Author Topic: Geocentrism? Why is that part of the Resistance movement? (Read 58643 times)

cassini · « **Reply #315 on:** February 20, 2014, 07:38:22 AM »

Quote from: John Grace

Cassini,

I appreciate you genuinely support Bishop Fellay but why write 'the resistance'? I agree with a Geocentrist position but do not agree with you when you defend Bishop Fellay.

Bishop Fellay,whom you support isn't defending Traditional Catholicism. Are you aware of that?

John, how can I put it. I am not a sedevacantist because I believe I do not have the right to make such judgements on a pope. That said, I probably agree with the sedevacantist position as regards the un-Catholic behaviour of popes.

Interestingly, sedevacantists are not exactly in the front line of anti-Copernicanism, quite the opposite as Brother Dimond illustrates. The reason for this is because if one takes a personal sede position then one has to start with Pope Benedict XIV who accepted, or allowed Catholics to accept formal heresy in 1741. Now that is a problem they do not wish to take for obvious reasons.

I write 'the resistance' to isolate it from 'a resistance' to take up arms against Copernicanism.
My own position on 'the resistance' is one similar to sedevacantism. The SSPX is and always was a priestly society. I am not a priest of the SSPX so have no say in how it is run, who runs it, or what position they should take with regard to Mother Church in Rome, with the pope as supreme leader.
My relationship with the SSPX then is confined to what I get at one of their Masses or other liturgital celebrations. So far, thank God, I have not heard one word that could be described as Modernist from our few priests. Quite the opposite, they are as anti-modernist as ever if not more so with this new pope and his utterences.

Now I have witnessed long time Mass goers leaving the SSPX chapel based on what they hear others say about SSPX headquarters, some of them long time traditional friends. Not mind you on what they experienced at any Mass they attended, simply on what others say about the going ons at SSPX headquarters.
Now if that is reason enough to deprive one of regular and even Sunday Mass then the Devil has won hands down. If enough leave the chapel it will close down much to the delight of Satan.

There are those of us who would rather not indulge in this division. As for 'defending Bishop Fellay,' well if I started that I would be causing division too. I am praying the SSPX will resolve this themselves as a priestly society.

John Grace · « **Reply #316 on:** February 20, 2014, 10:58:12 AM »

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: John Grace
Cassini,

I appreciate you genuinely support Bishop Fellay but why write 'the resistance'? I agree with a Geocentrist position but do not agree with you when you defend Bishop Fellay.

Bishop Fellay,whom you support isn't defending Traditional Catholicism. Are you aware of that?

John, how can I put it. I am not a sedevacantist because I believe I do not have the right to make such judgements on a pope. That said, I probably agree with the sedevacantist position as regards the un-Catholic behaviour of popes.

Interestingly, sedevacantists are not exactly in the front line of anti-Copernicanism, quite the opposite as Brother Dimond illustrates. The reason for this is because if one takes a personal sede position then one has to start with Pope Benedict XIV who accepted, or allowed Catholics to accept formal heresy in 1741. Now that is a problem they do not wish to take for obvious reasons.

I write 'the resistance' to isolate it from 'a resistance' to take up arms against Copernicanism.
My own position on 'the resistance' is one similar to sedevacantism. The SSPX is and always was a priestly society. I am not a priest of the SSPX so have no say in how it is run, who runs it, or what position they should take with regard to Mother Church in Rome, with the pope as supreme leader.
My relationship with the SSPX then is confined to what I get at one of their Masses or other liturgital celebrations. So far, thank God, I have not heard one word that could be described as Modernist from our few priests. Quite the opposite, they are as anti-modernist as ever if not more so with this new pope and his utterences.

Now I have witnessed long time Mass goers leaving the SSPX chapel based on what they hear others say about SSPX headquarters, some of them long time traditional friends. Not mind you on what they experienced at any Mass they attended, simply on what others say about the going ons at SSPX headquarters.
Now if that is reason enough to deprive one of regular and even Sunday Mass then the Devil has won hands down. If enough leave the chapel it will close down much to the delight of Satan.

There are those of us who would rather not indulge in this division. As for 'defending Bishop Fellay,' well if I started that I would be causing division too. I am praying the SSPX will resolve this themselves as a priestly society.

The points have been addressed by hollingsworth and others. I commend you for your honesty in your unwillingness to 'rock the boat'. As you say Mass is your priority and you shan't meddle in SSPX business.

Those who leave SSPX chapels are to be commended. Fr Tauok mentioned the Devil also. A manipulative tactic of pro Fellay, pro Menzingen.

You allign yourself ith them. I disagree but your honesty is to be commended. Few are defending Bishop Fellay. What do you think of him using the rosary to deceive?

I disagree with you in defending Bishop Fellay.

Laity leave chapels based on facts not opinion. I wish Cassini well.He is sincere but many disagree.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #317 on:** February 20, 2014, 02:42:53 PM »

.

It seems to me that +Fellay is just doing the easy thing, when he could be defending Tradition insstead, which would be more challenging. Saints do not do the things they do because they are easy. They do the things they do IN SPITE of them being 'hard' to do. Of course, all the while, +F complains like a woman, saying what he has been doing has been "difficult" (see his conference given Dec. 28th, not this past one).

I don't hold it against those who refrain from getting involved in the tussle. It's sometimes not so easy to remain silent in the face of the insults that Fellayites hurl at the Resistance. But we can look to St. Paul for an example, when he made such mockery and derision against him a penance. He was among the first generation to so imitate the Way of Our Lord.

Interestingly, sedevacantists are not exactly in the front line of anti-Copernicanism, and this is something that +Fellay might not be so comfortable sharing with sedevacantists.

Perhaps this movie, "The Principle," can open doors to showing how +F and sedevacantists have much more in common than they might like to admit! HAHAHAHAHAHA

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #318 on:** February 20, 2014, 03:16:36 PM »

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!

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #319 on:** February 20, 2014, 04:15:23 PM »

.

The inoperative reputation counter once again prevents accurate data, because here is a very good post by Renzo which has ZERO up-thumbs, but the system won't allow me to give it just ONE because the system is programmed to prevent accurate rep points being counted, which is why the rep counter on CI is inoperative. If it were not for the sedes and their group-think tactics, the system would not have to be so crippled.

Post

Quote from: Renzo

Quote from: [i
jaundice[/i]]If you are equating the Copernican principle with the mediocrity principle, then you are simply assisting militant atheists and unbelievers in their quest, just like Bob Sungenis has done for decades.

Come out of this folly, Neil. Don't participate in this unholy blending of astronomy and religion. There are definitely ways to misunderstand and misapply the Copernican Principle, and one of those ways is the way of Bob Sungenis.

I was reading one of your other posts where I thought you did a pretty good job of explaining yourself. You seem to think that when many of the books of the bible were originally written, the authors wrote them according to their own understanding of things. So, creation, the flood, tower of babel, order of the sun and earth, role of men and women, etc are all "truths" that are sort of true in their own time, but not necessarily true in our time, because the "science" or the "culture," our understanding of things or whatever goes through "change."

There is exactly one word that perfectly describes anyone who has such an outlook on Scriptural exegesis, and that is this word: Modernist.

Quote

In that sense, your view of things seems to be an expression of the phrase, "everything is relative." After all, you can't be certain that our "science" today is accurate, either. All you can be certain of, is that today we think it is, just like the men of centuries/millennia [millennii is the nominative plural in Latin for this second declension noun] ago thought theirs was.

The point is, Renzo, jaundice is just a pathetic troll, and he takes perverted pleasure in aggravating other members with his inanities, twisted contorted self-contradictions and stupidities. As such, he is not interested in any truth other than the truth that whatever-it-is that he's posting right now is going to make another member react to what he posts. For him, that is "success." All the threads on CI are so much easier to read if you don't have to read his goofy and useless drivel.

.