Diverging slightly from Sungenis

1) New blog on the kid : St Augustine was - Literally - a Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, and he was Right, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Diverging slightly from Sungenis, 3) From Catholic Cosmology Group, on Size of Universe, 4) Continued from Previous, Some Debate

Mark Shea and the “Synthesis of All Heresies”
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Mark_Shea_and_Synthesis_of_All_Heresies.pdf

Note that in the main the summing up of history is pretty correct, both as regards Hegelianism and as regards Patristics and Scholastics. I would like my readers to read the paper first, since I am disagreeing on certain points - including the question how to assess Mark Shea. But Robert Sungenis makes an invaluable scoop about how the text of St Augustine continues after that VERY over used - as the meme in which it is misused, not as the text it is - quote that I think pretty many of you know. As to good use of it, we may get some as soon as scientists start seeing how Heliocentrism and Darwinism break down.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

In essence, Hegel taught that all knowledge is a product of an evolutionary or dialectical process in man’s thinking. There were three phases to man’s thinking:

• 1) Thesis
• 2) Antithesis
• 3) Synthesis

Although theoretically the Hegelian dialectic can be applied to any historical movement ...

My comment

As far as I have understood Hegel applies it to EVERYTHING in the cosmos.

• Being. Non-being. Annihiliation.
• Annihiliation. Coming-Into-Being. Change.
• Change. Non-change. Slowing down.
• Slowing down. Speeding up. Changing speed.
• Changing speed. Constant speed. Stabilisation.

... and so on. And on Hegel's view that is where we come from.

[One can add that on Hegel's view, this Hegelian dielactic in human thought mimics the Hegelian dialectic of being as such, of the Absolute.]

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Conversely, Catholicism teaches that we can, indeed, know various things for certain since they are presupposed as coming from divine revelation, which always tells the real and unadulterated truth.

My comment

Not JUST from divine revelation. Also even naturally knowable things.

Creation vs. Evolution : Romans 1:20 and Dawkins, Richard
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/02/romans-120-and-dawkins-richard.html

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

On his blog for March 26, 2014, Mr. Shea posted his latest diatribe, “Puny Humans, Vast Universe,” which, in a few words, tries to assume a middle position, or Synthesis, between the new television series, Cosmos, and our movie, The Principle.2 From his caricatures of the two features, it is obvious Mr. Shea believes his position to be the only sane and cogent of the three options.

My comment

He might with somewhat more probability be referring to Chesterton's observation that - I will add: though not reached in fact be Hegelian dialectic - the Catholic position on any question is usually the sane middle between two extremes.

Neither Pelagian nor Calvinist:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Rejecting Pelagius and Calvin
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/03/rejecting-pelagius-and-calvin.html

Neither idolising drunkenness nor teetotalism. Neither Materialist nor Pagan. Neither Polytheist nor Unitarian. And so on.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

[Cites one post by Mark Shea and my answer with which he agrees, see his paper, and politely adds:] Thank you, Mr. Lundahl.

My comment

You are welcome.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Basically, Catholic liberals and modernists are people who teach that much of Scripture’s testimony on history is false. For example, they believe that various accounts in Old Testament (Adam and Eve, the Flood, ...

My comment

Here is his view:

Catholic and Enjoying It : Tee, as they say, Hee
April 2, 2014 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/tee-as-they-say-hee-2.html

Here is my answer:

New blog on the kid : T'Ignore or Not Ignore?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/t-ignore-or-not-ignore.html

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Mark Shea is merely one of the more visible and popular purveyors of this modernist hermeneutic but certainly not the most intellectually gifted or the deepest thinker. As he himself once said on his own masthead: “Where no stupid comment on any topic went left unsaid,” or something to that effect.

My comment

He is admitting he is not knowledgeable enough about history to answer a question like the following:

Catholic and Enjoying It : A reader has a question for somebody knowledgable in history
March 31, 2014 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/03/a-reader-has-a-question-for-somebody-knowledgable-in-history.html

I answered:

HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea Asking For the Commenter he Blocked
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/03/mark-shea-asking-for-commenter-he.html

"once said" ... yes, I still see the cartoon character, but no longer the self depreciating comment that went with it.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Thesis: The Bible claims to provide authentic narratives of historical events.

Antithesis: Modern science has shown these historical events never took place; and that all cultures were prone to create mythical stories to compensate for their ignorance about the universe.

Synthesis: Most of the Bible is made up of myths and only a fraction of it has real truth.

My comment

That is not so much Hegelian dialectics as an ordinary Aristotelian syllogism. With number two as erroneous though backed up by prefix Moden Science has shown. With an erroneous premiss you can get an erroneous conclusion.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

For example, although modern Catholic apologists often attempt to cast Pope Urban VIII’s 1633condemnation of Galileo as if it was prompted by Urban’s pride for believing that Galileo had insulted him in his book, the Dialogo, that accusation is simply not true.

My comment

Pope Urban VIII kept out of the trial himself so as to avoid being a biassed judge.

But over and above the charge being false, it is often spiced with "Galileo brought it on himself for having an attitude problem". Now that has a few implications a bit TOO spicy for me:

1) attitude problems are as serious as doctrinal problems or more so - false. At least for most attitude problems. Hatred of God is indeed more serious than mere heresy or apostasy.

2) the Church has a right to impede printing and shut up in reclusion at home, in a lifelong house arrest, people with attitude problems, even if they are right. False. Assuming Galileo had been right, the Church could at most have had an excuse for believing he was wrong (independently of the attitude problem) and an excuse for believing to be in Her rights in punishing him. But having an excuse for shooting a man on a hunt while believing it is a moose does not amount to a right to shoot men who look for a moment like a moose.

3) this right to deal with people who might be perfectly right but have attitude problems persists to this day. False, since such a right was not in question for the Church even then.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

The real truth is, Pope Urban was beside himself with fear over what Galileo’s doctrine would do to the Church.

My comment

This also looks more like searching excuses than like justifying.

If true, he at least left the judgement to judges with more level reason, but what I have seen from his character otherwise (like portraits and the fact he made a new Church for St Bibiana) suggests to me this is false.

Ouch, there seems to be sth for this way of looking at Pope Urban VIII:

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014, quoting a contemporary of process

Yesterday I did not have the time to report to Your Most Illustrious Lordship what had transpired (in a very emotional atmosphere) between myself and the Pope in regard to Mr. Galilei’s work….I too am beginning to believe…that the sky is about to fall. While we were discussing those delicate subjects of the Holy Office, His Holiness exploded in great anger, and suddenly he told me that even our Galilei had dared enter where he should not have, in the most serious and dangerous subjects which could be stirred up at this time. I replied that Mr. Galilei had not published without the approval of his ministers….He answered, with the same outburst of rage, that he had been deceived by Galileo and Ciampoli…

[(Niccolini to Cioli, 5-IX-1632)

Same letter:]

He said that he had prohibited works which had his pontifical name in front and were dedicated to himself, and that in such matters, involving great harm to religion (indeed the worst ever conceived), His Highness [the Grand Duke] too should contribute to preventing it, being a Christian prince….I retorted that…I did not believe His Holiness would bring about the prohibition of the already approved book without at least hearing Mr. Galilei first. His Holiness answered that this was the least ill which could be done to him and that he should take care not to be summoned by the Holy Office; that he has appointed a Commission of theologians and other persons versed in various sciences, serious and of holy mind, who are weighing every minutia, word for word, since one is dealing with the most perverse subject one could ever come across….Finally, he told me to write to our Most Serene Patron that the doctrine is extremely perverse, that they would review everything with seriousness, and that His Highness should not get involved but should go slow; furthermore, not only did he impose on me the secret about what he had just told me, but he charged me to report that he also was imposing it on His Highness [the Grand Duke].

My comment

As far as temper goes, this reminds me of Moderns. Hope Niccolini was suffering from pseudo-empathy and attributing emotions to Pope Urban VIII which were more violent than the Pope's real ones.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

[Later:]

He [the pope] retorted that in cases where religion might suffer damage, it was less harmful to overreact occasionally than to be remiss as a result of the reasons I mentioned, and thus to endanger Christianity with some sinister opinion; furthermore, he had been told by His Holiness that, since we are dealing with dangerous dogmas, His Highness [the Grand Duke, Cosimo Medici] should put aside all respect and affection toward his Mathematician and be glad to contribute himself to shielding Catholicism from any danger.

My comment

The ethics of the Inquisition. But in a day when it legally existed.

Now, these days, I think some are using a non-extant Inquisition to silence Geocentrics and Creationists. By setting up amateur Inquisitions.

He added that one is dealing with new doctrines and Holy Scripture, that the best course is to follow the common opinion

Now, that is a criterium, which if not followed up over Centuries Past is likely to be hurtful to Geocentrism.

[To a common man, following it up over the centuries might not be the first reaction. But in Pope Urban's day he was very much in a position to know - if the question had been raised - that he was indeed speaking for the common opinion not just of Catholics (and even Schismatics and Heretics) contemporary to him, but of Centuries Past excepting isolated cases among the Greeks in pre-Christian times. Today, the élite know very well they are not following up "the common opinion" over Centuries Past, even if they fondly imagine to be following the common opinion of Centuries Future (and unknown, even unknown whether they will at all happen), even common men are prone to depreciate "the common opinion" of Centuries Past, knowing they do so, and all know very well how Government Run Acacemic and Scholarly Institutions have contributed to the change. All know the change of opinion was not by millions of adults freely debating the evidence, but millions of children being indoctrinated by a small élitist minority, and parents being shown some evidence to calm their qualms about what was being done to their children.]

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

[Dei Verbum:]

the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.

My comment

The same claim that Trent claimed for the Vulgate. Trent claimed a lot more of inerrancy for the Bible as such or for the first manuscript of each hagiographer.

[Note that if the Vulgate had been perfactly inerrant, we could in all confidence doctrinalise the Time Line of Ussher. However, St Jerome based a similar time line, read in Christmas proclamation, on the LXX. The Universe was 5199 years old when God was born in Bethlehem.]

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

the Modernists want us to accept that Scripture is only without error when it speaks on salvation, and it is not inerrant, and thus not reliable, when it speaks about anything else, including history and the cosmos. This was a view of Scripture never before taught in the whole history of the Catholic Church.

My comment

Quite true. I have seen a quote attributed to Galileo in which he takes the exact same view. It was new and radical in his time.

Much more so than mere Heliocentrism. Bad as that is, for diverse reasons (just as a revision along the lines of astrology suggesting Jacob and Esau had different horoscopes would also be very bad - though I have heard one astrologer argue Jacob's true horoscope was when his hand came out for a moment).

And if Galileo had been tried and found guilty for that, he would have burned. Unless he had recanted.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

as error-filled and fictional as the testimony of Bill Clinton telling us he “did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

My comment

His explanation is however very priceless. "That is not sex". Meaning, when we condemn the condom and the pill, we are really condemning non-sex. Same as with gay marriage. Catholicism is not against sex, She [the Church] is against Non-Sex.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

As we have seen, the Bible’s inerrancy was sacrificed primarily in order to make room for Copernicus and Galileo, with Darwin, Freud, Marx and a few other humanistic icons, running a close second.

My comment

All of those were on my no-no list when I still had the MSN Group Antimodernism.

I was never a believer in Sagan, but I liked original Cosmos series.

I agree he is spot on:

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

“But if the Bible is not everywhere literally true, which parts are divinely inspired and which are merely infallible and human? As soon as we admit there are scriptural mistakes (or concessions to the ignorance of the times), then how can the Bible be an inerrant guide to ethics and morals?”

[Ref. to Pale Blue Dot, pp. 40, 42. (Was there a picture on p. 41?)]

I wouldn’t doubt at all that the reason Mark Shea also appears soft on homosexuality (as noted in his defense of his homosexual friend, “Perry,” who lived with another homosexual male before he died last year, yet also claimed to be a practicing and devout Catholic) is that he has imbibed, in part or in whole, this “new way,” this Hegelian dialectic, of viewing Scripture.

My comment

I disagree.

HGL's F.B. writings : Oscar Wilde and Perry Lorenzo
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2012/12/oscar-wilde-and-perry-lorenzo.html

And as for the suggestion Mark Shea is soft on, not homosexuals as people, but homosexuality as a way of life, see this:

Catholic and Enjoying It : There’s a Little Moment in Jurassic Park I Think of
April 4, 2014 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/04/theres-a-little-moment-in-jurassic-park-i-think-of.html

Relevant quote:

That’s what I think of as the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance continues its ruthless and pitiless extirpation of all who are guilty of Thoughtcrime for failing to hail homosex as the Source and Summit of all that is noble, pure, good, and glorious. Tolerance is not enough. You. MUST. Approve. And God help you if the Thought Police discover anything in your past revealing dissent from the regime. Punishment will be swift and merciless. Because Diversity and Freedom.

As we are there, there are no doubt some Catholic Liberals who still deny miracles. But both Mr. Darwin and Mark Shea have testified to believing miracles do occur. Mr. Darwin believes Joshua's Long Day. Mark Shea believes Multiplication of loaves really happened.

DarwinCatholic : Did Augustine and Aquinas Believe In A Literal Interpretation of Genesis
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2014/02/did-augustine-and-aquinas-believe-in.html

Well, at least he believes the Resurrection:

Indeed, it is the very predictability of physical laws which makes the exceptions to them (miracles, such as the Resurrection) miraculous.

[Actually one can very much dispute the definition or characterisation of miracles as "exceptions to physical laws", they are the most obvious since only exceptional results of an Agency above these laws. And above the causes alias agencies they usually deal with.]

Quoting him, in that thread.

Here is Mark Shea being Orthodox on Loaves and Fishes:

New Catholic Register - Blog by Mark Shea - The Miracle of Caring and Sharing
by Mark Shea Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:00 AM
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-miracle-of-caring-and-sharing

Relevant quote:

In the same way, one can play with the (exceedingly lame) “explanation” of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes where everybody was so moved by Jesus’ warm fuzziness that they all shared their lunches. The Church does not forbid this stupid way of reading the text, just as the Church has never issued an infallible decree that 2+2 does not equal five, nor a formal dogma that you should not play in traffic.

Nonetheless, all these things are wrong and stupid, as is the naturalistic reading of the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes.

Quoting you again:

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Mark Shea seeks to make it appear that geocentrism makes the Catholic Church look like an antiscience, anti-modern, anti-establishment institution that simply refuses to budge even in the face of proof after proof that its traditional views have been discredited. I sometimes wonder that if modern science began to tout that there is “no proof” for a wafer of bread turning into the body and blood of Christ, whether someone like Mark Shea might be tempted to agree with it.

It wouldn’t be the first time. There was a whole movement begun by modernist Catholics coming out of Vatican II, led by Father Eduard Schillebeeckx, who were similarly “embarrassed” by the traditional Catholic doctrine of “transubstantiation.”

My comment

I have seen guys like that. They are more likely to be [cradle] Catholics with qualms about repression of Huguenots or Collaboration with Nazis, [or for that matter over Galileo case] than converts from Evangelical religion, such as Mark Shea.

Indeed, the fact that Mark Shea is a friend of Keating makes the suggestion impossible. Catholic Answers started as a defence of Transubstantiation and Sacrifice of Holy Mass in face of attacks from Protestants in the area.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

In effect, Shea will accept the unproven theories of atheistic scientists and sacrifice the doctrines of traditional Catholicism in order to promote ecumenism.

My comment

No.

He is not that ecumenical. If by traditional Catholicism you do not mean the contemporary defense of it, but rather Catholicism as it traditionally is, Mark Shea is more ignorant of it than opposed to it.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Unfortunately, the cosmos of Genesis has become the biggest stumbling block for modernist Catholics because, quite simply, they just “know” that it can’t be right, thanks to Galileo and Darwin.

My comment

There you are a bit spot on again. Alas.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Here’s challenge number 23 for you.

If you, Mark Shea, can provide just one scientific and indisputable proof that the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun, I will give you $1,000.00.

If you can’t, then you owe me $1,000.00. Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. Shea, otherwise, shut up.

My comment

Maybe he doesn't have that money, and he is ignoring your challenge (to which you cannot bind him in advance without his consent) because he has some correct suspicions about the issue?

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

[Quoting Mark Shea]

The answer is twofold. First, converts who were once Fundamentalists and who used to read Scripture literally become Catholic and proceed to read Scripture and Catholic documents literally.

R. Sungenis: Absolutely false. If there were any “Fundamentalists” in the world before the Protestants, their name was “Catholic”!

My comment

Actually even more: if there were Fundies between 1500 and 1900 there were Catholics among them. And Calvinism and Socinianism are the main roots of non-Literal exegesis. (Non-literal as opposed to Literal AND Allegoric, for instance).

Creation vs. Evolution : Why a Literalist should be a Papist and not a Barnesist
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-literalist-should-be-papist-and-not.html

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

If not, how does Mr. Shea explain that of all the denominations and churches in the world, the Catholics are the only ones that interpret John 6:54 (“Whoever eats my body and drinks myblood has eternal life”) and Matthew 26:26 (“This is my body”) as literally as it can possibly be interpreted?

My comment

Catholics. Eastern Orthodox. Of Monophysites the Copts, previously also Armenians. I presume Nestorians too. Lutherans and some High Church Anglians also believe Real Presence. I think some of the newer denominations sometimes do so too.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Ironically, it’s the Protestant “Fundamentalists” who refuse to interpret this passage literally!

My comment

True enough about Chick Tracts. And Karl Keating and Mark Shea (or Karl Keating at first and later Mark Shea) started out Catholic Answers to answer that.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

How does Mr. Shea explain the fact that the Catholics were the first and one of the only to interpret John 20:23 (“Whosever sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven”) as literally as it can be interpreted?

My comment

Again, and this time Armenians are included as well, this goes for all of the Churches with Apostolic Succession.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

It wasn’t until Darwin came along that a band of modernist and liberal “Catholics” decided that science had disproven a literal reading of Genesis.

My comment

I even think that as C S Lewis remained an Evolutionist at first (at first!) after his Christian conversion, it may have been the strictness of 1909 answers that made him prefer Anglicanism over Catholicism.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Heliocentrism is wrong because the Church said it was wrong; [...] the medievals said it was wrong,

My comment

There is a move in Academia to make out as if Buridan and Nicole d'Oresme (who died as Bishop of Lisieux) were saying it was right, when in fact they were merely saying it was thinkable and physically non-contradictory.

They said it was "possible" about as someone would [now] say it was "possible" to assume everything in the whole universe every day shrank to half the size of 24 h. earlier in every dimension. You cannot experimentally prove that wrong, since the meters and yardsticks would have shrunk too, but it is pointless and counterintuitive.

So is Heliocentrism.

The TOF Spot : What's Wrong With the Cosmos?
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/03/whats-wrong-with-cosmos.html

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

If I hear this quote from Augustine taken out of context one more time I think I’m going to be sick.

[I guess you all know which one! Sungenis quotes it in his paper if you don't. Read it if you haven't.]

My comment

For my part I got angry and impatient. It is a bit like nagging, isn't it?

New blog on the kid : St Augustine was - Literally - a Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, and he was Right
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/03/st-augustine-was-literally-young-earth.html

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

[Lovely, Sungenis quoting St Augustine a little bit later on in the text of De Genesi ad Literam:]

Taking these theories into account, a certain commentator [Basil] has made a praiseworthy attempt to demonstrate that the waters are above the heavens, so as to support the word of Scripture with the visible and tangible phenomena of nature.... Hence, from the existence of the air between the vapors that form the clouds above and the seas that stretch out below, our commentator proposed to show that there is a heaven between water and water. This painstaking enquiry is, in my opinion, quite praiseworthy.

My comment

If Mark Shea reads this he might go right and say "oh, really, I didn't know" (he very probably doesn't as long as he hasn't read your text). [I did not know previous to reading it either!] Part of the outbursts about trash bin worthy mails might be about your text, I am not sure he is reading it [and see what he is missing!]. But more to the point : how would he be able to know the passage? De Genesi ad Literam is one of the longer works available, and unlike Summa Theologiae and De Civitate Dei it is not on the web in English translation. [Only in books that may be rare.]

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

But Augustine goes even further in the next analysis, for now he tries to show that there are waters even above the starry heavens.

My comment

I have heard - thanks to youtube - that the two most common molecules in the universe (as in interstellar space) are H₂ and H₂O. In my theory H₂ would also qualify as "water" in Biblical language. H₂ was created when H₂O also give rise to the O₂ in the atmosphere.

And what would you call H₂ in Biblical terminology? Air or water? You cannot use it for breathing. If you mix it with air and add a spark (which can have happened in the Flood on more than one occasion) it will result in water.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Augustine will go on to argue that Saturn, which was then understood as a star, generates heat as it makes its orbit, but that it is cooled by the waters near it, above the heavens

My comment

It was as much "understood as a star" as whales and crayfish were understood as fishes in the Bible.

There are two "kinds of stars", fixed stars which stay in a fixed position in relation to the zodiak and also planets that have an own movement West to East along the zodiak. On top of all of above having a common movement East to West each day and night.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014 quoting St Augustine

It is true, indeed, that by its own motion, moving over a vast space, it takes thirty years to complete its orbit; yet by the motion of the heavens it is rotated rapidly in the opposite direction...and therefore, it ought to generate greater heat by reason of its greater velocity.

My comment

He theorises that the daily motion is generating heat like we speak about heat by friction. If he is wrong, I think some other Church Fathers did not share the Greek Cosmological preseumptions he had. So that the error is NOT common to all the Church Fathers.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014, still quoting St Augustine

With this reasoning some of our scholars attack the position of those who refuse to believe that there are waters above the heavens while maintaining that the star whose path is in the height of the heavens is cold. Thus they would compel the disbeliever to admit that water is there not in a vaporous state but in the form of ice. But whatever the nature of that water and whatever the manner of its being there, we must not doubt that it does exist in that place. The authority of Scripture in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity.

My comment

Five states of water: ice, liquid, vapour, H₂, hydrogen plasma (as in Sun - but note that the Sun also contains a subsidiary process involving Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon, where Oxygen is another of the "ingredients" or rather constituents of water) on its way to make Helium (IF the theory is correct). But one of these certainly is there. And modern scientists have detected not just plasma but also H₂ and H₂O.

Kent Hovind had a theory in which waters above the firmament was just a preflood condition. I think some of the passages he used prove there are still waters above the firmament.

He has admitted as much, by the way.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014 (in his own words again)

That is, the Lord did not desire to give us detailed information as to what pushes or pulls the sun and moon around the Earth, or how it is that they keep such precise time year after year.

My comment

Not VERY detailed, but some guidelines, perhaps.

Daniel 3: [57] All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [63] O ye stars of heaven, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [64] O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [65] O all ye spirits of God, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever.

The passage lacks in Jewish and Protestant Bibles!

Baruch 3:[32] But he that knoweth all things, knoweth her, and hath found her out with his understanding: he that prepared the earth for evermore, and filled it with cattle and fourfooted beasts: [33] He that sendeth forth light, and it goeth: and hath called it, and it obeyeth him with trembling. [34] And the stars have given light in their watches, and rejoiced: [35] They were called, and they said: Here we are: and with cheerfulness they have shined forth to him that made them.

Book lacking in Jewish and Protestant Bibles.

Job 38:[7] When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?

THIS verse remains even to them.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Hence, because the Lord taught them in Scripture that the sun and moon move around the Earth, it was for that very reason that St. Augustine and St. Thomas were both geocentrists, in opposition to the Greeks and Indians who were promoting heliocentrism.

My comment

Greeks at the time were not even promoting it. Authority of the senses would be the great reason (even to non-believers, see Romans 1:20) to be Geostatic and once roundness of earth is properly discovered since Vasco da Gama more precisely Geocentric.

Even atheists like Democritus and Lucretius were Geocentric. Indians may have included people thinking it [Heliocentrism] true, but these were marginal even among themselves and so much more to St Augustine and St Thomas.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

All these attempts, of course, are done in the face of the fact that Augustine believed firmly in geocentrism and defended it vigorously.

My comment

Sorry, Sungenis, "defended vigorously" implies someone was attacking it in his time. Who?

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

Ignoring these facts, heliocentric advocates will often appeal to Augustine’s general hermeneutical principles concerning the need to be cautions when science and Scripture seem to clash,

My comment

While they suppose this was his main general hermeneutical principle (the quote so over used). Ignoring he stated his real general principles in book I chapter 1. But, as said, the twelve books of that work are not available online.

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

This quip came from one liberal cardinal, Baronius, during Galileo’s day, but the Church never adopted it as the truth. How could they, since it was that very Church in Baronius’ day that condemned Galileo?

My comment

Two points:

• 1) I have heard it attributed both to Galileo and to St Robert Bellarmine.
• 2) In the latter's mouth it certainly meant no disparagement of fact THAT the Heavens, rather than earth, are the ones that go.

Taken that way it is Orthodox. Holy Writ makes no very clear decision between flat or global earth, or between Geostasis in Flat Earth, Ptolemaic, or Tychonian Cosmology. But the Heavens do go. And if you think of it, very fast. And their staying together is either a miracle of construction or a miracle of good command over angels or both at the same time.

This is why, when defending Geocentrism, we are defending our eyes and part of the meaning of Romans 1:20.

[And I would not call Baronius a liberal.]

Quote from Sungenis 31-III-2014

If, in that process, one makes the argument that being in the center couldn’t happen by chance and therefore the universe came into being by the hand of a divine Creator (as opposed to what Krauss and Sagan tout, that is, that the universe created itself), then so be it.

My comment

It is rather stars staying in a periphery rotating so very fast [and staying in stable either positions for fixed stars or orbits for planets] that could not happen by chance. As well as the energy provided each day for the rotation, as per my debate under TOF Spot:

"I suppose I could have said that 'given the conservation of mass-energy in large-scale phenomena, we know that geocentrism is false'."

St Thomas did not subscribe to conservation of mass-energy in marge scale or other phenomena, since he was not identifying the NECESSARY BEING with mass-energy, but with God.

"If you are willing to postulate an influx of energy that keeps the sun circling a stationary earth, such energy having no other detectable effect, of course you can still proclaim geocentrism."

Geocentrism is major proof that God is, as UPHOLDER of the Universe, providing the "influx of energy" that makes not just Sun but indeed All Universe circle around a stationary earth each day.

And the detection of the influx is by the phenomena of day and night.

That is the easiest way of stating Prima Via.

I rest my case.

My additional comment 5-IV-2014

Two retractions, since I was tired yesterday!

1) If Pope Urban was worried about Heliocentrism threatening Christianity, he meant as threatening its doctrine, and he has the history since about his times in favour of his accuracy.

If Moderns are worried about Geocentrism threatening Christianity, they usually mean either socially "embarassing the faith", or if doctrinally they are defending some phoney derivative of "Thomism" which is more Averroist than Thomist, and perhaps even more Deist than Averroist.

2) If Pope Urban was overexcited at a moment, he was later calm. Plus, of course, he left the judgment to many others and was not involved himself once the process started before it was ended.

So, my comparison was lopsided.