Author Topic: Geocentrism? Why is that part of the Resistance movement? (Read 58637 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #320 on:** February 20, 2014, 05:11:01 PM »

.

I would caution anyone who would too quickly make geocentrism an inherent part of their Resistance to modern errors.

It has taken since 1741 for science to start to catch up to where the Church stumbled, and that has been 273 years already.

Two hundred seventy three years ago, Pope Benedict XIV gave the Galileo sympathizers a pass, and that went on all during the American Revolution, and was no small part of the French Revolution, as well. How much blood was spilt, and how many heads rolled as a consequence of the folly of one pope? And that doesn't mean he therefore was not pope. But what it DOES mean is that popes are not infallible in everything they do, even when the subject matter is in regards to faith or morals, or when they are acting authoritatively. Pope Benedict was not binding the Church. He was not defining doctrine. But he was teaching, and what he taught was wrong.

Sedes obviously will have apoplectic fits over this.

Still we should not be too hasty. It has taken 273 years for science to catch up to where the Church went weak in the knees under Benedict XIV in 1741. ("In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV authorized publication of Galileo's complete works. Heliocentrism was formally rescended [sic] as heresy in 1758" -- from a secular website.)

It would seem someone likes to think the Church is in the habit of releasing damned lies from being "heresy" from time to time, but such is the confusion of those who just don't "get it." When the Church defines a heresy, it is not reformable, any more than the wetness of water can be changed to dryness. Heliocentrism has never been rescinded, nor can it ever be rescinded, but not even scientists today would hope it would because credible scientists don't subscribe to heliocentrism today.

.

cassini · « **Reply #321 on:** February 21, 2014, 09:04:31 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: cassini
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

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.

I do not see or hear Fr. Pfeiffer preaching that a defense of geocentrism or his taking sides with geocentrism against worldliness or Modernism is inherently part of the Resistance. If that's your interpretation, you're entitled to that. But I don't agree. In fact, even if Fr. Pfeiffer were to say that geocentrism is part of the Resistance, I think I would take issue with him on that point.

I would be a little more careful with it, saying that the Resistance has more in common with geocentrism, due to their mutual pursuit of the truth, than it does with Copernicanism or Galileoism or Newtonianism or Einsteinism or Saganism or Hubbleism, or whatever-else-ism.

Like I said before, which see, it seems to me a better way of putting it, to say that the Resistance has an INTEREST in geocentrism, or that geocentrism is of interest to the Resistance.

This is because due to our current state of affairs in the culture at large in 2014, there are a whole lot of traditional priests worldwide who don't know what the arguments are, even the Church's arguments! -- in support of geocentrism. I have heard very few have words of wisdom in this regard, and Fr. Pfeiffer appears to be way out in the lead on it. It seems to me to be so much the case that perhaps Fr. Pfeiffer is running away with the topic. Maybe he is right on the money with regards to what the modern errors are all about here, but he shows no consideration for the greatness of the shock that this approach causes in the minds of other priests, especially those who have not kept up with the developments of real scientific investigation over the past 40 years.

This does not EXCLUDE trad priests who had been students of astronomy or biology or cosmology or geology or physics or engineering before they became priests. One might think that having such a background and then going into the priesthood would necessitate a deeper comprehension of the subject from the start. But I can assure you, this is not the case.

The fact that it is not the case in truth, is quite mysterious.

Perhaps one reason is, the looming prospect of having to defend oneself against the plethora of accusations that will obviously follow upon the heels of such an announcement might seem to be a package deal that they are not too eager to undertake.

In many cases, we're talking about priests with a 'FULL PLATE' already, and this would effectively heap PILES of new concerns on top of it all. You can hardly blame them for being less than eager to take it all on!

.

Lots of Good thoughts here Neil.
Of interest is that I have met a few SSPX priests who either were biblical geocentrists or who immediately saw the truth of the Galileo case when it was explained to them. It would be very interesting to know when, how and where Fr Pfiffer found the truth.
That said, I doubt there is a priest in the world who does not know about the Galileo case. The same apologetic version appears is in every history book on the Church ever written. I have no doubt, like myself years ago, they did not know the details but accepted the reasons invented to accept the church was wrong but that this wrong was not a dogmatic wrong, a doctrinal wrong, a theological wrong or any other wrong that the Church was not supposed to happen according to Church teaching.
I fear however, some will be very reluctant to go public with delight at the fact the Church of 1616 and 1633 were not wrong in any way. this is because they will have to cope with a new found fact that so many popes fell for the heresy, something those old traditional popes were supposed never to do, only those Modernist since Vatican II.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #322 on:** February 21, 2014, 08:06:46 PM »

Quote from: cassini

Lots of Good thoughts here Neil.
Of interest is that I have met a few SSPX priests who either were biblical geocentrists or who immediately saw the truth of the Galileo case when it was explained to them. It would be very interesting to know when, how and where Fr Pfiffer found the truth.

My dear Cassini!!!!!

Dost ye not know that Paula Haigh was Fr. Pfeiffer's school teacher when he was growing up?

He was her star pupil!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #323 on:** February 21, 2014, 09:28:40 PM »

.

Quote from: cassini

Lots of Good thoughts here Neil.
Of interest is that I have met a few SSPX priests who either were biblical geocentrists or who immediately saw the truth of the Galileo case when it was explained to them. It would be very interesting to know when, how and where Fr Pfiffer found the truth.

I seems cantatedomino has answered that question sufficiently! The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Quote

That said, I doubt there is a priest in the world who does not know about the Galileo case. The same apologetic version appears is in every history book on the Church ever written. I have no doubt, like myself years ago, they did not know the details but accepted the reasons invented to accept the church was wrong but that this wrong was not a dogmatic wrong, a doctrinal wrong, a theological wrong or any other wrong that [in] the Church was not supposed to happen, according to Church teaching.

There is certainly a lot of untangling to be done. An awful lot of funny business has been going on for a very long time, like 273 years at a bare minimum.

Quote

I fear however, some will be very reluctant to go public with delight at the fact the Church of 1616 and 1633 [was] not wrong in any way. This is because they will have to cope with a new-found fact: that so many popes fell for the heresy, [this is] something those old traditional popes were supposed never to do, only those Modernist [popes] since Vatican II.

It is not in the least surprising that sedes are keeping clear of this discussion as if it's radioactive.
(They might prefer "Kryptonite," though! :light-saber: )

If this overturning of the devil's greatest deception keeps its momentum up, there are other layers to the onion, this being just one of them. There is stratigraphy and geomorphology, which would be the next 'sacred cow' to meet its doom. From there would be the age of the earth and consequently the exposure of 'evolution' for the hoax that it is, with the necessary consequence of biological theory and medicine in the wake. Next comes law, including but not limited to euthanasia and abortion.

This has enormous consequences.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #324 on:** February 22, 2014, 01:31:23 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: cassini

Lots of Good thoughts here Neil.
Of interest is that I have met a few SSPX priests who either were biblical geocentrists or who immediately saw the truth of the Galileo case when it was explained to them. It would be very interesting to know when, how and where Fr Pfiffer found the truth.

My dear Cassini!!!!!

Dost ye not know that Paula Haigh was Fr. Pfeiffer's school teacher when he was growing up?

He was her star pupil!

Didn't one unmentionable assistant of Fr. Pfeiffer interview Paula Haigh in a convalescent hospital, when she was not able to gather much stamina to talk, answering questions, and it was posted on YouTube?

.