTRIC reading of the Scriptures.

And this is where you live, Cassini, in a twighlight world of poor debate tactics, feigned incomprehensions, straw men, outrageous accusations....it's all so tedious.

You know exactly what SJB's citation means.  

And, as for me being well-informed, I caught your ass in TWO outrageous slanders of the Church which you had gotten from your Protestant teachers and gurus.  I caught them, because I am well-informed in such things.  So, I took your statement the way I wanted to, the way you should have meant it, and because I knew it would aggravate you.

:-)

OK icterius, I concede you are well informed as regards the 'Lucifer Mass' accusation. As for 'kicking my ass' in TWO areas, well maybe in your imagination but not in fact. The first of the TWO incidents was a post in response to a 'WHAT NEXT' in the realm of Copernicanism. I answered that sightings of Aliens, and perhaps demons in the form of Aliens could be next. I demonstrated by quoting Catholic priests from a traditional Catholic website that the way was already being paved for some such introduction of Aliens into Catholic minds.

And you say you 'kicked my ass' by saying that was Protestant absurdity?
Well sorry pal, whose ass gets kicked on this one will have to wait.

The second of the TWO incidents was - as I said - a website sent to me asking IS THIS FOR REAL. I asked you the same question, that is all as can be seen on the post. Because you could answer NO, does not mean you 'kicked my ass.' It simply means we agreed on that one. You knew the why, I came to a different reason for the same answer. On that one you are well informed.

But now let us return to the thread question as Neil rightly wants. On this one if 'ass kicking' is the game, my leg is getting tired having to correct you, as your Fathers and the Ptolemaic hypothesis demonstrated. As for being informed, well I know you are not.

Finally Icterus, as for 'outrageous accusations' well God bless your innocence. rather than look at the evidence you reject it out of hand. You remind me of the thousands of children abused by priests over the last 60 years because no one would believe those 'outrageous accusations.'

.

Thread title and Question:

"Geocentrism?  Why is that part of the Resistance movement?"

Answer:

Geocentrism is NOT "part of" the Resistance movement.

But geocentrism IS "of interest to" the Resistance movement, because both the pursuit of geocentrism today AND the Resistance movement are seeking the truth, AND that means these two entities (the pursuit of geocentrism and the Resistance movement) have a common interest, the seeking of the truth.

To the extent that geocentrism is NOT OF INTEREST TO the XSPX, by extension, the INTERESTS of the Resistance movement are not shared by the XSPX.


.

Here Neil, in this tape Fr Pffiffer, who must be considered one of the leaders of 'the resistance' clearly states that Galileo and Darwin were responsible for the loss of millions of souls. (Skip to 19 minutes into his homily and hear him.)


Thus the defence of geocentrism - for him anyway - is part of the resistance movement, the defence of Traditional Catholicism against anybody who offers a contrary view.

As regards the efforts of icterus to rubbish the very idea, well it seems all his 'ass kicking' can now be directed at Fr Pffiffer as well.