mercredi 12 février 2014

Between Palm and Sungenis

1) Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four, 2) Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909, 3) Would GKC have Agreed with MkSh that KH was a Bible Idolater?, 4) Correspondence of Hans-Georg Lundahl : With Jonathan Sarfati PhD on Fall and Inquisition, 5) New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term, 5b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Bill Nye, the Science Guy on a few points, 5c) New blog on the kid : Phil Provaznik/Dalrymple on Potassium-Argon and on Principle, more on Fission Track and Isochrons (a debunking of...), 6) [Back to Creation vs. Evolution :] Scenario impossible, 7) Karl Keating Out of His Depth?, 8) Three Kinds of Proposition, 9) Is Flat Earth Belief Heretical?, 10) HGL's F.B. writings : Between Palm and Sungenis, 11a) HGL's F.B. writings : On Helios in Christian Geocentrism, 11b) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Rivers Clapping Hands, Anaximander, Greek Philosophy at time of Ecclesiasticus ... , 12) Assorted retorts : ... on Geocentrism with Raymond Doetjes and "Imdor"

A certain AN posted in a Catholic Geocentric Cosmology Group:

Galileo Was Wrong : Debunking David Palm, Phase 4

The first commenter was not I but MW. When I comment I am not at first answering him, but when he answers me, I do answer him, and I insert that dialogue into the right context here before getting on to the continual comment on the text.

Mark Wyatt
David is way off base. Even the opposition to geocentrism within the Church (e.g., Father Coyne for instance) recognizes the weight of these decisions, and complained about them after JPII's speech to the PAS on Galileo. JPII did nothing to reverse the decisions, and Coyne and others were pretty upset.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I am myself slowly working around to a refutation of Palm but also Phil Provaznik and others, I am not totally in a hurry, and I am not sure Robert has not made some blunders. Here is one I suspect:

R. Sungenis
since the 1616 and 1633 Church was not talking about the sun’s relationship to the universe, but only the relative or “local” frame between the sun and the earth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Where does the document say so? Where does anything in the background of the document make it even probable?
Mark Wyatt
It is pretty clear from the text. They really did not know about the "universe" at that time. They would at least have mentioned "the stars" to indicate something beyond the sun and earth. That is my take.

Hans-Georg Lundahl (in aswer to MW)
Well, the usual take back then was that stars were the outermost layer of the visible universe, and a layer exactly like the sphere of the Sun (in Geocentrism) or of the Earth (in the condemned Heliocentrism).

One sign of this was the reasoning between Galileo and St Robert Bellarmine about parallax. If Stars are both a layer and fixed then we get a pretty uniform parallax giving a pretty uniform distance to that layer in case that Earth be moving as soon as we get telescopes good enough but no parallax at all ever in case it is the Sun that is moving. However what was found in 1838 means that stars are either not a layer or not fixed. If the 0.76 arc seconds back and forth annually of alpha Centauri are a real parallax, then stars are no layer, since not all of them show 0.76 arc seconds (or the closest in angle to alpha Centauri 0.76 arc seconds and the other values on a sliding continuous scale upward and downward according to position in sky), and this is what modern cosmology fixes itself on. But if the 0.76 arc seconds are not parallactic but a real movement in the star itself, then stars may be a layer and are not fixed and the 0.76 arc seconds for alpha Centauri phenomenon, not being a parallax, is no proof for a moving Earth.

"Not knowing about" the universe as per 1930's standard cosmology does not preclude making pronouncements on it by the pronouncements made on the things they did know about.

What was at stake was the immobile centre of the whole universe. Noone either then or now would agree on Earth being centre of a Solar System which itself is not central and perhaps not even immobile. The one option for Geocentrism is Earth being stationary in the centre of all the universe and that either includes "all the galaxies" (as per 1930's cosmology) circling Earth each day or - my favourite option - "all the galaxies" being really a mathematical byproduct of erroneous Heliocentrism, universe being lots smaller and the distant starlight problem a pseudoproblem.

Hans-Georg Lundahl resuming reading of the paper

R. Sungenis
Yes, strict Copernicanism will never be held again, but the 1616 and 1633 did not condemn “strict Copernicanism” but any cosmology that made the Earth revolve around the sun, whether it was Pythagoras, Galileo, Foscarini, Copernicus or Kepler. Mr. Palm keeps avoiding this fact because it would destroy his argument.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It condemned as heretical any cosmology that made the sun immobile centre of the universe. It condemned as at least erroneous any cosmology that made earth orbit anything else, whether sun or moon or whatever. If the sun in such a case were immobile, then it would fall under first condemnation and it would be heretical. If the sun is however itself moving, we are dealing with "at least erroneous".

R. Sungenis
The simple answer is that the Church has never officially overturned the specific condemnations against Galileo and his heliocentric theories. Only back‐handed attempts to bypass the 1616 and 1633 decrees were attempted in 1820 and 1835, and then only by fabricating evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Fabricated evidence could indeed be right. BUT "only attempts" asks the question of the power of popes in non stated things. Neither Pope stated that the Galilean position was no longer heretical, or at least not the first of them. But both Popes allowed books about it to be printed.

D. Palm
In short, I’ve demonstrated that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not now and never did put forward geocentrism as a matter of faith.

R. Sungenis
Robert Bellarmine made it very clear that geocentrism was a matter of faith because it was the testimony of Scripture. Pope Paul V approved of Bellarmine’s assessment, and no pope or cardinal thereafter ever stated officially that Bellarmine’s thesis was incorrect.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
This brings up a question of whether something is De Fide or De Fide Definita. No Pope has really denied (I have not looked at 1835 yet) that Geocentrism is De Fide. But since 1820 and 1835 noone has treated it as De Fide Definita either. From the Vatican that is.

D. Palm
In stark contrast to the tabloid‐like story being sold by the geocentrists in books and on video, I’ve no need of recourse to dark conspiracy theories, allegations of subterfuge, or ecclesiastical malfeasance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Have a little look at Orthodox Church in Russia (those faithful to Patriarch in Moscow). They cowed in to Evolutionists and Heliocentrics in the Government which would otherwise be persecuting faithful for instance in school. The situation is not quite new. Look at the Church in France during the days of Providentissimus Deus. Ask yourself who Jules Ferry and Émile Combes were!

And ask yourselves if Humani Generis 1950 cannot have been something similar.

When people treat something as defined as licit or new rule, when that is not the case and when standing up for the old rule would be a bit awkward for some faithful - I do not think that priests taking "calculated risks" about orthodoxy and being devious before their faithful is quite over the top when it comes to "conspiracies".

"The Magisterium Has Never Stated that the Fathers are Unanimous on Geocentrism"
D. Palm
At the very start of this study we need to get one thing completely straight. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has never said that the Fathers are unanimous on the matter of geocentrism. The geocentrists have no magisterial support for their view. Period. Let’s recall again the words of Pope Pius XII: “there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Pius XII or Leo XIII? Because Pius XII is a bit suspect ... and who says the Magisterium needs to state that a certain rule of faith includes a certain ruling in order for a Catholics to know that it does?

How come Robert Sungenis missed that point?

D. Palm
Thus, given what Pius XII says, the burden of proof is entirely on the geocentrists to demonstrate any alleged unanimity – a burden which they have failed to meet, to say the least.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Does Palm count John of Kronstadt as a saint and a Church Father?

Or if not, would Palm state one CF who does either doubt or deny the earth is stationary when attending to that point? He cited one who said "such a man discovered" the opposite - in a list on Mathematical discoveries.

No Flat Earth believing Church Father (there were a few) can be supposed to have doubted earth is stationary, since Heliocentrism and other forms of Geokinesis are supposing round earth as a preliminary. St Basil was neutral on the form of earth. And St Augustine who thought the earth round was also clearly Geocentric.

R. Sungenis
We will only admit that Cardinal Olivieri fabricated evidence to convince Pius VII to give an imprimatur to Canon Settele. We will only admit that since Cardinal Cappallari served on the same commission as Cardinal Olivieri, and then became Gregory XVI and removed Galileo from the 1835 Index without any explanation whatsoever, that he was also influenced by Olivieri’s facile arguments.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I would tend to agree. but Pius VII was Pope unless he was heretical for accepting Napoleon as Emperor. And if he was Pope then Gregory XVI was Pope unless he was heretical prior to conclave - by acceptance of Heliocentrism. Now, this is not quite a small issue, Gregory XVI is famous - or on other sides infamous - for Mirari Vos.

Now, there is also the question: can a Pope validly such, but deciding a question of doctrine on wrong evidence:

  • a) validly bind;
  • b) validly unbind but not validly bind;
  • c) or not even validly unbind?

Whichever case you take on either Canonic question, you cannot possibly pretend either of the two bound us to accept Heliocentrism. Nor did any successor.

D. Palm
But, more importantly for our present point, this decree says nothing about any consensus of the Fathers in support of its anti‐Copernican stance. That clause in the consultants’ report was intentionally removed before this decree was issued.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Intentionally not cited as redundant. The Decrees of Trent do not either cite consensus of the Church Fathers in each condemnation of a Lutheran or Zwinglian or Anabaptist or Socinian position.

R. Sungenis
Again, this is an argument from silence. The decree doesn’t need to reiterate the consensus of the Fathers. It only needs to state the basic point, and that point has never changed. The point is that it is wrong to say the Earth revolves around the sun.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
It is wrong to say sun stands still and it is wrong to say earth revolves (around itself or around sun or both) - but theological note as to wrongness IN FAITH is not the same. A merely relative Heliocentrism which admits the Sun is also moving, but earth moving around it was only condemned as "at least erroneous". But also as philosophically false.

Here is a bit of a crux, fourth session, as cited:
Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by Holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light.
- The Council of Trent, Fourth Session, 1563

This decree uses the present "that sense which is held by Holy Mother Church" - and I suspect that many Heliocentrics are:

  • a) believing Church is at present teaching Heliocentrism and Millions of Years (when there is no such statement and when statements at least such as obviously imply the opposite unless there was some big oversight are still and eternally valid);

  • b) believing a sense held by the Church even contrary to previous senses held by the Church (not just filling in blanks what was not decided before but actually contradicting) can be truly of the Church.

I obviously deny their second point here.

But here is the confession:

The Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and all other observances andconstitutions of that same Church I most firmly admit and embrace. I likewise accept Holy Scripture according to that sense which our Holy Mother Church had held and does hold, whose it is to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; I shall never accept nor interpret it otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.
- The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent

"that sense which our Holy Mother Church had held and does hold"

perfect and present - no authorisation to contradict a sense previously taught.

[Obviously: by the Church as a whole.]

Session 4 "tenet" and confession "tenuit atque tenet" ... if on St Valentine's Day a gal lets an English speaker (US, UK, NZ, Oz) wait, he is likely to tell her (if that is the time he has been waiting):

"I have been waiting for an hour now."

But if instead he is a Swede imperfectly grasping English, he is likely to say

"I have waited for an hour now."

And if he is French he is likely to say:

"I am waiting for an hour now" ...

But because French does not have distinction simple vs continuous in present any more than Swedish in perfect, he might also say:

"I wait for an hour now."

And that is how Latin also uses the present tense [in such connexions]. Session 4 obviously means "sense which the Church has been holding". But since some people came across with the idea that Swedes and Germans with an imperfect graps of Latin might be required to confess, the confession uses a less idiomatic expression to make it clear even to someone to whom the present would mean "sense which Church holds right now", that this is not what is meant, but one is obliged to the sense which Church "has held and [still] holds" = an exact logical translation of "has been holding".

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire