CathInfo.com

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.

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.

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.