Catholic Answers began in 1979 after a Fundamentalist church in San Diego, California, decided to leaflet the cars at a local parish during Mass. The fliers attacked the Eucharist and were riddled with misinformation. Upon coming out of Mass and finding one on his car, attorney Karl Keating was annoyed and drove home with a modest goal: to draft a tract that would present basic Catholic beliefs and refute anti-Catholic charges. Keating signed the tract “Catholic Answers,” opened up a post office box in that name, and then placed his rebuttal on the windshields of cars in the Fundamentalist church’s lot.
About Catholic Answers
Now, what undertaking could be holier?
But the problem is: just because the Fundies are wrong and NOT Bible believing about the Holy Eucharist, does not mean they are also wrong and no more Bible believing about the first chapters of Genesis. First three or first eleven, pick or choose but ... Church Fathers say they are historical. They also say that when Joshua told the sun and the moon to stand still, they stood still.
Now, there is a funny thing about San Diego. In 1977 - two years before this happened - I was there with a family that belonged to ... obviously the funny thing is not me being there, but what they belonged to ... the community known as The Walk. It was headed by one "Brother Stephens" who was based in Anaheim. Me and ma went from the family in San Diego to another one in Anaheim. Now the funny thing about The Walk or whatever you call the movement of Brother Stephens - I do not know if it exists any more - is that though it was pretty Protestant insofar as lacking the Seven Sacraments and all that, it was started by Catholics after Vatican II, rather than by some branchoff within what started back in 1517. Or earlier.
I do wonder whether one reason of their leaving Catholicism might not have been wanting to make even more of Liturgic Reform (theirs being a pretty improvised one), but another possibly being a reaction against the new acceptance of Evolution within the Caholic Church. Any way, I do not think they were behind any fliers against transsubstantiation. As far as I can recall, they did not leave that all behind in Catholicism.
Now, defending Transubstantiation and Holy Mass against Protestant attacks is of course a Holy and Good Undertaking. I have done so myself.
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ...on Paisley's attacks on Consubstantiation/Transubstantiation
Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answering Cephas Ministries on "Christ Alone" on twelve points
But though it is a holy thing to defend the Holy Eucharist - as real presence and as real sacrifice - this does not make it a holy thing to ban defense of other though lesser Catholic Truths such as Young Earth Creationism as per genealogies in St Luke and as per Adam and Eve being there in the beginning of creation as per Marc 10:6 (in a passage which Protestants accepting divorce otherwise tend to forget about). Or such as Geostasis (which in combination with Earth being round spells out Geocentrism, though you can have Geostasis even while imagining the Earth as a disc between the disk or roof of Heaven and a lower disc of Hell) as per certain Psalms or as per Joshua chapter 10. In each case, of coruse bourne out by the Church Fathers.
A man might very well think that Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are disproven, and that therefore a Catholic believing those is disgracing the Church and the Holy Writ and the Church Fathers. But that is his opinion, not the teaching of the Church, not the teaching of the Church Fathers and not the teaching of the Holy Writ either obviously.
It is odd that in the set of Keating, Armstrong, Shea and Palm and Provaznik obviously too are in the question of Geocentrism very much agreed with Protestant Young Earth Creationists who want to distance themselves from Geocentrism very eagerly, being prepared to say time runs at a different pace far out in the universe and on earth and that, for instance, the starlight that took 6000 years to reach us measured by our time might have taken 13 billion years of time to reach us by the time as it is going on the star expanding away from us.
I distanced myself from Palmarianism the day and minute I found out they were into exotic cosmologies. They think "Antichrist sees the world from the Fourth Dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the Eighth Dimension - according to a quote one Polish Sedevacantist gave me" and I think it is a truth relevant to the teaching of the Church Fathers that the world has exactly Three Dimensions (this word being only applicable to space).
But when Provaznik quotes one not banned but Buddhist debater from Catholic Forums with an exortic attempt to reconciliate Evolutionism with a historical Adam and in other contexts the exotic cosmology of Fr Lemaître S.J. is being praised, I see a certain likeness there to Palmarian cosmology and that of the Protestant Young Earth Creationists on Creation Ministries International. Now, this could be a pretty fair game if a Catholic disagreeing with them had at least a chance to defend his position on the forums. Unlike Rossum, however, I was banned from those forums due to defending Geocentrism.
I am not sure who the forum administrator Michael Francis who banned me was. I am sure I was banned. Geocentrism could not be banned as a heresy, since obviously a Catholic cannot claim it is one, so I was banned for lacking in charity in my defense of it. Reminds me of certain Protestants who will call defense of the truth (including Real Presence and Sacrifice of Holy Mass and including the Reformation being historically evil) "uncharitable" when they cannot, for Ecumenic fervour, condemn it as "heretical".
I do not consider that my question whether a certain flyby had disproven Geocentrism was answered adequately by someone saying Geocentrism is disproven and loony anyway. So I do not consider it correct of Michael Francis to close the thread (Mar 31, '12, 8:53 am) and then to ban me for trying to reopen subject on a new thread. But it seems Karl Keating - according to above text - is connected to this Michael Francis, and therefore so are his friends (as per info from a fellow Geocentric) Shea and Armstrong and Palm.
And I think they have left a holy and worthy task, namely defending the Catholic Faith and taken up an unworthy one, defending a certain compromise. I am of course also annoyed when CMI defend compromise on the Geocentric issue.
The church indeed made a mistake with Galileo, but exactly the opposite of what Brown thinks. The church’s trouble was adopting the prevailing scientific framework of the University Aristotelians, and adjusting their theology to fit. When Galileo challenged the prevailing scientific framework, his scientific enemies persuaded the Church that he was attacking the Bible, which he was not.
Quoth Dr. Jonathan Sarfati on this post.* On fresh posts dealing with astronomy I have even had my comments not published because Geocentric. But on another one,** they unwittingly offer support for Geocentrism:
66. How is red-shift explained?
The red-shift of starlight is a decrease in the energy of the light. This energy decrease results in a lengthening of the wavelength of the light, measured with an instrument called a spectrometer. Red is the rainbow color with the longest wavelength, hence the name "red-shift." Stars do not actually become red in appearance since the wavelength change is usually slight. Almost every star and galaxy is found to be red-shifted. The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift.
- 1) Stellar Motion. If a star moves outward from the earth, its light energy will be reduced and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted. Stars and entire galaxies show varying amounts of red-shift, therefore implying a variety of speeds for these objects. Police actually use this same effect with radar to measure the speed of cars. Stellar motion is often taken as evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. Stars are assumed to be speeding outward as a result of the explosion. This is not the only explanation of red-shift, however.
- 2) Gravitation. As light leaves a star, the star's gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person struggling to the top of a mountain.
- 3) Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.
- 4) Photon Interaction. It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. A theoretical understanding of this proposed "tired light" process has not yet been developed.
Any of these four explanations, alone or in combination, may be responsible for red-shift. We do not know enough about space to be certain of the source of stellar red-shift.
Notice the quote from explanation three, labelled "second order Doppler effect"? Here again:
This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.
In circular motion instead of radial expansion ... exactly as Geocentrism says it is, namely in circular motion each day around the earth.
So, you cannot say that every observation refutes Geocentrism, when redshift being an observation has at least one explanation that is coherent with Geocentrism. You could say one particular observation excludes Geocentrism. If there were one such. I invited people on Catholic forums to deal with my query whether the flyby was one such. But saying one observation excludes Geocentrism is not saying every observation excldues Geocentrism. Obviously the colour of my trousers are a thing that can be observed, and obviously they have nothing to do with the question. Saying "every observation supports Heliocentrism" would logically imply the colour of my trousers are a refutation of Geocentrism, which they are obviously not. Saying that is nothing more or less than repeating a Scientific Community catchword. It does not defend Catholicism.
The Catholic Anti-Geocentrics seem to argue like: "Geocentrism is ignorance. Catholic Tradition is not promoting any ignorance. Therefore Catholic Tradition is not promoting Geocentrism." But this raises the point whether Geocentrism is really ignorance. One French and Atheist commedian, Coluche, said it was. Is the word of Coluche good enough to prove Geocentrism is ignorance? Or is it the word of your teacher? Now, "jurare in verba magistri" was considered ignorance back in days when Sorbonne was Geocentric. If Geocentrism is not really ignorance, the Catholic Tradition might really be in its favour. It is certainly not in any obvious sense in disfavour of Geocentrism over two thousand years.
If that were a shame to the Church - it is not - at least marginalising Geocentric apologetics will not wash it off.
BU Nanterre / Paris X
St Vincent of Valencia
Deacon and Martyr
* CMI : Church of England apologises to Darwin Anglican Church’s neo-Chamberlainite appeasement of secularism
"There are numerous mistakes in the article by the official CoE representative, a Rev. Dr Malcolm Brown, on the official CoE website, and Jonathan Sarfati replies point-by-point."
** CMI : Astronomy And The Bible
by Donald B. DeYoung
66. How is red-shift explained?