Monday, November 15, 2010

My Refusal to Wrangle With Robert Sungenis Over Geocentrism and a Supposedly 10,000-Year-Old, Non-Rotating Earth


[Hulton Archive/Getty Images ]
Astronaut James Irwin salutes in front of the landing module of Apollo 15 in August 1971.
Asked what he believed about the lunar landings, Robert Sungenis stated on my site: "I do not know whether they were real or fake."

[Robert Sungenis' words will be in blue]

I'm one of the few Catholic apologists who has always tried to stay out of all the continual controversies that seem to surround Robert Sungenis, whether regarding his beliefs about Jews or his eccentric views on cosmology (and also issues such as anthropomorphism and whether God can change and whether He has emotions, and so forth).

Bob can believe whatever he likes about the earth and whether it rotates; how old it is, etc. Others will disagree with him as well, and this ought not be the cause for personal attacks or disparagement of someone's Catholicism. That is the line that ought not be crossed. I haven't questioned his Catholicism, and he shouldn't question my commitment to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, Sungenis wants to make a matter of infallibility a thing that is assuredly not (geocentrism). That's why he feels so strongly about the issue, because he believes it is the infallible teaching of the Church; therefore, that individual Catholics are required to accept the view, and that apologists should defend it alongside transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Geocentrism is not something I wish to devote any time to. I am accountable for how I spend my time under God (i.e., stewardship). It's my life and my abilities that I am trying to devote to what I feel is most important at any given time. That is between myself and God (and those I am directly accountable to, such as my publishers), not between myself and Bob Sungenis, or any other apologist or critic of mine, who want to dictate to me how I ought to spend my time. But Bob doesn't buy that.

I am under no obligation to debate at extreme length (which is what any debate with Bob involves) anything and everything I may make a passing comment about. I have referred people to other exchanges where this was done (particularly my friend Gary Hoge's replies to him on these matters -- Bob has stated that Gary was a complete gentleman in his replies). See:

Scientific Disproof of Geocentrism
(Ken Cole, with four replies by Sungenis and four counter-replies from Cole) [2nd alternate URL]
As the Universe Turns: Is it physically possible for the whole universe to orbit the earth? (Gary Hoge)
Why the earth can't be the center of mass of the universe (+ Part II) (Gary Hoge vs. Robert Sungenis)

Debate between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis on Geocentrism

One James B. Phillips came onto a combox of mine, announcing the new paper Bob was writing: critiquing my stated positions on the Galileo affair: setting the stage for the latest hoped-for pseudo-controversy and tempest-in-a-teapot. I replied:

I have neither time nor desire to interact with this. I know Bob's position, and disagree with it. My own position regarding Galileo has been laid out in several papers and in my new book on science.

If Bob wants to start critiquing me now, let him do it if he must. I've deliberately stayed out of all the internal conflicts between him and other apologists / Catholics, and he knows this. I don't think it is wise or prudent for him to start writing against my positions now, but I also believe in free speech, so he is free to do as he wishes.

I am also free to decide how to spend my time, and I choose to do so in defending Christianity and Catholicism in particular against the charges of atheists, not misguided accusations of fellow Catholics that I have inaccurately presented things.
Bob is disturbed that I am inclined to accept what NASA tells me about science. This makes perfect sense, I reckon, since in one exchange the following skepticism regarding the authenticity of the moon landings is documented:

Jordanes had stated earlier in the combox thread that he didn't think you asserted that the moon landings were faked. Someone ("Pete") produced "documentation" that you did believe this. I find this to be insufficiently documented, as it was based on "gossipy"-type hearsay from a former associate, and from a post on a hostile website. So if you think the lunar landings actually happened, I'd be happy to hear you clarify that, so that it can be stated as a matter of record on my blog that this is an unjust charge against you.

I do not know whether they were real or fake.
He expanded his "lunar skepticism" to 9-11 as well in his piece, "Response to Jared Olar":

As for my right to be an agnostic about the moon landings, I’m certainly not the first and won’t be the last. Any intelligent person who has studied the issue is going to have doubts as to whether the United States had the capability to put a man on the moon in 1969 when, for example, the processing power of a 1969 computer was less than one-tenth of that in a typical cell phone of today, especially when the U.S. was at the height of the Cold War and was still stinging from the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957, and especially when the ability to fake a moon landing in a hidden studio was well within the talents of Hollywood technicians. My suspicions are only heightened when I see Neil Armstrong holding an American flag on the moon and suddenly a gust of wind forces the lower part of the flag to move up to the upper part of the flag. Any fool knows there is no wind on the moon. You can see this video on the Internet and in the documentaries made of the moon landings. [see one lengthy critique of this theory] Yes, and I might as well tell you so I can beat Mr. Olar to the punch: I also believe 9-11 was an inside job and that the Muslims had nothing to do with it, and I maintain this belief along with several thousand other intelligent scientists, engineers, military personnel, airline pilots, firemen and the like who, from their expertise in this area, are thoroughly convinced that we have been sold a bill of goods by our government.

I'm obviously part of this nefarious conspiracy, myself, being named Armstrong . . .

On his own site, Bob wrote:

Accordingly, an earth of approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years old agrees with much current scientific evidence on a number of fronts.

He also states in another article:

. . . our model holds that the universe rotates around the earth once per day, hence the aether also rotates around the earth once per day, and thus, all the objects we see from earth are rotating with the aether. [and he believes that the earth doesn't rotate]

And (I confess this is my favorite) in a recent article (7-21-10) Bob presented a lengthy section entitled "Dinosaurs Co-Exited With Humans."


The image “http://mulibraries.missouri.edu/specialcollections/images/hamlinii1.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

And again, he has also stated (9-14-10):

If the earth is motionless in the center of the universe then the Big Bang is not possible. . . . The point in fact remains that a central and immobile Earth was, and is, the simplest and best answer to account for the equi-distribution of all objects, energies and forces we see surrounding us in the universe, everything from gamma rays, X-rays, the cosmic microwave background radiation, quasars, galaxy distribution, etc.

As I said, I have no interest in debating what I consider to be an altogether ludicrous position: held by virtually no scientists of any repute.

I must say that I don't feel so badly about disagreeing with Robert Sungenis, concerning geocentrism and the permissibility of belief in theistic evolution, since I'm in very good company. He feels perfectly entitled to disagree with the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, (as well as Pope John Paul II) on the question of the supposed young earth and evolution, and on whether the latter was condemned by the Church "de fide." The pope says no; Bob says yes, and he is fool enough to think that we ought to accept his word simply because he says it, rather than believe that the pope knows better than he about what the Church teaches and doesn't teach, and permits as a belief and doesn't permit:

I stand by what I said, and I will even make it clearer and stronger in my follow up: Evolution is a heretical view of cosmogony due to the de fide statements from the magisterium given to us over 650 years that deny evolution and affirm ex nihilo creation. Those de fide statements are found in Lateran Council IV and Vatican Council I. . . .

As for whether we can criticize Pope Benedict for listening to the “vast majority of (expert) scientists,” we can do so if Pope Benedict has made a concerted effort to ignore the other scientists in the world who have shown that evolution is impossible. Unfortunately, Pope Benedict has decided to ignore the alternative evidence and give more credence to evolution, just as John Paul II did. I know from various colleagues who talked with Cardinal Ratzinger, face to face at the Vatican. The Cardinal was presented with scientific evidence on stratigraphy showing that the geologic column was not created over millions of years but was made over a matter of months, but he simply rejected the evidence and sided with the status quo of evolution, and he did so by his own private judgment, even though he has no scientific credentials. That is what I am talking about, David. I don’t make my accusations lightly.

(Question 296: "Are you being too harsh on Pope Benedict regarding evolution?")

This is, of course, a Protestant-like private judgment to a remarkable degree (a thing sadly common among many radical Catholic reactionaries, and is its own refutation. In acting in this fashion, Bob shows himself quite similar in approach to Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521: standing there defying the Church and thinking he knew better than Holy Mother Church.

446 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 446   Newer›   Newest»
johnmartin said...

The encyclopedia goes on – “Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of the superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis. Therefore the decision by Paul V is not a statement from the commission “in forma communi” but a statement “in forma specifica”. This means the statement has a binding Papal authority.”

What evidence do you have that the 1616 decree of the Congregation of the Index was approved "ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suâ potestatis"?

JM- The facts that the Pope condemned a doctrine as being against the teaching of the church and called it heresy. The fact that the Pope acted as Pope when he made the statement. The fact the Pope used high language, invoking his authority. The fact that the Pope considered the helio doctrine so pernicious he acted directly against Galileo. All these facts are in accord with the content concerning doctrine and intent of Pius X. Therefore Paul V document has at least the same authority.

Furthermore concerning the encyclopedias comments on Paul V comments - does a Papal statement have to be formal about a particular doctrine within a statement for the content of the particular doctrine to be infallible. Probably in so far as the wording of the statement itself may not be infallible, but the particular doctrine matter upon which the Pope speaks is so well known that it is assumed the ordinary teaching magesterium has already taught on the matter, that the subject being spoken of is already infallibly established.

You really need to make up your mind. Is the decree a binding dogmatic statement issued in forma specifica, or is it a possibly non-infallible statement that expresses something already infallible in the ordinary magisterium?

JM- It’s a binding judgment against helio that assumes the ordinary magesterium has spoken on the matter of geo. Geo is therefore a dogma as Paul V understands it to be and that why Paul V said the word heresy in relation to helio.

After all if you deny God has revealed natural truths, then you must deny God has revealed many natural events recorded in history such as the many wars, cities, ports, construction of Jerusalem and so on.

So, it is your contention that all of those matters of ancient history and architecture and culture can be established as certainly true by natural unaided human reason? And that is wholly apart from the fact that those things were not "revealed" in the proper sense, but were inerrantly affirmed.

JM – It is my contention that whatever was written in scripture was authored by God and therefore revealed by God. As natural truths were contained within the text, then natural truths have been revealed by God.

Your statement “"revealed" in the proper sense” is merely semantics used to avoid the truth of God revealing natural truths.

JM

johnmartin said...

I note on the side. David continues to push the indefectibility of the church based upon his approach, which I have shown is in error. My approach is to show the historical facts concerning widespread permission of false doctrine. This has not been denied by David. So both of us agree in this – the church leaders have acted like cowards in permitting false doctrine to be taught widely. I now note that the church has also acted in a cowardly way to prevent the consecration of Fatima to occur. This same cowardly approach can also be extended into the PAS investigation of the Galileo incident. In this way, we see a consistency of cowardly behavior, where the church authorities have repeatedly chosen the low road of ignoring and ceasing to act against heresy, ignoring and not complying the consecration required from the mother of God and ignoring and past Papal statements against heliocentrism.

Clearly this trend is a consistent one and yet again shows David’s version of the story is false. Geocentrism has been taught by the church and it has not been overturned by the church.

JM

johnmartin said...

Good, you've just shown the anti geo position concerning the weight of an imprimatur is untenable. Its like saying a bishop can sign off on a document and therefore it is Catholic doctrine and we are bound to believe it. How would this have held out during the Arian crisis? After all many bishops held to the Arian understanding of Christ as only a man. Evidently a bishops signature alone is not nearly as weighty as that of a council or a Pope or a series of Popes. Orthodoxy is not determined by imprimaturs, but by tradition, scripture, popes and Councils. Geocentrism has authority from all these and no doubt there were documents throughout church history as well with imprimaturs stating geocentrism was not against the faith.

Sorry, but there is no connection between what I wrote and your response here. Do you even know what it means and what it doesn't mean when the Church grants an imprimatur? Apparently you don't, as you also don't understand the argument that the Catholic Encyclopedia has an imprimatur whereas Sungenis' books of shoddy theology and pseudoscience do not.

JM- evidently you do and you fail to see an imprimatur is not an absolute guarantee of orthodoxy.

J- You're making a complete fool of yourself, John. The old Catholic Encyclopedia has as much weight as the books of Father Raymond Brown? I knew you were desperate to avoid grappling with the facts related in the encyclopedia, but I had no idea you were so desperate as to make risible statements like that.

JM- Actulally an imprimatur is only an imprimatur. It doesn’t matter who wrote the book. So I’ve said nothing foolish at all.

J- Prove that the Catholic Encyclopedia "pushes an agenda." Provide evidence of the encyclopedia's tendentiousness, or else withdraw your accusation.

JM – Several fallacies have been shown in the text already, including the mere assertion of the untruth of geocentrism. Therefore the encyc has an agenda.

J - It does more that "merely assert" -- it EXPLAINS WHY they were not irreformable.

JM- It merely asserts the reason why. And the reasons why is a misdirection anyway as has now been discussed in a post above with David.

J- Its seems the encyclopedia wants the Pope to have power, but not that much power to define doctrine and defend the faith when it is required.
Really, John, you might try reading what the encyclopedia has to say about papal authority and infallibility before issued such negative appraisals.

JM- I have and I’ve shown the encyc is fallacious on the matter of Galileo and ex cathedra.

J- Your double standards are tiresome. How come you and folks like Sungenis have permission to "assume an authority they do not have," but the faithful priests and bishops who prepared the encyclopedia -- men who unquestionably had divine authority to teach and write -- are not allowed to exercise that authority?
. . .

johnmartin said...

J- This just shows further your inability to distinguish between scientific matters and articles of faith. Be geocentrism true or false, the Church will not make any such finding, as it has no bearing on the things committed to Her by Jesus. Geocentrism is erroneous, but it is not a religious heresy except insofar as certain geocentrists claim or imply that one must believe in geocentrism in order to be saved. Of course no one should believe things that aren't true, even if they are matters of natural science rather than matters of faith, but even so, if one sincerely believes in geocentrism, or flat earthism, or 9/11-trutherism, or Kenyan birtherism, one can still be saved so long as one has divine faith in all the truths taught by the Church as handed down to us from Jesus and the Apostles.

JM- Ok bro you are fixe din you error. For you no natural truth was revealed by God and not natural truth is contained within the depositi of faith. Yet a simple inspection of the deposit of faith says otherwise. Have it your way. I prefer to stay with reality and the teaching of the church as evidenced by scripture, Popes, cardinals, councils and the fathers.

That's not a document, but well and good -- it is also the case that wherever there was a major doctrinal point to be resolved, it was the Popes and Councils that resolved the issues and not papal dicasteries with their disciplinary and doctrinal judgments. And no pope or council has ever defined geocentrism as an article of faith.

It was defined as a truth of the faith, and therefore an article of the faith through the church fathers and this is the way it was understood by the Popes.

J- Correct -- that is how they came to hold the scientific error of geocentrism.

JM- That how they came to arrive at the revealed truth of geo which has not been verified with modern science.

J- Precisely. That is where they went astray -- they looked to the Scriptures to determine the truth of a matter that is the proper subject of scientific study.

JM- so according to you if the scriptures say the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and science says no, then science must be right. That’s the same as saying the scriptures say the earth is stationary, but science says it moves, so it moves. The point I’m making is the fathers thought Go had revealed a truth and they understood that truth to be part of the Catholic faith.

johnmartin said...

Patristic theology is clear - the church fathers were unanimous on geocentrism and they a taught so based upon a revelation from God.

J- However, God never revealed anything about the courses of the heavenly bodies, since, as St. Augustine said, those matters have nothing to do with salvation.

JM –evidently Augustine’s quote is taken out of context, because Augustine was a geocentrist. No doubt he thought geo was revealed by God as well, just like all the other fathers.

Therefore geo is an infallible part of the ordinary magesterium and after the Papal statements, extra ordinary magesterium.

J- If that is true, then in light of the record of history since 1616, the Church has defected from the Faith and Catholicism is not the one, true religion.

JM – The church has not reversed its teaching on geo, therefore it has not defected from the truth.

It is assumed by merely asserting the roll of the commission and its competence. This role and competence as understood by the encyclopedia does not stand up to logical and historical scrutiny.

Prove it. Evidence please.

JM- already done that.

JM - The commission was set up by a recognized authority within the church and that authority was subsequently recognized by the Pope and a public statement was made in conformity to the commissions findings. Therefore, because the Papal statements are from the head of the church, the authority of the commission is consistent with Papal authority. Therefore the decisions of the commission and the Pope are both authoritative and irreformable.

By that logic, almost every act and decision that comes out of Rome is an infallible, irreformable statement or definition -- including the later decisions that mitigated and eventually reversed the 1616 decree.

JM- Every statement form the encyc trumps the statements of the fathers, the scriptures and Popes. That’s your world of contorted authority for you.

JM

Pete said...

Hi John. You said that my comments were a "deflationary punch type argument meant to stop the geocentrist after he has made compelling arguments against the anti geo position."

Listen, I truly didn't mean to hurt your feelings or insult you. I know you've worked diligently to lay out the arguments for geocentrism and I truly appreciate all the time you put into it. But I haven't found your arguments compelling.

Beyond that, let me admit with some sheepishness that what "S" said about geocentrism and over-suspiciousness applies a little too much to me, too. So I took his comments to heart. If you're reading this, "S", thank you for challenging me.

Please don't misunderstand me, John. I'm truly thankful to you for putting so much effort into making the geocentric case and I'm not judging you personally. You helped me to put this to rest, too.

It's just that the more I read the geocentric case, the more I keep getting a picture in my mind of a dog chasing it's tail. I feel the same way when I listen to sedevacantists making their case. They seem very sincere and very energetic, just like you. They also get very accusatory when people won't agree with them and warn everyone who will listen that they're not being faithful Catholics. Aside from objecting to their tactics, I don't judge them, either.

That kind of tactic (attacking for unfaithfulness to the Church) hits me where I live, because being a good Catholic who's obedient to God is everything to me.

But I thank Him that I never went down that road with the sedes. And geocentrism is the same kind of argument but with a different subject, that's all.

After reading all the hard work everyone has put in here, I'm at peace. I feel very comfortable saying that Geocentrism isn't matter of faith, it's a matter of science. And I wish you the best of luck in making your case with the scientific community.

I thank Dave Armstrong, you and everyone else here again for helping me to work through this. You were all great. Peace.

Frank said...

"J- However, God never revealed anything about the courses of the heavenly bodies, since, as St. Augustine said, those matters have nothing to do with salvation.

JM –evidently Augustine’s quote is taken out of context, because Augustine was a geocentrist. No doubt he thought geo was revealed by God as well, just like all the other fathers."

Oh sure "no doubt". Except that he never says so right? YOu were challenged quite a long time ago that none of hte Fathers ever say that geocentrism was revealed by God. I have looked at the quotes and I think this is right. You guys just keep asserting and asserting that this is true but you have never proved it. So prove it already. Show us where the Fathers say that geocentrism is revealed by God. Show us where the Church has officially stated that the Fathers were in unanimous consent on this. Sunenis said that if they did not say that what they were passing on was revealed by God then they were not in unanimous consent. Of course that was when he was talking about Jews. But how about it? Stop this "no doubt Father X thought such and such" business. Show us with an actual quote or stop making such claims.

Frank said...

"JM- so according to you if the scriptures say the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ and science says no, then science must be right. That’s the same as saying the scriptures say the earth is stationary, but science says it moves, so it moves. The point I’m making is the fathers thought Go had revealed a truth and they understood that truth to be part of the Catholic faith.

Patristic theology is clear - the church fathers were unanimous on geocentrism and they a taught so based upon a revelation from God."

Oh sure except that you have not shown us where the Fathers are unanimous that the earth does not move. I've looked at the quote over at the Salza sight. Once you get beyond the the sun goes up, the sun goes down and all the mistakes that they make on basic science how many actually say what they guys wish they all said? Not very many I can tell you!!! Where has the Church ever said they were unanimous on these things? Oh I can just hear it from you "they just ASSUMED it when they made their ruling" Well you know what you get when you assumed, an ASS out of U and ME. No more they just ASSUMED it. Show us where the Church actually said it buddy. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.


"JM - The commission was set up by a recognized authority within the church and that authority was subsequently recognized by the Pope and a public statement was made in conformity to the commissions findings. Therefore, because the Papal statements are from the head of the church, the authority of the commission is consistent with Papal authority. Therefore the decisions of the commission and the Pope are both authoritative and irreformable."

Speaking of smoke we already saw how you started dancing when another commission approved by the Pope ruled directly against what you thought was the unanimous consent of hte Fathers. Keep dancing buddy.

johnmartin said...

Hi John. You said that my comments were a "deflationary punch type argument meant to stop the geocentrist after he has made compelling arguments against the anti geo position."

JM- You claimed the geo position was circular, which I demonstrated was a clear error. You are free to make up your own mind and that’s why I’m here – for the sake of the truth.

JM

johnmartin said...

"J- However, God never revealed anything about the courses of the heavenly bodies, since, as St. Augustine said, those matters have nothing to do with salvation.

JM –evidently Augustine’s quote is taken out of context, because Augustine was a geocentrist. No doubt he thought geo was revealed by God as well, just like all the other fathers."

Oh sure "no doubt". Except that he never says so right? YOu were challenged quite a long time ago that none of hte Fathers ever say that geocentrism was revealed by God. I have looked at the quotes and I think this is right. You guys just keep asserting and asserting that this is true but you have never proved it. So prove it already. Show us where the Fathers say that geocentrism is revealed by God. Show us where the Church has officially stated that the Fathers were in unanimous consent on this. Sunenis said that if they did not say that what they were passing on was revealed by God then they were not in unanimous consent. Of course that was when he was talking about Jews. But how about it? Stop this "no doubt Father X thought such and such" business. Show us with an actual quote or stop making such claims.

I’ve noticed Frank pops in from time to time and makes sweeping statements and then disappears. He hasn’t interacted with some of my answers in the past and he has avoided my answer to this question of the fathers believing geo was part of the faith. An answer was given more than once and Frank should be honest enough to acknowledge that fact and engage what I said.

Another version of my argument is as follows – Leo XIII states –

“His teaching, and that of other Holy Fathers, is taken up by the Council of the Vatican, which, in renewing the decree of Trent declares its "mind" to be this - that "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers."

Two points to consider are - Leo states the true sense of the scriptures is that held by the church

“. . . the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church,”

How are the scriptures to be interpreted according to Leo?

“it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.”

According to Leo the correct interpretation of the scriptures (as embraced by the church no less!) is what is found in the unanimous consent of the fathers. As geo has unanimous consent, then the scriptures cannot be interpreted in a different way to that of geo. Therefore geo is scriptural, therefore geo has been revealed by God and we can check the scientific evidence for geo and see geo is compatible with science.

We don’t need to jump through Frank’s hoop. All we need do is follow Leo and arrive at the church’s understanding of scripture and see geo as a revealed truth, just like the Eucharist and baptism. For they too had a unanimous consent of the fathers and they too are understood literally to be the body and blood of Christ and the means of regeneration respectively. Therefore the same principle applies to the literal sense of the geo texts. Scripture, the fathers and the church all teach geo. No doubt about it.

JM

johnmartin said...

Speaking of smoke we already saw how you started dancing when another commission approved by the Pope ruled directly against what you thought was the unanimous consent of the Fathers. Keep dancing buddy.

JM – on what topic? . . . If you think it is the literal days of creation, well that was answered as well Frank. Once again you have failed to interact with what I have said.

Another answer is to see the problems created by the PBC’s statement concerning the understanding of the word ‘yom’. It introduces a novel phrase “applied sense”, so if this phrase is not defined, the applied sense becomes problematic. Therefore to appeal to the PBC statement on yom, is problematic as well.

I have reviewed the father’s statements on the creation days as presented in GWW p98ff and they all say the same thing (with the exception of some of Augustine’s quotes) – creation occurred over a literal period of days. Augustine doesn’t help the modern mind which requires long time periods; because he thought creation was instantaneous. It is evident that the fathers were unanimous on their understanding of the creation week as being literal.

JM

johnmartin said...

Some further thoughts on the statement made by the PBC –

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.

The CCC says the senses are the literal and spiritual –

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

The CCC claims the literal and spiritual are the senses found in tradition. Therefore the four senses are part of the ordinary magesterium and are part of the faith. However what of the “applied sense”? Is it found in tradition? No. Is it found in any church council? No. Is it found in any writing of church doctor? No. Is it found in the writing of the PBC? Yes. Therefore until the PBC tells us what the “applied sense” means the Catholic exegete does not know officially. Furthermore, because the phrase “applied sense” is new, the value of the phrase should be determined by the church. Otherwise the exegete cannot be sure of what the meaning of the creation week really is. In short the PBC’s statement concerning ‘yom’ seems to clarify nothing more than saying the applied sense means “a certain space of time”. Does this “certain space of time” mean the time period is –


. . .



JM

johnmartin said...

1. The same as a natural day and if so why use the term “applied sense” as though it differs from the literal sense of a natural day?

2. Much shorter than a natural day and if so what basis does the “applied sense” have in the text and fathers to establish the creation days are far shorter than a natural day?

3. Much longer than a natural day and if so what basis does the “applied sense” have in the text and fathers to establish the creation days are far longer than a natural day?

4. Not related to the natural day in any way and therefore the days recorded in the Genesis account are only symbolic days. Yet again the same problem occurs - what basis does the “applied sense” have in the text and fathers to establish the creation days are merely symbolic and not literal? If they are symbolic, how does this override the literal understanding of ‘day’ in the text?

If we look at the phrase “natural day” then –

1. Does the “natural day” mean the terms used in the creation account can be understood in the same sense as they are used after the creation account?

2. If so, what precedent can we use to determine the supernatural act of God can be described univocally with the ordinary natural events recorded after the creation account?

3. Does the “natural day” mean the day as measured after the creation week of 24 hours as determined in a geocentric universe?

4. Does a natural day always mean 24 hours?

5. Has a natural days always been 24 hours?

6. Is the natural day measured by the rotation of the sun, the earth, the stars or a combination thereof? How do we know from the text and the fathers?

7. The act of creation is “one of a kind”, therefore when interpreting the text, what precedent do we have for determining the time period assumed in the text other than what the fathers taught?

8. Are the days of creation to be understood as supernatural days or a mixture of supernatural and natural days and how do we know?

9. The phrase “natural day” is undefined by the PBC, so what does it mean and how are we to know for sure?


It seems the PBC’s statement which introduces the phrase “applied sense” causes many questions about the meaning of its statement. As such, any reference to the statement that doesn’t nuance the meaning of the terms used, will most likely arrive at conclusions that are not verifiable from the statement alone due to the problematic nature of the statement.


JM

Jordanes said...

John apparently thinks if he just keeps talking and talking and talking (and talking . . . .), people won't notice that he hasn't met a single one of the challenges that his interlocutors have placed directly to him. He hasn't shown the historical evidence that the Congregation of the Index had the competence to issue a dogmatic decree, hasn't shown that the Church has ever declared that the faithful must believe in geocentrism with divine faith, hasn't shown where St. Augustine or any other Father said geocentrism was an apostolic teaching, hasn't shown why we should listen to him and Sungenis rather than St. Thomas Aquinas, hasn't shown why he has the authority and expertise to issue judgments on this topic, and hasn't explained why the Pope has the authority to issue a decree and punishment against heliocentrism in 1616 and 1633 but doesn't have the authority to issue a judgment in 1822 reversing the earlier decrees and solemnly threatening with punishment anyone who tries to bring heliocentrists up on charges before the Church or have their books banned.

Like Frank said, keep on dancing, John.

johnmartin said...

Further thoughts on the PBS statement -

10. Where the statement says “may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?”, we have to consider that “exegetes” infers no authority in the church, nor does the term infer catholic obedience because the exegete is not restricted to Catholics either.

11. The question posed is therefore vague because the terms of the question are undefined and therefore the answer is inconsequential.


JM

juscot said...

JPK, your remarks about rent-a-cops being at the conferance to intimidate heliocentrics is an outright lie. I was there, and I was sitting right behind you and your friend. No one threatened you because you tried to contradict Sungensis. I think it's pathetic that you and your kind have to resort to such nonsense like this to win an arguement.

Jordanes said...

Where the statement says “may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?”, we have to consider that “exegetes” infers no authority in the church, nor does the term infer catholic obedience because the exegete is not restricted to Catholics either.

Wow, what extreme desperation to explain away an authoritative ruling of a Roman dicastery. Yeah, "exegetes" infers no authority in the Church, but "Pontifical Biblical Commission, backed up by the authority of the Vicar of Christ" DOES infer authority in the Church.

Obviously "exegetes" can be either Catholic or non-Catholic "exegetes." If it includes Catholic exegetes (which it undeniably does), that means Catholic exegetes were given the freedom to argue for the position that "yom" in Genesis 1-2 might not refer to an ordinary day of 24 hours.

I see you're still hung up on "authority," questioning the "authority" of "exegetes" in the hopes that you'll confuse people into thinking that the old pre-Vatican II PBC had no authority.

Keep on dancing, John.

ThePalmHQ said...

I have pondered this discussion over the weekend and have concluded that there is not a lot more that I can contribute. So I will make a few concluding observations, a summary, and then wrap this up unless something really new is presented.

JM wrote: “Again I say, the church has spoken and any silence after the matter is consent to the previous decisions. Therefore church indefectibility is saved. You on the other hand have some very big problems concerning church indefectibility. You merely proof text Augustine and Leo XIII and avoid the problems with those proof texts. Then hastily conclude geo is not part of revelation so we need not believe it and be faithful to the church. This line or argument has been answered of course, we shall see if David tries to engage it directly.”

It has been addressed. Over and over again. The Church’s indefectibility is easily upheld in the position I have taken, since it is clear that the Church never bound herself to geocentrism as de fide. In summary:

There was a document from the Congregation of the Index, a papal bull relating to the Index itself, and a declaration concerning the person of Galileo from the Holy Office, which was never signed by the Pope.

It has been shown that none of these were irreformable and it has never been demonstrated that any of them would require a formal abrogation on the part of the Magisterium. But in fact the disciplinary injunction not to teach non-geocentric models of the universe has been formally removed, the Index was formally revised and later abolished altogether. I leave it to the Church to decide if the person of Galileo requires more formal rehabilitation.

The claim that the Fathers unanimously taught certain things with regard to geocentirsm has been asserted, but not proven. It has been shown that if the primary individual advancing these citations from the Fathers were consistent with his own standards, then not a single one of the citations would stand. And outside of those private standards, there are significant reasons against this assertion, as given in this thread. More importantly, I and others have advanced the magisterial teaching from Leo XIII, Pius XII, and the PBC under St. Pius X that indicates that the testimony of the Fathers on a matter that is not de fide is outside of the realm in which their testimony binds.

[to be continued]

ThePalmHQ said...

On the other hand since at least 1741--as Jordanes and others have laid out--there have been all sorts of indications from the Magisterium that those earlier declarations and discipinary measures have indeed been reformed. The faithful have been given every indication that they are perfectly free to reject geocentrism and embrace other models of the universe, without any hint of "formal heresy". And in no instance has geocentrism been reaffirmed by the Magisterium in these past centuries.

And this non-affirmation of geocentrism as de fide fits in with a broader view of how the Catholic Church views the relationship between the Faith and science. In all of these areas--geocentrism, the days of creation and the early chapters of Genesis, various aspects of evolution--we see the Church giving freedom, where Sungenis is dogmatic. Bottom line is that if Sungenis wants dogmatic pronouncements in favor of geocentrism, six literal 24 hour days of creation, and against everything to do with evolution then he's in the wrong place. Ultimately, he’s just playing the same game he’s played all his life. See: “By Sungenis Alone” ( http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html ) especially the section “Of Popes, Bishops, and Laymen” ( http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#two ) and following.


JM wrote: “I believe the church silence on the matter of geo in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment.

There you have it. All the Popes and all the bishops in communion with them, from Benedict XIV to Benedict XVI, have been either inept or cowards in the face of the dreaded “science establishment”. This includes the craven Pius VII (who refused Napoleon and was taken prisoner), the inept Gregory XVI, the bungling Bl. Pius IX, the cowering Leo XIII, the gutless St. Pius X, the lily-livered Pope Pius XI, the spineless Pius XII (“Hitler’s Pope”, remember?), etc.

While some, including myself, have disagreed with the position taken on ecclesiastical discipline by the late John Paul II (requiescat in pace -- and note that he himself said near the end of his life that he thought this was a weakness in his pontificate), I would never call him cowardly. And one more time, to demonstrate the absolute difference in principle between what you are saying and what I am saying, let me point out again that during his pontificate every one of the alleged counter-examples you cited was explicitly reaffirmed in solemn magisterial documents. Every single one. And the magisterial reaffirmation of the supposedly de fide geocentrism? Nowhere to be found. There is a simple reason for that. It’s not de fide. Never has been, never will be.

I am satisfied by this extended discussion that the original case that I laid out in the Catholic Answers Forum is solid and I thank Dave Armstrong for his encouragement and for hosting this discussion.

Santa Maria sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis

johnmartin said...

Where the statement says “may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?”, we have to consider that “exegetes” infers no authority in the church, nor does the term infer catholic obedience because the exegete is not restricted to Catholics either.
J- Wow, what extreme desperation to explain away an authoritative ruling of a Roman dicastery. Yeah, "exegetes" infers no authority in the Church, but "Pontifical Biblical Commission, backed up by the authority of the Vicar of Christ" DOES infer authority in the Church.

JM – Now the double standard I’ve been waiting for, for a long tme time come to the fore. The Vicar of Christ isn’t good enough to denounce Galileo publicly and declare his teaching formal heresy, because the congregation isn’t competent to make such a doctrinal statement. Now the congregation is competent to make a statement on the creation days, in which it as not evidence whatsoever from science or universal consent from the fathers with which to fall back on.

J -Obviously "exegetes" can be either Catholic or non-Catholic "exegetes." If it includes Catholic exegetes (which it undeniably does), that means Catholic exegetes were given the freedom to argue for the position that "yom" in Genesis 1-2 might not refer to an ordinary day of 24 hours.

JM – Exegete is not an office in the church, therefore it is generic. Furthermore, your assumption that a natural day means 24 hours is only an assumption.

J- I see you're still hung up on "authority," questioning the "authority" of "exegetes" in the hopes that you'll confuse people into thinking that the old pre-Vatican II PBC had no authority.

Keep on dancing, John.

JM- I see you use a double standard and avoid all the other questions derived from the text, making the PBC statement vague. Keep being two faced.

JM

Jordanes said...

Now the double standard I’ve been waiting for, for a long tme time come to the fore. The Vicar of Christ isn’t good enough to denounce Galileo publicly and declare his teaching formal heresy, because the congregation isn’t competent to make such a doctrinal statement.

Correct -- the Congregation of the Index was not competent to issue a dogmatic decree (which is why it didn't issue one).

Now the congregation is competent to make a statement on the creation days,

What "congregation"? It's the Pontifical Biblical Commission, not a Congregation, that issued that Responsa. But yes, it is correct that the PBC was competent to issue that Responsa.

What this "double standard" is you're blathering about I can't imagine.

Exegete is not an office in the church, therefore it is generic.

True, but irrelevant.

Furthermore, your assumption that a natural day means 24 hours is only an assumption.

Um, no, it's established from time out of mind that the ordinary day is divided into 24 periods of time known as "hours" -- 12 for the day and 12 for the night. Several of those Fathers whose unanimous consent you say you believe in affirmed that the usual length of a day was 24 hours. Not that that means it is an article of faith divinely revealed to us through Jesus and the Apostles, of course.

I see you use a double standard and avoid all the other questions derived from the text, making the PBC statement vague.

Whatever. I've used no double standard, and as for "avoiding" all of those other "questions," well, none of your "questions" help to establish geocentrism as an article of faith, so I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit trail.

Keep being two faced.

Careful, John.

Rick DeLano said...

Nice to see how effectively Dave is ignoring geocentrism :-)

Seems like Bob's conference has got a whole lot of people talking about this now, which was precisely the intention.

John Martin: Nice work.

Jordanes: If someone wanted a real laugh, they could dig up your hilarious "rebuttal "on Rorate Caeli about the unanimous consensus of the Fathers on the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1.

I really think you should dig that up and post it somewhere sometime, it is such an example of special pleading, and a key insight into your method here on this thread as well.

Joseph: You started praying for the guy, then slandered him as drunk or on drugs. Nice. Spell my name right, please, it is Rick, not Ralph, and as for your characterization of my presentation, another poster has referenced this blog. He had a slightly different take:

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/11/hanging-out-with-geocentrists-part-2.html

But you may rest assured that my presentation, and my answer on parallax, will both be available soon, and upon one thing we heartily concur:

Get it at once!

It will be the talk of the blog.

Dave, I wanted to say how sorry I am that I didn't know you had taken the posts down.

If I had known this I am confident this whole shooting match could have been avoided.

No matter what, I want you to know (even if it doesn't mean anything to you) that you have my respect for having done that.

Now back to the jousts.......

Jordanes said...

Jordanes: If someone wanted a real laugh, they could dig up your hilarious "rebuttal" on Rorate Caeli about the unanimous consensus of the Fathers on the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1.

I didn't prepare any "rebuttal." I simply looked at each of the patristic cites that you provided (the list from Hugh Owens) to find out what they had to say, to see if it really could be said that the Fathers' unanimous consensus is that the days of creation week were ordinary days lasting 24 hours as you claimed.

I really think you should dig that up and post it somewhere sometime,

The URL to it has been posted in this discussion for those who would like to read it.

it is such an example of special pleading, and a key insight into your method here on this thread as well.

You're wrong about the special pleading, but right about the insight it provides into my method, which is to try to find out what the truth is and to adhere to it. Geocentrism obviously is not a binding doctrine of the Catholic faith. Catholicism is concerned with the salvation of souls, not the measurement of the heavens.

johnmartin said...

D- JM wrote: “Again I say, the church has spoken and any silence after the matter is consent to the previous decisions. Therefore church indefectibility is saved. You on the other hand have some very big problems concerning church indefectibility. You merely proof text Augustine and Leo XIII and avoid the problems with those proof texts. Then hastily conclude geo is not part of revelation so we need not believe it and be faithful to the church. This line or argument has been answered of course, we shall see if David tries to engage it directly.”

It has been addressed. Over and over again. The Church’s indefectibility is easily upheld in the position I have taken, since it is clear that the Church never bound herself to geocentrism as de fide. In summary:

JM- Yet the ordinary magesterium has spoken through the fathers and I have shown all we need do to establish the ordinary magesterium has spoken on a matter of faith is to point to Leo XIII, who says the unanimous consent of the fathers is the same as the church’s interpretation of scripture. David has not seen fit to answer this truth from history. Therefore he is avoiding a truth found in the deposit of faith. The ordinary magesterium has spoken and geo is de fide.

David has also avoided many points made against the encyclopedia’s statements about Galileo. Those statements show the encyclopedia’s position is derived from junk scholarship. I conclude David has embraced the conclusion of the encyclopedia knowing full well the problems remain unresolved.

David has not answered the clear arguments based on indisputable historical facts concerning the church’s permission through its bishops to routinely teach heresy at seminaries, universities and schools all over the Catholic world. This one fact destroys his indefectibility argument and shows my indefectibility argument is the only one that has any historical value.

D- There was a document from the Congregation of the Index, a papal bull relating to the Index itself, and a declaration concerning the person of Galileo from the Holy Office, which was never signed by the Pope.

JM- Paul V and several other Popes condemned Galileo and Copernicanism and that’s why the books were placed on the index. Robert Sungenis has a thorough treatment of the history in his book GWW which has a far better understanding of the events than DP. Paul V made an official statement as head of the church and condemned the moving earth as heresy, based upon tradition found in the fathers. Just as Leo XIII taught in PD, Paul V consistently applied the same principles already well understood. When the fathers have universal consent on the meaning of a text, then that meaning is the same as the church’s understanding of the text. The texts say the earth is stationary, and that’s what the fathers taught and that’s what the church taught and that’s what Paul taught and that’s what successive Popes taught. What does David teach . . . the very opposite.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- It has been shown that none of these were irreformable and it has never been demonstrated that any of them would require a formal abrogation on the part of the Magisterium. But in fact the disciplinary injunction not to teach non-geocentric models of the universe has been formally removed, the Index was formally revised and later abolished altogether. I leave it to the Church to decide if the person of Galileo requires more formal rehabilitation.

JM- As far as I can tell there was never any details showing “the disciplinary injunction” has been “formally removed”. This is mere historical projection. No evidence presented and an assumed conclusion thrown in to boot. David has not made his case.

D- The claim that the Fathers unanimously taught certain things with regard to geocentirsm has been asserted, but not proven.

JM – This is a blatant falsehood. Evidence was presented on John Salza’s web site and statements were made by Robert saying hundreds of statements could be brought forward showing the fathers taught geo and not helio. This is simply not true to say otherwise. David has lost credibility here.

D- It has been shown that if the primary individual advancing these citations from the Fathers were consistent with his own standards, then not a single one of the citations would stand.

JM- Even if this is true then it is irrelevant, because all we have to do is fulfil what Leo XIII taught on the fathers. They all taught geo so it is an article of the faith.

D- And outside of those private standards, there are significant reasons against this assertion, as given in this thread.

JM – Outside those standards I have shown the fathers taught geo as required by Leo XIII. Therefore geo is de fide, catholic dogma. David must think Paul V was a complete imbecile to grant the congregation powers to investigate Galileo if the church thought geo was not part of the faith. Not only was Paul V an imbecile, he wasn’t even acting within his jurisdiction as Pope to act on faith and morals. This is the logical consequence of David’s anti historical and ant Papal claims. Furthermore the Popes and Cardinals who came after Paul V were also completely duped by this imbecile. And furthermore again, even Galileo was duped by this imbecile when he claimed he believed goe to be true. Everyone in the case was duped, even the fathers and the authors of scripture were duped. Even the congregation who placed the books on the index were duped.

In fact every time we look outside and see the sun and stars go past the earth we are all duped according to David. Every time we see the focault pendulum move against the earth we are duped and every time a science experiment is set up to determine the movement of the earth, when it fails to detect the motion, all scientists are duped. When in fact when science says parallax is proof for the motion of the earth, all scientists really are duped. Parallax is not proof for a theory; it is only evidence consistent with two theories – helio and geo.

For David’s position to hold, there must have been and continues to be a lot of duping going on. The more likely scenario is the church was never duped and neither were the fathers or the Holy Spirit who wrote the scriptures. For that matter neither have the science experiments set up to determine the motion of the earth been duped – they all reported what we already knew from the church and the fathers – there is no Earth motion.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- More importantly, I and others have advanced the magisterial teaching from Leo XIII, Pius XII, and the PBC under St. Pius X that indicates that the testimony of the Fathers on a matter that is not de fide is outside of the realm in which their testimony binds.

JM - You have merely made arguments that were answered and my answers were not rebutted with anything of substance. Your arguments collapsed.

D- On the other hand since at least 1741--as Jordanes and others have laid out--there have been all sorts of indications from the Magesterium that those earlier declarations and disciplinary measures have indeed been reformed.

JM – Jordanse and others . . . I don’t think so. The evidence is scant for official change in teaching from the church. There is certainly no evidence from the Popes to officially overturn the official statements made by the Popes at the time of Galileo.

D- The faithful have been given every indication that they are perfectly free to reject geocentrism and embrace other models of the universe, without any hint of "formal heresy".

JM- The learned faithful know better than the unlearned. The learned know the real story about what exactly did and did not happen in the Papal statements.

D - And in no instance has geocentrism been reaffirmed by the Magesterium in these past centuries.

JM- At no instance has it ever been denied at the same level it was affirmed. No council has ever revoked the unanimous consent of the fathers taught by Trent and no statement has been made to overturn the geo interpretation of the fathers. This is a big fat void in David’s argument and he knows it. Geo is the official Catholic cosmological position found in tradition and will always be so.

D- And this non-affirmation of geocentrism as de fide fits in with a broader view of how the Catholic Church views the relationship between the Faith and science.

JM- I’m not sure what David means by de fide. The catholic use means dogmatic definition or doctrine revealed by God. The church has never officially been free about geo and this is proven by Trent, the fathers, scripture and Leo XIII in PD.

D- In all of these areas--geocentrism, the days of creation and the early chapters of Genesis, various aspects of evolution--we see the Church giving freedom, where Sungenis is dogmatic.

JM- The PBC statement concerning yom was found to be problematic. The statement invented a new phrase “applied sense” to the word yom as found in Genesis. The church has not officially stated what this “applied sense” means. Yet is has officially defined what the literal sense means in the CCC. One wonders why anyone who sees this problem can take the PBC statement seriously. After I have posed several questions on the PBC statement, which still remain unanswered, we are free to conclude the PBC statement is “offically” vague.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- Bottom line is that if Sungenis wants dogmatic pronouncements in favor of geocentrism, six literal 24 hour days of creation, and against everything to do with evolution then he's in the wrong place.

JM- Robert cites church councils that make official statements concerning the church’s position on creation according to complete substance. He has done a pretty thorough job in explaining the church’s more recent statements in light of older statements. Robert is well aware of all the statements made by the church on all three topics. I believe his understanding of these issues far exceeds that of Davids.

D- Ultimately, he’s just playing the same game he’s played all his life. See: “By Sungenis Alone” ( http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html ) especially the section “Of Popes, Bishops, and Laymen” ( http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/03/by-sungenis-alone_29.html#two ) and following.

JM- All this is too far from geo and not really relevant to the discussion. Even if Robert is wrong on other topics, it is irrelevant to the topic of geo. Anyway I’ve shown the fathers teaching on geo matches that of Leo XIII so geo is found in the ordinary magisterial teaching of the church. This is something David must dance around and make appeals to non binding opinions of other Catholics.

D- JM wrote: “I believe the church silence on the matter of geo in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment. ”

There you have it. All the Popes and all the bishops in communion with them, from Benedict XIV to Benedict XVI, have been either inept or cowards in the face of the dreaded “science establishment”. This includes the craven Pius VII (who refused Napoleon and was taken prisoner), the inept Gregory XVI, the bungling Bl. Pius IX, the cowering Leo XIII, the gutless St. Pius X, the lily-livered Pope Pius XI, the spineless Pius XII (“Hitler’s Pope”, remember?), etc.

JM- Other reasons include the Popes probably thought the question of geo had been resolved by previous Popes and nothing further was needed to be said. We can also compare the silence of Popes to the ineptitude of the church when it comes to the consecration of Russia. This was asked to be done by the mother of God and it has not been completed in nearly 100 years. We also see this in other times of church history. Take for example the council of Trent. This council occurred after many knew the church was in crisis for centuries leading up to the early 1500’s and in need of reform. Even then it only occurred after many years of Protestant rebellion. Church history clearly testifies to several times of church apathy and tardiness to clean house and repair damage done to itself. The same is true of geocentrism and many other doctrines permitted to be either denied or ignored. David must ignore all this of course and carry on as though history never happened.

D- While some, including myself, have disagreed with the position taken on ecclesiastical discipline by the late John Paul II (requiescat in pace -- and note that he himself said near the end of his life that he thought this was a weakness in his pontificate), I would never call him cowardly.

JM – It doesn’t matter what you call him, the facts of history are facts. Heresy was permitted and continues to be permitted within the church. This undermines your thesis on geo and it really hurts your integrity by you playing word games about discipline.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D -And one more time, to demonstrate the absolute difference in principle between what you are saying and what I am saying, let me point out again that during his pontificate every one of the alleged counter-examples you cited was explicitly reaffirmed in solemn magisterial documents. Every single one.

JM – David ignores the related matter of the ineptitude of the Fatima debacle as a good example. The church has completely failed to properly consecrate Russia in nearly 100 years and because of this Russia wallows in error and sin. No doubt David will say this is not relevant because it is not a matter of public revelation and therefore it is not related to geo. But it is related to the matter at hand, because the church has repeatedly shown its cowardly hand to overcome the communist threat through obedience and thereby obtain a supernatural blessing from heaven. The church has officially disobeyed the mother of God’s command, therefore the church leadership has failed to act for the good of the church.

In a similar way the church has failed to act for the good of the church regarding its protection of the church from heretics. Several doctrines were cited as being attacked by heretics and the church did not react. We could also cite the paedophilia and homosexual problems within the church as other monumental moral failures of the church to protect the faithful. Yes David can say the church’s official position on these matters of faith and morals has been reaffirmed, yet this means nothing to the Catholics who are bombarded with error and sin throughout the Catholic world.

Now focussing on doctrinal errors permitted by the church and not officially reaffirmed -

Show me an official Papal document that reaffirms the inerrancy of scripture after Vatican II. We know many theologians repudiate inerrancy of scripture, yet the Papacy has seen fit to ignore this error.

Show me Papal documents in the last 50 years that clearly teach the nature of Christ’s knowledge in response to the novel doctrines of catholic theologians such as Raymond Brown ( a theologian who was head of the PBC no less!!).

Show me Papal documents in the last 50 years that clearly teach the primary role of marriage is to have children and the secondary role is for the good of the couple. Catholic theology has currently changed its position on a teaching that once taught the primary end of marriage is children for the good of society. As this teaching has been modified by theologians, then the church should have reacted officially to correct this error.

This one is from memory – I remember a Pope, probably Paul VI, who stated priests are to preach against contraception and silence on the matter is mortal sin. Yet modern priests are largely silent on the matter over the pulpit. If I am right on this, you can also show me where the Popes have officially reaffirmed this position in the face of widespread abuse.

Infallibility of the Popes and Councils has been challenged by catholic theologians since Vatican I which defined infallibility. Show me a post Vatican II Papal document that clearly teaches infallibility of the Popes, councils and the ordinary magesterium as a response to the post Vatican II attacks.

Show me the Papal statements in the last 50 years affirming the historicity of Noahs flood in response to the denial of the flood by catholic theologians.

Show me the Papal statements in the last 50 years affirming the teaching of St Thomas’ philosophy within seminaries, even though the systematic teaching of St Thomas has largely been dropped within seminaries and universities.
. . .

johnmartin said...

I’m pretty sure about all of the above aberrations in doctrine and morals that have not been officially corrected by Rome in the last 50 or more years. I’m more than happy to be corrected by David on any of these points. In fact I would be delighted to be corrected, because David would then be showing me the church officials have been doing their job. I don’t see how he can have any reasoned response to the Brown debacle, or the widespread repudiation of the PBC statements made when the PBC was art of the magesterium.

The fundamental argument by David is helio has been permitted to be taught by the church, therefore geo has been repudiated. My counter thesis is there are several doctrines now permitted to be taught by the church, which have not been repudiated by the church, therefore geo has not been repudiated by the church.

D - And the magisterial reaffirmation of the supposedly de fide geocentrism? Nowhere to be found. There is a simple reason for that. It’s not de fide. Never has been, never will be.

JM- David only sees what he wants to see in church history. He must ignore the fathers, scripture, Trent, Leo, Paul V and the other Popes and Cardinals who taught geo and ruled against helio. He must also answer or ignore several instances of the church failing to counter heresy within the church. Once the official church position and the facts of church history are acknowledged, David’s case becomes a house of cards.

D- I am satisfied by this extended discussion that the original case that I laid out in the Catholic Answers Forum is solid and I thank Dave Armstrong for his encouragement and for hosting this discussion.

JM – I am convinced your case has many historical and logical holes which you refuse to adequately address.

D- Santa Maria sedes sapientiae, ora pro nobis

JM- You can get Mary to pray or you all you want. Its far better to acknowledge the modern church has permitted several novel doctrines to be taught widely within the church without any official response from the Vatican.

JM

johnmartin said...

John Martin: Nice work.

JM- Thanks Rick. I think robert has done a fmighty fine service for the church. I look forrwar dto hearing from the conference.

JM

johnmartin said...

J- Correct -- the Congregation of the Index was not competent to issue a dogmatic decree (which is why it didn't issue one).

JM – if it didn’t issue a dogmatic decree why was it claimed to be incompetent? The encyclopedia does not make a coherent argument about this. It seems the congregation was incompetent to issue a decree and also any judgment whatsoever, regardless of what the Pope thought was the content of the faith concerning geo.

Now the congregation is competent to make a statement on the creation days,

What "congregation"? It's the Pontifical Biblical Commission, not a Congregation, that issued that Responsa. But yes, it is correct that the PBC was competent to issue that Responsa.

JM – So its the commission. And so what authority did the commission have that the previous congregation didn’t have? I also note the judgment made by the congregation assumes a doctrine of faith already taught within the church.

J- What this "double standard" is you're blathering about I can't imagine.

JM- Double standard of authority. One congregation doesn’t have authority and a commission does have authority on doctrine. This is your reading of history.

Exegete is not an office in the church, therefore it is generic.

J- True, but irrelevant.

JM- Only because you say so. Don’t you get it. The statement on yom doesn’t bind Catholics to anything other than allowing exegetes to discuss the meaning of yom in accordance with the defined literal sense and the undefined “applied sense.” What the heck does this new sense mean? If we don’t know then the PBC has made a vague and meaningless statement concerning yom. As we don’t know then the PBC has made a vague and meaningless statement concerning yom.

Furthermore, your assumption that a natural day means 24 hours is only an assumption.

J- Um, no, it's established from time out of mind that the ordinary day is divided into 24 periods of time known as "hours" -- 12 for the day and 12 for the night. Several of those Fathers whose unanimous consent you say you believe in affirmed that the usual length of a day was 24 hours. Not that that means it is an article of faith divinely revealed to us through Jesus and the Apostles, of course.

JM- since when is an ordinary day a natural day when discussed in the creation event. Surely there is very little normal about the day when there is no sun and the stars are being formed. The notion of a antural day can only be an analogy unless there is some way of pinning down the days of creation to the motion of the sun and the stars. Maybe it can be done and then again . . .?
. . .

johnmartin said...

I see you use a double standard and avoid all the other questions derived from the text, making the PBC statement vague.

J- Whatever. I've used no double standard, and as for "avoiding" all of those other "questions," well, none of your "questions" help to establish geocentrism as an article of faith, so I'm not going to follow you down that rabbit trail.

JM – I’m not surprised you dont want to answer the questions, because you cannot do so, especially with the novel “assigned sense.”

Keep being two faced.

Careful, John.

JM – Honestly, you are using a double standard. The congregation doesn’t, but the commission does have authority. Both are granted authority from the Pope. What’s the magic ones got and the other not?

JM

S said...

JM: “Thanks Rick. I think robert has done a mighty fine service for the church.”

Except when Robert states things you think are stupid about the unanimous consent of the Fathers that undermine your case for geocentrism and makes use of other clear double standards in the process. Then he’s just some non-descript “leader of a geo group”, as you put it.

Remember?

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289531388589#c3329018049400092235


Pete: “Beyond that, let me admit with some sheepishness that what ‘S’ said about geocentrism and over-suspiciousness applies a little too much to me, too. So I took his comments to heart. If you're reading this, ‘S’, thank you for challenging me.”

I’m glad to be of any help, Pete. I’m thankful to God that you see it and that you’re pulling yourself out of it. The conspiracy mind-set is poisonous to the mind and the soul and it can be extremely difficult to escape. I suspect that watching JM chase his tail (using your description of the argument for geocentrism) helped you to see it in this case.

Pray for him, Jones, Sungenis and the others. They're all caught in the same poisonous trap which is bad enough. But they're also intent upon drawing others in with them, which is far worse.

S said...

JM – "David ignores the related matter of the ineptitude of the Fatima debacle as a good example...."

Perhaps Palm "ignored" your point because he judged that it wasn't good enough to require a response or because it was already answered more than sufficiently by Jordanes.

Here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289407635617#c5745754187448215096

and here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289516792188#c5006961968901105113

I also invite you to review your uses of the the consecration of Fatima over time in these comment boxes.

JM: "There is no solid evidence that the Popes since the time of Fatima have properly consecrate Russia to the immaculate heart of Mary." (Nov. 10)

JM: "Fatima was approved by the church and the mother of God demanded the consecration of Russia by the Pope and the bishops and this was not done." (Nov. 11)

JM: "I now note that the church has also acted in a cowardly way to prevent the consecration of Fatima to occur." (Nov 14)

So, first you started off saying that "there is no solid evidence" that the consecration was done. That almost seems reasonable. You give evidence that you understand the fact that you're offering your opinion on the matter and that it's not certain. But then you slide into stating as a fact that the consecration "was not done" and eventually degenerate even further into stating not only that the consecrations wasn't done, but the Church acted in a "cowardly way" in order "to prevent" the consecration. That's quite a progression towards absolute certitude and condemnation!

And you still don't understand the point, JM. Your comparison to Fatima isn't a good one on several levels: 1) Fatima was a private not a public revelation, 2) No Catholic is required to believe Fatima or any private revelation (as opposed to the doctrines of the Church - of which you claim geocentrism is one), 3) It's a matter of opinion as to whether or not the consecration was done or not, and 4) either way, the Church continues to support the message of Fatima even now. She hasn't removed Fatima from the list of approved apparitions - unlike your point as it pertains to geocentrism.

S said...

This was also an important point brought out by Todd Wood:

“In the Q&A, a priest asked him whether the Church Fathers affirmed geocentricity because that's what the Scripture taught or because that was just the most popular view of the day. I thought that was a really good question, but Salza didn't answer it. He just went off on whether the Bible should be authoritative on everything it says or just the religious stuff.” Todd Wood

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/11/hanging-out-with-geocentrists-part-1.html

I thought his reporting was excellent. Well worth reading.

johnmartin said...

How did the commission and the Pope know the literal interpretation of the scriptures stated geo was revealed by God?

J- They didn't know that -- they mistakenly believed it.

JM- they knew it from tradition and that’s why Paul V said so. Your answer is clearly not historically factual.

Therefore the claim that the Popes Bull only has authority in forma communi is based upon a formal misunderstanding of the authority the Pope has and his ability to delegate authority to other commissions.

J- No, it's based on the facts of the case. The Congregation of the Index did not have the authority to make an infallible dogmatic judgment (if you say it did, then prove it -- show the apostolic constitution establishing the congregation with such competence).

JM- The encyclopedia doesn’t say the “Congregation of the Index did not have the authority to make an infallible dogmatic judgment”. So you are making up your case independent of any church source even as low as the encyclopedia. Furthermore, you haven’t demonstrated a part of the magesterium needs to be infallible for its judgment to be binding. You merely assume otherwise and then project the conclusion into your argument.

J- Furthermore, the authors of the judgment themselves understood that they weren't issuing an infallible, irreversible declaration. St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote, "I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

JM – Yep Bellarmine said that and look at what he said about the respect he had for scripture, stating “very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary”. According to this statement, Bellarmine, like Paul V and the fathers all taught the scriptures taught the earth was stationary. If we also see Bellarmine said “if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed” we note that science cannot actually do what Bellarmine hypothetically stated could happen, for science cannot definitively prove either the sun or the earth is stationary, even after centuries of experiments and science after Galileo.

According to GWW, the “Papal address. is based on a partial and selective reading', of the Lerrer to Foscorini. In the passage immediately preceding the one just cited Bellarmine had taken a very, restrictive position by stating that: - Nor call one answer that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith. since ifs not it is a matter of faith 'as regards the topic ' it is a matter of faith .as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve as well as to say that Christ was not bona of a virgin because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.” Evidently Bellarmie had the same understanding of geo and revelation as I have been saying on this thread and which you have been opposing. Bellarmine was a very confident geocentrist.

Bellarmine also says at the end of the letter – “. . . and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated. But I will not believe there is such a demonstration until it is shown to me.” Evidently Bellarmine did not entertain such evidence was forthcoming and that’s why he supported having Galileo stop doing research to produce evidence for helio. (GWW 144).
. . .

johnmartin said...

J- Sure, St. Robert was convinced there would never be any such proof available, since he was sure geocentrism was true -- but even so, that's not the kind of thing you say when you believe geocentrism is a divinely-revealed doctrine of the Faith, an irreformable and infallible dogma. Obviously he didn't think it was irreformable or that the Scriptures couldn't be interpreted differently.

JM – the part of the letter missing shows Bellarmine thought geo was revealed by God.

JM – The pope can and has routinely delegated real authority to other men throughout church history. Therefore the commission did receive the authority required of it from the Pope to make an authoritative decision.

J- Irrelevant. That he can delegate authority, and that the Congregation was competent to make its ruling, does nothing to establish that he delegated to them his infallibility or that their decree was irreversible.

JM – Paul V ensured the decree was published under his authority, so his decision is binding and normative. The content of the decree assumes geo is a dogma of the ordinary magesterium. We can compare this to the more recent document by JPII ending the debate over the ordination of women. This document didn’t seek to make an infallible doctrinal definitions, yet the ordination of women is universally binding and normative. Anyone who ordains women to the priesthood is committing an act of grave disobedience against the head of the church. The same principle holds true for the statement written under the authority of Paul V. A document does not have to be infallible to be authoritative and binding.

Fatima was approved by the church

JM- And yet the Church did not declare that it was public revelation (because it's not).

Something is seriously wrong with the church when such a simple action cannot be achieved in almost 100 years.

J- If you feel that way, you should probably reconsider whether or not Catholicism really is the true religion. Indeed, it is hard to understand why you, who like "Cassini" believe the Church since circa 1740 has been not only permitting but encouraging people to accept a heresy, would want anything at all to do with my religion.

JM- Its hard to believe you are as thick as you sound. Really man, you act smart when required and then turn on the dim switch when required. Your answers to the Fatima debacle resolve nothing. The church failed a major act of obedience that could have affected the salvation of many souls and prevented persecutions of Christians around the world. Yet this means very little to you.

JM

johnmartin said...

S- “In the Q&A, a priest asked him whether the Church Fathers affirmed geocentricity because that's what the Scripture taught or because that was just the most popular view of the day. I thought that was a really good question, but Salza didn't answer it. He just went off on whether the Bible should be authoritative on everything it says or just the religious stuff.” Todd Wood.

JM - John clearly states the fathers held to the go position on his website. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

JM

johnmartin said...

JM: “Thanks Rick. I think robert has done a mighty fine service for the church.”

S- Except when Robert states things you think are stupid about the unanimous consent of the Fathers that undermine your case for geocentrism and makes use of other clear double standards in the process. Then he’s just some non-descript “leader of a geo group”, as you put it.

JM- What do I think is stupid about Robert and the unanimous consent of the fathers. If it is concerned with Roberts views on what the father said about the conversion of the Jews, then you are drawing a very long bow into another unrelated subject. The fact is Roberts work on geo includes a lengthy study of the church history of the subject which is impressive. His work on the fathers conforms to what is required from Leo, so I am entitled to say what I have said above without contradicting myself.

In the link you provided you state you picked me up on a comment about NASA. What were you referring to there?

JM

johnmartin said...

There is a post missing addressed to David Palm after ". . . systematic teaching of St Thomas has largely been dropped within seminaries and universities. . .
- Hide quoted text -



Explain to me why Raymond Brown was the head of the PBC and Brown taught several heretical doctrines, yet he was promoted by Vatican officials and the Popes. What is the official Papal response to Brown’s novel ideas and why did Popes praise his work, when many educated Catholics new he was teaching heresy? This is a clear an unambiguous example that held widespread support from the church elite, yet it was well known the church had already defined doctrines which Brown repudiated. I don’t think anyone can have reasoned response to this fact of church history and to then maintain your contrary thesis that geo was repudiated by the church because helio was taught within the church. The facts of history are clearly with geo.

Show me a Papal statement in the last 50 years repudiating the novel doctrines concerning the election of the Jews as Gods chosen race. The church with the fathers has always taught the Jews are no longer Gods chosen people. That election was lost at the cross and confirmed in 70 AD with the loss of the temple and priesthood. Nevertheless catholic theologians and some bishops have taught the Jews are still Gods chosen people and still have a covenant with God.

Show me the official Vatican response to the Bishops of England who published the document concerning the scriptures which contained several errors. If there is no such official response, why did the Vatican remain silent and if so, why did they permit the errors to be published? Are these errors now official church teaching if the Vatican remains silent?

Show me the official Vatican response to feminist ideas that permeate the church. The church teaches the male is the head of the house, just as Paul said the man was the head over the woman. Yet this is thoroughly repudiated by feminism. Therefore show me the official Papal response in the last 50 years to feminism with its denial of the male role in marriage.
. . .

johnmartin said...

Show me the official Papal statements that reaffirm the PBC’s statements concerning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. It is common knowledge that many Catholic seminaries and universities teach the JDEP theory, which repudiates Mosaic authorship. From memory I believe I saw a reference to the theory in one of JPII’s encyclicals.

If you want to stick to the ‘yom’ statement in the PBD, then you should also stick to the many other statements made in the same document by the PBC. However it is well known that many, or possibly all the statements made by the PBC document are repudiated by modern Catholic theologians. What is the official Papal position in reaction to these novel doctrines in opposition to the PBC document? (Hint – nothing).

It is well known that the JDEP theory is adopted almost universally by catholic theologians, so if this is so and it is acceptable to Rome, then Rome has seen fit to either –

1. Affirm JDEP and permit novel teachings after the PBC affirmed Mosaic authorship and many other points. Therefore the church has denied the authority of the PBC when it was an official teaching arm of the magesterium.

2. Affirm the PBC which denies the JDEP, yet say nothing officially against the JDEP. If so, then this shows Rome permits error to be widely taught within the church, even after the church has spoken on the matter. This conforms to my thesis concerning helio being widely permitted, even though geo has been officially taught by the church.

JM

S said...

Todd Wood: “In the Q&A, a priest asked him whether the Church Fathers affirmed geocentricity because that's what the Scripture taught or because that was just the most popular view of the day. I thought that was a really good question, but Salza didn't answer it. He just went off on whether the Bible should be authoritative on everything it says or just the religious stuff.”

JM -" John clearly states the fathers held to the go position on his website."

That wasn't Wood's point, John. His point was that Salza was asked "whether the Church Fathers affirmed geocentricity because that's what the Scripture taught or because that was just the most popular view of the day." Salza wasn't asked whether the Church Fathers believed the sun revolves around the earth. That's not the issue. And Salza gave no answer.

This is an important point, because many of your quotes from the Fathers about the earth and sun give no reference at all to either Scripture or Tradition. In fact, there isn't a single quote that references Tradition.

So, how do we know that they weren't just stating what was commonly believed at the time and using it for various purposes rather than intending to affirm a geocentric model as being taught explicitly by Scripture as a matter of faith?

S said...

JM- "What do I think is stupid about Robert and the unanimous consent of the fathers."

John, we discussed this at some length. Why do you keep having such difficulty remembering what you've written in the past? It's not what I think is stupid, it's what you seem to think is stupid about Robert's views - at least when they undermine geocentrism.

Palm provided multiple statements from Sungenis in the past proving his criteria as they pertain to "unanimous consent". And those criteria undermine your geocentric position. They also illustrate his double standards.

Here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289482241982#c1154108223494835378

In answering Palm, although you previously treated Sungenis as something of a personal hero and central in your conversion to geocentrism, you did a remarkable about-face in regard to Sungenis' prominence and centrality in the geocentric "cause" and described him as just some non-descript leader of a geocentric group.

So, here, you treat Sungenis one way when he helps you and then very differently when he undermines you. That seems to be a theme among geocentrists.

JM: "If it is concerned with Roberts views on what the father said about the conversion of the Jews, then you are drawing a very long bow into another unrelated subject."

I could care less what the topic was at the time. The fact is, Sungenis clearly and repeatedly articulated his standards and criteria as they pertain to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. And those standards and criteria undermine the argument for geocentrism. You obviously think that his previously stated standards and criteria are flat wrong. But your attempts to dismiss what he said then as being of no relevance only prove that you're willing to say and use whatever standards and criteria help you at the moment.

Jordanes said...

Well, at 254 comments (and counting), John is still spitting out comment after clueless, obfuscatory comment -- and he's still no closer to answering any of the challenges that we've put directly to him, instead throwing up a thick cloud of tangents and irrelevancies to obscure the fact that he has not established that geocentrism is an infallible, irreformable doctrine of the Catholic faith.

Keep on dancing, and dancing, and dancing, John. The music has stopped and the band has gone home, but don't let that stop you.

Frank said...

And here we go again. You get shut down on all the examples you give so you come back throwing another handful of smear-noodles against the Church on the wall hoping something will stick. Hoping it will stick! What is wrong with you? Hoping that you can prove that all these bad things are like you say about the Church just so that you can hold on to your geocentrism? This is getting darned close to becoming an idol for you, buddy. Your faith sounds like its more in geocentrism and Bob Sungenis. And the Church? Well its fine with you to attack her and make her look as bad as you possibly can just so long as nobody goes after Sungenis and the super dogma of geocentrism. That's EVIL.

Listen you got shut down AGAIN on Fatima and now I am going to grab another on of your smear-noodles off the wall because this one I know and it won’t stick. You said “Show me an official Papal document that reaffirms the inerrancy of scripture after Vatican II. We know many theologians repudiate inerrancy of scripture, yet the Papacy has seen fit to ignore this error.”

Right here buddy.

"The first paragraph states: "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.

These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks 'ex cathedra,' or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law......

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

Funny I don’t see geocentrism anywhere in that list or in the whole document. Hmmmm I wonder why? They must be hiding out in fear of the science mafia right?

Frank said...

So you are shot down dead on two. Oh, but move on, you've got more examples, right! Forget the smear-noodles that didn't stick. You've got a cause to promote! On with more examples! Sure, a bunch of your imaginings about the way things should be in the Church if they made you Pope and then private revelations and then more smears that have been answered but you just don’t remember where and other people have to do your homework to remind you where! Great.

Here is what JM is going to say about the quote I quoted. Oh oh oh it says "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." That is just what the Fathers do. Right? WRONG. Not a single one of the Fathers “sets forth geocentrism to be believed as divinely revealed." That is just what you have found out here. Not one. Think you can find one? I don’t. And one does not make unanimous Fathers does it?

Sure we're in tough times but things are getting better. That document was only 12 years ago. You have anything else from the Church's teaching that has lasted for 300 years? Through all those Popes? Saints? Anything even close? No? Didn’t think so. I'm telling you, you geocentric guys are working your way right out of the Church because you care more about your cause of geocentrism and your prophet Sungenis than you do the Church. The Church is just there to use and abuse so you can promote your cause. If you want to go there, that's your business. But don't expect us to go along for the ride, buddy.

Jordanes said...

[Father Campion's] gaiety, too, was in strange contrast to the solemn Puritanism of his enemies. For instance, he was on the point that Councils might err in matters of fact, but that the Scriptures could not.
"As for examples," he said, his eyes twinkling out of his drawn face, "I am bound under pain of damnation to believe that Toby's dog had a tail, because it is written, he wagged it."
The Deans looked sternly at him, as the audience laughed.
"Now, now," said one of the them, "it becomes not to deal so triflingly with matters of weight."
Campion dropped his eyes, demurely, as if reproved.
"Why, then," he said, "if this example like you not, take another. I must believe that St. Paul had a cloak, because he willeth Timothy to bring it with him."
Again the crowd laughed; and Anthony laughed, too, with a strange sob in his throat at the gallant foolery, which, after all, was as much to the point as a deal that the Deans were saying.

"By What Authority," pp.203-4, Msgr. Robert Hugh Benson

S said...

JM: "In the link you provided you state you picked me up on a comment about NASA. What were you referring to there?"


You've forgotten that, too, John? It's very strange how you contradict yourself at times and frequently can't remember what you've written. I'm not trying to be unkind, but do you have a medical condition of some sort?

Here's a link to where you contradict yourself about NASA and the alleged moon landing hoax and where you (again) seem to completely forget previous things you've written:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289350460725#c7574049451258510703

S said...

ThePalmHQ: “And one more time, to demonstrate the absolute difference in principle between what you are saying and what I am saying, let me point out again that during his pontificate every one of the alleged counter-examples you cited was explicitly reaffirmed in solemn magisterial documents. Every single one. And the magisterial reaffirmation of the supposedly de fide geocentrism? Nowhere to be found. There is a simple reason for that. It’s not de fide. Never has been, never will be.

I am satisfied by this extended discussion that the original case that I laid out in the Catholic Answers Forum is solid and I thank Dave Armstrong for his encouragement and for hosting this discussion.”

Thank you for all your efforts, David. Since you wrote this, I don’t see anything new, either – just rehashing. JM seems to think that whoever writes last is right.

Although, I think this candid comment I just read by one of the presenters from the Galileo Was Wrong conference (Rick DeLano) provides some important insight into their motivations here:

Rick DeLano: “Seems like Bob's conference has got a whole lot of people talking about this now, which was precisely the intention…John Martin: Nice work.”

So, this is largely about marketing and getting attention for them. According to witnesses who attended (like Todd Wood: http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2010/11/hanging-out-with-geocentrists-part-1.html), there were about 100 attendees at the conference. When you consider that a fair amount of them were there because they saw the conference as a spectacle or other similar reasons (such as the Notre Dame students and a commenter in this combox), that’s not a very good showing after all the advertising and promotion these people had been doing.

Like many conspiracy theorists and controversialists, they know they need to stir the pot in order to gain attention. The aim isn’t primarily about furthering the cause of truth – it’s the promotion of their cause.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Rick,

Dave, I wanted to say how sorry I am that I didn't know you had taken the posts down.

If I had known this I am confident this whole shooting match could have been avoided.


The old posts on immutability, etc.? You and Bob were certainly aware of it at the time and both commended me for having done so. You wrote to me and Bob on 2-12-09:

"But given the lack of class of most of your detractors out there, Dave Armstrong stands head and shoulders above all of them and has more class in his little fingernail than they do in their entire bodies.

"My two cents: it's over and catholic charity, if not perfect doctrinal accord, has been maintained."

You urged me to remove stuff, I did, and you and Bob commended me for it and all was quite cordial and brotherly at the time. But now you don't remember that, and if you did, Bob wouldn't have attacked me in his recent post? That's odd.

I have put the whole dialogue back up, since Robert chose to attack my person and my apostolate:

Can God Change His Mind?: Dialogue With Bob Sungenis on God's Immutability, Omniscience, Atemporality, Simplicity, & Impassibility (Divine Emotions?)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/can-god-change-his-mind-dialogue-with.html

His choice. My preference was to avoid the controversy.

No matter what, I want you to know (even if it doesn't mean anything to you) that you have my respect for having done that.

Thank you. I appreciate your comment / apology very much and I'm happy to get along with whomever I can get along with. I've said all along that this stuff ain't personal for me. I just have a problem with the claims that geocentrism is some sort of binding dogma on Catholics. It is not (as has been shown repeatedly in the combox, esp. by David Palm and Jordanes).

I have no objection whatever to someone believing what they wish about the universe. I have a huge problem, though, with the same person telling me I'm a lousy Catholic or not one at all, or am destroying the Church with my "apologetics" (Bob) for disagreeing with them.

That's a whole different ballgame and is Luther all over again. I don't buy it.

Dave Armstrong said...

I thank Dave Armstrong, you and everyone else here again for helping me to work through this.

You're welcome, Pete. Of course, I haven't made arguments against geocentrism. That was done by several others in the combox (very well, too).

johnmartin said...

So, how do we know that they weren't just stating what was commonly believed at the time and using it for various purposes rather than intending to affirm a geocentric model as being taught explicitly by Scripture as a matter of faith?

JM - We know it was revealed because the Fathers unanimously interpreted scripture that way. That fulfills the criteria set out by Leo XIII. Therefore the church's understanding of those texts is fixed. The fathers got their geo ideas from scripture and not some popular belief at the time. According to Robert the Greeks held to a moving earth and the fathers rejected them.

S- Palm provided multiple statements from Sungenis in the past proving his criteria as it pertains to "unanimous consent". And those criteria undermine your position. They also illustrate his double standards.

JM- And I answered Palms statement with Leo XIII so this issue is irrelevant to the geo discussion.

S- In answering Palm, although you previously treated Sungenis as something of a personal hero and central in your conversion to geocentrism, you did a remarkable about-face in regard to Sungenis' prominence and centrality in the geocentric "cause" and described him as just some non-descript leader of a geocentric group.

Robert completed his research not to become a leader of a geo group but to investigate if geo was true and catholic. Because he has uncovered the catholic truth, then Catholics should follow the catholic truth he has rediscovered.

S- So, here, you treat Sungenis one way when he helps you and then very differently when he undermines you. That seems to be a theme among geocentrists.

JM- I treat Robert with respect, especially when his research matches the church (as should all faithful Catholics). If his method doesn't, then I check it with the church. Roberts work on geo conforms to the church, especially Leos statements in PD. I am not being inconsistent.

S . . . only prove that you're willing to say and use whatever standards and criteria help you at the moment.

JM - explained above.
JM

Rick DeLano said...

John Martin:

I am amazed at your unflappable, constant, tireless and charitable resoluteness under fire.

Your performance here is exemplary.

I have stood where you now stand and believe me when I tell you:

we are lucky to have you.

Please drop a line to me sometime at:

catholicdad@gmail.com

I would very much like to update you on some exciting developments which have emerged post- Conference, which have the potential to greatly increase the visibility of our challenge to the mainstream's "Copernican principle" universe.......which simply doesn't exist any longer.

We have, finally, seen deeply into the Universe now.

It is not Copernican.

It is geocentric.

Your interlocutors do not yet have the sense to investigate these facts.

They are in for a big surprise.

Congrats again.

You are a stalwart.

johnmartin said...

DA- Thank you. I appreciate your comment / apology very much and I'm happy to get along with whomever I can get along with. I've said all along that this stuff ain't personal for me. I just have a problem with the claims that geocentrism is some sort of binding dogma on Catholics. It is not (as has been shown repeatedly in the combox, esp. by David Palm and Jordanes).

JM – Dave, according to Leo XIII in PD, the unanimous consent of the fathers on their interpretation of scripture is the church’s interpretation of those texts. The Fathers were unanimous on interpreting the scriptures as teaching geocentrism. Paul V thought the same when he had Galileo investigated and that’s why he said the moving earth was heresy, because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture.

Some questions for you – the fathers were unanimous on the meaning of the scriptures. The fathers taught geo from the scriptures. How can the church formally teach the church another cosmology other than geo, when the church binds us to the fathers understanding of the scriptures?

The fathers are a standard measure of tradition. When the fathers are unanimous on a doctrine found in the scriptures, that doctrine is infallibly taught as part of the deposit of faith. The fathers unanimously taught geo as interpreted from the scripture, therefore the fathers taught geo was revealed from the scriptures. Therefore geo has been infallibly taught by the ordinary magesterium of the church. As you currently oppose geo, how do you answer this argument which establishes geo in the ordinary magesterium?

Leo XIII taught Catholics are not to go beyond what the church fathers unanimously taught. The church fathers unanimously taught geo from the scriptures. Therefore how can any faithful Catholic not hold to geo and not go beyond what the fathers taught?

Why do you believe David Palm’s arguments are convincing when he hasn’t answered many of the points I raised concerning the scholarship found in the encyclopedia. I discussed and then summarized my objections in 12 points on Friday November 12 and these objections have not been answered.

Why do you believe David Palm’s arguments are convincing when the central point of his thesis is the church has permitted the teaching of helio for 300 years, yet I have shown the church has also permitted the teaching of many heterodox doctrines (including Brown’s heterodoxy and JDEP). Logically we can then conclude Palms position that approval of heterodox teaching through imprimaturs does not mean the church teaches heterodox doctrines formally in the higher magisterial authorities of the Papacy, fathers, universal consent of the bishops and councils. Yet Palms argument infers it does when it comes to the issue of geo.

Why do you think Jordanes arguments are convincing against geo, when one of Jordanes points is God has not revealed any naturally knowable truths, yet many naturally knowable truths have been revealed by god in the scriptures?

. . .

johnmartin said...

Continued from above . . .

Science cannot be used to prove many things. Many times science can only be used to infer truths through theory. It is most probable that science cannot prove geo is true or not true, therefore the truth or falsity of geo doesn’t fall under the ambit of science alone. Essentially science can be used to assist man in determining the truth of the geo position according to circumstantial evidence, but it cannot arrive at a definitive answer to the question. Therefore the resolution of the truth of geo must come not from natural science, but from revelation. Therefore it is fitting that the creator of the universe reveals to man some essentials of nature of the universe including the position of the earth. This is what scripture states it does do on the existence of the motion of stars, firmament, sun, moon and stationary earth and that is the way the fathers understood scripture to be interpreted. This is also the way the scriptures are to be understood by Catholics as taught by Leo XIII in PD. Therefore the truth of the stationary earth is strictly not resolved by natural science and has been revealed by God. Please comment.

JM

johnmartin said...

F- And here we go again. You get shut down on all the examples you give so you come back throwing another handful of smear-noodles against the Church on the wall hoping something will stick. Hoping it will stick!

JM- False. Palm has been answered and he has not provided any strong counter arguments. He is yet to respond in substance to the many examples of heterodox teaching permitted in the church. Our time is not unique in history either. Try the time of the reformation – how many heterodox doctrines were floating about the church then? Many and the church was very lax in stopping such from being taught. Our time are little different to those times in many respects.

F- What is wrong with you?

JM- Nothing. I’m a faithful Catholic defending the truth.

F- Hoping that you can prove that all these bad things are like you say about the Church just so that you can hold on to your geocentrism?

JM- No. Are you hoping such questions will make mud stick? Yes.

F- This is getting darned close to becoming an idol for you, buddy.

JM – More mud throwing.

F- Your faith sounds like its more in geocentrism and Bob Sungenis. And the Church?

JM – This sounds like a broken record, but Leo XIII taught the church is bound to the universal consent of the fathers and the fathers taught scripture had revealed geo. Therefore geo has been revealed by God and taught in the ordinary magesterium of the church.

F- Well its fine with you to attack her and make her look as bad as you possibly can just so long as nobody goes after Sungenis and the super dogma of geocentrism. That's EVIL.

JM- If only that is what I am doing. However to misrepresent someone is evil.

F- Listen you got shut down AGAIN on Fatima and now I am going to grab another on of your smear-noodles off the wall because this one I know and it won’t stick.

JM- Frank if you believe the church has done the consecration of Russia then you provide the evidence. There si no evidence for it so we must conclude the church has failed to obey the mother of God.

F- You said “Show me an official Papal document that reaffirms the inerrancy of scripture after Vatican II. We know many theologians repudiate inerrancy of scripture, yet the Papacy has seen fit to ignore this error.”

Right here buddy.

Funny I don’t see geocentrism anywhere in that list or in the whole document. Hmmmm I wonder why? They must be hiding out in fear of the science mafia right?

JM - I don’t see several other parts of the faith affirmed either such as the infallibility of the ordinary teaching magesterium of the universal teaching of the bishops, or the infallibility of the ordinary teaching magesterium of the universal consent of the church fathers, or the assent required of all the faithful when the Pope speaks about faith or morals. So you’ve removed one of the points from my previous list, however the reference to the inerrancy phrase in the document cited, references Dei Verbum, which has been used by those who hold to limited inerrancy. Therefore those who hold to limited inerrancy could easily read that document as conclude the Pope was siding with them. Sorry buddy, that’s the ways these folks operate. If the Pope was up to speed on the psychology of these aberrant teachers, he should have explicitly cited Leo in PD on inerrancy of the scriptures to avoid this problem. If you think I am joking about the games played over the DV text, then think again. DV is the central statement used to resolve apparent errors in scripture by stating those errors are real, but have nothing to do with faith and morals so the text is still inspired, but in error. Your citation is orthodox as it should be from the Pope, yet problematic because of the turbulent times we live in.

According to recent Pope’s statements, PD is the foundational document for biblical studies. DV avoided quoting from essential parts of PD on inerrancy and went with a softer statement, which is orthodox, but has been abused by those who hold to limited inerrancy.

. . .

johnmartin said...

F- So you are shot down dead on two. Oh, but move on, you've got more examples, right! Forget the smear-noodles that didn't stick. You've got a cause to promote!

JM – Well the documents don’t tell us much at all about when the Pope is infallible, which falls into the hands of those who reduce Papal infallibility to only two ex cathedra statements. So again, the Popes statement on the infallibility of the Pope is orthodox, but the statement can be used by those who restrict infallibility to the two ex cathedra statements. Therefore your citation is helpful, but insufficient to combat the problems of heterodoxy concerning inerrancy and infallibility being taught in the church. For those who teach these heterodox doctrines can and have used such Papal statements to back up their own heterodox teaching.

F- On with more examples! Sure, a bunch of your imaginings about the way things should be in the Church if they made you Pope and then private revelations and then more smears that have been answered but you just don’t remember where and other people have to do your homework to remind you where! Great.

JM – It’s only a discussion board Frank. Get over it.
The bishops of England published “The Gift of Scripture” which states -

The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain ‘the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (Dei Verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.

Evidently the bishops of England hold to errors in the text and restrict inerrancy to the intent of the text “‘for the sake of our salvation’, just as I stated above. This is not the teaching of the church from Leo XIII.

F- Here is what JM is going to say about the quote I quoted. Oh oh oh it says "With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed." That is just what the Fathers do. Right? WRONG. Not a single one of the Fathers “sets forth geocentrism to be believed as divinely revealed." That is just what you have found out here. Not one. Think you can find one? I don’t. And one does not make unanimous Fathers does it?

JM – Address my argument concerning what Leo said about the universal consent of the fathers on their interpretation o scripture. An argument has bene recently posted for Dave to answer, but you can have at it as well if you like.

F- Sure we're in tough times but things are getting better. That document was only 12 years ago. You have anything else from the Church's teaching that has lasted for 300 years? Through all those Popes? Saints? Anything even close? No? Didn’t think so. I'm telling you, you geocentric guys are working your way right out of the Church because you care more about your cause of geocentrism and your prophet Sungenis than you do the Church. The Church is just there to use and abuse so you can promote your cause. If you want to go there, that's your business. But don't expect us to go along for the ride, buddy.

. . .

johnmartin said...

JM – There are several other doctrines no yet addressed Frank. See if you can answer the problems concerning Raymond Brown and the support he was offered by Popes, even though Brown pushed heterodoxy. You can also find Papal statements after Vatican II on the assent required of Catholics on Papal statements, the infallibility of the ordinary teaching magesterium, and resolve the problems presented concerning the statements made by the PBC in the early 1900’s which have been repudiated by Catholic scholars – Where has the church acted against this?


JM

Frank said...

After I showed him exactly where to find what he insisted was not there JM says

“JM - I don’t see several other parts of the faith affirmed either such as the infallibility of the ordinary teaching magesterium of the universal teaching of the bishops, or the infallibility of the ordinary teaching magesterium of the universal consent of the church fathers, or the assent required of all the faithful when the Pope speaks about faith or morals. So you’ve removed one of the points from my previous list, however the reference to the inerrancy phrase in the document cited, references Dei Verbum, which has been used by those who hold to limited inerrancy.”

And

“Therefore your citation is helpful, but insufficient to combat the problems of heterodoxy concerning inerrancy and infallibility being taught in the church.

LOL! Man the Holy Ghost really messed up when he passed you over for Pope buddy. Really screwed up big time. This is the outer limit. You give the guy exactly what he says is not there and he comes around and says Oh yeah it says what I said was’nt there but you know they really needed to say it better.

LOL!!!!!

JM – Address my argument concerning what Leo said about the universal consent of the fathers on their interpretation o scripture. An argument has bene recently posted for Dave to answer, but you can have at it as well if you like.

Easy and already been done here. I did it right out of the chute. Pope Leo XIII said that “we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.” Pope Pius XII said there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences,"

Sorry chum but the Fathers can not add into Scripture something that the Holy Ghost didn’t put there in the first place.

Frank said...

JM – There are several other doctrines no yet addressed Frank.

Work them out yourself chum. I’m done doing your homework and it is about time you started sticking up for our Holy Mother the Church than tearing her down. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Hey Delano, tell us there bud. Do you agree with your compadre here that every Pope from Benedict XIV to Benedict XVI has been inept, a coward, or both? That guy Cassinni over on the Catholic answers forum thought so. This johnmartin guy thinks so too. Of course maybe they are the same guy you never know. Come on, tell us if you agree that “And as he church has failed to discipline theologians then she has given tacit approval in act to those perverse doctrines” and that “I’ve presented a list of doctrines that have been de facto denied by the modern church” and that “I believe the church silence on the matter of geo in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment”. Lets see if attacking the Popes and Mother Church really is a central part of being a geocentrist.

johnmartin said...

Some more thoughts on Fatima – The primary miracle of Fatima was the dancing of the sun, which demonstrated to the crowds at Fatima that the mother of God had visited the three children. Why the dancing of the sun? Some possible reasons –

1. The Moslems claim Mohamed split the moon and the mother of God is showing Europe that the catholic faith is the true faith. Mary is acting as a prophet who has the power of God to show Europe will one day become Islamic or at least be threatened by Islam and the solution to that problem was an apologetic based upon the power of God to remove error, weakness and sin.

2. Feminism often claims the transcendent does not exist. Mary shows herself to be the true feminist who has a power based upon service of the truth through her Son. Fatima is an event to counter modern feminism.

3. Fatima is the antidote to modern skepticism, naturalism and relativism. Fatima is the modern version of the resurrection removing any doubt about the veracity of the claims of the church concerning the divinity of Christ and its claims to teach with the power of God.

4. Fatima is the antidote to the modern apostasy of Europe and most of the west. Maybe, just maybe the mother of God used the dancing sun as a reminder that it is not the earth that moves, but it is the sun that moves and she proved it by having God moving the sun. In fact in light of the evidence found in the fathers, scripture, Popes, encyclicals and congregation of the index, she was acting consistently with geocentrism.

Fatima points directly towards geocentrism. Is it any coincidence that Fatima has been ignored by the same church that ignores geocentrism? Is it any coincidence that claims and counter claims are made about the consecration of Russia by the church, when no fruits can be found in Russia? Is it any coincidence that the denial of geocentrism has been a significant step in the secularization of Europe and the almost complete victory of scientism? These two movements in church history logically go hand in hand. Silence by the church magesterium on the universal consent of the church fathers teaching on geocentrism seems to have been noted by heaven and heaven has spoken with a miracle to remove the doubts of all those who believe Galileo and Copernicus have demonstrated what could not be done.

The church fathers have spoken, the church magesterium has spoken, scripture has spoken and science has failed to overturn geocentrism. Now the mother of God has spoken through a miracle of the dancing sun to remove any doubt – the earth is stationary and wont be moved even by God.

Of course if the helios want to be consistent about Fatima they should stop and think about the miracle a little more. Catholic theologians teach God acts with natures and not against natures. Even in miracles, God never destroys or acts against His creation. Why then do Catholics who believe helio is true and believe the “apparently” moving Foucault pendulum is evidence for a “real” moving earth, then turn around and believe an “apparent” dancing sun is evidence for a “real” dancing sun and not a “real” dancing earth against an “apparent” stationary sun. After all if the sun really is stationary compared to the moving earth, then it would be more fitting for God to have moved the earth, rather than the sun.

. . .

johnmartin said...

The truth is of course that the earth is stationary and that’s why when the people at Fatima saw the sun dance, they were seeing God act supernaturally with His nature to make the moving sun actually dance (there was no illusions going on at all). Just as people who see the sun, moon and stars move past the earth daily, they saw the sun dance and not apparently dance as a consistent helio should think. Fatima is a perfect match for geocentrism and another piece of the jig saw puzzle that just doesn’t fit very well with heliocentrism at all.

JM

Jordanes said...

The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima as evidence of geocentrism??? That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've read in a long, long time. I feel immensely stupider just from reading it.

John, do you really no know that whatever God did to bring about the **Miracle** of the Sun, it has no bearing on the ordinary (not extraordinary) courses of heavenly bodies as governed by the natural (not supernatural) laws of physics? One can't argue from the miraculous to establish the scientific truth of things unmiraculous.

So Fatima and geocentrism really are all of piece to you. No wonder you're a geocentrist. Your rational faculties are not functioning within their norms.

Ite ad Thomam, Ioannes. Ite ad Thomam.

Rick DeLano said...

"Delano, tell us there bud. Do you agree with your compadre here that every Pope from Benedict XIV to Benedict XVI has been inept, a coward, or both?"

>>Frank, it seems to me that John Martin has gotten the best of you here.

The mere fact that he excels you so ought not reduce you to thuggishness.

And it certainly ought not reduce you to the sin of bearing false witness against your neighbor.

I believe that you have departed from the truth in falsely characterizing John's words.

This does not surprise me. You seem to have become, as I noted above, quite brutal and thuggish in the face of John's determined and resourceful defense of his position.
**************

That guy Cassinni over on the Catholic answers forum thought so.
>>What has this to do with me, sir? I do not know Cassini, and I rarely visit that forum.
*******************
This johnmartin guy thinks so too.
>>You are reprehensible in your tactics, Frank. The reason our arguments are resounding and increasing across the blogosphere is because our opposition- exemplified here by you- is often reduced to grotesquely inappropriate tactics.

The detached observer is quite capable of drawing the logical conclusion that one who is reduced to ad hominem and uncharitable mischaracterization is probably not the one whose position is prevailing in the forum.
**************************

Rick DeLano said...

Frank insinuates:

"Of course maybe they are the same guy you never know."

>>The difference between you and me Frank is that I post under my full name. You can always know when its me, or when its John Martin, or when its Bob Sungenis.

***************************
"Come on, tell us if you agree that “And as he church has failed to discipline theologians then she has given tacit approval in act to those perverse doctrines”

>> Anyone who does not agree with that is simply not paying attention. Richard McBrien continues to teach theology at Notre Dame. My own ordinary blatantly and openly disregards the liturgical instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum". And let us never forget the scandalous heresy "therefore the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses remains eternally valid for them"- published to the shame of the US Bishops on page 131 of a national catechism, against which heresy Dr. Robert Sungenis stood with true Christian fortitude, charity, and courage.

The Church is in crisis, and if your hatred of John Martin, myself, and Bob Sungenis is based upon our refusal to join you in a Pollyannish denial of this truth, then all I can say is we shall have to agree to disagree.

The lack of doctrinal discipline in the post conciliar Church has been appalling.
*******************************

Rick DeLano said...

FRANK: "and that “I’ve presented a list of doctrines that have been de facto denied by the modern church” and that “I believe the church silence on the matter of geo in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment”.

>>There is nothing in the above statements with which I would substantively disagree, although "de facto denied" is a value judgement I would not share. I prefer to construe this as "failed to defend and enforce", rather than "de facto denied".

I completely agree that the silence of the Church on geocentrism since the removal of Copernicus and Galileo from the Index subsequent to Bessel's identification of the first stellar parallax is exactly attributable to the conclusion on the part of the Curia that science had disproven geocentrism- or at the least, the Church could no longer resist the de facto adoption of the heliocentrist position after this identification.

This is exactly the point: parallax did not establish heliocentrism's validity.

The Holy Spirit has preserved the Church from the awful error of formally denying the apostolic and Traditional understanding of Scripture, and now the deep space probes are showing us a Universe hierarchically structured with Earth at the center, exactly as Tradition assured us, and exactly as modern science did not.
*********************

Lets see if attacking the Popes and Mother Church really is a central part of being a geocentrist.

>>It is the nature of Catholic fidelity to uphold the ancient and apostolic teachings of the Fathers, and especially the formal teachings of the magisterium. There has never been any formal teaching of heliocentrism. There has never been any formal reversal of geocentrism.

The wisdom of the Church in this regard is confirmed in the shocking new deep space observations which show concentric structure centered on Earth hundred of millions of Megaparsecs out.
**********************************************

johnmartin said...

LOL! Man the Holy Ghost really messed up when he passed you over for Pope buddy. Really screwed up big time. This is the outer limit. You give the guy exactly what he says is not there and he comes around and says Oh yeah it says what I said was’nt there but you know they really needed to say it better.

JM- I’m sure if frank could use bigger caps he would do so. The LOL only indicates I have analyzed his citations and found them to be orthodox, but inadequate and Frank has no answer. It doesn’t seem to occur to Frank that the church only has so many charisms from the HS. It doesn’t have a charism against ineptitude or cowardice or stupidity or ignorance. It does have charisms of infallibility and indefectibility required to be upheld and that’s what the geo position does.

Address my argument concerning what Leo said about the universal consent of the fathers on their interpretation o scripture. An argument has bene recently posted for Dave to answer, but you can have at it as well if you like.

F- Easy and already been done here. I did it right out of the chute. Pope Leo XIII said that “we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation." Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.” Pope Pius XII said there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences,"


JM – Not so easy man because Leo’s statement must be harmonized with other statements concerning the unanimous consent of the fathers. This was done previously and it shows Leo was consistent with the ordinary magesterium. Leos quote concerning “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe” means scripture does not teach the ins and outs of the universal as understood by science with all its technical language and experimentation and so on. Leo never denies scripture talks of things that come under science. In fact when he says “described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language” is exactly what the fathers understood when they interpreted the scriptures to be evidence for geo and not helio. Figurative language cannot be used as an escape clause to avoid geo, because figurative language can and often does convey very accurate information about the universe. This is what the fathers thought and what the Popes thought. Yet you think otherwise and avoid Leos statement on the unanimous consent of the fathers, which is the same as the church’s understanding of scripture.

. . .

johnmartin said...

F - Sorry chum but the Fathers can not add into Scripture something that the Holy Ghost didn’t put there in the first place.

JM – Frank avoids the problem stated above and adds another misunderstanding. The fathers do not add anything to the scripture not intended by the HS when they teach with a unanimous consent. This is taught by Leo XIII as head of the one true, holy Catholic and apostolic church.

Your position is untenable when you quote Leo, simply because you avoid his statements on the unanimous consent and what was asserted by the human authors is also asserted by the HS. So when the scripture and fathers say the sun moves and the earth is stationary, this is what the HS asserts. When the Popes, and several cardinals also teach the same, the HS has also spoken. And finally when the mother of God performs a miracle of the dancing sun, then the HS has also acted in accordance with what he has already taught the church for centuries.

Frank is yet to answer my questions and because Frank is repeating himself with the same old Leo quotes, therefore I assume he has not thought out his position very well at all. Frank’s answer is typical of the ad hoc answers given by helios. Is it any wonder the helios rely so much on David Palms ad hoc arguments? You’d think the helios would bring in the big guns of science and theology to answer the geo position. So far we have seen no quotes from eminent men of science or theology that provide solid evidence against the geo position. The statements quoted from the encyclopedia were torn apart and no satisfactory response was made to many of the points made. You’d think this one incident on the thread would give the helios pause and make the helios think something is not quite right when a layman such as myself can so easily pull apart a document by five professors with an archbishop’s imprimatur.

As this thread grows, the mocking grows and the geo position becomes stronger and stronger.

JM

johnmartin said...

J- John, do you really no know that whatever God did to bring about the **Miracle** of the Sun, it has no bearing on the ordinary (not extraordinary) courses of heavenly bodies as governed by the natural (not supernatural) laws of physics? One can't argue from the miraculous to establish the scientific truth of things unmiraculous.

JM - God acts with natures even in miracles, therefore Fatima is evidence for geo and not for helio.

JM

johnmartin said...

Hi Rick
"The Church is in crisis, and if your hatred of John Martin, myself, and Bob Sungenis is based upon our refusal to join you in a Pollyannish denial of this truth, then all I can say is we shall have to agree to disagree."

JM - I've picked up on that attitude as well. It seems Frank thinks its ok to avoid the substance of my questions and provide half baked answers that have already been discussed and rebutted. Clearly Frank has run out of arguments.

The many examples of church ineptitude have been resented and only a feeble attempt was made by one author to answer widespread abuses. Its a pity to see the helios having to ignore so much evidence against Palm's arguments. Maybe they are thinking things through a little more after this thread and maybe some of them might just change their minds.

I'm interested to see what Dave Armstrong has to say about my recent questions.

JM

Rick DeLano said...

"The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its circumference. But as one center may have many circumferences, so, though there is but one earth, there may be many heavens."-----St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa I.68

Ite ad Thomam, Iordanes. Ite ad Thomam.

Dave Armstrong said...

I'm interested to see what Dave Armstrong has to say about my recent questions.

They have already been dealt with by others. I agree with their critiques of your arguments.

johnmartin said...

I'm interested to see what Dave Armstrong has to say about my recent questions.

DA- They have already been dealt with by others. I agree with their critiques of your arguments.

JM- Ok Dave, I’ve posted several questions that have not been answered and several points in the encyclopedia statement which have also not been answered. The question below has not been directly answered –

The fathers are a standard measure of tradition. When the fathers are unanimous on a doctrine found in the scriptures, that doctrine is infallibly taught as part of the deposit of faith. The fathers unanimously taught geo as interpreted from the scripture, therefore the fathers taught geo was revealed from the scriptures. Therefore geo has been infallibly taught by the ordinary magesterium of the church. As you currently oppose geo, how do you answer this argument which establishes geo in the ordinary magesterium?

I will have to assume that you think the non answers/ hlf baked answers to this and the other recent questions mean you are happy to maintain belief in helio in spite of –

1. The inadequacy of David Palms answers and his current no show to rebut my latest statements against his recent posts.
2. The inadequacy of the appeal and content of the encyclopedia.
3. The non response to the fact of unanimous consent of the fathers on the matter of geo being interpreted from scripture and Leo binding the church to that interpretation.
4. No definitive scientific evidence for helio or any movement of the earth.
5. No response to several examples of outstanding ineptitude and widely accepted practices and teachings within the church over a long time period by the highest authorities within the church on matters other than geocentrism.
6. No definitive teaching from the ordinary or extra ordinary magesterium (Popes, fathers, universal consent of bishops or scripture) that says geo is not revealed by God and helio or any other cosmology other than geo is revealed by God.
7. The Popes saying we are to give assent to Papal statements, thereby forcing the faithful Catholic to assent to Paul V and other Popes who made positive statements on geo.
8. The church approved visions of Hildegard Von Bingen, in which she described a stationary earth.
9. The assumed position of the Popes and cardinals whereby they thought geo was part of the faith as found in the ordinary teaching magesterium.
10. Franks inability to harmonize the statements of Leo XIII. So rather than harmonize the statements to embrace the universal consent of the fathers on the interpretation of the scriptures, only some of Leos statements are to be considered normative and binding, but others are over looked.

JM

Dave Armstrong said...

What do you think of the SSPX and the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II, john martin?

johnmartin said...

What do you think of the SSPX and the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II, john martin?

JM- As far as I know about the SSPX, Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated and they have only recently been in negotiation with Rome.

Novus Ordo Mass - is a valid mass sanctioned by Vatican II. I attend it regularly at my parish.

Vatican II - was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church opened by John XXIII.

I'm not a traditionalist Catholic. I am aware of the Society of St Peter, which is a legitimate traditionalist Catholic society sanctioned by Rome. I have read your book on Catholic traditionalism and found it informative. Similarly I have read several of your other books on apologetics except for your most recent books. I have found them to be well thought out.

I have noticed your arguments against geocentrism are not nearly as well thought out as your arguments in many other areas. I’ve also noticed you have not been very active on this thread and you have not specifically answered my questions on this thread. I find this very much unlike the normal Dave Armstrong I’ve come to know and respect over several years. These are only observations about this thread.

Any other questions Dave?

JM

Jordanes said...

Ite ad Thomam, Iordanes. Ite ad Thomam.

I did go to him -- the Thomas who gives us sound theology, that is, not the Thomas who incorrectly reasons against the Immaculate Conception, or who through no fault of his own believes in geocentrism (even as he stipulates that such matters cannot be regarded as irreformable articles of faith, as already shown in this discussion). You should go to him also, Rick.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi johnmartin,

Excellent (your replies to my questions).

I have noticed your arguments against geocentrism are not nearly as well thought out as your arguments in many other areas.

What arguments? I've made very few.

I’ve also noticed you have not been very active on this thread

I made it very clear in the post itself that I was not interested in arguing over this. Just because there may be 473 comments does not change that time-management decision.

and you have not specifically answered my questions on this thread.

In effect I answered by saying I agreed with your critics.

I find this very much unlike the normal Dave Armstrong I’ve come to know and respect over several years. These are only observations about this thread.

One cannot get involved in absolutely everything. That is true of you, myself, and anyone and everyone else. In such areas, one recommends others who have made extensive arguments. I have done that by recommending the Sungenis-Hoge dialogues, etc.

David Palm and Jordanes and others in this combox have made it quite clear that this is not a Catholic dogmatic issue. Therefore, I have no "duty" as an apologist to treat the matter, and I choose not to.

What I have chosen is to make this forum available for discussion on the matter. People can read both sides and decide for themselves where the truth lies. That is free speech, and it prevails on this blog.

I haven't gotten into any personal stuff, and I strongly urge those on both sides of the debate to tone that down and be cordial and polite and respectful. Positions regarded as false can be attacked vociferously but it ought to be apart from the persons.

Robert Sungenis did not extend to me that courtesy, and unilaterally decided to attack my apostolate as an apologist and myself as a person, and make out that I am harming the Church rather than helping it.

Rick DeLano said...

Jordanes, I have to thank you for giving me my firet chuckle of the day.

I guess what you really meant to say was:

"Ite ad Iordanes........"

Anyway, as has been established, the Thomas to whom you advise John to go is- irony of ironies- a geocentrist!

So is the Author of Scripture.

So are all the Fathers.

So ite ad any of them, Iordanes.

Or if you prefer ite ad Sungenis, who will provide you, in "Galileo Was Wrong", with an amazingly comprehensive survey of the stunning scientific observations which presently roil the cosmological fraternity- all of whom of course were as confident as could be that the Church had been wrong in upholding Scripture and Tradition against the "Copernican principle".

Turns out the Universe is precisely *not* what their "Copenican principle" assumptions had predicted.....

It is instead geocentric.

Just as Thomas Aquinas, the Author of Scripture, the Fathers, the magisterium, and Bob Sungenis have been trying to tell you.

What strange sort of Stockholm Syndrome is in evidence in the fanatical resistance to this wonderful, Faith-affirming news from the world of science?

Have you been so traumatized by the Chuerch's secular opponents' gloating over the Galileo episode, that you would rather kick and bite and scratch at those Catholics who are not intimidated by Goliath?

Rick DeLano said...

Dave: Sorry, in my earlier post I had mistakenly assumed you had removed the geocentrism posts which were the basis of our earlier dust-up.

I do recall your honorable and admirable earlier decision to remove the accusations of heresy against Bob concerning his position in the ongoing (eternal?) Molinarist-Thomist controversy over Free Will versus Divine impassibility.

So it turns out that you still have your astronauts up in space hilariously refuting Einstein with their eyeballs, and now you are back to accusing Bob of heresy because he believes what God says about Himself in Scripture.

Well.

I personally commend you for maintaining open debate on this forum, and for any attempts you made in the past which were perhaps not sufficiently reciprocated, in the interest of establishing an environment conducive to St. Augustine's admonition:

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

juscot said...

Dave, your refusal to answer John Martin's questions is amazingly hypocritical. You started this nonsense by by attacking Young Earth Creationism by trying to claim only fundamentalists believe this stuff. Nevermind the people over at BA aren't fundamentalists, they're classical Reformed or Lutheran. Nevermind there are a lot of Catholics who believe in YEC, and never had any connection with Protestant fundamentalism. Nevermind that the Church Fathers agreed almost to a man that the earth was young, and stationary. But, I guess they were fundamentalist too, right Dave?

Your whining about Robert Sungenis so-called "personal attack" is pathetic. He attacks your wrong ideas and misinformation that you have presented in your articles. You are the one who made it personal. You refused to deal with the issues RS brought up. You allow others to do the job of dealing with Bob, but you won't do it yourself. It's your ideas and misinformation that's under attack, so man up and defend them, instead of allowing others to do it for you.

Read his book. Since your ideas are under attack, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to read his book. I've just started to read it and I can see, even in the begining chapters, that the secular and religious supporters of heliocentricism don't have a Biblical or scientific leg to stand on. And please, don't cop out by saying he wrong and I'm not going to waste my time in reading it. When I was a member of a religious cult, I used the same excuse to avoid reading outside or dissentient literature. then, life circumstances forced me to read those forbidden materials. Guess what? Ten years after that I was Catholic. If I never got the courage to read those things, i still would have been on the road to damnation. Dave, you may be wrong. If I were you, I'd find out wheather you are wrong, instead of being so cocksure arrogent about it.

Frank said...

I am sorry if I got carried away and said anything out of line. I admit that it does make me mad to see so many Popes called inept and cowards and I guess I do not think that is wrong to be angry about that. I think this whole thing can really hurt some peoples faith and I just do not think these guys are being careful. They are not the Church. But if I have anything more to give in this discussion I will try to say it with more charity.

Jordanes said...

St. Augustine's admonition: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Whatever the value of that aphorism (it's of limited utility when people do not know or cannot agree on what is essential and non-essential -- but you can't argue with the part about charity in all things), it was never said by St. Augustine. As Philip Schaff found about a century ago, the first person known to have used it was the Lutheran Rupertus Meldenius (Peter Meiderlin) about 1600.

Jordanes said...

And yet, after all the noise and confusion generated by the geocentrists, the fact remains that geocentrism is not an article of faith and no Catholic is bound it believe in it. To reiterate what we have learned about the Catholic Church's teaching:

"The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. For 'in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,' according to the saying of St. Thomas....The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for refutation."

Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19

"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history," that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."

Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu 3

Jordanes said...

. . . . two quotes from St. Augustine, to which John Martin should give heed:

"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, ‘I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

"One could ask which shape and form of heaven must be accepted by faith on the authority of Holy Scripture. Many dispute about these things which the sacred writers passed by in silence, because they are without importance for attaining eternal life."

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm

On the question of geocentrism and its relation to the Catholic faith, we should pay heed to the Fathers and Doctors Augustine and Thomas, and to the popes Leo and Pius in their authoritative and orthodox teaching on proper interpretation of Scripture and discernment of unanimous consensus of the Fathers. We certainly should pay no heed to those who reject what Augustine and Thomas and Leo and Pius have said, especially when they do not even believe what the Scriptures reveal and what the Church teaches about the immutability of God.

S said...

Juscot,

I think Dave has been clear and consistent from the start. He said what he was going to do and he did it.

On the other hand, although you complained about character assassination (which was not actually character assassination), you've slandered Mark Shea by repeating a lie in this comment box and have yet to retract and apologize for it.

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-slander-fraudulent-quotes-and.html

You're very concerned about Sungenis' reputation, but you're silent about the fact that Sungenis has slandered a host of people with lies, including his own bishop.


http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html


Then there's this Jewish convert Roy Shoeman:


http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm


He's attacked Dave Armstrong's character and now you carry on the attack for him.


So, perhaps before judging Dave as hypocritical, would it be too much to ask you to do some self-examination first?

(continued)

S said...

(continued to Juscot)

Furthermore, as I already noted, Rick DeLano has already given the game away.

Rick DeLano: “Seems like Bob's conference has got a whole lot of people talking about this now, which was precisely the intention…John Martin: Nice work.”

So, they view this as largely about marketing and getting attention for their geocentric agenda. Like many conspiracy theorists and controversialists, they know they need to stir the pot in order to gain attention they couldn't otherwise earn. The aim isn’t primarily about furthering the cause of truth – it’s the promotion of their agenda.

Dave is under no obligation to personally interact with these people and their arguments. But, by posting Palm's arguments, he is doing a real service to any Catholics who may be upset or confused by the way geocentrists portray geocentrism as a matter of fidelity to God and the Church. Now, they have ready access to a defense that neutralizes irresponsible geocentric charges and tactics.

Good for him.

johnmartin said...

I have noticed your arguments against geocentrism are not nearly as well thought out as your arguments in many other areas.
D- What arguments? I've made very few.

JM – I was thinking of another thread you wrote in which Rick was in dialogue with you on geo. Your arguments back then were not well thought out.

and you have not specifically answered my questions on this thread.

In effect I answered by saying I agreed with your critics.

JM – But unanswered questions remain unanswered even by the critics.

I find this very much unlike the normal Dave Armstrong I’ve come to know and respect over several years. These are only observations about this thread.

One cannot get involved in absolutely everything. That is true of you, myself, and anyone and everyone else. In such areas, one recommends others who have made extensive arguments. I have done that by recommending the Sungenis-Hoge dialogues, etc.

David Palm and Jordanes and others in this combox have made it quite clear that this is not a Catholic dogmatic issue. Therefore, I have no "duty" as an apologist to treat the matter, and I choose not to.

I strongly disagree geo is not part of the faith as a revealed truth directly related to the act of creation. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence to support this claim from church documents, the fathers and scripture. I believe there has been no adequate rebuttal to the arguments and evidence proposed in favor of geo.

I'm currently reviewing Hoges arguments and the other links. From what I have written in response to Hoge and Cole and what has not been answered on this thread, I currently find their arguments to be weak.

JM

juscot said...

S, by posting this, you've proven my point. DA will not man up and defend himself or his arguements. Bob Sungenis has always done this, DA can too.

Me tell a lie about Mark Shea!? I have never told a lie about MS. I have called him a leftist, a cyber-stalker, anti-military, anti-traditionalist in religious and political matters, and anti-death penalty, but I've never lied abot him. The truth is far more harmful to him than any lie I could ever tell!

I see that you gave me links to the Bob and Da Jooos site. I've been to that place, and all it is is an attack on Bob's charecter and reputation by some disgruntled ex-co-workers. Matt Bellisaro of the Catholic Champion site has said the same thing about SATJ.

well S, have a nice day, anyway1

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Rick,

now you are back to accusing Bob of heresy because he believes what God says about Himself in Scripture.

I'm not "back" to it. I never stopped believing it. I simply agreed before to not make it a public issue. But since Bob now wants to personally attack me in addition to doing the geocentrism argument, I decided to re-post past work, since it is a serious issue that Bob needs to grapple with and correct in his own theology. The theology of God Himself is extremely important.

I personally commend you for maintaining open debate on this forum, and for any attempts you made in the past which were perhaps not sufficiently reciprocated, . . .

Thank you. That's kind of you to say.

johnmartin said...

And yet, after all the noise and confusion generated by the geocentrists, the fact remains that geocentrism is not an article of faith and no Catholic is bound it believe in it. To reiterate what we have learned about the Catholic Church's teaching:

"The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.

JM- Leo was taking about opinions of the fathers in which they did not have a universal consent. This is the only way to harmonise what Leo says here and what he later says about the church being bound by the unanimous consent of the fathers.

J- Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. For 'in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,' according to the saying of St. Thomas....The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for refutation."

JM – The fathers thought and taught geo was revealed by God through scripture. Therefore goe is part of the faith. This is obvious. Leo also says something Jordanes should answer “much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected.” What makes Jordanes so confident that helio isn’t one of those theories about to fall? Nothing other than psychological conditioning. There’s nothing definitive in science that proves helio is true.

J- Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19

"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history," that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."



. . .

johnmartin said...

JM – already answered this ad nauseum and no responses was made back then either. Jordanes hasn’t got a clue about what Leo was referring to.

J- Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu 3
. . . . two quotes from St. Augustine, to which John Martin should give heed:

"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, ‘I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

JM- St. Augustine was right, there is no maths in scripture and yes St. Augustine was a geo. Again, Jordanes has no idea what St. Augustine is talking about.

J- "One could ask which shape and form of heaven must be accepted by faith on the authority of Holy Scripture. Many dispute about these things which the sacred writers passed by in silence, because they are without importance for attaining eternal life."

JM- And yet again St. Augustine believed geo was revealed in scripture.

J- "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

JM- And geo is the literal sense and helio has not been proven with certainty, so we need not abandon the literal sense.

J- On the question of geocentrism and its relation to the Catholic faith, we should pay heed to the Fathers and Doctors Augustine and Thomas, and to the popes Leo and Pius in their authoritative and orthodox teaching on proper interpretation of Scripture and discernment of unanimous consensus of the Fathers. We certainly should pay no heed to those who reject what Augustine and Thomas and Leo and Pius have said, especially when they do not even believe what the Scriptures reveal and what the Church teaches about the immutability of God.

Jordanes makes another straw man. The geo position harmonises all the facts and Jordanes harmonises nothing. His case, as per usual is comprised of an ad hoc collection of statements which are at variance with what the authors of those statements actually believed – especially in the case of St. Augustine. Jordanes has never answered the problem of Leo XIII and the unanimous consent of the fathers on geo. He never will either, because he knows the church has spoken on the matter in the ordinary magesterium and the case is closed. Geo is a truth revealed by God.

JM

johnmartin said...

S- You're very concerned about Sungenis' reputation, but you're silent about the fact that Sungenis has slandered a host of people with lies, including his own bishop.


http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html


Then there's this Jewish convert Roy Shoeman:

JM- Both the bishop and Shoeman were in error on different matters and Robert has demonstrated those facts. You call it slander. I call it seeking and exposing the truth.

JM

Dave Armstrong said...

johnmartin wrote:

I find this [not arguing about geocentrism] very much unlike the normal Dave Armstrong I’ve come to know and respect over several years.

Then you don't know me as well as you thought. I have always made deliberate decisions to not (or no longer) interact with certain ideas and groups. Hence, I basically ceased arguing (with a rare exception here and there) with Catholic "traditionalists" and Eastern Orthodox around 2001, since my efforts to do so were continually futile and nonconstructive.

I also rarely dialogue or debate theological liberals of any stripe because I consider it a fundamentally dishonest position.

I have had mixed feelings at all times about dealing with anti-Catholic Protestants (whose position I consider viciously circular and intellectual suicide; beneath contempt), but apologetic duty required it at times. Now that I have written several hundred papers about them I can abide by my own personally preferred policy: I no longer try to seriously debate them at all. This has been the case for about three years now, with one exception in a unique circumstance, when I replied to some papers by Jason Engwer.

I generally avoid radical Marxists and radical feminists, too, because no dialogue is possible.

That's six groups where I decided to rarely if ever attempt debate and normal back-and-forth discourse.

Geocentrists are a seventh group: just one example of many. Nothing new that I haven't done for almost ten years. Things that I consider ludicrous or futile to debate (for various reasons) I avoid. Time is too short. The harvest is ready and the laborers are few.

Once I get a good chunk of free time again, I will concentrate on atheism. Those are people who need God and need a ton more understanding than they have! You can wrangle about all this stuff till kingdom come if you like. I have other things that God has called me to do.

If someone (e.g., Judgmental Juscot) doesn't like that, they can lump it. I am accountable to God for my use of my time and the abilities He has seen fit to grant me, not any man (apart from my wife and children).

Calling me names and pretending to know what my inner thoughts and supposed fears are has no effect whatsoever on my decision. I've been called far worse with no effect. I do what I feel is the most important thing for me to do at any given time. It's a system that has served me well through 2600+ papers and 23 books. I've written a lot but I still can't tackle an infinite number of topics. No one can.

S said...

Juscot, "Me tell a lie about Mark Shea!? I have never told a lie about MS."

Why is it that geocentrists all seem to have such terrible memories?

You were angry about supposed "character assassination" of Sungenis. But you assassinated Mark Shea's character by falsely accusing him of dishonesty. You accused him of criticizing a book "without even reading it." Ironically, it seems as though you got your false accusation from the very person you were defending.

As you won't read the information at the link, I'll repost it below for you:

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-slander-fraudulent-quotes-and.html

(continued)

S said...

(QUOTE FROM ARTICLE):

And then, in another remarkable display of hypocrisy, Sungenis writes:

"The first glaring stupidity that Shea foists upon us is his unmitigated gall to write a critique of a book and its message that he hasn’t even read yet" (ibid., p. 1).

Those who have followed all the troubles at CAI-BTF will remember that it was none other than Robert Sungenis who had the “unmitigated gall” to write a 1,500 word critique of Roy Schoeman’s book, Salvation is From the Jews, for Jones’ Culture Wars magazine before having read a word of it...

Second, while Sungenis’ article was indeed an actual critique of Schoeman’s book, which Sungenis had not read, Shea’s blog posting was a brief critique of Sungenis’ *review*, a review which Shea most certainly had read. And, ironically, the very title of Sungenis’ article at BTF proves that Sungenis himself understood this basic distinction. Did Sungenis entitle his article “Mark Shea Attacks Jones’ Book”? No. He entitled it “Mark Shea Attacks Review of Jones’ Book” (emphasis added)...


(continued below)

S said...

(continued from above)

Fourth, we are treated to yet another fraudulent "quote" by Sungenis that echoes his fraudulent quotes of Albert Einstein and Roy Schoeman. Sungenis writes:

"With that, let’s look at some of the sound bites that the illustrious Mr. Shea extracts from my review in his typical demagogic fashion to draw on your sympathies and create a monster out of me and Dr. Jones for merely telling the truth of history. Shea writes: 'In the Revolutionary Jew…we discover (I am not making this up) that Milton Berle and Irving Berlin were part of the Vast Conspiracy.'"

But is this what Shea wrote? No. This is the actual quote:

"First, a glowing review ("one of the greatest [books] of all time") of Jones' _The Revolutionary Jew_ in which we discover (I am not making this up) that Milton Berle and Irving Berlin were part of the Vast Conspiracy."

In the actual quote, Shea is plainly referencing Sungenis' *review* of Jones' book. In Sungenis' manipulated quote of Shea, Shea is plainly writing about Jones' book itself, not Sungenis' review.

In yet another echo of Sungenis' fraudulent quote of Albert Einstein, Sungenis has manipulated Shea's actual statement by abusing ellipses and inserting verbiage that does not actually exist. Even with ellipses, there is no way in which Shea can be accurately quoted as writing "In the Revolutionary Jew...we discover." And this is precisely what Sungenis needed Shea to write in order to attack him for critiquing a book he had never read. It is increasingly difficult to chalk such errors up to incompetence rather than deceit.

(END QUOTE)


I don't know who Matthew Bellisario is or what he thinks, Juscot. What I do care about is the facts. If you have any proving the article false, then bring them forward.

Otherwise, you lied about Mark Shea here.

Rick DeLano said...

Now for heaven's sake, we have S alleging that it is somehow inadmissible for the supporters of geocentrism to support geocentrism since...well......since...if they do then they must just be interested in supporting geocentrism!

Puh-lease.

In case you hadn't noticed, Bob Sungenis spent the best part of a decade researching his doctoral thesis, which, when published as "Galileo Was Wrong", became the impetus for an ongoing resurgence in examination of this Biblical, patristic, and magisterial cosmology.

But for those who, like S here, might have harbored hopes that this resurgence would just go away, I have extremely bad news.

We have emerged from the Conference with world-wide interest- including major media interest- in the new deep space observations indicating a geocentric orientation in the Universe on its largest scales.

The most fascinating aspect of this is that the secular world is fascinated to learn of this, and immediately grasps the significance in terms of the devastating threat this represents to the modern atheist world-view, which itself is predicated on the supposed discrediting of the Church's defense of geocentrism against Galileo.

It is only the Catholics- and really, only a very small crew of "conservative" Catholic self-appointed apologist-types, who seem to have their knickers in a twist over this.

Rick DeLano said...

I don't suppose it could *possibly* have anything to do with the fact that Bob Sungenis so magnificently exposed some of these same scribblers and their pathetically eager acquiescence in the "therefore the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses remains eternally valid for them" fiasco?

In any case, I am happy to report that the sudden resurgence of interest in geocentrism can be seen not only on Catholic blogs all in a tizzy about the success of the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism, but also in shocking new published papers in, among other journals, the Review of the National Academy of Sciences, as here:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2009/08/68497142/1

Of course this paper is merely the latest in a series commencing with Timothy Clifton at Oxford U's famous geocentric solution to the "dark energy" crisis in 2008.

Look folks. The Universe just isn't turning out to work the way the Copernicans thought it would.

They are themselves now turning to geocentric hypotheses in the face of the shocking geocentric orientation we are observing in the largest scale structure in the Universe.

Bob Sungenis covers it in "Galileo Was Wrong".

It's a heckuva read.

I highly recommend it.

It might serve to stiffen your backbone when challenged by snarky neos who insist that the Church was wrong to teach Biblical geocentrism for fifteen hundred years.

I think the snarky neos are about to get fitted for dunce caps.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch too :-)

S said...

JM: "Both the bishop and Shoeman were in error on different matters and Robert has demonstrated those facts. You call it slander. I call it seeking and exposing the truth."

My comment was directed to Juscot, JM, but if you want to carry water for both Sungenis and Juscot now, you can do that.

In regard to Shoeman, I'm confused by your comment. Are you arguing that Sungenis demonstrated that Shoeman was wrong by slandering him with a false quote that he knows to be false? Really?

Why not read the article first. Here it is again.


http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm


(continued)

S said...

In regard to his bishop, I'm also confused. You can't have read the article. The bishop doesn't believe what Sungenis accuses him of. There's a statement in the article from the bishop that proves it. Why not read it?

Here it is again.

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html

I don't want to derail the combox, I just made my comment to Juscot because he was unfairly attacking Dave Armstrong. But you should read the articles. I read what Sungenis wrote about his bishop and Schoeman on these points and he's wrong. He's also wrong about what the Church teaches in relation to geocentrism.

Rick DeLano said...

I humbly suggest that Catholics everywhere can be proud of the resolute and truthful demolition by Robert Sungenis of the notorious heresy published on p.131 of the USCCB Adult Catechism's First Edition.

The bishops made a terrible, terrible error in allowing themselves to be hornswoggled by their bureaucrats into allowing this monstrosity to actually be published with an imprimatur:

"Therefore, the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

This damnable heresy was tap danced, apologized for, soft-pedalled, "interpreted in an orthodox way"....but Robert Sungenis simply wouldn't play ball.

Thanks, Bob.

The damnable heresy has been withdrawn from future editions and every Catholic who has a clue knows the role you played in that victory of the Faith.

And every Catholic who has a clue ought to know it is the same bunch of tap-dancing equivocators who are frantically intimidated by the ongoing and rapidly-accelerating success of "Galileo Was Wrong."

I figure you must be doing something right, Bob.

Keep it up :-)

S said...

DeLano: "Now for heaven's sake, we have S alleging that it is somehow inadmissible for the supporters of geocentrism to support geocentrism since...well......since...if they do then they must just be interested in supporting geocentrism!"

Not at all Rick. I didn't say it was inadmissible. I pointed out the fact that you view this as primarily about getting noticed, about advertising geocentrism and you applauded John Martin for his efforts in that regard. That's your agenda. And your last several posts were a very nice, extended advertisement which only further illustrated my point. That frame of mind helps to explain the substance and volume of responses given by JM here. I'm guessing that your background is in marketing in some capacity, yes? Your encouragement to JM sounded like the old advertising adage "there's no such thing as bad publicity."

DeLano: "But for those who, like S here, might have harbored hopes that this resurgence would just go away, I have extremely bad news."

Not at all Rick. I wish you all the luck in the world promoting geocentrism -- as a scientific theory, not a matter of Catholic doctrine.

Although, I do wonder about characterizing geocentric matters as in a "resurgence." I don't mean to be unkind, but after a very lengthy period advertising your conference, you only received about 100 attendees. And according to Sungenis, at least two dozen of them were students from Notre Dame. Based on the account and quotes given by Todd Wood, we have a pretty good idea why the students from Notre Dame were there, and it wasn't because they're considering becoming geocentrists. We also know about Todd Wood and a few others like him as well (one who has commented in these boxes) that were there for similar reasons. So, at best, you attracted 70-75 attendees who were there to seriously consider geocentrism. Again, not to be unkind, but that's not exactly an overwhelming number considering the time and effort expended to promote the conference world-wide.

Again, though, I wish you all the luck in the world promoting geocentrism as a scientific theory. I don't buy it, but I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to be one.

Rick DeLano said...

I wanted to briefly acknowledge Frank's post.

Like most things which are truly humble, it escapes notice.

I want to notice it.

Obviously Frank and I do not presently agree on the question of geocentrism.

But my estimation of his opinions will be higher in future because of what I know about him now, as a result of his above post.

Frank, you only want to defend the Church, and that is a highly noble and honorable goal.

It is one I share.

These are terrible times and I have decided to follow St. Paul's advice, and to hold fast to the traditions received by word of mouth or by letter.

Geocentrism is an officially taught and enforced truth of Scripture by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The magisterium has never officially taught heliocentrism.

The magisterium has never officially reversed its official acts condemning heliocentrism.

How, I ask in all honesty, could shaping one's beliefs in accord with these truths possibly undermine anyone's Faith?

I submit to you that no single event in Western history has done more to undermine the Faith in the mind of the average man, than the notion that the Church erred in condemning Galileo.

I submit to you that nothing could possibly do more to reassert the Authority and Divine Providence of Catholic magisterial teaching, than the discovery that "Galileo Was Wrong, and the Church Was Right".

Disagree if you must, but please notice that our motivations are identical.

juscot said...

S, I did not accuse Shea of not reading a book. I said he was leftist, anti-military, anti-death penalty, and antagonistic to people with conservative, traditional views on politics and religion. You got Shea mixed up with, whom RS sent a book that he refused to read.

DA, I see you have a whole list on people you will no longer interact with. Did you ever think the snarky attitude that you have displayed over the years might have something to do with it? Some of the folks over at sites like Begger's All have their 'tude problems, but when I look at the way you have interacted with them, I don't blame them for making BA a DA free zone. You have developed a bitter attitude toward anyone who disagrees with you. Your attack on YEC because it is believed in by what you call "fundamentalists" is a good example of how that bitterness is warping your feelings. You could have jst as easily attacked the doctrine of the Trinity; after all, they believe in it. Now, you're going to interact with the atheists. well that will be group no. & yo will no longer interact with in the near future!

Rick DeLano said...

S:

It is of course not a question of numbers, especially in the internet age.

It is a question of ideas.

But to address your point, the global reach and influence of geocentric ideas is certainly higher now than it has been in a very long time.

It is true that we are just getting started, but that First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism (which was a gigantic success, since the original site maxed out at 125 and we never expected to come anywhere near that number) has resonated to a far larger audience than only those present.

I actually should thank you for your interest, since without the ongoing opportunities for examination which controversies like this one provide, we should not grow as rapidly.

And it is important that we grow rapidly-- it is hard to imagine anything more apt to reinforce the Power and Truth of the Catholic Church's Divine mandate to teach all nations, than should modern science provide us with confirmation that:

"Galileo Was Wrong......and the Church Was Right".

S said...

Juscot: "I did not accuse Shea of not reading a book."

Again, why is it that geocentrists don't seem to be able to remember their own accusations and statements?

In this combox, you wrote the following, Juscot:

"You don't want to look as foolish as Shea did when he condemned Jones's book without even reading it."

Here's the link to where you wrote it.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1288901873372#c9163255645119375040

Unless you can prove otherwise, you repeated a lie originally propagated by Sungenis about Shea.

And you're still missing the larger point, Juscot. You continue to savage Dave Armstrong while being completely silent when your friends do far worse.

Rick DeLano said...

It is always unjust and untrue to slander a group on the basis of an allegation against an individual.

This is a matter of natural law, accessible even to the unbaptized conscience.

How sad that S is unable to resist his temptations to descend to such tactics.

But one must make allowances, I suppose.

It has not been a good debate for the neos thus far :-)

S said...

I wrote, "So, at best, you attracted 70-75 attendees who were there to seriously consider geocentrism. Again, not to be unkind, but that's not exactly an overwhelming number considering the time and effort expended to promote the conference world-wide."

DeLano, "It is of course not a question of numbers, especially in the internet age."

:-) It is when you spend money to procure a hall, provide meals for attendees, have to pay for transportation and lodging for all the presenters, etc. The conference was a fair barometer of the level of serious interest in geocentrism at present and the results weren't very impressive. For your sake, I hope that changes.

DeLano: "I actually should thank you for your interest, since without the ongoing opportunities for examination which controversies like this one provide, we should not grow as rapidly."

You're welcome. But I'm not sure JM shares your appreciation. LOL

DeLano: "And it is important that we grow rapidly-- it is hard to imagine anything more apt to reinforce the Power and Truth of the Catholic Church's Divine mandate to teach all nations, than should modern science provide us with confirmation that: Galileo Was Wrong......and the Church Was Right"

The key phrase here is "should modern science provide us with confirmation." Good luck with that. But, please, advise your friends to stop trying to coerce and shame Catholics into submission by erroneously portraying this as a matter of submission to God and the Church.

S said...

DeLano: "It is always unjust and untrue to slander a group on the basis of an allegation against an individual."

Lighten up, Rick. :-) I was writing at least partially tongue in cheek. Your friend, JM, did the same kind of thing repeatedly (forgetting what he'd previously said and contradicting himself). I documented it at length. I'm just a bit flabbergasted that your geocentric friends here make statements and accusations and then can't remember that they did it.

DeLano: "It has not been a good debate for the neos thus far :-)"

The neos? Could you please define that for us? I didn't know I'd joined that club. ;-) And, do you see no similarity to what you complained about above?

Rick DeLano said...

Well, I guess tongue in cheek works both ways S :-)

But I did not say the debate hadn't gone well for S, since he is as ineffectual and nit picking as all the neos.

I just said the debate has not gone well for the neos.

Which it hasn't.

And not this debate only, either.

I remember when it was very lonely indeed out on the blogs defending geocentrism.

Believe me, S, that situation has dramatically changed, and this is probably the best way to measure the impact of our Conference.

You will, I predict, notice more and more Catholics defending the geocentric position as a result of our release of the Conference DVD's which should have quite an impact.

But there are things, directly resulting from the Conference, which are much much bigger than even I had imagined we could hope for this early, and I would ask all those who believe that the Catholic Church possesses and teaches the Truth of Sacred Scripture in her ordinary magisterium, to please pray that we shall continue to present the remarkable evidence for geocentrism in an effective way.

The opportunities at hand are very great indeed.

S said...

DeLano: "Well, I guess tongue in cheek works both ways S :-)"

Except that I wasn't the one making grandiose complaints about "slander" and "temptations to descend to such tactics" in this case. And I didn't then do basically the same thing I complained about. But other than that, sure, we were about the same. ;-)

DeLano: "You will, I predict, notice more and more Catholics defending the geocentric position as a result of our release of the Conference DVD's which should have quite an impact."

Good luck with that prediction. I wish you the best. Time will tell if you're a false prophet or a true one.

Rick DeLano said...

Oh, I do not consider myself a Prophet, S.

I merely consider myself a faithful believer in what Scripture teaches, as mediated to us by the official acts of the Catholic magisterium.

But it is true that simple faithfulness to these things can produce such remarkably unlikely outcomes as, oh, David over Goliath comes to mind as a particularly appropriate case.

Stay tuned, S.

johnmartin said...

S- He's also wrong about what the Church teaches in relation to geocentrism.

JM – If he is wrong about geo then you’ve done nothing to shows us why. Absolutely nothing.

S- forgetting what he'd previously said and contradicting himself

JM- I forgot what you said and I didn’t contradict myself. I forgot what you said because it was plain forgettable. So far you are not making any positive contribution towards the question of geo.

S- I'm just a bit flabbergasted that your geocentric friends here make statements and accusations and then can't remember that they did it.

JM- Again, because your comments about the moon landings and NASA were the soft water type statements that no geo needs to take seriously.

JM

johnmartin said...

The key phrase here is "should modern science provide us with confirmation." Good luck with that. But, please, advise your friends to stop trying to coerce and shame Catholics into submission by erroneously portraying this as a matter of submission to God and the Church.

JM - Yet another statement the geos cannot take seriously. This idea that geo is not part of the faith has been thoroughly answered. S, is merely falling back to this position because he knows the science is not compelling for helio so he probably doesn't want to be seen as a geo geek. Why else would he repeat such an outrageous falsehood?

JM

S said...

DeLano: "I merely consider myself a faithful believer in what Scripture teaches, as mediated to us by the official acts of the Catholic magisterium."

Of course, you understand that what you consider yourself to be and what you objectively are may be two different things. Yes? I don't question your sincerity, I question your judgment. And I object to the way in which the new geocentrists generally seem to conflate their opinions and interpretations with actual magisterial teaching.

But this is all rehashing. Good luck with your endeavors, Rick. If we don't meet on this side of the pearly gates, may we meet on the other.

johnmartin said...

And where is that David Palm? . . . I mean he was so confident about his arguments against geo not being part of the faith and yet he has failed to show up to tell us a thoroughly thought out rebuttal to my answers.

Maybe he's rethinking his position, maybe he forgot to read the thread and maybe he's just plain conceded his arguments don't hold any water.

If David Palm returns to answer my rebuttals to his thesis, I would be grateful.

Then again, maybe he's reconsidering his position and maybe he's open to the possibility geo is in fact part of the faith in light of the clear testimony of the fathers, scripture, Popes, congregation, approved visions of Hildegard and the scientific evidence.

If David does change his mind I would be the first to congratulate him on his decision.

It does seem awfully quiet in the thread though doesn't it . . .

JM

S said...

JM: "And where is that David Palm?"

:-/

Still advertising for geocentrism, JM?

If you were really serious and weren't just playing to whomever you think is reading your posts, all you had to do was click on his name that appears in all of his posts. That brings you right to his blogger profile, where you'll also find his email address.

http://www.blogger.com/profile/00736251596013169116

How about that.

S said...

JM: "I forgot what you said and I didn’t contradict myself. I forgot what you said because it was plain forgettable. So far you are not making any positive contribution towards the question of geo."

You've forgotten again, JM? Let me help you. Here are some of the posts that illustrate where you seem to have just forgotten what you'd previously written:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289933052627#c9028074250658952862

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289937259340#c5907646744514525370

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289530001548#c3966975023036443274

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289320841611#c6097713141024698339

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289350460725#c7574049451258510703

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289531388589#c3329018049400092235

Dave Armstrong said...

Further posts by juscot in this combox will be deleted, because he has violated blog rules with his relentless personal attacks devoid of substance.

The ones thus far will remain as quintessential examples of how not to comment according to the rudimentary requirements of Christian charity.

johnmartin said...

S- If you were really serious and weren't just playing to whomever you think is reading your posts, all you had to do was click on his name that appears in all of his posts. That brings you right to his blogger profile, where you'll also find his email address.

JM- S is not reading what I said. Is it possible that my words could be so badly misunderstood?

JM

ThePalmHQ said...

"JM – Dave, according to Leo XIII in PD, the unanimous consent of the fathers on their interpretation of scripture is the church’s interpretation of those texts. The Fathers were unanimous on interpreting the scriptures as teaching geocentrism. Paul V thought the same when he had Galileo investigated and that’s why he said the moving earth was heresy, because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture."

I mentioned above that I had pretty much exhausted what I can contribute to this thread. I thought that was clear enough. But on more reflection it seemed to me that there is an area where more scrutiny could shed additional light on the issue and your quote above prompted me to pull together this additional material.

Above JM asserts that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture." Is this true? Let’s find out.

Sungenis has presented his array of patristic quotations in Galileo Was Wrong, vol 2 (GWW2) and summarizes his presentation of the evidence as follows: "Only those quotes from the Fathers which have the most logical and comparative relevance have been listed" (GWW2, p. 88). So these would seem to be the best he can present in order to make the case.

Now, how many of the patristic citations presented in GWW2 give any support to a central, immovable earth based upon a scriptural citation? Unless I am missing some--which is possible, I'm open to correction--I see two: one from Athenagoras and one allegedly from Clement of Rome. I say allegedly because, although Sungenis presents it as from St. Clement, it is actually from one of the Clementine Homilies which are universally acknowledged not to emanate from St. Clement of Rome--Sungenis does not alert the reader to this fact. So from Sungenis' evidence only one Father actually cites sacred Scripture on the matter of a centralized earth. The quote from Athenagoras is as follows: "To Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center." Notice that this is simply a bare citation from the poetic Psalms, it is not a patristic interpretation to support geostationism per se.

Eight other witnesses do speak, in various astrological/quasi-philosophical/quasi-scientific terms, of earth at the center of things. These are Anatolius of Alexandria, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgos, Hippolytus, and Methodius. But in none of these instances do the witnesses cite Scripture, say or even imply that they are passing on a sacred Tradition, or indicate that their view is divinely revealed by God.

Taking the count of 27 alleged witnesses in support of geocentrism given elsewhere by JM, the maximum percentage that even mention a central earth is 41%. The percentage of those who cite Scripture allegedly in support of the view is just under 4%, that is, one witness. The number that actually interpret Scripture, that is, do more than present a bare citation of a poetic passage of the Psalms is 0%.

Can it be said, then, that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture"? I think the evidence would suggest otherwise.

ThePalmHQ said...

But JM implies that the Church herself, through the Pope, has officially taught that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture." Without conceding anything with respect to the authority or reformability of the documents under question, as has been discussed in detail above, let's look again at the actual wording of the findings of the Congregation of the Index:

"Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith" (http://my.pclink.com/~allchin/1814/retrial/1616docs.htm)

The Congregation breaks the issue into two pieces: heliostationism and geostationism. It is neo-geocentrists who bundle them into a single package, without distinction.

Notice that it is only the first proposition, that the sun is the center of the universe and does not move, that is said 1) to be contrary Scripture, 2) contrary to the understanding of the Fathers, and 3) formally heretical. Notice too that the published decree of the Congregation mentions specifically the "Pythagorean doctrine" which is exactly this: the sun is the immovable center of the universe and all other bodies move about it. If we interpret this strictly, as the Church does when it comes to condemning a person's views, then I cannot see that anybody currently falls into this category. It was pointed out elsewhere in this thread that there aren't any "helios" around anymore, at least in terms of Pythagorean heliocentrists. Everybody acknowledges that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it moves, so no one that I know of even holds the strict heliostationism that is condemned here.

JM has already admitted that the Congregation of the Index was incompetent to issue a doctrinal ruling, so I dearly hope we won't need to go down that road again. It cannot be said even that the Congregation of the Index says that the Fathers are unanimous that the sun revolves around the earth, for they do not say that--they say only that an absolute heliostationism, with an immovable sun in the center of the universe, is contrary to the Fathers. And interestingly, the 1633 decree against the person of Galileo from the Holy Office has dropped the reference to the Fathers altogether.

The second proposition, geostationism, that the earth is the center of the universe and does not itself move, is not said to be contrary to Scripture, nor contrary to the Fathers, nor formally heretical. I'm curious if the neo-geocentrists here would agree with the Congregation that a moving earth is "foolish and absurd in philosphy"? I would think not. I seem to remember that even Sungenis states that both systems "work" mathematically, so how could non-geostationism be "foolish and absurd in philosophy"? As such, if they do agree with the 1616 ruling on this point, I wonder if the neo-geocentrists could please present the philosophical case for the foolishness and absurdity of a mobile earth? Otherwise, it would seem that on that point, at least, they further undermine their case by taking a position contrary to the Congregations' ruling. This would apply equally to the 1633 decree.

ThePalmHQ said...

In summary, nowhere has the Church ever taught that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture." And when one looks at the actual citation of the Fathers it is clear that there is nothing close to a unanimous consent. Therefore, even according to the peculiar interpretation of Leo XIII presented by the neo-geocentrists here, no Catholic is bound to believe in a stationary earth at the center of the universe.

So, based on what I have presented above, my questions for the neo-geocentrists are these:

1) Do the neo-geocentrists here agree with the Congregation that a moving earth is "foolish and absurd in philosophy"? If so, could you please present that philosophical case here for us to evaluate?

2) Do you continue to assert that geostationism has been taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers? If so, then could you please provide the quotations from the Fathers that would support that contention?

3) Do you continue to assert that the Church, through Pope Paul V, "said the moving earth was heresy, because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture"? If so, could you please provide the ecclesiastical document, approved by the Pope that states that a moving earth is heresy and that it was "defined by the fathers in tradition"?

johnmartin said...

D- Taking the count of 27 alleged witnesses in support of geocentrism given elsewhere by JM, the maximum percentage that even mention a central earth is 41%. The percentage of those who cite Scripture allegedly in support of the view is just under 4%, that is, one witness. The number that actually interpret Scripture, that is, do more than present a bare citation of a poetic passage of the Psalms is 0%.

JM – David hasn’t established why his special pleading concerning the necessity of a scriptural text to be cited in the immediate context is required, when simple reasoning is enough to establish there are only two possible sources for this interpretation –

– 1. Apostolic tradition 2. scripture + Apostolic tradition. Either way the interpretation stands as part of the faith, for there is no other way to explain away the unanimous consent whilst maintaining the authority of the fathers. Were all the fathers completely duped on geo and they all invented the doctrine from another culture or religion? Where is the evidence and why wasn’t there any dispute about these dodgy sources? The fact is that geo is one of those meat and potatoes doctrines discussed by the fathers with which they were all familiar and all came to the same conclusion, based upon the sources of revelation.

D- Can it be said, then, that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture"? I think the evidence would suggest otherwise.

JM- Davids analysis is in error. It cannot be said the fathers did not have a unanimous consent on geo from the sources of revelation without doing violence to the fathers and reason, or for that matter the Catholic faith and the witness of the fathers. The void in David’s analysis – no explanation given for where the fathers universally obtained their information on geo and why they all thought geo. It couldn’t have been from science of a foreign pagan religion, so it must have been . . . tradition and/or scripture. This is the way the church understood it up until the time of Galileo and this is why he was condemned.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- But JM implies that the Church herself, through the Pope, has officially taught that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture." Without conceding anything with respect to the authority or reformability of the documents under question, as has been discussed in detail above, let's look again at the actual wording of the findings of the Congregation of the Index:

JM – David continues to harp on about the myth of reformability. Reformability is not possible on doctrines that have been established in the ordinary magesterium. Geo is established in the ordinary magesterium and therefore it cannot be reformed. The only possible way out of this is to play word games and maybe pick me up on the technical meaning of the word geocentrism. Well at least this is true; the fathers all taught the earth is stationary and the sun and moon move and that’s why Paul V used the word ‘heresy’ for the moving earth. David denies the stationary earth is established in the ordinary magesterium, so he has a need for his notion of reformability of the doctrine somewhere in church history..

D- Proposition to be assessed:


(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith. (http://my.pclink.com/~allchin/1814/retrial/1616docs.htm)

The Congregation breaks the issue into two pieces: heliostationism and geostationism. It is neo-geocentrists who bundle them into a single package, without distinction.
JM – Notice proposition 1 implies a moving earth. So if the sun is devoid of local motion is considered to be ‘formally heretical’ then this must imply the earth that moves around the sun is also ‘formally heretical’. There is no way out of this and it shows David’s position is untenable.

I’d like to thank David for directing me to this document to confirm the truth of geo as being part of the faith. Ther is now no return for David. I think enough has been said about this topic for him to reconsider his position. If it wasn’t geocentrism, then certainly geostatism has been revealed by God, and if geostatism has been revealed then geocentrism is consistent with this position. However the stationary earth is not even close to David’s understanding so he is currently not believing a truth revealed by God.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- In summary, nowhere has the Church ever taught that "the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture."

JM- But I never claimed this directly about any Papal statements. The universal consent taught by Leo is applied to the fathers on geo who understood geo from the scriptures or tradition/scripture. Either way the fathers were unanimous as fathers of the church and not for scientism or some pagan cult who worshiped the earth. They were fathers of the church speaking on behalf of the church.

D- And when one looks at the actual citation of the Fathers it is clear that there is nothing close to a unanimous consent.

JM – The consent is there David. You don’t want it to be there, but its there for all to see.

D- Therefore, even according to the peculiar interpretation of Leo XIII presented by the neo-geocentrists here, no Catholic is bound to believe in a stationary earth at the center of the universe.

JM – false conclusion and the term neo-geocentrists is an invention.

D- So, based on what I have presented above, my questions for the neo-geocentrists are these:

JM- which has been falsified.

D - 1) Do the neo-geocentrists here agree with the Congregation that a moving earth is "foolish and absurd in philosophy"? If so, could you please present that philosophical case here for us to evaluate?
. . .

johnmartin said...

JM – Yes geos give assent to the church because we are faithful sons of the church who obey recent Popes who tell us to give assent to the magesterium. If you think otherwise then you are being disobedient to the Popes. The philosophical case is probably based upon the archaic meaning of the term philosophy – love of wisdom. Wisdom is the knowledge of highest causes and the highest causes are divulged to man through revelation. As revelation has told us geo is true, a love of wisdom (philosophy) demands we give assent to this truth. If we do not love wisdom, we will not give assent. If my felloe geocentrists Rick wishes to correct me or clarify anything in this regard, I’m more than willing to be corrected. This seems like the most reasonable explanation for the church using the word philosophy. It may also have another sense in which reason can be used to combat the arguments of Galileo who must have presented some pretty shonky evidence for a moving earth.

D- 2) Do you continue to assert that geostationism has been taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers? If so, then could you please provide the quotations from the Fathers that would support that contention?

JM – same list, because geocentrism infers geostatism.

D- 3) Do you continue to assert that the Church, through Pope Paul V, "said the moving earth was heresy, because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture"?

JM- sure do.

D- If so, could you please provide the ecclesiastical document, approved by the Pope that states that a moving earth is heresy and that it was "defined by the fathers in tradition"?

JM – No I cannot because it doesn’t exist and you know what, anyone with a clue about the ordinary magesterium and the way it functions within church history knows we don’t need a statement from the Pope on every doctrine or any doctrine to verify tradition. The universal consent is enough to establish the truth as revealed. We also don’t need another Papal statement to verify an already explicit Papal statement on the same subject, due to the whims of David, who wants to play word games with a truth that is well established in the church.
. . .

David, does it occur to you that in light of your recent attempts to play word games to arrive at conclusions opposite to the decisions of the church on the stationary earth, that you are not acting with the mind of the church? If so, how does this match up with the teachings of Popes who require Catholics to give assent to church teaching, even if that teaching is not infallibly defined? If not, how do you determine when you are acting with the mind of the church when you arrive at conclusions that are contradictory to the conclusions of successive Popes, congregations, fathers, scripture and groups of cardinals.

JM

johnmartin said...

David quoted Benedict recently inferring the Pope now considers helio ok for Catholics. Yet the same Pope said this recently to the participants in the conference sponsored by the Specola Vaticana (Vatican Observatory) for the International Year of Astronomy

"“It is my hope,” the Pope concluded, “that the wonder and exaltation which are meant to be the fruits of this International Year of Astronomy will lead beyond the contemplation of the marvels of creation to the contemplation of the Creator, and of that Love (.) which, in the words of Dante Alighieri, ‘moves the sun and the other stars’”."

. . . ‘moves the sun and the other stars’”." . . . hmm, wonder what that could mean?
JM

Frank said...

This should be interesting.

Rick DeLano said...

The Church's condemnation of heliocentrism is vindicated in that no one now believes the Sun is motionless at the center of the world.

As a matter of science, that is, of "natural philosophy", Galileo was wrong, and the Church was right.

I would like to ask David Palm: was this condemnation a matter of Faith?

The Church condemns the doctrine that the Earth moves as erroneous in..........*FAITH*

And also as concerns philosophy (science, at that time, being understood under the heading "natural philosophy").

So John Martin is right, and it is clear that the Church condemned both propositions: a motionless Sun at the center of the word, *and* a moving Earth, as matters pertaining to FAITH.

It is important to introduce a distinction here.

For those of us who, like John, have engaged in a serious study of this issue, it is impossible to grant that a de facto silence on the part of the Church regarding a given doctrine can be fashioned into a formal reversal of the doctrine.

But individual Catholics' position is different.

The lack of a clear and consistent re-statement of a doctrine certainly leads to its atrophy, and the individual Catholic can not thereby be held at fault in the face of a lack of clear guidance on the question.

The individual Catholic might well conclude that the doctrine could be undergoing a development, and that the magisterium is allowing a degree of latitude on the question.

But the Catholic who is determined to form his or her conscience explicitly on the basis that God has provided us a Church which cannot bind us to error in matters of Faith or morals, a Catholic who believes this charism is from God and not from men, will never allow the exigencies and disorientation of a given era to shake his or her certainty that, once it has been shown that the Church has taught a given doctrine in her ordinary magisterium, and has expressly made that doctrine a matter of Faith, then that settles it.

For this Catholic, the only duty remaining is to defend the doctrine on any and all grounds upon which it is attacked:

whether on grounds of Faith, or on grounds of natural philosophy, geocentrism remains completely untouched by four centuries of efforts to reverse it.

John Martin, you have done a fine job here, and your resolute honesty and willingness to acknowledge your limitations in terms of misstatements or hyperbole is very powerful and persuasive evidence of your coolness under fire.

You have handled David Palm beautifully, and David is no slouch.

Thank you.

Rick DeLano said...

Just as an interesting insight into the power of the Divine gift of teaching granted the magisterium, consider this.

In order for the Earth to be shown according to (natural) philosophy to be moving in space, it is necessary to construct a (natural) philosophy based upon the notion that any measuring rod used to demonstrate that motion will shrink, in the direction of motion, precisely enough to account for the failure of the rod to measure the motion.

I consider this postulate an example, an excellent example, of the wisdom of St, Bellarmine, in anticipating such folly by three full centuries.

How wise is the Lord, Who preserves us against the changing winds and waves of knowledge falsely so called.

Jordanes said...

At 330 comments (and counting), geocentrist John still hasn't established a single one of his many claims and hasn't successfully responded to any of the challenges put to him. This isn't surprising, since we've seen from his comments that he has a faulty understanding of Catholic theology, doctrine, and hermeneutics, and apparently can't even understand the fatal flaw in his logic in trying to use a private revelation to establish facts of science. Clearly John Martin is in way over his head and has no business even having an opinion on these matters, let alone sharing it with anyone. At any rate, it has been established that geocentrism is not an article of the Catholic faith, there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers that geocentrism is an article of faith (nor has the Church ever claimed there was), the erroneous 1616 decree is no longer binding (and hasn't been for some two centuries), and Catholics have complete freedom to disbelieve or believe in geocentrism.

JM – already answered this ad nauseum and no responses was made back then either.

That's false -- you answered (erroneously), and responses were made that you did not understand and did not accept.

Jordanes hasn’t got a clue about what Leo was referring to.

Sure I do. It's clear that you don't, however, but then you don't want to, as it means the Church doesn't insist that God revealed geocentrism in Holy Scripture.

"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, ‘I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

JM- St. Augustine was right, there is no maths in scripture and yes St. Augustine was a geo. Again, Jordanes has no idea what St. Augustine is talking about.


No, I'm afraid it's you who have no idea. You probably don't even know what "mathematician" means when St. Augustine and his contemporaries use that word. Hint: it's not what folks today would think it means.

Anyway, it's irrelevant that St. Augustine was a geocentrist when he says that the things like the courses of the sun and the moon, or the shape and form of the heavens, were not revealed by God but were passed over in silence because they have no bearing on salvation. No matter how many comments you post here, you will never get around the plain and incontrovertible meaning of his words. St. Augustine simply did not believe geocentrism was an article of faith. I agree with St. Augustine and the Church. You do not.

J- "One could ask which shape and form of heaven must be accepted by faith on the authority of Holy Scripture. Many dispute about these things which the sacred writers passed by in silence, because they are without importance for attaining eternal life."

JM- And yet again St. Augustine believed geo was revealed in scripture.


Sorry, he didn't.

Jordanes said...

JM- And geo is the literal sense and helio has not been proven with certainty, so we need not abandon the literal sense.

However, strict heliocentrism is not the only alternative to geocentrism. Anyway, we're not even debating whether or not geocentrism is true, but whether or not it is an article of faith. It has been established that it is not an article of faith, and you have failed cataclysmically to establish that it is an article of faith.

Jordanes makes another straw man.

I haven't made one in this entire dreary debate. Would you even recognise a straw man if he danced and skipped down the yellow brick road with you?

The geo position harmonises all the facts . . .

Well, all of the facts except for the 1741 decision of the Index, and the 1822 decision that reversed the 1616 decree and threatened ecclesiastical discipline against anyone who attempted to have books advocating for heliocentrism or against geocentrism placed on the Index, and the decision allowing heliocentrism to be taught in Catholic schools. . . .

His case, as per usual is comprised of an ad hoc collection of statements which are at variance with what the authors of those statements actually believed – especially in the case of St. Augustine.

Sorry, but Leo XIII and Pius XII in fact knew and understood the Faith far better than you do. I'm going to have to go with them, not with someone who thinks the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima can be used as scientific evidence in matters of astronomy and physics. That's like trying to create a medical therapy technique based upon the miraculous instantaneous healing of a severely injured car crash victim.

Jordanes has never answered the problem of Leo XIII and the unanimous consent of the fathers on geo. He never will either, because he knows the church has spoken on the matter in the ordinary magesterium and the case is closed.

It is impossible to "know" things that aren't true, which is why you and I do not know that geocentrism is taught definitively and irreformably in the ordinary magisterium. You are right, however, that I will never answer the "problem" of Leo XIII and the unanimous consent of the Fathers on geocentrism, because there simply is no problem. Leo XIII was right, and there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on geocentrism.

Geo is a truth revealed by God.

So you believe. The Church disagrees.

Rick DeLano said...

So this is now getting interesting.

Since it is impossible to deny that the Church condemned both the heliocentric proposition, and the proposition that the Earth moves, as matters pertaining to FAITH, the fallback position becomes:

Well these are not irreformable decisions.

That is a different question, isn't it?

So let us grant for a moment, strictly for the sake of argument, that this assertion had been demonstrated to be true (it hasn't).

Where then is the official act of the magisterium reforming it?

The act condemning is a formal papal sentence which involves canonical force.

Where is the similarly binding official act reforming it?

Hint: There isn't one.

So the neo case is in tatters, because the Church is wiser than they are.

The Church prudently allows latitude on a question, but never surrenders a doctrione unless, as the wise St. Bellarmine said, natural philosophy is able to supply an irrefutable proof.

I picture this wise Saint smiling gently down upon the children of the modern scientific era, watching as they strain to and fro to attain to the proof which he always knew would never be forthcoming, because he always knew that Faith, while superior to reason, is never in conflict with it.

Once the rods are admitted not to shrink, once it is admitted that time is not dilating, once it is finally shown that the large scale, geocentric orientation of structure in the Universe does not confirm the predictions of Relativity, then the wisdom of the Catholic Church will stand powerfully vindicated.

It is true that in this instance, as in so many others, it will have been a relatively small number of Catholics who stood fast.

That's just the way it goes.

God is merciful, and understands how confusing things can be in times like the present, when the disorientation afflicting the Church is so awful.

Be not afraid.

God is not mocked.

The telescopes will supply the evidence our neo apologists will not.

The very rocks and stones themselves will sing........

Hugh said...

Science is catching up with scripture and the church fathers -- that is what is on my mind! Perhaps some readers of this blog might like to know some truths about how science works. That is what the lectures at the conference on Geocentricism including C-14 dating of dinosaur bone collagen and other fossils were explaining. Scientists who are Christian and in particular those who claim to be Catholic, have a duty to respect the words of wisdom and simple logic in papal encyclicals and those who try to obey such encyclicals. For instance: Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII instructs scientists and others as follows [Summary section]: “In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it.” Our Paleo research group and the other presenters at the November 6, 2010 Geocentricism conference were doing exactly that. --- Specifically, what the Paleo Group and many other international research teams have learned by lab, flume and field research is that Real Science is indeed catching up with scripture. In my presentation before perhaps a full house [over 100 persons not 11 as the initial report on this blog implied] from 9:30 to 10:30 PM on the topic of direct C-14 dating of fossils including dinosaur bones from Texas to Alaska (1990 to 2010), amber, coal and diamonds is that those millions and even billions of years do NOT appear to exist! Visit http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/ & www.earthage.org for a few of many Internet links.

Hugh said...

CONTINUED: This data appears in a 25 page paper with 80 some technical references and published with nine other articles critical of Evolutionism by the National Research Council of Italy’s VP, Dr. Roberto de Mattei in a book entitled: "Evolutionism: The decline of a hypothesis;" it was released November 6, 2009, ironically just one year ago. --- Our teams C-14 dated dinosaur bone collagen etc. in the range of 23,000 to 33,000 radiocarbon years as noted in our power point presentation. These dino C-14 ages are similar to that of mammoths and saber tooth tigers, etc., which are well excepted [should be accepted -senior moment and I won't hear the last of that misepelling] by science as valid ages; that’s 2000 times younger than claimed by evolutionists who: (1) Refuse to C-14 date some of the millions of pounds of dinosaur bones in their bone repositories and report on same or (2) Fail to admit that fossil human and dinosaur footprints appear together in Cretaceous rock, now confirmed by CT scan http://ianjuby.org/delk/ or (3) Ignore the 100's of distinct dinosaur depictions noted by our ancestors over the past 3000 or so years http://www.dinosaursandman.com/ --- Our data and our major conclusions and recommendation were posted on large placards at our Paleo display tables throughout the conference day and were on easels during my lecture in the evening. --- Thus Paleo Gp data and that of many others challenge evolution claims that all life forms evolved from hydrogen to mud to us by Darwinian evolution OR by theistic evolution over billions of years. Furthermore we suggest a remedy for such unscientific evasiveness and religious bias [evolution as a sacred cow] in our conclusions: Our major conclusions of 27 years of field and laboratory research were as follows:
(1) Direct radiocarbon dating results for dinosaur bones confirm sedimentological flume and field studies by Guy Berthualt, Alexander Lalomov, and others which indicate that the sedimentary rocks of the earth were laid down rapidly.
(2) Also confirms crystallographic & mineralogical studies by Marie Claire van Oosterwyck.
(3) An international conference should be convened to promote new research using paleohydraulic, mineralogical, and radiocarbon dating methods.

Hugh Miller, Dabba dabba doo research chemist and field paleontologist & final speaker at the Geocentricism Conference of November 6, 2010, one year to the day after the above data was published in Italy after a major conference held at the National Research Council of Italy on February 23, 2009. My hat off to Dr. Larry Azar, professor emeritus of Iona College, NY, RIP who wrote the book, "Evolution and Other Fairy Tales," 2006.

Hugh said...

CONTINUED: This data appears in a 25 page paper with 80 some technical references and published with nine other articles critical of Evolutionism by the National Research Council of Italy’s VP, Dr. Roberto de Mattei in a book entitled: "Evolutionism: The decline of a hypothesis;" it was released November 6, 2009, ironically just one year ago. --- Our teams C-14 dated dinosaur bone collagen etc. in the range of 23,000 to 33,000 radiocarbon years as noted in our power point presentation. These dino C-14 ages are similar to that of mammoths and saber tooth tigers, etc., which are well excepted [should be accepted -senior moment and I won't hear the last of that misepelling] by science as valid ages; that’s 2000 times younger than claimed by evolutionists who: (1) Refuse to C-14 date some of the millions of pounds of dinosaur bones in their bone repositories and report on same or (2) Fail to admit that fossil human and dinosaur footprints appear together in Cretaceous rock, now confirmed by CT scan http://ianjuby.org/delk/ or (3) Ignore the 100's of distinct dinosaur depictions noted by our ancestors over the past 3000 or so years http://www.dinosaursandman.com/ --- Our data and our major conclusions and recommendation were posted on large placards at our Paleo display tables throughout the conference day and were on easels during my lecture in the evening. --- Thus Paleo Gp data and that of many others challenge evolution claims that all life forms evolved from hydrogen to mud to us by Darwinian evolution OR by theistic evolution over billions of years. Furthermore we suggest a remedy for such unscientific evasiveness and religious bias [evolution as a sacred cow] in our conclusions: Our major conclusions of 27 years of field and laboratory research were as follows:

Hugh said...

(1) Direct radiocarbon dating results for dinosaur bones confirm sedimentological flume and field studies by Guy Berthualt, Alexander Lalomov, and others which indicate that the sedimentary rocks of the earth were laid down rapidly.
(2) Also confirms crystallographic & mineralogical studies by Marie Claire van Oosterwyck.
(3) An international conference should be convened to promote new research using paleohydraulic, mineralogical, and radiocarbon dating methods.

Hugh Miller, Dabba dabba doo research chemist and field paleontologist & final speaker at the Geocentricism Conference of November 6, 2010, one year to the day after the above data was published in Italy after a major conference held at the National Research Council of Italy on February 23, 2009. My hat off to Dr. Larry Azar, professor emeritus of Iona College, NY, RIP who wrote the book, "Evolution and Other Fairy Tales," 2006.

Hugh said...

www.dinosaurc14ages.com

HUGHandPEGGY said...

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/11/so-other-day.html

Jon said...

All,

This johnmartin who has flooded your comments box has also tried his hand at the theologyweb. He and his band of geocentrists from LaMancha appear to be equally inept at matters religious as they are on scientific matters. They're cranks and quacks. Johnmartin admitted to shuttling back and forth to his mentor (Sungenis) for information when it was pointed out that he sounded remarkably like him at times and seemed to take anything directed at Sungenis very personally.

In all likelihood, Mr. Sungenis is pulling the strings of his willing puppets again.

I invite all over to the theologyweb to view where the geocentrists have been caught out using a bogus quote for their vaunted book, sock puppets and more. But what ought one to expect when their leader is a 9-11 truther who believes NASA faked the lunar landings and who owns a fake doctorate?

Peruse the threads. Search for more with "johnmartin", "Sungenis" and "Mark Wyatt." These men are charlatans. These are just to get you started.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?72513-Geocentrism-Discussion&p=1469370&highlight=Robert


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?72513-Geocentrism-Discussion/page75

I shant waste more time with these cranks. I advise you to do likewise.

ThePalmHQ said...

This gets weirder and weirder.

Anyway, I noticed that JM jumped right on this and posted through the night. But I have a job and a family and I can’t do that, so there will be some delay in my postings. I would say that I continue to be amazed at the level of certitude among the neo-geocentrists on matters which are really simply their private opinion and, moreover, at the absolute conflation in their minds of their own voice with that of the authentic Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

I confess to being flabbergasted by JM’s latest responses to me. Just to give one example (with more to follow as I have time), JM first claimed that "Paul V . . . said the moving earth was heresy" I asked him please to cite the document in which Pope Paul V said this. I asserted again, truthfully, that "nowhere has the Church ever taught that 'the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture.'" He replied, "I never claimed this directly about any Papal statements". But just a bit later, when replying to my question, "Do you continue to assert that the Church, through Pope Paul V, 'said the moving earth was heresy, because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture'?", he replied "sure do."

Does he not understand that when you say that someone "said" something you need to be able to cite their actual words? Weird.

It has already been pointed out that JM seems at times not to remember what he wrote from one post to the next, or to behave as if he is more than one person. It seems we have seen some light shed on that strange phenomenon above. But long and short is that these are the kinds of replies that have me wondering whether it is actually possible to carry on a reasoned discussion with JM. And since Rick DeLano continues to assert that JM is doing a bang-up job, well, I wonder the same about him.

Rick, please go back and read this thread with special attention to the discussion about the competence and level of approval of the various Roman congregations involved here before you seize on a particular phrase and declare victory. For example, JM has already admitted the incompetence of the Congregation of the Index to issue a doctrinal ruling binding on the whole Church. It has been established that the output of the various Roman congregations does not equal "the Church". Do not muddy this water unnecessarily with uninformed rhetorical flourishes.

ThePalmHQ said...

This is a complete aside and I don't mean to derail the thread, but I have to ask this of Hugh since he said the same thing over on the CAF and it made me say Huh? What were you doing applying radiocarbon dating methods to dinosaur fossils? That method only applies to carbonaceous materials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

johnmartin said...

J- At 330 comments (and counting), geocentrist John still hasn't established a single one of his many claims and hasn't successfully responded to any of the challenges put to him.

JM- Ive established plenty. You can ignore it but there it is.

J- This isn't surprising, since we've seen from his comments that he has a faulty understanding of Catholic theology, doctrine, and hermeneutics, and apparently can't even understand the fatal flaw in his logic in trying to use a private revelation to establish facts of science.

JM- Apparently false accusations are nothing to Jordane.

J- Clearly John Martin is in way over his head and has no business even having an opinion on these matters, let alone sharing it with anyone.

JM- There’s another one, now I have no business even having an opinion.

J- At any rate, it has been established that geocentrism is not an article of the Catholic faith,

JM- How did that negative get established? A statement in Leo at odds with other statements from the same author – that’s all it was. Remember the statement by Leo about unanimous consent? It didn’t require the fathers quote from scripture. Palms argument is entirely bogus on the question of unanimous consent.

J- there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers that geocentrism is an article of faith

JM- Leo says we only need a unanimous consent of the fathers. He did not say we need a unanimous consent of the faiths on an article of faith. It’s up to the magesterium in the Popes and bishops to define the articles of faith. The geo truth of faith was assumed to exist at the Galileo trial by the Popes and Cardinals. This is the mind of the church and it’s been demonstrated in the church documents.
. . .

johnmartin said...

J- (nor has the Church ever claimed there was), the erroneous 1616 decree is no longer binding (and hasn't been for some two centuries), and Catholics have complete freedom to disbelieve or believe in geocentrism.

JM- Only in Jordanes mind. The decree of 1616 is merely claimed to be erroneous by the helio’s, yet no reforming decree has ever been made at the same level. Therefore the decree stands until it is changed.

JM1 – already answered this ad nauseum and no responses was made back then either.

J- That's false -- you answered (erroneously), and responses were made that you did not understand and did not accept.

JM2- That’s false. I understood and answered your claims.

Jordanes hasn’t got a clue about what Leo was referring to.

J- Sure I do. It's clear that you don't, however, but then you don't want to, as it means the Church doesn't insist that God revealed geocentrism in Holy Scripture.

JM – you merely claim the statements made by Popes are overturned by a congregation permitting some books to betaken of the index. You merely claim Leo’s statements on statements made in scripture have nothing to do with science and the opinions of the fathers on science may be ignored or rejected. Yet you ignore the context of those statements that clearly indicate Leo knew the fathers held to a diversity of opinions on “science” matters. Yet the same Leo said the church is bound when the fathers have unanimous consent. Therefore we must harmonise those statements. When this is done, we arrive at the truth that the fathers taught geo. Where did they get this teaching? It wasn’t from the Greek or a false religion, it was from the deposit of faith.

Therefore you make false truth claims without attending to the subtleties of the case. In short, you make bold claims at the expense of truth.

"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said, ‘I will send to you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."

JM- St. Augustine was right, there is no maths in scripture and yes St. Augustine was a geo. Again, Jordanes has no idea what St. Augustine is talking about.

J- No, I'm afraid it's you who have no idea. You probably don't even know what "mathematician" means when St. Augustine and his contemporaries use that word. Hint: it's not what folks today would think it means.

JM – Maybe I don’t know what mathematician means. But if you were competent you would have shown my misunderstanding was relevant to the argument. You didn’t so I can assume it is not relevant unless proven otherwise.
. . .

johnmartin said...

Augustine’s quote is concerned with maths and not the truth of the stationary earth revealed by God. It is very relevant that Augustine taught the stationary earth. Therefore whenever a statement is made by a father that seems to support the helio case on this thread, we must account for the geo position of the father making the statement. Other wise we do not account for the context in which the father is speaking. The context is geocentrism, or at least geostatism. After all if the earth is stationary and we see the stars move around the earth every day, then it is logical that the earth must be either at the center of the universe or very close to it. Therefore geostatism has definitely been revealed by God and it is highly probably that geocentrism has also been revealed by God as a logical or implied truth derived from geostatism.

J- Anyway, it's irrelevant that St. Augustine was a geocentrist when he says that the things like the courses of the sun and the moon, or the shape and form of the heavens, were not revealed by God but were passed over in silence because they have no bearing on salvation. No matter how many comments you post here, you will never get around the plain and incontrovertible meaning of his words. St. Augustine simply did not believe geocentrism was an article of faith. I agree with St. Augustine and the Church. You do not.

JM- Yeh, its irrelevant Augustine was a geo and it’s irrelevant the Popes and congregation and Cardinals were all geos along with the fathers and scripture and science has nothing against geo either. It’s all irrelevant and only your contorted reading of church history is relevant.

J- "One could ask which shape and form of heaven must be accepted by faith on the authority of Holy Scripture. Many dispute about these things which the sacred writers passed by in silence, because they are without importance for attaining eternal life."

JM- And yet again St. Augustine believed geo was revealed in scripture.

Sorry, he didn't.

JM- So where did Augustine get the idea that the earth was stationary? Science? No – therefore scripture or tradition, yes.
. . .

johnmartin said...

JM- And geo is the literal sense and helio has not been proven with certainty, so we need not abandon the literal sense.

However, strict heliocentrism is not the only alternative to geocentrism. Anyway, we're not even debating whether or not geocentrism is true, but whether or not it is an article of faith. It has been established that it is not an article of faith, and you have failed cataclysmically to establish that it is an article of faith.

JM- The case is closed man. The universal consent is there. We don’t even need to prove the fathers quoted scripture or not. It is assumed they got the info from the deposit of faith, just like they got all their other doctrines. Leo said . . . unanimous consent of the fathers is binding, therefore geo is a truth of faith. This is what we see with the statements of Popes and the statements made quoted by David Palm concerning the judgments made against Galileo.

Jordanes makes another straw man.

J- I haven't made one in this entire dreary debate. Would you even recognise a straw man if he danced and skipped down the yellow brick road with you?

JM- I strongly dispute that. I do believe you have not been honest in your appraisal of the arguments made. You jumped onto Palms arguments against the fathers, even though I’ve shown his arguments are faulty.

The geo position harmonises all the facts . . .

Well, all of the facts except for the 1741 decision of the Index, and the 1822 decision that reversed the 1616 decree and threatened ecclesiastical discipline against anyone who attempted to have books advocating for heliocentrism or against geocentrism placed on the Index, and the decision allowing heliocentrism to be taught in Catholic schools. . . .

JM- I’ve asked you to provide the evidence regarding your statements on the 1822 decision. You have not yet provided evidence to support your claim. Therefore I conclude you are either ignoring me or you don’t think it is necessary that you provide evidence for your claim. Either way, I cannot take your claim seriously until to provide the evidence. And mind you, it must be strong and direct evidence from the documents themselves. The evidence must be from the church and not from a secondary source. We are talking about the church here and not some play toy of the modern mind who wants something to be true.
. . .

johnmartin said...

Robert Sungenis has a compelling case that accounts for the 1822 decision. Lets see your case first and then we can move on to see what Robert has documented.

His case, as per usual is comprised of an ad hoc collection of statements which are at variance with what the authors of those statements actually believed – especially in the case of St. Augustine.

J - Sorry, but Leo XIII and Pius XII in fact knew and understood the Faith far better than you do.

JM – Merely stating names of Popes and making truth claims doesn’t establish a case. You have had plenty of time to establish a sound case by harmonising the statements made by Popes, fathers, the congregation, scripture and the science evidence. The case presented so far has been answered and now we are confronted with empty rhetoric. This shows me there is only hot air for the helio case. Roberts research is incredibly detailed and the rather scant opposition to his powerful thesis is itself a testimony to the weakness of the helio case.

J I'm going to have to go with them, not with someone who thinks the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima can be used as scientific evidence in matters of astronomy and physics. That's like trying to create a medical therapy technique based upon the miraculous instantaneous healing of a severely injured car crash victim.

JM- There’s that straw man again. Jordane is saying something I never even inferred in my statement about Fatima. He knows it, I know it and now the readers know it. The helio closet is empty.

Jordanes has never answered the problem of Leo XIII and the unanimous consent of the fathers on geo. He never will either, because he knows the church has spoken on the matter in the ordinary magesterium and the case is closed.

J- It is impossible to "know" things that aren't true, which is why you and I do not know that geocentrism is taught definitively and irreformably in the ordinary magisterium.

JM – we know from Leo’s statements and then we look back and see what Leo said is exactly how the church thought in the fathers and Popes. Its not that difficult to work out there was an assumed body of knowledge there at the time of Galileo, which Galileo had to disprove to maintain his novel helio theory.
. . .

johnmartin said...

J -You are right, however, that I will never answer the "problem" of Leo XIII and the unanimous consent of the Fathers on geocentrism, because there simply is no problem.

JM- Another tactic the helios use is to ignore the problem. If they ignore it there is no problem and they can claim helio is at least open to being believed by the faithful as a mater of only science. However the helio position collapses as soon as we examine it. Science cannot prove helio is true because we simply do not have enough data. Science is in a pretty poor position when it comes to examining what body is moving past another body. If we take relativity seriously then science must be agnostic about the motion of the earth. So as far as science is concerned, all it can conclude is that if we embrace helio as a theory, it has predictive results and as a theory it has sold standing in the science community. Yet this is nothing more than saying the truth of geo is subject to the democracy of the preferred cosmological theory. Is such a democracy really the arbiter of truth?

The Catholic magesterium says on the matter of geocentrism, an emphatic no. Geo is not a matter for the science community to be agnostic about and subject to the theories of science, no matter how predictive a competing theory may be. The church has access to something better than relativity, a telescope, maths and science measurements. It has access to the mind of God, who in his wisdom has chosen to reveal only some truths in the natural order. The truths he has chosen to reveal include the order in which the heavenly bodies were created and the order in which, which body moves past which.

This should be seen as benefit to science, for science has made false assumptions about say the nature of gravity and from theses assumptions had some apparently spectacular success with launching rockets and satellites based upon Newtons theories. Yet these assumptions are still false and should be corrected by Catholic/evangelical scientists who see the predictive value of helio and Newtonian gravity, yet also see the falsity of its foundational claims. This should lead Christian scientists to make genuine efforts at understanding the true fabric of the universe, rather than allowing it to proceed in its endless search for things like dark energy and dark matter (which do not exist) that are required to prop up the bogus standard model.

Typically the science establishment thinks the aether has been disproved because of the Michelson Morley null result. Yet again, this is merely a false conclusion, base don the false premise of the moving earth, assumed from the false understanding of parallax. It is then up to informed Catholic and evangelical scientists, to embrace the truth of genesis in all its glory and search for the aether and construct a robust model of the universe based upon the stationary earth. It is high time faithful Christian scientists stopped towing the party line of scientism and embraced Gods truth. The universe is geocentric and therefore made to point towards mans ultimate destiny in supernatural communion with him in heaven.
. . .

johnmartin said...

God did not create a helio or relativistic universe for man to be stuck away in some corner of the universe where he can easily fall into the error of theological agnosticism. Man was created on a stationary earth so he could investigate the nature of things, knowing full well that God has revealed to him, mans place in the universe and Gods reason for creating him. The scientist should clearly see the earth is stationary and then begin his search for the God who made a revelation concerning the creation of the stationary earth. However the truth is often more stranger than fiction. Man has a fallen nature and is often inclined away from the truth, so when science sees evidence for a stationary earth, it is almost natural for men of science to turn away from such powerful evidence and thereby avoid any Godly consequences.

Geocentrism is a very comforting doctrine revealed by God. When I came across the doctrine I initially thought it was a joke. Then I rethought the doctrine and investigated it until I became convinced of the evidence. The truth of concillience of the evidence finally overwhelmed me and now I am a convinced geocentrist. The scriptures literal sense of scripture no longer needs to be twisted and contorted, the fathers can finally speak their minds, the Popes are no longer dumb dupes who were fooled by a minority of Copernicus and Galileo, the church can easily maintain the doctrine of indefectibility and inerrancy and finally science can be real science. We don’t need these inventions of Einstein’s shrinking bodies or time dilation to explain away experiment after experiment that produced results matching the stationary earth.

We can also see Newtonian mechanics for what it really is – the work of a genius who use defective principle. Yes Newtonian mechanics contains brilliant ideas that have helped science progress, yet it also contains subtle errors, which have helped science stay in a rut. One such rut is the false assumption of the attracting masses used to explain gravity, another is the false use of the concept of the centre of mass and another is the assumption of the absolute space. These three topics alone within Newtonian mechanics show the system is brilliant, but flawed. Many think relativity refined Newtonian mechanics, yet relativity only refined an already flawed system to arrive at results required for science to maintain its faith in the helio theory.

Furthermore, Geocentrism fits like a glove in the catholic mind. God created and placed the earth in its place, just as he has the wisdom and power to do. He then created all other bodies and the living to give him glory. This glory is far easier to obtain from men when they know they are on a unique piece of land at the centre of the universe. The universe is so massive and well ordered; it psychologically drives the human mind towards the Supreme Being who creates, orders and sustains all things. The beauty of the universe also points to the beauty of this creator and it is the creator who has revealed geocentrism. We should see the wisdom within the doctrine of geocentrism and the ease with which it fits into all the other evidence.

johnmartin said...

We should also see the ugliness and emptiness of modern cosmology with its naturalist foundation and its atheistic/agnostic projections, its many ad hoc explanations for evidence that doesn’t fit its world view and its many evidences it plain simply ignores – for example there is no evidence for the aberration of moon light. Therefore the earth is not moving relative to the moon. This is consistent with geocentrism and flies in the face of modern cosmology. You’d think this one local truth in science would be enough to force a sea change in thinking. But Robert Sungenis is correct when he says science has too much invested in its agenda to rethink the standard model. Science is no longer only a means to obtain some truth about the universe, it is a means by which man can hide from God through false models. Modern science has become the agnostic materialist religion of many modern man and its only when the god of scientism is killed of that the church will finally return to its true place of dominance and a shining light for an otherwise confused and directionless secular culture.

It’s very comforting to know our apparently lonely planet is not so lonely after all. Man is the high point of Gods material creation and it is fitting that man be placed on a temporal throne in the universe before he is enthroned in heaven by the Trinity in the next life. There is nothing perverse or grotesque about the doctrine and Catholics are more than free to believe it is true, even if some believe it is not part of the faith (which I believe has been shown otherwise on this thread)

Leo XIII was right, and there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on geocentrism.

JM -Geo is a truth revealed by God.

J- So you believe. The Church disagrees.

JM – Not only are the fathers unanimous on the matter of geocentrism. The concillience of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of geocentrism. The doctrine fits perfectly with the sources of revelation. It’s also a good fit with the wisdom of God, who would provide an abundance of natural evidence to point towards the genesis creation act as being real history. It is also just plain good psychology – comfort of the mind is based upon a tranquillity of order. When the universe is revealed and backed by science to be geocentric, there is a tranquillity of the Catholic mind that ensues. This psychological complacency with the tranquillity of the truth is also a none too small part of the concillience of evidence in favour of the doctrine.

All evidence points in favour of geocentrism and once the evidence is rejected only a forced interpretation can bring man to a non geocentric understanding of the universe. This forced interpretation does not bring about tranquillity of the mind and it just doesn’t fit well at all with the Catholic faith. This alone should be enough for the Catholic to at least take notice of the truth of geocentrism.

JM

ThePalmHQ said...

"JM- The case is closed man. The universal consent is there. We don’t even need to prove the fathers quoted scripture or not. It is assumed they got the info from the deposit of faith, just like they got all their other doctrines."

But Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII said that the Holy Spirit did not even put such information in the sacred Scriptures at all, so you certainly cannot assume that they got that "info" there. Indeed, it's interesting that of the very few Fathers that speak directly about geostationism, several tell us about their sources.

Anatolius cites Eudemus, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. St. Basil speaks generally of "inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth"; notice that he makes this a matter of natural science, not a theological point. Hippolytus cites Ecphantus and Sungenis seems to me to have misread the saint, for Bob asserts that St. Hippolytus is refuting Ecphantus, but it appears to me from the text that St. Hippolytus is merely stating what Ecphantus believed without making any judgment on it. Thus this is actually one less Father that can be cited in support of geostationism or, if Sungenis is correct, then one Father who refutes it. And Methodius speaks of the "Chaldeans and Egyptians", also the mathematicians of the Greeks. Only one Father explicitly cites Scripture on geostationism, but several Fathers reference the Greeks and other pagans on the matter of geostationism. This is what is found in the citations provided by Sungenis himself.

JM, please remember that it is the very members of the Congregation of the Index that broke these two things--heliostationism and geostationism--out into separate cases. It is you who insist that they have to be taken together. In this you apply a manifest double standard and twist things merely to suit your private judgment on the matter.

johnmartin said...

"JM- The case is closed man. The universal consent is there. We don’t even need to prove the fathers quoted scripture or not. It is assumed they got the info from the deposit of faith, just like they got all their other doctrines."

But Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII said that the Holy Spirit did not even put such information in the sacred Scriptures at all, so you certainly cannot assume that they got that "info" there. Indeed, it's interesting that of the very few Fathers that speak directly about geostationism, several tell us about their sources.

JM – already explained the quotes from Leo. If you ant me to explain Pius XII I can do that as well later. Leo’s quote is only talking about the intricacies of the natural world as known through science theory. Geo only states God revealed the earth is stationary. This is hardly an intricacy or technicality of a science theory like say string theory or magnetic theory. Evidently Leo knew of those geo quotes in scripture and that why he accommodated geo in his statement about the universal consent of the fathers. This consent is the Catholic understanding of scripture/tradition.

D- Anatolius cites Eudemus, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. St. Basil speaks generally of "inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth";

JM- I don’t have GWW handy at the moment so please show us the quotes in context. Once the truth of geo has been given, then we can investigate it. I’ve already discussed the relationship of science and revelation in regard to the question of geo and helio. Geo can only be verified as an absolute truth from revelation. All other evidences found in science can only be pointers and are therefore not apodictic. Therefore geo is the subject of both theology and science.

D- notice that he makes this a matter of natural science, not a theological point.

JM- he doesn’t exclude theology either. In fact we can turn the quote around and ask where he got the idea of geo from when all the fathers held to it? Was it something dreamt up David or was it taken from the deposit? Careful how you answer. I think either way you are undone.

D- Hippolytus cites Ecphantus and Sungenis seems to me to have misread the saint, for Bob asserts that St. Hippolytus is refuting Ecphantus, but it appears to me from the text that St. Hippolytus is merely stating what Ecphantus believed without making any judgment on it. Thus this is actually one less Father that can be cited in support of geostationism or, if Sungenis is correct, then one Father who refutes it.

JM- It seems to me David is desperate to reduce the fathers down to a group of confused imbeciles who didn’t know their head from tails regarding where they got that geo doctrine from.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D - And Methodius speaks of the "Chaldeans and Egyptians", also the mathematicians of the Greeks. Only one Father explicitly cites Scripture on geostationism, but several Fathers reference the Greeks and other pagans on the matter of geostationism. This is what is found in the citations provided by Sungenis himself.

JM – So is it your thesis that the fathers got the doctrine of geo from the Greeks? Please explain.

D- JM, please remember that it is the very members of the Congregation of the Index that broke these two things--heliostationism and geostationism--out into separate cases. It is you who insist that they have to be taken together. In this you apply a manifest double standard and twist things merely to suit your private judgment on the matter.

JM – You merely assert without showing a case. Geostatism is consistent with geocenrism. If you think the geos of today are based upon private judgement then you are plain wrong. Geostatism is the foundation for geocentrism. The bottom line is David you are against the church on the moving earth and the geos are with the church on the matter of the moving earth. I ti therefore you who is twisting what the church has stated is against the faith. Please note that – you are way out of left field on this one – you have a lot of work to do to prove your position is even viable, let alone the truth.

I’m simply not impressed with your previous post where you have intentionally sinned against my character.

I request Dave Armstrong to take note of David Palms posts and if repeats any statement against my character again, he be banned from the thread, just as another poster was recently banned for doing the same thing.

JM

Jordanes said...

See, I knew "John Martin" didn't know what "mathematicians" refers to in the Augustine quote.

Another hint: put the word "mathematics" out of your head.

Jon's comment is most enlightening. We must wonder now how many of the comments of "John Martin" actually come from a man named "John Martin," and how many come from a man named "Robert Sungenis." Certainly a number of the latest comments of "John Martin" are in a very different voice than one finds in many of the early "John Martin" comments. I suspect John is either copy/pasting material from Sungenis, or Sungenis or some other colleague of Sungeis is writing some of John's comments.

I’ve asked you to provide the evidence regarding your statements on the 1822 decision.

I suppose it's possible, among the scads of comments "John Martin" has posted, that he (or someone) asked me to provide evidence regarding the 1822 reversal of the 1616 decree of the Index. I never saw any such request, however. Since "John Martin" evidently comes from the "Whoever Posts the Most Comments Wins" school of debate, it's difficult to keep track of everything that he has said.

Anyway, here are some references that mention the 1822 (more precisely, 1820-1835) reversal of the 1616 decree:

"Giuseppe Settele and the final annulment of the decree of 1616 against Copernicanism"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989MmSAI..60..791C

(In fact, that paper is worth reading in full, for it tells the story of how Canon Settele's determination succeeded in getting the Pope himself to get involved in the old Galileo controversy and to reverse the 1616 decree of the Index, and even to issue a judgment against Settele's opponent, much as the 1616 and 1633 judgments were tied to the person of Galileo.)

Jordanes said...

"The adaptation was still slow, with the 1741 authorised edition of Galileo's works still requiring 'corrections.' In 1757 the decree of 1616 was quietly dropped from the Index of Forbidden Books, but the Copernican works proscribed therein remained until 1822 "out of having finally to take a clear position with respect to the behaviour of the Church" (Fantoli, op cit: 497). In perhaps the ultimate irony, Pius VII released a decree in 1822 stating that no work treating of the motion of the Earth was to be prohibited, on pain of punishment for the person proposing to do so -- a complete reversal of the situation in 1616 and 1633."

http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43824

(Actually there were two decrees -- in 1822 the Pope approved a decree of the Index allowing the publication of works advocating heliocentrism, and in 1823 the Pope approved a decree promising punishment for any future officials who might try to put the works of Copernicus and Galileo and scientific works advocating heliocentrism back on the Index.)

"A commission of scholars was convened, and they presented their report to the Pope on October 31, 1992. Contrary to reports in The New York Times and other conduits of misinformation about the Church, the Holy See was not on this occasion finally throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around the sun. That particular debate, so far as the Church was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when Benedict XIV bid the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo. . . . Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma. Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council. And as the Pontifical Commission points out, the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable. Galileo's works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0005.html

Either way, I cannot take your claim seriously until to provide the evidence.

As it happens, that's one of the reasons I don't take your contributions to this debate seriously.

And mind you, it must be strong and direct evidence from the documents themselves. The evidence must be from the church and not from a secondary source.

Sorry, I can't do that, but I can do and have done the next best thing. But then since you say Sungenis attempts to explain away the Canon Settele affair, you should already be aware of the basic facts of this case. And surely, since Sungenis is such a thorough and diligent scholar, he has provided clear citations and authentic reproductions of the documents in question.

ThePalmHQ said...

The quotes from the Fathers found in Sungenis' book may be found at the scripturecatholic.com site with all the context that Sungenis himself saw fit to include. Look them up for yourself.

On that same site is quoted this passage from Leo XIII:

“the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

So much for your claim that it doesn't matter if the Fathers don't cite Scripture on the topic in question.

So much for your claim that it doesn't matter that the Fathers never once reference geocentrism "as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals".

So much for your claim that we posit an internal contradiction in Leo XIII's writings.

Pope Leo XIII's dictum would pertain to something like John 3:5 and baptismal regeneration, not geocentrism.

johnmartin said...

I confess to being flabbergasted by JM’s latest responses to me. Just to give one example (with more to follow as I have time), JM first claimed that "Paul V . . . said the moving earth was heresy" I asked him please to cite the document in which Pope Paul V said this. I asserted again, truthfully, that "nowhere has the Church ever taught that 'the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture.'" He replied, "I never claimed this directly about any Papal statements". But just a bit later, when replying to my question, "Do you continue to assert that the Church, through Pope Paul V, 'said the moving earth was heresy, because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture'?", he replied "sure do."
D- Does he not understand that when you say that someone "said" something you need to be able to cite their actual words? Weird.
JM- the second half of your statement “. . . because the stationary earth had already been defined by the fathers in tradition, based upon scripture” was understood by me as inferring Paul ‘thought’ the stationary earth had been defined by the fathers in tradition, “based upon scripture”. This is why I later replied ‘yeh’ to your question. Nothing weird here- only projection of Mr Palm who has been acting strangely himself recently. See below for details.
D- It has already been pointed out that JM seems at times not to remember what he wrote from one post to the next, or to behave as if he is more than one person.
JM – Pointed out by “s”, whoever that person was. That person managed to misunderstand the meaning of ‘where is David palm’ to mean I should look you up on your blog. David thinks this person is a quality witness to something of note. I think David is using ad hominem, based upon the evidence of a person who misunderstands simple sentences.

D- It seems we have seen some light shed on that strange phenomenon above.

JM – Or David misunderstood the meaning of his own words and my answer was correct.

D- But long and short is that these are the kinds of replies that have me wondering whether it is actually possible to carry on a reasoned discussion with JM.
JM – I don’t mind if you feel you have to leave David. I’m confident in my own abilities to answer you arguments. I’m beginning to wonder about your motives though.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- And since Rick DeLano continues to assert that JM is doing a bang-up job, well, I wonder the same about him.
JM- David continues to make enemies. Fine for him, but it will only hurt his own reputation as Catholic author. Shame on David for such a poorly written post meant to character assassinate. It only means David has a very flimsy case against geo. He has been asked several questions and many statements have also been made against his arguments, which he currently has not attempted to answer. Therefore David has currently shown he is not capable of acknowledging the value of an argument against his arguments, even when he cannot make a positive response to the same. David has also shown when an opponent pulls his arguments apart he constructs counter arguments that miss the substance of the opponents arguments. He then proceeds to character assasinate his opponent based on flimsy evidence and some poorly understood responses. Which if he had of thought for a little while, would have disclosed the truth of my statements concerning Paul V’s statements concerning geo.

D- Rick, please go back and read this thread with special attention to the discussion about the competence and level of approval of the various Roman congregations involved here before you seize on a particular phrase and declare victory. For example, JM has already admitted the incompetence of the Congregation of the Index to issue a doctrinal ruling binding on the whole Church.
JM- Now here’s a chance to show how charitable you can really be. I thought I said the congregation was incompetent to make a dogmatic declaration. Rather than have me search for what I said, I invite David to show me where I said this. If I did, I will review the statement in context. Notwithstanding this, I have also said Paul V and the congregation assumed geo was already revealed in the ordinary magesterium and that’s one reason why their ruling is binding. I have also said the ruling is binding until the statement is rescinded by the same level of authority and such a change has no precedent in the church, therefore those who say so must prove it not only can happen, but that it really did happen.
Another reason the congregations ruling is binding, is the statement was made by the Pope, which was later made public concerning the moving earth, contained the word ‘heresy’, meaning the Pope was addressing a matter of faith. Therefore the Pope had acted as head f the church to condemn Galileo’s moving earth theory as heresy, therefore the moving earth theory, or any other moving earth theory is heresy.

johnmartin said...

D- It has been established that the output of the various Roman congregations does not equal "the Church".
JM- I don’t not believe the works of a congregation can be considered universally binding except when the congregation makes statements with the authority of the Pope concerning a matter of faith or morals. This is what the congregation did with Galileo so the congregation’s decision is binding. This shouldn’t be too difficult to work out either. The congregation and several Popes acted as head of the church to exercise their authority to ensure the faith as expressed in the ordinary magesterium was being upheld. As this was the intent of Paul V and the congregation, so their decision is binding and normative. Because Paul V was only restating truth revealed through the ordinary magesterium, David must present a solid case for the decision to not be based upon an infallibly revealed truth previously known and therefore the judgment made against Galileo is not infallible, binding, normative and irreformable. I say the decisions were based on the revealed truth through the ordinary magesterium and therefore the judgment made by Paul V was infallible, binding, normative and irreformable according to the assumed truth of the stationary earth.
D- Do not muddy this water unnecessarily with uninformed rhetorical flourishes.
JM- That means don’t do what David does.
JM

Rick DeLano said...

I am very pleased to watch the coming of age of John Martin on this thread. He has withstood- and reduced to various levels of ad hominem, snarkiness, or nit-picking Lilliputianism, several fairly recognizable mid-level Catholic apologists.

It is good for him to be subjected to the kind of "if you can't prevail on the merits, tie him up in minutiae and misdirection" tactics I have long since come to recognize as the most regrettable sign that the interlocutor has abandoned the search for truth, and has instead entered into the search for triumph.

Apart from a few "heat of battle" type (and quickly-acknowledged) misstatements or hyperboles, John Martin is right on the facts and he is right on the merits.

His insistence that both condemnations- of heliocentrism and of the motion of the Earth- were matters of *faith* is incontestible- any one who reads the sentence can see the terms "heresy" applied to heliocentrism, and "erroneous in faith" applied to the proposition of the Earth's movement.

The subterfuge of questioning the infallible nature of a papal sentence is grotesquely dishonest.

Neither John, nor any other defender of geocentrism, has ever suggested the 1616 sentence was an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium.

To argue against such a never-advanced claim is a classic strawman and is easily recognizable as a sign of the defects inherent in the neos' apologetic on this issue.

John correctly notes that the Church, in her official magisterium, condemned both propositions as being contrary to Faith-that is, contrary to the ordinary magisterium.

Therefore, if the neo wishes to claim that this teaching has been reformed, he must show us in what specific action it was reformed.

It is, I am sorry to have to say, terribly dishonest to propose that a revision of the Index constitutes a reversal of a papal sentence.

John Martin is doing a fine job here.

The mid-level apologists are being bested by him in this debate, and of course not a single one of them has so much as dared to address the science.

They are very well advised to avoid engaging that subject, but in the end they cannot hide.

It is truth that we seek, if we are truthful, and the truth is that recent scientific observations ought to bring rejoicing to the hearts of all of us who have held fast to the trustworthiness and reliability of Holy Mother Church.

Galileo was wrong.

The Church was right.

Be very skeptical of any so called "apologist" who is willing to take up a battle against this resoundingly encouraging and important truth.

It is truly sad to note the performance of Jordanes here, with his utterly reprehensible unsubstantiated imputations of dishonesty and false identity on John.

What makes this grotesquely unjust accusation all the more of a black mark against Jordanes, is that Jordanes writes under a pseudonym, whilst accusing a man who doesn't, of falsifying his identity.

Without a doubt, there is a word for this.

It begins with an "h".

Shame on Jordanes.

These things aside, it has been a good debate overall, and serves to confirm, the strong interest in geocentrism which the Conference has intensified.

johnmartin said...

D- So much for your claim that it doesn't matter if the Fathers don't cite Scripture on the topic in question. So much for your claim that it doesn't matter that the Fathers never once reference geocentrism "as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals". So much for your claim that we posit an internal contradiction in Leo XIII's writings.

JM- Your conclusions do not match what has been said by other authorities as well as Leo.

Trent said - ... "Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,—in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,—wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church—to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published.

Therefore the unanimous consent of the fathers is the sense in which the church understands the scriptures to be understood. Another quote from Trent –

... "I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Again the unanimous consent of the Fathers is all that is required for the church to be bound by that doctrine and meaning found in the scriptures. This means the unanimous consent of the fathers is infallible and irreformable.

This infallible declaration was restated by the First Vatican Council: “In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers” (On Revelation, April 24, 1870, chapter 2, no. 9).

The Vatican council is clear. The fathers determine the sense of the scriptures and the church follows that unanimous consent. We don’t even require the fathers to be citing the scriptures, because when they have unanimous consent, the doctrine is from either tradition or scripture, which are a contained in a doctrinal unified whole.

From PD - Christian doctrine, that is to be considered the true sense of Holy Scripture which has been held and is held by our Holy Mother the Church, whose place it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret Holy Scripture against such sense or also against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.

johnmartin said...

Also - the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith.

PD clearly indicates the unanimous consent is the binding understanding of the church. It also says if this consent is found on any text, then that truth has come from the apostles. Can we conclude if the fathers had unanimous consent on geo, without directly quoting scripture text, that geo was apostolic? Yew we can, because the church is bound by the consent and the church cannot be bound by a doctrine that is not apostolic at least in the sense that it is not against what the apostles taught as found in the old testament. As geo is found in the Old Testament, and the fathers taught was true, then it was not changed by the apostles. A doctrine that is not changed remains and is therefore apostolic. Therefore geo is both from the OT and is apostolic.

When we combine the statements made by the fathers, we see the consent binds the church, inferring the doctrine contained in the consent is apostolic. Geo is therefore irreformable.

We can also ask concerning - “the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

Does “whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible” mean the fathers must explicitly state the text with which they are talking about? From this statement above we do not know for sure. However when we see the other texts concerning the fathers consent, we note only the fathers consent is required and the scripture text need not be cited or discussed. Therefore the above statement only means the consent is required, inferring the consent applies to “any text” under its subject. Therefore when the fathers have consent on geo, the scriptures that discuss the stationary earth or the moving sun and stars are inferred in the consent and therefore, goe is apostolic in origin. David palms selective citations have been answered yet again.

JM

johnmartin said...

J- See, I knew "John Martin" didn't know what "mathematicians" refers to in the Augustine quote.

JM- numerologists & astrologers are the probable meanings to the term. No matter I’m only human after all.

Some questions for you to answer –

1. Where did the church fathers get the doctrine of geo?

2. Why did geo become the universal consent if it was not from either tradition or scripture?

3. If the fathers gave universal consent about a doctrine (geo) from a source, not based on scripture or tradition, yet that doctrine (geo) is easily found in scripture, then what confidence can we have that the fathers had consent on many other doctrines (eg baptism, Eucharist), even if those doctrines (eg bap. and euch.) are easily derivable from scripture?

4. If the fathers had universal consent on geo, and geo has now been abandoned by the church as you claim, then what confidence can we have in any other doctrine given consent in the fathers?

5. If the church magesterium binds the church to the consent of the fathers, does it matter where the fathers got the doctrine, provided the doctrine is at least consistent with the deposit of faith?

6. If the church magesterium binds the church to the consent of the fathers, doesn’t it imply the consent is apostolic and as such part of the faith? If not why not?

JM

S said...

That's some creative spin there, Rick. Earlier, I said that I thought you must be in the marketing business in some capacity after your encouragement of JM to just get people talking about geocentrism. Now I read that you're a Hollywood agent. That must be a very interesting field. and I can understand why the geocentrists would covet your services. You have a very tough product to sell!

Seriously, though, I do admire your energy and commitment in a way, if not your judgment. But in light of the misbehavior of some of your fellow geocentrists from Juscot to Sungenis and even JM, your selective reprimands ring a little hollow.

johnmartin said...

Rick - It is good for him to be subjected to the kind of "if you can't prevail on the merits, tie him up in minutiae and misdirection" tactics I have long since come to recognize as the most regrettable sign that the interlocutor has abandoned the search for truth, and has instead entered into the search for triumph.

JM- Glad you say so. I thought so myself. I’m surprised at David Palm. Maybe he will yet change his mind. He has many questions left unanswered and many statements left unrebutted.

Maybe its part of the conversion process. Argument proposed, counter given, no counter to the counter, nit pick and ad homs, long delay then final capitulation to the truth.

I readily acknowldge I make mistakes from time to time. But thats part of the risk in being involved in the truth discernment process in apologetics. I think it is worth the jump into the dark, make the mistakes and go home better for it.

On the side - I think this geo topic as explained by GWW is the hotest topin in apologetics. It may yet get the science establishment talking about the possibility of a sea change. Maybe not straight away, but then again maybe after a long hard fight. But this is as it should be. The fight will be worth the watch.

JM

johnmartin said...

S- Seriously, though, I do admire your energy and commitment in a way, if not your judgment. But in light of the misbehaviour of some of your fellow geocentrists from Juscot to Sungenis and even JM, your selective reprimands ring a little hollow.

JM - what miserable behaviour? Please quote the statements made which you find offensive and state why.

I believe my behaviour has been satisfactory so far.

If you do not find anything to quote, then please apologise.

JM

S said...

“Let me also speak about the issue of geocentrism…If you can’t accept it, then, if I can impose on you, just consider it Robert Sungenis’ quirk and that will be fine with me. I know this issue is much too shocking and controversial at present for me to expect many people to consider what I have to say”



ROBERT SUNGENIS



http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/...p? TOPIC_ID=1759 



Again, I'm in agreement with Sungenis here. It’s just common sense that geocentrism is so weird and quirky that you shouldn't expect many people to even consider it. One wishes the other geocentrists here would adopt such a humble approach.

Unfortunately, it seems that Sungenis and johnmartin have very similar memory problems because now they’re both out trying to force geocentrism on Catholics as a matter of obedience to God and the Church. Like Sungenis, John shifts back and forth on this, too.

JM1: “yes, a denial of geocentrism can be understood as formal heresy.”

JM2: “The question of heresy is something I'm not really interested in…”

For more on that odd inconsistency:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1289530001548#c3966975023036443274

One hopes that more humble and less coercive nature of the goecentrists will eventually win out.

S said...

JM – “Pointed out by ‘S’, whoever that person was. That person managed to misunderstand the meaning of ‘where is David palm’ to mean I should look you up on your blog.”

I don’t think I misunderstood anything, JM. You were grandstanding for your imagined audience, trying to make it appear as though David suddenly disappeared – perhaps because you had overwhelmed him with the weight of your arguments. Perhaps he was even becoming a geocentrist! LOL You were also trying to goad him into helping you with your geocentric marketing campaign. And so, I provided contact information that was already readily available to you if you sincerely only wanted to contact him and continue the discussion.

Here’s where you did it, or are you having more memory difficulties?

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1290037336458#c8808425449015403437

JM: “David thinks this person is a quality witness to something of note. I think David is using ad hominem, based upon the evidence of a person who misunderstands simple sentences.”

Let me help job your memory again, JM. Here’s a link to where I previously listed a least a few of the posts in which you just plain seem to have forgotten what you’d previously written. And of course, we can now add this last post of yours to the growing list of amnesiatic episodes.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-sungenis-opts-for-personal.html?showComment=1290040440782#c1330718036499298581

S said...

JM: "David, does it occur to you that in light of your recent attempts to play word games to arrive at conclusions opposite to the decisions of the church on the stationary earth, that you are not acting with the mind of the church?"

After all the word games you've played here throughout these exchanges JM - most recently with the term "philosophy" and the way you just glossed over the distinctions explicitly drawn by the Congregation of the Index itself - the accusation that Palm is playing word games is both ironic and humorous. The accusation that he's not "acting with the mind of the church" is even more ironic coming from a person who has slandered and denigrated the 99.99% of the Church over the last 300 years - including sainted Popes, bishops and laymen - in order to find a way to promote geocentrism. That, JM, is a true failure to act with the mind of the Church. It’s as if you seem to think the mind of the Church stopped functioning some 300 years ago.

JM: "No I cannot [provide the proof requested] because it doesn’t exist and you know what…we don’t need a statement from the Pope…We also don’t need another Papal statement to verify an already explicit Papal statement on the same subject, due to the whims of David…"

And the rest of your explanation is equally unconvincing and confusing in regard to what you indicated that Paul V “said” about the earth moving.

I'm not trying to be unkind JM, but after reading your “response” to Palm above, I wondered if you were being serious or if you were doing a modified comedy bit based on The Treasure of the Sierra Madre with Humphrey Bogart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx6TBrfCW54&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lj056ao6GE

"Proof? We don't need no stinkin' proof!"

My apologies for the brief digression, but I thought a little levity was in order in light of the “response”.

Rick DeLano said...

S:

I am not a Hollywood agent, although I was identified as such in Conference literature. Alas, I didm not have a chance to review this before the Conference, and with the blog entry it is now one of those things that I suppose will remain "true" for a while, at least.

But I am not an agent, and I appreciate the opportunity to correct this.

I hope I have not been unfairly selective in my condemnation of Jordanes' hypocrisy.

But Jordanes' (quite surprising) hypocrisy in his unsubstantiated accusations against John cannot be allowed to pass unopposed.

I reiterate: for Jordanes to accuse, without the slightest substantiation, from behind the anonymity of his screen alter ego, that John Martin- a man who posts under his real name, as I do- is engaging in identity fraud is.......well.

It is hypocrisy, is what it is.

I hope you will point out any similar instance of hypocrisy which I might have missed.

I solemnly promise to consider it carefully.

It is one thing to disagree.

It is quite another to calumniate.

Jordanes has calumniated John Martin, and he ought to be ashamed of himself, and he ought to apologize.

S said...

JM: “The fathers got their geo ideas from scripture and not some popular belief at the time. According to Robert the Greeks held to a moving earth and the fathers rejected them.

JM: “Davids analysis is in error… The void in David’s analysis – no explanation given for where the fathers universally obtained their information on geo… It couldn’t have been from science of a foreign pagan religion

VS.

ThePalmHQ: “Indeed, it's interesting that of the very few Fathers that speak directly about geostationism, several tell us about their sources.

Anatolius cites Eudemus, Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes. St. Basil speaks generally of "inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth"; notice that he makes this a matter of natural science, not a theological point. Hippolytus cites Ecphantus and Sungenis seems to me to have misread the saint, for Bob asserts that St. Hippolytus is refuting Ecphantus, but it appears to me from the text that St. Hippolytus is merely stating what Ecphantus believed without making any judgment on it. Thus this is actually one less Father that can be cited in support of geostationism or, if Sungenis is correct, then one Father who refutes it. And Methodius speaks of the "Chaldeans and Egyptians", also the mathematicians of the Greeks. Only one Father explicitly cites Scripture on geostationism, but several Fathers reference the Greeks and other pagans on the matter of geostationism. This is what is found in the citations provided by Sungenis himself.”

(continued below)

S said...

(continued from above)

To which, JM replies: “JM- It seems to me David is desperate to reduce the fathers down to a group of confused imbeciles who didn’t know their head from tails regarding where they got that geo doctrine from.”

I would agree that someone here is desperate. After the way in which you have denigrated sainted Popes and other great men of the Church over the last 300 years because they did not believe in geocentrism, your accusation against Palm is risible.

It’s these kinds of win at all cost “responses” that identify you as a “true believer” and a geocentric propagandist, JM. You’re here to market your product (geocentrism) and you’ve received your due praise from your marketing/publicity friend, Rick DeLano for a job well done.

Rick DeLano said...

First off, I failed to acknowledge a very charitable and kind hope expressed about a gazillion posts ago by S.

Thank you, S. I would very much like to met you this side of the pearly gates- perhaps next year at the Second Annual?- but if not then I truly thank you for your expressed hope that we shall meet on the other side of them.

I wish that I could somehow not neglect to recall such kind words when the heat of battle closes in.

I know that I do sometimes forget this.

We grind on and on, at times, and we do not become better for it.

Now of course, retaining that concupiscence bequeathed to all the sons of Adam even after our adoption as sons of God in Christ, it is probable that the very same departures from Christian perfection which I here lament will soon enough evince themselves again.

Nonetheless, thank you for your post.

I wish I would have acknowledged it earlier.

Rick DeLano said...

Now S.

It is true, beyond dispute, that the Holy Catholic Church believed, in 1616, that geocentrism was a matter of faith.

This truth is beyond dispute, since Galileo was formally condemned in a papal sentence for denying it.

It is also true that the Church at no time reversed that condemnation.

It is also true that the Church ceased, as a matter of practice, to enforce this condemnation.

It is this precise ambiguity which tends to set faithful Catholics against each other.

On the one hand, we have the neos, who are convinced that the Church was wrong, as a matter of fact, in condemning the proposition that the Earth moves.

They, of course, are therefore fully invested in showing that this condemnation was either (a) not a matter of Faith (an untenable position, as this debate has conclusively established) or (b) not irreformable ( a much less clear proposition, and one upon which Catholics of good will can legitimately disagree).

The problem, is that even were we to grant (b), there is no formal act of the magisterium which sets aside the condemnation.

Therefore it is *perfectly Catholic* to continue to hold, as a matter of Faith, the apostolic and magisterial teaching expressed in the Galileo condemnations.

I personally have expressed my view that no Catholic can rightly be accused of infidelity for concluding that this doctrine may be in the process of development, since the Church has indicated a willingness to allow the possibility that the 1616 sentence was in error- although these indications are all of them non-magisterial, that is, they *do not enjoy* the charism of the Holy Spirit, in that they are *not* expressions of the deposit of Faith.

They are the opinions of prelates, responding to scientific developments.

Therefore I propose that the issue should be examined on the basis of the newest scientific evidence, just as His Holiness Pope John Paul II suggested in his speech addressing the Galileo controversy.

That evidence strongly supports the truthfulness of Scripture and Holy Mother Church.

Galileo was wrong.

The Church was right.

Isn't that good news, S?

S said...

RD: "Jordanes has calumniated John Martin, and he ought to be ashamed of himself, and he ought to apologize."

RD: “I hope I have not been unfairly selective in my condemnation of Jordanes' hypocrisy.”

Rick, I write this without animus, so please read it that way.

I'm sure Jordanes can speak for and defend himself, but in light of the behavior of your leader, I don't really think you’re being consistent when it comes to accusations of calumny. it does seem to me that you've selective in your condemnations. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I also don’t recall any similar rebuke from you of fellow geocentrist “Juscot” who has lied about Mark Shea and attacked Dave Armstrong’s character in this combox. Perhaps I just missed it.

Jordanes said he suspected that John Martin was using material from Sungenis or is Sungenis or someone else. In light of the links that Jon provided from the theologyweb where johnmartin apparently did at least go to Sungenis for material, I don't think his suspicions are so out of line as to constitute legitimate cause for angry charges of "calumny."

For me, personally, I don’t really care whether Sungenis is providing material to JM. Candidly, and again, not to be unkind, but I hope JM is not getting his arguments from Sungenis for your sake because they're often not very good.

If you'd corrected your leader for his slanders against his bishop and the other people I’ve seen like the Jewish convert, you’d be on more solid ground. But even then, I don’t see a moral equivalence between what Jordanes did and what your leader and Juscot have done.

These are just two that I found:

http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html

With that, let me get back to more pleasant things. I’m glad you noted my well-wish in regard to the pearly gates. It was sincere. And I’m almost a little disappointed that you’re not a Hollywood agent (how would they have mistakenly gotten such an idea?). It sounds like a fascinating job and certainly one in which a devoted Catholic would have plenty of opportunities to crash the gates of hell! LOL

Now, I really have to go to bed. You guys stay up too late for me!

Pax.

HUGH and PEGGY MILLER said...

Palmhq asks: How can dinosaur bones be C-14 dated since supposedly only carbonaceous materials can be so dated. According to the Internet link PalmHQ supplied, C-14 in carbon containing materials can be detected only back to about 60,000 radiocarbon (RC) years.

ANSWER: Paleontologists have known at least since 1990 that there is carbon in dinosaur bones even those that are solid rock [like the giant Seismosaurus imbedded in sandstone (2% carbon)]. 1990 is when our team learned this was so when we used a Leco furnace to run analysis on ~ 10 or so bone fragments from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. We also obtained C % for team Allosaur and Acrocanthosaurus; the Carbon content ranged from 2 to 7.5%. There was NO preservative coatings on these specimens.

When we made the above discoveries we asked ourselves: Hey guys, why not C-14 date some dinosaur bone fragments and see what we get? After all, we hypothesized: (1) If those fossil human footprints that we and other team members excavated in the Glen Rose Cretaceous strata in Texas with dinosaur footprints are valid then we predicted that C-14 dating might provide a clue to dinosaur bone ages www.dinosaurc14ages.com and (2) Since various other teams had dated a burnt tree branch imbedded in this alleged 113 M year old strata at 12,800 C-14 years BP and carbonized wood in the clay between Cretaceous strata in the range 37,500 years then the C-14 ages we should get for dinosaur bones would be in the same range. INDEED OUR PREDICTIONS BECAME REALITY as we obtained C-14 dates ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 C-14 years for six different dinosaurs.

To make a long story short our newly formed Paleochronology team then joined the Glendive MT Dinosaur & Fossil Museum team and sawed opened Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in 2005; and then began sending samples to several licensed C-14 labs again like we did in the 1990's; only this time the labs found the organic compound collagen as did Drs. John Horner and Mary Schweitzer in their T-Rex femur bone [Science, March 2005]. We did not look for soft tissue but believe we saw a blood vessel in one sample of dried-up clumps of Haversian canals that were dated. I showed that in one of my slides at the Geocentricism conference as well as the ages of 23,000 to 33,000 C-14 years within close +/- precision and impressive concordance between bone fractions.

CONCLUSIONS: (1) Those millions and billions of years needed for evolution to be a valid hypothesis of origins don’t appear to even exist as even carbon containing rocks like marble and diamonds contain trace amounts of C-14. (2) C-14 dating of the fossils disproves those long ages which evolutionists unscientifically assume are millions of years old. Thus evolution from goo to you is confirmed to be a fairy tale [Prof. Dr. Larry Azar, RIP)] (3) Science is then indeed catching up with Christ, His Church Fathers and all theologians up to the time of Darwin. (4) Gosh, do you think that even “The Church was right and Galileo was wrong?” Go figure!

The Dabba dabba doo chemist, Hugh Miller & spouse, “Hacksaw Peggy”

Tom Ryan said...

Excellent clarification Hugh!

You carbon date the fossils because they aren't as old as people assume.

http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20080420-Big-Bang-Fizzles-Moses-Sizzles.html

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Rick,

On the one hand, we have the neos, who are convinced that the Church was wrong,

What is a "neo"? Please provide a definition; preferably from established Church terminology. Thanks.

Rick DeLano said...

S:

Thank you for your response.

Jordanes has insinuated without evidence that John Martin is guilty of fraudulent plagiarism and identity fraud.

In all honesty nothing you posted addresses this, and so my admonition stands.

While not an agent, I am in fact involved in the entertainment industry in Hollywood, and it is indeed fun, and it does indeed provide many opportunities to crash the gates of hell.

I hope you will be happy to learn that my position is even better situated for gate crashing than would be, for example, an agent's :-)

I think it is important to address why I never get involved in the "wolf pack" attacks against Bob Sungenis.

Before I accepted a position as a Board member at CAI, Bob Sungenis undertook a public act of repentance and repudiation of any and all treatments of the Jewish question which his bishop had identified as problematic.

He removed these from his website and indicated- in accordance with his bishop's wishes- a desire to limit his future discussions of this question strictly to the theological domain.

His bishop then attempted to impose on Bob a stricture not available to His Excellency without recourse to a canonical trial.

Bob publicly requested that canonical trial.

His Excellency- wisely, I think, since I am personally aware of the advice of one canon lawyer consulted on the question- declined to bring this canonical action.

This same Bishop was responsible for what I can only refer to in sadness as a shockingly inadequate response to the grave heresy allowed, to the shame of the USCCB, to be published on p. 131 of the USCCB Adult Catechism.

The Bishop stated that the following statement was capable of being interpreted in an orthodox fashion:

",,therefore the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses remains eternally valid for them."

Since there can be, of course, no "orthodox interpretation" of the above quoted monstrosity, both Robert Sungenis and to a much less visible extent, yours truly, along with many other faithful Catholics, forthrightly and faithfully, under Canon 212, made known to our pastors our position that the above quote was an heresy, and one which could not be explained away as if it meant the opposite of what it plainly states.

At this point the "wolf pack" undertook a savage campaign against Bob. Every attempt by Bob to address this heresy was responded to by precisely the tactic you employ here, S.

Instead of addressing the heresy, the wolf pack attempted to divert the question into Bob's already-repudiated and repented Jewish question interventions over the years.

The same ones Bob had publicly removed and apologized for, in his attempt to obey his Bishop.

It was in the midst of this grotesque slander campaign that I accepted Bob's invitation to join the Board at CAI.

I am proud to report that the heretical statement was removed from future editions of the Catechism.

I am also proud to report that the "wolf pack" has failed in its efforts to bury Bob's work under its blizzard of attacks.

So please be cordially assured that Jordanes' reprehensible insinuations against John Martin here have no justification by appeal to the actions of Robert Sungenis, or any other person.

I hope this serves to clarify the issues you raised, because the very fact that I have taken time out to address them is to be understood as a reciprocation of your charitable words earlier.

The issue is, of course, not whether Rick is an agent, or whether Bob got into a tussle with his bishop.

The issue is not, even, whether Jordanes owes John Martin an apology (although I think he does).

The issue is whether Bob's monumental work on geocentrism, "Galileo Was Wrong", has successfully introduced Catholics to the astonishing new scientific evidence supporting the wisdom of Holy Mother Church's original condemnations of Galileo.

The answer is:

oh yes.

Just look at the blogs :-)

Rick DeLano said...

Hi Dave:

Neo, I am sorry to have to clarify, is not a theological term.

It is a rhetorical term, employed in combox debates, by me, to signify, at once:

a) the neo is a n(on g)eo. Cute, eh? Well, I thought so :-)

b) The neo is also one who holds to the notion that the traditional Church made a mistake which the modern Church corrected, as regards the condemnation of Galileo.

Hence, "neo", as in one who rejects the traditional Church teaching, in favor of an alleged modern ("new" or "neo") reversal of it.

Rick DeLano said...

Nice to see you, Hugh! Your presentation at the Geo Conference on the collagen found in T Rex and other dinosaur bones, and your astonishing examples of dates obtained from leading carbon-dating facilities on the radiocarbon "age" of these bones, deserves a conference all its own!

I think it was extremely clever of you to submit these bones for RC analysis without identifying them to the labs as dinosaur bones, just to see what dates they would come up with.

The results are truly devastating to the old earthers, in a very similar way that the latest cosmological observations are devastating to the Relativity mainstream.

It is a great time to be a dyed-in-the-wool, rock-ribbed, old-fashioned Catholic.

Dave Armstrong said...

The neo is also one who holds to the notion that the traditional Church made a mistake which the modern Church corrected, as regards the condemnation of Galileo.

And where do Church documents give you the prerogative to pejoratively label someone in this fashion; implying that they are heterodox?

Lacking that, it is simply Protestantizing private judgment; akin to the anti-Catholics calling us "papists" or "Romanists."

Pejorative labeling is a prominent part of prejudice and bigotry (whether deliberate or not). We all know the familiar examples.

Why not stick to objective terms like geocentrist and heliocentrist? Call the person what he calls himself? Isn't that far preferable? You seem to have a concern about charitable interaction, which is good, so I urge to to take this into consideration, too.

Rick DeLano said...

Tell you what, Dave.

Let's you and I set an example here and now for the whole Catholic blogosphere.

Let's agree that we will both eschew personally, and condemn generally whenever they are employed, deprecatory characterizations of the proponents of either side of this issue.

Let us agree that we will both admonish those of either persuasion who descend to ad hominem or defamatory insinuations concerning the motivations of their opponents.

If you're in, Dave, then I'm in.

I am all for the occasional rhetorical zinger, mind you, but I am willing to forego this pleasure if the result is a debate focussed strictly on the issues, and not on the personalities or personal histories of thge participants.

Over to you, Dave......

Dave Armstrong said...

Sounds great to me, Rick. That has always been my policy. I haven't called y'all nothing but geocentrists, which is what you call yourself.

Remember, we are not saying that you are somehow in trouble with the magisterium and tradition because you believe as you do. That is what is being said of us. So there is that taint of heterodoxy that I don't care for one bit, seeing what I have chosen to do with my life and life's work (often with no little cost involved).

Bob decided to run me down personally; disparage my apostolate. I didn't start that, and I continue to abstain from it.

In fact, Bob wrote to me today and asked that I post a reply of his, which I will do as a separate post.

S said...

Rick,

Thanks for your reply.

“Jordanes has insinuated without evidence that John Martin is guilty of fraudulent plagiarism and identity fraud.”

Not to beat a dead horse, but I don’t agree that Jordanes did so “without evidence.” JM’s repeated forgetfulness, contradictory statements and different writing styles at times could very naturally raise suspicions, especially after the links Jon posted.

Again, not that I care one way or the other. What matters are the facts and the arguments, and I don’t find his to be very good.

“While not an agent, I am in fact involved in the entertainment industry in Hollywood, and it is indeed fun, and it does indeed provide many opportunities to crash the gates of hell.

I hope you will be happy to learn that my position is even better situated for gate crashing than would be, for example, an agent's :-)”

LOL Give ‘em heaven, Rick. I hope you enter the fray with Holy Water and a St. Benedict medal around your neck…

But regarding whether or not you’ve been selective in condemning Jordanes, you didn’t mention your geocentric friend Juscot. He lied about Mark Shea and attacked Dave Armstrong’s character. His behaviour has been far worse that what you consider Jordanes to be.

In regard to Sungenis, you didn’t mention what he did to the Jewish convert – Shoeman. I see no reasonable excuse at all for that.

http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm

In regard to your interpretation of events between Sungenis and his bishop, I found most of it irrelevant to the point we're addressing (calumny). What is relevant is that Sungenis publicly accuses his bishop of teaching heresy - the two covenant theory (involving Jews). But his bishop does not teach or believe it. He has clearly stated so on two occasions now. (And if I am reading the history correctly, it seems to me that Sungenis’ refusal to listen to the bishop is predicated on his false accusation against the bishop – although, again, this last point is not directly germane to the issue.)

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html

Sungenis accuses his bishop of bowing before Jews because they allegedly own diocesan property. That is gross calumny. He accuses his bishop of having greater loyalty to Jews than Catholics. That is also gross calumny.

Whatever you think of the propriety of Jordanes expressed suspicions, they pale in comparison to what Juscot and Sungenis have done.

Now, unless you would like to discuss this issue more, I agree with you that it would be better to return to the main topic. And honestly, I think even that is petering out. I don’t think there’s much to be gained by further discussion. We’re just rehashing now.

But I’ll give a brief answer to your last point.
You stated, "Now S. It is true, beyond dispute, that the Holy Catholic Church believed, in 1616, that geocentrism was a matter of faith."

It seems to me that the confusion here emanates from imprecise terminology and a lack of necessary distinctions. I would distinguish between "the Church" and "Churchmen". I would also distinguish between the Church's authority and the Church's infallibility. And finally, I would make the distinctions that the Congregation made between heliostationism and geostationism (and which Palm pointed out). That's just off the top of my head.

Pax.

S said...

Rick,

Thanks for your reply.

“Jordanes has insinuated without evidence that John Martin is guilty of fraudulent plagiarism and identity fraud.”

Not to beat a dead horse, but I don’t agree that Jordanes did so “without evidence.” Again, not that I care one way or the other. What matters are the facts and the arguments, and I don’t find JM's to be very good.

“While not an agent, I am in fact involved in the entertainment industry in Hollywood, and it is indeed fun, and it does indeed provide many opportunities to crash the gates of hell. I hope you will be happy to learn that my position is even better situated for gate crashing than would be, for example, an agent's :-)”

LOL Give ‘em heaven, Rick. I hope you enter the fray with Holy Water and a St. Benedict medal around your neck…

But regarding whether or not you’ve been selective in condemning Jordanes, you didn’t mention your geocentric friend Juscot. He lied about Mark Shea and attacked Dave Armstrong’s character. His behaviour has been far worse that what you consider Jordanes to be.

In regard to Sungenis, you didn’t mention what he did to the Jewish convert – Shoeman. I see no reasonable excuse at all for that.

http://www.pugiofidei.com/fraud.htm

In regard to your interpretation of events between Sungenis and his bishop, I found most of it irrelevant to the point we're addressing (calumny). What is relevant is that Sungenis publicly accuses his bishop of teaching heresy - the two covenant theory (involving Jews). But his bishop does not teach or believe it. He has clearly stated so on two occasions now. (And if I am reading the history correctly, it seems to me that Sungenis’ refusal to listen to the bishop is predicated on his false accusation against the bishop – although, again, this last point is not directly germane to the issue.)

http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishop-rhoades-and-dual-covenant-theory.html

S said...

(continued)

Sungenis accuses his bishop of bowing before Jews because they allegedly own diocesan property. That is gross calumny. He accuses his bishop of having greater loyalty to Jews than Catholics. That is also gross calumny.

Whatever you think of the propriety of Jordanes expressed suspicions, they pale in comparison to what Juscot and Sungenis have done.

Now, unless you would like to discuss this issue more, I agree with you that it would be better to return to the main topic. And honestly, I think even that has petered out. I don’t see much to be gained by further discussion. I thought we were before, but we're definitely rehashing now.

But I’ll give a brief answer to your last point.
You stated, "Now S. It is true, beyond dispute, that the Holy Catholic Church believed, in 1616, that geocentrism was a matter of faith."

It seems to me that the confusion here emanates from imprecise terminology and a lack of necessary distinctions. I would distinguish between "the Church" and "Churchmen". I would also distinguish between the Church's authority and the Church's infallibility. And finally, I would make the distinctions that the Congregation made between heliostationism and geostationism (and which Palm pointed out). That's just off the top of my head.

Pax.

S said...

JM, I missed this question.

JM: "what miserable behaviour? Please quote the statements made which you find offensive and state why."

Where did you get the word "miserable?" I didn't write "miserable," I wrote "misbehavior." However, while I didn't use the word "offensive", either, I have found your denigration of 99.99% of all Catholics over the last 300 years as dupes or traitors - sainted Popes, bishops and laymen - offensive. And I've found the way that you try to force geocentrism on Catholics as a matter of obedience to God and Church offensive.

I think I understand the reason for your dedication to geocentrism, but your approach leaves something to be desired. I appreciate that Rick has at least acknowledged that Catholics of good will can disagree on aspects of these issues.

This thread has run its course. I'd like to thank Dave Armstrong for an interesting experience and Jordanes, Adomnan, and Palm for their work. I'd also like to thank JM and Rick DeLano for theirs (and the latter, especially, for playing a part in helping to create a more civil atmosphere toward the end).

I've wondered about geocentrism over the last couple of years but have come to the conclusion that it is not a matter of faith, at the very least. Your work and time here has helped firmly convince me of that.

If I've upset anyone or written anything unkind, please accept my apologies. I wish everyone a blessed Thanksgiving and Christmas.

johnmartin said...

I may have missed answering David’s comments on the fathers made previously.

D- Here are some of the many examples in which the Fathers are wrong on details, even from a modern geocentrist perspective. Again, these should all count against establishing any sort of patristic consensus given the standards deployed elsewhere.

D- Augustine: "And yet, when it pleased Him who with sovereignty and supreme power regulates all He has created, a star conspicuous among the rest by its size and splendor changed its color, size, form, and, most wonderful of all, the order and law of its course!" (City of God, Book XXI, Ch 8) But the sun is NOT conspicuous for its size and splendor. There are billions of stars as big or bigger than it.

JM- “sun is NOT conspicuous for its size and splendor” and size and splendor of the sun are not found in the sacred deposit. The error made above is only in science and not a matter of faith.

D- Clement of Rome: "The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation." (First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch XX). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the moon's path DOES change and the distance to the earth DOES change. Do geocentrists deny this?

JM- Simple really David – “without any deviation” is connected to “His command” and “within their prescribed limits”. Therefore “without any deviation” is not connected to a change in path or distance as though this is not possible “within their prescribed limits”. Do you really think Clamnet never saw the moons position change over a year? Common man.

D- Gregory Nanzianzus: "The sun is extolled by David for its beauty, its greatness, its swift course, and its power, splendid as a bridegroom, majestic as a giant; while, from the extent of its circuit, it has such power that it equally sheds its light from one end of heaven to the other, and the heat thereof is in no wise lessened by distance. (Funeral Orations for St. Basil, 66). Try saying that while on Mercury vs. Pluto.

JM- “equally sheds its light from one end of heaven to the other, and the heat thereof is in no wise lessened by distance.” is based upon the science of the day and is nowhere located in scripture or tradition. David is only showing the early fathers made errors on science outside the sacred deposit.

D- Gregory of Nyssa: "And how does earth below form the foundation of the whole, and what is it that keeps it firmly in its place? what is it that controls its downward tendency?" (Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book) There is nothing pulling the earth "down".

JM- “the foundation of the whole” from below is merely stating what is above is drawn down below. Like dropping a stone down a well towards its foundation. Nothing ere against geo at all.
. . .

johnmartin said...

D- Gregory of Nyssa: "And when you look at the waning and waxing moon you are taught other truths by the visible figure of that heavenly body, viz. that it is in itself devoid of light, and that it revolves in the circle nearest to the earth" (On the Soul and Resurrection). Not a "circle", sorry. Geocentrists have for centuries had to admit that the orbits are ellipses.

JM- David picks up on the technicalities of circle as opposed to an ellipse, which is very close to a circle. Geos say the church has spoken on the stationary earth as being a matter of faith. The church has never spoken on the exact motion of the moon as being a matter of faith, so Gregory of Nyssa is speaking of matters outside faith. Therefore he is speaking of science, in which he is very close to the truth.

D- Hippolytus: “But that the circle of the sun is twenty-seven times larger than the moon, and that the sun is situated in the highest (quarter of the firmament); whereas the orbs of the fixed stars in the lowest.” (Refutation of All Heresies, Bk V, Ch 22) Wrong twice.

JM- And statements are on the science of the day, which are not against anything found in the deposit of faith.


D- Archelaus: “Then, again, the living Spirit created the luminaries, which are fragments of the soul" (Disputation with Manes, 22) The stars are "fragments of the soul"? Well, no, sorry.....St. Jerome thought the idea was idiotic.

JM- It sounds like poetry to me David. Was Archelaus being literal about what he said? Prove it.


D- Gregory of Nyssa: "when the body of heaven compassed all things round, and those bodies which are heavy and of downward tendency, the earth and the water, holding each other in, took the middle place of the universe" (On the Making of Man, 30, 1, 1) The earth is in the center of the universe because it's the heaviest? Well, no. And also, this is a purely pseudo-scientific reason for saying the earth is in the center rather than suggesting it was from Tradition. Sorry there, too

JM- David says “The earth is in the center of the universe because it's the heaviest? Well, no.” David’s statement confuses what Gregory of Nyssa was saying. He was not saying the earth is in the center of the universe because it's the heaviest, he is saying the “body of heaven compassed all things round” which is probably the firmament or aether revealed in scripture is the mechanism by which “holding each other in” includes the earth at the centre. David’s statements about pseudo science reasoning are false.


D- Basil : “the celestial bodies move in a circular course” (Nine Homilies of the Haxameron, Homily I ) No, they do not "move in a circular course". Again, they are ellipses. Geocentrists agree with that, do they not?

JM- And the circle is very close to an ellipse. David is being picky about details not revealed in the sacred deposit.


D- St. Cyril of Jerusalem states that the “firmament” is literally comprised of water. But modern geocentrists don’t believe that.

JM- No quote given. Anyway the content of the firmament was not revealed, so Clament was making a statement based upon the science of the day, which involves some assumed principles from revelation.

johnmartin said...

D- There are many more examples that could be cited, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate the problem. According to a certain apologist's standards, if these witnesses can't get the details right then they simply cannot be said to form a unanimous witness.


JM- The real problem is that the fathers assumed the truths from revelation such as the firmament, the stationary earth and moving sun and moon and these truths were taught universally – especially the stationary earth. These truths are found in the deposit and the stationary earth was taught by the church as being a matter of faith. David’s examples do nothing to overcome the universal consent, the scriptures, the church statements (including the catechism of the council of Trent). His these that the fathers made mistakes in science does nothing to overturn the reality that the fathers thought God had only revealed some truths about nature to man. Some of these truths have since been verified by science and some have been given the church’s stamp of approval.

JM

johnmartin said...

S- However, while I didn't use the word "offensive", either, I have found your denigration of 99.99% of all Catholics over the last 300 years as dupes or traitors - sainted Popes, bishops and laymen - offensive.

JM- I find it very offensive you see fit to ignore all the examples given on other doctrines in which the church has seen fit to ignore as well and you have the gall to say my statements are offensive when your position it completely untenable. The church has spoken on the matter and the church has made direct and non reformed statements about the stationary earth. The church magsterium later ignored those in the church who teach the earth moves.

If we acknowledge this obvious truth, how else can we explain the church's actions over recent centuries other than cowardly and inept? It is simply a conclusion when we sift through the facts of history and no response on this thread has done anything to overturn these facts.

S- And I've found the way that you try to force geocentrism on Catholics as a matter of obedience to God and Church offensive.

JM- Fine. I find the way you twist my intent and statements very offensive. I also find the way you attack my personal character when it suits you offensive as well.

S -I think I understand the reason for your dedication to geocentrism, but your approach leaves something to be desired.

JM- My approach is to be faithful to the church's official teaching and that teaching has been shown to be clearly in favor of geo. The helios are yet to overturn the church's clear teaching that a moving earth is heresy and they know it.

S- I appreciate that Rick has at least acknowledged that Catholics of good will can disagree on aspects of these issues.

JM- Fine. You should review your approach to the way you address fellow Catholics and stop twisting their statements and making projections into their motives, based upon false principles.

JM

johnmartin said...

Dave - Remember, we are not saying that you are somehow in trouble with the magesterium and tradition because you believe as you do. That is what is being said of us. So there is that taint of heterodoxy that I don't care for one bit, seeing what I have chosen to do with my life and life's work (often with no little cost involved).

JM - But the helio position has been spoken against by several church authorities. These statements are all consistently in favor of geo and they are consistent in their condemnation of a moving earth as heresy. These are historical facts. There are however no condemnations against geo. Therefore the helio position is not merely an optional position for the Catholic. A Catholic who embraces helio must wrestle with these official church decisions and try to explain to us Catholic geo's why we shouldn't use the same language used by the Popes and congregation concerning the issue of the moving earth.

I am well aware of the objective and subjective distinction concerning the proclamation of a statement by the church and the subsequent adoption of a doctrine by individual Catholics. Then again, educated Catholics now have the information at hand from church history, dogmatic theology, ecclesiology and science to delve deeply into the issue. Once all the issues are covered, the geo position is soundly vindicated. So in the end the Catholic geo accounts for the modern Catholic mind and the modern confusion, but the Catholic geo also knows the church has spoken and the faithful Catholic must submit to the church. There is only one way out of this – the Catholic helio must show the Catholic geo where the church has officially overturned the previous statements condemning the moving earth. Of course the church has not done this because it is protect by the HS.

So the upshot of all this is, charity must prevail, but the church teaching on the moving earth has been condemned as heresy. This is the current position and faithful Catholics must give their assent. If we are pushed to describe the Catholic helio then the Catholic geo can legitimately use the same wording used by the church. Why wouldn’t we Dave? After all Catholics should always use the language of the church when making objective statements. The Catholic as always is not free to teach against what the church has taught – this is a well known principle. The church has spoken on the stationary earth and therefore we Catholics cannot teach a doctrine against church teaching.

Dave, I very much appreciate your apologetic works, but on this issue of geocentrism you are not well versed. That’s not a condemnation of your abilities in any way. It’s only stating my evaluation of your statements about geo and your conviction that arguments made by Mr. Hoge, Mr. Cole and Mr. Palm were convincing. Yet all these arguments were answered. So the current situation as far as I can see it for you Dave is the following –

You embrace a moving earth theory.
You probably think there is scientific evidence for a moving earth.
You have indicated the matter of geo is not a matter of faith.
As far as I know you have not made statements about the binding nature of the church’s statements on a moving earth.
You have not read Robert book, GWW.
You have cited several arguments against geo, which have been substantially answered.

You have the option of delving more deeply into the geo controversy and reading GWW to obtain a more informed opinion on the matter. You have seen some of the church documents on the matter, which are consistently in favor of geo.

Conclusion – You are a first rate Catholic apologist who has a void in his knowledge on the matter of geo, particularly pertaining to the scientific evidence. It’s now up to you to inform yourself and then make up your mind.

I think I have been very fair throughout this thread and my statements about your position on the matter of geo accurately reflect what has occurred on your board.

I still think you are a champion man Dave . . . a real champion.

JM

johnmartin said...

Where is David Palm and all those answers to all those probing questions?

Where is David Palm with all those responses to my clear rebuttals?

I hope he returns with at least some direct and clear answers. We shall see . . .

Where are the answers to my rebuttals of Mr. Hoge and Mr. Coles objections to geo?

Where are the official statements from the church overturning the church’s statement concerning the moving earth is heresy?

Where is the science evidence to overturn geo?

Where is the church’s official statement to overturn the patristic consent on a stationary earth?

Why would anyone want to be catholic if the church overturned the patristic consent anyway? It seems very arbitrary for the church to say the consent is binding and then act to overturn it when the fathers held to what many consider to be an ancient quirk. That’s the position the helios are forced to make with the fathers and church authority. It’s a self defeating position.


JM

Rick DeLano said...

Well there it is, Dave.

I'm in, as I said.

If you see me departing from this our covenant here or anywhere else please be good enough to shiver my timbers.

I'll do the same in reciprocation :-)

I hope that all defenders of geocentrism will be sensitive to the ambiguity inherent in this (and only this- plus one other to my knowledge) instance of the magisterium proposing a binding doctrine under the ordinary magisterium, and then abandoning- not reversing!- it.

The unique nature of these two instances- the other being the condemnation of usury- require the utmost care in extending the same latitude the Church Herself extends.

I have said before, and I believe Bob entirely agrees, that no one should be considered less of a Catholic for disbelieving the Church's ancient teaching on geocentrism, until the Church Herself should deign to issue clarification on the state of development, if any, of the doctrine.

But I will conclude with this solemn promise:

God will never be displeased with a Catholic who, having established that Christ's Church has authoritatively bound the faithful on a matter of Faith, refuses to be separated from that doctrine, unless and until the Church formally reverses or amends that binding.

There is no question- not the slightest room for doubt- that the Catholic Church taught authoritatively, and bound authoritatively, that the propositions of the Sun's motionlessness and centrality, and of the Earth's motion, were both contrary to *faith*.

There has never been a heaven-protected act of the magisterium reversing these acts.

May Christ Our Lord bring forth good from this our debate.

Dave Armstrong said...

Hi Rick,

I have said before, and I believe Bob entirely agrees, that no one should be considered less of a Catholic for disbelieving the Church's ancient teaching on geocentrism,

Then why did he make the blasts against my Catholicism and my apologetics that he made if he believes this?

Rick DeLano said...

I believe Bob's criticism was specifically directed toward your treatment of the *facts* in the Galileo case, Dave.

Jordanes said...

I hope I have not been unfairly selective in my condemnation of Jordanes' hypocrisy.

Perhaps not unfairly selective. Just dreadfully wrong.

But Jordanes' (quite surprising) hypocrisy in his unsubstantiated accusations against John cannot be allowed to pass unopposed.

I made no accusations at all, but did express suspicions based on what we've seen about the individual posting under the screen name "John Martin."

I reiterate: for Jordanes to accuse, without the slightest substantiation,

Jon's comment provided me with probable cause to voice my suspicions.

from behind the anonymity of his screen alter ego,

Partial anonymity. You do not know my full name or where I live, etc., and that is how it will remain. Sadly, years ago a harrowing run in with someone I will charitably call an Internet stalker convinced me to take appropriate measures to protect my family and myself from any further brushes with physical danger.

You may huff and puff about the supposed hypocrisy of wondering what is going on with the comments of John Martin when I shield myself with a degree of anonymity (pseudonymity is not the word for it), but I and I alone have composed and posted my comments. What John Martin may have done here, we know what he has done elsewhere, and so I have my suspicions.

Jordanes said...

that John Martin- a man who posts under his real name,

Presumably he does, though a number of his comments sound very different from a number of his other comments, and we've now learned that he has acted before as sort of an amanuensis for another. It's hardly unwarranted to wonder if that is what he, or someone using the name "John Martin," has done here. If you say that the person commenting under that name is using his real name, I will have to take your word for it -- just as you can (and will have to) take my word for it that I alone have posted comments here under my name Jordanes.

But all the same -- whether he is posting his own comments or relaying the words of someone else, or someone else is posting comments under his name, he has failed to establish that the Church says geocentrism is an article of faith, and has offered no better explanation for the Church's actions in the 1700s and 1800s granting liberty in this matter than to allege that the Church's leaders have been cowardly and grievously derelict in their responsibilities and infected by erroneous philosophy and theology. But as I've said already, John is manifestly unequipped to address these matters -- and I deem it's a waste of time and energy to devote any further efforts toward countering his errors and illogic.

as I do- is engaging in identity fraud is.......well. It is hypocrisy, is what it is.

Well, you do not know or are not attentive to all of the relevant facts.

It is quite another to calumniate. Jordanes has calumniated John Martin, and he ought to be ashamed of himself, and he ought to apologize.

That I emphatically deny. I have calumniated no one.

Anyway, I agree with S. that this thread has run its course (though I think it did that probably about 300 comments ago).

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 446   Newer› Newest»