However, if it does become known that this whole thing is a scam…
People have used the word ‘scam’ to describe the concerns on this thread. I do no think that if someone purchases the book their credit card would be misused. jochoa even noted that as far as his credit card so far so good. This is not my concern here. I also think that the three priests and the Archdiocese of Cincinnati Chancery Office did make those statements. I can also appreciate the concerns of the ‘Chancery Office’ and their request at first to have their comment removed and then to note that their comment does not mean they endorse the book. It is difficult for this modification to achieve it’s purpose given the statement:
“The author creatively uses vast resources from many disciplines to develop this monumental lifetime work …. a unified vision of the history of our universe which is clearly the creative work of the Word … a marvelous achievement.”
Archdiocese of Cincinnati Chancery Office
I think these accolades are legitimate as I think the moderators of CAF would have already confirmed that these statements were made by the three priests mentioned and the Chancery Office. Afterall, these statements are being published on this website with the names of priests. The moderators have not made any comments to the contrary nor have the priests nor the Chancery Office. The Chancellor responded to an inquiry by Innocente but itt23r noted that, that Chancellor has been there only two years.
To say that my concern is not that there would be credit card fraud nor that the accolades are false.
My concern is with the lack of revererance demonstrated by itt23r and to offend only to back out and sensationalize all to sell his book. I also appreciate a serious lack of originality and sincerity in the presentation/platform. It appears to me that the platform has been built with a lack of foundation and may be moved. It may not be, but, I do not see the foundation that assures fidelity to the Catholic Church. A discovery does not have to demonstrate fidelity to my faith but when it makes the claims about my faith it would be of serious interest.
People here are not out to negatively criticize a theory that would contribute to the understanding. To the contrary, I think people would welcome it with open arms. The cautions are taken because the way it has been presented and with the intentions that it has been presented.
We call the first four books of the Bible the Gospels because they document the life of Jesus and were written by four apostles. The canon is closed. I personally find it irreverant to call a theory the Fifth Gospel. It is more acceptable for Rudolf Stiener to, perhaps, in an attempt to ‘sensationalize’ and call attention to his work, to call his series the “Fifth Gospel” but, for someone who is alledging to be Catholic and to be presenting a theory of our faith to call his theory a Fifth Gospel can be offensive and this would certainly call attention to the theory. Then everything is smooth out and we are suppose to be pacified - this can be unpleasant. It’s a bit of a mockery.
"Of the many gospels written in antiquity, only four gospels came to be accepted as part of the New Testament, or canonical. An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various early Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Marcionism which used only Marcion’s version of Luke, or the Ebionites which seem to have used an Aramaic version of Matthew as well as groups that embraced the texts of newer revelations, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11). Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four “Pillars of the Church”: “it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four” he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken from Ezekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6-10, of God’s throne borne by four creatures with four faces—“the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle”—equivalent to the “four-formed” gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained the truth. He also supported reading each gospel in light of the others.
By the turn of the 5th century, the Catholic Church in the west, under Pope Innocent I, recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had been previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419).[28] This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in the Vulgate, an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by Jerome[29] under the commission of Pope Damasus I in 382."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels
These are four books of the Bible documenting the life of Jesus - one Gospel.
:hey_bud: :banghead::hey_bud: 
:hey_bud: