I had commenced a philosophical discussion involving David Palm and Robert Sungenis. Per a mail adressed to the two of them.
The latter got a few more involved. I did not object.
One of these few more is however Christopher Ferrara. I leave to my readers whether his opening words of an "endless war" mean he took our rather peaceful discussion - at least on my own and David Palm's part - as an "endless war". However, what is abundantly clear is that he:
- 1) proposes a "truce", and proposes it be binding on all involved by their voluntary gentlemen's agreement;
- 2) then asks the participants in a discussion I started and involving me to keep this secret.
I find such a gesture totally worthy of the creeps who run the Modern World to its ruins. That it comes from one purported opponent of them, and not from an abortionist or evolutionist, if anything makes it worse.
Here are the two letters:
- I
- Christopher Ferrara to Robert Sungenis et al. including me
- 12/03/15 à 03h41
- Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
- I suggest that you end this seemingly endless war with a truce containing the following terms:
1. To hold to the heliocentric is not heresy per se.
2. Yet, the Copernican principle and modern cosmology in general are clearly, expressly and avowedly motivated by a philosophical aim, stated as such, by leading physicists such as Wolfson, whom I am reading now. That aim is to prove that that the Earth is nothing special, which is an indirect proof of the nonexistence of God. We inhabitants of Earth are just the incredibly fortuitous outcome of a long series of mutations occurring on a planet in a random location at the edge of a humdrum galaxy. They cannot abide a central earth for that reason, and they say so. You may say that God’s majesty does not depend on the location or the uniqueness of Earth, but the propagandists for the Copernican narrative know the public mind and know what works in terms demystifying the Universe and thus eliminating the need for God. It is naive simply to assert that their propaganda is of no consequence.
3. Thus, modern cosmology—part science, part philosophy driving the science (as it does evolutionary theory)—threatens to erode the Faith, as does evolutionism, even if it cannot be called formal heresy.
4. Catholics are free to argue for some version of the geocentric model precisely in order to counter the pretensions of modern cosmology, whose “dark matter,” “dark energy,” string theory, multiverse, balloon-like expanding Cosmos (the only way to avoid a center of the Universe with all of the problems that entails for the Copernican narrative) and other gimmicks are no more or less contrivances than the ether that even the modern cosmologist is, at this very moment, trying to sneak in the back door under a different name.
5. Geocentrism is not per se a crackpot theory. Even atheist cosmologists such as Krauss admit that the CMB data suggest either that Earth is indeed at the center of the universe or that the Copernican model has to be rethought completely. You may say Krauss is wrong, but’s an argument, not a per se demonstration that geocentrism is crackpot stuff. If he (and others) can see the problems for the Copernican narrative, Catholics should admit them and also admit that geocentrism is still arguable on the basis of empirical evidence that suggests Earth is centrally located. Krauss calls this “crazy” only on the basis of his a priori assumption that it can’t possibly be true, because, as Wolfson puts it: "Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be “at rest”? On purely philosophical grounds, we should reject the notion that Earth alone could be at rest relative to the ether.” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1009-1010). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. ” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1005-1009). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
Further, if serious problems remain for the geocentrist theory, they are no more serious than those confronting the opposing cosmology, whose continuous ad hoc additions border on the ridiculous. A universe whose constituent matter and energy are 95% undetectable? Really? Any Catholic geocentrist is entitled to reject that claim on the same philosophical plane as their opponents reject geocentrism. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. And even if some semblance of an evidential argument can be concocted for the missing 95%, that argument hardly renders geocentism per see untenable.
6. To eliminate endless bickering over various conspiracy theories unrelated to geocentrism, the geocentrist proponents of such theories should simply admit that they are mere speculation, are unproven, are not worth pursuing to the detriment of more important issues, and should be definitively abandoned.
7. All parties should devote themselves to defending the Church against truly massive threats to the integrity of her liturgy and her doctrine, above all the astounding ongoing general eruption of neo-Modernism lamented by leading Churchmen, including Msgr. Pozzo, Archbishop Lenga, and Bishop Schneider during the run-up to the next session of the preposterous “Synod on the Family.”
In short, enough already. And, frankly, the notion that geocentrism threatens the Faith of anyone in the Magisterium is hard to take seriously in the midst of a situation in which leading Churchmen everywhere appear to be abandoning fundamental dogmas of the Faith while the Pope presides over a Synod whose controllers are clearly attempting to overthrow the teaching of John Paul II only 33 years ago—an effort which, were it to succeed, would destroy confidence in the entire Magisterium overnight.
In view of the above, can’t we all just get along?
Chris
- II
- Christopher Ferrara to Robert Sungenis et al. including me
- 12/03/15 à 04h22
- Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
- This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard.
Now, I feel that the two letters fulfill very exactly the criteria for my resuming them as above, again:
- 1) [He] proposes a "truce", and proposes it be binding on all involved by their voluntary gentlemen's agreement;
- 2) then asks the participants in a discussion I started and involving me to keep this secret.
And I will later, if not stopped by bad intrigues, from pseudo-rightists like Ferrara or from open leftists like Mayor of Paris, perhaps even today disclose the full correspondence.
But now, I will also give the exchange this caused between me and Ferrara:
- Me to Christopher Ferrara and Robert Sungenis et al.
- 12/03/15 à 12h48
- Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
- "This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard."
No, your caution was NOT abundant.
Now, as to permission, that is a moral quandary.
Remarks as far going as yours and asking for agreements, are such that I consider the public held in the dark if it cannot have them.
In other words, Ferrara, I consider your social method to be that of Freemasons or of Jews from the Synagogue, and totally unworthy of a Catholic.
Do I make myself clear on this?
Hans Georg Lundahl
- Christopher Ferrara to me, cc to Sungenis et al.
- 12/03/15 à 12h59
- Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
- The “public” has no right to know of private conversations between Catholics. If you cannot respect that principle, then this is the last email I will send.
[Note how he put "public" in quotation marks - as if the concept did not exist for him.]
- Me to Christopher Ferrara, cc. Robert Sungenis et al.
- 12/03/15 à 13h20
- Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"
- Christopher A Ferrara!
I did not consider this email exchange totally private in the first place.
I did not myself invite you. If you did not note, I was the one who took the initiative to this discussion.
If you wish to absent yourself, do so.
However, a private conversation is private insofar as it touches private matters, not insofar as private persons agree on what reaches the public. Or especially that it do not reach the public. Chesterton and Belloc would not have liked your idea one bit, and I consider them better Catholics than you.
Hans Georg Lundahl
In case someone thinks the other team of US Catholics are playing open, like Chesterton and Belloc would have liked, how about checking on Mark Shea's blog, where a few days ago there was an article about Karl Keating's The New Geocentrics, under which article I posted links to answers? See if it was just temporary - unless you prefer suspecting my sloppiness - or if it is still down.
So, if you are curious what this exchange started about, it was an essay by David Palm. But this is a longer correspondence, and it will also involve my answer to the 7 proposals of Christopher Ferrara.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Gregory I
12-III-2015
PS And now, Mark Shea has even blocked me again.
I tried to post this reply:
| "had little trouble pointing to the Crusades and the Inquisition as evidence of why Catholics where not Christian but popish followers of a predatory manmade cult irreconcilable with True Americanism"
Actually, 19th C. Protestants might typically have been more upset about Inquisition and less or not at all about Crusades. I mean the kind of Protestants who had "crusaded against Popery" under Cromwell or Gustavus Adolphus. |
Under this post:
Catholic and Enjoying it : News Flash!: Americans Fought in the Crusades and Conducted Inquisition
February 20, 2015 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2015/02/news-flash-americans-fought-in-the-crusades-and-conducted-inquisition.html
And I found out I was again blocked. Meanwhile, I had under another post of his, concerning Willy Herteleer, expressed:
- What he positively said was correct;
- but his inculpation of Pewsitters may just concern one "news clipper";
- and wondered whether the ground where Willy was buried was not reserved for bishops. To this latter I got a satisfactory answer, it was not. Both bishops and princes, i e both bishops and laymen are buried there, and Willy being a layman is not in any way an obstacle to his getting buried there. I wanted to thank for the answer, but couldn't since I was - blocked.
Which probably goes some way to explaining why the post under which I had posted a link to a reply to Karl Keating was gone from the blog too./HGL
