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.