With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Four Corners Revisited

1) Creation vs. Evolution : Hans Küng is Lousy in Ecclesiology. · 2) What Utter Stupidity in Exegesis, This Modernism! · 3) Stacy Trasancos Gets Condemation of 219 Theses Wrong · 4) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth · 5) Creation vs. Evolution : Dominic Statham and Reijer Hooykaas Wrong on Christian - Pagan Divide · 6) Correcting CMI on Aristotle

I

Me to James Hannam, per contact form

On 30 March 2015 at 09:01

Biblical, supposed, Flat Earthism

[Quoting his page] This is interesting because the Bible itself implies the Earth is flat (for example at Daniel 4:11 or 4:8 in Catholic Bibles) and most of its writers (certainly those of the Old Testament) probably thought so. Clearly, belief in the complete scientific accuracy of the scriptures against known facts was not upheld by the early or medieval church who were happy to accept a figurative interpretation. [End quote.]

Daniel 4 is a dream given to a pagan, which dream is physically impossible (a tree cannot grow larger than the continent it stands on, or even as large).

That a dream might be inaccurate in physical detail and have only its symbolic significance might have been realised even by Daniel.*

If you mean the "four corners" passages, well, any map including Americas etc which is Round Earth shows four corners, NE Sakhalin/Japan, SE Singapore/New Guinea/Australia, and for SW and NW, either you consider the two Americas the two largest islands and Cape of Good Hope and Scandinavia/British Isles/Iceland will do or you consider the Atlantic the largest inland sea and it becomes Cape Horn and Alaska instead. But the well known map of Flat Earth society is three corners : South corners of Americas, SE Asia and Oz, and of Africa.

Daniel lived among presumably Flat Earth believing Babylonians, but he had been born in Judea close enough to presumably Round Earth believing Phenicians.

So, OT Judaism unlike the Rabbinic version, may very well have been as neutral on the question as St Basil.

Hans Georg Lundahl

(click link in signature before responding, here it is again:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html)

* Who, being in Heaven, will realise my sarcasm implied in word "even" was at you, not at him!

II

James Hannam to me

31/03/15 à 15h27

Re: Biblical, supposed, Flat Earthism

Dear Hans,

Thank you for your email.

Of course, the language could be figurative. But I suggest the reason we have the language in the first place was because it wasn't always figurative. Also, note that the Greeks were not committed to a spherical earth until after 500BC. Many pre-socratics were believers in a flat earth of some description.

Finally, re-reading St Basil, it is clear he knew perfectly well what the shape of the earth was and could reel off the standard arguments from Aristotle and Ptolemy. He just didn't think it mattered much!

Best wishes

James

III

Me to James Hannam

31/03/15 à 16h14

Re: Biblical, supposed, Flat Earthism

My dear James,

The dream (Daniel 4) is a dream and as such hardly lays claims to physical exactitude.

Where exactly am I claiming figurative language for anyone or anything? Apart from that dream, of course.

My explanation of the four corners clearly mean they are literal such. There are four corners and stepping off of them means you fall or wade out into the sea. You get wet. Meaning of course, they are not he kind of corners where ships would tip off the edge of the sea. Check out meaning range of Hebrew erets and Latin terra.

St Basil citing the arguments of Aristotle does not necessarily mean he believed them.

1) Lunar eclipses could theoretically be due to some other body than Earth.

Vedic astronomy which IS tied to flat earthism has a special planet Rahu with the sole function of explaning eclipses. Solar and Lunar. Accepting our explanation would involve admitting it was Earth's shadow on a Lunar eclipse. Hence, Rahu.

Though St Basil might nowhere have shown knowledge of this theory, he might have been no great astronomy buff, he might nevertheless have considered the argument from Lunar eclipses insufficient.

2) Experiment of Eratosthenes and sightings of objects crossing horizon (in aparent motion parallactic to a ship motion or in own motion if object was mast and hull of a ship) certainly suggest Earth is bent, but not necessarily a full globe.

3) Geographic argument was strongest when Aristotle considered Straits of Gibraltar to be on other side of Ganges, but before the time of St Basil this might already have been debunked as the misidentification it was, while he wrote about a thousand years before Vasco da Gama supplied real best argument (which has since been redocumented in the Vasco da Gama form time after time).

So, he may well have been exactly as undecided himself as he considered one should be.

To resume:

* Biblical authors were as far as expression goes and as far as it could be taken before modern geographical discoveries undecided;

* St Basil remains undecided.

In other words, there is not the kind of discrepancy you describe between Bible text and Patristic take on it.

Best wishes for Holy Week
Hans Georg Lundahl

PS to correspondence:

I could have added here as I did elsewhere that any Father who believed the Earth to be flat thereby declared he disbelieved Greek Philosophers, which means in its turn there is not ANY Patristic CONSENSUS for crystalline spheres, which St Basil at least mentions. Therefore, it is good news for upholders of definition of Trent on reading Bible according to Patristic Consensus, that some Church Fathers, though not all, were either explicitly Flat Earth or at least Box Shaped Universe, since that is a cosmology which is not involved with the Crystalline spheres of Greek Philosophers.

PPS

If St Basil was not a clear upholder or admitter of Round Earth, St Augustine was.

With Dwight on Definition of Fundies

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Fable and Allegory, 2) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Dwight on Definition of Fundies, 3) Dwight Longenecker Not Knowing What Computers Are, and Not Answering a Challenge On It, 4) With Dwight on Fundies, Again, 5) One item on Dwight, related to Teen Marriages, 6) Was Dwight Ever Outright Heretic? If So, it is Here I Blamed him, 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica (again) : Dwight Longenecker and Bildungsroman

I

What I commented on :

Standing on my Head : Is Religious Enquiry Reasonable?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/04/is-religious-enquiry-reasonable.html
and Is Religious Enquiry Rational? / Continue Reading
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/is-religious-enquiry-rational

Me to Dwight Longenecker

20/04/15 à 15h56

Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

[Quoting:] Very often along with a highly subjective and emotional form of religion, fundamentalists adopt an intentionally non-rational and anti-intellectual stance.

A religious faith that is rooted in subjective emotionalism combined with a no-compromise fundamentalism will remain shallow and untenable for the ordinary person who wants to think things through.

This is the religion which the typical contemporary atheist or agnostic rejects, and I reject it with them. They are right to reject it.

Both rationalists and fundamentalists therefore view religion and reason as incompatible. Etc. [Which is where I ended the quote.]

My excuses, but would you in that case classify Kent Hovind, the YEC team on CMI and a few more as "fundamentalists"?

They may have about as unreasonable an attitude on Church History as other Protestants, but they very clearly do not view reason as incompatible with faith in the domain (that would rather be the Non-Overlapping-Magisteria view proposed by a Liberal Jew of unhappy memory, Stephen J. Gould), they view, exactly like St Thomas Aquinas, Reason as subordinate to Faith. Since human reason is handled by fallible and fallen beings and Faith has some kind of reference which is above it: Bible-Tradition-Magisterium or "Paper Pope" as a Calvinist obligingly referred to his incomplete and partly mistranslated Bible as.

Is it honest of you to be perpetuating strawmen about Fundies?*

Hans Georg Lundahl

* or of us, the Catholic counterpart, Integrists, by implication, since we would usually be referrable to as "Catholic Fundies"?

II

Dwight Longencker to me

20/04/15 à 15h57

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thanks for your email.
I guess it depends on your experience of fundamentalists.

I am writing from the American south.

Fr DL

III

Me to Dwight Longenecker

20/04/15 à 16h56

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

I guess you know Kent Hovind at least in the American South too.

Thanks for the response! And even more if you care to elaborate.

You know this blog where I like to put correspondence, just languishing for your response, meanwhile it has quite a little debate with mainly Sungenis and sometimes David Palm too.

Oh, wouldn't you call Sungenis a Fundie too? And his pal Rick DeLano is certainly calling his blog "Magisterial Fundies" ...

Would you consider ANY of these people as considering faith and reason incompatible?/HGL

[I just noted, the words were not “faith and reason” but “religion and reason”]

IV

Dwight Longenecker to me

20/04/15 à 17h24

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

I’m so ignorant!
I’m afraid I don’t know Hovind.

I am familiar with Sungenis, but don’t know DeLano.

Sorry!

Fr DL

[Was the irony lost on me, because I was tired this morning - see new date for next mail? - or was I rejecting it because I thought it heartless about a man who is in prison since ten years? I hope I wasn't taking it at face value! Even with too little caffeine inside, this morning!]

V

Me to Dwight Longenecker

21/04/15 à 09h02

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Ignorance is, at least up to Alzheimer, which I hope you have not, nor will have, a repairable state.

Rick DeLano is the guy who as filmmaker collaborated with Sungenis for The Principle and his blog is Magisterial Fundies.

We fell out over parallax measures applicable or not in Geocentrism and over angelic movers vs "naturalistic" causes (angels are as natural and as created and as secondary as we or as naturalistic causes, but they are NOT "naturalistic" in the sense of being included in causalities Naturalist Monists accept):

HGL's F.B. writings : New debate with Rick DeLano and Robert Sungenis, same blog : Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation + Small Universe (is "Parallax" Really Parallactic?)

More recently, he was included in a mail exchange where he endorsed the discretionist behaviour of Christopher Ferrara:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry

That would be Rick DeLano.

Now, Hovind ... he had a debate with Hugh Ross, on four videos, which I commented on, and now the videos are no longer available, here are the comment debates I had under these videos, alas not including Kent Hovind himself:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hovind - Ross Debate, for Four Videos

In same series of blogposts, there was also some other links to Hovind videos, let's see if they are still there:

same blog: ... on Age of Earth video's by Kent Hovind

Yup, video still up, an intro is given by Kent's son Eric:

Kent Hovind: The Age of The Earth
channel : JESUS IS THE ONLY WAYTO HEAVEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JBNRCwdQwU

In this blog post: same blog again : ... on Chaplains vs Councellors and on Creation vs Evolution (feat. Kent Hovind)

... I include a few comments on this Hovind video, which I link to in it:

Kent Hovind: Dinosaurs and the Bible part 1
JESUS IS THE ONLY WAYTO HEAVEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSDb7iBTg70

(attribution, you know, some say it's sadly lacking on the internet, but not on my blogs, it isn't)

He is of course a bit off when he's occasionally speaking of Church History instead of repeating Dom Augustin Calmet and added scientific knowledge in defence of historic sense of OT. Like here:

Oh, seems the video is gone again, but my comments remain:

same blog again : ... on History being Kent Hovind's Weaker Subject

But the exposé on Kent Hovind would be incomplete if it weren't for some comment on his being unjustly in prison:

Kent Hovind STILL In Prison - Son Speaks Out In Personal One-on-One with PPSIMMONS
channel : ppsimmons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GADfTc_j9Y

As I took up ppsimmons, seeing some other videos from him kind of partly makes your point, he is very emotional, but one can say he is so for a purpose, for rallying before the beheadings that might be coming on ... nevertheless, Kent Hovind is as much a Fundie as ppsimmons, and Kent Hovind does NOT fit your description.

Hans Georg Lundahl

VI

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 12h02

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thank you for your email.
All of this is seems rather arcane to me, but more grace to you for engaging in such debates!

Fr DL

VII

Me to Dwight Longencker

21/04/15 à 12h20

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

If Fundie lore is arcane to you, why are you giving an evaluation, overall, of Fundies?

If you want to say they are very emotional in Liturgy, first of all, the Liturgic choices go, I think, across the board from Fundie to Liberal Theologian, and second, having an emotional liturgy (or what takes the place of liturgy) says nothing on presence or absence or even relative place of Reason in relation to Faith (or what passes as such).

The Apologetics given by Dale and Elaine Rhooton in Can We Know? have the same take on Resurrection as Lane Craig (David Lane Craig?) and nearly all of the book has followed me all of my life, except the part where YEC question is written off as a kind of red herring, as sth one need not at all believe the Bible said, and except the parts of unkillable Bible section claiming Catholic Church "tried to suppress the Bible".

But believing the false History, more of Foxe than of Magdeburg Centuries, means at least caring for history and for history as a kind of proof.

They may be attending or have been attending (I don't know if they are alive or dead) a very emotional liturgy, for all I know, but it does NOT show in their book.

So, if you admit the intellectual side of Fundies is arcane to you, why go out with such a brass bold statement about them, and involving it?

Hans Georg Lundahl

VIII

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 13h58

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Our definition of fundamentalist is different


Best wishes

Fr. Dwight Longenecker
[adress removed as per request]

IX

Me to Dwight Longenecker

21/04/15 à 14h23

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Your definition of Fundamentalism, if excluding Dale and Elaine Rhooton, if excluding Kent Hovind, if excluding Creation Ministries International, can hardly be objectively adequate.

Every concept or term has a definition describing its "intention" and also a thing called extension, namely what other terms, sometimes concrete individuals rather than concepts, it refers to.

An extension of Fundamentalism not including above is impossible, Kent Hovind is a good friend of Jack Chick - by the way, though I heartily dislike the Chick Tracts, I do not find your description of Fundamentalism fits them. About Catholicism, he is more like an envenomed and over bitter intellectual than like an emotionalist leaving reason to second place.

So, giving the word Fundamentalism the intention you give it is misinformation about these people.

In Moral theology it is "objectively calumny" - though I am of course not presuming to judge beforehand on your subjective guilt of it.

In fact, asceertaining that through your words was the reason why I sent you a main about it in the first place.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, if you write a post of retraction, DO tell me, please!

X

Dwight Longenecker to me

21/04/15 à 14h52

Re: Dwight ... what were you saying about Fundamentalism, again?

Thanks for taking time to write.


Have a great day,

With best wishes,
Fr DL

At this point

it becomes very clear he does not wish to be bothered about trifles like exact definitions of words bandied about about the people he takes a dislike to and so on, so I am not writing a reply.

Which does not stop me

from giving a link to you, readers:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Great Link : 6 Early Christian Controversies That Protestantism Can't Explain
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2015/04/great-link-6-early-christian.html

W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part V of V

Proemium : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair · W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno : part I of V · part II of V · part III of V · part IV of V · part V of V

I

Sungenis to me and Palm

15/04/15 à 16h53

Re: Expanding on previous reply, including on Bruno

Hans, all good information, of course. But my issue is only with the 1616 and 1633 decrees and why they were worded the way they were, and what Olivieri did to distort their meaning.

II

Me to Sungenis
(answering his last three letters) and to Palm

15/04/15 à 18h18

Re: Expanding on previous reply, including on Bruno

I agree totally on the following first quote:

[In the following I am giving dialogue too, "first quote" = first time it's Sungenis:]

RS

"If just elliptical orbits were banned, then Kepler could have come up with a heliocentric model without elliptical orbits (like Ptolemy's Equant, which did the same thing as Kepler's elliptical orbits).

Riccioli put elliptical orbits into his Tychonian model and it worked just like Kepler's model, and he remained a devoted geocentrist. The Church allowed that without any comment to Riccioli. So it wasn't elliptical orbits, per se, that was the problem, but heliocentrism, which, as I have consistently maintained, was the ONLY issue on the table, that is, whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun."

HGL

Not only that, but fact that Olivieri could later pretend - falsely, whether he lied or was just repeating the lie - that Galileo's system had, because not involving elliptical orbits, proven contrary to observations (that was what he pretended, right?)

RS

"The point in fact remains, however, that Kepler's Epitome, which taught heliocentrism with elliptical orbits, was put on the Index, so the question is rather moot."

HGL

In ALL probability, the Epitome was put on the index for Heliocentrism. Apart from elliptical identic to Galileo's, i e making fixed stars a thin frame shell of a sphere with Sun in centre or in this case in one elliptic focus of the two perhaps.

RS

"We also now know that putting the planets in elliptical orbits DOES NOT solve the problem of planetary orbits. They are simply too complicated to be solved by mere ellipses. Saturn is the worst. Putting it in a strict elliptical orbit results in it being off by many degrees every year. Mars is also complicated, because it is tilted 7 degrees off the ecliptic plane. Every planet has a problem, and none of them follow strict elliptical orbits. All in all, elliptical orbits are only approximations, not scientific fact."

HGL

Ah, thanks for telling me!

I had no idea of this, neither had probably Olivieri or even Anfossi.

I had heard one thing like it, Kepler's predictions being (with its matching Newtonian explanation) clearly off when it came to Mercury, which Einstein pretended to mend with relativity. So, Mercury is NOT the only issue?

RS

"Hence, this makes Olivieri's thesis all the more suspect, since he was motivated to legitimize heliocentrism by claiming that elliptical orbits were the final solution."

HGL

Suspect from a scientific point of view, but that should already have been apparent from Anfossi's words then.

RS

"But the only reason Sentence 1 said that one could not say the Sun is the center of the world is that the Church didn't want anyone saying that the Sun was motionless, since that would mean the Earth would have to revolve around it. There was no thought about "other worlds" or about whether the Sun could move with respect to the galaxy nor anything of the sort."

HGL

Not totally wrong, not totally right.

Church certainly did not want anyone to say Sun was motionless.

But if real main reason for that had been mainly making the earth move around it, why was position on moving earth just "at least erroneous" when sun's non-movement in centre of universe or world was "formally heretical"?

Also, if the issue in 1616 and 1633 was only between sun and earth, this is because the question of sun being one star like all the others and stars being centres of worlds like the sun had already been settled in 1600. Getting now on to your response on Bruno process ...

RS

"But my issue is only with the 1616 and 1633 decrees and why they were worded the way they were, and what Olivieri did to distort their meaning."

HGL

Well, my issue is also with the decrees of 1600 being involved.

If Galileo was vehemently suspect of heresy, you said yourself there had to be some kind of definition before that.

One would of course be the Trentine on accepting all of Bible according to Church Fathers wherever they were unianimous. But another, closer both in time and subject matter and having been judged by the 1616 judge too, St Robert Bellarmine (who himself had NOT vehemently suspected Galileo of heresy) is precisely the one of 1600.

And that part of Bruno's cosmology is also more directly concerned than Heliocentrism as such with Distant Starlight Problem, and therefore with Mark 10:6 et al. loc.

So my take on the affair, even before knowing of you, involved Bruno affair being a very relevant background to Galileo affair.

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS, I came late onto Anfossi affair, through a man who unlike Palm did not think 1820 decress had settled question if Heliocentrism could be believed or not.

Juan Casanovas:
Giuseppe Settele and the final annulment of the decree of 1616 against Copernicanism
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1989MmSAI..60..791C/0000791.000.html

My own:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html

David Palm, if YOU think Church settled matter in Settele affair, look up Casanovas' essay at least!

III

Sungenis to me and Palm

16/04/15 à 04h04

Re: Expanding on previous reply, including on Bruno

In a message dated 4/15/2015 12:18:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hgl@voila.fr writes:

[Previous dialogue expanded:]

HGL

I agree totally on the following first quote:

RS

"If just elliptical orbits were banned, then Kepler could have come up with a heliocentric model without elliptical orbits (like Ptolemy's Equant, which did the same thing as Kepler's elliptical orbits).

Riccioli put elliptical orbits into his Tychonian model and it worked just like Kepler's model, and he remained a devoted geocentrist. The Church allowed that without any comment to Riccioli. So it wasn't elliptical orbits, per se, that was the problem, but heliocentrism, which, as I have consistently maintained, was the ONLY issue on the table, that is, whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun."

HGL

Not only that, but fact that Olivieri could later pretend - falsely, whether he lied or was just repeating the lie - that Galileo's system had, because not involving elliptical orbits, proven contrary to observations (that was what he pretended, right?)

RS

"The point in fact remains, however, that Kepler's Epitome, which taught heliocentrism with elliptical orbits, was put on the Index, so the question is rather moot."

HGL

In ALL probability, the Epitome was put on the index for Heliocentrism. Apart from elliptical identic to Galileo's, i e making fixed stars a thin frame shell of a sphere with Sun in centre or in this case in one elliptic focus of the two perhaps.

RS

Yes, I agree, since no one in the Church would be discussing the merit of elliptical orbits until Olivieri tried to make a case with them for Settele. Also important here is that Kepler was not the first to use elliptical orbits. He first took Tycho's 40-years of notes that charted the planets and made them fit the heliocentric system. He then apparently took Schreiber's work and applied it to Tycho's notes. But even more significant is that it seems the Greek heliocentrists in the Pythagorean school had the first elliptical orbits. GWW contains the history (and I still need to send it to you) which shows that the Greeks were the first to offer elliptical orbits. Here is fn145 in GWW:

Not only may Schreiber have pre-dated Kepler in regards to inventing elliptical orbits, it seems that neither Schreiber nor Kepler were the first to introduce the phenomenon. That honor apparently belongs to the Greeks. As Koestler notes: “There exist some fragmentary remains, dating from the first century AD, of a small-sized Greek planetarium – a mechanical model designed to reproduce the motions of sun, moon, and perhaps also of the planets. But its wheels, or at least some of them, are not circular – they are egg-shaped [footnote: Ernst Zinner, Entstehung und Ausbreitung der Copernicanischen Lehre (Erlangen, 1943), p. 48]. Gingerich adds: “The equant got Ptolemy into a lot of trouble as far as many of his successors were concerned. It wasn’t that his model didn’t predict the angular positions satisfactorily. Rather, the equant forced the epicycle to move nonuniformly around the deferent circle, and that was somehow seen as a deviation from the pure principle of uniform circular motion. Ptolemy himself was apologetic about it, but he used it because it generated the motion that was observed in the heavens. Altogether his system was admirably simple considering the apparent complexity and variety of the retrograde loops” (The Book that Nobody Read, p. 53).

This could become an important point, since when the Church condemned the heliocentric system in 1616-1633, it specifically mentioned the "Pythagorean" system.

Here is the decree:

Quoting decree:

And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine – which is false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture – of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, and by Diego de Zúñiga [in his book] on Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many – as may be seen from a certain letter of a Carmelite Father, entitled Letter of the Rev. Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Carmelite, on the Opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus concerning the Motion of the Earth, and the Stability of the Sun, and the New Pythagorean System of the World, at Naples, Printed by Lazzaro Scorriggio, 1615; wherein the said Father attempts to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the Sun in the center of the world, and of the Earth’s motion, is consonant with truth and is not opposed to Holy Scripture. Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of the Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium, and Diego de Zúñiga, On Job, be suspended until they be corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, be altogether prohibited and condemned, and that all other works likewise, in which the same is taught, be prohibited, as by this present decree, it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively.[1]

Quoting decree, footnote to Latin:

[1] Original Latin: “….Et quia etiam ad notitiam praefatae Sacrae Congregationis pervenit, falsam illam doctrinam Pithagoricam, divinaeque Scripturae omnino adversantem, de mobilitate terrae et immobilitate solis, quam Nicolaus Copernicus De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, et Didacus Astunica in Job, etiam docent, iam divulgari et a multis recipe; sicuti videre est ex quadam Epistola impressa cuiusdam Patris Carmelitae, cui titulus: « Lettera del R. Padre Maestro Paolo Antonio Foscarini Carmelitano, sopra l’opinione de’Pittagorici e del Copernico della mobilità della terra e stabilità del sole, et il nuovo Pittagorico sistema del mondo. In Napoli, per Lazzaro Scoriggio, 1615 », in qua dictus Pater ostendere conatur, praefatam doctrinam de immobilitate solis in centro mundi et mobilitate terrae consonam esse veritati et non adversary Sacrae Scripturae; ideo, ne ulterius huiusmodi Opinio in perniciem Catholicae veritatis serpat, censuit, dictos Nicolaum Copernicum De revolutionibus orbium, et Didacum Astunica in Job, suspendendos esse, donec corrigantur; librum vero Patris Pauli Antonii Foscarini Carmelitae omnino prohibendum atque damnandum; aliosque omnes libros, partier idem docentes, prohibendos: prout praesenti Decreto omnes respective prohibit, damnat atque suspendit. In quorum fidem praesens Decretum manu et sigillo Illustrissimi et Reverendissimi D. Cardinalis S. Caeciliae, Episcopi Albanensis, signatum et munitum fuit, die 5 Martii 1616.” Part of above translation taken from de Santillana’s The Crime of Galileo, as cited by Fantoli in Galileo: For Copernicanism and For the Church, pp. 223-224.

RS:

Incidentally, if Olivieri was intent on approving systems that had to be scientifically accurate, he should have rejected Kepler's system right off, since Kepler believed the planets were caused to revolve around the sun by magnetism. Newton had long since discredited that notion

RS

"We also now know that putting the planets in elliptical orbits DOES NOT solve the problem of planetary orbits. They are simply too complicated to be solved by mere ellipses. Saturn is the worst. Putting it in a strict elliptical orbit results in it being off by many degrees every year. Mars is also complicated, because it is tilted 7 degrees off the ecliptic plane. Every planet has a problem, and none of them follow strict elliptical orbits. All in all, elliptical orbits are only approximations, not scientific fact."

HGL

Ah, thanks for telling me!

I had no idea of this, neither had probably Olivieri or even Anfossi.

I had heard one thing like it, Kepler's predictions being (with its matching Newtonian explanation) clearly off when it came to Mercury, which Einstein pretended to mend with relativity. So, Mercury is NOT the only issue?

RS

No, Mercury is mild compared to the other planets. Here is physicist Charles Lane Poor and astronomer Fred Hoyle on the issue:

Quote:

The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations” …. In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions.[1]

Footnote to source:

[1] Charles Lane Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 132. See also Robert W. Brehme, “A New Look at the Ptolemaic System,” American Journal of Physics, 44:506-514, 1976. Brehme examines in detail the Ptolemaic system of planetary motions in order to demonstrate its direct kinematical connection with a heliocentric system. Ptolemy’s planetary parameters are shown to be in good agreement, upon transformation, with modern values. See also Bina Chatterjee, “Geometrical Interpretation of the Motion of the Sun, Moon and the Five Planets as Found in the Mathematical Syntaxis of Ptolemy and in the Hindu Astronomical Works,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 15:41-88, 1947.

RS:

Tycho Brahe proposed a dualistic scheme, with the Sun going around the Earth but with all other planets going around the Sun, and in making this proposal he thought he was offering something radically different from Copernicus. And in rejecting Tycho’s scheme, Kepler obviously thought so too. Yet in principle there is no difference.[1] We know now that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such a difference has no physical significance,” [the Ptolemaic and Copernican views], “when improved by adding terms involving the square and higher powers of the eccentricities of the planetary orbits, are physically equivalent to one another.”[2]

Footnotes to sources:

[1] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 3. Hoyle continues: “So what was the issue? The issue was to obtain even one substantially correct empirical description of the planetary motions. The issue was to find out how the planets moved….With knowledgeable hindsight, the situation may not seem unduly complicated, but looked at without foreknowledge the problem of how is anything but simple” (emphasis his). In the same book, Hoyle adds a time-lapsed photograph of the motions of the planets as seen from Earth. The photo shows looping motions, zig-zagging motions, abrupt reversal motions, in short, a dizzying array of complexity.

[2] The first quote taken from Fred Hoyle’s Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416; the second, from Hoyle’s Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on His Life and Work, p. 88.

RS:

Here are two more, even better:

Quotes:

The planetary orbits are not strictly ellipses, as we have so far taken them to be, because one planet disturbs the order of another through the gravitational force that it exerts….In all cases the orbits are nearly circles….It is curious that although the actual orbits do not differ in shape much from circles the errors of a circular model can nevertheless be quite large. Indeed, errors as large as this were quite unacceptable to Greek astronomers of the stature of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. It was this, rather than prejudice, which caused them to reject the simple heliocentric theory of Aristarchus….The Hipparchus theory grapples with the facts whereas the circular picture of Aristarchus fails to do so….The theory of Ptolemy, a few minor imperfections apart, worked correctly to the first order in explaining the planetary eccentricities. Copernicus with his heliocentric theory had to do at least as well as this, which meant that he had to produce something much better than the simple heliocentric picture of Aristarchus…. Kepler achieved improvements, but not complete success, and always at the expense of increasing complexity. Kepler and his successors might well have gone on in this style for generations without arriving at a satisfactory final solution, for a reason we now understand clearly. There is no simple mathematical expression for the way in which the direction of a planet – its heliocentric longitude – changes with time. Even today we must express the longitude as an infinite series of terms when we use time as the free variable. What Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler, in his early long calculations, were trying to do was to discover by trial and error the terms of this series. Since the terms become more complicated as one goes to higher orders in the eccentricity, the task became successively harder and harder…[1]

Professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University, Charles Lane Poor, says much the same:

From the time of Newton, it has been known that Kepler’s laws are mere approximations, computer’s fictions, handy mathematical devices for finding the approximate place of a planet in the heavens. They apply with greater accuracy to some planets than to others. Jupiter and Saturn show the greatest deviations from strictly elliptical motion. The latter body is often nearly a degree away from the place it would have been had its motion about the sun been strictly in accord with Kepler’s laws. This is such a large discrepancy that it can be detected by the unaided eye. The moon is approximately half a degree in diameter, so that the discrepancy in the motion of Saturn is about twice the apparent diameter of the moon. In a single year, during the course of one revolution about the sun, the Earth may depart from the theoretical ellipse by an amount sufficient to appreciably change the apparent place of the sun in the heavens.[2]

Footnotes to sources:

[1] Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, pp. 73, 8, 9, 53, 11-12, 13-14, in the order of ellipses.

[2] Charles Lane Poor, Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 129. Owen Gingerich adds: “Naturally astronomy textbooks don’t show it this way, because they can’t make the point about ellipses unless they enormously exaggerate the eccentricity of the ellipse. So for centuries, beginning with Kepler himself, a false impression has been created about the elliptical shape of planetary orbits. The eccentricity of planetary orbits (that is, their off-centeredness) is quite noticeable – even Ptolemy had to cope with that – but the ellipticity (the degree the figure bows in at the sides) is very subtle indeed. Observations of Mars must be accurate to a few minutes of arc for this tiny ellipticity to reveal itself” (The Book that Nobody Read, p. 166).

RS:

By the way, when they use Einstein's General Relativity to calculate the excess perihelion precession of all the other planets, it is off by whopping amounts. It doesn't even come close. That's a little fact that you don't see advertised in books on Einstein. The history also shows that Einstein arrived at the needed precession for Mercury by starting with the right figure and then back-fitting GRT into the solution.

RS

"Hence, this makes Olivieri's thesis all the more suspect, since he was motivated to legitimize heliocentrism by claiming that elliptical orbits were the final solution."

HGL

Suspect from a scientific point of view, but that should already have been apparent from Anfossi's words then.

RS

Perhaps, if they had willing ears, but Olivieri ruled the roost. Plus, Anfossi could not compete with Olivieri's "science knowledge" (at least what Olivieri thought was science knowledge, much like Galileo thought he knew the science)

RS

"But the only reason Sentence 1 said that one could not say the Sun is the center of the world is that the Church didn't want anyone saying that the Sun was motionless, since that would mean the Earth would have to revolve around it. There was no thought about "other worlds" or about whether the Sun could move with respect to the galaxy nor anything of the sort."

HGL

Not totally wrong, not totally right.

Church certainly did not want anyone to say Sun was motionless.

But if real main reason for that had been mainly making the earth move around it, why was position on moving earth just "at least erroneous" when sun's non-movement in centre of universe or world was "formally heretical"?

RS

The simple reason (and I get this from McMullin, Fantoli and Finocchiaro) was that it may have been possible to interpret some Scripture passages that referred to the "Earth cannot be moved" as meaning that it could not be shaken, as opposed to not revolving around the Sun. So, some leeway was given there. But the Church then reasoned that, since Scripture is very clear that of the two bodies it is the Sun that is revolving around the Earth, then simple logic requires that the Earth cannot be revolving around the sun. To say otherwise would be logically "erroneous," even if one wanted to argue that Psalm 93:1 only referred to a shaken Earth instead of a moving Earth. I cover this issue in my book in even greater detail.

HGL

Also, if the issue in 1616 and 1633 was only between sun and earth, this is because the question of sun being one star like all the others and stars being centres of worlds like the sun had already been settled in 1600.

RS:

Perhaps, but the 1616 and 1633 prior discussions and final decrees made no reference to that issue. If you can find some direct connection there, it would be very valuable for the discussion.

Getting now on to your response on Bruno process ...

RS

"But my issue is only with the 1616 and 1633 decrees and why they were worded the way they were, and what Olivieri did to distort their meaning."

HGL

Well, my issue is also with the decrees of 1600 being involved.

If Galileo was vehemently suspect of heresy, you said yourself there had to be some kind of definition before that.

One would of course be the Trentine on accepting all of Bible according to Church Fathers wherever they were unianimous. But another, closer both in time and subject matter and having been judged by the 1616 judge too, St Robert Bellarmine (who himself had NOT vehemently suspected Galileo of heresy) is precisely the one of 1600.

RS:

I don't think so. First, neither the 1616 or 1633 discussions or decrees brought up the Bruno issue. Second, I don't know of any specific decree that was given against heliocentrism in 1600, which is why the fact that Bruno was condemned for far graver issues (e.g., deny the real presence in the Eucharist) is the main issue in his case. I think most Galileo historians agree that the "defined and declared" doctrine against heliocentrism that was already established referred to the 1616 decrees, and they were very specific, and thus Urban VIII could use them against Galileo.

HGL

And that part of Bruno's cosmology is also more directly concerned than Heliocentrism as such with Distant Starlight Problem, and therefore with Mark 10:6 et al. loc.

So my take on the affair, even before knowing of you, involved Bruno affair being a very relevant background to Galileo affair.

Hans Georg Lundahl

RS: Well, you should study the connection between Bruno and the Galileo case too see if you can come up with anything concrete. It's an open area waiting for someone like you.

PS, I came late onto Anfossi affair, through a man who unlike Palm did not think 1820 decress had settled question if Heliocentrism could be believed or not.

Juan Casanovas:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1989MmSAI..60..791C/0000791.000.html

My own:

http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html

[Both clickable above]

David Palm, if YOU think Church settled matter in Settele affair, look up Casanovas' essay at least!

RS:

Indeed. Of course, imprimaturs could never settle Settele :)

Thanks for your paper. I'd like to put this on the Galileo Was Wrong site, with your permission. Also, thanks for Casanovas' paper. Not often you see treatments of the Settele case like that.

IV

Me to Sungenis and Palm

16/04/15 à 10h08

Re: Expanding on previous reply, including on Bruno

Et quia etiam ad notitiam praefatae Sacrae Congregationis pervenit, falsam illam doctrinam Pithagoricam

This very probably only means that the known proposer of the false doctrine in Antiquity was a Pythagorean.

Not that everything else the Pythagorean said was condemned because he, being a Pythagorean, had said it.

Pythagoras is beyond reproach in Arithmetic (but don’t let Pythagorean Arithmetic encroach on Geometry! There are size relations which are NOT numbers and not even rational ratios, like π and side of the double surface square compared to the side of the square you compare it to. [Second item also known as "sqrt of two"]

Incidentally, if Olivieri was intent on approving systems that had to be scientifically accurate, he should have rejected Kepler's system right off, since Kepler believed the planets were caused to revolve around the sun by magnetism. Newton had long since discredited that notion

Newton kept Kepler’s geometry, though. He only changed the mechanism.

By the way, the discrediting Newton did was probably due to a view of space above atmosphere as very close to absolute vacuum. In a smaller universe where interstellar matter is denser than we think, or if aether is a substance, or in both cases, the mechanism of electric or magnetic power might work.

But Newton had a problem with his own proposed mechanism.

Have you seen the video by Don Pettit?

The water droplets that in weightlessness orbit a charged knitting needle stick to it between 10 and 20 orbitations after start of orbit. So, I guess Kepler would be out of question too.

Riccioli, as you said, saw no problem with elliptic orbits, but he did see Kepler as wrong in proposing a materialistic mechanism.

He said we can’t check, but philosophical reasons plus majority of scholastics speak for taking of the four scenarios he knew of and considered, angelic movers as most probable one.

No, Mercury is mild compared to the other planets. Here is physicist Charles Lane Poor and astronomer Fred Hoyle on the issue:

The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations” …. In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions

This is the kind of stuff I look forward to reading once I have a place where you can send me your book!

Btw, as I am a bit of a musicologist, any concrete sound is likely not to be a real sine wave, and is usually analysed as a combination of sine waves. Galileo’s father was a musician and I am not sure which of them made the experiments that Father Mersenne developed into the foundation of acoustics. I think it was the guy we are talking about. Sadly, he was sure, while Mersenne was not, that sound as heard was identical to vibrations. Mersenne also allowed, very wisely in my view, that vibrations could be accompanying a really extant audible quality.

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

Me to Sungenis

16/04/15 à 19h21

Re permissions

There is a general one:

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

If applied online, a link to original is in order.

I see absolutely no problem with the proposal.

Hans Georg Lundahl

To public reading this

My general permission is applicable as such on any essay my own, like the one on Anfossi/Settele.

For blogposts with shared copyright, there is for instance here, if anyone would want to print this correspondence ALSO a question of asking Palm and Sungenis. See more on this subject here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/p/copyright-issues-on-blogposts-with.html

W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part IV of V

Proemium : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair · W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno : part I of V · part II of V · part III of V · part IV of V · part V of V

I

Me to Sungenis and Palm

15/04/15 à 10h26

Answering II of Sungenis 2

There was not just a local motion discussion, but also a local centre discussion. That local centre discussion means local centre of the whole world, i e the entire universe.

Condemned sentence 1: "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

This quote is from this page:

Papal Condemnation (Sentence) of Galileo (June 22, 1633)
Famous Trials
by Douglas O. Linder (2015)
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Now, the words "center of the world" very clearly mean centre of the entire universe. BOTH sides were agreeing, as I do also, that fixed stars were a thin sphaeric shell around that centre.

That "sun is one star among many, each star a sun as centre of its world, and having planets, and each world having its own world soul and God being that of our world, but not for instance the world of Sirius" would be a very fair résumé of what Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake for in 1600.

And if you take away the part of world soul and of God being that of our world only, and rephrase terminology to make other stars centres not of "worlds" but only of "solar systems", this idea of Bruno's was exactly what Settele was promoting in 1820.

So, neither can the term "local motion" be used to deny the directly condemned sentence in 1633 was about Sun as centre of the entire universe, nor the fact that only movements involving the scale Sun and Earth within fixed stars, since it was in 1633 already a SETTLED (Settele will excuse the pun!) question that calling other stars other worlds was part of Bruno's condemned sentences.

Now, the exact wording of the condemnation against Bruno in 1600 is a bit less possible to get across even these days, after the documents have been returned from France to Vatican.

Even the exact wording of the Galileo case may be somewhat difficult to get across, I give this quote, but on a video I have heard Sungenis insert with emphasis the phrase "as is seen". Which would clearly imply necessity of sun having, not just any motion, but the precise one we see not being illusory.

Now, the cosmology discussed in 1820, unlike the very much more recent one we have since 1930 (Shapley and Kapteyn contributed to it) had each star, thus also the Sun, stand still. Eternally or since creation equidistant in a presumably endless cosmos.

The "endless cosmos" part is also part of Giordano Bruno's ideas, and I also do not know if it was condemned separately or only as part of a more general and more clearly blasphemous thesis of his or even not at all. But I think it likely it was condemned, because it gives "infinity", which is an attribute of God, to the world and also because an endless cosmos would demote "edge of the world" from being the Heaven where Seraphim adore God and where Blessed souls go and where the resurrected bodies of the Blessed will be along with the already glorious bodies of at least Our Lord and Our Lady.

Therefore, as likely as not, in 1616 and 1633 EVERYONE agreed as on a moral certainty, at least of Christian doctrine, that fixed stars or stellatum were a pretty thin layer, so that NO ONE risked falling under the shadow of the condemnation of 1600 against the non-recanting and executed Giordano Bruno.

The condemnations against Bruno were probably also missing in 1820, which is probably why even Anfossi did not dare to refer to them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to Sungenis and Palm

15/04/15 à 15h02

Expanding on previous reply, including on Bruno

Quote 1592 – 1600 From the Trial to the Stake: Giordano's trial lasted almost eight years. The Inquisition initially accused him for his anti-dogmatic ideals, which had already cost him his Dominican habit. As an anti-Trinitarian, the philosopher rejected the virginity of Mary and transubstantiation. His reflections in terms of cosmology, his rejection of geocentrism and his attraction for magic gradually gave rise to an impressive list of accusations. In the end, it was the whole of his freethinking that was challenged. In February 1593, Bruno was incarcerated in the prisons of the Holy Office. The trial dragged on for another two years before the decision was taken to conduct an in-depth study of his works, which were censured and subsequently burned at St Peter's Square. From his cell, Bruno finished writing a statement for his defence and presented his final plea on 20 December 1594 before the Holy Office. The trial was interrupted for six months, during which time Bruno continued to actively defend his theory on infinite worlds, sometimes stating that he was ready to recant, and at other times declaring that he was faithful to his ideas. Cardinal Bellarmin therefore drew up a list of the theories deemed to be heretical, over which Bruno again hesitated before categorically refusing to renounce his doctrine: The eight propositions that the philosopher refused to renounce were as follows:

1 - The statement of "two real and eternal principles of existence: the soul of the world and the original matter from which beings are derived".

2 - The doctrine of the infinite universe and infinite worlds in conflict with the idea of Creation: "He who denies the infinite effect denies the infinite power".

3 - The idea that every reality resides in the eternal and infinite soul of the world, including the body: "There is no reality that is not accompanied by a spirit and an intelligence".

4 - The argument according to which "there is no transformation in the substance", since the substance is eternal and generates nothing, but transforms.

5 - The idea of terrestrial movement, which according to Bruno, did not oppose the Holy Scriptures, which were popularised for the faithful and did not apply to scientists.

6 - The designation of stars as "messengers and interpreters of the ways of God".

7 - The allocation of a "both sensory and intellectual" soul to earth.

8 - The opposition to the doctrine of St Thomas on the soul, the spiritual reality held captive in the body and not considered as the form of the human body.

End of quote.

Source:

The Trials of Giordano Bruno: 1592 & 1600
Selected Links and Bibliography
by Lawrence MacLachlan
Famous Trials
by Douglas O. Linder (2015)
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/brunolinks.html

Both 1600, and 1687 (Principia), and most times by progressive astronomers and astronomical philosophers between Kant and very recent ones, the Heliocentric idea involved "infinite worlds" in the sense of an "infinite number of solar systems".

Newton and more recent ones would not have termed these "worlds". But they would have substantially repeated the meaning Bruno gave this term.

And in Newtonism it becomes kind of inevitable, at least until it is replaced by Big Bang (which is also a very recent thought, far more recent than the Anfossi-Settele affair).

How so?

Suppose sun and planets is all there is, no problem (in the Newton theory, I'll be back on it!) as long as centrifugal force of planets keep them out of the sun. Of course, we know this is not the case. Even in Galileo's one sheet spheric shell of fixed stars, as opposed to this idea, which coincides on this point with Classic Geocentrism, the Newtonian Heliocentrism would imply stars would be moving too slowly to stay out of the sun.

Suppose on the other hand that Sun were surrounded by six stars at 60° angle from each other and all same distance from Sun. Now, in such a case, gravitation would sooner or later add up to them getting an impulse to crash into the sun. But hold it: we get a few stars outside those, and therefore the six stars closest to sun won't crash into it, since also attracted by stars outside themselves. So, how about the twelve stars outside those? And so on. And same for three dimensions and not just plane. Therefore, a universe functioning on Newton's terms would need to be either an infinite universe of an infinite number of stars and solar systems OR expanding, so as to provide, in absense of circular motion, even so a centrifugal force.

And up to Lemaître "infinite" was more in vogue than "expanding".

This Bruno-ish idea is then what Settele and Olivieri considered sufficiently different from the exact system of Galileo to not fall under the condemnation of 1633.

Now, I think you may both guess that as I am not a Bruno fan, I am very much NOT a fan of modern cosmology either.

Btw, one argument I saw attributed to Bruno for the infinite universe was clearly borrowed from Flat Earth Geography, despite this being already refuted by da Gama. Chesterton gave the real and round Earth answer to that problem in Manalive : if you travel far enough, you will NOT see an infinity of new horizons, you will rather come back to see the same horizon you started out from.

Chesterton-Bruno 1:0.

Hans Georg Lundahl

III

Sungenis to me, cc Palm

15/04/15 à 16h15

Re: Answering I of 2 by Sungenis

It wouldn't make it any better for Kepler if it was just heliocentrism. It would make it worse, since it would mean that NO model of heliocentrism would be allowed, elliptical or no elliptical orbits.

If just elliptical orbits were banned, then Kepler could have come up with a heliocentric model without elliptical orbits (like Ptolemy's Equant, which did the same thing as Kepler's elliptical orbits).

Riccioli put elliptical orbits into his Tychonian model and it worked just like Kepler's model, and he remained a devoted geocentrist. The Church allowed that without any comment to Riccioli. So it wasn't elliptical orbits, per se, that was the problem, but heliocentrism, which, as I have consistently maintained, was the ONLY issue on the table, that is, whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun.

The point in fact remains, however, that Kepler's Epitome, which taught heliocentrism with elliptical orbits, was put on the Index, so the question is rather moot.

We also now know that putting the planets in elliptical orbits DOES NOT solve the problem of planetary orbits. They are simply too complicated to be solved by mere ellipses. Saturn is the worst. Putting it in a strict elliptical orbit results in it being off by many degrees every year. Mars is also complicated, because it is tilted 7 degrees off the ecliptic plane. Every planet has a problem, and none of them follow strict elliptical orbits. All in all, elliptical orbits are only approximations, not scientific fact.

Hence, this makes Olivieri's thesis all the more suspect, since he was motivated to legitimize heliocentrism by claiming that elliptical orbits were the final solution. They weren't. He was just looking for some excuse to help the Church save face in front of the world, much like it does today.

IV

Sungenis to me, cc Palm

15/04/15 à 16h51

Re: Answering II of Sungenis 2

In a message dated 4/15/2015 4:26:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hgl@voila.fr writes:

[Dialogue time!]

HGL

There was not just a local motion discussion, but also a local centre discussion. That local centre discussion means local centre of the whole world, i e the entire universe.

RS:

I have no problem with that.

HGL

Condemned sentence 1: "The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture."

This quote is from this page:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

[Link given clickable above]

Now, the words "center of the world" very clearly mean centre of the entire universe. BOTH sides were agreeing, as I do also, that fixed stars were a thin sphaeric shell around that centre.

RS:

Granted. But the only reason Sentence 1 said that one could not say the Sun is the center of the world is that the Church didn't want anyone saying that the Sun was motionless, since that would mean the Earth would have to revolve around it. There was no thought about "other worlds" or about whether the Sun could move with respect to the galaxy nor anything of the sort. The only issue on the table was whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun. We know this from all the discussions that went on prior to the decrees being issued, both in 1616 and 1633. This needn't be very complicated at all.

RS:

One more thing. Galileo was convicted of being "vehemently suspect of heresy." In order to be so convicted, there had to be a formal and established doctrine of heresy concerning what he was convicted of. In other words, he could not be convicted of being suspect of heresy if there were no heresy already established that he could be convicted of, otherwise he would be falsely convicted. And this is precisely why the 1633 sentence says that the heresy was "declared and defined" for all to know, especially Galileo, BEFORE he was convicted.

Quote by RS:

“And whereas a book appeared here recently, printed last year at Florence, the title of which shows that you were the author, this title being: “Dialogue of Galileo Galilei on the Great World Systems: Ptolemy and Copernicus”; and whereas the Holy Congregation was afterwards informed that through the publication of the said book the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was daily gaining ground, the said book was taken into careful consideration, and in it there was discovered a patent violation of the aforesaid injunction that had been imposed upon you, for in this book you have defended the said opinion previously condemned and to your face declared to be so, although in the said book you strive by various devices to produce the impression that you leave it undecided, and in express terms probable: which, however, is a most grievous error, as an opinion can in no wise be probable which has been declared and defined to be contrary to divine Scripture.”[1]

Footnote to Quote by RS:

[1] “non potendo in niun modo esser probabile un’opinione dichiarata e difinita per contraria alla Scrittura divina” (Le Opera di Galileo Galilei, vol. 5, pp. 335-336, translated by Finocchiaro, cited in Galileo: For Copernicanism, pp. 201-202).

HGL

That "sun is one star among many, each star a sun as centre of its world, and having planets, and each world having its own world soul and God being that of our world, but not for instance the world of Sirius" would be a very fair résumé of what Giordano Bruno was burned on the stake for in 1600.

RS:

Granted

HGL

And if you take away the part of world soul and of God being that of our world only, and rephrase terminology to make other stars centres not of "worlds" but only of "solar systems", this idea of Bruno's was exactly what Settele was promoting in 1820.

RS:

Perhaps

HGL

So, neither can the term "local motion" be used to deny the directly condemned sentence in 1633 was about Sun as centre of the entire universe, nor the fact that only movements involving the scale Sun and Earth within fixed stars, since it was in 1633 already a SETTLED (Settele will excuse the pun!) question that calling other stars other worlds was part of Bruno's condemned sentences.

RS:

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. All I can say at this point is that the insertion of "local motion" in the sentence, "The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion" is to curtail those who were saying that if the Sun, if it was in the center, would have no motion, and thus it couldn't revolve around the Earth. If the sun is not in the center of the world and has motion, then obviously it can revolve around the motionless earth. There was nothing else discussed. So all this talk from Palm about the "new astronomy" being more involved than the old astronomy is just a red herring.

HGL

Now, the exact wording of the condemnation against Bruno in 1600 is a bit less possible to get across even these days, after the documents have been returned from France to Vatican.

Even the exact wording of the Galileo case may be somewhat difficult to get across, I give this quote, but on a video I have heard Sungenis insert with emphasis the phrase "as is seen". Which would clearly imply necessity of sun having, not just any motion, but the precise one we see not being illusory.

Now, the cosmology discussed in 1820, unlike the very much more recent one we have since 1930 (Shapley and Kapteyn contributed to it) had each star, thus also the Sun, stand still. Eternally or since creation equidistant in a presumably endless cosmos.

The "endless cosmos" part is also part of Giordano Bruno's ideas, and I also do not know if it was condemned separately or only as part of a more general and more clearly blasphemous thesis of his or even not at all. But I think it likely it was condemned, because it gives "infinity", which is an attribute of God, to the world and also because an endless cosmos would demote "edge of the world" from being the Heaven where Seraphim adore God and where Blessed souls go and where the resurrected bodies of the Blessed will be along with the already glorious bodies of at least Our Lord and Our Lady.

Therefore, as likely as not, in 1616 and 1633 EVERYONE agreed as on a moral certainty, at least of Christian doctrine, that fixed stars or stellatum were a pretty thin layer, so that NO ONE risked falling under the shadow of the condemnation of 1600 against the non-recanting and executed Giordano Bruno.

The condemnations against Bruno were probably also missing in 1820, which is probably why even Anfossi did not dare to refer to them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

RS:

As far as I understand the Bruno case, he was condemned for denying the soteriology of the Church more than his ideas of cosmology, and the cosmological ideas were condemned because they infringed on the soteriology (e.g., that if there were beings on other worlds they would need a savior also).

W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part III of V

Proemium : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair · W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno : part I of V · part II of V · part III of V · part IV of V · part V of V

I

Me to Sungenis and Palm

14/04/15 à 18h40

Re: Reading but not bed time

" I said that the 1616 decrees’ reference to “local motion” refers to motion between the sun and the earth. THAT was the only issue. It cannot refer to the stars since the stars are not local."

Dead wrong.

Local motion does not mean "motion on a local" (as opposed to universal) "scale". It means a motion that is local as opposed to one that is substantial or quantitative or qualitative.

Men have two, in the end three, substantial motions: begetting, dying, in the end resurrecting. Stars had a substantial motion on day four, when they were being created. They now have each day a local motion of more than a circle around earth, of unknown radius.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Me to Palm, cc Sungenis

14/04/15 à 18h46

Re: Reading but not bed time

You have a point, that FIRST condemned proposition is not strictly identical to the then usual position that sun was as one star strictly immobile in ONE centre (among many) of an infinite universe.

BUT Anfossi had a point that if the condemnation of 1633 was infallible, there was a reason for it which would certainly not allow for that either.

As to "I hope you", I frankly detest that kind of tone.

I am not a tabula rasa which you and Sungenis can compete about filling, I was decideldly Geocentric before hearing of him./HGL

III

Sungenis to me and Palm

15/04/15 à 03h50

Re: Reading but not bed time

In a message dated 4/14/2015 5:46:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hgl@voila.fr writes:

[actually it is the quotes from Palm which he takes through my mail, will give rest as dialogue between Palm and Sungenis]

Palm

Hello Hans,

I hope you will factor another important point into your consideration of this issue. Sungenis insists that Fr. Olivieri lied to Pius VII and made elliptical orbits the sole ground of his case. Sungenis errs and I have pointed this out to him many times, but he continues to repeat the same error.

R. Sungenis:

Somehow David thinks that merely when he asserts something, it is automatically true. Pompous.

Palm

Please see the discussion at the following locations:

> http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-new-geocentrists-come-unraveled#Olivieri

> http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/pay-no-attention-to-the-geocentrist/#Epicycles

> http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/pay-no-attention-to-the-geocentrist/#Olivieri

[links clickable in previous]

R. Sungenis:

These arguments have already been answered.

Palm

As I summarized, "Bob’s contention that Fr. Olivieri makes “elliptical orbits” the “crux of the matter” is unsupported and false.

R. Sungenis:

Really? Is that why Fantoli, Finocchiaro and McMullin agree with me?

Palm

Elliptical orbits was one of many things to which Fr. Olivieri pointed to demonstrate that the views of modern astronomers were not the same as those of Copernicus and hence not the same as what was addressed in the 1633 decree.

R. Sungenis:

So what?! David keeps bringing up contingencies that are a posteriori and don't amount to a hill of beans. What was addressed in 1616 and 1633 was whether the earth went around the sun (as Copernicus, Galileo, Foscarini, Zuniga and Kepler claimed) or the sun went around the earth (as the Fathers, the medievals, Bellarmine claimed). Period, end of story. Your attempt to wiggle out of this by some fabrication of "views of modern astronomers" is as deceptive as Olivieri who created it.

The fact that the Church had already put Kepler's ellipses on the Index meant that Olivieri had no business using them as a "new view of astronomers," and its curious why you never answer this aspect of the issue.

Palm

Based on a false and sloppy analysis, Bob has repeatedly and unjustly accused this Catholic priest of lying and subterfuge."

R. Sungenis:

Imagine that. Palm dreams up something that the 1616 and 1633 Church never even discussed as a reason for rejecting Galileo, but he has the gall to call me "sloppy" for insisting that we don't put words in their mouth. Amazing.

Palm

It remains a fact that, read strictly, the 1616 and 1633 decrees address only a strict heliocentrism with an immobile sun at the center of the universe.

R. Sungenis:

Bullfeathers. It addressed whether the sun went around the Earth or vice versa. That you would try to change this to accommodate heliocentrism is beyond the pale. Go read the documents of 1616 and 1633, and the context of the discussions around those documents. The only issue was what went around what. There is not one word about "different views of heliocentrism that might be allowable depending on whether one had in view the universe or the solar system." That is a pure fabrication.

Palm

Whether other cosmological views fall under those decrees is for the Church, not Sungenis, to decide. The Church has ruled against him.

> God bless,

> David

R. Sungenis:

No, the Church only approved an imprimatur, and it was often the case that imprimaturs that they were issued under false pretenses were then removed. Further, the Church said that the ruling for the imprimatur was contingent upon whether there would be future knowledge that might change its status. Since there is no proof for heliocentrism, we know that status. And, of course, the Church has never rescinded the rulings of 1616 and 1633, and imprimaturs don't qualify.

You're hanging by a thread, David.

IV

Sungenis to me and Palm

15/04/15 à 03h53

Re: Reading but not bed time

Dead wrong? Then tell us where the Church of 1616 and 1633 discussed your expanded definition as a criterion to judge the Galileo case. The only "local motion" they discussed was whether the sun went around the Earth or the Earth went around the sun. If you know of any other kinds of "local motion" discussion, I'd like to see them.

V

Me to Sungenis, cc Palm

15/04/15 à 10h07

Answering I of 2 by Sungenis

Were Kepler's ELLIPSES put on Index or just his:

a) Heliocentrism

b) "natural-non-living-causism"?

Riccioli considers ellipses possible, but Kepler pretty unique (after Epicurus, who considered the layers of a Geocentric roughly Ptolemaic universe as physical outcomes of densities) in considering the cause of celestial local motions in being sth natural and non-living, unconscious.

HGL

W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno, part II of V

Proemium : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair · W. Sungenis/Palm on Anfossi-Settele and Bruno : part I of V · part II of V · part III of V · part IV of V · part V of V

I

Me to David Palm, cc Sungenis

11/04/15 à 19h49

Re: Reading but not bed time

@ David: If I misunderstood anything, it was I attributed an entry of the Acta to people "at the Papal Court":

I'm afraid your (and Sungenis's) interpretation of the Acta entry, as reproduced by Mayaud, is impossible. In that entry it is unambiguously Fr. Anfossi, (the Reverendum Dominum Patrem Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum, later just Patre Magistro = Master of the Sacred Palace) who is described as causing “great scandal and disgrace of the Holy See [magno scanalo Santaeque Sedis dedecore]”. He’s described as being a “stiff-necked and deceptive man [hic durae cervicis homo falsissimique]” and “very tenacious in his false judgment [sui judicii in omnibus tenacissimus]”. And he’s said constantly [non cessabat] to resort to “nonsense” [nugiis] in support of his opposition to the Roman Congregations and to “sensible men” [tam Congregationes quam sensatos viros] (see N. Mayaud, La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition, p. 240).

Only thing I had forgotten here is that this was from Acta. I thought it was from Papal Court and this would have meant that Olivieri was very far from being alone in "strongarming" a possibly weakened Pope.

I was very well aware that you thought Sungenis had gotten wrong who was described as stiffnecked etc, and I thought I had made it clear I agreed with you. But I had forgotten it was in the Acta.

Does this mean the Pope himself had subscribed these words?

Or was it a decision from some Congregation? Of course, authorised by Pope, but not subscribed?

I do not have access either to the Acta, nor to the book by Mayaud. So, I cannot check myself.

@Robert: I am asking you too, for same reason.

However, I put you in CC because David did not want a "trialogue".

@Both: I hope you are BOTH fine with my plan of adding these mails to this post:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Sungenis on Settele-Anfossi Affair
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-sungenis-on-settele-anfossi-affair.html

If so, title might change to "With Sungenis and Palm on Settele-Anfossi Affair"

Hans Georg Lundahl

PS : I have also not claimed or even seen Sungenis claim in this word choice of "strong arming" that Olivieri outright lied beyond claiming that the elliptic orbits of the modern system made this non-identical to the condemned propositions, which, as said, Napoleon had taken away momentarily. In doing so, he spoke a non-truth. Conspiracy? I did not see Sungenis say that word. Lying? Speaking a non-truth can be considered as lying and Olivieri had no more access than Pius VII had, so he was probably guessing and speaking his guess with more confidence than he should have. Which is a kind of lying.

PPS : David, if you feel this correspondence misrepresents you, feel free to publish whatever correction you like, and I'll link to it. But for my part, I correspond on matters like these in order to publish.

II

Sungenis to me and David Palm

13/04/15 à 21h00

Re: Reading but not bed time

[consistently formulated as dialogue]

Palm:

I'm afraid your (and Sungenis's) interpretation of the Acta entry, as reproduced by Mayaud, is impossible. In that entry it is unambiguously Fr. Anfossi, (the Reverendum Dominum Patrem Sacri Palatii Apostolici Magistrum, later just Patre Magistro = Master of the Sacred Palace) who is described as causing “great scandal and disgrace of the Holy See [magno scanalo Santaeque Sedis dedecore]”. He’s described as being a “stiff-necked and deceptive man [hic durae cervicis homo falsissimique]” and “very tenacious in his false judgment [sui judicii in omnibus tenacissimus]”. And he’s said constantly [non cessabat] to resort to “nonsense” [nugiis] in support of his opposition to the Roman Congregations and to “sensible men” [tam Congregationes quam sensatos viros] (see N. Mayaud, La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition, p. 240).

R. Sungenis:

I never made any such claim about Anfossi. As far as I can tell, he was the only one upholding the tradition, and Olivieri and Grandi deceived everyone else to their side. This sentence from Mayaud is clear, and it refers to Anfossi: “Consequently the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office has given permission to print this booklet and the same was always obstinately refused by the same Master with the great scandal and dishonor of the Holy See.”

Hans:

However, I put you in CC because David did not want a "trialogue".

R. Sungenis:

Well, if you remember the last time we had such a discussion with David, he entered it accusing me of a contradiction regarding Joshua 10 in his citation from GWW Vol. 3 in which I said the universe could be going around a fixed Earth. When David’s ploy was foiled when we mentioned to him that the moon, stars and sun all revolve around the Earth at different speeds, David high-tailed it out of the discussion, but, of course, without an apology to me that he had falsely accused me of a contradiction.

Hans:

PS : I have also not claimed or even seen Sungenis claim in this word choice of "strong arming" that Olivieri outright lied beyond claiming that the elliptic orbits of the modern system made this non-identical to the condemned propositions, which, as said, Napoleon had taken away momentarily. In doing so, he spoke a non-truth. Conspiracy? I did not see Sungenis say that word. Lying? Speaking a non-truth can be considered as lying and Olivieri had no more access than Pius VII had, so he was probably guessing and speaking his guess with more confidence than he should have. Which is a kind of lying.

R. Sungenis:

Call it what you like. The fact is, and it will never change, Olivieri either claimed that the 1616-1633 Church condemned Galileo’s model only because Galileo did not include elliptical orbits and that he had no explanation for the Earth’s atmosphere being sucked away by Earth’s movement; or, Olivieri claimed that it didn’t matter what the 1616-1633 Church decided since they were in the dark concerning elliptical orbits and gravity holding down the atmosphere. This was a total fabrication by Olivieri, and I am not the first one to point this out. McMullin, Fantoli and Finocchiaro all say the same. Hence, the whole maneuver around Anfossi and the swaying of Pius VII was based on a total fabrication from Olivieri, and it was all motivated by his unproven belief that heliocentrism had been proven correct.

Palm:

Sungenis's contention that Fr. Olivieri was "strong arming" the Pope is yet another of his conspiracy theories, but remains an unsupported assertion, made up out of whole cloth and based on nothing more than his imagination and wishful thinking.

R. Sungenis:

This, of course, has become Mr. Palm’s modus operandi, namely, to insult his opponent with exaggerated claims of delusion (e.g., conspiracy theories, whole cloth, imagination, wishful thinking) before he begins to answer the facts. He will take the slightest off-color word of his opponent (“strong arm”) and use it to erect a boogeyman of his own choosing so that he can make an exaggerated claim. He’s disgusting.

The fact remains that, according to Lateran V, the Master of the Sacred Palace had the sole right to issue or decline imprimaturs. So Olivieri, being a devoted heliocentrist, simply went around Anfossi, not to mention Lateran Council V. Mayaud informs us that Olivieri knew Pius VII weak in character and physically sick, and that Pius didn’t want to fight, but Olivieri pursued him anyway (and avoided subsequent popes that he knew he couldn’t maneuver).

When he pursued Pius VII, he made up a story about elliptical orbits being the key to resolve the controversy, yet Kepler’s book about elliptical orbits, the Epitome, had already been put on the Index as early as 1619-1620, and remained on the Index through 1835!

So how in the world was Olivieri able to convince everyone that Galileo’s missing elliptical orbits meant that we could now accept heliocentric models with elliptical orbits??!! No, no “strong-arming” there, right David?

Palm:

He has never offered a shred of evidence in its support and what is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.

R. Sungenis:

As far as I’m concerned, David Palm is just a modern Maurizio Olivieri. Both are motivated by the same thing – they think they have scientific proof of heliocentrism, and both are willing to distort the historical record to force their beliefs down everyone’s throat. Olivieri distorted it by making up a story about the need for elliptical orbits and gravity-held air, and Palm makes up a story about “strict interpretation” and single-handedly applies it to the 1616-1633 Church, without the slightest official citation to back up such an application; on top of the fact that his whole theory about “strict interpretation” is misapplied to 1616-1633 because he misunderstand what was said in 1616-1633. See below and see my rebuttal to his claims at http://debunkingdavidpalm.blogspot.com/2014/10/ddp-3-canard-of-strict-canonical.html

Palm:

Sungenis constantly insists that it's important that the full records of the Holy Office were held by Napoleon. But he never says just what information the Holy Office would have found in those records that supposedly would have influenced the proceedings.

R. Sungenis:

This just shows how irrational Mr. Palm can become. The very fact that we don’t know what the records contain is the very reason a judge presiding over such an important case could not allow a trial to proceed! There were 7000 documents in those records. Who in their right mind would try to decide a case knowing that 7000 documents were missing? What Pope in his right mind would allow his underling (Olivieri) to make up a story about elliptical orbits and gravity holding air as the basis for the 1616-1633 decision without having the very records from 1616-1633 to verify his claim?

Palm:

Speaking of the opening of the full archives of the Galileo case, Prof. Francesco Beretta states, “This opening, officially celebrated in 1998, . . . failed to bring to light any sensational new knowledge” (“The Documents of Galileo’s Trial,” in Galileo and the Church, p. 193.) They certainly had the 1633 decree itself before them and according to the new geocentrists this by itself should have been sufficient. Thus Sungenis’s insinuation may be set aside as an empty diversion.

R. Sungenis:

We already knew what Olivieri had done, so it wouldn’t be “any sensational new knowledge.” It was old news. Olivieri succeeded in convincing everyone that elliptical orbits and gravity holding air were the clinching arguments to allow the Church to accept heliocentrism as a thesis. But at least we have McMullin, Fantoli and Finocchiaro to thank for pointing out the deception Olivieri perpetrated on the Church. All three were prompted to do so in reaction to the bogus claims that Cardinal Poupard had put in the 1992 papal speech on Galileo.

Palm:

As for his contention that Fr. Olivieri lied to the Pope, let us remember two things. First, it was not only the Pope to whom Olivieri presented the matter but to all the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office. And the Commissary General had this to say about those discussions with the cardinal-prefects: "the Most Rev. Father Master of the Sacred Palace [Fr. Anfossi] was not present at the two said meetings of the consultants (I do not know for what reasons). As a result, he was not aware of the proposal or of the discussion; and this was certainly unfortunate for him. For he would have heard the difficulties which some advanced at first, the solutions which others gave, and the ideas which everyone presented, until at the second meeting everyone shared an admirable consensus . . . No less uniform were the feelings of the Most Eminent Lord Cardinals; thus the decision had all the signs of having been dictated by the Holy Spirit" (Finnochiaro, Retrying Galileo, 204-5).

R. Sungenis:

What a joke. Here we have Olivieri telling us that, after he convinces everyone of his fabrications about elliptical orbits and the atmosphere, that these are “dictated by the Holy Spirit.” This is nothing but a power-play of sanctimonious words to give the appearance of divine sanction. McMullin, Fantoli and Finocchiaro have already exposed this charade for what it is.

Palm:

So there was no conspiracy, no subterfuge, no wrongdoing as Sungenis claims. Rather, all was done openly and in good order. The Holy Office had theological consultants prepare expert testimony. There was back and forth discussion, with ample opportunity for both sides to present their cases.

R. Sugnenis:

Apparently, David Palm thinks that just because there was an orderly discussion about Olivieri’s fabrications, that makes everything acceptable. How naïve. Everyone prior to this meeting believed the Earth didn’t move because the Fathers and Scripture taught so. But now that everyone can agree that the Fathers, Scripture Bellarmine, Paul V and Urban VIII were mistaken, we can all pat ourselves on the back because we came to agreement. How nice. Where was the Holy Spirit for all those who preceded Olivieri’s consensus?

[On my own view, if I may interrupt Sungenis' answer, Anfossi was the only guy who previous to or after this meeting still believed Geocentrism in the Vatican. Everyone else was seeking an excuse to get away from it, Olivieri provided it and was hero of the day.]

Palm:

The cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office officially sided with those who advocated the narrow interpretation of the 1633 decree and a broad allowance of views not covered by the 1633 decree to be held within the Catholic Church.

R. Sungenis:

No one brought up a “narrow interpretation of the 1633 decree” nor a “broad allowance of views not covered by the 1633 decree.” Both of these are imported presuppositions of David Palm that are misapplied to the 1616 and 1633 decrees. The matter is very simple: The 1616 and 1633 decrees forbid anyone to say that the Earth revolved around the sun. But Olivieri needed to change that, and so he made everyone believe that as long as they put the Earth in an elliptical orbit around the sun, and that a moving Earth would not sweep away the atmosphere, everyone could then either reinterpret the 1616-1633 decrees as allowing a moving Earth or conclude that the 1616-1633 clerics didn’t know what they were doing.

Palm:

And Pope Pius VII was willing at every step to approve. This ended with a general, positive permission bearing the Pope’s signature.

R. Sungenis:

There is no record of the Pope’s signature. And we already saw the background of his “willingness.” It was prompted by a man, Olivieri, who believed that heliocentrism had been proven when it had not. Olivieri tried to make everyone look foolish who didn’t accept his heliocentrism, especially Anfossi.

Palm:

And second, the fact is that the Commissary General, Fr. Olivieri, acted fully in line with the Church’s perennial rules of canonical interpretation, which mandate that the 1633 decree against Galileo must be interpreted strictly, as narrowly as possible and as affecting as few people as possible.

R. Sungenis:

For the sake of argument, let’s just say the 1616-1633 decrees were to be “narrowly interpreted.” The problem here is that Mr. Palm reads into the narrow interpretation what he wants to see. First, the decrees do not leave room for elliptical orbits, which is proven by the fact that Kepler was also put on the Index. Second, when the Church of 1616 said the condemned view believes the sun is in the center and not moving it was referring to the relative motion between the sun and the Earth, not the relative motion between the sun and the rest of the universe that Mr. Palm claims.

How do we know this? Two reasons: 1) the decree does not mention the rest of the universe or anything beyond the two bodies, the sun and the Earth, and 2) when the 1616 qualifiers worded their condemnation the first said: “The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.” Notice the words “local motion.” This refers “strictly” to the relative motion between the sun and the Earth, for that is what “local” means. It is not talking about Mr. Palm’s idea that the sun moves with respect to the universe or any other such thing.

Palm:

This may not be convincing to Sungenis, who has a private dogma to uphold, but it convinced the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office and ultimately Pope Pius VII, which obviously matters a great deal more.

R. Sungenis:

“Private dogma”? The only one with a private dogma is David Palm, since he claims that he has private scientific proof that the Earth moves. Where is it, David? If you have it, let’s debate it in an open, public and moderated debate. If you’re not willing to debate it, then please refrain. My “dogma” comes from the Fathers and medievals, the Tridentine catechism, and not one but two popes who approved the condemnation of heliocentrism and spread their decree all over Europe. Your “dogma” comes from someone who made up a story about elliptical orbits and convinced the Emperor that he was still wearing clothes. Some legacy.

Palm:

So you see, Hans, I do not argue that Pius VII's decree went against the 1633 decree. Rather, he ruled in line with the Church's perennial canonical tradition that a canonical penalty must be interpreted strictly. And the 1633 decree unambiguously references a strict heliocentrism, with an immobile sun at center of the universe and a mobile earth -- a view which nobody will ever hold again.

R. Sungenis:

Yes, we see how Mr. Palm throws in the word “universe” in order to satisfy his desire for “strict heliocentrism,” but this is merely his own scientific imposition. The 1633 decree said nothing about the “universe” but only about the “local” matter between the sun and the earth, since the only issue at hand was whether the sun went around the earth or the earth went around the sun. Anything else is Mr. Palm’s and Mr. Olivieri’s inventions.

Palm:

So at most the 1633 decree is an ecclesiastical dead letter. But whether other cosmological views fell under that decree was an open question. And that question was answered authoritatively and definitively by Pius VII in the negative. It is a decision that his successors have clearly followed.

R. Sungenis:

“Ecclesiastical dead letter”? Another one of Mr. Palm’s specious titles that he dreams up himself. As for imprimaturs, they can be rescinded as quickly as they are given. We already saw that in the case of Galileo who was issued an imprimatur in 1632 and it was taken away in 1633.

III

Me to Sungenis and Palm

14/04/15 à 12h18

Re: Reading but not bed time

I am sorry to have to say Sungenis takes my mail initiative to go on about in the same public speakers' tone as outside this correspondence.

This is about his tone, now for content, after I skimmed through a few things:

The one important fault of Dr Sungenis :

R. Sungenis: "For the sake of argument, let’s just say the 1616-1633 decrees were to be “narrowly interpreted.” The problem here is that Mr. Palm reads into the narrow interpretation what he wants to see. First, the decrees do not leave room for elliptical orbits, which is proven by the fact that Kepler was also put on the Index. Second, when the Church of 1616 said the condemned view believes the sun is in the center and not moving it was referring to the relative motion between the sun and the Earth, not the relative motion between the sun and the rest of the universe that Mr. Palm claims.

"How do we know this? Two reasons: 1) the decree does not mention the rest of the universe or anything beyond the two bodies, the sun and the Earth, and 2) when the 1616 qualifiers worded their condemnation the first said: “The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.” Notice the words “local motion.” This refers “strictly” to the relative motion between the sun and the Earth, for that is what “local” means. It is not talking about Mr. Palm’s idea that the sun moves with respect to the universe or any other such thing."

Local motion means motion from one locus to another. Not “motion within a local viewpoint”, though that might be included too.

“center of the world” = centre of the entire universe.

Sungenis is simply wrong on scholastic terminology here.

Less important:

“So how in the world was Olivieri able to convince everyone that Galileo’s missing elliptical orbits meant that we could now accept heliocentric models with elliptical orbits??!! No, no ‘strong-arming’ there, right David?"

One man singlehandedly (or for that matter two of them) strong arming the Pope and everyone else is ludicrous.

There are two possibilities :

• either this is what everyone except Anfossi, including the Pope, wanted to believe, because Paley’s watchmaker analogy about God and creation had made implications of Geocentrism inacceptable to everyone except Anfossi;
  
  
• OR, Pope Pius VII was per se willing to give Anfossi a real chance to condemn the book, but he was weakened and EVERYONE at the Papal court was together strong arming the Pope without realising it. This possibility is the reason why my last email to mainly Sungenis was about whether Pope was sick and weak or not.

Palm is in his turn giving evidence an intrigue may have been going on, with or without involvement of Pope Pius VII, but certainly against Anfossi:

“As for his contention that Fr. Olivieri lied to the Pope, let us remember two things. First, it was not only the Pope to whom Olivieri presented the matter but to all the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office. And the Commissary General had this to say about those discussions with the cardinal-prefects: "the Most Rev. Father Master of the Sacred Palace [Fr. Anfossi] was not present at the two said meetings of the consultants (I do not know for what reasons). As a result, he was not aware of the proposal or of the discussion; and this was certainly unfortunate for him. For he would have heard the difficulties which some advanced at first, the solutions which others gave, and the ideas which everyone presented, until at the second meeting everyone shared an admirable consensus . . . No less uniform were the feelings of the Most Eminent Lord Cardinals; thus the decision had all the signs of having been dictated by the Holy Spirit" (Finnochiaro, Retrying Galileo, 204-5).”

Fact is, Anfossi can have been very easily kept away from those meetings. Or he can have had a reasonable notion things were going to go exactly one way, and that the wrong one, in same meeting.

The real difficulty was NOT discussed in these meetings, and the real key person was NOT present in them.

Olivieri stating untruthful things and being dishonest does not become less credible because everyone wished to be deceived.

It does NOT become less credible because the position of Anfossi was not defended by Anfossi present in person. It looks very much as if he was kept away or kept himself away from an intrigue, and his position was defended by someone not really believing it and who therefore was not defending it to the uttermost. I e, he was replaced by a strawman version of his case.

Thank you very much Palm for having written this, I suppose Sungenis is not misquoting you.

Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

David Palm to me

14/04/15 à 15h23

Re: Reading but not bed time

Hello Hans,

I hope you will factor another important point into your consideration of this issue. Sungenis insists that Fr. Olivieri lied to Pius VII and made elliptical orbits the sole ground of his case. Sungenis errs and I have pointed this out to him many times, but he continues to repeat the same error.

Please see the discussion at the following locations:

[All on Geocentrism Debunked]

The New Geocentrists Come Unraveled : a linea “the only reason Settele got his imprimatur was because a lie was being circulated by the Commissioner, Olivieri that the Church of the 1600s denied heliocentrism because it didn’t have elliptical orbits.”
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-new-geocentrists-come-unraveled#Olivieri

Pay No Attention to the Geocentrist Behind the Curtain : a linea Does Bob Really Know the Science? Elliptical Orbits Versus Epicycles
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/pay-no-attention-to-the-geocentrist/#Epicycles

Pay No Attention to the Geocentrist Behind the Curtain : a linea Has Bob Accurately Represented Fr. Olivieri, the Commissary General of the Inquisition?
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/pay-no-attention-to-the-geocentrist/#Olivieri

As I summarized, "Bob’s contention that Fr. Olivieri makes “elliptical orbits” the “crux of the matter” is unsupported and false. Elliptical orbits was one of many things to which Fr. Olivieri pointed to demonstrate that the views of modern astronomers were not the same as those of Copernicus and hence not the same as what was addressed in the 1633 decree. Based on a false and sloppy analysis, Bob has repeatedly and unjustly accused this Catholic priest of lying and subterfuge."

It remains a fact that, read strictly, the 1616 and 1633 decrees address only a strict heliocentrism with an immobile sun at the center of the universe. Whether other cosmological views fall under those decrees is for the Church, not Sungenis, to decide. The Church has ruled against him.

God bless,

David

V

Sungenis to me and Palm

14/04/15 à 17h30

Re: Reading but not bed time

R. Sungenis: I didn’t say “center of the world” did not refer to the universe. I said that the 1616 decrees’ reference to “local motion” refers to motion between the sun and the earth. THAT was the only issue. It cannot refer to the stars since the stars are not local. The clerics already understood that the universe rotated around the Earth, and that the sun followed the universe in that rotation (except for a 1 degree lag per day). If the sun rotates around the Earth with the universe then obviously it can’t be the “center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.” Anything else read into this decree is simply an imposition from some wished-for universe.