Aftermath of the Quarrel

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

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?