Author Topic: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas (Read 8703 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #60 on:** October 11, 2018, 10:12:32 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on October 11, 2018, 09:59:09 PM

Yes, I agree it would take an extreme failure in education to fail in the way you are thinking of. In practice, some other issues would likely appear well before a priest were to "fail this way" specifically.

.
He would have to be a complete liar and a fake to pretend for years on end while secretly harboring denial of reality in his mind.
It comes really close to a Freemason making his way through to ordination only to emerge later as a sleeper.
But according to Bella Dodd, that's exactly what the Communists accomplished.

Jaynek · « **Reply #61 on:** October 12, 2018, 09:21:42 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on October 11, 2018, 09:59:09 PM

Yes, I agree it would take an extreme failure in education to fail in the way you are thinking of. In practice, some other issues would likely appear well before a priest were to "fail this way" specifically.

A failure of education this extreme should have prevented a man from entering the seminary in the first place, assuming that this actually is a resistance priest.

This alleged priest took a quote from a section clearly and repeatedly identified as containing false opinions of others and left out the beginning of the sentence which said "they make a further argument, namely that..." Instead, he presents this argument for flat earth as the position of Aristotle/ St. Thomas, introducing it with: "After all these commentaries, he concluded that to be stable, the earth must be flat."

This alleged priest also claims that St. Thomas does not say that Aristotle's opinion is right, in spite of the multiple instances of St. Thomas referring to Aristotle's views on the position, rest, and shape of the earth as the truth. For example, at 480, when St. Thomas outlines Aristotle's argument he says: First he pursues the above-mentioned three things [position, rest, shape] according to the opinion of others; Secondly, according to truth."

To make errors this serious, a person would have had to fail in basic skills of reading comprehension that he should have learned in high school. I'm not sure about the SSPX, but other seminaries I know of accept entrants who have post-secondary education. But even a high school graduate should have been able to understand from this docuмent that neither Aristotle nor St. Thomas thought the earth was flat.

If this article was actually written by a resistance priest, I suspect this could have negative repercussions for the resistance. This seems like something that could seriously undermine their credibility. And it draws attention to a possible weakness of the resistance. It lacks the authority structure that ought to exist in the Church. When a priest goes off the rails like this, there needs to a bishop over him to correct him. I am not sure this can happen in the resistance.

I have little knowledge, however, of resistance politics and dynamics. I would like to hear from others on this aspect.

hismajesty · « **Reply #62 on:** October 12, 2018, 10:07:17 AM »

Jayne,
the person with reading difficulties is you.
The point the priest makes is at the beginning which you ignore and it is that St. Thomas is simply representing Aristotle's argument.

St. Thomas knew like everyone that the earth was flat. He does not say that the sphere earth as truth is his opinion.

You should be careful before attacking priests like this. A little bit of respect won't go too far astray.

On a side note, I think you are getting nervous because you see flat earth is taking off despite your arrogant resistance of it.

P.S. Thanks for publicizing the thread outside of the sub forum. You're doing good work for us

Jaynek · « **Reply #63 on:** October 12, 2018, 10:13:59 AM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 12, 2018, 10:07:17 AM

You should be careful before attacking priests like this. A little bit of respect won't go too far astray.

If I see any evidence that this article was actually written by a priest, then I will apologize to him. I intend no disrespect to a priest.

Stanley N · « **Reply #64 on:** October 12, 2018, 02:39:23 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on October 12, 2018, 10:13:59 AM

If I see any evidence that this article was actually written by a priest, then I will apologize to him. I intend no disrespect to a priest.

You give much more respect in this case than I would.

If an actual priest displayed this level of messed-up thinking, he should be confronted and corrected. If he doesn't take correction, eventually, I personally would avoid him, as it would reveal he is intellectual unfit for the priesthood.

But it still seems more likely it was written by a FE believer who was incorrectly referred to as a priest. It could also be a fαℓѕє fℓαg by someone seeking to discredit traditional catholics, though I don't think an isolated case like this would impact the whole.

hismajesty · « **Reply #65 on:** October 12, 2018, 02:53:38 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on October 12, 2018, 02:39:23 PM

You give much more respect in this case than I would.

If an actual priest displayed this level of messed-up thinking, he should be confronted and corrected. If he doesn't take correction, eventually, I personally would avoid him, as it would reveal he is intellectual unfit for the priesthood.

But it still seems more likely it was written by a FE believer who was incorrectly referred to as a priest. It could also be a fαℓѕє fℓαg by someone seeking to discredit traditional catholics, though I don't think an isolated case like this would impact the whole.

Confront?

oh yea in the same way you consistently ignore challenging arguments made to you by flat earthers? He would just give you the evidence like you have been given already and you would freak out and run a mile! Which is what you do off screen, but put a bravado show when you're online.

You're a non entity my friend when it comes to challenging flat earthers. Neil made some good arguments in the beginning, but now he's gone nuts. Even Seven used to be good, but like Jayne, he became very repetitive.

Oh it's so boring in a way with you people. Obstinate in your heresy.

Jaynek · « **Reply #66 on:** October 12, 2018, 03:20:37 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on October 12, 2018, 02:39:23 PM

You give much more respect in this case than I would.

If an actual priest displayed this level of messed-up thinking, he should be confronted and corrected. If he doesn't take correction, eventually, I personally would avoid him, as it would reveal he is intellectual unfit for the priesthood.

I think that a great deal of respect is due to priests in virtue of their office, even in cases of holding clearly wrong opinions. Also, it is possible for a man without intellectual attainments to be a holy priest. St. John Vianney was at first rejected by the seminary because he was considered too slow. His education had been severely disrupted by the persecution of Catholics in post-Revolutionary France and he was held to be quite ignorant.

I would not automatically avoid a priest for being a flat earther, although I would find it cause for concern.

Stanley N · « **Reply #67 on:** October 12, 2018, 04:22:53 PM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 12, 2018, 02:53:38 PM

oh yea in the same way you consistently ignore challenging arguments made to you by flat earthers? He would just give you the evidence like you have been given already and you would freak out and run a mile!

if such a priest repeated such nonsense after being corrected, that would mean obstinacy. On the internet we expect to find people obstinate in nonsense. I don't expect it from my priest - that's one of the reasons we avoid the N.O.
Jaynek, St. John Vianney had faculties to hear confession, so he was not just a simplex-priest. On the other hand, given the poor reading comprehension displayed in the flatearthtrads post, I'm not sure I would really trust its author to read the missal and apply the rubrics (red text) correctly.

hismajesty · « **Reply #68 on:** October 12, 2018, 05:47:16 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on October 12, 2018, 04:22:53 PM

if such a priest repeated such nonsense after being corrected, that would mean obstinacy. On the internet we expect to find people obstinate in nonsense. I don't expect it from my priest - that's one of the reasons we avoid the N.O.
Jaynek, St. John Vianney had faculties to hear confession, so he was not just a simplex-priest. On the other hand, given the poor reading comprehension displayed in the flatearthtrads post, I'm not sure I would really trust its author to read the missal and apply the rubrics (red text) correctly.

It is YOU who is obstinate.

YOU who has poor reading comprehension.

You have barely tried to respond to the flat earth arguments. Your worse than Jayne and Neil.

Claiming that it is nonsense without offering evidence means that you will never get out of your own self imposed system. It is all in your head.

Not only will there be more priests, but even Bishops. What will you say then? Nothing, because you believe in yourself and your own nonsense. It is the truth. Gods creation is part of our faith, and you are wrong to attack it with such arrogance.

Jaynek · « **Reply #69 on:** October 12, 2018, 07:00:10 PM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 12, 2018, 10:07:17 AM

Jayne,
the person with reading difficulties is you.
The point the priest makes is at the beginning which you ignore and it is that St. Thomas is simply representing Aristotle's argument.

I understand that the author claims that St. Thomas is simply representing Aristotle's argument. He is wrong and I have addressed this more than once, cf. replies #2, 14, 26, 33, 35, 45, 52. Throughout my posts I have given various quotes in which St. Thomas refers to Aristotle's view that the earth is a sphere as the truth. I have not ignored the priest's(?) claim, but given evidence that disproves it multiple times.

You dismissed this evidence by saying that I am misinterpreting what the word truth means because I believe the earth is a globe. I, however, am using the clear and obvious meaning. When someone describes a position as the truth, it means he agrees with that position. It is not a word one uses to simply represent a position one does not hold oneself. Although you keep denying this, Meg, who is a committed flat earther, immediately responded to a quote of St. Thomas saying that Aristotle's view is truth with "It does seem that St. Thomas agrees with Aristotle about the shape of the earth being spherical. "

I am not imposing an unlikely meaning on St. Thomas to make him fit my opinions. I am using the normal meanings of words. It is so obvious that even Meg, who is entirely sympathetic with the flat earth position, nevertheless understood it the way that I do.

St. Thomas makes his own views clear and is not simply representing arguments. He says that Aristotle determines the truth, while referring to arguments by others as false theories. St. Thomas is not an disinterested observer giving neutral descriptions.

hismajesty · « **Reply #70 on:** October 13, 2018, 08:56:27 AM »

Jayne,
you can quote yourself all you want (which is a little vain tbh) but it won't change a thing. You have consistently ignored the main point made by the author and also ALL scientific evidence concerning the flat earth. Your credibility is very low.

Flat earthers on the other hand are very open and honest. (and not communist)

READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT YOU QUOTED:

"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."

So it is clear that the FALSE theories referred to are that it is IN MOTION. Not that it is a flat or a globe.

You really are quote dishonest Jayne. You should examine your conscience on that point. And giving lectures to others about reading comprehension.

Stanley N · « **Reply #71 on:** October 13, 2018, 10:12:14 AM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 08:56:27 AM

READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT YOU QUOTED:

"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."

So it is clear that the FALSE theories referred to are that it is IN MOTION. Not that it is a flat or a globe.

This thread is about FE. The sections immediately before 494 are:

Quote

491. Then at [349] he gives the theories about the shape of the earth. ...For some think that it is spherical, others that it is wide and having the shape of a tambourine.

492. Secondly, he presents two reasons used to support this second theory.... But he excludes this argument at [351], and says that those who present this argument do not consider the sun's distance from the earth and the greatness of the rotundity of each....

493. He gives a second argument at [352] and says that they add a further argument for the same, namely, that if the earth is to be at rest, it has to be flat.... And lest anyone believe that this explanation of the earth's rest is generally assigned by everyone, he adds that there are many different ways in which the motion and rest of the earth has been conceived, as will be plain from what will be said below.

494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, namely, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest.

So Aristotle rejected false opinions, including those mentioned in 491-493. 493 says that there are many arguments about the motion of the earth, and the one mentioned (that to be at rest it has to be flat) is not "assigned by everyone" (ie, accepted by everyone). 493 could be viewed as a transition to the following lecture, starting in 494, where false explanations for true theories are discussed. So the earth is at rest is a true theory to St. Thomas, but that it has to be flat to be at rest is a false explanation.

Jaynek · « **Reply #72 on:** October 13, 2018, 10:15:53 AM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 08:56:27 AM

Jayne,
you can quote yourself all you want (which is a little vain tbh) but it won't change a thing. You have consistently ignored the main point made by the author and also ALL scientific evidence concerning the flat earth. Your credibility is very low.

Flat earthers on the other hand are very open and honest. (and not communist)

READ THE REST OF THE SENTENCE THAT YOU QUOTED:

"494. After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest."

So it is clear that the FALSE theories referred to are that it is IN MOTION. Not that it is a flat or a globe.

You really are quote dishonest Jayne. You should examine your conscience on that point. And giving lectures to others about reading comprehension.

I did not quote myself and I thoroughly addressed what you have identified as the main point made by the author. The scientific evidence concerning flat earth has nothing to do with whether St. Thomas believed and taught that the earth is a sphere. The latter is simply a matter of reading and understanding what St. Thomas wrote on the subject.

Have you read the entire section from Lecture 20 to 27? It should be easy to tell what your quote of 494 means if one has done so. These lectures together form a topical unit on the earth, covering its position, rest, and shape. Lecture 20 starts with an overview and outline of everything in the section. Then each lecture after that starts with a statement of what has already been covered and what is just about to be covered, placing it within the outline. In broad terms, lectures 20 to 25 contain false arguments, while 26 and 27 contain the truth, i.e. Aristotle's own view, although the outline breaks this down further.

You have quoted 494: "After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth, the Philosopher here pursues the opinions of those who, while holding a true theory about the earth, NAMELY, that it is at rest, assigned unsuitable explanations for the earth's rest." This sentence begins a new lecture. Like all the other lecture openings, it summarizes the previous material (in red) and then introduces what follows (in blue). The first part of the sentence "After rejecting the opinions of those who held false theories about the earth," refers to what has come before it, which includes the argument for the earth being flat at 493 which the article's author quoted and claimed was a conclusion by St. Thomas.

Considered in the overall structure, the material in 491 to 493 covers the sub-topic of false theories about the shape of the earth. St. Thomas identifies it as discussing the shape of the earth at 491: "Then at [349] he [Aristotle] gives the theories about the shape of the earth. And first he presents the theories, and states that there are likewise problems about the shape of the earth, as there are about its motion and position. For some think that it is spherical, others that it is wide and having the shape of a tambourine."

St. Thomas himself gave us his view of the argument described in 493. He said in 491 that it concerned the shape of the earth. He said in 494 that it was a false theory. You are incorrect to claim that it concerns the earth being in motion.

You would understand this subject better if you considered the structure that St. Thomas outlined in Lecture 20 and thought about where these isolated quotes go in the overall structure. He has explicitly identified what topics are covered and which parts are false and which are true.

It is rather silly of you to keep accusing me of being dishonest every time you misunderstand something.

Jaynek · « **Reply #73 on:** October 13, 2018, 12:58:07 PM »

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 10:43:51 AM

St. Thomas would not have dared to go against the flat earth. Because he knew clearly the sense of the Fathers on the issue.

St. Thomas both would and did go against those Fathers who wrote that the earth was flat. He agreed, however, with those who thought it was a sphere. Since they were not unanimous on this question, he could not agree with all of them.

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 10:43:51 AM

This is why the 494 quote I am giving clearly refers to the question of motion. But you two in your dishonesty are assuming that it refers to the flatness of the earth.

There is nothing dishonest about understanding the unambiguous meaning of the passage. St. Thomas explicitly says the argument at 493 is an argument for the flatness of the earth and nothing in 494 negates that. If you are unable to figure out what it means even when two people have explained it to you, I suppose you will stay that way. You are not helping your case by accusing the people who actually do understand it of being dishonest.

Quote from: hismajesty on October 13, 2018, 10:43:51 AM

Now if he makes reference to the sphere as truth according to Aristotle, it can be readily construed as a simple weakness at worst on St. Thomas' part. A weakness in not making himself clear.

He never said anything about about "truth according to Aristotle". St. Thomas used the word "truth" with no qualifiers on it. He obviously meant objective truth because the idea of subjective "truths" that vary according to people did not arise until hundreds of years later. St. Thomas was being perfectly clear when he said that Aristotle was determining the truth. You want to pretend there is an ambiguity there that does not exist to give yourself an excuse for denying what everyone can see.

Aristotle said the earth is a sphere. St. Thomas taught that Aristotle taught the truth about this. Therefore St. Thomas believed and taught that the earth is a sphere. There is no weakness nor lack of clarity.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is irrelevant. The mountains in the video are irrelevant. These are red herrings to distract people from the truth that you want want to avoid. St. Thomas clearly believed that the earth is a sphere. It is so clear that even Meg could see it, in spite of being a flat earther.

The claims of the priest(?) writing the article were wrong and his argument poorly constructed. Your defense is also incorrect. Your frequent insults of those who point out the truth to you are ad hominem arguments that draw attention to your lack of logic.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #74 on:** October 16, 2018, 12:56:45 AM »

.
How many ways can someone keep getting it wrong, even when his mistakes are described in detail, he keeps on making the same mistakes!
.
Some students are like that in school, they're called dropouts.

Author Topic: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas (Read 8703 times)

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Jaynek

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

hismajesty

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Jaynek

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Stanley N

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

hismajesty

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Jaynek

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Stanley N

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

hismajesty

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Jaynek

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

hismajesty

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Stanley N

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Jaynek

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Jaynek

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas

Neil Obstat

Re: Flat Earth priest responds to Tradidi claims over St. Thomas