Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 25

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book  (Read 23017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline claudel

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2018, 02:09:37 PM »
Quote from: klasG4e on November 27, 2018, 10:16:38 AM
… lest anyone out there still have doubts about whether or not geocentrism is a matter of faith, the words of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine … should wake them up from their slumber. …

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for writing such rubbish. You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim.

Bellarmine was writing a private letter to a priest, Father Paolo Foscarini, in response to the priest's letter asking for the cardinal's opinion of his book. Only a fool or a knave would claim that a saintly prelate would try to preempt the Holy See's reserved authority by making infallible declarations of universal applicability in such a profane context, especially one where the prelate author's repeated resort to hypotheticals and conscious use of contrary-to-fact constructions would give any prudent man pause.

The true bottom line is this: Holy Mother Church is rightfully jealous of its prerogative to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals. It has ever taken great pains to ensure that that prerogative is not toyed with or otherwise abused by the enemies of the Faith or, a fortiori, its soi-disant friends. The saddest and truest mark of the crisis reified by the Council is the near-complete disappearance of orthodox catechesis, in whose presence the pontificating delusions and outright falsehoods propagated by cassini and enthusiastically seconded by you and others would have been definitively silenced.
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2018, 04:28:29 PM »
Quote from: klasG4e on November 21, 2018, 06:25:39 PM
The below quote by Fr. Rusak is one of the rotating TESTIMONIALS found at the bottom of this linked page: https://gwwdvd.com/blog/
The good Padre has been a staunch defender of geocentrism and the work of Robert Sungenis.
.

Quote
Quote
This serious presentation of the cosmology of the universe is totally in line with the Holy Scriptures inspired by God. In addition, it proposes what seems to be the best cosmological model to fit today's most recent scientific evidence. Unbiased persons viewing this DVD set will certainly be impressed and encouraged on to further study. Believers will be strengthened in their Faith, while doubters will seek, as always, other explanations for what appears to be evident.
Fr. Gerard Rusak
.
I wasn't able to read the quote from Fr. Rusak, above, until I changed its color. 
.
I recommend that when you post a pale toned font like that, for you to highlight the text then click on the "remove formatting" option in the toolbar -- it looks like a capital A with a red circle at the bottom right containing a minus sign.
Logged

Offline klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2018, 09:39:23 PM »
Quote from: claudel on November 27, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for writing such rubbish. You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim.

Bellarmine was writing a private letter to a priest, Father Paolo Foscarini, in response to the priest's letter asking for the cardinal's opinion of his book. Only a fool or a knave would claim that a saintly prelate would try to preempt the Holy See's reserved authority by making infallible declarations of universal applicability in such a profane context, especially one where the prelate author's repeated resort to hypotheticals and conscious use of contrary-to-fact constructions would give any prudent man pause.

The true bottom line is this: Holy Mother Church is rightfully jealous of its prerogative to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals. It has ever taken great pains to ensure that that prerogative is not toyed with or otherwise abused by the enemies of the Faith or, a fortiori, its soi-disant friends. The saddest and truest mark of the crisis reified by the Council is the near-complete disappearance of orthodox catechesis, in whose presence the pontificating delusions and outright falsehoods propagated by cassini and enthusiastically seconded by you and others would have been definitively silenced.

Claudel, I was taken aback by your stinging response and admittedly left a bit baffled.  You say, I "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish."  I am a geocentrist.  Perhaps, you are not.  In any event, I am not following your logic in saying that I, "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish."  With all due respect, I would ask you (or anyone else following this thread) to elaborate more on why you say this.

Whatever you may think, I was not trying to deceive anyone in anyway.  I merely quoted directly (without leaving any words out or adding any words) something that Bellarmine wrote which I totally agree with as it is seen there.

Is what Bellarmine wrote there as seen in my quote of him true or is it not true?  If it is not true please be so kind as to state exactly what in your opinion is not true about it.

Are you in any way implying that Bellarmine did not believe what he wrote as it is seen in my quote?

Are you implying that the answer (as I quoted of Bellarmine) would be any different today than it was when he gave it to Father Foscarini on April 12, 1615?  If so how would it be different and on what basis do you make such claim(s)?

Are you implying that what Bellarmine said in my quote of him contrary to any official Church teaching?  If so, how so?

You tell me, "You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim."  Frankly, I don't know what that paragraph is that you are referring to.  What I quoted was exactly what I saw from the source that I quoted it from.  I did not add anything or subtract anything from what I saw.  I ask you to please put down in a response what exactly that next paragraph was that you say makes nonsense of the assertion I made which was based on the words I quoted from Bellarmine.

I believe the true bottom line rests on whether what Bellarmine said as I quoted him is a true statement or whether it is not.  I believe it to be true and I I don't know of any official Church docuмent that unequivocally contradicts it.  Nevertheless,  I welcome whatever you wish to put forth in an effort to show me to be wrong in my belief.
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #73 on: November 27, 2018, 11:06:35 PM »
Quote from: klasG4e on November 27, 2018, 09:39:23 PM
Claudel, I was taken aback by your stinging response and admittedly left a bit baffled.  You say, I "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish."  I am a geocentrist.  Perhaps, you are not.  In any event, I am not following your logic in saying that I, "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish."  With all due respect, I would ask you (or anyone else following this thread) to elaborate more on why you say this.

Whatever you may think, I was not trying to deceive anyone in anyway.  I merely quoted directly (without leaving any words out or adding any words) something that Bellarmine wrote which I totally agree with as it is seen there.

Is what Bellarmine wrote there as seen in my quote of him true or is it not true?  If it is not true please be so kind as to state exactly what in your opinion is not true about it.

Are you in any way implying that Bellarmine did not believe what he wrote as it is seen in my quote?

Are you implying that the answer (as I quoted of Bellarmine) would be any different today than it was when he gave it to Father Foscarini on April 12, 1615?  If so how would it be different and on what basis do you make such claim(s)?

Are you implying that what Bellarmine said in my quote of him contrary to any official Church teaching?  If so, how so?

You tell me, "You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim."  Frankly, I don't know what that paragraph is that you are referring to.  What I quoted was exactly what I saw from the source that I quoted it from.  I did not add anything or subtract anything from what I saw.  I ask you to please put down in a response what exactly that next paragraph was that you say makes nonsense of the assertion I made which was based on the words I quoted from Bellarmine.

I believe the true bottom line rests on whether what Bellarmine said as I quoted him is a true statement or whether it is not.  I believe it to be true and I I don't know of any official Church docuмent that unequivocally contradicts it.  Nevertheless,  I welcome whatever you wish to put forth in an effort to show me to be wrong in my belief.
.
In his typically smug subjective misery, claudel bemoans the paragraph you quoted from the Letter which Merry's post above (#68 ) quotes in full (in blue).  If he's got his panties in a bunch over the "next paragraph," well, then here it is (following the blue one):
.
.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine, who knew the perilous consequences of Galileo’s heresy. The following letter of April 12, 1613, was written to an involved party, Fr. Paolo Foscarini, and it decisively and prophetically cautions the 16th century world about the dangers of heliocentrism. Lest one might believe it is quoted out of context, and also to dispel any doubt, Bellarmine’s entire letter will be cited. The following should indicate why Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that "the Church of God had not his equal in learning."(6) Bellarmine to Foscarini:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. 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, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and 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 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 center and the earth is 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. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverend and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Are not the words of this great Church doctor and saint eloquent, insightful, profound? Is there any Catholic among us who can find a flaw in it?

Since, as previously stated, theology is true science (God’s science), then only through theological sources can one be absolutely sure of answers. Also, scientifically speaking, how can anyone go outside the universe to observe what is actually happening? Since this is impossible, God has provided us with an unerring source of truth. The Holy Scriptures, certainly a primary source, are absolutely geocentric. There are a number of passages to support the earth-centered reality. Refer, for example, to Genesis and the Psalms. Note Psalms 18:5-6, 92:1, 95:10; also, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 and Josue’s long day (Josue 10). Believe the truth revealed in perpetuity, when you read Psalm 103, which anticipates Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein, and all the other innovators: the earth…"shall not be moved forever and ever".

Many writers, scientists, and pseudo-theologians have spilt much ink trying to accommodate unverifiable, modern science (heliocentrism and evolution, in particular) with the Bible. Despite their mental gymnastics, their forced allegorical interpretations, their flaws in logic, and so on, not one has presented a viable argument. Belief in their reasoning not only requires blind faith, but leads one to conclude that God is a poor grammarian at best or a liar at worst. Some exegetes try to pass off all the inconsistencies by calling the language of the Scriptures poetic, figurative, or phenomenological; meaning that God in some cases did not really mean what He said. Aside from the inspired Word of God, we have the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and the Decrees(7), all geocentric. Today, after four hundred years, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is still geocentric: The earth is the center of the universe, and it has no motion.
.
Logged

Offline Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #74 on: November 27, 2018, 11:12:30 PM »
.
It's pathetic to see claudel making baseless insults at other good members which he thinks will offend them, which is his only motive.
All it accomplishes is making himself look like a puerile wimp. Substantiated by the fact that when he's called out on it, he runs away and hides for 6 months to a year, licking his wounded pride, like he's done in the past.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 25
« previous next »