Again thanks for that Charity. Would you believe I never read any of Sungenis's books or watched his debates. I was involved in this investigation long before Sungenis, ten years before we heard of him. When he made the subject public I was delighted but I wanted to continue my investigation on my own. That way the truth was more likely to be found. If what we both found was a similar truth of history, that would be a better confirmation of the history than two mixing together. What I was disappointed with was that I thought Sungenis's books and videos would set Catholics alight. It didn't, so that is why I wrote the following;
"Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Catholic Church of the seventeenth century was not doctrinally or scientifically mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of the Vatican and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for the Church in so many spheres after three centuries of ridicule following the Galileo case if it were made known throughout the world that in fact the Church had protected the integrity of natural science by her 1616 and 1633 adherence to Biblical revelation. Alas, that message has already been rejected by a majority of Catholics; both shepherds and sheep. For over two hundred years now, churchmen have rejected Biblical geocentrism and shared in their ‘embarrassment’ and ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their predecessors defended a ‘supposedly mistaken’ geocentric revelation as a natural fact also. It is obvious that to acknowledge the fact that the churchmen of 1820 unlawfully ignored a Biblical heresy based on false human reason and science would be a far greater scandal to admit to than a mistaken geocentrism in 1616 and 1633, so they have continued accepting the false accusation that the Church erred in its defence of Biblical geocentrism. This attitude of humility has been carefully cultivated by the Earthmovers in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, as a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining a ‘scientific’ image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived loss of face after the infamous Galileo affair. Not for them the traditional supernatural account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote out of context when it suits them. Today the Bible must be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ - as Pope John Paul II called them in 1992 - before it has any credibility in their eyes. They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using the authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary obedience expected of their subordinates. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ we hear them say, when it is they, not the Church, that need obscurantism and the peer pressure consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Catholic Church in this matter more than they prize their personal intellectual pride in ‘scientific’ reasoning and respectability found in their Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the modern world."
Well said Cassini! And that last sentence -- "Such people do not really care about the Catholic Church in this matter more than they prize their personal intellectual pride in ‘scientific’ reasoning and respectability found in their Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the modern world." -- is a final POWER punch! Yes, the nominal shepherds of the Church certainly follow the supposed science (and supposed eye witness accounts) that tell them most of the 6 million rounded up Chosenites during WW II got gassed and then went up in smoke. They know that if they veered from that narrative they would be subject to arrest and incarceration in a good number of countries -- especially in Europe. It's getting to the point that they might even find themselves getting gassed and going up in smoke.
Topic: Any Heliocentrists on CI? (Read 7873 times)