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

[Al_Moritz]

More rhetoric. I grew up like we all did believing what my teachers taught me, that the earth was rotating and orbitting the sun. I had to have an open mind to at least consider the arguments of Geocentrism. I spent the best part of a thousand hours reading everything I could on the subject. I studied models of the solar system, read the history of the church teaching on the subject. I did all this with the same open mind which saw me convert from a lifetime of protestantism to become a Catholic.

That is from a previous post of excubitor on this thread.

Now he said:

I repeat. The scripture is authoritatitive in all matters in which it chooses to speak.

Granny replied:
“What then is the use of the Catholic Church?”

Precisely. Excubitor has converted from Protestantism, which is terrific, but it seems that he still has not understood the vital difference in interpretation of scripture between Protestantism and Catholicism, and its relative importance in these two branches of Christianity (Protestantism: absolute, Catholicism: scripture and tradition). Perhaps that is the crux of the whole problem.

 

[grannymh]

More important than what Sungenis thinks is what the church thinks on the subject.

This is why I keep asking for the formal dogma which followed the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Do you realize that the Holy Spirit protects against false doctrines? This is one of the main reasons that the Catholic Church remains intact.

What has happened is that the innocent have been led to believe that every Tom, Dick, and Harry can be infallible. This is not what happens in the Catholic Church.

 

[DavidPalm]

Precisely. Excubitor has converted from Protestantism, which is terrific, but it seems that he still has not understood the vital difference in interpretation of scripture between Protestantism and Catholicism, and its relative importance in these two branches of Christianity (Protestantism: absolute, Catholicism: scripture and tradition). Perhaps that is the crux of the whole problem.

I agree, Al and Granny. Put another way, for excubitor, Sungenis, and the gang it’s a matter of substituting their private judgment for the official norms of the Church, in the interpretation of Scripture and in the interpretation of ecclesiastical documents. So the Church’s canonical protocols are blithely ignored (except when they need them to clear themselves). The authority of various ecclesiastical documents is grossly inflated, contrary to those norms. Genuine papal teaching that no such details of the physical universe are in sacred Scripture at all, that instead the authors of sacred Scripture employ the language of appearances, is dismissed as inapplicable to any and all topics of their choice (not just geocentrism, but the days of creation, etc.) In the meantime they can’t recognize that they are digging themselves into a self-refuting position.

I know that this all gets wearisome. And I have it on good authority that the fat lady (not sayin’ who!) is singing . I guess that, at least judging by the private comments I’m receiving, it has been helpful for some folks to have this matter examined in light of the Church’s true canonical protocols.

I am trying to help excubitor and others see that this ground that they have staked out based on their private judgment really does have some serious consequences and–even if I can’t convince them–then at least to wave others away from it. But I don’t by any means intend to keep this up indefinitely. At some point very near to us we will be simply repeating ourselves. But I do hope to post a bit more today. Just got lots of other things going on.

 

[DavidPalm]

All who are intrepid enough to follow this thread, ask yourself this question: Given the Church’s canonical norms that all penalties/condemnations must be interpreted strictly and narrowly, has the Catholic Church treated the Galileo affair more in line with her own canonical norms, or more in line with excubitor’s broad and sweeping claims?

excubitor is indignant that I would speak of a “theologial commission”. The fact is that he constantly conflates two different things, the Holy Office itself and the theological commission it created in 1616. Although the 1616 finding of the theologians which spoke of “formal heresy” was quoted in the 1633 decree of the Holy Office, according to a strict canonical interpretation it was not formally adopted, either by any Pope or by the Holy Office itself. As Dr. Finocchiaro states:

It is even more important to note that this decree [of 1633] appropriated only part of that assessment, for there was not explicit talk of heresy here. The doctrine was being censured both philosophically and theologically, but the theological assessment was not “heretical” but rather “contrary to Scripture” (Retrying Galileo, p. 18)

And this was the very observation/argument also of 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 (Ibid., 206).

Finocchiaro notes, “that Copernicanism had been declared heretical . . . was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy” (Ibid., p. 32). excubitor champions that myth, claiming that prior to Galileo’s trial there was a “papal condemnation” of Copernicanism “defined” as “formally heretical”. Any other view, according to him, is “utterly ludicrous” and “absurd”.

As if the Pope by command was charging Galileo for uttering heresy for that which had not been defined as heresy. Utterly ludicrous.

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.

But the fact is that in the 1633 decree Galileo was NOT convicted of heresy. Read the decree yourself: he was said to be “vehemently suspect of heresy”. So what? A mere quibble? Absolutely not. These are two different canonical charges. Read the distinction in light of what excubitor’s claims:

One difference between formal heresy and suspicion of heresy was the seriousness of the offense. For example, a standard Inquisition manual of the time stated that “heretics are those who say, teach, preach, or write things against Holy Scripture; against the articles of the Holy Faith; . . . against the decrees of the Sacred Councils, and the determinations made by the Supreme Pontiffs; . . . those who reject the Holy Faith and become Moslems, Jews, or members of other sects, and who praise their practices and live in accordance with them. . . .” The same manual stated that “suspects of heresy are those who occasionally utter propositions that offend the listeners . . . those who keep, write, read, or give others to read books forbidden in the Index and in other particular decrees; . . . those who receive holy orders even though they have a wife, or who take another wife even though they are already married; . . . those who listen, even once, to sermons by heretics. . . .” (Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, p. 14f.; ellipses his)

There you have it. If this matter had already been an Article of Faith or part of “the determinations made by the Supreme Pontiffs” as excubitor claims, then the charge and verdict against Galileo could only have been formal heresy. Anything else would be “utterly ludicrous” and “absurd”. But if it’s really a matter of a breach concerning “books forbidden in the Index and in other particular decrees”—which it was—then the correct charge would be “suspicion of heresy”.

What was Galileo actually charged with? Not formal heresy, but suspicion of heresy. Ergo, Copernicanism—let alone other non-geocentric views—had NOT been defined as a formal heresy. excubitor is simply wrong, as the ruling of the Holy Office itself proves.

Was the 1633 decree itself a doctrinal definition of Copernicanism as heresy, promulgated ex cathedra by the Pope? Of course not. Granny makes an important observation:

Galileo is one person who lived at a specific time in history. You, I, and the rest of the living are not Galileo.

Condemnations/penalties are interpreted strictly. What was the subject of the 1633 decree? A doctrinal definition for the universal Church? No. excubitor deploys all sorts of rollercoaster citations in which he highlights strong language of definition and judgment. And what is the primary subject of this language? The Catholic Encyclopedia rightly 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.”

[to be continued]

 

[DavidPalm]

The censure in the 1633 decree was not formal heresy, but “contrary to Scripture”. But insisting that Scripture teaches something that is “absurd and false in philosophy” is to hold something that is “contrary to Scripture” and is itself a theological error. This is not just my own personal view. Here is how it was presented by the Commissary General of the Holy Office:

Please reflect that if philosophical absurdity (that is, falsity or absurdity recognized as such by the light of reason) is attributed to the words of Sacred Scripture, it becomes an interpretation which ecclesiastical authority can very well define as “contrary to Sacred Scripture”; and this is precisely our case. (cited in Retrying Galileo, 208).

But the proposition that the earth moves is no longer absurd and false in philosophy and therefore the it is compatible with Scripture. That is developed further by the Commissary General (cf. ibid., pp. 192-221). But the important point for this discussion is not whether excubitor et al. in their private judgment find that persuasive, but whether the Pope found it persuasive. He did, as reflected in Pius VII’s approval for non-geocentric views to be disseminated.

The so-called “modern Catholic” recognizes things as they are, according to the Church’s own principles: The decrees of Roman congregations approved only in forma communi are not papal per se and are not infallible (not infallible means liable to err, by the way). The Church has never claimed otherwise. Penalties are to be interpreted strictly. Copernicanism had not been defined as “formal heresy” by papal decree prior to 1633 nor was it in 1633. Now nobody holds to Copernicanism, so it becomes a moot point when examining modern acentric cosmology. The Popes have stated that the Holy Spirit did not put such details of the physical universe in sacred Scripture at all; rather that the authors of Scripture spoke according to the appearances of these phenomena.

The competent authorities in this matter, the Popes, have consistently acted in accordance with those principles. The actions of the Church since 1633—removal of all Copernican works (including Galileo’s) from the Index, explicitly giving positive permission for non-geocentric views to be disseminated, Benedict XV stating in a papal encyclical that we now know that the earth may not be the center of the universe, the Popes ruling with Sts. Augustine and Thomas that Scripture speaks according to the appearances in matters touching the physical universe, the Church consistently applying this principle not just to geocentrism but to other scientific matters as well, Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI publicly praise Galileo, John Paul II publicly states that the seventeenth century theologians who opposed geocentrism were in error.

Follow the Church’s true canonical principles and all of those matters are easily explained. Deny the Church’s principles in favor of private judgment and those papal actions can only be characterized as ineptitude, incompetence, and subversion.

Now, some questions for excubitor:

Do you or do you not acknowledge the Church’s canonical maxims that penalties/condemnations are to be interpreted strictly?

On what authority do you extend this matter to more than a strict Pythagorean heliocentrism?

What besides your private judgment leads you to conclude that a decree concerning a single individual’s breach of contract can somehow become a doctrinal definition for the universal Church?

What support do you have outside of your private judgment that a decree from a Roman congregation approved only in forma communi can be considered infallible and, indeed, an ex cathedra papal definition?

On what authority besides your private judgment have you applied all of the language concerning declare, pronounce, etc. to a doctrinal definition, whereas the Holy Office states explicitly that its decree concerns the judgment of “you, the said Galileo”?

What besides your private judgment leads you to conclude that the 1616 committee report was adopted by the 1633 decree, when in fact it was merely cited and the actual censure of that 1633 decree was different?

Since the 1633 decree states that Galileo was “vehemently suspect of heresy”, tell us why you arrive at a harsher conclusion, namely, that he was actually convicted of formal heresy.

Tell us how you conclude based on your private judgment that Copernicanism had been explicitly defined by the Pope as a formal heresy and that any other view is “utterly ludicrous” and “absurd”, and yet the Holy Office came to a very different conclusion in its 1633 decree?

If this matter is as clear as you claim, then please explain based on some authority besides your private judgment how it is that the most competent authorities, the Popes, did not recognize that any such doctrinal definition had been made, even after 1633.

Based on some authority besides your private judgment, explain how the Popes after 1633 were not downright deceptive, derelict, and even heretical in their actions and words in opening the whole Church up to the dissemination of what you claim was so clearly defined ex cathedra.

After having labored so hard to try and establish this as a matter settled ex cathedra and of the utmost importance and telling us that you hope that “in these latter times” you hope that you, Sungenis, and company can bring the Catholic bishops to task, how you do not thereby fall under the proposition formally declared heretical in an actual papal document, Auctorem Fidei? Here it is again:

The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”— heretical.

 

[excubitor]

That is from a previous post of excubitor on this thread.

Now he said:

Granny replied:
“What then is the use of the Catholic Church?”

Precisely. Excubitor has converted from Protestantism, which is terrific, but it seems that he still has not understood the vital difference in interpretation of scripture between Protestantism and Catholicism, and its relative importance in these two branches of Christianity (Protestantism: absolute, Catholicism: scripture and tradition). Perhaps that is the crux of the whole problem.

Again, I am really struggling to find any credibility in the arguments of my opponents.
I have not ceased to point out that the Catholic church has declared acentrism/heliocentrism as heresy. The Catholic church which stated that this teaching was in contravention of the teachings of scripture and the Sacred traditional beliefs of the patristic fathers.

My opponents point to weak statements of the church in the last 50 years whereas I have not ceased to point to the statements of prophets, apostles, saints, doctors of the church, sacred congregations of the church, councils of the church (Thanks Third Day) and Popes themselves.

In fact, my adherence to the traditional church teaching is my strongest argument. Sungenis has 400 pages of such citations from the church. John Salza also has an extensive page on the internet with an extensive list of these quotes.

It’s not me that is not listening to the church. It is you and a generation of liberal and modernist Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe from sacred tradition, just like the reformers did. Not good enough at all.

 

[Rick09]

More important than what Sungenis thinks is what the church thinks on the subject…If however you disagree with my opinion or have doubts, then please refer your question to your local bishop. Give him a copy of “Galileo was Wrong, the Church was right”, or better still, sit down with him and watch Sungenis’ DVD. For those who so vehemently argue, why not write your own book to present to the Bishop “The Church was wrong, Galileo was right”.

You started off so well here by noting that there’s a difference between what Sungenis thinks the Church teaches and what the Church actually teaches and also by noting that you’re only giving “your opinion”. But then you kind of fall right back into leaning on Sungenis’ interpretation as the ultimate authority, like it’s Gospel Truth. There’s a difference between the Church’s official documents and how a simple layman with no degrees in Catholic theology or canon law (Sungenis) interprets those documents.

I think most all of us here are baffled as to why you turn to him as though he’s some sort of noted authority and expert on astrophysics, Relativity, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, you name it. Do you know that the Church has rejected all of Sungenis’ applications for imprimaturs for more a decade now (here)? Do you know that Sungenis said that the Church already looked over Galileo Was Wrong and refused to give it an imprimatur because they didn’t really consider it to be a theological work (here)?

This part is really odd because GWW was basically the doctoral dissertation he used to get his “PhD” in theology at Calamus International. If the Church said that Galileo Was Wrong isn’t really a theological work, then how did he earn a theological PhD with it? Regardless, I hope you understand that the Church isn’t ever going to look at that book with the reverence that you do.

Back a while ago, you wrote:

“Sungenis approached every university in America to do his doctorate on Geocentrism. They all turned him down.” ~ excubitor (here)

First, I don’t really believe that Sungenis tried and was turned down by every university in America to study geocentrism, but if it were true, that would only increase my esteem for the American University system. Regardless, his story about the whole affair just seems a bit silly, really. As to why he picked Calamus International, he wrote:

“I was prepared to make a statement to the academic establishment in the United States that I refuse to conform to their status-quo, agnostic and often atheistic philosophies and sciences that inundate our universities, including most Catholic universities in the United States which are little more than rebellious liberal institutions that departed from true Catholicism many decades ago.” ~ Robert Sungenis (here)

Have you ever looked into Calamus? It’s basically New Age diploma mill.

Here, here and here.

So, we’re supposed to believe that Sungenis chose a New Age diploma mill as a rebuke to the agnostic, liberal American Catholic academic establishment? Really?

(continues below)

 

[Rick09]

(continued from above)

There was one other thing where your information is bad. You wrote:

No, there is nothing wrong with resisting in a respectful manner the wrongdoings and failings of our clergy. However, a good catholic will put a sock in it if he is commanded by his superior. Sungenis did just that over the issue of the Jews. ~ excubitor (here)

There’s not much respectful about the way that Sungenis has dealt with Pope John Paul II or his bishop, imo:

JPII:

Back a while ago, even Sungenis agreed he was disrepectful and he promised to stop.

“At times there was much disrespect for [John Paul II]. Even though we still have trouble with some of the things John Paul did, in many cases we simply did not express our objections in the best way.” ~ Robert Sungenis (here)

But now he’s back at it:

The Remnant’s Robert Sungenis: Protestant

Bishop Rhoades:

According to the bishop’s own words, Sungenis is slandering him. And according to the rest of the record, Sungenis is slandering him.

“I was saddened to learn that Robert Sungenis has made slanderous and erroneous statements about me.” ~ Bishop Rhoades

Read more proof below:

Here

Here

Here

Here

And I don’t see how you can say that Sungenis “put a sock in it” when it comes to Jews. Look at his website. Among other things, he’s recommending a Holocaust revisionist book there now. There’s an article about Israel’s “true motives”. Another on “Jews attacking anti-Jewish websites and emails.” Another about “Israeli Professor Says Israel Could Destroy All of Europe with Nukes” and another trying to suggest that Israel was behind 9/11. That’s putting a sock in it?

And how about these things?

Setting the Record Crooked (Go down to the last comment, it was posted by the person who wrote the article, Jared Olar.) Olar writes:

In response to my reference to his anti-Semitism and his penchant for anti-Semitic conspiracy theory [Sungenis writes]:

‘Here is an interesting factoid for you. ‘Olar’ is a Jewish name. So it doesnt surprise me that Mr. Olar would venture into this area.’

Yes, you read that right: Sungenis’ response to my pointing out his anti-Semitism is to shout, ‘Jew!!!’

It’s both pathetic and hilarious at the same time. For the record, sadly my father is not aware of any Jewish blood in his ancestry. As J.R.R. Tolkien wrote in 1938, ‘I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.’ ‘Olar’ certainly is not a Jewish name (though there are probably a few Jewish people named Olar). It’s Romanian – an occupational surname meaning ‘a maker of pots.’ Any poor peasant who belonged to the Potters’ Guild would end up with the surname ‘Olar,’ and Jews were not allowed in the old Christian labor guilds. No, I don’t oppose anti-Semitism because I’m Jewish (I’m not) but because anti-Semitism is evil. Nor is my non-existent Jewish heritage the explanation for my column’s reference to Sungenis’ penchant for anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. The explanation is simply that I was showing the quality of intellect that is behind the pseudoscientific geocentrism conference.

This isn’t the first time Sungenis has erroneously attributed criticism of his zany ideas to nonexistent Jewish heritage on the part of his critics. Sad to say, he is entirely unaware that there can be no clearer evidence of his anti-Semitic paranoia than the ease with which he accuses his critics of being Jewish.

Proverbs 26:11

Sungenis Comes Full Circle

I hope these things help you to open your eyes a little.

 

[Third_Day]

Seems to me that this is in reference to the truth that the created is not equal to the Creator.
Do you realize that Holy Scripture was used as the basis for determining the status of God which had been argued about? Please read Genesis 1:1 for further information.

I don’t see how you can say that the statement here from the Catechism of Trent only refers to “the truth that the created is not equal to the Creator.”
Trent was fully aware of the teachings of Copernicus yet wrote in their Catechism that the sun, moon and stars are in continual revolution and the heavens are endowned with regular motion yet the earth is rooted in its own foundation. Why do you think they put that in the Catechism?

Catechism of Trent The Creed Article 1
The words heaven and earth include all things which the heaven’s and the earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of his fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety….

Formation Of The Universe

The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.

The Lord’s Prayer
But though God is present in all places and in all things, without being bound by any limits, as has been already said, yet in Sacred Scripture it is frequently said that He has His dwelling in heaven. And the reason is because **the heavens **which we see above our heads are the noblest part of the world, remain ever Incorruptible, surpass all other bodies in power, grandeur and beauty, and are **endowed with fixed and regular motion **

 

[Third_Day]

=Rick09;7964483] Do you know that the Church has rejected all of Sungenis’ applications for imprimaturs for more a decade now

*Pope Fiction *by Patrick Madrid has no imprimatur. *Handbook of Catholic Apologetics *by Peter Kreeft has no imprimatur. *The Salvation Controversy *by James Akin, *The Hidden Manna *by Rev. James O’Conner, *Free From All Error *by Father William Most, *Jesus of Nazareth *by Pope Benedict has no imprimatur. I could go on and on. I don’t see your point.

 

[DavidPalm]

Trent was fully aware of the teachings of Copernicus yet wrote in their Catechism that the sun, moon and stars are in continual revolution and the heavens are endowned with regular motion yet the earth is rooted in its own foundation. Why do you think they put that in the Catechism?

“He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty” Yes, He did.

“He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution” True, even in modern cosmologies. In fact, as we have seen in this thread, modern cosmology holds even more so that the revolutions are certain and uniform.

“the heavens . . . are endowed with fixed and regular motion” Ditto.

Finally this section:

The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.

From the whole context it appears to me that the Catechism is using the word “earth” in terms of the “land”, as distinct from the “air” and “water” and the word “world” to mean the whole globe. “rooted in its own foundation”, then, means that the land is fixed in place especially with relation to the water. If “earth” here means the entire globe then the passage doesn’t make sense, since in the last sentence the “earth” is specifically contrasted with the “air” and “water” and He certainly didn’t cover the entire globe, including the air and water, “with trees and every variety of plant and flower”. This doesn’t represent a description of the globe’s place in the universe.

Obviously, non-geocentrists can affirm all that this Catechism says.

Interesting too that if this is supposed to be some sort of doctrinal presentation of geocentrism, it was never, as far as I have seen, brought up even once during the Galileo controversy.

 

[Rick09]

*Pope Fiction *by Patrick Madrid has no imprimatur. *Handbook of Catholic Apologetics *by Peter Kreeft has no imprimatur. *The Salvation Controversy *by James Akin, *The Hidden Manna *by Rev. James O’Conner, *Free From All Error *by Father William Most, *Jesus of Nazareth *by Pope Benedict has no imprimatur. I could go on and on. I don’t see your point.

Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur, as happened to Sungenis? Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur by more than one bishop, as happened to Sungenis? Do you see the difference now?

Search through the CAF about all this. Here’s a thread and an article I found to get you started:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3126665&postcount=8

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/05/sungenis-books-continue-to-lack.html

 

[hansgeorg]

Adding a little bit more from the previous page. I understand where you are coming from and agree. I support science! I don’t support Brian Swimme’s thoughts about “The Divinization of the Cosmos.”

WIE: So it’s a process of God becoming more and more explicit or embodied in the forms of the universe?

BS: Yes, exactly. Teilhard also spoke in terms of “giving birth to person.” For example, your colleague Craig is there across the room. But if you go back five billion years, all of the atoms in Craig’s body were strung out over a hundred million miles. (et c.)
enlightennext.org/magazine/j19/teilhard.asp?pf=1

I do not support divinization of cosmos either.

I do not support Teilhard de Chardin. I support neither his conclusion of above, nor even above as believed by consistent evolutionists.

Here is my take on that ****:

hglundahl.blogspot.com/2006/08/resist-meta-man-evolutionary.html

Angels guiding planets like sun (yes, sun is a planet in geocentric cosmology, as is moon too: it means the body does not stay same spot in zodiak), or even the stars formerly named fixed stars, has nothing to do with that repulsive philosophy.

As far as I am concerned, the angels who guide sun and moon saw the creation of light on earth and saw the creation of their custodies on day four - and then were assigned them.

 

[Rick09]

*Pope Fiction *by Patrick Madrid has no imprimatur. *Handbook of Catholic Apologetics *by Peter Kreeft has no imprimatur. *The Salvation Controversy *by James Akin, *The Hidden Manna *by Rev. James O’Conner, *Free From All Error *by Father William Most, *Jesus of Nazareth *by Pope Benedict has no imprimatur. I could go on and on. I don’t see your point.

Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur, as happened to Sungenis? Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur by more than one bishop, as happened to Sungenis? Do you see the difference now?

Search through the CAF about all this. Here’s a thread and an article. I’m sure you can find more if you look:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3126665&postcount=8

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/05/sungenis-books-continue-to-lack.html

 

[hansgeorg]

“He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty” Yes, He did.

“He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution” True, even in modern cosmologies. In fact, as we have seen in this thread, modern cosmology holds even more so that the revolutions are certain and uniform.

“the heavens . . . are endowed with fixed and regular motion” Ditto.

Finally this section:

The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.

From the whole context it appears to me that the Catechism is using the word “earth” in terms of the “land”, as distinct from the “air” and “water” and the word “world” to mean the whole globe. “rooted in its own foundation”, then, means that the land is fixed in place especially with relation to the water. If “earth” here means the entire globe then the passage doesn’t make sense, since in the last sentence the “earth” is specifically contrasted with the “air” and “water” and He certainly didn’t cover the entire globe, including the air and water, “with trees and every variety of plant and flower”. This doesn’t represent a description of the globe’s place in the universe.

Obviously, non-geocentrists can affirm all that this Catechism says.

Interesting too that if this is supposed to be some sort of doctrinal presentation of geocentrism, it was never, as far as I have seen, brought up even once during the Galileo controversy.

The theologically strongest arguments for geocentrism are:

• if earth was created to orbit sun, why did the sun it orbits not exist until four days later?
• if the sun standing still meant earth standing still and revolving only later again, what measured time in that period, and even more so: was Joshua deluded but God give him a miracle anyway, though he worded it wrongly, or was he in the know, but accomodating wording to his ignorant people? The first alternative is disrespectful to sacred authors and men, and even blasphemous if carried over to miracles of Christ (casting out demons vs modern psychiatry comes to mind), the latter is even more so, since it implies “wellmeaning lies”.
• sun going back two measures at Isaiah’s (I think) request before King Hezekiah (again: I think) would pretty exactly explain why equinox shifted from Taurus to Pisces.

 

[Rick09]

*Pope Fiction *by Patrick Madrid has no imprimatur. *Handbook of Catholic Apologetics *by Peter Kreeft has no imprimatur. *The Salvation Controversy *by James Akin, *The Hidden Manna *by Rev. James O’Conner, *Free From All Error *by Father William Most, *Jesus of Nazareth *by Pope Benedict has no imprimatur. I could go on and on. I don’t see your point.

Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur, as happened to Sungenis? Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur by more than one bishop, as happened to Sungenis? Do you see the difference now?

Search through the CAF about all this. Here’s a thread and an article. I’m sure you can find more if you look:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3126665&postcount=8

sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2008/05/sungenis-books-continue-to-lack.html

I think it’s particularly relevant that Sungenis said the Church already looked over Galileo Was Wrong and refused to give it an imprimatur because they didn’t really consider it to be a theological work (here).

Wikipedia covered it and Sungenis said it was all accurate. It’s worth reading. Here

 

[hansgeorg]

Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur, as happened to Sungenis? Were any of these books sent in and rejected for an imprimatur by more than one bishop, as happened to Sungenis? Do you see the difference now?

Anyone updated on whether Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur are done at all after Vatican II? I think that is no longer in the Church law. If you accept 1983. And FSSPX who do not, neither do they usurp the authority to issue that, since it pertains to ordinariate, to bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

 

[Rick09]

Anyone updated on whether Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur are done at all after Vatican II? I think that is no longer in the Church law. If you accept 1983. And FSSPX who do not, neither do they usurp the authority to issue that, since it pertains to ordinariate, to bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

Yes, they’re still done. That’s why Sungenis was advertising (before his books were even published) that he would get them and that’s why he applied for them. But he hasn’t been able to get one for more than a decade.

 

[grannymh]

Anyone updated on whether Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, Imprimatur are done at all after Vatican II? I think that is no longer in the Church law. If you accept 1983. And FSSPX who do not, neither do they usurp the authority to issue that, since it pertains to ordinariate, to bishops with ordinary jurisdiction.

Yes. They are currently being used in the U. S. I have not seen Imprimi Potest recently. I am writing from memory because I am away from home and my books. As I recall, Imprimatur is used with an additional designation which lists the name of the person who reviewed the material.

What is really great is that there is now an English explanation of what is really meant by these terms. I don’t know when I will get home to get a copy for you,

I am old enough to remember the “Index”. My English professor at the University was old enough to remember how it was applied to Universities. First, he asked if any student wanted to read a book on the Index. Then, he informed us that the University had a special exemption–faculty and students could read any book on the Index as part of academics or something similar. Shortly thereafter the Index was slowly discontinued. I don’t remember the date of the formal closing.

Blessings,
granny

 

[excubitor]

Well I finally got around to producing my diagram which proves that the earth is in the centre of the universe with the sun orbitting the earth.

Now I am not a scientist, but I present here an argument that most junior school students could grasp.

Now this argument rests on the plainly observed fact that the north celestial pole does not change its position through the course of the year. Men since the dawn of time have navigated by finding the North star Polaris and they can be certain in which direction North is. Polaris is North no matter where you are in the Northern hemisphere all year round. Winter, Summer, Spring or fall. The same holds true in the Southern hemisphere. By drawing a line from the Southern cross to the pointers we can locate the south celestial pole at any time during the year, Winter, Summer, Spring or fall. So all through the year both the North and the South celestial poles are in alignment with the earths north and south pole.

Now let’s have a look at my diagrams.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/album.php?albumid=1401&pictureid=9336

The sketch on the left shows the earth in its position in the centre of the universe with the north pole, south pole, north celestial pole and south celestial pole in alignment. Next we put the sun in a yearly orbit around the earth. The earth in this scenario is stationary and its poles remain in perfect alignment with the celestial poles.

Now look at diagram 2. We are going to put the sun in the centre. Now look what happens when we put the earth circling the sun throughout the course of the year. Can you make the south and north pole line up with the north and south celestial pole for the whole year?

No you cannot.

So I have clearly demonstrated that the earth is in the centre of the universe and that the earth is orbiting the earth just as the church taught, just as King Solomon stated in the scriptures, just as all natural observation and common sense indicates.

Nor do you need a degree to understand it. You don’t have to break your brain.
AND you are blessed to have excubitor to explain it to you because nobody else in all of your years of education ever did. Nor did anyone explain it to me. I had to figure it out for myself. Which is not a difficult intellectual exercise for those who have the freedom and liberty of thought to resist the powerful zeitgeist of modern scientism.