Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl: March 2015

Sunday, 22 March 2015

Correspondence with Sungenis on My Affairs

"Sungenis" in the following headings stands for Robert Sungenis.

Sungenis to me: 13/03/15 à 21h38
Gift for you: Hans,

I noticed that you said you did not have a copy of GWW.

Do you have an address I can send the three volumes to, as a gift to you? I'd be happy to do so. You are a scholar in your own right, and you've got a pretty strong will to boot :)

Also, since this issue is pertinent, I've attached a PDF of the portion of GWW that deals with the Pius VII and Settele affair. I thought you might enjoy it for bedtime reading.

What is your physical situation? I mean, do you have a place to call your own. Where are you located? Can I help you in any way?

Robert

[Attached file on Pius VII and Anfossi affair, not yet read]
Me to Sungenis: 14/03/15 à 11h16
re: Gift for you: Wonderful!

I have no place where I know beforehand I can sleep. OK, I could call homeless shelters such a place, since I theoretically have sth like 75% assurance if I phoned I would be accepted, BUT I also know that though I get good food there and it's warm, I am not sure of getting even any sleep, so I avoid them.

I am however endowed with a snail mail adress, as many homeless are, and last year of the one before one Lynch who is nephew of a deceased Holy-Ghost-Father sent me St Patrick after the Ancient Narrations. I kept it and read it and then sent it to ma, which made her happy.

Now, carrying a book in the bag is soemwhat heavy, so if there are three volumes, I'd appreciate if you send one at a time, and wait till I tell you I have sent it to ma or someone else or donated to a library (which I will obviously only do after reading it myself).

Unless of course you prefer to take the offer of publishing my essays on topic though my solution differs from you in details and wait with sending me the books till I can pay an appartment or buy a caravan (supposing I marry someone with a driver's licence or who knows how to conduct horses) where I can keep all three.

And of course, when it comes to income, your violinist son could contribute too by playing my compositions.

In both cases royalties are according to my long standing offers voluntary, but I count on your not being stingy.

Now, as to my present mail adress, it is (at Salvation Army):

ESI St Martin
27 ter Bd de St Martin
75003 Paris

Will look at the pdf too now.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[Did not yet keep the last promise, lack of internet time.]
Sungenis to me: 14/03/15 à 14h21
Re: Gift for you: Hans,

I see what I can do. I'm off to Mexico and will be back late next week.

Do you know French? If so I need translation work, and I would pay you for it.

Robert
Me to Sungenis: 14/03/15 à 15h19
Re: Gift for you: My work is writing, not translating.

Yes, I know French, more than the French will give me credit for. But translation is dryer work than writing, I want to stay in my own business.

My offer to you or your publisher as well as to anyone else (i e a non-exclusive offer) is here:

https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/a-little-note-on-further-use-conditions/

My offer to your son, equally non exclusive, is top link on this main index page:

http://ppt.li/musicalia
One week: no reply.
Me to Sungenis: 21/03/15 à 11h10
Is this why you (if it was you?) discounselled your son from playing my music?*: For now it is Lent, from tomorrow even passion weeks, so now is not the issue.

But I gave him an offer, he did not reply, someone, possibly the father whom he trusts, is obviously counselling him not to have anything to do with me.

http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/roots.html

Now, the problem with such an association is of course, I have not been dabbling into the occult to compose, and I am not writing Heavy Metal even, or even rock.

So, I am being boycotted by music élite here, possibly because I specified not to use for charities that promote abortion (Téléthon which i targetted is about as promotion aborting as March of the Dimes), possibly because of a well known pianist and 33:rd degree mason being a camp survivor and some such people thinking I need to accept their version (and completely so) of what happened on every level and not just where they were witnesses because victims (e g of humiliations or of people getting marched off to presumably be gassed - which I consider may have been a recurrent scare tactic), possibly because of some gypsy superstition against composing music on the paper - which is what I do. Or did.

At the same time, Evangelicals who knew I prayed the Rosary before composing (and whose prayers may have contribited to my hardly praying any rosaries any more, being too tired and carnal by now, also not composing last year), may have considered THAT as delving into the occult, and may then have spread the suspicion in general terms (but not specifying the Rosary's role in their suspicions) so that Catholics ALSO should suspect me of composing under diabolical control.

As usual, if you reply, you can count on correspondence being disclosed, if I find it interesting enough.

But it is also this, some people have decided they owe me a lesson, I hope you are not among these, but I am not totally betting on it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Note : I had forgotten giving the offer in view to the father a week earlier and was thinking of a previous time. About a year earlier. Or was concerned about the week's non reply. I can't recall which, I often sleep in places where I am deprived of sleep, thank God not this night.
Sungenis to me: 22/03/15 à 02h54
Re: Is this why you (if it was you?) discounselled your son from playing my m...: Hans,

I don't know what you're talking about. You really need to stop the suspicion and speculation. I wish you well, my friend, and I hope you accomplish what you want.

God speed.

Robert
Me to Sungenis: 22/03/15 à 18h00
Re: Is this why you (if it was you?) discounselled your son from playing my m...: I'd like to stop suspecting and speculating, but admit if I give a good offer, never hear a word about why it is supposed to be bad from the other guy's p o v and miss lots of time of my life over the guys not taking it, I consider SOMEONE may have given them counsel adverse to me, right?

And whom would they rather listen to than their fathers?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Sungenis to me: 23/03/15 à 03h02
Re: Is this why you (if it was you?) discounselled your son from playing my m...: Except this time you're wrong :)

I never said a word to my son about you.
Me to Sungenis: 23/03/15 à 09h31
Re: Is this why you (if it was you?) discounselled your son from playing my m...: Noted.
Between me and readers: In that case also Robert did not transmit the link at the end of the "Gift for you" correspondence, which I sent the 14th of March./HGL

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Mes Dettes Annuelles au système boursier de Suède

Bureau de recouvrement de dettes à moi

16/03/15 à 09h41

AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669

Références à rappeler impérativement :
1730669 /CSN
LUNDAHL HANS GEORG

AVIS AVANT POURSUITES
~~Madame,~~ Monsieur,
Nous vous informons avoir été mandatés par CSN CENTRALA STUDIESTODSNAMNDEN afin de procéder par tous moyens légaux au recouvrement des sommes suivantes que vous restez lui devoir :

Principal :	5894.00
Intérêts de retard :	13.29
Dommages intérêts amiables Art 1153 al 4 Cc :	0.00
Clause pénale :	0.00
Dommages intérêts :	0.00
Total restant dû :	E 5907.29

Nous agissons ce jour afin de régler ce litige de façon amiable.

Nous vous indiquons qu'à défaut de règlement entre nos mains par chèque ou mandat A L'ORDRE DE FRANCE CONTENTIEUX sous HUIT JOURS, nous transmettrons votre dossier à notre Huissier de Justice.

Ce dernier aura pouvoir d'engager toutes poursuites judiciaires à votre encontre, notamment une saisie sur votre compte bancaire ou votre salaire.

Il est à noter que les frais engagés, en raison du préjudice subit par notre mandant, resteront à votre entière charge et ne feront qu'alourdir votre dette.

Veuillez agréer, ~~Madame,~~ Monsieur, nos salutations distinguées.

Service Juridique
[personne humaine anonymisée, comme le bureau]

MOYENS DE REGLEMENT :
Virement bancaire : Banque HSBC, Agence de Mazamet (France)
IBAN FR76 3005 6002 7302 7302 7535 578 / BIC/SWIFT Code : CCFRFRPP

[deux autres moyens omis pour anonymiser le bureau]

Article L111-8 du CPCE modifié par la Loi n°2014-344 du 17 mars 2014 - art. 12 : A l'exception des droits proportionnels de recouvrement ou d'encaissement qui peuvent être mis partiellement à la charge des créanciers dans des conditions fixées par décret en Conseil d'Etat, les frais de l'exécution forcée sont à la charge du débiteur, sauf s'il est manifeste qu'ils n'étaient pas nécessaires au moment où ils ont été exposés. Les contestations sont tranchées par le juge.
Les frais de recouvrement entrepris sans titre exécutoire restent à la charge du créancier, sauf s'ils concernent un acte dont l'accomplissement est prescrit par la loi au créancier. Toute stipulation contraire est réputée non écrite, sauf disposition législative contraire.
Cependant, le créancier qui justifie du caractère nécessaire des démarches entreprises pour recouvrer sa créance peut demander au juge de l'exécution de laisser tout ou partie des frais ainsi exposés à la charge du débiteur de mauvaise foi.

Loi n°78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 : Conformément aux dispositions de la Loi Informatique et Libertés du 6 janvier 1978, vous disposez d’un droit d’accès et de rectification pour toute information vous concernant. Le destinataire des données est la société France Contentieux. Les informations que nous possédons et nécessaires au traitement de votre dossier sont conservées dans nos fichiers conformément à la législation.

Moi à Bureau de recouvrement de dettes

16/03/15 à 10h53

re: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669

Je vous informe, j'ai essayé de me faire un revenu sur mon écriture, selon les conditions suivants:

https://hglwrites.wordpress.com/conditions-dutilisations-ulterieures/

Et voici une/deux des intrigues (avérées) qui ont été montées pour m'en empêcher:

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2014/10/avec-albin-michel-editeurs-sur-la.html

http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2015/02/une-femme-pretendait-me-vouloir-aider.html

À vous de noter si c'est une seule intrigue parce que ça nie la même prémisse pour ma solution de trouver un revenu, ou deux intrigues différentes, puisque les éditeurs sont distinctes de x qui s'est présentée comme [anonymisée aussi].

Donc, que ce serait "impossible" pour un éditeur quelconque de prendre mes blogs ou plutôt une sélection de messages sur un ou plusieurs blogs comme manuscrit.

Erroné, mais cette erreur vient d'ajouter du temps avant que je sois en position de repayer les sommes.

Aussi, je compose (au moins avant, moins cette dernière année qui m'a beaucoup fatigué) de la musique.

http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.fr/2008/11/whats-deal-cest-quoi-ce-truc.html

Voici quelques observations à propos quelquesunes des intrigues possibles (avérés uniquement dans mon expérience que vous pourriez taxer de subjective, à savoir que des gens qui ont d'abord montré un intérêt pour mes compositions se soient de la suite montrés "perplexes", comme s'ils avaient perdu la mémoire.

[Avec corrections apportées à l'orthographe, j'étais fatigué]

http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.fr/2015/03/le-boycott-de-mes-compositions-en.html

Notez, ça fait depuis 2005 que des musiciens français savent que je compose, il s'agit donc effectivement d'un boycott.

http://hglundahlsmusik.blogspot.fr/2014/03/britten-netait-pas-plagiaire-moi-non.html

Juste pour le cas qu'il y ait des critiques de musique sur place incapable de distinguer entre "pastiche" (reproche critique, et qui a été faite à Ravel) et "plagiat" (sens primaire : délit dans le code de la propriété intellectuelle et artistique, sens dérivé : hyperlatif de pastiche).

Telle est ma réponse.

S'il y a sur Centrala Studiestödsnämnden qui voudraient donner occasion non seulement à moi, mais aussi à d'autres suédois endettés, soit catholiques conservateurs, interessés par mes textes, soit musiciens, interessés par mes compositions, de se retrouver en état de leur repayer, ils sont biensûr très bienvenus à transmettre.

Entre temps, je vis sans revenu.

Cette page (à laquelle je donne le lien depuis les deux pages de conditions) note mon numéro de compte postal:

http://www.webcitation.org/5cxxNeXzW

Je cite:

La Poste, France
Caisse National d'Epargne
Code établissement: 10011
Code guichet: 00020
N° du compte: 1022192955Z
Clé RICE: 24
Bergérac, 24
IBAN-IDENTIFIANT INTERNATIONAL DU COMPTE:
FR81...10011...00020...102...2192955Z...24
BIC-IDENTIFIANT INTERNATIONAL DE L'ETABLISSEMENT:
PSSTFRPPCNE

Vous êtes libres à faire une requête chez La Poste combien s'y trouve pour l'instant.

Et s'il y serait des sommes importantes versées depuis que j'avais vérifié moins de 10 €, vous êtes de ma part libres d'en prendre et de verser à CSN (dans le sens suédois, Centrala Studiestödsnämnden).*

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Notez, j'ai aussi une dette au moins morale, mais aussi en quelques PV, une somme moins importante qt aux PV, mais assez importante qm quand à la dette morale, à SNCF et RATP.

Bureau de recouvrement de dettes à moi

16/03/15 à 11h00

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669

Monsieur,

Votre email est tout à fait incompréhensible. Il reste près de 6000 € à rembourser à CSN, nous pouvons vous proposer un remboursement maximum en 18 mensualités de 327.44 € Sans réponse précise de votre part sous 48h, nous reprendrons la procédure à votre encontre.

Cordialement,
[personne humaine anonymisée]

Moi à Bureau de recouvrement de dettes

16/03/15 à 11h49

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669

Je ne considère pas ma réponse incompréhensible.

Relisez.

Je vous ai d'ailleurs donné ce qu'il vous faut pour votre procédure si vous y allez. Vous avez mon numéro de compte postal, je ne possède pas d'autre compte.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Bureau de recouvrement de dettes à moi

16/03/15 à 12h04

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669

Monsieur,

Je représente un cabinet de recouvrement, ce que vous faites pour gagner votre vie ne me concerne pas.
Pouvez-vous payer selon les modalités que je vous ai clairement proposées, oui ou non.
Si oui, alors remplissez l’autorisation de prélèvement ci-joint et adressez-nous-la à [anomynisé]
Si vous ne pouvez pas, veuillez me fournir votre déclaration de revenus pour 2014, pas des liens menant sur je ne sais quels sites et qui ne font pas progresser mon dossier de recouvrement.

Comptant sur votre compréhension
Cordialement [etc.]

Moi à Bureau de recouvrement de dettes

16/03/15 à 15h33

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669

"Si vous ne pouvez pas, veuillez me fournir votre déclaration de revenus pour 2014, pas des liens menant sur je ne sais quels sites et qui ne font pas progresser mon dossier de recouvrement."

Ma déclaration de revenus est : 0€.

Sauf ce que j'ai fait en mendicité (pour supplémenter mon manque de revenus sur mes métiers). Et donc aussi consommé pour survivre.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Moi à Bureau de recouvrement de dettes

16/03/15 à 15h50

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669 (encore)

Oh, d'ailleurs, les sites ne sont pas "vous ne savez pas quels sites", ce sont les miens, ils expliquent mes démarches d'avoir un révenu et aussi les obstacles.*

Mais comme dit, mon révenu [sic scripsi] était 0€.

Voulez-vous que je remplisse le formulaire quand même, juste au cas que mes démarches auparavant sans réussite donneraient des fruits?

Ou est-ce une chose impossible tant que je n'ai pas de revenu connu en avance?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Et je viens aussi de proposer que celui qui reclame [sic scripsi] le paiement pourrait les avoir pour proposer à d'autres étudiants suédois endettés et fauchés de payer pour soi-même et pour moi avec l'utilisation commerciale de mes productions artistiques et intellectuelles. Vous pourriez leur au moins transmettre les liens.

Mon adresse postale:

ESI St Martin
27 ter Bd de St Martin
75003 Paris

C'est une boîte à lettres, chez l'Armée du Salut, pas un appartement, ni un endroit pour dormir. Juste une boîte à lettres, et je vis de jour en jour.

Bureau de recouvrement de dettes à moi

16/03/15 à 16h09

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669 (encore)

Monsieur,

J’entends que vous n’avez pas de revenus, il me faut votre déclaration de revenus officielle pour pouvoir le prouver à mon client. Sans ce document, la procédure à votre encontre continuera

Cordialement, [etc.]

Moi à Bureau de recouvrement de dettes

16/03/15 à 16h57

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669 (encore)

"il me faut votre déclaration de revenus officielle pour pouvoir le prouver à mon client."

En Suède, j'aurais pu déclarer un révenu [sic scripsi] nul.

En France les Finances Publiques ne prennent pas ce genre de déclaration, selon ce qu'on vient de m'indiquer.

Donc, le document que vous demandez est non-existant.

Mais je viens de vous autoriser ici même en écrit de chercher sur mon compte postal.

S'il y a davantage que les dix euros dont j'étais au courant, après de prélever, ayez la bonté de me signaler, même si rien ne reste, puisque ça me dirait que les choses commencent à aller dans le bon sens pour moi.

Avec regrets,

Hans Georg Lundahl

Bureau de recouvrement de dettes à moi

17/03/15 à 12h02

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669 (encore)

Monsieur,

Pour la dernière fois, nous n’avons pas le pouvoir de faire ce que vous m’indiquez. Nous sommes un cabinet de recouvrement amiable

Cordialement, [etc.]

Moi à Bureau de recouvrement de dettes

17/03/15 à 12h09

RE: AVIS AVANT POURSUITES /DMD 1730669 (encore)

Ah, vous n'avez pas le pouvoir de regarder mon compte, même si je l'autorise?

J'avais pas compris que vous l'aviez dit.

Mes excuses.

Mais précisément en tant que cabinet de recouvrement amicable, ne serait-ce pas indiqué de faire passer mes propos à Centrala Studieistödsnämnden?

Merci en avance, et Bonne Fête de St Patrick!

Hans Georg Lundahl

Friday, 13 March 2015

Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas)

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

Introductory remarks from Robert Bennett (two teas, noted) to me:: To Hans Lundah [sic], interspersed with comments

Robert Bennett, interspersed with my comments:

[Placed as in quotation in original letter, so as to make his new remarks stick out as answers.]
I
Robert Bennett: « The firmament was set in rotation at the first gulp of forbidden fruit, not to stop until the Lion of Juda returns. This precludes complete cessation of cosmic rotation… “
Hans Georg Lundahl: In St Augustine, the firmament or the light within it, he doesn’t say which and at another point leaves the question undecided, and explicitly so, was set in rotation around Earth on day 1.
Robert Bennett: [AMDG] So the firmament was created on Day 2, according to Scripture, and set in rotation on Day 1, according to Augustine…or possibly Lundah?) [sic] …. rotating before it was created…

Even the Almighty would be challenged by that contradiction.

Augustine warned against those who would weaken the faith by arguing from ignorance. He should include those who misquote him.
Hans Georg Lundahl: Mea Culpa. No, St Augustine does not say the firmament starts rotating on day 1.

But the light which was created on day one started rotating that day, that he does say.

If Sun rotates because of rotating aether, that obviously means the aether is something other than the firmament.

My own idea about the firmament between the waters is oxygenized athmosphere.

H2O below it. Some H2O but mostly H2 as “waters above the firmament”. And some H2 used to create Sun and Stars on day 4. And some H2 reunited in double proportion to O2 to form the H2O when the waters of the heavens were opened at the deluge.

But this does not mean aether would not have been rotating.
II
Hans Georg Lundahl: I am not convinced of the visionary Hildegard of Bingen.
Robert Bennett: [AMDG] There’s no relevance to your lack of conviction. Private revelation – to Augustine or Hildegard – is judged by the Church to be ‘take it or leave it’…not binding in conscience according to its content. So we can say, each to the other, ‘Es macht nichts’… But reference to Hildegard’s works are based on comparison of her visionary statements with scientific facts in today’s world. And. so far, her interpretation of reality is not in conflict with present facts, but with present interpretation of those facts. Alternate causes without contradiction.

Augustine makes no claim of divine revelation, AFAIK, and he makes no statement about nature testable today… IMBW.
Hans Georg Lundahl: St Augustine does however make a serious claim of having studied the Bible.
III
Robert Bennett: “The 16 fixed stars(angels?) need only supply the aether winds to fully counter the sidereal rotation of Sun and Moon to conflate Scripture(necessary) and Hildegard(optional).”
Hans Georg Lundahl: I have no idea what you mean by “16 fixed stars” since the fixed stars (each probably not quite fixed and probably moved by an angel) are innumerable.
Robert Bennett: [AMDG] So lack of conviction is based on ignorance of Hildegard’s content? An interesting epistemology.
Hans Georg Lundahl: A conviction decidedly for or against needs to be based on knowledge of content. I pleaded lack of conviction.

I do however know that if she said anything about “16 fixed stars”, this was not the exact typical terminology of the Middle Ages.

As I said : I have no idea what you mean by “16 fixed stars” (in Hildegard of Bingen) since the fixed stars (each probably not quite fixed and probably moved by an angel) are innumerable (in common usage of what fixed stars means to the Middle Ages).
IV
Robert Bennett: “God could grant Joshua’s request indirectly by using the angels of solar and lunar aether as instruments of His will… Wo ist der fehler? »
a
Hans Georg Lundahl: God is not said simply to have granted Joshua’s request, but to have obeyed him.
Robert Bennett: [AMDG] And somehow it’s known that God could not have obeyed Joshua indirectly, by angelic implementation? God has never used angels to send a message or in effecting His will?
Hans Georg Lundahl: But the word “obey” implies God adjusting His behavior to the command of Joshua. His own behavior. That is the point. Otherwise it would have read that God granted the request or something.
b
Hans Georg Lundahl: Furthermore, if the aether is the habitation of Sun and of Moon, for them to stand still as seen from Earth (Joshua 10) and also “in their habitation” (Habacuc 3:11)the habitation also needs not to move, since if it moved, either they would stand still in it, but move with it as seen from Earth, though faster, at stellar angular speed, or they would stand still as seen from Earth but by moving against the movement of their habitation. One could get around it by saying aether rotating around Earth is not what Habacuc meant by their habitation.
Robert Bennett: [AMDG] Joshua 10:13 references shamayim not zĕbuwl
Hans Georg Lundahl: I am not a Hebraist, in Douay Rheims Habacuc 3:11 reads “in their habitation”. And Latin has “in habitaculo suo » in the Vulgate.
V
Robert Bennett: “Any one of Hildegard’s 4 aether types could be the source of the obvious global atmospheric circulation and jet streams eastward and its conflict with the firmament’s westward motion, balancing only in the GSZ. “
Hans Georg Lundahl: I have no idea of what her 4 aether types are.
Robert Bennett: [AMDG] Blissful ignorance, a fortiori.
Hans Georg Lundahl: Blissful or not, when I posted the words before Christopher Ferrara’s interruption, I counted on an explanation.
Final remarks:
Robert Bennett: Enough of the irrational posturing…. Like David and Chris previously, Bennet(sic) is bailing out …

No more missives, svp..

AMDG,

Robert B.
Hans Georg Lundahl: For one thing, deleting a last letter is different if it changes pronuntiation and if it is just omission of a double letter.

For another thing, I was tired.

For a third, I have corrected all Bennet to Bennett. Except where he put “Bennet(sic)” Since my fault was involuntary, I feel I had a right to correct it without falsification.

For a fourth, just as some oaf seems to have prayed that I may trust Robert Sungenis less on spelling of Slavic names, so someone seems to have prayed that for saying this I should be shown untrustworthy myself. Mission accomplished. Before correction, I had in fact written “Robert Bennet” which really does merit a (sic) from his writing.

For the fifth, as he asked for “no more missives” this answer will be given on message board (unless I was excluded) instead of per missive.

Hans Georg Lundahl

With Red Cardigan on Abusive Filtering of her Blog

Me to Red Cardigan: 09/03/15 à 10h17
On the message "Destroying the family is good for business" ....: ... which seems no longer to exist, did you by any chance show some poster for a pron mag to illustrate a point?

Because, the message and your entire blog got filtered on the giant library Bpi:

New blog on the kid : Et la Bpi alors ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/et-la-bpi-alors.html

You do not need to answer, if you do, it will be visible on my blogs (you know the famous Wellborn protocol):

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

Hans Georg Lundahl
Red Cardigan to me: 10/03/15 à 22h41
Re: On the message "Destroying the family is good for business" ....: Dear Mr. Lundahl,

I have no idea why the library you link to filtered my post. There is nothing pornographic in it, and the links in it are to a news article and to Rod Dreher’s blog at The American Conservative. There are some links in the quote from Rod Dreher’s piece as well, but those are his links and do not go anywhere other than to reference materials and sources he is citing.

I find it interesting that my post is being censored. The most charitable assumption is that certain words used in discussing the topic triggered a “keyword” alert, but one would think that the post would actually be read before someone would decide it was inappropriate.

I appreciate your bringing this to my attention!

Sincerely,

[signed real name of Red Cardigan]
Me to Red Cardigan: 11/03/15 à 09h42
Re: On the message "Destroying the family is good for business" ....: Dear [Red Cardigan],

My hunch is that "redcardigan" contains the letter sequence "redcard".

Which in its usual football or sports connotation is not used in French sites, since they use "carte rouge" instead.

I did alert a librarian, and even if we are right about origin of mistake it is his duty to have corrected it by now.

All the best!

Hans Georg Lundahl

With David Palm and Sungenis

I with David Palm

Me to David Palm

02/03/15 à 12h19

I accept your version of what was written in Acta of 1820

But I think it makes my point and not yours:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Supposing Pius VII had enthroned Heliocentrism – why did anyone scold Anfossi ?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2015/03/supposing-pius-vii-had-enthroned.html

David Palm to me

02/03/15 à 19h38

Re: I accept your version of what was written in Acta of 1820

Greetings Hans and thanks again for writing. Others may have, but I have never argued that the Church insists that the faithful must believe in "heliocentrism" -- on the contrary, I've stated many times on my site that we are free as Catholics to hold various views on the matter, precisely because these are matters of natural philosophy and not matters of divine faith.

I would say that the difficulty for Sungenis remains in the Acta. Fr. Anfossi was behaving basically just like Sungenis, by insisting that Catholics can only hold to a strict geocentrism. And to the extent that the author of the Acta entry was critical of Pius VII it was that he was not sufficiently vigorous in bringing Fr. Anfossi to heel for his intransigence. I think the fact remains that Sungenis has gotten this passage backwards.

God bless,

David

Me to David Palm

03/03/15 à 10h28

Re: I accept your version of what was written in Acta of 1820

When it comes to Sungenis there are two things to distinguish:

what he is trying to argue scientifically
what he is saying about Church doctrine.

As far as I know, he nowhere says a Catholic Heliocentric is ipso facto excommunicated and on the way to Hell, so that far you seem to exaggerate the problem if there is one.

As to the other thing, that is what he is making The Principle about, that is what you are getting help from Alec MacAndrew for, etc. etc. so you seem to have taken a kind of "crusaders vow" against his intellectual position.

That does not figure (Nimoy will know by now men won't be meeting Vulcans and so excuse my use of his phrase).

Now, as to the acta, Fr Anfossi was not defeated intellectually, he was not condemned by the Pope and so he became the butt of some serious namecalling.

To me that suggest there was some foul business in the Settele affair, and that does not depend on reading Sungenis take on it.

As homeless, I neither have a place where I can keep a thick book, nor the money to buy it. [In other words : I have so far not yet read Sungenis' book.]

And yes, I think there was foul play, if not against Pius VII then by him. I see him as a man who daren't outrage whatever remains binding in Heaven on him by actually believing and stating he believes Heliocentrism is true (Wojtyla very notably did not have that caution), but who on the other hand doesn't dare uphold a Church ban which has become irksome and unfashionable.

A bit like Pius XII /Pacelli and Montini / Paul VI promoting, on somewhat diverse levels, NFP as "Catholic Contraception". Except, Pius VII was more cautious than that too, since the ban that was lifted was only on literature, not any ban on believing. So, a ban on believing Heliocentrism existed in 1633 and was not actally lifted in so many words in 1820, while Pius VII "piously" or less so hoped anyone feeling an urge to believe Heliocentrism would take the lifting of one ban as including the lifting of the other.

It is true that Papal acts are acts of the Legislator of the Church, and the acts of Legislators are to be interpreted according to the intent and will of the Legislator, but this is of course limited by the fact that even Legislators cannot act Ultra Vires.

I see Pius VII as having feared to act ultra vires, to excmmunicate himself, to destroy the Church, if he had directly tried to lift the ban on the thesis condemned in 1633.

And, of course, I see a reason for the irksomeness too. Accept a Geocentric universe with Tychonian orbits (the only ones that observation will give you if you take it from wysiwig or Geocentric p o v), that directly argues supernatural agency at work each and every day and with results that are observable before all eyes and espcially before all eyes armed with telescopes.

God acting the turning of the universe, not via some mechanism and via some natural law governing that mechanism and angels acting orbits not via some mechanism and via some natural law governing the mechanism, but rather directly.

This world view had been ridiculed for well nigh a century, we are speaking about 100 years after Freemasonry was founded and also after one of the years when Louis XV was a nominal ruler with a "Hell Fire Club" nobleman ruling in his name.

And Pius VII had shown what some would call charity and others weakness toward a product of this Enlightenment movement. Napoleon I. This is especially a big issue among French Monarchists, and I think La Petite Église may still be in existence, somewhere.

Also, after the captivity of his predecessor, Pius VI, he may have had a few pretty humdrum motives for this.

In other words, what he did was so to speak what Vatican II has been accused of doing by Anti-Communists - and I think they are right. Only, fortunately for his soul and his papacy, he wasn't trying to do it as forcefully. He relied on vituperation against Anfossi doing what his authoritative word could not have done, because it would have destroyed the Church. And yes, Vatican II arrangement has relied very heavily on vituperation too. Your attitude to Sungenis' scientific side is an example.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II With David Palm and Robert Sungenis

Me to David Palm and Robert Sungenis

09/03/15 à 14h47

On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

First, for reference, Palm's essay:

GeoDeb : Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/sungenis-looses-what-he-has-bound-on-joshua-10/

Next, since Palm and Sungenis refer to Haydock:

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition. : JOSUE - Chapter 10
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id545.html

Next, verses and comment:

12 Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Aialon.

13 And the *sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

14 There was not before, nor after, so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.

Ver. 12. Them. This may be considered as a canticle of victory, containing a fervent prayer, which was presently followed with the desired effect. --- Aialon. Hebrew, "Sun, in Gabaon, be silent; (move not) and thou, moon, in the valley of Aialon," or "of the wood," which was probably not far from Gabaon. Josue had pursued the enemy at mid-day, to the west of that city, when turning round, he addressed this wonderful command to the sun. It is supposed that the moon appeared at the same time. But the meaning may only be, that the sun and the course of the stars should be interrupted for a time. (Calmet) --- The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, Hebrews iii. 11. (Menochius) --- Many have called in question this miracle, with Maimonides, or have devised various means to explain it away, by having recourse to a parhelion or reflection of the sun by a cloud, or to a light which was reverberated by the mountains, after the sun was set, &c. (Prœdam iv. 6.; Spinosa; Grotius; Le Clerc) --- But if these authors believe the Scriptures, they may spare themselves the trouble of devising such improbable explanations, as this fact is constantly represented as a most striking miracle. If St. Paul (Hebrews xi. 30,) make no mention of it, he did not engage to specify every miracle that had occurred. He does not so much as mention Josue, nor the passage of the Jordan, &c., so that it is a matter of surprise that Grotius should adduce this negative argument, to disprove the reality of the miracle. (Calmet) --- The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet) --- It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock) --- The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.

Cessavere vices rerum dilataque longâ,
Hæsit nocte dies: legi non paruit æther,
Torpuit & præceps audito carmine mundus. (Lucan, Phars. vi.)

See Homer, Odyssey xii. 382., and xxiii. 242.

This miracle would not render Josue superior to Moses, as some have argued. For all miracles are equally impossible to man, and equally easy to God: the greatness of a miracle is not a proof of greater sanctity. (Calmet) --- Aialon lay to the south-west of Gabaon. (Haydock) --- Josue ordered the moon to stop, as a necessary consequence of the sun's standing still. God condescended to grant his request. (Worthington)

Ver. 13. The book of the just. In Hebrew Sepher hayashar; an ancient book long since lost. (Challoner) --- It was probably of the same nature with that of the wars of the Lord, (Numbers xxi. 4,) containing an account of the most memorable occurrences which concerned the people of Israel, the just, or Ischuron, Deuteronomy xxxiii. 5. Josephus ([Antiquities?] v. 2,) says, such "records were kept in the archives of the temple." They were drawn up by people of character. The quotations inserted are in a poetical style, as the book might contain various canticles, though the rest was written in prose. See 2 Kings i. 18. It might appear unnecessary for Josue to appeal to this work, as the fact in question was known to all. (Calmet) --- But too great precaution could not be taken to prevent the danger of people calling in question the reality of the miracle. If the book of the just was a more detailed history of facts, out of which this work of Josue has been compiled, as Theodoret supposes, the author might very well remit the more inquisitive reader to that authentic source. (Haydock) --- Midst. It was then almost noon. (Calmet) --- Josue was nevertheless afraid lest the day should not allow them time to destroy their fleeing enemies completely. (Haydock) --- If the evening had been at hand, he would have said, return sun towards Gabaon, as it would have been on the west of his army. The battle had begun early in the morning, and the pursuit had lasted perhaps four or five hours. (Calmet) --- Day. Hebrew, "about a whole day." Many think that a day here comprises 24 hours; and as the sun had been above the horizon six hours, and continued other six, it must have been visible for the space of 36 hours, as the Jews believe, and as it is specified in St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho. The author of Ecclesiasticus xlvi. 5, says, Was not the sun stopped in his anger, and one day made as two? that is, 24 hour long, allowing 12 unequal ones to form a day, according to the reckoning of those times. Others suppose that the day of Josue might consist of 18 (Calmet) or of 48 hours. But how would the soldiers be able to support such a fatigue? They had been marching all the preceding night from Galgal. (Haydock) --- If they had stopped to take refreshment, their enemies would have escaped. Hence some of the Fathers imagine, that God enabled his people to pursue them without taking any food. (St. Jerome, contra Jov. ii.) They might, however, take some along with them, as it was then customary; and eat as they pursued, whenever they could find an opportunity. Josue had given no prohibition; and Jonathan observed that his father, Saul, had troubled Israel, by following a different plan, 1 Kings xiv. 24. (Calmet)

Ver. 14. Long. This word is not found in Hebrew, "and there was no day like that, before it, or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto," &c. But God had often wrought miracles before, at the prayer of his servants. The difference between this day and all others, must be therefore in the length, or in the stopping of the heavenly bodies. (Haydock) --- The long day which the prayer of Ezechias procured, (4 Kings xx., and Isaias xxxviii.) consisted of 32 hours; or, supposing that the retrograde motion of the sun was instantaneous on the dial, it might only be 22 hours in length. (Calmet) --- But if the day of Ezechias had been even longer, the words of this text may be verified, that neither in times past, nor while the author lived, had any such day been known. See Amama, p. 383. (Haydock) --- Obeying. God is ready to grant the requests of his servants, Isaias lviii. 9. "We remark something still stronger, in the power which he has given to priests, to consecrate the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the eucharist." (Calmet)

A highlight, about the issue at hand:

The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet) --- It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock) --- The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change. [Calmet again?]

The statement that helio- or geocentric interpretation of miracle is immaterial, comes from Haydock himself (A. in the printed volume, presumed identical to Haydock as author of compilation.) He obviously wrote after the 1820 decision and in an England highly unfavourable to Geocentrism.

But Calmet did not so state that Heliocentric interpretation was equally possible.

I have a reason to think it is not, if we put the words about result in context:

New blog on the kid : Columbus and Joshua (Imagine Christopher Columbus had worked a miracle)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2014/11/columbus-and-joshua-imagine-christopher.html

Looking forward to hear from you both, preferrably clicking "answer all" so as to keep the dialogue a "trialogue" ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

Robert Sungenis to me and David Palm et al.

09/03/15 à 22h43

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Hans,

Thank you for alerting me to yet another of Mr. Palm’s attempts to undermine our historic doctrine of geocentrism. Stepping through all of Mr. Palm’s immature sarcasm is a job in itself, but the real issues here are the following:

(1) Mr. Palm’s fight is with the historic Catholic Church of 1616 and 1633 which clearly and plainly stated, following the Fathers and the medieval teaching, that heliocentrism was erroneous. Mr. Palm doesn’t want to accept that historic teaching because he thinks that geocentrism is wrong.

(2) Mr. Palm has no scientific proof of heliocentrism, or any scientific disproof for geocentrism, and he has presented no such proof, and therefore he has no basis to reject geocentrism, since the Church has declared that absent scientific disproof to the contrary, the Church will maintain her traditional doctrine.

(3) Mr. Palm has no official statement from the Catholic Church in which it officially either endorsed heliocentrism or rescinded its 1616-1633 decree against heliocentrism and for geocentrism.

(4) The only thing Mr. Palm hangs his hat on is an 1820 imprimatur and a 1835 Index alteration, both of which do nothing to alter the 1616-1633 decrees, and both of which were facilitated by the malfeasance of Cardinal Olivieri of the Holy Office of 1820 which lied to Pius VII regarding why the 1616-1633 decrees were issued.

As a result, Mr. Palm will continue to twist his way through the evidence like a sharp lawyer looking for a technicality to have a case dismissed. I hope you have better luck with him than I did. If you need any information from me in your pursuit, please feel free to ask.

You will find, Hans, that much of Mr. Palm’s motivation comes from his vile hatred of me simply because I take a different stand than he does on the plight of the Jews, a fact that he himself has admitted. Now you know the context.

Robert Sungenis

Me to Robert Sungenis and David Palm et al.

10/03/15 à 09h34

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

That is very possible, and if so very regrettable.

However, I was more into answering the "sharp lawyer" part than delving into motivations.

My contention is, that God making Earth stop rotating around its axis is for one reason not an option : because if that is how it worked, and if God made it work that way, God would be a liar after the words uttered by the miracle maker Joshua.

Joshua's words were adressed to Sun and Moon, not to Earth. Since I only access Calmet via the compilation by Haydock, I can't tell if Calmet noted that too, back before 1820.

But an ex-Lutheran has to note it. Fifty years or more before I was born, Church of Sweden (Lutheran, not semi-Calvinist) already included "Theologians" willing to say, avoiding Arianism and Kenotic heresies, that Jesus very well knew tehre were no demons, at least not possessing the "mental cases" or epileptics he was dealing with, but still, while healing, adressed His words to non-extant demons telling them to do a non-extant action, getting out of the person. This theory of course would be making Jesus a liar.

Similarily, if God had allowed Joshua to say things to Sun and Moon while, Himself, knowing it was Earth that needed to stop, God would also have made himself a liar, by his answer to Joshua's prayer. So, for God to be truthful, it must at least in a main point, if not exclusively, have been the Sun that stopped moving and the Moon that stopped moving. And stopping Earth from rotating would mean the main point would be Earth stopping to move.

As explained at greater length in the link.

Robert, I once recently told you, when I ceased trusting you on the spelling of Slavic names, that must have been God answering someone praying I trust you less. You see, I don't think God intends me to trust you less on the main issue, but I think God owed some oaf with some good will some hearing of such a prayer. Whence the question of how you spell such and such a name in Croatian, I will from now on look it up before trusting your spelling ... hope you do not mind this or think I buy into certain someone's certain "criticisms" of your position in regards to the Jews. And hope you don't mind me liking men like Brother Nathanael or "save the males" ... Makoff, oh, Henry Makow. Can we get the dialogue of three* going about this argument on Joshua, instead, pretty please?

Hans Georg Lundahl

* "trialogue" in previous message was obviously a joke. "dia" is not "dyo" meaning two, but "dia" meaning "through" or "between".

Robert Sungenis to me and David Palm et al.

10/03/15 à 14h19

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Hans,

I agree with your assessment. Joshua spoke to the sun and moon, not to the Earth; just as Jesus spoke to demons, not mental patients who he pretended to have demons. Therefore, so that God will not be cast as a liar, the sun and moon stopped moving, not the Earth rotating.

Good luck in trying to get David Palm to see that simple logic. He will dream up some objection to it, just like the Pharisees did to Jesus.

Robert

Me to Robert Sungenis and David Palm et al.

10/03/15 à 20h49

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

I am waiting for his answer on the point.

With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennett and Rick DeLano

David Palm to me et al. (including Sungenis)

10/03/15 à 21h24

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Dear Hans,

For the reasons given in my article, I think it's futile to attempt to derive physical, scientific principles from miracles which are by definition supernatural. But even if one were to accept your premise on Joshua 10, my article documents that both Fr. Haydock and even Sungenis have suggested a solution that meets your objection without giving any particular support for any particular cosmological theory. So have another look at the article and if you had further questions that you want to discuss privately, let me know.

God bless,

David

Me to David Palm et al. including Sungenis

11/03/15 à 09h38

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

You have:

not documented that Haydock does so, because Haydock was not dealing with this specific objection to Heliocentric interpretations, precisely as Pius XII in Humani Generis was not dealing with Mark 10:6 ruling out long age interpretations of the days;
nor documented that Sungenis did so, because what Sungenis conceded is rather to be taken as God could have arranged the miracle any way he wanted rather than that God could have wanted to arrange it in a way that was misleading about cosmology to the observers. Sungenis also was not dealing with my specific objection to Heliocentrism in the passage you quoted and when I sent him and you my objection, he endorsed it in a letter back to me and to you.

Furthermore, the Haydock endorsement for Heliocentrism stands for Haydock only, since he actually interrupts the commentary of Calmet in order to insert it.

Haydock comment is usually very good in standing for Dom Augustin Calmet endorsed by Haydock, Bishop Witham endorsed by Haydock, Bishop Worthington endorsed by Haydock, Bishop Challoner endorsed by Haydock, Tirinus endorsed by Haydock etc. But the endorsement for Heliocentrism is only Haydock endorsed by Haydock. It is obviously in some kind of obedience to the 1820 decision, since Haydock wrote this after this decision. All commenters he otherwise cites wrote before it. Usually.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Sungenis to me and David Palm et al.

11/03/15 à 16h14

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Palm: For the reasons given in my article, I think it's futile to attempt to derive physical, scientific principles from miracles which are by definition supernatural.

Sungenis: Mr. Palm is obfuscating the issue. No one is asking him to “derive physical, scientific principles from miracles.” That would be absurd, since miracles are above scientific explanations. The Fathers in consensus, as well as St. Bellarmine and Pope Paul V, stated that there is only thing required of us: to acknowledge that God, by a miracle, stopped the sun and moon from moving, and he did not stop the Earth from moving, since the Earth wasn’t moving in order to be stopped miraculously. In the same way, if Jesus raised someone who was dead, it is a fact of nature that the person was dead before Jesus raised them. If Jesus put a limb back on someone’s body, it is a fact of nature that the limb was missing from the person’s body before the miracle. Likewise, if the sun and moon are stopped, it is a fact of nature that they were moving previously. It’s really very simple.

Palm: But even if one were to accept your premise on Joshua 10, my article documents that both Fr. Haydock and even Sungenis have suggested a solution that meets your objection without giving any particular support for any particular cosmological theory. So have another look at the article and if you had further questions that you want to discuss privately, let me know.

Sungenis: If Mr. Palm is suggesting that the same stoppage of the sun and moon would occur if the universe were stopped from rotating, that will not work, and I discovered this after I had proposed it in the 9th edition of GWW, and I don’t propose it any longer. That is because the sun and moon have an independent movement against the universe. The universe moves on a sidereal rate, the sun moves on a solar rate, and the moon moves faster than both the universe and the sun, on a lunar rate. Therefore, it would not fit Joshua 10. The sun and moon must be stopped independently of the universe or in addition to stopping the universe.

Me to Sungenis and David Palm et al.

11/03/15 à 16h39

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

A little correction, Sungenis:

"The universe moves on a sidereal rate, the sun moves on a solar rate, and the moon moves faster than both the universe and the sun, on a lunar rate."

The lunar rate is a bit slower. Sth like 24h50min per circuit around Earth, as I recall since a few years ago studying tides, to refute the argument that they prove the Newtonian astronomy. Stars/universe are faster than either sun or moon, 23h56min and sth seconds, if I recall correctly.

Actually, I first thought a few weeks ago, the only thing that happened was Sun and Moon speeding up against the movement of the aether, Sun 365 times faster than usual, Moon 27 times faster than usual (or sth like that) heading East same angular speed as aether headed West and thus not moving in relation to Earth.

But:

that would mean only angels of Sun and Moon, rather than God himself, obeyed Joshua, and the text says God obeyed him;
also it does not qualify as them standing still "in their habitation" (see Habacuc 3:11).

So, God stopped aether and still let time go on, despite time being generally a byproduct of the movement of aether, thereby illustrating how the whiteness and two inches in round of a Host can be upheld by God when bread has gone to become blessed Body of Our Lord, also stopping of aether that day is a reminder of the day God stops aether in another way, on Judgement Day.

Meanwhile, Sun and Moon also obeyed Joshua and stopped so as not to move Eastward.

Or one could say (but that won't take care of geostationary satellites like the aether theory, I am afraid) that Sun and Moon are in themselves heading West through empty space and God obeying Joshua refers to His instructing the angels of Sun and Moon to do so. Or to Himself being directly their usual mover, but that theory is very much less held by scholastics, according to Riccioli.

David Palm to me et al. including Sungenis

11/03/15 à 17h00

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

"There are inumerable [sic] ways God can accomplish the task at hand if and when the normal laws which govern the universe are set aside to make room for God’s divine ingenuity" (Robert Sungenis, GWW3 9th ed., p. 33).

I agree.

Robert Bennett to me, Sungenis and Palm et al.

11/03/15 à 21h58

RE: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

In the context of the Hildegardian visions:

The firmament was set in rotation at the first gulp of forbidden fruit, not to stop until the Lion of Juda returns.

This precludes complete cessation of cosmic rotation…

The 16 fixed stars(angels?) need only supply the aether winds to fully counter the sidereal rotation of Sun and Moon to conflate Scripture(necessary) and Hildegard(optional).

God could grant Joshua’s request indirectly by using the angels of solar and lunar aether as instruments of His will… Wo ist der fehler?

Any one of Hildegard’s 4 aether types could be the source of the obvious global atmospheric circulation and jet streams eastward and its conflict with the firmament’s westward motion, balancing only in the GSZ.

Robert B.

Sungenis to Palm and me et al.

12/03/15 à 01h51

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

In a message dated 3/11/2015 12:00:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [David Palm] writes:

"There are inumerable [sic] ways God can accomplish the task at hand if and when the normal laws which govern the universe are set aside to make room for God’s divine ingenuity" (Robert Sungenis, GWW3 9th ed., p. 33).

I agree.

If you were trying to be clever by quoting me as your answer, Mr. Palm, you didn't succeed.

I'm sure everyone here realizes that you were hoist by your own petard in trying to make a stopped universe the solution, as well as trying to claim that we were trying to "derive physical and scientific principles from miracles."

As such, I'll take it that you have conceded the point. I'm glad you agree that God could have stopped the sun and moon any way He chose to do so. The point, of course, is that he stopped the sun and moon from moving whereas before they were moving, and He didn't stop the Earth, since that would still permit the moon to move.

I'm also glad you agree that it couldn't be by merely stopping the universe, since then the sun and moon would keep moving, and God would be lying to us. He did not stop the Earth from moving, otherwise God would be lying to us.

So, unless I hear otherwise from you, Mr. Palm, I will advertise the fact that you now acknowledge that God stopped the sun and moon from moving in Joshua 10, and that the Earth was never rotating and thus did not need to be stopped.

By the way, please remove your [sic]. I checked the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th editions of GWW, Vol 3, and none of them have the misspelling "inumerable." They all have "innumerable."

So where are you getting an edition that has "inumerable" and a page number 33?

Please let me see a photocopy of the page, since perhaps someone may have a bootleg edition.

Sungenis to me et al.

12/03/15 à 01h58

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Hans,

Ah, thank you! I meant to say slower, not faster.

Despite my miscue there, the point is made that the universe the sun and the moon all move independently and at different rates, and therefore, stopping the universe would not stop either the sun or the moon.

Robert

Rick DeLano to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 02h20

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

//By the way, please remove your [sic]. I checked the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th editions of GWW, Vol 3, and none of them have the misspelling "inumerable." They all have "innumerable."

So where are you getting an edition that has "inumerable" and a page number 33?

Please let me see a photocopy of the page, since perhaps someone may have a bootleg edition//

I know a guy who could gin up a whole plagiarism piece on the basis of this, if you need it, Bob.....

Oh....wait.

Never mind.

Carry on.

Sungenis eto Rick DeLano et al.

12/03/15 à 02h21

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Rick, you're so silly :)

Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry

Christopher Ferrara to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 03h41

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

I suggest that you end this seemingly endless war with a truce containing the following terms:

1. To hold to the heliocentric is not heresy per se.

2. Yet, the Copernican principle and modern cosmology in general are clearly, expressly and avowedly motivated by a philosophical aim, stated as such, by leading physicists such as Wolfson, whom I am reading now. That aim is to prove that that the Earth is nothing special, which is an indirect proof of the nonexistence of God. We inhabitants of Earth are just the incredibly fortuitous outcome of a long series of mutations occurring on a planet in a random location at the edge of a humdrum galaxy. They cannot abide a central earth for that reason, and they say so. You may say that God’s majesty does not depend on the location or the uniqueness of Earth, but the propagandists for the Copernican narrative know the public mind and know what works in terms demystifying the Universe and thus eliminating the need for God. It is naive simply to assert that their propaganda is of no consequence.

3. Thus, modern cosmology—part science, part philosophy driving the science (as it does evolutionary theory)---threatens to erode the Faith, as does evolutionism, even if it cannot be called formal heresy.

4. Catholics are free to argue for some version of the geocentric model precisely in order to counter the pretensions of modern cosmology, whose “dark matter,” “dark energy,” string theory, multiverse, balloon-like expanding Cosmos (the only way to avoid a center of the Universe with all of the problems that entails for the Copernican narrative) and other gimmicks are no more or less contrivances than the ether that even the modern cosmologist is, at this very moment, trying to sneak in the back door under a different name.

5. Geocentrism is not per se a crackpot theory. Even atheist cosmologists such as Krauss admit that the CMB data suggest either that Earth is indeed at the center of the universe or that the Copernican model has to be rethought completely. You may say Krauss is wrong, but’s an argument, not a per se demonstration that geocentrism is crackpot stuff. If he (and others) can see the problems for the Copernican narrative, Catholics should admit them and also admit that geocentrism is still arguable on the basis of empirical evidence that suggests Earth is centrally located. Krauss calls this “crazy” only on the basis of his a priori assumption that it can’t possibly be true, because, as Wolfson puts it: "Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be “at rest”? On purely philosophical grounds, we should reject the notion that Earth alone could be at rest relative to the ether.” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1009-1010). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. ” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1005-1009). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Further, if serious problems remain for the geocentrist theory, they are no more serious than those confronting the opposing cosmology, whose continuous ad hoc additions border on the ridiculous. A universe whose constituent matter and energy are 95% undetectable? Really? Any Catholic geocentrist is entitled to reject that claim on the same philosophical plane as their opponents reject geocentrism. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. And even if some semblance of an evidential argument can be concocted for the missing 95%, that argument hardly renders geocentism per see untenable.

6. To eliminate endless bickering over various conspiracy theories unrelated to geocentrism, the geocentrist proponents of such theories should simply admit that they are mere speculation, are unproven, are not worth pursuing to the detriment of more important issues, and should be definitively abandoned.

7. All parties should devote themselves to defending the Church against truly massive threats to the integrity of her liturgy and her doctrine, above all the astounding ongoing general eruption of neo-Modernism lamented by leading Churchmen, including Msgr. Pozzo, Archbishop Lenga, and Bishop Schneider during the run-up to the next session of the preposterous “Synod on the Family.”

In short, enough already. And, frankly, the notion that geocentrism threatens the Faith of anyone in the Magisterium is hard to take seriously in the midst of a situation in which leading Churchmen everywhere appear to be abandoning fundamental dogmas of the Faith while the Pope presides over a Synod whose controllers are clearly attempting to overthrow the teaching of John Paul II only 33 years ago—an effort which, were it to succeed, would destroy confidence in the entire Magisterium overnight.

In view of the above, can’t we all just get along?

Chris

Rick DeLano to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 03h54

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

I will run this by Karl tomorrow evening.

It certainly seems prudent and sensible to me.

Rick

Christopher Ferrara to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 04h22

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard.

Rick DeLano to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 04h43

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Just to be completely clear- do you object to me sharing the email with Karl in a private meeting?

Rick

Christopher Ferrara to Sungenis et al. (including Rick)

12/03/15 à 04h48

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

I do object. Strenuously. Private means private. I expect my request for confidence to be honored by all. Giving anything to Keating is like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Rick DeLano to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 04h49

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Thank you for the clarification.

I will of course accede to your wishes.

Me to Christopher Ferrara and Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 12h48

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

"This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard."

No, your caution was NOT abundant.

Now, as to permission, that is a moral quandary.

Remarks as far going as yours and asking for agreements, are such that I consider the public held in the dark if it cannot have them.

In other words, Ferrara, I consider your social method to be that of Freemasons or of Jews from the Synagogue, and totally unworthy of a Catholic.

Do I make myself clear on this?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Me again to Sungenis, Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 12h54

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

David Palm quoting Sungenis and agreeing with quote:

"There are inumerable [sic] ways God can accomplish the task at hand if and when the normal laws which govern the universe are set aside to make room for God’s divine ingenuity" (Robert Sungenis, GWW3 9th ed., p. 33).

I agree.

Hereto:

I agree too, as long as we talk of “God’s absolute power” i. e. His power considered without reference to His goodness. But the problem here is with God’s adequate power, i. e. His power as used precisely by His goodness, which includes perfect veracity.

Robert Bennet, interspersed with my comments:

« The firmament was set in rotation at the first gulp of forbidden fruit, not to stop until the Lion of Juda returns. This precludes complete cessation of cosmic rotation… “

In St Augustine, the firmament or the light within it, he doesn’t say which and at another point leaves the question undecided, and explicitly so, was set in rotation around Earth on day 1.

I am not convinced of the visionary Hildegard of Bingen.

“The 16 fixed stars(angels?) need only supply the aether winds to fully counter the sidereal rotation of Sun and Moon to conflate Scripture(necessary) and Hildegard(optional).”

I have no idea what you mean by “16 fixed stars” since the fixed stars (each probably not quite fixed and probably moved by an angel) are innumerable.

“God could grant Joshua’s request indirectly by using the angels of solar and lunar aether as instruments of His will… Wo ist der fehler? »

God is not said simply to have granted Joshua’s request, but to have obeyed him.

Furthermore, if the aether is the habitation of Sun and of Moon, for them to stand still as seen from Earth (Joshua 10) and also “in their habitation” (Habacuc 3:11)the habitation also needs not to move, since if it moved, either they would stand still in it, but move with it as seen from Earth, though faster, at stellar angular speed, or they would stand still as seen from Earth but by moving against the movement of their habitation. One could get around it by saying aether rotating around Earth is not what Habacuc meant by their habitation.

“Any one of Hildegard’s 4 aether types could be the source of the obvious global atmospheric circulation and jet streams eastward and its conflict with the firmament’s westward motion, balancing only in the GSZ. “

I have no idea of what her 4 aether types are.

Of 2 letters by Sungenis, 1 by Rick DeLano and a 3d by Sungenis, I am only concerned here to say I am glad Bob found my correction correct. And not going too far.

Chris Ferrara

Has made a proposal for a truce. I am not quite against the idea of not stamping Heliocentrics as heretics. However, there is a proviso. Independently of whether a theory is considered heretical by the magisterium or tolerated, every definite statement with every strictly logical implication in all the Holy Writ is de fide. That said, heliocentrism may be what is considered in Thomistic terminology a secondary heresy – one which one does not become a heretic simply for holding, but only for holding if one knows the contrary to be stated in Holy Writ.

I think I have caught three Popes cited by Heliocentrics giving with one hand but withholding intellectual assent with their mind, so as to stay Popes rather than autodepose by apostatising to heresy. They all gave the impression and none gave the actual words to say that Heliocentrism is a belief in itself undecided by Holy Writ: Pius VII, Leo XIII and Benedict XV. So, if I am interpreting their gesture correctly, they were all concerned that Heliocentrism despite appearances of being proven science, may well have been heresy even so, and they all avoided saying they believed it was true.

“Yet, the Copernican principle and modern cosmology in general are clearly, expressly and avowedly motivated by a philosophical aim, stated as such, by leading physicists such as Wolfson, whom I am reading now. That aim is to prove that that the Earth is nothing special, which is an indirect proof of the nonexistence of God. We inhabitants of Earth are just the incredibly fortuitous outcome of a long series of mutations occurring on a planet in a random location at the edge of a humdrum galaxy. They cannot abide a central earth for that reason, and they say so. You may say that God’s majesty does not depend on the location or the uniqueness of Earth, but the propagandists for the Copernican narrative know the public mind and know what works in terms demystifying the Universe and thus eliminating the need for God. It is naive simply to assert that their propaganda is of no consequence.”

Correct as far as it goes. But there is another philosophical tenet involved, as I discovered while via a forum discussing with a young man who had contact with an astronomer.

1) They assume there is no God, at least not the kind who could rotate the unviverse around us.
2) They assume there are no angels, at least not the kind who could carry the Sun Eastward around the aether in a year and on second Solar Miracle also hasten his Eastward journey so as to go back ten lines (five lines) on a sundial we don’t know the exact delimitations of.
3) Assuming this, they conclude that anyone proposing this model must be a crackpot, i. e. their ultimate defense of Heliocentrism includes a Disjunctive syllogism in which one of the negations are the Christian possibilities.
4) They also presume the Newtonian model of celestial mechanics (which Sungenis btw has tried to show workable for Geocentrism too) is more well proven than it is. Tides cannot really prove it, unless very recently satellites have been able to track variations of sea levels on the high ocean. Usually, the portal tides are results of too many factors to be direct confirmations of it, and oceanic tides, which would be more direct, are not measurable by the usual measures of tidal height.

Note that up to recent debate, the assumptions 1 and 2 behind accepting Heliocentrism were tacit. Pius VII could have understood that angels could fix Tychonian orbits and yet not had the courage to stand up for that explanation.

Schoenborn seems to go further. Unlike St Thomas he takes the Thomistic notion of God ruling the universe “through secondary causes” to mean His ruling it through “natural laws. For St Thomas differently taking it to mean “through created wills”, see Q 110 in the I Pars.

“To eliminate endless bickering over various conspiracy theories unrelated to geocentrism, the geocentrist proponents of such theories should simply admit that they are mere speculation, are unproven, are not worth pursuing to the detriment of more important issues, and should be definitively abandoned.”

Depends on how much is provable from case to case. And in some cases on what is probable.

A general abandonment of all conspiracy theories is a blanket authorisation of conspirators getting undetected.

“In view of the above, can’t we all just get along?”

I am for my part definitely trying to, since I enjoy discussion, even of conspiracy theories, more than quarrels.

Note, that the proposition for a truce, between people known to publically debate this issue, and the subsequent request this proposition and this truce be kept secret certainly are two gestures that* fall well within my definition of conspiracy, as I said in the previous letter.

Hans Georg Lundahl

[* Taken together. The first as such would not have.]

Christopher Ferrara to me et al.

12/03/15 à 12h59

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

The “public” has no right to know of private conversations between Catholics. If you cannot respect that principle, then this is the last email I will send.

Me to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 13h20

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Christopher A Ferrara!

I did not consider this email exchange totally private in the first place.

I did not myself invite you. If you did not note, I was the one who took the initiative to this discussion.

If you wish to absent yourself, do so.

However, a private conversation is private insofar as it touches private matters, not insofar as private persons agree on what reaches the public. Or especially that it do not reach the public. Chesterton and Belloc would not have liked your idea one bit, and I consider them better Catholics than you.

Hans Georg Lundahl

David Palm to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 13h48

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

The misspelling was my mistake, Bob, and I apologize. I have corrected it on my site.

But the fact remains that you were correct on this point. You hit the nail on the head that there are not two, not three, but "innumerable ways God can accomplish the task at hand if and when the normal laws which govern the universe are set aside to make room for God’s divine ingenuity" . As you said just before this quote, "God's omnipotence has no limits." One of those ways would be to stop all motion in the universe. I agree.

Beyond that I'm stepping out of this conversation as it has taken a decidedly weird turn.

God bless.

Christopher Ferrara and David Palm

thereupon asked tob e removed from conversation, as per getting adresses removed. I told the others to omit such and such an email address from the to or cc bars between clicking answer all and actually sending the mail.

Robert Sungenis to David Palm et al.

12/03/15 à 14h35

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

David, before you go, allow me to remark on a couple of things:

1) Your tone here is a lot different than what it is on your debunking site, which is refreshing. Please keep it up.

2) Yes, God could have stopped "all motion in the universe," which means he could have stopped the universe/stars in addition to stopping the sun and moon.

But the point remains (as Hans also noted) that God can only stop miraculously that which is already moving.

He cannot stop the Earth from moving if the Earth isn't moving, for it is impossible for God to lie (Titus 1:2).

Logically, if the stars, sun and moon are revolving around the Earth, and doing so at independently different rates (which we see every day and night) then the Earth cannot be rotating.

Logically, then, there are only two possible ways for the stars, sun and moon to go around us in 24 hours, not "innumerable" ways.

Of those two possible ways, the Fathers, Scripture and the Church (and now even science) tell us that it is the stars, sun and moon that revolve around a fixed Earth; not an Earth that rotates under a fixed star field.

Bob

So, we will see

if the continuing debate between David Palm and Robert Sungenis, into which I bumped in will improve in tone, and also whether my disclosing the „private“ truce proposed by Christopher Ferrara will give Keating more or less tenderness for Geocentrics in the future. He might even go along with the truce, who am I to say he wouldn’t? As for me, I found part of the ideas interesting, as you will recall, and part, especially the secrecy, less so./HGL

Aftermath of the Quarrel

Sungenis to Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 16h59

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Chris,

Your recommendations are much appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to give us your advice for resolution. I’m sure your recommendations will be taken seriously by all parties. I just have a few comments I would like to make. See below.

I would also encourage you to rethink your decision to keep this private. Your recommendations can help thousands of people to understand this issue better. Give it some thought – for all our sakes.

C. Ferrara: I suggest that you end this seemingly endless war with a truce containing the following terms:

1. To hold to the heliocentric is not heresy per se.

R. Sungenis: I would add that, whether we like it or not, “heresy” is, sometimes, a time-conditioned matter. Let me explain. After the 1616 and 1633 decrees against heliocentrism as a “formal heresy” were officially sent out, by the pope himself, to all of Europe demanding the obedience of his nuncios and universities, I think it would be safe to say that any of those prelates who disobeyed the 1616-1633 decrees would have been tried for heresy just as Galileo was tried for heresy (and convicted of being “vehemently suspect” of it). But today, since the modern Church has not enforced the traditional Church’s decree (and in fact, have unofficially gone the other way), no one today could be formally guilty of heresy if he believed in heliocentrism. Besides, only the Church could ever convict someone of heresy.

Be that as it may, the goal of the modern geocentric movement is to reeducate the Catholic Church’s hierarchy and its parishioners that the time has come wherein we seriously revisit this issue in light of the scientific advances that show the high likelihood that the Church who condemned Galileo was right. In fact, this is precisely what John Paul II prescribed in his 1992 Galileo speech: “It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine…whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching.” Needless to say, the “scientific advances” are NOT going the way of heliocentrism, but towards geocentrism.

As such, we as faithful Catholics who want to preserve the honor of the Holy Spirit and His continual guidance of the Church into truth; and the Church’s honor as the disseminator of that truth, have an obligation to bring these matters to the forefront, as Canon 212 urges us to do.

Considering the fact that the scientific revolution that began with Copernicus in the 1500s has, in the words of the most reputable and trusted historians, a “cataclysmic effect on how we perceive ourselves and our relationship to God,” we owe it to ourselves to take a second look at this issue.

Science, like money, is very useful and necessary. But science, like money, can be turned into an idol that we worship. We don’t intend to destroy science. God forbid. We intend to interpret science in light of revelation – the same thing that the Church Fathers taught us and the trial of Galileo reinforced.

C. Ferrara: 2. Yet, the Copernican principle and modern cosmology in general are clearly, expressly and avowedly motivated by a philosophical aim, stated as such, by leading physicists such as Wolfson, whom I am reading now. That aim is to prove that that the Earth is nothing special, which is an indirect proof of the nonexistence of God. We inhabitants of Earth are just the incredibly fortuitous outcome of a long series of mutations occurring on a planet in a random location at the edge of a humdrum galaxy. They cannot abide a central earth for that reason, and they say so. You may say that God’s majesty does not depend on the location or the uniqueness of Earth, but the propagandists for the Copernican narrative know the public mind and know what works in terms demystifying the Universe and thus eliminating the need for God. It is naive simply to assert that their propaganda is of no consequence.

R. Sungenis: I couldn’t have said it better myself. You catch on quickly, Mr. Ferrara.

C. Ferrara: 3. Thus, modern cosmology—part science, part philosophy driving the science (as it does evolutionary theory)---threatens to erode the Faith, as does evolutionism, even if it cannot be called formal heresy.

R. Sungenis: Amen.

C. Ferrara: 4. Catholics are free to argue for some version of the geocentric model precisely in order to counter the pretensions of modern cosmology, whose “dark matter,” “dark energy,” string theory, multiverse, balloon-like expanding Cosmos (the only way to avoid a center of the Universe with all of the problems that entails for the Copernican narrative) and other gimmicks are no more or less contrivances than the ether that even the modern cosmologist is, at this very moment, trying to sneak in the back door under a different name.

R. Sungenis: Double Amen.

C. Ferrara: 5. Geocentrism is not per se a crackpot theory. Even atheist cosmologists such as Krauss admit that the CMB data suggest either that Earth is indeed at the center of the universe or that the Copernican model has to be rethought completely. You may say Krauss is wrong, but’s an argument, not a per se demonstration that geocentrism is crackpot stuff. If he (and others) can see the problems for the Copernican narrative, Catholics should admit them and also admit that geocentrism is still arguable on the basis of empirical evidence that suggests Earth is centrally located. Krauss calls this “crazy” only on the basis of his a priori assumption that it can’t possibly be true, because, as Wolfson puts it: "Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be “at rest”? On purely philosophical grounds, we should reject the notion that Earth alone could be at rest relative to the ether.” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1009-1010). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. ” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1005-1009). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

R. Sungenis: Another Amen. By the way, I picked Wolfson to quote at length in Galileo Was Wrong because he is not shy about hitting on the philosophical ramifications of a heliocentric v. geocentric universe. In fact, he even uses philosophy as the basis upon which to interpret the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment – you know, the one that showed that Earth wasn’t moving through space, and which Einstein answered by contracting the length of Michelson’s interferometer. 

C. Ferrara: Further, if serious problems remain for the geocentrist theory, they are no more serious than those confronting the opposing cosmology, whose continuous ad hoc additions border on the ridiculous. A universe whose constituent matter and energy are 95% undetectable? Really? Any Catholic geocentrist is entitled to reject that claim on the same philosophical plane as their opponents reject geocentrism. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. And even if some semblance of an evidential argument can be concocted for the missing 95%, that argument hardly renders geocentism per see untenable.

R. Sungenis: The only thing I will say here is that I don’t know of any “serious problems” for the geocentric theory, which is what compels me to keep pursuing it. Compared to the heliocentric/BigBang/Relativistic/Multiverse theory, we’ve got a cake walk going on in geocentrism.

C. Ferrara: 6. To eliminate endless bickering over various conspiracy theories unrelated to geocentrism, the geocentrist proponents of such theories should simply admit that they are mere speculation, are unproven, are not worth pursuing to the detriment of more important issues, and should be definitively abandoned.

R. Sungenis: Amen, although I must say that I’ve already tried that approach with my opponents (David Palm, Karl Keating, et al), but the more I try to set aside those ancillary issues so that we can concentrate on the important issues, the more they try to resurrect them (even going as far as using obsolete links to the Wayback Machine to give the impression that the links are still live or that I still entertain those issues). They do this so they can try to make me look like a nut (which is a sin) and to poison the overall atmosphere of honest discussion.

C. Ferrara: 7. All parties should devote themselves to defending the Church against truly massive threats to the integrity of her liturgy and her doctrine, above all the astounding ongoing general eruption of neo-Modernism lamented by leading Churchmen, including Msgr. Pozzo, Archbishop Lenga, and Bishop Schneider during the run-up to the next session of the preposterous “Synod on the Family.”

R. Sungenis: Amen, although I would maintain that we scientific-minded Catholics have a big war to fight ourselves against those who try to use unproven modernistic science to undermine and intimidate the Church into submission. They try to make modern science superior to the Church, and the only way to put them in their place is to show that they don’t know the science as well as they think they do.

Moreover, according to Pope Benedict XVI’s February 2013 speech, Vatican II was partly initiated due to the “Galileo affair,” in which the V2 prelature believed that the Church of 1616-1633 made a mistake with Galileo, and that it was the modern Church’s job to clean it up. The “clean up” went overboard. Everything from women’s veils, to the liturgy, to revelation, to who can be saved, was either cast away or reinvented.

They even changed how we are supposed to view the inerrancy of Scripture because of the Galileo affair. They did so by twisting a phrase from Dei Verbum 11 (“for the sake of our salvation”). Instead of reading it face-value and concluding, along with tradition, that God made Scripture fully inerrant so that we would have a sure guide to lead us to salvation, they twisted it to say that God only made inerrant those parts of Scripture that speak directly about salvation, which then means that 90% of Scripture is errant, especially those parts about the Earth not moving

C. Ferrara: In short, enough already. And, frankly, the notion that geocentrism threatens the Faith of anyone in the Magisterium is hard to take seriously in the midst of a situation in which leading Churchmen everywhere appear to be abandoning fundamental dogmas of the Faith while the Pope presides over a Synod whose controllers are clearly attempting to overthrow the teaching of John Paul II only 33 years ago—an effort which, were it to succeed, would destroy confidence in the entire Magisterium overnight.

R. Sungenis: I agree. But I would add that one of the very reasons these present prelates think they can unofficially change doctrine in our day is because of the notion – stemming from the “mistake” with Galileo – that the Church of the past got it wrong, and now we have to fix it. I can’t impress upon you enough this foundational thought. Our movement’s quest, then, is to show the modern Church that the Church of the past DID NOT get it wrong, and therefore there is no reason to change what isn’t broke.

C. Ferrara: In view of the above, can’t we all just get along?

Chris

R. Sungenis: We want to get along, Chris. But our opponents, namely, Mr. Palm, Mr. Keating and Mr. Shea, don’t want to get along. They want to destroy us. I hope that what you said in this little essay will encourage them to drop the swords and pick up the plowshares.

Ferrara to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 17h16

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

I will think about publishing this (after cleaning up typos and maybe some edits). But it would have to be in a forum of my choosing. I don’t want anyone to claim that I am “representing” him in this dispute. This is my view, and my view only.

Me to Ferrara, Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 17h21

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Christopher Ferrara, I was neither suggesting you represented me nor anyone else, nor condemning your views per se.

I only got angry about the secrecy part.

Especially when wanting Keating not to know.

So, you stand before a fait accompli. I have already published with my remarks on secrecy.

You can :

sue me
ignore me
or ask me to make some other kind of honourable amends, but I am not taking it down.

Btw, your words were copypasted and thus not manipulated by me.

New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/03/chris-ferrara-conspirator.html

Christopher Ferrara to me et al.

12/03/15 à 17h51

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

This is really pretty despicable. But only par for the course on the crazy Internet. I should have known better than to trust strangers just because they are Catholics.

Me to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 20h04

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Oh, you should have known better than to trust strangers because they are Catholics?

What about me?

I have blogged over ten years, partly on this topic, I have been kept pretty studiously out of the debate when "known" people (as in known and better paid than I, I am known too) debate same issue.

Sungenis has given me a little space, I seem to recall, even in a footnote in public, but I have mostly been given chances to discuss this in private.

That is of course not paying my debt to the RATP or the SNCF for unpaid voyages, that is not paying a rent, that is not encouraging any young lady to choose me for a husband, and all the while people who have made their gentlemen's agreements about me, have agreed to find me despicable, have agreed to find me ridiculous if not even clinically relevant for my being Geocentric and for believing, like St Thomas Aquinas, in angelic movers of celestial bodies, and have agreed to make the existence I had less confortable, less in contact with youth, pursued by a few older people whom I sometimes presume to be Russian agents, sometimes presume to represent East Block psychiatry, sometimes presume to represent psychiatry here, sometimes presume to represent sth else even more uncanny. That is what I call "pretty despicable".

And I do get mad at Catholics when they show that kind of behaviour.

Did you even think to keep your proposal a secret to Karl Keating, when you also wrote to David Palm (who is on this discussion again)?

And to think there were Catholics who thought I needed a lesson. Seems I am giving one.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Is it just me or …

… does is seem like he succeeded in disturbing what was before his intervention a philosophical debate in which I was gaining ground and perhaps acquitting myself from certain suspicions, like overconfidence in visionaries?

Pages

Sunday, 22 March 2015

Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Friday, 13 March 2015