Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[Rick09]

I tell you what, read me a story about peter pan and the lost doughnut. If you do a good job, i will seriously consider mastering and advocating geocentric conspiracy theory apologetics for your crew. However i must warn you, i charge a flat-rate of no less than £500,000,000 an hour.

The more I begin to see and understand the beauty and simplicity of the geocentrist logic and world-view, the more I see how Peter Pan and the lost doughnut could be involved in the whole darned conspiracy. But could you spell it out a little more for me, just to make sure? I’ll work on getting that £500,000,000 for you once I find out who is running this whole show. They must be very powerful and have a lot of money. But I may have to prove myself to him more before he’ll let me in and have access to the hidden caches of gold.

 

[grannymh]

I hate mars bars.

Hey granny, how is that this thread still exists? Are you a flat earther?

I’m not flat any place…

 

[rossum]

I’m not flat any place…

It’s official then. Granny has a pointed head.

rossum

 

[DavidPalm]

Hope you all had a good weekend.

It seems that we’re positioned between a Catholic who believes too much and a Catholic who believes too little. Perhaps an indication that we’re on the right track.

We have already seen that neo-geocentrism can only be maintained in the realm of science via a massive exercise in special pleading, gummed together with conspiracy theories. The same is true in the ecclesiastical realm. The points I’ll make below apply primarily to excubitor, but will also address razredge’s assertions.

I have laid out the Catholic Church’s canonical maxims with regard to the strict interpretation of penalties/condemnations. All such penalties and condemnations must be interpreted strictly, that is as narrowly and as limited as possible. It’s just a simple matter of justice. excubitor hasn’t stated whether he’s willing to accept the Church’s canonical norms. But he seems to hold stark double standard–he strives to interpret a condemnation that seems to apply to his own views very strictly, but those documents that apply to heliocentrism he interprets very broadly. He extends the view from a very strict Pythagorean heliocentrism in which the sun is the center of the whole universe, to embrace all non-geocentric views including acentrism. It’d be interesting to see him try to explain this double standard in light of the Church’s own canonical norms.

excubitor claims that all the criteria were met for an ex cathedra definition. But several of the criteria aren’t met. Most importantly, the definition of Vatican I says “when…he defines” and “such definitions of the Roman Pontiff”. Put simply, in this case the Roman Pontiff did not define. There is no document containing any doctrinal definition on geocentrism bearing the Pope’s signature. If excubitor thinks such a document exists, let him produce it. But the 1616 committee report does not qualify, nor does the 1633 decree from the Holy Office. The documents we are discussing came from various committees/congregations and were approved at most in forma communi, a lower and indirect mode. Some additional detail on this level of approval may be found here. The output of the various Roman congregations, approved only in forma communi, just aren’t papal actions per se and therefore can never meet the criteria of an ex cathedra declaration. This is how Dr. Ludwig Ott put it:

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum,” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 10; emphasis mine).

In this case, many competent experts including no less than the Pope himself have determined that the decision did rest on an error (see John Paul II’s address to the PAS). If excubitor and razredge continue to contend that the output of a Roman congregation approved only in forma communi can serve as an ex cathedra definition then they need to pony up with evidence to the contrary from a competent authority. Their private judgment just isn’t sufficient.

As Alec has mentioned, Catholics noticed immediately after the 1633 decree that it didn’t come from the Pope himself. What’s more it’s very clear that the most competent authorities, the Popes themselves, didn’t think that this matter had been officially defined ex cathedra by their predecessor. If excubitor wants to contend that it was, then he’s got to explain 1) how all of these Popes failed to miss what he insists is obvious and clear and 2) how then they are not guilty of dereliction of duty and outright heresy by their words and actions in light of what he contends was an unmistakable definition ex cathedra. Otherwise he is, as the commissary general of the Holy Office pointed out in 1820, caught judging himself by his own principles. And the more he insists that this issue was settled by a solemn pronouncement ex cathedra, the more he solidifies that he does indeed fall under the condemnation of Auctorem Fidei, for he can hardly fluff off geocentrism as “less important” after working so hard to build up its importance.

[to be continued…]

 

[DavidPalm]

Let’s go further.

The 1633 decree concerned the person of Galileo and his breach of his 1616 agreement. This was a personal and disciplinary matter. Interpreting strictly, this can’t serve as a doctrinal definition, let alone be proposing some matter to the entire Church as a matter of faith. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. (Galileo; my emphasis)

Further, interpreting strictly, the committee report of 1616 is cited in the 1633 decree, but it isn’t explicitly adopted or approved. This was noted by the commissary general of the Holy Office in 1820:

So the evaluations of theologians constitute an authentic and solemn judgment of the Pope and of the Cardinals? Not at all, for it happens very frequently that such recommended censures are not approved or are adopted only in part (cited in Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, 206).

And:

The censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of “false and contrary to Sacred Scripture,” as it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo; in it he is attributed the crime of having defended, or at least having represented as probable, an opinion “after it had been declared and defined contrary to Sacred Scripture.” All the rest is folly. (Retrying, 206).

In addition, I have already noted that even the neo-geocentrists have to admit that the theological commission’s statement that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false in philosophy” isn’t correct. The commission can only be speaking in terms of “natural philosophy” or as we would say, scientifically. If the neo-geocentrists claim that this is not restricted to natural philosophy but that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false” in broader philosophical terms then they need to prove that case. But I submit that that case will itself be absurd and will be an exercise in special pleading. For good reason scholars agree that natural philosophy is in view here and even the neo-geocentrists have to admit that today, with the confirmation of the observations made in the seventeenth century, bolstered by innumerable additional observations, the earth’s motion is no longer “absurd and false in philosophy”. Therefore, the major premise of the theological commission is in error.

This is not just a private observation on my part. This fact is developed by the commissary general of the Holy Office in 1820 and formed an important part of the Holy Office’s deliberations, which led to positive permission from the Holy Office for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church, with the Pope’s approval. But I think I’d prefer just to link to the essay in which I am laying that out rather than develop that further here (if I ever get a chance to finish it!)

In science, geocentrism represents an exercise in special pleading gummed together with conspiracy theories. So too when we turn to the ecclesiastical realm. With respect to the Church’s own canonical norms for the geocentrists it’s “one standard for me and another for thee”. And we see too that it’s an exercise in pitting their private judgment against the mind of the Church.

 

[grannymh]

It’s official then. Granny has a pointed head.

rossum

Pointed head - the better to direct you up to heaven.:heaven:

 

[hansgeorg]

Further, interpreting strictly, the committee report of 1616 is cited in the 1633 decree, but it isn’t explicitly adopted or approved. This was noted by the commissary general of the Holy Office in 1820:

So the evaluations of theologians constitute an authentic and solemn judgment of the Pope and of the Cardinals? Not at all, for it happens very frequently that such recommended censures are not approved or are adopted only in part (cited in Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, 206).

And:

The censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of “false and contrary to Sacred Scripture,” as it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo; in it he is attributed the crime of having defended, or at least having represented as probable, an opinion “after it had been declared and defined contrary to Sacred Scripture.” All the rest is folly. (Retrying, 206).

In addition, I have already noted that even the neo-geocentrists have to admit that the theological commission’s statement that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false in philosophy” isn’t correct. The commission can only be speaking in terms of “natural philosophy” or as we would say, scientifically. If the neo-geocentrists claim that this is not restricted to natural philosophy but that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false” in broader philosophical terms then they need to prove that case.

Wow. “The censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of ‘false and contrary to Sacred Scripture,’ as it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo.” Merely? Did it say not proven? Did it say doubtful? Did it say false but only in natural philosophy? No. It said “false and contrary to Sacred Scripture”. It also said “false and absurd in natural philosophy”.

Are we supposed to wait until something is classified as “false and contrary to Sacred Scripture as well as in itself pernicious for salvation” before we see any kind of even ever had been obligation for Catholics to abstain from a sentence?

If a man in a conversation hears the story of Abraham and says “well, I do not believe he got a son when he was hundred, not if his wife was only ten years younger” he is not automatically in for damnation, but such a sentence is certainly “false and contrary to Sacred Scripture”.

Or are we supposed to wait until in natural science, once known as “natural philosophy”, a postition is not only “false and absurd” in itself, but, above all, “discredited and abandoned by the scientific community” as if that was more important than factual truth? Or must “ideologically tainted” be added to “false and absurd” in the philosophical side of a question before it dawns on your mind that the commission - including St Robert Bellarmine - qualified a moving earth as the equivalent of what ought to be the meaning of “unscientific”?

In addition, where did you get this from: I have already noted that even the neo-geocentrists have to admit that the theological commission’s statement that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false in philosophy” isn’t correct. If neo-geocentric means anything, it means precisely saying that motion of earth is absurd and false in philosophy. Thus saying that the theological commission was perfectly correct about that one.

It seems you decide on how to treat an argument on acoustic or doctrinal grounds. Acoustic grounds would be “since this does not sound exactly like my colleagues’ usual rigmarole, it is special, and obviously it is pleading for something, so it is special pleading” whereas doctrinal grounds would be “since this pleads for geocentrism and that implies special pleading, as my professor used to say when he went through the geocentric arguments he recognised, this is special pleading”. Deciding on real logical grounds whether a thing is special pleading or good logic is not really your forte, is it, Mister Palm?

Dear St Gilbert the Norbertine, patron saint of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, do pray for us!

 

[hansgeorg]

Put simply, in this case the Roman Pontiff did not define. There is no document containing any doctrinal definition on geocentrism bearing the Pope’s signature. If excubitor thinks such a document exists, let him produce it.

What about the order that the decision of the commission* be sent to all Universities throughout the Catholic World?

But let us proceed a little: supposing the Roman Pontiff Urban VIII was not making a definition, how could it ever be even proposed that recent approvals from the latest two Popes-If-Such constitute a kind of Papal guarantee of the contrary?

• law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html - called in the link, which is by a faculty of law, “Papal Condemnation”, here is English text anyway.

 

[excubitor]

Let’s go further.

The 1633 decree concerned the person of Galileo and his breach of his 1616 agreement. This was a personal and disciplinary matter. Interpreting strictly, this can’t serve as a doctrinal definition, let alone be proposing some matter to the entire Church as a matter of faith. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says,

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. (Galileo; my emphasis)

It’s absurd to imagine that the church and the Pope proceeded to charge Galileo with heresy if it had not defined it as heresy. You have completely ignored my previous posts which make quite clear that the Pope commanded his office of the Holy See to act against the mischievious doctrine of heliocentrism. Notice the miserable little comment by the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Pope did not sign the document. Is that to discredit the document and make out that it did not have a papal mandate and endorsement.

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia trying to suggest that the seven cardinals who signed the document were all lieing and that the Pope did not actually command the condemnation of heresy when the document clearly states that he did.

The papal condemnation specifically declared heliocentrism and the notion that the earth is not at the centre of the universe as being FORMALLY HERETICAL. It does not seem to matter how much I point this out, people have their heads in the sand. Notice that this document was a PAPAL condemnation. That word papal indicates that it came from the pope.

The reason people ignore facts which are as plain as the nose on your face is because they find the implications of that fact to unbearable to accept. This is very evident in the protestant religion where they must read the scriptures with a filter on so that they can ignore the clear implications of scripture.

But we do it as Catholics too. The Church plainly and without equivoction defined heliocentrism as heresy which places Catholics in a horrible bind. On the one hand modern Catholics believe in the indefectability of the church and the infallibility of the Pope, but then on the other hand they believe what the world teaches, and what scientists teach. It’s kind of like in the old movies where you see the robot which is given an irrevocable command that goes against its prime directive. It kinds of gets into a lurch going backwards and forwards, then smoke starts spewing out of its head then the top of its head blows off and springs fly out.

That’s the modern Catholic, but to prevent his head blowing off he applies a filter on his reading of the papal condemnation of Galileo and somehow comes out with the ludicrous opinion that the church had not and did not define heliocentrism as heresy. As if the Pope by command was charging Galileo for uttering heresy for that which had not been defined as heresy. Utterly ludicrous.

Even Catholic Encyclopedia goes down this track. Notice that they never reproduce the clear and unambiguous statements of that document, they just give their own waffly account of what it says and what the Pope was saying and what his motives are. The document clearly states (and logic should make it obvious) that the reason they acted so forcefully against Galileo was because they understood (as we fail to do today) how injurious to the faith this heresy was. Do we really think that they simply had it in for poor old Galileo?

Here is Galileo’s own personal rejection of his own doctrine a year before his death. This was unbidden, he was not at this point being forced to recant

“The falsity of the Copernican system should not in any way be called into question, above all, not by Catholics, since we have the unshakeable authority of the Sacred Scripture, interpreted by the most erudite theologians, whose consensus gives us certainty regarding the stability of the Earth, situated in the center, and themotion of the sun around the Earth. The conjectures employed by Copernicus and his followers in maintaining the contrary thesis are all sufficiently rebutted by that most solid argument deriving from the omnipotence of God.” Galileo Galilei, 1641, a year before his death

How ironic that the fellow lauded for discovering that we go about the sun, denied that to be the case in the most emphatic terms.

So from the words of Galileo himself. The reason we believe the that the earth is at the centre of the universe and is not moving is solidly derived from the omnipotence of God.

 

[excubitor]

In addition, I have already noted that even the neo-geocentrists have to admit that the theological commission’s statement that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false in philosophy” isn’t correct. The commission can only be speaking in terms of “natural philosophy” or as we would say, scientifically. If the neo-geocentrists claim that this is not restricted to natural philosophy but that the motion of the earth is “absurd and false” in broader philosophical terms then they need to prove that case. But I submit that that case will itself be absurd and will be an exercise in special pleading. For good reason scholars agree that natural philosophy is in view here and even the neo-geocentrists have to admit that today, with the confirmation of the observations made in the seventeenth century, bolstered by innumerable additional observations, the earth’s motion is no longer “absurd and false in philosophy”. Therefore, the major premise of the theological commission is in error.

I’m happy to do some special pleading. If that’s what it takes to get my brothers in the faith to wake up from their slumber and see that we are being deceived by these wise men of this world, these scientists. Wake up brothers and sisters and believe your church, believe your scriptures. Believe as all the fathers of the church believed. Believe as the apostles and the prophets all believed. Believe as Solomon believed, the wisest man who ever lives, so says the scripture, who was given all kinds of wonderful insights of the natural world such that people came from all over the world to hear his wisdom and insights.

Why would God give such incredible insights to Solomon and state him to be the wisest man on earth with the very wisdom of God, and leave him in ignorance on a matter so important as the position of our earth in the universe? Believe Solomon who believed God.

 

[excubitor]

David, notice your watering down of terms. You call it a “theological commission”. No David. It was a Formal Tribunal of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office by special and direct command of his Holiness the Pope, signed by the Eminent Lords Cardinals of the Holy Inquisition.

It also states in the opening paragraph that the purpose of their activities was to

“proceed against the disorder and mischief” which was resulting in a “prejudice against the Holy Faith” caused by the “two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth”

and they didn’t just say that it was philosophically absurd and false. They expressly stated that the propositions were “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture”

The propositions are also elsewhere in the document described as
“false doctrine”
“contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture”
"false opinion "
“a doctrine so pernicious "
“grave prejudice of Catholic truth”
“false and wholly contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture”
“a most grievous error”
“has been **declared and defined **to be contrary to divine Scripture”
“**commanded **not to hold, defend, or teach the doctrine in question in any way whatever”
“it is **declared **that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held”
“said opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture”
" false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures”
“**declared and defined **to be contrary to the Holy Scripture”
“errors and heresies”
“error and **heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church **”
"grave and pernicious error and transgression "
“**prohibited **by public edict”

Not only did they say this, but they passed judgement invoking even the name of our Holy Mother. Listen to this.

"Invoking, therefore, the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His most glorious Mother, ever Virgin Mary, but this our final sentence, which sitting in judgment, with the counsel and advice of the Reverend Masters of sacred theology and Doctors of both Laws, our assessors, we deliver in these writings, in the cause and causes at present before us between the Magnificent Carlo Sinceri, Doctor of both Laws, Proctor Fiscal of this Holy Office, of the one part, and your Galileo Galilei, the defendant, here present, examined, tried, and confessed as shown above, of the other part

and this was the finding

vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture

So there you have it David. It has been declared and defined as being contrary to the Holy Scripture. It is a final sentence invoking the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and his glorious Mother, ever virgin. Commanded by the Pope on the advice of the most senior theologians of the church of that day (one of which is now a doctor and saint of the church). Signed by seven eminent Lords Cardinals, with the full backing of the
Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the
Sacred Congregation of the Index, and the
Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition.

And you have the gall, to call it a mere “theological commision”. Not only that you say it was “in error”. Not just in small part, but in its major premise. Incredible. The church invoking the name of our Lord and his Mother in major error!!! What are you saying David?

You find one, just one dogma of the church which is declared and defined as contrary to the scriptures with more vehemence and certitude than this one.

I suggest that all you neo-heliocentrists follow the command of the Eminent Lords Cardinals and

" with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you."

as I have done.

By the way from the dictionary, Abjuration is the solemn repudiation, abandonment, or renunciation by or upon oath.

 

[hansgeorg]

Or must “ideologically tainted” be added to “false and absurd” in the philosophical side of a question before it dawns on your mind that the commission - including St Robert Bellarmine - qualified a moving earth as the equivalent of what ought to be the meaning of “unscientific”?

Dear St Gilbert the Norbertine, patron saint of Gilbert Keith Chesterton, do pray for us!

He seems to have heard me, so I could correct above: St Robert was only present physically at first trial. He died 1621.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It also states in the opening paragraph that the purpose of their activities was to

“proceed against the disorder and mischief” which was resulting in a “prejudice against the Holy Faith” caused by the “two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth”

and they didn’t just say that it was philosophically absurd and false. They expressly stated that the propositions were “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture”

Well, if your interpretation is right, I guess you going to have to believe in a flat earth to, no?

 

[grannymh]

Wow. "The censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of ‘false and contrary to Sacred Scripture,’ as it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo."

While we are looking at the word “merely”, may we also look at the person of Galileo in the years in which he lived, 1564-1642.

Since I have been on CAF, just about every descriptive adjective has been attached to his name…from heretic to hero. In short, he was pivotal in western history. His discoveries, whether true or false, shook the competitive intellectual community because the reputation of universities was at stake. Galileo scared Protestants as well as Catholics. Those in other areas of discoveries, such as medical/anatomy, were concerned about their freedom. The fruits of the Renaissance, some good, some bad, were everywhere, inside and outside of the Catholic Church.

In addition, the local trial of the person of Galileo took place in the shadow of the Council of Trent.

“The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it.” Taken from
newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

During Trent, Holy Scripture was a concern in itself. This has been pointed out in CAF threads. Yet, Trent did not define an individual theological dogma about the physical movement or non-movement of one planet in the entire universe.

Obviously, various bishops at Trent would have discussed Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) among themselves. Yet, there was no formally declared dogma regarding various scientific speculations about the operating system of the universe. Remember that all kinds of speculations about physics have existed since the days of the early Church Fathers. Yet, through the centuries, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, assent to one particular scientific theory was never declared a theological dogma.

Instead of science from the Fathers, the proper Councils chose Genesis 1:1.

Fast forward to Galileo. The general concern about scientific discoveries existed. (refer to the beginning of this post) The various Catholic commissions and congregations could censure Galileo regarding Scripture. There could be decrees from a local judicial trial regarding the one person of Galileo. The four-letter word heresy could be used.

Yet, the power to declare an official theological dogma of physics was absent.
That is why, only clever twists of language are produced instead of a real theological dogma in the area of physics.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1.

 

[Rick09]

A Statement by the Leading Advocate for and Supposed Expert on Geocentrism, Robert Sungenis:

Let me also speak about the issue of geocentrism. As you know, I have recently published a book with my co-author, Dr. Robert Bennett, titled, Galileo Was Wrong. CAI will continue to promote and sell this book. In our promotion, however,** we will avoid all implications that Catholics are required, by force of Catholic dogma, to hold the geocentric position** (something we did not make clear previously)…If you can’t accept it, then, if I can impose on you, just consider [geocentrism] 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. (Here)

I’ve posted this rather measured and reasonable statement and it’s interesting to me that the geocentrists here at the CAF have had nothing to say about what their own leading advocate and supposed expert said. Was Sungenis right? Or did he sin gravely by publicly telling all Catholics that they could:

a) feel free to consider the holy, infallible teaching of Mother Church to be a mere “quirk” in the mind of Robert Sungenis and

b) feel free to remain in what Sungenis is absolutely convinced is a damnable heresy and that would be just “fine” with him?

Let’s remember, according to the geocentrists, the abandonment of the infallible doctrine of geocentrism was the key that undermined the authority of the Catholic Church for the past several hundred years. That’s extremely serious stuff.

Can anyone ever imagine St. Athanasius saying to the ubiquitous Arian heretics, “If you can’t accept the divinity of Christ, then, if I can impose on you, just consider it to be my personal 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”?

So, did Sungenis err and sin grievously by making a scandalous public statement like this about the holy and infallible teaching of Mother Church, or was this statement a moment of greater reasonability, humility and proportion on his part?

I think the latter. Catholics are free to believe or disbelieve in geocentrism and it’s completely reasonable for a Catholic to consider it to be a bit silly.

 

[Al_Moritz]

consider it to be a bit silly.

Now that must be the understatement of the month.

 

[grannymh]

A Statement by the Leading Advocate for and Supposed Expert on Geocentrism, Robert Sungenis:

I checked the link and am curious as to why this statement appears to be omitted from the quote in red in post 417. I may be wrong, but it seems to me it belongs where "… " are.

The only thing I ask is, if you do not care to investigate the geocentric position, or have investigated it and choose not to accept it, please allow me and my patrons the courtesy of defending it in light of the great amount of patristic, scriptural, ecclesiastical and scientific evidence we bring forth for its case.

 

[Rick09]

I checked the link and am curious as to why this statement appears to be omitted from the quote in red in post 417

I suppose for the same reasons anyone uses ellipses – for the sake of brevity and because I didn’t find that section to be directly relevant to my specific points, Granny. I quoted the excerpts that I thought were most relevant to my points and inserted ellipses to show the reader that there was more in between, also providing a link so people could see the entire statement in context, if they so desired.

I don’t think the section you noted changes the fact that Sungenis indicated:

1. Catholics aren’t dogmatically required by the Church to believe geocentrism
2. Sungenis was “fine” with it if Catholics view geocentrism as a mere personal quirk
3. He admitted that geocentrism is shocking and controversial and that he considers it understandable that few will even consider it.

These were my points.

Just to be clear, it wasn’t my intention at all to suggest by the quoted section above that Sungenis believes there was no real support for geocentrism, no reason for Catholics to accept it at all. The fact that he wrote a two volume book on it and is doing conferences on geocentrism should make it obvious to anyone paying attention that he thinks there is a lot of evidence. And I have absolutely no problem with a geocentrist trying to prove their case.

But he was certainly a lot less dogmatic and condemnatory and a lot more circumspect and reasonable in this past statement about geocentrism than some geocentrists here at the CAF. Sadly, it seems he was quite different back then than he is now.

My previous comment in the thread about this statement from Sungenis kind of fleshes this out more:

If only all the geocentrists believed that and acted accordingly [as Sungenis did in this more measured statement], it might at least make them more bearable. Unfortunately, they often behave like newly converted, self-righteous Fundamentalists who want to brow-beat us into believing that we’re going to hell if we don’t accept that the universe revolves around a stationary earth.

Too bad Sungenis has changed his tune now is reportedly out and about basically saying that you’re an atheist if you’re not a geocentrist. Here I guess when he told people they could ignore him and geocentrism with his blessing, they took him up on the offer. He probably realized eventually that only the threat of hell-fire could get anyone to listen to him again and to shell out almost a hundred bucks to read two unbelievably long volumes of this stuff. (here)

 

[Rick09]

I checked the link and am curious as to why this statement appears to be omitted from the quote in red in post 417

I suppose for the same reasons anyone uses ellipses – for the sake of brevity and because I didn’t find that section to be directly relevant to my specific points, Granny. I quoted the excerpts that I thought were most relevant to my points and inserted ellipses to show the reader that there was more in between, also providing a link so people could see the entire statement in context, if they so desired.

I don’t think the section you noted changes the fact that Sungenis indicated:

1. Catholics aren’t dogmatically required by the Church to believe geocentrism
2. Sungenis was “fine” with it if Catholics view geocentrism as a mere personal quirk
3. He admitted that geocentrism is shocking and controversial and that he considers it understandable that few will even consider it.

These were the points taken from his statement. My comments about Athanasius and sin were intentionally a bit hyperbolic - directed at a couple of the geocentrists here that have been very dogmatic and condemnatory of non-geocentrists. But with or without the additional section, St. Athanasius never would have said such things about an important “teaching” or “truth” of the Church.

So, just to be clear, it wasn’t my intention at all to suggest by the quoted section above that Sungenis believes there was no real support for geocentrism, no reason for Catholics to accept it at all. The fact that he wrote a two volume book on it and is doing conferences on geocentrism should make it obvious to anyone paying attention that he thinks there is a lot of evidence. And I have no problem with a geocentrist trying to prove that case.

But he was certainly a lot less dogmatic and condemnatory and a lot more circumspect and reasonable in this past statement about geocentrism than some geocentrists here at the CAF. Sadly, it seems he was quite different back then than he is now.

My previous comment in this thread about the quote above from Sungenis kind of fleshes the point out more:

If only all the geocentrists believed that and acted accordingly [as Sungenis did in this more measured statement], it might at least make them more bearable. Unfortunately, they often behave like newly converted, self-righteous Fundamentalists who want to brow-beat us into believing that we’re going to hell if we don’t accept that the universe revolves around a stationary earth.

Too bad Sungenis has changed his tune now is reportedly out and about basically saying that you’re an atheist if you’re not a geocentrist. (Here) I guess when he told people they could ignore him and geocentrism with his blessing, they took him up on the offer. He probably realized eventually that only the threat of hell-fire could get anyone to listen to him again and to shell out almost a hundred bucks to read two unbelievably long volumes of this stuff. (here)

 

[Al_Moritz]

An innocent question:

When are we done with this freak show?