Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry

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

Christopher Ferrara to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 03h41

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

Rick DeLano to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 03h54

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

I will run this by Karl tomorrow evening.

It certainly seems prudent and sensible to me.

Rick

Christopher Ferrara to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 04h22

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

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

Rick DeLano to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 04h43

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

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

Rick

Christopher Ferrara to Sungenis et al. (including Rick)

12/03/15 à 04h48

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

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

Rick DeLano to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 04h49

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

Thank you for the clarification.

I will of course accede to your wishes.

Me to Christopher Ferrara and Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 12h48

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

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

No, your caution was NOT abundant.

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

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

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

Do I make myself clear on this?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Me again to Sungenis, Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 12h54

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

David Palm quoting Sungenis and agreeing with quote:

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

I agree.

Hereto:

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

Robert Bennet, interspersed with my comments:

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

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

I am not convinced of the visionary Hildegard of Bingen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Ferrara

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl

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

Christopher Ferrara to me et al.

12/03/15 à 12h59

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

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

Me to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 13h20

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

Christopher A Ferrara!

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

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

If you wish to absent yourself, do so.

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

Hans Georg Lundahl

David Palm to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 13h48

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

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

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

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

God bless.

Christopher Ferrara and David Palm

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

Robert Sungenis to David Palm et al.

12/03/15 à 14h35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bob

So, we will see

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

Aftermath of the Quarrel

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

Sungenis to Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 16h59

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

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R. Sungenis: Amen.

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

R. Sungenis: Double Amen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

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

Ferrara to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 17h16

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

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

Me to Ferrara, Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 17h21

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

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

I only got angry about the secrecy part.

Especially when wanting Keating not to know.

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

You can :

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

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

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

Christopher Ferrara to me et al.

12/03/15 à 17h51

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

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

Me to Christopher Ferrara et al.

12/03/15 à 20h04

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

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

What about me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hans Georg Lundahl

Is it just me or …

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