David Palm has written a piece entitled Neo-geocentrism: ExcessiveInterest in Usury Comes to Naught . After analyzing his piece, I have arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Palm is either a very confused man, who thinks he can make half baked arguments and think the rest of the Catholic community will believe him, or he has deliberately and repeatedly lied about geocentrism, the church and geocentrists, thereby placing his salvation in jeopardy.
Palm - The neo-geocentrist fixation on their pet cause is like a monkey who reaches into a precious Ming vase to grasp a pebble. Intent only on holding onto that bit of rock and unable to extract his clenched fist, the monkey will happily smash the vase to get his "prize", heedless of the priceless nature of the treasure he has wrecked.
JM – Palms analogy is pertinent to the matter at hand in a way he fails to understand. Firstly, his arguments against geocentrism not being taught by the ordinary magesterium have been answered by Catholic geocentrists here –
He has also been answered by Robert Sungenis and Rick Delano here –
and here
And what is Mr. Palm’s response to these critiques? Does he thoroughly analyze the arguments made against his position, or does he use empty rhetoric and half truths to answer only a small number of statements and ignore the substance of the case against him? From his inaction and his current responses, we see Mr. Palm has done the later.
Why does he do this? One possible reason is found in his reference to having written an article for This Rock, which is a popular magazine under Catholic Answers. As Mr. Palm may have a reputation to keep in modern popular Catholic culture, he has chosen the road of defending the indefensible inaction of the Catholic Church on the matter of geocentrism. He has made several claims in the past concerning the authority of the church fathers, the authority of Papal commissions and Papal statements that all clearly teach geocentrism. All of his statements were answered in full and yet Mr. Palm continues to publish false claims about what the church fathers taught, what the Popes said in the past, what recent Popes have said and the weight of authority behind what the Popes have said. In short, for Mr. Palm to make his case, he must twist the meaning of the Popes, ignore the church fathers and ignore the many statements in scripture that say the sun and moon move and the earth remains stationary.
Based upon this summary analysis of Mr. Palm’s statements, it is my sound opinion that his agenda is to pander to the Catholic audience that doesn’t know the intricacies of geocentrism or the Galileo case or the modern scientific evidence for geocentrism. He wants to promote a Catholicism that is devoid of consistency on the matter of doctrines concerning cosmology and like many Catholics today, probably places his faith in the magesterium, plus modern science theory.
This is probably not his only motive in writing these anti geocentric articles. Another and probably more critical motive is Mr. Palm’s confusion over the value of Papal statements, the binding value of the unanimous consent of the church fathers, the binding nature of Papal statements that have never been revoked, the authority of the index of forbidden books, the binding nature of the literal sense of scripture and the non binding nature of Papal documents that are specifically not directed to the faithful.
Mr. Palm – has claimed in another combox discussion that the church fathers were not binding in their unanimous consent because
1 - The church fathers did not exegete texts from scripture.
2 - The church fathers did not cite scriptural texts when expressing their views on cosmology
Answer – The church fathers taught authoritatively on faith and morals when they had unanimous consent. As the fathers had unanimous consent on the matter of a stationary earth, then the stationary earth is a matter of faith. The fathers did not have to cite scripture to establish their cause, for as specified by Pope Leo XIII, only unanimous consent is required and nothing more.
Furthermore, if Mr. Palm wants to insist that the teaching of the church fathers on the stationary earth can be ignored, then the burden of proof is on him to establish from church documents why Catholics can do this. Firstly he must demonstrate that Pope Leo XIII’s statement on the unanimous consent does not apply to the church fathers on the matter of a stationary earth. Then he must find church teaching that the church fathers are only binding when they cite scripture. This burden will be too much for Mr. Palm as Pope Leo XIII has already bound the faithful to the unanimous consent of the fathers and no Pope has ever required the church fathers to cite scripture for the unanimous consent to be binding.
In fact, the church magesterium teaches the faithful are bound by tradition and scripture, which means doctrines must be believed that are not expressly or even implicitly written down in scripture. As such Mr. Palms contention is simply not defensible on the matter of denying the unanimous consent of the fathers, because they did not exegete or cite scripture on the doctrine of the stationary earth.
3 – The church fathers expressed their views on many aspects of cosmology, which modern science has proven to be false, therefore their views on the stationary earth are also to be regarded as false.
Answer – The views of the fathers that have been proven false by science are not binding on the faithful. These views were taught as merely the private opinions and Pope Leo has told us that such opinions are not part of divine revelation. As such Mr. Palms argument only accounts for some of the Popes teachings, which geocentrists concur with. However his argument does not account for Pope Leo XIII statement concerning the binding nature of the unanimous consent of the fathers.
Several other examples of Mr. Palm’s misunderstandings are shown below –
Palm - The one thing I would emphasize from my postings at CAF is that there is no papal decree, no papal bull that condemns heliocentrism.
Answer – Popes have condemned a moving earth and that is why Galileo was placed under investigation and then condemned. To say no Pope has condemned heliocentrism is to be a-historical in the extreme. Does Mr. Palm really think the Popes went to all the trouble of having Galileo investigated and then having books by Galileo, Newton and Copernicus placed on the index of forbidden books for centuries, yet in all this, the moving earth model was never condemned? Please Mr. Palm, at least have some semblance of honesty and admit the Popes have officially condemned Galileo because he proposed the moving earth model, which is in opposition to the biblical and church fathers teaching on the stationary earth.
Palm - See this thread in which a fellow interacts with our "johnmartin"'s listing of various Scripture texts which he claims support geocentrism (the vast majority from the Psalms, poetry which "johnmartin" above said was worthless to establish anything and the backtracked, although he has not yet honestly admitted his blunder):
Answer – The psalms are poetry and contain some poetic myth. Yet the psalms also contain many literal truths which are revealed through the literal sense, which in turn is conformed to the literal sense of other passages in scripture. In this way the psalms are not dismissed as merely poetry and pure myth, from which we cannot get any truth. The psalms can and are used properly to obtain much truth, including the truth of the stationary earth.
Palm - Sure, lots of passages of Scripture state that the sun rises/set or goes up/down. But geocentrists don't believe that it literally goes up and down, rather they say that it orbits around the earth. So they do not apply a literal hermeneutic--even they have to admit that it only appears to go up and down. Neither is there literally an enclosure somewhere for the sun (Psa 19:4) nor does the sun have legs with which to run (Psa 19:5).
Answer – Geocentrists believe the sun goes around the earth and up and down relative to the earth. The psalms use poetry to describe the literal motion of the sun and never use any language whatsoever to describe the literal motion of the earth.
Palm - Again, Pope Pius XII addressed this sort of language of the senses and specifically stated that we do not derive any scientific information from it, since the Holy Spirit did not intend to convey such. But it's worth noting that even geocentrists do not take this language literally, as they claim.
Answer – The texts commonly cited to object to geocentrists beliving the church fathers and scripture teach geocentrism are, Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu 3
"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in 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 among the most eminent men of science." For "the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history," that is, by refuting, "in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks."
Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 19
"The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in. For 'in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,' according to the saying of St. Thomas..The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for refutation."
In summary, the Popes have said the following points, which are all in conformity with geocentrism –
1- “The scriptural writers "went by what sensibly appeared"” – this conforms to geocentrism because the sun sensibly appears to move around the earth, or as scriptures says, rise and fall.
2- “The scriptural writers used figurative language, or terms which were commonly used at the time,” - again, the rising and falling of the sun and the earth being founded are figurative terms that are totally compatible to a moving sun and fixed earth.
3- “Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation"; which principle "will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history . . .” – geocentrism does not require the scriptures are teaching the essential nature of things, such as the composition of the ether, sun, or earth. It does require that the scriptures have a literal sense and that sense is foundational to the understanding of the text. Once the literal sense in understood, then the scriptures are clearly understood as teaching geocentrism.
4- “Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers – geocentrism is not founded upon the opinions of the church fathers.” Geocentrism is founded upon the universal consent of the church fathers on the matter of a fixed earth as being part of the revealed cosmology.
5- We must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith -- what they are unanimous in is the faith. Geocentrism is taught in the fathers, not merely as an opinion, diverse from other fathers, but as a universal consent. Therefore geocentrism is part of the faith.
Palm - It looks to me as if at least some of these individuals will do anything to hang onto their private judgment that geocentrism is taught as an article of faith, even if it means (were it possible) smashing the Catholic Faith itself.
JM – Well, this is a claim Mr. Palm cannot substantiate. Geocentrists cite church documents, the church fathers and scripture to establish that geocentrism is part of the ordinary magesterium. Mr. Palm must ignore Papal statements that condemn a moving earth. Evidently Mr. Palm thinks that by using his own private judgment in ignoring Papal statements that condemn a moving earth, he has more authority than the Popes. As such, it is he who is constructing a novel Palm-catholic faith of his own making.
Mr. Palm must also construct arguments to reverse the unanimous consent of the fathers on the stationary earth and thereby ignore the direct command of Pope Leo XIII concerning the binding nature of unanimous consent. Again, Mr. Palm must construct a novel, Palm-catholic faith of his own making.
Mr. Palm must also construct arguments to reverse the direct scriptural statements that say the sun, stars and moon move and the earth is stationary. To do this he must ignore the Papal statements that say the literal sense of scripture is the foundation for all other senses. Again, in doing so, Mr. Palm must construct a novel, Palm-catholic faith of his own making.
Mr. Palm must also construct arguments to reverse the positions taken by great church fathers such as St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, who were both geocentrists. In doing so, he must have recourse to nothing more than his false understanding of modern pseudo science, that has not proof that the earth is moving. As such, Mr. Palm must construct a novel, Palm-catholic faith of his own making.
Palm - On Dave Armstrong's blog, one "johnmartin" (a pseudonym) was perfectly content to assert that, “I’ve presented a list of doctrines that have been de facto denied by the modern church” and “I believe the church silence on the matter of geo[centrism] in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment”. Three hundred years of doctrinally inept and cowardly Popes—gee, what faithful Catholic could fail to be content with such a simple explanation?
JM – Well modernism has been rife within the church for a long time and modernism is so strong in the church today that it has almost completely destroyed the church in northern America and Ireland, not to mention the rest of western civilization, such as Australia, New Zealand and Europe. Michal Voris has noted this in his videos on the state of the church in Ireland here –
and several other comments made by Michael on the same website. The church in Ireland is almost completely dead because of modernism. It is modernism that completely denies all dogmas and doctrines of the faith, including that of the stationary earth.
Does anyone with any sense of what is going on within the church herself have any comeback to the claim that the church has permitted modernism to run rife within her own ranks? Can the behavior of many bishops throughout the western world, many of which are either gay or at least permit gay priests to continue as priests, be defended? Can the modern Papacy be defended, which is meant to stop the bishops from permitting modernism and permitting gay priests and other clergy (including pedophiles), yet has not done so on a large scale? No, many bishops and the Papacy have failed many of the faith through inept leadership to prevent the spread of modernism and aberrant moral behavior.
It is in this context that geocentrist claim that the doctrine of the stationary earth has been dropped in practice (in so far as it is not taught at the local level), ever since the books of Copernicus, Newton and Galileo were taken off the index. Even so, the church teaching as found in the Papal documents at the time of the Galileo crisis, the catechism of the council of Trent, the unanimous consent of the church fathers and the many statements within scripture concerning the motion of the stars, sun and moon and the stationary earth remain, as ever the same and therefore geocentrism is Catholic doctrine.
Palm - He offered as "proof" for this supposed ineptitude a whole panoply of issues which the Catholic Church had "stopped teaching": the sinfulness of contraception, the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of and need for the sacrament of matrimony, the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin birth, and the establishment of the sacrament of Holy Orders by Christ himself. It was painful to have to point out to this fellow Catholic the obvious, namely, that the Magesterium has explicitly taught each and every one of those things, right up to the present day.
JM – Yes, Mr. Palm, the magesterium continues to teach these doctrines, just as it continues to teach geocentrism. Yet what does this mean? It means that officially the church teaches the same doctrines it has always taught, but it also means those doctrines must also be taught within diocese around the world, for such teaching to have any practical influence on the faithful. As there have been some major challenges by Catholic priests and theologians on many doctrines, the church has largely fallen silent on many doctrines and many Catholics around the world no longer believe in these doctrines. As such, the church, at least in practice (although she can never formally teach error due to the doctrine of indefectibility), has failed the faithful and does not teach the faithful the faith in all its fullness any more. This is the meaning of my claims, which Mr. Palm either missed or ignored.
Palm - To his credit, neo-geocentrist Rick Delano didn't join "johnmartin" in this brazen Church bashing. But he deployed his own example which he contends is the only other one that matches geocentrism: usury. According to Rick these two constitute the "unique" examples in all of Church history in which the Catholic Church has simply stopped teaching a doctrine of the Faith:
JM – Mr. Palm’s claim that I was involved in brazen church bashing, is itself a clear example of brazen opportunism to bash a geocentrist. Mr. Palm knows full well that the list of doctrines given is completely in harmony with what many, who call themselves Catholic and claim to practice the faith, actually do not believe. Many Catholics practice contraception and many do not go to confession. Many Catholics do not believe in biblical inerrancy and many do not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The list could go on an on concerning what modern Catholics do not believe. What does Mr. Palm have to say on these matters and other related matters, such as imprimaturs being placed on books written by liberals and modernist theologians who routinely challenge and deny catholic doctrines such as inerrancy and the sinfulness of contraception and so on. Such clear evidence show us much of the church is not interested in ensuring the faith is preserved for the faithful and this is why I presented the list of doctrines that the church “de facto” denies through silence and the permission of widespread teachings contrary to those doctrines.
I note that when Mr. Palm was challenged to answer these problems in the modern church, he refused to answer. Evidently, such refusal means Mr. Palm knows the problems in the modern church are real and the modern magesterium has routinely failed to pass on the faith. This compliance with the modernist addenda means the magesterium has been week in the face of heresy that has permeated the church throughout the western world. In short, the magesterium has both succeeded and failed the faithful. The magesterium has, as always officially taught the truth, because she is protected by the Holy Spirit. But in practice, the laxity of Popes and many bishops have caused the faith to not be presented to perhaps two or three generations of Catholics in the western world.
Geocentrism is then only one part of a larger problem within the church. The doctrine of geocentrism has not been taught at the local level for some time, but then again, many other doctrines have also not been taught for a long time either. So, just as these other doctrines are not overturned by the church permitting renegade theologians and clergy teaching otherwise, then so too, when the church has permitted documents that teach a moving earth be presented to the faithful as truth, this does not overturn the official doctrine as taught by the church – the stationary earth.
The rest of the post concerning Mr. Palms answer to Rick Delano can be addressed by Rick if and when he sees fit. My take on Rick’s comments concerning usury
Palm - I would be the first to agree that additional catechesis would help the faithful to better understand the necessary distinction between usury and the taking of interest. But it is patently false to claim that there has been a "surrender" or an "abandonment" of the doctrine of usury. It is explicitly taught by the Magesterium to this day and this alleged parallel with geocentrism fails completely.
JM – Maybe, just maybe the magesterium has permitted the use of usury in the church, just as it has permitted the diabolic doctrines of modernism to permeate large parts of the church. This is quite probably Rick’s point on the matter of usury.
Palm - Of course the parallel fails in another way too. The Holy Office, with the Pope's approval, gave positive permission in 1820 for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church.
JM – The imprimatur given in 1822 to canon Settele during the pontificate of Pius VII does not carry the same weight as the Papal decrees that condemned Galileo from 1616-1633. The imprimatur given in 1822 makes no reference to the decrees made between 1616-1633, but only to the teachings of Copernicanism. Further, if the imprimatur for Settele’s 1822 work was a reform of the prior Papal decrees, why was there no formal Papal documents that explicitly say so? Again, if the imprimatur made any reform of previous Papal statements, why did Copernicus’s works remain on the index until 1835? And why didn’t any Papal documents explicitly refer to the 1633 decree, which was made to reform the 1616 decree? These historical facts speak for themselves. The Papal decrees against Galileo’s novel teachings were never revoked and have never since been revoked either.
We can muster further evidence against Mr. Palms false claims and show that the Holy Office published a decree on September 11, 1822, which states – “Their eminences have decreed that, for the time being, now and in the future, a license is not to be refused to the Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace for the printing and publication of works dealing with the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun according to common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the sacred congregation of the index of 1757 and of this supreme Holy Office of 1820.” Evidently this decree shows the Papacy thought the motion of the earth was only merely an opinion of modern astronomers of the day and not a proven or even demonstrable fact of astronomy. In fact, Settele’s work only states the motion of the earth is somewhere between a hypothesis and a thesis.
We also see the value of an imprimatur when we note that Galileo was given an imprimatur in 1631 for his work, “Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems”. Yet Galileo was censured in 1616 to prevent him from writing or speaking on heliocentrism, making his 1631 imprimatur, null and void. Furthermore, Galileo’s book was later condemned by Pope Urban VIII, in 1633, showing his 1631 imprimatur was invalid. Pope Urban VIII stated in 1633, that “the proposition that the sun is the center 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.”
So from this brief overview, we see an imprimatur given does not in any way override the Papal decrees made against a moving earth model. As such, Mr. Palms wild claims that the church “positive permission in 1820 for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church” do not account for the subtleties of the wording contained in the Papal decrees, historical events surrounding similar documents given imprimaturs, that were subsequently condemned by Papal decrees.
Palm - The Church has given her imprimatur and nihil obstat to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of works that present a non-geocentric cosmology as fact.
JM – And the church has given imprimaturs and nihil obstats to many documents that challenge fundamental beliefs such as inerrancy of scripture, the virgin birth, the incarnation of God and so on. All we have to do is a quick search of liberal works such as that of Raymond Brown to see the church has failed to protect the faithful from such aberrant teaching. So what does this mean for a moving earth being permitted by the church to be disseminated among the faithful? It only means he church magesterium has been inept at its job in preventing error to be taught as truth, without the magesterium falling into formal error itself. If Mr. Palm wants to argue this point further, I invite him to defend the magisterial decisions to have Fr Raymond Brown as head of the PBC and place imprimaturs and nihil obstats on many of Fr Brown’s heterodox works. Even if Mr. Palm can mount some sort of defense for this thoroughly inept permission by the magesterium, there is an entire plethora or works all over the world that have been given imprimaturs and nihil obstats that are heterodox.
As such, Mr. Palm’s claims that the church has allowed the moving earth to be taught to the faithful and therefore the doctrine of the stationary earth is not part of the faith is clearly a very large historical double standard. I invite Mr. Palm to review his false argument and take into account the lack of action by the magesterium on many doctrinal matters of the last 100 years. Once this is done, the magesterium, which is appointed and protected by God from error in regard to teaching errors in faith and morals, has failed to enforce its authority to prevent error being taught to the faithful.
In this way, the geocentrists have a very strong case. For just as the stationary earth was taught in the ordinary magesterium and therefore an infallible doctrine of the faith, then so too, many other doctrines were taught as part of the faith, but have in the last 100 years or so, been silenced through the ineptitude of the magesterium and the positive heresy promoted by modernists.
Palm - Pope Benedict XV stated openly in a papal encyclical that it's not at all problematic to hold that the earth isn't the center of the universe.
JM – The Papal encyclical referred to here is - Encyclical Of Pope Benedict XV, On Dante To Professors And Students Of Literature And Learning In The Catholic World. The encyclical is only to professors and students of the Catholic world, concerning the poet Dante. The statement of Pope Benedict XV is as follows -
“still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”
Evidently this statement does not seek to define any doctrine of the faith, or reform and doctrine taught by any other Pope. As the document is not addressed to the bishops and faithful, the statement does not seek to bind Catholics to any doctrine concerning the motion of the earth. The statement “this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe”, is not even a positive affirmation of a moving earth, but only the use of a modal verb, “may”, to indicate a hypothetical possibility.
Even if all this is denied, then Mr. Palm has to overcome the problem of several Popes and Cardinals who condemned Galileo and Copernicus against the measly, passing reference of Pope Benedict XV on the matter of the earth’s location. As Mr. Palm thinks modern Popes now permit Catholics to believe in a moving earth, then the burden falls on him to us how Catholic ecclesiology promotes the conflicting statements of Popes as being from God and therefore binding. Or how conflicting statements from Popes are to be resolved by the church and not by the private interpretation of men such as Mr. Palm. Evidently when we pose the problem is such terms, Mr. Palm has a lot of work to do. For currently all Mr. Palm has in a best case scenario is conflicting Papal statements and Mr. Palm’s say so that all is ok for Catholics to believe one Pope over another Pope.
I believe I have shown from arguments presented above that Mr. Palm doesn’t even have this best case scenario to begin with. I only suggest that he hypothetically has a best case scenario to show even if the geocentrist is very generous towards Mr. Palm’s position, his arguments are still full of ecclesiastical, doctrinal ad historical holes.
Palm - Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII made official in papal encyclicals the Tradition expressed best by Sts. Augustine and Thomas that the sacred Scriptures do not contain details of the physical universe, but rather speak in ordinary language according to what appears to men.
JM- This claim has already been answered on Dave Armstrong’s website and neither Mr. Pam, or his like minded friends had any substantial rebuttal. Therefore Mr. Palm is merely repeating a tired, worn out, an thoroughly answered truth claim. He does this merely for rhetorical profit and shows the geocentric position is a strong as ever and his doctrinally heretical position is as weak as ever.
Palm - Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have praised Galileo and John Paul II has stated publicly that the handling of the Galileo case rested on "errors".
JM – All of this means nothing more than the magesterium is confused and doesn’t know what to do with Galileo, Copernicus and the problem of the moving earth, let alone the historical, Papal decrees that condemn the doctrine of a moving earth. None of these Popes, or for that matter any other Pope has overturned the Papal decrees that condemn the moving earth as formally heretical.
Palm - The Magisterium has given the faithful every indication that they need not have any scruple to hold to non-geocentric views of the universe. There is no possible parallel here to usury, which has been consistently and repeatedly condemned.
JM – There are plenty of parallels to many other doctrines permitted to be ignored and other contrary doctrines taught by modernists and liberal heretics, all without the magesterium doing much at all to stop the rot.
Palm - Which only goes to show you that you can't get away from the fundamental axiom that if you start with a bad premise you will inevitably reach a bad conclusion.
JM – Mr. Palm’s false premise has been exposed above and that’s why he arrives at a false conclusion.
Palm - Geocentrism was never taught as a doctrine of the faith by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium.
JM – I do not enjoy saying this, but Mr. Palm has had plenty of time to review and change his mind on this point. Papal decrees have been presented to him and he has quoted from Robert Sungenis’s book, Galileo Was wrong, so I conclude he probably has read the historical case for geocentrism. As such, Mr. Palm must be lying about what he has said above, concerning the church never teaching geocentrism as a doctrine of the faith. In my mind, this statement of Mr. Palm shows me he has no credibility whatsoever to engage geocentric claims regarding church teaching.
Palm - That is the simple reason why there is no reiteration of it. No need for exaggerations, conspiracy theories, ineptitude, or cowardice.
JM – And yet the holes in Mr. Palms position on the matter of geocentrism are so large you could drive the proverbial Titanic through them.
Palm - I know this is incredibly shocking and controversial, but ordinary, faithful Catholics can feel perfectly comfortable—and orthodox—while holding to a non-geocentric view of the universe.
JM – “. . . ordinary, faithful Catholics can feel perfectly comfortable—and orthodox—while holding to a non-geocentric view of the universe”, is another lie, straight from the pit of hell. The church has taught the moving earth is formal heresy. The church has taught the unanimous consent of the fathers is binding on the faithful and the scriptures literal sense also reaches the earth is stationary in space. All of this must be ignored and twisted to arrive at Mr. Palm’s blatant lie.
Palm - Not that that will stop the neo-geocentrists from making a wreck of their own faith as they cling to this pebble of a scientific theory, of course.
JM – Actually Mr. Palm is probably a heretic for blatantly lying about the church’s teaching on the doctrine of geocentrism. I will pray for his soul and that he stops lying about what the church has and has not formally stated about the doctrine of the moving earth. Currently Mr. Palm is either gravely confused and poorly formed, or his has given full consent to his lie and has committed mortal sin. Not only this, Mr. Palm has invited others to also embrace an error of his choice and probably even thinks by Dave Armstrong posting his errors on his blog, that such action garners support for his anti church doctrine.
Palm - NB: I will be posting a continuing series of essays on various aspects of neo-geocentrism. Until the series is complete comments will be disabled.
JM – I suggest Mr. Palm stop posting his false ideas and repent of the evil he has done. Only then will he be saved by the church that was instituted by Christ to teach, govern and sanctify souls. As the church has taught the doctrine of the motionless earth, then it is up to Mr. Palm, as an informed Catholic to immediately embrace that doctrine handed down from the OT prophets, the fathers, scripture and the magesterium.
I note in passing that Mr. Palm has now taken it upon himself to prevent geocentrists from answering his article. He has done this because he proposes to write a series on the matter. But what does this have to do with geocentrists replying to his false arguments? Evidently nothing and this is solid evidence that Mr. Palm knows his game is up and he has been and will continue to be exposed as a very confused and possibly evil character who must repent of his actions against the church.
I will conclude with this request of Mr. Palm – Your arguments against geocentrism and therefore the church have been answered. Please embrace the fullness of the catholic faith before it is too late.
JM
No comments:
Post a Comment