Monday, September 12, 2022

A Flat Denial

 

Traditionalists live in confusing times, and how can it be otherwise without a pope? There will be controversies that cannot be settled definitively, and we should allow divergence in opinion where possible. That divergence in opinions is to be expected, given the circumstances. I find it more than unsettling, however, when certain Traditionalists advance strange ideas that have nothing to do with the Faith, and only serve to make us look bonkers. Case in point: I read where one Traditionalist claimed that we are being "brainwashed" to believe the Earth is round, dinosaurs existed, the moon landing took place, and the Titanic was sunk. Unfortunately, these ideas are almost always linked back to our Faith, as if they were necessary to be a true Catholic.  

Two things need to be made clear: (1) conspiracies do exist, and (2) the government and powers-that-be do tell lies. There's no way the Alzheimer's patient in the White House won the 2020 election--to give but one example of lies and conspiracy. There is even a crime of conspiracy, and each year thousands are convicted. A problem arises when people see conspiracies and lies everywhere, and/or attempt to tie ideas to the Faith which are not at all connected. I know someone who believes in "Bigfoot," an ape-like creature alleged to live in the Northwestern states here in America. This creature has been "sighted" since the 1960s, so it stands to reason that there are multiple Bigfoots ("Bigfeet"?) as only one such being couldn't possibly survive so long. I do not believe in Bigfoot. However, Bigfoot has nothing to do with maintaining the Traditional Catholic Faith. Whether or not you believe in Bigfoot does not make you either a heretic or a sinner. If you want to debate the issue, please don't drag the Faith into it.

So why am I writing a post about the Earth not being flat? There is a Flat Earth Society that's been around since 1956 (See theflatearthsociety.org) and the term "flat-earther" has become a pejorative label for anyone not towing "modern thought" no matter how wrong and/or immoral. I'll be using the term descriptively--those who honestly believe the Earth is flat. Within the last fifteen years or so, flat-earthers have gained followers on the Internet, and there is a wide diversity of theological beliefs within the flat-earth movement — conservative Protestants, New Agers, deists, pantheists, and now even some Traditionalists. The object of my post is to show the scientific, theological, and historical errors of the flat-earth ideology. While conspiracies do exist, let this be a pertinent reminder of the old axiom, In medio stat veritas ("In the middle lies the truth")--and not to see them where none exist.

What Flat-Earthers Believe
In the flat-earth cosmology, the earth is flat and round. The North Pole is at the center of the earth. There is no South Pole. The edge of the explored earth consists of an ice wall that we call Antarctica. This ice wall not only limits the earth as we know it, but it also keeps the oceans contained. There is disagreement among flat-earthers how far Antarctica extends. Above the earth is a dome in which the stars are embedded. The dome rests on Antarctica beyond the ice wall. The dimensions and exact shape of the dome are debated among flat-earthers. In many versions, the dome is a hemisphere, while others prefer a dome with greater radius at the center (over the North Pole) than at its edges, so that it resembles the roof of a sports arena. 

Each day, the dome spins around an axis passing through the earth’s North Pole. This causes the stars to move in the sky. The North Star is located almost directly over the North Pole, so it remains nearly motionless while the other stars go in loops around it. In most flat-earth models, the sun and moon are above the earth but generally below the dome. They also orbit around the axis of the North Pole each day, which accounts for their daily motion. The sun and moon move at a slightly different rate from the dome, which accounts for their motion with respect to the stars. Since the sun and moon are always above the earth, they never rise or set. The sun and moon merely appear to rise and set due to perspective. The sun is like a spotlight shining down on the earth. When locations are under the spotlight, it is day; when the spotlight passes a location, it is night. There are variations on this theme, but I trust I have accurately portrayed the basics of the flat-earth cosmology.

Next ensues various conspiratorial stories about how everyone knew the Earth was flat, and it wasn't until 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue and discovered that the Earth, despite the beliefs of the Catholic Church and Spanish royalty, was round. However, the Earth wasn't really round, and the powers that be (Jews, secret societies, pick your bugbear) somehow convinced the Church and society of this fantasy. Why would they do that? Once more, many whacky theories abound; to weaken belief in the authority of the Church and the Bible, to brainwash the masses to accept other falsehoods, etc. (Of course, I am here only dealing with Traditionalists who fall for this nonsense, not New Agers and others who accept the flat Earth cosmology, but have different stories as to why this "lie of a round Earth" was propagated---Introibo). 

Ironically, those who believe that a flat-Earth was common knowledge prior to Columbus, have accepted a lie themselves; one devised and disseminated by Protestants, and which is vehemently anti-Catholic.


Distorting History
The idea that Columbus discovered a round Earth, and prior to that people thought the world was flat (like I was taught in middle school and high school) is wrong. According to Dr. Jeffrey Burton Russell, Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara:

It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat.

A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.

Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise.
(See veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html). 

Venerable Bede (who lived circa 673-735 A.D.) refers to the Earth as an “orb” and says that “it is not merely circular like a shield or spread out like a wheel, but resembles more a ball.” This idea was repeated by philosophers, mathematicians, and astronomers throughout the Middle Ages. (See books.google.com/books?id=yFsw-Vaup6sC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false). St. Thomas Aquinas in the very first page of the Summa Theologica writes, "...the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e., abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself.”

Back to Dr. Russell:
No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat.

The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense."(Ibid).

Letronne was adamantly anti-Catholic:
The myth of Middle Age belief in a flat Earth, originating during the 19th century, has two individuals to blame, acting almost concurrently yet independently. Frenchman Antoine-Jean Letronne sought to disparage the Catholic Church in his 1834 study “On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers“, seeking to depict the clergy as anti-science and ignorant. Meanwhile, American essayist Washington Irving, in an effort to embolden the myth of Columbus, introduced to the United States the erroneous concept that Europeans thought the folk figure was acting in defiance of popular opinion; Irving’s work has become a staple of the American education system, even after it has been widely debunked as incorrect. (See historycollection.com/20-things-everybody-gets-wrong-about-the-middle-ages/21; Emphasis mine). 

Washington Irving also has ties to the anti-Catholic movement. According to sociologist Rodney Stark:
By the fifteenth century (and for many centuries before) every educated European, including Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round.  The opposition Columbus encountered was not about the shape of the earth, but about the fact that he was wildly wrong about the circumference of the globe.  He estimated it was about 2,800 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan.  In reality it is about 14,000 miles.  His clerical opponents knew about how far it really was and opposed his voyage on grounds that Columbus and his men would all die at sea.  Had the Western Hemisphere not been there, and no one knew it existed, the Niña, Pinta, and Santa Maria might as well have fallen off the earth, for everyone aboard would have died of thirst and starvation.

Amazingly enough, there was no hint about Columbus having to prove that the earth was round in his own journal or in his son's book, History of the Admiral.  The story was unknown until more than three hundred years later when it appeared in a biography of Columbus published in 1828.  The author, Washington Irving (1783–1859), best known for his fiction — in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow he introduced the Headless Horseman. Although the tale about Columbus and the flat earth was equally fictional, Irving presented it as fact.  Almost at once the story was eagerly embraced by historians who were so certain of the wickedness and stupidity of the Roman Catholic Church that they felt no need to seek any additional confirmation, although some of them must have realized that the story had appeared out of nowhere.  Anyway, that's how the tradition that Columbus proved the world was round got into all the textbooks. 
(See catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/introduction-confronting-distinguished-bigots.html; N.B. Stark [d. 2022] was a self-described "independent Christian" who was never Catholic or V2 sect). 

There were two other influential men who made sure the false story about Columbus and alleged medieval belief in a flat Earth made it into the history books. Once more, I cite Dr. Russell:
But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth?

The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library. (Ibid). 

It should be no surprise to learn that both Draper and White were anti-Catholic bigots. According to scholar Ronald Numbers:
Scholars have long debated how best to characterize the historical relationship between science and religion and no generalization has been more seductive than that of conflict. Indeed the two most widely-read books in the history of science and Christianity bear the title “conflict” or “warfare”. The first of the books to appear, in one sense, was John William Draper’s book The History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. This appeared in the mid-1870s and was in fact less of a dispassionate history, which it wasn’t, than a screed against Roman Catholics and what they had done to inhibit scientific progress. Draper argued that the Vatican’s antipathy towards science had left its hands steeped in blood. (See web.archive.org/web/20171011022345/https://www.faraday.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CIS/Numbers/Numbers_Lecture.pdf; Emphasis mine). 

As to White, Co-Founder of Cornell University, we discover the following:
Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918) was an American historian, who in 1865 co-founded Cornell University, the first purely secular institution of higher learning in the United States.  This led to strong criticism of him for separating learning from religion — criticism that came mostly from competitors at Protestant institutions of higher education.  In response, White decided to write a book showing that both religion and science would be better off once “dogmatic theology,” a subject not included in the curriculum at Cornell, was fully overcome.  “I will give them a lesson which they will remember,” he wrote to his friend Ezra Cornell in 1869.

White delivered this “lesson” to his opponents over the next 27 years, during which he published 27 articles, which he finally brought together in 1896 in a two-volume work called History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom.  He begins the book by praising Draper for “his work of great ability” and then goes on to repeat many of Draper’s errors, including one that is widely believed to this day: the flat-earth “dogma.”  White claims that until Christopher Columbus’s time the majority of Christian thinkers had insisted on biblical grounds that the earth was flat, and that the flatness of the earth was practically a dogma of the Church.  In reality, only two Christian authors of record, the early Christian writer Lactantius and the relatively obscure 6th-century Greek traveler and monk Cosmas Indicopleustes, had ever argued that the earth was flat. Whereas, by contrast, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Albert the Great and many other ancient and medieval Christian theologians testified to the rotundity of the earth, as did such major popular writers as Dante and Chaucer. (See catholicscientists.org/articles/faith-science-war-debunked; Emphasis mine). 

Traditionalists who believe that the flat Earth was taught or supported by the Church prior to Columbus are themselves buying into a conspiratorial twisting of history by anti-Catholic bigots to discredit the Church. 

Does the Church Teach a Flat Earth?
Never has the One True Church issued any infallible or authoritative decree regarding the shape of the Earth. The only theological "proof" is in the form of Bible verses used originally by a nineteenth century Protestant Fundamentalist, biblically literal interpretation of the world—that the Earth is flat, was created in six literal days, is only 6,000 years old, and is headed rapidly toward the apocalypse. Here are some of the texts used:

  • The "Four Corners." Apocalypse 7:1, Apocalypse 20:8, and Isaiah 11:12 speak of the "four corners" of the Earth.  Two problems: Flat-Earthers see the world as flat and ROUND so it has no corners. Second, it is an expression, an idiom of the time, meaning "all of the Earth."
  • Heights recorded teach a flat Earth. Daniel 4:11 says, "The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." Flat-Earthers reason that on a spherical earth it would not be possible for a tree to be visible from the entire Earth, but such a tree could be visible anywhere on a flat Earth. For those who read the context, this takes place in  Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, and therefore does not need to correspond to reality. In St. Matthew 4:8 allegedly teaches a flat Earth, because when Christ was tempted by Satan, "Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." Those who wish to argue for a Biblical flat Earth point out that all the kingdoms of the Earth would be visible from a tall mountain only if the Earth is flat. According to theologian Haydock, "We cannot comprehend how this could be done from any mountain or seen with the human eye. Therefore, many [theologians] think it was by some kind of representation..." (See A Comprehensive Commentary on the New Testament, [1859], pg. 1253). 
For Traditionalists there is absolutely no Biblical or theological proof for a flat Earth.

Does Science Show a Flat Earth?
There are many scientific proofs that the earth is round which I cannot possibly cover in a single post. If you were to ask the average person on the street, "How do we know the Earth is round?" most would answer, "We have pictures from space." Sounds totally reasonable, and I agree it is proof.

However, in most Flat Earth cosmologies, the Earth is a flat disk covered by a dome that contains all astronomical bodies. Therefore, there are no satellites. There are no astronauts. We haven’t been to the moon. Then what about all those images from space, such as the International Space Station (ISS) and the photos and videos of astronauts on the moon in the late 1960s and early 1970s? Obviously, they all were faked. NASA is a sham organization that has lied about everything it supposedly has done. Flat-earthers spend considerable time and effort attempting to debunk all things from NASA and arguing against NASA.

1. NASA means "deception." Allegedly, NASA is not the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but a derivation of the Hebrew word nasha’ meaning "to deceive." This sounds like a clue from a bad science-fiction movie. If this counts as "evidence" is it any wonder flat-Earthers aren't taken seriously?

2. The Thermosphere. Flat-Earthers argue that satellites must pass through the thermosphere with a temperature above 2,000 degrees Celsius, which would cause them to melt. As a former science teacher, they obviously don't know the difference between heat and temperature, which would take too long to explain here. More obviously, how do they know the thermosphere exists and what the temperature is? Ans. From the same scientists who conspire to make them believe satellites are real. Why would they tell the truth about something that would destroy their deception? Super-smart and super-stupid simultaneously? 

3. Van Allen Belts Would Kill the Astronauts. The Van Allen belts are fast-moving charged particles (mostly protons, electrons, and helium nuclei) trapped by the Earth’s magnetic field. Exposure to fast-moving charged particles pose a risk to living things, but how significant is the risk? Contrary to the misconception of flat-Earthers, the risk is cumulative, so a single exposure to the belts is not deadly.

4. Freemasons. Of course, no Traditionalist whacky conspiracy theory would be complete without invoking Jews and/or Freemasons. It's true that some astronauts were Freemasons, such as Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin (b. 1930), the second man on the moon. Yet, these flat-Earthers claim all astronauts are Freemasons. There's no evidence to support Neil Armstrong (d. 2012), the first man on the moon, was a Freemason. Some flat-Earthers respond with the claim that some astronauts choose to keep their Freemason membership secret. So no evidence of Freemasonry, is just as much proof of belonging to the Lodge as openly claiming such--at least in "flat-Earthdom." Why would Freemasons want to fake the Earth being round when a flat Earth is not Catholic belief? Good question. 

Conclusion
Traditionalists have enough real problems and plots going on without being made to look like weirdos by those who defend strange and false ideas under the guise of our Faith. If you want to believe the Earth is flat, the Titanic never sunk, and Elvis is alive at the local supermarket, go right ahead. Just please don't try to make these ideas--like a flat Earth---square with the Faith.

89 comments:

  1. Yesterday was the 21st anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There are still people who believe that it was the US government that organized these attacks. Is there anyone dumb enough to believe your government is behind this ? Why would a government conspire to kill its own citizens ? Conspiracy like this is a form of paranoia born in the brains of people who spend too much time on the web. But there are also real conspiracies organized by forces hostile to God and His true Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://fakeotube.com/v/31

      Delete
    2. No Simon, please do not call the 9/11 conspiracy theories dumb because the "government would never do this to the people". Look at lockdowns! This government is pretty capable of doing anything to America.

      If you have an argument against the points made by the truthers, then share it, but rejecting a theory in public without research is not good.

      Delete
    3. Would that be the same government that's been engaged in the industrialized slaughter of its own children for 50 years? Just checking.

      Delete
    4. Simon, my good man, the US government has also sanctioned the murder of many, many, many millions of unborn children. Your tax dollars have even (unwittingly) paid for it! There is no one more defenseless than someone not born! So, why would it be so hard, by means of abduction, to conclude that the government would murder only approximately 2753 people on September 11, 2001?

      Delete
    5. Regarding abortion, the US government encourages it, of course, as does our government here in Canada. But the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Arab terrorists. Why would it be crazy to think that these attacks were planned by a handful of mohammedans financed by a wealthy Arab (bin Laden)?

      Delete
    6. Simon et. al,
      I personally agree, having lived through 9/11 here in NYC, and losing my friend Tommy from Church (Ave Maria Chapel) to the tragedy, that it was Moslem terrorists. However, I could be wrong, and what Dave wrote is true enough.

      What we can ALL agree upon is that how 9/11 happened is not a matter of the Catholic Faith.

      God Bless you all,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    7. I still can't believe people still think 911 was carried out by muslim terrorists! What in the world is wrong with you people? I mean you are as dumb as they come. Stupid. I bet most of you idiots went and got the clot shot because, well the government wouldn't shoot us up with graphene or anything like that! Stupid is actually too nice a word. I mean what have you morons been doing for the past 21 years? You can't figure out that the jet fuel from 2 airplanes can't level 3 skyscrapers at freefall speed? You're just dumb. If you believe fuel can soften and or melt steel skyscrapers then what do think they make jet engines out of? Shouldn't planes "collapse." Duh. Do you idiots understand that WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition? Did you watch the film? Umm did Muslim terrorists sneak into WTC7 and wire the buildings with Thermite when nobody was looking? If you are that stupid then you deserve to be injected with that poison they call a vaccine. Natural selection at work.

      Delete
    8. @anon7:59
      I did not take the jab, and I published what you wrote to show the uncharitable rancor of most conspiracy theorists towards those who disagree.

      The intelligence of any of those writing above you would far exceed yours, I'm sure, not to mention their CHRISTIAN CHARITY. There are answers to your charges but they don't involve the Faith. Do you understand what "Ad hominem" is, oh ye of great intellect?

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. No, you have to be called out. There is no excuse for stupidity on this matter. You said you're a former science teacher right? Did your curriculum include physics? I include everyone who is so blind such as Simon. The things you believe regarding 911 (official narrative) are ridiculous. I don't know anything nicer to say to you. You're not ignorant. You're not uninformed. You're stupid. If you can't tell that WTC7 was a controlled demolition then the only other thing I can say about you is that you're a liar. If I were a lawyer interrogating you on the witness stand I would easily demonstrate that you have zero credibility.

      Delete
    10. Simon, false flag attacks, like conspiracies, are (obviously) facts of history. It would be absolutely incredible- incredible!- for a terrorist group to pull off an attack on that scale, without it coming to the attention of either the Saudi, Israeli or US intelligence servcies (not to mention others). Al Queda be it remembered had links to these services going back to Soviet times. I believe, by the way, that a classified document released on wikileaks suggested that British intelligence were under the impression that US inteligence believed Mossad had prior knowledge. But who knows. Julian Assange now rots in UKs toughest jail!

      Has Simon ever read about the career of Francis Walsingham? of the Cecils? of all the plots they hatched, the double agents, the agent provocateurs, and false flags etc? How they tried again and again to have Mary Queen of Scots judiciiously murdered, eventually suceeding? Nothing was too dastardly for them! Has he read Machiavelli??
      Lastly, a very suspicious fact. Both the JFK assasination and 9/11 were shown on *live TV*. Almost as if it were some sort of not to be missed spectacular (those not having seen it live, will watch it later) to arrest the imaginations of literally everybody.

      Delete
    11. @anon8:34
      "I need to be called out" because I don't believe your version of 9/11 on a blog dedicated to Traditionalist Catholicism? There is plenty of scientific evidence that the WTC7 was brought down by fire and nicely summarized here:

      https://theconversation.com/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked-20-years-later-engineering-experts-explain-how-the-twin-towers-collapsed-167353

      Yes, there is evidence on the other side, so I don't completely rule out other scenarios if well-enough supported--which they are not at this time.

      The impetus behind the Truther movement is David Ray Griffin, a heretic who uses the "process theology" of Alfred North Whitehead to "debunk" Our Lord's Divinity.

      Again, you present no evidence, you simply assert something is true and call names to those who don't believe YOUR narrative. You would never make it as a lawyer. You would never get in, let alone pass, the vigorous curriculum--and if by some miracle you were a member of the Bar and presented "evidence" as you do here, you would be held in contempt by any judge.

      I think between the two of us, we know EVERYTHING. Seriously. You seem to know everything EXCEPT for the fact that you're nothing more than a pseudo-educated dolt who can't make a real argument to save his life.

      AND I KNOW THAT!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    12. Simon:
      It's not a matter of believing Islamic terrorists *couldn't* do it, in terms of willingness. I understand what Islam is, I know its history. And I enthusiastically accepted that version of events for roughly 15 years and supported the American response, both vocally and materially. But over time, after an unprecedented amount of careful scrutiny (every year we all watch the footage), I've just come to believe that Muslim terrorists *didn't* do it. I don't have the time or the bandwidth to make that case to you here, but I will say this: for me, it started with Hani Hanjour, the flight path of American 77, and security footage of the strike on the Pentagon. That was where the seed of doubt was planted in me. After that, the entire narrative quickly unraveled.

      If you're stupid for believing it, then I was stupid too not very long ago. I prefer to think I was emotionally attached to the rage I felt that day and was unwilling to question and redirect it. Once I got over that, I was able to see the thing with clear eyes. Now, I'm thoroughly convinced that we were manipulated on a level I still can't quite fathom.

      My only point about abortion is that our government has sanctioned a satanic holocaust against 65 million sinless human beings. As far as what they're capable of, they're already active participants in the greatest evil in all of human history. That alone doesn't make the government guilty of perpetrating the 2001 attacks, but it's certainly a factor in assessing whether or not they could be.

      Delete
    13. WTC7 was not brought down by fire- come now! it fell on its own footprint- in seconds!! I am afraid that if you ahve studied this and decided otherwise, this only condemns study i suppose- this thing is as plain as a lamppost!
      Another thing would be, if it collapsed due to fire: where are all the major reevauations of building in the manner WTC7 was built, as evidently it was not fit for purpose? Or have they quietly admitted this is unlikely to happen again?

      INtroibo- the link you gave debunking this. I clicked on its principle article: "Why young people should get a covid vaccine".
      then
      "omincron is spreading"
      then..
      I hope you appreciate the problem here.

      Delete
    14. this can be taken to the bank (it is coleridge)

      "History has taught me, that RULERS are much the same in all ages & under all forms of government: they are as bad as they dare to be."

      Now, the media does not fear to take our rulers to task, it IS our rulers, it is owned and employed by them lock stock and barrel. And *everything* is filtered through the media. Therefore, do the math, as they say in the USA. What checks our rulers daring? answers on a postcard please.

      Delete
    15. GreenR,
      On my last "Contending For The Faith" post, you sent in a "refutation" of the Church allowing Creation to be billions of years old (and which I will respond to later this week) from the Kolbe Center. The Center is run by Vatican II sect laymen who accept Bergoglio as "pope" and cite the heretical Catechism of Wotyla from 1994.

      "I hope you appreciate the problem here."

      Attempting to discredit something based on the source alone(except in certain unique circumstances) is the "Genetic Fallacy" in logic. I could sweep aside the Kolbe Center (with more justification) the way you did my source, but I won't argue as a sophist.

      Just because they are wrong on COVID doesn't of necessity make them wrong on 9/11, does it? Even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours. There is plenty of scientific evidence for the "official version" of 9/11, but I have no need (or desire) to argue over something unconnected to the One True Church and Her teachings.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    16. Introibo it is a "news" site dedicated to govt propoganda. Of course you cannot take it seriously regarding 9/11. They are liars for the govt. The allegation is the govt has much to lie about on this above all.
      The Kolbe centre's apostolate is to defend what they believe to be the traditional teaching of the church on creation, which they do openly and honestly (not to say they must be right).
      You do not do yourself any favours drawing dodgy comparisons like that.

      Delete
    17. It would be fair if the Kolbe centre were lying about the traditional teaching and had every reason to (and could be shown to be lying about every other important thing too). They could be then dismissed without further ado. I am sure this is perhaps true of certain Novus Ordo organs. The Kolbe centre on the other hand is truly swimming upstream.

      I perfectly agree with your last sentence.
      I look forward (very much) to your response to the Kolbe Centre "refutation". Do try and see some of his talks which can be found on youtube- well worth the time. Of course i agree with you that they have it wrong re. vat ii and vat ii popes.

      God bless!

      Delete
    18. GreenR,
      My comparison is far from deceptive. Unless you know all the members of the Kolbe Center personally, how do you know they are good-willed ("openly and honestly"--"swimming upstream")? You will see in my response they are not. Moreover, they belong to the Vatican II sect, the very purpose of which is to deceive people into thinking it to be Catholicism.

      That's another problem with many conspiracy theories; the lack of any good-willed people. EVERYONE is "in on it." NO ONE will come forward with the truth because they will be executed on sight, etc. 2+2=4 is correct even when said by the government, and you have to deal with what they publish, much of which makes sense upon independent examination.

      Nevertheless, you will see my answer to them in the comments by Sunday. Then you can see for yourself what they peddle!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    19. "Openly and honestly" in that they, as far as I can tell, say what they are and do what they say. You have attempted to "debunk" a govt consipracy by directing us to a site *currently* lying through its teeth for precisely...the govt.
      But I agree with you, to the extent that I am, relatively, entirely uninteretsed in the question of 9/11.
      I do hope you are not going to go after the people in the Kolbe centre. What interests me is whether they are right- to wit- that the interpretation of genesis consistently taught by the church is what they say it is. My hunch is that they are right. Please don't waste your time in a hatchet job- I at least will be thoroughly disappointed! I wanted you to look through their arguments, perhaps opening an interesting discussion.
      What has the church taught through its 2000 years on this very important subject? This is what i would like to know. If you avoid this, I will wonder why.
      If its a "novus ordo this" and a "most scientists agree" that- i will be, as i say, very disappointed. And have evidently come to the wrong place

      In JMJ

      Delete
    20. So, If Cecil tells us his side of a story, say, for the gunpowder plot, you think we should treat his statement as we would any other? Or Fox's tales of Protestant Martyrs? Should we pretend he is not engaging in anti-catholic propaganda first and foremost. That is not to say there is no truth in it: I know. But is is very rotten source of truth. To be handled with utmost care.
      I repeat: that site is obviously "peddling", as you put it, govt propaganda. It is pushing covid vaccines on the young. That is it job: not the news, not truth.
      Do you know what would happen to a properly funded news site if it was to investigate 9/11 'unfavourably'? This is important, and explains why none do or will.

      Are kolbe centre WRONG to say what they say regarding the consistent teaching of the church re. Genesis? Please keep this question in mind. Please give examples- perhaps among the church fathers etc. I have a feeling (and it is a feeling, as I am thoroughly ignorant) you will not, becasue you cannot, becasue nobody can. If you can and do, I will be the first to admit it! this si why I brought it up- to get to the truth!

      In JMJ

      Delete
    21. I remember working at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on 9/11. From the window of my office you could see the pentagon and the smoke coming up when the plane hit. On the TV monitors they were showing the WTC sinking straight down. I worked with many engineers. I remember telling one of them. That a plane flew threw the building and destroyed the whole thing. He said "that is impossible". I kept telling him "it must be possible, because it is being shown as we speak as actually to have happened." He kept saying that is impossible. I was wondering why he insisted so vehemently. Some years later I realized that as an engineer who would know that a building wouldn't sink directly down into itself merely because a plane flew through the top of it.

      Delete
  2. Some people have said the conspiracy is backwards - the freemasons are using flat-earth to make christianity look bad
    God Bless

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:33
      An interesting thought!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. I have talked to a couple Flat Earthers and I find they are rightly skeptical about the “establishment” narrative on science and history. But then they blindly follow any alternate view. I try to tell them that they are accepting one narrative instead of another with the same blind faith they accuse the other side. At the end of the day it all comes down to faith based on authority. Science is really nothing more than revelations about the natural world interpreted by the high priests of science, the “scientist.” That is why idiots put up lawn signs saying “I believe in Science.” Science is their religion. Sorry, but the shape of the earth is irrelevant to the salvation of my soul. I could care less if the Earth was a trapezoid. Assenting to the truths revealed by God and taught by His Holy Church is the only thing I truly believe in without reservation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom,
      You write: "Assenting to the truths revealed by God and taught by His Holy Church is the only thing I truly believe in without reservation." That summarizes the Traditionalist Catholic sentiment perfectly!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. An Elvis impersonator performs at a local restaurant 3 times a year. So sad that this guy and his followers walk among us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Led Zep impersonators are much more cringe

      Delete
    2. Barbara,
      I know what you mean!

      @anon11:54
      LOL

      God Bless you both,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Remember the rock-reggae band
      "Dread Zeppelin?"
      -Andrew

      Delete
  5. I don't believe we have been to the moon, because I find the photos unconvincing. This is a different belief from flat-earth, though.

    But every time I go outside at night I have seen satellites, like stars circling the skies. Of course flat earthers will say they are below the thermosephere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me,
      Those who believe in these whacky conspiracies will always find ways to preserve what they want to hold as true, no matter how absurd.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. It’s refreshing to read this article and all the comments, flat earthers are tied into Q-Anon movement and now accept
      lost Books of Bible and Enoch over the Bible saying they were lied to about The Flood, Angels caste out of Heaven and Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had family. There is no arguing with them, they are. CULT. I do believe Moon Landing was totally simulated in the 60s. Tv 📺 said
      Simulated if anyone paid attention. We are lied to about a lot, but earth is round.

      Delete
  6. I don't believe in a flat earth but I do believe in the 'flat brain' whereby the brain has been flattened to such an extent that it could not power a 5w light bulb if it had to. I think the Jews and Freemasons are driving the flat brain theory.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The sudden onset of flat-eartherism suggest an inorganic phenomenon. It's perfectly logical to assume absurd conspiracies would be aggressively promoted to protect fraudulent official narratives (COVID, 9/11, "Pope Francis", most secure election ever, we landed on the moon and lost the tech to go back, etc) and marginalize the sort of people who question them.

    The different between the red pill and the black pill is discernment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon4:50
      You make a salient point; discernment is always the key to staying on the straight path.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Great article, Introibo. A man I spoke to---a good man---from Idaho, was hung up on this flat earth nonsense. I really have little interest in the subject, but my gut was that it was nonsense, so I didn't push back at all. Nice to see it succinctly debunked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dave,
      As long as your friend doesn't make it "dogma" you can let it pass. No need to ruin a friendship over it if it's not made an "article of Faith."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. I wonder how the flat-earthers explain the The Coriolis Effect in both the northern and southern hemisphere. If there is no south pole why does water twirl down a drain in the opposite direction south of the equator as opposed to north of the equator.

    Might as well throw all those Infant of Prague statues away where the Infant Jesus holds a round ball known as the earth in his hand.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee,
      Both excellent points, my friend!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  10. I just Googled Niel Armstrong an his picture came up with him wearing a freemason ring. Plus anyone who has had an xray is forced to wear heavy lead plates, so how is it in the Van Allen Radiation belt is safe. I really don't think the writer did his research very well

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon7:35
      I did plenty of research, and did it well. ALDRIN wore a Masonic ring, and readily admitted his Masonic membership. At the following Masonic link you will see proudly listed the astronauts who were Masons--you will not see Neil Armstrong.
      https://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/masonic-astronauts/

      Why would they NOT want to claim the first man on the moon as one of their own??

      As to the Van Allen Belt, The trajectories to the moon of the Apollo missions were chosen carefully to avoid maximum exposure. The paths took the Apollo astronauts through the least dangerous part of the inner belt and
      avoided the outer belt altogether by passing above or below it. And the Apollo astronauts traveled most quickly (25,000 mph) through the inner belt, thus reducing the length of time spent there. Finally, the skin and instruments lining the walls of the Command Module of the Apollo spacecraft offered some shielding.

      All the manned missions to the moon carried dosimeters to assess the exposure during the trip. The measurements showed acceptable risks, much less than the maximum annual exposure deemed acceptable for people who work with radioactivity.

      Finally, I have a query for you:
      How do you know the photo of Armstrong with a Masonic Ring you found wasn't faked like the pictures of the Earth from space??

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. You have not taken enough interest in the topic.
    In the history of the Church there were two schools. Antiochian and Alexandrian. Antioch, under the influence of the Jews, believed that the earth was flat. Alexandria, under the influence of clever pagan Greeks, believed that the earth was round.
    On NASA's website for all the photos, the description says that the photos are a CGI product. Only one didn't. "Blue Marble".

    God's blessing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stipan,
      You cite no sources. The historicity of the "two schools" is not accepted by historians as it has no evidence. So the Earth's picture on NASA's website is that of a blue marble and they were stupid enough to label it as such?

      Whoever came up with that has lost several marbles--and not just blue ones.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Good, rounded post about how silly flat earth theory is, but the tidbit about the moon landings being true is a bit facile. There are any number of reasonable objections to the veracity of the lunar landings, that radiation poisoning being only one—and not that adequately disputed here—is not sufficient proof to dissuade an individual or normal intelligence who has heard the objections from an objective position.

    Perhaps take a stab at the theory we didn’t go to the moon in a post sometime.

    CE

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for the post - I particularly enjoyed the history lessons and reading about the distortions of history. God bless.
    -S.T.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seeking Truth,
      Thank you! Most people don't realize the story of Columbus is all wrong. Even I believed the false tale taught me in school until I was in my late 20s.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechetical_School_of_Antioch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stipan,
      The Wikipedia article (not even a reliable source) does not say they promoted a flat Earth. The vast majority of all people believed in a round Earth, especially early Christians. Those who didn't were a very small minority and most were involved with actual heretical ideas besides.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  15. Introbio,
    How would you respond to such an allegation?
    It is false for sedevacantists to claim that the New Mass substantially changed the Catholic Mass, since in its official doctrinal teaching (such as in the 1992 Catechism of John Paul II) the Vatican II sect continues to teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist by transubstantiation, the propitiatory character of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. In other words, the supposed essence of the teaching on the Eucharist as sacrament and sacrifice was not changed by the Mass of Paul VI.
    Recently, during a social gathering, I met a boy my age (19) who is interested in the Catholic faith (unlike all the rest of the Polish youth, who don't even know the catechism). He is a Novus Ordo altar server. I started talking with him about Vatican II as a substantial change of the Catholic religion in doctrine, worship and law. Of course, we did not miss the topic of John Paul II, of whom he is a big fan. This boy said: "John Paul II always said that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the world and that only the Catholic Church is the only true one"... When I started criticizing the New Mass he denied it, saying that after all, Novus Ordo priests commonly teach in sermons, in catechesis, that the Holy Eucharist is not bread and wine, but the true Body and Blood of Christ. He referred to the texts and gestures in the New Mass (e.g., kneeling or talking about the "Body and Blood of Christ") and also to the traditional Polish church hymns that are used in Novus Ordo churches, which speak clearly about the Real Presence (e.g., "Jesus hidden I have in the Sacrament to worship," "O saving Host," etc.). He says it's irrational to claim that the New Mass doesn't reflect Catholic truth and at the same time that the Church that approved the Mass officially proclaims this truth. "They are teaching something different from what the Mass proclaimed by them says? They are not such hypocrites." How would you respond to this allegation?
    Thank you for your help.

    God Bless,
    Paweł

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pawel,
      The Vatican II sect HAS officially taught heresy through the Novus Bogus. Here are plenty of reasons to reject the so-called "New Mass" (sic):
      http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/ottaviani.htm

      (I do not recommend the R&R site, but only the article that is faithful to the Ottaviani Intervention)

      How about declaring as valid a "mass" with no words of consecration:

      http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=34&

      JPII teaches Universalism:
      Gaudium et Spes (GS) in keeping with the false and heretical ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, teaches the salvation of all humanity. One of the key tenets of this document, it is beloved by Wojtyla ("Pope" "St" John Paul II) who incorporated it in his encyclicals and the heretical 1992 Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church.

      In GS para. #22 we read, For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. By His Incarnation, Christ took on a human nature; True God and True Man. There is no Church teaching that somehow Christ "has united Himself in some fashion with each man." That is a theological novelty of Vatican II. This teaching is pure heresy as can be clearly seen from the teaching of Wojtyla:

      Redemptor Hominis (1979), para. #13: Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, "by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man"(Emphasis in original). Continuing in the same encyclical, Wojtyla writes, Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery.

      Query: If Christ has united Himself forever to each person simply by virtue of the Incarnation, how is it possible for someone to be damned? Answer: No one can ever be damned because Hell involves eternal separation from God, which is incompatible with the teaching of GS and Wojtyla--- that all humans are united forever with Christ and thus all must be saved. It is Catholic truth that no one is saved unless they are within the One True Church of Christ and die in the state of sanctifying grace.

      If your friend is V2 sect, ask him if he accepts Bergoglio as his pope. JPII has been gone over 17 years. He teaches "Proselytism is solemn nonsense" "There is no Catholic God" and "Atheists can go to Heaven."

      If he objects--"but that wasn't in an official document"--he has tacitly admitted to sedevacantism because the pope loses office "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." Oeuvres Completes. 9:232.

      The pope can fall into heresy AS A PRIVATE PERSON and lose office. Let me know if this is enough for you to give your friend to consider!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo



      Delete
    2. Paweł,
      regarding the alleged sacrificial character of NOM, your friend should realize that when Paul VI proclaimed the so-called new missal in 1969, the definition of the "mass" included in that very missal did not contain ANY sacrificial language whatsoever. This is the 1969 definition:

      "7. The Lord's Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ's promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: 'Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst' (Mt. 18:20)."
      Source: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/most-important-historical-document-1969.html

      Of course, they noticed that "slight" mistake and a new definition was issued shortly in (I believe it was) 1970 (where they popped the word "sacrifice" here and there to give it that "Catholic" flavor). Here's the 2004 General Instruction in Polish (Wprowadzenie Ogólne do Mszału Rzymskiego: https://vademecumliturgiczne.pl/2016/04/07/ogolne-wprowadzenie-do-mszalu-rzymskiego-z-2004-roku/ (see chapter II, paragraph 27 for the definition of the "new mass" - the term "eucharistic sacrifice" and one reference to Trent - "the sacrifice of the cross (small letter in the original)" - was inserted in there).
      Nonetheless, the fact remains: with his signature Montini approved the obviously heretical definition of the "mass" and no subsequent editing can change it. How does your friend square this with the fact that the Church is infallible and cannot give to the faithful, let alone make obligatory, that which is false?
      See this great video by Fr. Cekada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIvYH4D2u2s

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    3. Paweł,
      see this video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT-WZ9a5QMc
      Fr. Cekada explains just how the 1970 definition of NOM was made to look all "fine" and acceptable to Catholics after the obviously heretical 1969 version of the Montini missal had been proclaimed.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    4. Tell your colleague to read,
      Council of Trent Session 7 Canon 13 and the document Quo Primum issued under Pope St.Pius V.
      Roughly 5 mins of reading,not intense. It's undeniable we're living the curse of Quo Primum 1956 - present day. Not to confuse you,Pius XII altered omitted & deleted the literal Apostolic Holy Week. After that fateful tragic sacrilegious week,the Catholic Church knew nothing except changes omissions deletions sacrilege blasphemy & heresy.
      God love you -Andrew

      Delete
    5. Intoroibo, Joanna S.,
      Thank you very much for such comprehensive and good answers. They will certainly serve me in discussions about the Catholic religion with my peers.
      My question is whether Paul VI's Novus Ordo Missae in isolation from this heretical 1969 definition of the Mass is still heretical? If, for example, the Roman Canon alone was retained in the Novus Ordo Missae and the old Offertory was restored, would it be Catholic? For example, does the fact that the Novus Ordo priest kneels before the host only after showing it to the people, rather than immediately after saying the words of consecration express Protestant heresy? Watching an Anglican communion service on the Internet, I saw that an Anglican pastor also does this.
      Can we also say that the 1970 definition of the New Mass is also at least trumpeting heresy? First: the Eucharistic sacrifice literally means a sacrifice of thanksgiving (from the Greek Eucharist is thanksgiving). Second, it is still claimed that "the People of God is called together" when the assembly of the faithful is not an essential element of the Mass, but only accidental element - as I understand it. And the definition of the Mass should clearly separate what is in the essence of the Mass (The bloodless Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ offered by the priest for the praise, thanksgiving, propitiation and supplication of God) from the accident (the assembly of the faithful, the Holy Communion of the faithful). Do I understand this correctly?
      Again, thank you very much for your reply.

      God Bless,
      Paweł

      Delete
    6. Pawel,
      The Novus Bogus was COMPRISED BY SIX PROTESTANT MINISTERS. In 1969, Max Thurian, an important protestant theologian, who helped found the ecumenical Taize community in France, made this statement: "It is now theologically possible for Protestants to use the same Mass as Catholics." (See D. Bonneterre, "The Liturgical Movement", p.100).

      Moreover, there is the problem with the PROPER of the Mass by additions, omissions and alterations which are used to detract or remove Catholic teaching.

      Consider Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:
      para. #62:

      Thus, to cite some instances, one would be in error were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

      Hmm..black removed, altar becomes a table, crucifixes with the "glorified Christ" on it. Sound familiar? It was condemned as error.

      Lastly, even assuming a validly ordained priest using the proper matter and form, using an "Institution Narrative" is heretical and invalidates it. In the Canon of the Mass, the priest must stop, bend over the host or chalice to be Consecrated, and speaking in a secret (low) voice, he must say the words attentively and devoutly without interruption. This is to show that the priest is not simply repeating the Words of Our Lord spoken almost 2000 years ago in some narration of a historical event, but he intends to perform the action of Consecration effectuating transubstantiation here and now. In reciting the Words of Institution in an Institution Narrative, the "priest" does the exact opposite. He reads it as one big historical story, thereby vitiating his intention to consecrate, according to some theologians like rubrician O'Connell. It is analogous to baptizing a baby within the context of reading the Gospel of St. Matthew Chapter 28--is the intent to baptize here and now, or are you simply reciting what took place in the time of Our Lord's life on Earth?

      In the words of the "Ottaviani Intervention:"

      It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent… It represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent. The “canons” of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the mystery

      It is a pile of Protestantism from start to finish.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo


      Delete
    7. Did Ottaviani continue to celebrate the traditional Mass or did he join the Novus Ordo ?

      Delete
    8. Simon,
      He continued the True Mass exclusively in private. Montini "allowed" him to do so because of his age (b. 1890, d. 1979), and the fact that he was almost completely blind. They took advantage of him, persuading a "friend" of the Cardinal to have him sign a paper on his deathbed which was a retraction of his "Intervention." The Cardinal was TOTALLY blind in 1979, and had no idea what he was signing--relying on the "veracity" of his clerical "friend."

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    9. Joanna S.,
      I have a question for you on a practical matter regarding Polish books.
      Do you know of any good moral theology textbook in Polish? It seems to me that the best one in Polish is "Etyka katolicka" by the theologian Sieniatycki from the 1930s. And before the Council, seminarians probably learned from textbooks in Latin. I could have asked my uncle, a priest (ordained in 1954), but unfortunately I didn't make it because he died in 2016, and I wasn't aware of it at the time.
      Do you think it is possible to use the writings and lectures of conservative Novus Ordo priests such as Fr.(?) Tadeusz Guz (philosophy) or Fr.(?) Dariusz Olewiński (theology and philosophy)? Personally, I don't know how such great minds can still be part of Novus Ordo structures. After all, for example, Olewiński in particular is well acquainted with preconciliar theology and himself mostly quotes only documents of the Magisterium until 1958 and theologians until 1965.
      Do you have any experience of discussions with Novus Ordo priests or secularists? The effects of Vatican II and its reforms were perhaps not so clearly highlighted in Poland, due to the conservatism of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński, the Primate of Poland, and people are not aware of this.
      Have a good Sunday - the Lord's Day!

      God Bless,
      Paweł

      Delete
    10. Andrew,
      Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that this canon of the Council of Trent and the bull "Quo primum" of Pope St. Pius V does not exclude accidental reforms in the rite of Mass. The bull "Quo primum" is an ecclesiastical law that can be abolished by a true pope. The reason for rejecting the New Mass, as I understand it, is:
      1. Monitni in 1969 was not the true Pope Paul VI.
      2. The New Mass has been stripped of Catholic doctrines, and portrays a false notion of the Mass, the priesthood, and the Holy Eucharist.
      Therefore, Pope Pius XII had the right to reform Holy Week. If a real pope had been elected in 1958 (e.g., Ottaviani or Siri) and he had allowed, for example, the Roman Mass to be celebrated in the national languages rather we would have had to obey such a liturgical law.

      God Bless,
      Paweł

      Delete
    11. Dear Paweł,
      I've found only one really thorough and in-depth moral theology textbook in Polish. It is the work of the eminent French Cardinal Gousset (first edition published in 1844) translated into Polish in 1858 and later in 1881 (four volumes, nearly 1400 pages in total!). You can find the entire 4-volume set under this link: https://polona.pl/item/teologia-moralna-dla-uzytku-plebanow-i-spowiednikow-t-1-4,ODk3NDM5MzM/4/#info:metadata
      If you'd like to download it as a PDF file, you'll have to pick individual volumes here: https://polona.pl/search/?filters=public:0,creator:%22Gousset,_Thomas_Marie_Joseph_(1792--1866)%22 and see which one is downloadable as PDF.
      The Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) praises Cdl. Gousset as "an expert professor and consummate casuist" who wrote on the theology of St. Alphonsus Liguori so I guess that's proof enough he's moral theology is perfectly sound.

      To the best of my knowledge, the work by Fr. Sieniatycki was intended as a high school coursebook (only 175 pages) so it's really a basic introduction into the study of moral theology. Back in the day when the Church was still thriving and there were plenty of well-formed priests and confessors, that short book would be enough for a layman.

      Tadeusz Guz appeals to traditionally-minded people with his polemics against Luther and Judaism but that won't change the fact that he's still a Novus Ordo cleric. He's recently made headlines regarding the possibility of corona infection at the Novus Ordo "mass", and his argument was so theologically appalling that I seriously doubt this man's intellectual capacity. His theory is that the priest cannot spread germs because his hands are consecrated (see: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadeusz_Guz). I'm sure we do agree that this whole corona stuff is not what the media has portrayed it to be but that's not the point here.
      Dariusz Olewiński (aka Teolog katolicki odpowiada) does cite mostly pre-Vatican II sources and I admit I've looked at his website for some info on the Divine mercy hoax which was nicely analyzed for a theological point of view with reference to the work by Fr. Wincenty Granat (who as a pre-Vatican II theologian - died in 1979 - considered these "apparitions" somewhat theologically unsound). It seems "Fr." Olewiński belongs to the indult spectrum of the Novus Ordo so his personal opinions should not be taken at face value but as long as he purely cites pre-Vatican II sources with no commentary of his own, that's OK.

      I've never got into discussion with the Novus Ordo clergy or laymen in person. When I was still in the NO I would refrain from discussing religion with my acquaintances (lapsed Novus Ordos anyways) and the family ties outside of my nuclear family are practically non-existent (my family members being either lapsed or Bergoglio-loving Novus Ordos - who would keep a photo of this apostate in his living room?!). What I find really problematic is the sad state of the sede community in Poland - a huge obstacle to winning converts.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    12. Joanna S.,
      Thank you very much for recommending Cardinal Gousset's textbook. I will take a look at it.

      Indeed, the statement of "Fr." Tadeusz Guz about the possibility of infection at the Novus Ordo "Mass" was tragic. I don't know how a man with as much philosophical knowledge as he has (he knows Aristotle, St. Thomas, etc.) can fail to understand the dogma of transubstantiation and the Aristotelian-Scholastic definitions of substance and accidentals that the Church used to define this dogma. His statement was, in my opinion, against any sound theological teaching.

      Of course, COVID-19 - which does exist - has been manipulated by our "Catholic" and "right-wing" Law and Justice (PiS) government, as well as by both left-wing and "right-wing" media. Not to mention the abortion issue in the time of COVID-19. I was very annoyed and at the same time wanted to cry as I saw what girls from my school class were writing on messenger. They wanted to do a protest and not go to class because their supposed "freedom" was being taken away from them. Nota bene none of them wanted to discuss abortion with me. I wonder if something will start again in the fall.... Through remote learning and sitting at home, I see that my peers are intellectually and socially warped.

      As for " Fr." Olewiński it seems to me that he, as a doctor of Novus Ordo theology, will defend Vatican II to the end, although it is clear that he distances himself from Francis. If, for example, "Cardinal" Burke or "Archbishop" Vigano would publicly declare the falsity of Vatican II, the New Mass, etc. then Olewiński could follow them. Although then it seems to me that many conservatives might follow such a hierarch who will convert from the Novus Ordo. Recently, even the famous "prelate"-patriot from Bydgoszcz - "Fr." Roman Kneblewski said that Francis is not a true pope.

      I just try to discuss this with my peers, but here I always have to lecture them on the simplest things from the catechism, it's not even something to discuss. Of course, how my supposed Catholic peers accept as moral artificial contraception is not even to begin to talk about Vatican II... Of course, no arguments (neither from natural reason - natural law, neither from faith - the teaching jurisprudence of the Church and from the Divine Revelation) convince them that artificial contraception is something morally wrong.

      God Bless,
      Paweł

      Delete
    13. Pawel,
      We will agree to disagree,as
      "Quo Primum Tempore" contains intense explicit frightening simple instruction.
      "They incur the wrath of Almighty God, and the Blessed Apostles Saints Peter+ Paul." Sounds to me like our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ,who inspired the Council of Trent,didn't want the Apostolic Holy Week abolished nor Catholics giving up fasting properly.
      If Pius XII mutilations 51-58 were not harmful,trad-Catholic clergy faithful both would not be so divided.
      This era was unprecedented and the Church doesn't change it's oldest Rites during Holiest time of the year. Even Bugnini stared P XII was "very supportive" of the Liturgical CHANGE committee. God bless -Andrew

      Delete
    14. Pius XII was most likely kept sedated or mentally/behaviorally neutralized to a sufficient degree to allow the enemies of Christ who surrounded him to make the 1955 changes in the Holy Week Liturgy, the first step in the planned destruction of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And/or he could have been issued a nuclear threat, as evidence shows happened at the 1958 papal conclave. https://whitesmoke1958.com/2021/05/27/grave-reasons-of-state
      Pius XII's personal physician, Dr Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi was a depraved man, and a Freemason. Pius XII had to be taken out in order for the "chosen candidate" Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII), who with cancer had only 5 years to live, to be put in place, to call and initiate the false Vatican II Council (1962-65), and to make Montini a cardinal so that he could be invalidly elected in 1963 and put the destruction into overdrive. http://catholicapedia.net/Documents/Chiesa_viva/Chiesa_viva_486_en-_FINAL.pdf

      www.historyofyesterday.com/the-tale-of-pope-pius-xiis-perfidious-personal-physician-b64a642f6a9e (Dr Riccardo Galeazzi-Lisi)

      Delete
    15. Pius XII gave a public speech the day before he died. How do you all not see how he lost his office in 1956 and simultaneously supported the Liturgical Change Committee which started in 1948? I stay kneeling at the Pater Noster during High Mass. Pius XII made the faithful stand during this time in 1945.
      He promoted Montini and overwhelming amount of the Bishops at V2,including Wojtyla.
      He was the first of the change agents.
      -Andrew

      Delete
  16. Most people don't realise that the flat earth nonsense is simply a way to discredit people who recognise that the geocentric view of the universe is the only one compatible with both sacred scripture and actual scientific observation. High-altitude weather balloons are certainly real, but anything beyond that is a lie repeated for 60+ years until everyone believes it. Most things in the media are false, even when apparently innocuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon2:48
      I won't get into geocentricism, but I agree that the majority of the media is false.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  17. The role of the modern media is to undermine people's faith in God and to convince them that evil is good making them allies of evil by making them feel good about it. It does this predominately through the non-threatening medium of entertainment film and television which places the audience into a semi-hypnotic state and then using subliminal messaging, neurolinguistic programming and subtle emotional manipulation in order to change their internal belief systems. The newsmedia uses similar tools but also purposely overwhelms individuals with contradictory information so that they are unable to make sense of crisis events. The majority of individuals adopt positions presented to them, typically the mainstream positions just so they can escape the anxiety created by the event. Most of these events are scripted from start to finish.

    The film Pseudology: The Art of Lying looks at how this works from a neurobiological and psychological point of view. This stuff is truly powerful and is being used to wage war on the population, particularly its beliefs in God. https://odysee.com/PseudologyModestEdit:8

    9/11 is a great example of how all these tools were combined with predictive programming to convince the world of the reality of events that are impossible according the laws of physics and are very easily exposed as being fraudulent from start to finish if you look at the evidence presented to you with a critical eye. Everything about such events is a lie and if you accept any part of it you will be consumed by the pre-scripted narratives. https://odysee.com/SCREMIX:1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:19
      Ok, I'm not posting any more 9/11 comments. I disagree, but I do agree that the modern media is mostly all anti-God with very few exceptions.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. You can disagree my friend, but the same techniques have been used on the population for generations now. You can either wise up to them, or keep being fooled. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me because I choose to remain ignorant rather than attempt to understand how I was fooled and avoid it in the future: shame on me.

      Delete
  18. Not just yet Introibo: Larry Silverstein aside, here's the first direct confession I've read to date on WTC7. I'm sure you'll want to "fact check" this guy:
    https://christendtimeministries.com/cia-agent-confesses-deathbed-blew-wtc-7-911/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Larry just happened to be
      "at the Dentist" that Monday.
      There is overwhelming evidence a wealthy welfare state near Jordan, orchestrated the entire attack.
      It doesn't matter,we've been colonized and conquered by the same welfare state near Jordan for decades.
      Even in this age of information overload, halfwit braindead apostate idolatrous Americans deny it and say
      "It's the Chinese &; Saudi's man.
      Israel is our greatest ally."
      Sodom and Gomorrah combined with Idiocracy on steroids sums up America.Pray for & have a Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for the conversion of our beloved fallen pagan idolatrous & once great Country.
      -Gypsy Sedevacantist

      Delete
  19. "We landed on the Moon!!!"
    - Lloyd of Dumb + Dumber

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @anon3:06

      Therefore, the moon landing is fake? "You can't handle the truth!" --Lt. Colonel Jessup of A Few Good Men

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  20. Hello. I have a question. Was Bishop Ricardo Subirón validly consecrated?

    https://mobile.twitter.com/PiaU_S_Pauli_Ap/status/1571110689779101696

    Thanks.

    Manel Bonet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Manel,
      I've never heard of this man before but here's what I've found out:
      the late Bp. Daniel Dolan issued a warning against Ricardo Subiron (it was addressed to the faithful in France). Source: https://vigilateetorate.wordpress.com/2015/09/07/mgr-dolan-avertissement-aux-fideles-de-france/
      English translation of the text under the link above:

      "Bishop Dolan: Warning to the Faithful of France

      It will soon be ten months since Bishop Daniel L. Dolan, a well-known American bishop in France, has been following the "Subiron" affair. Alarmed by the situation and by Bishop Morello's appalling support for the community of Father (?) Ricardo Subiron, Bishop Dolan has written a warning to the faithful in France.

      In addition, Bishop Donald J. Sanborn, director of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary in the United States, has spoken with his confrere about this matter and has also expressed his support.

      ___________________

      Warning to the Faithful of France


      For fifty years now, as Our Lord foretold, the sheep have been scattered because of the absence of a pastor. One of the problems facing the remaining Catholics is that of improperly or not at all trained men who present themselves as Catholic priests, sometimes with very dubious proof of ordination, but never with a proper and canonical formation.

      But the case of "Padre Ricardo Subiron" goes much further. Even a superficial study of his current curriculum vitae reveals a true ecclesiastical entrepreneur. We go from Palmar to the Novus Ordo, from the sect of Old Catholics to the Anglican sect that Bergoglio loves so much, and the trail finally leads us to drug traffickers and big money.

      Dear Catholics, do not be deceived! Have nothing to do with this charlatan, this wolf who enters the sheepfold not by the door, "but rides from elsewhere, a thief and a thief, ... To steal, slit throats and destroy."

      All Catholics in France, regardless of their tendency or the priest they follow, must cry out together "non possumus", if not "Vade retro, Satana".

      It is for this reason that I am delighted to salute and support the admirable efforts of Vigilantes Semper, true sons of Our Mother the Holy Church and crusaders in the tradition of King Saint Louis. The true Catholic clergy of France are few in number and sadly divided, but these knights of our Faith have emerged to present an excellent, if sad, indictment of a new wolf who seeks to ravish even the few remaining sheep.

      The work of these faithful laymen has become even more important and timely today, when a foreign bishop, who should be shepherding the remaining flock, uses every sophistatic argument to lead the innocent sheep to the slaughter at the hands of this unworthy son of Catholic Spain.

      May the Blessed Virgin bless, enlighten and protect the little flock that remains in France, and shower a special blessing on those who rise up today in its defense. I promise my prayers for the success of this enterprise and send with them my blessing.

      In Jesus and Mary,

      Msgr. Daniel Dolan

      On the Feast of St. Joseph Calasanz
      August 27, 2015"

      Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

      ***
      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
    2. Joanna,
      Thank you for the information!

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    3. Not at all, Introibo! Sadly, there's crooks everywhere these days.

      God Bless,
      Joanna S.

      Delete
  21. Mr. Introibo, or anyone who knows the answer, what are the criteria for recognize a true pope? Do you know any theologians who have written on the subject?
    ***
    Solus Cum Deo Solo,
    ---Michael.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,
      He must have a LEGITIMATE claim to the throne of St. Peter and profess no heresy and give nothing evil to the Church. Bergoglio doesn't qualify.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. ---Introibo, he must accept it, and the people must accept him as such.

      Delete
  22. Laudetur Iesus Christus!

    Briefly regarding the main topic: please note that none of you have any convincing proof/evidence that the earth is spherical - nor rather pear-shaped, i.e. bulging at the equator and flattened at the poles). Just because Aristotle and other ancient thinkers thought so does not make it true; their reasoning regarding disappearing hulls of ships and circular objects in the sky etc. has been falsified, partly due to modern technology. Catholic saints throughout the centuries who followed them in this erroneous idea are not to blame because they didn’t know of any scientific evidence to the contrary (except for Scripture passages – but that’s a different line of argument).

    Citing NASA’s computer generating ball-earth images is self defeating, e.g. where is the famous pear-shaped bulge, and why do the depicted continents change their size so much in various official NASA images (not photos!)?

    The Coriolis effect is not consistent throughout what you would call north/south hemispheres: e.g. not just water in bathtubs but also not all tornados twist in the same sense north of the equator.

    The geodesy of the Earth as we measure it simply does not exhibit the curvature required for the assumed Earth's radius (the radius is actually calculated but based on a faulty assumption). Please note that liquid water as we know it fills its containing vessels with a flat surface (and finds it's own level in connected vessels) and that about 70% of the Earth's surface are the oceans. So where is the curvature?

    If any of you ball-earth believers have not even briefly but seriously investigated scientific and Biblical evidence for geocentrism/geocentricity, which then elegantly leads to the possibility that the earth is flat, you should not jest because you just don't know and have no good arguments to back up the globe model that we have been taught at school.

    How does this connect to our one, true Catholic faith? Well, please note that Galileo was "vehemently suspect of heresy" specifically for teaching that the Earth literally moves, contrary to the Sacred Scripture and our senses; all works dealing with Earth's literal motion (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler) were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. The condemnation of Galileo has not been revoked - except for an apology by the apostate antipope John Paul II, but his pronouncements have zero authority, although alas much destructive power!

    Hopefully you should also be able to realise (with scientific evidence of course) that all of modern cosmology is false (dark matter, billions of years for the age of the universe, etc.), just as is abiogenesis and Darwinian/neo-Darwinian evolution - and that these false theories have grievously swayed our societies far away from the Christian manner of life. Geocentrism and flat earth are crucially important to reorient our societies back to our One and only Triune God.

    I highly recommend the works of Robert Sungenis on geocentrism, e.g. "Galileo was Wrong, the Church was Right" and John S. Daly "Theological Status of Heliocentrism". Please be aware that theflatearthsociety.org (which @Introibo referred to) is a controlled opposition, they try to dissuade people from seriously investigating flat earth by ridiculous straw-man arguments. Instead I recommend you start by watching some explanations and debates by Flat Earth Dave Weiss (avoid YouTube/Google in your searches).

    Thank you @Introibo, I love learning about our Catholic faith from your blog, but on this topic I think you are mistaken. A little prayer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mariusz,
      You believe the world is flat and yet you recommend Robert Sungenis. This man wrote against why the earth is not flat: https://www.robertsungenis.org/2021/04/robert-sungenis-vs-flat-earth.html

      Delete
    2. Yes it is somewhat funny/ironic, but flat earth is fixed immovable at the centre of the universe so flat earth and geocentrism are related, and Robert Sungenis has made giant contributions in defending geocentrism against mainstream scientific establishment and bringing this important idea out of oblivion to wider attention. I am very grateful to him; and motivated by you I just purchased his ebook: "Flat Earth/Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical & Scientific Analysis" - 738 pages! and I will go though it; he doesn't straw-man but makes genuine arguments. Nevertheless he is wrong on some crucial points (e.g. his stance on the Vatican II church), so I am interested to find out what convincing arguments he has in favour of a globe and against a flat earth. For now I hope we can agree that this topic deserves genuine study that we may be persuaded one way or the other based on real evidence.

      Delete
  23. Introbio,
    I am not a flat earther. But you are way to mainstream. You theology is good, but you should remember who your audience is. If there is a grand Conspiracy against the church by jews, freemason and communists, why would there not be one in politics?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ozson,
      I do not deny that conspiracies take place. However, one must learn to discern. I am convinced that:
      **the 2020 election was stolen
      **Covid was a farce. The virus is real, but everything surrounding it was manipulated--especially the vaxx.

      I am equally convinced:
      **The moon landing was real
      **The Earth is round and heliocentrism is true

      Just because someone makes a claim and invokes Freemasons, Jews, Communists, etc. does not automatically make the claim true.

      Let me cite but one example of a political conspiracy gone off the rails:

      Lyndon Larouche (d. 2019) has a political following in the U.S. I did a little research. Larouche believed that the British monarchy (esp. Queen Elizabeth II--and now King Charles III according to his followers) is behind drug dealing worldwide. Their ultimate goal is to get the U.S. and Russia into a nuclear war that will decimate 2/3 of the world population so they can re-colonize the remaining 1/3 and revive the British Empire.

      Do you believe this for an instant? I don't. Hence, the need to discern. I also confine this blog to matters that affect the Faith. Whether or not anyone agrees with me regarding the moon landing, Larouche, Bigfoot, or any other of these issues, doesn't matter. You can be a good Traditionalist Catholic believing or disbelieving them, so we need not argue over them.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  24. The old axiom is "In medio stat virtus" ("In the middle lies virtue," i.e. between the extremes of excess and defect in human acts. There is no excess in truth.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Darrell,
      That is another axiom--and a good one. "In medio stat veritas" is attributed to Aristotle. There is no excess or defect in truth--but such expressions that add or detract from it--are falsehoods. Example: Modernists apply BOD to all, Feeneyites to no one. Both positions are false.

      God Bless,

      ---Introibo

      Delete