With David Palm and Sungenis

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

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.