Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: klasG4e on January 05, 2019, 12:31:33 PM

Title: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on January 05, 2019, 12:31:33 PM
I was informed by Robert Sungenis that he will be coming out with a new book next week: Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Children.  He said it would be "for kids 10 and up and teens and adults."  I think it is one more praiseworthy and noble effort by Sungenis to try to inform the world of an important and profound truth which so much of the modern science establishment seems hell bent on rejecting even though more and more evidence for it continues to stare them in the face.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on January 08, 2019, 05:27:08 AM
Great news, geocentrism for beginners. Badly needed for here is heliocentrism for Catholics according to the philosopher Pope John Paul II:

(11) In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the Earth or the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points have the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them…'
--- Pope John Paul II’s address to PAS, 31 October 1992.

Do you get it? Having told the boys of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 didn't know how to get anything right, he offers us the above codswallop as the Catholic Church's position on the Galileo case.'

The philosopher pope says that Einstein explained relativity exists for humans, that is man cannot prove or falsify FOR CERTAIN either geocentrism nor heliocentrism.  He then says that this relativity is not directed against Galileo's position, that is, relativity does not eliminate Galileo's heliocentrism. And he got away with that nonsense. This same type of philosophical tomfoolery cominf now from Fr Robinson SSPX.

But then, this is the same nonsense coming from Rome since 1741. No wonder the Church as truth, is disappeaering from the Earth.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Neil Obstat on January 26, 2019, 02:29:12 PM
I was informed by Robert Sungenis that he will be coming out with a new book next week: Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Children.  He said it would be "for kids 10 and up and teens and adults."  I think it is one more praiseworthy and noble effort by Sungenis to try to inform the world of an important and profound truth which so much of the modern science establishment seems hell bent on rejecting even though more and more evidence for it continues to stare them in the face.
.
I can't find the new book for sale. Can you provide a link to the bookstore? 
BTW I tried to order Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volumes I & II hardcover, and the only thing I could find was USED copies in "good condition" for $297.21, $300.47, and $517.09.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on January 26, 2019, 09:15:21 PM
.
I can't find the new book for sale. Can you provide a link to the bookstore?
BTW I tried to order Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volumes I & II hardcover, and the only thing I could find was USED copies in "good condition" for $297.21, $300.47, and $517.09.
See P. 2 of the Store at http://galileowaswrong.com/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/)

(https://dqzrr9k4bjpzk.cloudfront.net/images/657543/470036486.jpg) (http://galileowaswrong.com/store/#!/Galileo-Was-Wrong-The-Church-Was-Right-The-Evidence-from-Modern-Science-Volume-I-11th-Edition-Dec-2015-Hardcover-B&W-Images/p/6519316/category=1548576)
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science, Volume I, 11th Edition (Dec 2015, Hardcover, B&W Images) (http://galileowaswrong.com/store/#!/Galileo-Was-Wrong-The-Church-Was-Right-The-Evidence-from-Modern-Science-Volume-I-11th-Edition-Dec-2015-Hardcover-B&W-Images/p/6519316/category=1548576)
SKU 00037
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science, Volume I 800 pages, 6 x 9 Frame, Images are B & W Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of…
$42.00
(https://dqzrr9k4bjpzk.cloudfront.net/images/657543/470036495.jpg) (http://galileowaswrong.com/store/#!/Galileo-Was-Wrong-The-Church-Was-Right-The-Evidence-from-Modern-Science-Volume-II-11th-Edition-Dec-2015-Hardcover-B-&-W-Images/p/21362709/category=1548576)
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science, Volume II, 11th Edition (Dec 2015, Hardcover, B & W Images) (http://galileowaswrong.com/store/#!/Galileo-Was-Wrong-The-Church-Was-Right-The-Evidence-from-Modern-Science-Volume-II-11th-Edition-Dec-2015-Hardcover-B-&-W-Images/p/21362709/category=1548576)
SKU 00172
Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right: The Evidence from Modern Science, Volume II 800 pages, 6 x 9 Frame, Images are B & W Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of…
$42.00
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on January 26, 2019, 09:19:39 PM
.
I can't find the new book for sale. Can you provide a link to the bookstore?
BTW I tried to order Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right, Volumes I & II hardcover, and the only thing I could find was USED copies in "good condition" for $297.21, $300.47, and $517.09.

Thanks for asking Neil.  Here you go: http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/geocentrism-for-dumskies-and-smart-kids-vol-1-the-science/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/geocentrism-for-dumskies-and-smart-kids-vol-1-the-science/)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on January 26, 2019, 09:42:24 PM
Thanks for asking Neil.  Here you go: http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/geocentrism-for-dumskies-and-smart-kids-vol-1-the-science/ (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/geocentrism-for-dumskies-and-smart-kids-vol-1-the-science/)


Geocentrism for Dumskies and Smart Kids, Vol. 1, The Science
$29.95 – $74.95


This book teaches the scientific validity and practicality of geocentrism—that the universe daily rotates around a fixed Earth. The main part of this book is written on a Reader’s Digest level, approximately the fourth or fifth grade level. But many high school, college and adult-age individuals will find the simple writing-style helpful and informative, nonetheless. Homeschooling parents will find this book especially helpful in communicating the complex ideas of physics and cosmology to their children, as well as providing a detailed interpretation of Genesis and other books of the Bible related to cosmology. The book also contains over 200 endnotes for advanced study. Also available for purchase is the thumb drive containing over 60 animations of the geocentric system. The address and cost are contained in the book.

(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Front-Cover4-600x788.jpg) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Front-Cover4.jpg)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-1-600x412.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-1.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-2-600x412.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-2.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-3-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-3.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-4-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-4.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-5-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-5.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-6-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-6.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-7-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-7.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-8-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-8.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-9-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-9.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-10-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-10.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-11-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-11.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-12-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-12.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-13-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-13.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-14-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-14.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-15-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-15.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-16-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-16.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-17-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-17.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-18-600x407.png) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sample-page-18.png)
(http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Back-Cover-600x788.jpg) (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Back-Cover.jpg)

(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/icons/modify_inline.gif)

Report to moderator (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/geocentrism-for-kids/20/?action=reporttm;msg=641188)   (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/ip.gif) 47.7.198.216 (https://www.cathinfo.com/helpadmin/?help=see_member_ip)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on February 01, 2019, 07:57:00 AM

Klas and Cassini,

You should consider yourselves fortunate that Neil Obstat allows you to discuss geocentrism. I think it's good that you are able to do so, because it shows that you feel strongly about the subject. 

However, does the Catholic Church actually teach geocentrism? 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 01, 2019, 09:55:13 AM
However, does the Catholic Church actually teach geocentrism?

Geocentrism used to be considered a given in the Catholic Church backed up by the time honored and straight forward traditional interpretation of Sacred Scripture, as well as the Fathers, and Tradition.  Cassini has gone to great lengths to patiently explain and docuмent on CathInfo how the the teaching of geocentrism has fallen by the wayside -- just as so many other things in the Catholic Church such as the the condemnation of usury, contraception, communion in the hand, etc.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on February 01, 2019, 09:57:44 AM
Geocentrism used to be considered a given in the Catholic Church backed up by the time honored and straight forward traditional interpretation of Sacred Scripture, as well as the Fathers, and Tradition.  Cassini has gone to great lengths to patiently explain and docuмent on CathInfo how the the teaching of geocentrism has fallen by the wayside -- just as so many other things in the Catholic Church such as the the condemnation of usury, contraception, communion in the hand, etc.

But didn't geocentrism fall by the wayside some time ago, even before Vatican ll?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 02, 2019, 01:30:36 PM
But didn't geocentrism fall by the wayside some time ago, even before Vatican ll?

Yes, that is quite true Meg.  I would say the major slippage (deference to false science combined with historical criticism applied to Sacred Scripture) came about in the 19th Century.  Hoping that Cassini the expert on these matters can jump in here.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on February 03, 2019, 10:00:53 AM
Yes, that is quite true Meg.  I would say the major slippage (deference to false science combined with historical criticism applied to Sacred Scripture) came about in the 19th Century.  Hoping that Cassini the expert on these matters can jump in here.

I appreciate your charitable response. I do hope that Cassini will jump in too, and give his view of it.

It does seem like, as you say, that the slippage came about in the 19th century (or thereabouts), but I don't really know a lot about it. Certainly the view of a flat earth slipped away even before that.

Modern science became a replacement of religion (of sorts) at some point in the past; but now, of course, many people take modern science as a fact, and as a way to explain the world, and they leave behind a Catholic cosmology, though it would seem that the Church was not completely clear in what the exact cosmology is.

NASA is just so much more glamorous and impressive, with all of it's CG'd photos and such. Science fiction movies and books from the last century have also played their part in dismissing a proper Catholic conception of the universe, though of course we would not be in agreement of what the earth and heavens are shaped as. What we can agree on, maybe, is that modern science has corrupted the fact of a God-centered and created universe.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on February 03, 2019, 10:48:29 AM
Geocentrism was clearly the position of Catholics through most of our history (into the 1700s) and given explicit support by the Church.  I would expect any traditional Catholic, even those who do not personally accept geocentrism, to at least treat it with respect.  This is quite different from the idea of flat earth, which only had some support during the first centuries of the Church and was not part of Catholic thinking for most of our history.  There is no good reason to associate belief in flat earth with Catholicism.

But any Catholic ought to be dismayed by the current secularism.  In the minds of many, perhaps most, science takes the place of God and this is very very wrong.  It is idolatry.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 03, 2019, 02:02:08 PM
I appreciate your charitable response. I do hope that Cassini will jump in too, and give his view of it.

It does seem like, as you say, that the slippage came about in the 19th century (or thereabouts), but I don't really know a lot about it. Certainly the view of a flat earth slipped away even before that.

Modern science became a replacement of religion (of sorts) at some point in the past; but now, of course, many people take modern science as a fact, and as a way to explain the world, and they leave behind a Catholic cosmology, though it would seem that the Church was not completely clear in what the exact cosmology is.

NASA is just so much more glamorous and impressive, with all of it's CG'd photos and such. Science fiction movies and books from the last century have also played their part in dismissing a proper Catholic conception of the universe, though of course we would not be in agreement of what the earth and heavens are shaped as. What we can agree on, maybe, is that modern science has corrupted the fact of a God-centered and created universe.

Pope St. Pius X was spot on in his analysis of how the modernists were trying to use science to spin or altogether dismiss Sacred Scripture, the Fathers, etc.  See for example: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10lamen.htm (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10lamen.htm)

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on February 03, 2019, 02:13:19 PM
Excellent choice of reference, Klas.

I want to draw attention to the last two condemned errors listed, since they specifically concern science:

Quote
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 03, 2019, 02:46:46 PM
Excellent choice of reference, Klas.

I want to draw attention to the last two condemned errors listed, since they specifically concern science:

Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX (The Realist Guide to Religion and Science) please read Lamentabili Sane - AGAIN and AGAIN, and AGAIN.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on February 04, 2019, 07:32:42 AM
Cassini,
 
However, does the Catholic Church actually teach geocentrism?

Yes Meg, the Catholic Church does teach a geocentric revelation in Scripture which makes geocentrism a truth of creation.

However, ever since popes were convinced from 1820 at least that heliocentrism was proven correct by science, and thus biblical geocentrism was wrong, the Church's teaching on geocentrism was cleverly put on the shelf like so many other heresies condemned by the Church in the first three centuries of Catholicism.

But so too is it Catholic teaching that to believe and profess there are many worlds is Heretical. Just read A A Martinez's book BURNED ALIVE and you will get details of many heresies to do with heliocentrism, many worlds and aliens. For example he lists Thesarus of the Christian Religion (1559) and in Philaster's Book of Heresies (1578}. 'Other theologians too cited this heresy for centuries. They explained the problem: "we cannot assert that there exist two or many worlds, since neither do we assert two or many Christs." In 1459 Pope Pius II condemned the doctrine that God created another world like ours (Denzinger). In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII issued laws and such heresies in his Corpus of Canon Law. In 1616 Pope Paul V decreed heliocentrism was FORMAL heresy and Pope Urban VIII confirmed this in 1633. Today Rome boasts about other worlds and had a CONFERENCE about what the Church would say when ALIENS were found. Pope Francis said he would BAPTISE a martian if necessary.

But when 'proof' for heliocentrism was believed to be proven by science, followed by the Nebular theory (evolution of their solar system) churchmen found a way to ignore all the heresies in order to make Catholicism comply with their SCIENCE. Thus when Big Bangism evolved from heliocentrism Pope Pius XII felt he had to take the Church teaching further in line with SCIENCE. Including the body of Adam.

Now what is that SCIENCE that eliminated previous Church teaching and heresies? Well we are talking about the SCIENCE of ORIGINS here now, not about other sciences dealing with facts. The SCIENCE OF ORIGINS works this way. Extrapolate backwards but no supernatural or divine causes allowed. In other words this SCIENCE OF ORIGINS is ATHEISTIC. Do you get that?

Now when popes decided to accept atheistic science and make Catholic teaching comply with it, you get 'theistic atheism' called theistic evoluition, taught by Fr Paul Robinson SSPX and promoted by the SSPX websites. But when you eliminate the literal geocentric meaning in Scripture, and replace it with atheistic heliocentrism, you do not get truth, you get applause from the atheists in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and you join the intellectual pride enjoyed in SCIENCE. If you write a book like Fr Robinson, go look on its website and see how proud Fr Robinson must be with all those intellectuals telling us it is the best read since Gulliver's Travels.

So Meg, it is a long story, this atheistic reinterpreting of Scripture, and the hiding of those long forgotten heresies. In 1741 it all began but was finalised in 1820. They said the 1616 decree finding heliocentrism was heresy was infallible, but it applied to a VIOLENT HELIOCENTRISM. The heliocentrism allowed by Pope Pius VII was a NON-VIOLENT heliocentrism "held by modern astronomers.' So, in other words, the heresy of 1616 is still on the books, but the non violent SCIENCE is allowed. In fact the heresy had nothing to do with the earth, moving violently or not, it was to say that the sun is fixed in order to allow the Earth to orbit it. So in fact what the popes in 1820-1835 allowed the flock to believe was formally heretical.

Once taken into the womb of the Church and Scripture, all the doctrines on creation by God were compromised. One by one the teachings fell until today Popes openly profess heresies once condemned by the Fathers and FEW ARE AWARE OF THESE HERESIES. Faith on Earth is now SCIENCE and Genesis, Noah's Ark etc, all fiction to try to get the ignoramuses of those days to believe in a God created world.

But try to convince Catholics, especially traditional Catholiocs, that their popes have allowed heresies to run rampant in the Church for centuries and you will be called a LUNATIC and a heretic.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on February 05, 2019, 08:01:13 AM
Thank you for your response, Cassini.

I should have been more clear in my question, but what I meant to ask is if there is an explicit teaching of the Church for geocentrism. There may be. But just because there isn't an explicit teaching doesn't mean that Popes didn't believe it. I think that the Flat earth (which I still believe in), is in the same boat, in that earlier Fathers of the Church believed it, but since there was no explicit teaching, or unanimity about it, it is dismissed. I'm not trying to push for a flat earth on this thread at all, and I don't want to distract away from the topic for too long. I'm just trying to see if there really is an explicit teaching for geocentrism.

I do agree with much of what you write in the rest of your post. I may try to read Martinez' book Burned Alive to see the details regarding heresies having to do with heliocentrism. But can there be a case of heresy against a teaching of the Church that isn't actually explicit? You mention that these heresies were ignored by churchmen in order to comply with Nebular theory. I haven't heard of that theory (evolution of their solar system), but I'll try to research it. You mention that Big Bangism evolved from heliocentrism. That makes sense.

You related the Science of Origins, which is atheistic, and the way it works is to extrapolate backwards but with no divine or supernatural causes allowed. I would agree that that is where we are today with science. Unfortunately, the idea that the sciences must be informed by theology (with God as the first cause) has gone by the wayside.

I have heard of theistic evolution, and I know of at least one forum member who pushed for that idea back when we were debating a flat earth awhile ago here. It is the idea (if I'm not mistaken) that God has sanctioned evolution, though I can't recall if it had to do with God being directly involved in the process or not. However, supporters of it might not agree that it is atheistic, but it sounds pretty dicey to me. I can see why you disagree with Fr. Robinson in the issue, since he supports it.

I'm not understanding the difference between violent and non-violent heliocentrism. Does it have to do with the earth moving around the sun?

I agree that the false science has compromised doctrines on creation by God. It has been, IMO, one of the main forces that has allowed Modernism to take over the Church, or rather, it has helped to allow a Modernist sect to occupy the Church.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 05, 2019, 10:49:43 AM
Thank you for your response, Cassini.

I should have been more clear in my question, but what I meant to ask is if there is an explicit teaching of the Church for geocentrism. There may be. But just because there isn't an explicit teaching doesn't mean that Popes didn't believe it. I think that the Flat earth (which I still believe in), is in the same boat, in that earlier Fathers of the Church believed it, but since there was no explicit teaching, or unanimity about it, it is dismissed. I'm not trying to push for a flat earth on this thread at all, and I don't want to distract away from the topic for too long. I'm just trying to see if there really is an explicit teaching for geocentrism.

I do agree with much of what you write in the rest of your post. I may try to read Martinez' book Burned Alive to see the details regarding heresies having to do with heliocentrism. But can there be a case of heresy against a teaching of the Church that isn't actually explicit? You mention that these heresies were ignored by churchmen in order to comply with Nebular theory. I haven't heard of that theory (evolution of their solar system), but I'll try to research it. You mention that Big Bangism evolved from heliocentrism. That makes sense.

You related the Science of Origins, which is atheistic, and the way it works is to extrapolate backwards but with no divine or supernatural causes allowed. I would agree that that is where we are today with science. Unfortunately, the idea that the sciences must be informed by theology (with God as the first cause) has gone by the wayside.

I have heard of theistic evolution, and I know of at least one forum member who pushed for that idea back when we were debating a flat earth awhile ago here. It is the idea (if I'm not mistaken) that God has sanctioned evolution, though I can't recall if it had to do with God being directly involved in the process or not. However, supporters of it might not agree that it is atheistic, but it sounds pretty dicey to me. I can see why you disagree with Fr. Robinson in the issue, since he supports it.

I'm not understanding the difference between violent and non-violent heliocentrism. Does it have to do with the earth moving around the sun?

I agree that the false science has compromised doctrines on creation by God. It has been, IMO, one of the main forces that has allowed Modernism to take over the Church, or rather, it has helped to allow a Modernist sect to occupy the Church.

Thanks for your well thought out and excellent post here Meg!

In answer to your question -- yes indeed, "there is an explicit teaching of the Church for geocentrism."  I will let Cassini fill you in on this.  Unfortunately, of course, the explicit teaching has gone by the way side to be  buried under a lot of JP II and others' obfuscation, etc.

As for the question of flat earth, I cannot recommend highly enough Robert Sungenis' outstanding and in my opinion very balanced and fair study of the question in his most exemplary book Flat Earth / Flat Wrong.  I really hope you can afford to get a copy and have the time to give it a good read.  I truly believe you will feel that you have been richly rewarded by same.  See http://flatearthflatwrong.com/.  (http://flatearthflatwrong.com/)

You can get a PDF copy of the 736 page book with color pics for only $10 via the above link.  I truly believe that if you read this even handed book you will be able to resolve for yourself once and for all the question of flat earth vs. spherical earth.  God speed!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on February 06, 2019, 04:58:03 AM
Hi Meg,

On February 24th 1616, the findings, ratified by the Pope, were as follows:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by [all] the Fathers [an infallible dogma according to Trent]  and theologians.”

(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Now read the authority of this decree by a Catholic priest who was a heliocentrist.

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf)

The above decree of the Holy Office was made disappear from the record.

For example, recorded in Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma (400AD-1950AD) there are 35 decrees issued by the same Holy Office from 1602 to 1949 recorded in detail. The only one defining formal heresy, the 1616 decree, is not recorded or mentioned.

Nebular theory

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/fall04/komatsu/lec_07.pdf (http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/fall04/komatsu/lec_07.pdf)

It was Francis Bacon who invented the inductive method of extrapolation without any supernatural input at all. No God = atheism.

'Theistic-evolution' is Catholicism trying to put God back into Bacon's inductive origins. With what they call 'science' now the Gospel, popes are trying to get people to believe God presided over the most ABSURD NONSENSE called evolution. Nothing works unless it is WHOLE WITH ALL IT PARTS WORKING. Evolution tells us the bits evolved over long periods of time. The digestive system, which keeps things alive, cannot evolve. Just think about it and you will see. but get a Catholic God to perform the billion miracles and that might work. To hell with the doctrine of Ex nihilo creation, and Vatican I's dogma that God created all 'in its whole substance.'

But that is what you get after the Galilean Reformatiomn.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on February 06, 2019, 09:02:32 AM
Thank you for your good explanation, Cassini. I've only perused it this morning, and will take a more thorough look later today. At first glance, I find it interesting that the Pope, in 1616, found it formally heretical that scripture and the Fathers were contradicted in regards to the earth being the center of the world. That there was no explicit teaching of the Church that the earth is in the center is very telling.

In my opinion, in a flat earth model, the earth is also at the center of the world. What I find heartening is that the Pope didn't say anything about the shape of the earth.

I agree that evolution is absurd. If evolution were true, it would mean that our bodies (and that of animals, too) have the intelligence to re-create themselves all on their own, which seems ridiculous.

I'll be sure to study the links you provided.

Thank you again!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 06, 2019, 09:57:15 AM
 There are four separate entries in Pius V’s Catechism of the Council of Trent advocating geocentrism.  Cf: http://galileowaswrong.com/is-geocentrism-really-that-important/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/is-geocentrism-really-that-important/)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on February 06, 2019, 10:05:02 AM
There are four separate entries in Pius V’s Catechism of the Council of Trent advocating geocentrism.  Cf: http://galileowaswrong.com/is-geocentrism-really-that-important/ (http://galileowaswrong.com/is-geocentrism-really-that-important/)

Thanks for the link, Klas. But I don't really trust Sungenis' view of the situation, so I'd rather not read anything by him. If you have other sources, I might read it. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 06, 2019, 12:00:13 PM
Thanks for the link, Klas. But I don't really trust Sungenis' view of the situation,
Meg, I ask this in all sincerity.  Without sinning are you able to elaborate here (or by sending me a private message) why you, "don't really trust Sungenis' view of the situation."  If you don't trust him are you basing this lack of trust on your own personal knowledge of him or on what you have heard another or others say/write about him?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on February 06, 2019, 12:33:46 PM

I agree that evolution is absurd. If evolution were true, it would mean that our bodies (and that of animals, too) have the intelligence to re-create themselves all on their own, which seems ridiculous.

I'll be sure to study the links you provided.

Thank you again!

Here is another thought for you Meg.

By 1950, we find both Catholic faith and science had evolved even more. In Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis he felt he could write the following:

‘36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.'

In Genesis God tells us he made Man different to animals in that whereas he gave animals etc the ability to produce their offspring in body and soul. So an animal always has an animal soul (the ability to live). An animal will die body and soul, end of story.

But Genesis tells us that God made Man's body from the earth and THEN infused a soul into the body. This infusion He continues to do with every baby conceived.

Now if Adam came from a Humani Generis 'pre-existent and living matter,' then Adam's body HAD TO HAVE AN ANIMAL SOUL. But Genesis tells us he was infused with a human soul. This suggests that an evolved body Adam must have had two souls Now two souls is heresy.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1403.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1403.htm)

Did you ever think we would see the day when a pope would offer a potential heresy in an Encyclical? But that is where their 1835 submission to natural philosophy has taken them.


Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 11, 2019, 10:36:52 PM
 Robert Sungenis makes some very astute comments here: http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/ (http://kolbecenter.org/the-case-against-theistic-evolution/)

Young: Were this creationist interpretation of Lateran IV correct, it would certainly mean, as its proponents allege, that the theory of evolution is heresy. But that gives rise to an impossible position: It would mean Popes Pius XII and John Paul II have taught heresy. In the encyclical Humani Generis Pius XII allows the possibility of evolution.
Sungenis: This really needs to be unwrapped. First, when we are speaking about ecclesiastical hierarchy, “heresy” is a technical term assigned to someone who deliberately and consistently, without repentance even though corrected, makes a formal statement against an official and infallible church teaching. There are a lot of things that are false, but that doesn’t mean they have been formally declared as heresy by the Church. Neither Pius XII or John Paul II have ever formally denied the statements concerning ex nihilo creation in Lateran IV, nor the phrase “whole substance” in Vatican Council 1. And since those statements are the only two infallible decrees we have on Creation, aside from the authoritative encyclical of Leo XII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientae, opponents have some room with which to play. So, until the details about the Creation are formulated and dogmatized by the Church, I don’t think anyone is in heresy for suggesting that evoution is a theory.
But the point of this paper is that, suggesting there is a process, and proving that there is a process, are two entirely different things.
******************************************************************************************************************
ALSO SEE UNDER THE HEADING "Pope Pius XII and Evolution"
AT http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p63.htm (http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p63.htm)

Sungenis: Here is the first indication that someone slipped wording into the PAS address that Pius XII did not say. Pius XII did not say that evolution was a 'serious hypothesis' and neither did he say that a six-day Creation (the only other option) was an 'opposing hypothesis.' The only time Pius XII uses the word 'hypotheses' is in a caution against allowing the assumptions of science to determine truth. He writes in Humani Generis:
Sungenis: Pius XII neither said that evolution is 'worthy of investigation' or 'in-depth study,' since those words are not found in the encyclical Humani Generis. He simply said 'Church does NOT FORBID that...research and discussions...take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution. He did not encourage it, or consider it 'worthy' or require an 'in-depth study,' but simply allowed those who wished to investigate it to do so.
First, six-day Creation is not the only other option opposing (theistic) evolution, since there are several others: progressive or old-earth creationism, and various forms of "intelligent design." Second, I'll repeat what I summarized the last time from Pius XII:
Quote
(1) The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.
(2) Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
(3) All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans [that there were many Adams and Eves].
I don't think we disagree on the understanding of Humani Generis. The above summary is from an EWTN article on evolution. Some theologians try to interpret Pius XII as not excluding polygenism explicitly or altogether. The relevant sentence is this:
Quote
'Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the docuмents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.' [Pius XII, Humani Generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1-4]
So Pius XII may be saying he does not see how polygenism and the truths of faith could be reconciled, but perhaps he is leaving this question open for a possible future reconciliation. For example, from The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Docuмents of the Catholic Church (1996 edition), on Humani Generis the authors / editors Fr. Neuner and Dupuis, S.J. state:
Quote
"In the context of other errors, Pius XII treats two questions regarding the origin of the human person. Firstly, the human being's origin through evolution from other living beings: while formerly evolution was rejected as irreconcilable with the biblical account of creation (which was interpreted in too literal a sense), and as implying a materialistic conception of the human being, the question is now left open to scholarly investigation, provided that the creation of the soul by God is maintained. Secondly, monogenism or polygenism, i.e. the question whether the human race must be conceived as descending from a single couple or can be considered to originate from several couples: polygenism is rejected because 'it does not appear' [or 'it is not at all apparent'] to be reconcilable with the doctrine of original sin inherited by all from Adam. Recent theology, however, is seeking explanations of original sin under the supposition of polygenism, and so tries to remove the reason for its rejection." (J. Neuner, J. Dupuis, The Christian Faith [1996], page 169, emphasis added)
See also the EWTN article "The Credo of Paul VI: Theology of Original Sin and the Scientific Theory of Evolution" (http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SINEVOL.HTM) by Roberto Masi:
Quote
"....according to the opinions of the above mentioned exegetes and theologians, it results that Revelation and Dogma say nothing directly concerning Monogenism or Polygenism, neither in favour nor against them. Besides, these scientific hypotheses are per se outside the field of Revelation. Within this context, different combinations of the scientific theory of evolution are therefore hypothetically possible or compatible with the doctrine of original sin. One can nevertheless consider biological monogenism together. Humanity has its origin in a single couple; this couple committed the sin against God and as a result of this all their children are born in original sin. This is the classical doctrine. Or it is possible to admit a biological polygenism and a theological monogenism. Evolution brought about not a single couple but many men, who constituted the primitive human population. One of these, who may be considered the leader, rebelled against God. This sin passed on to all men, his contemporaries, not by imitation, but by real propagation (Council of Trent Session V, DS. 1513), that is by a real solidarity already existing in this primordial human population. In them actual sinful humanity has its origin. It is also possible to combine biological and theological polygenism: all the primitive human population rebelled concordantly against God and from them are born the other sinful men. These hypotheses are only suppositions which many think are not contrary to Revelation and the bible. Even if we accept as valid the scientific theory of evolution and polygenism, it can still be in accordance with the dogma of original sin in the various manners indicated." (Roberto Masi, from L'Osservatore Romano, the newspaper of the Holy See, weekly edition in English, 17 April 1969)
Sungenis: In fact, Pius XII said, if one is going to do an investigation, he must reveal the evidence for AND against evolution. Is this what we see today in Catholic circles? Not anything close. Evolution is accepted as fact among most 'investigators,' yet it doesn't have any proof.
Sungenis: Unfortunately for Mr. P.'s appeal, most Catholics who believe in evolution and teach in our seminaries and universities believe in polygenism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on February 12, 2019, 05:06:54 AM
'So, until the details about the Creation are formulated and dogmatized by the Church, I don’t think anyone is in heresy for suggesting that evoution is a theory.'--- Sungenis.

Incredible, isn't it. The Catholic Church, 2019 years in operation and there is no dogma about how God created the world and all that is in it. Over 3000 years since Genesis was written, and in spite of Church teaching that every word of the Bible is true, only that God created the soul of Adam is upheld as a dogma. Did anyone ever notice when offering evolution as a possibility, even the evolution of Adam's body, one soul or two souls  - for that is what discussion is - the body of Eve never gets a mention.

Time was other worlds and aliens was condemned as heretical but today it can be argued because there is not dogma on aliens then popes can now entertain the idea that aliens exist, opening up all sorts of fairy tales in association to human existence, Original Sin, the need for a Redeemer, the ONLY SON OF GOD, and Heaven.  Yeh, fancy meeting Aliens in Heavenand even a few million other redeemers, the other sons and daughters of God. The Brunos used to say God is infinite so he must have shown this by creating an infinite number of worlds like ours. This was one of the heresies Bruno was burned at the stake for, but today Pope Francis can say he would baptise a Martian if he, she, or it asked for it. Such contradictions make Catholicism today a joke and one of the reasons few can take it seriously anymore.

The fact that evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, makes no difference, Catholics can now 'discuss' nonsense by way of papal teachings, so long as they are not official teachings. Now a religion that indulges in nonsense is not my idea of a religion that professes infallible truth. or clarity. No, Catholicism with evolution and aliens in not true Catholicism.

In other words Catholicism has undergone a Galilean reformation, and that is what reformations do. Once popes believed the papal decree of 1616, admitted by the Holy office to be irreformable in 1820, was in error - NO POPE SINCE DARED TO DOGMATISE ANYTHING THAT 'SCIENCE' MÍGHT PROVE LATER TO BE IN ERROR. This of course gave licence for that Big Bang and atheistic evolution to be a possibility of God's creation even though it contradicted the creation as Moses described in Genesis. And that is why Catholicism as a religion of faith in an omnipotent God who created all in the beginning, all perfect and in working order, has now been replaced with an EVOLVED RELIGION.


'

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 14, 2019, 11:19:16 AM
'So, until the details about the Creation are formulated and dogmatized by the Church, I don’t think anyone is in heresy for suggesting that evoution is a theory.'--- Sungenis.

Incredible, isn't it. The Catholic Church, 2019 years in operation and there is no dogma about how God created the world and all that is in it. Over 3000 years since Genesis was written, and in spite of Church teaching that every word of the Bible is true, only that God created the soul of Adam is upheld as a dogma. Did anyone ever notice when offering evolution as a possibility, even the evolution of Adam's body, one soul or two souls  - for that is what discussion is - the body of Eve never gets a mention.

Time was other worlds and aliens was condemned as heretical but today it can be argued because there is not dogma on aliens then popes can now entertain the idea that aliens exist, opening up all sorts of fairy tales in association to human existence, Original Sin, the need for a Redeemer, the ONLY SON OF GOD, and Heaven.  Yeh, fancy meeting Aliens in Heavenand even a few million other redeemers, the other sons and daughters of God. The Brunos used to say God is infinite so he must have shown this by creating an infinite number of worlds like ours. This was one of the heresies Bruno was burned at the stake for, but today Pope Francis can say he would baptise a Martian if he, she, or it asked for it. Such contradictions make Catholicism today a joke and one of the reasons few can take it seriously anymore.

The fact that evolution is nonsense, simple nonsense, makes no difference, Catholics can now 'discuss' nonsense by way of papal teachings, so long as they are not official teachings. Now a religion that indulges in nonsense is not my idea of a religion that professes infallible truth. or clarity. No, Catholicism with evolution and aliens in not true Catholicism.

In other words Catholicism has undergone a Galilean reformation, and that is what reformations do. Once popes believed the papal decree of 1616, admitted by the Holy office to be irreformable in 1820, was in error - NO POPE SINCE DARED TO DOGMATISE ANYTHING THAT 'SCIENCE' MÍGHT PROVE LATER TO BE IN ERROR. This of course gave licence for that Big Bang and atheistic evolution to be a possibility of God's creation even though it contradicted the creation as Moses described in Genesis. And that is why Catholicism as a religion of faith in an omnipotent God who created all in the beginning, all perfect and in working order, has now been replaced with an EVOLVED RELIGION.


'

Excellent post Cassini!

Of course, we are not abandoning the Catholic Faith/Church, but we including Sungenis do NOT accept the errors which the heads of the Catholic Church have (in their disoriented state? and that's perhaps stating it way too kindly) allowed to be tossed about in the Church, errors which do not have the official Magisterial backing of the Catholic Church, but errors which nevertheless have been allowed the unofficial de facto backing of that Church and which have caused and continue to cause incalculable damage to Christ's Mystical Body.  May that we all continue to pray and sacrifice for the Consecration of Russia!

As an aside, many believe that the Consecration if done "in time" will prevent a universal physical chastisement (i.e., "fire from the sky").  I, for one, believe that it may well be that we eventually have a Consecration immediately or very shortly thereafter FOLLOWED by a universal physical chastisement.  In any case, I think the world has become so evil that we are going to get a major universal physical chastisement regardless of whenever the Consecration of Russia is carried out.  God is not mocked!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Matthew on February 15, 2019, 03:37:00 PM
That book looks interesting.

I am a Geocentrist myself.  "Galileo Was Wrong" and "The Principle" convinced me. Actually, I favored "GWW" over The Principle. It was fascinating and made a very good case which leaves you speechless.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on February 15, 2019, 09:58:27 PM
 Actually, I favored "GWW" over The Principle. It was fascinating and made a very good case which leaves you speechless.
Amen.  I did as well.

The Principle which was originally intended to be a movie strictly promoting geocentrism got subverted into one trying to present a "balanced both sides" picture of the Copernican Principle.  It was a great movie in some respects, but unfortunately it was what it was -- a Hollywood/Catholicism hybrid.

One of its most serious flaws in my opinion was letting the falsehood based smear against the Catholic Church (i.e., the Bruno Affair) go unanswered.

Ironically, I for one, think it would have done significantly better at the Box Office if it had been a straight out 100% scientific based  endorsement of geocentrism.  They could have saved a lot of production costs by skipping most, if not all, of the interviews and just given a much more clear and unambiguous presentation of the case for geocentrism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on May 05, 2019, 01:28:08 PM
Geocentrism was clearly the position of Catholics through most of our history (into the 1700s) and given explicit support by the Church.  I would expect any traditional Catholic, even those who do not personally accept geocentrism, to at least treat it with respect.  This is quite different from the idea of flat earth, which only had some support during the first centuries of the Church and was not part of Catholic thinking for most of our history.  There is no good reason to associate belief in flat earth with Catholicism.

But any Catholic ought to be dismayed by the current secularism.  In the minds of many, perhaps most, science takes the place of God and this is very very wrong.  It is idolatry.
Are you sure?  They always taught us in public school that people used to think the Earth was flat, especially at the time of Christopher Columbus.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on May 05, 2019, 03:31:25 PM
Are you sure?  They always taught us in public school that people used to think the Earth was flat, especially at the time of Christopher Columbus.  

What you got taught in public school was basically anti-Catholic propaganda.  I bet they didn't teach you that the Crusades were justified or give a fair explanation of the Spanish Inquisition either.  

Quote
The Spanish Inquisition is often cited in popular literature and history as an example of religious intolerance and repression. Some historians have come to conclude that many of the charges levied against the Inquisition are exaggerated, and are a result of the Black Legend (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend#The_Spanish_Black_Legend) produced by political and religious enemies of Spain, especially England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)

There have already been lots of posts in this subforum explaining this in detail.  We know that that this story about belief in flat earth at the time of Columbus is false.  We have a pretty good idea of how and why the myth was spread and even published in school books.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: WholeFoodsTrad on May 07, 2019, 12:25:32 PM
What you got taught in public school was basically anti-Catholic propaganda.  I bet they didn't teach you that the Crusades were justified or give a fair explanation of the Spanish Inquisition either. 

There have already been lots of posts in this subforum explaining this in detail.  We know that that this story about belief in flat earth at the time of Columbus is false.  We have a pretty good idea of how and why the myth was spread and even published in school books. 

I am aware that The Spanish Inquisition, which lasted for over four hundred years, was for the legitimate defense of Spain and that the Inquisition strove to be quite fair and the actual numbers of executions and aquitalls reflect that.  I am also aware of English/Protestant propaganda in regards to The Inquisition.  However, I am not aware that The Flat Earth story is the same thing, particularly since The Bible depicts a Flat Earth.  I mean just because Protestants and The English used The Spanish Inquisition to defame Catholics, doesn't mean it didn't occur.  So, I doubt this question is as settled as you say.  However, I am interested in reading other threads on the topic and would apprectiate any suggestions. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on May 07, 2019, 03:15:32 PM
I am aware that The Spanish Inquisition, which lasted for over four hundred years, was for the legitimate defense of Spain and that the Inquisition strove to be quite fair and the actual numbers of executions and aquitalls reflect that.  I am also aware of English/Protestant propaganda in regards to The Inquisition.  However, I am not aware that The Flat Earth story is the same thing, particularly since The Bible depicts a Flat Earth.  I mean just because Protestants and The English used The Spanish Inquisition to defame Catholics, doesn't mean it didn't occur.  So, I doubt this question is as settled as you say.  However, I am interested in reading other threads on the topic and would apprectiate any suggestions.
The claims that Catholics at the time of Columbus believed in a flat earth are even less true than the claims about the Spanish Inquisition.  While Catholics disagreed on the shape of the earth during the Patristic period we had reached a consensus that it is a sphere long before the time of Columbus.  St. Bede wrote an influential work teaching the earth is a sphere around 700 AD and this remained the position of educated Catholics from that point on.  St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Albert the Great taught it.  The Church-run medieval universities taught it.

The majority of Catholics throughout history have not believed that Scripture teaches the earth is flat.  St. Augustine, around 400 AD, taught the Scripture is silent concerning the shape of the earth. So did St. Basil.  This is the view that spread through the Church and was eventually incorporated in a papal encyclical.  Catholics believed it was a matter to determine through science, and that is what St. Bede, St. Thomas, etc. did.  They all believed that science showed the earth is a sphere.  (Of course, you are free to disagree with them about science, if you want.)

The idea that Scripture teaches a flat earth comes from Protestants and is not the Church's interpretation of Scripture.  So we are not free to claim that Scripture teaches the earth is flat.

Here is a post with more detail about Columbus:  https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg581137/#msg581137 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/did-catholics-before-the-'reformation'-believe-in-fe/msg581137/#msg581137)

And here is a post with more about St. Augustine: https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-shape-of-the-earth-is-not-important-to-the-faith/msg612710/#msg612710 (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/the-shape-of-the-earth-is-not-important-to-the-faith/msg612710/#msg612710)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Smedley Butler on May 10, 2019, 08:08:22 AM
I was taught in public school that Columbus proved there earth was not flat, but round, and there was ZERO mention made of the Catholic Church at all.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on May 10, 2019, 09:37:28 AM
I was taught in public school that Columbus proved there earth was not flat, but round, and there was ZERO mention made of the Catholic Church at all.
It could certainly be argued that public schools like broken clocks are correct twice a day.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on May 11, 2019, 09:47:36 AM
It could certainly be argued that public schools like broken clocks are correct twice a day.
Columbus confirmed a well-known and widely accepted belief. When public schools teach that Columbus proved the world was round, it is too misleading to refer to it as correct.  It was not an idea that needing proving since it has already been accepted by all educated Catholic for centuries.  

Typically public schools spread the myth that the stupid, flat-earth believing Catholics, due to their religious indoctrination and fear of tyrannical authorities, resisted the insight of clever Columbus that the world is round until he proved it with his journey.  Sometimes the explicitly anti-Catholic parts of this myth are not stated, but they are the underlying assumption to claiming that Columbus proved the world is round.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on May 13, 2019, 11:03:22 AM
Another example of anti-Catholic myths likely to be spread in public schools is "poor persecuted Galileo".  Students may end up being taught that Galileo was a brave and brilliant man who resisted against the superstitious tyranny of the Catholic Church.  

As most of us know, Galileo was unable to get enough science evidence to back up his theory, so he tried using his connections in the Church to get support for it on theological grounds. The Church authorities, however, did not cooperate with his attempt to manipulate them.  They also rightly punished him for making personal interpretations of Scripture, though quite mildly considering the seriousness of the offense.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: klasG4e on May 13, 2019, 12:05:15 PM
Another example of anti-Catholic myths likely to be spread in public schools is "poor persecuted Galileo".  Students may end up being taught that Galileo was a brave and brilliant man who resisted against the superstitious tyranny of the Catholic Church.  

As most of us know, Galileo was unable to get enough science evidence to back up his theory, so he tried using his connections in the Church to get support for it on theological grounds. The Church authorities, however, did not cooperate with his attempt to manipulate them.  They also rightly punished him for making personal interpretations of Scripture, though quite mildly considering the seriousness of the offense.
The book which is considered anathema by public schools and even many Catholic schools: (https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fbooks%2F1331027068i%2F3037853._UY630_SR1200,630_.jpg&sp=abc86240bb672ec4d019e7f90e973bc0)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on June 11, 2023, 08:59:53 AM
So Meg, it is a long story, this atheistic reinterpreting of Scripture, and the hiding of those long forgotten heresies. In 1741 it all began but was finalised in 1820. They said the 1616 decree finding heliocentrism was heresy was infallible, but it applied to a VIOLENT HELIOCENTRISM. The heliocentrism allowed by Pope Pius VII was a NON-VIOLENT heliocentrism "held by modern astronomers.' So, in other words, the heresy of 1616 is still on the books, but the non violent SCIENCE is allowed. In fact the heresy had nothing to do with the earth, moving violently or not, it was to say that the sun is fixed in order to allow the Earth to orbit it. So in fact what the popes in 1820-1835 allowed the flock to believe was formally heretical.
Great post. I have not read the docuмents in question but if the Popes allowed the faithful to believe heresy how does this impact indefectibility? I am going to assume they didn't teach it in their authority, but rather stood by and allowed it. Is represent the actual situation? Also how should this be viewed when considering that Honorius was condemned for not standing up for the faith?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on June 11, 2023, 09:14:25 AM
Now read the authority of this decree by a Catholic priest who was a heliocentrist.

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf)

The docuмent is 71 pages long. Can you give me a short version?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on June 11, 2023, 10:20:13 AM
The docuмent is 71 pages long. Can you give me a short version?

On 18 July 1870, Pope Pius IX’s Vatican I defined the dogma of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. This dogma clarified when and how a pope is guaranteed freedom from error by God when defining matters of faith and morals. Outside of these conditions a pope is not infallible, and his opinions have no guarantees of divine guidance or correctness. With this dogmatic Council’s ruling came a new crisis of faith arising from the Galileo affair. One by one Vatican I’s teachings on infallibility ostensibly confirmed the authority of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree and Pope Urban VIII’s ratification of it in 1633 as an irreversible act of the ordinary magisterium.  In 1870, a priest, the Rev. Roberts, based on the Council’s ruling on infallibility and the newly released records of the Galileo case from the secret archives, asserted the 1616 decree and its confirmation in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII, was an infallible act, but that as geocentrism was proven false, this showed the dogma of infallibility itself was proven false or that God was not the Author of the Church’s Bible.

Fr Roberts, a Catholic priest, who wrote the above in 1870 and republished it again in 1885, was one more unfortunate soul who believed heliocentrism was proven, and was aware that Biblical heliocentrism was conceded to by popes in 1820-35. Alas, this led him to conclude these passages of Scripture could not have been written under the inspiration of God. Heliocentrism then, caused Fr Roberts to reject Vatican I’s dogma of infallibility, another heresy in itself.

‘I found it laid down by such distinguished representatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’--- Fr W. Roberts.

Father Roberts writes: ‘How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an interpretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence supporting heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict that theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact. Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words that he - by those laws under the circuмstances - is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded [and phrased] as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That God demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that acceptance of the [Galilean] interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, there¬fore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt [in 1820-35] to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspiration, for the Vatican Council I has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. Cardinal Franzelin has shown that this doc¬trine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of lan¬guage, that they chose, and chose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning. In Galileo’s time, when heliocentrism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one [a heliocentric one], it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies that Scripture in all its parts is the written Word of God. The doctrine, there¬fore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Roman Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’

Fr Roberts’s arguments on the authority of the 1616 ruling:

‘It is satisfactory to obtain so frank an acknowledgment from my opponent that the terms of the [1616] condemnation meant “heresy,” and nothing short of it; that the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities considered, and in effect said, that heliocentricism is a heresy. Now, I submit that, no matter who says it, ‘whether a ‘Pope speaking ex cathedrâ, or a mere layman, whoever says categorically that an opinion is “heresy,” ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith. To generate an obligation of faith, it is by no means necessary that the witness to the fact of revelation should claim for his testimony infallible certainty, but only such certainty as will exclude all prudent fear, ne non locutus sit Deus…. It is important to bear in mind that in the case before us the Index was called into action to give effect to the decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, a Congregation that is in a very special way under Papal direction. The Pope as pope is its president. He is present at its meetings every Thursday. He has in¬formed the Church that he reserves the presidency of this Congregation to himself, because of the intimate connection of its decisions with the preservation of the faith. But if the Pope when he acts as its president never intends to act in the capacity wherein he is divinely secured from making mistakes, how delusive is this assurance! What good does the Church get from his presidency? The Pope not divinely assisted is likely, nay, in a vast number of cases, far more likely, to decide erroneously than some of his Cardinals. And as to his superior authority, the more authoritative an erroneous decision is, the more harm it is likely to do. Either, then, the judgments in question are ex cathedrâ; or the Pope claims to decide doctrinal questions for all Catholics in a capacity in which he is liable to make mistakes, and so the Holy See may be a source of error to the Church Universal; or the Pope’s prerogative of inerrancy be¬longs to him even when he is not speaking ex cathedrâ. Of course there was not, and there could not have been, the remotest intention of making geocentricism a matter of faith by the mere force of a definition; but the question the Copernican controversy raised was whether the doctrine of the sun’s diurnal movement was not already of faith in virtue of the plain state¬ments of Holy Scripture [and judgments of previous popes in early centuries of the Church]. The Roman church, as John De Lugo says, propounds the whole of Holy Scripture, and every part of it, to be received as the Word of God, so that to contradict the express assertion of a sacred writer is not less heresy than to contradict the definition of a general council. To say that Abraham had not two sons is not less heresy than to say that our Lord had not two wills. Unquestionably the sacred writers, in terms, ascribe diurnal movement to the sun; therefore, urged the anti-Copernican theologian, the theory that denies that movement is false and heretical. The conclusion is irresistible, if the language objected is so expressed as to forbid the supposition that not real, but only apparent movement may be meant. And that it is so expressed is what Rome [in 1616] in effect decided, when on the one hand she pronounced the heliocentric theses false, and altogether adverse to the divine Scriptures and on the other condemned as destructive to Catholic truth the advocacy of an opposite opinion. After this, the thoroughly submissive Catholic had no alternative but to recognise the heretical character of the new system; yet the decision plainly proceeded on the assumption that the matter was not open to legitimate doubt before its issue; and therefore, however clearly ex cathedrâ, it would be a judgment of a very different kind from that by which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. On turning to Marie Dominique Bouix’s Tractatus de Curia Romana we learn that there are three kinds of Congregational decrees; (1) Those that the Pope puts forth in his name after consulting a Congregation; (2) Those that a Congregation puts forth in its own name with the Pope’s confirmation, or express order to publish. (3) Those that a Congregation with the Pope’s sanction puts forth in its own name, but without the Pope’s confirmation or express order to publish. Decrees of the first and second class, we are told, are certainly ex cathedrâ, and to be received with unqualified assent under pain of mortal sin. According to Fr Antonio Zaccaria, a very great authority, even decrees of the last class are not fallible, in the sense that they can ever condemn as erroneous a doctrine which is not so.

‘But it is almost as easy to show that the condemnation of Copernicanism was not in this sense a safe judgment, as to show that it was not a true one, to prove that it was a mistake at all. For what was the doctrine of that judgment as it was authoritatively interpreted by Rome? This: that heliocentricism is false and altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures, meaning by the phrase, as the monitum (1620) explained it; “repugnant to the true and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, according to the ruling of Pope Urban VIII and the Pontifical Congregation of the Inquisition [in 1633], the decision taught that heliocentrism is a heresy to be abjured, cursed, and detested with the other heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. Now, it is as clear as daylight that if all Catholics had embraced this doctrine with unreserved assent, “plene, perfecte, et absolute,” all Catholics would have held it to be of faith that heliocentrism is false, and thus the whole Church would so far have been in error in its faith. But for the whole Church to be in error in any point it holds to be of faith is plainly irreconcilable with the passive infallibility claimed for it by theologians, or even with its claims to be infallible in its ordinary magisterium, for what it believes it will surely teach “credidi propter quod locutus sum.” And apart from this consideration, ob¬viously it must be against the cause of the Christian faith for all Christians to be persuaded that its teachings conflict with, and demand the suppression and complete elimination from thought of, opinions that are on their way to be proved true…..

W. G. Ward writes: “We fully admit that an unobvious interpretation of the apparently anti-Copernican texts is possible; and indeed is, as we now know, the true one. We admit that our Blessed Lord, when He looked up to heaven and when He spoke of ascending to the Father, did but accommodate Himself to existing physical beliefs. We admit that the Holy Ghost, for wise purposes, as, for instance, that He might not violently interfere with the healthy slow progress of physical science permitted the sacred writers to express themselves in language which was literally true as understood by them, but was figurative in the highest degree as intended by Him. We only say, in accordance with our first proposition, that such an exposition of Scripture would be grossly irreverent, unchristian, and uncatholic, unless there was some overwhelming scientific probability to render it legitimate.” 

Fr Roberts answers Ward: ‘According to these words of Ward’s, the Copernican inter¬pretation of Scripture, the true one [no, never proven true], the one intended by God, is intrinsically considered non-reasonable. It is inadmissible on its own merits, and by every sound canon of exegesis. It is so violently opposed to the general drift and implication of Scripture, and to the obvious meaning of particular texts, that nothing short of an express assurance from the Author of Scripture Himself that He really did mean [a fixed sun] would render it legitimate. Such an assurance having been given in these latter days through the conclusions [no, false theories] of science, the unobvious and forced character of the exposition is no longer any bar to its reception; on the principle that a man may interpret his own words as he pleases. “God,” says Dr. Ward, “surely has the right to interpret His own Word, for you would not deny this right to an ordinary mortal” (Authority of Doctrinal Decisions, p. 143). But in Galileo’s time God had given no hint that He had meant anything so extremely improbable. Heliocentrism [a long-condemned heresy] at that time was “a random scientific conjecture,” with “no leg to stand on.”  The ecclesiastical authorities were therefore only doing their duty in declaring it was altogether contrary to Scripture.
Desperate indeed must be the cause that stands in need of such monstrous doctrine [That God allowed a heretical wording in Scripture]. Disregarding for the present the grotesque misrepresentation of the scientific status of heliocentrism in Galileo’s time, who admits for a moment that an ordinary mortal may deter¬mine retrospectively the meaning of his words, and be quit of responsibility for their deceptive effect, on the strength of a subsequent declaration, that he meant the very reverse of what he said or wrote? So far as the Bible professes to teach, and contains assertions that demand belief, assuredly it cannot differ from all other books in this, that its meaning must not be held to depend on the, so to say, objective significance of its language, but on the reserved and unexpressed intention of its author. How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an inter¬pretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact. Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now [think we] know to be the truth, and that, there¬fore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspira¬tion, for the Vatican Council I has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. The Jesuit Cardinal Franzelin (1816-1886) [author of many books on theological questions] has shown that this doc¬trine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of language, that they choose, and choose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the Earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the Earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one, it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies. The doctrine, there¬fore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’--- pp.39-44.

‘Moreover, the judgment of Rome must outweigh the judgment of individual theologians; and the point I insist on is, that the minimising interpretation of the decree, the interpretation advocated by Dr. Ward and the apologists, is precisely the one that stands empha¬tically repudiated and denounced by a Pontifical Congregation as involving the gravest error. Before the Inquisitorial sentence of 1633 it might perhaps have been plausibly urged that the decree of the Index was only disciplinary in its scope, that the censures “false and repugnant to Scripture” belonged to the preamble, and not to the decree itself. But to say this in the face of the sentence on Galileo is to say that Rome did not know her own mind, and could not interpret aright her own decisions. The minimising and apologetic view of the decree is, that the Church did not thereby mean to say that it is quite certain, but only highly probable, that helio¬centricism is contrary to Scripture; and that she did not intend to deny that the progress of science might change the theological aspect of things. So understood, it is as clear as the sun at noonday that the decision could not, seventeen years afterwards, have shown that it was impossible for the censured opinion to be in any way probable. But this is the very thing Rome, in 1633, declared the decision did show, and pronounced it a most grave error to suppose that it did not – “since in no manner can an opinion be probable that has already been declared and defined to be contrary to the divine Scripture.” And it must be noted that the Congregation is expressly referring to the kind of probability Galileo claimed for Copernicanism in Galileo’s Dialogo, intrinsic probability based on scientific considerations. Did the Congregation mean to say, “Since this opinion has been pronounced contrary to Scripture by a judgment that was not meant to be final, a judgment possibly erroneous, a judgment open to correction by the progress of science, it involves the gravest error to suppose that it can in any manner, even scientifically, be probable.” Yet this is just the non¬sense it did mean to talk, if it did not mean its state¬ment in a sense that excludes the apologist’s version of the decree. And in the actual sentence the Congre¬gation showed its mind still more plainly, for it implicitly classed the decision with those definitions of the Church, the truth of which it would be heresy to challenge: “We say, pronounce, and declare that you, the said Galileo, on account of the things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, that you believed and held a doctrine false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures, to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not in the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.” Such language was, of course, ludicrously inapplicable to the case, unless the decision ought to have been taken as the Church’s judgment, and as absolutely true.’ 

  ‘Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter [from a moving sun to a fixed sun] makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the [fixed-sun] interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know [claim] to be the truth, there¬fore, God could not have been their author?’- Fr Roberts, Pontifical D.
   
At the end of his booklet, Fr Roberts summarises the situation that prevailed within Catholicism in the wake of the infamous acceptance of a ‘non-violent’ heliocentrism, consequences that all who continue to defend to this day must subscribe to, ramifications that no true Catholic could possibly accept:

‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the Galileo case seems to me to teach in direct opposi¬tion to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only truly false, but theologically considered, danger¬ous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit com¬mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, a Pope [Alexander VII in 1664], in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci¬sions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Con¬gregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunica¬tion, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has con¬firmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the Earth moves?’
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on June 11, 2023, 08:01:29 PM
On 18 July 1870, Pope Pius IX’s Vatican I defined the dogma of the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff. This dogma clarified when and how a pope is guaranteed freedom from error by God when defining matters of faith and morals. Outside of these conditions a pope is not infallible, and his opinions have no guarantees of divine guidance or correctness. With this dogmatic Council’s ruling came a new crisis of faith arising from the Galileo affair. One by one Vatican I’s teachings on infallibility ostensibly confirmed the authority of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree and Pope Urban VIII’s ratification of it in 1633 as an irreversible act of the ordinary magisterium.  In 1870, a priest, the Rev. Roberts, based on the Council’s ruling on infallibility and the newly released records of the Galileo case from the secret archives, asserted the 1616 decree and its confirmation in 1633 by Pope Urban VIII, was an infallible act, but that as geocentrism was proven false, this showed the dogma of infallibility itself was proven false or that God was not the Author of the Church’s Bible.

Fr Roberts, a Catholic priest, who wrote the above in 1870 and republished it again in 1885, was one more unfortunate soul who believed heliocentrism was proven, and was aware that Biblical heliocentrism was conceded to by popes in 1820-35. Alas, this led him to conclude these passages of Scripture could not have been written under the inspiration of God. Heliocentrism then, caused Fr Roberts to reject Vatican I’s dogma of infallibility, another heresy in itself.

‘I found it laid down by such distinguished representatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’--- Fr W. Roberts.

Father Roberts writes: ‘How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an interpretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence supporting heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict that theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact. Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words that he - by those laws under the circuмstances - is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded [and phrased] as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That God demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that acceptance of the [Galilean] interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, there¬fore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt [in 1820-35] to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspiration, for the Vatican Council I has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. Cardinal Franzelin has shown that this doc¬trine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of lan¬guage, that they chose, and chose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning. In Galileo’s time, when heliocentrism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one [a heliocentric one], it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies that Scripture in all its parts is the written Word of God. The doctrine, there¬fore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Roman Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’

Fr Roberts’s arguments on the authority of the 1616 ruling:

‘It is satisfactory to obtain so frank an acknowledgment from my opponent that the terms of the [1616] condemnation meant “heresy,” and nothing short of it; that the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities considered, and in effect said, that heliocentricism is a heresy. Now, I submit that, no matter who says it, ‘whether a ‘Pope speaking ex cathedrâ, or a mere layman, whoever says categorically that an opinion is “heresy,” ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith. To generate an obligation of faith, it is by no means necessary that the witness to the fact of revelation should claim for his testimony infallible certainty, but only such certainty as will exclude all prudent fear, ne non locutus sit Deus…. It is important to bear in mind that in the case before us the Index was called into action to give effect to the decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, a Congregation that is in a very special way under Papal direction. The Pope as pope is its president. He is present at its meetings every Thursday. He has in¬formed the Church that he reserves the presidency of this Congregation to himself, because of the intimate connection of its decisions with the preservation of the faith. But if the Pope when he acts as its president never intends to act in the capacity wherein he is divinely secured from making mistakes, how delusive is this assurance! What good does the Church get from his presidency? The Pope not divinely assisted is likely, nay, in a vast number of cases, far more likely, to decide erroneously than some of his Cardinals. And as to his superior authority, the more authoritative an erroneous decision is, the more harm it is likely to do. Either, then, the judgments in question are ex cathedrâ; or the Pope claims to decide doctrinal questions for all Catholics in a capacity in which he is liable to make mistakes, and so the Holy See may be a source of error to the Church Universal; or the Pope’s prerogative of inerrancy be¬longs to him even when he is not speaking ex cathedrâ. Of course there was not, and there could not have been, the remotest intention of making geocentricism a matter of faith by the mere force of a definition; but the question the Copernican controversy raised was whether the doctrine of the sun’s diurnal movement was not already of faith in virtue of the plain state¬ments of Holy Scripture [and judgments of previous popes in early centuries of the Church]. The Roman church, as John De Lugo says, propounds the whole of Holy Scripture, and every part of it, to be received as the Word of God, so that to contradict the express assertion of a sacred writer is not less heresy than to contradict the definition of a general council. To say that Abraham had not two sons is not less heresy than to say that our Lord had not two wills. Unquestionably the sacred writers, in terms, ascribe diurnal movement to the sun; therefore, urged the anti-Copernican theologian, the theory that denies that movement is false and heretical. The conclusion is irresistible, if the language objected is so expressed as to forbid the supposition that not real, but only apparent movement may be meant. And that it is so expressed is what Rome [in 1616] in effect decided, when on the one hand she pronounced the heliocentric theses false, and altogether adverse to the divine Scriptures and on the other condemned as destructive to Catholic truth the advocacy of an opposite opinion. After this, the thoroughly submissive Catholic had no alternative but to recognise the heretical character of the new system; yet the decision plainly proceeded on the assumption that the matter was not open to legitimate doubt before its issue; and therefore, however clearly ex cathedrâ, it would be a judgment of a very different kind from that by which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined. On turning to Marie Dominique Bouix’s Tractatus de Curia Romana we learn that there are three kinds of Congregational decrees; (1) Those that the Pope puts forth in his name after consulting a Congregation; (2) Those that a Congregation puts forth in its own name with the Pope’s confirmation, or express order to publish. (3) Those that a Congregation with the Pope’s sanction puts forth in its own name, but without the Pope’s confirmation or express order to publish. Decrees of the first and second class, we are told, are certainly ex cathedrâ, and to be received with unqualified assent under pain of mortal sin. According to Fr Antonio Zaccaria, a very great authority, even decrees of the last class are not fallible, in the sense that they can ever condemn as erroneous a doctrine which is not so.

‘But it is almost as easy to show that the condemnation of Copernicanism was not in this sense a safe judgment, as to show that it was not a true one, to prove that it was a mistake at all. For what was the doctrine of that judgment as it was authoritatively interpreted by Rome? This: that heliocentricism is false and altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures, meaning by the phrase, as the monitum (1620) explained it; “repugnant to the true and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, according to the ruling of Pope Urban VIII and the Pontifical Congregation of the Inquisition [in 1633], the decision taught that heliocentrism is a heresy to be abjured, cursed, and detested with the other heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church. Now, it is as clear as daylight that if all Catholics had embraced this doctrine with unreserved assent, “plene, perfecte, et absolute,” all Catholics would have held it to be of faith that heliocentrism is false, and thus the whole Church would so far have been in error in its faith. But for the whole Church to be in error in any point it holds to be of faith is plainly irreconcilable with the passive infallibility claimed for it by theologians, or even with its claims to be infallible in its ordinary magisterium, for what it believes it will surely teach “credidi propter quod locutus sum.” And apart from this consideration, ob¬viously it must be against the cause of the Christian faith for all Christians to be persuaded that its teachings conflict with, and demand the suppression and complete elimination from thought of, opinions that are on their way to be proved true…..

W. G. Ward writes: “We fully admit that an unobvious interpretation of the apparently anti-Copernican texts is possible; and indeed is, as we now know, the true one. We admit that our Blessed Lord, when He looked up to heaven and when He spoke of ascending to the Father, did but accommodate Himself to existing physical beliefs. We admit that the Holy Ghost, for wise purposes, as, for instance, that He might not violently interfere with the healthy slow progress of physical science permitted the sacred writers to express themselves in language which was literally true as understood by them, but was figurative in the highest degree as intended by Him. We only say, in accordance with our first proposition, that such an exposition of Scripture would be grossly irreverent, unchristian, and uncatholic, unless there was some overwhelming scientific probability to render it legitimate.” 

Fr Roberts answers Ward: ‘According to these words of Ward’s, the Copernican inter¬pretation of Scripture, the true one [no, never proven true], the one intended by God, is intrinsically considered non-reasonable. It is inadmissible on its own merits, and by every sound canon of exegesis. It is so violently opposed to the general drift and implication of Scripture, and to the obvious meaning of particular texts, that nothing short of an express assurance from the Author of Scripture Himself that He really did mean [a fixed sun] would render it legitimate. Such an assurance having been given in these latter days through the conclusions [no, false theories] of science, the unobvious and forced character of the exposition is no longer any bar to its reception; on the principle that a man may interpret his own words as he pleases. “God,” says Dr. Ward, “surely has the right to interpret His own Word, for you would not deny this right to an ordinary mortal” (Authority of Doctrinal Decisions, p. 143). But in Galileo’s time God had given no hint that He had meant anything so extremely improbable. Heliocentrism [a long-condemned heresy] at that time was “a random scientific conjecture,” with “no leg to stand on.”  The ecclesiastical authorities were therefore only doing their duty in declaring it was altogether contrary to Scripture.
Desperate indeed must be the cause that stands in need of such monstrous doctrine [That God allowed a heretical wording in Scripture]. Disregarding for the present the grotesque misrepresentation of the scientific status of heliocentrism in Galileo’s time, who admits for a moment that an ordinary mortal may deter¬mine retrospectively the meaning of his words, and be quit of responsibility for their deceptive effect, on the strength of a subsequent declaration, that he meant the very reverse of what he said or wrote? So far as the Bible professes to teach, and contains assertions that demand belief, assuredly it cannot differ from all other books in this, that its meaning must not be held to depend on the, so to say, objective significance of its language, but on the reserved and unexpressed intention of its author. How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an inter¬pretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact. Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now [think we] know to be the truth, and that, there¬fore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspira¬tion, for the Vatican Council I has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. The Jesuit Cardinal Franzelin (1816-1886) [author of many books on theological questions] has shown that this doc¬trine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of language, that they choose, and choose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the Earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the Earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one, it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies. The doctrine, there¬fore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’--- pp.39-44.

‘Moreover, the judgment of Rome must outweigh the judgment of individual theologians; and the point I insist on is, that the minimising interpretation of the decree, the interpretation advocated by Dr. Ward and the apologists, is precisely the one that stands empha¬tically repudiated and denounced by a Pontifical Congregation as involving the gravest error. Before the Inquisitorial sentence of 1633 it might perhaps have been plausibly urged that the decree of the Index was only disciplinary in its scope, that the censures “false and repugnant to Scripture” belonged to the preamble, and not to the decree itself. But to say this in the face of the sentence on Galileo is to say that Rome did not know her own mind, and could not interpret aright her own decisions. The minimising and apologetic view of the decree is, that the Church did not thereby mean to say that it is quite certain, but only highly probable, that helio¬centricism is contrary to Scripture; and that she did not intend to deny that the progress of science might change the theological aspect of things. So understood, it is as clear as the sun at noonday that the decision could not, seventeen years afterwards, have shown that it was impossible for the censured opinion to be in any way probable. But this is the very thing Rome, in 1633, declared the decision did show, and pronounced it a most grave error to suppose that it did not – “since in no manner can an opinion be probable that has already been declared and defined to be contrary to the divine Scripture.” And it must be noted that the Congregation is expressly referring to the kind of probability Galileo claimed for Copernicanism in Galileo’s Dialogo, intrinsic probability based on scientific considerations. Did the Congregation mean to say, “Since this opinion has been pronounced contrary to Scripture by a judgment that was not meant to be final, a judgment possibly erroneous, a judgment open to correction by the progress of science, it involves the gravest error to suppose that it can in any manner, even scientifically, be probable.” Yet this is just the non¬sense it did mean to talk, if it did not mean its state¬ment in a sense that excludes the apologist’s version of the decree. And in the actual sentence the Congre¬gation showed its mind still more plainly, for it implicitly classed the decision with those definitions of the Church, the truth of which it would be heresy to challenge: “We say, pronounce, and declare that you, the said Galileo, on account of the things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, that you believed and held a doctrine false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures, to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves and is not in the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.” Such language was, of course, ludicrously inapplicable to the case, unless the decision ought to have been taken as the Church’s judgment, and as absolutely true.’ 

  ‘Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter [from a moving sun to a fixed sun] makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the [fixed-sun] interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know [claim] to be the truth, there¬fore, God could not have been their author?’- Fr Roberts, Pontifical D.
   
At the end of his booklet, Fr Roberts summarises the situation that prevailed within Catholicism in the wake of the infamous acceptance of a ‘non-violent’ heliocentrism, consequences that all who continue to defend to this day must subscribe to, ramifications that no true Catholic could possibly accept:

‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the Galileo case seems to me to teach in direct opposi¬tion to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only truly false, but theologically considered, danger¬ous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit com¬mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, a Pope [Alexander VII in 1664], in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci¬sions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Con¬gregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunica¬tion, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has con¬firmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the Earth moves?’
Still too long so I just read the end. Basically this priests believes in (((science))) and not God.

And the bull by Pope Alexander is infallible?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on June 12, 2023, 05:08:09 AM
Still too long so I just read the end. Basically this priests believes in (((science))) and not God.

And the bull by Pope Alexander is infallible?

It is very difficult to understand all that is involved in the GvH without reading more than you are willing to do Anthony. Here is a summary of 6000 years.

Heliocentrism is a universal system that replaced the God of Adam and Eve with a pagan god. Even Catholicism teaches God can be known by the things that He made. Thus the sky showed the ancient races after Adam and Eve that God exists. It was then Satan convinced most that the sun, that sustains the Earth with life-giving means, to hold the sun as their god.

The word Helios for the sun comes from Helios a sun god, the son of Hyperion and Theia, thus the terms heliocentrism and heliolatry. In the Holy Scriptures (3 Kings 16:31-33) we read of Baal, Bal or Bel, the sun god of the Phoenicians, whose worship was characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is also condemned in Wisdom: 13:2  and 4 kings

With the advent of Catholicism, this heliocentrism was condemned by churchmen for centuries until it went underground in the writings of the Gnostics (who hated Genesis) etc., waiting for a time when the world would embrace heliocentrism once again.

On May 29, 1453, the ancient city of Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Turks. Its libraries were raided and ancient books in them became available for the first time in a thousand years. From these stores came the manuscripts purchased by Leonardo da Pistoia for the enormously wealthy and influential Cosimo de’ Medici (1389-1464).  The docuмents were said to contain divine wisdom, knowledge and teachings that came directly from Thoth, the wisdom god of the post-diluvian Egyptians, known to the Greeks as Hermēs Trismegistus (Hermēs Thrice Great), supposedly the greatest philosopher, priest and king who ever lived. Soon, the books were reprinted and spread everywhere.

Copernicus was the first to introduce heliocentrism in his book de rev. In Book One, Copernicus makes a further reference but this time to Hermēs: 

In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. In fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Hermēs Trismegistus calls it a “visible god,” Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.’ --- De rev.

So, this time, the pagan anti-Trinity God heliocentrism came back as supposedly true scientific astronomy. It worked, with the help of Galileo, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Isaac Newton, they changed the whole world, even fooling the ELECT when in 1820 Pius VII allowed heliocentric books to be read and believed within the Catholic religion. This heliocentrism led to evolutionism and millions of souls lost faith in supernatural Creation and God Himself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to have their heliocentrism, supposedly proven by 1820, Catholics began to conjure up every excuse they could think of to make the 1616 and 1633 decrees defining the Bible reveals geocentrism by condemning a heliocentric interpretation of it as formal heresy.

The main ploy was to try to get the world to believe the 1616-1633 decrees were not irreversible (infallible). But when Vatican I defined the infallibility of a pope when he rules on faith or morals 50 years later, every condition for the 1616 and 1633 ruling as infallible were met. Now Fr Roberts was a good priest but he too, as all mankind at that time had been convinced by both in Church and State that Biblical geocentrism was proven wrong. So, Fr Roberts having studied the Galileo case and the teaching on infallibility, wrote that the 1616/1633 ruling met all the conditions on infallibility but because he believed geocentrism was proven wrong then the dogma on infallibility was proven wrong. Either that, or God did not write the bible.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on June 12, 2023, 08:13:29 AM
It is very difficult to understand all that is involved in the GvH without reading more than you are willing to do Anthony. Here is a summary of 6000 years.

Heliocentrism is a universal system that replaced the God of Adam and Eve with a pagan god. Even Catholicism teaches God can be known by the things that He made. Thus the sky showed the ancient races after Adam and Eve that God exists. It was then Satan convinced most that the sun, that sustains the Earth with life-giving means, to hold the sun as their god.

The word Helios for the sun comes from Helios a sun god, the son of Hyperion and Theia, thus the terms heliocentrism and heliolatry. In the Holy Scriptures (3 Kings 16:31-33) we read of Baal, Bal or Bel, the sun god of the Phoenicians, whose worship was characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is also condemned in Wisdom: 13:2  and 4 kings

With the advent of Catholicism, this heliocentrism was condemned by churchmen for centuries until it went underground in the writings of the Gnostics (who hated Genesis) etc., waiting for a time when the world would embrace heliocentrism once again.

On May 29, 1453, the ancient city of Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Turks. Its libraries were raided and ancient books in them became available for the first time in a thousand years. From these stores came the manuscripts purchased by Leonardo da Pistoia for the enormously wealthy and influential Cosimo de’ Medici (1389-1464).  The docuмents were said to contain divine wisdom, knowledge and teachings that came directly from Thoth, the wisdom god of the post-diluvian Egyptians, known to the Greeks as Hermēs Trismegistus (Hermēs Thrice Great), supposedly the greatest philosopher, priest and king who ever lived. Soon, the books were reprinted and spread everywhere.

Copernicus was the first to introduce heliocentrism in his book de rev. In Book One, Copernicus makes a further reference but this time to Hermēs: 

In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. In fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Hermēs Trismegistus calls it a “visible god,” Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.’ --- De rev.

So, this time, the pagan anti-Trinity God heliocentrism came back as supposedly true scientific astronomy. It worked, with the help of Galileo, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Isaac Newton, they changed the whole world, even fooling the ELECT when in 1820 Pius VII allowed heliocentric books to be read and believed within the Catholic religion. This heliocentrism led to evolutionism and millions of souls lost faith in supernatural Creation and God Himself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to have their heliocentrism, supposedly proven by 1820, Catholics began to conjure up every excuse they could think of to make the 1616 and 1633 decrees defining the Bible reveals geocentrism by condemning a heliocentric interpretation of it as formal heresy.

The main ploy was to try to get the world to believe the 1616-1633 decrees were not irreversible (infallible). But when Vatican I defined the infallibility of a pope when he rules on faith or morals 50 years later, every condition for the 1616 and 1633 ruling as infallible were met. Now Fr Roberts was a good priest but he too, as all mankind at that time had been convinced by both in Church and State that Biblical geocentrism was proven wrong. So, Fr Roberts having studied the Galileo case and the teaching on infallibility, wrote that the 1616/1633 ruling met all the conditions on infallibility but because he believed geocentrism was proven wrong then the dogma on infallibility was proven wrong. Either that, or God did not write the bible.
Thanks for the response. I don't have the time to long super long docuмents anymore due to getting a job not too long ago. Oh so many books on the backlog...

Thank you for the summary.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on June 12, 2023, 06:20:53 PM
It is very difficult to understand all that is involved in the GvH without reading more than you are willing to do Anthony. Here is a summary of 6000 years.

Heliocentrism is a universal system that replaced the God of Adam and Eve with a pagan god. Even Catholicism teaches God can be known by the things that He made. Thus the sky showed the ancient races after Adam and Eve that God exists. It was then Satan convinced most that the sun, that sustains the Earth with life-giving means, to hold the sun as their god.

The word Helios for the sun comes from Helios a sun god, the son of Hyperion and Theia, thus the terms heliocentrism and heliolatry. In the Holy Scriptures (3 Kings 16:31-33) we read of Baal, Bal or Bel, the sun god of the Phoenicians, whose worship was characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is also condemned in Wisdom: 13:2  and 4 kings

With the advent of Catholicism, this heliocentrism was condemned by churchmen for centuries until it went underground in the writings of the Gnostics (who hated Genesis) etc., waiting for a time when the world would embrace heliocentrism once again.

On May 29, 1453, the ancient city of Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Turks. Its libraries were raided and ancient books in them became available for the first time in a thousand years. From these stores came the manuscripts purchased by Leonardo da Pistoia for the enormously wealthy and influential Cosimo de’ Medici (1389-1464).  The docuмents were said to contain divine wisdom, knowledge and teachings that came directly from Thoth, the wisdom god of the post-diluvian Egyptians, known to the Greeks as Hermēs Trismegistus (Hermēs Thrice Great), supposedly the greatest philosopher, priest and king who ever lived. Soon, the books were reprinted and spread everywhere.

Copernicus was the first to introduce heliocentrism in his book de rev. In Book One, Copernicus makes a further reference but this time to Hermēs: 

In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. In fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Hermēs Trismegistus calls it a “visible god,” Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.’ --- De rev.

So, this time, the pagan anti-Trinity God heliocentrism came back as supposedly true scientific astronomy. It worked, with the help of Galileo, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Isaac Newton, they changed the whole world, even fooling the ELECT when in 1820 Pius VII allowed heliocentric books to be read and believed within the Catholic religion. This heliocentrism led to evolutionism and millions of souls lost faith in supernatural Creation and God Himself.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order to have their heliocentrism, supposedly proven by 1820, Catholics began to conjure up every excuse they could think of to make the 1616 and 1633 decrees defining the Bible reveals geocentrism by condemning a heliocentric interpretation of it as formal heresy.

The main ploy was to try to get the world to believe the 1616-1633 decrees were not irreversible (infallible). But when Vatican I defined the infallibility of a pope when he rules on faith or morals 50 years later, every condition for the 1616 and 1633 ruling as infallible were met. Now Fr Roberts was a good priest but he too, as all mankind at that time had been convinced by both in Church and State that Biblical geocentrism was proven wrong. So, Fr Roberts having studied the Galileo case and the teaching on infallibility, wrote that the 1616/1633 ruling met all the conditions on infallibility but because he believed geocentrism was proven wrong then the dogma on infallibility was proven wrong. Either that, or God did not write the bible.


What you say here about Heliocentrism and Satan worship is very telling considering that Vigano

has called Jesus the Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun) twice in his letters and also promoted the Heliocentric model.

Luciferians celebrate Sol Invictus day and there are Lodges named Sol Invictus.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Simeon on June 12, 2023, 09:05:36 PM
oops, wrong thread....
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on June 13, 2023, 04:53:29 AM

What you say here about Heliocentrism and Satan worship is very telling considering that Vigano

has called Jesus the Sol Invictus (Unconquered Sun) twice in his letters and also promoted the Heliocentric model.

Luciferians celebrate Sol Invictus day and there are Lodges named Sol Invictus.
(https://i.imgur.com/EIaTZU3.png)
John 8:12. When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Psalm 27:1 The Lord is my light and my salvation whom shall I fear? The Lord is the stronghold of my life of whom shall I be afraid?

50 times in the Bible, it describes Jesus the Light come into the world. Satan steals everything for himself, so he and his Illuminati stole the light for themselves in many ways, one being heliocentrism.

St Basil (330AD-379AD), in his Hexaemeron, explains why God specifically created light before the sun:

‘However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”’ (Hm. VI:2)

‘A section of the [hermetic] text, which [the Christian] Lactantius called Sermo Perfectus (the Perfect Word), treats the sun as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second God… “…the Sun, or Light, for it is through the intermediary of the solar circle that light is spread to all. The Sun illuminates the other stars not so much by the power of his light as by his divinity and sanctity. He must be held as a second god. The world is living and all things in it are alive and it is the sun which governs all living things.”’--- Jennifer Trusted

“Lucifer the Light-bearer!” “Lucifer the Son of the Morning!”
“Is it he who bears the Light…?” “Doubt it not.” (Pike)

‘Expounding on “light,” Pike explains: ‘Behold, it [Pythagoreanism-Hermetism-Gnosticism] said the light which emanates from an immense centre of light… the Supreme Being is a centre of light whose rays or emanations pervade the Universe;…that is the light for which all masonic journeys are a search, and which the sun and moon in our lodges are only emblems: that Light and Darkness….’ The religion of Masonry is based on the Cabala. Masonry professes the pagan dualism of the Cabala. Pike quotes the Commentary on the Siphra de Zeniutha: “In the spiritual world Evil and Good are in equilibro [equilibrium], and it will be restored when of the evil becomes Good, until all is Good.” In the Bible St. John says, “God is light and in Him there is no darkness” (1 John 1:5-6), and similarly the Psalm, “in your light we see light.” (Psalm 35:10) God is supremely good and essentially good, and therefore Our Lord Jesus Christ declares, “God alone is good.” The teaching of Masonry is precisely the opposite. “God,” according to the cabalistic doctrine of Masonry, is good and evil, and the source from which emanates all good and evil. The Sun and Moon represent the dual principle in “God.” The two principles are Yahweh and Satan! Satan is the negative principle in “God,” not a Person but a force, Albert Pike explains that Bal or Baal represents the personification of the Sun: “one of the Great Gods of Syria, Assyria, and Chaldea, and his name is found upon the monuments of Nimrud… He was the great Nature-God of Babylonia… His symbol was the Sun… Bal or Baal, like the word Adon, signifies Lord and Master’ (Comment on Pike’s Morals and Dogma.)

‘Nature and Nature’s Laws lay hid in the Night. God said,
Let Newton be, and all was Light.’--- Alexander Pope.
‘And all was light,’ but whose light, Lucifer’s?

So we see now why God had his popes in 1616 and 1633 define heliocentrism as anti-Biblical heresy. But heliocentrism had it way and even the elect fell for it giving it the final credibility it needed. With both Church and State now agreeing to Big Bang origins supernatural origins lost all credibility, assisting and causing millions to lose faith in supernaturalism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 05, 2023, 04:55:24 PM
So we see now why God had his popes in 1616 and 1633 define heliocentrism as anti-Biblical heresy. But heliocentrism had it way and even the elect fell for it giving it the final credibility it needed. With both Church and State now agreeing to Big Bang origins supernatural origins lost all credibility, assisting and causing millions to lose faith in supernaturalism.
https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/

The Hidden Option Of The Geocentric Globe Earth (https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)

This flat earth deception (http://flatearthdeception.com/) page focuses on how scientific proofs point to a geocentric earth.
Flat earthers proclaim that the enemy has deceived us about the design of the universe, and they are right.  I now believe that the enemy has created a deception to deceive people into believing that life on Earth was a product of chance and time, and not a Creator.
The enemy has done that by causing astronomers to proclaim that the universe is heliocentric. They do this not because they have any proof that the Earth is moving, but because it fits into their worldview.
You will see below that the Earthly perspective of the planets and universe is the same, regardless of whether it’s heliocentric or the Tychonic geocentric model.
“I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.  You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds.” George F.R. Ellis
Scientific proofs for the geocentric earth were published in 2013, and then the geocentric earth docuмentary movie called The Principle (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/) came out in 2014. Here’s a link to videos from the producers of The Principle (https://www.youtube.com/c/ThePrincipleMovie/videos) which give more explanations.
After that, information about the flat earth skyrocketed on YouTube and Facebook; because the enemy wanted to cause people to reject anyone who believes in the geocentric earth.
The enemy has created a false dichotomy by positioning the debate as ‘heliocentric globe earth vs. flat earth’; but there is another option that has been hidden by the enemy, the geocentric globe earth.
If you believe that the earth is flat, please know that I’m in agreement with you about the sun not being the center of the universe, and that the Earth is not flying through space.
You can reject my explanation and click away; but if you’re really searching for truth, and not just seeking to defend a belief, then I pray that you will read this article.
Note: the point of this page is to provide basic information about the geocentric universe. 
My goal is not to answer every question and/or overcome every objection.  If you’re searching for truth, then read this summary, and then read the below book and judge for yourself; for only in getting the full explanation can you make a right judgment.
I also provide Bible verses which show that the sun is moving around the earth, so that by the dual witness of scientific evidence and Scripture we can see that the earth is geocentric.
This video from Creation Science with Philip Stott (https://www.youtube.com/@creationsciencewithphilips7583/videos) show that the geocentric universe model of Tycho Brahe is the preferred choice with applying Occam’s Razor to decide between geocentrism and heliocentrism.
Robert A. Sungenis,‎ PhD wrote a book called ‘Geocentrism 101 – An Introduction into the  Science of  Geocentric Cosmology (https://smile.amazon.com/Geocentrism-101-Introduction-Science-Paperback/dp/1939856531/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518303520&sr=1-3)‘; first published in November 2013.
Here is a summary from the book:
The newest cosmological evidence puts Earth at the center of the universe, and this is admitted by man popular scientists.
Experiential evidence from over one hundred years ago to the present day shows the Earth is motionless is space.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was invented precisely to counter the many experiments in the late 1800s that showed the Earth was standing still in space.
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was invented to cover the weaknesses of the Special Theory, but in doing so the General Theory allowed the Earth to be motionless in the center of the universe.
In addition to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, other theories of physics, such as Newton’s law of motion and Mach’s Principle, say that a universe rotating around a fixed Earth is as scientifically valid as a rotating Earth in a fixed universe.
Every scientific proof for an Earth revolving around the sun has been discredited, and there has never been an experiment that has provided proof that the Earth is moving.
Recent data from satellite probes sent up in the 1900s and 2000s show that the whole universe is aligned with both the Earth-sun ecliptic and the Earth’s equator, showing that our universe is geocentrically oriented with Earth at the center.
Recent data from telescopes show that galaxies and many other celestial objects such as quasars and gamma ray bursts, are oriented around the Earth in concentric spheres.
Neither Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein nor anyone else has ever provided the world with proof that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Few are aware that a year before he died Galileo renounced, quite dramatically, all his claims that the Earth went around the sun.
Here’s some notable quotes from Geocentrism 101:
“We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Historian Lincoln Barnett, foreward by Albert Einstein
“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment” Albert Einstein
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Henri Poincare
“No physical experiment has ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Lincoln Barnett.
“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo’s condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the Earth moves.” Julian Barbour, a world-class physicist in England.
“What was the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment?  The implication is that the Earth is not moving.” Richard Wolfson
The Geocentrism 101 book comes with a CD that has graphical models, which compare the heliocentric and geocentric earth model; so that you can see that the perspective of the solar system doesn’t change. People are not able to prove whether the earth is heliocentric or geocentric, as the models show the planets and stars appearing in the same places of the sky.
The sun revolves around the earth, and the planets revolve around the sun.  The weight of the solar system keeps it all in balance.
Here’s a snapshot of the comparison of the annual cycle. From the earth view, the perspective looks the same on both models.
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/geocentrism-annual-cycle.jpg?resize=600%2C431)
Here’s a snapshot of the comparison of the daily cycle. Again, from the earth view, the perspective looks the same on both models.
(https://i2.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/geocentrism-daily-cycle.jpg?resize=600%2C431)
Astronomers and Physicists confirm that we on Earth cannot tell the difference between the heliocentric model or the Tychonic geocentric model.
“the Earth-centered system is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computations of the places of the planets are the same for the two systems.” J.L.E. Dryer, Astronomer
“Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west, as his predecessors believed; the observable phenomena will be exactly the same.  This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation.” Dennis Sciama, Physicist
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true… One can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” Stephen Hawking.
“There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun.” I. Bernard Cohen, Physicist
Here is a video demonstrates that you cannot determine between heliocentrism and geocentrism by simply observing the planets, the sun moons etc.
Tycho Brahe and other astronomers promoted a geocentric earth, not a flat earth.
Tycho Brahe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe) (1546 – 1601) was a Danish nobleman, astronomer, and writer known for his accurate and comprehensive astronomical and planetary observations. Well known in his lifetime as an astronomer, astrologer and alchemist, he has been described as “the first competent mind in modern astronomy to feel ardently the passion for exact empirical facts.”
As an astronomer, Tycho worked to combine what he saw as the geometrical benefits of the Copernican system with the philosophical benefits of the Ptolemaic system into his own model of the universe, the Tychonic system. His system correctly saw the Moon as orbiting Earth, and the planets as orbiting the Sun.

 (https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/tycho-system500.jpg?resize=500%2C497)
(https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)
In this depiction of the Tychonic system, the objects on blue orbits (the Moon and the Sun) revolve around the Earth. The objects on orange orbits (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) revolve around the Sun. Around all is a sphere of fixed stars.
But the enemy propped up other astronomers, to counter their explanations, and point to the heliocentric model. Kepler did not want to promote Tycho’s model, so after he died, Kepler made arrangements to obtain his 40-years worth of planet-charting that was originally meant to support the geocentric system, and used it for the heliocentric system.
Modern scientists freely admit that heliocentrism – the system which has the Earth rotating on its axis and revolving around the sun – is merely their preferred model of cosmology, and their preference for it is based purely on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones.
The Michelson-Morley Experiment confirmed that the Earth is motionless.
By all experimental indications, the Earth was found to be standing still in space, and modern science was confronted with its most astounding yet devastating evidence that had the potential to destroy its very foundation – the Copernican Principle.
In 1958, referring to the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment and the dozens of other similar experiments performed through the 1930’s that yielded same results, the famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli admitted to what he called “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…”
Science historian and physicist John D. Bernal stated: “The Michelson-Morley experiment was the greatest negative result in the history of science.”  In other words, they were expecting it to prove that the Earth was moving in space, but they proved the very opposite.
In a book by Lincoln Barnett called “The Universe And Dr. Einstein”; which Albert Einstein endorsed by writing the foreword, it says: “The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion: the apparent velocity of the Earth through the ether was zero.”
“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation… which presupposes that the Earth moves.” Albert Michelson
“The data (of Michelson-Morley) were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw – that the Earth is at rest.” Bernard Jaffe, Physicist
Then the enemy had physicists such as George Fitzgerald and Hendrick Lorentz, create creative solutions to Michelson’s astounding results; in an attempt to cover over the evidence.
Cosmic microwaves show that the Earth is in the center of the universe.
In 1989, the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) proved the radiation of the universe was lined up with the Equator of the Earth; which put the earth are or near the center of the universe.
A second probe, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was sent up in 2001. It was much more sensitive than the COBE probe and was able to provide a more focused picture of the universe’s microwave distribution.
It confirmed that there is a systematic and very organized distribution of microwaves aligned with and coming right towards the Earth from the furthest reaches of the universe. The radiation data shows that the whole universe is divided into two, with a northern hemisphere and a southern hemisphere; all of which lines up with the Earth’s equator.
Then to test to see if any contamination may have affected the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, the European Space Agency sent up another prove in 2009. It was named the “Planck” probe, in honor of the 20th century physicist, Max Planck.
But it produced the same results as the WMAP probe, only with much better detail and clarity; so the results could not be dismissed.
“A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” Henri Poincare, Physicist
All in all, there are three basic alignments of the Earth with the universe:
The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the Earth-Sun ecliptic.
The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole.
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/earth-aligned-xyz.jpg?resize=529%2C524)
Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.
Not only are the spin axes of galaxies and the cosmic microwave radiation aligned with Earth, but the distribution of galaxies shows that they lie mainly in concentric spheres around the Earth.
In his 1975 paper published in Astrophysics and Space Science, Y.P. Varshni said, “The Earth is indeed the center of the universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. It implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the universe.”
One important fact about the cosmic radiation alignment with the Earth-Sun ecliptic is that it fits perfectly with the Neo-Tychonic geocentric model.
Since the Neo-Tychonic geocentric model has both the stars and the polarity of the cosmic microwave radiation aligned with the Sun, which all revolve around the fixed Earth, it is the only model that fits all of the cosmological data.
The Coriolis Effect
Essentially, Ernst Mach showed that the Coriolis Effect can be created either by a rotating Earth in a fixed star field; or by the star field rotating around the fixed Earth.
The bulge of the Earth
Arthur Eddington, a famous scientist in the days of Einstein, said “The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating.”
The Big Bang was invented to suppress geocentrism, and cause scientists to take the heliocentric viewpoint.
The Big Bang was the brain child of the Belgian priest and scientist, Fr. Georges Lemaitre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître) (1894-1966). After a classical education at a Jesuit secondary school, the Collège du Sacré-Coeur, in Charleroi, Lemaître began studying civil engineering at the Catholic University of Leuven at the age of 17.
A Jesuit-trained person creating the Big bang theory, go figure!
Robert A. Sungenis,‎ PhD provides an amazing amount of evidence about astronomy, about the beliefs of astronomers, and about the cover-up by the enemy.
Don’t comment on this page, telling me that I’m wrong, until you’ve read the book ‘Geocentrism 101 – An Introduction into the  Science of  Geocentric Cosmology (https://smile.amazon.com/Geocentrism-101-Introduction-Science-Paperback/dp/1939856531/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518303520&sr=1-3)‘ by Robert A. Sungenis,‎ PhD.; because you would be speaking out of ignorance.
If you really want to know the truth.  If you really want to understand the enemy’s deception about the design of the universe, then you need to do your research about the geocentric globe earth. It’s interesting that Robert didn’t write the book to counter the Flat Earth theory, as there is no mention of it in the book.  He wrote it to counter the heliocentric view of the universe.
But shortly after he released the book, the flat earth theory was pushed on YouTube and Facebook; no doubt in an attempt to cover over the truth about the geocentric globe earth.
Here’s some videos that discuss the proof of the geocentric model.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH ‘THE PRINCIPLE’ MOVIE WHICH VALIDATES THE GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE. (https://youtu.be/CeJb0JIHNik)
The Biblical Geocentric Model – Where Are We In the Universe?
Earth Is Center Of Whole Universe Part 1 by Rick Delano
Earth is Center of Whole Universe Part 2 by Robert Sungenis
Malcolm Bowden started posting videos which prove that the Earth is geocentric in 2010.
Here’s a video list for you to do more research.
Geocentricity Star parallax and redshift https://youtu.be/GRRnFF7bob0 (https://youtu.be/GRRnFF7bob0)
Geocentrism explains “Morning Meteors” https://youtu.be/dWtmL4LRhz0 (https://youtu.be/dWtmL4LRhz0)
Geocentricity – Satellites+Mach https://youtu.be/tPaDiH4V1dc (https://youtu.be/tPaDiH4V1dc)
Why the Sun circles the Earth https://youtu.be/yDWyRjFnYkw (https://youtu.be/yDWyRjFnYkw)
Geocentricity explains the seasons https://youtu.be/IcN5h8zEacM (https://youtu.be/IcN5h8zEacM)
GEOCENTRICITY – An animated explanation of “Airy’s Failure” experiment. https://youtu.be/87M2i61N1cU (https://youtu.be/87M2i61N1cU)
Geocentricity – the unchanging orbits of the planets https://youtu.be/EoI3fKcdINA (https://youtu.be/EoI3fKcdINA)
Science Mafia https://youtu.be/0F-CBiuJJrk (https://youtu.be/0F-CBiuJJrk)
Here’s some books on the geocentric earth for further study (http://geocentricity.com/):
Geocentricity: Christianity in the Woodshed by Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD.
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/geoc.jpg?resize=94%2C145)Dr. Bouw has been writing about the geocentric Earth since 1992.  This is the successor to Geocentricity and its predecessor, With Every Wind of Doctrine. This book is the most exhaustive and comprehensive book on the subject of geocentricity.
The book presents the geocentric nature of Scripture. It includes complete coverage of Joshua’s Long Day and Hezekiah’s sign. The role, function, and history of the firmament is covered extensively. The sun’s role in ruling the day is greatly extended in this book. Five appendixes are included in the book. One covers every scriptural reference to the geocentric creation. The last appendix derives the geocentric equations of motion that are commonly used in space travel; only this derivation is strictly geocentric.
The book includes biographical sketches of most geocentrists from 1650 through 2013. Finally, the author traces the role that Copernicus’ heliocentric model played in the demotion of man from being created in the image of God to an evolved accident created in the image of an ape in rebellion against the God who created man in his own image.
He Maketh His Sun to Rise: A Look at Biblical Geocentricity, by Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, Dean of Bible Baptist Theological Seminary, Cromwell, CT.
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/srise.jpg?resize=92%2C144)Published in 2007, this book deals with geocentric verses in Scripture and exposes the fallacious arguments for heliocentrism and the unbiblical presuppositions that geocentricity’s creationist critics labor under.
See geocentricity through the eyes of a theologian expressed in the language of normal people.
.
The Bible and Geocentricity, by James N. Hanson, Professor Emeritus of the Cleveland State University,
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/bngeo.jpg?resize=77%2C116)He originally wrote the manuscript for this book in the 1980s.
It was serialized in the Biblical Astronomer in the early 1990s and has now been published in book form.
Rather than just being a reprint of the articles, the book has been revised and illustrated with figures hand-picked by the author.
With the geocentric globe earth in mind, we can see how Scripture confirms that the Earth is still and that the sun is moving.
Genesis 1:14 declares that the sun and moon are the markers/signs for days and for years, indicating that their movements reveal when the year, months and Holy Feast Days begin on the Scriptural calendar; which means that the sun and moon are moving around the stationary Earth.
“And Elohim said, “Let lights come to be in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and appointed times, and for days and years”
Psalm 19:1-6 tells us that the sun is moving on the circular ecliptic, moving through the 12 constellations every year to tell the story of the Son of Righteousness, our Redeemer.

 (https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)
Quote
1 The heavens are proclaiming the esteem of Ěl; And the expanse is declaring the work of His hand.
2  Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
3  There is no speech, and there are no words, Their voice is not heard.
4  Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them He set up a tent for the sun,
5  And it is like a bridegroom coming out of his room, It rejoices like a strong man to run the path.
6  Its rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end; And naught is hidden from its heat.
(https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)
These verses describe the sun rising up or going down; which proclaims that it is the sun that is moving, not the Earth:
The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. Ecclesiastes 1:5
He made the moon for appointed times; The sun knows its going down. Psalm 104:19
From the rising of the sun to its going down, The Name of יהוה YHUH is praised. Psalm 113:3
Here’s some more verses: Genesis 15:12, Genesis 15:17, Genesis 19:23, Genesis 32:31, Exodus 17:12, Exodus 22:3, Exodus 22:26, Leviticus 22:7, Numbers 2:3, Numbers 21:11, Numbers 34:15, Deuteronomy 4:41, Deuteronomy 4:47, Deuteronomy 11:30, Deuteronomy 16:6, Deuteronomy 23:11, Deuteronomy 24:13, Deuteronomy 24:15, Joshua 1:15, Joshua 8:29, Joshua 10:27, Joshua 12:1, Joshua 13:5, Joshua 19:12, Joshua 19:27, Joshua 19:34, Judges 8:13, Judges 9:33, Judges 14:18, Judges 19:14, Judges 20:43, 2 Samuel 2:24, 2 Samuel 3:35, 2 Samuel 23:4, 1 Kings 22:36, 2 Chronicles 18:34, Psalm 50:1, Isaiah 41:25, Isaiah 45:6, Isaiah 59:19, Jeremiah 15:9, Daniel 6:14, Amos 8:9, Jonah 4:8, Micah 3:6, Nahum 3:17, Malachi 1:11, Matthew 5:45, Mark 16:2, Ephesians 4:26, James 1:11
These verses proclaim that the sun was moved backward ten degrees as a sign to Hezekiah that the Heavenly Father would add 15 years to his life. 
“And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day? And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.” 2 Kings 20:8-11
“I am bringing the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Aḥaz, ten degrees backward.” And the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down.” Isaiah 38:8
These verses proclaim that the sun stood still, which tells you that it is normally moving.
“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.” Joshua 10:12-14
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.” Habakkuk 3:11
In my opinion, there’s enough Scriptural and scientific evidence, to believe that the true design of the universe is the geocentric globe earth model.
And the grand deception of the enemy is that hardly anyone is talking about it.
Instead, the enemy is promoting the flat earth theory to deflect away from the truth; and to cause people to reject anyone who talks about the geocentric earth.
Return to the Flat Earth Deception home page (http://flatearthdeception.com/).
Study resources about the geocentric globe earth:
http://geocentricity.com (http://geocentricity.com/)
http://geocen.blogspot.com (http://geocen.blogspot.com/)
Heliocentricism vs. Geocentricism  http://www.creationcalendar.com/files/Geocentricity.pdf (http://www.creationcalendar.com/files/Geocentricity.pdf)
 

 (https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)
(https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/bible-says-geo-globe-earth2-300x235.gif?resize=300%2C235&ssl=1)


 (https://flatearthdeception.com/the-hidden-option-of-the-geocentric-globe-earth/)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 05, 2023, 05:11:12 PM
Always, 

in your recent lengthy post, I can't find any mention of where Heaven is located above a globe earth. And there's no mention of the Firmament, which in Scripture is said to be below the waters (that are above the Firmament). If you want to be true to Scripture, this needs to be adequately addressed. 

Sungenis doesn't take these important things into account.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 05, 2023, 05:34:07 PM
Always,

in your recent lengthy post, I can't find any mention of where Heaven is located above a globe earth. And there's no mention of the Firmament, which in Scripture is said to be below the waters (that are above the Firmament). If you want to be true to Scripture, this needs to be adequately addressed.

Sungenis doesn't take these important things into account. 

No.  At one point, Sungenis was claiming that a Planck fabric constitutes the firmament, but at another time I saw him on the video asserting that firmament is space.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 05, 2023, 05:49:52 PM
Always,

in your recent lengthy post, I can't find any mention of where Heaven is located above a globe earth. And there's no mention of the Firmament, which in Scripture is said to be below the waters (that are above the Firmament). If you want to be true to Scripture, this needs to be adequately addressed.

Sungenis doesn't take these important things into account. 
Excuse me, I can't remember where different posters are on this or that topic sometimes, but the implication isn't that the Earth is flat, so one can locate Heaven better, is it? Is that the necessity, pax hic et ubique, to be perceived in its being flat?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 05, 2023, 05:55:31 PM
No.  At one point, Sungenis was claiming that a Planck fabric constitutes the firmament, but at another time I saw him on the video asserting that firmament is space.

Right, it's as if it doesn't really matter where Heaven is located, or where the firmament or waters above the firmament are located. The globe earth model effectively does away with such pesky and inconvenient considerations, as if it doesn't really matter, and it shouldn't really matter. Same with the issue of the four corners of the earth, which is also in Scripture. So of course Sungenis doesn't really have a solid answer about the firmament. How can he, with his globe earth model?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 05, 2023, 06:06:38 PM
The location of Heaven doesn't matter any less than the very nature of it, which is supernatural, but Heaven having a location, even a genius loci, doesn't make the Earth flat. People can't see Heaven by telescope, like you just need to point it this way, and there it is.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 05, 2023, 06:09:46 PM
The location of Heaven doesn't matter any less than the very nature of it, which is supernatural, but Heaven having a location, even a genius loci, doesn't make the Earth flat. People can't see Heaven by telescope, like you just need to point it this way, and there it is.

So Heaven is right above you? What about the people who are on the other side of the "globe" earth? Heaven is right above them too? Heaven encircles the globe, then, in your view?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 05, 2023, 06:43:28 PM
Heaven is occasioned in a way that is otherworldly. If St. Peter was given the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, that wouldn't be what would make the Earth flat. It's correct to say that Heaven's above, and what's above is simply above. If everyone on Earth looks above at the same time, it's the same direction, in particular and in general, because of the spherical nature of space, which also seems to me to be a necessity.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 05, 2023, 07:50:54 PM
Always,

in your recent lengthy post, I can't find any mention of where Heaven is located above a globe earth. And there's no mention of the Firmament, which in Scripture is said to be below the waters (that are above the Firmament). If you want to be true to Scripture, this needs to be adequately addressed.

Sungenis doesn't take these important things into account. 

Meg, 

Instead of preaching to the choir on this sub-forum about Sungenis have you ever considered actually communicating with him directly?  Contrary to popular opinion, he doesn't bite.  Robert Sungenis <cairomeo@aol.com>

Some people don't agree with him on FE, but how many of us can say that we took the time and effort to put out a 700 + page book on the subject?!


Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Mark 79 on July 05, 2023, 08:50:17 PM
Meg,

Instead of preaching to the choir on this sub-forum about Sungenis have you ever considered actually communicating with him directly?  Contrary to popular opinion, he doesn't bite.  Robert Sungenis <cairomeo@aol.com>

Some people don't agree with him on FE, but how many of us can say that we took the time and effort to put out a 700 + page book on the subject?!

Bravo! Let the whiny ankle-biters do their own damn homework.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 05, 2023, 09:44:18 PM
So Heaven is right above you? What about the people who are on the other side of the "globe" earth? Heaven is right above them too? Heaven encircles the globe, then, in your view?
In the older days they counted circles and spheres up into the Heavens. When you hit the ninth sphere, you were getting pretty high, maybe past Hog Heaven.

If it's a matter of fact that Heaven is directly above the North Pole, or some other location form the surface of the Earth, that may be so; but as things are now, I don't know that other than through imagination. If somebody needs to get there physically, go straight to Santa's and then straight up, eventually you'll hit it. However that goes, I think the whole expedition would coincide with the six cosmic directions the whole way. From here to there, blessed or cursed, I think there's up and down, forward and back, this side or that side in the further collaterals of the intersecting plane. 

In the case of motion, or cause and effect, considered most generally, there is a charge; and charges most basically are of two kinds, positive or negtive. This is illustrated with a sphere however big or small,


(https://i.imgur.com/X31BQeI.png)

So if there's a positive charge in relation to Heavenm from the surface of the Earth, I imagine it will be up and away from wherever the charge gets displaced. Up and away won't mean all directions at once but one, and that's another mystery about the one and the many I guess. Aristotle himself was confounded in the end by it, how there is one and there are many but you can't get exactly both at exactly the same time or place.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 05, 2023, 11:31:48 PM
Some people don't agree with him on FE, but how many of us can say that we took the time and effort to put out a 700 + page book on the subject?!

70, 700, or 7000 pages is but a meaningless number if/when one is wrong.  This realm is a flat plane underneath a dome.  Even Werhner von Braun's own tombstone testifies to the truth: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 05, 2023, 11:45:52 PM
Bravo! Let the whiny ankle-biters do their own damn homework.

Like you never did about non-existent viruses, despite having been provided more than enough resources?  Did you happen to notice the somewhat-recent avalanche of articles about the undeniably-fraudulent nature of most peer-reviewed studies (in which you steadfastly believe)?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 01:36:42 AM
70, 700, or 7000 pages is but a meaningless number if/when one is wrong.  This realm is a flat plane underneath a dome.  Even Werhner von Braun's own tombstone testifies to the truth: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

70, 700, or 7000 posts on CathInfo is but a meaningless number if/when one is wrong.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 06, 2023, 05:24:49 AM
Always,

in your recent lengthy post, I can't find any mention of where Heaven is located above a globe earth. And there's no mention of the Firmament, which in Scripture is said to be below the waters (that are above the Firmament). If you want to be true to Scripture, this needs to be adequately addressed.

Sungenis doesn't take these important things into account. 

Why is it that in order to have a flat-Earth the supernatural has to be brought down to a natural explanation? In other words, we do not live on a global Earth because everyone on it has the earth below their feet and heaven above their head. Oh yes, God created the sun, moon and planets as globes, but the Earth cannot be one because we all experience life as though the Earth is flat.

This 'natural' way of thinking rules out the supernatural belief that God created a global Earth like every other cosmic body visible from Earth. Look at the moon. If the same logic was applied to the moon and planets, then bits of it, rocks, dust etc, would be falling off the underside of them. But this doesn't happen.

A God created global Earth would need a supernatural element to ensure all on such a globe had the Earth under their feet and the sky above their heads. God couldn't do that now, could He? That would have to be an ongoing miracle, like Jesus walking through a wall. Such supernatural belief is beyond even Catholics. Then again Atheists must believe it does happen like that. They call it gravity, a word that explains how everything stays OK on a globe without falling off. If you asked an atheist what a 'firmament' is they would probably say, a circle of air that surrounds the Earth to allow life, but it fades away when you get to those watery clouds that surround the Earth.

When Jesus ascended into heaven in front of all the Apostles he went straight up. If He lived in Australia He would have done the same. 'Impossible' says a flat Earther, He had to ascend from a flat Earth. Funny how not one of the Apostles doubted that Heaven was above, and Hell below, even from their global Earth.

Now if I was a clever atheist, I would think about it and see a global Earth had to be a natural and supernatural combined creation. I wouldn't want that, so I would argue a flat-Earth with all mankind with their feet on the ground and sky above is far more believable than a semi-supernatural global Earth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 06, 2023, 07:23:05 AM
Pachamama and the globe conception.  Know who you serve.    

(https://i.imgur.com/2Qusqje.png)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 07:37:07 AM
Right, it's as if it doesn't really matter where Heaven is located, or where the firmament or waters above the firmament are located. The globe earth model effectively does away with such pesky and inconvenient considerations, as if it doesn't really matter, and it shouldn't really matter. Same with the issue of the four corners of the earth, which is also in Scripture. So of course Sungenis doesn't really have a solid answer about the firmament. How can he, with his globe earth model?

I have scientific reasons for why I believe the earth is flat, but this is my primary theological driver.  I agree with those who assert that there's no unequivocal statement in Sacred Scripture that the earth on which we dwell is flat, but Sacred Scripture clearly describes a firmament that is solid enough to serve as a barrier to keep real physical waters from inundating the earth, and that this firmament had gaps in it (described as windows) that allowed the waters in as part of the deluge.  Church Fathers were unanimous in their interpretation of the firmament in this manner.  I have seen no remotely convincing explanation from the globe earth geocentrists to explain the firmament in their model.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 06, 2023, 07:38:56 AM
I have scientific reasons for why I believe the earth is flat, but this is my primary theological driver.  I agree with those who assert that there's no unequivocal statement in Sacred Scripture that the earth on which we dwell is flat, but Sacred Scripture clearly describes a firmament that is solid enough to serve as a barrier to keep real physical waters from inundating the earth, and that this firmament had gaps in it (described as windows) that allowed the waters in as part of the deluge.  Church Fathers were unanimous in their interpretation of the firmament in this manner.  I have seen no remotely convincing explanation from the globe earth geocentrists to explain the firmament in their model.

Thank you. You've explained it well. The globe earthers want us only to consider the natural aspect of the shape of the earth (since a supernatural aspect is not evident on a globe earth), but we didn't create the earth; God did, and our time on this earth is very short when compared with eternity.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 07:39:30 AM
Meg,

Instead of preaching to the choir on this sub-forum about Sungenis have you ever considered actually communicating with him directly?  Contrary to popular opinion, he doesn't bite.  Robert Sungenis <cairomeo@aol.com>

Some people don't agree with him on FE, but how many of us can say that we took the time and effort to put out a 700 + page book on the subject?!

How many of us were paid by the Kolbe Institute to write such a book and can make a living off our writing?  I wrote many pages of critiques of his book here on the forum over time, but some of us have duties of state preventing us from writing 700+ page books.

Sungenis was commissioned up front to write a book to "debunk" Flat Earth, so he had his predetermined conclusion going in, and his bias toward that conclusion is evident throughout his book, as I have demonstrated.

Really, my biggest problem with him, however, was the tone he took against Flat Earthers ... heaping derision and sarcasm on us, and then suddenly making friends (as Pilate and Herod did) with NASA, bolstering NASA's credibility against FEs ... when NASA has nothing but scorn and ridicule for Sungenis and his geocentrism.  Most FEs have always supported his work, and yet he turned on us, and not simply by way of disagreeing, but by expressing outright contempt.  That's when he crossed a line.  I bought his book because he gave an interview in which he spoke respectfully of FE, and so I was willing to have a look.  But that went out the window within the first few pages of his book.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 06, 2023, 07:46:31 AM

Quote
This flat earth deception (http://flatearthdeception.com/) page
Why is the scientific/atheist community so scared of flat earth?  They call it a "deception" (oh, the fear mongering begins).  If someone believes in it, what is the danger, other than they look stupid (according to some)?  The REAL danger is that the scientific community would lose authority/integrity/trust if the earth is flat, because it would damage the entire modern 'science story', and their false, anti-catholic, house of cards would come crumbling down.  Yeah, science definitely has a reason for opposition.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 07:51:42 AM
I saw a recent video clip from Kolbe, featuring Hugh Owen and Dr. Sungenis, and I was not pleased that the two of them lumped Flat Earthers in with those who hold the Sacred Scriptures to be mere myth and to be subject to error.  As I said before, most FEs supported Dr. Sungenis and his work, even if we disagreed with him about the shape of the earth, and I always thought we would agree on all that's most important, the historical and scientific inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.  This should be an academic disagreement among friends ... and yet he portrayed FEs as basically enemies of Sacred Scripture.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 06, 2023, 07:55:52 AM
Quote
I have scientific reasons for why I believe the earth is flat, but this is my primary theological driver.  I agree with those who assert that there's no unequivocal statement in Sacred Scripture that the earth on which we dwell is flat,

Agree.  And there is plenty of circuмstantial evidence that the earth is flat, i.e.
1.  when satan tempted Christ in the desert, he took Him up to a high mountain where all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen.  Not possible on a globe earth.
2.  Christ ascended into heaven, in the direction of "up".  Not possible on a globe earth.
3.  How about when St Luke says the whole world was covered in darkness when Christ was on the cross.  How is this possible on a globe earth?  How can the sun be darkened on the whole earth, at the same time, on a globe earth?  It can't.

44 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-44.htm)And it was almost the sixth hour: and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-45.htm)And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. 46 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-46.htm)And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23)


Quote
but Sacred Scripture clearly describes a firmament that is solid enough to serve as a barrier to keep real physical waters from inundating the earth, and that this firmament had gaps in it (described as windows) that allowed the waters in as part of the deluge.  Church Fathers were unanimous in their interpretation of the firmament in this manner.  I have seen no remotely convincing explanation from the globe earth geocentrists to explain the firmament in their model.
Yeah, a firmament is a basic concept of a Catholic earth model.  Without a firmament, the model is anti-Scripture and wrong.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 06, 2023, 08:36:26 AM

Francis has continually called people to be "attentive to the cry of mother earth". He also declared that the "wounds inflicted on our mother earth are wounds that also bleed in us". Francis even minted a coin with the Pachamama/Gaia conception of the globe (pictured above), so clearly a false god symbol to promote the message of earth worship, climate change and all it's agendas. These symbols of pagan worship insult Christ and His mother whose very holy birth brought salvation to men. Obviously we're dealing with established pagan idols currently promoted by Francis and his ideology of humanism and creature worship. One model of earth is true and the other is false.  Even without the extensive proof from scripture, science, math, reason and the Fathers, the symbolism alone should keep every Christian from embracing the globe.     
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 09:24:41 AM
Agree.  And there is plenty of circuмstantial evidence that the earth is flat, i.e.
1.  when satan tempted Christ in the desert, he took Him up to a high mountain where all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen.  Not possible on a globe earth.
2.  Christ ascended into heaven, in the direction of "up".  Not possible on a globe earth.
3.  How about when St Luke says the whole world was covered in darkness when Christ was on the cross.  How is this possible on a globe earth?  How can the sun be darkened on the whole earth, at the same time, on a globe earth?  It can't.

44 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-44.htm)And it was almost the sixth hour: and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-45.htm)And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. 46 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-46.htm)And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23)

Yeah, a firmament is a basic concept of a Catholic earth model.  Without a firmament, the model is anti-Scripture and wrong.

I agree with these, that they imply a flat earth.  What does the Ascension mean?  Where did Our Lord go on a globe earth?  He was ascending of course from the perspective of the Apostles, but descending for those in China?  Did he just go above the clouds and then shift into a different dimension, simply making a show of it for the consumption of those watching below?  Or did He keep going, floating across the billions of light years they claim the universe extends?

I've read nearly all the known quotations from the Fathers about the shape of the earth, and it can't be denied that they all believed in a solid firmament and believed that there were actual waters (H2O) above the firmament.  And this is clearly what Sacred Scripture describes, so this interpretation of the Fathers comes as no surprise.  Windows or Portals were opened in the firmament during the Deluge, and that along with waters coming up from the Great Deep caused the Flood.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 10:20:47 AM
How many of us were paid by the Kolbe Institute to write such a book and can make a living off our writing?  I wrote many pages of critiques of his book here on the forum over time, but some of us have duties of state preventing us from writing 700+ page books.

Sungenis was commissioned up front to write a book to "debunk" Flat Earth, so he had his predetermined conclusion going in, and his bias toward that conclusion is evident throughout his book, as I have demonstrated.

Really, my biggest problem with him, however, was the tone he took against Flat Earthers ... heaping derision and sarcasm on us, and then suddenly making friends (as Pilate and Herod did) with NASA, bolstering NASA's credibility against FEs ... when NASA has nothing but scorn and ridicule for Sungenis and his geocentrism.  Most FEs have always supported his work, and yet he turned on us, and not simply by way of disagreeing, but by expressing outright contempt.  That's when he crossed a line.  I bought his book because he gave an interview in which he spoke respectfully of FE, and so I was willing to have a look.  But that went out the window within the first few pages of his book.

I can understand that you are upset that Sungenis wrote a big book which in your words sets out "to 'debunk' Flat Earth," (a book which many intelligent people agree with and have looked upon with high regard), but not everyone agrees with you on your above narrative.  If you want to bolster it, however, you may want to try to actually PROVE it or at the very least try proving it.  Contrary to what you may think, I submit that you have certainly not proven it up till now.

As for your own personal duties of state, apparently, they don't prevent you from spending an incredible amount of time over the years on CathInfo.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 06, 2023, 10:46:33 AM
Francis has continually called people to be "attentive to the cry of mother earth". He also declared that the "wounds inflicted on our mother earth are wounds that also bleed in us". Francis even minted a coin with the Pachamama/Gaia conception of the globe (pictured above), so clearly a false god symbol to promote the message of earth worship, climate change and all it's agendas. These symbols of pagan worship insult Christ and His mother whose very holy birth brought salvation to men. Obviously we're dealing with established pagan idols currently promoted by Francis and his ideology of humanism and creature worship. One model of earth is true and the other is false.  Even without the extensive proof from scripture, science, math, reason and the Fathers, the symbolism alone should keep every Christian from embracing the globe.   

Yes, the globe earth model lends itself to a pagan interpretation quite easily. The flat earth model.....not so much. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 06, 2023, 11:33:17 AM
Yes, the globe earth model lends itself to a pagan interpretation quite easily. The flat earth model.....not so much.

As any reasonable Catholic knows, entire beliefs are represented by symbolism. Constantine won the world for his use of a red cross in war.  In our times, the globe, no matter what country you're from, sits in every classroom, somewhere the background of most films, in photos of the elite, on TV shows, in commercials, sold in stores, memorialized in front of state buildings (all thanks to NASA and their fake moon landing cgi graphics) and most people are oblivious that it's an ever-present sign they've been conquered.   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 11:42:11 AM
I can understand that you are upset that Sungenis wrote a big book which in your words sets out "to 'debunk' Flat Earth," (a book which many intelligent people agree with and have looked upon with high regard), but not everyone agrees with you on your above narrative.  If you want to bolster it, however, you may want to try to actually PROVE it or at the very least try proving it.  Contrary to what you may think, I submit that you have certainly not proven it up till now.

As for your own personal duties of state, apparently, they don't prevent you from spending an incredible amount of time over the years on CathInfo.

I spent a long time on other threads demonstrating Sungenis' bias and his bad attitude and bad will towards Flat Earthers.  It's palpable in his book from page one.  In addition, he was commissioned to write the book by the Kolbe Institute, so his conclusion was predetermined, and this shows as he applies confirmation bias to all the "evidence" he cites.  I've demonstrated this clearly by citing form his book.  I purchased the book because I had seen an interview in which he seemed to take a respectful tone toward Flat Eathers, and so I went in wanting to read the book with an open mind, thinking that I would find there the most solid arguments against Flat Earth.  Instead I found a polemical diatribe, ridicule, disparagement, and gross disrespect toward Flat Earthers.  And this latest video clip that was posted with him and Hugh Owen had the temerity to lump Flat Earthers in with those who hold Sacred Scripture to contain error and even to be mythical ... and that is a total outrage, and ... quite frankly ... slanderous.  You can "submit" whatever you want, but your gratuitous submission is gratuitously rejected.

And you know full well that rattling off posts like this and writing a book are completely different matters.  This post took me exactly two minutes to write (I type very quickly), but to apply the discipline necessary to write a properly researched and edited book are an entirely different matter.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 06, 2023, 12:19:58 PM
Agree.  And there is plenty of circuмstantial evidence that the earth is flat, i.e.
1.  when satan tempted Christ in the desert, he took Him up to a high mountain where all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen.  Not possible on a globe earth.
2.  Christ ascended into heaven, in the direction of "up".  Not possible on a globe earth.
3.  How about when St Luke says the whole world was covered in darkness when Christ was on the cross.  How is this possible on a globe earth?  How can the sun be darkened on the whole earth, at the same time, on a globe earth?  It can't.

44 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-44.htm)And it was almost the sixth hour: and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-45.htm)And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst. 46 (https://biblehub.com/catholic/luke/23-46.htm)And Jesus crying with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23)

Yeah, a firmament is a basic concept of a Catholic earth model.  Without a firmament, the model is anti-Scripture and wrong.

1.  When Satan tempted Christ in the desert, he took Him up to a high mountain where all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen.  Not possible on a globe earth.

'Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them,  9 And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me.  10 Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve.' (Matt Ch 4 8-10.)

How in God's name can this passage be 'circuмstantial evidence' for a flat-Earth? Even if it did happen on a flat Earth, as each of us witness every day, one cannot see all the Earth even from a mountain top. How many climbers who reached the top of Mt everest said they saw st America or Australia? How Satan 'showed' Christ all the kingdoms of the world we do not know. He could have pointed to them in every direction that can apply to a flat or global Earth, or he could have created some sort of image, or both he and Christ could have seen in their own way all the kingdoms of the world. 

2.  Christ ascended into heaven, in the direction of "up".  Not possible on a globe earth.

I have already written: A God created global Earth would need a supernatural element to ensure all on such a globe had the Earth under their feet and the sky above their heads. The above 'impossibility' suggests that not even God could create a globe on which what is called gravity by man, could allow man to live anywhere on Earth 
and have the ground under their feet and the sky above their head. It suggests people who live in Australia would be upside down on a global Earth. If we could get to the moon, we would have to land on top of it or end up sideways or upside down on the bottom of it. 
For an explanation as to how man can live on a global Earth, no matter where on it, the top, sides or bottom, it would need a little supernaturalism. Indeed it kind of proves that there is a supernatural element to God's first creation, an Earth for mankind. A flat-Earth would not need supernatural evidence. Christian theology teaches that God’s love sustains the inanimate universe that necessarily ensures the existence of mankind on Earth, be it a globe or not. Thus, we are totally dependent on Him for everything. We call this divine concursus; the act by which God’s energy flows into all the operations of creatures, like gravity to keep hell below and heaven above the Earth. The motions of the universe are presided over by God’s mediate concursus, signifying the remote divine activity that gives and preserves created power of action.

3.  How about when St Luke says the whole world was covered in darkness when Christ was on the cross.  How is this possible on a globe earth?  How can the sun be darkened on the whole earth, at the same time, on a globe earth?  It can't.

 On a global Earth, the sun causes day on one half of it and night (darkness) exists on the other half. If God turned off the light of the sun, which the Scriptures tell us He did, then the whole global Earth would find itself in darkness. 

So, sorry Pax, I don't think the above will convert many from global to flat Earthism.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 06, 2023, 12:32:02 PM

As any reasonable Catholic knows, entire beliefs are represented by symbolism. Constantine won the world for his use of a red cross in war.  In our times, the globe, no matter what country you're from, sits in every classroom, somewhere the background of most films, in photos of the elite, on TV shows, in commercials, sold in stores, memorialized in front of state buildings (all thanks to NASA and their fake moon landing cgi graphics) and most people are oblivious that it's an ever-present sign they've been conquered. 


Yes, we better get rid of all those Child of Prague statues quick:

(https://i.imgur.com/Pbc10hp.png)


And the Miraculous medals less anyone think the globe Our Lady is standing on is also the Earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/JLvkyv5.png)

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 12:54:23 PM

Yes, we better get rid of all those Child of Prague statues quick:

Dumb.  You might as well get rid of your Bible, then, since it describes a solid firmament and water (H2O) above it.  Besides that, as has been repeatedly pointed out, FEs believe that the world is a globe, just that the globular firmament encircles the earth, and God's throne is above the firmament, which is precisely what's depicted by the cross on top, or Our Lady standing on top of it.


(https://i.ibb.co/wLhkVfP/globe.jpg)

And ... as if Catholic art now has the force of dogma or even doctrine.  But, speaking of art ... behold the globe (with cross on top) ...
(https://media.mutualart.com/Images//2016_12/18/14/145459392/f236d473-2131-49f5-a57a-18ad3e5d46f6.Jpeg)

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 06, 2023, 01:00:00 PM

Yes, we better get rid of all those Child of Prague statues quick:

(https://i.imgur.com/Pbc10hp.png)


And the Miraculous medals less anyone think the globe Our Lady is standing on is also the Earth:

(https://i.imgur.com/JLvkyv5.png)

In the first picture, Christ is holding the globus cruciger, that is, all of creation and not just the earth.  In holding the whole of creation, Jesus is shown to be the creator of everything, not just the earth but the heavens as well.  As for Our Lady, she is standing on the firmament, clearly depicted as a dome shape and not a globe, with the moon under her feet as we are told in Revelation.  These beautiful images tell the whole truth when properly understood. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 01:41:55 PM
I spent a long time on other threads demonstrating Sungenis' bias and his bad attitude and bad will towards Flat Earthers.  It's palpable in his book from page one.  In addition, he was commissioned to write the book by the Kolbe Institute, so his conclusion was predetermined, and this shows as he applies confirmation bias to all the "evidence" he cites.  I've demonstrated this clearly by citing form his book.  I purchased the book because I had seen an interview in which he seemed to take a respectful tone toward Flat Eathers, and so I went in wanting to read the book with an open mind, thinking that I would find there the most solid arguments against Flat Earth.  Instead I found a polemical diatribe, ridicule, disparagement, and gross disrespect toward Flat Earthers.  And this latest video clip that was posted with him and Hugh Owen had the temerity to lump Flat Earthers in with those who hold Sacred Scripture to contain error and even to be mythical ... and that is a total outrage, and ... quite frankly ... slanderous.  You can "submit" whatever you want, but your gratuitous submission is gratuitously rejected.

And you know full well that rattling off posts like this and writing a book are completely different matters.  This post took me exactly two minutes to write (I type very quickly), but to apply the discipline necessary to write a properly researched and edited book are an entirely different matter.

And now for the rest of the story -- in your own words: "You [Ladislaus] can 'submit' whatever you want, but your [above] gratuitous submission is gratuitously rejected."

But, thanks for at least giving Sungenis credit for in your own words, "the discipline necessary to write a properly researched and edited 
book."  That part is not rejected. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 01:46:16 PM
Sungenis, Cassini, and Always among others supposedly have a confirmation bias against FE, but of course none of the Flat Earthers on this forum are so unfortunate as to have a confirmation bias against GE.  Whatever! :laugh1:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 06, 2023, 02:03:08 PM
Sungenis, Cassini, and Always among others supposedly have a confirmation bias against FE, but of course none of the Flat Earthers on this forum are so unfortunate as to have a confirmation bias against GE.  Whatever! :laugh1:
:jester: Every one of us was a glober at one point who taught FE is ridiculous, then we gave it a chance. Yeah, we can claim the high ground, Sungenis can't because he never considered the option he was wrong. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 04:17:52 PM
:jester: Every one of us was a glober at one point who taught FE is ridiculous, then we gave it a chance. Yeah, we can claim the high ground, Sungenis can't because he never considered the option he was wrong.

 "Sungenis can't because he never considered the option he was wrong."  What a totally asinine assertion!  Another totally gratuitous claim!

  Where's your crystal ball?  Are you some sort of mind reader? 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 04:25:53 PM
:jester: Every one of us was a glober at one point who taught FE is ridiculous, then we gave it a chance. Yeah, we can claim the high ground, Sungenis can't because he never considered the option he was wrong.

Since you, yourself make the claim for everyone, would you mind standing behind your claim in noting for the record all the user names (every single one) of who you are referring to when you say, " Every one of us was a glober at one point who taught FE is ridiculous."?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 05:11:23 PM
Truth comes to those who look for it honestly.  When someone has decided up front what the conclusion is and goes in search of evidence to prove it, that invariably injects confirmation bias into the analysis.

Took me two years before I became convinced of Flat Earth.  Even now, I am open to being persuaded of the globe, and I often engage in the mental exercise where I pretend that I'm a glober and am trying to convinced Flat Earthers that they're wrong.  I can't do it.  There are way to many experiments showing "see too far", including many photographs taken by people who aren't Flat Earthers, one showing the Alps from 700 miles away, at which distance they should have been hidden by nearly 45 miles of curvature, another a lighthouse that extends 150 feet above sea level from 250 miles away.  I see the myriad laser experiments, including the two-way laser experiments (debunking "refraction"), or the "Black Swan" video made by Dr. John D.  I have also seen no convincing explanation for how the earth can retain its atmosphere adjacent to the vacuum of space; gravity simply isn't strong enough a force to do it.  For both of these phenomena, see too far and the atmosphere, I'm open to alternative explanations, such as electromagnetic force that might bend light exactly around the planet or also retain the atmosphere, but I have found none.

I also consider the description in Sacred Scripture of the firmament and the waters above it, and the unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers, and I can come up with no convincing explanation for this with the NASA ball earth model that doesn't ultimately lead to the imputation of error to Sacred Scripture, and the conclusion that some dummy who knew nothing about creation injected his false notions into Sacred Scripture.  But we know that the Holy Spirit is the Author of Sacred Scripture, so that is not possible.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 05:16:47 PM
Since you, yourself make the claim for everyone, would you mind standing behind your claim in noting for the record all the user names (every single one) of who you are referring to when you say, " Every one of us was a glober at one point who taught FE is ridiculous."?

I'm struggling a bit with the grammar of the quoted sentence, but if the intent is to say that all FEs were initially globers, that is a true statement (with the possibility of a few outlier exceptions here or there).  Several of the most prominent Flat Earthers initially set out with the intention of debunking flat earth ... but then upon examining the actual evidence became convinced of it.  None of us relishes the ridicule to which we are subjected.  We're constantly derided as nutjobs, crazies, whackos ... are laughed it, ridiculed, and mocked.  Probably 70% of the replies to FE posts consist of nothing more than :laugh1: :laugh2: :jester:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: MiracleOfTheSun on July 06, 2023, 06:03:02 PM
None of us relishes the ridicule to which we are subjected.  We're constantly derided as nutjobs, crazies, whackos ... are laughed at, ridiculed, and mocked. 

Absolutely.  Simply mention 'flat earth' and the hysterics begin.  I like when you search 'flat earth' on gootube and the first thing that pops up is a wikipedia disclaimer - 'flat earth is a scientifically disproven conception...' Riiiiiight.  Then try and find a vid that simply presents the arguments in favor.  Then try and tell someone how bogus NASA is.  Man, this stuff never stops.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: MiracleOfTheSun on July 06, 2023, 06:08:45 PM
I'm not fully convinced but the knee jerk reaction alone is making me reconsider.

The Wikipedia disclaimer that should pop up whenever someone searches 'how fast does the earth move' - "No one has ever demonstrated that the earth is moving but many have tried and for centuries have performed varied and numerous tests.  The results have always come back 'negative'". lol

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 06, 2023, 09:12:58 PM
 None of us relishes the ridicule to which we are subjected.  We're constantly derided as nutjobs, crazies, whackos ... are laughed it, ridiculed, and mocked.  Probably 70% of the replies to FE posts consist of nothing more than :laugh1: :laugh2: :jester:

And in the process you become quite adept at playing the victim card. :laugh1: :laugh2: :jester: 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 06, 2023, 09:28:07 PM
They say the Biblical flood covered the whole face of the Earth. Water has a characteristically free surface and takes the shape and curve of its containment or container. How did the flood waters not go over the sides in a flat Earth?

In a sphere, there's not the same problem. The sides are all tangents to a sphere, the old sphere of vanishing flatness, and they're everywhere. All the flood waters that cover the whole Earth bear down to the center equally and can go as high as the Heavens as the depths of it all below increase the same. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 10:03:29 PM
Absolutely.  Simply mention 'flat earth' and the hysterics begin.  I like when you search 'flat earth' on gootube and the first thing that pops up is a wikipedia disclaimer - 'flat earth is a scientifically disproven conception...' Riiiiiight.  Then try and find a vid that simply presents the arguments in favor.  Then try and tell someone how bogus NASA is.  Man, this stuff never stops.

Yes, the Jєωtube / Jєωgle suppression of Flat Earth marks the first time in history that Big Tech is looking out for the truth, on its mission to protect people from disinformation.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 10:06:54 PM
And in the process you become quite adept at playing the victim card. :laugh1: :laugh2: :jester:

No, because I'll slap you brainwashed fools right back down, and will continue to do so.

Point (that you obviously missed) is that none of us have extraneous motives to embrace Flat Earth theory other than our desire to know the truth ... unlike your pal Sungenis who was commissioned (aka paid) by Kolbe to undertake the mission to debunk Flat Earth.  Sungenis also makes it clear that he resents Flat Earthers because he doesn't want his geocentrism associated with it, trying in vain to win the respect of the godless Masonic / Satanic NASA by throwing God-loving Scripture-revering Flat Earthers under the bus and sacrificing them on the altar to NASA.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 06, 2023, 10:08:37 PM
They say the Biblical flood covered the whole face of the Earth. Water has a characteristically free surface and takes the shape and curve of its containment or container. How did the flood waters not go over the sides in a flat Earth?

In a sphere, there's not the same problem. The sides are all tangents to a sphere, the old sphere of vanishing flatness, and they're everywhere. All the flood waters that cover the whole Earth bear down to the center equally and can go as high as the Heavens as the depths of it all below increase the same.
Why even make this statement? No flat earthers (from what I've seen) have ever claimed there was some edge/ledge you can fall off.... this is an dishonest argument that is constantly used by non-flat earthers. It shows they do not actually care nor look into what flat earthers actually believe or their explanations.

The flat earth model has a physical barrier around it (firmament), there is no edge. We are contained inside like a snow globe.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 06, 2023, 10:10:18 PM
Why even make this statement? No flat earthers (from what I've seen) have ever claimed there was some edge/ledge you can fall off.... this is an dishonest argument that is constantly used by non-flat earthers. It shows they do not actually care nor look into what flat earthers actually believe or their explanations.

The flat earth model has a physical barrier around it (firmament), there is no edge. We are contained inside like a snow globe.

Yeah, FEs don't believe in a pancake floating through space.  Firmament encloses the earth and would have retained the water.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 06, 2023, 10:16:22 PM
I'm not fully convinced but the knee jerk reaction alone is making me reconsider.

As it should.  Godspeed in your search for truth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 06, 2023, 10:41:50 PM
Why even make this statement? No flat earthers (from what I've seen) have ever claimed there was some edge/ledge you can fall off.... this is an dishonest argument that is constantly used by non-flat earthers. It shows they do not actually care nor look into what flat earthers actually believe or their explanations.

The flat earth model has a physical barrier around it (firmament), there is no edge. We are contained inside like a snow globe.
A physical barrier but not an edge? A distinction without a difference? Is twilight not an edge or a limit in space? From where an astronomer can watch sunset, the Sun descends and loses altitude in the horizon. It keeps descending and losing altitude until it has passed a limit or side in that direction. All the horizons are composed of two intersecting planes, having the up and down as equally disposed as all the side ways. There's altitude, ascension, and azimuth in all the positions of the Sun, which combine to show that the Sun is going over some edge of the Earth or descending around another corner all the time.

All the hours are around the Earth at once and in opposition to their opposites all the time. It seems evident that that can ony work itself in balance in the larger sphericity of space.

The first reason, imho, there is necessity in the spherical Earth not the flat model, is that the relation to infinity exists and exists everywhere all the time. Space is somewhat captive or captured in this relationship and can't get out of it. So space expresses or expatiates like Pi, C/D = 3.141592  ... in the six cosmic directions. There's no way for Pi to get out of being Pi and the value of it, and the sphericity of the Earth follws in the nature of that, since geometry expresses the nature of mathematics.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 06, 2023, 10:51:35 PM
A physical barrier but not an edge? A distinction without a difference? Is twilight not an edge or a limit in space? From where an astronomer can watch sunset, the Sun descends and loses altitude in the horizon. It keeps descending and losing altitude until it has passed a limit or side in that direction. All the horizons are composed of two intersecting planes, having the up and down as equally disposed as all the side ways. There's altitude, ascension, and azimuth in all the positions of the Sun, which combine to show that the Sun is going over some edge of the Earth or descending around another corner all the time.

All the hours are around the Earth at once and in opposition to their opposites all the time. It seems evident that that can ony work itself in balance in the larger sphericity of space.

The first reason, imho, there is necessity in the spherical Earth not the flat model, is that the relation to infinity exists and exists everywhere all the time. Space is somewhat captive or captured in this relationship and can't get out of it. So space expresses or expatiates like Pi, C/D = 3.141592  ... in the six cosmic directions. There's no way for Pi to get out of being Pi and the value of it, and the sphericity of the Earth follws in the nature of that, since geometry expresses the nature of mathematics.
I do not believe in most of the stuff we were taught about the celestial bodies. Enochs 'portals' could be a reality for all I know. Also I don't believe that 'outer space' is real. Modern cosmology is based off assumptions.

The reality is that we will never get the answers unless we can ask these questions. It does not help that nearly everyone today assumes that what they've been taught must be correct. And also as cassini has shown in his earlier posts, how the clergy has become especially lax over the last few centuries to the point that past heresies are now talked about as theories....
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 06, 2023, 11:29:33 PM
I don't believe in "scientific materialism", heliocentric physics, or atomic theory. I start from the Roman calendar that now goes to the General Roman Calendar of the Church. The solar calendar followed the lunar ones, and either way they had measures in kalends, nones, and ides, which are the new moons, quarter moons, and full moons. The astrologers warned Julius Caesar to beware the ides of March, the full Moon, but he didn't listen.

The full Moon is 180" in opposition to the Sun and goes from East to West around the Earth in about 25 hours, the Sun in 24. The basics in astronomy build up from there, and "gravity" is not a lateral force and the Moon goes laterally around the Earth, so that's the end of Newton and Einstein for me. I accept the Book of Genesis, of course, and that nature is related to creation and creation is related to nature. The Roman god Janus is significant to me for the expression given there about so many sides, and on and on they go to infinity, although sides are not infinite. They are at the most just more and more, and infinity's not more but different from that.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 07, 2023, 02:52:08 AM
unlike your pal Sungenis who was commissioned (aka paid) by Kolbe to undertake the mission to debunk Flat Earth.
unlike your pal Matthew who has the system rigged so his pal Ladislaus can get up votes, but not down votes.  Maybe you both learned something from the Democrats' ongoing election shenanigans.  They are pretty blatant, but no more so that the no down vote shenanigan exception for Ladislaus, the poor victim of a potential avalanche of down votes.

How about presenting to us your proof that Kolbe Center paid Dr. Sungenis "to undertake the mission to debunk Flat Earth" as opposed to giving him a free hand to research the subject and write a book on the subject without having to violate his conscience in anyway, but merely to write a book as honestly as he could.  The fact that you have in the past accused Dr. Sungenis of being dishonest speaks more about you than it does about him.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 07, 2023, 09:49:24 AM
unlike your pal Matthew who has the system rigged so his pal Ladislaus can get up votes, but not down votes.  Maybe you both learned something from the Democrats' ongoing election shenanigans.  They are pretty blatant, but no more so that the no down vote shenanigan exception for Ladislaus, the poor victim of a potential avalanche of down votes.

How about presenting to us your proof that Kolbe Center paid Dr. Sungenis "to undertake the mission to debunk Flat Earth" as opposed to giving him a free hand to research the subject and write a book on the subject without having to violate his conscience in anyway, but merely to write a book as honestly as he could.  The fact that you have in the past accused Dr. Sungenis of being dishonest speaks more about you than it does about him.

The way the upvotes/downvotes works here, is that members who have over a certain number of posts do not receive downvotes, only upvotes. You've been a member for only a short time, so you may not realize that yet.

Also, we've discussed the problems with Sungenis and FE for years here. It's not a new subject for us.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 07, 2023, 10:04:15 AM
unlike your pal Matthew who has the system rigged so his pal Ladislaus can get up votes, but not down votes.  Maybe you both learned something from the Democrats' ongoing election shenanigans.

Hilarious and absolutely ignorant! Thank you :laugh1:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 07, 2023, 11:26:40 AM
How about presenting to us your proof that Kolbe Center paid Dr. Sungenis "to undertake the mission to debunk Flat Earth" as opposed to giving him a free hand to research the subject and write a book on the subject without having to violate his conscience in anyway, but merely to write a book as honestly as he could.  The fact that you have in the past accused Dr. Sungenis of being dishonest speaks more about you than it does about him.

There are numerous quotes in this regard, where it was decided up front that Flat Earth was causing problems for them.  I'd love to spend hours sifting through videos from Dr. Sungenis to find the quotes again, but it would hardly be worth my time.

As for being dishonest, yet another dunderhead who can't understand the distinction between conscious mendacity and intellectual dishonesty caused by a pre-determined conclusion and confirmation bias (i.e. lack of objectivity and approaching the subject with an open mind).  I've repeatedly stated that Dr. Sungenis shows no indication of the former, but the latter can be demonstrated from his writing.

With regard to your assertion that the voting system has been rigged for me, it has nothing to do with me personally, but is just the result of an algorithm Matthew implemented to prevent various abuses combined with my volume of posts over the past dozen years or so.  I've even asked Matthew to make a Ladislaus exception so that snowflakes like yourself can downthumb away ... because I could hardly care less.  Those numbers that you see between up- and down- are fairly representative of the ratios that were even before this change of algorithm, except that some downvotes have disappeared as users have gotten banned for one reason or another.  There was a flaw in the previous algorithm where the only restriction was that you could only be responsible for 1/5th of a user's total downvotes.  Well, for someone like myself, who have over 4,000 downvotes, a user with a vendetta could sign up for an account an hit me up with 800 downvotes, and in fact things like that were happening.  But if you want to suggest some other algorithm that doesn't require a Ph.D. in math, I'm sure that Matthew's open to it.  If I could, I'd downthumb myself by your request to demonstrate how little I care about it.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 07, 2023, 04:03:22 PM
There are numerous quotes in this regard, where it was decided up front that Flat Earth was causing problems for them.  I'd love to spend hours sifting through videos from Dr. Sungenis to find the quotes again, but it would hardly be worth my time.

As for being dishonest, yet another dunderhead who can't understand the distinction between conscious mendacity and intellectual dishonesty caused by a pre-determined conclusion and confirmation bias (i.e. lack of objectivity and approaching the subject with an open mind).  I've repeatedly stated that Dr. Sungenis shows no indication of the former, but the latter can be demonstrated from his writing.

With regard to your assertion that the voting system has been rigged for me, it has nothing to do with me personally, but is just the result of an algorithm Matthew implemented to prevent various abuses combined with my volume of posts over the past dozen years or so.  I've even asked Matthew to make a Ladislaus exception so that snowflakes like yourself can downthumb away ... because I could hardly care less.  Those numbers that you see between up- and down- are fairly representative of the ratios that were even before this change of algorithm, except that some downvotes have disappeared as users have gotten banned for one reason or another.  There was a flaw in the previous algorithm where the only restriction was that you could only be responsible for 1/5th of a user's total downvotes.  Well, for someone like myself, who have over 4,000 downvotes, a user with a vendetta could sign up for an account an hit me up with 800 downvotes, and in fact things like that were happening.  But if you want to suggest some other algorithm that doesn't require a Ph.D. in math, I'm sure that Matthew's open to it.  If I could, I'd downthumb myself by your request to demonstrate how little I care about it.

You, the proud ex-seminarian and long-time standing official Default Monitor of CathInfo and Flat Earther in Chief, are the actual snowflake who needs to be protected from downvotes! :laugh1: :laugh2:   You are hereby recognized for your PhD for your fine mastery of verbiage, obfuscation, rationalization, mind reading, and name calling and, of course, setting a new record every day for total amount of posts on CathInfo, none of which, of course, interfere with your duty of state due to your lightening fast typing speed.  :laugh1: :laugh2:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 07, 2023, 04:17:34 PM

Quote
The fact that you have in the past accused Dr. Sungenis of being dishonest
Dr S admitted in his own book of his bias against FE.  So he can't be viewed as an impartial observer.  So any claim of being unbiased is dishonest.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 07, 2023, 04:34:29 PM
Dr S admitted in his own book of his bias against FE.  So he can't be viewed as an impartial observer.  So any claim of being unbiased is dishonest.

Even if one has a bias (as most of us have various biases) that does not, in and of itself, render a person incapable of treating a subject in an impartial and just manner.  If it did it, for example, it would often render jury selection a complete exercise in futility.

I, for example, have a bias against Jєωs.  I can honestly state, however, that bias would not render me incapable of being an impartial juror in a criminal case where the one being charged was Jєωιѕн.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 07, 2023, 04:57:31 PM
Even if one has a bias (as most of us have various biases) that does not, in and of itself, render a person incapable of treating a subject in an impartial and just manner.  If it did it, for example, it would often render jury selection a complete exercise in futility.

I, for example, have a bias against Jєωs.  I can honestly state, however, that bias would not render me incapable of being an impartial juror in a criminal case where the one being charged was Jєωιѕн.

That analogy fails.  You can have a bias about a subject in one respect but be able to evaluate it in another.  Dr. Sungenis' bias was directly about the very subject he was addressing in the same respect.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 07, 2023, 05:09:45 PM
That analogy fails.  You can have a bias about a subject in one respect but be able to evaluate it in another.  Dr. Sungenis' bias was directly about the very subject he was addressing in the same respect.
Many flat earthers at one time were globe earthers and had a distinct bias against flat earth.  Yet in spite of their distinct bias against flat earth they ended up becoming flat earthers!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 07, 2023, 05:47:25 PM
Many flat earthers at one time were globe earthers and had a distinct bias against flat earth.  Yet in spite of their distinct bias against flat earth they ended up becoming flat earthers!

I never had a bias against FE, even when I believed in a globe earth. I just never gave it much thought, until a forum member brought the subject up on another trad form.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 07, 2023, 06:00:30 PM
I never had a bias against FE, even when I believed in a globe earth. I just never gave it much thought, until a forum member brought the subject up on another trad form.

My path to FE was similar.  Godspeed, Meg :)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: MiracleOfTheSun on July 07, 2023, 06:11:05 PM
Pretty much sums me up as well.  Was never really on the radar.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 07, 2023, 09:36:15 PM

I think I used to be a Flat Earther up until the age of about 7 or so when I noticed this globe up in the classroom.  Then after the good sister or someone told me what it was I gradually (or suddenly?) became a Globe Earther.  How could that person have been so shameful to start brainwashing me like that?!  Imagine --  such dreadful intellectual child abuse at such a young age!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 07, 2023, 10:40:47 PM
I think I used to be a Flat Earther up until the age of about 7 or so when I noticed this globe up in the classroom.  Then after the good sister or someone told me what it was I gradually (or suddenly?) became a Globe Earther.  How could that person have been so shameful to start brainwashing me like that?!  Imagine --  such dreadful intellectual child abuse at such a young age!

Is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Always what

Always gαy?  Always full of shit?  Always brainless, meaningless commentary meant to derail profitable discussion?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 07, 2023, 11:42:13 PM
Always what?  This seems to be the best answer:

https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 08, 2023, 12:20:10 AM
Is anyone supposed to take anything you say seriously?

Always what?

Always gαy?  Always full of shit?  Always brainless, meaningless commentary meant to derail profitable discussion?

Hey, did you forget to call me a SOB, like you called Mark 79 earlier today?  Sorry, my sense of humor got you so triggered.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 08, 2023, 12:21:27 AM
Always what?  This seems to be the best answer:

https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)

Wow, you're really on a roll funny man.  (Or is it a bender?)  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 08, 2023, 12:24:32 AM
Is the Sun not going West all the time? If it is, how does it come back to positions where it was before?

If it's not going West all the time, why does it set in the West every day?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 08, 2023, 12:40:32 AM
Hey, did you forget to call me a SOB, like you called Mark 79 earlier today? 
 
No need.  I destroyed you so completely with this...

https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)

...that you would be wise to just shut your mouth and remain in the kiddie pool.  Venture into the arena and I will mercilessly smash you.  I would rather not, but that is your choice.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 08, 2023, 12:47:48 AM
Is the Sun not going West all the time?

Nope.  You clearly have yet to study the ideas of those with whom you disagree and ignorantly mock.  Not surprised.

The sun (no need to capitalize) is local and moves in a circle within the (dome of the) firmament.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 08, 2023, 12:52:07 AM
Wow, you're really on a roll funny man.  (Or is it a bender?) 

It is a roll, like unto a steam-roller, and that sound is your weak, soy-boy bones crunching underneath an onslaught to which you have no answer at all.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 08, 2023, 12:59:12 AM
Nope.  You clearly have yet to study the ideas of those with whom you disagree and ignorantly mock.  Not surprised.

The sun (no need to capitalize) is local and moves in a circle within the (dome of the) firmament.
I don't think I've said anything to mock flat earthism, but if the Sun is not going West all the time, still that direction that is West and to the West exists. Since the Sun does have a specific and general motion, what is the difference between its motion and the West? In what other direction does its motion increase?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 08, 2023, 01:26:04 AM

No need.  I destroyed you so completely with this...

https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)

...that you would be wise to just shut your mouth and remain in the kiddie pool.  Venture into the arena and I will mercilessly smash you.  I would rather not, but that is your choice.
Wow!  Being so completely destroyed and mercilessly smashed by some anonymous stranger typing out letters on a keyboard.  How will I ever survive?  Mercy, mercy!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 08, 2023, 02:47:20 AM
It is a roll, like unto a steam-roller, and that sound is your weak, soy-boy bones crunching underneath an onslaught to which you have no answer at all.

Sounds much more like a bender.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 08, 2023, 10:09:03 AM
I think I used to be a Flat Earther up until the age of about 7 or so when I noticed this globe up in the classroom.  Then after the good sister or someone told me what it was I gradually (or suddenly?) became a Globe Earther.  How could that person have been so shameful to start brainwashing me like that?!  Imagine --  such dreadful intellectual child abuse at such a young age!

Yet another poor excuse for logic.  Sister too was brainwashed.  This does not mean she was somehow shamelessly and nefariously and intentionally brainwashing you.  Use your brain, man; hopefully enough of it has remained unwashed to still be capable of functioning on a basic level.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 08, 2023, 11:16:22 AM
Is the Sun not going West all the time? If it is, how does it come back to positions where it was before?

If it's not going West all the time, why does it set in the West every day?

The sun doesn't return back to the same position but progresses through a series of motions that when traced over the year produces the analemma. The sun rises from different positions in the east, from southeast to northeast and then sets opposite in northwest and southwest, as it plods along through seasons.  It also climbs and descends along the way.  If you watch the celestial bodies over time, you'll see there is a pattern from east to west, but the movements of the sun and moon actually work like a clock telling the time and seasons as scripture tells us in Genesis.  With earth being the original clock and the sun and moon being the hands, we know earth cannot possibly be a globe. The earth has a face and the movement of the sun and moon travel over points of demarcation in order to tell time/date.  Just like the astrological clocks on the floors of cathedrals in Europe, it is necessary that the floor be flat in order to get the correct date/time. These clocks are disguised in the very architecture with hidden meridian lines that work to this day. Bologna’s Basilica of San Petronio is not the only example of a meridian line, although it was considered to be the most accurate. There's one in Santa Maria degli Angeli in Rome, another Saint-Sulpice in Paris hosts one, and Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, and a church in Fossombrone, Italy, bears a meridian line. The way meridian lines operate is both surprisingly complex and quite easy to grasp. As the sun track on its annual migration between the summer and winter solstices, its image on the cathedral floor also shifts, moving slowly along the meridian line. Halfway between the solstices, of course, are the spring and autumn equinoxes. Once the position of the solar circle indicates the spring equinox, believers must simply wait for the next full moon; the first Sunday after that full moon will be the proper date of Easter.
The meridian also acts like a daily clock and as well as a tool used to synchronize church bells. 

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 08, 2023, 11:28:03 AM

There are also upright astronomical clocks representing the solar system strictly using the flat earth geocentric model. They don't work on a globe. The center of the dial is often marked with a disc representing the earth, located at the center of the solar system.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=astronomical+clock+images&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=astronomical+clock+images&sc=7-25&sk=&cvid=427762083DE1437DB6F69370E66D7796&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 08, 2023, 11:41:16 AM
Along the lines of clocks and sundials, this Antikythera Mechanism is amazing ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKYT3C--BDo
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 08, 2023, 12:00:00 PM
Why is it that this subject brings out the worst in so many? Calling one another idiots does not prove either side is correct. Belief in God does not depend on how one perceives the shape of the Earth. Showing that a flat Earth meets all the conditions necessary while a global Earth can do the same, neither proves or falsifies the true order. Given the Church has never ruled on the subject, as it did with geocentrism, means it is a matter outside of Church teaching. So, let us all calm down and wait until the day God will show us how He created the shape of the Earth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 08, 2023, 12:10:25 PM
Why is it that this subject brings out the worst in so many? Calling one another idiots does not prove either side is correct. Belief in God does not depend on how one perceives the shape of the Earth. Showing that a flat Earth meets all the conditions necessary while a global Earth can do the same, neither proves or falsifies the true order. Given the Church has never ruled on the subject, as it did with geocentrism, means it is a matter outside of Church teaching. So, let us all calm down and wait until the day God will show us how He created the shape of the Earth.

What do you mean belief in God does not depend on how one perceives the shape of the Earth? After arguing your position pretty vehemently, suddenly pretending it doesn't matter is not only wrong headed, it is a fallacious attempt to avoid getting to the truth, not to mention it's a standard way of escaping a failing position.
   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 08, 2023, 12:41:34 PM
Why is it that this subject brings out the worst in so many? Calling one another idiots does not prove either side is correct. Belief in God does not depend on how one perceives the shape of the Earth. Showing that a flat Earth meets all the conditions necessary while a global Earth can do the same, neither proves or falsifies the true order. Given the Church has never ruled on the subject, as it did with geocentrism, means it is a matter outside of Church teaching. So, let us all calm down and wait until the day God will show us how He created the shape of the Earth.

It usually begins with ridicule of Flat Earthers.  People have been programmed to ridicule Flat Earth, and the term FlatEarther has become synonymous with moron and idiot.  I'll get back later to explaining why this programming, and also why Globers become so hostile.  I've already posted on this before but will come back to it.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 08, 2023, 12:51:59 PM
Along the lines of clocks and sundials, this Antikythera Mechanism is amazing ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKYT3C--BDo
Interesting and fairly complex video on the mechanics of the astrological clock.  I disagree with guy's the assessment that these clocks only prove that people believed the earth to be flat, not that the clocks themselves prove the earth is flat. Sure, the builders believed earth is flat, but they weren't entirely without information. Besides, who builds a mechanism that works on a plane (clock face) when they meant for it to work on a globe?  How could it work if it has a flat face, but the the earth is curved like a ball?  No doubt there is a much more in depth explanation for how it would be impossible for these clocks to work on a globe, but like the video shows, there is a lot of pseudo science talking heads convinced earth is a globe who reconfigure everything to explain away the flat earth.   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 08, 2023, 12:56:09 PM
Interesting and fairly complex video on the mechanics of the astrological clock.  I disagree with guy's the assessment that these clocks only prove that people believed the earth to be flat, not that the clocks themselves prove the earth is flat. Sure, the builders believed earth is flat, but they weren't entirely without information. Besides, who builds a mechanism that works on a plane (clock face) when they meant for it to work on a globe?  How could it work if it has a flat face, but the the earth is curved like a ball?  No doubt there is a much more in depth explanation for how it would be impossible for these clocks to work on a globe, but like the video shows, there is a lot of pseudo science talking heads convinced earth is a globe who reconfigure everything to explain away the flat earth. 

What's interesting, really, is that the claim is often made that the only way to explain (and predict) things like eclipses is based on knowledge of the solar system.  They were predicting eclipses hundreds of years in advance with their math, and even if you claim they believed in the globe earth cosmology, they still didn't know the measurements, etc., such as the distances between the earth and the sun, moon, starts, etc.  They were able to work it out with incredible precision from a geocentric perspective.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 08, 2023, 01:13:25 PM
What's interesting, really, is that the claim is often made that the only way to explain (and predict) things like eclipses is based on knowledge of the solar system.  They were predicting eclipses hundreds of years in advance with their math, and even if you claim they believed in the globe earth cosmology, they still didn't know the measurements, etc., such as the distances between the earth and the sun, moon, starts, etc.  They were able to work it out with incredible precision from a geocentric perspective.

Yea, I didn't think about that. Funny how people think Copernicus and Galileo were the guys who knew how to predict eclipses before Christians did.  The oldest surviving clock, (not just the oldest astrological clock) was made in the 1400's by Catholics.  Copernicus and Galileo came along 200 years later.   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 08, 2023, 04:47:46 PM
Yet another poor excuse for logic.  Sister too was brainwashed.  This does not mean she was somehow shamelessly and nefariously and intentionally brainwashing you.  Use your brain, man; hopefully enough of it has remained unwashed to still be capable of functioning on a basic level.

Yes, but of course -- how could I have missed that -- the dear sister must have been brainwashed as well.

To be exact when and how in your view did all this supposed "globe earth brainwashing" start enveloping the Church and about when would you say was the tipping point in so far as the dominant view among the faithful being for a globe earth as opposed to a flat earth?  Any supporting authoritative docuмentation, would, of course, be most welcome.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 08, 2023, 05:11:10 PM
Quote
I think I used to be a Flat Earther up until the age of about 7 or so when I noticed this globe up in the classroom.  Then after the good sister or someone told me what it was I gradually (or suddenly?) became a Globe Earther.  How could that person have been so shameful to start brainwashing me like that?!  Imagine --  such dreadful intellectual child abuse at such a young age!

Yet another poor excuse for logic.  Sister too was brainwashed.  This does not mean she was somehow shamelessly and nefariously and intentionally brainwashing you.  Use your brain, man; hopefully enough of it has remained unwashed to still be capable of functioning on a basic level.

Come on Lad -- did you actually take my words at face value?!  It wasn't my logic that fell flat -- it was my failed -- at least for you apparently -- sense of humor.  I would never ever dream of accusing one of the dear religious sisters who taught me of in your words, "shamelessly and nefariously and intentionally brainwashing [me]."
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Donachie on July 08, 2023, 07:46:48 PM

  It also climbs and descends along the way.  
The analemma repeats itself throught the soltices and equinoxes, proving the point again, as you admit here, that the Sun is always rising in the East and setting in the West, as the Bible says, which means it is coming back around all the time, and the Earth is as spherical as pure space itself. The only way the Sun is engaged in anything like an infinite motion is in the repetiton of said motion which is circular and along the celestial latitudes and longitudes which prefigure a Euclidean sphere out of intersecting planes in logic itself besides space.

Some people may not like Descartes but the x,y,z axes are in all this all the way and there's no where around Earth where the Sun makes a flat Earth turn and rises in the West and sets in the East.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 09, 2023, 12:45:46 AM
 people may not like Descartes but the x,y,z axes are in all this all the way and there's no where around Earth where the Sun makes a flat Earth turn and rises in the West and sets in the East.
Unless Enochs portals are real... Though this is just speculation.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 07:06:17 AM
Unless Enochs portals are real... Though this is just speculation.

I'm glad you understand what he's talking about.

In any case, I'm not sure that the sun remains parallel over the flat earth.  My guess actually is that it moves up and down the firmament some.  So, as it gets further North, it moves up the face of the firmament somewhat higher, and then as it goes further South, it goes lower.  This explains perfectly why the sun moves slower in the North and faster in the South.  It's the same reason that according to the globe theory the earth rotates faster at the equator and slower as you head further north, because you cover a 360 degree rotation in the same amount of time.  And it also explains why days seem to be of similar length despite the changes of speed, because the sun is lower in the sky in the south and therefore disappears due to perspective more quickly, but takes longer to converge with the horizon in the north because it's higher in the sky there.  So the dome (semi-spherical) shape of the firmament has it all make sense, as opposed to there being some kind of mystery about how the sun accelerates in speed as it goes farther south.  Nearly all the Church Fathers held that the sun was IN the firmament, in which case it wouldn't move parallel over the earth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 07:45:26 AM
So, this here is the model that most FEs just put out there by habit  ...
(https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2017/06/sJddKRe-1.png)

But I think it's wrong.  It doesn't really provide an explanation for why the sun moves faster in the South and slower in the North.  And, if it's moving faster in the South, then why aren't the lengths of days significantly shorter in the South?

But if you realize that the sun is IN the firmament, all of that makes perfect sense, as the firmament is dome shaped (part of a sphere).  Consequently, if the entire firmament makes a full rotation in 24 hours, then things higher up on the sphere would move slower than things lower on the sphere, because the perimeter of a full circle is smaller in the North than it is in the South.  THEN, although the sun is moving faster in the Southern hemisphere, it disappears more quickly from view because it's also lower to the flat surface of the earth ... resulting in the fact that the lengths of days are similar in North and South (in opposite seasons of course), despite this difference of speed.  Putting the sun back into the dome-shaped firmament where it belongs instead of on a parallel flat plane suddenly makes sense of these unresolved questions in the model above.

(https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/files/fet2.png)

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 09, 2023, 08:03:07 AM
Along the lines of clocks and sundials, this Antikythera Mechanism is amazing ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKYT3C--BDo
This video didn't really do anything for flat earth. Though it was a strong proof that (((science))) is trying to break away from geocentrism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 08:13:30 AM
This video didn't really do anything for flat earth. Though it was a strong proof that (((science))) is trying to break away from geocentrism.

Basically, what it was saying that the original reconstruction of the mechanism showed the sun and moon above the plane of the earth, and then this other guy came along and reinvented it by adding about 100 extra hypothetical parts to it, where I think the original reconstruction only need to add about 7.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 09, 2023, 08:16:23 AM
So, this here is the model that most FEs just put out there by habit  ...
(https://www.bellingcat.com/app/uploads/2017/06/sJddKRe-1.png)

But I think it's wrong.  It doesn't really provide an explanation for why the sun moves faster in the South and slower in the North.  And, if it's moving faster in the South, then why aren't the lengths of days significantly shorter in the South?

But if you realize that the sun is IN the firmament, all of that makes perfect sense, as the firmament is dome shaped (part of a sphere).  Consequently, if the entire firmament makes a full rotation in 24 hours, then things higher up on the sphere would move slower than things lower on the sphere, because the perimeter of a full circle is smaller in the North than it is in the South.  THEN, although the sun is moving faster in the Southern hemisphere, it disappears more quickly from view because it's also lower to the flat surface of the earth ... resulting in the fact that the lengths of days are similar in North and South (in opposite seasons of course), despite this difference of speed.  Putting the sun back into the dome-shaped firmament where it belongs instead of on a parallel flat plane suddenly makes sense of these unresolved questions in the model above.

(https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/files/fet2.png)
About that 2nd image. I can understand the things contained inside the firmament, but what about the stuff outside it? Like the waters outisde, do they just sit there? Is the waters outside curved (like in the image)?, also the pilliars of the earth are connected to what? or abyss/ocean, what are they founded on?

I don't expect a solution but it bothers me... 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 11:18:20 AM
The analemma repeats itself throught the soltices and equinoxes, proving the point again, as you admit here, that the Sun is always rising in the East and setting in the West, as the Bible says, which means it is coming back around all the time, and the Earth is as spherical as pure space itself. The only way the Sun is engaged in anything like an infinite motion is in the repetiton of said motion which is circular and along the celestial latitudes and longitudes which prefigure a Euclidean sphere out of intersecting planes in logic itself besides space.

Some people may not like Descartes but the x,y,z axes are in all this all the way and there's no where around Earth where the Sun makes a flat Earth turn and rises in the West and sets in the East.

There is a way the sun works on a flat earth people often don't consider, at least not for long.  Enoch explains the whole thing, but then, it is only Enoch, a man taken to the first heaven to be shown how the celestials work.  Dismissing his explanation because you don't think it matters or don't understand it, does not negate the operations described.  Until you can disprove Enoch, you have not proven your case. You merely accept pagans' word over a man that Christ refers to in scripture. There are other fe models of course, but again, the first provided is probably correct and perhaps even workable within the flat earth models of today with some adjustments. The globe doesn't work no matter what. 

The analemma is a composite of the sun over the course of a year, taken over a particular spot showing how the sun provides for times and seasons, a perfect explanation for differences in weather between north and south. The pattern is not possible on a globe. There is not enough area coverage to cover space over an entire globe over the year, especially on the other side, yet it obviously works over a flat earth.  At one point in July, 99% of all known land mass is lit by the sun.  Not possible on a globe. Besides the sun, we also have Polaris, which viewed through a telescope, night after night, year after year, century after century, remains in the exact same spot.  Not possible on a globe.  If the globe spins, well, that doesn't work, it would disappear during progressions through the days and seasons.  If the globe dangles in space without spinning or movement, 50% of the countries would never be able to view Polaris, yet it is visible everywhere east to west, and the north, and several degrees south.  There is an exception in the far south, due to perspective over a large plane, but that isn't at issue here, because most countries can view Polaris, which is not possible on the globe.  Again, these visible and docuмented realities need to be proven wrong before one can attempt to debunk flat earth.



(https://i.imgur.com/WtRZ6cn.png)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 11:22:41 AM
About that 2nd image. I can understand the things contained inside the firmament, but what about the stuff outside it? Like the waters outisde, do they just sit there? Is the waters outside curved (like in the image)?, also the pilliars of the earth are connected to what? or abyss/ocean, what are they founded on?

I don't expect a solution but it bothers me...

It's no different than the problem of space.  Does it have an end?  If so, where does it end and what is the boundary?  We don't know if these waters are contained in something else.  That's just a picture, and I wouldn't read too much into it.  I just showed it as an illustration of how the parallel movement of sun and moon over the flat plane of the earth ignores the idea that the sun and moon are in the firmament.  If they were in the firmament, the firmament would be dome shaped or a hemisphere.  Thus, as the sun went further North (aka, toward the center), it would also climb in altitude as it moved "North" and lower in "altitude" when it got South.  This is much more satisfactory than the typical FE proposal that the sun and moon are in a parallel plane above the earth.  Why does the sun "accelerate" when it moves South?  And if it's accelerating, why are the days in the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern (in opposite seasons) roughly the same length.  Well, that too is explained by the lowering of altitude.  While it's moving faster in the South, it's also at a lower altitude, and thus it would converge more quickly with the horizon.  Both those phenomena are not adequately explained by the parallel planes.

I'm pretty sure also, if I recall, that the Book of Enoch also describes the sun going higher and lower in altitude at different times.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 09, 2023, 01:50:45 PM
Why is it that this subject brings out the worst in so many? Calling one another idiots does not prove either side is correct. Belief in God does not depend on how one perceives the shape of the Earth. Showing that a flat Earth meets all the conditions necessary while a global Earth can do the same, neither proves or falsifies the true order. Given the Church has never ruled on the subject, as it did with geocentrism, means it is a matter outside of Church teaching. So, let us all calm down and wait until the day God will show us how He created the shape of the Earth.

If we could all just believe that the earth is a globe, then we could all get along....well....on this subject anyway.

The subject of the shape of the earth is going to cause friction and division, but it can't really be helped. Since, as you say, the Church hasn't ruled on the shape of the earth, then we are free to debate it. Even if that means there will be animosity in doing so. And there WILL be animosity. There is a HUGE difference between the model of a globe earth, and a flat earth. That's why we need to debate the subject.

I don't understand why some on this thread believe that Sungenis is above criticism. He is not. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 05:02:47 PM


I don't understand why some on this thread believe that Sungenis is above criticism. He is not.

I wonder who they are.  I certainly am not one of them, and if Sungenis was on this thread, I guarantee you that he, himself would not be one of them!  He vigorously defends what he believe in while at the same time not holding himself above criticism. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 05:29:35 PM
I wonder who they are.  I certainly am not one of them, and if Sungenis was on this thread, I guarantee you that he, himself would not be one of them!  He vigorously defends what he believe in while at the same time not holding himself above criticism.
If Sungenis can't defend his position for the sake of traditional Catholics, let the criticism commence. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 05:38:48 PM
Toward the beginning of one of his anti-flat earth articles Robert Sungenis says:

"As we will see, it is their poor exegesis of the Bible that drives (flat earthers) to think that everything NASA

tells them about the Earth is a lie. Although it can be shown in some cases that NASA is certainly not the highest epitome of truth and honesty, it is quite another thing to claim that NASA deliberately forges pictures of a spherical Earth, a large sun, or the existence planets."




So, Sungenis is admits NASA lies, but NASA lies only a little bit. :laugh2:


Sungenis even tells us “…in some cases that NASA is certainly not the highest epitome of truth and honesty.”

Ya think?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: MiracleOfTheSun on July 09, 2023, 05:57:30 PM
It's nice when they don't lie about the topic one is supporting.  lol
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 06:15:41 PM
If Sungenis can't defend his position for the sake of traditional Catholics, let the criticism commence.

Where have you been?!  He can defend and he has defended his positions for years (and not just for the sake of traditional Catholics, but for all kinds of people) in all kinds of venues for what he believes (whether you agree with him or not) is the truth.  As for the criticism of things he asserts or doesn't assert that commenced decades ago! 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 06:27:26 PM
It's nice when they don't lie about the topic one is supporting.  lol

NASA says light comes from the Sun.  That's really nice since they don't lie about my same belief on the subject.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 06:31:14 PM
Toward the beginning of one of his anti-flat earth articles Robert Sungenis says:

"As we will see, it is their poor exegesis of the Bible that drives (flat earthers) to think that everything NASA

tells them about the Earth is a lie."

It is Sungenis' poor grasp of logic that drives him to make this statement.  Nobody says that EVERYTHING NASA tells us about the earth is a lie.  That's a huge strawman for starters.  Nevertheless, the legal principle holds that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or, "false in one thing, false in everything".  What this means is that if someone has been caught lying, then his entire testimony cannot be used as proof and has lost credibility.  Since NASA has been caught lying, faking, and hoaxing REPEATEDLY, even if they happen to be telling the truth about one or another thing here or there, their statement cannot be taken as proof or evidence of anything.

Sungenis then minimizes the NASA lying in his large book as consisting of one example where they obviously photoshopped a picture of the earth into the "lunar sky".  He even tried to minimize it by referring to the lie as a "foible".

No, Dr. Sungenis, entire volumes larger than even his own can be filled with docuмented proof of NASA fraud, hoaxes, and outright lying.  NASA therefore has no credibility whatsoever and nothing they produce can be used as proof for anything.  falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  Nobody says they're lying about everything, just that you can't know for sure when they're lying and when they're not lying.

I love how Sungenis spends a very long time defending NASA, the same NASA that on account of their atheistic and Masonic agenda also deride Sungenis and his geocentrism.  So "Pilate and Herod made friends that day".  He should be ashamed of himself to take up the cause of the devilish NASA in order to beat up on FEs, most of whom should be considered as being on the same side, as we Catholic FEs have great reverence for the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

In any case, he reminds me of this story that happened on the school playground when I was a kid.  So one kid was regularly bullied by this one tough kid.  Then, at one point, the bully started beating up on a different kid, since I guess the bully got bored of the first one.  So, in order to curry favor with the bully, the first kid joined in on the attack against the new victim.  Sungenis, trying to not be reviled by NASA for associating with FEs, has joined in with NASA to beat up on NASA's newest victim ... hoping to curry favor with NASA and win some respectibility.  I find this shameful behavior, and so the gloves come off against Sungenis on this topic.  He can dish it out, so I have no problem serving it right back up to him.  Game on.  FEs by and large have always supported his work, and he turns on them now to ally with NASA.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 06:32:46 PM
Where have you been?!  He can defend and he has defended his positions for years (and not just for the sake of traditional Catholics, but for all kinds of people) in all kinds of venues for what he believes (whether you agree with him or not) is the truth.  As for the criticism of things he asserts or doesn't assert that commenced decades ago!

Who are you to defend Sungenis? Let him speak for himself. Unless you're him.  

Sungenis said it himself.  By his own words Sungenis admits to and defends liars (NASA) and promotes liars (NASA).   Sungenis better be able to defend all that lying or cease and desist.    
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 06:46:05 PM
I have no issues with a respectful disagreement and an objective presentation of the arguments and the evidence for a contrary opinion.  In fact, I saw an interview with Dr. Sungenis discussing his anti-FE book, and he took a rather respectful tone toward FE, so I bought his book to read what he had to say with an open mind, since I had a lot of respect for him, and figured I'd find the best arguments out there against the FE position.

I was quite mistaken, as practically from page one, he was deriding FEs, calling them dishonest, liars, manipulative, every name in the book.  When I pointed out that it was Sungenis who was being intellectually dishonest, I got attacked ruthlessly here on CI for doing the same thing that he did to FEs on the book, and also because some individuals don't understand the difference between deliberate mendacity (lying) and intellectual dishonesty (where you're not open-minded about a subject and thus apply evidence via confirmation bias).

None of his arguments were anything new, just rehashes of stuff that has long been debunked, except that I can't make any judgment regarding the statements he made regarding the rotation of the stars in the Southern hemisphere.  I've seen videos from both sides on the subject, but visualizing stuff like that is one of my weaknesses, since I have no artistic ability whatsoever.  If I have time, it's a subject I could try to delve into, but I can't do it too much justice.

Now, I don't think it's worth too much time to argue about the Church Fathers' opinions on the matter, since I don't think they had a dogmatic unanimity or consensus on the subject, but I found him completely distorting references from the Church Fathers.  Every time he saw the word "sphere" and a couple times even the word "circle", he interpreted that as the Father supporting a ball earth.  But I showed how the evidence was contradicted by other statements and that he was misreading the fact that the Fathers had in mind the shape of the world, including the firmament.  In fact, one Father clearly described the world as a sphere ... with a circular slice through the middle.  How does NASA's ball have this circular cross-section?  This was clearly a reference to a spherical firmament through which the plane of the earth we walk on cuts a circular cross-section.  In any case, I could go on.

He's even discredited in the choice of DaVinci's "Salvator Mundi" for his cover, and his misuse of that typifies his confirmation bias.  If you look at the globe in Our Lord's hand, you can clearly see a tan section at the bottom and blue at the top of the globe, and the 3 dots in the blue (sky) section are considered by art critics to be the constellation Leo.  So, how then, Doctor Sungenis, do stars appear inside the solid ball earth?  No, the "Salvator Mundi" clearly showed the globe the same way the Flemish artists always depicted "Salvator Mundi".

(https://media.mutualart.com/Images//2016_12/18/14/145459392/f236d473-2131-49f5-a57a-18ad3e5d46f6.Jpeg)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 06:51:56 PM
Here's DaVinci's version that Sungenis wrongly uses on the cover of his book to push ball earth.  Although Our Lord is holding a sphere, it's transparent, and His hand is clearly meant to double for the "land" on the bottom, and the blue on top (caused by His garment) is in fact the blue sky.  That's backed up by the 3 stars, which art critics say is the constellation Leo.  So, Dr. Sungenis, is the constellation Leo in the Pacific Ocean?  Of course not.  This depiction below is clearly along the same lines as the Flemish version above.  There are many similar depictions, so just Google "Salvator Mundi Flemish".  It wasn't until later that some Salvator Mundi depictions replaced this orb with the NASA globe (and they looked stupid).

(https://i.etsystatic.com/39594182/r/il/04911c/5013257255/il_794xN.5013257255_kr88.jpg)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 06:56:24 PM
So Sungenis is "Flat Wrong" even on the COVER of his book.  And it doesn't get any better.

So, tripping right out of the starting gate (right on the cover of his book) ...
(https://i.imgur.com/twXvSCe.gif)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 07:14:23 PM

Is Sungenis some how, some way, defending the truth?


To make flat earthers feel real stupid, Sungenis says in his book:
"they (flat earthers) have been deceived by the Wellhausen scholars and have become the very unsophisticated and clueless Bible‐thumpers that the scholars wish to portray them as."

So anyone who quotes scripture is automatically a Bible-thumper?  

This is so telling.     

   



Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 09, 2023, 07:23:01 PM

Is Sungenis some how, some way, defending the truth?


To make flat earthers feel real stupid, Sungenis says in his book:
"they (flat earthers) have been deceived by the Wellhausen scholars and have become the very unsophisticated and clueless Bible‐thumpers that the scholars wish to portray them as."

So anyone who quotes scripture is automatically a Bible-thumper? 

This is so telling.   

 

Generally, Dr. Sungenis tends to speak with reverence of Sacred Scripture, so this says something when suddenly he uses it as a term of derision.  You'll see in statements like that the disrespectful derision that permeates his book:  "very unsophisticated and clueless".

So what really is the goal of his book when he derides FEs?  Is he really hoping to persuade them of their errors?  You're not going to do that with the mockery and derision.  If anything, they're going to double down.

No, his intention was to distance himself from FE so as to curry favor with the atheistic "scientific" establishment.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 07:40:38 PM
Sungenis twists scripture.

Sungenis says:

Since from the human perspective the heavens appear as dome above a flat earth heaven as it appears to us today as we look into the heavens when standing on earth, the NAB translators slant their translation to depict that primitive picture. In turn, this slanted translation allows these modern scholars to disregard the literal teachings of Genesis 1 and make the text appear as fanciful and unscientific ruminations of ancient peoples who were unversed in the real science of how the universe came into being. And here’s the rub. Instead of a miraculous creation in six days spoken into existence by God, these scholars believe in such theories as the Big Bang and evolution as the only way the material world came into being. They have the same disregard for divine miraculous intrusion for all the other narratives in Genesis ሺe.g., the great flood of Noah’s day; the exodus from Egypt, etc.ሻ. Since Genesis 1 teaches, for example, that the Earth was created (http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=b38a18c7b63093e1&type=H&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A19&libId=jjuoq2t60100g3d9000DA15l4v9sq&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ft103-critique-of-robert-sungenis-article-against-flat-earth&v=1&iid=b38a18c7b63093e1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FGods-Blueprint-Scientific-Evidence-Created%2Fdp%2F1780287496&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fflatearthtrads.forumga.net%2Ff6-general-flat-earth-discussion&title=Critique of Robert Sungenis' article against flat) before the sun, moon and stars…”


Read the paragraph above again and Sungenis' view is outrageous. First he admits scripture says earth appears to be flat in the NAB, but then twists that to come to a different conclusion for himself as if the NAB translators were flat earthers. Words fail me, the man is nuts. Then Sungenis suggests the "literal' translation says something else entirely and blames the NAB translation for a "primitive view of earth".  False. I have yet to see a translation that doesn't tell us that there is a firmament dividing water above from the water below it, against Sungenis's claim earth is ball in space. Scripture paints a very clear picture and earth isn't a ball. Sungenis is biased against the truth. Then Sungenis blames the same "scholars" for believing the Big Bang (But wait, I though they were flat earthers?) while he later quotes Big Bang scientist after Big Bang scientist to make his case that earth is a dangling ball in space. I'd spend more time dissecting this garbage, but this ridiculous assessment by Sungenis is so annoying, I will end it here.     
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
It is Sungenis' poor grasp of logic that drives him to make this statement.  Nobody says that EVERYTHING NASA tells us about the earth is a lie.  That's a huge strawman for starters.  Nevertheless, the legal principle holds that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, or, "false in one thing, false in everything".  What this means is that if someone has been caught lying, then his entire testimony cannot be used as proof and has lost credibility.  Since NASA has been caught lying, faking, and hoaxing REPEATEDLY, even if they happen to be telling the truth about one or another thing here or there, their statement cannot be taken as proof or evidence of anything.

Sungenis then minimizes the NASA lying in his large book as consisting of one example where they obviously photoshopped a picture of the earth into the "lunar sky".  He even tried to minimize it by referring to the lie as a "foible".

No, Dr. Sungenis, entire volumes larger than even his own can be filled with docuмented proof of NASA fraud, hoaxes, and outright lying.  NASA therefore has no credibility whatsoever and nothing they produce can be used as proof for anything.  falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  Nobody says they're lying about everything, just that you can't know for sure when they're lying and when they're not lying.

I love how Sungenis spends a very long time defending NASA, the same NASA that on account of their atheistic and Masonic agenda also deride Sungenis and his geocentrism.  So "Pilate and Herod made friends that day".  He should be ashamed of himself to take up the cause of the devilish NASA in order to beat up on FEs, most of whom should be considered as being on the same side, as we Catholic FEs have great reverence for the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

In any case, he reminds me of this story that happened on the school playground when I was a kid.  So one kid was regularly bullied by this one tough kid.  Then, at one point, the bully started beating up on a different kid, since I guess the bully got bored of the first one.  So, in order to curry favor with the bully, the first kid joined in on the attack against the new victim.  Sungenis, trying to not be reviled by NASA for associating with FEs, has joined in with NASA to beat up on NASA's newest victim ... hoping to curry favor with NASA and win some respectibility.  I find this shameful behavior, and so the gloves come off against Sungenis on this topic.  He can dish it out, so I have no problem serving it right back up to him.  Game on.  FEs by and large have always supported his work, and he turns on them now to ally with NASA.

It's all fine and dandy that you think Sungenis acts like the first bullied child in your story in explaining his position on FE as being one simplistically motivated by a need to curry favor with NASA.  If you have solid docuмented proof of that please present it.  Frankly, I don't think he could care less about what NASA thinks about his work and I don't think NASA has one iota of influence over him. 

Obviously, NASA lies about all kinds of things and Sungenis does not deny that for one second.  Sungenis, for example, has on many more than one occasion openly stated that he doesn't think we ever went to the moon and that NASA is lying about it.  If he was so consumed by a desire to curry favor with NASA (whatever that in practical terms actually means) he certainly would not be saying that!   

When it comes to NASA you really have no way of proving that they have pumped out more false information over the years than true information.  Heck if we were to just ignore NASA why should anyone go on to CathInfo and read all the goofy and often downright false stuff tossed onto its various forums!  Even on CathInfo we have a need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

In any event, regardless of the amount of false information NASA may have pumped out, you don't have to throw NASA (the baby) out with all its stinking bath water.  No doubt there are honest scientists and others working in good faith in that gigantic government agency just as there are honest scientists and others working outside of NASA.  To say that those outside NASA should exclude out of hand anything that comes out of that agency surely borders on the ludicrous.  The wisdom of the following words in Sacred Scripture need not be withheld when looking at NASA and all kinds of other worldly entities:  1 Thess. 5: 20-21: "Despise not prophecies [nor NASA. Some prophecies from the same prophets are true and some are false].  But prove all things; hold fast that which is good."  To absolutely refuse to examine any findings of NASA because of the potential lie in anything they say is akin to an extremely broad Luddite position which would not be open to any technological change because of the possible harm which may ensue.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 08:30:48 PM

Who are you to defend Sungenis? Let him speak for himself. Unless you're him. 

Sungenis said it himself.  By his own words Sungenis admits to and defends liars (NASA) and promotes liars (NASA).  Sungenis better be able to defend all that lying or cease and desist.   


 I am a friend of his. Have you never defended a friend?! 

 As I already indicated he has been defending himself for years on all kinds of venues -- a lot more than you could shake a stick at. 

 I am confident in my belief that if Sungenis believed NASA was intentionally telling a particular falsehood while knowing it was false for the purpose of deceiving the public he absolutely would not defend their action in doing so.  If you are claiming that he not only would do that, but that he actually has done that in a knowing and voluntary way then you are making an assertion about his internal forum, something which I don't believe you have access to.  In effect you are stating that he has committed a sin.  I hope you would reconsider what you have said and not double down on it.

I have absolutely no problem in defending any good that NASA may do nor does Sungenis.  We both go with what we believe just as you go with what you believe.  You sweep with a very broad brush.  You indicate that NASA is lying because it backs Globe Earth.  Please take a deep breath.  Not even Holy Mother Church has pronounced on the subject.  It may well be that we will never know whether it's a FE or a GE until we die. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 08:34:28 PM
Throughout his critique of flat earth, Sungenis quotes and praises modern Heliocentric Big Bang scientists in order to support his theories.

Below, Sungenis quotes from one Paul C. W. Davies.  

Let's get a little info on Davies from Wikipedia....

Wiki says Davies' research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology:
"Davies' inquiries have included theoretical physics, cosmology, and astrobiology; his research has been mainly in the area of quantum field theory in curved spacetime. His notable contributions are the so-called Fulling–Davies–Unruh effect, according to which an observer accelerating through empty space will perceive a bath of thermal radiation, and the Bunch–Davies vacuum state, often used as the basis for explaining the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang."

So Davies is a Big Banger.  As Sungenis points the finger at the flat earthers claiming they belong to the Big Bang theory, he is parading around naked as a guy without clothes. Davies is not the only one Sungenis uses, either.  Sungenis' proofs always come from pagan Heliocentric personalities. 

Sungenis quotes James Clerk Maxwell.  Let's look at Maxwell on Wiki.

"On the centenary of Maxwell's birthday, Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton". At Trinity he was elected to the elite secret society known as the Cambridge Apostles .He joined the "Apostles", an exclusive debating society of the intellectual elite, where through his essays he sought to work out this understanding. Immediately after earning his degree, Maxwell read his paper On the Transformation of Surfaces by Bending to the Cambridge Philosophical Society...His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In the millennium poll—a survey of the 100 most prominent physicists—Maxwell was voted the third greatest physicist of all time, behind only Newton and Einstein.

Interestingly, almost every subject Maxwell studied is related to furthering the cause of pagan Heliocentrism.  So fascinating that Sungenis would recommend and quote him so copiously. And lets not forget, Einstein the heliocentric scientist loved Maxwell.

Let's see who else Sungenis recommends.
Dr. Abhay Ashtekar.

Wiki says of the religious beliefs of Dr. Abhay Ashtekar.  "Dr. Abhay Ashtekar is an atheist, though he enjoys reading on Indian and other eastern philosophy, namely the Tao and the Zen traditions. Furthermore, he claims to be inspired from the Bhagwat Gita as regards his attitude towards work." And, "The Bhagavadgita may be treated as a great synthesis of the ideas of the impersonal spiritual monism with personalistic monotheism, of the yoga of action with the yoga of transcendence of action, and these again with yogas of devotion and knowledge."

Having purred about these scientist's modern black hole dark matter science including extensive insight to the enigmatic Planck theory, Sungenis goes back to complaining about the Big Bangers and Heliocentrists, who he just got finished praising and quoting. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 08:44:19 PM


No, his intention was to distance himself from FE so as to curry favor with the atheistic "scientific" establishment.

This is a constant refrain with you and a great slander against Dr. Sungenis.  The fact is that -- OK, prove me wrong -- you have never presented any sort of substantial and docuмented proof to back up this claim. In effect, it amounts to no more than mere speculation on your part, no matter how much of an educated speculation you may think it is.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 09, 2023, 08:50:52 PM
I am a friend of his. Have you never defended a friend?!

 As I already indicated he has been defending himself for years on all kinds of venues -- a lot more than you could shake a stick at.

 I am confident in my belief that if Sungenis believed NASA was intentionally telling a particular falsehood while knowing it was false for the purpose of deceiving the public he absolutely would not defend their action in doing so.  If you are claiming that he not only would do that, but that he actually has done that in a knowing and voluntary way then you are making an assertion about his internal forum, something which I don't believe you have access to.  In effect you are stating that he has committed a sin.  I hope you would reconsider what you have said and not double down on it.

I have absolutely no problem in defending any good that NASA may do nor does Sungenis.  We both go with what we believe just as you go with what you believe.  You sweep with a very broad brush.  You indicate that NASA is lying because it backs Globe Earth.  Please take a deep breath.  Not even Holy Mother Church has pronounced on the subject.  It may well be that we will never know whether it's a FE or a GE until we die.

Yes, I've defended friends, many times. If NASA were all Sungenis quoted and supported, that would be bad enough.  I wish it were different. I don't have a personal problem with Sungenis on any other issue and have appreciated his input in the Catholic world especially on Fatima. But Sungenis has little if any problem with Big Bang science promoters and he glowingly quotes pagan scientists repeatedly in his book while calling flat earthers "Bible thumpers". Sorry if these entries sound rude regarding your friend, I wish it were different and that he would abandon the ridiculous notion that earth is a globe.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 09, 2023, 08:56:06 PM
So Sungenis is "Flat Wrong" even on the COVER of his book.  And it doesn't get any better.

So, tripping right out of the starting gate (right on the cover of his book) ...
(https://i.imgur.com/twXvSCe.gif)

You can't judge a book by its cover.  People get ridiculously hung arguing endlessly back and forth about the cover on his book.  Write your own book!  At least Cassini did that!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 09, 2023, 10:43:35 PM
It's all fine and dandy that you think Sungenis acts like the first bullied child in your story in explaining his position on FE as being one simplistically motivated by a need to curry favor with NASA.  If you have solid docuмented proof of that please present it.  Frankly, I don't think he could care less about what NASA thinks about his work and I don't think NASA has one iota of influence over him.

Obviously, NASA lies about all kinds of things and Sungenis does not deny that for one second.  Sungenis, for example, has on many more than one occasion openly stated that he doesn't think we ever went to the moon and that NASA is lying about it.  If he was so consumed by a desire to curry favor with NASA (whatever that in practical terms actually means) he certainly would not be saying that! 

When it comes to NASA you really have no way of proving that they have pumped out more false information over the years than true information.  Heck if we were to just ignore NASA why should anyone go on to CathInfo and read all the goofy and often downright false stuff tossed onto its various forums!  Even on CathInfo we have a need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

In any event, regardless of the amount of false information NASA may have pumped out, you don't have to throw NASA (the baby) out with all its stinking bath water.  No doubt there are honest scientists and others working in good faith in that gigantic government agency just as there are honest scientists and others working outside of NASA.  To say that those outside NASA should exclude out of hand anything that comes out of that agency surely borders on the ludicrous.  The wisdom of the following words in Sacred Scripture need not be withheld when looking at NASA and all kinds of other worldly entities:  1 Thess. 5: 20-21: "Despise not prophecies [nor NASA. Some prophecies from the same prophets are true and some are false].  But prove all things; hold fast that which is good."  To absolutely refuse to examine any findings of NASA because of the potential lie in anything they say is akin to an extremely broad Luddite position which would not be open to any technological change because of the possible harm which may ensue.
Cathinfo doesn't get trillions of dollars every year from tax payers.... Apples and oranges.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 10, 2023, 05:45:18 AM
You can't judge a book by its cover.  People get ridiculously hung arguing endlessly back and forth about the cover on his book.  Write your own book!  At least Cassini did that!

In this case, you can judge the book by hits cover.  His misuse of DaVinci's Salvator Mundi speaks to the same error that he makes in the book.  Dr. Sungenis sees the word "globe" or "sphere" in writings of the Church Fathers and immediately concludes that it's a reference to NASA's ball earth.  "Aha!  See!  This Father believed that the earth was a ball just like NASA says."  In one case, he even inexplicably saw the word "circle" and interpreted THAT as belief in globe earth.  Several of these Fathers were arguing about the shape of the FIRMAMENT and thus were discussing with IT was shaped like a sphere, a hemisphere, or even a cone.  St. Augustine details one argument where, since Scripture describes the firmament like a tent, it would be shaped kindof like a "teepee" (they they didn't use the word), with a point in the middle.  When they spoke of the world as a sphere, they were speaking of the world to include everything up through the firmament.  In fact, in another text incorrectly cited by Sungenis, the Father clearly describes the world shaped like a sphere ... and yet with a circular cross-section slice.  What is that cross-section slice and how does it work on the NASA ball model?  Clearly the Father had in mind a world shaped overall like a sphere, but then the land itself represented a circular cross-section through said sphere.  I write up an entire thread detailing these things.  I'm not about writing books to make money, but if I have the time, I might put my findings out there on a blog or something.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 10, 2023, 05:49:22 AM
Dr. Sungenis sees the word "globe" or "sphere" in writings of the Church Fathers and immediately concludes that it's a reference to NASA's ball earth.  "Aha!  See!  This Father believed that the earth was a ball just like NASA says."

Ironically, while Dr. Sungenis accuses Flat Earthers of "eisegesis", this is a CLASSIC case of eisegesis, i.e. reading your own concepts or worldview into the text.  There's no evidence that any Church Father believed the earth THAT WE WALK ON was shaped like a sphere ... though in some cases it can't be ruled out, where we don't have enough direct evidence of what the Father mean by a passing reference to the world being a sphere.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 10, 2023, 09:55:09 AM
It shouldn't be called "flat earth" theory, as this is too generic.  Should be called "globe earth, flat land" theory.  This is what the Church Fathers were describing.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 10, 2023, 10:02:58 AM
It shouldn't be called "flat earth" theory, as this is too generic.  Should be called "globe earth, flat land" theory.  This is what the Church Fathers were describing.

Some of the guys defending flat earth are calling it "true earth".  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 10, 2023, 11:16:47 AM

Not sure what to think about this. David Palm, the writer of this online article is a heliocentric science guy of some sort, so his assessment of Robert Sungenis' education might be taken with a grain of salt because he insists Heliocentric models are correct. :facepalm: However, it looks like Palm did some homework having unearthed some interesting information on Sungenis who claims he was a Physics major in college.  Palm refutes this claim and backs it up with receipts.  Makes one wonder about the D R in front of Sungenis' name which appears to have been obtained through an online course at Calamus International University Extension College and Vocalist International Distance Learning Academy, Vanuatu (formerly based in Turks and Caicos.)  Perhaps someone here might clear things up?

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/robert-sungenis-physics-major/
   



 

 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 11:57:26 AM
Not sure what to think about this. David Palm, the writer of this online article is a heliocentric science guy of some sort, so his assessment of Robert Sungenis' education might be taken with a grain of salt because he insists Heliocentric models are correct. :facepalm: However, it looks like Palm did some homework having unearthed some interesting information on Sungenis who claims he was a Physics major in college.  Palm refutes this claim and backs it up with receipts.  Makes one wonder about the D R in front of Sungenis' name which appears to have been obtained through an online course at Calamus International University Extension College and Vocalist International Distance Learning Academy, Vanuatu (formerly based in Turks and Caicos.)  Perhaps someone here might clear things up?

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/robert-sungenis-physics-major/
 



 

 

For whatever reasons David Palm, (aka: "the palm reader") has dedicated an absolutely extraordinary amount of time and energy over a good number of years in trying to destroy Dr. Sungenis' reputation and livelihood.  He has failed in his mission.  He has been totally discredited by Dr. Sungenis' (and others) in their counter-writings and verbal exchanges.  I suggest you contact Dr. Sungenis personally if you want to hear the truth -- the "rest of the story" as it relates to Palm's non-stop war, his non-stop falsifications campaign against Dr. Sungenis and his work.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 10, 2023, 12:11:18 PM
For whatever reasons David Palm, (aka: "the palm reader") has dedicated an absolutely extraordinary amount of time and energy over a good number of years in trying to destroy Dr. Sungenis' reputation and livelihood.  He has failed in his mission.  He has been totally discredited by Dr. Sungenis' (and others) in their counter-writings and verbal exchanges.  I suggest you contact Dr. Sungenis personally if you want to hear the truth -- the "rest of the story" as it relates to Palm's non-stop war, his non-stop falsifications campaign against Dr. Sungenis and his work.

See, this is another reason I wish that Dr. Sungenis would not have gone down the path of deriding, mocking, and insulting FEs.  Those of us who uphold the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture need to stick together and work this out as if among friends.  It's like if a husband and wife disagree, they don't air it out in front of their children, because then the children might feel there's room to question the authority of one or another of the parents.  FEs largely supported his work before his attack on FE.  And, even then, if it had been a constructive debate that refrained from deriding the FEs, that probably could have continued, despite what could be written off as a disagreement.  FEs are also geocentrists, and also believe that the earth does not move.  These same clowns who are attacking Dr. Sungenis on this site (David Palm) are also, a fortiori, sworn enemies of Flat Earth (which overlaps with geocentrism).  NASA and the "mainstream" scientific establishment are NEVER going to somehow be persuaded of geocentrism simply because Dr. Sungenis has attacked FE.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 10, 2023, 12:19:55 PM
https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/robert-sungenis-physics-major/

I reviewed the link briefly, and I think that both sides have a point.  When Dr. Sungenis says that he was a "Physics Major", that's generally taken to mean that someone completed the Major and got the degree, and not just took 1-2 classes in the Major or that it was their declared Major during the first year.  So that does suggest some exaggeration by implication but seems to be technically true.

I for one don't care about whether or not he has a science degree.  Lots of people with degrees are morons, and lots of people without degrees are brilliant.  NASA and modern science are overall a bunch of garbage, and to me when I see a mainstream "scientist," the only sense I have is that the individual has likely been programmed and brainwashed into mainstream science, the same way that a lot of Doctors have been brainwashed about certain aspects of modern medicine, including vaccination.  I can make the same analogy in other fields.  I knew a guy with an advanced degree in Catholic Theology who, I kid you not, when I mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas, said, "Who's that?"
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 10, 2023, 12:23:28 PM
For whatever reasons David Palm, (aka: "the palm reader") has dedicated an absolutely extraordinary amount of time and energy over a good number of years in trying to destroy Dr. Sungenis' reputation and livelihood.  He has failed in his mission.  He has been totally discredited by Dr. Sungenis' (and others) in their counter-writings and verbal exchanges.  I suggest you contact Dr. Sungenis personally if you want to hear the truth -- the "rest of the story" as it relates to Palm's non-stop war, his non-stop falsifications campaign against Dr. Sungenis and his work.

Were any of these exchanges done online?  Do you have a link?  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 12:25:29 PM
 NASA and the "mainstream" scientific establishment are NEVER going to somehow be persuaded of geocentrism simply because Dr. Sungenis has attacked FE.

Ha, you give Dr. Sungenis way too much credit/power.  NASA and the "mainstream" scientific establishment are going to do what they are going to do regardless or whatever Dr. Sungenis does or does not do.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 12:27:30 PM

Were any of these exchanges done online?  Do you have a link? 


Do your own homework or you may want take a shortcut and communicate with Dr. Sungenis personally: cairomeo@aol.com
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 12:31:06 PM


I for one don't care about whether or not he has a science degree.  Lots of people with degrees are morons, and lots of people without degrees are brilliant.  

Bravo!  Well said Lad!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 10, 2023, 12:31:27 PM
Do your own homework or you may want take a shortcut and communicate with Dr. Sungenis personally: cairomeo@aol.com

Don't care enough.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 10, 2023, 12:37:09 PM
I reviewed the link briefly, and I think that both sides have a point.  When Dr. Sungenis says that he was a "Physics Major", that's generally taken to mean that someone completed the Major and got the degree, and not just took 1-2 classes in the Major or that it was their declared Major during the first year.  So that does suggest some exaggeration by implication but seems to be technically true.

I for one don't care about whether or not he has a science degree.  Lots of people with degrees are morons, and lots of people without degrees are brilliant.  NASA and modern science are overall a bunch of garbage, and to me when I see a mainstream "scientist," the only sense I have is that the individual has likely been programmed and brainwashed into mainstream science, the same way that a lot of Doctors have been brainwashed about certain aspects of modern medicine, including vaccination.  I can make the same analogy in other fields.  I knew a guy with an advanced degree in Catholic Theology who, I kid you not, when I mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas, said, "Who's that?"

I don't care either. Credentials often amount to a whole lot of nothing. It's whether Sungenis lied about them or his education.  Either way, he's on the wrong track.   
  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 01:25:51 PM

Don't care enough. 

That figures.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 01:28:38 PM

 Either way, he's on the wrong track.
Ha, no doubt the feeling is mutual.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 10, 2023, 03:59:15 PM
Always, for someone that defends Sungenis so much, and has his personal email, why can't you defend his position?  If you're not able to defend it, then just stay out of the debate.  As it is, you're offering nothing to the discussion, except personal feelings.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 05:57:20 PM
Always, for someone that defends Sungenis so much, and has his personal email, why can't you defend his position?  If you're not able to defend it, then just stay out of the debate.  As it is, you're offering nothing to the discussion, except personal feelings.
His personal email!  Ha, you make me sound special.  (The one you see below is the one I've been using for years.) Who in the world doesn't have it?  If you don't have it you should be able to find it within minutes, if not seconds, on the Internet.  If you still can't (or won't) here it is (for the zillionth time I myself have posted it on CathInfo): cairomeo@aol.com.

As for your personal advice to me  Pax Vobis -- you can go take a hike.  If you don't like my presence on this thread or anywhere else why don't you just ignore it.  No one is forcing you to read, let alone reply to, anything I post.

*********************************************************************
Dr. Sungenis' email AND phone can be found at:  https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/about.html (https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/about.html).  It's not as if he's trying to make himself inaccessible or something.  Most folks, however, don't like to communicate with him directly.  So much easier to go on the offensive (and sing mostly to the choir) behind anonymous usernames.
Phone: 717 - 597 - 8670
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 10, 2023, 06:35:33 PM

Quote
Always, for someone that defends Sungenis so much, and has his personal email, why can't you defend his position?
For the second time...
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 10, 2023, 06:43:36 PM
His personal email!  Ha, you make me sound special.  (The one you see below is the one I've been using for years.) Who in the world doesn't have it?  If you don't have it you should be able to find it within minutes, if not seconds, on the Internet.  If you still can't (or won't) here it is (for the zillionth time I myself have posted it on CathInfo): cairomeo@aol.com.

As for your personal advice to me  Pax Vobis -- you can go take a hike.  If you don't like my presence on this thread or anywhere else why don't you just ignore it.  No one is forcing you to read, let alone reply to, anything I post.

*********************************************************************
Dr. Sungenis' email AND phone can be found at:  https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/about.html (https://www.robertsungenis.org/p/about.html).  It's not as if he's trying to make himself inaccessible or something.  Most folks, however, don't like to communicate with him directly.  So much easier to go on the offensive (and sing mostly to the choir) behind anonymous usernames.
Phone: 717 - 597 - 8670
Nobody cares about Sungenis' email or phone. Let him come to a public discussion so his courage won't be conspicuous by its absence.    
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 10, 2023, 09:39:53 PM
Nobody cares about Sungenis' email or phone. Let him come to a public discussion so his courage won't be conspicuous by its absence.   

What an asinine statement!.  You don't speak for everyone.  Some people do care about his email and or phone because they make use of it.  You obviously are not one of them.  

What is with you people?!  He's been in public discussions all over the place for years.  This includes various online platforms, even a call-in show as well which extends his reach to practically all ends of the earth. 

What makes you think he has to come onto CathInfo?  You think the whole universe revolves around CathInfo and that somehow, he has to come here as well?!
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 12:06:56 AM
For the second time...
Quote
Quote
Always, for someone that defends Sungenis so much, and has his personal email, why can't you defend his position?

I try to defend Dr. Sungenis in my limited capacity because I tend much more strongly to believe in a globe earth than a flat earth  (and I always have at least after the age of 7 or so) and because I consider myself a very good friend of Dr. Sungenis).  That being said, I do not in any way claim to have the expertise or the time at hand to study the intricacies of the subject in more detail so I believe it would be highly pretentious, not to mention presumptuous, on my part to pretend that I did in carrying on a personal debate with all you good folks.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 11, 2023, 01:03:54 AM
For the second time...

https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 11, 2023, 01:05:00 AM
Ha, no doubt the feeling is mutual.

As mutual as...https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 11, 2023, 07:44:30 AM
What an asinine statement!.  You don't speak for everyone.  Some people do care about his email and or phone because they make use of it.  You obviously are not one of them. 

What is with you people?!  He's been in public discussions all over the place for years.  This includes various online platforms, even a call-in show as well which extends his reach to practically all ends of the earth.

What makes you think he has to come onto CathInfo?  You think the whole universe revolves around CathInfo and that somehow, he has to come here as well?!
Keep your panties on, it was an invitation.    
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 04:16:55 PM
https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)

Why the calumny?  Let us know, love, and serve God.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 04:17:56 PM
As mutual as...https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)

Why the calumny?  Let us know, love, and serve God.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 04:24:24 PM
Keep your panties on, it was an invitation.   



Quote from: Tradman on Yesterday at 06:43:36 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/new-geocentrism-book-by-robert-sungenis/msg893049/#msg893049)
Quote
Nobody cares about Sungenis' email or phone. Let him come to a public discussion so his courage won't be conspicuous by its absence. 
To which my reply was the following: 

What an asinine statement!.  You don't speak for everyone.  Some people do care about his email and or phone because they make use of it.  You obviously are not one of them. 

What is with you people?!  He's been in public discussions all over the place for years.  This includes various online platforms, even a call-in show as well which extends his reach to practically all ends of the earth.

What makes you think he has to come onto CathInfo?  You think the whole universe revolves around CathInfo and that somehow, he has to come here as well?!





Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 11, 2023, 04:32:19 PM


Quote from: Tradman on Yesterday at 06:43:36 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/new-geocentrism-book-by-robert-sungenis/msg893049/#msg893049)
What an asinine statement!.  You don't speak for everyone.  Some people do care about his email and or phone because they make use of it.  You obviously are not one of them. 

What is with you people?!  He's been in public discussions all over the place for years.  This includes various online platforms, even a call-in show as well which extends his reach to practically all ends of the earth.

What makes you think he has to come onto CathInfo?  You think the whole universe revolves around CathInfo and that somehow, he has to come here as well?!

He's invited to defend his position.  I've seen his call-in show garner what, 12, 15, I don't know, 20 youtubers?  Why not show up for a lot more Catholics on CI?  But then, maybe he realizes he ought not.  After all, he's got a couple friends doing the heavy lifting. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 11, 2023, 04:48:18 PM
Why the calumny? 

What calumny? :fryingpan:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 05:28:37 PM
What calumny? :fryingpan:

No need to play dumb and add your silly emoji.  You and I know exactly what calumny I speak of. 

For anyone not aware of same it is the website which gladius has recently been making a habit of trying to tag on to me not only in this thread, but in others as if I were somehow associated with it or what it may represent because my username always is included in its URL:  https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title (https://www.always.com/en-us/shop-products/menstrual-pads#sort=asc(title)).  

Let us know, love, and serve God. Let us be swords of truth rather than calumny.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 11, 2023, 07:16:49 PM

Quote
I try to defend Dr. Sungenis in my limited capacity because I tend much more strongly to believe in a globe earth than a flat earth  (and I always have at least after the age of 7 or so) and because I consider myself a very good friend of Dr. Sungenis).  That being said, I do not in any way claim to have the expertise or the time at hand to study the intricacies of the subject in more detail so I believe it would be highly pretentious, not to mention presumptuous, on my part to pretend that I did in carrying on a personal debate with all you good folks.
That's great that your Dr Sungenis' friend and all, but if you don't have the time/ability to learn/defend the topic, then your repeated (blind) defense of a topic comes across as "fan boy" behavior.  Are you arguing that Sungenis can't be wrong?   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 07:44:03 PM
He's invited to defend his position.  I've seen his call-in show garner what, 12, 15, I don't know, 20 youtubers?  Why not show up for a lot more Catholics on CI?  But then, maybe he realizes he ought not.  After all, he's got a couple friends doing the heavy lifting.

Your count is slightly off.  He show garners over a 1,000 views.  Why don't you ask him?  He doesn't bite -- really.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 11, 2023, 08:01:21 PM
Your count is slightly off.  He show garners over a 1,000 views.  Why don't you ask him?  He doesn't bite -- really.

I don't understand why you keep saying that forum members should contact Sungenis outside of the forum. This is a forum, so we communicate by posting or sending PM's. That's how it works here. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 11, 2023, 08:22:31 PM
No need to play dumb and add your silly emoji.  You and I know exactly what calumny I speak of. 

Poking fun at you is not calumny; ironically, falsely accusing me of calumny is, in fact, calumnious.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 08:37:52 PM
That's great that your Dr Sungenis' friend and all, but if you don't have the time/ability to learn/defend the topic, then your repeated (blind) defense of a topic comes across as "fan boy" behavior.  Are you arguing that Sungenis can't be wrong? 
My defense of Dr. Sungenis is no more blind than when I defended him regarding geocentrism on CathInofo under a different username.  I defended him even more on novus ordo and secular sites.  I also strongly presented much of Dr. Sungenis' work on geocentrism on CathInfo, some of it I think for the first time.  

I strongly defended Bp. Williamson regarding the h0Ɩ0cαųst on this site and various others. 

I have defended other people such as investigative journalist Christopher Bollyn who was and still is a close friend of mine.  I don't always know all the intricacies of the work of people I defend, but when I know enough about it to believe in it and the individual, I have no hesitation in defending their work and their person.

What has drawn the strongest ire in my defense of Dr. Sungenis regarding his FE position is my belief based on what I know about Dr. Sungenis that he wrote the book in good faith and that as a devout Catholic his primary motivation in writing it was to get at the truth as he saw it.  That view has been strongly attacked in this forum and others.  I'm sorry if you discount or even dismiss my defense of Dr. Sungenis and his FE book with simply the pejorative "fan boy" label.  I wish I could change your mind, but I suspect I can't.  So be it.

As to your question, no, of course, I am not arguing that Dr. Sungenis can't be wrong.  Although Dr. Sungenis believes he has both the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence on his side for a GE, even he himself has not taken the absolute position that he can't be wrong.  As I think you know, even the Church hasn't given her position on the question.

Finally, I would pose to you the same question: are you arguing that you can't be wrong?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 08:45:40 PM
I don't understand why you keep saying that forum members should contact Sungenis outside of the forum. This is a forum, so we communicate by posting or sending PM's. That's how it works here.

I'm not saying they should or they shouldn't.  They can do or not do whatever they want.  I'm simply inviting them to when they raise questions (or even ask me directly) that could best be answered by him directly.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 08:57:44 PM
Poking fun at you is not calumny; ironically, falsely accusing me of calumny is, in fact, calumnious.
Now, you are doubling down. The ongoing repetition of it and the sick substance of it was calumny, plain and simple.   Now you are trying to wiggle out of it with some fast sleight of hand, trying to turn the tables on me as if I am calumniating you.  I am calling you out gladius.

Know, love, and serve God.  Be a sword of truth not calumny.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 11, 2023, 09:04:36 PM
Now, you are doubling down. The ongoing repetition of it and the sick substance of it was calumny, plain and simple.  Now you are trying to wiggle out of it with some fast sleight of hand, trying to turn the tables on me as if I am calumniating you.  I am calling you out gladius.

Au contraire, sir.  I am calling you out, for you are the offender, not I.  It is unfortunate that you are so thin-skinned and cannot take a joke.  That is your problem, not mine.  The tables have been completely turned, it was as easy as breathing, and your failure to accept reality is not my problem.  Godspeed, sir.

Addendum: Not only do I forgive you, I never even took actual offense.  Love and blessings to you and yours.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 11, 2023, 09:30:47 PM
Au contraire, sir.  I am calling you out, for you are the offender, not I.  It is unfortunate that you are so thin-skinned and cannot take a joke.  That is your problem, not mine.  The tables have been completely turned, it was as easy as breathing, and your failure to accept reality is not my problem.  Godspeed, sir.

Addendum: Not only do I forgive you, I never even took actual offense.  Love and blessings to you and yours.

More doubling down, slick double talk, and with a dose of moral posturing for good measure.  Your continual repeated behavior was that of a sick/perverted continuous calumnious nature, plain and simple.  I've got a much, much thicker skin than you can imagine, but that doesn't mean I have to look the other way when I've got someone like yourself literally following me all around CathInfo in an obvious effort to try to discredit me and provoke me as well.

Now go ahead, say what you want if you wish to.  I hope this is the end of it.  It should be for me unless you start up all over again with some sort of the same continual harassing and asinine behavior.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: gladius_veritatis on July 11, 2023, 09:58:20 PM
Now go ahead, say what you want if you wish to.  I hope this is the end of it. 

:sleep:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 12, 2023, 12:50:44 AM
Now, you are doubling down.

No, he's just pointing out that you don't know the meaning of the word calumny.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 12, 2023, 01:31:55 AM
No, he's just pointing out that you don't know the meaning of the word calumny.

I can understand your wanting to come to his defense having read some of the very friendly chit chat between you two CathInfo Hero Members, but you're over your head on this one.  You are out and out wrong.  I know the meaning of calumny quite well and have for a very long time.

At least he was apparently willing to call it a day and finally go to :sleep:, but you like a good buddy just had to jump in and get your two cents in. The daily CathInfo record setter for having the last word!  Just please don't expect me to engage with you anymore on this.  Hope you agree that the issue is not worth an iota more of either of our time and that if you do quote my post here you quote it in full.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 12, 2023, 08:14:28 AM
Augustine and the Shape of the Earth: A Critique of Leo Ferrari

One of the guiding concerns of Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis was to avoid confrontation between the literal sense of Scripture and the knowledge of the natural world that had been attained by the philosophers. This explains his repeated assertion that quarrels over details only detract the Christian reader from the essential aim of biblical lecture, namely his personal salvation.
In this context, his neutral presentation of the spherical model as “hypothetical” is best understood as part of his effort to liberate the exegesis of Genesis from the strictures imposed by the need to reconcile it with any particular cosmological theory. At the same time, however, his discussions of the natural world clearly reflect his classical or “pagan” education, for which reason it is no surprise that some of his remarks presuppose the spherical conception of heaven and earth. Ferrari is certainly correct in insisting that Augustine does not go out of his way to defend this picture. But neither is he able to show conclusively that Augustine committed himself to any other cosmological model. The important point to make is that Augustine’s works were written for purposes other than furthering insight into the structure of the natural world.
Any attempt to construct a single unified “cosmography” from these works is thus open to serious criticism
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 12, 2023, 09:30:41 AM
Augustine and the Shape of the Earth: A Critique of Leo Ferrari

One of the guiding concerns of Augustine’s interpretation of Genesis was to avoid confrontation between the literal sense of Scripture and the knowledge of the natural world that had been attained by the philosophers. This explains his repeated assertion that quarrels over details only detract the Christian reader from the essential aim of biblical lecture, namely his personal salvation.
In this context, his neutral presentation of the spherical model as “hypothetical” is best understood as part of his effort to liberate the exegesis of Genesis from the strictures imposed by the need to reconcile it with any particular cosmological theory. At the same time, however, his discussions of the natural world clearly reflect his classical or “pagan” education, for which reason it is no surprise that some of his remarks presuppose the spherical conception of heaven and earth. Ferrari is certainly correct in insisting that Augustine does not go out of his way to defend this picture. But neither is he able to show conclusively that Augustine committed himself to any other cosmological model. The important point to make is that Augustine’s works were written for purposes other than furthering insight into the structure of the natural world.
Any attempt to construct a single unified “cosmography” from these works is thus open to serious criticism


By saying Augustine avoided confrontation between the literal sense of scripture and knowledge of the natural world (as if Augustine feared they were separate or in opposition) we can already tell Ferrari is not really getting to the truth.  Ferrari attempts to pit science and scripture against each other to distract from what Augustine is saying. Ferrari's "Augustine is waffling"  is already suspect since Augustine's work is called "The Literal Meaning of Genesis". 

Augustine tells us that scripture describes a flat earth.  If people open their eyes, scripture does it all over the place. Scripture never describes a ball earth. Never. And for those who pretend the original word orbis means globe, it doesn't mean globe, it means earth, terra, world or circle. The Holy Ghost uses the word compass in His description, something not possible on a global scale.  Google knows the true definition, even if they can't refrain from slipping their view in on the third definition below, saying earth is the third planet from the sun. :facepalm:   


Orbis Latin Dictionary


Orbis
Earth

Orbis
Circle


Orbis
Third planet from the sun




We can see in Augustine expresses doubt that the sun even works on a globe.

  25.  "But if that primordial light had been poured round the mass of the earth on all sides to cover it all, whether it was stationary (geocentric globe) or circling round (heliocentric globe), there would have been no part in which it could let night into follow it, because it would not itself have withdrawn from anywhere to make room for it."


Augustine questions the globe further and finishes with: "Who would say such a thing, when he can see the fields of the sea, spread out level on all sides."


Globe promoters will fight tooth and nail to insist earth is a globe, but when confronted with information and facts, they either refuse to read or deal with it, or, they tell us it doesn't really matter.  Or, that we have to all wait until we're dead to find out the truth. Or that God doesn't tell us anything about it. This lack of desire to get to the truth says it all. I have yet to find a globe earther that has not tried this and other maneuvers to avoid dealing with the truth when their argument falls apart.   

Sorry about the text, I tried to clean it up without changing definitions.  Look it up for your own info.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 12, 2023, 11:01:12 AM
I can understand your wanting to come to his defense having read some of the very friendly chit chat between you two CathInfo Hero Members, but you're over your head on this one.  You are out and out wrong.  I know the meaning of calumny quite well and have for a very long time.

At least he was apparently willing to call it a day and finally go to :sleep:, but you like a good buddy just had to jump in and get your two cents in. The daily CathInfo record setter for having the last word!  Just please don't expect me to engage with you anymore on this.  Hope you agree that the issue is not worth an iota more of either of our time and that if you do quote my post here you quote it in full.

It has nothing to do with my being "buddies" with gladius.  You just don't understand the of the term calumny.  While the link he posted was meant as an insult, insults are not calumnies, and it was obvious that he was being tongue-in-cheek with the link.  If I call someone ugly, or effeminate, that's an insult, and can be an offense against charity, but it's not a calumny.  Basically they're expressions (somewhat subjective) of what one individual thinks of another.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 12, 2023, 11:32:17 AM
If someone has an open mind, this here is all you need to demonstrate that the earth is not a globe the size mainstream science claim it is.  If you're remotely honest, you'll admit that there's zero chance that this could be caused by "refraction".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMpyePcfDYU
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 12, 2023, 04:48:36 PM

Augustine tells us that scripture describes a flat earth. 

No he does not.  He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles, that is, "a watery and spherical mass"

From his work De Genesi ad Litteram "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis":

cuм enim totam terram adhuc aqua tegeret, nihil impediebat ut aquosa et globosa moles ex una parte faceret diem lucis praesentia, ex alia noctem lucis absentia, quae in eam partem succederet a tempore vespertino, ex qua lux in aliam declinaret.

"Although water still covered all the earth, nothing was preventing the watery and spherical mass from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light, that in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other."


We can see in Augustine expresses doubt that the sun even works on a globe.

  25.  "But if that primordial light had been poured round the mass of the earth on all sides to cover it all, whether it was stationary (geocentric globe) or circling round (heliocentric globe), there would have been no part in which it could let night into follow it, because it would not itself have withdrawn from anywhere to make room for it."
You are misunderstanding this passage. In this passage, St. Augustine is answering the question "How did evening and morning follow each other in the first three days?"  This needs an explanation because the sun was not created until the fourth day and yet light was separated from darkness and there were days starting from the first day.

He is not doubting the globe but assuming its existence in order to answer the question.  The primordial light (the sort of light that existed before the creation of the sun) could not have gone all the way around the earth because this would not allow for night.  He is not talking about the globe being stationary or moving, but about the primordial light being stationary or moving as it encircled the spherical earth.  Either way, there could be no night.

He then considers the possibility of the primordial light only shining on one side of the earth at a time, creating day and night as it circled around.  This could work because the earth was a watery globe.  This, therefore, is his solution to the question he posed.


Augustine questions the globe further and finishes with: "Who would say such a thing, when he can see the fields of the sea, spread out level on all sides."

Again, in context it is very clear that he is not questioning the globe earth model. This statement comes from an answer to the question:  "As the water under heaven had first covered the whole earth, where did it recede to for the dry land to appear?"

St. Augustine says:
"They [the waters covering the earth] were not, surely, collected into a pile as happens on the threshing floor when the harvest that has been threshed is winnowed and then swept into a heap, and so lays bare the place it had been spread over and covered." This is what he refers to when he asks "Who would ever say such a thing?"  St. Augustine is making the obviously true observation that nobody would say such a thing of water because it always appears level. He is not commenting on the shape of the earth.

Globe promoters will fight tooth and nail to insist earth is a globe, but when confronted with information and facts, they either refuse to read or deal with it, or, they tell us it doesn't really matter.  Or, that we have to all wait until we're dead to find out the truth. Or that God doesn't tell us anything about it. This lack of desire to get to the truth says it all. I have yet to find a globe earther that has not tried this and other maneuvers to avoid dealing with the truth when their argument falls apart. 

Nothing that you have said about St. Augustine's views is actually supported when one reads the quotes you cited in context.  There was nothing true in your entire post.

Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine, St_/On Genesis (5059)/On Genesis - Augustine, St_.pdf) (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 12, 2023, 06:04:45 PM
Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine, St_/On Genesis (5059)/On Genesis - Augustine, St_.pdf) (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.
Thanks for warning us you don't believe in Genesis. We Catholics know Augustine took Genesis literally and that's why he called his book like that.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 12, 2023, 06:33:30 PM
Thanks for warning us you don't believe in Genesis. We Catholics know Augustine took Genesis literally and that's why he called his book like that.
I understand Genesis pretty much the same way that St. Augustine did.  Few people have been as influential on the Catholic understanding of Scripture as he has been.  

Read what he actually wrote instead of instead of deciding that you already know what it says.  I already posted the link. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 12, 2023, 06:35:34 PM
Thank you for your input.  My answers in bold.  

No he does not.  He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles, that is, "a watery and spherical mass"

From his work De Genesi ad Litteram "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis":

cuм enim totam terram adhuc aqua tegeret, nihil impediebat ut aquosa et globosa moles ex una parte faceret diem lucis praesentia, ex alia noctem lucis absentia, quae in eam partem succederet a tempore vespertino, ex qua lux in aliam declinaret.

"Although water still covered all the earth, nothing was preventing the watery and spherical mass from having day on one side by the presence of light, and on the other side, night by the absence of light, that in the evening, darkness would pass to that side from which light would be turning to the other."

I find this is an example of people who see the word "globe" or in this case, "watery and spherical mass" and think it proves their case because they don't read in context.  Augustine is debunking the watery spherical mass promoted by the pagans because he believes the literal interpretation of scripture.  


You are misunderstanding this passage. In this passage, St. Augustine is answering the question "How did evening and morning follow each other in the first three days?"  This needs an explanation because the sun was not created until the fourth day and yet light was separated from darkness and there were days starting from the first day.

He is not debunking the globe but assuming its existence in order to answer the question. The primordial light (the sort of light that existed before the creation of the sun) could not have gone all the way around the earth because this would not allow for night.  He is not talking about the globe being stationary or moving, but about the primordial light being stationary or moving as it encircled the spherical earth.  Either way, there could be no night.

He then considers the possibility of the primordial light only shining on one side of the earth at a time, creating day and night as it circled around.  This could work because the earth was a watery globe.  This, therefore, is his solution to the question he posed.

We know Augustine is questioning the globe earth model because he's telling us to read scripture literally.  Hence, the title.  "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis."  Are you suggesting Augustine is telling us scripture describes a globe?  Scripture never does. Nor does such a thought work with the title on the literal meaning of Genesis.  It's already disturbing when pagans refuse to use the literal interpretation of scripture and pretend it doesn't say what it actually says. How much worse if Catholics do it?   

Again, in context it is very clear that he is not questioning the globe earth model. This statement comes from an answer to the question:  "As the water under heaven had first covered the whole earth, where did it recede to for the dry land to appear?"

You haven't proven Augustine was questioning the globe from literal interpretation.  Unless he is actually saying scripture describes a globe, which he doesn't even pretend to do.  Otherwise, he'd use a different title for his work.  In fact, he sums it all up saying it's obvious earth isn't a globe because water and fields are obviously level.    

 Perfect example

St. Augustine says: "They [the waters covering the earth] were not, surely, collected into a pile as happens on the threshing floor when the harvest that has been threshed is winnowed and then swept into a heap, and so lays bare the place it had been spread over and covered." This is what he refers to when he asks "Who would ever say such a thing?"  St. Augustine is making the obviously true observation that nobody would say such a thing of water because it always appears level. He is not commenting on the shape of the earth.

Augustine is complaining that water doesn't heap up to form a curve, which would happen if earth was a globe, because water surface is level.  Honestly, if Catholics refuse the literal, what else is there? Modernism? Francis? 

Nothing that you have said about St. Augustine's views is actually supported when one reads the quotes you cited in context.  There was nothing true in your entire post.

Augustine has been defending the literal meaning of scripture in this work and is showing the globe to be incompatible with scripture.    

Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine, St_/On Genesis (5059)/On Genesis - Augustine, St_.pdf) (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 12, 2023, 06:42:54 PM
Tradman, did you actually read the entire On the Literal Meaning of Genesis or do you base your understanding on isolated quotes?  I find it hard to believe that a person who had read the whole thing would misunderstand it as badly as you do.

Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 12, 2023, 07:20:46 PM
Anyone who wishes to read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis may do so here:https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine,%20St_/On%20Genesis%20(5059)/On%20Genesis%20-%20Augustine,%20St_.pdf (https://isidore.co/CalibreLibrary/Augustine, St_/On Genesis (5059)/On Genesis - Augustine, St_.pdf) (It starts on page 160) Read it for yourselves and do not rely on quotes that distort its meaning.  It is not an exhortation to read Genesis in a literal way. On the contrary, it is at points critical of literal interpretations.

Sorry, I just realized that this link is wrong.  St. Augustine wrote two works with similar titles and this link is not to the one we were discussing.  The site which I originally used to read it no longer has a good link and I can't find another site that is both free and in English.  It is still worth reading this one, but it won't match the quotes we were discussing.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 12, 2023, 09:06:39 PM
The pagan Greeks believed in a globe earth; St Augustine disagreed with the pagans.

If the pagan Greeks (the non-freemason/non-occult ones) had had Nikon cameras, they would've been against globe earth too.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 12, 2023, 09:09:07 PM
Tradman, did you actually read the entire On the Literal Meaning of Genesis or do you base your understanding on isolated quotes?  I find it hard to believe that a person who had read the whole thing would misunderstand it as badly as you do.

Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.

This doesn't show that scripture or Augustine isn't talking about the literal. It's obvious that God doesn't speak with a human voice. God is a spirit.  Scripture just says God spoke. That is, He willed it, and it was done. This doesn't help your case. Specific descriptions are different. Scripture describes the form of the earth using words and ideas common to human understanding and they always describe a flat earth. They never describe a globe.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on July 12, 2023, 09:15:56 PM
"a watery and spherical mass"

could apply to both models but only one corresponds to Sacred Scripture:

(https://i.imgur.com/IOMdA6s.png)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 01:42:50 AM
Tradman, did you actually read the entire On the Literal Meaning of Genesis or do you base your understanding on isolated quotes?  I find it hard to believe that a person who had read the whole thing would misunderstand it as badly as you do.

Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.
:facepalm: 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 04:55:06 AM

This doesn't show that scripture or Augustine isn't talking about the literal. It's obvious that God doesn't speak with a human voice. God is a spirit.  Scripture just says God spoke. That is, He willed it, and it was done. 

St. Augustine writes of four ways of understanding Scripture proper to Catholics:

 in accord with history, allegory, analogy, and etiology. It is a matter of history when deeds done-whether by men or by God-are reported. It is a matter of allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when the conformity of the Old and New Testaments is shown. It is a matter of etiology when the causes of what is said or done are reported

This first sense is sometimes called the literal sense. St. Augustine wrote two books about the literal meaning of Genesis in which the focus was what actually, historically happened rather than the other three ways of understanding.  Neither of these was an exhortation to take everything in Genesis (or Scripture in general) literally, that is, without recognizing figures of speech. Expressions in Scripture about God speaking, having a mouth, hands or arms are not literal and it is incorrect to understand them that way, since as you say, God is a spirit.  

Anyone who reads these works in their entirety can see that St. Augustine explitly taught that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth. He disagrees with every flat earther who claims that Scripture teaches the earth is flat. His view (which is also the Catholic view and my personal view) is that Scripture teaches neither that the earth is flat nor that it is a globe.  

It is not possible to have actually read his works (rather than isolated quotes) and think anything else.  Scholars discuss what Augustine personally believed and the vast majority conclude that he believed in a globe earth.  A notable exception is Leo Ferrari, who wrote a famous paper on the thesis that Augustine personally believed in flat earth.  The work the poster cassini quoted was a critique of Ferrari's paper. (I have read the entire critique and think that the author made a good case that Ferrari was wrong.)

Tradman, you did not answer my question about whether you read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.  Given how wrong your understanding of this work is, I am going to assume that you did not. I would be interested in discussing this work with anyone who as read it and especially interested in finding a functional link for it.  But I don't have anything to say to people who simply make false assertions about Augustine's views.



Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 05:55:17 AM
Jaynek do you believe in evolution and do you think Augustine supports it?

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 06:48:20 AM
Jaynek do you believe in evolution and do you think Augustine supports it?
I accept what the Church taught on the subject in the encyclical Humani Generis: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html) I think that St. Augustine neither supports nor rejects it, since the theory did not exist in his life time. We can safely say, however, that he would not accept any theory that denied that truth that God is the Creator of the universe.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 13, 2023, 07:11:33 AM
No he does not.  He referred to the earth as aquosa et globosa moles, that is, "a watery and spherical mass"

Yes he does.

Most of the misreading of the Church Fathers comes from the notion that when they spoke of the globe, they were speaking about NASA's ball earth where the ground we walk on is a globe.  When they discussed the shape of the world, they were speaking about the entire world, including the firmament that surrounds it, and most of the debates among the Church Fathers about the shape of the earth deal explicitly with the shape of the firmament ... sphere, hemisphere, tent/cone shaped, etc.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 07:22:10 AM
  When they discussed the shape of the world, they were speaking about the entire world, including the firmament that surrounds it, and most of the debates among the Church Fathers about the shape of the earth deal explicitly with the shape of the firmament ... sphere, hemisphere, tent/cone shaped, etc.

That is a legitimate point but you can't seriously be agreeing with Tradman's claim that "Augustine tells us that scripture describes a flat earth."  You have read enough of St. Augustine to realize that this is not true.  You must have recognized that those quotes were taken out of context.   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 13, 2023, 07:44:39 AM
St. Augustine writes of four ways of understanding Scripture proper to Catholics:

 in accord with history, allegory, analogy, and etiology. It is a matter of history when deeds done-whether by men or by God-are reported. It is a matter of allegory when things spoken in figures are understood. It is a matter of analogy, when the conformity of the Old and New Testaments is shown. It is a matter of etiology when the causes of what is said or done are reported

This first sense is sometimes called the literal sense. St. Augustine wrote two books about the literal meaning of Genesis in which the focus was what actually, historically happened rather than the other three ways of understanding.  Neither of these was an exhortation to take everything in Genesis (or Scripture in general) literally, that is, without recognizing figures of speech. Expressions in Scripture about God speaking, having a mouth, hands or arms are not literal and it is incorrect to understand them that way, since as you say, God is a spirit. 

Anyone who reads these works in their entirety can see that St. Augustine explitly taught that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth. He disagrees with every flat earther who claims that Scripture teaches the earth is flat. His view (which is also the Catholic view and my personal view) is that Scripture teaches neither that the earth is flat nor that it is a globe. 

It is not possible to have actually read his works (rather than isolated quotes) and think anything else.  Scholars discuss what Augustine personally believed and the vast majority conclude that he believed in a globe earth.  A notable exception is Leo Ferrari, who wrote a famous paper on the thesis that Augustine personally believed in flat earth.  The work the poster cassini quoted was a critique of Ferrari's paper. (I have read the entire critique and think that the author made a good case that Ferrari was wrong.)

Tradman, you did not answer my question about whether you read On the Literal Meaning of Genesis.  Given how wrong your understanding of this work is, I am going to assume that you did not. I would be interested in discussing this work with anyone who as read it and especially interested in finding a functional link for it.  But I don't have anything to say to people who simply make false assertions about Augustine's views.





Yes, I read "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis' a few years ago and have returned to it for information many times.  I appreciate your interpretation of what Augustine said in this particular piece, but it seems we need to define some things. Just to make it easy I'll use Wiki:

"According to doctrine developed by the Church Fathers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers), the literal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language)
meaning, or God-intended meaning of the words of the Bible, may be read figuratively as a moral reading for one's personal life."

And there we have it, the literal is the God-intended meaning.  We can also be assured that all exegesis is based in the literal even as the other senses are considered for fuller understanding. Of course Augustine used all four senses to explain the richness of scripture.  He demonstrated when things don't appear in actuality, they can still be embedded in the text. For instance, Genesis doesn't literally say that God created water.  Augustine explains why the creation of water is contained in the first line, "In the beginning, God created heaven and earth.'

Of course, exegesis doesn't mean you can extrapolate willy nilly.  When the Church Fathers who taught on the form of the earth, they certainly applied all senses, while they held to the literal.  So when God says "like a tent" He doesn't mean "like a ball."  When God says the earth stands firm in it's foundation, He doesn't mean it dangles in space.   So, when you say scripture doesn't describe a flat earth, have you read scripture?





 
   

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 08:11:19 AM
I accept what the Church taught on the subject in the encyclical Humani Generis: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html

 (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html) I think that St. Augustine neither supports nor rejects it, since the theory did not exist in his life time. We can safely say, however, that he would not accept any theory that denied that truth that God is the Creator of the universe.
For someone who has read De Genesi ad litteram you're astoundingly ignorant of it:

St. Augustine: "The elements of this corporeal world have also their well defined force, and their proper quality, from which depends what each one of them can or cannot do, and what reality ought or ought not to issue from each one of them. Hence it is that from a grain of wheat a bean cannot issue, nor wheat from a bean, nor a man from a beast, nor a beast from a man." (De Genesi ad litt., IX, n. 32).

Here's one more quote from Augustine ruling out evolution.

St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book 1, Chap. 5: “… before sin entered [the world], all beasts were subject to man, and the fact that now they harm men is punishment for the first sin.”

I won't be debating the heresy of evolution with you since it's so obviously false and has been debunked in a myriad of ways, but I thank you for exposing yourself as completely unreliable, ill-informed and lacking Catholic sense.

You should tend to womanly duties instead of promoting modernist destruction of genesis. Yes, the quotes you abuse from Leo XIII and others are favourites of the modernists.


Thank you Tradman for these beautiful quotes, I'll be adding them to my collection.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 08:24:45 AM

"According to doctrine developed by the Church Fathers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Fathers), the literal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language)
meaning, or God-intended meaning of the words of the Bible, may be read figuratively as a moral reading for one's personal life."

And there we have it, the literal is the God-intended meaning.  We can also be assured that all exegesis is based in the literal even as the other senses are considered for fuller understanding.
The literal sense of Scripture (as opposed to allegorical, etc.) is the meaning that God intends for us to understand about what is actually occurring or described.  This does not mean that God intends for us to take figures of speech or parables as literal descrptions.  The Church guides us in understanding the meaning that God intends for Scripture.  Only sola Scriptura heretics take everything in Scripture literally.  (And yet they somehow miss that "This is my Body" is literal.)

We can best understand St. Augustine's view how it is used in magisterial teaching, here in Providentissimus Deus:

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

I have bolded the Augustine quote. (And Ladislaus, please stop the nonsense claiming that quoting this encyclical somehow puts me on a "trajectory to modernism" merely because modernists have misinterpretted it according to their agenda.  What haven't they misinterpretted? This is their basic mode of operation.) 

So here we have clear magisterial teaching that the intent of God in Scripture, therefore its literal sense, is NOT to describe the physical nature of the visible universe.  When it speaks of such things it is using figurative language.  To claim that Scipture teaches the earth is flat is to go against Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:24:56 AM
Quote
Here is a passage in which St. Augustine is being explicitly critical of literal interpretation:

19. "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and the light was made." We ought to understand that God did not say, "Let there be light," by a sound brought forth from the lungs, or by the tongue and teeth. Such thoughts are those of carnal persons, and to be wise in accord with the flesh is death. "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made. Only let us banish the impiety of believing that the Word of God, the only-begotten Son, comes about like a sound uttered by us.
:facepalm:  You have a serious reading comprehension problem.  The literal interpretation of this passage is that "God spoke...Let there be light."  St Augustine says that God spoke, but not like a human being.  So he is supportive of the literal interpretation, he just added details.  And anyone with a brain knows that God doesn't talk like we do.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 08:29:47 AM
I won't be debating the heresy of evolution with you since it's so obviously false and has been debunked in a myriad of ways, but I thank you for exposing yourself as completely unreliable, ill-informed and lacking Catholic sense.

You won't be debating evolution with me because I would not defend evolution so there is nothing to debate.  But you have here shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest and illogical debater who misrepresents the positions of his opponents.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:40:38 AM

Quote
To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
You're missing the point.


This encyclical is saying that the Holy Ghost did not intend to "teach men...the essential nature of things...to penetrate the secrets of nature".

But the Holy Ghost did "describe...things...in terms which were commonly used at the time...in a way men could understand and were accustomed to".

There is a difference between Teaching and Explaining something.  To be taught means one has studied and knows the topic inside/out and can teach others because they are an expert.  To be explained to means one understands the topic, at a general level, but not enough to teach others, but only re-explain it.

In other words, a biologist understands how a tree grows, what nutrition it needs, when to prune it and "why" pruning it at certain times is good or bad.  A simple farmer won't understand the "why" but he can still understand enough to know the nutrition/pruning needs and how to grow big, healthy trees (i.e. the "hows").

The point is, Scripture and the Holy Ghost did not teach the "whys" of the earth/universe, as this encyclical says.  But it did give mankind enough to know "how" to navigate, operate and work nature/earth.

So, yes, Scripture can be used to explain the earth/sciences/history (in a general sense...the "how" does it work?) but just not specifically and profoundly (i.e. "why does it work this way?").
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 08:41:47 AM
 The literal interpretation of this passage is that "God spoke...Let there be light."  St Augustine says that God spoke, but not like a human being.  So he is supportive of the literal interpretation, he just added details.  And anyone with a brain knows that God doesn't talk like we do.

Yes, the literal interpretation, that is the meaning intended by God, is that light came into being when created by the will of God.  This meaning is conveyed by using the figurative expression "God spoke" in which we understand God's act by analogy to human speech while recognizing they are not equivalent.

The word "literal" can sometimes refer to the meaning intended by God or sometimes is used as the opposite of figurative. I can see how you would get confused, but I think you could figure it out if you were to pay close attention.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:41:56 AM
Quote
I thank you for exposing yourself as completely unreliable, ill-informed and lacking Catholic sense.
:confused:  He didn't come close to doing anything of the sort.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:49:13 AM

Quote
Yes, the literal interpretation, that is the meaning intended by God, is that light came into being when created by the will of God. 
That's half of what happened.  You left off the part where God "spoke", which was the manifestation of His will.



Quote
This meaning is conveyed by using the figurative expression "God spoke" in which we understand God's act by analogy to human speech while recognizing they are not equivalent.
Totally false.  St Augustine said that God spoke.  This is not literal language.  "Let there be light," was spoken ineffably.



Do you know what "ineffible" means?  Incapable of being expressed; indescribable or unutterable:
This does not mean a word wasn't used and language wasn't expressed.  It simply means we can't understand what God was saying.

God definitely spoke.  This is the literal interpretation of Scripture, which St Augustine confirms.

Quote
The word "literal" can sometimes refer to the meaning intended by God or sometimes is used as the opposite of figurative. I can see how you would get confused, but I think you could figure it out if you were to pay close attention.
Here's what the word 'literal' means - true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual



You have an agenda, this clear.


Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 08:50:06 AM
You're missing the point.
People who claim that Scripture teaches the earth is flat are the ones missing the point.  Catholic teaching is that Scripture does not teach this and that it is not important for salvation.  This was taught by Church Fathers like Augustine and Basil, accepted throughout the history of the Church, and explicitly taught in magisterial docuмents.

Catholics are free to make arguments from science for a flat earth, but they may not claim that we are obliged to believe it as a truth taught in Scripture.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 08:57:39 AM

Quote
People who claim that Scripture teaches the earth is flat are the ones missing the point. 
It can be argued (as the Encyclical points out) that Scripture doesn't "scientifically teach" this point.  But does it "explain" enough details so we can conclude flat land?  Very possible.

Quote
Catholics are free to make arguments from science for a flat earth, but they may not claim that we are obliged to believe it as a truth taught in Scripture. 
The Church authorities of the Middle Ages (i.e. their Magisterium) would disagree with you.  There is evidence, both theologically and historically, that the Church thought that a globe earth was contradictory to Scripture, thus we can't believe it (even if we can't fully explain the "whys" of the world...we know enough).


Secondly, the scientific attributes of a flat-land vs globe land are innumerably different, almost opposed.  It's not like we're comparing a red apple vs a green apple, where the differences are minor (i.e. color and taste).  The differences between these 2 earthly theories are vast.

To say that Scripture offers "absolutely no" insight or hints/explanations into such a question is both stupid and short-sighted.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 09:05:12 AM
The Church authorities of the Middle Ages (i.e. their Magisterium) would disagree with you.  There is evidence, both theologically and historically, that the Church thought that a globe earth was contradictory to Scripture, thus we can't believe it (even if we can't fully explain the "whys" of the world...we know enough).
This is nonsense.  In the Middle Ages,educated Catholics accepted Aristotle and Ptolemy as authorities on cosmology.  They could only do this because they believed that Scripture was silent on the topic and that it was a matter for science.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 09:07:11 AM
:jester:  How much have you read about Galileo?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 09:41:54 AM

Quote
they believed that Scripture was silent on the topic
Scripture isn't silent on the topic, it just didn't "teach it" in all it's scientific details.  There a many, many passages where Scripture uses imagery and words which (as the encyclical said) would "explain" important details about the cosmos/earth. 


You're basically preaching the idea of "separation of Church and Science" which is just as wrong and heretical as "separation of Church and State".

...I'm still waiting for you to correct/accept that St Augustine confirmed that God (literally) spoke: "Let there be light".
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 13, 2023, 09:43:25 AM

That is a legitimate point but you can't seriously be agreeing with Tradman's claim that "Augustine tells us that scripture describes a flat earth."  You have read enough of St. Augustine to realize that this is not true.  You must have recognized that those quotes were taken out of context. 


I'd probably have to look up the context, but I don't recall St. Augustine really speaking directly about the earth being flat, though there are places where it's implied.  That's why there's a lot of debate, with some claiming St. Augustine was a proponent of the globe, others that he was a proponent of flat earth.  It's the same thing with Sacred Scripture, where there's no unequivocal statement about the earth being flat, just some passages that may imply it.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 13, 2023, 09:44:12 AM
The literal sense of Scripture (as opposed to allegorical, etc.) is the meaning that God intends for us to understand about what is actually occurring or described.  This does not mean that God intends for us to take figures of speech or parables as literal descrptions.  The Church guides us in understanding the meaning that God intends for Scripture.  Only sola Scriptura heretics take everything in Scripture literally.  (And yet they somehow miss that "This is my Body" is literal.)

We can best understand St. Augustine's view how it is used in magisterial teaching, here in Providentissimus Deus:

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

I have bolded the Augustine quote. (And Ladislaus, please stop the nonsense claiming that quoting this encyclical somehow puts me on a "trajectory to modernism" merely because modernists have misinterpretted it according to their agenda.  What haven't they misinterpretted? This is their basic mode of operation.) 

So here we have clear magisterial teaching that the intent of God in Scripture, therefore its literal sense, is NOT to describe the physical nature of the visible universe.  When it speaks of such things it is using figurative language.  To claim that Scipture teaches the earth is flat is to go against Church teaching on how to understand Scripture.

Excellent! This is a great quote, although the encyclical has been used by both conservatives and liberals to make various cases.  Nevertheless, Leo was generous in telling us


Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Leo reminds us the sacred writers weren't seeking to penetrate the secrets of nature, however, that certainly doesn't mean the earth is inscrutable, or Scripture was false or wrote the opposite of what it meant. Rather, the writers went by what sensibly appeared, and in a way men could understand and were accustomed to, as Leo tells us.

This is why the Fathers of the Church wrote exegeses from Scripture comparing the earth to the tabernacle, with a domed ceiling like a tent, pillars, walls, and a division between the holy of holies and the outer part where men gathered.  The model for the tabernacle (as well as church architecture) is all of creation, with heaven and earth divided by the firmament, separating the holy place of heaven from the men on earth, where God is worshipped, yet apart from where he resides.  This is why the Fathers described the earth as a two story house.  Simple enough language that cannot be reconciled with earth being a ball.

If this is unfamiliar to you, it's only because it has been hidden from you by the enemy, or forgotten, or both, which is the way the enemies of God operate throughout the centuries. God's enemies literally buried the true cross which remained lost for centuries.  This kind of thing happens, but we ought not be resistant to what Scripture says, especially when the Fathers expound on it. We should happily abandon the pagan indoctrination we suffered, being so contrary to Scripture and the Fathers.. 

Your interpretation of what Leo says suggests creation ought to remain obscure or inscrutable, both philosophically and physically.  Or maybe that only scientists have the answers.  I'm not denying such things aren't incredibly deep and spiritual, just that God intends for us to contemplate things so He can reveal more to us. God tells us to knock, seek and ask.  I haven't seen globe promoters attempt to consider the mysteries presented, let alone to find alignment with the Fathers, Scripture and reason.  Instead, some prefer to obscure understanding telling everyone not to bother, there's nothing to see, leave it to the scientists. Even when you catch them lying, I guess. Let's be honest, they tell some whoppers: When Scripture says the earth never moves, the lying enemy says it moves 4 different directions at high speeds.  When Scripture says the sun moves, they say the earth does.  When Scripture says stars are lights, they say stars are worlds, even with alien beings. When Scripture describes water above the firmament, they say it's empty space. :facepalm:
 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 10:19:47 AM
 It's the same thing with Sacred Scripture, where there's no unequivocal statement about the earth being flat, just some passages that may imply it.
Thank you so much for explicitly saying this.  I have noticed that you typically support your belief in flat earth with arguments from science.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 10:26:31 AM
:jester:  How much have you read about Galileo?

Lots.  Everyone who disagreed with Galilio about heliocentrism believed that the earth is a globe.  The dominant view was the Ptolemaic model, while some accepted that of Tycho Brahe.

...I'm still waiting for you to correct/accept that St Augustine confirmed that God (literally) spoke: "Let there be light".

Don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 10:34:29 AM
 So, when you say scripture doesn't describe a flat earth, have you read scripture?

I have read the entire Bible several times.  I have also studied certain sections in depth.  For example, I took a course (to meet a Hebrew requirement) that involved translating and exegeting various passages from Genesis from the original Hebrew, including the first three chapters which describe Creation.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Meg on July 13, 2023, 10:38:56 AM

Your interpretation of what Leo says suggests creation ought to remain obscure or inscrutable, both philosophically and physically.  Or maybe that only scientists have the answers.  I'm not denying such things aren't incredibly deep and spiritual, just that God intends for us to contemplate things so He can reveal more to us. God tells us to knock, seek and ask.  I haven't seen globe promoters attempt to consider the mysteries presented, let alone to find alignment with the Fathers, Scripture and reason.  Instead, some prefer to obscure understanding telling everyone not to bother, there's nothing to see, leave it to the scientists. Even when you catch them lying, I guess. Let's be honest, they tell some whoppers: When Scripture says the earth never moves, the lying enemy says it moves 4 different directions at high speeds.  When Scripture says the sun moves, they say the earth does.  When Scripture says stars are lights, they say stars are worlds, even with alien beings. When Scripture describes water above the firmament, they say it's empty space. :facepalm:
 


Well said. Your entire post explains the subject very well, but the above shows the problem, IMO, with the globe-earthers wanting to keep science separate from religion, as if God isn't the author and creator of everything in the natural world.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 10:59:26 AM
the above shows the problem, IMO, with the globe-earthers wanting to keep science separate from religion, as if God isn't the author and creator of everything in the natural world.

Science and religion are obviously not separate and I see no reason to think that globe-earthers think that they are.  It is certainly not my position.  Religion places limits on what we can believe from science.  

For example, we must reject any theory which claims that the universe or humanity came about as a series of random, unintended events.  Such a view directly contradicts what we know from Scripture, that God created everything with deliberate intent.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 11:13:20 AM

Quote
Jaynek:  In the Middle Ages, educated Catholics ... believed that Scripture was silent on the topic and that it was a matter for science.

Ladislaus:  It's the same thing with Sacred Scripture, where there's no unequivocal statement about the earth being flat, just some passages that may imply it.

Jaynek:  Thank you so much for explicitly saying this.  I have noticed that you typically support your belief in flat earth with arguments from science.
Jaynek, i'm sorry to tell you that Ladislaus was not agreeing with your point.  You said "Scripture is silent", while Ladislaus said there may be implications for flat-earth.

Another example of your poor reading comprehension.  You may be sincere in your search for truth, but I can't trust your analysis because you don't even understand when someone is disagreeing with you.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 11:26:52 AM
Jaynek, i'm sorry to tell you that Ladislaus was not agreeing with your point.  You said "Scripture is silent", while Ladislaus said there may be implications for flat-earth.

I am not the one who said Scripture is silent on these matters.  St. Augustine said it and then later Pope Leo.  I merely accept their teaching.  Ladislaus also appears to accept it when he says there is "no unequivocal statement about the earth being flat".  To say that something may be implied is not at all the same as a claim that it is clearly taught.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 13, 2023, 11:36:10 AM
Well said. Your entire post explains the subject very well, but the above shows the problem, IMO, with the globe-earthers wanting to keep science separate from religion, as if God isn't the author and creator of everything in the natural world.

I think you're right. They alienate the physical from the spiritual, then water down the spiritual (all religions are equal) then accentuate the physical, to arrive at pure humanism and eventually, devil worship. As secretly as possible of course.  Eliminating creation's spiritual connection to God creates another, different, alternate, 'genesis' of a Godless world. Reminds me that God told us Satan was a liar from the beginning. I'll never see Genesis the same way again.    
 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 12:10:01 PM
Quote
I am not the one who said Scripture is silent on these matters.  St. Augustine said it and then later Pope Leo.
They never said this.

Quote
Ladislaus also appears to accept it when he says there is "no unequivocal statement about the earth being flat". 
If you finish his sentence, he said it is possibly implied.


Quote
To say that something may be implied is not at all the same as a claim that it is clearly taught.
To say that something is implied is also not being silent on the matter.

Everyone agrees Scripture doesn't "teach" on this topic.  But it does "explain" (as Pope Leo tells us) and it also implies many things.

Some of the greatest dogmas of the Faith are only implied in Scripture.  Tradition fills in the gaps.
a.  Scripture tells us that Our Lady was "full of grace".  Apostolic Tradition tells us that this means she was born without sin and Her life was sinless.
b.  Scripture implies many things about science and the world.  Adam/Noah Old Testament Tradition held the earth to be flat until the occult/pagan greeks pushed the anti-Old Testament "science" that the earth was a globe, floating in space, revolving around the Sun (which they worshiped). 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 12:57:05 PM
To say that something is implied is also not being silent on the matter.

The word "imply" means to suggest something without actually explicitly saying it, in other words suggesting while being silent.  For someone to say that something may be implied is to acknowledge that there is silence on the matter.

Some of the greatest dogmas of the Faith are only implied in Scripture.  Tradition fills in the gaps.

But there is no Tradition that the earth is flat or that Scripture teaches it to be so. Catholics throughout history, including Doctors of the Church, believed, as a matter of science, that the earth is a globe.  A globe in the sense that was taught by Aristotle and Ptolemy, not a flat earth surrounded by a globe-shaped firmament.  And these Catholics could only accept this scientific model because they believed that it was not in conflict with Scripture.  

How could St. Thomas have taught that Aristotle's understanding that the earth is a globe is correct, if there was an existing Catholic tradition that Scripture taught it to be flat?   And it was not just St. Thomas, but every educated Catholic, at least from time of St. Bede on, who believed that they were free to accept the view of pagan science on this.

Flat earth is in no way comparable to the "greatest dogmas of the Faith" although admittedly some flat earthers seem to treat it as if it were.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 01:11:01 PM
Quote
The word "imply" means to suggest something without actually explicitly saying it, in other words suggesting while being silent. 

You're using this phrase incorrectly.  You're incorrectly using a phrase typically applied to a person and applying it to a book.  A book, by its very nature, is silent...because everything is written.  When you read, there is no noise.

The phrase "being silent" means there is nothing communicated.  It means the person/book didn't communicate anything, either explicit or implicit.

Scripture is always silent because it's a book.  Scripture does imply many things, without explicitly spelling things out. 

To say that "scripture is silent" implies it did not discuss the topic at all.  This is a false characterization.  Scripture implies many things regarding science in general (as well as history, i.e. the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old) and the shape of the earth/land.  This is not "silence".


Quote
For someone to say that something may be implied is to acknowledge that there is silence on the matter.
Uhhh....no.  "Silence on a matter" means that the matter was not discussed or mentioned at all.  If something was implied, that means the topic was mentioned.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 01:24:04 PM

Quote
But there is no Tradition that the earth is flat or that Scripture teaches it to be so. Catholics throughout history, including Doctors of the Church, believed, as a matter of science, that the earth is a globe. 

There's not been a consensus either way.


Quote
A globe in the sense that was taught by Aristotle and Ptolemy, not a flat earth surrounded by a globe-shaped firmament.
It's a debated topic.



Quote
And these Catholics could only accept this scientific model because they believed that it was not in conflict with Scripture.

The Church allows both theories.  Until She teaches clearly, you can't say flat-earth is any more wrong than globe earth.


Quote
How could St. Thomas have taught that Aristotle's understanding that the earth is a globe is correct, if there was an existing Catholic tradition that Scripture taught it to be flat?   And it was not just St. Thomas, but every educated Catholic, at least from time of St. Bede on, who believed that they were free to accept the view of pagan science on this.
St Thomas was *slightly* wrong on the Immaculate Conception (which in the 1200s was not yet defined), but this doctrine was no less implied.  Many others were *majorly* wrong about the Immaculate Conception, which caused the Church to investigate and determine that the Immaculate Conception WAS implied in Scripture and also explicitly taught in Apostolic Tradition.  Thus, now, it is an explicit doctrine; formerly it was only implicit.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 01:40:16 PM
You won't be debating evolution with me because I would not defend evolution so there is nothing to debate.  But you have here shown yourself to be an intellectually dishonest and illogical debater who misrepresents the positions of his opponents. 
Dishonest? Everything I said was clear and to the point unlike your evasion when I asked you a simple yes or no question - "do you believe in evolution?" I, of course, interpreted your evasion as you being ashamed to admit publicly that you don't regard evolution as the heretical trash theory that it is.

As to misrepresenting positions, I've demonstrated Augustine rejects evolution contrary to your misrepresentation of him.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 13, 2023, 01:40:49 PM
https://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/aquinas.html (https://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/aquinas.html)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 01:51:53 PM
https://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/aquinas.html (https://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/aquinas.html)
:facepalm: I can't believe what I'm reading... accoeding to this clown (who also promotes heliocentrism in the article) St. Thomas Aquinas was correct in saying that if Mary did not contract original sin it would denigrate the sacrifice of Christ.

What's the argument? Basically, St. Thomas is infallible therefore he wouldn't make such a mistake.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 02:01:12 PM

Quote
"Let there be light," was spoken ineffably. One can ask whether what was spoken is the only-begotten Son. For what was spoken is called the Word of God by whom all things were made.
Let's revisit what St Augustine said.  God spoke an ineffable language/word, but He did speak.  Because what God spoke was the Word, which is Christ.  Now since Christ is also God, and unknowable by human kind, it stands to reason that the language used was ineffable (i.e. unexpressable, unable to be explained/understood).


Then we have Jaynek's "explanation":

Quote
Yes, the literal interpretation, that is the meaning intended by God, is that light came into being when created by the will of God.  This meaning is conveyed by using the figurative expression "God spoke" in which we understand God's act by analogy to human speech while recognizing they are not equivalent.

She says that it is figurative language that "God spoke" which then denies that Christ, who is the Word, was spoken.  All of this in contrary to what St Augustine was saying.

You need to start reading the Bible using the Haydock commentary, because you're way off base.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 02:21:58 PM
There's not been a consensus either way.
There was a lack of consensus during the Patristic period, but after St. Bede there was a consensus that lasted over a thousand years.

It's a debated topic.
 
After that long period of consensus, there has only been debate about globe earth among Catholics since Vatican  II.  The 19th century belief in flat earth promoted by Samuel Rowbotham (and other sola Scriptura heretics) was unable to infiltrate the Church before her safeguards to the Faith were dismantled.

The Church allows both theories.  Until She teaches clearly, you can't say flat-earth is any more wrong than globe earth.
Yes, both theories are allowed as a matter of science.  But she does not allow claims that Scripture teaches flat earth or that people who accept globe earth are denying the authority of Scripture.  These claims are interpretations of Scripture that contradict Church teaching.  It would similarly be wrong if supporters of globe earth claimed that Scripture teaches the earth is a globe. The Church has clearly taught that Scripture has no intent to teach on this subject.

St Thomas was *slightly* wrong on the Immaculate Conception (which in the 1200s was not yet defined), but this doctrine was no less implied.  Many others were *majorly* wrong about the Immaculate Conception, which caused the Church to investigate and determine that the Immaculate Conception WAS implied in Scripture and also explicitly taught in Apostolic Tradition.  Thus, now, it is an explicit doctrine; formerly it was only implicit.

Yes, implicit doctrines can change to explicit doctrines.  But the teaching in Providentissimus Deus that Scripture does not intend to teach on matters like the shape of the earth is not going to change to a doctrine that Scripture teaches the earth is flat. The Church does not contradict herself like that.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 02:41:53 PM
She says that it is figurative language that "God spoke" which then denies that Christ, who is the Word, was spoken.  All of this in contrary to what St Augustine was saying.

You need to start reading the Bible using the Haydock commentary, because you're way off base.
When Scripture says that God spoke during creation is does not refer to the same physical act of speech done by humans.  It is a metaphor.  St. Thomas talks about this in the Summa:

It is befitting Holy Writ (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html) to put forward divine and spiritual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) truths (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) by means of comparisons with material things. For God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) provides for everything according to the capacity of its nature (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm). Now it is natural (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) to man (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm) to attain to intellectual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm) truths (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) through sensible objects, because all our knowledge (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) originates from sense. Hence in Holy Writ (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html), spiritual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) truths (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm) says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." It is also befitting Holy Writ (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/index.html), which is proposed to all without distinction of persons (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm) — "To the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor" (Romans 1:14 (https://www.newadvent.org/bible/rom001.htm#verse14)) — that spiritual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14220b.htm) truths (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to  grasp intellectual (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08066a.htm) things may be able to understand it.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article9

 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm#article9)
This passage is also relevant:

...whatever is predicated of various things under the same name but not in the same sense, is predicated equivocally. But no name belongs to God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in the same sense that it belongs to creatures; for instance, wisdom in creatures is a quality (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12589c.htm), but not in God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). Now a different genus changes an essence (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm), since the genus is part of the definition; and the same applies to other things. Therefore whatever is said of God (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and of creatures is predicated equivocally.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#article5 (https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#article5)

I suggest that you read both of these passages in their full context in order to understand them better.  Nothing that I have written says or implies that Christ is not the Word of God or denies any point of Catholic doctrine.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 03:04:36 PM
Dishonest? Everything I said was clear and to the point unlike your evasion when I asked you a simple yes or no question - "do you believe in evolution?"

I do not consider it a simple yes or no question.  I wanted to specify exactly how and why I disagree with it.  Did you read the link to Humani Generis that I included?  That should have made it clear that my answer was not an evasion.

But I will retract my claim that you were being dishonest.  Somehow, you seem to have genuinely thought that I was arguing for evolution.

As to misrepresenting positions, I've demonstrated Augustine rejects evolution contrary to your misrepresentation of him.

It is not a misrepresentation to state that St. Augustine could neither reject nor support a theory that did not exist.  While he may have made comments that are not compatible with evolution, they were not made as an argument against evolution. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 03:08:16 PM
Quote
There was a lack of consensus during the Patristic period, but after St. Bede there was a consensus that lasted over a thousand years.
Doesn't matter the length of time.  There's still a lack of consensus.  The Church Fathers carry more weight than the 1,000+ years after them, because they were closer to the Apostles/Christ and were part of Tradition. 

Quote
But the teaching in Providentissimus Deus that Scripture does not intend to teach on matters like the shape of the earth is not going to change to a doctrine that Scripture teaches the earth is flat. The Church does not contradict herself like that.
P.D. says that Scripture does not intend to Teach on the matter, i.e. give details to explain why.  This is correct.

But the Church could still come out in the future (by interpreting Scripture/Tradition) and tell us that the earth is flat.  This would not be a contradiction at all.  I'm not saying it's going to happen (or needs to), but She could do it. 

The Church definitely needs to anathematize Heliocentrism, for sure.  That is a heinous lie.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 13, 2023, 03:08:32 PM
I would agree that when God spoke, He is not doing so in the same material way that humans do, by making vibrations creating waves in the air.  When God first spoke, there was no air to vibrate.  Formally, speaking refers to manifesting your thoughts or your mind outside of your own mind and outside of yourself.  So, when God, spoke, it meant that He reached outside himself (in a sense) and expressed His mind in His creation.  His creation are His words in that they reflect His mind.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 03:10:46 PM

Quote
When Scripture says that God spoke during creation is does not refer to the same physical act of speech done by humans.  It is a metaphor. 
God spoke when He created light, because He spoke "The Word" which is Christ.  This. is. not. a. metaphor.


Just because God used language that we would not understand (i.e. the meaning of "ineffable") does not mean God didn't speak.

:facepalm:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 03:19:35 PM
Doesn't matter the length of time.  There's still a lack of consensus.  The Church Fathers carry more weight than the 1,000+ years after them, because they were closer to the Apostles/Christ and were part of Tradition. 
This is incorrect.  The Fathers only carry that sort of weight when they are in consensus. There was no consensus among the Fathers that Scripture teaches the earth is flat.  St. Augustine and St. Basil both taught that Scripture does not teach the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 13, 2023, 03:20:06 PM
God spoke when He created light, because He spoke "The Word" which is Christ.  This. is. not. a. metaphor.


Just because God used language that we would not understand (i.e. the meaning of "ineffable") does not mean God didn't speak.

:facepalm:

I agree that God spoke for real, that it's not a metaphor, but the difference is in understanding the formal aspect of speaking from the material ... as per my post above.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 03:24:36 PM
I would agree that when God spoke, He is not doing so in the same material way that humans do, by making vibrations creating waves in the air.  When God first spoke, there was no air to vibrate.  Formally, speaking refers to manifesting your thoughts or your mind outside of your own mind and outside of yourself.  So, when God, spoke, it meant that He reached outside himself (in a sense) and expressed His mind in His creation.  His creation are His words in that they reflect His mind.
Well said.  I think that this is a good example of what St. Thomas was talking about when he wrote of Scripture "putting forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things".
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 03:29:54 PM
Quote
I agree that God spoke for real, that it's not a metaphor, but the difference is in understanding the formal aspect of speaking from the material ... as per my post above.
Right, and that was St Augustine's point.  God did speak, but not in the same way as us and He used language we couldn't comprehend.

Jaynek is twisting St Augustine's words (and her lack of understanding what 'ineffable' means) to say that this part of Genesis is a metaphor.

Then she misuses the phrase "silent on the matter" to brush away parts of Scripture she doesn't like, ignoring the many, many indirect implications.

Very, very dishonest or very, very dumb.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 03:37:51 PM
Then she misuses the phrase "silent on the matter" to brush away parts of Scripture she doesn't like, ignoring the many, many indirect implications.

Only the Church has the authority to say what is being indirectly implied by Scripture and she has made no such statements in regard to flat earth.  Of course I ignore your opinions on the subject.  You do not seem to have a very good grasp of any of the principles involved.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 03:50:13 PM

Quote
Only the Church has the authority to say what is being indirectly implied by Scripture and she has made no such statements in regard to flat earth.
This is true.  But it's also true that the many indirect implications regarding flat earth do exist.  And until the Church rules such DON'T apply to flat earth, we are free to argue they do.


You're very one-sided; this much is clear.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 13, 2023, 03:51:50 PM
I do not consider it a simple yes or no question.  I wanted to specify exactly how and why I disagree with it.  Did you read the link to Humani Generis that I included?  That should have made it clear that my answer was not an evasion.

But I will retract my claim that you were being dishonest.  Somehow, you seem to have genuinely thought that I was arguing for evolution.

It is not a misrepresentation to state that St. Augustine could neither reject nor support a theory that did not exist.  While he may have made comments that are not compatible with evolution, they were not made as an argument against evolution.
Thank you, sorry for judging rashly.

I've read Humani Generis but haven't clicked the link.

What you've said with regard to Augustine sounds reasonable enough but we both know that when I asked does does Augustine support evolution I meant are his statements compatible or suggestive of evolution not that he invented it before Darwin. My motivation was to see how much Catholic sense you have and on the basis of your response to see if I'll go read the whole book this time and re-evaluate my conclusions. Unfortunately, you weren't aware he excludes evolution and cited Humani Generis when a zealous Catholic would say that evolution is insane which made me conclude your reading is unreliable.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 04:13:53 PM
This is true.  But it's also true that the many indirect implications regarding flat earth do exist.  And until the Church rules such DON'T apply to flat earth, we are free to argue they do.

The Church has ruled.  She has said that Scripture is silent on this sort of issue.  Some people think that there are indirect implications, but this is their opinion, not a truth.  You are not free to argue that Scripture is teaching something (through indirect implications or otherwise) when the Church says that Scripture is silent on the subject.

You are free to believe that the earth is flat and to make arguments from science, but you have no authority to make claims about indirect implications of Scripture, especially not in contradiction to Church teaching.

I do not have strong feelings on the science of flat earth/ globe earth.  But I am very intense, "one-sided" as you say, on the subject of Church authority over interpretation of Scripture.  There were a few years in my youth when I was a fundamentalist protestant who accepted sola Scriptura.  I have been up close and personal with this heresy and I hate it.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 04:41:08 PM

Quote
The Church has ruled.  She has said that Scripture is silent on this sort of issue.
No.  (unless you're referring to another docuмent...) The docuмent PV by Pope Leo XIII does not say Scripture is silent on the issue.  



Quote
Rather, that Scripture did not intend to "teach men...the essential nature of the things of the visible universe".
 This means that Scripture is not a science book, which delves into all the details of the universe.  That doesn't mean that Scripture is silent on EVERY detail of the universe.  It's not an either-or.  It's not all or none.




Quote
(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.


Figurative language, as used here, does not mean a metaphor.  Because eminent scientists of our day don't use metaphors; they use facts.  So such figurative terms that Scripture uses correspond to current, science terms, or...there is enough detail that current scientists can "get" what Scripture is describing.

The analogy of what this encyclical is saying is this:  Scripture did not intend to explain what a cow is, how it produces milk and why it needs to eat grass and be milked everyday.  But (in some instances) it did explain that it was talking about a cow (it may not have used the word "cow" but something similar to a "grass eating animal") and it gave enough details so that current scientists can "get" that it was talking about a cow.

So, Scripture did not tell us the "whys" of a cow, but it certainly "explained" it in such a way that we would "get" what it was describing.

Arguably (but not definitively) some say the same thing about the shape of the earth.  The debate is open.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 07:33:17 AM

The Church is certainly not, and never has been, silent on issues of science.  The Church not only has the right, but the duty of proscribing false science.  

Vatican I,Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:

... all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. ... ... although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God Who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (can.ii) Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797)

proscribe
prō-ˈskrīb

VERB

proscribed; proscribing

1. to publish the name of as condemned to death with the property of the condemned forfeited to the state
2. to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful : prohibit


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to The Earthmovers, both Pope Paul V in 1616 and Pope Urban VIII in 1633 condemned Heliocentrism and the Pythagorean heresies of Galileo. With Urban VIII universally publicizing the verdict:


Quote
On 2nd, July 1633, under orders of Pope Urban VIII, the condemnation of heliocentrism was made universally public, not just confined to Galileo alone as some apologists would argue later. Copies of the sentence and Galileo’s abjuration were sent to all vicar nuncios and inquisitors who in turn made them known to professors of philosophy and theology throughout the Catholic world. - Prologue, p. 9




Further, in the study of the Galileo Affair in the book "Burned Alive" by AA Martinez:


The theologian Inchofer was chosen in a panel of three to report on the Church's findings.  


Inchofer summarized the third official action against the New Pythagoreans: the Sacred Congregation’s condemnation of Galileo in June 1633, and that the Index had decreed that his Dialogue should be prohibited in August 1634. Inchofer then quoted the key points of the proceedings against Galileo: 228 burned alive And from what has been said, the Judgment and decree of the S. Congregation, built upon the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, we have this about the NeoPythagorean opinion, ‘it is false’, in the first place, ‘and entirely opposed to the divine Scripture, slithering perniciously into the Catholic truth’. Then, ‘It is repugnant to S. Scripture, and the true Catholic interpretation, [to be] minimally tolerated in a Christian man’, and finally, ‘totally prohibited ’.


Heliocentrism was called "false" "entirely opposed to divine Scripture" and "totally prohibited".
Heliocentric theories were then placed on the Index (still in effect today)
Heliocentrism was officially condemned by 3 popes 

"1605-1621 - Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning Copernicanism.
1623-1644 - Reign of Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism.
1655-1657 - Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1644] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical...." (p.1 of O’Hanlon’s 4 page intro.)


Cardinal Ottaviani in 1966, in the same docuмent - Notification by Congregation for Doctrine of Faith: "This Congregation for Doctrine of Faith (...) reaffirms that its Index retains its moral value (...) in the sense that it is appealing to the conscience of the faithful (...) to be on their guard against written materials that can put faith and good conduct in danger" - Signed Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, June 14, 1966).


To sum up:


At least 3 popes despised, found repugnant, and fully condemned the entire Pythagorean Doctrine/heliocentrism.  Although they did not include a specific condemnation of the notion that earth was a globe, the entire doctrine was deemed dangerous to the faith.


To grasp at straws and say the Church didn't specifically condemn the globe, by consensus of legitimate authorities who "totally prohibited" the heliocentric model, the burden of proof that the globe was excluded from the condemnation, falls on the globers.   

   


Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 08:23:28 AM

Quote
To grasp at straws and say the Church didn't specifically condemn the globe, by consensus of legitimate authorities who "totally prohibited" the heliocentric model, the burden of proof that the globe was excluded from the condemnation, falls on the globers.  
Thanks for the research. 


As far as the above, I don't want to get too extreme and argue that the globe earth is condemned.  The condemnation of heliocentrism is just simply from a philosophical standpoint because any science that makes earth "just another planet" minimizes the importance of Christ and his Redemption of mankind and their lofty place in God's design.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 09:16:47 AM
Thanks for the research. 


As far as the above, I don't want to get too extreme and argue that the globe earth is condemned.  The condemnation of heliocentrism is just simply from a philosophical standpoint because any science that makes earth "just another planet" minimizes the importance of Christ and his Redemption of mankind and their lofty place in God's design.
You don't have argue the globe is condemned. I'm definitely providing docuмentation that draws that conclusion, but we all know truth is often not demonstrably, ask-no-questions provable. Scripture says it over and over, "in seeing that they may not see and hearing they may not hear" words from Matthew, Mark, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah.  It's just helpful to remember that the globe is integral to heliocentrism which was soundly and thoroughly condemned by 3 popes.  That means it still falls on globers to prove the globe was specifically excluded from the Church's condemnations.

The flat earth geocentric model has long been established in history, coincides with Scripture, promoted by the Fathers, found in Catholic typology, and entirely separate from the heliocentric/Pythagorean doctrine making it entirely safe and faithful to hold, especially in the face of modern opposition from the likes of pagan NASA.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 09:57:41 AM

Quote
The flat earth geocentric model has long been established in history, coincides with Scripture, promoted by the Fathers, found in Catholic typology, and entirely separate from the heliocentric/Pythagorean doctrine making it entirely safe and faithful to hold, especially in the face of modern opposition from the likes of pagan NASA.
Very true.  If a globe-earther can simply explain to me why the curvature calculations don't work, I will happily discard flat earth.  Until then, globe earth is total lie.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 10:07:36 AM
Very true.  If a globe-earther can simply explain to me why the curvature calculations don't work, I will happily discard flat earth.  Until then, globe earth is total lie.



 
(https://i.imgur.com/iXfQQby.jpg)


...YOU CAN'T  MAKE 'EM THINK
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 12:10:08 PM
To grasp at straws and say the Church didn't specifically condemn the globe, by consensus of legitimate authorities who "totally prohibited" the heliocentric model, the burden of proof that the globe was excluded from the condemnation, falls on the globers. 

You are the one grasping at straws.  The popes who condemned heliocentrism would have been condemning themselves if this included a condemnation of globe earth. Every single person involved in condemning heliocentrism believed the earth is a globe. This includes St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII, and all the members of the Holy Office. The models opposed to heliocentrism were the Ptolemaic model and that of Tycho Brahe, both of which involved a globe earth.  (An actual globe, not a flat earth in a spherical firmament.)

There was no debate whatsoever in the 16th and 17th centuries over the proposition that the earth is a globe.  It was considered by all educated Catholics to be established science and compatible with Scripture. At this point in time, this had been the view among Catholics for centuries and what was taught at all Church-sponsored universities.

The Church is certainly not, and never has been, silent on issues of science.  The Church not only has the right, but the duty of proscribing false science.

Yes, of course the Church speaks on science.  She sets limits on it whenever it attempts to makes claims contrary to revelation, such as denying that God is the Creator.  But she does not look to Scripture to teach "the essential nature of the things of the visible universe" as Providentissimus Deus puts it.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 12:25:05 PM
You are the one grasping at straws.  The popes who condemned heliocentrism would have been condemning themselves if this included a condemnation of globe earth. Every single person involved in condemning heliocentrism believed the earth is a globe. This includes St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII, and all the members of the Holy Office. The models opposed to heliocentrism were the Ptolemaic model and that of Tycho Brahe, both of which involved a globe earth.  (An actual globe, not a flat earth in a spherical firmament.)

There was no debate whatsoever in the 16th and 17th centuries over the proposition that the earth is a globe.  It was considered by all educated Catholics to be established science and compatible with Scripture. At this point in time, this had been the view among Catholics for centuries and what was taught at all Church-sponsored universities.

Even if the globe was taught for centuries doesn't make it true or good. Sometimes it takes centuries to for the Church to address error.  She finally did in the 1600's.  It's up to you to prove those who were involved in condemning heliocentrism believed earth is a globe. You'll also need to prove the globe was excluded from the condemnation.  And of course, you'll have to prove earth is a globe.    
    
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on July 14, 2023, 12:28:41 PM
  It was considered by all educated Catholics to be established science and compatible with Scripture.

Jayne, did those scholars have a diagram of how the firmament which divides the waters from the waters works with a ball earth model?

It seems to be a solid divider:

Rāqīaʿ means that which is firmly hammered, stamped (a word of the same root in Phoenecian means "tin dish"!). The meaning of the verb rqʿ concerns the hammering of the vault of heaven into firmness (Isa. 42.5; Ps.136.6). The Vulgate translates rāqīaʿ with firmamentum, and that remains the best rendering.


From the Douay R:

"And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[Genesis 1:6]

2

"And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so.
[Genesis 1:7]

3

"And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.
[Genesis 1:8]

4

"And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
[Genesis 1:14]

5

"To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
[Genesis 1:15]

6

"And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
[Genesis 1:17]

7

"God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
[Genesis 1:20]





It appears that the concept of the Firmament had to be discarded to allow for the modern understanding of "outer space" and heliocentrism and a spinning earth:




Models of the Firmament[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firmament&action=edit&section=2)]
The plurality of heaven[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firmament&action=edit&section=3)]
Perhaps beginning with Origen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen), the different identifiers used for heavens in the Book of Genesis, caelum and firmamentum, sparked some commentary on the significance of the order of creation (caelum identified as the heaven of the first day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyrean), and firmamentum as the heaven of the second day).[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-8) Some of these theories identified caelum as the higher, immaterial and spiritual heaven, whereas firmamentum was of corporeal existence.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-9): 237 

Christian theologians of note writing between the 5th and mid-12th century were generally in agreement that the waters, sometimes called the "crystalline orb", were located above the firmament and beneath the fiery heaven that was also called empyrean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyrean) (from Greek ἔμπυρος). One medieval writer who rejected such notions was Pietro d'Abano (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_d'Abano) who argued that theologians "assuming a crystalline, or aqueous sphere, and an empyrean, or firey sphere" were relying on revelation more than Scripture.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-10)

About this Ambrose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose) wrote: "Wise men of the world say that water cannot be over the heavens"; the firmament is called such, according to Ambrose, because it held back the waters above it.[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-11)

This matter of the position of the "waters" above the firmament was considered by Augustine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine) in De Genesi ad litteram (perhaps his least studied work): "only God knows how and why [the waters] are there, but we cannot deny the authority of Holy Scripture which is greater than our understanding".

Corporeality[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firmament&action=edit&section=4)]
Early Christian writers wrote at length about the material nature of the firmament, the problem arising from the barrier said to be created when it divided the waters above and below it.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-12) At issue was the reconciliation of Scripture with Aristotle's cosmology.
Saint Basil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Basil) rejected the notion that the firmament is made of solid ice, although Bede (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede) in Hexaemeron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexaemeron) ignores the problem of the motion of celestial bodies (stars) in a solid firmament and declares that the siderum caelum (heaven of the celestial bodies) was made firm (firmatum) in the midst of the waters so should be interpreted as having the firmness of crystalline stone (cristallini Iapidis).[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-13)


History[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firmament&action=edit&section=5)]
Main article: Hebrew astronomy § Biblical cosmology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_astronomy#Biblical_cosmology)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Flammarion.jpg/220px-Flammarion.jpg) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flammarion.jpg)

The Flammarion engraving (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving) (1888) depicts a man crawling under the edge of the sky, depicted as if it were a solid hemisphere, to look at the mysterious Empyrean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empyrean) beyond. The caption underneath the engraving (not shown here) translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."


The ancient Hebrews, like all the ancient peoples of the Near East, believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun), Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon), planets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planets) and stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars) embedded in it.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-14) Around the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE the Greeks, under the influence of Aristotle who argued that the heavens must be perfect and that a sphere was the perfect geometrical figure, exchanged this for a spherical Earth surrounded by solid spheres. This became the dominant model in the Classical and Medieval world-view, and even when Copernicus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus) placed the Sun at the centre of the system he included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary). Tycho Brahe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe)'s studies of the nova of 1572 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Stella_Nova) and the Comet of 1577 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_of_1577) were the first major challenges to the idea that orbs existed as solid, incorruptible, material objects,[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrant1996349-15) and in 1584 Giordano Bruno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) proposed a cosmology without a firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-16) After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required, and by 1630 the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.[15]

 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGrant1996349-15)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on July 14, 2023, 12:33:47 PM


Cardinal Ottaviani in 1966, in the same docuмent - Notification by Congregation for Doctrine of Faith: "This Congregation for Doctrine of Faith (...) reaffirms that its Index retains its moral value (...) in the sense that it is appealing to the conscience of the faithful (...) to be on their guard against written materials that can put faith and good conduct in danger" - Signed Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, June 14, 1966).


To sum up:


At least 3 popes despised, found repugnant, and fully condemned the entire Pythagorean Doctrine/heliocentrism.  Although they did not include a specific condemnation of the notion that earth was a globe, the entire doctrine was deemed dangerous to the faith.




 





Somebody should tell Archbishop Vigano about this since he promotes heliocentrism

and calls Our Lord Jesus Christ

Sol Invictus

aka Lucifer!

At best, it's a condemned belief, at worst

it appears to be Gnosticism in accordance with Rosicrucian/Freemason beliefs:




"we must see in that shining sun the unconquered Sun  (aka Lucifer/Mithras/Zeus etc), Our Lord Jesus Christ, center of the cosmos"




https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/msgr-vigano's-shotgun-blast/msg855059/#msg855059





Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 12:41:28 PM

Quote
Every single person involved in condemning heliocentrism believed the earth is a globe.
Condemning heliocentrism is a separate issue from belief in the shape of the world.  "Every single person"...what a statement.

Quote
There was no debate whatsoever in the 16th and 17th centuries over the proposition that the earth is a globe. 
:jester:  Meanwhile, the 16/17th centuries, at the height of exploration by ship and the global shipping/trade industries, they used navigation techniques (same as today) based on a flat earth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 12:54:09 PM
Jayne, did those scholars have a diagram of how the firmament which divides the waters from the waters works with a ball earth model?

It seems to be a solid divider
I don't have much to add to what you have already found in Wikipedia.   "Around the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE the Greeks, under the influence of Aristotle who argued that the heavens must be perfect and that a sphere was the perfect geometrical figure, exchanged this for a spherical Earth surrounded by solid spheres. This became the dominant model in the Classical and Medieval world-view..."

They believed that "firmament" referred to multiple clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which held the heavenly bodies.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on July 14, 2023, 01:02:15 PM
I don't have much to add to what you have already found in Wikipedia.  "Around the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE the Greeks, under the influence of Aristotle who argued that the heavens must be perfect and that a sphere was the perfect geometrical figure, exchanged this for a spherical Earth surrounded by solid spheres. This became the dominant model in the Classical and Medieval world-view..."

They believed that "firmament" referred to multiple clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which held the heavenly bodies. 



Do you know of any modern day geocentrists who hold to that model of clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which hold the heavenly bodies?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 01:25:01 PM
Condemning heliocentrism is a separate issue from belief in the shape of the world.  "Every single person"...what a statement.
I am making the reasonable assumption that the popes, the members of the Holy Office, etc. inolved in condemning heliocentrism were educated at a Catholic university.  That was the norm for anyone who held high positions in the Church.  These universities all taught that the earth is a sphere. Think of it as a syllogism:

Globe earth was accepted by all educated people. 
Those who condemned heliocentrism were educated people.
Therefore, those who condemned heliocentrism accepted that the earth is a globe.

BTW, St. Robert Bellarmine not only attended a Catholic university, he taught an astronomy class at one.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 01:25:07 PM
Not only are we without proof that anyone in authority during the Galileo Affair thought the earth was a globe, there is some proof none of them were convinced earth was a globe. 

From Galileo historian AA Martinez from the book Burned Alive

Pg 135 and 136

  Furthermore, Bellarmine reasserted traditional interpretations of scriptures. So he denied the Earth’s motion. In 1611 Bellarmine quoted Psalm 103:5 from the Latin Vulgate, that God established the Earth on its foundations, it cannot be moved forever and ever’. Bellarmine commented that God put Earth in the centre of the world, and that its ‘weight rests on its eternal stability’.159 He also 136 burned alive quoted Psalm 118:8, that God ‘established the Earth and permanently’. Bellarmine explained this phrase: ‘it almost says that you [God] established the Earth immovable, and it always remains immobile.’ He added: ‘God ordained, on the contrary, that heaven or the Sun move always.’160 These statements matter, because they show Bellarmine truly believed that the Earth does not move. So, its motion was not one of the questions he sent to the Collegio Romano. He only asked about the telescopic phenomena Galileo had described. The Earth’s motion had been censured by the consultors of the Inquisition in the works of Bruno. Strangely, historians hardly ever mention this key point when discussing Galileo. 


Here we see that not only did Bellarmine not believe earth moves, he believed God established the earth on its foundations. No glober even remotely suggests earth has foundations as it's hanging or twirling around in space.  Bellarmine and the Pope also agreed that earth is covered by the firmament with water above the firmament.  No outer space.  

The following is found in the sixth argument against Galileo which led to the condemnation of heliocentric theory.  

Sixth Argument 
According to Genesis 1, there are waters in heaven above the firmament and beneath it. ‘Therefore the Earth’s Water is not contained only in the solidity of the Earth, and consequently the natural place of the Earth is not the centre, but possibly, outside it and carried in circular motion in a Great Orb.’  

More from Martinez


pg217
Antipodes
  Inchofer cited Lactantius and Augustine for having criticized the theory of the antipodes. In City of God, Augustine denied the antipodes as a ‘fable’ that had not been proved, because, he said, even if the Earth indeed were spherical, one would have to prove that it has lands throughout, not just bare waters, plus, one would have to prove that there were people there, and descended from Adam.224 Augustine preferred biblical and historical evidence over scientific conjectures. Similarly, Inchofer argued that the Earth’s motion was imaginary and false.

Obviously, the theologian, Inchofer, who summed up the entire Affair, as well as the thoughts of the Pope and Bellarmine, showed they were not convinced earth is a globe.    



Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 01:26:38 PM

Do you know of any modern day geocentrists who hold to that model of clear solid spheres around a spherical earth which hold the heavenly bodies?
No I don't but this is not an area I have studied, so this does not mean they don't exist.  Sorry I can't be more help.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on July 14, 2023, 01:50:41 PM
No I don't but this is not an area I have studied, so this does not mean they don't exist.  Sorry I can't be more help.


Yeah, I have never heard any ball earth proponent hold that view.

So somewhere along the line the firmament seems to have vanished...

It appears to have started with Bruno:


1584 Giordano Bruno (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno) proposed a cosmology without a firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.


So along with what Tradman posted we seemed to have lost along the way:

1.  The solid firmament as define by Sacred Scripture (Raquia)

2.  The foundation of the earth again from SS and confirmed by St Bellarmine

3.  The notion of upside down people under the earth (antipodes) as ruled out by St Augustine.



From what I've heard from modern geocentrists they usually hold to

a motionless ball earth

that is suspended in space

and no real definition of a firmament other than clouds and sky which is not in accordance with SS (raquia) or the Church Fathers

no waters above and waters below the firmament

and upside down people underneath (the antipodes) which is not in accordance with St Augustine.


Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 02:17:38 PM

Yeah, I have never heard any ball earth proponent hold that view.

So somewhere along the line the firmament seems to have vanished...
Have you tried asking the poster cassini?  He is a very knowledgeable geocentrist who accepts globe earth.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Miser Peccator on July 14, 2023, 02:26:38 PM
Have you tried asking the poster cassini?  He is a very knowledgeable geocentrist who accepts globe earth.



Yes, he is a very good researcher and I asked him before which you can see here:

https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/cosmology-poll/msg856831/#msg856831



He doesn't seem to hold to the concept of Raquia.  I posted several of the many references to the firmament from Sacred Scripture (it's referred to 23 times) and asked him questions because to me they all seem to indicate the same as the Church Fathers which is a solid structure in accordance with the Hebrew etymology.


From what I can gather, his model also doesn't account for the foundation of the earth (Bellarmine) and appears to contradict St Augustine with regards to the antipodes.


Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 14, 2023, 10:46:51 PM
I have read the entire Bible several times.  I have also studied certain sections in depth.  For example, I took a course (to meet a Hebrew requirement) that involved translating and exegeting various passages from Genesis from the original Hebrew, including the first three chapters which describe Creation.
Which version of hebrew was used here?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 14, 2023, 11:18:53 PM

Globe earth was accepted by all educated people. 
Vaccines are accepted by all 'educated' people.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 08:43:31 AM
Which version of hebrew was used here?
My university offered both modern and biblical Hebrew, but the requirement for the degree I was interested in would only accept biblical. The other language requirements, if you are interested, were Koine Greek, Latin, French and German. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 15, 2023, 09:40:44 AM
My university offered both modern and biblical Hebrew, but the requirement for the degree I was interested in would only accept biblical. The other language requirements, if you are interested, were Koine Greek, Latin, French and German.
Hmmmm I thought modern hebrew and biblical hebrew were the same. Due to the Jєωs altering their scripture after Christ came, to remove references to Him.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 15, 2023, 10:06:33 AM
Globe earth was accepted by all educated people. 

I'm not sure I buy this anymore.  More I look at it, the more it seems like propaganda mean to promote the notion that anyone who was anyone since the time of the Ancient Greeks believed in the ball earth, and only uneducated ignoramuses believed the earth was Flat.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 15, 2023, 10:53:18 AM
Vaccines are accepted by all 'educated' people.
Germ theory, evolution, vaccines, that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church, official 9/11 story, h0Ɩ0h0αx, etc., etc.

Most "educated people" don't care enough to find out the truth about any of these matters.

And anyway, even if it was true that most people believed in the globe since the greeks, what of it? With the advent of new technology we have now proven the firmament exists and disproven boats disappearing and debunked the curve.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 15, 2023, 11:09:44 AM
Germ theory, evolution, vaccines, that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church, official 9/11 story, h0Ɩ0h0αx, etc., etc.

Most "educated people" don't care enough to find out the truth about any of these matters.

And anyway, even if it was true that most people believed in the globe since the greeks, what of it? With the advent of new technology we have now proven the firmament exists and disproven boats disappearing and debunked the curve.

When you understand that "education" = "brainwashing" for the Jєωs and the Globalists, that will explain why all "educated" people "believe" the earth is a ball.  Notice, I say "believe", since none of them bother to investigate the matter but simply accept globularity as fact.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 11:24:45 AM
Hmmmm I thought modern hebrew and biblical hebrew were the same. Due to the Jєωs altering their scripture after Christ came, to remove references to Him.

They are different linguistically, slightly so in terms of vocabulary and strongly in terms of grammar.  But yes, they are similar when it comes to distorting information about Christ.  It is a good idea to compare anything in a Hebrew Bible against the Vulgate to check for doctrinal problems.

Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 15, 2023, 11:33:15 AM
They are different linguistically, slightly so in terms of vocabulary and strongly in terms of grammar.  But yes, they are similar when it comes to distorting information about Christ.  It is a good idea to compare anything in a Hebrew Bible against the Vulgate to check for doctrinal problems.

I think you can find some decent Hebrew manuscripts outside the butchered Masoretic text, but yes, I would take the Septuagint and Vulgate over any Hebrew manuscript, as there was a deliberate and concerted effort to remove clear references to Our Lord as Messiah from the Hebrew.

I consider myself a somewhat educated person as well.  4 years of Latin, 3 years of Greek in High School.  Double-majored in Greek and Latin (so 20 total classes) at University.  1 year of Biblical Hebrew.  Finished Ph.D. coursework at The Catholic University of America (just didn't finish the exams and dissertation).  I went there due to their unique emphasis on Biblical, Patristic, and Medieval Greek and Latin.  I read most of the Sacred Scriptures in non-vernacular languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin ... and read voluminously from the Church Fathers in the original languages.  For about 2 years, I was the Staff Editor of the Fathers of the Church translation series published by Catholic U (editing and correcting translations that were submitted, and in one case basically writing it myself under time pressure because the submission was so bad).  I also took graduate level classes in Philosophy and Theology.  Of course, with the latter two subjects, I learned more in about 3 months at Traditional seminary than in all those classes combined.  I also took some higher-level classes at Physics and Advanced mathematics.  I worked at NASA as a lead software engineer for about 4 years.  And I hold that the world is flat, due primarily to various experiments that falsify the globe and which cannot be explained by ball theory.

I don't have a major horse in this race, as I am open to either conclusion.  I was skeptical at first, and it took me two years of delving into the matter on and off before I came to the conclusion that the surface of the earth we live on is (basically) flat.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 11:44:59 AM
I'm not sure I buy this anymore.  More I look at it, the more it seems like propaganda mean to promote the notion that anyone who was anyone since the time of the Ancient Greeks believed in the ball earth, and only uneducated ignoramuses believed the earth was Flat.

I find that extremely unlikely.  We know what books were used as university textbooks and most of these are still available to this day.  It is a simple matter for anyone who reads Latin to find out that they taught globe earth in their astronomy classes.  And there is no evidence of people disagreeing with this position even though we had over a century of anti-Catholic writers looking for it to support their claim that ignorant superstitious Catholics believed in flat earth. The best they could come up with was Cosmas Indicopleustes who wrote in the 6th century.  Also, St. Thomas Aquinas had very clearly written in support of globe earth, especially in his commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo.  Given the respect St. Thomas was held in, people would have been reluctant to disagree with him.  I see no reason to doubt the consensus of historians on this question.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 11:48:44 AM
I think you can find some decent Hebrew manuscripts outside the butchered Masoretic text...
I know there are pre-Masoretic fragments, but I can't think of any manuscripts for the entire Old Testament.  But it has been a while since I studied this, so I could be wrong.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 11:57:23 AM
And anyway, even if it was true that most people believed in the globe since the greeks, what of it? 

Of course, it does not prove that the earth is a globe.  That is obvious.  It does, however, make it highly implausible that Church condemnations of Copernicism should be understood to include the proposition that the earth is a globe.  (As a general rule, Church condemnations should be understood to apply only to that which is explicitly stated.)
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 12:35:58 PM
When you understand that "education" = "brainwashing" for the Jєωs and the Globalists, that will explain why all "educated" people "believe" the earth is a ball.  Notice, I say "believe", since none of them bother to investigate the matter but simply accept globularity as fact.

I would agree with this in the context of modern times.  The current "education" system (starting from the elementary grades through university) is indoctrination into secularism.  I think you are also right the most people who believe in globe earth could not make a good argument for the position.

However my earlier comment about educated people was in the context of a time when the Church still had a great deal of influence on education and specifically concerned people educated at Catholic universities. Educated people at the time of the Church's greatest cultural influence believed in globe earth.  This cannot be dismissed as anti-Catholic brainwashing.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 15, 2023, 12:42:26 PM
Of course, it does not prove that the earth is a globe.  That is obvious.  It does, however, make it highly implausible that Church condemnations of Copernicism should be understood to include the proposition that the earth is a globe.  (As a general rule, Church condemnations should be understood to apply only to that which is explicitly stated.)
Agreed. I'm not convinced at all the globe was condemned together with heliocentrism.

It's just indicative that the father of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ Pythagoras was credited with influence on both the globe and heliocentrism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 15, 2023, 01:05:23 PM
 (As a general rule, Church condemnations should be understood to apply only to that which is explicitly stated.)

This is a stretch. Some Catholics believe abortion is wrong, except in the case where there's danger to the life of the mother, and they believe it is justified. The Ten Commandments don't explicitly say anything about abortion, just murder, yet the Church rightly teaches not just qualified abortion in most cases, but all abortion is wrong.  It's all there in context even before you search docuмents to find specifics.

To suggest that the condemnations of Galileo were only about the movement of the earth while the Galileo summary written at the time shows that Church authorities condemned the Pythagorean/Copernican/heliocentric model entirely, and the movement specifically, we can all see, they weren't trying to retain some of it by only specifying movement.  One would absolutely need to prove they did not include the globe since the globe is necessary to the pagan doctrine so soundly condemned by description in the summary as well as contrary to the beliefs of the Fathers and Scripture.  Just because you don't recognize Scripture describes a flat earth doesn't mean the Fathers didn't think so.  In fact, it's been proven here on CI many times over.   
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 15, 2023, 01:50:50 PM
(As a general rule, Church condemnations should be understood to apply only to that which is explicitly stated.)

This is a stretch. Some Catholics believe abortion is wrong, except in the case where there's danger to the life of the mother, and they believe it is justified. The Ten Commandments don't explicitly say anything about abortion, just murder, yet the Church rightly teaches not just qualified abortion in most cases, but all abortion is wrong.  It's all there in context even before you search docuмents to find specifics.

To suggest that the condemnations of Galileo were only about the movement of the earth while the Galileo summary written at the time shows that Church authorities condemned the Pythagorean/Copernican/heliocentric model entirely, and the movement specifically, we can all see, they weren't trying to retain some of it by only specifying movement.  One would absolutely need to prove they did not include the globe since the globe is necessary to the pagan doctrine so soundly condemned by description in the summary as well as contrary to the beliefs of the Fathers and Scripture.  Just because you don't recognize Scripture describes a flat earth doesn't mean the Fathers didn't think so.  In fact, it's been proven here on CI many times over. 
The commandment against murder is not just implying that abortion is wrong, it's explicitly forbidding it because it's no different than killing an innocent adult.

It's not the same thing as a non-infallible condemnation implying something.

better example would be implications of the sixth commandment.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 15, 2023, 02:05:24 PM
The commandment against murder is not just implying that abortion is wrong, it's explicitly forbidding it because it's no different than killing an innocent adult.

It's not the same thing as a non-infallible condemnation implying something.

A better example would be implications of the sixth commandment.

Much better
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 15, 2023, 04:29:50 PM
Jaynek, the 2 questions I have for you are:

1.  Based on Tradmans quotes, +Bellarmine believed the earth didn’t move, had a firmament, and also had a foundation.  Do you agree/disagree with +Bellarmine?

(As an aside, I’m not sure how the modern picture of a globe earth could have a firmament.  Also, which part of earth is closest to the “foundation” (ie pointing “down”?).  If the earth never moves and it rests on something, then how does the sun go under the earth?  

2.  How do you explain the numerous false “curvature” calculation experiments on the web?  Things which should be hidden by the curve are not.  Do you admit that such curvature measurements are a lie?
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 06:03:56 PM
Jaynek, the 2 questions I have for you are:

1.  Based on Tradmans quotes, +Bellarmine believed the earth didn’t move, had a firmament, and also had a foundation.  Do you agree/disagree with +Bellarmine?

I agree that these were the correct beliefs at the time he said them. St. Robert Bellarmine, however, wrote to Foscarini:

 . . I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality.  He did not think that Galileo had demonstrated his theories to a point that warranted such a reevaluation.  I definitely agree with him on that.  

Given that the Church removed her condemnation of heliocentrism in the early 1800s and took the banned books on the subject off the Index, I suspect this means that she considered that the science had then reached a point that did warrant a new interpretation of Scripture. I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.  I know nowhere near enough about science to have a personal opinion on that, but I trust the Church's judgment.

I have no interest at all in learning about curvature measurements and have no opinion on the subject.  I have encountered many flat earth supporters with such clearly wrong views on history and/or interpretation of Scripture that it has destroyed their credibility in my eyes.  I don't expect them to be any better at science, but I have not actually investigated it.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 15, 2023, 08:03:37 PM
??  Your quote from +Bellarmine is not a change from Tradman’s quote.  So do you believe in +Bellarmine’s globe earth view?  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 16, 2023, 03:52:58 AM

Quote
St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality. 


Ahh.  So then, you’d have to agree that if modern science could prove flat earth, then +Bellarmine would agree as well.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 17, 2023, 02:52:12 PM
I agree that these were the correct beliefs at the time he said them. St. Robert Bellarmine, however, wrote to Foscarini:

. . I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality.  He did not think that Galileo had demonstrated his theories to a point that warranted such a reevaluation.  I definitely agree with him on that. 

Given that the Church removed her condemnation of heliocentrism in the early 1800s and took the banned books on the subject off the Index, I suspect this means that she considered that the science had then reached a point that did warrant a new interpretation of Scripture. I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.  I know nowhere near enough about science to have a personal opinion on that, but I trust the Church's judgment.


'I trust the Church's judgement.' Which judgement Jaynek? The Church's Pope Paul V's decree of 1616 defining and declaring a fixed-sun solar system formal heresy, Pope Urban VIII's judgement confirming the 1616 judgment as absolute, or Pope Pius VII's judgement based on a lie?

'I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.'

This statement above has to be one of the greatest illusions in the history of the Catholic Church. Many agree with you Jaynek and I will quote a few of 12 I have recorded.

‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’(. C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.)

‘A century ago (1893), Pope Leo XIII echoed this [Galileo’s] advice in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’--- Pope John Paul II: Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission.

‘Galileo’s principle has apparently become the official hermeneutic criterion of the Catholic Church. It is alluded to in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo (1893), referred to in Guadium et Spes of the Vatican Council II (1965).’ (The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998, p.367.)

‘On the other hand, Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’ (J. T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.)

‘Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’ (Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68)

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’--- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

You see above, from a few of an endless number of quotes over the last 100 years or more, how Galileo's heresy entered the womb of the Church. According to the above that include the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission and the SSPX, it was Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus that set down the Catholic teaching that allowed Catholics to accept the heretical meaning of Holy Scripture and dismiss the ruling of 16126 and 1633.

 Well now, for the first time you will hear the truth.

Providentissimus Deus
‘14: His teaching [St Irenaeus] and that of other holy Fathers, is taken up by the Synod of the Vatican I, adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretations of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that “in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scriptures against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress

 Pope Leo XIII here teaches that one cannot deny any meaning that is unanimous with the Fathers. The ruling of 1616 was: (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

OK. So Providentissimus Deus teaches the heresy of heliocentrism cannot be changed. After that it went on to say:

‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence, they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers, as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us, “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.’--- Providentissimus Deus.

The above passage is the one they have all used to OK the 1820 U-turn. It never mentions Galileo, or sunrise or sunset, but was put in to cover the 1820 U-turn by his predecessor Pope Pius VII. But having confirmed earlier in his encyclical that the Church teaching did not allow the moving-sun of all the Fathers to be changed, the letter cannot be used as a licence to change the 1616 decree. But they did use it and still do. 

The only positive outcome of this the greatest scandal tolerated within the Catholic Church in its history, is that it PROVES there is DIVINE PROTECTION at work. Try as they all did and do, not one pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree was an error. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Tradman on July 17, 2023, 03:35:18 PM
Cassini said:

The only positive outcome of this the greatest scandal tolerated within the Catholic Church in its history, is that it PROVES there is DIVINE PROTECTION at work. Try as they all did and do, not one pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree was an error. 


Cassini and I don't agree on geocentrism, but the above statement is absolutely true.  Also, the Index maintains it's moral force against heliocentrism, whether or not subsequent volumes included it or the moderns admit it.  
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 17, 2023, 04:12:06 PM
The above passage is the one they have all used to OK the 1820 U-turn. It never mentions Galileo, or sunrise or sunset, but was put in to cover the 1820 U-turn by his predecessor Pope Pius VII. But having confirmed earlier in his encyclical that the Church teaching did not allow the moving-sun of all the Fathers to be changed, the letter cannot be used as a licence to change the 1616 decree. But they did use it and still do.
I think we agree on these facts: There was a 1616 docuмent which condemned heliocentrism and books promoting it were put on the Index.  There was an 1820 docuмent which allowed heliocentrism and books promoting it were taken off the Index. 

It is hard to understand how this could happen, although neither docuмent was infallible.  Many people explain it by saying that Pope Paul V made a mistake that Pope Pius VII corrected.

I see that you explain this as Pope Pius VII making a scandalous mistake, while Pope Paul V was the one who was right.  I prefer an explanation in which both popes were correct and the difference was a response to changes in scientific knowledge, as St. Robert Bellarmine suggested was possible. 

As you have kindly pointed out, there are many sources that agree with how I understand Providentissimus Deus as supporting my explanation.  Obviously, I disagree with how you have understood it.  It does not explicitly state that Church teaching does not allow a moving sun and I don't think it implies it as you claim. While I do think that geocentrism is a reasonable position, I think that currently Catholics are free to disagree with it.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 17, 2023, 04:39:00 PM
I see that you explain this as Pope Pius VII making a scandalous mistake, while Pope Paul V was the one who was right.  I prefer an explanation in which both popes were correct and the difference was a response to changes in scientific knowledge, as St. Robert Bellarmine suggested was possible.

Despite what St. Robert wrote while investigating the issue, the Holy Office determined that heliocentrism was solidly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, so the reasons were not primarily scientific but theological.

So heliocentrism was contrary to the Sacred Scriptures in 1616, but then was no longer contrary to the Sacred Scriptures in 1820?  Either it is or it isn't, and that has nothing to do with the "state of science".  Science has never proven heliocentrism.  Quite to the contrary, even modern science has abandoned it, since, according to them, the solar system revolves around the barycenter of the solar system, not the sun, a barycenter that sometimes actually is outside the physical boundaries of the sun.  Even if you believe in Newton's nonsense, the center of the universe or of all creation would be the barycenter of the entire universe, and I defy anyone to prove that the earth is not actually at that very barycenter and that God does not perfectly balance the rest of the universe around it so that it never moves.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 17, 2023, 05:03:59 PM
So heliocentrism was contrary to the Sacred Scriptures in 1616, but then was no longer contrary to the Sacred Scriptures in 1820?  Either it is or it isn't, and that has nothing to do with the "state of science". 
St. Robert said that the interpretation of Scripture could change if there were a "true demonstration":

. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

The Church did change her position on heliocentrism in 1820 and this seems to me like a reasonable way to explain it.  Or perhaps we should just date sedevacantism back to 1800.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 17, 2023, 05:13:57 PM
St. Robert said that the interpretation of Scripture could change if there were a "true demonstration":

Irrelevant.  He wrote this while investigating the matter, and the Holy Office ruling unequivocally stated that heliocentrism is contrary to Sacred Scriptures.  It was not rejected for scientific reasons, but for theological ones.  Something that's contrary to Sacred Scripture cannot suddenly become not contrary to Sacred Scripture ... science itself has change in such a way that it's no longer contrary to the sense of Sacred Scripture.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Ladislaus on July 17, 2023, 05:16:05 PM
The Church did change her position on heliocentrism in 1820 and this seems to me like a reasonable way to explain it.  Or perhaps we should just date sedevacantism back to 1800.

Nonsense.  You yourself admitted that neither ruling was infallible and therefore irreformable.  This doesn't mean that one of them wasn't wrong, nor does it lead to sedevacantism.  Certainly the 1616 decision was closer to meeting the notes of infallibility, whereas the 1800 one clearly did not, as it did not teach anything that must be held by the faithful (the main note of infallibility).
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 17, 2023, 05:24:06 PM
Irrelevant.  He wrote this while investigating the matter, and the Holy Office ruling unequivocally stated that heliocentrism is contrary to Sacred Scriptures. 

According to Ott rulings of the Holy Office are not infallible:

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. 

Nonsense.  You yourself admitted that neither ruling was infallible and therefore irreformable.  This doesn't mean that one of them wasn't wrong, nor does it lead to sedevacantism.  Certainly the 1616 decision was closer to meeting the notes of infallibility, whereas the 1800 one clearly did not, as it did not teach anything that must be held by the faithful (the main note of infallibility).

If we have to choose only one as right, then it makes more sense to me that the later decision revoked the earlier one.  A pope can change a non-infallible teaching from the past but a pope cannot bind future popes on non-infallible matters.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 17, 2023, 09:03:31 PM
Jaynk, so you’d have to agree that if modern science could prove flat earth, then +Bellarmine would agree as well.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 18, 2023, 06:22:35 AM
According to Ott rulings of the Holy Office are not infallible:

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.

If we have to choose only one as right, then it makes more sense to me that the later decision revoked the earlier one.  A pope can change a non-infallible teaching from the past but a pope cannot bind future popes on non-infallible matters.

All these non-infallible arguments were conjured up by apologists to try to save the Church AFTER 1820 when they were conned into believing the Earth was proven to move in a sun-fixed solar system and made their U-turn. 

‘I found it laid down by such distinguished representatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.’--- Fr W. Roberts.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT STATES:

‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’--- (Denzinger – 783/786)

On February 24th 1616 the assessment of the Holy Office was declared:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

Based on the teaching of Trent this particular decision of the Holy Office on the matter of a moving sun around the Earth is infallible.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 18, 2023, 07:53:11 AM
St. Robert said that the interpretation of Scripture could change if there were a "true demonstration":

. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

The Church did change her position on heliocentrism in 1820 and this seems to me like a reasonable way to explain it.  Or perhaps we should just date sedevacantism back to 1800.

I say if there were proof that Jesus Christ did not change water into wine then one would have to doubt the wording of Scripture.

This is the logic that they make of Bellarmine's 1615 letter by omitting the rest of what Bellarmine said. It would mean this letter could eliminate a papal decree defined and declared one year later. It suggests that Bellarmine considered the 1616 decree was provisional and not a proper ruling on formal heresy:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

if it is never proven that is.

If this is how you believe the Church rules on formal heresies then we can believe anything under the same 'if there were proof of the opposite then the Church will reverse its teaching.' Wow, not even the Protestants taught of that one. 
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 18, 2023, 08:29:08 AM
I say if there were proof that Jesus Christ did not change water into wine then one would have to doubt the wording of Scripture.

This is the logic that they make of Bellarmine's 1615 letter by omitting the rest of what Bellarmine said. It would mean this letter could eliminate a papal decree defined and declared one year later. It suggests that Bellarmine considered the 1616 decree was provisional and not a proper ruling on formal heresy:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

if it is never proven that is.

If this is how you believe the Church rules on formal heresies then we can believe anything under the same 'if there were proof of the opposite then the Church will reverse its teaching.' Wow, not even the Protestants taught of that one.
As I learn more about geocentrism, I have realised that usury and geocentrism have similar issues with the church. Except usury is a divine law and much more clear than geocentrism, even though both have clear teaching from the fathers.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 18, 2023, 09:32:45 AM

Quote
St. Robert said that the interpretation of Scripture could change if there were a "true demonstration":

Jaynk, so you’d have to agree that if modern science could prove flat earth, then +Bellarmine would agree as well.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 18, 2023, 11:14:43 AM
Based on the teaching of Trent this particular decision of the Holy Office on the matter of a moving sun around the Earth is infallible.

The Church is the interpreter of Scripture and the authority on what has been taught by the Fathers.  We do not get to decide that the Church has taught something wrong because it does not match our ideas on these things.  We cannot say that a body that normally lacks the authority to make infallible statements, somehow made one because we agree with its reasoning.

Pius VII has the authority to say that Paul V was wrong. I do not have the authority to say that Pius VII was wrong.  Therefore I go with the assumption that he was correct. 

I don't know why there were popes disagreeing on this.  I have already explained my best guess. Even if that guess is incorrect, I am not going to decide that Pius VII was wrong.  That just isn't an option that I am not prepared to consider, no matter what quotes you present.  You are one of the posters whom I respect the most here, but even you cannot persuade me to resolve the apparent contradiction the way that you have.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 18, 2023, 11:33:23 AM
I say if there were proof that Jesus Christ did not change water into wine then one would have to doubt the wording of Scripture.

You make a false analogy.

There is a big difference between an account of a miracle and a description of the natural world.  It is the definition of miracles that they do not follow the rules of the natural world.  It is inherent in the miracle that it will not match our observations of nature and it is impossible to disprove a miracle by appealing to these observations.  There has never been a reason to doubt what Scripture says about the supernatural and there never can be.

Scripture's decriptions of the natural world fall into a special category.  Going back at least as far as St. Augustine, it has been a Catholic principle that we should try to reconcile these desciptions in Scripture with what we can observe and deduce in the world around us.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Marulus Fidelis on July 18, 2023, 12:18:22 PM
Scripture's decriptions of the natural world fall into a special category.  Going back at least as far as St. Augustine, it has been a Catholic principle that we should try to reconcile these desciptions in Scripture with what we can observe and deduce in the world around us.
You can "try reconciling" truth and truth, I'll recognize that the truths of science and scripture are one and the same.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 18, 2023, 12:55:57 PM
:jester:  Jaynek has dodged my question 3x.  :jester:
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Jaynek on July 18, 2023, 01:16:14 PM
:jester:  Jaynek has dodged my question 3x.  :jester:
The first time I saw the question I thought it was rhetorical, since the answer is so obvious.  When I saw you had asked again I realized you actually wanted an answer for some reason and was going to write one. However, as I scrolled down, I saw you had asked a third time and was too annoyed  to respond. The above post does nothing to convince me that you are genuinely interested in thoughtful discussion.  I am not interested in whatever game you are playing.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 18, 2023, 02:14:20 PM
The Church is the interpreter of Scripture and the authority on what has been taught by the Fathers.  We do not get to decide that the Church has taught something wrong because it does not match our ideas on these things.  We cannot say that a body that normally lacks the authority to make infallible statements, somehow made one because we agree with its reasoning.

Pius VII has the authority to say that Paul V was wrong. I do not have the authority to say that Pius VII was wrong.  Therefore I go with the assumption that he was correct.

I don't know why there were popes disagreeing on this.  I have already explained my best guess. Even if that guess is incorrect, I am not going to decide that Pius VII was wrong.  That just isn't an option that I am not prepared to consider, no matter what quotes you present.  You are one of the posters whom I respect the most here, but even you cannot persuade me to resolve the apparent contradiction the way that you have.

OK Jaynek, time to out the truth. Thankfully, the record of what happened in 1820 survived and was released by the Holy Office for all to read when all these convinced Galileans they thought it was safe to do so..

The 1616 decree was declared to be irreversible by Pope Urban VIII in 1633, and by a Fr Olivieri head of the Holy Office in 1820. In fact the U-turn had begun in 1741.

‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’--- Church Commission on Galileo; 1992.

By 1820, most of the Catholic hierarchy believed heliocentrism was proven and consequently the geocentrism of 1616 was falsified. So:

‘In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to obtain an imprimatur for his new heliocentric book] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823)… In 1822 a favourable decision was given [by way of two decrees forbidding the censorship of ‘modern’ heliocentric books]. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)] with the publication of a new and updated index [emptied of all heliocentric books].’- Pope John Paul II’s Galileo Commission, 1992.

Here is a quote from a Lutheran seminary 53 years after the above concession:
‘Which [universe] is right? It would be very simple to me which is right, if it were only a question for human import. But the wise and truthful God has expressed Himself on this matter in the Bible. The entire Holy Scriptures settles the question that the Earth is the principal body of the universe, and it stands fixed, and that the Sun and the Moon only serve to light it.’-- Lutheran Teachers’ Seminary, St Louis, Astronomische Uterredung, 1873.

So, how did the Catholic Copernican churchmen have their infallible cake and eat it? Well the answer came in the written opinion of Fr Benedetto Olivieri in November of 1820. This 10,000+ word report gave all his arguments for granting an imprimatur to Settele’s book that presented heliocentrism as a fact, while at the same time trying to refute the counter geocentric arguments written up by Fr Filippo Anfossi and republished in M. A. Finocchiaro’s book Retrying Galileo.

I will post the answer on the next page.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 18, 2023, 02:21:27 PM
Dodge #4...
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: cassini on July 18, 2023, 02:32:43 PM
Olivieri: ‘From the fact that the hypothesis was allowed, I have demonstrated (I hope incontrovertibly): that the system had not been condemned as regards astronomical motions of terrestrial rotation and translation, that is, in its foundation and per se; but it had been condemned as regards the terrestrial difficulties besetting the doctrine of its defenders. Thus now that the system is taught without such difficulties, it is no longer subject to the condemnation.’--- Retrying Galileo.

So finally, we come to what can only be considered the biggest fraud in history conjured up out of desperation to ‘save the Catholic Church.’  no ‘system’ was condemned as formal heresy, only to assert the (Biblical) sun as fixed. Olivieri’s heretical ‘terrestrial difficulties’ is another invention. Here he states the condemnation was an orbiting Earth plagued with terrestrial difficulties, a belief held by Aristotle, Ptolemy and others when dismissing the old Pythagorean solar-system. Olivieri went on to say the theologians of 1616 were obsessed with the idea that if the Earth flew through space ‘all atmospheric phenomena would be completely disturbed and intermingled.’

Anfossi wrote: ‘The Holy See [in 1616] took no account of this [terrestrial difficulties]. They considered the matter as theologians and declared it “formally heretical or at least erroneous in the faith” because it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures; and the Holy See condemned it.’ If in the judgment of the Holy See it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures in 1616, so it is still in 1820.’ 

Olivieri: ‘Let us try to free the most Reverend Father from such a misconception… Tell me, is it not true that the doctrine declared “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith” was also “absurd and philosophically false?”…So tell me how you think they arrived at such a “contrariety to the Sacred Scriptures?” On what foundation did they establish it? What were they basing it on? Why did the decree say “philosophically false and absurd” before “altogether contrary to Divine Scripture?”’--- Ibid.


Olivieri: ‘Settele’s corresponding proposition “as the Earth moves around the sun” and others like it can no longer be called “philosophically false and absurd” by anyone because it is most certain that philosophically and by natural reason they contain no “falsehoods or absurdities.” Therefore, the doctrine of modern astronomers is not the one judged “heretical or erroneous in the faith”… Please reflect that if philosophical absurdity is attributed to the words of Divine Scripture, it becomes an interpretation that ecclesiastical authority can very well define as “contrary to Sacred Scripture” and this is precisely our case. Such was the case of the devastating motion from which Copernicus and Galileo had been unable to free the motions of axial rotation and orbital revolution which they ascribed to the Earth; such devastating motion was certainly contrary to Sacred Scripture.’--- Ibid.

Is that a fact now? Had Olivieri read Copernicus’s 1543 book he would have found he gave a very good reason why his heliocentrism - the very same fixed-sun/moving-Earth motions proposed by Olivieri, the one condemned as heresy in 1616 and confirmed in 1633 - had no such devastating motion.
 
‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore, Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered [due to its motion around the sun].’--- De revolutionibus, Book 1.     

The Status of the 1616 Ruling and Decree
 
But now it is time to tie down another loose end. Having challenged Anfossi on every point concerning the authority and content of the 1616-1633 rulings, he then makes a startling admission, but ties it in with his non-violent nonsense.
 
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at the time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’--- Retrying Galileo, p.213
 
Olivieri, Commissary General of the Inquisition, finally admits that the 1616 decree against a fixed sun and moving Earth remains an ‘irreversible pontifical decree.’ He confirms that Pope Paul V’s decree was without argument papal and ‘unrevisable.’

So, by inventing a terrestrial difficult 1616 decree as the infallible one, it was untouchable. But according to 'modern astronomers' heliocentrism is proven not filled with terrestrial difficulties so we can now let Catholics believe in a now harmful heliocentrism while we still have the infallible terrestrial disturbing heliocentrism decree of 1616.

So, they found their way to have their infallible 1616 decree and a way to bypass it and have their heliocentrism.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Always on July 18, 2023, 03:31:44 PM

So, they found their way to have their infallible 1616 decree and a way to bypass it and have their heliocentrism.

So incredibly devious and with such catastrophically evil effects that one would appear quite justified in believing that the "bypass operation" originated in the depths of hell.
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: Pax Vobis on July 18, 2023, 05:32:51 PM
Jaynek has dodged my question 3x:


Quote
The first time I saw the question I thought it was rhetorical, since the answer is so obvious.  When I saw you had asked again I realized you actually wanted an answer for some reason and was going to write one. However, as I scrolled down, I saw you had asked a third time and was too annoyed  to respond. The above post does nothing to convince me that you are genuinely interested in thoughtful discussion.  I am not interested in whatever game you are playing.


We all know why you won't answer...your agenda and lack of integrity is on record for all to see...
Title: Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
Post by: AnthonyPadua on July 19, 2023, 01:25:35 AM
Olivieri: ‘From the fact that the hypothesis was allowed, I have demonstrated (I hope incontrovertibly): that the system had not been condemned as regards astronomical motions of terrestrial rotation and translation, that is, in its foundation and per se; but it had been condemned as regards the terrestrial difficulties besetting the doctrine of its defenders. Thus now that the system is taught without such difficulties, it is no longer subject to the condemnation.’--- Retrying Galileo.

So finally, we come to what can only be considered the biggest fraud in history conjured up out of desperation to ‘save the Catholic Church.’  no ‘system’ was condemned as formal heresy, only to assert the (Biblical) sun as fixed. Olivieri’s heretical ‘terrestrial difficulties’ is another invention. Here he states the condemnation was an orbiting Earth plagued with terrestrial difficulties, a belief held by Aristotle, Ptolemy and others when dismissing the old Pythagorean solar-system. Olivieri went on to say the theologians of 1616 were obsessed with the idea that if the Earth flew through space ‘all atmospheric phenomena would be completely disturbed and intermingled.’

Anfossi wrote: ‘The Holy See [in 1616] took no account of this [terrestrial difficulties]. They considered the matter as theologians and declared it “formally heretical or at least erroneous in the faith” because it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures; and the Holy See condemned it.’ If in the judgment of the Holy See it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures in 1616, so it is still in 1820.’ 

Olivieri: ‘Let us try to free the most Reverend Father from such a misconception… Tell me, is it not true that the doctrine declared “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith” was also “absurd and philosophically false?”…So tell me how you think they arrived at such a “contrariety to the Sacred Scriptures?” On what foundation did they establish it? What were they basing it on? Why did the decree say “philosophically false and absurd” before “altogether contrary to Divine Scripture?”’--- Ibid.


Olivieri: ‘Settele’s corresponding proposition “as the Earth moves around the sun” and others like it can no longer be called “philosophically false and absurd” by anyone because it is most certain that philosophically and by natural reason they contain no “falsehoods or absurdities.” Therefore, the doctrine of modern astronomers is not the one judged “heretical or erroneous in the faith”… Please reflect that if philosophical absurdity is attributed to the words of Divine Scripture, it becomes an interpretation that ecclesiastical authority can very well define as “contrary to Sacred Scripture” and this is precisely our case. Such was the case of the devastating motion from which Copernicus and Galileo had been unable to free the motions of axial rotation and orbital revolution which they ascribed to the Earth; such devastating motion was certainly contrary to Sacred Scripture.’--- Ibid.

Is that a fact now? Had Olivieri read Copernicus’s 1543 book he would have found he gave a very good reason why his heliocentrism - the very same fixed-sun/moving-Earth motions proposed by Olivieri, the one condemned as heresy in 1616 and confirmed in 1633 - had no such devastating motion.
 
‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore, Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered [due to its motion around the sun].’--- De revolutionibus, Book 1.     

The Status of the 1616 Ruling and Decree
 
But now it is time to tie down another loose end. Having challenged Anfossi on every point concerning the authority and content of the 1616-1633 rulings, he then makes a startling admission, but ties it in with his non-violent nonsense.
 
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at the time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’--- Retrying Galileo, p.213
 
Olivieri, Commissary General of the Inquisition, finally admits that the 1616 decree against a fixed sun and moving Earth remains an ‘irreversible pontifical decree.’ He confirms that Pope Paul V’s decree was without argument papal and ‘unrevisable.’

So, by inventing a terrestrial difficult 1616 decree as the infallible one, it was untouchable. But according to 'modern astronomers' heliocentrism is proven not filled with terrestrial difficulties so we can now let Catholics believe in a now harmful heliocentrism while we still have the infallible terrestrial disturbing heliocentrism decree of 1616.

So, they found their way to have their infallible 1616 decree and a way to bypass it and have their heliocentrism.
Pharisism. They threw away the Spirit of the law for the letter...