jeudi 17 juillet 2014

Notre Dame de Carmel, un jour après

Le texte suivant est par Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp‎, Une Séculiaire des Carmélites, fut hier publié sur Le Rosaire avec les Psaumes, est ici republié avec sa permission:

Belle et Sainte fête de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel !

Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel et le Saint Scapulaire

L'Ordre du Carmel se donne une origine aussi ancienne que glorieuse ; on croit, non sans raisons sérieuses, que cet Ordre n'est que la continuation de l'école des prophètes établie au mont Carmel par le prophète Élie. Les disciples de cette école furent au premier rang parmi les convertis au christianisme naissant, et le Carmel devint le berceau de la vie monastique depuis Jésus-Christ.

Après la dispersion des Apôtres, l'an 38, ils bâtirent une chapelle en l'honneur de Marie et se vouèrent tout spécialement à célébrer ses louanges.

C'est à l'occasion des épreuves subies par l'Ordre du Carmel que les Carmes vinrent en France avec le roi saint Louis. Ils y établirent plusieurs maisons et allèrent même s'implanter en Angleterre, où ils eurent le bonheur de voir saint Simon Stock embrasser leur Institut. Ce grand Saint devint, en 1245, supérieur général des Carmes, et n'oublia rien pour rallumer la dévotion à Marie dans son Ordre.

La fête de Notre-Dame du Mont-Carmel a pour but de rappeler une grâce insigne accordée par Marie à l'Ordre du Carmel et par lui à toute l'Église. Dans la nuit du 16 juillet, Simon Stock demandait, avec une ferveur toute spéciale, la protection de la Sainte Vierge sur son Institut. Au lever de l'aurore, Marie lui apparut, accompagnée d'une multitude d'anges, environnée de lumière et vêtue de l'habit du Carmel. Son visage était souriant ; dans ses mains elle tenait le scapulaire de l'Ordre. Devant le Saint elle s'en revêtit elle-même, en disant : « Ceci est un privilège pour toi et pour tous les Carmes. Quiconque mourra en portant cet habit ne souffrira pas le feu éternel. »

Le Saint fit des miracles pour confirmer la réalité de cette vision. Ce fut l'origine de la Confrérie de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel, pour les chrétiens qui, ne pouvant embrasser la Règle, veulent attirer sur eux les bénédictions promises au scapulaire. Le privilège le plus considérable accordé à la confrérie du Mont-Carmel après celui que Marie fit connaître à saint Simon Stock, est celui qui fut révélé au Pape Jean XXII : la délivrance du purgatoire, le samedi après leur mort, des confrères du Mont-Carmel qui auront été fidèles à l'esprit et aux règles de la Confrérie. Outre ces deux privilèges, il y a de nombreuses indulgences attachées au scapulaire.

vendredi 11 juillet 2014

Literal Truth of Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 : Debates on more than one aspect

Friend (status)
Do you believe that the biblical account of creation is the truth?
Ten:
Yes (or one of them a Yep)
NP
Unless one sincerely identified the self as something other than Christian, I suppose the answer would have to be in the affirmative..,
NG
One has to, to remain Catholic.
JM (after three consecutive yes among above)
And the belief in evolution is boarding on mad!

To believe in something so absurd as life popping up from non living material by random chance, is incredible. It is not science, but an unreasonable faith.
GP
Central tenet of the Catholic faith. You could say the philosophic framework of the beginning of God's work with man.
JM
But this is the only faith allowed in the classrooms in this insane county of ours.
NP
Sts Aquinas and Augustine state that the account must be assented to literally
NB
Yes, evolution is a lie. How could man evolve from inferior beings? To be so like that, these inferiors beings would have to have a superior intelligence to Man. Also, matter by itself cannot transform in nothing else different than what what already is. Man is an animal, but a rational and spiritual one, raw matter does not possess any of these properties.
JM
Man has not evolved but devolved! Sin brought death into the world!

All are born into this world under the curse inherited by the fall of our first parents. Christ came to free us from that curse.
John Vennari
There is no reason not to
MO
Yep. Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis.
SB
Ask an evolutionist how we went from being dust into the first cell and they get stuck n say " oh that's now a separate field of study ", or something like that. Shouldn't they have to prove these things before they ask us to prove that God exists ?
JG
Theistic evolution is a cowardly way of giving into modern social pressure. You can't have it both ways.. Once you say God wasn't speaking literally about creation you will start to use the same logic for issues like the Eucharist, and baptism. and before you know it you have homosexual ministers in your "church"
AK
Yes, absolutely. It is the foundation for everything else. Creation in the image and likeness of God, and the original sin explain humans quite well.
JG
Unfortunately even in traditional churches theistic evolution beliefs are rising rapidly. Read an article the other day written by a man who claims to be catholic saying theistic evolution is 100% compatible with Christians. Made me sick.
AM
The Big Bang Hypothesis and the Evolutionism Hypothesis are both Perpetual Motion Machines and thus violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are thus false.
AK
The primary scientific problem with macroevolution is the increase in complexity of information which is not observed to take place anywhere in the universe without a rational agent actin upon the information. Not sure what the Big Bang has to do with a perpetual motion machine.
MMcB
I do believe in the literal account of the creation as given in Genesis.
SC
"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

"On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers."


-St. Augustine, Commentary on Genesis

St. Augustine does, of course, demand that we believe in the literal truth of the Scriptures, but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the "plain truth" of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity.

Theistic evolution is not a cop-out. It is a fine application to the findings of modern science of the principle set forth in St. Thomas' Summa Contra Gentiles, 3a 75 & 76, in which the application of Divine Providence to all contingent singulars and to all singulars immediately is established. The notion that a Christian could believe that there are particular events occurring in nature that are not willed by God is absurd.

N., in good Thomistic thought, an instrumental cause may be lower than its effect. That's the whole point of theistic evolution.

Sadly, AM, neither the Big Bang nor Evolution demand infinite time in either direction. With respect to evolution in particular, Earth is not a closed system, and it receives abundant energy from without in the form of solar radiation.

AK, even if you take the increase in [genetic] information to be a real problem demanding a prior complexity to explain it, the whole mechanism of evolution as willed by God could easily be viewed as a cosmic pencil, which operates according to mechanical principles, and the physical reality of whose writing is ultimately explained by these mechanical principles, but which is writing that which is meaningful as willed by the Writer. It would do no good to say that the ink in the pen could not wholly explain the words on the page just because they are information-bearing. Genes may be explained fully in a physical way by the process of evolution, directed however by Providence in such a way as to bear information.

David Bawden, alias HH Pope Michael
Creation is true as recounted in Genesis.
AM (answering SC here, but doing so much later)
SC, you don't read too well and you are lacking in logic skills. I never said anything about the earth as a closed system. The universe however, IS a closed system. As for the earth, it's energy gain from the sun is equal to its energy loss, and if it weren't then the temperature would either increase or decrease. The earth however gains no biological material from space, nor expels any into space, so therefore as far as biological matter and energy is concerned, the earth IS a closed system and the overall entropy is increasing within biological matter and substances.

Five (including me)
Yes, most assuredly, the account of creation given in Genesis is to be taken literally, I believe the biblical creation is the truth, not a iota of it shall pass away.
HGL, me
"Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis." (MO) - Where is the dislike button? Georges Lemaître who invented BB (as it was later called) was not so literalist about first two chapters of Genesis as the 1909 Biblical Commission's answers demanded.

[turning to SC:]

" but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the 'plain truth' of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity."

- Again, where is the dislike button? He does NOT say that because it is Scripture it is automatically "obscure and far beyond our vision". He is saying that WHEN it is of such things Scripture treats, then it may be interpreted differently.

Read all of this series (links on top of each message, numbered 1 - 12, bt actually fifteen or sixteen, since some have a/b or a/b/c), here is 1:

Creation vs. Evolution : Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/newspeak-in-nineteen-eighty-er-sorry.html


And this one too:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html


JCCD (to status/question, presumably)
Yes.
AD
I don't understand why people feel the need to try and marry principles set forth specifically to undermine the traditional Catholic teachings with actual Catholic doctrine. I guess it's the fear of possibly putting faith into something that scientism claims it can disprove? Either way, this heliocentric, (r)evolutionary thought has no place in the Church.
PK
I enjoy this analogy the best.....So, I go into an auto part store or warehouse that has every thing for all types of cars. So, I blow up the store/warehouse, and the parts miraculously fall from the sky, assembled themselves into various vehicles.....That makes as much sense as the randomness of Evolution.
SC
Hans-Georg,

No, St. Augustine does not say that Scripture is "obscure and far beyond our vision." Nor did I. But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision. And they are matters that remain obscure and far beyond our vision, "even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture."

Which is exactly what I said. Now, please, speak to point.

The point is that the plain sense of "speak" is what we do in conversation every day. But Augustine presses the meaning of this word. The plain sense of "light" is what is generated by the sun. But Augustine also admits that a spiritual light, the light that enlightens rational beings, could be *a possible* literal sense of the passage.

So St. Augustine is not married, as I claimed, to perspicuity or to the "plain sense" of the text, although he will certainly agree that the text is literally true---although the literal sense may have to be sought out.

[AP]

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."


-Pius XII, Humani Generis

"So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution. First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes. Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development."


-Pope Benedict XVI, a "man experienced" in sacred theology, on the present state of his field on this question, in a letter to Prof. Odifreddi

Now, please. They have a place in the Church.

[PK]

Theistic evolution does not magically do away with the doctrine of God's providence.

Now, I will be fastforwarding along ...
... my debate with SC. Sometimes. When messages start to split up in numbered arguments, I will follow each number before going back to the next number starting from same message as previously. But I will also interesperse this with other dialogue along the debate.
HGL
To SC, and

[1 2 3 see below FIRST SPLIT.]

"Schoolteacher."

Ah, and how would you fare among colleagues or even pupils and their parents, if outing yourself as a YEC (or even Geocentric)?

I was a schoolteacher for one term. I am glad I am no more, as schools are now. Including not only this doctrinal matter, but also the moral matter of school compulsion. To a moral schoolteacher, the pupil with his parents would normally be the client and the parents would decide on their part if teacher can stay with pupil, as well as teacher deciding on his part whether pupil can stay with him.

BUT in the modern system being a schoolteacher implies earning money on DRAFTED pupils. Plus excludes expelling nasty pupils.

SC
Hans-Georg,

In my locality, the American Middle West, I would fare better and better if I held either of those opinions.

(1 2 3 - see below, as noted.)

EPISODE PREVIOUS TO START OF SPLIT

PK
SC, I am not so smart so I will believe God for things beyond my comprehension....Meanwhile, it is 7:45 a.m. in the Midwest. Don't you guys have to get dressed and go to work, and earn a living? Or, are you all independently very wealthy?
SC
Schoolteacher.
PK
Then class must be happening soon, Eh, SC?
SC
Summer break. :)
PK
Oh, right. It's Summer back at home in the States.

Living in two worlds and 2 time zones is confusing as heck.
SC
I can imagine!
PK
Is the economy getting better, worst, or staying just the same back at home?
SC
Phew, what a question. I couldn't really say. My best guess would be that it is static. I have been very blessed to have been called for my jobs, rather than having to apply, so I don't have a good handle on what the job market is like.

It's still a good time to buy a house...
PK
Not when only about 50 million to 68 million Americans have some kind of jobs, and about 146 millions are jobless....Folks don't have money to buy much of anything these days.
SC
Well, I mean to say, it's a buyer's market.
PK
Yes, it does. Well, Sean, if you are pretty certain that you will have your job for the next 15 to 30 years, then go for it. For goodness' sake, please don't take out a variable - balloon type - loan. You will be so very sorry if you do. I'm sure you already know this.

FIRST SPLIT

First split
1 - 2 - 3 above taken separately
1)
HGL
1) the answer to me:

"But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision."

To the mechanics, yes.

To the story line no.

I have ventured a guess myself:

On day two, the "waters above the firmament" means, at least partly, H2. The firmament itself is O2, oxygen.

On day four, God used H2 from day two, but not all of it, to make sun and stars.

When windows of the firmament were opened under flood, that part was the hydrogen and the oxygen layers meeting in small overlaps ("windows") and reacting with combustion (2 H2 + O2 => 2 H2O).

Meaning some of it is now lost in the oceans (lost for star production and combustion, at any rate).

Yes, some of the mechanics may be obscure, that doesn't mean the story line is.

SC
(1) The basic storyline that God created the Heavens and the Earth is not in dispute. The fact that whatsoever he willed, he brought about, is not in dispute. But just where does the "basic storyline" end? If I may believe equally with many of the Fathers that the world was created in seven literal days, or with St. Augustine, in an instant, and that the earth bore in itself the potency to bring forth the various species according to their kinds; if I may believe in a literal spoken word of God, in literal light or in the rational, intelligible principle having been created...

I don't see how this passage yields to obvious scientific interpretation in any way. Particularly not when considered together with Genesis 2.
2
HGL
2) To the answer to AD:

a) Pius XII did not forbid that Discussions take place. That does not equal him allowing Catholics to accept evolution as factually true. One can see that encyclical as shilly shally on the point.

If one stated that a Catholic may neither believe nor defend theistic evolution, but he is free to discuss it with non-Catholics believing it and not allowed, if a professor at a university, to stop in the name of the Church non-Catholics from defending it, this would not be the most plausible meaning of the words, taken by themselves, but a possible one, and theologically preferrable insofar as one accepts him as having been Pope.

b) Now to Ratzinger:

"So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution."

I bet he had no wish to get into details, that might give the internal contradictions away. Concise he was allowed to be.

"First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes."

What nonsense if we look at it biologically!

"Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development."

What God had to do, and what, according to what He showed Moses or told Adam, actually did are two different things.

The syllogism "potuit, decuit, fecit" may be right about the immaculate conception (which is anyway, irrespective of syllogism, true), but in order for it to exist, there must be not only a "potuit" but also a "decuit".

I have horrors for the kind of moral theologian who would say that it "decuit Deo" to create the species through a drawn out process of suffering and death before Adam sinned. Or that it "decuit Deo" to create Adam's body through so many intermediates, while reserving only the soul for Himself.

Furthermore, denying that "God intervened manually in the process of evolution" can mean two very differnet things:

  • a) denying that there was a process of evolution which is the right meaning, but not very likely seeing the nonsense he uttered about "the tree of life";
  • b) admitting the process of evolution, but saying He did "not have to intervene" because He had programmed it so perfectly beforehand.


SC
(2) The biologists don't concur with your characterization of their science. If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession, I can't stop you, but the interrelationship between all life is certainly not "nonsense" from a biological perspective.

3)
HGL
3) Answer to PK:

The latter (see my discussion of Ratzinger just above) does not deny God's providence? It does, because it replaces providence with continual manual intervening in every aspect of the history of the entire universe with a preprogramming that excludes manual intervening.

But whether it denies or does not deny Providence, it very certainly denies Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures (as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII) as well as Patristic-Sense-Only Exegesis (as defined by Trent). Church Fathers differed on details (most notably on whether earth was round or flat or they refused to decide, on whether carnivore kinds were created carnivores or vegetarians, on whether creation of six days was six days (nearly all Fathers) or one moment (St Augustine in books Five-Six of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII). But they all differ in one single way from long age exegesis.

And they should.

SC
(3) No, as you correctly observed earlier, there is a difference between what God "had to do" and what He did do. Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both. It is all the ways in which God directs history to His purpose.

HGL (to 1 - 3)
It is one verse in Genesis 2, or maybe two or three, that made St Augustine believe that the six days were same day and hence same moment. No other canonised Church Fathers held that (Origen is not canonised). BOTH sides agree the universe was not much older than Adam. Genesis 2 is obviously a detailed account of things described more generally as day six.

"If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession"

Biologists are very certainly NOT an entire profession all agreeing on tree of life. Those who do have been through academia where pressure was that way. They are majority, but not all. And of the majority, much is lipservice due to intellectual terror from evolutionist establishment.

"the interrelationship between all life is certainly not 'nonsense' from a biological perspective."

If by interrelationship you DO mean tree of life, it is at best a non-proven. One could argue even contradicted item.

If by interrelationship of all life you do NOT mean common ancestry, then "tree of life" and "evolution" are very bad names for it.

"Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both."

Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first. The second is what God took maximum six literal days to do, according to any Church Father, including St Augustine, and it is not called providence, it is called creation.

When St Augustine brings up the question whether light created on day one was literal - i e visible - or intelligible, he certainly did not exclude the visible light from being created or from being created first instant of day one. Whether or not one should accept any time for the "and the earth was empty and void" before day one.

Two boys quarrel "pa bought the house on an auction for 30 dollars before fixing it" - "no, it was only one dollar". Will anyone say that their pa buying it for a million from a luxurious broker is within the frame of discrepancy between the boys? I would say they agree that being excluded.

EPISODE STARTING AFTER START OF SECOND SPLIT

AD
SC, Pius XII gave permission to study it, not believe in it.

Benedict XVI, though he's the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful.

If you believe it, or just want to defend people's supposed "rights" to believe it, then you're going to have to settle that with your own conscience. It's not Catholic. It's opposed to the Fathers of the Church. It's absurd. It's a waste of time. It's scientism.
SC
How very incredible you would make the Faith.

As I do not reject wholesale similar statements of the postconciliar Magisterium, my conscience is quite at ease.
HGL
AD, "Benedict XVI, though he's the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful."

Is ... as in his resignation was invalid?

But actually, not only no Pope has any way of making that stupidity binding, it is a real suspicion if the man was not a heretic while uttering those words, and if that was before election of 2005 (or if he made similar ones while apparently cardinal) he was never elected, since he had made himself ineligible.

AD
I'm not passing any judgement on any pope. All I know is that Benedict XVI was elected, and is still alive. Francis was also elected. My judgement is that we have 2 living popes.

Whether or not his resignation was valid will have to be determined by the Church at some point in the future. I don't know enough about popes resigning to know if it can even legally be done.

HGL
WHO does [have that kind of knowledge]?

But a theological position like that one is heretical, and I know that a man holding it while otherwise elected Pope was disqualified by heresy - if that position was pertinacious.

So far he has not shown otherwise.

SECOND SPLIT
1 - 6 are now the diverse parts of each word between SC and me, and we are here splitting up the dialogue according to numeration. On 3 - 6 SC will be giving me the last word. On 1/2 I will at one point give a unitary answer, which will lead up to the end.

1
SC
(1) And what exactly is "not much older?" How old must I believe the universe to be before I am in disagreement with the Fathers?

HGL
So old that retelling the story you believe in your own words to a modern scientific public would entail not chosing the words of Genesis and the Fathers.

SC
(1) Since we have been arguing *this whole time* whether the literal sense of the words contained in Genesis are compatible with a scientific understanding of the age of the earth and the descent of living creatures, my case is that, yes, certainly the literal sense of the words of Genesis is true.
2
SC
(2) The Creationists are building an amusement park at great cost near my house, where they have already built a museum. They are not welcome everywhere, but they are welcome in certain places, and they have money. I certainly don't see productive research coming from their model.

HGL
I do not see productive research coming from people engaged in dating dinosaur bones to 65 million years Before Present either. And those guys have LOTS of more money.

SC
(2) To quote Pope S. John Paul II,

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."


1 and 2)
HGL
Here is where we disagree, and I do not count the pseudo-canonised previously pseudo-pope Wojtyla as an authority.
Above
Will be answered by SC at the END.

3)
SC
(3) "One could argue even contradicted?" It is a model that proves explanatory and even predictive of both fossil and genetic data.

HGL
Except of course the genetic data they chose to disregard.

Like impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in new pairs of chromosomes, especially in mammals.

SC
It is very weak to rest a scientific case on a negative claim. One thing I do know, however, that they do not "ignore" this problem, but study it like everything else, which is why you can find it discussed in the scientific literature.

HGL
My claim is NOT negative. It is a claim about positive obstacles making chromosome fissions (outside evil genetic engineering) as giving rise to new pairs of chromosomes, biologically impossible in mammals.

So, this is a strong argument.

So strong, when I had argued it under PZ Myers' blog post on subject, he deleted comments after a date that by a year or so preceded my first comment, i e he deleted all my comments.
Here, SC Discussed no further.

I on my part forgot to answer his claim that the problem is discussed in the scientific literature. It is, but VERY cautiously. IN Sweden we say "like a cat around hot porridge".

Since he did not dispute my reclaim, I did not have a chance to link (in the thread, as I had intended, had he not avoided the issue) to my own contribution to the discussion:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html


Which omission I have here before my readers corrected.
4)
SC
St. Thomas Aquinas appears to disagree with your notion of contingency in the Universe, in SCG 3a, 75.

HGL
S c G, III, 75 Chapter 75
THAT GOD’S PROVIDENCE APPLIES TO CONTINGENT SINGULARS

Which is what I said.
SC
Here is what you said, "Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first," in response to my claim that Providence cannot *merely* mean God's manual intervention into reality, but can also mean His good ordering of that reality, in knowledge, to direct things to their ends.

Here is what St. Thomas says:

"However, suppose someone says that God takes care of these singulars to the extent of preserving them in being, but not in regard to anything else; this is utterly impossible. In fact, all other events that occur in connection with singulars are related to their preservation or corruption. So, if God takes care of singulars as far as their preservation is concerned, He takes care of every contingent event connected with them."


Also St. Thomas' favorite example of the master arranging the meeting between two servants by sending them both to market at the same time. It appears a chance event to them, when in fact it was carefully planned from the beginning.

[I forgot to answer that one on thread, unless he added to the comment afterwards, but here St Thomas is not saying anything on careful providential plans from the beginning having to be subsumed in the general rules - on the contrary, a master sending both to a market would be manually working that providence outside the general rules of the household, if not against them.]

HGL
4) Your quote from St Thomas neither contradicts my position, nor any of my actual words.

My point is that ORDERING THINGS IN NECESSARY RELATIONS is what God did during the creation week, and those relations do not change.

PROVIDENCE is taking care of singulars. The passage you just cited means God is not only taking care of each singular with a view to itself, but also with a view to other singulars in view of necessary relations between such established ... previous to the providence, under creation week.

5, context
[St Augustine on creation of intelligible light to exclusion or inclusion of visible light on day one]
SC
I'm not arguing for exclusion here, but inclusion.

HGL
Good, then ALL church Fathers agree God created visible light on day one. And therefore that He created it independently of the Sun.

How so? Even if to St Augustine, in the one-moment-exposition, the six days are not temporally consecutive, they are however ordered in an order of internal necessity. Meaning light necesarily comes before the sun, not the reverse.

SC
Which makes sense, given that more than the Sun in this Universe gives off light. My question was about literal days.

HGL
More than the sun gives off light? No, no, no, this is NOT what I meant.

I meant God created visible LIGHT before He created ANY light source, naturally such. Including, but NOT limited to the Sun.

A bit like bread being the natural cause of the accidents of bread, how it looks, etc. BUT in Holy Eucharist God upholds accidents of bread very much without this natural source of these accidents.

6
SC
So, to (1) you apparently mean "less than a literal week." Why would the first day be a space of 24 hours, when the Sun had not yet even been created?
HGL
Indeed, the Patristic Options are:

  • a) a Literal Week (all Church Fathers, incuding St Augustine in Book One of De Genesi) perhaps minus a few hours;
  • b) Less, i e a single moment (St Augustine in Books 5 - 6 of De Genesi ad Literam).


Your question was answered in Book one of the Genesi ad Literam, I think it was chapter ten. Heaven rotated before Sun rotated with it. God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun, and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along.

Actually, one could argue, all days prior to creation of Sun may have had the length of stellar days, that is the speed of rotation of the Universe. I e a few minutes less than 24 h.

SC
But, my question is not answered because that is not how day and night work.
HGL
"God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun"

That is indeed not how night and day work now.

"and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along."

That is however how night and day work now, therefore your question is answered.

Yes, I am a Geocentric, both because this aspect of creation week warrants it AND because it takes care of Distant Starlight problem.

End of
Second split. SC answering some of above, and me replying will start the END.

EPISODE NEAR END OF SECOND SPLIT

SDKR @ friend
do you believe?
Friend
Yes.
SDKR
then why ask?

its like asking, do you believe in the blessed trinity?

of course i do. duh

Friend
Because a Catholic I know does not and I was wondering about my friends on here.
SDKR
is he or she in your fb account?

why wonder?

i know no catholic who doesnt agree with the catholic church's teaching. solemn or ordinary. submission. we are the church taught.

if one considers himself or herself as catholic, SUBMIT!

[Edoting remark: Sure, but some guys, I think SC is among them, submit to a pseudomagisterium - to acts that would not be sufficiently magisterial for that submission even if their doers were holders of magisterium.]

END

SC
We are not making any headway. We have discovered no common ground further in the course of this discussion than that with which we began. I think our principal disagreement is, as you pointed out (1) & (2).

Pius XII permitted discussion at least, and at latest John Paul II permitted belief. That cinches it for me. That will never cinch it for you.

[Editor: And therefore he thinks any discussion of what evidence is about chromosome numbers or what St Thomas said about providence is superfluous to him?]

HGL
Pius XII did not go further than permit discussion, and provisorical holding in discussions.

John Paul II did not only permit but recommend belief. That means there is an abyss separating their two doctrines.
AM
Hans-Georg Lundahl in software engineering terms, God created classes before he created instances of the classes (objects).

HGL
That would be what St Augustine was saying. And that the creating of classes took a single instant for God, but six or seven instants for angels looking on. St Thomas harmonises the views insofar as he says God THEN created the first (or with Sun/Moon and a few more: only) instances DURING A WEEK of really successive time. Thank you AM.

SC
Why permit discussion on a thing if it is impossible that it be true? One of the possible results of a discussion would in fact be the recommendation of belief in the thing that has been discussed. They exist in continuity with one another, particularly given the enormous space of decades between them.

HGL
Pius XII was stalking for time.

The one recommendation the Church COULD finally give was of the traditional doctrine.

The Church cannot define evolution to be true and revealed in Depositum Fidei any more than she can define Heliocentrism to be true and defined in Depositum Fidei.

SC
A Pontiff's personal recommendation of scientific belief on scientific grounds and his authoritative judgment (which presumably accompanies it) that such belief is compatible with Christian doctrine are distinct.

HGL
Which PRESUMABLY accompanies it?

The problem is there was no EXPLICIT authoritative judgement that either Heliocentrism or Darwinism was compatible with Christian belief. Ever. And there might be a reason for that.

In my view, the reason is that such an authoritative statement would equal "infallible heresy" = a statement claming infallibility while being heretical as to content = a proof the one making it was not Pope while making it, and that means, acc. to most theologians WE consult, a proof he was never validly elected Pope, since a heretic and ineligible in the first place.

Meaning St Robert Bellarmine went through the theoretical worst case scenarios, and he concluded, among other things, that a man who was Catholic while elected Pope could never, while staying Pope, become a heretic.

So, if an apparently elected Pope not by slip of tongue but in the most solemn manner imaginable utters a heresy, he is proving he was never Pope.

Leo XIII, Benedict XV both AVOIDED doing that by explicitly endorsing Heliocentrism, so they only hinted indirectly Heliocentrism might just possibly be licit. So as to keep in their persons the faith, so as to keep their authority, so that persons on lower levels endorsing Heliocentrism in what they considered obedience to them would at least be subjectively obeying a real Pope. And Pius XII seems to have done sth like that about Darwinism. With JP-II, B-XVI, "Formula I" we are seeing a real break.

Even J-XXIII and P-VI where conducting a more quiet break, with acceptance of psychology.

SC
(1) Presumably may be used in many senses. Rephrased, "which it would make sense be given at the same time," rather than, "which I presume to be understood in the first."

(2) And what does an EXPLICIT authoritative judgment take? As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine. There are your theses, held privately, about the consensus patruum, but as I am aware, this has never been formally invoked to compel the beliefs of Catholics on a "six-day-or-less" Creation, as you would have it. There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory.

(3) The heliocentrism "problem," if you're going to be accurate, should be taken back past Leo XIII to Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works.

HGL
"As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine."

Council of Trent explicitly condemns non-patristic exegesis of Genesis as well as any other parts of the Bible. You have shown no way around the Patristic explicit unity on an earth that is millennia old rather than millions or billions of years.

A bit more explicit than that: Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, had his book placed on the index.

"There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory."

One of the non-negotiables is Adam's soul created directly by God.

This means that if he corporeally descended from non-humans, his consciousness would have been radically different from that of his parents.

This would have made it impossible for him to honour the parent animaks of which he was a human offspring - unless he lost them before he became a human. And that again would imply death before sin.

Also, Pius XII is not alone in speaking of the first human couple. Our Lord did so too. Marc 10:6. Does NOT look pretty comparing timescales ... if you take the evolutionary view.

"Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works."

Benedict XIV permitted publication of works treating of heliocentrism as a hypothesis. NOT works treating it as real truth.

Hence the Settele case.

Father Anfossi was overridden. But - one thing Sungenis said and one thing I know myself about this affair - the then Pope had no access to the 1633 condemnations, he was even misled about their contents (thanks, Sungenis), AND the Pope did NOT explicitly state a Catholic was free to believe such printed works as that of Settele.

I studied THAT one more than a year ago:

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


So, Benedict XIV and Pius VII BOTH refused to make an explicit retraction of the 1633 ruling, and BOTH refused to make an explicit endorsement of the Copernican system as not at variance with faith. They only made lesser acts which could reasonably be presumed to imply Copernican theory was OK.

QUOTE:

In 1829 "when a statue to Copernicus was being unveiled at Warsaw, and a great convocation had met in the church for the celebration of the mass as part of the ceremony, at the last moment the clergy refused in a body to attend a service in honor of a man whose book was on the Index." And in the same year, a Spanish bishop consulted the Roman Inquisition about whether the Copernican system could be retained, and instead of a definite answer he was sent the recent rulings stemming from the Settele episode.


FROM

Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
Par Maurice A. Finocchiaro [p. 198]

Settele had changed a phrase before getting a first imprimatur. He claimed to have in his book a proof that the earth moves. I am afraid it is not a proof receivable for a Thomistic metaphysician.

EPILOGUE
SC
Multum videtur mihi legendum, domne! Gratias pro explicationibus tuis perplenis tibi ago. Nec do, nec concedo, sed haudquaquam plus contribuere possim nisi plus et legem.

Tuas paginas interretales maximo studio adspiciebam.
HGL
Bene est, aspice et hanc paginam:

[Hanc ipsissimam, in quam uinculum dare superfluum uidetur.]

SC
Mirabile visu! Tot dialogos quasi Neoplatonicos! Quisnam autem sum? Sumne Timaeus?
HGL
Es "SC".

Some of these men deserve death

[own status, including also this link, which shows us the men I am talking about:]

2014 July 10 Breaking News Labs Mixing Human DNA Animal DNA Trans-humanism Last days news
u2bheavenbound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-acQz_wBx7E


[Waited till next day, above was from 18:00 yesterday, whatever time setting I have on that FB account, the following are my supplementary comments from today:]

None of them died while I was sleeping and waiting for reactions?

Well, then some of them might get a few annoying refutations of their evil arguments.

I

This guy who said "I am going to be a god, I am not asking you to become one, just don't stop me from becoming one!" - When he said it, he was speaking (except for the very foul purpose he defended) like a human annoyed at other humans.

If ever he becomes an immortal, how can those respecting, humanly, his wish, every be sure he will still be speaking like a human rather than as a haughty titan then?

What they seem to be doing even now is titanic.

II

But some other guys seem to be criminal:

LifeNews.com : Wife of Leading Pro-Life Activist Suddenly Missing Without a Trace
by Steven Ertelt | Jefferson City, MO | LifeNews.com | 7/10/14 3:22 PM
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/07/10/wife-of-leading-pro-life-activist-suddenly-missing-without-a-trace/


Seem to be, we do not know yet.

When it comes to her - we know they are when it comes to human not yet borns.

So, I have presumably not killed anyone of the guys with my comments, but someone on their side seems to be targetting pro-lifers that are peaceful.

Getting back to refutations.

III

This other guy (or was it the same guy?*) claimed if someone's child was the only normal one in the class and all the others genetically manipulated, to excel, the normal guy would hate his parents for neglecting to give him that advantage too.

The answer to that one is: this incompetent tinkerer with God's own business is "daring" enough to redefine humanity. But he is a complete coward or just completely hypnotised when it comes to redefining school system in favour of homeschooling. Or in favour of unschooling.

Some people find it so easy to dare god about the ten commandments, but they wouldn't dare trying to interfere with the most modern school boards. OK, they just MIGHT interfere with a schoolboard they thought unduly favourable to Creationism. But not with a modern typical one.

One can imagine a Disney villain. "I will bomb all the capitals in the world until they give me all power!" Oh, what a daring type. His wife comes around. "Your collar is not folded properly" and he goes shaking down on his knees "so o o o o sorreee, please don't kill me!"

That is about the disproportion I see in the guy from the video who was pretending to pity the normal guy in a class with genetically modified IQ 300.

The NORMAL reaction to such a situation would be not putting them in the same classroom in the first place.

IV

Or this commercial for transhumanism, with its image of a ship. And its quasi heroisation or divinisation of historic periods like the Renaissance or the Scientific Revolution and the claim we are again in such a period. Well, for one thing that guy sucks sorely at history.

* The video was traumatising, and I have slept since seing it, and am not seeing it again now, and possibly not later either.

dimanche 29 juin 2014

Pauvreté

Vieil ami, statut
"Pour quand la fin de la misère en France ?"

[photo - par Bruno Boulefkhad - avec un mendiant et un chien, le panneau dit

C"est mon seul ami, aidez-nous à vivre ensemble]
HGL
"Les pauvres, vous les aurez toujours parmi vous."

Pour quand, donc? Pour le Jour du Jugement.
Vieil ami
Vous confondez deux plans bien distincts, au moins deux. Les pauvres ne sont pas les misérables, premièrement. Il y a en outre la question du systémique et structurel. Un système économique concu pour forcer des gens à vivre dans la pauvreté, et même la misère, est un système injuste. Or, c'est le cas aujourd'hui. Bref, vous donnez un sens à la parole de N.-S. qu'elle n'a pas. Étudiez, en outre, qui est Mr. Boulefkhad avant de vous prononcer de la sorte. C'est une question de courtoisie.
HGL
Quand notre Seigneur disait ça, il ajoutait "et vous pouvez leur faire bien quand vous voudrez". DONC il s'agit des gens vivant d'aumônes.

Celà n'est pas forcément une misère. Je ne trouvais pas l'image une image de misère. Quand on mendie pendant des heures, une couette est utile. Donc, un homme mendiant en couette n'est pas forcément en vrai misère.

La misère est autre part.

VOUS avez par exemple forcé votre ami - soussigné - de choisir entre la mendicité ou la recherche d'emploi, plutôt que de vivre de ses écrits. Car vous aviez, plus qu'une fois, la possibilité d'imprimer mes essais, de regarder mes compositions et d'en jouer si vous trouviez une bonne, de passer cette possibilité à d'autres aussi, et vous ne l'avez pas fait. Dans ce cas, vous n'êtes pas en position de ME prêcher sur la courtoisie.

Je ne sais pas exactement qui est Bruno Boulefkhad. Je sais par contre qu'il est capable de montrer un image d'un mendiant et de rêver d'un monde sans eux. Je me suis prononcé uniquement sur cette chose là, elle demeure elle-même qui qu'il soit autrement.
Vieil ami
Nous ne sommes, comme souvent, pas d'accord quant à l'équilibre à rechercher ni sur les moyens pour y parvenir. Par ailleurs, le contexte étant souvent tout, vous êtes passé à côté du message de M. Boulefkha. Je n'y puis plus rien.
HGL
Je viens de regarder sa page. Il est visiblement socialiste, son dernier statut* étant:

Toutes les avancées sociales se sont toujours gagnées de hautes luttes... Commune libre de Paris/Front Populaire 1936/ République espagnole 1931à1939 / Mai 68 / Ukraine 2014 etc etc... et pour nous c'est pour quand ?


C'est une énumération d'avancées sociales qui vous dit?
Vieil ami
L'équilibre à rechercher...
HGL
Ne me parait pas être dans cette énumération, non. Il me paraît plutôt un déséquilibré qui fait des photos des SDF pour qu'elles servent à ses propos, et peut-être le mendiant sur la photo n'était même pas d'accord avec ça.
Vieil ami
Pourquoi toujours rechercher à aliéner ceux qui ne vous veulent nul mal ? Voilà la question qui me préoccupe.
HGL
Le mot "préoccupe" est aussi un des mots qui commence à me faire une vraie misère.

Si vous vouliez pas vous sentir aliéné de moi, vous auriez pu me rendre certains services dans le passé. Je vous avais rendu qqs-uns aussi.

Je vous avais aussi épargné une dette monétaire pour un prêt, mais vous n'avez pas dépensé une dixième de la somme pour commencer un petit commerce avec mes textes.

Ce n'est pas avec [ce] Bruno là que je veux faire cause comune, et si vous le voulez, peut-être ça explique votre aversion envers mes textes. Je reste sur une position catho.


* Ça semble avoir été enlevé quand je regarde sa page, j'avais pourtant copié et collé.

jeudi 26 juin 2014

Ross Hoffmann Made an Answer, an Answer too I Gave

1) "Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ...", 2) On Karl Keating's Course, 3) Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate, 4) Ross Hoffmann Made an Answer, an Answer too I Gave

Ross Earl Hoffmann
Hans-Georg Lundahl! Let me ask you a question do you think the Magisterium has the Authority to give Catholics the option to wear veils or not? This is the hatchet job I'm talking about!

Hans-Georg Lundahl show me the test patterns that St Robert Bellarmine did with our satellites please!

Hans-Georg Lundahl so do you think individuals handling data as far as our satellites go are dishonest?

Hans-Georg Lundahl a parallel would be an airplane wing are you saying that in space there's air like in a test tunnel or you can produce wind? Is there wind in space my friend?

Hans-Georg Lundahl are you trying to tell me with the technology we have today our scientist can't look through the eyes of a satellite and determine whether the Sun is rotating or the earth is rotating around the Sun?

Hans-Georg Lundahl as you can see I'm not well versed in all of this geocentrism stuff but my main complaint with Robert isn't that far from Karls, and that is Robert like so many Traditionalists view the Church as being Modernist in every area that they don't like! And Robert is on record as going so far as stating the Magisterium is wrong in areas such as Veiling! The last time I checked I don't believe Robert Sungenis is Living Authority the Church! And just for the record I have absolutely nothing against Veiling. Only if someone who is in favor of Veiling does so by claiming the Magisterium is in error. Which is what Robert is doing...Pax
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"do you think the Magisterium has the Authority to give Catholics the option to wear veils or not"

I think St Thomas answered that one. In Churches where the discipline of St Paul has been kept up, it should be kept up. In Churches where it has disappeared, it need not be kept up.

Of course the Magisterium should NOT generally disband it.

"show me the test patterns that St Robert Bellarmine did with our satellites please!"

Presumes one of the points disputed here, namely whether one could or could not get same result from opposites adapting in opposite directions. I have a question for you on this one:

Show me where in their calculations modern physicists have taken into account that God could be turning the Universe around us and that angels could be moving stars and planets.

"so do you think individuals handling data as far as our satellites go are dishonest?"

Where exactly did I either say or imply that?

I asked how that view point could POSSIBLY be of more certainty than the one God provided for 7 billion pairs of eyes and 7 billion pairs of inner ears.

Fly around a tower in a helicopter.

Film the tower from the helicopter. On the film the tower will be seen as turning around, does not mean the tower is dancing and does not mean the film makers were dishonest either. All it means is flying around a tower in a helicopter is NOT a way to find out whether it moves or not.

"a parallel would be an airplane wing are you saying that in space there's air like in a test tunnel or you can produce wind? Is there wind in space my friend?"

A wind of air no. A wind of aether, yes.

You know, the substance in which ligh is a wave. The substance every modern cosmologist was all of a sudden forced to deny after Michelson Morley experiment.

An aether of graviational pulls moving past the satellite (all the time) would - if Sungenis is right, I have another model in reserve - have the same effect as the satellite flying through it.

Now, this one is one I haven't worked through totally, and I might be wrong to trust Sungenis on this one. However, that is not fatal to Geocentrism.

My other one would be that spirits are keeping geostationary satellites in place.

Precisely as poltergeists do on a smaller scale and the angels carrying heavenly bodies on a larger scale.

I am not writing off Sungenis' explanation until he has had a chance to answer at what height "the aether wind of gravitational pulls" would be enough to keep a body in place and at what lower height it would simply fall down. And why.

But that is physics beyond my level.

"are you trying to tell me with the technology we have today our scientist can't look through the eyes of a satellite and determine whether the Sun is rotating or the earth is rotating around the Sun?"

Obviously a resounding YES, I am telling you that they cannot.

It is not a question of technology, but of correctness of viewpoint.

They have paid millions to take a view that proves our Earth turning around its axis as much as a helicopter view would prove a tower was dancing.

As to your last point, I will have to refer that one to Pope Michael.

Obviously, he will not be against the Geocentrism stuff in Sungenis, as such. He is, as known, a Geocentric.

I would say that what you are referring to as Magisterium may well be wrong about taking interest, since contradicting the Magisterium of Councils of Vienne in 1313 and of Lateran V in 1515. Both counted as valid ecumenical, on the Latin side of 1054, whether you count Vatican II as such or not.
Ross Earl Hoffmann
Hans-Georg Lundahl that's not what I asked; I asked you a very specific question do you believe the current Magisterium has the Authority to give Catholics the option to wear Veils?! This is a very important question because it will tell me whether you accept the Authority of the Catholic Church today in all matters! Robert Sungenis doesn't!

Hans, now don't misunderstand what I'm saying I have absolutely no problem with Catholics wearing Veils it doesn't bother me one bit I think it's very reverent and I have no problem with reverence! But that's not at all what I'm talking about and I think you know it! And I think you know this is the biggest concern with everybody in this thread it all has to do with Authority and who has it and who doesn't!
Hans-Georg Lundahl
My answer is that the question of veils is decided by tradition.

It is decided in a manner Sungenis may be unaware of, namely local diversity, but making the option NOT to wear headcovering universal would go against St Paul. And the reference to angels involved.

My answer to your last is no, who on earth has and who hasn't authority is NOT the main question priming over every other question. That would be an idolatrous position. As Mgr Williamson said (and I believe he is still not a Geocentric, so he is wrong on astronomy): truth primes authority.

In any apparent conflict between apparent authority and known truth, truth comes first.

Ross Earl Hoffmann - one for you.

On another thread you stated that having recourse to Tradition instead of Bible "against Magisterium" is even worse.

Do you stand by that blasphemous proposal?
Ross Earl Hoffmann
Hans-Georg Lundahl so if I'm understanding you correctly matters such as Veiling is off limits for the Magisterium? Tell me this my friend, who now then is the keeper and guardian of Tradition if not the Magisterium!? And what else is off limits to the Magisterium?

Hans-Georg Lundahl as far as any blasphemous proposal I would have to see everything that I said but this is pretty much the position I take do you disagree with it?

Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time. As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not. The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an "ism", which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name "sola scriptura" to "Scripturism"). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority.

The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. At least with Scripture, there is some way that everyone can identify a stable source of data. With Tradition, this is far more difficult, and, in fact, it cannot be done apart from the living authority of the Church—any more than the Canon of Scripture could have been established by anything other than that same authority.

EWTN : POPE ST. PIUS V AND QUO PRIMUM
Jeffrey Mirus
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/QUOPIUS.HTM
Hans Georg Lundahl
"so if I'm understanding you correctly"

A phrase over used when giving a parody of what someone just said. Like you are doing here.

"matters such as Veiling is off limits for the Magisterium?"

Not at all "matters such as veiling", but rather measures such as in the matter of veiling the measure would be to declare it universally licit for the entire Church to ignore St Paul's position on veiling.

Note, in a context where a woman wearing the veil would expose herself as Christian to Communists and thereby attract persecution, yes, it is within capacity of magisterium to say that St Paul's position does not strictly oblige her at such a price. Especially if adding that an extra prayer to the guardian angel be said (considering the context of what St Paul said about veils, revisited thanks to God first and foremost and after God Rob Skiba and Ethiopian Book of Henoch). At least I suppose so and would not consider a bishop obviously heretical for allowing her not to wear the veil in such circumstances. If he is, that is beyond my paygrade.

The question is not what subject matter is off limits for the Magisterium, the question is what the Magisterium can do about what falls within its limits.

Contradicting the Bible is off limits. Contradicting Universal Tradition is off limits.

Hence my referral to St Thomas "does not oblige where fallen into disuse" about precisely this matter. Which is something other than saying "Magisterium can say universally it does not oblige".

"Tell me this my friend, who now then is the keeper and guardian of Tradition if not the Magisterium!? And what else is off limits to the Magisterium?"

Obviously, as said, breaking instead of keeping, throwing away instead of guarding.

"Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time."

A question already settled is not a real question.

"As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not."

Insofar as new questions really arise, either the Church has - in Pope Michael, as I believe - or will have (if I am wrong) a living person to settle them.

Raising a question already settled on "no" and hoping it will be "yes" next time is not always wrong, when it comes to individuals, but definitely bad manners when it comes to principles.

Admitting that this question - to return to Heliocentrism being licit or not - was settled with "no" on a very high level in 1633 and then pretending it has been settled into a yes because some apparent Popes hold that as their opinion, that raises for instance either a question on whether they are Popes, or on whether their followers therein are honest.

"The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an "ism", which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name "sola scriptura" to "Scripturism"). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority."

In what manner "what appears to be a self evident body of data"?

Trent did not say nothing in Scripture was self evident and did not deny self evident portions of Scripture are above the potential of changing ones mind for the Magisterium.

The Latin "tenet" in one definition does not so much mean "holds" (i e at a given moment, without reference to its past) as "has held and still holds" - which is why the confession rephrased into "tenuit atque tenet" to propfit those not speaking a Romance language.

If you hold otherwise and would have that not pass for a blasphemy, how about showing the relevant passage in acts of the magisterium and that of the magisterium as accepted by both parties.

I have as a homeschooler (very part time) and teacher (also only very part time) a good reason to detest the novelties in the concept of education as per 1965:

New blog on the kid : Schools in Church Doctrine (Pope Pius XI vs "Vatican II")
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/06/schools-in-church-doctrine-pope-pius-xi.html


And I am not excluding Pacem in Terris (esp. §6) from being already by a sham Magisterium.

Here is what I previously wrote on Pacem in Terris:

New blog on the kid : Yesterday Bergoglio seems to have thrown me out of the Church - insofar as he was Pope he did
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/yesterday-bergoglio-seems-to-have.html


And seeing how you used the words "private judgement" I googled these words together with Haydock. The first hit seems to disagree with you.

Haydock 1859 : Apocalypse Chapter 11
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id297.html


By such dispositions of submission to the doctrine delivered or witnessed by the consent of the primitive Fathers, might be quickly taken away the unhappy differences in points of religion betwixt us, and all pretended reformers, who, by setting up their private judgment against the authority of the Catholic Church, have brought in these differences.
Ross Earl Hoffman
Hans-Georg Lundahl maybe I'm making this too difficult so let's cut to the chase as a Catholic this is very simple to me I simply obey my Bishop as long as my Bishop is obeying the Magisterium! And fortunately where I live I haven't encountered a Bishop or any Catholic priests in my Dioceses that is teaching anything that conflicts with the current Magisterium! Now I'm curious do you think Robert Sungenis or you yourself submit completely to the Magisterium and Vatican II in all areas?
Hans Georg Lundahl
"I simply obey my Bishop as long as my Bishop is obeying the Magisterium!"

For my part: I simply obey my Bishop/priest/pope as long as my... - the person - is obeying the Magisterium, and as long as that Magisterium is obeying that of the past.

When I converted, I did not read all documents of Vatican II. Lumen Gentium seemed acceptable at the time.

BUT if I had wanted an up to date magisterium with no obligation of obeying that of past centuries back to Christ, I might just as well have stayed Lutheran.

Sungenis is NOT defying any definite articulated teaching of Vatican II.

I am, but do not consider it Magisterium.

I have since read a bit more of Vatican II, it seems to me quite a bit of Eustace Clarence Scrubb as an angry young Atheist. With some halfways Christian-like mollifications.

If we quit the game of setting us each up as an example to the other, you have NOT answered my challenge in what exact manner what I am doing (or what Vatican II rejecters are doing) is culpable of "private judgement" in any sense traditionally condemned by the Church. Newman once was so shy of private judgement, he would not even convert, since the act of converting implied "private judgement". Obviously that is not what the Catholic Church condemned.
Ross Earl Hoffmann
Hans-Georg Lundahl! Well my friend what worries me a little bit about what I'm reading here is when you say if I wanted an up-to-date Magisterium with no obligation of obeying that of past centuries back to Christ I think you really are staying Lutheran that sounds exactly what Martin Luther said?! The church isn't designed that way as Catholics we have the joy and the privilege of having living Tradition; its obvious you disagree with the link that I posted!

Hans-Georg Lundahl this article is very well written and I think it covers my position and my concerns with Robert Sungenis and from what I'm reading here, more than likely you my friend!

The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. At least with Scripture, there is some way that everyone can identify a stable source of data. With Tradition, this is far more difficult, and, in fact, it cannot be done apart from the living authority of the Church—any more than the Canon of Scripture could have been established by anything other than that same authority.

The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic.

[Links to same article]

Hans-Georg Lundahl I took a minute to reread some of the things you stated can you help me understand what you meant by "I will have to refer that one to Pope Michael?" Who's Pope Michael?

Hans Georg Lundahl
" I wanted an up-to-date Magisterium with no obligation of obeying that of past centuries back to Christ I think you really are staying Lutheran that sounds exactly what Martin Luther said?! "

Not at all.

I enjoyed "priests" descending from the Petri brothers who were disciples of Martin Luther when I was in the Swedish state Church.

They were very much up to date.

Luther did very much NOT complain about Catholic Magisterium being up to date.

It was Luther who set the new ideas back then and Vatican II which does so now.

And I am enemy of his new ideas from back then and therefore of the new ideas of Vatican II more recently.

"this article is very well written"

It is also about Mass Liturgy.

First of all I think Novus Ordo is sometimes at least valid. Second, it was written in somewhat bad faith. Allowing Mozarabic rite and allowing Novus Ordo are from the pov of Tridentine Liturgy two very different things, and not JUST because they are temporally on opposite sides. Mozarabic rite and Gallican rite had the same Canon Missae. Novus Ordo keeps a truncated and modified version of it in Eucharistic Prayer I.

By contrast, the issue we are here discussing is rather Biblical Inerrancy.

An issue where St. Pius V and John Calvin were not opposed. If either, it was rather John Calvin who departed from it.

"The point, ultimately, is that the Church is governed by a living authority, and all appeals to Scripture, tradition, emotional attachment or personal preference (however sound and certain these appeals appear to those who make them) must ultimately bow to that living authority or cease to be Catholic."

That was NOT the case for Pope St Pius V.

He did NOT say Scripture and Tradition had to bow down to Living Magisterium. He said the Living Magisterium is necessary to keep alive the Tradition that goes with Scripture. Which is another thing altogether.

As to either emotional attachment or personal preference neither Catholic nor even Protestant side back then was idiotic enough to put that in the balance on a doctrinal matter.

You asked who Pope Michael was:

Youtube Channel : Pope Michael
https://www.youtube.com/user/PopeMichaelI
Ross Earl Hoffman
Hans-Georg Lundahl yes but WHO is Pope Michael to you? Or maybe I should ask how did Michael get involved in this discussion?

Hans-Georg Lundahl please show me a quote or quotes directly from Pope St Pius V on these matters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl the articles about Authority and who has it and who doesn't! St Francis is leading the Church today and he has the Authority, St Pius V is nowhere around! Show me where St Pius V stated as Catholics in the future we must follow him and only him for the rest of the history of the Church.
Hans Georg Lundahl
How he got involved in this discussion? By being probably the living Magisterium. How did St Francis of Sales know St Pius V rather than next door neighbour Calvin was that? Just the Roman locality? Or persistence of or deviance from doctrine recalled since before the split?

[Self-]Correction:

"the Tridentine Profession of Faith contained in the papal bull Iniunctum nobis of 13 November 1564 issued by Pope Pius IV"

So it was not St Pius V, but Pius IV who was behind:

I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church.Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas traditiones reliquasque eiusdem ecclesiae observationes et consitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector.
I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, to whom it belongeth to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.Item sacram Scripturam iuxta sensum eum, quem tenuit et tenet sancta mater Ecclesia, cuius et iudicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum Scripturarum, admitto, nec eam umquam nisi iuxta unanimem consensum Patrum accipiam et interpretabor.


TraditionalCatholic.net · Prayer · Tridentine Creed / Professio fidei Tridentinae
http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html


"St Francis is leading the Church today and he has the Authority, St Pius V is nowhere around!"

Is "Pope Francis" now "St Francis" to you?

St Pius V is in Heaven, even if you consider that as nowhere.

He - and his predecessor Pius IV - did NOT bind all Catholics to him and him alone, but very clearly to the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers.

THAT is what St Robert Bellarmine thought applied to Geocentrism. And Galileo thought science was off limits.

No, it is not Pope Pius IV ALONE. It is not even Pope St Pius V ALONE. It is the TRADITION behind them.

Your arguments about Liturgy may or may not have the value you feel they have, but Geocentrism is a question of Doctrine. Not of discipline. And the lifting of the ban on Heliocentrism has directly so far concerned only disciplinary level in the Anfossi-Settele affair.

Neither Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus NOR (even less) Benedict XV in In Praeclara* Summorum made any direct act of lifting the ban of 1633.

*Correcting from "Preaclara."
Ross Earl Hoffman
  • a) Hans-Georg Lundahl so you think Pope Michael is probably the living Magisterium? But yet you're questioning Pope Francis because he's not St. Francis?!

  • b) Hans-Georg Lundahl as for the rest of what you said I can only reply again with this:

    Authority in the Church is living authority, by real people (the popes) who can settle real questions in real time. As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not. The problem with Traditionalism (that is, Tradition made into an "ism", which is to say, in effect, an ideology) is precisely the same as the problem with what the Protestants did with Scripture (one might change the name "sola scriptura" to "Scripturism"). In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority.

    The result is the same: private judgement. In fact, elevating Tradition over the living authority of the Holy See is even worse than elevating Scripture over that authority. At least with Scripture, there is some way that everyone can identify a stable source of data. With Tradition, this is far more difficult, and, in fact, it cannot be done apart from the living authority of the Church—any more than the Canon of Scripture could have been established by anything other than that same authority.
Hans Georg Lundahl
"As Newman pointed out, it is inconceivable that there could be so great a difference in dispensation between the first Christians and ourselves that they should have a living infallible authority (Christ) and we should not."

I have already answered that.

He has even answered that himself. To him it was inconceivable that the living authority could contradict its own earlier decisions - even in the persons of other, earlier popes. But especially impossible was it to him to conceive a living authority that could contradict Scripture on an obvious level of obvious historic meaning.

Of course, a true living authority cannot contradict Scripture on non-obvious levels either - even when it seems to do so. But a minimum requirement is not contradicting Scripture on an obvious level. Not saying Isaac was born when Abraham was fifty and Sarah was forty, for instance. That was to him a non-negotiable minimum.

Besides, Newman is not a Church Father. He is a good apologetic resource in reply to Anglicans of High Church and Evangelical sensibilities. But I am neither.

"In brief, the problem is that it elevates (what appears to some to be) a self-evident body of data over a living authority."

I have already answered that too.

Either body of data is in its true sense above the authority other than the person of Christ.

There was a public revelation. It has closed since the last Apostle left earthly life. Christ who had been speaking to Adam and to Moses before His Incarnation could tell the Apostles what He had meant verbally by such and such a thing and also what as God He had meant by letting such and such a thing happen to the persons.

He gave them a crash course during forty days. Those forty days are over. The twitter account Pontifex is NOT an equivalent today of it.

Our access to the authority Christ exercised during that crash course of OT exegesis (He did not leave His Church "without a book", but with a complete OT and an exegesis thereof which is not identic to the Talmudic one) is through the TRADITION the Apostles attending it handed down to their successors.

This was also defined at the Holy Vatican Council of 1869-70.

I missed you second to last one. [Marked a) above.] Seeing the way you twist arguments parodically, it is a waste of time to argue further with YOU, Ross Earl Hoffman.
Ross Earl Hoffman
Hans-Georg Lundahl thanks for your time and your "opinions" my friend but I think I'll stick but the Catholic Church! And the 'Living Tradition' we find in the Church today! It's only your 'opinion' that the Church today contradicts Scripture and Tradition historically! And I believe the article I showed you is absolutely correct in many ways you're acting just as protestants act! When you start rejecting the Authority of the Magisterium like the SSPX and worst, for example you basically enter Protestant waters! And I still haven't figured out what you were talking about with Pope Michael? Pax
Hans Georg Lundahl
You pretend there is no contradiction?

OK, show so: stop arguing "theologically" against Geocentrism which, theologically precisely, is perfectly OK.

And as you mentioned John Henry Cardinal Newman, you forgot to state which of his texts you are referring to.

Apart from his not being a Church Father I think you are citing him wrong.
Ross Earl Hoffman
Hans-Georg Lundahl and I'm a little confused as to why you keep thinking John Henry Newman is going to side with you what you're actually doing is assuming hear correctly reading John Henry Newman I believe you're totally incorrect the soon to be saying would never side against the living Ford of the church he would have sided instantly with Pope John Paul II rather than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre! Newman proved that living Authority was essential for him that's why he converted from the Anglican movement!
Hans Georg Lundahl
His motives for conversion are one thing.

But before the conversion to Rome, there was a conversion to Historic Christianity.

And therein is also a very definite confession of tradition.

Do you recall the occasion on which he came to consider the Anglican position inconsistent and impious?

The Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem. Because it destroyed the argument "Rome cannot be in Canterbury". But also because it defied the ban on making a see for the Jews - since those were a majority among Anglicans of Jerusalem.

Think that man would have accepted someone more comfy with rabbis than certain Trad bishops? Think again!

(I am referring to the story he gave in Apologia, have not the page ready to hand).

You have STILL not given a reference to what passage on Living Aurthority you are citing. Not that he didn't use the phrase, he did. But he clearly stated it was tied to Bible and Tradition and not sovereignly baove them. Yes, after his conversion. In fact after 1870 or in that year after the Definition of Infallibility.

mercredi 25 juin 2014

Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate

1) "Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ...", 2) On Karl Keating's Course, 3) Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate, 4) Ross Hoffmann Made an Answer, an Answer too I Gave

Karl Keating
Quite some time ago, at Catholic Answers Forums, I wrote about whether we have to be agnostic about whether the Earth orbits the Sun or the Sun the Earth.

I was responding to a claim by Bob Sungenis, who has written that, if we can work up an equation that explains how A orbits B, then we equally can work up an equation that shows how B orbits A.

That's fine, I said, until we try to apply those equations to real-life situations. Either equation may account for apparent motion, but only one will take into account gravity. When you do that--that is, when you go beyond mere math and into physics--then only the equation that explains how the Earth orbits the Sun works.

My comment was the impetus for a long refutation of Sungenis's ideas by Alec MacAndrew, a physicist. Sungenis, who is innocent of physics, now has given a long reply to MacAndrew. A friend brought the reply to my attention. He thought I would be interested because my name appears in it. It does: 22 times, mostly in passing.

Early on, Sungenis writes, "It appears that MacAndrew has been hired to answer for Keating." Hired by whom? Not by me--I don't even know MacAndrew--and not by David Palm, at whose website, Geocentrism Debunked, the MacAndrew essay appears.

Sungenis says, "Keating and Palm are Catholic, but know very little science. MacAndrew has a Ph.D. in physics, but is an avowed atheist."

As I said, I don't know MacAndrew; perhaps he is an atheist. His irreligion might have impelled him to tackle Sungenis's arguments, but MacAndrew's essay is entirely in terms of physics, not of metaphysics or theology.

Sungenis has no degree in science--not a Ph.D. and not even a bachelor's degree--but he thinks it necessary to discredit my knowledge of science. (He would have much difficulty in saying that MacAndrew, with a Ph.D. in physics, knows nothing about physics.)

Sungenis writes: "Karl Keating knows nothing about dynamics or coordinate transforms. All he knows is what he has been taught by the science textbooks in high school."

This is an interesing example of fantasizing, since Sungenis knows full well what I have written in reply to him before about my educational background. I'll repeat that here, so you can judge whether his characterization of me in the preceding paragraph is correct.

Of course I had some science in high school--didn't we all?--but that wasn't where my science education ended. My undergraduate work was done at the San Diego campus of the University of California. At the time it had three constituent colleges. I was resident and registered in Revelle College, which was the science school. It boasted half a dozen Nobel Prize laureates. With MIT and CalTech, UCSD was one of the three top schools for math in the country. I was a math major.

It was a requirement to take a lot of hard science courses, particularly physics. One such course was directly on point regarding Sungenis's hobbyhorse, geocentrism. The course was a mathematical investigation of the Ptolemaic theory and the geocentric theories that flowed from it. We used the actual ancient data and worked through complex equations to see whether, with ever finer data, the geocentric theory "saved the appearances." (The answer was No.)

The professor for that course was Curtis Wilson, then and now considered to be the top American expert on Kepler and his theories. It would not have been possible to take such a course from a more knowledgeable man. (So impressed was I by Wilson's course that I have retained his course materials--mainly mimeographed sheets--for more than four decades.)

Back in those days, I could do the calculus. I can't today, having been away from it for too long. But I can spot a mathematics fraud, expecially one as blatant as Sungenis. For one thing, he has no sense of what calculus is. He says, "Calculus is really nothing more than a hypersensitive arithmetic." All one can do when coming upon such a comment is to shakes one's head. You might as well say that the Pieta is nothing more than a hypersensitive clay model done by a child.

If you have a decent science or math background and read through Sungenis's rebuttal to MacAndrew, it becomes clear that Sungenis simply can't do the math. He refutes MacAndrew by calling him an atheist. He refutes me by claiming my science education ended in high school.

It's bizarre but understandable. What else can he do, having no competence in math or science himself?
RV
Thank you! Solving the gravitational potential gives an obvious solution -- the sun has the central location. -- Psalm 90:12 "Teach us [ed: especially Dr. Sungenis] to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom."
MK
Modern science has put the earth at the center of the observable universe, however dubious that may be. What lies beyond the edge of the universe is anyone's guess. It's all speculation for the most part anyway.
ENP
Fascinating, Karl. I sympathize with any man impelled by circumstances to answer not just idiots, but utter rubes in the subject at hand. We do so only because what it is laughably obvious to us might, in these troubled times, actually hurt the innocent if some one, somewhere, does not reply.
Jonathas Arringtonus (hereafter JA)
Wait, after reading any portion of his "Galileo" volume wherein the arguments from Physics are contained you can actually argue that he knows no math or science? Perhaps his co-author did ALL of that as a subtle ghost-writer, but you're going to need a better argument than that IPSE DIXIT + AD HOMINEM, in my opinion.

As an aside,how can a fair number of physicists (not to mention those in prominent positions teaching the astronomical sciences) be convinced of the geocentric arguments if they're so patently absurd and devoid of any proof or mathematical consistency? I ask this in all sincerity, Mr. Keating.
DMW
But his movie will be all over the nation in 1 theater!
RS
I have proven that the world is flat, incredibly, using two-dimensional modeling techniques. I challenge anyone to disprove my findings utilizing length and width alone.
JP
[JA], they can't. There isn't any "fair number" of physicists; there are zero. I've got a master's in physics myself from a school that had a center on relativity run by the same Jack Wheeler who wrote the book that Sungenis cites as his scientific basis, and like MacAndrew, he sure didn't accept that all reference frames were equivalent and indistinguishable. In other words, Sungenis was at best incredibly ignorant when he wrote the book, and when MacAndrew pointed out the error in his math *citing Wheeler*, Sungenis became either a liar or someone so deluded he can no longer function with sufficient intellectual capacity for rational debate. The fact that Sungenis published this at the end of Jack Wheeler's life, Wheeler having spent a good part of his career debunking pseudo-science like Sungenis's, is no coincidence. If Wheeler were alive today, he would take Sungenis to the woodshed, just as MacAndrew did.
David Palm
[JA], I am unaware of a single physicist in a prominent position teaching astronomical sciences who holds to strict geocentrism, viz. that the entire universe revolves around a stationary earth once every twenty-four hours. Do you know any? If not, shouldn't that say something about the viability of the view scientifically? They're not all atheists, you know, there are many physicists of faith. And they don't reject strict geocentrism because they've been hookwinked by some atheistic conspiracy. They reject it because scientifically-speaking it's a massive exercise in special pleading.

[I see I posted without seeing JP's posting. Nicely put.]
JP
Johnny Wheeler's bio:

Leading physicist John Wheeler dies at age 96
Posted April 14, 2008; 05:40 p.m.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/82/08G77/index.xml


I always want to call him."Jack" because he was "J.A. Wheeler" in the papers, but he went by Johnny. Of course, I didn't know him personally, so I wasn't on a first name basis!
Karl Keating
JA: I've seen Bob's book, and, yes, it has equations in it. He credits his co-author with the most equation-intensive parts of the book, but I don't think Bob actually understands most of the math, no matter which part of the book it's in. He cuts and pastes from others but gives no indication that he can "do" the math himself. He leaves readers with an impression that he can take pencil and paper and work through differential equations and the like, but I see nothing in the book that suggests he can.

A parallel might be the writer whose book contains lots of material in German. He provides translations, letting readers think he's read the originals when, in fact, he hasn't--but he has to give that impression if readers are to think of him as an authority. You won't be taken seriously as a writer on Goethe's "Faust" unless you can handle the German, for example.

Bob can't handle the math.
WG
JA, I think I remember reading that Sungenis' co-author Robert Bennett did a lot of the heavy lifting for him on the math and/or science in his Galileo volume. I remember because that was part of the scandal regarding Sungenis' "PhD". Bennett was also the supervisor for his "PhD". (Hello?)

And no one ever explained how his "PhD" was in THEOLOGY, but the thesis that became Galileo Was Wrong makes the SCIENTIFIC case for geocentrism.
JP
Karl, the only caveat I would add is that there is certainly a legitimate use of secondary sources in a field in which someone lacks primary experience, as when someone is engaged in cross-disciplinary work. But this isn't even such a case, as the misbegotten reliance on Wheeler's seminal work demonstrates.
WG
Karl Keating - I found Sungenis' article but I got tired after the first 15 pages. All of his papers seem to be 50+ pages. It's like he thinks arguments are won by who writes the most or something.

Anyway, I thought it was strange for him to come right out of the gate saying that you hired MacAndrew. Who just throws something like that out there without evidence? I don't remember him being so paranoid and into conspiracy theories back in the day. Do you know if he was always like this?

I mean, I guess I could understand privately wondering if you or someone contacted MacAndrew. But to actually say, in a published paper, that you must have hired him? Besides being rash, it seems a bit self-important to immediately jump to the conclusion that someone takes you so seriously that they felt the need to go out and pay someone to answer you.

And to go after MacAndrew out of the gate because he's supposedly an atheist? Since when is the accuracy of a person's math or science dependent upon his religious faith? And where is the proof that MacAndrew "despises" the Catholic faith?

I mean, come on. This is not how a serious scientist behaves. This is what pop controversialists and snake oil salesmen do to soften up their audiences.

But you should definitely go to Confession, Karl. Super-Catholic Sungenis has pronounced that you are a Modernist. Save your soul, man.
Karl Keating
WG: Bob doesn't appreciate that a Modernist (capital T) is different from a modernist (lowercase t). The former term refers to a theological stance of about a century ago. The latter term is used more broadly, particularly in literature. You could say that T. S. Eliot was a modernist, but he wasn't a Modernist. When Bob calls someone a "modernist," it just means "I don't like this guy." Coming from him, the epithet has no force.

RS - I think you're probably onto it. That must be how he sees it. Strange.
AM
Suggesting someone hired someone else to make an argument is a red herring and/or ad hominem. Does the argument hold weight or doesn't it? That's all that matters.
MS
Such a waste of time arguing with Philistines.
NG
Mr Keating, given your background on the matter and "dialogue" with them, Id love to see your public contributions organized on a blog or such; wading and mining through forums is tiresome something fierce. there's a popular lay apostolate and several figures in and from my diocese that are adamant on the "necessity" of agnosticism on "the science" and it breaks my heart as a convert to see productive fruit of Catholicism like the scientific venture so *gnostically* maltreated.
WG
NG - there's already a website up that has a lot of information dealing with science and the Church related to geocentrism. The person who published the site has commented on some of Karl's posts (David Palm).

Geocentrism Debunked
–David Palm
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org
BSP esq
First I want to stress here that I am a sinner, and someone attempting to be a decent catecumen, as im studying to be Catholic. Now that I've got that it of the way. ..

I just don't get these passive aggressive attacks on people, Karl. Instead of having a decent argument and dialogue with folks that subscribe to traditional parts of our wonderful faith that differ from yours you continue to passive dog whistle statements to activate those that appear to have either personal hate or mental illness.

Last I checked, there wasn't a condemnation of geocentrism, so why continue to beat up on Bob Sungenis? Aren't you really just hoping for someone like Mark Shea to show up and bash him for questionable past statements, whereby your main attempt of character assassination gets fulfilled by someone else? Again, your hands stay somewhat clean.

I really wish you could go back to your good work of mopping up on protestant errors, like Pentecostal movements, Baptists, non denominational errors and the like. I greatly enjoyed Catholicism and Fundamentalism and this book was a classic, but there's no doubt you have personally taken a diifferent trajectory of late, going after fellow Catholics, with borderline obsessive ways and means.

As everyone knows, there are some bad apples in the bunch (I'm NOT stating Bob is one, btw) but this scandal being caused by harming the body of Christ's church is wrong. You are also encouraging behavior that would get one instantly banned from your Catholic Answers forums.

I suggest you check your motives, and decide whether these personal attacks, or open doorways for frothingly calumnous usual suspects (ie Mark Shea and is exceedingly harsh attacks on anybody not practicing his misguided version of catholicism.
WG
BSP Your righteous indignation at Karl Keating's supposed offenses and your deep worry about "scandal" rings more than a little hollow when the following gets a shrug and silence from you:

[Editor: Omitting here 11 quotes from Sungenis VIA waybackmachine/internet archive VIA Mark Shea - Sungenis stated he no longer takes a public stand for those, that is why they are no longer available where he put them.]

You can't get worked up enough to worry or complain about any of the above at all. But Karl Keating gets you all worked up enough to keep posting and posting about it?

I mean, come on.

Faithful Answers and the Inquisitors’ Anti-Charism of Discernment
July 19, 2013 By Mark Shea
[Not linking]
Karl Keating
BSP Esq: You want me to go back to my "good work of mopping up on Protestant errors," but you object to me (and to others) "mopping up" on Catholic errors--or, at least, on Catholics who promote error. I suspect you wouldn't mind if we critiqued liberal Catholics and their errors, but we're not supposed to critique Catholics who cause scandal by claiming the Church mandates a belief in geocentrism or Catholics who engage in relentless anti-Semitism, which is even more scandalous.
Ross Earl Hoffman
Karl hired MacAndrew; reminds me of the traditionalists blogs who start their papers, which end up being anti Novus Ordo and Vatican II by claiming Bugnini was a freemason! I never really read any farther because I saw through the smoke screen! I mean that was literally the first sentence, that Bugnini was a freemason, once they got that out of the way then they could continue....... I think Bob is trying to do the same hatchet job on Karl that traditionalists do to Bugnini!
So far by
June 16, and I come in June 23, first linking to a piece answering part of status as quoted above, then answering certain of the points otherwise made.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Here is perhaps where I should have posted my essay about your course (for Curtis):

New blog on the kid : On Karl Keating's Course
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/06/on-karl-keatings-course.html


"He says, "Calculus is really nothing more than a hypersensitive arithmetic." All one can do when coming upon such a comment is to shakes one's head. You might as well say that the Pieta is nothing more than a hypersensitive clay model done by a child."

Pietà is a hypersensitive clay model. Arithmetic does not imply "done by a child". I am lousy or rather non-extant at calculus, but if it is any good at all, it would be hypersensitive either arithmetic or geometry. And in either case not done by a child.

So, Robert Sungenis' quoted phrase does not imply he doesn't know the first thing, no. It might imply that to the Schibboleths and Jargons current at your faculty, but it does not imply that in good logic.

Unless you would say that calculus (I have some notion of what it is) is rather hypersensitive geometry by aritjmetic and algebraic (i e quasiarithmetic) means.
Karl Keating
The point is that calculus isn't arithmetic or geometry. They're all parts of math, but calculus isn't a fine-tuned version of the others.
AM
It's really hard to argue with the data of 50 years of space flight let alone 400 years of observations and calculations. Unless Sungenis is not only arguing using math (apparently) but also an incredibly implausible conspiracy theory? I suppose the space lasers thing might imply that he is...

Even so, if you're firing a rocket at any of the planets and you're not taking an alleged geocentric model of the solar system into account then your rocket is not going to end up taking fly-by pictures of those planets or orbiting them or landing on them which they clearly have.

It's just laughably implausible to explain that data any other way.
Ross Earl Hoffman
AM I'm not very bright when it comes to this stuff and to be honest I think I cheated my way through calculus my first year of college before I became a gutter drunk but I would think that our satellites alone should be able to determine whether the earth is stationary or not?!

Karl does any reputable scientist from NASA or anyone else in the science community give even an inkling that this geocentrism could be true?

[And for those who do not know him, Ross Earl Hoffmann is a Catholic Priest in communion with - as far as I know - Bergoglio. "Spiritualis homo iudicat omnes/omnia" and "Spiritualis homo non iudicatur", well that is perhaps not his line in these matters.]
AM
Ross Earl Hoffman satellite observations would be included in "400 years of observations." But there is nothing better to signify the correctness of your model like plotting a course and executing it and finding out whether the planet is where you expect it to be.
Ross Earl Hoffman
AM, I believe I caught the live- play by play- action when we landed on Mars just recently; the excitement of the NASA engineers was unbelievable; I couldn't help but think how incredibly brilliant these scientists are and how complicated this program really is(Landing on Mars) it seems absurd that they would miss something as elementary as who's at the center of the universe the Earth or the Sun?!

AM, I would think with a satellite in space orbiting the Earth or caught in the gravitational pull of the earth and staying stationary as everything else orbits around us whichever scenario is correct I would think the data coming from the satellite would be easily provable?!
Tom Trinko
Well one good argument to use is geostationary satellites--we use them all the time for pagers, live TV from overseas etc. They sit, pretty much stationary, above the same point on the earth.

Now if the earth isn't rotating then geostationary satellites aren't moving. But we all know that if put something up in the sky and release it it will fall to the earth. But since geostationary satellites aren't falling to the earth they have to be moving and hence the earth has to be rotating.
Hans Georg Lundahl
"The point is that calculus isn't arithmetic or geometry. They're all parts of math, but calculus isn't a fine-tuned version of the others."

A part of math that is NOT arithmetic and NOT geometry?

As a fan of Quadrivium, I disagree. Of course there is music and astronomy, but they are not pure math.

If I recall correctly the very little I have seen of calculus, it seems to be doing geometry with arithmetic means - plus doing it with further and further approxiimations, plus knowing how to make a shortcut for the further and further approximations.

Like calculating the area of a circle by cutting it up in finer and finer slices with limits within and without the circle. AND knowing the trick - which I do not - for how to shortcircuit the actual trouble of doing it into a formula that will sum up a same or roughly similar result.

If I am wrong, correct me.

But if I am right, calculus is an application of geometry and arithmetic at the time.

"It's really hard to argue with the data of 50 years of space flight let alone 400 years of observations and calculations."

Sungenis and I are at one on this one: NEITHER of these even remotely refutes Geocentrism as such.

My point already made is that it is not Ptolemaic system but Geocentricity we defend. BOTH space flight AND the 400 years of observations and calculations on top of previous pre-Copernican ones are compatible with Geocentrism in some form, but not the Ptolemaic form.

"Even so, if you're firing a rocket at any of the planets and you're not taking an alleged geocentric model of the solar system into account then your rocket is not going to end up taking fly-by pictures of those planets or orbiting them or landing on them which they clearly have."

You mean if Ptolemaic system were true that would not be the result.

I and Sungenis are using a modified Tychonian one (or perhaps rather two different modified Tychonian ones).

[I just found out through Sungenis that adding ellipses rather than circles for periodic orbits, like Kepler did, was already done by Riccioli. So one can date modified Tychonian in this respect back to Riccioli.]

"but I would think that our satellites alone should be able to determine whether the earth is stationary or not?!"

How could they possibly do that?

None of them are stationed at the very edge of the Universe. "Δως μοι πω στο και κινασω ταν γαν" - they are not standing in any fixed spot, so they are in no position to show a certainly truer picture of us than we can get of them.

Trusting God means among other things trusting He put us in a position where 7 billion paris of eyes and of inner ears are at least as likely to get a true picture of the Universe as manmade machines.

"Karl does any reputable scientist from NASA or anyone else in the science community give even an inkling that this geocentrism could be true?"

Do St Robert Bellarmine, Clavius, Riccioli count to you?

"it seems absurd that they would miss something as elementary as who's at the center of the universe the Earth or the Sun?!"

You have very obviously not worked through the geometric implications of Tychonian and Heliocentric cosmographies.

Besides Heliocentrics these days do NOT consider Sun is centre of Universe. At All.

"Anthony I would think with a satellite in space orbiting the Earth or caught in the gravitational pull of the earth and staying stationary as everything else orbits around us whichever scenario is correct I would think the data coming from the satellite would be easily provable?!"

The data coming from the satellite is as provable as the personnel handling it on earth is honest.

The data coming from the satellite does not guarantee that the satellite is not going to be a worse point of observing absolute stillness and motion than the earth.

"Now if the earth isn't rotating then geostationary satellites aren't moving. But we all know that if put something up in the sky and release it it will fall to the earth. But since geostationary satellites aren't falling to the earth they have to be moving and hence the earth has to be rotating."

Robert Sungenis would answer they are relatively moving as it is really aether that is moving around them.

A parallel would be an aeroplane wing. It lifts both in a test tunnel when air is blown onto its fore and in air when it is itself moving.
No answer
for 24 hours, and I continue answering:
Hans Georg Lundahl
WG - I saw your list and it was from a post by Mark Shea, quoting items from a site Sungenis took down via web archive. Not one of them linking to Robert Sungenis' present site.

Add thereto that none of that has any bearing on the astronomical question. It seems someone is eager to hush the astronomical question up by referring to material Sungenis took down - OR someone is paying back for that material by hushing up the astronomical question. Someone not quite content with Sungenis just taking it down, but eager to see Sungenis contradict his past statements before he be allowed to speak on ANY other subject.

I happen to feel myself a victim of similar manners too, and I happen to hate it.

I also wonder why Mark Shea got went along with that.

Ross Earl Hoffmann "I think Bob is trying to do the same hatchet job on Karl that traditionalists do to Bugnini!"

It has not occurred to you that Karl is doing a hatchet job on Bob, has it?

Karl, as to your words:

"we're not supposed to critique Catholics who cause scandal"

We might see in a moment whether he is doing so or you are doing so.

"by claiming the Church mandates a belief in geocentrism "

The claim I have seen so far is a bit different:

a) it HAS mandated it
b) it HAS NOT mandated the reverse, only withdrawn mandate on inferior levels, without bothering to check whether the superior level mandates (like 1633) leave that possibility open
c) it HAS by the withdrawal occasioned a Galileo-complex which makes defense of the whole truth more difficult (like Catholics contradicting the 1909 decision or concentrating only on q 8 response in order to not make another St Robert Bellarmine move)
d) geocentrism in itself is NOT scientifically invalidated

"or Catholics who engage in relentless anti-Semitism, which is even more scandalous."

Would depend on what kind of anti-Semitism it is.

Plus that is no longer an issue, since Sungenis took down parts of his earlier publications.