Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book  (Read 5568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stanley N

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 240
  • Reputation: +44/-48
  • Gender: Male
Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
« Reply #105 on: December 06, 2018, 08:47:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • since both Copernicus' and "modern astronomers'" treatment of heliocentrism is nothing more than their respective opinions, then obviously Settele's advocacy of heliocentrism cannot be considered any more than an opinion, regardless of whether he, himself, (or even Stanley) believes it to be a thesis or fact.
    You think heliocentrism was defined heresy and/or contrary to defined doctrine, right? But you have apparently no difficulty with the Church saying a Catholic can defend [what you think is] a heresy in print?

    1820 is about 200 years after 1616. It hasn't quite been 200 years since the Immaculate Conception was defined, but are you really saying the Church could say that it's OK to formulate arguments advocating the contrary, and print them in books, with the proviso that of course he does so at his own risk? That it is only an opinion, even if the author believes the contrary of the Immaculate Conception to be fact?

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1736
    • Reputation: +928/-151
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #106 on: December 07, 2018, 10:00:27 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You think heliocentrism was defined heresy and/or contrary to defined doctrine, right? But you have apparently no difficulty with the Church saying a Catholic can defend [what you think is] a heresy in print?

    1820 is about 200 years after 1616. It hasn't quite been 200 years since the Immaculate Conception was defined, but are you really saying the Church could say that it's OK to formulate arguments advocating the contrary, and print them in books, with the proviso that of course he does so at his own risk? That it is only an opinion, even if the author believes the contrary of the Immaculate Conception to be fact?

    Stan, I imagine you are familiar with the old saying, "He who frames the argument/issues wins the argument."  No problem with that as long as the one who wins has framed correctly/truthfully.  I probably won't be carrying on any longer in this thread since there seem to be so few people posting and from my perspective it seems like you and I (and Cassini) as well as me(and Cassini) and Claudel are ships passing in the night.

    I would ask, however, that you  please keep in mind that the Church is in a state of diabolical disorientation.  As for me, I think Vatican II will be in for a major rectification when the long awaited Consecration of Russia takes place.  When that comes about, I think the Church will be very clear and straightforward in teaching geocentrism, the geocentrism which is clearly seen in the pages of Sacred Scripture.

    I believe that the Bible on a literal/traditionalist reading of it many times more than once asserts the truth of geocentrism.  I believe in the Church's doctrine that the Bible is totally inerrant.  On that note I think I will just bid adieu to this thread at least for the foreseeable future.

    P.S. The condemnation of usury is still an official doctrine of the Church, but we don't hear too much about that anymore.


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1536
    • Reputation: +790/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #107 on: December 07, 2018, 11:25:26 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?

    I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.

    The best I can say is the view of geocentrism you've presented is a caricature. You may mean well, and even believe it, but it looks like the sort of thing that non-Catholics come up with because they don't really understand the Church.

    That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.

    Stanley, I am well aware that the likes of yourself will argue until the cows come home with no intention at all to acknowledge anything I or klas might have to say. However there are others reading this thread and for them I now reply.

    Indeed such are your responses that you could well be a machine programmed to simply deny anything it reads. You never once told us if you are a helio trying to make your heresy (yes, once informed, material-heresy becomes formal-heresy) orthodox on account that the Church allowed the flock to read helio books that DID NOT HAVE A VIOLENT ORBITING EARTH. Are you disputing that Pope Pius VII of 1820 put forward this new non-heretical helio as he understood it? Are you saying he put forward a heliocentrism that he knew to be the heretical one? Or like a machine, will you avoid the question once again with further rhetoric?
    Klas and I, who have studied the records of the Church on the matter, can swear to God the facts are as we have recorded them.
                 
    'How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?'

    I note Stanley, or machine, that you keep professing shock as a Catholic, that the Church would allow the subject matter (ex parte objecti) to be read by the Flock. Boy you must have have a near heart attack to know Pope Paul VI when he abandoned the Index altogether in 1970s allowed the subject matter of hundreds of heresies to be read by the flock.

    But there is a second answer to your question here. How would a Catholic respond to a Pope and his Holy Office issuing a decree, infallible or not, whatever that means, that said a helio reading of the Scriptures was formal heresy and that any of the Flock who insists on that are excommunicated? How would a Catholic respond if Galileo was put on trial, found guilty, and confined to house arrest for a heresy that the CHURCH DIDN'T TEACH? This is what you accuse the Church of 1616, 1633 and 1664 of doing. When I think of the popes, theologians and St Robert Bellarmine and their fight against the Protestant Reformation, their catechism, and the catechism of Trent being told by the likes of you and claudel that they approved a false doctrine and implimented it, I wonder if you are Catholics at all. 

    Now you Stanley, Claudel or machines, you guys may pretend not to see the absurdity of your question but I would think other readers might.

    'I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.'

    'A fair hearing,' wow, thanks. 'Infallible'? Again what do you mean by that? Show us a claim for infallibility by a pope in the history of the Church? The word infallibility was not used before 1870. The word 'irreformable' or 'non-revisible' was used in the case of the 1616 decree and it means exactly the same thing. You cannot have a reformable non-reformable decree. Well you can Stanley, but not the rest of us Catholics. Both Pope Urban VIII and Bellarmine's successor in the Holy Office of 1820 are ON RECORD AS ACKNOWLEDGING THE 1616 DECREE AS IRREFORMABLE. I use capitals so that you cannot miss these two demonstrations that were issued by THE CHURCH, not by me or Klas.

    As to why the Church FAILED to teach the helio for the last 200 years was heretical. Well I have already told you why, but it seems you prefer to ignore why. But for others, it was because they thought heliocentrism was proven in 1820, and you cannot teach as heresy what you believe to be a fact of science. So Fr Olivieri thought up a way to have their irreformable heresy and allow what they believed was proven to be acceptable to the Flock. He said the heretical helio had a violent Earth, but a non-violent helio of 1820 was not heretical. That is why the decrees of 1820 said 'according to modern astronomers.' This left the heresy behind in history, no longer relevant, so could be forgotten without having to deny an irreformable papal decree. But in truth the heresy was to say the orbiting sun of Scripture was not true.

    'That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.'

    Finally, If St Thomas can use the thoughts of a Pagan that reflect truth, then I will use a truth uttered or written by a Pagan also. Nor do I consider all non-Catholics as 'enemies of the Church' as you do, not even atheists. But the above does tell me you are a helio, so no wonder you do not like what you are reading.

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 240
    • Reputation: +44/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #108 on: December 07, 2018, 02:32:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • Finally, If St Thomas can use the thoughts of a Pagan that reflect truth, then I will use a truth uttered or written by a Pagan also. Nor do I consider all non-Catholics as 'enemies of the Church' as you do, not even atheists. But the above does tell me you are a helio, so no wonder you do not like what you are reading.

    The difference is that the non-Catholics in this case do not reflect truth. The atheist was reflecting false objections in the field of theodicy (the part of philosophy dealing with the existence of God), yet that's the specific point you endorsed. The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine.

    I think the framework of your view makes way more infallible (or "irreformable") statements than even conservative theologians writing after 1870 think. I happened to check the Galileo affair in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and it says the Index can not define doctrine. (This is much more fundamental than your arguments about who signed what.)

    Quote
    Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.
    Even taking your narrow interpretation of the 1820 statement, it is a statement confirmed by the Pope saying a Catholic can write books advocating something you are claiming is heresy. Whatever backroom machinations happened ibefore 1820 might say something about the people involved, but it's not actually reflected in the decree beyond the phrase "as held by modern astronomers". That would appear to imply that modern cosmology is different than the 1616 heliocentrism, but whether that difference is the "violence" angle you mention or something else, is not part of the decree. Thus, the difference doesn't need to be specifically the "violcence" angle, but could be something else, something that also makes your scriptural objections moot.

    It was the proposition that the sun is motionless in the center of the world that the 1616 assessors of the holy office said was  contrary to Scripture, something they did NOT say of the earth's movement. The 1616 decree of the Index refers to the "doctrine" (singular, not plural) of the sun's rest and the earth's motion, so they form one doctrine in that decree. So, even IF you claim the 1616 decision defined doctrine, nobody today holds the heliocentrism of 1616, because nobody thinks the sun is motionless in the center of the universe. 

    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 240
    • Reputation: +44/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #109 on: December 07, 2018, 10:05:58 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I would ask, however, that you  please keep in mind that the Church is in a state of diabolical disorientation. 
    Yes, I just think geocentrism is part of that disorientation. To deceive, if possible, even the elect...

    Good idea considering the case of usury.. There are some parallels. Also some key differences. Spirago-Clarke's Catechism Explained (1899) mentions usury, for example, but to my recollection, it doesn't mention geocentrism.


    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1536
    • Reputation: +790/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #110 on: Yesterday at 07:56:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The difference is that the non-Catholics in this case do not reflect truth. The atheist was reflecting false objections in the field of theodicy (the part of philosophy dealing with the existence of God), yet that's the specific point you endorsed. The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine.


    Just so others will see what you are talking about I shall put my quote in context:

    The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a lower point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an inferred endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the all the Church Fathers; (2) theories that denied the biblical age of 6-7,000 years for the universe; (3) theories that denied the global Flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope’s speech:

    ‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’

    48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the Earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”

    50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.
     
    Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of secular theory. But there are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang and the condemned heliocentrism.


    ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1]



    [1] Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378-379.

    'The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine' you said.

     Now Stanley, will you show us all the defined doctrine you are referring to?

    Offline Mr G

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 395
    • Reputation: +288/-34
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #111 on: Yesterday at 08:29:29 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I hope Fr. Robinson looks at this, and then let us know who his expert advisors are.

    http://kolbecenter.org/contact-us/special-creation-advisors/

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1536
    • Reputation: +790/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #112 on: Yesterday at 01:12:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • I think the framework of your view makes way more infallible (or "irreformable") statements than even conservative theologians writing after 1870 think. I happened to check the Galileo affair in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, and it says the Index can not define doctrine. (This is much more fundamental than your arguments about who signed what.)

    Catholic Encyclopedias are written by men but you would like us to think they were written by the Apostles.

    Again, when churchmen believed the geocentrism of the 1616 decree was proven wrong by science, they conjured up a story of the Galileo case to 'get the Church off the hook.' Now the Catholic Church does not need anyone to get it 'off the hook' as God protects its decrees on matters of faith and morals. As it turned out it was found that the geocentrism of the Bible has never been proven false.

    To demonstrate the credibility of Stanley'sd preferred version, all I need do is show how the deception was carried out. One never absent from the Apologists version is the use of Bellarmine's 1615 Letter to Foscarini, put in a context that could fool the Catholic world.

    Bellarmine was addressing the illusion that Galileo had found proof for heliocentrism. Here is what he actually said:

    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.

    So what does Stanley's version say:

    It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena — an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes — but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued:

    Quote
    I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.

    Now here we find the Catholic Encyclopedia using a private 1615 letter to try to undermine a papal decree issued a year later. But worse, these encyclicals always twist Bellarmine's words to make it look like a dogma for the future of the Catholic church. What Bellarmine said was Galileo had no proof in the PRESENT TENSE, but look how the Encyclopedia made it look like he was talking in the future tense.

    Final PROOF that Catholic Encyclopedias since 1913 can deceive even the elect, note Bellarmine's letter says: IF REAL PROOF BE FOUND THEN...' Now tell me that the writer of this item DOES NOT BASE HIS ARTICLE ON THE FACT THAT THE LOT OF THEM IN THE CHURCH BELIEVED PROOF HAD BEEN FOUND.

    And on this basis, they conjured up a deception to try to undermine the fact that in 1616 a papal decree had found geocentrism as truth of scripture.


    Offline Stanley N

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 240
    • Reputation: +44/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #113 on: Yesterday at 03:29:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Catholic Encyclopedias are written by men but you would like us to think they were written by the Apostles.

    ...

    And on this basis, they conjured up a deception to try to undermine the fact that in 1616 a papal decree had found geocentrism as truth of scripture.
    First, wherever did I suggest the Catholic Encyclopedia was written by the Apostles? My point was that it reflects the view that the Index doesn't define doctrine. [At least, when the Index was distinct from the Holy Office, from 1571-1917.] You just continue as if it's given the Index does define doctrine and in fact did in 1616.
    Second, as I just noted, the 1616 assessors report covered two propositions, but only one was evaluated as contrary to Scripture, namely the sun's rest and centrality. Current science happens to coincide on rejecting the sun's rest and centrality.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1536
    • Reputation: +790/-94
    • Gender: Male
    Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book
    « Reply #114 on: Yesterday at 04:43:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Second, as I just noted, the 1616 assessors report covered two propositions, but only one was evaluated as contrary to Scripture, namely the sun's rest and centrality. Current science happens to coincide on rejecting the sun's rest and centrality.

    You mean only one defined as heresy!

    (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

    In red we see the term movement is QUALIFIED.

    Here is one example:

    Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still... Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.” --- (Josue 10:12-13).
     

    The MOVEMENT of the heresy then is the daily course of the sun, not the supposed movement of the sun you would like to give it to avoid that heresy.

     

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