Author Topic: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book (Read 3106 times)

JmJ2cents · « **on:** February 20, 2019, 08:52:02 PM »

:applause:

Talk about courage!
The Kolbe Center (sponsored by the Resistance faithful and “Mr. G” of Cathinfo in particular) is taking the battle for the faith right into the heart of occupied St. Mary’s, KS to give two days of conferences about the errors of Fr. Robinson’s modernist book.
Now that’s the kind of Resistance we have been waiting for!
I copied/pasted this from CI (and I will be there as well):

- - UPDATE * * *

Kolbe Center for Creation will have seminar in Saint Mary’s, Kansas:
March 22: 6:30 PM to 8:00 PM
March 23: 10 AM to 5 PM
at the Armory building in St. Marys, KS
Admission free, but donations suggested (to help cover costs)
A detailed scheduled will be available soon.

klasG4e · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2019, 09:45:10 PM »

Banezian · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2019, 11:31:58 PM »

The Kolbe Center is ridiculous

apollo · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2019, 12:28:46 AM »

Two links that make the Kolbe Center look not-so-good ...

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/st-maximilian-kolbe-geocentrist/

https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/st-maximilian-kolbe%E2%80%99s-disagreement-with-the-kolbe-center

Incredulous · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2019, 12:42:24 AM »

Quote from: apollo on February 21, 2019, 12:28:46 AM

Two links that make the Kolbe Center look not-so-good ...

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/st-maximilian-kolbe-geocentrist/

https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/st-maximilian-kolbe%E2%80%99s-disagreement-with-the-kolbe-center

Both site authored by Fr. Robinson?

Incredulous · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2019, 12:43:22 AM »

Quote from: Banezian on February 20, 2019, 11:31:58 PM

The Kolbe Center is ridiculous

And you're a ridiculous narcissistic punk :jumping2:

Banezian · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2019, 01:06:32 AM »

Quote from: apollo on February 21, 2019, 12:28:46 AM

Two links that make the Kolbe Center look not-so-good ...

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/st-maximilian-kolbe-geocentrist/

https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/st-maximilian-kolbe%E2%80%99s-disagreement-with-the-kolbe-center

Correct

apollo · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2019, 01:13:01 AM »

Quote from: Incredulous on February 21, 2019, 12:42:24 AM

Both site authored by Fr. Robinson?

The page at Geocentrism Debunked is written by David Palm and
he quotes Fr Robinson. So what? Prove him wrong !
Read my lips. Prove him wrong !

cassini · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2019, 02:40:11 PM »

Introduction
St. Maximilian Kolbe’s Disagreement with the Kolbe Center

The Kolbe Center designates itself as “a Catholic apostolate dedicated to proclaiming the truth about the origins of man & the universe”. That ‘truth’ amounts to a purportedly Catholic version of what is really just modern Protestant creationism, the idea—more properly referred to as ‘biblicism’—that God intended for the Bible to teach science through a strictly literal interpretation of the Biblical text. This idea leads the Kolbe Center to conclude that the Bible teaches geocentrism, a 6000 year age of the universe, and a Deluge that covered the entire Earth, instead of a limited part of it. Since they insist that this is what the Bible teaches, and the Bible is inerrant (as we all agree), they also conclude that this is what the Church teaches.

Ahem, ahem. The facts are that Geocentrism was the belief of all the Fathers in the Church until heliocentrism, a long held Pythagorean heresy, was introduced back into Europe by way of Cosimo de medici in 1460. Creation ex nihilo, in six days or immediately, was also traditionally held by all in the Church prior to the first theory of Evolution, the 'Nebular hypothesis' in 1796, another heresy, that THEIR solar-system evolved by way of atoms. Thus we can see these 'beliefs' are MODERN not traditional.

In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who, with a half dozen other Cardinals who presided over the trial of the heretic Bruno, wrote:

'Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’

In 1616 Pope Paul V, by way of papal decree, confirmed biblical geocentrism as irreformable truth by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 because iot was the interpretation of ALL THE FATHERS, and in Pope Pius VII time in 1820 once more confirmed as papal and non-reformable, a decree never challenged by any pope since. If Fr Robinson can show us such a rejection or clarification, then he wins his case. If he cannot then in God's eyes, in His Church, Geocentrism is more than an opinion, it is a dogma.

In 1741, popes and churchmen we being criticised and laughed at for upholding the 1616 decree because they claimed heliocentrism was proven by science. Because of this philosophical criticism Pope Benedict XIV took one prohibition of heliocentric books off the Index. This was interpreted by many as an admittance that the 1616 decree was an error.
By 1820, this criticism and laughter at the Church's ban on the initial 5 pro-heliocentric books reached an all time high. Atheists, agnostics and Modernists were at the forefront of this demand that the Church admit it made an error in 1616 and should take the word of modern astronomers and philosophers and admit their mistake.

But the Catholic Church cannot reject papal decrees. So what did the Holy Office do. A guy called Fr Olivieri, a 19th century Fr Robinson, reinterpreted the irreversible decree to make it look like it called a violent heliocentrism the heresy defined in 1616, but that the heliocentrism of 1820 was not a violent one. Thus the Catholic Church had its infallible 1616 decree safe and sound in its archives while at the same time got Pope Pius VII to take the last 5 books off the index and allow heliocentrism, but always prefixed with the words 'according to modern astronomers.' This of course was a con-trick of Olivieri's because the same fixed sun heliocentrism is contained in the two heliocentric theories of 1820. This was the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY churchmen CHEATED a heresy off the books and allowed it and its OFFSPRING to INFILTRATE THE WOMB OF THE CHURCH. And what were the poisoned fruits of the heliocentric heresy?

The first was that to avoid another such 'embarrassing SCANDAL' again, no pope dared dogmatised any doctrine on Creation. Thus there was MODERNIST freedom to invent anything, call it science, and apply it to Genesis, and MODERNISM IS YOUR UNCLE. This the Freemasons did at will.

This is where they go astray.
Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that:

Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude.
The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science.
Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.

And here above you see the result of the 1820 'hijacking' of the Bible and science. Such was the Modernist reinterpreting of Scripture, Leo XIII had to try to stop it with an encyclical. But this Letter on Scripture HAD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE 1820 U-TURN and the reasons given by Fr Olivieri to his Pope to allow 'modern astronomy.' So it became a heliocentric encyclical when it reiterated the EXCUSES used to bypass the 1616 decree in its infamous paragraph 15.

‘15: But [the interpreter] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’--- Providentissimus Deus.

Anyone who claims it dictates traditional Catholic exegesis and understanding is WRONG, for it a product of the Galilean reformation when it included the very words of Galileo when he said all the Fathers were wrong in their interpretation. Indeed it is an anti-all the Fathers encyclical because it had been used endlessly as a licence to promote a heretical heliocentric interpretation held by all the Fathers. Indeed it NEVER STATES TRENT'S TEACHING ABOUT ALL THE FATHERS, for me it kind of tricks its way around it by stating 'to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done.' Now anyone reading this would think it changes Trent's teaching WHEN ALL THE FATHERS AGREE especially the one it has in mind, the Out geocentric, in heliocentric one.
We can of course add to the above any other change in interpretation based on long ages and the evolution of Flora and Fauna. More proof of its hidden bad fruits is that Fr Robinson uses it to promote his herretical nonsense.

Notwithstanding the authority of this encyclical and succeeding pre-Vatican II encyclicals on Scripture; notwithstanding the fact that biblicism has never been a position of the Catholic Church, but rather has its origins in Protestantism; notwithstanding the clear evidence that pre-Vatican II Catholic exegetes, including those fully orthodox, did not countenance the creationist position in their Scripture manuals and scholarly Biblical journals—despite all this, the Kolbe Center claims that creationist biblicism is the ‘traditional Catholic doctrine of creation’.

So now it time to shoot the messenger, just like St Anthonasius was. Indeed if anyone want a true Traditional Catholic encyclical on the Bible, Pope Benedict XV's Spiritus Paractlitus is one. As we would expect, the Pope had to address 99% of the correctness of Pope Leo's last Letter, but he did not give licence for Fr Robinson to peervert Genesis with his heresies;

19. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase - and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture - yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration - namely, absolute truth and immunity from error - are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest - things concerning "profane knowledge," the garments in which Divine truth is presented - God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!
20. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since - so they claim - he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external - and thus deceptive - appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things - of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks - we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture.

So there you have it, How the DEVIKL did it and is still at it whi Fr Robinsdon and his lot on this thread.

apollo · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2019, 03:15:36 PM »

Quote from: cassini on February 21, 2019, 02:40:11 PM

Ahem, ahem. The facts are that Geocentrism was the belief of all the Fathers in the Church until heliocentrism, a long held Pythagorean heresy, was introduced back into Europe by way of Cosimo de medici in 1460. Creation ex nihilo, in six days or immediately, was also traditionally held by all in the Church prior to the first theory of Evolution, the 'Nebular hypothesis' in 1796, another heresy, that THEIR solar-system evolved by way of atoms. Thus we can see these 'beliefs' are MODERN not traditional.

In 1615 Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who, with a half dozen other Cardinals who presided over the trial of the heretic Bruno, wrote:

.
You failed to mention the disclaimer that St Robert Bellarmine said, as follow:
.
"8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them, than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated."
.
And you also failed to mention the disclaimer of St Augustine, as follows:
.
"If what they [astronomers] say is proved by unquestionable arguments, this holy Father does not say that the astronomers are to be ordered to dissolve their proofs and declare their own conclusions to be false. Rather, he says it must be demonstrated that what is meant in the Bible ... is not contrary to their proofs."
.
They never make this kind of disclaimer on infallible teachings of the Church, such as the divinity of Christ,
so your claim that Geocentrism is an infallible teaching of the Church is a damn LIE.
.
BTW, I am taking a college course in astronomy and I'm going to invite the whole class and the professor
over to my house for dinner next Sunday. How would you like to come over and help me convert them to
Catholicism, by giving your proof of Geocentrism?
.

Banezian · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2019, 04:00:36 PM »

Quote from: apollo on February 21, 2019, 03:15:36 PM

.
You failed to mention the disclaimer that St Robert Bellarmine said, as follow:
.
"8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them, than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated."
.
And you also failed to mention the disclaimer of St Augustine, as follows:
.
"If what they [astronomers] say is proved by unquestionable arguments, this holy Father does not say that the astronomers are to be ordered to dissolve their proofs and declare their own conclusions to be false. Rather, he says it must be demonstrated that what is meant in the Bible ... is not contrary to their proofs."
.
They never make this kind of disclaimer on infallible teachings of the Church, such as the divinity of Christ,
so your claim that Geocentrism is an infallible teaching of the Church is a damn LIE.
.
BTW, I am taking a college course in astronomy and I'm going to invite the whole class and the professor
over to my house for dinner next Sunday. How would you like to come over and help me convert them to
Catholicism, by giving your proof of Geocentrism?
.

Yes. The Fathers were not dogmatic on these things

cassini · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2019, 04:51:55 PM »

Quote from: apollo on February 21, 2019, 03:15:36 PM

.
You failed to mention the disclaimer that St Robert Bellarmine said, as follow:
.
"8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them, than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated."
.
And you also failed to mention the disclaimer of St Augustine, as follows:
.
"If what they [astronomers] say is proved by unquestionable arguments, this holy Father does not say that the astronomers are to be ordered to dissolve their proofs and declare their own conclusions to be false. Rather, he says it must be demonstrated that what is meant in the Bible ... is not contrary to their proofs."
.
They never make this kind of disclaimer on infallible teachings of the Church, such as the divinity of Christ,
so your claim that Geocentrism is an infallible teaching of the Church is a damn LIE.
.
BTW, I am taking a college course in astronomy and I'm going to invite the whole class and the professor
over to my house for dinner next Sunday. How would you like to come over and help me convert them to
Catholicism, by giving your proof of Geocentrism?
.

Oh my Apollo, how does one reply to someone who I suspect is not for turning. First you are correct, I did not give all of Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini, only the bit relevant to show the geocentrism of Scripture was a matter of FAITH.

What you 'failed to mention' was the last bit of your quote that agrees with the facts then and now:

‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the Earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the Earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

Ever heard of Albert Einstein Apollo? Do you not know he too admitted heliocentrism was not proven, just like Bellarmine said. The same goes for St Augustine. You quote him as though proof for heliocentrism was shown.

Now if I am a Liar regarding infallibility, then so too was Pope Urban VII, and the Holy Office of 1820. I do not decide what is infallible or not as you seen to, I go by what the Church teaches.

Finally, I would love to join your class but I am too far away. And it is God who converts people. He uses others yes, but they must be open to the truth first. Now if I was there, and maybe you will pass this on, I would tell them that proof for God is in His creation (a Catholic dogma). Then tell them about the creation that God made. Everything is PERFECT, everything they need for life ,like air, food of every kind and flavour, clothing of so many kinds, stone and cement materials man needs for housing, and so many kinds of timber, metal, glass etc., etc., comes from the Earth He created. Do they really think nature on its own came from nothing to provide every single one of man's needs? What about a field of clay? Does anyone really believe such material that can provide endless supplies of food happened by chance?
As for astronomy, do they know that the Bible tells us that there are as many stars as grains of sand on Earth? Ask them to count the number of grains in one handful. It will take them years to count one handful. That is God showing us His Omnipotence. Ask them if they ever heard of God's astronomer Giovanni Cassini who showed us Kepler and Newton's ellipse was wrong, that the real orbits are electromagnetic Cassinian ovals, the same ovals found in blood cells, snails, leaves and God knows how many other things in God's creation. Any of them believe in an electromagnetic universe (God created 'light.' Finally, according to Science, a la Einstein, geocentrism is as possible as heliocentrism. But according to stellar aberration only a geocentric universe is possible in Einstein's STR. How many of your pupils could understand why this is so?

Instead I would say you will probably tell them evolution is only possible if God does the miracles needed to make the impossible things necessary for evolution to work. Finally, no man can prove geocentrism or geocentrism. All man has to go on in science is evidence, and the only evidence is in favour of geocentrism. We see it working every day with our own eyes. But there is another way to truth, divine truth called faith. Catholics are supposed to believe in what we can see. we are also supposed to believe what the Bible says, and what all the Fathers say the Bible says. They all say the Earth is at the center and that the sun, moon, planets asnd stars go around it in a manner that gives us day and night for sleep, seasons for growth and rest for plants. Tell them to watch God at work in the trees around them. Pieces of wood suddenly give out leaves and flowers, just like magic. How did evolution arrange such miracles every year?

apollo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2019, 08:00:30 PM »

Quote from: cassini on February 21, 2019, 04:51:55 PM

1. I did not give all of Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini, only the bit relevant to show the geocentrism of Scripture was a matter of FAITH.

2. Ever heard of Albert Einstein Apollo? Do you not know he too admitted heliocentrism was not proven, just like Bellarmine said. The same goes for St Augustine. You quote him as though proof for heliocentrism was shown.

3. Now if I am a Liar regarding infallibility, then so too was Pope Urban [Pius actually] VII, and the Holy Office of 1820. I do not decide what is infallible or not as you seem to, I go by what the Church teaches.

4. Finally, I would love to join your class but I am too far away ... blah, blah, blah.
As for astronomy, do they know that the Bible tells us that there are as many stars ... blah, blah, blah.
Any of them believe in an electromagnetic universe ... blah, blah, blah.

5. Instead I would say you will probably tell them evolution is only possible if God ... blah, blah, blah.

6. Finally, no man can prove geocentrism or geocentrism [heliocentrism?]. All man has to go on in science is evidence, and the only evidence is in favour of geocentrism. We see it working every day with our own eyes. [telescopes are useless?] But there is another way to truth, divine truth called faith. Catholics are supposed to believe in what we can see. we are also supposed to believe what the Bible says, [the earth shall not be moved? What a scientific statement.] and what all the Fathers say the Bible says [now the Fathers are infallible?]. They all say the Earth is at the center [the word "center" is not in the Bible, anywhere.] and that the sun, moon, planets and stars go around it in a manner that gives us day and night ... blah, blah, blah.

.
1. If Geocentrism is a matter of Faith, then the Catholic Church has contradicted itself. Pope Paul VII (1616 decree) disagrees with Pope Pius VII (1822 decree). Either the Holy Spirit has contradicted Himself [not possible] or it's NOT a matter of Faith [very possible] or Pope Paul VII is a heretic and all following popes are heretics for failure to call him a heretic [not very likely].
.
2. I never said anything about Heliocentrism. I said Geocentrism is NOT a matter of Faith. Pope Pius VII decree of 1822 says the same. If the Church Fathers believed that bloodletting cures headaches is that a matter of Faith? Scripture's proof of Geocentrism is nonexistent. Scripture is written in the language of the day. That's what Pope Leo XIII said in "Providentissimus Deus". Do you realize that if you are standing on Mars, the Sun will appear to COME UP in the morning and GO DOWN in the evening. So then Mars must be the center of the universe [not a good measure for which planet is the center of the universe, because they all rotate, except for Mercury].
.
3. The current teaching of the Church is that it cannot reject Heliocentrism and cannot refused to give permission to publish material favorable to Heliocentrism, the decree of 1822 by Pope Pius VII. You do NOT go by this, therefore you have LIED again.
.
4. They believe in telescopes, a serious problem for Geocentrism. The ASTRONOMY class has nothing to do with Darwin and his "evolution". It's more about what can be observed with telescopes. Ever heard of Stellar Paralax. It cannot be observed without
telescopes. It can be observed with good telescopes, which actually disproves Geocentrism. Sorry.
.
5. It's not about Evolution nor Modernism. It's about looking through telescopes. No faith required.
.
6. The evidence is NOT in favor of Geocentrism. The evidence shows that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. The evidence is called, Stellar Paralax. There is another problem for Geocentrism. The galaxy of Andromeda would have to be traveling in orbit around the Earth at a speed of 6,000,000 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Neptune would have to be going faster than the speed of light.
.
I look forward to your next "blah, blah, blah", repetition of all the lies you keep publishing.
.

Banezian · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2019, 08:17:06 PM »

Quote from: apollo on February 21, 2019, 08:00:30 PM

.
1. If Geocentrism is a matter of Faith, then the Catholic Church has contradicted itself. Pope Paul VII (1616 decree) disagrees with Pope Pius VII (1822 decree). Either the Holy Spirit has contradicted Himself [not possible] or it's NOT a matter of Faith [very possible] or Pope Paul VII is a heretic and all following popes are heretics for failure to call him a heretic [not very likely].
.
2. I never said anything about Heliocentrism. I said Geocentrism is NOT a matter of Faith. Pope Pius VII decree of 1822 says the same. If the Church Fathers believed that bloodletting cures headaches is that a matter of Faith? Scripture's proof of Geocentrism is nonexistent. Scripture is written in the language of the day. That's what Pope Leo XIII said in "Providentissimus Deus". Do you realize that if you are standing on Mars, the Sun will appear to COME UP in the morning and GO DOWN in the evening. So then Mars must be the center of the universe [not a good measure for which planet is the center of the universe, because they all rotate, except for Mercury].
.
3. The current teaching of the Church is that it cannot reject Heliocentrism and cannot refused to give permission to publish material favorable to Heliocentrism, the decree of 1822 by Pope Pius VII. You do NOT go by this, therefore you have LIED again.
.
4. They believe in telescopes, a serious problem for Geocentrism. The ASTRONOMY class has nothing to do with Darwin and his "evolution". It's more about what can be observed with telescopes. Ever heard of Stellar Paralax. It cannot be observed without
telescopes. It can be observed with good telescopes, which actually disproves Geocentrism. Sorry.
.
5. It's not about Evolution nor Modernism. It's about looking through telescopes. No faith required.
.
6. The evidence is NOT in favor of Geocentrism. The evidence shows that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. The evidence is called, Stellar Paralax. There is another problem for Geocentrism. The galaxy of Andromeda would have to be traveling in orbit around the Earth at a speed of 6,000,000 TIMES THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Neptune would have to be going faster than the speed of light.
.
I look forward to your next "blah, blah, blah", repetition of all the lies you keep publishing.
.

All correct. Finally, someone who has the patience to correct these fundie nuts

cassini · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2019, 06:58:27 AM »

Quote from: apollo on February 21, 2019, 08:00:30 PM

.
1. If Geocentrism is a matter of Faith, then the Catholic Church has contradicted itself. Pope Paul VII (1616 decree) disagrees with Pope Pius VII (1822 decree). Either the Holy Spirit has contradicted Himself [not possible] or it's NOT a matter of Faith [very possible] or Pope Paul VII is a heretic and all following popes are heretics for failure to call him a heretic [not very likely].

I look forward to your next "blah, blah, blah", repetition of all the lies you keep publishing.

1. The Catholic Church does not contradict itself. But one has to know the difference between the 'Catholic Church' and the utterences and behaviour of men. When a Pope defines a matter of faith or morals, he speaks for the Catholic Church. That was the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V. Vatican Council I set out the conditions for infallibility for this 1616 decree:

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)

When a pope puts a book on the index, or takes one off it, that is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. That is what Pope Pius VII and Gregory XVI did in 1820 and 1835. Pope Paul VI took every book off the Index in 1965, but every heresy in them remained heresies. Pope Paul VI was never accused of allowing the heresies in these books as you infer happened in 1820 and after that. Those who allow or promulgate heresies are heretics, but there are different KINDS of heresies and heritics. There are formal heretics, those who know what they are promulgating is opposed to a Church dogmas and there are material heretics, those who do not know what they allow or believe is directly contrary to a dogma. And in this case the popes were told the non-violent heliocentrism was NOT HERETICAL and that is the heliocentrism these popes allowed. Material heresy does not result in punishment. However, if one is shown the truth and one choses to deny the 1616 dercree, then their material heresy becomes formal.

Author Topic: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book (Read 3106 times)

JmJ2cents

Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

klasG4e

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

Banezian

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

apollo

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

Incredulous

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

Incredulous

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

Banezian

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

apollo

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

cassini

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

apollo

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

Banezian

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

cassini

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

apollo

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

Banezian

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book

cassini

Re: Kolbe Center Conference in St. Mary's about the errors of Fr. Robinsons book