Author Topic: Response to an anti-Resistance heckler (Read 3852 times)

Matthew · « **on:** May 12, 2014, 11:19:15 AM »

I got another angry e-mail from an anti-Resistance heckler. He can't seem to leave CathInfo for so much as a day, however. One of his complaints in this morning's e-mail was something posted a small number of hours ago!

Here is what I wrote back:

Quote

Nothing I say is going to convince you, but you'll be in a group like FSSP one day and you won't care.
You can have it.

It's not my revolution; it wasn't me that decided to refashion the SSPX. Just like Archbishop Lefebvre wasn't responsible for Vatican II -- he just reacted to it. He was an innocent party, not a "rebel" like the ENTIRE MEDIA painted him.

I don't know what man or men came up with the satanic idea to turn the SSPX into a pro-modernist-Rome Indult-like organization.
I do know, however, that I can't go along with it.

I have a right to fight Modernism, modernist Rome, and any other heresies and heretics. I have a right to be Catholic and keep the Faith.

He was also upset because I approved of Geocentrism. Here is what I wrote back about that:

Quote

Oh, and by the way I felt exactly like you a couple of weeks ago. I was angry and indignant about Geocentrism, accusing the Popes since 1835 of ignorance or allowing material heresy, etc.

I suggest you look into it, like I did.

Or why don't you answer the running challenge -- just give me ONE EXPERIMENT that has been done which proves that the Earth moves.

I assumed there were dozens or hundreds of such proofs. It turns out there isn't one. And in fact, when they tried to measure the Earth's movement, they inadvertently proved that the Earth doesn't move. There are some great quotes from the bad guys, too -- admitting that Geocentrism is one of the ways to interpret the current evidence, but they froth at the mouth and say, "But I can never accept that!!!" because it means that we're accountable to a personal God, Scripture is truthful, etc.

JPaul · « **Reply #1 on:** May 12, 2014, 02:23:34 PM »

Matthew, are you familiar with that persistent sound of a mosquito buzzing in your ear??

:really-mad2:

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** May 12, 2014, 02:24:53 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Matthew, are you familiar with that persistent sound of a mosquito buzzing in your ear??

:really-mad2:

I am now! hahaha

cantatedomino · « **Reply #3 on:** May 12, 2014, 05:43:25 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

He was also upset because I approved of Geocentrism. Here is what I wrote back about that:

Quote
Oh, and by the way I felt exactly like you a couple of weeks ago. I was angry and indignant about Geocentrism, accusing the Popes since 1835 of ignorance or allowing material heresy, etc.

I suggest you look into it, like I did.

Or why don't you answer the running challenge -- just give me ONE EXPERIMENT that has been done which proves that the Earth moves.

I assumed there were dozens or hundreds of such proofs. It turns out there isn't one. And in fact, when they tried to measure the Earth's movement, they inadvertently proved that the Earth doesn't move. There are some great quotes from the bad guys, too -- admitting that Geocentrism is one of the ways to interpret the current evidence, but they froth at the mouth and say, "But I can never accept that!!!" because it means that we're accountable to a personal God, Scripture is truthful, etc.

Matthew,

This is perhaps the single most edifying thing I've read in well over ten years.

I cannot thank you enough for your honesty and your intellectual integrity.

Hat's off to you!

Matto · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2014, 02:26:45 PM »

Wow, SG is very upset.

stgobnait · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2014, 02:36:26 PM »

No, thats a good day for sg......

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2014, 04:31:02 PM »

Geocentricism is really a non issue. To tie that in with the current crisis in the Church or the SSPX is fruitless in my opinion. It is a barrier to discussing the important issues like saint montinis and the hordes of extraterrestrials that may convert and require baptism (assuming they can tolerate water and salt).

cantatedomino · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2014, 07:38:40 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Geocentricism is really a non issue. To tie that in with the current crisis in the Church or the SSPX is fruitless in my opinion. It is a barrier to discussing the important issues like saint montinis and the hordes of extraterrestrials that may convert and require baptism (assuming they can tolerate water and salt).

Yes. A non-issue. Sure. That's what I've been saying all along. :tinfoil:

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2014, 08:50:47 PM »

Quote

Therefore, if you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above; where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God: Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:19:23 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Geocentricism is really a non issue. To tie that in with the current crisis in the Church or the SSPX is fruitless in my opinion. It is a barrier to discussing the important issues like saint montinis and the hordes of extraterrestrials that may convert and require baptism (assuming they can tolerate water and salt).

While I can appreciate what makes you say this, Centroamerica, it's a bit rash to leap to the conclusion that it's a 'non-issue'.

The proponents of scientism have been muttering that it's a 'non-issue' for many decades now. But then again, the liberals on our school boards have been pushing for 'evolution' indoctrination in science and history classes for just as long, and now they've taken control of the specifications for textbooks and the standards for scholastic aptitude tests. As of this year, students applying to college must demonstrate that they are conversant in the core tenets of evolution (they can't really test them to see if they believe it!) in order to be admitted to college. Did you know that?

Take this back just one step, and recognize that if geocentrism were not a BANNED topic in schools, this penchant to demand of college applicants familiarity with the grown-ups' fairy tale of 'evolution' wouldn't be seeing the light of day. But since geocentrism is presumed from the start to be a NON-ISSUE (gee -- where have I heard that one before??!!) consequently, the bad hypothesis of 'evolution' gets center stage in the theater of the pretexts of known knowledge.

For if geocentrism were understood for what it really is instead of what its enemies have managed to convince so many that it is, the fallacies of the "saint montinis" would be a whole lot easier to see for what they are, too.

We are living in an age of deception, when the philosopher proclaims that "Everything is relative!" and anyone who raises up a question gets an atom bomb dropped down on his head: "E = m c squared ---- so THERE!"

In the end, I wholeheartedly share your disdain for the swelling tide of "saint montinis" and I'm ON YOUR SIDE. I would only hope that perhaps you might come to realize (as apparently Matthew has, in his typically intellectually honest way) that the freedom of scientific inquiry that SHOULD surround the study of science has curiously and conspicuously managed to erect a shroud of secrecy over the unsupportability of the Copernican Principle, and in the process has managed to perpetrate the ILLUSION that it is rather proven by science!

Just ask roscoe-the-brainwashed what he thinks. If you dare. He'll tell you:

E revolves around S

it's a proven fact :smoke-pot:

.

Matthew · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:22:47 PM »

I thought roscoe maintained that the S revolves around the E.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:25:58 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Matthew
He was also upset because I approved of Geocentrism. Here is what I wrote back about that:

Quote
Oh, and by the way I felt exactly like you a couple of weeks ago. I was angry and indignant about Geocentrism, accusing the Popes since 1835 of ignorance or allowing material heresy, etc.

I suggest you look into it, like I did.

Or why don't you answer the running challenge -- just give me ONE EXPERIMENT that has been done which proves that the Earth moves.

I assumed there were dozens or hundreds of such proofs. It turns out there isn't one. And in fact, when they tried to measure the Earth's movement, they inadvertently proved that the Earth doesn't move. There are some great quotes from the bad guys, too -- admitting that Geocentrism is one of the ways to interpret the current evidence, but they froth at the mouth and say, "But I can never accept that!!!" because it means that we're accountable to a personal God, Scripture is truthful, etc.

Matthew,

This is perhaps the single most edifying thing I've read in well over ten years.

I cannot thank you enough for your honesty and your intellectual integrity.

Hat's off to you!

If you don't mind my saying so, this is not a small compliment coming from cantatedomino.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2014, 11:12:05 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

I thought roscoe maintained that the S revolves around the E.

What he says is that S revolves around E is a 'HERESY' of sola scriptura protestants.

What he says never makes much sense but he most certainly has been saying that "E rev around S" for at least 6 years, consistently:

Quote from: roscoe

According to Pope Greg XIII, the Earth revolves around the Sun. The idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun has been incorperated into the function of the Gregorian Calendar of the Roman Church. See Pastor vol's 19 and 25 for a complete explanation of this dilema. ... (3-24-2008)

the Earth revolves around then Sun. L. Pastor's confusing of the terms rotation and revolution in v29 of his History ... (3-23-2008)

I believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. (7-5-2008)

It's called Sola Scriptura and the famous promoters of this heresy-- Luther, Calvin, James, De Vere, Bacon etc believed S to rev around E (9-4-2010)

E rev around S (2-9-14)

The E rev around S hypothesis has been around since b4 the time of Jesus. (2-10-14)

[and finally]:

[Post]
I have done so on a number of occasions but apparently it needs to be repeated. My understanding of Copernicanism( Copernican Astronomical Hypothesis) is that is it composed of 3 parts.
1--- E rev around S--OK fine
2--- therefore S( not E ) is fixed--- not so fine
3--- S is center of U--- not so fine
Verdict--- taken as all 3 articles( which is what it is) Copernicanism is a false hypothesis.
Part of it however( Article 1) has been proven true.

His penchant for mislocating spaces around parentheses( like this) has been contagious.

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #13 on:** May 14, 2014, 02:38:04 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote from: Matthew
He was also upset because I approved of Geocentrism. Here is what I wrote back about that:

Quote
Oh, and by the way I felt exactly like you a couple of weeks ago. I was angry and indignant about Geocentrism, accusing the Popes since 1835 of ignorance or allowing material heresy, etc.

I suggest you look into it, like I did.

Or why don't you answer the running challenge -- just give me ONE EXPERIMENT that has been done which proves that the Earth moves.

I assumed there were dozens or hundreds of such proofs. It turns out there isn't one. And in fact, when they tried to measure the Earth's movement, they inadvertently proved that the Earth doesn't move. There are some great quotes from the bad guys, too -- admitting that Geocentrism is one of the ways to interpret the current evidence, but they froth at the mouth and say, "But I can never accept that!!!" because it means that we're accountable to a personal God, Scripture is truthful, etc.

Matthew,

This is perhaps the single most edifying thing I've read in well over ten years.

I cannot thank you enough for your honesty and your intellectual integrity.

Hat's off to you!

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2014, 02:40:43 AM »

I have not read much on Geocentrism- but after reading Matthew's post and Cantantedomino's comment I guess I will have to now...