Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book  (Read 7341 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JmJ2cents

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 125
  • Reputation: +144/-24
  • Gender: Female
Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2018, 11:53:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is a possibility that this could just be an act of damage control.  In other words the Superiors will do nothing to make believe that the conservative side of the SSPX is still tolerated.  I heard from a friend on FB that he was upset at those who said he was a brave priest for publicly opposing Fr. Robinson's book and for the article from Tradidi.  

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1920
    • Reputation: +1076/-157
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #16 on: November 09, 2018, 12:00:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • I have no real interest in Fr. Robinson's book, or in Fr. Rusak's responses, although I think I would probably agree with Fr. Rusak. But of immense interest would be Fr. R's immediate future.  Will he keep his present assignment, or will he be sent to some African country,... or worse, will he be driven from the Society altogether?  We all know how the former regime treated dissident priests.  Does the change in leadership signal a greater tolerance and a change of direction?  Or will it simply be more of the same some kind of harsh treatment meted out to Fr. Rusak?  We're all standing by.

    The hardest thing for many -- perhaps, most -- people to wrap their head around is how in the world the entire universe could go around the Earth once every 24 hours.  Actually, mainstream science itself allows for this as completely possible and not only once every 24 hours, but many, many, many times more than that.  Many mainstream scientists who don't want to lose their jobs, funding, prestige, peer acceptance, etc., however disallow (at least openly) for the Earth being in the center of the universe and the universe going around it not for scientific reasons, but for purely philosophical reasons.  The honest ones and some of the most famous ones have openly admitted this.  If the Earth sits motionless at the center of the universe it means Someone with a capital S put it there!  That is what doesn't sit well with them -- at all.  Ultimately, it is that simple.

    A key concept in coming to understand how the universe can travel around the Earth is aether.  Space is NOT empty!  The stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc. are able to freely move around in the aether (which is incredibly dense while at the same time incredibly fluid), but at the same time are carried by it; carried by it around the Earth every 24 hours.

    What will happen to the good Padre?  I'm betting that he is likely the least one to give it much thought as long as he can serve God in trying to continue to save souls in whatever way the Good Lord allows him to.

    The seeming enigma related to Fr. Rusak's review is that it was allowed to be posted on the website of the Angelus Press in the first place.  This appears to be totally unprecedented and one may rightly wonder: 1) how it came about, and 2) whether it will be allowed to remain on the site.  (On 2 separate occasions I submitted a somewhat similar review on the site, but neither has ever been posted, nor do I expect either ever will be.  That is why I was utterly astounded when I saw Fr. Rusak's review go up.)


    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1920
    • Reputation: +1076/-157
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #17 on: November 09, 2018, 01:21:51 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Now -- up, up, and away -- on youtube!


    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1920
    • Reputation: +1076/-157
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #18 on: November 09, 2018, 03:54:20 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Now -- up, up, and away -- on youtube!


    Starts in on geocentrism at 33:25.  After all this time and total debunking of stellar parallex as proof of heliocentrism, Fr. Robinson still keeps clinging to it as his "gospel" truth for same!  As they say, "Da nile ain't just a river in Egypt."

    Online Ladislaus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 16489
    • Reputation: +9039/-3679
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #19 on: November 09, 2018, 07:39:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • There is a possibility that this could just be an act of damage control.  In other words the Superiors will do nothing to make believe that the conservative side of the SSPX is still tolerated.

    So SSPX playing a game of "good cop bad cop".


    Online cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1637
    • Reputation: +923/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #20 on: November 09, 2018, 04:24:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
  • https://sspx.org/en/media/video/mission-nigeria-29898 where he would have to write on the blackboard 100 times a day until thoroughly memorized what is found here: http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus

    Quoting SSPX on geocentrism:

    'So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.'

    It is perfectly clear to me that a society of priests claiming to be true to tradition, haven't a clue with regard to the historical Galileo affair. Their ignorance is shocking and should be confronted with a few facts about the religion the profess.

    'Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium' they state, 'Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science.' Would that they tell us where the Church's 'magisterium' teaches us this. It is usually attributed to Cardinal Baroneous (1538 to 1607) to make it look Catholic, but in fact it was the Protestant Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) who coined this 'Church's magisterium' post-Galileo 'dogma.'

    ‘Before he left Varmia in 1541 [when Baronius was 3-years-old] Rheticus had composed his own small tract to demonstrate the absence of conflict between heliocentrism and the Bible…. He went on to make a distinction that is still part of the faith-science dialogue: In the Bible the Holy Spirit’s intention, declared Rheticus, is not to teach science but to impart spiritual truths “necessary for Salvation.” Moreover, whatever descriptions of nature that do appear in the Scriptures, they are “accommodated to the popular understanding.”’---Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, Walker & Co., 2006, p.108

    Why even the Protestants used this new dogma long ago:

    ‘The retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult. A little skilful warping of Scripture, a little skilful use of that time-honoured phrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible is given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but how men go to heaven, and a free use of the explosive rhetoric against the pursuing army of scientists, sufficed.’ ----Andrew White, A History...

    But now back to the main issue. The Galileo case was not about 'natural science' as the SSPX puts it, it was about the correct interpretation of Scripture. St Thomas has long stated the Church has no obligation to consider 'natural science' when interpreting Scripture. Its job is to interpret Scripture properly.

    The only time the 'Church's magisterium' was used as regards the subject matter was when Pope Paul V in 1616 decreed the Scripture reveal an orbiting sun as the TRUE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE. This had NOTHING to do with the science of it. The Church does not DEFINE MATTERS OF NATURAL SCIENCE, only dogmas of the Catholic faith. It was defined BEFORE any scientific claim was proven as to whether the sun orbits the Earth or the other way around.

    Once FreeMasonry fooled churchmen that the earth orbits the sun, there began IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE GALILEAN REFORMATION. ANYTHING said by popes after 1835 on the matter WAS INFLUENCED BY THEIR ERERONEOUS BELIEF THAT HELIOCENTRISM WAS PROVEN. Nothing after 1616 can be attributed to the 'Church's magisterium,' only to false utterences by popes that the SSPX now consider their 'Church's magisterium.'

    Finally, read the SSPX statement again above. 'So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science.' NO BUT IT IS OK FOR CATHOLICS TO USE SCIENCE TO REINTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES. Human science is not infallible like Pope Paul V's interpretation of Scripture, it is VERY FALLIBLE. As it turned out scientific heliocentrism was found NEVER TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN. Did the SSPX never hear of Albert Einstein? In 1905 he told the world the true order of the universe is a METAPHYSICAL matter.

    OH IF ONLY THE SSPX COULD SEE THE LIGHT. COPY THIS AND GIVE IT TO THEM.

    I will address their references to biblical encyclicals tomorrow.

    Offline JoeZ

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 171
    • Reputation: +109/-5
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #21 on: November 09, 2018, 05:17:04 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.
    Pray the Holy Rosary.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 22413
    • Reputation: +19637/-140
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #22 on: November 09, 2018, 06:12:30 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • If things ever get rough for Fr. Rusak, he can always contact Bishop Zendejas. If he doesn't have the Bishop's contact info, he can always get in touch with me (matthew at cathinfo dot com) and I'll be glad to help.
    Start your Amazon.com session by clicking this link, and my family and I get a commission on your purchase!


    Offline claudel

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1040
    • Reputation: +791/-53
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #23 on: November 09, 2018, 10:59:29 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
  • If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.

    The most useful suggestion one might make to Cassini is that he stop acting on the assumption that nonsensical and false statements acquire sense and truth when they are set in FULL CAPS or larger type.

    Pope Paul V did not make the infallible statement on heliocentrism that the people who Cassini fronts for claim he (Paul V) did. A mere declaration by eleven cardinals—a declaration, moreover, that was pointedly not directed toward Galileo or toward anything Galileo wrote* and that partook of no active papal involvement—cannot wrap itself in the cloak of infallibility with the equivalent of a wink and a nod. Furthermore, Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.
    ___________________________
    *Cf. the letter to that effect that Paul V directed Cardinal Bellarmine to give to Galileo.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18151
    • Reputation: +8243/-631
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #24 on: November 10, 2018, 12:20:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If things ever get rough for Fr. Rusak, he can always contact Bishop Zendejas. If he doesn't have the Bishop's contact info, he can always get in touch with me (matthew at cathinfo dot com) and I'll be glad to help.
    .
    It would seem the question is more a matter of WHEN things get rough, not "if."
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18151
    • Reputation: +8243/-631
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #25 on: November 10, 2018, 12:23:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.
    .
    We ought to set up a pool for the number of minutes the Angelus Press site would allow cassini's review to remain online. 
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18151
    • Reputation: +8243/-631
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #26 on: November 10, 2018, 12:30:14 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    Quote
    The seeming enigma related to Fr. Rusak's review is that it was allowed to be posted on the website of the Angelus Press in the first place.  This appears to be totally unprecedented and one may rightly wonder: 1) how it came about, and 2) whether it will be allowed to remain on the site.  (On 2 separate occasions I submitted a somewhat similar review on the site, but neither has ever been posted, nor do I expect either ever will be.  That is why I was utterly astounded when I saw Fr. Rusak's review go up.)
    .
    Perhaps it was put up for the sole purpose of letting readers see that Fr. Rusak is rocking the boat, and that when he gets disciplined there won't be any backlash, much as there was so little reaction against +W's expulsion. 
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1920
    • Reputation: +1076/-157
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #27 on: November 10, 2018, 02:39:37 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I wonder what take, if any, Fr. Robinson has on the Doctor of the Church St. Hildegard who wrote extensively and with profound insight on the nature of the geocentric universe.  Possibly one of the very best books on this from a traditional Catholic perspective is The Geocentric Universe According to St. Hildegard by Robert Sungenis.

    St. Hildegard, an eleventh century German mystic and Benedictine Abbess, was called the most gifted woman of the epoch and was gifted with insight into cosmology that far exceeds the theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.  (The fullest exposition of St. Hildegard's cosmological writngs is found in her Liber Divinorum Operum or Book of Divine Works.)

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1920
    • Reputation: +1076/-157
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #28 on: November 10, 2018, 02:54:45 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • On pp 1-2 of Robert Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Science" we find this remarkable passage: "A good friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX confided the following to me: 'Let me just note that being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation, and who would not even have considered geocentrism as an option , and who were open to certain forms of evolution.  The SSPX has always been a mix of ideas of everything that was still considered orthodox in the 1960s.  Those in authority have feared to accept new creationist and geocentric proofs which have come forth since the 60's, and have willed to keep a 60's - 70's mentality, despite new proofs, or have not been willing to consider as serious science anything which has come forth from geocentric or creationist arguments.  I know, however, several priests open to geocentrism, etc., in the SSPX.  You will also note that Father Robinson's book was curiously published by Gracewing Publishers and not an SSPX publisher such as the Angelus Press.  Perhaps Father Robinson wanted a wider readership, at the same time Angelus Press might have realized that such a book would rock the boat among SSPX faithful."

    Online cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1637
    • Reputation: +923/-99
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #29 on: November 10, 2018, 11:57:22 AM »
  • Thanks!4
  • No Thanks!0
  • The most useful suggestion one might make to Cassini is that he stop acting on the assumption that nonsensical and false statements acquire sense and truth when they are set in FULL CAPS or larger type.

    Pope Paul V did not make the infallible statement on heliocentrism that the people who Cassini fronts for claim he (Paul V) did. A mere declaration by eleven cardinals—a declaration, moreover, that was pointedly not directed toward Galileo or toward anything Galileo wrote* and that partook of no active papal involvement—cannot wrap itself in the cloak of infallibility with the equivalent of a wink and a nod. Furthermore, Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.
    ___________________________
    *Cf. the letter to that effect that Paul V directed Cardinal Bellarmine to give to Galileo.

    OK Claudel, I take your point as regards capitals etc., but that is my style. I use capitals and other means to emphasise important facts, facts you obviously do not like to read.

    I have asked the likes of yourself on many 'Catholic' forums where in the history of the Church has any pope or Holy Office DENIED Pope Paul V's 1616 decree WAS NOT IRREORMABLE? Usually I get banned because I reveal how popes and churchmen CONNED the Catholic Faith out of an infallible definition that made it a dogma that the BIBLE reveals an orbiting sun. Finally I find a forum in CIF that is Catholic and willing to discuss this matter for the sake of the faith. Thank God for CIF.

    The 'mere declaration by eleven cardinals,' defined the Bible reveals an orbiting sun. The Pope as Prefect of the Holy Office examined their finding and approved it. That is how this Office that examined cases of serious heresy worked. On the 25th February, 1616, the day the Pope Paul V presided over the Holy Office as Prefect and approved the ruling by his office as pope, He told Cardinal Bellarmine to tell Galileo his heliocentriosm was formal heresy because it contradicted the Bible and the understanding of it by all the Fathers, another proof of its infallibility according to the Council of Trent. On 26th May, 1616, Cardinal Bellarmine, wrote a letter for Galileo, and used the words 'the declaration made by the Holy Father.' with regard to heretical heliocentrism.

    Your claim above that the declaration was not directed towards Galileo or what he wrote shows me you are just another apologist inventing your own version of the case. The first declaration was made to Galileo in 1616 and the second above against Galileo and what he said in his book Dialogue.

    In 1633 Pope Urban III confirmed the 1616 decree was irreformable (infallible) when in his judgement against Galileo's heliocentric argument in his book said no such opinion can be held or 'defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.'
    There is also documented proof that in 1820, the Holy Office examined the authority of the 1616 decree and found it was papal and non reformable.

    However, in 1820 churchmen believed heliocentrism was proven, this is also documented. So, faced with an 'irreformable' (infallible) decree, how did they con their way out of their dilemma that in effect proved an infallible papal decree WRONG? They certainly could not deny the infallibility of the 1616 decree because it was as it was. Well, Olivieri told them all that the infallible 1616 decree was against a violent heliocentrism, but that everyone 'now knows' the heliocentrism of 1820 'is not violent, so not heretical.

    So desperate were those churchmen to save infallibility in the face of what they believed was proof that infallibility was proven wrong, they all went along with the joke that the 1616 decree was against a violent orbiting Earth. In fact, even then, many records showed that the 1616 decree was against the denial that the sun moved around the Earth. Yet not one person except Fr Anfossi and a few argued against the sham. Pope Pius VII however believed Olivieri and the 'non heretical heliocentrism' became the new interpretation of Scripture.

    This farce of a non-heretical heliocentrism is the one now defended by you Claudel, all those other Catholic forums that banned me under the guise of:

    'Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.'

    There is no speculation or personal opinion in my synthesis Claudel. The messenger is being burned for researching the official Church documents held in secret over the centuries but now open to the public after study by many scholars.

    The Galilean reformation in the Church is directly responsible for many attacks on the Bible, the ROCK upon which Modernism in the Church was built. Look at the state of the Church today and tell me it all started with the Vatican II popes. Well sorry to tell you that rot began in 1835 when science waas elected as the new interpreter of Scripture.


    Now it is your turn

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16