Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis (Read 55784 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #270 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.

Marulus Fidelis · « **Reply #271 on:** July 13, 2023, 03:51:50 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on July 13, 2023, 03:04:36 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.

Jaynek · « **Reply #272 on:** July 13, 2023, 04:13:53 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 13, 2023, 03:50:13 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #273 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.

Tradman · « **Reply #274 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #275 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.

Tradman · « **Reply #276 on:** July 14, 2023, 09:16:47 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 08:23:28 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.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #277 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.

Tradman · « **Reply #278 on:** July 14, 2023, 10:07:36 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 14, 2023, 09:57:41 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.

...YOU CAN'T MAKE 'EM THINK

Jaynek · « **Reply #279 on:** July 14, 2023, 12:10:08 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 07:33:17 AM

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Tradman · « **Reply #280 on:** July 14, 2023, 12:25:05 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 12:10:08 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.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #281 on:** July 14, 2023, 12:28:41 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on July 14, 2023, 12:10:08 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]
The plurality of heaven[edit]
Perhaps beginning with 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, and firmamentum as the heaven of the second day).^[8] Some of these theories identified caelum as the higher, immaterial and spiritual heaven, whereas firmamentum was of corporeal existence.^[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 (from Greek ἔμπυρος). One medieval writer who rejected such notions was 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]

About this 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]

This matter of the position of the "waters" above the firmament was considered by 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]
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] At issue was the reconciliation of Scripture with Aristotle's cosmology.
Saint Basil rejected the notion that the firmament is made of solid ice, although Bede in 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]

History[edit]
Main article: Hebrew astronomy § Biblical cosmology

The 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 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, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it.^[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 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's studies of the nova of 1572 and the Comet of 1577 were the first major challenges to the idea that orbs existed as solid, incorruptible, material objects,^[15] and in 1584 Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without a firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.^[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

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #282 on:** July 14, 2023, 12:33:47 PM »

Quote from: Tradman on July 14, 2023, 07:33:17 AM

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

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #283 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.

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.

Jaynek · « **Reply #284 on:** July 14, 2023, 12:54:09 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on July 14, 2023, 12:28:41 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.

Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis (Read 55784 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Marulus Fidelis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Tradman

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Tradman

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Tradman

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Tradman

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Miser Peccator

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Miser Peccator

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Pax Vobis

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis

Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis