Catholic Truths

Christians Must Say "NO" to Obama

2008-08-29T10:35:00.000-07:00

Regardless of what Barack Obama's overall platform is, all Christians must say no to Barack Obama. One cannot compromise with satan, and anyone who openly supports abortion is at minimum compromising with satan. Abortion is satanic ritual sacrifice, nothing short of this.

Many Christians will choose to support Barack Obama. A usual excuse is that the President has no power to change anything on abortion. This is not true, he has limited ability to do much currently, but if the President is a strong supporter of abortion, like Barack Obama, it is guaranteed that abortion will flourish under him.

Effectively, Christians have little power in today's US political world. Obama has a platform more tuned to many Christians overall, but his compromise on abortion makes it impossible for a Christian to choose him. There can be no balancing act on abortion. This is divide and conquer. Christians have no choice but to vote Republican, or in a small sense to waste their vote (by voting for an independent or minor party candidate).

Abortion is today's slavery, and much worse than slavery. Slavery almost destroyed the United States of America in its beginning, and if abortion continues as it is it will destroy the United States in the future.

Christians need to stand up on principle and say, "Sorry Mr. Obama, but I CANNOT support you".

Pope, Speaks to Other Religions

2008-04-17T20:07:00.000-07:00

Benedict XVI spoke to the world religions today at the John Paul II cultural center. Benedict said "We propose Jesus Christ..." as opposed to "We Proclaim...". I suspect he will come under criticism for this and other statements he made. I do want to point out one simple observation, and I make it without pride or arrogance.

Benedict the XVI sat upon a throne in front of the assembled "rest of the religions" of the world, and addresed them. He was polite. He greeted them all, accepted gifts, and gave gifts in return. But the symbolism was very clear.

Some of God's Children at ANINI Orphanage in Guatemala

2007-08-29T09:51:00.000-07:00

(all photographs copyrighted by Mark Wyatt)

While visiting my wife's family in Guatemala, my family and I had the privilige of visiting ANINI (Association of the Children for the Children), an orphanage 30 km outside Guatemala city, which specializes in special needs children. Visiting ANINI is both heart breaking and at the same time heart warming. The sadness comes from the thought of these beautiful children being abandoned by their parents (in many cases), and the joy comes from seeing how they are being taken care of. They currently have 60-70 special needs children.

Most of the children suffer from physical or mental disabilities. They require significant care and physical therapy. Many people volunteer, and others are hired by ANINI to give care- many from the local village (Monte Bello).

Some of the children suffer from autism

This autistic boy is seen playing with one of the staff. The padding on his arms and neck is to protect him from himself.

What follows are some of the children, staff, and activities at ANINI.

You see Jesus here. (The boy's name is Jesus). Jesus was very curios about my camera.

This little three year old is Elissa. I was told she must be fed through a feeding tube, and will probably never be able to eat. She was recently abandoned by her parents, then dropped off by a social worker. This litttle girl touched all our hearts.

Some of the older children are practicing a play about the Good Samaritan.

One of the actresses is Sofia.

Here is the chapel. They are looking for a priest. They are lucky to have a mass once a month here.

Some of the older boys enjoying the aftermoon.

This is one of the bedrooms.

In addition to the orphanage, ANINI has opened a school for the children of the village of Monte Bello (as well as a few of the more capable children in the orphanage). There is no charge to the children's families. Without this school, most of these children would likely be illiterate

Here is the school's library:

Evangelina Dominguez is the director of ANINI. She poses here with Paula, one of the residents.

ANINI is constantly struggling to pay its bills. As they become more successful, more children are left with them. The children at Anini are getting older, requiring Anini to seperate the boys and girls, and requiring more facilities to house older children, and even some into adulthood. The options for those who leave Anini are generally not favorable. In addition to the special needs children, the school is a financial challenge. If these pictures and this story touched your heart, I ask that you offer a donation to ANINI. Even $5 or $10 dollars will help them. Thank you and God Bless.

Some friends of Anini in Chicago (Hugo Rodriguez and Dianne Schuyler) accept donations for Anini. At the time of this writing, Anini does not have a direct internet donation capability. I suggest donating through the Chicago based website. At the time of this writing it is not tax deductible, but it is still worthwhile. They report that they are working with the Rotary Club in Chicago to make it tax deductible. Here is their main web site: Travel to Guatemala With Anini.

Here is ANINI's website: http://www.aninigt.com/. There is currently no way to donate that I can find. I understood that you could donate through this site: http://www.anini.org.gt/ , but the site appears non-functional at this writing.

Feel free to link this article into your blog or website. If you want to insert the entire article, contact me at jqpub1-ts@yahoo.com

Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II Released

2007-08-24T08:35:00.000-07:00

The Galileo Was Wrong book is now complete. Currently, there are two volumes available:

1. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume I: The Scientific Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

2. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume II : The Historical Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis. 400 pages.

The current first volume is part of the original Volume I, and the second volume conatins the moved parts, plus sections on Scriptural support for geocentrism, the view of the fathers and theologians, and a very large section on the ecclesial case for geocentrism, amongst other things. The books are available in hardback, downloadable PDF, or on cdrom. The cdrom contains many extras, including animations of the geocentric and heliocentric system, including parallax, retrograde motion, the seasons, Newton's laws of motion, Greek and Indian systems, plus more. Purchase of the hardcover books will include a cdrom.

The second volume is very important. It clears up the statements of the popes, it explains what actually happened in 1822, it explains what John Paul II actually said in 1992, and much more, incuding the true extent of what occured at the Galileo trial. Volume II conclusively shows that the Church did support geocentrism solidly through at least 1833, then to some degree became ambivalent to it without reversing its earlier decrees. Volume II also presents the Scriptural and patristic consensus for geocentrsim, the basis of the action of the popes.

Both these books are a "must read " for serious students of truth. This topic challenges a basic consensus in our current world, and can lead to understanding just how successful the deception [i.e., of the beast] has become. Very few in the centuries since Galileo have taken the time, and done the research to present the case for geocentrism. Almost all commentators start with the presumption that the earth moves, then attempt to reconcile the evidence to the presumption. All who read Galileo Was Wrong will be pleasantly suprised at what occurs when a researcher is open to the possibity of geocentrism. Things become more sraight forward and simple. There is no need to deconstruct Urban VIII's intent (i.e., he was insulted by Galileo), no need to read a condemnation of geoecentrism into John Paul II's 1992 speech (where none was stated). There is no need to ignore the fact that most observations place us in the center and not moving, then try to create more complex scientific theories to reconcile the observations with theory (i.e., making matter shrink, time contract, space warp, etc.).

La Salette Pilgrims from Poland Perish in Bus Tragedy

2007-07-23T14:50:00.000-07:00

A bus transporting 50 Polish pilgrims visiting the shrine at La Salette (near Grenoble, France) crashed as it missed the final turn to the valley below. 26 of the 50 died and another 14 were injured according to reports. Jim Harrington tells of his recent experience there on his blog in The Randomness of Life.

I just wanted to offer my condolences to the victims and ask that everyone pray fror them and their families.

When I visited in June 2006, a number of Polish pilgrims were present. I attended part of a presentation on La Salette in Polish, French, Italien, and German. I snapped this solemn photograph of a candlelight procession on the grounds of the shrine. There were around 100 pilgrims, most to the right of the picture.

Some Thoughts on Benedict XVI's motu propio: Summorum Pontificum, The Chinese, and the SSPX

2007-07-10T12:16:00.000-07:00

Hear much, leave to one side that which is doubtful, and speak with due caution concerning the remainder. See much, leave to one side that of which the meaning is not clear, and act carefully with regard to the rest. Confucious

I just wanted to share some thoughts on Benedict XVI's motu propio. First, I want to say God Bless Benedict XVI. I do not know what the final outcome of his motu propio will be, but I personally am very pleased with it.

In fact, I want to talk about three things: The motu propio, the letter to the Chinese, and the SSPX.

I will start with the Chinese. I have been to China, but never attended Mass there. I just presumed it was not available (short of finding an underground Church). If I go again, and the letter to the Chinese is accepted, I may attend, but would likely not receive the Eucharist. This would not be a lack of faith, but an rather act of caution.

It is very clear that there is a link between the letter to the Chinese and the SSPX. The link is indirect, but after reading the letter to the Chinese, I was lead to state : "I guess if you want to deal with China charitably, the Vatican will need to deal with the SSPX honestly."

In the letter to the Chinese, Section 8, The Chinese Episcopate, Benedict XVI says:

...In recent years, for various reasons, you, my Brother Bishops [of China- Mark], have encountered difficulties, since persons who are not "ordained'', and sometimes not even baptized, control and take decisions concerning important ecclesial questions, including the appointment of Bishops, in the name of various State agencies...

Later he states:

...Notwithstanding many grave difficulties, the Catholic Church in China, by a particular grace of the Holy Spirit, has never been deprived of the ministry of legitimate Pastors who have preserved the apostolic succession intact. We must thank the Lord for this constant presence, not without suffering, of Bishops who have received episcopal ordination in conformity with Catholic tradition, that is to say, in communion with the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, and at the hands of validly and legitimately ordained Bishops in observance of the rite of the Catholic Church....

A little further down,

...Finally, there are certain Bishops -- a very small number of them -- who have been ordained without the Pontifical mandate and who have not asked for or have not yet obtained, the necessary legitimation. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, they are to be considered illegitimate, but validly ordained, as long as it is certain that they have received ordination from validly ordained Bishops and that the Catholic rite of episcopal ordination has been respected. Therefore, although not in communion with the Pope, they exercise their ministry validly in the administration of the sacraments, even if they do so illegitimately...

Compare this with the language used by John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei :

1. With great affliction the church has learned of the unlawful episcopal ordination conferred on June 30 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, which has frustrated all the efforts made during the previous years to ensure the full communion with the church of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X founded by the same Archbishop Lefebvre...
...
3. In itself this act [of ordination- Mark] was one of disobedience to the Roman pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience—which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy—constitutes a schismatic act.[3] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the cardinal prefect of the Congregation for Bishops last June 17, Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[JPII cites Code of Canon Law, Canon 751 and 1382].

(Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1382 A bishop who consecrates some one a bishop without a pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. )

In other words, the Chinese bishops are in the same boat as the named SSPX bishops. And vice-versa. This is not an apology for the SSPX, but it is trying to gain an understanding of some of the context of the motu propio. If you recall, the motu propio and the Chinese letter were both spoken of in recent weeks together (i.e., here and here ). I suspect there is more than a coincidence in timing involved. In both cases there is an issue of bishops being consecrated without Papal permission. In the case of China, everyone wants a faithful reconciliation with China. Every Catholic should want 1/5 of the world's population to have the opportunity to hear the Gospel and convert. In the letter to the Chinese, even with the issue of illegitimate consecrations, Pope Benedict XVI is acting charitably to help bring about the reconciliation. With this in mind, if he is going to act charitably towards the Chinese, then all the Vatican and Church apparatus need to act honestly towards the SSPX. And Benedict has expressed his desire for reconciliation with them, and has taken concrete actions to support it- including the motu propio.

Many pundits are stating that the motu propio is not about the SSPX, but clearly it is part of it. I personally believe that without the SSPX, there would be no motu propio; though I am not in any way questioning Benedict XVI's stated reverence for the Tridentine Mass. I think everyone who has any honesty will have to admit that the SSPX was at least a catalyst for the granting of the motu propio. And if the popularity of the Tridentine Mass is going to grow quickly, it is going to take the help of the many priests and bishops of the SSPX (reunited with Holy Mother Church) to help train and implement it (along with the FSSP and others of course). This is not meant to excuse the at least technically schismatic act of the SSPX, but rather is a recognition of the truth of the matter. The ball is now in the court of the SSPX. I know there is much more to discuss with the Vatican, but Benedict XVI has swung the door wide open. I pray the SSPX enter.

Let us all hope and pray for a successful implementation of the motu propio, the succesful reintegration of the SSPX into the Church, as well as the conversion of the Chinese nation.

Coming Soon, Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying its Lessons Today, Michael Barber: A Book Review

2007-05-25T00:07:00.001-07:00

While reading Robert Sungenis study Bible, The Apocalypse of St. John, I picked up a copy of Michael Barber's book, Coming Soon, Unlocking the Book of Revelation and Applying its Lessons Today. I saw the book mentioned on the internet, and wanted to see what it was all about. In the preface, Barber tells us that the book is based on a Bible study he taught in California, where he saw a great interest in the Apocalypse. The book is oriented to Catholics who are not familiar with the Book of Revelations (including study questions). In a light and amusing manner, the Introduction leads to the advice to "Read the Book, Don't Wait for the Movie". This is after reviewing some of the current popular takes on Apocalyptic themes. In this section Barber promises to take the reader verse by verse through the Book of Revelation. He states:

Rest assured: The Holy Spirit inspired human authors of Scripture, and He helps us understand Scripture as the Faith is passed on through the life of the Church, particualrly in her liturgy and in her teaching authority

This implies that Barber will use the magesterium as a guide for understanding the Apocalypse. Still in the Introduction under the heading "Keeping it Simple" he states:

Whenever anyone attempts to explain a book like Revelation, readers often wonder whether the interpretation that is laid out can be backed by credible sources or whether it is simply the result of the creativity of the author. Recognizing that other faithful Catholics who strive to be faithful to the Church might come up with different interpretations of Revelation, I have done my best to provide extensive support in the endnotes...

So one may ask who these credible sources are? What are these "different" interpretations of Revelations? It is clear that the Church has historically taught the amillenial view of the Apocalypse (i.e., Apocalypse concerns the Church age- starting at the Cross and ending at the Second Coming and New Heaven and New Earth). But unfortunately this is not the interpretation Barber chooses to use. It is clear that he is using the view espoused by Scott Hahn (based on Euginio Corsini's The Apocalypse: The Perennial Revelation of Jesus Christ). In fact several of Dr. Hahn's books are referenced (as well as Corsini's). The book itself is dedicated to Scott and Kimberly Hahn, and is published in Steubenville, Ohio by Emmaus Road (a division of Catholic's United for the Faith). Now I am not being critical of Dr. Hahn's speculative theology. It is clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation of the Apocalypse, but a book aimed at uninformed Catholics on the Apocalypse, at least in my opinion, should start with the Church's well established view, not some modern and novel (though perhaps interesting) interpretation.

The first thing I did to review the book was start with Robert Sungenis' advice- see how the author handles chapter 20 (see The Apocalypse of St. John book review). This is key to understanding how the author places the Apocalypse in time, by understanding how the author handles the Millennium. This occurs in chapter 13 of Barbers Book, entitled "The Perennial Millennial Question". Therein he states (p. 243):

Traditionally Catholics have understood the "1,000 year reign" as referring to the age of the Church...the thousand years is understood symbolicaly...from the time of His [Christ] first coming to the time of His second coming. Satan is restrained...This view is well attested to in the Fathers of the Church.

He then goes on to state:

I whole-heartedly affirm this view. Nevertheless, I think we can add to this view. As stated, the interpretation laid out here understands the Millenium in terms of the Davidic Covenant.

This lost me immediately. He states that he will use credible sources to back up his interpertation. He states that the Fathers uphold the "age of the Church" view (amillennial)- clearly one cannot find more credible sources. He states that he whole-heartedly affirms the Church view. But he chooses to teach uninformed Catholics a novel teaching. He does not "add to the view" [of the Church], but rather replaces it with a novel teaching.

There is no Scriptural or Church support for the binding of Satan in the Old Testament, while there is ample evidence in the New Testament. Similarly there is no Church support for a Davidic Millennium in the Apocalypse, while there is nothing but support for a Catholic millennium, which starts at the cross (with the binding of Satan) and ends at Christ's second coming.

The book also promises to apply the lessons of the Apocalypse today. If the established Church view is that Satan is currently bound in the pit, and the beast and the false prophet are wandering the earth deceiving the nations as agents of the dragon (Satan), one would think this might a useful piece of information for Catholics of today to have. While trying to relate the Apocalypse to the Mass (as Barber does) may be appealing and actually appropriate, this can be done without changing the basic eschatology of the Apocalypse as traditionally interpreted by the Church. The main lesson should be 'keep faith, Christians, resist the deceptions which you are daily bombarded with on TV, newspapers, advertisements, political movements, etc. Watch that your children understand this so they are not deceived'. Instead Barber ends up drawing some generalized allusions from lessons learned 2000 years ago in the collpase of Israel. While I do not want to state what Barber's intent was, this seems to be a "Precious Moments" view of the Apocalypse and current state of the Church, which somewhat ignores the intense spiritual battle the Church and world are currently mired in, and effectively places us 2000 years after most of the challenging times (though Barber does teach the final judgement).

I ended up reading through much of the book, but did not complete it. I was personally disappointed in the approach Mr. Barber took in trying to reach uninformed Catholics who "ought to begin in the Scriptures with a Gospel or the Book of Genesis". I really think it does a disservice to write a beginning book on the Apocalypse for Catholics which does not teach the traditional Catholic view. Though the book was nicely written, entertaining, and probably did a reasonable job capturing Scott Hahn's views, I cannot recommend it for the reasons stated.

The Apocalypse of St. John, The Catholic Apologetics Study Bible, Volume II, Robert A. Sungenis, Ph.D., A Book Review

2007-05-15T02:22:00.000-07:00

I just finished Robert Sungenis' new Study Bible on the Apocalypse. I had a lot of questions regarding what it was all about and how it should be interpreted. There appears to be a number of interpretations out there. Robert chose to write the book based on the traditionally accepted Catholic amillenial interpretation, with likely date of writing in the 90's A.D. Robert does explain some of the other interpretations and their ramifications. The basic advice he gives when assesing another book on the Apocalypse is to see how the author interprets Chapter 20:

In light of the above discovery, one of the most important passages in the Apocalypse, and the one passage that will directly set the boundaries for the interpretation of every other passage in the Apocalypse, is Chapter 20. In fact, one can immediately know which of the half dozen interpretive schemes an exegete has chosen for his analysis of the Apocalypse by turning first to his treatment of Chapter 20. It is the exegetical cornerstone for the rest of the book. The main reason for its importance is that it is the only instance in the Apocalypse where the time period "a Thousand Years" or "the Millennium" is mentioned. An exegete must first decide:

· Whether the Thousand Years is a literal or symbolic time period.
· When the Thousand Years begins and ends.

Similar to the many plausible interpretations of John 3:5, the Thousand Years of Apocalypse 20:1-6 has a variety of options. If one interprets the years as a literal time period, he has three possibilities for its placement in history: (1) the past, (2) the present or (3) the future.

After some more explanation, Robert then outlines six common schemes for interpreting the 'thousand years'. These include:

1) Past/Literal
2) Present/Literal
3) Future/Literal
4) Past/Symbolic
5) Present/Symbolic
6) Future/Symbolic

Which he relates to different Biblical events- especially the first and second coming of Christ. Some people choose a literal time from David's reign until the the coming of Christ (or the destruction of the temple), i.e., #1. Many protestant's choose #3, i.e., Christ literally rules for 1000 years after his second coming, etc. The Church, solidly starting with Augustine and through the current Vatican Catechism, have traditionally accepted #5- present symbolic. Though some early fathers held #3, the Church has stated that it "can not be taught safely" (Pius XII).

The importance of the thousand years is that this is the time period in which Satan is bound (in the bottomless pit), and during which the two beasts "deceive the nations" in his stead. In the standard Catholic interpretation, this symbolic thousand years (i.e., a very long time starting at the first coming) is the Church age. Basically, prior to Christ's sacrifice, Satan was able to stand between God and man. It was basically impossible for man to attain salvation. This is why the saints of the Old Testament had to wait in Hades for Christ's sacrifice. At Christ's sacrifice, Satan was defeated, and bound in the bottomless pit. This was God's plan to recover from Adam and Eve's failure in the Garden. This plan was written on the scroll with seven seals, and only the Lamb of God was worthy to unseal the plan and carry it out. And carry it out he is doing, now, in the Church age. At the cross Satan was defeated, but it was not over. Satan was bound in the bottomless pit to allow the Church time to evangalize and spread the gospel to all mankind. Though bound, Satan was still able to act indirectly through his intermediaries- the two beasts. These agents of Satan have acted throughout Church history creating wars and in various ways deceiving the nations. Those who are sealed by God (baptized) have grace to stand firm against the beasts (though not all do), but many who are not will be deceived and follow. For a short while just prior to the second coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, the dragon (Satan) will be released again from the pit to wage war against the Church. The book says of the beasts:

In Ap 13:14 John says that the pseudo-lamb will demand "bidding them make an image for the Beast which was wounded by the sword and yet lived." We might compare this to similar instances recorded in the Old Testament...John may purposely be trying to stir up these Old Testament scenes in our minds in order to indicate the goal of the Second Beast. After he has deceived the world with pleasantries and pseudo-miracles, his main goal is to have the people give their full allegiance to the First Beast, for he is the one with the seven heads, the brains and muscle behind the Dragon’s [Satan bound in the pit- Mark] false gospel. We could say that each of its heads symbolizes some form of intellectual control over the world. One head could represent worldly philosophy. A second head could represent world politics. A third could represent world finance. A fourth might be atheistic science, etc. This is not to say that these disciplines are evil in themselves or detrimental to man, but only that any discipline that does not incorporate Christian principles at its foundation is essentially anti-Christian or atheistic, and thus will be used against Christianity. Whatever means the first Beast can use to draw people away from the Christian Gospel, he will use. He knows, of course, that the most productive means of swaying them is by intellectual persuasion, the same technique he used against Eve in the Garden of Eden.

In turn, the people of the world "worship" the Beast by sacrificing themselves to its cause. In practical terms, for example, they sacrifice their families to divorce and adultery; their babies to abortion; their bodies to drugs, alcohol and pornography; their homes and property to usury and unjust taxes; their souls to godless art and music; their minds to anti-Christian philosophies and sciences, etc. So successful is the campaign of the Second Beast to bring the people to worship the First Beast that, as John says: "and the whole earth followed the Beast with wonder" and "they worshiped the Beast, saying, ‘Who is like the Beast and able to wage war with him?’" (Ap 13:3-4).

Standing against the beast:

The only institution that will be waging war against the Beast is the Church, and particularly her faithful members. But the Beast will do his best to silence them, either by persecution or death. As John writes in Ap 13:15: "to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain." In the history of the Christian church, persecution from the world has been the norm. The bloodthirsty emperors of Rome, many of whom deified themselves and required worship from the populace, dominated the first three centuries. After the fall of Rome, the Muslims came into power in the 600s, persecuting and killing Christians for the next 800 years. Afterward, numerous man-made movements sought to replace Christianity as the dominant authority of the world, including the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Communism, Capitalism, Deism, Nihilism, Nazism, Masonry, Militarism, Scientism, and Pan-Religionism. They all played their part in ridiculing and trying to stamp out Christianity wherever and whenever they could. In the last century, there has been more persecution of Christianity than at any time in history, thus, the onslaught of the Beast has not only remained, it has increased, preparing the way for the loosening of Satan for his "little time" (Ap 20:3). This is the reality of life, and John is telling it to us in the starkest of terms. If mankind, perchance, is in a time of peace and there is no persecution in our little corner of the world, this is highly unusual, for such havens do not last very long before they are overtaken by the Beast.

And of the "Image of the Beast":

In Ap 13:15 John tells us that the Second Beast "gives breath" to the image being worshiped. The Second Beast even makes the first "speak." Obviously, this is no ordinary image. Such bodily animations symbolize that the image of the Beast will be an active, functioning, multiplying and growing entity. The image of the Beast will articulate its ideas and have the power of persuasion. Practically speaking, we can see this power of persuasion in the world today as the "image" propagates its anti-Christian message through books, newspapers, magazines, computers, internet, music, art, architecture, movies, television, billboards, speeches, lectures, pamphlets, stamps, memorials, money, libraries, schools, colleges, universities, institutions, merchandise, etc. Almost all of these mediums are anti-Christian at the core and all "breathe" and "speak" as the "image of the Beast."

These brief excerpts make it clear that the traditional Catholic view indicate that we are currently in a spiritual battle against the minions of Satan, and that the "world" is really stacked against the Church and its spreading of the gospel. This is inconvenient for some who want to reach out to the world or who do not want to have trouble with the world. Relegating the Apocalypse to some past event (i.e., Jewish history through Christ's first coming) becomes a more convenient package for such purposes. Fortunately Benedict XVI, who is open to some dialogue, states he wants to do so in "The Spirit of Truth".

The book is 536 pages, which includes the text of the Apocalypse (RSV), plus verse by verse commentary explaining what all the symbols mean. Following the standard Catholic interpretation, the Apocalypse is broken into seven dramas (seven being highly symbolic nunber). Each drama starts with the first coming of Christ and ends with the second coming. Each drama is the same story told from a different perspective. Related Old Testament prophcies- especially Daniel, but also Ezekial, Isaiah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, and others and New Testament prophecies are worked in as appropriate.

I highly reccomend this book to all who truly want to understand [what we do know] about God's plan, and how it is actually carried out on earth and in heaven in the current age.

For the Record, Mark Shea

2007-02-14T12:55:00.000-08:00

Mark Shea wrote an article, Puny Humans, Geocentrism, and ET , in which he referred to geocentrists as [reading Scripture in a ] "flat footed" [way] and being "fundamentalist". I left some comments in the "discussion" section" of Catholic Exchange (who hosts the articles, and of which Mark Shea is a big part). Mark Shea, or some unidentified moderator will not allow my discussion points to remain. I guess Mark does not like too much criticism.

For the record, I would like to post my comments.

********************************************************

Mark:

You take the readers of Catholic Exchange as pretty gullible. You know that Gary Hoge gave up his geo-stationary satellite argument, even shutting down his web site (possibly for other reasons, too), yet you repeat it. You have no proof that geocentrism is wrong, you just believe this based on your stubborn disposition. I really wonder from what perspective you are operating- certainly not truth. Go ahead repeat all the lies you want, you are a big man. I hope someday you will have the courtesy and conscience to actually study the issue before you flap your gums, but I doubt it at this point. I have been following your comments on this for some time including repeated exchanges with Robert Sungenis (where you as much as admit that you have no knowledge in this area). You truly do not represent open mindedness. You really should be ashamed of yourself, and certainly should not have written this article without at least mentioning the history of your engagement with Sungenis, and the fact that you really have no knowledge on the topic.

You need to read Galileo Was Wrong by Sungenis and Bennett. If you have serious issues with specific points, then air them, but from what I have seen you do not care about facts, just your gut feeling.
Mark Wyatt
http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/
JMJ+
Submitted by markjwyatt on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 4:13pm.

*************************************************************

"That Mr. Hoge has taken down his site does not equate to saying his argument was bad. On the contrary, it was quite elegant. "

He (or more precisely his chosen representative) conceded the argument. I never said his equations did not work, nor that they were not "elegant". Read the debate.

"to say "The enthusiasm for geocentrism among a few reactionaries is not particularly credible" is not a "lie"."

No, it is not. All Catholics should be proud to be called "reactionaries". Our ideas came from our Lord who left earth 2000+ years ago.

But this is a lie:

"The falsity of ...[geocentrism]...has, of course, been shown many times"

The key element you are missing and that does not exist is the "showing", i.e., the evidence. Bellarmine's demonstration has yet to be made.

Mark Wyatt
http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/
JMJ+
Submitted by markjwyatt on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 10:31pm.
» edit reply email this page
******************************************************

Catholic Exchange:

You have allowed Mark Shea, a person who has basically admitted he knows nothing about geocentrism to write an article condeming it as a "flat footed" "fundamentalist" myth. (I guess Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII all needed to see a podiatrist).

Why not invite Robert Sungenis, who has written a doctoral thesis and a book on the topic to write an article to be displayed prominently on your site? If you are interested in truth, not saving appearances "to the world", this would make a lot of sense.

Mark Wyatt
http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/
JMJ+
Submitted by markjwyatt on Fri, 02/09/2007 - 9:08am.

****************************************************

Sciencemom:
I said nothing about Mr. Shea's degree. My concern is that Mr. Shea himself has admitted he knows nothing on the topic, yet he proclaims it nonsense. As to degrees, keep in mind that Robert's co-author, Dr. Bennett, has a Ph.D. in physics with thesis on general relativity.

On top of Galileo Was Wrong, the standard for the geocentrism issue, you can also visit my 4 part blog series, Geocentricity 101:

Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position

I have visited your site (and left some comments), but have not been by for a while. I will check out our arguments.

I hope you take the time to read Galileo Was Wrong. It goes far beyond a relativistic argument, and shows that most of the observational and experiemtnal evidence actually points to a non-moving central earth. It also shows historically how science has ignored and even obscured this evidence in order to reconcile the evidence to its presuppositions (the earth moves and is in the center).

Mark Wyatt
http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/
JMJ+

BTW Mark Shea:

Note the difference in approach betwen you and sciencemom. She did not just blow geocentrism off as "flat footed" "funadmetalism", but actually studied the issue and put forth an intelligent response.

You have much to learn from her.
Submitted by markjwyatt on Fri, 02/09/2007 - 4:56pm.

******************************************************

As a final note, in the next article down, I answer sciencemom's concerns in her Part 3 (which relates to my Geocentricity 101, Parts I and II).

A Response to "Sciencemom" of Unity of Truth Blog and Her Article "The New Geocentrism- Part III"

2007-02-14T12:29:00.000-08:00

Sciencemom, read my blog series (Geocentricity 101), and challenged the science portion in her blog piece named "The New Geocentrism- Part III". In "Up- to date cosmology" hedgemaker challenges the scriptural/eccliastical portion (this is their Part II). It all started with the original article "The New Geocentrism", which we can conclude is Part I.

I will respond specifically to the science aspect of Part III. I will reply to "Up- to date cosmology", and the scriptural/ecclisiastic portions of "The New Geocentrism Part III" in a seperate article. I have replied to sciencemom's article "The New Geocentrism" in the comments of the actual article. This led to the writing of the additional two articles.

Sciencemomn says:

"...I have now read Mr. Wyatt's four-part series on Geocentrism, and I offer the following brief summary of his argument:

1. The math and physics of parts 1-2 boil down to the idea that it is possible to construct a frame of reference such that with respect to it, the earth is stationary and the entire universe apparently moves around it, and the related idea that this is entirely acceptable within the framework of general relativity.

2. Parts 3-4 attempt to establish that the Church has in the past taken positions that obliged a geocentric view, and that these still oblige, not having been rescinded to the author's satisfaction.

3.Since relativity does not "prefer" a certain "centrism" but (as is claimed) the Church does, we should hold geocentrism to be obligatory..."

She explains Part 1 in more detail later. I will briefly comment on her points 2 and 3, then comment on her explanation for point 1. She states in her point 2 that I claim the Church "has in the past taken positions that obliged a geocentric view", which is correct, I have demonstrated this. She then goes on to state, "these still oblige, not having been rescinded to the author's satisfaction", which I take some exception to. I have not stated that they still oblige, necassarily. I have stated that "...It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility. Clearly they have reached at least the level of being worthy of consideration by the faithful (and possibly much more), but given the Vatican's ambiguity towards the issue in recent centuries, there is probably little moral culpability for the average person who has been taught unimpeded from early childhood (even taught at Catholic schools) that we know that the earth goes around the sun and spins on its axis. Clearly science supports the notion that we do not know either way (see Parts I and II, Geocentricity 101)."

This same comment goes for her point 3. I have basically said this without the claiming it an "obligation", but also more. I have not tried to "prove" geocentrism with a relativistic argument, but, as sciencemon correctly infers, I show it as still possible.

What follows is sciencemom's commentary of her point 1, with my counter-commentary interposed:

The math / physics that Mr. Wyatt is suggesting leaves important things unsaid:

1. The "frame of reference" needed for this to work is a rotating, translating frame. To put it even more simply, one simply takes the movement of the earth as heliocentrists would see it, and transfers that to the frame of reference. Thus, the frame of reference moves along with the earth.

This immediately shows that sciencemom cannot see past her presumptions. She states that a frame attached to the earth is actually a "rotating, translating frame"! How does she know this? Because she presupposes that the earth is rotating translating. SHE MISSES THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE DISCUSSION. I.e., the geocentric contention is that the earth is actually NOT rotating and translating. If this contention is true, then the frame attached to the earth is a stationary non-rotating frame. Until we can establish that the earth is rotating/translating sciencemom can not make absolute statements about its rotation/translation. The book Galileo Was Wrong explains in great detail that science has never established that the earth is either rotating or translating. Scientists do understand this, and they are quoted.

2.Only within this moving frame of reference can the earth said to be "still" or "at rest". This is indeed a paltry form of immovability! It is little more than mathematical sleight of hand. In fact, it is precisely the sort of immovability that Mary's ballerina would experience while doing a pirouette, provided the frame of reference moves right along with her.

Again, sciencemom presupposes a moving rotating earth. Of course if we accept her ASSUMPTION, then the case is closed. Since geocentrists have not, we are not impressed with her choice of assumptions.

3.The rest of the universe only apparently moves around the earth, given this frame of reference. We can easily tell that it does not really do so because the apparent speed of even nearby stars (as measured from our moving frame of reference) is well over the speed of light. The stars are most definitely not moving at these speeds; even if it were not a contradiction of special relativity, we would see the luminous effects in the form of Cerenkov radiation. If Mary's ballerina did her pirouette under the night sky, the moon orbits her (in her frame of reference, remember) just as much as the universe orbits the earth.

Finally sciencemom actually tries to make a scientific argument (rather than relying on her presuppositions). Unfortunately the argument does not hold as I explained in detail in part III of Geocentricity 101. First, if the universe is rotating, then special relativity does not apply, general relativity is required. In general relaitivty, "...If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest [i.e., fix the earth], the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460). This is one of the many points I used to establish that general relativity does not see this as an issue. Now, if we go a step further and consider a rotating aether, then the stars are travelling along with the aether (i.e., they are co-rotating with space), and under these conditions there is no local exceedance of light speed.

The Cerenkov radiation issue only deals with special relativity effects, which are not present in this case. In flat space-time ( the realm of special relativity) objects exceeding the speed of light can generate radition (as seen in particle accelerators), but in the case of general relativity, in the case of a rotating universe, the theory directly accomodates the rotating objects relative superluminal state. If an object were to locally overtake a star at a relative speed greater than "c", then in that case, even under general relativity, Cerenkov radiation would be locally generated, because in that case space-time would be [approximately] flat.

As to sciencemom's ballerina, unfortunately, general relativity has to consider the the universe rotating around the tip of her nose just as real as the ballerina rotating in a static universe, because general relativity excludes the concept of absolute space. So if this example bothers sciencemom (or she finds it amusing), then she should feel the same about the big bang theory- which explicitly relies on general relativity to be correct (else there is no cosmological constant and no expansion of space, and thus no big bang). Amazing the corner that Catholics back themselves into to be "cool" to the world!

4.In reality, there is no significant rotation of the universe. While it is very difficult to rule it out entirely, it is relatively simple to set an upper bound on the maximum rotation of the universe, and direct measurements indicate it is well under 0.1 arc seconds per century.

Correct, it is difficult to rule out entirely, and just stating so does not constitute evidence. True, if one accepts all the assumptions relating to the current cosmological view (big bang with inflationary phase, isotropic and homogeneous space, etc.) then within the framework of the myriad of assumptions involved (the ones exposed in Galileo Was Wrong), you could make a case that the universe appears not to be rotating. If the earth is actually stationary and not rotating, then these assumptions will have been shown to be wrong.

5.To someone in an inertial frame of reference, looking "down" on the solar system from somewhere over the sun's north pole, all the planets would trace over time the elliptical paths around it that we know as orbits. (The sun would also be seen rotating on its own axis, and gradually moving in its own orbital path around the galactic center, taking the rest of the solar system along with it.)

Again, sciencemom misses a fundamental point. True if one stared down on the sun then one would "see" the entire universe rotating around the sun! This is because we have in effect transformed to a coordinate system fixed above the sun's north pole. Of course if the entire universe appears to be rotating around the sun, the planets will also appear to be doing so. I spent most of Part I of Geocentricity 101 explaining this concept. Sciencemom then confuses the issue by stating that the "sun would also be seen...gradually moving in its own orbital path around the galactic center, taking the rest of the solar system along with it", which means that she actually transformed out to another coordinate system which at one point of time was above the sun's north pole, but is actually fixed relative to the galactic center. Since she claims this to be an inertial reference frame, and she is being precise, she must be proposing some form of milky-way-centrism! One in which the universal center corresponds to a point that sits above hte sun's orbit at least at one point in time. Rather, I think sciencemom is confusing coordinate transforms with reality, and trying to imply that the abstract mathematical concept of inertial reference frames, as applied in especially special relativity, "prove" that the universe is not rotating.

So, in sum, the math for a geocentric frame of reference may be available, but it's just math. To speak of it as if it were "the real truth" is simply untrue.

It is true that the math exists. Also the physics exist- both kinematics and dynamics. Also as shown in great detail in Galileo Was Wrong, most of our observations and mnay experiments support a central and non-moving (rotating or translating) earth! Science itself admits that it cannot demonstrate the rotation or translation of the earth (as independent of a counter movement of teh universe). Finally Scriptures, the Fathers, and a number of popes have testified or made declarations in favor of geocentrism. None have explicitlky denied it. Why not at least consider it?

Dr. Robert Bennett gets Cold Shoulder from Cardinal Schoenborn

2007-02-13T15:28:00.000-08:00

Dr. Robert Bennett, co-author of Galileo Was Wrong attended a lecture by his emminence, Cardinal Shoenborn of Vienna, Austria in New York City. Dr. Bennett queried Cardinal Shoenborn about creationist topics during the Q&A after the lecture. His responses were less than expected. Dr. Bennett's reflections follow:

In his [Cardinal Schoenborn] responses to my post-lecture questions, his eminence made clear that :

-- He wanted no support from Catholic creationists like the Kolbe Center.

-- He wanted to build philosophical bridges between science and religion

-- Creationists are no better than materialists in obstructing the search for common ground.

No words, but only a tape of his response could capture the facial expressions and body language that expressed his disgust with a literal Genesis interpretation of six days and a 6,000 year old Earth.

I found it incredible that his eminence would refuse to hear scientific arguments against evolution supported by literal exegesis. Most of my arguments are, in fact, not technical but philosophical – the use of logical fallacies and false premises by Darwinists.

He claims more authority and knowledge in the science domain than I have as a Ph.D. in Physics, by refusing to hear scientific young Earth arguments.
Though having authority and knowledge in religious matters, he rejects key beliefs of the Church – the unanimous Patristic Tradition on creation in 6 days and the litera prima teaching of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII. Though a scientist, I embrace these cornerstone beliefs without reservation.

I wonder - who is the cardinal here and who is the scientist? What would St. Thomas say is the middle ground of truth between the poles of a contradiction?

Intimidation at Our Lady Queen of Angels, New York

2007-02-13T14:26:00.000-08:00

See News Article Here

Subject: OLQA Vigil Stopped By Force, with Six Arrested
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:02:09 +0000

Friends of VOTF:

I am sorry to report that the vigil at Our Lady Queen of Angels [in New York City] was stopped last night shortly after 11PM. We are still piecing together the complete chain of events, but as an eyewitness I can attest to the following:

A press conference was held outside the church at 2PM, during which the locks on the church lavatory were surreptitiously changed.

Several large men unknown to the parishioners appeared in the church around 7PM. These men turned out to be hired by the Archdiocese as security agents. The parishioners called the police because they did not know who these unknown men were.

All the doors of the church were locked by the security agents, and anyone trying to enter the church whenever the side door was opened was forcibly shoved back out into the street, including me. Police outside stood by while this occurred.

Priests from the Archdiocese entered the church at approx. 9PM and addressed the crowd of about 30 parishioners, including men, women and children, asking everyone to leave. The priests then retreated to the sacristy, and did not appear again.

At approx. 9:30PM, Carmen Villegas, chairperson of Our Lady Queen of Angels, managed to open one outside door. Several supporters rushed in, along with many members of the media and camera crews.

The camera crews were physically forced to leave the church shortly thereafter by the security agents. There was scuffling in the aisles, and some of the news crews were nearly shoved to the floor. (I am still trying to determine whether all this took place in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.)

A police lieutenant and two other officers entered the church, and began to talk with a City Councilwoman who had entered the church when the doors were opened at 9:30PM, and then with the priests sequestered in the sacristy. In the church, the parishioners continued to pray the rosary and sing hymns.

Soon the police captain from the precinct joined the group.

For the next 90 minutes, the police shuttled back and forth between the parishioners in the pews, and the priests in the sacristy. Negotiations went back and forth. The lawyer for the parishioners arrived on the scene, but was refused access to the church.

At the end of this process, the police said that all parishioners had to vacate the church by 11:30PM, or everyone would be arrested.

Carmen Villegas and the other leaders of the parishioners considered all the available options, but it was clear that the police were going to back the claim by the Archdiocese that it was the owner of the property, that the parishioners were trespassing on church property, and that the parishioners would have to leave for face arrest for illegal trespassing. So the decision became: How do we best conclude this protest?

The decision was made to have six parishioners agree to be arrested and taken out of the church in hand-cuffs, so that all the media outside could see what was being done. All other protesters were to leave the church first.

When we left the church at approx. 11:15PM, the scene outside was surreal, camera crews and trucks everywhere. Some 15 minutes later, the six hand-cuffed parishioners were led single file down the driveway of the church, as a crowd of perhaps 100 supporters chanted “Save our church.” The media rushed forward as they were being loaded into a police van in front of the church, and the arrested parishioners managed to shout brief comments to the press. Some of the children of the arrested parishioners were crying as their mothers were loaded into the vans. The parishioners were taken to the precinct on 102nd Street , where they were booked and then released.

These are the facts as best I can recall them.

In the end, the Archdiocese asserted, and the police backed, a claim to be the owner of real estate, and refused to acknowledge the rights of the parishioners to conduct a peaceful prayer vigil in their own church. The Archdiocese resorted to intimidation, threats of force, and invitations to police to enter the sanctuary of the church in order to suppress the vigil through threat of arrest.

I am trying to understand the true implications of these events.

It is always about faith, but had I not seen these events with my own eyes, I never would have believed this could happen inside a Catholic church.

Regards,
FXP

Francis X. Piderit
President
Piderit + Partners, Inc.
119 West 23rd Street
Suite 1003
New York , NY 10011
T: 212.826.3118
C: 917.916.7575
F: 212.826.3115

Recent Endorsements for Galileo Was Wrong

2006-12-06T09:36:00.000-08:00

Here are some endorsements for the book Galileo Was Wrong by Robert Sungenis Ph.D. and Robert Bennett, Ph.D.

A truly magnificient work. There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today. The animations of the CD are excellent. They illustrate the daily and yearly motions of the sun and planets about the earth, the seasons, retrograde motion, and parallax in a uniform way. The authors have done a very admirable job all around.
Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D.
Astronomy
Author of Geocentricity

In their over 700-page book, Galileo Was Wrong, Drs. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett make a convincing case for the special and central position of the earth in the cosmos, both physically and spiritually. This is, of course, radically at odds from what everyone is taught from childhood; everyone "knows" the earth revolves around the sun. However, from time to time, like the little girl in Hans Christian Andersen's tale The Emperor's New Clothes, accepted "wisdom" is challenged; and what everyone "knows" to be true turns out to be merely a concocted fantasy. Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a powerful case that the "truths" of heliocentric and acentric cosmologies aiming to describe the "fabric" of space-time may in fact be constructed out of the same type of "cloth" as the outfit of the Emperor. Admirably presented in a format accessible to a scientific layman, the authors dismantle "proofs" of the earth's motion such as Foucault's pendulum, stellar parallax, and stellar aberration. In exhaustive detail, the authors also present the results from modern physics (such as interferometer experiments) and astronomical observations, suggesting that in fact the position of the earth may be where it was held to be prior to the "Copernican revolution"; namely, the unmoving center of the universe. The authors provide quotes from eminent cosmologists admitting that this cannot be refuted by observation but is only rejected on philosophical grounds, and raise the disturbing possibility that part of modern cosmology and physics, including Relativity Theory, has been invented out of "whole cloth" precisely to avoid the philosophical implications of a universe with a motionless earth at the center.

While many of the arguments contained within Galileo Was Wrong have been previously presented by other geocentrists, it is unparalleled in the breadth and detail of the information presented supporting a geocentric cosmology and its accessibility to the lay reader. Galileo Was Wrong therefore stands as a unique reference and starting point for future debate among all who are searchers for the truth and willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps the little girl proclaiming the Emperor's nakedness was correct.

Unfortunately Galileo Was Wrong is likely to be scorned not only by the mainstream scientific community but also by the mainstream creationist movement. But all who believe that man's creation was not by "accident" would do well to consider the following questions, posed by the authors. Is the earth an insignificant rock, a mere chance artifact of the Big Bang, one out of many planets in one out of many solar systems, of no special position but hurtling with great speed through the cosmos towards no final destination in particular? Or has the earth been specifically designed by a benevolent Creator as the habitation place for man, the highest creation in the physical universe, and therefore placed in the central position in the universe? For an important corollary to the question of whether man came into being only by accident or via the design of an omnipotent and loving Creator is whether the place of his habitation in the universe likewise came into being only by accident or by design of a Creator, and whether its place in the universe has any importance or special significance. As others strive to restore man to his rightful role as the crown of physical creation as opposed to a mere assortment of molecules arising by chance, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have made a powerful case for restoring man's central physical position in the universe.
Vincent J. Schmithorst, Ph.D.
Physics
Imaging Research, Ohio

The confrontation between Galilei and the Catholic Church is consistently portrayed as a sort of David and Goliath struggle, where truth ultimately triumphs. When this episode is examined in greater detail, however, a different picture starts to emerge, as so often is the case with many things that we are taught as being fact. If there exists an obligation upon each of us to think and to reason for ourselves, then it follows that there is also an obligation upon those who are able to conduct independent research to publish that research, no matter what ridicule and trouble is then heaped upon them for doing so. For unfortunately, in this Orwellian age of enlightenment in which we find ourselves, the Emperor's New Clothes fable has gone from being an amusing insight into human nature to a dangerous psychological weapon, with those who openly question and explore ruling paradigms being branded as extremists, fundamentalists, or conspiracy theorists.

In Galileo Was Wrong, Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett have provided an excellent synopsis of a field of science that most people today have probably not even heard about. It is not a regurgitation of some ancient, debunked theory. Neither is this a lightweight paperback, in the vein of so many publications by scientists who have lost the dividing line between science and science fiction. Rather, Galileo Was Wrong, is a work of monumental proportion which ranks, in my opinion, on a par with the meticulous observations of the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, and the tireless efforts of Walter van der Kamp who almost single-handedly raised geocentrism from the ashes in the 1970s and 80s. Although the World on which we all live gives an appearance of being located at the centre of the universe, is there any scientific evidence to say that it is at the centre? Conversely, is there scientific evidence to show that it definitely is not at the centre of the universe? What would a geocentric universe imply? To adequately contemplate these and similar questions necessitates our being in possession of facts, as opposed to simply making assumptions (even Albert Einstein took it as read that the World orbits the Sun, whilst acknowledging that there was no proof that this was indeed the case). In short, a formulated conclusion on such an important topic as this is only of value to anyone if it is based upon factual material. Galileo Was Wrong is a scholarly piece of work that should thus be welcomed by any thinking person, and that provides ample food for thought on our place within God's universe.
Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
Physics
Imperial College, London

Galileo Was Wrong is an evocative book. It evoked memories which have lain dormant since my undergraduate days: things like the disturbing conclusions of the Michelson-Morley experiments; things like Leibniz's critique of Newton's system as shot through with appeals to occult properties; things like the fact that no one, least of all Newton, can explain what gravity is or refute the materialists' conclusion that it is intrinsic to matter. In their new book, Sungenis and Bennett take no prisoners. They look all of the anomalies in the current cosmological system in the face without fear and come up with conclusions that will startle the followers of Carl Sagan out of their dogmatic slumbers. Truth to tell, Newton was turned into an idol to serve the political purposes of the Whigs, who used him to bring down the House of Bourbon across the English Channel. His cosmological system was used as a justification of the Enlightenment. Now that the Enlightenment is over, it was inevitable that the system upon which it was based should come in for the powerful critique which Sungenis and Bennett provide. Not inevitable, however, was the brilliant way they provide it.
E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.
Editor: Culture Wars

Ironically, aerospace engineers assume an "earth-centered, earth-fixed" coordinate system when launching and flying satellites. The Global Positioning System (GPS) does the same for navigation on earth and in space. In Galileo Was Wrong, Sungenis and Bennett examine the "anomalies" that arise from the Copernican model, anomalies that are swept under the rug by the same scientists who assume the earth is immobile in order to "simplify" complex problems. A must read for those who can set aside prejudices and a priori assumptions.
Joseph A. Strada, Ph.D.
Aerospace Engineer, NRO

The book, Galileo Was Wrong, forcefully addresses the history, science, theological, philosophical, and worldview implications of our place in the universe. It is virtually a one volume encyclopedia on geocentrism. After the science has been discussed and the history has been told, it is a powerful reminder of the worldview struggle that faces Christians today.
Russell T. Arndt, Ph.D.
Chemistry, L.S.U.

It takes some measure of discipline to collate and assemble, in cogent form, the relevant scholarship touching on the matter of geocentricity. The task is complicated in no small part by the diversity of viewpoint evident among the adherents to this admittedly dissident approach to astrophysics. Well-intentioned but poorly-executed attempts along such lines have tended to discredit the geocentric model, and it is not without reason that the opposition focuses attention on such blatant misfires (if they focus attention on the issue at all). This volume, however, achieves a cumulative effect that is formidable. No one geocentrist, aside from the authors, will agree with every scientific tenet in this work, and many geocentrists might detect the absence of their primary concerns or preferred theoretical alternatives, myself included. How could it be otherwise? If the book were to be fully comprehensive, it could never enter print, its completion being diverted by continual data acquisition. It is right, then, that this effort storms the field in the powerful form it already exhibits, and it is my hope that it will become a living document, growing in value as new updated editions are issued.

I am not a Roman Catholic. Some may find it inexplicable that someone like myself, from the Protestant side of the aisle, would write an endorsement for this project. I believe that in the matter before us, we'd have to credit sectarian tunnel-vision for giving rise to such perplexity. My appreciation for the monumental labors of Drs. Sungenis and Bennett does not entail my adopting their views concerning the weight of Patristic evidence, for instance (although the difference between us is one of degree), and my endorsement of their work does not imply my repudiation of sola scriptura, among other distinctively Protestant positions. The critical question involves the value of the specific scholarship being presented. Just as the Chalcedon Foundation, a Protestant Christian educational institution, published the work of Notre Dame Universityâ€™s Prof. Edward J. Murphy due to the importance of his work, so it is fitting and right to extol this particular compendium for so clearly demonstrating that the emperor's wardrobe is not merely diaphanous, it's positively massless (or expressed more plainly, the emperor, modern science, is wearing no clothes).

It is with pleasure that I remand this volume into the hands of the reader, whether he or she is an atheistic scoffer, a Roman Catholic inquirer, a Protestant polemicist, an Evangelical skeptic, or is otherwise motivated to re-open an issue heretofore thought, wrongly, to have been settled nearly four centuries ago. I would recommend approaching this work with as open a mind as you can muster. More importantly, I would urge the Christian reader to come to grips with our built-in, and very human, "lust for credibility", our desire to have "friendship with the world" and retain "the praise of man", all of which have sapped our resolve and lead to slippery-slope compromises that continue to lead men into the ditch. This is all the more remarkable, insofar as the present volume exposes the dark, seamy underside of modern science and its Janus-like propensity for speaking out of both sides of its mouth simultaneously. For the critic consulting the volume with the sole intent of attacking it, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett have provided the right thing indeed: a big, fat, juicy target. Therefore, let the debate begin in earnest. With documentation this thorough, the opposition can be quickly called on the carpet for misquotation or taking points out of context. Such interaction with hostile critics can only strengthen future editions of this work. If more Christians would raise the bar like these two authors have done, we would more readily perceive that the Word of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers ... and will continue to do so.
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation

Once upon a time, there was a big bang. It filled the sky with debris that formed into stars and planets. One planet developed a special slime that brought forth plants, animals, and men. The men became wise and discovered the truths of the universe. Or did they? Fairy tales have their place, but they should not be confused with science. Why has speculation come to replace observation as the basis of science? Galileo Was Wrong takes a critical look at the thesis that the Earth is flying through space. Here you will find an thorough review of the scientific observations along with a review of the scientists themselves. You will see how their unquestioning support of the thesis led them to redefine the nature of the universe. You will have the evidence to make up your mind for yourself. Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett have done a great service to science and to men of good will. Those who see the universe as the handiwork of the benevolent God need no longer be subservient to fairy tales.
Anonymous, Ph.D.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Galileo Was Wrong is an amazing work which opened my mind to many things in the field of astronomy and cosmology. I am grateful to Robert Sungenis and his co-author Robert Bennett for this lucid, philosophically powerful and meticulously documented work. Looking at cosmology from the point of view of the "discredited" geocentric theory is a remarkable educational approach, and one that could be applied with profit to many fields today. Western culture reveals a hardening of the arteries of thinking all across the spectrum, and the recovery and exposition of alternative and dissenting views will be necessary to its regeneration. By its very nature, the geocentric theory occupies a central axis in this sclerosis of imagination and imperviousness to reality that so degrades the intellectual functioning of Western leaders and elites today. Many bad habits and automatic assumptions sprang from the rejection of geocentrism, and even to detail these, as Galileo Was Wrong does, is an achievement in itself. But there is more than excavation here. Galileo Was Wrong is a model for the kind of scholarship we need today- intellectual understanding not as an end in itself, but as a commitment to reality, infused with moral passion, love for the earth, common sense and philosophical sensitivity. We don't need "new knowledge" as the peer-reviewed science establishment keeps forever intoning so much as the ability to do things, and see things, differently. In our moral darkness, Galileo Was Wrong opens up an important path to the reconnection of thought and life.
Caryl Johnston, M. Ed., M.L.S.
Jerfferson Medical College
Author: Consecrated Venom

Communist East Germany: Youth Indoctrination

2006-11-21T12:53:00.000-08:00

In East Germany, as well as most other communist countires, the philosophy of naturalistic materialism was implanted to try and replace Christianity and other Western thought. The youth, of course, were the target in the GDR (German Democratic Republic, or DDR in German). I want to point out some of the methods used to break the spirit of the youth and indoctrinate them into this atheistc philosophy.

The GDR implemented a concept called Jugendweihe (literally "youth consecration"), a rite of passage for 14 year olds. This source describes Jugendweihe :

Building on a socialist tradition, the GDR worked hard to establish the Jugendweihe, something of a rite of passage for 14-year-olds. It was intended, among other things, to replace the Christian ceremony of Confirmation, and inspire the youth with a love of socialism and the German Democratic Republic. By 1989, over 5,000 committees involving 150,000 volunteers organized the ceremonies. Leading up to the ceremony itself was a series of meetings to prepare participants for the event, and remind them of the glories of socialism. This is material for leaders of one such session in 1960. It is interesting that Stalin's works are still recommended reading...

[From primary material]

...The youth should recognize:

1. We need the scientific worldview of the working class if we are to really understand the social transformations and the great events of our day and are to contribute consciously to building socialism, the future of humanity.

2. The worldview of the working class is not just any "faith" in the progress of humanity, but rather a scientifically-based understanding of the world and its laws, whose truth and correctness are constantly proven by new scientific-technical achievements.

3. With the help of a scientific worldview we can not only explain everything in nature and society, but also become capable of changing the world in ways that put it in the service of human progress. It is therefore a weapon of the working class.

4. The socialist worldview gives people the strength to fight bravely for the best ideals of humanity...

...With the example of two contradictory characters from the book or the film, we can make clear that there are differing worldviews, progressive and reactionary, which despite differences in detail lead back to two fundamental worldviews: the materialist scientific, and the idealistic unscientific.

The boys and girls should understand why we speak of the materialist worldview of the working class as the scientific worldview. (We do not discuss religious views of the world, and do not want to discuss other idealistic worldviews.)

The working class depends on the discoveries of astronomy, physics and chemistry, and bases its worldview on the discoveries of natural sciences as well as on the knowledge of the laws that govern the life of society,...

One book used to "guide" the youth through this process is called Der Sozialismus- Deine Welt (Socialism- your world. Note that the form of "you" used is very personal and intimate, as opposed to the formal "Ihre").

(Verlag Neues Leben, Berlin, 1975 )

(To the memory of the Jugendweihe dedicated by the Central committee for Jugendweihe in the German Democratic Republic)

In this book, there are some clear elements of removing hope from the youth and teaching them that there only choice is to join the socialist cause. First the youth are taught that man is a descendant of apes.

Next the youth are shown how man had to struggle for hundreds of thousands of years (after "evolving" for millions) to get to the technological point they now have established.

Then the youth are told that the earth travels around the sun; and basically they are told that we are nothing but an averaged sized planet, travelling around an averaged sized sun, in an average sized galaxy,...

Next God (and thus Christianity / Judaism) is mocked:

How could a society which teaches their youth these things expect to survive?

John Paul II's Special Mission?

2006-11-20T00:00:00.000-08:00

Many popes have a special mission they are most remebered for- fighting a crusade, condeming Galileo (Urban VIII), etc. John Paul II was remebered for being a very loving and well travelled pope. I wonder if many of us missed one of his most important missions. Much of his travel was to third world countries, where often he was received graciously. Of course he was also well received in "first world" countries, but not always listened to (i.e., altar "girls", women priests, contraception, etc.). In third world countries, the Church has grown, while in first world it is shrinking.

I keep hearing from many places that people are meeting their need for new priests by getting them from other countries- often third world ones. I wonder if while the West was ignoring the Church, JPII was not planting seeds in the third world, now bearing fruit. Is it possible that the third world will come back to the US (both in terms of priests and possible lay people) and Europe to re-evangilize us?

In the "first world" we have it good, and we used our influence to demand things from the Vatican. In the third world, perhaps a visit from the pope was seen as a sign of hope more than another opportunity to try and make changes. In any case, this seems plausible. If it occured, I do not know whether it was deliberate on JPII's part, or guidance of the Holy Spirit, but it does seem possible.

Maciej Giertych in Polish Radio Interview: Evolution (Geocentrism Mentioned)

2006-10-19T08:13:00.000-07:00

The English language Radio Polonia interviewed Maciej Giertych Oct. 16th, 2006. The discussion was regarding a desire for a scholarly debate on evolution. Representing evolution science was Kielan-Jaworowska. The interview was actually reasonably fair, and the establishment science side came off as arrogant.

Giertych started with:

I am a scientist, I am a geneticist, my specialty is population genetics and I reject the theory of evolution on the basis of the field of science I represent. I find that in many fields of science there are scientists who reject the theory of evolution because in their fields they also find evidence against the theory.

Next he voiced his concern on Darwinianism in education:

Schools are teaching evolution as a fact and there seems to be very little reference to new research that would either support or negate the theory of evolution. There is so much new evidence that is being simply ignored by the school textbooks.

At this point the voice of establishment science was brought in, equating anti-evolution to geocentrism (Kielan-Jaworowska):

There are people who still believe that not the earth is going round the sun but the sun round the earth. His views have nothing to do with science; I would not call him a scientist. We are deeply ashamed that he got the title of a professor and that he is a biologist.

Yes, Ms. Kielan-Jaworowska, there are those who look at the evidence rather than worshipping at the altar of science. Some of us are glad that a few people with the title 'professor' are willing to have an open mind.

Later Giertych made a statement regarding working with established science:

The proponents of the theory of evolution are not prepared to sit down and look at the evidence and present their own evidence for the theory of evolution. Debates on the subject immediately develop into philosophical conflict, a lot of emotions are involved and a tendency to label the other side as ignorant, as motivated ideologically - whereas what is needed is a serious scientific debate and confrontation of results.

Kielan-Jaworowska predictably supported Giertych's contention in her next segment:

I don't think scientific discussion with him is possible.

The radio show in Catholic Poland ended in a manner not likely in the US or much of western Europe (announcer Joanna Najfeld ):

The liberal archbishop Życiński of Lublin, has criticized Prof. Giertych's call for scholarly debate. However the official Catholic Church position on the subject was reiterated by the late Polish Pope, John Paul II, who in a 1996 statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences said, "fresh knowledge leads to recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."

Kielan-Jaworowska

You can listen to the interview here. A decent English transcript is available here.

Evolution Debate in Poland / Europe Continuing

2006-10-16T09:33:00.000-07:00

As a follow-up to the last two stories on evolution, it appears the world press is picking up on the story. The Daily News and Analysis of India (www.dnaindia.com) posted a story Saturday concerning the comments by Polands's Deputy Education Minister:

Daily News & Analysis (India) 14 October 2006
Link to original

WARSAW: Poland's deputy education minister called for the influential evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin not to be taught in the country's schools, branding them as lies in comments published on Saturday. "The theory of evolution is a lie, an error that we have legalised as a common truth," Miroslaw Orzechowski, the deputy minister in the country's right-wing coalition government, was quoted as saying...

Here is the tie in to European Parliament Lectured on Macro-Evolution :

Orzechowski called for a debate on whether Darwin's theory should be taught in schools. "We should not teach lies, just as we should not teach bad instead of good, or ugliness instead of beauty," he said.

"We are not going to withdraw Darwin's theory from the school books, but we should start to discuss it," he added.

The deputy minister is a member of a Catholic far-right political group, the League of Polish Families. The league's head, Roman Giertych, is education minister in the conservative coalition government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski.

Giertych's father Maciej, who represents the league in the European Parliament, organised a discussion there last week on Darwinism. He described the theory as not supported by proof and called for it to be removed from school books...

A couple of related items:

The Polish News Bulletin (www.PNB.pl), an English language Polish news service posted this as their quote of the day Saturday (oct. 14th):

Evolution is one of the many lies taught in schools.
Miroslaw Orzechowski, deputy education minister

Also, Truth in Science (www.truthinscience.org.uk) picked up on the Paliament story at this link.

Interview With Dominique Tassot on Evolution

2006-10-13T12:51:00.000-07:00

Interview with Dominque Tassot
By John L. Allen Jr.
NCR senior correspondent
(original document available here)

EXCERPTS FROM THE LINKED DOCUMENT FOLLOW

[Note from Mark Wyatt: I highly recommend the entire interview. Get it at the above link]

On Aug. 22, 2006, Allen interviewed Dominique Tassot, director of Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (“Center for Studies and Prospectives on Science” or CEP), a group of 700 European Catholic scientists and intellectuals based in France. They discussed evolution, science and intelligent design.

NCR: Can you describe the Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science?
TASSOT: It was formally founded in 1997, though that was really the transformation of a preexisting informal group of people into an organization. We’re mainly a French-speaking association. We publish an in-house quarterly, CEP, and sponsor an annual conference. We have 700 members, with about half of them being scientists. There are also historians, religious men and women, and others. We publish some materials on the history of science. The main axis around which our interest revolves, however, is a critical approach to evolutionary theory.

Would you say it’s a Catholic organization?
Yes. Not all members are Catholic, but certainly the most influential members are Catholics.

What is your scientific training?
I graduated from the Paris School of Mines, which is an elite school of engineering. I studied mathematics, physics and chemistry. In my professional career I worked in metallurgy plants, not in a teaching or research centers. Many members of CEP, however, are involved in full-time teaching and research.

Do you have any relationship with the French bishops?
Yes. Bishop Henri Marie Raoul Brincard of the diocese of Le Puy-en-Velay, for example, is a friend. (Le Puy-en-Velay is an important Marian shrine and pilgrimage destination in France). In fact, it was through Brincard that I was able to get a letter to Benedict XVI about evolution directly on the desk of the pope. I wrote the letter before the New York Times article on evolution by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, but sent it afterwards.

What did you say in this letter?
I made two points. First, I reminded that the pope that Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 suggested a debate inside the Catholic Church on evolutionary theory, but it has never happened. I said that it’s now time to open the debate, because in each discipline we can find people on both sides, which was not the case in the 1950s.

Second, I said that the impact of this debate is not just scientific. In itself, evolution is a scientific question, but it has consequences on a much larger scale. It opens a possibility for the church to regain the initiative in the field of culture. Right now, Catholic intellectuals spend their time explaining that such-and-such a theory is or is not compatible with the faith, which means that the initiative is always coming from other groups or movements. What’s important is the possibility for the church, for Christians, to reestablish an autonomous world view. The concept of creation is important in this regard. Today, most people believe that truth is given by science and the church reacts to it. If you accept that science gives the truth, inevitably Christian intellectuals will all move inside a scientific worldview which is actually foreign to Christianity.

What was the pope’s response?
He responded very positively, offering a blessing for our members and encouraging us to continue with our contacts with the scientific world. He didn’t say anything, however, about the idea of creating a commission or some other vehicle for launching a debate.

What was your reaction to the op/ed piece of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in the New York Times last July?
Schönborn didn’t say that Darwin is or is not compatible with the Christian faith, but that Darwinism is wrong. From a theoretical point of view, that’s quite different. He affirmed that it’s possible for philosophy and theology to attain certainties which are higher than scientific certainties. That’s something new from theologians. For three or four centuries, theologians have generally followed the scientists, taken their lead from the sciences. This is a question of intellectual authority, and of course it stems from the Galileo case and so on. Little by little, authority has shifted from theologians to the scientists.

Once again, the question is whether it’s possible to recover an autonomous Christian worldview, within which science has its own very important place. To have a place, however, is very different from being the frame within which everything is set.

What are your thoughts on the Sept. 1-3 meeting of Pope Benedict’s Schülerkreis?
In my letter to Benedict XVI, I advised him that he should remain the master of this debate. By that I meant that he shouldn’t delegate it to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, even though I couldn’t quite say it that way. Even though it’s not possible for me to see all the influences behind the Schülerkreis, I suspect the pope has the aim of using the Schülerkreis to test new opinions and to review them. For me that’s very important, though I don’t know what the result will be.

What are your concerns with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?
The problem is that it’s not a Catholic academy. Instead, it’s the place where the scientific worldview can enter inside the Catholic Church. Two-thirds of its members are not Catholic. It’s also the pontifical academy with the greatest number of Noble Prize winners, who are very well known in their disciplines. I’m not questioning the quality of these people, but the meaning and use of this academy inside the church.

Do you see the Centre d’Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science as an alternative to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences?
I wouldn’t say that. I would say instead that it’s a place where the debate that has gone on for many years can take place. My concern is simply that the Pontifical Academy for Sciences exists almost by itself, and I’m not sure it’s the tool for the pope that it should be.

Can you cite any prominent scientists who belong to your group?
I’d mention Guy Berthault, whose work on the dating of sedimentary remains is highly relevant for this debate, as well as interesting from the point of view of the history of science. Evolution relies from the beginning on an extremely long chronology of the earth, which is based in turn on sedimentary theory. Basically, the idea is that when you find many different strata of sedimentary rocks, the strata at bottom is older than those on top, and the whole complex took a extremely long time to form. It seems so obvious that for two centuries geologists didn’t question the underlying principle...

[snipped]

When you say that evolution does not have a sound scientific basis, are you talking about micro-evolution (development within species) or macro-evolution (development from one species to another)?
I mean macro-evolution. This, by the way, is what makes the book Truth and Tolerance (2003) by then-Cardinal Ratzinger so interesting, because he’s one of the few theologians who understands this distinction. Normally people talk about ‘evolution’ but they don’t distinguish, and it’s impossible to say anything meaningful that way.

You may remember that in his New York Times piece, Cardinal Schönborn said something fairly incredible about the 1996 text of John Paul II that termed evolution ‘more than a hypothesis.’ Schönborn called that text ‘rather vague and unimportant.’ Many people were surprised to hear him talk about a papal text that way, but it’s actually very easy to understand. ‘Evolution’ is never defined in that text. In philosophy, we are supposed to define everything, but that was not the case here.

The phrase ‘more than a hypothesis’ was actually a reference to Humani Generis. [Note: Pius XII in that encyclical referred to evolution as a ‘hypothesis.’] But what does this formula mean? What does it mean to be ‘more than a potato’? It means nothing without further definition and distinction.

[snipped]

You said Pope Benedict is one of the few theologians who distinguishes between micro and macro-evolution. What do you know about his thinking on the subject?
For one thing, Pope Benedict became familiar with the discoveries of Professor Berthault many years ago, from the time he was a cardinal. He met Berthault at a conference center and spent several days with him, quite by accident. This is a center in the Alps that Ratzinger used as a meeting place for a theological conference, and Berthault was one of the directors of the association that owned the place. Ratzinger came several times over a period of years, and got to know Berthault. I think that has had some influence on him. It was an opportunity for him to see that even on the scientific questions surrounding evolution, debate is possible. Most people think that the findings of science are completely established and are beyond discussion. They think it’s the way it’s presented in textbooks in school. But those textbooks are the result of a long process, which in itself is not so simple. Science doesn’t give definite certainties.

[snipped]

What do you expect from the Schülerkreis meeting?
I expect that the debate will go further. Some months ago, Cardinal Schönborn published an essay in First Things on this subject that I found interesting, and I translated it into French. I sent it to him along with my letter to the pope. In reply, Schönborn said that the debate is going on, and he’s delighted with that. At the time, I was unsure of what Schönborn was thinking, because what he was saying at that time was unclear.

What I hope the meeting at Castelgandolfo means is that this scientific debate will interest philosophers and theologians more and more. For many theologians, the very fact that there’s a debate within science is something new.

Do you think Benedict XVI will make a formal statement on evolution?
I think it is too early. I think he’s using the meeting of his Schülerkreis to give a broader extension to the debate. But even if he himself knows where he wants to go, and I believe he does, it will take more time. Most Catholic intellectuals today are convinced that evolution is obviously true because most scientists say so. To show that debate is possible on scientific grounds, and also on philosophical and theological grounds, is more than a question of a few months. In the meantime, what I see is that in his normal daily teaching, Benedict is providing some glimpse into the importance of creation and so on. I do not expect, however, an official theological statement quickly.

You say you think you know where the pope wants to go. Where is that?
In the past, Cardinal Ratzinger was convinced that evolution was true, and being an intelligent man, he devised a way to make it compatible with theological truth. Today I think his view is different. Some years ago, he began to understand that there is a difference between micro and macro-evolution, which is an important point for him. At a conference in Germany, he actually said that this was one of the most important experiences of his life. The fact that he devoted three pages to the subject of evolution in Truth and Tolerance is by itself abnormal. He grasps that micro and macro-evolution are not the same, and I think he believes people accepted an atheistic world view in relation to evolution because they accepted the confusion between micro and macro-evolution. He wants people to understand this important truth.

If he doesn’t make a statement, how will he do this?
I think he will use Cardinal Schönborn once more, or perhaps several more times. They know each other well, Schönborn understands where the pope wants to go, and together they are devising a way. Sometimes the best way to get from A to B is not by a direct path. The first thing is to let people know that debate is possible. Ultimately, the solution will be given by science, because evolution in itself is a scientific question. But it’s important to let theologians know that within the scientific world, debate is not only possible, but it’s happening right now. For the moment, only that will change the minds of theologians, because in too many cases their thoughts are subordinate to science.

European Parliament Lectured on Macro-Evolution

2006-10-12T23:24:00.000-07:00

PRESS RELEASE
C.E.P. - s.cep@wanadoo.fr

Information: research conducted by Dr. G. Berthault
http://geology.ref.ac/berthault

Wednesday, October 11th was an historic day in the life of the European Parliament.

Polish member of the European Parliament, Maciej Giertych, retired head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Science, and father of Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Roman Giertych, introduced a public seminar on the General Theory of Evolution to fellow MEP's.

Professor Giertych questioned the value of teaching a continually falsified hypothesis - macroevolution - to students throughout Europe, as well as pointing out its lack of usefulness in regard to scientific endeavour.

Professor Giertych introduced the subject by relating how his children had returned home from school having been taught about the theory of evolution. They were told that the proof of macroevolution - the common ancestry of biological life - was to be found in the science of genetics. This was news to Professor Giertych who had spent his life working at the highest level of genetic research. He revealed to the meeting that such proof does not exist in genetics, only disproof.

This was reinforced by the speech of Professor Emeritus Joseph Mastropaolo who had travelled from the USA to participate in the Brussels hearing. He explained that the biological sciences offer no empirical proof of macroevolution, just insurmountable problems. The theory of evolution consists merely of interpretational evidences which by their very nature could be interpreted in many different ways. He told the audience that the theory, after more than 150 years, still lacked any empirical proof.

Dr. Hans Zillmer, a German Palaeontologist and member of the New York Academy of Sciences, told the meeting that the fossil record holds no proof for evolution theory either. Instead of showing gradual change from one species to another, as is often claimed in the classroom, it actually reveals the stasis and stability of life forms.

[Note 10/22/2006: As pointed out in the comment by hexene, Dr. Zillmer does not in fact claim a title in paleantology. He has written on the topic according to his own biography]

Finally, Dr. Guy Berthault spoke to the audience about the results of his empirical research programmes concerning the deposition of sediments. Contrary to the established idea that the geologic column was formed slowly over millions of years, horizontal layer by layer, he revealed that his ongoing research proves empirically that the whole column could have been laid down in a matter of months. His research, which has been published in journals of the National Academy of Sciences in France and Russia [Note: 11/21/2006, I removed China as the original source indicates this may be inaccurate] , shows that continuous deposition of water borne sediments sort themselves mechanically and a simple change in current velocity cause strata to build upon each other whilst still progressing in the direction of flow.

[Note from Mark Wyatt: Sounds a bit like the new technology of fluidic self assembly ]

In opposition to the existing notion of sediment deposition that is generally taught, Dr. Berthault revealed that his empirical experimental results clearly show that parts of undisturbed lower strata are actually younger than parts of higher strata laid down in a continuous flow.

This means that fossils can not be dated by the strata that they are found in, nor the rocks dated by the type of fossils found in them and makes nonsense of the geologic column as it is currently taught.

Amongst those helping to organise the historic seminar were Dr. Dominique Tassot, Director of Centre d'Etude et de Prospectives sur la Science (C.E.P). C.E.P. is an organisation consisting of 700 French speaking scientists, intellectuals and representatives of other professions, all of whom oppose evolutionary theory on scientific grounds.

NY Times Spins the Pope and Evolution: Robert Bennett, Ph.D. Comments

2006-09-04T21:04:00.000-07:00

Robert Bennett is the co-author of Galileo Was Wrong and a member of the advisory council of the Kolbe Center for the study of Creation.

Quotes from New York Times, September 2, 2006, Ian Fischer. Responses from Robert Bennett, Ph.D.

Professor-Turned-Pope Leads a Seminar on Evolution

They meet every year, the eminent German professor and his old doctoral students, for a weekend of high-minded talk on a chosen topic. For years it was nothing more than that.

But now the professor, once called Joseph Ratzinger, has become Pope Benedict XVI. And this year, for three days beginning Friday, the topic on the table is evolution, an issue perched on the ever more contentious front between science and belief.

And so the questions rise as the meeting unfolds at a papal palace just outside Rome. Is this merely another yearly seminar? Or is the leader of the world’s billion Roman Catholics signaling that he may join in earnest the emotional debate over evolution, intelligent design and all that might mean for politics and faith, especially in the United States?

[Robert Bennett] The topic was chosen by the seminar participants last year, with the Pope's concurrence, of course. If there is any 'signaling' being done, it's by them, not the Pope.

There is no way to know immediately, though many church experts believe that the pope has fewer problems with the science of evolution than with its use to wipe God more cleanly from a secular world. No document will be published afterward, no news conference given.

But the seminar comes after a year particularly fraught over the issue of evolution, in America — with the fight over intelligent design — and in the church. Last year a leading cardinal, who will speak at the meeting, expressed doubts that Darwinism and Catholicism were compatible, and the pope declared the creation of the universe an “intelligent project.”

And so scientists and believers from around the world, on all sides of an extraordinarily charged debate, are watching the meeting carefully.

Proponents of intelligent design, defeated in a high-profile court case last year in Pennsylvania, say they are pleased that their ideas, which posit that life is so complex that it requires an active creator, may get a fair hearing in the lofty circles of Professor Ratzinger’s seminars.

[Robert Bennett] Will the seminarians be pleased that ID pleads ignorance on the Designer's identity?

“I think this is indicative of an opening and expansion of the discussion, the discussion over Darwinism and evolution generally,” said Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, one of the main proponents of intelligent design. “It’s very helpful to our desire to see an expanded dialogue in many quarters.”

On the other side, scientists and theologians who support evolution say they worry that, even inadvertently, the church may be driving a wedge between itself and science.

[Robert Bennett] There can be no wedge between the true Church and true science, only between that Church and modernist science. (see Fides et Ratio). Unfortunately the modern Church and the science of modernism are very comfortable with each other.

“If for some reason the Catholic Church gets on the wrong side of the science, then it’s going to in the long term do huge damage, just as it did when they went against Galileo,” said Lawrence M. Krauss, chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University and a highly visible opponent of intelligent design. “It threatened their credibility.”

[Robert Bennett] Dr. Krauss was a leader of the modernists screaming for a papal correction of Cardinal Schoenborn's NYTimes article which seemed to support creationism. Since then Vatican damage control has acceded to his wishes.
But the evolution issue is obviously still seen as a threat to the accommodation of the Church to mod sci.

So the devil's drumbeat continues : the modernist claims of credibility invariably return to the strawman of Galileo vs. geocentrism. One can take it to be the logo of modernism, its defining mark and the signature stamp of the demon, the bludgeon by which orthodox dissent is beaten into silence.

[Mark Wyatt: Note that Dr. Krauss was also a source for Dru Sefton's little rampage against Robert Sungenis]

“Because like it or not,” he added, “evolution happened.”

[Robert Bennett] A firm and unquestioned tenet of the Constantly Revised Modernist Church - CRMC

The meeting opened Friday morning at Castel Gandolfo, a papal palace that stands as a sort of symbol for the church’s coexistence with science. Castel Gandolfo houses a world-class observatory — with a telescope that Pope John Paul II enjoyed looking through — built a century after the church acknowledged its mistake in condemning Galileo for his postulation that planets revolve around the sun.

[Robert Bennett] As this is the NY Times speaking, my friends say it must be the truth. But does anyone recall this acknowledgment or its date?

Technically, by using lower case 'church', Fisher could be referring to any religious congregation, not the Church. A convenient ambiguous out, but inconsistent with common usage.

Similarly, the church has moved from neutrality to something like acceptance of evolutionary theory, though drawing a thick bottom line that God is the ultimate creator.

[Robert Bennett] That bottom line seems to be getting thinner every day.

In 1996, Pope John Paul declared evolution “more than a hypothesis,” and in 2004 as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict endorsed the scientific view that the earth is roughly four billion years old and that species changed through evolution. Indeed, there has been no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, explains the diversity of life on earth.

[Robert Bennett] More of the stock weapons of modernism are displayed, treating papal opinions as dogmatic dictates by "natural selection" of two of their voluminous public statements.

The deceptive art of the NYTimes is seen clearly in the last sentence. Is this thought that of the two popes that preceed it? Only a phrase from the popes is directly quoted, out of context.

Is this falsehood the interpretation of the reporter, placed so as to imply it reflects papal thinking?

Given that history, scientists and church experts say they cannot imagine the study session ending with any alignment of the pope or the church with intelligent design or American-style creationism, which often posits that Earth is only about 6,000 years old...

[Robert Bennett] Elimination of creation consideration as a possibility is attempted by the pre-emptive statement implying its acceptance is unimaginable.

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. and Bro. Guy Consolmagno, Ph.D. Discuss Geocentrism on the BBC

2006-08-31T13:36:00.000-07:00

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. author of numerous books including Galileo Was Wrong and Bro. Guy Consolmagno, Ph.D. of the Vatican Observatory participated in a BBC discussion on intelligent design. It appeared that the BBC wanted to use geocentrism to discredit Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. The show was taped on the Today Show, BBC radio channel 4, Tuesday 8/29/2006.
[Note 9/1: At this point it is not clear that it aired or was pre-taped. Still the interview did take place. I changed 'aired live' to 'was taped']. Unfortunately it appears the audio was not included on the website, yet. Did the interview not go the way the BBC had hoped?

In summary, the BBC commentator tried to get Bro. Guy Consolmagno to speak against the idea of geocentrism, but he would not. He basically stated that he preferred to work in the heliocentric system because the math is easier.

Here is a couple of portions of the interview from Robert Sungenis' memory (what follows is from Robert Sungenis):

Interviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

Interviewer: "And who are these people?"

Sungenis: "Oh, people like Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour...."

At this point, the interviewer interupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: "Bro Consolmagno, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, let's put it this way. It's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."

At this point I could tell the intereviewer sensed that the whole thing was exploding in his face. So he tried to pin Consolmagno down to denying geocentrism.

Interviewer: "But Bro Consolmagno, we are talking here about reality. Regardless of whether the math works easier, is it true or not that the sun goes around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, like I said, it's easier to work with the earth going around the sun."

There were more things said, but I can't remember them now, but the above is an accurate rendition of how the conversation went. In brief, Consolmagno would not admit to the interviewer that the sun did not go around the earth.

La Salette: Geocentric Chapel?

2006-08-28T17:13:00.000-07:00

In the midst of the covering and veil, where the priests were allowed to enter, was situated the altar of incense, the symbol of the earth placed in the middle of this universe; and from it came the fumes of incense.
(St. Basil, The Mystic Meaning of the Tabernacle, Bk V, Ch VI; Clement of Rome, Stromata, Bk V)

Recently, I attended mass in the chapel at La Salette. While in the chapel, I noted that the the chapel was physically arranged in a way that could be described as representing a geocentric universe. I have no idea if this was intentional or not, but either way it can rightfully be described that way. The basic layout is as follows:

1. The chapel is semi-circular (i.e., representing half the universe);
2. There is a central half-cylinder (containing the Tabernacle)
3. The sanctuary and altar sit on a semi-circular platform
4. Multi-bulb lamps are arranged circumfrentially and radially outward from the tabernacle/altar/sanctuary.

It is a little difficult to see, but the following is a photograph of the chapel:

The lay-out is represented in a view from above, here:

The resemblance between this chapel and a geocentric universe goes beyond just the purposeful circumferential/radial arrangement of light clusters (representing galaxies). Think of the circumferential arrangement as the quantization effect (of galaxy or other redshifts) observed by astronmers today.

...D. Koo and R. Krone, two University of Chicago scientists, did
the same kind of redshift analysis on galaxies. Their results were
identical to Napier’s and Guthrie’s and even made it to the New York Times.
They conclude: “…the clusters of galaxies, each containing
hundreds of millions of stars, seemed to be concentrated in evenly
spaced layers” [i.e., concentric spheres around the Earth]...
Galileo Was Wrong, pg. 180

Think of the radial arrangement as representing the fact that all galaxies appear to be receding from us (the earth) wherever we look.

“…as we see only redshifts whichever direction we look in the sky,
the only way in which this could be consistent with a gravitational
explanation is if the Earth is situated at the center of an inhomogeneous Universe.”
P. C. W. Davies, “Cosmic Heresy?” Nature, 273:336, 1978. As quoted in Galileo Was Wrong.

Think of the presence of this structure as the alignment of the universe with the earth- as has been observed in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CBR):

The large-angle correlations of the cosmic microwave
background exhibit several statistically significant anomalies
compared to the standard inflationary cosmology…The correlation
of the normals with the ecliptic poles …Physical
correlation of the CMB with the equinoxes is difficult to
imagine, since the WMAP satellite has no knowledge of the
inclination of the Earth’s spin axis.
Dominik J. Schwarz, Glenn D. Starkman, Dragan Huterer and Craig J. Copi, “Is the Low-l Microwave Background Cosmic?” Physical Review Letters, November 26, 2004, pp. 221301-1 to 4. Excerpted from Galileo Was Wrong.

Galileo Was Wrong contains much more evidence that modern science does "see" us at the center of the universe. They simply choose to ignore this evidence (and as proven in the book, they admit this). Thus, faith- represented by this chapel, is necassary to open ones mind to this possibility.

La Salette Secrets II

2006-08-25T20:13:00.000-07:00

After writing this original article, La Salette Secrets, I ordered the book Découverte du secret de La Salette, by René Laurentin and Michel Corteville (published by Fayard, France). I was wondering if they gave credence to the controversial secrets of Melanie Calvat (the ones she published in 1879 with imprimatur of Bishop Zola of Leece, Italy; though recall that the bishop was later reprimanded for premitting publication). It was in this version of the secret (which now thanks to the book I have learned is the 8th version) that the infamous line "Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist" was written. This is one of the lines that earned the secret and all books, brochures, etc., that contained it a place on the Index. (Of course the one way to view this statement is that Rome is not the same as the Vatican, at least not anymore).

Never the less, I was interested in what the authors take was on this secret. I still do not know completely, because I do not know French. Undaunted I undertook the task of attempting translation of some of the relevant material to try and understand where the authors stand on this. The book, by the way does have imprimatur (Nihil obstat, Abbaye Notre-Dame de Tournay, 13 férvier 2002, Dom Bernard Billet; Imprimatur, Évry, le jour Pâques 2002, + Mgr Michel Dubost).

The translations were accomplished starting with a machine translation, then using an online French dictionary and other resources to try and complete the translation. I apologize in advance for any errors.

René Laurentin writes a foreward, explaining how Michel Corteville discovered the original secrets sent by the seers (Melanie and Maximin) to pope Pius IX. He also lays the groundwork for the book in this foreward. Here are some out-takes:

Revealing the secrets of Salette: is this an event, and which event?

(Dévoilement du secret de La Salette : est-ce un événement, et quel événement?)

After the third part of the secret of Fatima, revealed by the pope John-Paul II, on May 13, 2000, here the secrets of La Salette are revealed in its turn, together with other neglected documents.

The very first version [of the secret] of the two shepherds, addressed to the pope Pius IX, seemed lost, according to the response of the Congregation of the Faith to the father Jean Stem, then archivist of the Missionaries of Salette, who had not spared his efforts to find this official version, collected in 1851 by Msgr. Bruililad and handed-over to pope Pius IX by two canons of his See.

Since then, in 1998, Mgr Bertone, secretary of this congregation, opened to the researchers the former files of deceased pope Leo XIII (November 20, 1903). Thus the abbot Michel Corteville, who made his thesis in Rome, is the first to search this file, and found the lost secrets.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an interesting point. Leo XIII had a prophetic dream of portraying the ravaging of the Church by the forces of evil and, when one considers what the Church had to endure in the 20th century, one can see the Pope’s dream was frighteningly prophetic. One wonders if his interest in La Salette is related to this dream?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To discover it, it was necessary to be prepared there. If it is to be discussed, Michel Corteville has been familiar with this apparition as of his childhood. His father, Fernand CorteviIle, had been interested since the foundation, in 1958, of a group of researchers in the wake of Jacques Maritain, whose monumental work on La Salette has yet to be published. The abbot Corteville had been informed thus of La Salette quite sufficiently. After having passed his Spanish degree, then of theology in Rome, he being impassioned for La Salette, devoted his degree dissertation to it, then his doctoral thesis. After four years of ministry in Africa and nine in Mexico, he successfully supports this thesis with the faculty of Angelicum, in Rome. It counts more than thousand pages. The first volume begins at Téqui under the title the Great News of the Shepherds of La Salette. The first volume has just appeared in May 2001, the second, devoted to the life of Melanie and in the Rule which was revealed to him, will be published later on. It highlights the interest of this ignored text, which inspired since several religious foundations.

This thesis is a treasure house of documents, the non-specialist can be overwhelmed, thus this shorter book is to answer the questions raised passionately since then. I had advised Michel considering the length of his work, that I have fears that his discovery of October 1999, be not stolen from him by some media company. As soon as possible, I published a special article in Christians Magazine to publicly ensure the paternity of his discovery to him: too many researchers are surreptitiously stripped by others of their original discoveries, because the primacy of their publication is taken.

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

The interview from Christians Magazine is in the book. I have not had a chance to review it (my lack of French certainly being an impediment).

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

The fragmentary knowledge of the documents left room to multiple interrogations . The many texts discovered renew the question, to such an extent debated. The critical tendency clarified the unsophisticated aspect of the limits and weaknesses of the seers (especially Maximin). But a broad spectrum of Christian authors of reputation - Leon Bloy, Maritain, Claudel, Massignon and others - distinguished and admired the sincerity or even the holiness of the two shepherds, (especially Melanie). The debate was opened by the same hierarchy. Since, unlike Msgr of Bruillard who recognized the appearance, and held in regard the two seers, his successor Mgr Ginoulhiac, who was to continue La Salette, sacri: (?) trusted the seers however, "The mission of the shepherds is finished. that of the Church starts", he declared on September 19, 1855 as carved in stone.

This critical program thus was essential to Péres of La Salette as to the clergy of the diocese, and for this reason they deepened the negative side of the life of the seers. The matter did not miss a step to the hour when psychology unilaterally revolutionized spirituality . Those who were trusted to dicern the profound value of the two shepherds gave the appearance of outsiders then: as Maritain does not dare it to plead the cause of Melanie in front of Dom Delatte, abbot of Solesmes, as by describing himself as "layman being unaware, makes indignant Christian, poor philosopher" (letter of March 2, 1912, below p. 219).

According to the dominant assumption, the seers were under "since 1847" the illuminated and scheming dominion of the royalists. The documents put into perspective today the contrary political influences. Maximin dissuaded the count de Chambord ("Henry V") to aspire to the royalty, and Melanie accepted the principle of the Rallying of the Catholics to the republic preached by pope Leo XIII. These examples let us foresee at which point the stereotypes and hasty generalizations are to be re-examined.

But the core of the problem, the object of the conclusion, is the holiness of the poor about which the Gospel speaks. It is often disconcerting and is ignored, in spite of recent grateful efforts to bring acknowledgement, beside canonizations of popes, bishops, doctors, founders, kings or national heroes, those of the holy beggar Benoit Labre and other individuals: humble mothers, laymen of the home and children, according to the wish of Daniel Ange.

This volume thus will try to answer in short the burning questions , and discuss on every level, according to the following plan:

1. Initially, the essential account of the appearance;

2. One will see the father Michel Corteville telling his discovery and his principal conclusions in answer to the questions of the abbot Laurentin (interview in Christians Magazine of March 15, 2002 where premiered).
3. One will examine then the problems raised by the fundamental message of Fatima: the apparent dedication which served it.

4. One will read then the complete text of the "secrets" in the six successive forms which were preserved. We will add to it what the principal interlocutors of the seers say.

5. How to think of this apparition - "recognized" - which caused so much enthusiasm, Joris Karl Huysmans, Leon Bloy, Claudel, Maritain, Massignon, but also criticism? What did the popes say of them?

6. What to think of the seers, constantly subjected to terrible contradictory attacks: indiscreet enthusiasms, contradictions and slanderings? Are they stupid, or intelligent? Balanced or not? Unstable or stable? Confused or coherent? Poor or holy?

7. What to think of the secrets and a dozen predictions so variously judged? Their versions hold them to a confusion of spirit or the diversity of the circumstances in which they expressed it unused to remember, more of rich images than of words? The long version, proper to Melanie, is it a late and subjective extrapolation through the years 1860 - 1879: "La Salette II", after "La Salette I"? Would this be a heterogeneous extrapolation? Is this is on the contrary a testimony of her fidelity with the gradual disclosure according to instructions' of Our Lady, as it is divulged at Fatima and elsewhere?

8. Lastly, it is essential to present the Rule of La Salette, the charter received from the Virgin by Melanie, on September 19, 1846, but only written in 1853 in short form, and completely in 1876. It is, to some extent, a complement of the secret in its practical and eschatologic dimensions: its positive, constructive, evangelic face.

One finds there (topics and terms) the prophecy of Grignion de Montfort on the apostles of last times (this expression being explicit only in the text of 1876). Melanie, was not able to found the order which she wished according to this revealed rule, as it seemed a utopia without interest nor fruits. But pope Leo XIII took it into account in 1878, and since then it inspired, with various degrees, several congregations: those of the happy Jacques Cusmano and Annibale di Francia. More recently, the Brothers of Saint Jean took their first steps in his spirit. A Mexican community was founded, in Merida, according to this rule, clear and contemplative, apostolic and eschatologic, in short evangelic. The Hurtubise father, Canadian, had undertaken, in the same direction, a foundation where the vocations flowed. but his moving death, while preaching in front of 2000 people, stopped his incipient project, in 1990. It currently arouses an interest in Haiti, in Canada, even in France.

The friends of La Salette and the specialists in the apparitions or the history of the Church will be grateful with abbot Cortevitle to have renewed by his discoveries the history and the problems of La Salette. It is not a question of eluding them of the specific aspects, even specifically neither the influences undergone by the seers nor the undulations in the transmission of a message whose wealth of words and images exceeded them. These illiterate of good country stock had received much in only one appearance, in less than one hour. They wrote it, accurately, without consulting the former versions, throughout thirty years, in very diverse conditions, for various recipients and applicants, while drawing from their memory, according to the letter and more still according to the spirit. Their successive versions are more or less explicit according to time and circumstances. One will have to wonder whether the alternatives take over their interpretation or extrapolations, but the substance is more constant than one might think from the reading of the former accounts. (1)

The realization of prophecies (always symbolic systems and general-purpose for biblical prophecies, insists the cardinal Ratzinger ) is more precise with La Salette than in the third part of the secret of Fatima, of which the second part was more important and more adequate. The work of Michel Corteville confirms the value, the coherence and even the topicality of the message of La Salette, and the too ignored value of the seers, quickly sacrificed on the altar of political criticism, besides rational or rationalist.

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

Interesting take on the third secret of Fatima! Or maybe the interpretation of the third secret is not literal because it is incorrect?

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

(footnote 1) One can rebuke Melanie's confusions or mistakes in the dates or predictions, but the biblical prophecy of Jonas was not carried out, and the third secret of Fatima does not include less literal inaccuracies. Maximin, less mature than Melanie, and whose vision was less precise, was sometimes victim of his fertile imagination, even of foreign influences. He clarified his youthful confusions with time, pointing to the importance of his account of 1866 (below p. 14).

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

In the Conclusions of the chapter entitled Les Secrets (the secrets) Lies a partial answer to my question of how the secret of 1879 is treated by the authors. Unquestionably, based on the introduction, the authors are apologizing for the validity of the 1879 secret. Here are two sections entitled Antichrist? and End of Time?.

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

a. Antichrist?

Thus the secrets of 1851, and all other versions speak about the Antichrist. Maximin indicates this mysterious biblical figure by the apocalyptic image of the monster, while Melanie asks for the spellng of this name, of which she is ignorant. He will be born of a religous (religieuse) , she writes. His father will be a bishop she specifies in 1860 (version 7). Following the example of Christ, it will have even her prophets forerunners (?), adds she, in the line from Jn 2, 18-22; 4,3. The edition of 1879 mentions one of them: With its troops of many nations, it will spread much blood, protesting against Christ, and any idea of religion, to take the place (versions 7-8) of it.

The prophecy has several levels, individual and collective, concrete or ideoological, deserving more attention than it seems [not] (mérite plus d'attention qu'il ne paraît). Baudelaire also spoke as a prophet while declaring: The greatest trick of the demon, it is to make one believe that he does not exist. In Demon (Fayard, 1995), we specified how, its persecuting action and homicide, which culminated in the Nazi exterminators and communists, succeeded an underground process for the spiritual uprooting of man, and suffocating faith. Pure and hard anticlericalism of the 19th and 20th centuries has been imposed discretely, has at all levels of society, an agnostic secularity. The strategy and the tactics of reducing Chritian faith were carried out with the hand of the master. The anti-religous offensive develops with guidance, a majority of the controllers claiming to be Christian and with very good pretence. Their policy is no more heroic than Louis XVI, but rather the doubtful religiosity of Napolean III. In this reassuring leader, Melanie has a premonition of the Antichrist.

The secrets describe, in terms and images different but convergent, misfortunes related to the arrival of the aforesaid character [i.e., the Antichrist]. As in the first epistle of saint John, it is at the same time individual and collective, because it is evoked in varied forms. One will speak about resurrected (versions 7-8), but they will be bad spirits, young hell-hounds, who will triumph by weapons and the wonders. Melanie foresees the worship of spirits : the worships of Satan abound under rock [rock and roll ?] since middle of the 19th century (the Demon, p. 174-213, details what is known of this worship and of the explicitly satanic music, or in formal but occult worships: Sabbaths, black masses and ritual murder, which developed since 1950).

b. End of Time?

The secret of La Salette does not situate the Antichrist's persecutions immediately before the end of the world. The monster will disturb the peace, Maximin writes to Pius IX (version 1): He will be choked by the breath of St. Michael writes Melanie (version 8).
About 1900, the visionary entrusted to abbot Combe the basic principles of her second secret of the end of time, (above 70). She presents the broad outline of them to Miss Vernet:

There will only be true peace on earth after the death of the Antichrist. Two or three periods of peace before the Antichrist will be of short duration, a peace after a war, and although I wish this war does not arrive, it will be terrible, terrible, then the short peace ; during all this time, I did not see a king on the throne of France. That does not mean anything, if France returned to God, God could raise her and give her a very Christian king; Ninive was condemned to perish and because it made penitence, it was forgiven. After the Antichrist, who will fall body and soul into hell, the ground opening in the presence of the thousands of spectators coming from all the parts of the world to be witness to his exaltation (as he had announced) and entrance to heaven; all will convert, glorifying the single God of heaven and earth, the Gospel of Jesus-Christ will be preached in all his purity on all the earth. The Churches will be re-established (réouvertes), the kings will be the right hand of the Holy See, there will be one Sheperd and only one herd, charity will reign in all peoples hearts. The world will still last centuries, then charity will grow cold, more and more also the earth will refuse to give its fruits

CONCLUSION

It is always difficult to draw a conclusion on the value and the authenticity of the predictions. Even those of the Scriptures are the cross of the exegesits. The great eschatologic prophecy of Christ himself in the synoptic Gospels aims at once the end of Jerusalem and also the end of the world, owing to the fact that these two events are answered typologically like respective terms of old and the new Testament, not without deep implications. For it is the plan of God for the salvation of the world which continues in the perpetual conflict between its light and its grace on the one hand, and frenzies of the world stimulated by temptations of the demon on the other hand. One will not be astonished to find same ambiguity with Maximin and especially with Melanie, from where her hesitation on the datings which she endeavours to distinguish and concretize to be clear, but without succeeding well there.

footnote 1. Letter of Melanie with Miss Vernet, July 20, 1894 (ENS). Much immediately places the Antichrist before the return of Christ (or parousy) while being based on these words of Paul: the Lord has will destroy it by the breath of stops himself and the glare of his arrival, (2 Thess. 2, 9). But is this text to be taken literally? The Scripture is as evasive as the secrets of La Salette on this mystery. In the wake of Dan 12, 1, Apoc 12, 7; 19, 20 and 20, 1-3, it attributes to the archangel Micheal or the one who gains the victory against the dragon and the false prophet, identifiable with the Antichrist. This is illustrated in a fresco of Signorelli in the cathedral of Orvieto, in Italy.

La Salette Secrets

2006-08-10T12:36:00.000-07:00

La Salette Basillica

La Salette is considered an important Marian apparition to many Catholics, especially of more traditional outlook. The apparition consisted of a series of dialogues between Mary, a young French girl named Melanie, and a young French boy named Maximin. There were messages given to both, and two secrets, one given to Melanie, and one given to Maximin. According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, The secrets of Maximin and Melanie were sent to Pope Pius IX in 1851, and:

Maximin's secret is not known, for it was never published.

Mélanie's was inserted in its entirety in brochure which she herself had printed in 1879 at Leece, Italy, with the approval of the bishop of that town. A lively controversy followed as to whether the secret published in 1879 was identical with that communicated to Pius IX in 1851, or in its second form it was not merely a work of the imagination.

The apparitions themselves were approved by the Bishop of Grenoble, Mgr. Philibert de Bruillard. The next Bishop of Grenoble, Mgr. Ginoulhiac, stated in 1851 that only the original apparitions of 1846 were approved by the Church according to this Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article (as of this writing) also claims that the secrets were never published (as verified by the Catholic Encyclopedia article).

The interesting part is that recently, the secrets have been retrieved from the Vatican and published. This is according to a new book reviewed here, Fathers René Laurentin and Michel Corteville. Maximin's sectret is available by clicking on these links:

Melanies are available, here:

Note that the secrets are in French. Keep in mind that though (according to the book review), the book has imprimatur, the secrets themselves are still likely not approved. I personally believe they are worthy of study, but I would be careful about putting too much confidence into them until further approval is forthcoming. Note that Melanie's secrets were approved by the Bishop of Leece, Italy, but he was not the local ordinary where the apparitions occured. I am not exactly sure what status that leaves the secret (of Melanie). [Note 8/19/2006: The Bishop of Leece was reprimanded by the Vatican].

Acording to the website reviewing the book, the translation of the secrets is as follows:

[8/28/05: I have added the original French]

Maximin's Secret:

Statue of Maximin

On September 19, 1846, we saw a beautiful Lady. We never said that this lady was the Blessed Virgin but we always said that it was a beautiful Lady. I do not know if it is the Blessed Virgin or another person. As for me, I believe today that it is the Blessed Virgin.

(Le 19 septembre 1846, nous avons vu une belle Dame. Nous n'avons jamais dit que cette dame fut la Sainte Vierge mais nous avons toujours dit que c'était une belle Dame.
Je ne sais pas si c'est la Sainte Vierge ou une autre personne. Moi, je crois aujourd'hui que c'est la sainte Vierge.)

Here is what this Lady said to me:

(Voila ce que cette Dame m'a dit:)

"If my people continue, what I will say to you will arrive earlier, if it changes a little, it will be a little later.

(Si mon peuple continue, ce que je vais vous dire arrivera plus tôt , s'il change un peu, ce sera un peu plus tard.)

France has corrupted the universe, one day it will be punished. The faith will die out in France: three quarters of France will not practice religion anymore, or almost no more, the other part will practice it without really practicing it. Then, after [that], nations will convert, the faith will be rekindled everywhere. A great country, now Protestant, in the north of Europe, will be converted; by the support of this country all the other nations of the world will be converted.

(La France a corrompu l'univers, un jour elle sera punie. La foi s'éteindra dans la France: trois parties de la France ne pratiqueront plus de religion, ou presque plus, 1'autre la pratiquera sans bien la pratiquer. Puis, après [cela], les nations se convertiront, la foi se rallumera partout.

Une grande contrée dans le nord de l'Europe, aujourd 'hui protestante, se convertira: par l'appui de cette contrée toutes les autres contrées du monde se convertiront.)

Before all that arrives, great disorders will arrive, in the Church, and everywhere. Then, after [that], our Holy Father the Pope will be persecuted. His successor will be a pontiff that nobody expects.

(Avant que tout cela arrive, de grands troubles arriveront, dans l'Eglise, et partout. Puis, après [cela], notre Saint-Père le pape sera persecuté. Son successeur sera un pontife que personne [n'] attend)

Then, after [that], a great peace will come, but it will not last a long time. A monster will come to disturb it.

(Puis après [cela], une grande paix arrivera, mais elle ne durera pas longtemps. Un monstre viendra la troubler.)

All that I tell you here will arrive in the other century, at the latest in the year two thousand."

(Tout ce que je vous dis là arrivera dans l'autre siècle, [au] plus tard aux deux millle ans.")

Maximin Giraud
(She told me to say it some time before.)
My Most Holy Father, your holy blessing to one of your sheep.
Grenoble, July 3,1851.

(Maximin Giraud
(Elle [m'] a dit de le dire quelque temps avant).
Mon très Saint Père, votre sainte bénédiction à une de vos brebis,
Grenoble, le 3 juillet 1851.)

Here is the secret of Melanie (from the same source):

Statue of Melanie

JMJ

secret which the Blessed Virgin gave me on the Mountain of La Salette on September 19, 1846
Secr[e]t.

(secret que m'a donné la Sainte Vierge sur la Montagne de la Salette le 19 septembre 1846
Secr[e]t)

Mélanie, I will say something to you which you will not say to anybody:

(Mélanie, je vais vous dire quelque chose que vous ne direz à personne:)

The time of the God's wrath has arrived!

(Le temps de la colère de Dieu est arrivé!)

If, when you say to the people what I have said to you so far, and what I will still ask you to say, if, after that, they do not convert, (if they do not do penance, and they do not cease working on Sunday, and if they continue to blaspheme the Holy Name of God), in a word, if the face of the earth does not change, God will be avenged against the people ungrateful and slave of the demon.

(Si, lorsque vous aurez dit aux peuples ce que je vous ai dit tout à 1'heure, et ce que je vous dirai de dire encore, si, après cela, ils ne se convertissent pas, (si on ne fait pas pénitence, et si on ne cesse de travailler le dimanche, et si on continue de blasphémer le Saint Nom de Dieu), en un mot, si la face de la terre ne change pas, Dieu va se venger contre le peuple ingrat et esclave du démon.)

My Son will make his power manifest! Paris, this city soiled by all kinds of crimes, will perish infallibly. Marseilles will be destroyed in a little time. When these things arrive, the disorder will be complete on the earth, the world will be given up to its impious passions.

(Mon Fils va faire éclater sa puissance! Paris, cette ville souillée de toutes sortes de crimes, périra infailliblement. Marseille sera détruite en peu de temps. Lorsque ces choses arriveront, le désordre sera complet sur la terre. Le monde s'abandonnera à ses passions impies.)

The pope will be persecuted from all sides, they will shoot at him, they will want to put him to death, but no one will not be able to do it, the Vicar of God will triumph again this time.

(Le pape sera persecuté de toutes parts: on lui tirera dessus, on voudra le mettre à mort, mais on ne lui pourra rien, le Vicaire de Dieu triomphera encore cette fois[-là].)

The priests and the Sisters, and the true servants of my Son will be persecuted, and several will die for the faith of Jesus-Christ.

(Les prêtres et les religieuses, et les vrais serviteurs de mon Fils seront persécutés, et plusieurs mourront pour la foi de Jésus-Christ.)

A famine will reign at the same time.

(Une famine règnera en même temps.)

After all these will have arrived, many will recognize the hand of God on them, they will convert, and do penance for their sins.

(Après que toutes ces choses seront arrivées, beaucoup de personnes reconnaîtront la main de Dieu sur elles, se convertiront, et feront pénitence de leur péchés.)

A great king will go up on the throne, and will reign a few years. Religion will re-flourish and spread all over the world, and there will be a great abundance, the world, glad not to be lacking nothing, will fall again in its disorders, will give up God, and will be prone to its criminal passions.

(Un grand roi montera sur le trône, et règnera pendant quelques années. La religion refleurira et s'étendra par toute la terre et la fertilité sera grande, le monde content de ne manquer de rien recommencera ses désordres, abandonnera Dieu, et se livrera à ses passions criminelles.)

[Among] God's ministers, and the Spouses of Jesus-Christ, there will be some who will go astray, and that will be the most terrible.

([Parmi] les ministres de Dieu, et les Epouses de Jésus-Christ, il y en a qui se livreront au désordre, et c'est ce qu’il y aura de [plus] terrible.)

Lastly, hell will reign on earth. It will be then that the Antichrist will be born of a Sister, but woe to her! Many will believe in him, because he will claim to have come from heaven, woe to those who will believe in him!

(Enfin, un enfer règnera sur la terre. Ce sera alors que l’Antéchrist naîtra d'une religieuse: mais malheur à elle! Beaucoup de personnes croiront à lui, parce qu'il se dira venu du ciel, malheur à ceux qui le croiront!)

That time is not far away, twice 50 years will not go by.

(Le temps n'est pas éloigné, il ne se passera pas deux fois 50 ans.)

My child, you will not say what I have just said to you. (You will not say it to anybody, you will not say if you must say it one day, you will not say what that it concerns), finally you will say nothing anymore until I tell you to say it!

(Mon enfant, vous ne direz pas ce que je viens de vous dire. (Vous ne le direz à personne, vous ne direz pas si vous devez le dire un jour, vous ne direz pas ce que cela regarde), enfin vous ne direz plus rien jusqu’à ce que je vous dise de le dire!)

I pray to Our Holy Father the Pope to give me his holy blessing.

(Je prie Notre Saint Père le Pape de me donner sa sainte bénédiction.)

Mélanie Mathieu, Shepherdess of La Salette, Grenoble, July 6, 1851.
J.M.J.+

(Mélanie Mathieu, bergère de La Salette
Grenoble 6 juillet 1851
J.M.J.+)

[Note: (8/11/2006)- Here is a link comparing the Vatican archive version of Melanie's secret (shown on this blog) and a version of the disputed 1876+ release]

Finally, here is the approved message, given to both childen (source- Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette):

Statue of Mary Talking to the Children

Come near, my children, be not afraid; I am here to tell you great news.

If my people will not submit, I shall be forced to let fall the arm of my Son. It is so strong, so heavy, that I can no longer withhold it.

For how long a time do I suffer for you! If I would not have my Son abandon you, I am compelled to pray to him without ceasing; and as to you, you take not heed of it.

However much you pray, however much you do, you will never recompense the pains I have taken for you.

Six days I have given you to labor, the seventh I had kept for myself; and they will not give it to me. It is this which makes the arm of my Son so heavy.

Those who drive the carts cannot swear without introducing the name of my Son. These are the two things which makes the arm of my Son so heavy.

If the harvest is spoilt, it is all on your account. I have you warning last year with the potatoes ('pommes de terre') but you did not heed it. On the contrary, when you found the potatoes spoilt, you swore, you took the name of my Son in vain. They will continue to decay, so that by Christmas there will be none left.

Ah, my children, do you not understand? Well, wait, I shall say it otherwise.

If you have wheat, it is no good to sow it; all you sow the insects will eat, and what comes up will fall into dust when you thresh it.

There will come a great famine.

Before the famine comes, the children under seven years of age will be seized with trembling and will die in the hands of those who hold them; the others will do penance by the famine.
The walnuts will become bad, and the grapes will rot. If they are converted, the stones and rocks will change into mounds of wheat, and the potatoes will be self-sown in the land.

Do you say your prayers well, my children?

Both answered with complete frankness. "Not very well, Madam."

Ah, my children, you must be sure to say them well morning and evening. When you cannot do better, say at least an Our Father and a Hail Mary. When you have time, say more.

There are none who go to Mass except a few aged women. The rest work on Sunday all summer; then in the winter, when they know not what to do, they go to Mass only to mock at religion.

During Lent, they go to the meat-market like dogs.

Have you never seen wheat that is spoilt, my children?

"No, Madam," they replied.

But you, my child [Maximin], you must surely have seen some once when you were at the farm of Coin with your father.

The owner of the field told your father to go and see his ruined wheat. You went together. You took two or three ears of wheat into your hands and rubbed them, and they fell to dust.

Then you continued home. When you were still half and hour's distance from Corps, your father gave you a piece of bread and said to you: "Here, my child, eat some bread this year at least; I don't know who will eat any next year, if the wheat goes on like that."

Confronted with such precise details, Maximin eagerly replied, "Oh yes, Madam, I remember now; just at this moment I did not remember."

Then the Lady, again speaking French as the beginning of her discourse and when giving the secrets, said to them:

Well, my children, you will make this known to all my people.

Sample from Galileo Was Wrong, Sent to Stephen M. Barr

2006-07-01T19:29:00.000-07:00

Robert Sungenis sent this sample to Dr. Barr to clarify some issues regrading superluminal velocity in geocentric systes. The footnotes have been renumbered starting at (1).

Bondi's Geocentrism
Although like the rest of the physicists to whom we ascribe the word "geocentrism" in this chapter, Sir Hermann Bondi (d. 2005) would not explicitly refer to himself as a geocentrist, nevertheless, he would be one of the first to admit that modern physics ably defends geocentric cosmology. This becomes abundantly clear in a 1994 paper Bondi wrote titled: "Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity."[1] Bondi discovered two important facts from General Relativity that can be employed to defend geocentrism. First, Bondi derived and quantified what has been traditionally known as angular momentum, discovering in the process that the universe's cylindrical symmetry prohibits gravitational waves from carrying angular momentum. This finding resolves a critique of geocentrism which posited that, to conserve angular momentum, the universe would slow down if a mass is raised on Earth and accelerate if the same mass were lowered. Bondi showed that, according to General Relativity, this is not the case, and thus the criticism is neutralized. Related to the above, Bondi also discovered that, according to General Relativity, all the mass beyond the Schwarzchild radius (where the tangential speed of the universe exceeds c) can be ignored, since it will contribute nothing more to the frame dragging and centrifugal forces already present. He writes:

The main point to note is that whereas in the newtonian, non-rotation of the reference system at infinity is taken for granted, in the relativistic treatment such rotation is permitted but irrelevant to the measure of angular momentum, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system...What is the nature of this limit? For such a cylinder the required angular velocity makes the tangential velocity at r = r^2 equal to the speed of light...Both the space drag on the core and A [angular momentum] will be unaffected by such outside layers...The conservation of A occurs even if gravitational waves are emitted by the cylinder. This is perhaps not surprising, since the cylindrical symmetry of the waves precludes their carrying angular momentum...Therefore the intrinsic nature of the angular momentum of the inner becomes patent as it is wholly unaffected by anything that goes on outside. Thus there is no transfer of angular momentum between outer and inner. [2]

Bondi arrived at the above derivation a little earlier in his paper:

It is a remarkable fact, discussed later, and of some relevance to Machian considerations that this unique conserved measure of angular momentum appropriate to the symmetry imposed is independent of any superposed state of rotation. [3]

The same conclusion was stated in a different way in Bondi's abstract: "It emerges that angular momentum and space drag behave very differently as thicker and thicker spinning cylinders are studied." Hence, from the perspective of General Relativity, Bondi makes geocentrism completely feasible. That is, if the argument against geocentrism that appeals to the conservation of angular momentum is valid, it would violate the strong principle of relativity. To rescue Relativity theory from this failure, Bondi, by means of his meticulous tensor analysis, has simultaneously refuted the objection as it has traditionally been directed against geocentrism. The angular velocities used by Bondi are completely compatible with geocentric mechanics, since his analysis specifically validates cosmologies which have rotations at tangential velocities far greater than the speed of light.

The Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi Model

Another aspect of Bondi's teaching that makes geocentrism feasible is his development, along with Georges Lemaître and Richard Tolman, of the spherically symmetrical expanding universe.[4] Einstein's field equations allow at least two possible universes that were, more or less, diametrically opposed to one another: an isotropic homogeneous universe or an isotropic inhomogeneous universe. The former is the model that eventually developed into the Big Bang theory. As we noted earlier, such a universe will appear the same from every direction, and thus it has no center or distinguishing point. Today this model generally goes by the name of the Lemaître-Robertson-Walker model. But Einstein's field equations also allowed a spherical universe with a center, which was developed by Lemaître, and later Tolman, Bondi and a few others. As we noted in Chapter 3 in the discussion of Stephen Hawking's "modesty," is a spherical univere with a center, and most likely with Earth in that very center Few admit the fact that Lemaître introduced a prior model, which was non-homogeneous and isotropic, and thus it necessarily comprised a center, that is, a distinct place from which the view of the universe would be unique. This is commonly known among physicists today as the Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi model.

Astrophysicist George Ellis, whom we noted previously had advocated that the Earth is in a central location in the universe, affirmed the Tolman-Bondi model in his award-winning 1978 paper. His abstract states:

It is shown that spherically symmetric static general relativistic cosmological space-times can reproduce the same cosmological observations as the currently favored Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universes, if the usual assumptions are made about the local physical laws determining the behavior of matter, provided that the universe is inhomogeneous and our galaxy is situated close to one of its centers.[5]

Ellis adds that only three things can lead us to conclude that the universe we live in is not such a static space-time spherically symmetric universe: "(i) unverifiable a priori assumptions, (ii) detailed physical and astrophysical arguments, or (iii) observation of the time variation of cosmological quantities" and concludes:

...the standard models of a princile of uniformity (the cosmological or Copernican principle). This is assumed for a priori reasons and not tested by observations. However, it is precisely this principle that we wish to call into question. The static inhomogeneous model discussed in this paper shows that the usual unambiguous deduction that the universe is expanding is a consequence of an unverified assumption, namely, the uniformity assumption. This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe. [Ellis adds footnote here citing Steven Weinberg's Gravitation and Cosmology, 1972].[6]

As we noted previously, the inhomogeneous models of the universe were being proposed mainly because there were simply too many problems cropping up in the homogeneous models. Modern cosmology was, as the saying goes, "caught between a rock and a hard place." Accepting the homogeneous models would produce universe that would either explode or implode. If they accepted the inhomogeneous model, they also had to accept the distinct possibility of an Earth-centered universe, which was apt to be rejected on "philosophical grounds." To their consternation, cosmologists were producing very stable inhomogeneous universes, and doing so, ironically, with Einstein's field equations.[7] Yet, as Gerard de Vaucouleurs noted:

With few exceptions, modern theories of cosmology have come to be variations on the homogeneous, isotropic models of general relativity. Other theories are usually referred to as "unorthodox," probably as a warning to students against heresy. When inhomogeneities [read: theories that can lead to an Earth-centered universe] are considered (if at all), they are treated as unimportant fluctuations amenable to first-order variational treatment. [8]

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

[1] Royal Society Proceedings, Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 446, no. 1926, July 8, 1994, pp. 57-66.

[2] "Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity Royal Society Proceedings," Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 446, no. 1926, July 8, 1994, pp. 63-64.

[3] "Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity Royal Society Proceedings," p. 61. My thanks to Martin Selbrede for bringing Bondi's paper to my attention, and for his help analyzing it.

[4] Hermann Bondi, "Spherically Symmetrical Models in General Relativity," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 107, Nos. 5, 6, 1947, pp. 410-425. By "spherically symmetrical" Bondi means that there is a center to the universe. He says as much in his paper: "We shall show that in our spherically symmetrical universe with the standard source at its center..." (ibid., p. 413).

[5] George F. R. Ellis, "Is the Universe Expanding?" General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February, 1978, p. 87.

[6] George F. R. Ellis, "Is the Universe Expanding?" General Relativity and Gravitation, vol. 9, no. 2, February, 1978, p. 87. In a subsequent work, Ellis, et al., state: "The problem is that while isotropy is directly observable, homogeneity (on a cosmological scale) is not. In the standard discussions the assumption of homogeneity is made a priori, either directly, or in some equivalent form (e.g., as the assumption that the Universe is isotropic for all observers), and so is not subjected to observational verification. Accordingly the standard 'proof' of the expansion of the Universe is based on an unverified a priori assumption" (George F. R. Ellis, R. Maartens and S. D. Nel, "The Expansion of the Universe,"Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 184, 1978, p. 440).

[7] Summary analysis by Andrzej Krasinski, Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models, University of Cambridge Press, 1997; George A. Lemaître, The Expanding Universe, 1933 Ann. Soc. Sci Bruxelles A53 51 (French), reprinted in 1997 in General Relativity and Gravitation, 29, 641; Hermann Bondi, "Spherically Symmetrical Models in General Relativity," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 107, 410B, 1947; Richard Tolman, The Effect of Inhomogeneity on Cosmological Models, 1934 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 20 169, reprinted in 1997 General Relativity and Gravitation, 29 935; A. Krasinski A and C. Hellaby, â€œStructure Formation in the Lemaître-Tolman model," Physical Review, D65 023501, 2002; Guy C. Omer, Jr., â€œA Nonhomogeneous Cosmological Model," The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 109, 1949, pp. 164-176; Ronald Kantowski, "The Coma Cluster as a Spherical Inhomogeneity in Relativistic Dust," The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 155, March 1969; Gerard de Vaucouleurs, Science, "The Case for a Hierarchial Cosmology," vol. 167, No. 3922, Feb. 27, 1970; W. B. Bonnor, "A Non-Uniform Relativistic Cosmological Model," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 159, 1972, pp. 261-268; Stamatia Mavrides, "Anomalous Hubble Expansion and Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 177, 1976, pp. 709-716.

[8] Gerard de Vaucouleurs, "The Case for a Hierarchial Cosmology," Science, vol. 167, No. 3922, 1970, p. 1204

Robert Sungenis Challenges Stephen M. Barr to Debate Geocentrism

2006-06-29T11:11:00.000-07:00

I got into a bit of a match with Stephen M. Barr on Free Republic yesterday. In response to an article reviewing Galileo Was Wrong Dr. Barr made some insulting statements about Dr. Robert Bennett and Robert Sungenis, Ph. D., as well as making condenscending statements regarding the book (which he has not read). Robert Sungenis, has responded (below), and finished by challenging Dr. Barr to a public debate:

I [Robert Sungenis] hereby challenge Stephen Barr to an open, public and verbal debate on the issue of geocentrism (6/29/2006).

Is Dr. Barr up to the task?

Below is Robert Sungenis' respone to Dr. Barr's comments:

Stephen Barr: I have talked enough to Robert Bennett by e-mail to be able to say that he does not even understand physics at the level of a college freshman physics major. He misunderstands basic things.

R. Sungenis: As I read the email exchanges you had with Dr. Bennett, you were the one who bowed out of answering the challenges Dr. Bennett gave you by claiming you were “too busy,” yet it seems you’re not too busy to make disparaging remarks against Dr. Bennett behind his back on Internet forums. Dr. Bennett treated you with great respect, yet you engage in the most unchristian vitriol I have yet to see from even atheists! Please tell me why you can’t have an intellectual discussion about such topics without trying to bring it down to the gutter level? This is not a school yard. We are on display to the world. Or is this your idea of how to represent Christianity?

Stephen Barr: If he has a Ph.D. it cannot be in theoretical physics from any reputable physics department.

R. Sungenis: Tell me, Stephen, did you check with the Stephen's Institute of Technology to find out whether Robert Bennett has a Ph.D. in physics? Did you investigate the curriculum of the Institute, or make any inquiry into Bennett's studies there or read his dissertation? Obviously not, otherwise you wouldn't have used the word "if" in your accusation. As a consequence, Stephen, you have engaged in calumny, which is a sin of the first order. You have disparaged a man's reputation without the slightest investigation into his credentials. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You owe Dr. Bennett an apology.

Stephen Barr: He uses terms like "inertial frame", and "Lense-Thirring effect" without any understanding.

R. Sungenis: And what evidence do you have of such accusations, Stephen? Or is this just a case of you saying that your opponent "doesn't understand" simply because he disagrees with your interpretation of said terms?

Stephen Barr: He made arguments to me about stellar parallax that involved elementary blunders.

R. Sungenis: Such as what? If you have an accusation, then show the evidence, Stephen, and let the audience decide which of us is making "elementary blunders." I read your material, and I can honestly say that, of the two of you, Dr. Bennett showed he knew much more about these issues than you did. But, unlike you, I didn't go blabbing that with pernicious words over the Internet nor did I or Dr. Bennett accuse you of being an "ignoramus" just because you have a different opinion.

Stephen Barr: My own credentials? I have a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Princeton Univ. (1978) and have published over 125 papers in research journals on fundamental physics.

R. Sungenis: And St. Paul, who didn't have a Ph.D. and didn't write any "papers," says:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

What do you think St. Paul thinks of your calumny against Dr. Bennett, Stephen?

As for touting your credentials, you as well as I know that a Ph.D. in theoretical physics doesn't make you right. Stephen Gould had a Ph.D. in paleontology. Does that make him right about evolution, a view you reject? We all know you have a Ph.D., Stephen, but that is precisely the point of our book. There are a lot of Ph.D's running around in our universities and writing papers who say the Earth is moving, but nobody has shown us any proof it is doing so. Why you have such a bee in your bonnet simply because we probe that area of science is beyond me. Unfortunately, Dr. Bennett and I now know why Dr. Semilweiss ended up in an insane asylum when he tried to warn his colleagues that their dirty hands were causing the deaths of the women they were delivering.

Stephen Barr: Sir, I am afriad you don't understand GR correctly. While Einstein was indeed influenced by Mach's ideas, GR is not really a Machian theory, though it predicts some effects that are reminiscent of Machian ideas (like dragging of inertial frames). One can find some books that say that GR is Machian, but the general consensus is that it is not. In GR, uniform motion is relative, but accelerated motion is absolute --- just as in Newtonian physics. The question of whether something is rotating or not is an ABSOLUTE question with one and only one correct answer. Yes, one can go to a frame in which a rotating object looks like it is not rotating --- however, such a frame is not an inertial frame; more specificly, it is a rotating frame. And one can tell that it is so by looking at the "fictitious forces" that appear in that frame. It is absurd to say that the whole universe could be rotating about an axis that goes through the earth.

R. Sungenis: Stephen, you can point out what you think are the unique beliefs of GR all day long, and you can argue back and forth, like many, whether GR is Machian or not. In the end, it doesn't amount to much. As I read GR textbooks, most GR believers disagree with each other about what GR really says. The fact remains that the inventor of GR said that there is no relative difference between a fixed Earth in a rotating star-system and a rotating Earth in a fixed star-system, and there is no way for modern science to prove the latter.

Stephen Barr: Distant stars could only be kept in circular orbits about such an axis by some centripital force directed toward that axis. Here the people like Sungenis will babble about dragging of inertial frames. They say that the distant matter going around will drag the stars around the axis. Not so. Not least of the problems with this idea is that one cannot write down a global rotating coordinate system, since the time coordinate lines would become superluminal at some finite (and not so large) distance. To put it another way, if all the stars go around the earth every 24 hours, then stars more than a light-year away would be going faster than light.

R. Sungenis: And you think we didn’t think about this yet, Stephen? You think you’re the first one to point out this apparent anomaly? You need to read our book before you spout off these objections. In fact, your very own GR advocates have already answered the question for you, and we quote them in our book for people just like you who think they have the unanswerable objection. On the other hand, to Big Bang believers like yourself, having space create itself at superluminal speeds at the edge of the expanding universe is perfectly acceptable, and we scratch our heads in amazement at the duplicity.

Stephen Barr: But all this is nonsense anyway. Anyone who has a solid grasp of GR knows that in it accelerated motion is an ABSOLUTE concept.

R. Sungenis: Would you mind explaining, then, what an "ABSOLUTE concept," in regards to physics, is, Stephen? Is it "absolute" in and of itself, or are you measuring this "concept" against some other "concept" or "absolute." If you're going to make a case, then you need to explain yourself, because, as of now, all you have relayed is a "concept," and have given us very little information how this "concept" provides a disproof of geocentrism.

Stephen Barr: Finally, let me say that I actually do research in areas that require GR. I have refereed papers for journals such as Classical and Quantum Gravity. As I said, I teach GR at the graduate level --- do you?
posted on 10/11/2005 6:58:42 AM PDT by smpb (smb)

R. Sungenis: Once again, Stephen, strutting your peacock feathers doesn't prove you are right. When I see above that you have not even attempted to give GR's answer to the superluminality of a rotating universe, or even allow for the possibility that you may not know how God made it so, I honestly wonder just how much you really know about GR and its intricacies. And I wonder why other GR advocates don't say the same thing as you, since most of them admit that GR cannot disprove a geocentric universe. If you would read the book, you'll see their quotes to that effect.

Stephen Barr: you are absolutely wrong, Mark! All experts in General Relativity would agree that in GR acceleration is an absolute concept. The concept of an "inertial frame" is a crucial one in GR. An inertial frame is a non-accelerating frame. One can tell by local measurements whether one is in an inertial frame or not. This is non-controversial. Anyone who knows GR understands this.

R. Sungenis: Okay, Stephen, this seems to be your bread and butter, and I'm going to challenge you on this until I get a satisfactory answer. You say "One can tell by local measurements whether one is in an inertial frame or not. This is non-controversial." But "local measurements" in relation to what, and measured against what? How do you know your "local measurements" are accurate or even legitimate unless you have an absolute from which to set and calibrate them? This is the whole problem with GR. You guys keep talking as if you have an absolute from which to measure things. You don't. Anyone with an eight-grade education can see that if everything is moving in your universe, there is no absolute, regardless of the mathematical fudges you use to convince us that you DO have an absolute. Why do you think Einstein said the following, since he saw the implications of his own theory:

"Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." (The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1938, 1966, p. 212.)

As Fred Hoyle noted: "...according to the physical theory developed by Albert Einstein [the heliocentric and geocentric systems] are indeed physically equivalent to each other" (Astronomy and Cosmology, p. 8).

So, we are at a loss to see this "absolute" cure-all you have invented for GR that doesn't seem to be touted by the inventor.

Stephen Barr: It is true that Einstein was led to GR by Machian ideas, and according to Mach's ideas acceleration is relative. But it is generally agreed by that the theory Einstein actually came up with is NOT Machian. Though he was inspired by Mach's ideas, Einstein's theory does not actually realize Mach's principle of the relativity of acceleration.
posted on 06/28/2006 6:53:43 PM PDT by smpb (smb)

R. Sungenis: Then how do you explain the above quote from Einstein? And how do you explain GR commentators, such as Rosser, who see such "relativity" in GR:

Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity wxr [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction- that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3x10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x10^8 m/sec under these conditions. (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

Rosser adds: "Relative to an inertial frame the 'fixed' stars are at rest or moving with uniform velocity. However, relative to a reference frame accelerating relative to an inertial frame the stars are accelerating. It is quite feasible that accelerating masses give different gravitational forces from the gravitational forces due to the same masses when they are moving with uniform velocity. Thus the conditions in an accelerating reference frame are different from the conditions in inertial frames, since the stars are accelerating relative to the accelerating reference frame. It seems plausible to try to interpret inertial forces as gravitational forces due to the accelerations of the stars relative to the reference frame chosen."

Einstein was criticized on this very point by Ph. Lenard in a 1917 open debate, later published in 1920. Lenard stated: superluminal velocities seem really to create a difficulty for the principle of relativity; given that they arise in relation to an arbitrary body, as soon as they are attributed not to the body, but to the whole world, something which the principle of relativity in its simplest and heretofore existing form allows as equivalent ("Allgemeine Diskussion über Relativitätstheorie," Physikalische Zeitschrift, 1920, pp. 666-668, cited in Kostro's Einstein and the Ether, p. 87).

And a quote from me in Galileo Was Wrong: As Rosser freely admits, General Relativity really has no choice in the matter. It must possess the inherent ability to make any point in the universe the center and produce coordinate transformations in accord with that center. Once it picks its center, then all the gravitational forces in the universe must balance. Hence, if an immobile Earth is chosen as the center, then all the forces in the universe will combine together such that, when Einstein’s field equations are employed to calculate the forces, they will balance out just as when Einstein employed them for a moving Earth. In other words, one can choose any center and reformulate the relative forces of the entire universe from the perspective of that particular center using the mathematics of General Relativity. This application is understood as the “strong” principle of Relativity. If such a reciprocal relationship did not exist between respectively chosen centers, then General Relativity would be falsified; and if General Relativity is falsified, then modern science lacks any answer to the experiments which have demonstrated both a motionless Earth (Michelson-Morley, et al.) and absolute space (Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, et al.), and we are back to geocentrism in any case. Hence, General Relativity has uniquely fulfilled the qualifications of the proverbial dog chasing its tail.

As an aside, Rosser also points out the following: It has often been suggested that a direct experimental check of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is impossible, since one would have to assume it to true to synchronize the spatially separated clocks (ibid., p. 133).

Stephen Barr: I am the author of Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Bennett is an ignoramus, and you can quote me on that.
posted on 06/28/2006 6:55:11 PM PDT by smpb (smb)

R. Sungenis: Fortunately, for the audience reading this, neither Dr. Bennett nor myself are going to stoop to the level that Stephen Barr wants to bring this discussion by calling him an "ignoramus" also. We are simply going to challenge Stephen to support his assertions with facts, if he has any. In addition, I hereby challenge Stephen Barr to an open, public and verbal debate on the issue of geocentrism. If Stephen wants to accept the challenge, we at CAI will make the arrangements.

Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I Finally Released!

2006-06-28T12:58:00.000-07:00

Robert Sungenis, Ph. D., and Robert Bennett, Ph. D. have just released Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I (the Scientific Evidence). This book demonstrates through history, philosophy, and mainly through science itself that modern science has not demonstrated that the earth moves or is not in the center of the universe. It demonstrates that in fact observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicate that the earth does not move and is in the center of the universe. Scientist after scientist admit candidly that "it appears that the earth is standing still" or that " we appear to have a priviliged position" (i.e., are at center). Of course science offers complicated explanations as to why every observation indicates that we are at the center and not moving, yet somehow actually we are not at center and are moving. By studying the history of the observations and experiments the authors clearly show that the observations and experimental results, when they present themselves, are rejected out of hand by the scientists, without even considering one of the simplest explanations- THE EARTH IS AT CENTER AND IS NOT MOVING. Rather science becomes more complicated to reconcile the observations with the undemonstrated assertion that the earth is moving and not in the center. Now we must accept that the universe is a 4-dimensional hypercube or donut (in order to escape the possibility that we are at center) and that objects (and clocks) shrink in the direction of travel (to escape the interferometric evidence that we are not circling the sun at 30 km/second), etc.

This book will change the reader's view on what is reality and what is not.

Obtain your copy and get free sample pages (including the entire introduction) at www.Geocentrism.com.

Dru Sefton; Bad Journalism

2006-03-29T19:00:00.000-08:00

In This World View, the Sun Revolves Around the Earth

This is an article recently written by Dru Sefton of Newhouse News Services. In it she potrays geocentrists as kooks, while appearing to be "fair" in her reporting. I do not know if she did it purposely or, if she just does not "get it", but the results are pretty unfortunate. Robert Sungenis is an intelligent geocentrist who will be using a lot of science to explain his case in the upcoming book, Galileo Was Wrong.

Ms. Sefton puts Robert Sungenis in the same category as Marshall Hall, who tends more to conspiritorial investigations into the reasons why we now reject geocentrism.

I do not think that Ms. Sefton really understands the issues at hand.

For instance, she deals with the Foucault pendulum, like this:

But what about Foucault's famous pendulum? Its plane of oscillation revolves every 24 hours, showing the rotation of the planet. If the Earth didn't rotate, it wouldn't oscillate. Nope, Sungenis said: There just may be some other force propelling it, such as the pull of stars.What Foucault's pendulum does prove to Sungenis is that science is full of things that cannot be proven. And in the absence of proof, the Bible has answers.

Nope, Sungenis did not reply "Nope".

First she asks:

In a message dated 3/24/2006 11:49:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, Dru.Sefton@newhouse.com writes: Gotcha. And to double-check -- i want to make sure i represent what you say as precisely and succinctly as possible -- re: Foucault's pendulum, geocentrists contend that is not proof of rotation, that the movement of the pendulum could be propelled by another force, such as the stars.

Robert replies, wanting to explain:

The Foucault pendulum is another in a long line of purported proofs for the Copernican system. All over the world museums and universities house a working replica of Foucaul's pendulum, modeled after the original device that was invented by the French physicist, Jean Foucault in 1851. Like any pendulum, such as those in the typical grandfather clock, the main action is the back-and-forth motion of a bob that hangs from a wire or rope of some proportionate length. But, unlike a grandfather clock that anchors the pendulum in one plane, the Foucault pendulum allows the anchor to rotate. That being the case, the plane of the pendulum will rotate over a given period of time. For example, if the pendulum begins its swing back-and-forth between the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock position of the platform, within an hour or so, the pendulum will have moved to swinging between the 1 o'clock and the 7 o'clock position. Within an extended length of time (12 hours and 24 hours or longer), the pendulum will once again be swinging between the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock position.

At different latitudes, however, there are different effects on the pendulum. At the North Pole the plane of the pendulum will rotate a full 360 degrees each 24-hours, or about 15 degrees per hour. As one moves farther from the North Pole in a southerly direction, the pendulum will slow down its rotation. In Washington DC, for example, instead of rotating 15 degrees in one hour, it moves about 9 degrees. At the equator there is no rotation of the pendulum. Below the equator the rotation begins again, but in the opposite direction (which is similar to the fact that weather systems rotate counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere, at least most of the time).

From the above description, one can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an "unresolved" force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: "The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems."[1]

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion" it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: "Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..".[2]

[1] The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1938, 1966, p. 212.
[2] As cited in William G. V. Rosser's, An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 454, citing Dennis Sciama's, The Unity of the Universe, New York, Anchor Books, 1959.

Hence, the Foucault pendulum offers no proof for heliocentrism; rather, it only proves how presumptuous modern science has been for the last few hundred years. The same goes for the appeal to the Coriolis force or the oblateness of the Earth as proofs of the Earth's rotation. The only fact these particular phenomena prove is that there is a force causing their effect, not that a rotation of the Earth is the force.

It is clear that she did not get it, or did not feel it worth mentioning, because she replied:

thanks! i wish i had the space to go into more detail about the pendulum... arg! this is a challenge to fit all this interesting stuff into one story!

Ms. Dru Sefton
National Correspondent
Newhouse News Service
Washington, D.C.

Golly, not enough space to tell the truth. Oh, well, let's just put some bad example by Marshall Hall on instead (the helicopter). Let me spell it out: If the stars are "propelling " the pendulum, then it is proof of rotation, because in the geocentric system (at least a geostationary one as described by Robert), the stars "rotate" around the earth once per day. This is one of the points Robert was trying to make- the Foucault Pendulum cannot distinguish between rotation of the earth and rotation of the stars (ala Mach's Principle).

Then how does she imply geocentrism is false? Does she quote scientific evidence from great physicists? No, that would take too much thinking. She quotes an authoritative source:

Mention geocentrism and physicist Lawrence Krauss sighs. He is director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University and author of several books including "Fear of Physics: A Guide for the Perplexed.""What works? Science works. Geocentrism doesn't. End of story," Krauss said from Cleveland. "I've learned over time that it's hard to convince people who believe otherwise, independent of evidence."

Wow, if Lawrence Krauss were on CNN, they probably would write "EXPERT" under his name. That proves it for Ms. Sefton. End of story, I guess, can't argue with that.

Ms. Sefton even asked Robert about the "fear of science" issue:

Still reporting the geocentrism story, I’ll start writing it today after a few more interviews.

There seems to be a common thread amongst the geocentrists I’ve spoken with, and that’s a non-belief in science. I know we’re talking about cosmology and physics mainly, but it makes me wonder: In comparing that science with medical science – in other words, medicine has advanced through the years to allow incredible recoveries – shouldn’t that make one also “trust” the science related to cosmology and physics? If medical science has proven itself viable, why not other types of science?
Just wondering.

Robert explained:

Dru, your suspicsions are correct for a number of what we would call "amateur" geocentrists, or perhaps what would best be described as those who have a strong theological bent but don't know the science. They have their hunches but don't have the science to back it up.

That's what makes our book, Galileo Was Wrong, so different from much else out there, and this will make it a landmark book, I believe. The first volume of the series deals with nothing but the science, all 1000 pages of it, and it gets pretty technical. If you want to see a sample, I can send it to you. As you know, my co-author, Robert Bennett, has a Ph.D. in General Relativity (by the way, he said you haven't called him for an interview yet). We consider ourselves on the cutting edge of science. The only thing we do that current physicists and astrophysicists either don't do or refuse to do is apply the current science to the issue of geocentrism, and the results are astounding.

In any case, this is a difficult story to write in 1000 words. I feel it was bent towards Ms. Sefton's initial bias (i.e., that geocentrism is crazy), and perhaps we should not expect much more.

Anyway, my recommendation is to read the book (Galileo Was Wrong), and forget about the article.

Commentary on "A Fatima Soliloquy"

2006-01-18T22:25:00.000-08:00

A Fatima Soliloquy
With Commentary and Explanation
Based on a Famous Scene from Shakespeare's Hamlet
Mark J. Wyatt, January 18th, 2006
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

To consecrate or not to: that is the question:

The basic issue addressed is whether to follow Heavens request to consecrate Russia.

Whether ‘tis wiser to pander to Russia,
And continue a stalemate, nay, a threat increasing,
Or armed with faith and Mary’s assistance,
Oppose the error and convert them? Act not: to concede;

A struggle ensued starting with Pius XI and through at least John Paul II. The struggle regards negotiations, ecumenical gestures, etc. between Russia and the Vatican. In Hamlet, “to sleep” is to close ones eyes to the evil in front of them. It is an attempt to escape from it. “To die” is the actual consequence, i.e., not just to sleep. And in death, an unknown is entered into, where the evil one is trying to escape may in fact torment one worse. Here, instead of “to sleep”, the attempt to escape [the need to consecrate or the evils of Russia] is in the form of “not Act”ing, i.e., finding reasons not to perform the consecration. The actual consequence is in fact “to concede” or make concessions to the evil one is trying to escape, i.e., conceding to Russia’s demand not to perform the consecration, and identify her evils. If the consecration is performed, it is promised that Russia will convert.

No out; and by concede to say we end
The separation ecumenism desires to repair
The solution of man, ‘tis a consummation
Naively to be wish’d. Act not: to concede;

There is no way to escape the need for the consecration. The ecumenical dialogue will fail, as Heaven has already layed the solution at our feet (the consecration). Man’s solutions (i.e., ecumenicism in the face of this, political negotiations, etc.) are naïve in face of the request from Heaven.

To concede: perchance to bear fruit: ay, there’s the rub;
In that concession of lies what chaff may be rife
When we have relinquished this consecration,
Must give us pause: An act of faith
That can bear great effect if acted upon;

Still, sparing Russia the consecration was considered a number of times, over the request for consecration. Clearly the popes involved felt it would pay off, but acting in faith to a message from heaven would have greater positive effect. Conceding to Russia may lead to many ills (detailed in the next passage, and here expressed as chaff being rife, i.e., much chaff among the wheat, to be seperated). These are among the errors Russia has spread for not performing the consecration.

For who would bear the threats and actions of error,
Those errors of Russia, the atheist’s materialism,
The pangs of rejected offers, the law’s delay,
The Pharisee’s hypocrisy and rejection
Christ’s Church continually abides with love,
When compromise may be enacted
With a simple concession?

Why risk these ills, if perhaps a compromise can be reached?

Why consecrate Russia,
Reversing pacts sweated and wearied for,

Consecrating Russia risks reversing the work of negotiation, ecumenicism, etc., already accomplished and in the works.

But for the prophecy of continued aggrandizement,
The further conveyance of errors from whose seed,
The world will knowingly suffer, these forcing the will
And leading to the revealed belated consecration

But it cannot be escaped that in fact a message from Heaven was given, and it promised Russia’s errors would spread, the world will suffer, and ultimately the consecration would be performed (though late, i.e., belated).

Than compromise further and lose yet more souls?

Unfortunately, it was prophesized that the consecration would be too late, leading to the loss of many souls (falling as snowflakes into hell).

Thus uncertainty makes for hesitation;
And fear of acting in a manner unsound,
Drains the courage needful to act with simple faith,
And occasions granted from heaven,
Slip away like sand, and through delay and refusal,
Abate the favors to be obtained. <-- Hail thee, Mary! >

The indecision, lack of courage and certainty, the inability to act in simple faith has meant the world has lost its great opportunity (occasion), and through delay and refusal, the favors from Heaven abated (lessened).

-- Hail thee, Mary!
Sinless Virgin! Our Mother, in thy prayers,
Remember we sinners and our Vicar.

In Hamlet, after this soliloquy, Hamlet rejects Ophelia. What of the request of Mary?

A Fatima Soliloquy

2006-01-18T07:36:00.000-08:00

Based on a Famous Scene from Shakespeare's Hamlet
Mark J. Wyatt

To consecrate or not to: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis wiser to pander to Russia,
And continue a stalemate, nay, a threat increasing,
Or armed with faith and Mary’s assistance,
Oppose the error and convert them? Act not: to concede;
No out; and by concede to say we end
The separation ecumenism desires to repair
The solution of man, ‘tis a consummation
Naively to be wish’d. Act not: to concede;
To concede: perchance to bear fruit: ay, there’s the rub;
In that concession of lies what chaff may be rife
When we have relinquished this consecration,
Must give us pause: An act of faith
That can bear great effect if acted upon;
For who would bear the threats and actions of error,
Those errors of Russia, the atheist’s materialism,
The pangs of rejected offers, the law’s delay,
The Pharisee’s hypocrisy and rejection
Christ’s Church continually abides with love,
When compromise may be enacted
With a simple concession? Why consecrate Russia,
Reversing pacts sweated and wearied for,
But for the prophecy of continued aggrandizement,
The further coneyance of errors from whose seed,
The world will knowingly suffer, these forcing the will
And leading to the revealed belated consecration
Than compromise further and lose yet more souls?
Thus uncertainty makes for hesitation;
And fear of acting in a manner unsound,
Drains the courage needful to act with simple faith,
And occasions granted from heaven,
Slip away like sand, and through delay and refusal,
Abate the favors to be obtained. -- Hail thee, Mary!
Sinless Virgin! Our Mother, in thy prayers,
Remember we sinners and our Vicar.

43.5% Polled on Catholic Apologetics Forum are Open to the Possibility of Geocentrism

2005-12-24T14:55:00.000-08:00

Catholic Truths
Mark Wyatt, Dec. 23rd, 2005

OK, granted, the poll was not scientific, and the results are clearly skewed to a population sample who studies, has some understanding (and interest), or at least an awareness of these things. Still, the results are interesting and worth looking at a little closer. The poll was conducted on the Catholic Answers forum from Dec. 19th through Dec.23rd, 2005. The poll was linked in a few other Caltholic Apologetics Forums. The Opening statement of the Poll was the following:

Science has not demonstrated that the earth moves (rotates or translates) in a manner distinguishable from a counter movement of the universe. The Church has made declarations that the earth does not translate or rotate and the sun does move [around the earth].Science is strongly of the opinion that the earth does move (though it cannot demonstrate that). The Church at this time is not requiring the faithful to reject modern science's opinion. What do you think about the truth of the matter?

Geocentricity 101: A beginner's Course
Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
Mark
http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/

Because of the manner polling occurs on Catholic Answers, it is not possible to know if the participants in the poll read the opening statement before responding to the poll choices.

POLL AND RAW RESULTS:

1. Geocentrism is definitely possible: 28.26% (13 replies )
2. Science's opinion says it is not likely, I accept this: 10.87% (5 replies)
3. Science has definitely disproven geocentrism: 45.65% (21 repllies)
4. I am open to 1 and 2: 8.70% (4 replies)
5. I am open to 1, 2, 3: 6.52% (3 replies)

Total: 100.00% (46 replies)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS:

Here are a summary of results beyond the raw results.

Open to geocentrism?
Open to Geocentrism as a possibility: 43.48%
Not open to it: 56.52%

Understand the science has NOT disproven geocentrism?
Likely understands that Science has not disproven geocenrtism: 45.62%
Likely does not understand that science has not disproven geocentrism: 54.35%

Largest single response:

Science has definitely disproven geocentrism: 45.65%

Second Largest Single Response:

Geocentrism is definitely possible: 28.26%

AUTHOR'S REMARKS

It is clear that, though more than 1/2 surveyed thought geocentrism has been disproven, there is an awareness among those who participate on Catholic apologetics forums that in fact geocentrism is a real possibility. Clearly a significant percentage realizes that science has not disproven geocentrism, and only has the opinion that it is not true.

Most suprising, 28% felt that geoecntrism was a definite possibility. A lot of this is likely due to the work of Robert Sungenis, and his $1000 Geocentric Challenge, which has been ongoing since May 2002.

Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett's upcoming book, Galileo was Wrong will shed significant light on this topic.

THE QUESTIONS:

The pollster's (author's) view of the questions, and some note on responses follows.

Question 1- Geocentrism is definitely possible: This can indicate that the respondent believes geocentrism to be true, or at least definitely possible. The positive response to this question indicates that the respondent likely does not believe it to be impossible.

This last statement is probably represented by Catholic Answers user "mosher":

I like the way this poll is written so I voted that it is definatelly possible because logically the Empirical Sciences cannot disprove anything in an absolute manner. It is possible but improbable.

I would suspect many people whould have answered #2 in that case, but mosher may not want to commit accepting science over Church, even though mosher may believe geocentrism unlikely. No one else explicitly indicated why they voted for #1.

A positive response to #1 indicates an understanding that science has not disproven geocentrism.

Question 2- Science's opinion says it is not likely, I accept this: A positive response to this statement indicates that the respondent understands that science has not disproven geocentrism. Still the respondent stands with the opinion of modern science that geocentrism is not likely. No respondents indicated why they voted for this choice.

Question 3- Science has definitely disproven geocentrism: A positive response to this statement indicates a belief that science has in fact demonstrated that geocentrism is not true. A positive response to this answer obviously indicates the respondent does not believe that science has not disproven geocentrism.

Another possible response is of the type would fall under trying to find the "best answer", as Catholic Answers user "pnewton" appears to have done:

I voted that way [#3], but would never word it like that. It is just the closest approximation to what I believe. I know of no credibility ever given to geocentrism and have always considered it a fringe. As far as the case not being closed, I do not view a few people how [sp] promote geocentrism to be relevant. The existance of a Flat Earth Society does not shake my belief inf the Earth being a spheroid.

Still, pnewton could have picked #2, because he is clearly influenced by opinions of science. On the other hand if he wanted to emphasize not giving it credibility, then #3 makes some sense, since this is an opinion poll, and "definitely" is not "absolutely". To use the word absolute in any of the choices would have been overly limiting. A positive response to #3 does not indicate an understanding that science has not disproven geocentrism. No other respondents indicated why they chose this response.

Question 4- I am open to 1 and 2: A positive response to this option indicates the person is split between the opinion of science and the positive case for geocentrism. A positive response to #4 for an undecided respondent indicates an understanding that science has not disproven geocentrism (as opposed to #5). No respondents indicated why they voted for this choice.

Question 5- I am .open to 1, 2, 3: A positive response to #5 indicates the the respondent is open to all the possibilites. It does not indicate the respondent understands that science has not disproven geocentrism.

DERIVED RESULTS:

Positive responses to questions 1, 4, or 5 all indicate an openess to the possibility of geocentrism. Based on that we can say:

Open to Geocentrism as a possibility: 43.48%
Not open to it: 56.52%

Positive responses to questions 1,2,and 4 indicate that it is likely the responder understands that science has not disproven geocentrism. As disussed, there is a possibility that they do understand this, but still chose #3. Still, not knowing who chose this response and why, this logically leads to the following results:

Likely understands that Science has not disproven geocentrism: 45.62%

Likely does not understand that science has not disproven geocentrism: 54.35%

END NOTE:

Catholic Answers is run by Karl Keating. He was not involved in setting up, administering, or analyzing this poll, other than the fact that he provides the forum to do so. I appreciate the presence of the forum.

In fact, for the record, I know of two reasons Mr. Keating has given against geocentrism:

1. The distant stars would be moving faster than the speed of light.
2. In his college days he became convinced that [some] geocentric system was untenable. He was unable to recall specific details.

Both of which items the author believes have been answered here and other places.

In general, Mr. Keating appears to desire to stay out of discussions of geocentrism.

The Theory of Specific Absolutivity

2005-11-09T21:45:00.000-08:00

As I explained in Part II of Geocentrism 101, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (GR) shows geocentrism to be a possible universe, and in fact makes it impossible to reject geocentrism as impossible. I said:

If it turned out that there actually were a center to the universe, then it is still possible that the GR solution to this center's perspective is valid. All other solutions (i.e., for other centers) would be considered hypothetical ones considering the other centers as candidate centers.

If in fact it turned out that earth was the center of the universe, it is still possible the the General Relativity solution could be correct for this one case (and possibly approximately correct for many others); though it certainly would not be guaranteed. What such a finding would require is a new theory, with an absolute reference frame, specifically the reference frame would be the earth. Interestingly enough, a rational name for this new theory would be Specific Absolutivity. Where Einstein's theory is general, i.e., applicable to any reference frame, geocentric theory is specific, i.e., earth is the center. Where in Einstein's theory any motion can only be considered relative, in geocentric theory all motion is compared to the position of the earth (ultimately)- the absolute reference. Einstein substituted the velocity of light as the absolute reference, allowing the universe to become relative in a mathematical hypothesis.

Einstein went one step beyond Copernicus. Copernicus substituted the sun for the earth. Einstein substituted the velocity of light for the earth. What is coming next?

Karl Keating was Right About Gerry Matatics

2005-10-28T11:16:00.000-07:00

Based on the following e-mail from Gerry_Matatics it is clear that Gerry has taken a sedevacantist position. Karl Keating for many years has held that Gerry was open to this position, and has taken a lot of criticism for it. I personally felt that Karl was too harsh (hearing about it after it occured), and like some of the work Gerry did. I must admit at this point that Karl was right about Gerry, and that he stood his ground on principle, even to his own slight detriment. Though I support much of the work done by traditionalists, I think we see here the danger of being in the position of challenging the authority of Rome too much.

I am saddened by the turn of events for Gerry. I hope and pray that Gerry will reconsider his position and return to the Church, even with all its problems. We need apologists who are able to take on the difficult issues, and Gerry is (was) one of them. This episode is another example of how tricky navigating the spiritual world is today with the Church's authority in shambles, and ambiguity reigning. I hope and pray that Benedict XVI will turn the situatuion around.

Gerry, come home- to Rome!

Here is an excellent refutation of Gerry's position by Robert Sungenis.

Geocentricity 101 Supplement: Discussion of the Position of Scriptures and Church

2005-10-17T12:41:00.000-07:00

Since writing the series Geocentricity 101, I have spent a lot of time discussing it with Catholics (and non-catholics) on various forums. It is clear that no one has come up with a reasonable argument against the science part of the issue. The common objection being actually mixing up special and general relativity.

In the case of Scriptures and the Church position, I think a lot of people just do not see the significance of the positions. Part of the fault is mine. In trying to keep the article to a reasonable length and summary in form, I listed a number of decrees and issues, but did not give much explanation. I will try and go through the events in discussion form here, allowing the reader to go back to the orginal article (Geocentrism 101: Part III) to see the details (unless otherwise stated, quotes are from this article). I have also decided to change the wording in the conlusion by removing the words "binding on the faithful's conscience". Many people have complained that it had not gone this far. I believe they are interpeting the words to mean it has reached the level of infallibility, which I explicitly said "It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility." In any case, I will modify this statement, since what is important is not what Catholics are "forced" to believe, but the truth of the matter.

I will not go too much into the assent of the Fathers on this issue. It is clear that the Church did see the Fathers as interperting the Scriptures geocentrically. This is clear from a letter from Bellarmine to Father Foscarini:

On 12 April 1615 Bellarmine wrote I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.

Now this is only an opinion at this point, but it shows what the Holy Office was considering. Based on the Fathers and other considerations, the eleven theological qualifiers of the Holy Office came to an opinion regarding the doctrine of Corpenicism. This opinion would show up again and again over the next 48 years and three popes. The opinion is expressed as:

24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.

( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

Notice the following:

The sun can not be considered immobile. Today we would not have a problem with that notion, but it is clear that the qualifiers were referring to Scriptural paasages almost all of which talk about the sun moving through the heavens cyclically to make day and night. So acentrism really does not satisfy the idea behind this opinion. Also, the immobility of the earth is recognized as a matter of faith. This makes it hard to argue that this issue is not a matter of faith and morals. Clearly if something is fomally heretical by contradicting Scripture, this is a matter of faith and morals.

Now this statement also is an opinion. The opinion was rendered to establish whether to allow Father Foscarini's book and other Corpenican writings to be published. This was followed by a statement from the Holy Office, led and approved by pope Paul V:

And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture, is now spread abroad and accepted by many . . .; therefore in order that an opinion ruinous to Catholic truth not creep further in this manner, the Sacred Congregation decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus . . . be suspended until corrected; and that all other books similarly teaching the same thing be prohibited: as accordingly it prohibits, damns, and suspends them all by the present Decree.

March 5, 1616, Declaration of the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books of the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church.
(source)

Notice here, that the opinion of 1616 is expressed in terms of the issue of mobility of the earth and immobility of the sun. This is the first Papal pronouncement regarding this issue.

The next one occured in 1633, by Urban VIII. In this case, it was not the Index, but the Inquisition. Galileo was declared vehemently suspect of heresy. What was the heresy? Again, the basic 1616 theological opinion was repeated and expanded upon by Urban VIII:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion...following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures...

by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

...Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;...

Urban VIII orders a copy of the decree including the condemnation and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all Nuncios and all Inquisitors, to be drawn especially to the attention of mathematicians of the area for which each of them was responsible and most especially in Galileo’s city of Florence. This order was carried out and the recipients in turn acknowledged reception.

Finally, 15 years later, a Papal Bull was written which probably did more than the prevous declarations. Alexander VII created the Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. Unlike many Indices of the past, he created a Papal Bull, Speculatores Dominus Israel, to which he explicitly attached:

1. ...Tridentine and Clementine Indices...
2. ...all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement...
3. ...also the rules of the Tridentine Index, with the observations and instructions added to the Clementine Index, have been prefixed...

Of these explicitly attached documents, he stated in the Bull:

...which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein...

He then stated , explicitly in the Bull:

...having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience...

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight. But, more important is point '2' , attaching ...all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement... AND confirm[ing], and approv[ing] with Apostolic authority. What does this include? According to Father Roberts (The Pontifical Decree Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, 1885):

1. The decree of Paul V: ...And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture...

2. the “monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation".

Plus a few other items dealing with Kepler's writings, Galileo's Dialogue, etc.

Many Catholic apologists want to pass off this series of events as non-doctrinal because either "it is only disciplinary" or it is "prudential judgement", etc. I believe they are ignoring the Fathers, the Scriptures (as interpered by the Fathers), as well as the repeated and consistent actions of three popes. Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say in Donum Veritatis (a document of instructions for theologians) regarding disciplinary items:

One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.

In regards to "prudential judgements", he had this to say:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

Clearly, none of the above is automatically excluded from consideration, and given the determination, repeated declarations, and the expicit use of Apostolic authority, I find the geocentrism issue impossible to ignore. Finally, many people claim that the decrees were overturned by later popes when:

1. In 1742 Catholic mathematicians, Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims publish with ecclesiastical approbation a text of Newton’s Principia.

This is not the case, since it was publiched with the following caveat:

Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.

Note that not only was the notion of earth's movement stated a hypothesis, but that also in the same paragraph, the Church allowed this notion to be stated as a hypothesis while also stating explicitly that we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. And subsequently they state we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.

This situation is analogous to permitting Corpenicus' work to be published in 1620 with the caveat that the idea of the earth moving was a hypothesis. This clearly indicates that there are circumstances under which the Church allows this hypothesis to be expressed, and they even allowed before the condemnation of Galileo.

2. In 1757 Benedict XIV allowed Corpenicism to be tolerated.

Benedict XIV removed the phrase prohibiting books teaching immobility of then sun and mobility of the earth from his revised Index. Still, the books currently on the Index were not removed (Dorothy Stimson. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the Universe.). It is not clear what this means. Clearly Benedict XIV was not against some teaching of heliocentrism, but any statement beyond that is speculation.

3. In 1820 Canon Settele applies for the Roman Imprimatur to authorise publication of his openly heliocentric Elements d’Astronomie. Anfossi refuses this, but Settele appeals to Pope Pius VII who upholds the appeal and allows publication.

Pius the VII states that:

...the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome...

So now we have a reason why such books are permitted. It is so the general opinion of modern astronomers may be expressed. Note that there is not statement that the Curch's position has changed.

5. Suspension of the Index of Forbiden Books by Paul VI in 1966.

The Index was suspended, not reversed. Nor was the Bull Speculatores Dominus Israel reversed by a suspension of the Index.

(source)

In 1966 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ceased publication of the INDEX but claimed that it still served as a "moral guide in so far as it reminds the conscience of the faithful they must avoid writings which can be dangerous to faith & morals." Today the Church may issue an "admonitum," a warning to the faithful, that a book might be dangerous. It is only a moral guide, however, without the force of ecclesiastical law.

It is clear that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is indicating that the Index dealt with matters of faith and morals.

4. In 1992 John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo.

This was done in a private speech to a private group (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), and had no official Church status. In no way did he officially say that the Church now recognizes heliocentrism (or acentrism) as true. He did say that [(note added 5/31/06) the theologians of]Urban VIII were wrong, but this is his personal opinion (and that of Cardinal Poupard and possibly other members of the Galileo task force). Also he did not discuss the other decrees, nor did he mention the Bull of Alexander VII. So on top of being unofficial, it is incomplete. We should not ignore the speech, but the speech needs to be considered in the context of previous Church declarations. Being private and unofficial, where it contrdicts, the previous decrees are maintained.

None of these serve as the reversal of a Pope's decision. A reversal needs to be explicit. All that can be said is that the Church has since allowed the opinion of modern astronomers to be published. Nothing to my knowledge has been said reversing the decrees dealing with heliocentrism / geocentrism.

At this point it is a matter of awareness of the issue and faith.

Geocentrism 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position

2005-08-31T13:03:00.000-07:00

Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as other researchers (as noted). Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.

Review of Part II is not required, as we are currently moving out of science and into the position of the Church and Scriptures.

In Part III the followng will be summarized:

1. The View of Scripture and the unanimous assent of the Fathers towards geocentrism (and its ramifications), based on Scripture.

2. The declarations of three Popes for geocentrism / against heliocentrism. The Popes were Pope Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII.

3. The lack of any authoritative retraction of former declarations

THE VIEW OF SCRIPTURE AND ITS AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE FATHERS:

The Father's of the Church have interpreted the Scriptures as supporting geocentrism, and rejecting heliocentrism. Probably the main contributer to this is Joshua 10, the stopping of the sun in the sky and the stopping of the moon. This was supported with other portions of Scripture. St. Bellarmine, one of the leading officials working for Paul V in condemning Galileo, summed it up.

On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter to Father Foscarini:

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe."

Ultimately what was defined most strongly is that:

1. The earth does not move (including diurnally, i.e., 24 hour rotation)
2. The sun does move (around the earth).

Geocentrism clearly is the only reasonable existing theory to reconcile these statements.

Looking at Joshua 10 (Douay Rheims, Challoner edition):

12. Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

13. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

14. There was not before, nor after, so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.

One could argue that God stopped the rotation of the earth. But this would make the Holy Spirit a liar. One can think of the Holy Spirit as "dictating" the verses to the inspired writer. Why would not the Holy Spirit simply say "and God stopped the rotation of the earth to create the appearance of the sun stopping in the sky for Joshua. Oh, and by the way, God also stopped the additional velocity of the moon so that it also appeared to stay". Based on these types of arguments, and other verses, the Fathers concluded the above two points. Many modern Biblical exegetes do not agree with the Holy Spirit "dictating" the Scripture. But then again, they cannot agree that Genesis was not a Babylonian myth, and that Adam and Eve even existed, etc.

Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, and Denzinger's 1951) had this to say:

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

Sticking with the time tested and authoritative methods of Biblical exegetism, one has to conclude that the Fathers were correct in their interpretation. And as was said at Trent:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published..."

Similarly, Vatican I states (Session 2, Profession of Faith):

"...Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers..."

And again (Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2- On Revelation):

"...In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture...against the unanimous consent of the fathers."

One could argue that the position of the earth in universe is not a matter of faith and morals (and many do), but texts of cosmological significance are expounded on in the Scriptures in many places. Clearly, accepting that the earth is the center of the universe, as authoritative interpretations of Scripture by the Fathers indicate it is, is a matter of faith, especially in light of intense pressure to accept the opinion of secular science to the contrary. Finally, it was clear to Urban VIII that it was a matter of faith, as astated in the condemnation [of Galileo] of 1633:

"...The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith..."

Also, though it is defined (Vatican I) that Papal infallibility is restricted to matters of faith and morals, the Scriptures are not:

"...Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus..."

(Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu)

PAPAL DECLARATIONS RELATED TO GEOCENTRISM

(Based on and quoted from a timeline from J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997)

24th May 1543: Nicolas Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium is published with ecclesiastical approval ... The study ... is prefixed by a preface explaining that heliocentrism is advanced only hypothetically

8th February 1564: Galileo Galilei is born at Pisa.

1600: Giordano Bruno is tried for heresy.. Heliocentrism considered, but not part of the final charges..

1613: Galileo publishes Letter to Padre Castelli in which he discusses the scriptural and theological arguments being advanced against the heliocentric system Cardinal Sfondrato submitted this letter to the theological Consultors of the Holy Office: their report was mild.

End of March, 1615: Father Caccini, O.P. formally denounces Galileo to the Holy Office.

12th April 1615: Cardinal Bellarmine (later St. Robert) writes to Father Paolo Foscarini, a Carmelite who had presented him with a copy of his recently published study favourable to heliocentrism. Bellarmine, writing in his private capacity as theological adviser, but with intimate knowledge of the reflections of the Consultors of the Holy See and the pope behind the scenes and his own studies, provoked by the recent heliocentric movement, implicitly criticises Foscarini for not restricting himself to a hypothetical presentation. ... He acknowledges that if there were real proof in favour of heliocentrism it would be necessary to “proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary”, but refuses to believe that any such proofs exist or could be found.

7th December 1615: Galileo arrives at Rome himself with his newly-perfected telescope and attracts great interest .... He is received with respect and friendship by many cardinals including St. Robert Bellarmine, and by the Pope. ...Cardinal Barberini who became a particular friend of his but was later, as Pope Urban VIII, to condemn him in 1633.

24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.

( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.

26th February 1616: Cardinal Bellarmine summons Galileo to his home and before witnesses transmits the Pope’s orders, commanding him in the name of the Pope and of the whole Congregation of the Holy Office to abandon the position in question and no more to hold, teach or defend it on pain of being proceeded against by the Holy Ofice. Galileo promises to obey.

3rd March 1616: Bellarmine reports Galileo’s submission to the Pope.

5th March 1616: The Congregation of the Index publishes a decree on the order of Pope Paul V condemning absolutely the study of Father Foscarini referred to above and prohibiting circulation of the writings of Copernicus and Zunica until they had been corrected; it also forbids in general all books teaching the doctrine of the immobility of the sun. It makes no specific mention of Galileo or his writings. The decree explains that the reason for the condemnation is that the doctrine of the immobility of the sun is “false and in absolute contradiction with the Holy Scripture”, but it does not use the word “heretical”. These edicts were published by the Master of the Apostolic Palace on the orders of the Pope.

Here is an excerpt from condemnation of Paul V :
"And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture, is now spread abroad and accepted by many . . .; therefore in order that an opinion ruinous to Catholic truth not creep further in this manner, the Sacred Congregation decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus . . . be suspended until corrected; and that all other books similarly teaching the same thing be prohibited: as accordingly it prohibits, damns, and suspends them all by the present Decree. "

March 5, 1616, Declaration of the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books of the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church.
(Source)

9th or 11th March 1616: Pope Paul V receives Galileo in honourable audience.

26th May 1616: Bellarmine furnishes Galileo with a testimonial whereby to refute allegations of his adversaries that he had been obliged by the Holy Office to recant and abjure his doctrines. Bellarmine’s certificate declared that Galileo had made no abjuration and incurred no penance but that “the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index was intimated to him, wherein it is declared that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun is in the centre of the universe and does not move from east to west is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.”

1620-21: The Sacred Congregation of the Index condemns Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, the edict being signed by Bellarmine.

17th September 1621: Bellarmine dies.

1623: Galileo’s devoted friend Cardinal Barberini is elected Pope, taking the name Urban VIII. He accepts the dedication of Galileo’s work Il Saggiatore. A curious and not necessarily reliable letter of Galileo to a friend alleges that Urban, though disfavouring heliocentrism, had told Galileo that it had not been condemned as heretical and that he himself would never so condemn it. [Since Urban VIII subsequently did so condemn it, the entire allegation may be considered as very doubtful and we are not therefore entitled to list Pope Urban VIII among those who doubted whether the 1616 condemnation had branded heliocentrism as heretical.]

1624: Galileo starts writing a work in dialogue-form in which the three fictional participants discuss the controversy between heliocentrism and geocentrism and in which heliocentrism clearly emerges triumphant, though with some lip service still being paid to the question’s not having been definitively decided.

February 1632: The above study entitled Dialogue of Galileo Galilei Concerning the Two Great Systems of the Universe, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican… is published. The work bears the ecclesiastical approval of Florence (where Galileo lived) and that of Rome. ..the approbation was granted only on condition that certain changes be made and these conditions had not been fulfilled. Pope Urban VIII appointed a Commission of theologians to examine the work and report on it. September 1632: The theological Commission makes a highly unfavourable report. The Pope refers the case to the Inquisition and Galileo is summoned to Rome for trial.

February 1633: Galileo arrives in Rome voluntarily ...

April 1633: The trial begins. Its objects were to establish the objective meaning of the Dialogue, Galileo’s beliefs on the subject of heliocentrism, and his intention in writing the Dialogue.

12th and 30th April and 10th May 1633: Galileo is examined ...

16th June 1633: Pope Urban VIII orders a new interrogation of Galileo concerning his belief since 1616 ...

21st June 1633: Galileo continues to maintain his innocence on this point.

22nd June 1633: Galileo is sentenced as vehemently suspect of heresy and required to abjure heliocentrism and be absolved of the censures and penalties he was deemed to have incurred. Galileo made the abjuration in question and was accordingly absolved. He was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment of the Inquisition, a sentence commuted on the same day so that he was allowed to reside as a private gentleman for the rest of his life though limited in his movements and communications...

Here is part of Urban VIII condemnation:
(Translation from: J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997)

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples... ...and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

...We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;...

30th June 1633: The Pope orders a copy of the decree including the condemnation and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all Nuncios and all Inquisitors, to be drawn especially to the attention of mathematicians of the area for which each of them was responsible and most especially in Galileo’s city of Florence. This order was carried out and the recipients in turn acknowledged reception.

March 1664: Pope Alexander VII promulgates his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus prefaced by a papal bull in which he directs the entire Index to be deemed part of the bull itself and sharing its directly papal authority. This Index includes all previous condemnations of geocentric books in general and in particular and is confirmed and approved with apostolic authority.

The bull was Speculatores Dominus Israel. Below is a reproduction (Courtesy of Robert Sungenis) of the cover page of the bull:

“For this purpose,...[ pursues the Pontiff]...we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted. Since then all these directions have been faithfully and accurately carried out, and a general Index of this kind has been composed,—to which also the rules of the Tridentine Index, with the observations and instructions added to the Clementine Index, have been prefixed; this same general Index as it is put forth, composed by our order, revised, and printed at the press of our Apostolic Camera, and which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein, we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience..."

(Translation from: "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)

1665: Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden “all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”

his 1665 edition is considered an abridged edition of the 1664 Index.

THE LACK OF ANY FORMAL RETRACTION OF THE PAPAL DECREES
(timeline, ibid.)

First it is clear that the Church was not against discussing heliocentrism as a theoretical issue, as evidenced here (as well as February 1632, above) :

1620: The De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium of Copernicus is reprinted at Rome with ecclesiastical permission and containing a monitum addressed to the reader and certain corrections to the text in order that its expressions favourable to heliocentrism should be understood only as a hypothesis proposed on account of its potential practical utility. One amendment to the text specifically observes that geocentrism and heliocentrism are equally capable of “saving the appearances”– a position accepted as correct by many scientists in the 20th century.

Galileo and others pushed the issue as absolute when in fact they had no evidence it was (and still no evidence exists, see Part I and II of this series Geocentrism 101). There has been no retraction of the decrees above. Note that when the decrees were made, specific reasons for the decrees were given. It is true that some things have changed regarding the issue, but no explanation has been given as to why the changes were made. For instance:

1742: Catholic mathematicians, Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims publish with ecclesiastical approbation a text of Newton’s Principia with annotated explanations, prefaced by the following note: “Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.”

it included this in the introduction:

"Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.”

(Translation from: "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)

[Image added 7/17/2007]

Clearly this is analogous to the 1620 case above, where Corpenicus' works were permitted to be published with explanation of heliocentrism being treated as hypothetical.

16th April 1757: The scholar-pope Benedict XIV in recognition of the new status held by heliocentrism in the scholarly world since the writings of Isaac Newton suspends the decrees of the Congregation of the Index against heliocentric works.

Benedict XIV removed the phrase prohibiting books teaching immobility of then sun and mobility of the earth from his revised Index. Still, the books currently on the Index were not removed (Dorothy Stimson. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the Universe.). It is not clear what this means. Clearly Benedict XIV was not against some teaching of heliocentrism, but any statement beyond that is speculation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it specifically this way:

On 5 March 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index ‘until corrected,’ and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV.

I.e., Benedict the XIV was only completing what was started in 1616 in the case of Corpenicus.

1820: A Canon Settele applies for the Roman Imprimatur from Mgr. Anfossi to authorise publication of his openly heliocentric Elements d’Astronomie. Anfossi refuses this, but Settele appeals to Pope Pius VII who upholds the appeal and allows publication.

"...the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome..."

(source)

The above two cases were tantamount of the Popes saying they will allow modern scientists to express their opinions. This in no way implies that the Church has changed it's opinion.

11th September 1822: The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition decides that the printing of books teaching the movement of the earth would thenceforth be permitted at Rome.

25th September 1822: Pope Pius VII approves this decree.

Clearly, now heliocentrism may be expressed as an opinion of modern astronomers. No rescinding of previous decrees was stated.

I will add, in 1992 John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo. This was done in a private speech to a private group (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), and had no official Church status. In no way did he officially say that the Church now recognizes heliocentrism (or acentrism) as true. He did say that [(note added 5/31/06)the theologians of] Urban VIII were wrong, but this is his personal opinion (and that of Cardinal Poupard and possibly other members of the Galileo task force). Also he did not discuss the other decrees, nor did he mention the Bull of Alexander VII. So on top of being unofficial, it is incomplete. We should not ignore the speech, but the speech needs to be considered in the context of previous Church declarations. Being private and unofficial, where it contrdicts, the previous decrees are maintained.

There are no official statements explaining why these actions were permitted, other than allowing modern scientists to express their opinions and completing the will of the 1616 Index. One can speculate that the Church reversed itself, but in order to reverse the decrees, the following would be at least expected (author's opinion):

1. A bull or encyclical authoritatively reversing decrees against movement of the earth and a fixed position of the sun.
2. Explanations (likely in the bull or encyclical) as to how to explain:

The interprtation of the Fathers
Trent and Vatican I position regarding interpretation of the Fathers.

In any case, an action at least as authoritative as the action creating the decrees would be needed.

CONCLUSION

Keep in mind that in the 18th and 19th century many people were becoming convinced that heliocentrism was true. In the 20th century, Einstein's General Relativity removed that notion. Had the Church acted authoritatively, it would have been a big mistake. It is still scientifically possible that the Church was not wrong in the first place. The Holy Spirit does protect the Church from error in certain official acts of the Popes.

It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility. Clearly they have reached at least the level of being worthy of consideration by the faithful (and possibly much more), but given the Vatican's ambiguity towards the issue in recent centuries, there is probably little moral culpability for the average person who has been taught unimpeded from early childhood (even taught at Catholic schools) that we know that the earth goes around the sun and spins on its axis. Clearly science supports the notion that we do not know either way (see Parts I and II, Geocentricity 101).

Wave on World Youth

2005-08-17T20:08:00.000-07:00

I was watching the mass in Cologne last night, led by Cardinal Meisner. The German President showed up to give a speech to the assembled youth. In their exuberance for the event they interrupted his speech with a wave that kept travelling around the stadium accompanied by cheering. For what seemed to be several minutes the President could not speak. This seems like bad manners and disrespectful.

On the other hand, I listened to the speech by the President. Maybe the youth did, too. Not once did he mention Jesus Christ. Not once did he mention the Mass. He talked about networking, meeting new friends, cross-border dialogue, Catholic AND protestant dialogue, etc. He did mention the Creator once that I heard. He might as well have said the "Archtect of the Universe". His solution was not God, but government.

Basically, secularism came to speak at the Catholic Mass. It would have been politically incorrect for him to speak about a specific god. This is the same country, who as part of the European Union would not entertain John Paul II's request to at least mention Europe's Christian heritage. Though it was impressive that the President of Germany attended the event, what he said was not too impressive.

Maybe the youth had it right, after all. Maybe they were listening. Wave on World Youth.

Geocentrism 101, Part II

2005-08-06T15:44:00.000-07:00

Geocentricity 101, Part II Basic Physics
Mark Wyatt
August 3rd, 2005

Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also, the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.

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

Review of Part I

In part I, we discussed the basic principles of geocentrism. We discussed coordinate systems, and briefly touched upon relative motions within the cosmos. Part I basically stated that one could perform a coordinate transformation to any point in space and as long as one had a map of relative motions and observations of heavenly bodies from the originating coordinate system, one could map out what those motions and observations would appear to be in a new coordinate system. For this reason one could simulate what the motions of the solar system looked like from the sun's perspective (this is called heliocentrism). One could also map out what those motions looked like from the earth (i.e., geocentrism). Of course one could choose Mars, a specific asteoid, etc. It was also pointed out that all the observations made by man up to the space age were basically equivalent to earth based observations. This means that the motions of the planets, moon(s), asteroids, comets were geocentric observations. This means that the phases of Jupiter's moons, phases of Venus, parallax, abberation, etc. were geocentric observations. It is in fact impossible to differentiate between geocentrism and any other proposed center (i.e, heliocentrism, acentrism) based on observations. George Ellis, a cosmologist in Cape Town, South Africa made this point in a Scientific American article:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.

W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Finally, it was proposed that the real issue for geocentrists (and heliocentrists and acentrists, etc.) is to propose a physical model that accounts for the observations. It was put forth that Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe. In other words, one can choose any point in space and consistently describe not only the motions and observations, but the actual forces in the universe from the chosen point. A series of quotations from Einstein and other scientists to this effect were presented in relation to geocentrism. It was not claimed that this proves geocentrism.
----------------------------------------------------------
First let us discuss briefly physical theories. Many physical theories are approximate and empirical. An example is Newtonian mechanics, especially Newtonian gravitation. With the example of gravitation in mind, it can be stated that Newtonian theory has no physical explanation for gravity. Yet it does tend to work, at least for most cases we have yet enountered . An example of a more descriptive physical theory for gravitation is Le Sage's corpuscular theories (and related theories, i.e., graviton theories, etc.) . While Newton relates the gravitational attraction of two objects to the masses and the inverse square of the distances, Le Sagean theory relates the attraction to a sea of proposed corpuscles moving at very high velocites through space. The corpuscles impinge upon objects equally on all sides, except where a second object blocks the first. Where the objects interfere, there is less corpuscular "pressure", thus the objects move towards one another. Interestingly, within reasonable limits, the equations for Le Sagean gravitation reduce to Newton's equations for gravity. I will call the less descriptive type of theory "empirical" and the more descriptive theories "mechanistic".

Probably the most used theory in general cosmology today is Einstein's General Relativty (GR). Though it is considered a very powerful theory, it is in fact empirical, especially in its treatment of gravity. GR's treatment of gravity can be viewed as geometric. In the geometric interpretation, gravity is imagined to be a distortion of an underlying grid. Space is represented as distorted by massive objects. The idea is that as other objects approach, they will "roll down the distortion". Of course there is still a force implied, otherwise why would an object feel the need to "roll down"? So this is just a way of representing gravity. Ultimately, in fairly static space-time (i.e., such as our solar system represented as heliocentric), the gravity in Einstein's General relativity will reduce to Newtonian gravity (much like in the case of Le Sage's gravity). Empirical theories are probably the most used today, because it is not necassary to elucidate all the details (of gravity for instance). As long as the theory is valid, and for practical problems this is acceptable.

Let us start by viewing geocentrism from the perspective of GR. After a general description within GR, we can see what explanations have been proposed for rotating universes. Then we can briefly discuss some more mechanistic possibilities.

One may ask 'if no one believes in geocentrism, why would they model a rotating universe with earth at the center?'. Well first some researchers may be open to geocentrism. Secondly, researchers want to validate the principles of GR. One of the principles is that there are "no preferred reference frames" in the universe. This means that we can pick any center, make a coordinate transformation to that center and describe the universe from that point. It means that the interactions of all the gravitational attractions and other forces in the universe will balance in such a way that the center we picked will physically act as the center. This means that if we pick a fixed earth (non-rotating, non-translating) then all the forces in the universe will act in such a way that when we solve the Einsteinian equations, we will find that there will be a balance of forces in the universe that will include the features of:

1. A rotating universe
2. An earth (or other chosen center) fixed in the center
3. Forces opposing the rotation of the center.
4. All observations in the universe will be consistent with observations from solutions at a different center.

I.e., if we chose earth as center, and we currently believe the earth is rotating, and we are able to describe the motions of geosynchronous satellites from the rotating earth perspective (or say from a fixed sun perspective), and we reformulated Einstein's equations on a fixed earth, there must exist analgous forces causing the same observations of geosynchronous satellites. If not, then GR is incorrect. This is one reason why relativists create models of rotating universes on a fixed earth. They want to demonstrate that GR produces forces analogous to what we observe in our presumed rotating earth universe. This principle is called the "strong" principle of relativity. Neither Newtonian theory nor Einstein's Special Relativity have the strong principle.

Let's start with a related example. Gron and Erikson gave an example of an observer seeing the earth from the surface of the moon. Now from this location, the earth appears to be rotating below the moon. It is just hanging in space and turning. Why does the moon not fall to the earth? They explain that the reason is because we had neglected to include the rest of the universe in the picture! They, and GR, are proposing the universe is Machian (after Ernst Mach of Mach Number fame). Mach proposed that every object in the universe is attracted to every other object. He proposed that inertia is due to resistance of movement of an object to all the other objects in the universe. Like Leibniz, he proposed that space was really not something, but rather just a relationship between objects in the universe.

But what is the relationship between the rest of the objects in the universe and our coordinate system (i.e., fixed moon)? Well the rest of the universe (cosmic mass) is rotating around this coordinate system (and thus around the earth and moon). Somehow this rotating universe is creating forces which [from our coordinate system's perspective] keep the earth from falling to the moon. Gron and Erikson (General Relativity and Gravitation) explain it in this quote:

"...we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid.

This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."

But, one objects, we know why the moon does not fall to the earth. It is because the moon is orbiting the earth and rotating... This is true from the perspective of a coordinate system fixed say on the north pole of the earth and allowing the earth to rotate around it. In this case the cosmic masses are not rotating, and their influence is less (but not zero, inertia still exists). This is the realm of Newtonian mechanics and Special relativity. This is the key to GR- it is Machian. One can pick any center and reformulate the entire universe from the perspective of this center and consistently describe the universe. In fact per GR there is no reality beyond a perspective. This is a philosophical position. Actually doing this (modelling the entire universe) is difficult, but this is the principle that GR is built upon. If it turned out that there actually were a center to the universe, then it is still possible that the GR solution to this center's perspective is valid. All other solutions (i.e., for other centers) would be considered hypothetical ones considering the other centers as candidate centers. If we found a portal to a known fixed reference outside the universe, and knew we could spend a limited amount of time there (I.e., if God granted us this), our best bet would be to solve Einstein's GR equations for a number of candidate centers. Then we could go to this observation post, and see which one most accurately describes the observed universe. Of course we cannot do this.

Let us look at an example dealing specifically with the earth. Rosser treats an observer (O') on earth with earth as the center (earth functions as a "roundabout"), and describes why there is no issue with the stars moving greater than the speed of light. He then points out that when the rotating roundabout (i.e., the rotating earth) is treated as being at rest (ie., fixed earth, also the "stationary roundabout"), the forces from the rotating cosmic masses become huge, and create the forces (which for instance keep geosynchronous satellites apparently hovering above the fixed earth) which hold the earth fixed against a rotating universe.

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

As an aside, I want to briefly touch on the issue of fixed light speed (3X10^8 m/s, or 300,000,000 m/s). GR does not have a specific limitation on the speed of light. Special Relativity states it is fixed everywhere. GR does reduce to special relativity in regions of space-time which are flat (i.e., no gravity). In these instances GR may have a limitation on speed. The reason GR cannot have a general limitation on the speed of light is illustrated in this amusing example:

(Math Pages)

"The moon revolves round my head faster than light!

Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one revolution each two seconds. Suppose the moon is on the horizon. How fast is it spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away so the answer is 1.21 million km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It sounds ridiculous to say that the moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid including revolving ones. So isn't the moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to account for.

What it comes down to, is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be directly compared in general relativity. Notice that the moon is not overtaking the light in its own locality. The velocity of the moon can only be compared to the velocity relative to other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of velocity is not a very useful one in general relativity and this makes it difficult to define what "faster than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited validity (pg 76). When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so clear how speeds should be determined.

Nevertheless, the modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity and this statement is a tautology given that standard units of distance and time are related by the speed of light. The moon is given to be moving slower than light because it remains within the future light cone propagating from its position at any instant."

Now, we have demonstrated that GR can be used to make a reasonable case for a fixed earth at the center of a rotating universe. One may ask, 'what are the mechanisms that actually allow this to occur'? Misner, Wheeler and Thorne in Gravitation (pp. 1117-1119) modeled the general case of gyroscopic motion with gravitation in the post-Newtonian limit (which can be interpreted as a rotating universe as having gyroscopic stability). They conclude that the gyroscope (rotating universe) maintains the center of mass (the earth in geocentrism) from rotating or translating. This is much like a top. If a top is disturbed forces react to the disturbance to maintain the position of the center of mass. In the case of a geocentric universe, the universe will react to maintain its center. This means the entire power of the universe will be used to maintain earth at its center.

Many people ask 'what constitutes the earth'? Is it just the surface? Is it the solid ball? Does it include the atmosphere? Really the question is no different in geocentrism then it is in heliocentrism or acentrism. It really depends on what we are looking at. In terms of gyroscopic stabilization, the universe will try and stabilize its center. If the earth is at center, it will be stabilized. Though the center of mass is mathematically a point, the action of the entire universe will work to maintain this point stable (just like a top will wobble or precess against a disturbance). One can imagine various mechanisms which could act to stabilize the earth. If there is a huge volcanic eruption, and 0.001% of earth's mass is blown into the atmosphere and lands on the other side of the earth, how much would the universe have to rearrange itself to accomodate this? Undetectably.

Let us finish up by looking at more mechanistic explanations. These are more speculative, but interesting to consider. Usually, geocentrists (much like quantam mechanicists today) bring back the possibility of an aether to explain a geocentric universe. Many people believe aether was disproven, but, just like geocentrism, this is not true. As I have stated, in quantam mechanics, the aether is being brought back by many researchers. Also, the concept of dark matter and dark energy are an aether under different names. Note that though GR does not posit aether, and Einstein rejected it, this does not mean aether is incompatible with GR. Many researchers into Le Sagean gravity and graviton type models have shown that some relativistic effects (such as frame dragging) can be explained with aether type theories. See for instance the book Pushing Gravity, edited by Edward R. Matthews. Let us leave this at this.

The proposed substance of the aether is the Planck particle. This is the substance proposed by some quantam mechanicists. These particles have a diameter of 1.6x10^-35 m and a mass of 2.2x10^-8 kg. The density is a whopping 5x10^96 kg per cubic-centimeter (some quantam mechanicists refer to Planck particles as "micro-black holes")! Now if the stars, planets, etc. are rotating in this dense medium, then really, the relative motion between the stars, galaxies, etc., and the aether is very small (i.e., local motion). Within this rotating aether, planets can orbit stars, galaxies can rotate, etc. This is allowed because the de Broglie wavelength (i.e., particle-wave duality) of normal matter (baryonic matter) is 10's of orders of magnitude different than Planck particles (non-baryonic matter), and thus there is little or no direct interaction between them. Thus in the modern Tychonic system, the sun can revolve with the universe around the earth, and the planets orbit the sun with Keplerian type orbits.

The aether becomes a rotating frame of reference. Depending on the property of the aether, light and gravity can be transmitted through the aether. This can lead to a speed of light of "c' and almost instantaneous gravitational reaction over large distances (i.e., no "action at a distance" problem like Newtonian theory and relativity). Also, a Le Sagean corpuscular gravitational mechanism could be introduced.

This is the end of Part II. The next discussion will be regarding Church statements and Scripture in the case of geocentrism.

Geocentricity 101, Part I

2005-08-01T14:23:00.000-07:00

Geocentricity 101, Part I, Basic Concepts
Mark Wyatt
August 1st, 2005

Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also, the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.

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

There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe. Geocentricity is one of the many explanations.

If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points. This is basically stating that a coordinate transformation can be made from some to any other coordinate system (say x, y, and z axis) with its origin placed arbitrarily in space. If this coordinate transformation is done correctly, then the relative motions of the observed objects in the heavens will be consistent with the relative motions from any other correctly applied coordinate system at a different location. This is basic vector mathematics and is not controversial. To state it more simply if one observes the relative motions of objects in the heavens (let's say we pick earth, our sun, and say one distant galaxy) from a spot on the surface of the moon, one can consider this the origin of a coordinate system (say CS1). If one then observes the motions of the same objects from a location on Mar's surface, this represents a coordinate system transformation to a new coordinate system (Say CS2). Since we can think of ourselves as sitting at the origin of whatever coordinate system we choose, this point becomes fixed in space, and the universe appears to revolve around us at this point. If one plotted the relative motions from CS1 and CS2 relative to their respective origins, the paths of the observed objects would seem very different. In fact though, they would be consistent. If one transformed a coordinate system from CS1 to a thrid coordinate system (CS3, say on the surface of Alpha Centuri), and one did the same coordinate transformation from CS2 to CS3, the resulting paths of objects realtive to the origin of CS3 should be identical.

Let's take an example. Let's start at CS1, viewing the path of the earth. Assuming we pick a location on the face of the moon with view to earth, we would see the earth rotating in place on about a 23.12 hour period (this accounts for a 24 hour rotation + the 27.3 day period of the moon orbiting the earth). Ignoring any ellipticity in the moons orbit, basically the earth appears not to be translating, but only rotating. The sun would have more complicated motion. It would appear to have a 27.3 day cycle (the lunar orbital period), and would spend much of the time eclipsed by the earth, or behind us. The distant objects would rotate on 27.3 day periods, apparently on a sphere.

Now let's transform to CS2, the surface of Mars. To be sure we can always see the earth. let's fix CS2 on Mar's North pole, and allow Mars to rotate on our z-axis (a rotating Mars reference frame, z-axis pointing north). In some cases, the earth will move behind us, but we can look over our shoulders at it. The earth will appear to have a bizzare motion, sometimes moving towards us, sometimes moving away. The path will be curved, often making loops. Pretty similar to watching Mars from earth.

Now if we transformed from CS1 to CS3 (sitting out in space say on one of Alpha Centuri's poles, with the star permitted to rotate on its axis if it wants to) we would see the moon travelling around the earth, the earth apparently travelling around the sun, etc., all apparently in fixed space. Now keep in mind that if the universe was rotating with Alpha Centuri in it, we just stoppped the rotation by fixing our coordinate system on Alpha Centuri. If we transform from CS2 to CS3, we get the same result. This is what is meant by the observed motions are consistent.

In the case of a geocentric model, we will place earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation). The universe will revolve around the earth. In a geocentric model, we are stating that this is the true reality of the universe, and we want to go beyond the fact that we can perform a coordinate transformation to achieve this model. There is no controversy regarding the observations. All the observations man has collected up to the space age have been a fixed earth model. Ptolemy's model of the universe had high observational accuracy, and was based on fixed earth observations. Ptolemy's observations are still consistent with space based observations (coordinate transformation). Ptolemy's model was transformable to different locations on the fixed earth. Finding the physics to describe why the paths were as they were in Ptolemy's model is difficult.

Corpenicus created a heliocentric model using the same basic observations of Ptolemy. In his model, the sun was the center of the universe. As in Ptolemy's model, the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations. In order to gain the same accuracy as Ptolemy's model, Corpencius required 48 epicycles to Ptolemy's 40. An example of an epicycle is illustrated here for a Ptolemaic system (epicycle).

Tycho Brahe proposed the Tychonic geocentric model. In his original model, the sun and stars revolve around the earth every 24 hours. The planets orbit the sun with circular orbits. The Tychonian system is as accurate as the Corpenican, except it does not predict parallax.

In modern geocentric theories, the modern-Tychonian or neo-Tychonian model are used. The modern-Tychonian system is the same as the original, except the planets orbit the sun with elliptical orbits. In the neo-Tychonian system the further extension of the modern-Tychonian that the stars are centered on the sun, is added. The neo-Tychonian system directly predicts parallax. Parallax can also be created in the modern-Tychonian system by providing for a precession of the universe. The results of either modification are essentially the same.

No one argues that from an observational perspective all these systems are equivalent. It is simply a matter of relative motion. The observed motions in the various models are consistent between models to some degree o accuracy. Clearly there are geocentric (i.e. modern-Tychonic type), heliocentric (i.e., Keplerian type), and acentric (i.e., Kepler like with no center) which can match all known observations, including parallax, abberation, motion of the planets, etc. According to modern physics, the systems are equivalent, also. This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to state:

"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense."

Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Einstein himself also says:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"

These quotes do not explain the physics, but state that according to Einstein's General Rrelativity, the systems must be equivalent (else General Relativity is wrong!) Another way of stating this is to say that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe. I.e., one should be able to formulate the forces and motions of the universe consistently from any reference frame in the universe, treating that reference frame as fixed.

In the next section, we will look at some fio the physics of a geocentric universe.

Unbelieveable

2005-07-15T10:15:00.000-07:00

According to this article: Infowars
A London based company (Visor) just happened to be in the London underground performing "bombing" evercises in the exact locations and times that the actual London bombings occured. This is verified by radio interviews with Visor Consultant's employees. Peter Powers of Visor Consultants wrote an e-mail (reproduced in entirety here Canada Freepress), stating there was no conspiracy involved.

Later in the first article it is pointed out that during 9/11 at least 5 or 6 training exercises were occuring on the east coast of the USA, some dealing with aircraft. This is claimed to have put up to 22 blips on NORAD radar screens, masking the actual terrorist hijackings (9/11).
It is alleged that Dick Cheney ultimately took control of the exercises (perhaps to shut them down).

Of course all of this is considered "conspiracy theories", but there appears to be some substance to it, and the coincidences are a little unnerving. Are terrorists aware of and using our training exercises to mask their plots? Are people in the US / British (and other possibly) establishments coordinating with terrorist groups?

Mary, come to our rescue!

Science and Church

2005-07-14T14:27:00.000-07:00

A classic example of the limits of science, and an example of a conflict between the Church and science is the idea of geocentrism.
The Church has taught that the earth does not move, and the sun and stars move around it. The ancient Greeks proposed a heliocentric theory, which the early Church Fathers contested based on Scriptural interpretation.

Centuries later, Corpenicus proposed a heliocentric theory, which he felt would simplify the cosmology of Ptolemy. He sold it to a Pope as a more efficient way to describe the motions of planets as part of a program to improve the calendar. In fact, Corpenicus' heliocentric model required 48 epicycles (including "epicyclets") to Ptolemies 40 to gain the same accuracy! [Kepler's elliptical orbits simplified things, but still was not more accurate than Ptolemy's model until modern times when Fourier Transforms (a fancy form of many, many, epicycles, effectively) were applied to curve fit observed deviations of planetary motion from the ideal Keplerian motion.)]

Galileo picked up Corpenicus' model and proclaimed basically that Scripture was wrong, the earth orbited the sun, and the sun was the center of the universe. Three Popes ended up condeming the writings of Corpenicus and Galileo. If the Corpenicus' writings and Galileo treated their theories as a theory, and not as proven reality, the Church would have stayed out of it. Finally, after the editors of Corpenicus' works removed the few sentences that proclaimed heliocentrism to be more than a theory from his works (as demanded in the inquisition), the works were removed from the index. The proclamations were never rescinded.

Today, heliocentrism is rejected, as is geocentrism, all in favor of acentrism. No one knows if there is a center to the universe, scientifically. Equally factual, No one has proven to date that the earth rotates or translates! I.e., geocentrism has by no means been disproven. Acentrism is more philosophical than scientific. The theory of General Relativity operates under the assertion that one can pick any center to describe the universe. A postulate of the theory is that there are no preferred reference frames (i.e., any center will do). This is how General Relativity is formulated.

All observation we make in the universe is of relative motion. We see the sun and stars rotating around us, but mathematically, equally probable is that the earth turns (the current OPINION). Foucalt's pendulum, Sagnac effect, light gyroscopes, etc. can detect rotation, but cannot distinguish between rotation of the earth and rotation of the universe.
The interesting predicament is that though science strongly disagrees with geocentrism, it has not been able to disprove it.

Some interesting quotes:

Cosmologist George Ellis in Scientific American:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations," Ellis argues. "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."

As stated by Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

:"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

The Virgin of Guadalupe's Revenge?

2005-07-13T13:26:00.000-07:00

I have been reading and hearing a lot about the fact that Europe will eventually becoms an Islamic continent due the fact that Europeans are not getting married and not having children. From what I have seen in Europe, I believe there is a lot of truth in this. There are many Islamic people coming into Europe, and they are having a lot of children, compared to those of "Christian" Europeans.

A similar phenomenon is occuring the US, but we are far behind where they are. Marriage is much more common in the US, but families are having far fewer children (I think a recent statistic is less than 2.3 children per family). At the same time, the US, especially, western US is being flooded by immigants. Most of these immigrants are from Hispano-America. These immigrants are also having more children than established Americans.

The main difference, and it is possibly a blessing in disguise, is that most of the immigrants coming into the US from Hispano-America are Christian, largely Catholic. If we can keep them in the Catholic Church (many are fleeing to Protestant cults), they may make the US a Catholic nation, or at least create some Catholic states!

Is this the doing of the Virgin of Guadalupe?

London Bombings

2005-07-07T12:24:00.000-07:00

The world was rocked again after 9/11, Madrid and other attacks with today's London bombings. God bless the victims of the attack and the nation of Great Britain. Mary protect all your people on earth and help to turn their hearts back to your son.

God and Man: A Sign of Things to Come?

2005-07-06T09:56:00.000-07:00

I am on vacation in Guatemala, and have been thinking a lot about things going on in the world. Early this morning, just after midnight, I was watching Deutsche-Welle (a German news program broadcast here in English). They were discussing the 2005 summer in Europe. First they brought up the fact that the 2003 summer was catostrophically hot and dry, leading to 15,000 elderly dying. I was working in southern France much of that summer, and can attest to the heat and dryness. I changed hotels a few times in search of air conditioning that worked.

Deutsche-Welle also reported that Portugal is currently experiencing the worst drought in 300 years. The countries of southern Europe are preparing for a record summer.

They then cut to Spain, where they interviewed a farmer, who was describing the loss of his crops. They cut to a scene of a combine harvesting wheat. It was collecting the grain and kicking out the waste. The dialogue mentioned that it looked normal, but according to the farmer, the harvest was mainly chaff and hay, very little wheat. I could not help but think about Jesus talking about seperating the chaff from the wheat, also talking about the wheat withering and the chaff taking over. The next scene the farmer was standing in a field of another crop (not stated what, but appeared to be a seed crop, possibly for oil). He pulled a whithered and dry plant from the earth and crumbled it in his hands. He said it was ruined. Here I could not help but think of the words of Mary to Maximin in 1846 at La Sallette (La Sallette):

Have you ever seen any spoilt wheat, my children?

We both answered: "Oh no, Madame."

The Holy Virgin turned to Maximin, saying: " But you, my child, you must have seen some once near le "Coin", with your father. The farmer said to your father: "Come and see how my wheat's gone bad!" You went to see. Your father took two or three ears in his hand, rubbed them, and they fell to dust. Then, on your way back, when you were no more than half an hour away from Corps, your father gave you a piece of bread, and said: "Take it, eat it while you can, my son, for I don't know who will be eating anything next year if the wheat is spoiled like that!"

Well, I cannot claim Deutsche-Welle as prophetic, but when combined with the Tsunami (10,000+ dead), a 100 year rain in California, recent earthquakes in California and Nicaraugua, and other recent events, one has to ask, "Is God trying to get our attention?".

In Europe, Pope John Paul II implored the European Union to include at least a mention of Europe's Christian heritage in the upcoming constitution. The response was negative. In the US, our federal constitution makes no mention of God. Many of our state constitutions do at least recognize God (God and State Constitutions).

Clearly man has the responsibility to care for himself and his neighbors, but not without God. Today, we live under the illusion of the "secular state" and "seperation of church and state". Rarely today is God mentioned in public and state events. With abortion and euthanasia (as the most clear examples) becoming state protected activities as a result of state philosophies, it is clear that we need to re-examine, and even reverse these philosophies. Man cannot exist without God. God has destroyed man's attempt to build the tower at Babylon, and will do so again.

Welcome

2005-06-01T14:54:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Catholic Truth

In this blog, I will try and focus on the truths of Catholicism and how they are expressed in today's world. Things may start slowly here, but please check back soon.