Robert Sungenis is a fraud

[Gardener]

Passive voice merely omits that another agent can move the earth; this can be in a sense of entirely or simply from a set course.

It doesn't mean that it can't be interpreted only in a heliocentric manner.

It does not go beyond itself nor does it reduce itself to meaninglessness. It is simply what it is.

Would you mind explaining what you're talking about here?  I'm not getting it (which may not be saying much, but still.   )

Speaking strictly of the passive voice, it leaves open the potential for the passage to be prima facie geocentric while still being in accordance with the other option of heliocentrism. If the earth is in a path or orbit, the passage would merely mean it could not be put off course. That another agent may indeed assist in that orbit being taken is not moving it off course per the passivity of the verb.

If Geocentrism is true, the earth simply cannot be moved at all by another from its created place (though this still doesn't exclude its axial spinning to be true). If Heliocentrism is true, the earth still cannot be moved from its created place by another (though this still doesn't exclude its orbit to be true, or its axial spinning). The latter is because its orbit was created by God and so, the passage doesn't prove geocentrism and it doesn't disprove heliocentrism as currently understood.

For the passages from the Psalms and David's usage of the passive verb, he is simply saying that he will not be moved off course by another: he won't falter. But certainly he would move within that course towards sanctification. And it could even occur that he would be moved by another within that course, as pursuant to that course.

So as I said, it is not meaningless nor is it going beyond itself to prove something which it can't on its own. It is simply saying what is.

[queen.saints]

Passive voice merely omits that another agent can move the earth; this can be in a sense of entirely or simply from a set course.

It doesn't mean that it can't be interpreted only in a heliocentric manner.

It does not go beyond itself nor does it reduce itself to meaninglessness. It is simply what it is.

Would you mind explaining what you're talking about here?  I'm not getting it (which may not be saying much, but still.   )

Speaking strictly of the passive voice, it leaves open the potential for the passage to be prima facie geocentric while still being in accordance with the other option of heliocentrism. If the earth is in a path or orbit, the passage would merely mean it could not be put off course. That another agent may indeed assist in that orbit being taken is not moving it off course per the passivity of the verb.

If Geocentrism is true, the earth simply cannot be moved at all by another from its created place (though this still doesn't exclude its axial spinning to be true). If Heliocentrism is true, the earth still cannot be moved from its created place by another (though this still doesn't exclude its orbit to be true, or its axial spinning). The latter is because its orbit was created by God and so, the passage doesn't prove geocentrism and it doesn't disprove heliocentrism as currently understood.

For the passages from the Psalms and David's usage of the passive verb, he is simply saying that he will not be moved off course by another: he won't falter. But certainly he would move within that course towards sanctification. And it could even occur that he would be moved by another within that course, as pursuant to that course.

So as I said, it is not meaningless nor is it going beyond itself to prove something which it can't on its own. It is simply saying what is.

Ok, the rest of us aren't going to try to fathom the science behind this debate, but hopefully we can understand grammar. I really don't get how the passive tense effects (or is it 'affects'?) anything.

[Gardener]

Passive voice merely omits that another agent can move the earth; this can be in a sense of entirely or simply from a set course.

It doesn't mean that it can't be interpreted only in a heliocentric manner.

It does not go beyond itself nor does it reduce itself to meaninglessness. It is simply what it is.

Would you mind explaining what you're talking about here?  I'm not getting it (which may not be saying much, but still.   )

Speaking strictly of the passive voice, it leaves open the potential for the passage to be prima facie geocentric while still being in accordance with the other option of heliocentrism. If the earth is in a path or orbit, the passage would merely mean it could not be put off course. That another agent may indeed assist in that orbit being taken is not moving it off course per the passivity of the verb.

If Geocentrism is true, the earth simply cannot be moved at all by another from its created place (though this still doesn't exclude its axial spinning to be true). If Heliocentrism is true, the earth still cannot be moved from its created place by another (though this still doesn't exclude its orbit to be true, or its axial spinning). The latter is because its orbit was created by God and so, the passage doesn't prove geocentrism and it doesn't disprove heliocentrism as currently understood.

For the passages from the Psalms and David's usage of the passive verb, he is simply saying that he will not be moved off course by another: he won't falter. But certainly he would move within that course towards sanctification. And it could even occur that he would be moved by another within that course, as pursuant to that course.

So as I said, it is not meaningless nor is it going beyond itself to prove something which it can't on its own. It is simply saying what is.

Ok, the rest of us aren't going to try to fathom the science behind this debate, but hopefully we can understand grammar. I really don't get how the passive tense effects (or is it 'affects'?) anything.

If it was active tense it would indicate the earth does not move from a locality, simply (though one then gets into the question of if it can move in place, which is a different charge -- example, twirling a pencil on a piece of paper in place just makes the same dot as if you stuck it down; it moving across the page is different).

Being passive, it simply means another shall not move it. The argument then says "oh! but the gravitational pull of the sun affects its movement; therefore it is being moved by another and scripture is wrong or else we are wrong about the orbit of the earth."

To that one can simply reply that the verb being passive can simply render it that the earth will not be moved off course, as the course is still proper to the earth.

We certainly understand this of the Psalmist, as it would be plainly ridiculous to think he remained purely static in any regard -- whether physical or spiritually.

For example, the ball is on the ground and it will not be bounced.

If the ball had agency the ball could bounce itself, or if it was possible to have a First Bouncer which puts it into bouncing, it would continue in a role of secondary agency. If it then bounces, it is not violating the original sentence. Only if another bounces it will the sentence be nullified.

[queen.saints]

Passive voice merely omits that another agent can move the earth; this can be in a sense of entirely or simply from a set course.

It doesn't mean that it can't be interpreted only in a heliocentric manner.

It does not go beyond itself nor does it reduce itself to meaninglessness. It is simply what it is.

Would you mind explaining what you're talking about here?  I'm not getting it (which may not be saying much, but still.   )

Speaking strictly of the passive voice, it leaves open the potential for the passage to be prima facie geocentric while still being in accordance with the other option of heliocentrism. If the earth is in a path or orbit, the passage would merely mean it could not be put off course. That another agent may indeed assist in that orbit being taken is not moving it off course per the passivity of the verb.

If Geocentrism is true, the earth simply cannot be moved at all by another from its created place (though this still doesn't exclude its axial spinning to be true). If Heliocentrism is true, the earth still cannot be moved from its created place by another (though this still doesn't exclude its orbit to be true, or its axial spinning). The latter is because its orbit was created by God and so, the passage doesn't prove geocentrism and it doesn't disprove heliocentrism as currently understood.

For the passages from the Psalms and David's usage of the passive verb, he is simply saying that he will not be moved off course by another: he won't falter. But certainly he would move within that course towards sanctification. And it could even occur that he would be moved by another within that course, as pursuant to that course.

So as I said, it is not meaningless nor is it going beyond itself to prove something which it can't on its own. It is simply saying what is.

Ok, the rest of us aren't going to try to fathom the science behind this debate, but hopefully we can understand grammar. I really don't get how the passive tense effects (or is it 'affects'?) anything.

If it was active tense it would indicate the earth does not move from a locality, simply (though one then gets into the question of if it can move in place, which is a different charge -- example, twirling a pencil on a piece of paper in place just makes the same dot as if you stuck it down; it moving across the page is different).

Being passive, it simply means another shall not move it. The argument then says "oh! but the gravitational pull of the sun affects its movement; therefore it is being moved by another and scripture is wrong or else we are wrong about the orbit of the earth."

To that one can simply reply that the verb being passive can simply render it that the earth will not be moved off course, as the course is still proper to the earth.

We certainly understand this of the Psalmist, as it would be plainly ridiculous to think he remained purely static in any regard -- whether physical or spiritually.

For example, the ball is on the ground and it will not be bounced.

If the ball had agency the ball could bounce itself, or if it was possible to have a First Bouncer which puts it into bouncing, it would continue in a role of secondary agency. If it then bounces, it is not violating the original sentence. Only if another bounces it will the sentence be nullified.

Ok, so it's the difference between saying "the ball will not bounce" and the "ball will not be bounced"? Either way, though, if the ball is bouncing doesn't it contradict both sentences?

[Gardener]

No...

The passive voice indicates the bouncing will not occur by another. It never addresses the ball itself, as the ball retains agency in the active sphere. If we said the ball will not bounce (active), we are saying the ball will not bounce due to either lack of agency or lack of actualization of potential and so that would contradict the ball bouncing.

But rendered in the passive, the ball will not be bounced, does not discount the potential of the ball acting in secondary agency and actively bouncing; particularly if in the sequence of time the ball is already bouncing by a first bouncer and then the declaration is made.

[queen.saints]

No...

The passive voice indicates the bouncing will not occur by another. It never addresses the ball itself, as the ball retains agency in the active sphere. If we said the ball will not bounce (active), we are saying the ball will not bounce due to either lack of agency or lack of actualization of potential and so that would contradict the ball bouncing.

But rendered in the passive, the ball will not be bounced, does not discount the potential of the ball acting in secondary agency and actively bouncing; particularly if in the sequence of time the ball is already bouncing by a first bouncer and then the declaration is made.

However, the ball (and the earth) is an inanimate object. It has to be acted upon. Isn't it a little funny to look at a bouncing ball and say, "it will not be bounced" since it is in fact being bounced at the moment?

[Quaremerepulisti]

This is the same old dichotomy you love to bring up all the time.  You're right, of course, that most traditional Catholics are unwilling to scrutinize the Church prior to Vatican II (and are hostile to anyone who dares).  Those of us who do consider the crisis to be older than fifty years have to be content with judging developments in light of tradition.  This method does, I concede, come with the problem of subjectivity.  It is admittedly less than perfect. 

It is much worse than that.  And this is why I keep stressing the issue of epistemology.  If one's epistemology does not have a solid foundation (it is subjective or circular) than one doesn't really know anything and one's faith is a house built on sand, notwithstanding all the flowery rhetoric used in its defense and the thundering denunciations of its opponents.  If developments are judged in light of tradition, then what is tradition judged in light of?

But your preferred option is perfect consistency—even to the point of insanity.   I'm sorry, but that's a ship few people will want to sail, lest we end up with antics like your very own on this forum, where you seem to enjoy functioning as a shameless apologist for Vatican II. 

That is a mere argument to consequences.

Most people are willing to settle for an imperfect approach in exchange for some peace of mind. 

Or, they simply don't want to be bothered with the tough questions which make them uncomfortable.

I often wonder if the whole "fides et ratio" thing is a little too innovative for its own good.  What threads like these demonstrate is that reason and faith do, at some point, eventually conflict—and we have to take sides on which one trumps the other. 

You, yourself, must use reason even to attempt to convince me of a conflict between faith and reason.  So if you're going to start by using reason, you don't get to just discard it when you don't like its conclusions.

Gloria Patri tells me I am in denial of science, and that the bible must reinterpreted to fit the facts; I tell him his science is at variance with scripture and tradition and a magisterial decree, and that a revised exegesis this late in the game amounts to throwing in the towel.  Trying to synthesize the two requires mental acrobatics that few of us are deft enough to undertake. 

Of course.  So I tell you your interpretation of scripture and tradition are wrong and the magisterial decree is in error, and therefore your conflict between faith and reason exists in your mind and nowhere else.  You just don't like what you have to accept in order for there to be no conflict.  IOW, subjectivity.

[Mono no aware]

Gloria Patri tells me I am in denial of science, and that the bible must reinterpreted to fit the facts; I tell him his science is at variance with scripture and tradition and a magisterial decree, and that a revised exegesis this late in the game amounts to throwing in the towel.  Trying to synthesize the two requires mental acrobatics that few of us are deft enough to undertake. 

Of course.  So I tell you your interpretation of scripture and tradition are wrong and the magisterial decree is in error, and therefore your conflict between faith and reason exists in your mind and nowhere else.  You just don't like what you have to accept in order for there to be no conflict.  IOW, subjectivity.

Yes, subjectivity indeed.  I know better than to get into a subjectivity debate.  On what authority would you tell me that a magisterial decree is in error?  That's in your own mind.  There will always be a conflict; the only way to avoid it is to follow the line of consistency out as far as it goes: into your path of perfect submission to Vatican II.  I will commend you for being consistent.  Some people enjoy being perverse.  The rest of us feel it's too high of a price to pay for consistency.  That ball will not be bounced.  Mais bonne chance.  Me, I need some vodka.

[GloriaPatri]

Gloria Patri tells me I am in denial of science, and that the bible must reinterpreted to fit the facts; I tell him his science is at variance with scripture and tradition and a magisterial decree, and that a revised exegesis this late in the game amounts to throwing in the towel.  Trying to synthesize the two requires mental acrobatics that few of us are deft enough to undertake. 

Of course.  So I tell you your interpretation of scripture and tradition are wrong and the magisterial decree is in error, and therefore your conflict between faith and reason exists in your mind and nowhere else.  You just don't like what you have to accept in order for there to be no conflict.  IOW, subjectivity.

Yes, subjectivity indeed.  I know better than to get into a subjectivity debate.  On what authority would you tell me that a magisterial decree is in error?  That's in your own mind.  There will always be a conflict; the only way to avoid it is to follow the line of consistency out as far as it goes: into your path of perfect submission to Vatican II.  I will commend you for being consistent.  Some people enjoy being perverse.  The rest of us feel it's too high of a price to pay for consistency.  That ball will not be bounced.  Mais bonne chance.  Me, I need some vodka.

Decrees of the Holy Office are not protected by the Church's infallibility, as has been expressed to you multiple times already. As manifestations of the ordinary magisterium, they are fallible. As for what authority: Pope Benedict XIV, in 1758, overturned the condemnation of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1758. That means that Copernicus' heliocentric works have been off the Index longer than they've been on them. And Pius VII, in 1822, allowed the heliocentric theories of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to be published. And finally, it was Gregory XVI (a pope perhaps more conservative than even Bl. Pius IX) who, in 1835, officially removed Galileo's works from the Index.

Each of these Pope's exercised their legitimate authority and overturned the prior condemnations of heliocentrism. So unless you want to accuse them of heresy, you're going to have to accept as fact that geocentrism is not part of the deposit of faith.

[Heinrich]

No...

The passive voice indicates the bouncing will not occur by another. It never addresses the ball itself, as the ball retains agency in the active sphere. If we said the ball will not bounce (active), we are saying the ball will not bounce due to either lack of agency or lack of actualization of potential and so that would contradict the ball bouncing.

But rendered in the passive, the ball will not be bounced, does not discount the potential of the ball acting in secondary agency and actively bouncing; particularly if in the sequence of time the ball is already bouncing by a first bouncer and then the declaration is made.

But it is still agent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_(grammar)

[Mono no aware]

Decrees of the Holy Office are not protected by the Church's infallibility, as has been expressed to you multiple times already.

We appear to be talking past other.  I have always conceded here that a decree of the Holy Office is not, on its own, infallible.  Now admittedly, it does seem strange that a person can be fallibly condemned as a heretic (yikes!), but speaking as someone who is not the world's greatest ultramontagne, I'm content to let that technicality stand.  I may need it someday.

But when a pope invokes his solemn Apostolic Authority to formally affirm those condemnations, then the level of infallibility has surely been reached.  That's the whole reason why Pope Alexander claimed his Petrine privilege in Speculatores Domus Israel: to hallow with his papal sovereignty decisions which were (already) infallibly safe.  There would've been no reason for him to invoke Apostolic Authority if it wouldn't have made a difference.  He wasn't just putting it in there for kicks.

As for what authority: Pope Benedict XIV, in 1758, overturned the condemnation of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1758. That means that Copernicus' heliocentric works have been off the Index longer than they've been on them. And Pius VII, in 1822, allowed the heliocentric theories of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to be published. And finally, it was Gregory XVI (a pope perhaps more conservative than even Bl. Pius IX) who, in 1835, officially removed Galileo's works from the Index.

And yet, did these decrees carry the same infallible language which formulated Speculatores?  A prior infallible decree trumps any routine ratification of a decision of the Holy Office or the Pontifical Biblical Commission.  The latter, as you admit (and as I agree), are indeed fallible.  That's why they don't work as reversals.  They're more like tepid attempts to appear less hostile to secular science.

[GloriaPatri]

Decrees of the Holy Office are not protected by the Church's infallibility, as has been expressed to you multiple times already.

We appear to be talking past other.  I have always conceded here that a decree of the Holy Office is not, on its own, infallible.  Now admittedly, it does seem strange that a person can be fallibly condemned as a heretic (yikes!), but speaking as someone who is not the world's greatest ultramontagne, I'm content to let that technicality stand.  I may need it someday.

But when a pope invokes his solemn Apostolic Authority to formally affirm those condemnations, then the level of infallibility has surely been reached.  That's the whole reason why Pope Alexander claimed his Petrine privilege in Speculatores Domus Israel: to hallow with his papal sovereignty decisions which were (already) infallibly safe.  There would've been no reason for him to invoke Apostolic Authority if it wouldn't have made a difference.  He wasn't just putting it in there for kicks.

As for what authority: Pope Benedict XIV, in 1758, overturned the condemnation of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1758. That means that Copernicus' heliocentric works have been off the Index longer than they've been on them. And Pius VII, in 1822, allowed the heliocentric theories of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to be published. And finally, it was Gregory XVI (a pope perhaps more conservative than even Bl. Pius IX) who, in 1835, officially removed Galileo's works from the Index.

And yet, did these decrees carry the same infallible language which formulated Speculatores?  A prior infallible decree trumps any routine ratification of a decision of the Holy Office or the Pontifical Biblical Commission.  The latter, as you admit (and as I agree), are indeed fallible.  That's why they don't work as reversals.  They're more like tepid attempts to appear less hostile to secular science.

Since half a dozen popes did not seem to think that Pope Alexander's condemnations held the power if infallibility, I'm comfortable following their lead and agree that it was not infallible. Hence why future Popes overturned it and allowed heliocentrism to be taught in all Catholic universities.

At best, Pope Alexander's decree was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and is thus liable to error. We also have to take into account the distinction between infallibly safe and infallibly certain that INPEFESS mentioned before.

[Mono no aware]

Since half a dozen popes did not seem to think that Pope Alexander's condemnations held the power if infallibility, I'm comfortable following their lead and agree that it was not infallible.

You really have be careful, though, GP, when you appeal to nothing other than the consensus of "half a dozen popes."  We're at that number already with Vatican II.

At best, Pope Alexander's decree was an exercise of the ordinary magisterium, and is thus liable to error. We also have to take into account the distinction between infallibly safe and infallibly certain that INPEFESS mentioned before.

No, you're missing the point.  The decrees of the Holy Office were already part of the ordinary magisterium.  They had been ratified by Paul V and Urban VIII.  When Alexander issued Speculatores, the Index was already in place.  The books had already been prohibited.  The condemnations for heresy had already been issued.  The entire point of Speculatores was to solemnly affirm those condemnations with his Apostolic Authority.

[Cassini]

Decrees of the Holy Office are not protected by the Church's infallibility, as has been expressed to you multiple times already. As manifestations of the ordinary magisterium, they are fallible. As for what authority: Pope Benedict XIV, in 1758, overturned the condemnation of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1758. That means that Copernicus' heliocentric works have been off the Index longer than they've been on them. And Pius VII, in 1822, allowed the heliocentric theories of Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems to be published. And finally, it was Gregory XVI (a pope perhaps more conservative than even Bl. Pius IX) who, in 1835, officially removed Galileo's works from the Index.

Each of these Pope's exercised their legitimate authority and overturned the prior condemnations of heliocentrism. So unless you want to accuse them of heresy, you're going to have to accept as fact that geocentrism is not part of the deposit of faith.

'Unless you want to accuse them of heresy.' now we are getting to the core of the problem.

According to Pope Paul V, Urban VIII and all those popes up to 1741, they did commit heresy. What kind of heresy in each case only God knows. It is on record all of them were told heliocentrism was a PROVEN FACT and that they CHOSE to believe the heretics rather than keep the faith. We can only ASSUME they believed the 1616 decree could be reformed because falsification had been claimed by science and members of the Holy Office.
But when we reach a point where we believe a pope can commit the flock to believe an error like a heliocentric reading of Scripture is heresy, and get excommunicated on the bases of believing a truth, them we have some COWBOY of a religion to cope with.

We have a similar problem since Vatican II when POPES ignored previous doctrines and dogmas of earlier popes, whether they were infallible or not. Now if we are to go through the list and decide for ourselves if they were infallible or not we could end up deciding since Vatican II none of them have committed heresy using all the arguments put up by the Copernicans for the last 200 years.

I have repeated again and again, to no avail, that no Pope in history ever denied the 1616 decree was infallible. Indeed the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII CONFIRMED THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL AND NON_REFORMABLE. Infallibility was not a word used before 1870. Now how about ACKNOWLEDGING that CONTRADICTION Gloria, or any other trying to get people on this forum to follow the heresy rather than the truth, just because they think heliocentrism is more reasonable.

The answer to it lies in the fact that the 1616 decree was never in error, it had the truth, so why would anybody want to continue the heresy by promoting heliocentrism?

[Quaremerepulisti]

'Unless you want to accuse them of heresy.' now we are getting to the core of the problem.

According to Pope Paul V, Urban VIII and all those popes up to 1741, they did commit heresy. What kind of heresy in each case only God knows. It is on record all of them were told heliocentrism was a PROVEN FACT and that they CHOSE to believe the heretics rather than keep the faith. We can only ASSUME they believed the 1616 decree could be reformed because falsification had been claimed by science and members of the Holy Office.
But when we reach a point where we believe a pope can commit the flock to believe an error like a heliocentric reading of Scripture is heresy, and get excommunicated on the bases of believing a truth, them we have some COWBOY of a religion to cope with.

We have a similar problem since Vatican II when POPES ignored previous doctrines and dogmas of earlier popes, whether they were infallible or not. Now if we are to go through the list and decide for ourselves if they were infallible or not we could end up deciding since Vatican II none of them have committed heresy using all the arguments put up by the Copernicans for the last 200 years.

I have repeated again and again, to no avail, that no Pope in history ever denied the 1616 decree was infallible. Indeed the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII CONFIRMED THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL AND NON_REFORMABLE. Infallibility was not a word used before 1870. Now how about ACKNOWLEDGING that CONTRADICTION Gloria, or any other trying to get people on this forum to follow the heresy rather than the truth, just because they think heliocentrism is more reasonable.

The answer to it lies in the fact that the 1616 decree was never in error, it had the truth, so why would anybody want to continue the heresy by promoting heliocentrism?

In the first place, Cassini, you are certainly right about not having the right to pick and choose.  Whatever hermeneutic you apply to Vatican II, you must apply the same one to the geocentrism issue.  Now I know Pon de Replay will probably show up and accuse me of "insanity" for demanding consistency here, but if the hermeneutic you apply merely depends on what feels good, then religion has devolved into mere subjectivity.  I agree geocentrism is the Waterloo of traditional Catholicism.

I don't agree with you about the sun's movement or non-movement being at issue, since what we have to go on is the actual words of the 1616 decree, not what you or I think they must have meant.  Nevertheless we do have an authoritative pronouncement that the earth's movement is at least erroneous in faith.

Yet, for this to be correct, all of physics (at least regarding gravitation) would have to be wrong.  We also have the U-turn taken by Popes since the 1700s.  So let's look at the various positions, considered in light of this.

(A) Sedevacantism.  No Popes since the 1700s.  No Bishops with ordinary jurisdiction since the 1700s or 1800s at best.  Any takers?

(B) Recognize and resist.  Acknowledges that the Magisterium can contradict itself.  This can't be hand-waved away as a result of a recent "crisis", but now has been the case for centuries.  Why put any stock in it then?

(C) Development of doctrine.  Again, things that we think certain now might not be in the future, due to a more enlightened understanding.  Where is the certainty of faith that one can hang onto?

(D) The Church overstepped its authority.  While the Church is entrusted with the Deposit of Faith given to the Apostles, its authority does not extend beyond that.  It does not have authority to authoritatively interpret the Old Testament (as it is unreasonable to think the "real meaning" of every passage in the Old Testament was given to the Apostles) and does not have the authority to pronounce on the eternal fate of non-Catholics, or other issues raised at Vatican II.

Well I'm voting for (D).