Book Review (Geocentric Book, Geocentric Review)

Book by Levi J. Pingleton, available through Kolbe Center:

Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye: A Theological Reflection on the Absolute Primacy of Christ
$25.00
https://kolbecenter.org/product/keep-me-as-the-apple-of-thine-eye-a-theological-reflection-on-the-absolute-primacy-of-christ/

Review by our friend Johnny Proctor:

Levi Pingleton penetrates the essential center of creation theology in Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye that challenges conventional orthodoxy and lifts the soul to God in unanticipated and spiritually edifying ways.

Coining a useful idiom to capture the main thesis, “Christocentric exemplarism” encompasses the mystery of the incarnation as both source and ultimate fructification of creation. Pingleton traces the mystical reflections of Saint Basil the Great, Saint Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, and Saint Hildegard of Bingen with a deftly woven thread of their common affirmations regarding the divine purposes of creation, the incarnation, and the teleological summation of the ages. These he brings to a crescendo with an in-depth analysis of Christian anthropology as the hermeneutical key to unlock creation’s proclamation of the divine essences which ubiquitously appeal to men through the natural order.

These themes culminate in a compelling case for restoring the traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church to its rightful place in Christian pedagogy; Christocentric exemplarismappeals for a verdict from the sincere disciple.

The Church’s perennial and dogmatically asserted cosmology is geocentric, which is to say, as the Fathers all taught with one voice, the earth is at rest in the center of the cosmos. Pingleton argues gently and with understatedurgency for the traditional coherence between the metaphysical and the theological sciences as something most Christians know is missing implicitly but which evades them as a practical diagnosis. This wonderful coherence – which this book masterfully lays out for the reader –is in fact missing from modern understanding yet is constantly appealing to our consciences and intellects through the ‘speech and words’ of the created order (cf. Psalm 18).

The treatment of the Galileo affair of the 17th century is explained with meticulous footnoting and concise accounting of the major milestones leading to the modern misconception of the Church’s actual position. This section presents a defense of dogmatic development of the geocentric aspect of Patristic and medieval cosmology and its enduring value as the appropriate hermeneutical approach to both Scripture and metaphysics.

I personally appreciate how this book promotes cosmological coherence, encouraging a union of sacred and profane sciences within the Creator's intended order. Levi Pingleton elegantly presents this coherence as a spiritual necessity, as a mystical blueprint, and the proper exegesis of the intelligible universe. This brief study is desperately needed today in a theological milieu too often characterized by incoherence, ruptures between the natural and supernatural orders, and irreconcilable approaches to metaphysics, philosophy, and the science of divinity.Keep Me as the Apple of Thine Eye offers an authentically Catholic vision of creation gracefully traversing these disciplines in a brief and elegant structure that economizes argumentation without sacrificing substance.

St. Augustine vs Jimmy Akin (on one topic)

Levi J. Pingleton is

with Robert Sungenis and 4 others

Someone is WAY OFF....keep twisting, Jimmy. Theistic Evolution has NO congruence with the teachings of St. Augustine...NONE. https://youtu.be/ptQ8GsoBPzk?si=6PbyLlgqzp7AsjHb

I

LA = undisclosed, HGL = Hans-Georg Lundahl, abbreviated for balance.

LA

Can’t stand Jimmy

HGL

LA I find him excellent apart from one or two issues, likes Deep Time, Evolution or Heliocentrism (that's three).

LA

HGL he’s so arrogant and dismissive of those who disagree. I can’t stand listening to him even on Catholic Answers.

HGL

Matter of taste, I suppose.

II

Johnny Proctor

This guy adores science. In fact, the entire "Catholic Answers" enterprise adores science.

Levi J. Pingleton

Johnny Proctor they adore their own prideful arrogance and denial of Truth due to their lack of knowledge. I've noticed Catholic Answers guys speak as though they have authority in these subjects, yet have studied little to nothing in them. They aren't experts on everything...most certainly lacking in the science realm.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic Answers started out with Karl Keating defending the Blessed Sacrament against a Protestant accusation in San Diego. One tract became two, three, six, twelve, 24, 48.

Somewhere in the 48 tracts he added support for Evolution to the actually Catholic positions.

And that's been their take since.

III

Joe Hofnug

The Catholic Church approves theistic evolution as an allowable theological view. I think the debate is over at this point.

Read the Bible Commission decision of 1909 (De charactere historico trium priorum capitum Geneseos, Concerning the historical nature of the first three chapters of Genesis (June 30, 1909))

Ludwig Ott paragraphs 11 and 12

I believe Jimmy Akin is referring to this theory of St. Augustine:

Btw, 1909 was the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X, the anti-modernist pope. There is zero room to argue that theistic evolution is a modernist innovation.

Johnny Proctor

"To finish with this whole question of faith and its shoots, it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about their development. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be, among the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject - dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death.

... Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles."

Pope St. Pius X, ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS

Joe Hofnug

Johnny Proctor What is clear from his pontificate is the effort to maintain the truth of the book of Genesis. He is fighting against the notion that the book of Genesis can be discarded or dismissed as pure fiction because of the doctrine of evolution. But there is also a preoccupation on the one hnd with distinguishing what is essential for Christian belief and on the other hand making sure we understand that the book of Genesis is not a scientific account of how creation came to be, meaning that legitimate diversity of opinion is allowable on these matters (e.g., as the biblical comission document of 1909 says, the six "days" can be interpreted as much longer periods of time). Again, the Catholic Church has consistently approved theistic evolution as a valid view.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19090630_genesi_it.html

Johnny Proctor

Joe, I am not picking on you, but the point must be made emphatically that theology IS science -- the science of divinity -- and no quarter can be given to the opinion that it has to stay within the limits of it's intellectual ghetto and let the natural sciences dictate to the Church what can and cannot be true in revelation. The knowledge of the creation of the world has NOT come down to us through biology or astronomy or physics; it has come down to us through divine revelation and tradition. Neither is the biblical creation account as always interpreted by the Church at odds with any credible natural science.

Vatican I teaches:
6. If anyone says that
• the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
• Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
let him be anathema.
Chapter III, Canons of Vatican I (1869-1870)

<<Thereupon from the origin of the human race even to Moses revelation was at first given by God the creator and sanctifier, concerning divine worship and divine law. Even more, revelations were preserved about the future life, about angels both good and bad, and especially on the one who was going to come to renew the human race, even without any Scripture.>>

Cardinal Franzelin, On Divine Tradition, Thesis XX

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Joe Hofnug Ludwig Ott is not 1909.

The seed powers referred to by St. Augustine would be the first embryo of each kind, not first adult ancestors of diverse kinds.

I regularly reread the 1909 judgement, and no, modern "science" is not allowed for in it on more than one issue.

But please distinguish the actual 1909 judgement from Ott in 1952 referring to diverse prequels to Humani Generis and maybe mixing them a bit.

"But there is also a preoccupation on the one hnd with distinguishing what is essential for Christian belief and on the other hand making sure we understand that the book of Genesis is not a scientific account of how creation came to be,"

First, you are misrepresenting Young Earth Creationism.

We don't say Genesis 1 is a scientific account of creation, we say it is a historical one.

But second, you can't make the judement of Fulcran Vigouroux for the Biblical commission the sole criterium for what Pope St. Pius X thought on the matter.

Fulcran Vigouroux 1) had other ideas he was not allowed to judge in favour of, namely a) limited Flood (he was a species fixist, not a baraminologist), b) possibly gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy; and 2) actually thought mankind was 7000 to 10 000 years old, with Adam as the VERY first man.

Fulcran Vigouroux judged in favour of the position currently held by JW, not the position held by Jimmy Akin.

But on top of that, in 1909, the same pope canonised Clemens Maria Hofbauer. What's the significance? Well, his VERY close friend (and physician) Johann Emmanuel Veith wrote in 1865 a book that's basically Creation Science (about mankind) and he held to strict young earth, so Adam was created adult with 168 normal hours of the creation of heaven and earth.

"the biblical comission document of 1909 says, the six "days" can be interpreted as much longer periods of time"

This is not a final definition, the decision left the matter open for discussion. You can't treat this as dogmatising "long periods is fine" when in fact the judgement specifically allows exegetes to argue on both sides.

Confer answer VIII and the last phrase of the question answered by "si", namely:

"ed è lecito agli esegeti disputare liberamente di questa questione?"

So, while people agreeing back then with Fulcran Vigouroux 😊 ( = now with JWs, not with Jimmy Akin) were free to forward that opinion, so were the strict young earthers, and literal-six-dayers.

Otherwise there would have been no "disputare liberamente", meaning the answer to question VIII is not a dogmatic definition, it's a disciplinary (and as such revocable) licence.

Geocentrism, Tradition and Science

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Geocentrism, Tradition and Science · New blog on the kid: What Happened to the Sungenis Debate?

Steve Szabo

status

June 2:nd, 2023

Magesterial ? The following article makes a case for unanimous consent by the Church Fathers on Geocentrism. Have you seen a good case against that argument?

Scripture Catholic : Geocentrism : Tradition / Church Fathers*
https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/#Tradition_Church_Fathers

Answers

I and II (in inverted chronoligical order, as my "first" answer wasn't answered and so can stand first, as a preliminary).

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I've seen a bad one, made by David Palm.
One CF said that such and such pagans discovered such and such things, and one of the discoveries enumerated was "so and so discovered the earth orbits the sun" - the problem with taking this as an exception is, the word "discovered" can have been used ironically, the CF can have been making fun of the great men. Also, it was in context not at all an exegesis of the Geocentric passages of the Bible.

II

Matthew Myers

Yes. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine. Also the very truth of Fides et ratio.

Answers

III and IV and V and VI (in actual chronological order)

III

which has an insert α and then resumes at β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Neither of these two denied Geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Also, neither of these two seriously questioned it.
St. Robert is often quotemined as saying "if a proof of Heliocentrism were upcoming, then we would need to be very careful about determining what the Bible is saying" - but the quote continues "but I don't think such a proof is possible" - as to St. Thomas, yes he spoke of orbits possibly being physically different from what Ptolemy taught, which as a Tychonian I agree with. However, he also based prima via (at least according to Riccioli and therefore the common reception of it in Riccioli's time) on Geocentrism, on heaven being turned every day around earth, by God.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl so scientific infallibility for those two. Got it.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl we aren’t even at the center of this galaxy.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl so you’re saying that the outer edges of the observable universe are careening around us at the center every day at about 4 billion light years per hour every day?
Or are you saying that (as science has shown unarguably) that the earth does rotate, but just that the earth is at the center and not just this solar system? So at which time of the year is the earth at the center?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl and even if we only contain this ludicrous idea to a truncated solar system near the edge of Pluto’s average distance from the sun (when it at times is much farther from the earth than that), it would have to travel at about 4 billion miles an hour to arrange itself at nearly the same place the next day. And caused physically to circle around the earth by what scientific mechanism? Certainty not gravity. Or are all of these objects just much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much tinier than we thought?

α

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers you have a tape measure that measures the perimeter of the galaxy?

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor there’s this stuff called science. It is used to make far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far , far, far more educated guesses than the pap on this page. Catholic leaders and Saints would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have. They would’ve marveled at the amazing universe that God created even more. They wouldn’t have tried to carve out some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance. This kind of ignorance is aberrant.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

You mean like Cardinal Ratzinger?**

<< According to [Ernst] Bloch, the heliocentric system – just like the geocentric – is based upon presuppositions that can’t be empirically demonstrated. Among these, an important role is played by the affirmation of the existence of an absolute space; that’s an opinion that, in any event, has been cancelled by the Theory of Relativity. Bloch writes, in his own words: ‘From the moment that, with the abolition of the presupposition of an empty and immobile space, movement is no longer produced towards something, but there’s only a relative movement of bodies among themselves, and therefore the measurement of that [movement] depends to a great extent on the choice of a body to serve as a point of reference, in this case is it not merely the complexity of calculations that renders the [geocentric] hypothesis impractical? Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.” >>

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, CDF, 1990

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor he was not arguing for himself that the Sun orbits the earth. He was not stupid. He also understood quite well about gravity.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

You are inserting words into his mouth. He is clear:

"Then as now, one can suppose the earth to be fixed and the sun as mobile.”

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor reading comprehension. Try it.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor context. Try it.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers you first.

Ratzinger's 1990 remarks on Galileo
NCRONLINE.ORG, January 14, 2008, by John L. Allen Jr.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/ratzingers-1990-remarks-galileo

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Pro tip.

You seem to be responding from your wall, and sometimes confusing where you are responding to me with where you are responding to Johnny Proctor.

How about not responding from your wall, but go to the group and see where your comment to respond to is on the discussion?

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"so scientific infallibility for those two. Got it."

More like for Bible and Church Fathers.
Do you have a specific CF or scholastic prior to Trent session IV who was for Heliocentrism at least as a possibility in connexion with Day 4, Joshua's long day, and Jesus calling Earth God's footstool?

"we aren’t even at the center of this galaxy."

What exact evidence do you have for the galaxy ("this one", and, since 1920 or 30, "others" outside it in the universe)?

"the outer edges of the observable universe are careening around us at the center every day at about 4 billion light years per hour every day?"

I am saying 1) we have no tightly argued reason from observations to consider the observable universe as greater than 1 light-DAY in radius. The reasons alleged depend on the false assumption of Heliocentrism, 2) even this involves stars going around us at 2 pi the speed of light, which would be impossible as vectorial movements within space adequately defined, but not impossible if they are simply moving WITH a moved portion of space-stuff.

"(as science has shown unarguably)"

Actually not. You are horribly shoddy about what you can argue and what you can't. I maintain Earth (in another, non-moved portion of the space-stuff) does NOT even rotate.

"it would have to travel at about 4 billion miles an hour to arrange itself at nearly the same place the next day."

As said, impossible for the material piece of body it is to accomplish vectorially through matter, even just the matter of space, but highly possible if a given portion of space-stuff itself moves at an angular speed of 360° every 23 h 55 minutes.

"And caused physically to circle around the earth by what scientific mechanism?"

Citing St. Thomas:

<< The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. >>

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl your reading comprehension is crap. You claim that I claim things that I don’t claim.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but you were actually doing the same to me a while ago, remember?

The "scientific infallibility" for the two Church Doctors, by themselves alone and in all matters of science? I never said that.

But you found it a fair comment on what I had said.

Now, I quoted part after part of what you said by copy-paste, and then answered it bit by bit, how about telling me where I am attributing to you a position the quote doesn't show you to have?

IV

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers What do you mean? St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Bellarmine are Doctors of the Church, not "Church Fathers". As far as I know, they were both Geocentrists....which is strong among Church Doctors. Even Saint Terese the Little Flower was a Geocentrist.

Matthew Myers

Steve Szabo there’s this stuff called science. It is used to make far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far , far, far more educated guesses than the pap on this page. Catholic leaders and Saints would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have. They would’ve marveled at the amazing universe that God created even more. They wouldn’t have tried to carve out some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance. This kind of ignorance is aberrant.

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers Sorry, I totally disagree with your claims. I find that as science progresses, it keeps confirming more and more traditional Catholic Doctrines. Not sure why you are on this sub.
Also, my question was about Church Fathers and you made an answer based on Church Doctors, so I hope you see how your views on these things are off-base.

Matthew Myers

Steve Szabo it does not confirm geocentric claims.

Steve Szabo

Author

Matthew Myers Sorry, but did someone ask for your opinion about that ?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers A few notes.
1) You pretend that "Science" makes far more educated guesses than we do. But you do not show why or how they are educated.
2) You said Sts Thomas and Bellarmine (and a few more) "would’ve rejected their interpretations with the kind of information and data that we now have" but you are imprecise as to what information or data you mean, except if you meant things like galaxies and distances which are not raw data but derived by a process of thought that can be contested, and also, the test of Trent is not what CF would have interpreted, but what they did interpret, when unanimous.
3) You call what we stand for "some neo-Gnosticism built on silly adherence to interpretation that was mixed with a natural ignorance" - would you be precise on what raw data we ignore or how our interpretation is close to Gnosticism?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl explain away gravity. I’ll wait.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No explaining AWAY to do.

Suppose I drop a pen from standing height, can you by gravity calculate how it will impact the floor? Yes - on the simple condition that nothing wilfully interferes with its fall. If I catch it with the other hand, your prediction will fail.

The parallel to my "other hand" in Geocentrism is, direct acts of God for the daily rotation of the universe, direct acts of angels for the orbital movements along the zodiac or for the movements mis-analysed as "proper movement X aberration X parallax" rather than as solely proper movement.

Now YOUR turn.

An Atheist can prove Heliocentrism by stating gravity and inertia alone (both depending on mass) determine movements. He can dismiss God and angels as not existing. So, he is forced by his denial to accept Heliocentrism.

Why do YOU deny God and angels being directly involved?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl yep! That sounds like the way God designed the perfection of science. As a lie and a bizarre puzzle. It is just like Protestants with the Scriptures. Catholics can explain the Scriptures. Protestants are forced to explain so much away. Here you misinterpret Scripture as a science text and are forced to explain so much science away.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"As a lie and a bizarre puzzle."

What's a lie about it?

What's a bizarre puzzle about it?

The science that St. Thomas and (to an extent) Riccioli shared is bizarre and a lie?

Well, there goes your claim "Catholics made the first universities" down the drain!

Not my claim, with similar wording though. I actually respect the intellect of these men.

"Catholics can explain the Scriptures. Protestants are forced to explain so much away. Here you misinterpret Scripture as a science text"

Sounds like a prejudice that Catholics are against and Protestants for Fundamentalism.

It's the other alternative that actually comes from Protestants, but Evangelicals are making that hard for you to see - and so are "Catholic" Modernists.

"and are forced to explain so much science away."

You are treating Science as an enunciation of truth, rather than sciences as (more or less successful) pursuits of truth.

I am not explaining away sense data. The rest can be bad conclusions gotten from bad paradigms.

In fact, as a Heliocentrist, you are the one explaining away sense data of sight and inner ear, both telling us we are not moving when we stand still on the earth, and the former also telling us that heavenly bodies ARE moving. YOU are the side making science a "lie and a bizarre puzzle" ....

But you are unlikely to see this, as long as your modernist priest tells you to treat Science as an extra Bible, and you don't step away from him.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl when St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Belarmine said that if Scriptural interpretation contradicted science that the Scriural interpretation was wrong. God is the Author of both Truths. They didn’t say that the science could merely be explained away and substitute miracles or planet pushing Angels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

" St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Robert Belarmine said that if Scriptural interpretation contradicted science that the Scriural interpretation was wrong."

No.

They didn't.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl yes they did.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl again. Reading and reading comprehension.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl it’s after midnight here and eisegesis is boorish and boring.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Get to bed and read my response tomorrow then, I am responding now.

1) Before you discuss reading comprehension, how about getting the exact text;

2) you didn't give one for St. Thomas saying when Science and Bible contradict, it's the Bible and not the sciences that is wrongly interpreted;

3) I will give you references for "planet pushing angels"

I Pars, Q 70, A 3, shortest cut, replies to objections 1 to 4:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3

<< Reply to Objection 1. Certain things belong to the adornment of the universe by reason of their proper movement; and in this way the heavenly luminaries agree with others that conduce to that adornment, for they are moved by a living substance.

Reply to Objection 2. One being may be nobler than another absolutely, but not in a particular respect. While, then, it is not conceded that the souls of heavenly bodies are nobler than the souls of animals absolutely it must be conceded that they are superior to them with regard to their respective forms, since their form perfects their matter entirely, which is not in potentiality to other forms; whereas a soul does not do this. Also as regards movement the power that moves the heavenly bodies is of a nobler kind.

Reply to Objection 3. Since the heavenly body is a mover moved, it is of the nature of an instrument, which acts in virtue of the agent: and therefore since this agent is a living substance the heavenly body can impart life in virtue of that agent.

Reply to Objection 4. The movements of the heavenly bodies are natural, not on account of their active principle, but on account of their passive principle; that is to say, from a certain natural aptitude for being moved by an intelligent power. >>

+ my Latin transscript and own translation from Riccioli, with citations:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers, you couldn't be more wrong. And your mocking, sarcastic attitude is unfortunate.

<< As natural, angels have a part in the government of the universe that cannot be confined to the angelic world. In fact, by virtue of the universal law that decrees the superior’s help to the inferior, the angels should have more to do in the government of the universe than any other creature in the world. It may well be that pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle proceeded from a deeper penetration of a profound truth rather than from mere ignorance of scientific laws when they saw the angels as movers or governors of the heavenly bodies. >>

The Summa [of St. Thomas Aquinas] Simplified for Everyone, pp. 124-125, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 1952 edition

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor talk about misapplication of principles!

Johnny Proctor

Admin

6. If anyone says that
the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
let him be anathema.
Chapter III, Canons of Vatican I (1869-1870)

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor on Faith and morals. (So you aren’t only ignorant in the field of science? Something to be said for consistency, I guess.)

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Sorry, friend. You're busted. Actually, Hans took your arguments apart line-by-line last night. I'm just the relief pitcher.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor because you don’t know the difference between discipline and Doctrine, what could not possibly be binding, and that science is not a matter of Faith and morals? You’re busted.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

To quote YOURSELF: reading comprehension. I quote St. Thomas and Vatican I. You keep offering your opinion about profane science. And no, as St. Robert said:

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles."

Letter to Foscarini, 1615

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers "science is not a matter of Faith and morals"

What if some matters of faith and morals are improperly perceived as science?

Obviously by people who are against the faith and morals truth involved and want to take it out of that sphere.

If it were science, you had plenty of chances to give a scientific reasoning:

• for Heliocentrism as such - met by appeal to gravity, in the first instance
• for gravity being the sole operator of the bodies of heavenly movements (with inertial momentum) - not met.

V

Matthew Myers

What do you suppose ‘one can suppose’ means?*** I don’t think it means what you think it means. Back to the drawing (with color crayons, I presume) board.

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers I assume you are new here. We do not traffic in ad homina here. Please moderate your tone or we will enforce group discipline.

Matthew Myers

When silliness shows up on my wall, I respond. Did anyone ask you to spread eisegetical “science”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers You are on a group called Catholic Cosmology and Geocentrism.

That content from this group shows up on your wall is because you are on the group.

You are free to leave it, I am not going to add you back.

If you stay, how about being polite?

And what do you mean by "eisegetical science"? That we have no science, only Bible interpretation, and that one eisegetical rather than exegetical?

How about backing up either?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl no

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl When silliness shows up on my wall, I respond. Did anyone ask you to spread eisegetical “science”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, why don't you leave the group, if you don't want its material on the wall?

And you have STILL not explained what you mean by "eisegetical science" ... did you get that from your priest who was rooting for modernism?

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl most traditionalist priests I know don’t buy this silliness.

Serious question, are some of you also flat earthers or young earthers also?

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Matthew Myers your reference to the Traditional cosmology of the Catholic Church as "sillyness" demonstrates a fundamentally unserious attempt to grasp the issue. Perhaps you would find kindred spirits on the Catholic Answers site, as they adore science.

Matthew Myers

Johnny Proctor they love all of God’s Truth and don’t make them fight each other.

Ron Eclavea

Matthew Myers

Nope. They fumble and stutter over the geocentric universe truth God has revealed in scripture. And as a result they fumble and stutter over the truth of the sabbath day as there can only be a 7th Day rest by God only if he started creation on the 1st Day!!

There’s no other credible way to explain this.

There must be an objective 1st Day of creation! Not some gobidigook half arse exegesis of the command to observe the sabbath as God commanded in scripture.

Genesis 1:1 👍🏻

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers Thank you for stating:
1) you are a trad (I was one when it still stood in some ways for integrism, I am into Pope Michael now)
2) you can't argue but go by "most priests"
3) you appeal to snobbery by stating your social reference (which is not a theological one) doesn't "buy into this silliness"

In return I owe you:

• I am not a flat earther
• I very much am a young earther.

That's how I came to Geocentrism, but it has more theological payouts than refuting the "distant starlight" supposed problem for young earth. Like stating clearly there is an extremity of the universe, and of the visible universe, so allowing us to state with confidence where Jesus went.

Creation vs. Evolution : Where Did Jesus Go?
search for "creavsevolu" and then search in the blog, FB censors by treating the blog as "contrary to community standards"

[Creation vs. Evolution : Where Did Jesus Go?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/05/where-did-jesus-go.html]

A priest from St. Nicolas tried to answer this by stating the outer limit of Heaven is the glorious body of Christ, which is arguably heretical. Yes, I mean "Saint Nic" in Paris.

Où se trouve le ciel ? - Abbé A. Rampon - 18/05/2023
Eglise Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet | 18 mai 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDc6v6Je1aY

Matthew Myers

Ron Eclavea like 7th day Adventist invented by Ellen that couldn’t figure out or abide by the simplest things in the New Testament? That’s even worse! Far worse!

[I'm leaving out, for now, the ensuiting debate on 7 or 8 day day of rest, and going directly to my answer on following, after it.]

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl again. Reading comprehension.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers You are not exactly qualified to speak of reading comprehension, if you take Young Earth Creationism as invented by Ellen White.

Perhaps my reading comprehension (as patience after some 1.5 weeks in North Germany, back in Paris now) was wrong, but you seem to take it the Apostles were as open to old earth as they were celebrating on Sunday.

"Inspiring Philosophy" pretends to trace YEC to Ellen White
New blog on the kid, Monday, 27 March 2023, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 18:37
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2023/03/inspiring-philosophy-pretends-to-trace.html

Or you are simply ignorant of the Church Fathers.

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl wring again.

Hans-Georg Lundahl actual photo from the edge of the flat earth. I thought that you would like this as well.

[leaving out, but looks more like a duck near a waterfall]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers I have already debunked the idea that a literal reading of the Bible would support a flat earth, so much for YOUR reading comprehension.

Est-ce que la Bible dit que la Terre est plate?
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica, Wednesday, July 17, 2019, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 2:12 PM
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/07/est-ce-que-la-bible-dit-que-la-terre.html

With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl, Thursday, 23 April 2015, Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 03:31
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html

The French one is fairly exhaustive in a short space.

If your French is as lousy as your reading comprehension, go to the English link.

[Between his comment and my answer, it seems Johnny Proctor already excluded him. Er, no, just reprimanded, he's still there.]

Matthew Myers

Hans-Georg Lundahl calm down. I’m just making fun of your silly position. It’s not reading comprehension, but if you need that to be a victory, go ahead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Myers it's nice to know your sense of humour is well and alive.

Your sense of debate isn't, you never provide arguments.

VI

Johnny Proctor

Admin

The case is presented in rock solid manner by a Doctor of the Church:

<< Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic”, it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles. >>

St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Johnny Proctor What St. Robert Bellarmine calls "modern" being of course not Rahner or Schillebeeckx but Aquinas, Cusanus, Suarez, Coimbra Jesuits etc ...

Johnny Proctor

Admin

Hans-Georg Lundahl - ah, yes! The days when a modern theologian could actually contribute to the Traditional theology of the Church rather than stake his reputation on how far he is willing to go to tear it down.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indeed.

* It says 1564, about Trent Session IV, but I think it is 1546! ** The idea of relativity will make for equivalence only in an infinite universe, in a finite one, whether space is absolute or relative, there is a geometrical centre. Hence, the idea of Ratzinger is highly inadequate. *** Not sure if something was erased, but I was looking for the previous occurrence of "one can suppose" and did not find any. W a i t ... there is an insert in the part III! See insert α

St. Thomas Aquinas wasn't heretical last time I checked

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Who would agree that, whichever the sides be that be right - I'm Geocentric, but I am asking about a thing Heliocentrics could agree on - the shift in culture from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, first owed a lot to Desaguyliers the Freemason being Newtonian, but second, to a combination of on the one hand aberration and later parallax, so called (as Geocentric I think they are misnomers) and on the other hand, lightning rods having contributed to outmode the view that angelic creatures (in the case of lightning typically fallen ones) basically help God run the physical universe?

I

Nicholas Landholdt

???

Must be over my head. lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Nicholas Landholdt OK.

Two arguments were *pretty* prominent around 1750 / 1850 - namely Aberration and Parallax.

If angelic spirits could move stars, both arguments fall flat.

And that is what St. Thomas thought (I think it's Prima Pars, Q 70, A3). Angels do move celestial bodies.

Now, he also thought that angels and demons rule over physical events on a lower scale - like demons ruling over thunderstorms and lightnings.

This is not per se refuted logically by lightning's physical components obeying other interference too (like lightning rods) but it was socially perceived as outmoded after the lightning rod.

Is this still over your head?

Nicholas Landholdt

You're getting closer, Hans-Georg Lundahl.

Since I am a simple laymen and "stuff" like metaphysics and theology and the like is not required in my job description for saving my soul, I focus more on temporal Catholic Action and getting rid of Satan's children here in America using the Second Amendment.

As Dirty Harry once said: "A man's got to know his limitations." https://youtu.be/JfwYe1484EQ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Sure, but this group is a bit beyond the necessary truths about which no one must be ignorant.

Nicholas Landholdt

Hoping to find activists who want Catholic Action to take care of business vs. the #SOS, I "lurk" more than anything and p/u a thing or two in the process.

Never know what you might learn or who you come across. I ended up interviewing Robert Sungenis on my "Christian Revolt" talk radio show some time back.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Nicholas Landholdt // who want Catholic Action to take care of business vs. the #SOS, I "lurk" more than anything //

What is that?

Now, obviously, whatever it is, it is also beyond the truths on which no one must be ignorant.

Robert Sungenis and I have two divergences about Geocentrism.

1) I consider angels move celestial objects;
2) and that "parallax" and "aberration" are really proper movements, executed by angels, that neither tell us of heliocentrism NOR of distances. This means, with angelic movers and geocentrism, I have a very simple solution to the distant starlight problem for young universe : stars aren't all that distant.

He denies both and prefers an exotic solution (at least one where light travels faster than the two way speed of light) to the distant starlight problem, and thinks the distances and sizes underline the greatness of God.

Nicholas Landholdt

Does the Church have any de fide teaching on either of those "two divergences about Geocentrism", Hans-Georg Lundahl?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Nicholas Landholdt No.

Historically, however, there is a clear preference (not a de fide definition) for angelic movers (divergence one) as I could read on the appropriate page of the Almagestum Novum by the Jesuit Astronomer Riccioli. There are also clear preferences for things involved in fix stars being, not exactly near, but nearer than 13 billion light years : an easier motivation for the Biblical timeline, and a somewhat more humanly comprehensible "Heaven where angels adore God and where blessed dead go is above the fix stars" or even "above the sphere of the fix stars."

There are priests now who totally deny that Heaven is an actual place, despite it being de fide that Christ is THERE. When Protestants many of them also deny that Heaven is a place, they come to see, often enough and heretically, the Assumption as a kind of reversal of the Incarnation : with no bilocation of His flesh and blood into the Eucharist and no motherhood left for Mary, their view sometimes being that the "spiritual resurrection body" is another one than the one She bore and which suffered on Calvary.

Obviously, Sungenis does not deny the truths, but having stars a kind of nearly thin "stratum" between the cosmos we see and the throne rooms of God makes it so much more accessible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

I am obviously not counting what Wojtyla and Ratzinger said in the early 90's as "de fide" or even as being backed by ecclesiastic authority on a lower level of the ordinary magisterium, I rather count it among my arguments these men were not Catholics and held no authority as Pope or Cardinal in the Church.

II

Johnny Proctor

Be careful about things that belong to both cosmology and angelology... We cannot modify cosmological models that include the angels as movers and manitainers of the physical systems with doing violence to the de fide doctrine of angels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

There is no de fide doctrine pertaining to angels that excludes the angelology and cosmology of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Remark : "cosmological models that include the angels as movers and manitainers of the physical systems" I don't know what Johnny Proctor means with saying of angels (on my view) "maintainers of physical systems" unless by a "physical system" he means the movements that angels perform. The angels on my view are certainly not maintainers of the existence of the bodies, they do not control the nature, just the place of objects that they are moving./HGL