"Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX" First Fifth Reviewed ·
Continuing the interview with Fr Robinson, Second Fifth ·
Third Fifth of Same Interview ·
Fourth Fifth, Same Interview ·
Fifth Fifth, a Few Arguments and Strawmen to Round it Up
Same video as first post in this series.
21:29 Pass this around ten people:
Joshua 10:12.
Is the mention of sun and moon in Joshua's prayer, directed to God, or after the prayer, directed to sun and moon on behalf of God?
I think you would find, unless they had been briefed beforehand, most would say "directed to sun and moon," and "after the prayer" ... at least as long as you don't ask them to figure in the following.
The salient question is not just "can verse 13 be explained in phenomenological language, because it was the sun and moon that normally look like moving, and it looked like it was them that stopped moving?" ... there is at least some kind of hint in Providentissimus Deus the answer could be yes, provided there was nothing else that was different.
However, the words of Joshua are NOT describing what Joshua sees, they say what Joshua orders to happen, with power to his words given by God. It would be very remarkable if this were the case and his words were not directed to whatever they would logically need to adress, just because he was in an error God didn't correct or his audience were so.
God was fully aware of how the verse 13 would be taken in the Galileo process, by none less than the Dominican Caccini, and He was also fully aware how I would take, perhaps others also will take, verse 12.
He had also had 40 years in which He could have given the Hebrews relevant cosmologic information, or if He had found no use for that, He could also have avoided the Solar Miracle and used another miracle instead.
"Oh, He had to do a Solar miracle because of the Solar Deities, you say?"
Well, if He could take into account the false deities of back then, He could certainly also take into account the falsehoods and the interests of truth in 1633 or 2024 after a Birth which happened 1470 years later. Our Lord's.
21:47 "He has chosen to do that through the Church"
Well, the Church did, in 1633.
22:03 ["How do you know what this verse means?"]
Trent Session IV.
The ban was not directed against trusting one's own judgement. The ban was directed against contradicting a definite judgement of the Church, which 1822 isn't on the Bible meaning, it's a freeforall for debate, but which 1633 is. It is especially directed against contradicting sth the Church holds if the Church hath already held it, rather than sth the Church holds in contradiction or at least obvious contrast to previously. It is also doubled by stating the unanimous position of the CCFF needs to be held to. It could be added to, possibly, but cannot be contradicted.
David Palm, the friend of Fr. Robinson, and kind of my friend too, found no Church Father who embraced Heliocentrism as truth. His one example was a passage in which one CF enumerated discoveries of the philosophers, and it is not totally clear from the CCFF in general that this meant approval of said discoveries. It is highly probable that that CF mentioned the "discovery" of [Heliocentrism] with tongue in cheek.
By contrast, St. Augustine, in Book I of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII, makes it very clear:
- the earth is round
- the light-hemisphere of heaven went around earth up to day three and starting out day four
- from day four on, it's instead the sun that does so
- and since this means all of the time there is day somewhere and night somewhere, the time zone that counts for the creation days is that of Jerusalem, where Adam was created.
This is, very unlike the obscure passage found by David Palm, formal exegesis, not precisely of Joshua (though I think Questiones in Octateuchum would give a similar result in favour of Round Earth Geocentrism for Joshua), but of a passage in the Bible, namely Genesis 1. It is also, however ridiculous it may feel to someone raised in a modern culture, and not used to questioning it, not anything like tongue in cheek.
22:22 I have taken into account all three types of passages used by Flat Earth, and have shown each faulty as to their exegesis, meaning the verses as such are perfectly compatible with the Round Earth we inhabit.
The Four Corners have often been retranslated as "Four Quarters" but this is not the case in Apocalypse 7:1. There is a reason for it, angels do not enjoy ubiquity, they are in places, not the same way as corporeal creatures, but they do not naturally bilocate. However, I can point to "Four" precisely "Corners" on a globe, you know those artefacts that show the earth. Where there is a corner, there is a rim, and there are rims on such a globe. These are rims of continents.
The Four Corners are places where a Northern or South adjacent or southern rim of a continent meets a Western or Eastern rim of continents.
Outside such a rim, you don't need a space ship, you simply need a ship.
A certain James Hannam pretended the language on different topics including this one a) was taken figuratively by CCFF, b) had not started out as figurative in the hagiographers.
I clarified I was taking this as perfectly literal statements. I also later, after Hannam* had declined further debate, checked this in St. Thomas' exposition of Job.
"Quod non est sic intelligendum quasi tota terra simul concutiatur in terraemotu, sed quia aliquae extremitates terrae concutiuntur."
22:37 the downward wedges of tectonic plates and certain pillar like structures inside the earth crust apart from that would give literal sense to "pillars" ...
22:53 This could be an indication God wants Israel to exist in some form, though certainly not for its massacres in Gaza.
Four corners would be places where the Jews in Acts 2 were not coming from.
In the first century, the First Pentecost, Jews were not arriving from Alaska, Sakhalin, Hobart and close to Cape Horn. Since 1948 they have been arriving from such places.
23:10 I suppose you are speaking of Flood Gates of Heaven, and I would say the opening of these was the merging of a layer of Oxygen with a layer of Hydrogen in the higher parts of the atmosphere as Brown's gas, and its ignition.
The closing of the Flood Gates would be the depletion of that layer as that water came down into Deep Seas and water cycle.
Again, nothing which per se indicates a Flat Earth. It can be made to sound "Flat Earth-ish" by association, but it is not Flat Earth, nor otherwise opposed to what we know or can reasonably guess about this time.
24:09 I don't need the science of light to know the bent look of a stick as it is stuck into a pond is an illusion.
It is perfectly sufficient to strike the finger along the stick in the air and then down into the water to verify there is no bent.
The reason I go with "optic illusion" is not that this optic illusion is possible, and that science teachers have explained it. The reason is, I can verify it has to be an illusion by using one other sense. And simply what I naturally know about sticks.
Yes, optic illusions are possible. However, in good philosophy, you don't invoke an illusion unless it's necessary. You could imagine that Earth was twice of half the size today it was yesterday, and everything else had changed size too, well, there is nothing to disprove it insofar as the optic illusion of "same size" in changing size of observer would be the same. But we can discount it, because there is nothing that makes such a change of size necessary. Also, I can disprove it from another side, insofar as there is no apparent cause lesser than God which could effect such a change, and no apparent reason why God would do so.
To state "optic illusions exist, therefore senses are not reliable" is not Thomism, is not Aristotelic, it's the oldest trick in the hat of Pyrrhonism and of Descartes, who, remember, was put on the Index.
Also, you are not fully citing the actual words of the Pope.**
First of all, he is not touching the direct question of Heliocentrism verses Geocentrism with a pole. He's simply treating the question as canonically in a vacuum. He's giving a far more general instruction, which could be interpreted as applying to this question, and that actually in more than one way.
Here are the salient words, in English translation:
Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
Footnote 54 then goes to Prima Pars, Q 70, A1, Ad 3. I will here cite both the English and the Latin:
Reply to Objection 3. According to Ptolemy the heavenly luminaries are not fixed in the spheres, but have their own movement distinct from the movement of the spheres. Wherefore Chrysostom says (Hom. vi in Gen.) that He is said to have set them in the firmament, not because He fixed them there immovably, but because He bade them to be there, even as He placed man in Paradise, to be there. In the opinion of Aristotle, however, the stars are fixed in their orbits, and in reality have no other movement but that of the spheres; and yet our senses perceive the movement of the luminaries and not that of the spheres (De Coel. ii, text. 43). But Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to popular ignorance, as we have already said (I:67:4; I:68:3). The objection, however, falls to the ground if we regard the firmament made on the second day as having a natural distinction from that in which the stars are placed, even though the distinction is not apparent to the senses, the testimony of which Moses follows, as stated above (De Coel. ii, text. 43). For although to the senses there appears but one firmament; if we admit a higher and a lower firmament, the lower will be that which was made on the second day, and on the fourth the stars were fixed in the higher firmament.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, secundum Ptolomaeum, luminaria non sunt fixa in sphaeris, sed habent motum seorsum a motu sphaerarum. Unde Chrysostomus dicit quod non ideo dicitur quod posuit ea in firmamento, quia ibi sint fixa; sed quia iusserit ut ibi essent; sicut posuit hominem in Paradiso, ut ibi esset. Sed secundum opinionem Aristotelis, stellae fixae sunt in orbibus, et non moventur nisi motu orbium, secundum rei veritatem. Tamen motus luminarium sensu percipitur, non autem motus sphaerarum. Moyses autem, rudi populo condescendens, secutus est quae sensibiliter apparent, ut dictum est. Si autem sit aliud firmamentum quod factum est secunda die, ab eo in quo posita sunt sidera, secundum distinctionem naturae, licet sensus non discernat, quem Moyses sequitur, ut dictum est; cessat obiectio. Nam firmamentum factum est secunda die, quantum ad inferiorem partem. In firmamento autem posita sunt sidera quarta die, quantum ad superiorem partem; ut totum pro uno accipiatur, secundum quod sensui apparet.
Now, the English mostly is correctly translating the Latin, but one phrase is too freely translated. The English has:
out of condescension to popular ignorance
While the Latin has:
rudi populo condescendens
The condescension is not to ignorant people and their ignorance, quasi a kind of error, the condescension is to uncouth people and their unsubtlety, their lack of interest in certain types of truth.
The English however has a reference back, and I:67:4, corpus, includes:
Chrysostom [Hom. ii in Genes.] gives as a reason for the omission that Moses was addressing an ignorant people, to whom material things alone appealed, and whom he was endeavoring to withdraw from the service of idols. It would have been to them a pretext for idolatry if he had spoken to them of natures spiritual in substance and nobler than all corporeal creatures; for they would have paid them Divine worship, since they were prone to worship as gods even the sun, moon, and stars, which was forbidden them (Deuteronomy 4).
Here again, the English translator has "ignorant" for "rudis", which is rather unsubtle:
Chrysostomus autem assignat aliam rationem. Quia Moyses loquebatur rudi populo, qui nihil nisi corporalia poterat capere; quem etiam ab idololatria revocare volebat. Assumpsissent autem idololatriae occasionem, si propositae fuissent eis aliquae substantiae supra omnes corporeas creaturas, eas enim reputassent deos, cum etiam proni essent ad hoc quod solem et lunam et stellas colerent tanquam deos; quod eis inhibetur Deut. IV.
I:68:3 corpus, includes:
As, however, this theory can be shown to be false by solid reasons, it cannot be held to be the sense of Holy Scripture. It should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignorant people, and that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such things as are apparent to sense. Now even the most uneducated can perceive by their senses that earth and water are corporeal, whereas it is not evident to all that air also is corporeal, for there have even been philosophers who said that air is nothing, and called a space filled with air a vacuum.
Moses, then, while he expressly mentions water and earth, makes no express mention of air by name, to avoid setting before ignorant persons something beyond their knowledge. In order, however, to express the truth to those capable of understanding it, he implies in the words: "Darkness was upon the face of the deep," the existence of air as attendant, so to say, upon the water. For it may be understood from these words that over the face of the water a transparent body was extended, the subject of light and darkness, which, in fact, is the air.
Sed considerandum est quod Moyses rudi populo loquebatur, quorum imbecillitati condescendens, illa solum eis proposuit, quae manifeste sensui apparent. Omnes autem, quantumcumque rudes, terram et aquam esse corpora sensu deprehendunt. Aer autem non percipitur ab omnibus esse corpus, intantum quod etiam quidam philosophi aerem dixerunt nihil esse, plenum aere vacuum nominantes. Et ideo Moyses de aqua et terra mentionem facit expressam, aerem autem non expresse nominat, ne rudibus quoddam ignotum proponeret. Ut tamen capacibus veritatem exprimeret, dat locum intelligendi aerem, significans ipsum quasi aquae annexum, cum dicit quod tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi; per quod datur intelligi super faciem aquae esse aliquod corpus diaphanum quod est subiectum lucis et tenebrarum.
In all three instances, we do not face anything like Moses reversing things to fit an optic illusion, we only find Moses not explicitly mentioning things, which would have been beyond the understanding of some.
If I go back to when I was four or five, understanding things about Heliocentrism was easier than understanding the full concept of air and of vacuum, which is something else, so I think I picked that up at age six.
None of the instances St. Thomas touches on is a warrant God would reverse the description from its physical truth to an optic illusion, if such.
24:20 You are certainly seeing the appearance of a bent stick, but you aren't fooled, and neither was a man in the Palaeolithic, as far as we can tell.
Now, the Bible nowhere says a stick stuck into the water bends, so you cannot use this clear example to prove that the Bible would have included the optical illusion according to the appearance, rather than according to the fact.
The references in St. Thomas to what Pope Leo was saying are all of them about including things that are and appear and omitting things that also are, but do not appear.
24:37 Again, you are misciting Pope Leo XIII.**
He doesn't say Scripture does not teach us physical fact. At all that is. He is just saying it does not intend to teach us certain classes of physical fact:
To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53)
Like, the actual physical shape of the earth was not profitable unto salvation when the both Testaments consistently write in a manner compatible with both Round Earth and Flat Earth, and now it does matter in order to get maps to far off populations, we see the words of Scripture matching Round Earth and corners of continents.
However, in order to put Geocentric utterances of Scripture in the light of "Heliocentrism being true but unprofitable" we should consider whether Geocentrism is profitable. If you look at European (including colonial) history of ideas since 1633, you can observe that both Heliocentrism and Atheism have been more accepted since then. And you will agree that Atheism is actually harmful to a soul.
Now, my best Geocentric prooftext in the Bible is actually Romans 1.
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:20]
One of the things which show God to exist and be all powerful, and especially of inexhaustible power is, Geocentrism. Riccioli disagreed on God moving Heaven as a whole, he considered only that angels were moving individual celestial bodies, but if you take God as moving the heavens as a whole, well, that's Geocentrism in the manner of Prima Via. Riccioli while rejecting this actually considered this as the essence of Prima Via.
So, Geocentrism is true, because it proves God. Inversely, time after time I've debated with Atheists, their argument against God moving the universe around us boils down to "there is no God to move the Heavens around us" i e "Heliocentrism is true because there is no God" which isn't very sensible, or "you need to prove God before using Him as an explanation" which bypasses the fact that all explanations that are not seen with the senses are in fact proven by what they explain.
25:21 We can very well imagine that St. Paul was first orally stating this on an occasion when bread not yet consecrated was present, so everyone was clear once it had later on been consecrated.
Otherwise, what Pope Leo XIII said could be taken as a question mark whether the distinction of transsubstantiation and consubstantiation is really a revealed truth.
I think it is, and that therefore the words of Leo XIII should not be overdone.
Ten categories do fall under everyday experience. So does Geocentrism. Therefore both can be part of what God choses to either reveal or presume as true while revealing sth, because it is.
If we knew Heliocentrism to be true, it would be one of the secrets of nature God would not have needed to reveal, but as long as we do not know it to be true, and in fact we don't, Geocentrism is the default, precisely because it is no secret. It's not like string theory, it's more like "ice melts to water" or "dry sticks when put into a fire start to burn" ... therefore Geocentrism can very well fall under revelation.
I debated*** an Orthodox scientist, he came up with:
I see the Saints as using theological language, not scientific language. It would be inappropriate to mix th two. That does not mean that science and religion are incompatible. It would be just as unusual to use biological language when discussing geometry but that would not mean that geometry is incompatible with biology.
and I answered:
Robert Sungenis stated that the Bible 12 times or so goes out of its way to state that the Earth is still and the Sun in motion around it. I replied to that, this does not make Geocentrism dependent on Divine Revelation, since the Bible also speaks of other things that are naturally known.
For instance, if we take the word forms "lion" and "lion's" and "lion" in the Douay Rheims, we find 86 + 9 + 46 verses, minus at least one which has both "lion" and "lion's" (namely "lion's whelp"). The Bible is very often saying that lions prowl, roar, kill and devour. So, against Robert Sungenis, I maintain, Geocentrism is naturally known, "scientifically" if you will, if astronomers were doing science as much and rationally as medical doctors of physical ailments are. But against you I ask: shell we presume everything the Bible says about lions prowling, roaring, devouring and killing to be theological language, whereas scientists are free to conclude lions are generally speaking vegetarian in diet and calm to timid in temper?
By relegating what the Bible says of scientific matters to an extra category "theological language" you are making it impossible for you to hear what the Bible is saying.
26:08 There is no Church document you have so far cited which says "don't say that the Bible is teaching your position" except 1633, which says much more than that, namely that immobile Sun, Sun not moving east to west, is in fact a wrong position.
Now Providentissimus Deus certainly says one cannot say "the Bible teaches X, but we know from science that X isn't true" ... that's another question.
It doesn't say Heliocentrics cannot appeal to passages in the Bible (but his predecessor had done so in 1633) and it very certainly doesn't say Geocentrics cannot appeal to passages in the Bible, as long as they actually believe Heliocentrism.
I note that half of the video is over, and Fr. Robinson has so far not produced a single positive proof of Heliocentrism. [He'll catch up, shortly]
28:07 They developed several scientific methods for several disciplines.
There is no such thing as THE scientific method, equally applicable to physics and to medicine.
Both use arranged experiments, by now, and that's part of their respective methods, but this doesn't mean their methods simply coincide.
There is no way to study the pathology of energy, there is no such thing. Hence, everything that is study of pathology belongs to the medical field only.
There are experiments in physics one simply cannot morally do to human bodies, so, letting lead ball fall to vastly lower levels on or below ground belongs to physics only.
By the way, falling lead balls have proven that if Geocentrism is true, there is some kind of medium that is carried around the Earth from East to West. As far as I recall the experiment, this doesn't mean they fall West of where they started, rather they fall East of where they started, as they already had a vectorial speed Eastward in that medium before they fell. Hence, contrary to Riccioli, Geocentrism is a valid version of a valid Prima Via.
Again, when scientists today speak of THE scientific method, they often include methodological naturalism, which would preclude arriving at conclusions where God is or angels are explanations. Hence the modern aversion to Geocentrism. This was absolutely not the Medieval view.
28:51 "if the law I propose is true, I should expect to find this effect"
Inapplicable to this case, since Heliocentrism and Geocentrism are by themselves
not laws. None of them parallels Ohm's law, none of them parallels Coulomb's law, none of them parallels Maxwell's equations. Those laws are tested on apparatus available to human manipulation, Heliocentrism and Geocentrism aren't.
But I suppose you are hinting at "parallax" being a predicted and unobserved consequence of Heliocentrism in 1616, and "parallax" since then being observed in 1830's.
That is equivocation, because the parallax predicted then and the parallax observed since are not the same phenomenon.
In 1616, what St Robert and Galileo would have agreed to consider as parallax would have been observing how groups of stars on one inside of the sphere of fix stars became uniformly bigger as Earth approached them and uniformly smaller (until the Sun hid them) as Earth receded from them. While the "Sun is in Pisces" according to that Heliocentrism, it is actually Earth that is in Virgo, meaning Virgo should be slightly bigger. While the "Sun is in Virgo" Virgo is not seen, because the Sun is hiding it, but while the Sun is in Leo or Libra, Earth would be in Aquarius or Aries and therefore close to Pisces, and Virgo would be smaller.
This is not how the Bessel phenomenon works. It can only be considered as parallax in an infinite or at least quasi-infinite universe, like that of Giordano Bruno, Newton, Kant, where the stars closests to us show parallax as compared to stars further off. If we maintain a finite universe and a shell-like formation of the stars, the Bessel phenomenon must be considered as not parallactic, and as a proper movement, therefore not proving Earth is moving, since the stars could be moving.
As said, in 1822, it was an impopular opinion that "stars are moved by angels" since it would involve "storms are moved by fallen angels" ... which one had recently considered as "debunked" by Benjamin Franklin. Nevertheless, this impopular opinion allows us our senses, allows us the Bible, allows us 1633, and its impopularity doesn't mean it was conclusively tested against.
29:32 Yes, what was it I predicted about the discourse of Fr. Robinson ...
We at least partly inhabit the same history of ideas.
I accepted Heliocentrism as proven by parallax, at the time of my conversion, it's a fairly common view among more conservative Catholics, and while Sr. Broomé was liberal on many other issues, her book "Katolicismen: kyrkan, läran, missionen" (I read an earlier version than the edition of 1993) she was conservative on this issue.
I then returned to the question, in 2001, coming from Young Earth Creationism (as per City of God), and coming across the Distant Starlight problem.
I'll give you a hypothesis and a prediction.
Hypothesis:
All so far unfallen angels are capable of moving celestial bodies.
All celestial bodies are at least potentially moved by angels, and at least in the sphere of fix stars by unfallen angels (since St. Jude likens demons to planets, it's possible the planets or those except Sun and Moon, are moved by fallen angels, but it is also possible the good angels moving these bodies are making fun of the demons).
Prediction:
It is plausible the unfallen angels would move stars according to some aesthetic preference in adoring God and that their movements would be misinterpreted by Atheistic and likeminded scientists.
Test cases:
How Bessel and Bradley and Chandler explain certain movements of the stars as basically parallactically mirroring "the movement of Earth" fits that kind of misinterpretation.
30:19 No objection to your description on how parallax works.
Other example, I watch hills fly by from a train.
In both cases, I can however be sure of the parallactic interpretation.
The finger example, you can know you didn't move the finger and you can know you "moved" the angle of observation by changing the eye you looked from.
The train example, I know trains do move, and I know hills and trees and houses don't move.
That knowledge which is pretty intimate about uncontested cases of the parallactic illusion are lacking when it comes to Bessel's phenomenon.
1) I don't know from elsewhere that Earth moves, so I cannot clinch it to parallax from that ground;
2) I don't know from elsewhere that stars don't move, in fact even Heliocentrics who do not accept Angelic Movers will admit some stars
do have a proper movement, see for instance Barnard's star. Another reason not to clinch the observation to the parallactic interpretation.
32:19 Now, "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away" is a statement depending on the parallactic interpretation.
Speed of light, at least two way speed of light, can be known from angles of shadows on far off planets.
So, "light year" is simply a nice way to denote the distance. But how is the distance known?
The shift in alpha Centauri is 0.76 arc seconds. Or rather, the part of the shift that's analysed as parallax. After a much bigger part is analysed as aberration.
The corresponding angle is, if two lines meet in the centre of the Earth, they surface at ....
40 000 km per circle => 111 (etc) km per ° (degree) => 1852 m per ' (arc minute) => 30 m 864 mm per "(arc second) => 23 m 457 mm per 0.76", 0.76 arc seconds.
Imagine you were in the middle of the Earth and it were hollow. You were observing two holes in the surface, which were 23 m 457 mm apart. Could you determine from that that those two holes were 6 371 km up? No. Only if the one and same hole were viewed from different angles from two observers in the centre of the earth 23 m 457 mm apart would the angle of 0.76 arc seconds tell you that. If one admits that one observer is in fact observing two different holes, they could equally be just 5 m 864 mm apart, and the distance up to Surface could be just 1593 km up.
So, every idea that "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away" strictly depends on making Heliocentrism your assumption.
The distance of 299,195,775 km, is Earth moving that distance around the Sun, or is the Sun moving that distance along the Zodiac?
(Between two extreme points, not taking into account that the actual distance is a curve and greater)
If it's Earth and if only 0.76 arc seconds rather than c. 20 arc seconds are parallax, then alpha Centauri is securely 4 light years away.
If the Sun, we cannot know that the star also is making 299,195,775 km between its extreme points. If the distance the star has between July and January is much shorter, alpha Centauri is much closer, and given this does not impact the visual size, much smaller.
First, I'll assume that all of the 20 arc seconds is the distance of the star, then that the star is 1 light day away.
0.76 => 20
7,873,573,026 km
4 light years => 1 light day
5,392,858 km
For alpha Centauri to be just one light day up, all it takes is 5,392,858 km for (aberration + parallax) rather than 299,195,775 km for parallax only.
And obviously, it's then much smaller than the Sun, not as now usually thought roughly comparable size. Or they are, since it's a double star system.
I'm closing at this example, his other example of "fulfilled test implications" can wait for tomorrow.
Footnotes:
* I'm referring to this correspondence:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With James Hannam on Whether Bible and Fathers Agree or Not on Shape of Earth
Thursday 23 April 2015 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 03:31
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2015/04/with-james-hannam-on-whether-bible-and.html
** I'm citing Providentissimus Deus and St. Thomas:
PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html
Sancti Thomae de Aquino
Summa Theologiae prima pars a quaestione LXV ad quaestionem LXXIV
https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1065.html
This comprises all of the following English quotes, the last of which is the footnote 54 in Providentissimus Deus:
Question 67. The work of distinction in itself
Article 4. Whether the production of light is fittingly assigned to the first day?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1067.htm#article4
P I, Question 68. The work of the second day
Article 3. Whether the firmament divides waters from waters?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm#article3
Question 70. The work of adornment, as regards the fourth day
Article 1. Whether the lights ought to have been produced on the fourth day?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article1
*** For his video and my comments under it, and the debates under some comments which were not deleted:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: An Orthodox Who Believes the Infidel Lesch
Sunday, September 15, 2024 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 8:33 AM
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/09/an-orthodox-who-believes-infidel-lesch.html
Appendix:
- Anthony Ozimic
- @AnthonyOzimic
- It's doubtful the Bible says anything scientifically significant about the motion or location of the planets. As Cardinal Baronius (disciple of St Philip Neri) said: "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
- Its Not All Rainbows & Unicorns
- @ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns
- Oh, but let the 'experts' here correct you.
- Marcia
- @Marcia-fw3wz
- Exactly!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Oh, I will.
The words are NOT by Cardinal Baronius, they are by the condemned Galileo.
Trent Horn pretended Cardinal Baronius said so in the Galileo controversy.
He died in 1607, before there was a controversy.
The quote is from Galileo's Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.
A wiki search is enough to confirm both facts.
Now, I'm aware, wiki is not 100 % reliable, but I'd like sth more reliable than either wiki or you when it comes to attributing these words to Baronius.
Do you have a page and a context in Annales Ecclesiastici?
- Its Not All Rainbows & Unicorns
- @hglundahl Why is my comment not showing up? It was a somewhat lengthy detail. YouTube can be frustrating.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Try again, please!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns Was it Edoardo Aldo Cerrato, C.O.? The essay being:
"How to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go"
As far as I could gather from that essay, the comment in context carries exactly as much magisterial weight as Cardinal Barberini's comment (parodied as Simplicio) to Galileo:
"it was in God's power to make the world any way He wanted and to make it appear any way He wanted"
which if you think it through is an excellent argument (considering God is truthful) for Geocentrism since it's a wysiwig version of the universe.
Both would carry about as much magisterial weight as an airplane interview by "Francis" ... if he were Pope. I don't think he is but some of you do.
- Its Not All Rainbows & Unicorns
- @hglundahl I'll have to attend to the question at another time. Usually, my policy is spend 5-10 minutes on it and move on. There is work I have to attend to.
I will say concerning this pope, I listen to both sides, but I go with Bishop Athanasius Schneider on this. You can find his comment on 1P5. I just leave it to God, the next pope, and/or council to make the decree that he was not a pope. I just have to stick to the faith, the faith that was handed down by the church and my parents.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @ItsNotAllRainbows_and_Unicorns My work is debating.
I invest in hours before the computer (both time and money, cybers aren't for free) so I have opportunity for high quality debate.
My point is, if someone accepts "Francis" as Pope, he may still not accept airplane interviews as authoritative papal statements. A cardinal in private conversation remembered over 8 years later, or at least about 8 years, if it even was Baronius that Galileo referred to, that's even less authoritative than an airplane interview which a journalist took by dictaphone or cell phone and then transscribed within hours.
I asked you if it was Edoardo Aldo Cerrato, C.O., you do not need 5 to 10 minutes to answer yes or no.
