Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis (Read 12360 times)

cassini · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2019, 07:32:42 AM »

Quote from: Meg on February 01, 2019, 07:57:00 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.

Meg · « **Reply #16 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.

klasG4e · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2019, 10:49:43 AM »

Quote from: 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.

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/.

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!

cassini · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2019, 04:58:03 AM »

Hi Meg,

On February 24^th 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

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

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.

Meg · « **Reply #19 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!

klasG4e · « **Reply #20 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/

Meg · « **Reply #21 on:** February 06, 2019, 10:05:02 AM »

Quote from: 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/

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.

klasG4e · « **Reply #22 on:** February 06, 2019, 12:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Meg on February 06, 2019, 10:05:02 AM

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?

cassini · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2019, 12:33:46 PM »

Quote from: Meg on February 06, 2019, 09:02:32 AM

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

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.

klasG4e · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2019, 10:36:52 PM »

Robert Sungenis makes some very astute comments here: 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

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" 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.

cassini · « **Reply #25 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.

'

klasG4e · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2019, 11:19:16 AM »

Quote from: 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.

'

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!

Matthew · « **Reply #27 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.

klasG4e · « **Reply #28 on:** February 15, 2019, 09:58:27 PM »

Quote from: Matthew on February 15, 2019, 03:37:00 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.

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #29 on:** May 05, 2019, 01:28:08 PM »

Quote from: 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.

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.

Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis (Read 12360 times)

cassini

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Meg

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

klasG4e

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

cassini

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Meg

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

klasG4e

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Meg

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

klasG4e

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

cassini

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

klasG4e

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

cassini

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

klasG4e

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Matthew

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

klasG4e

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis