Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Quand latin et français était la même langue

1) Quand latin et français était la même langue · 2) Quando latín y castellano era el mismo idioma

Scribitur es pronõnsié
Servus Servorum Dei est lingua docta pro/per "sers de sers-Dieu". "Sers Servor Dei" es lang@ doct@ por sers d@ sers-Diëu.
Per quid scribitur s e r u u s et non s e r s? Por keith eskrib@-s@ s e r ü ü s é nõ s e r s?
Scribitur s e r u u s, quia antiqui dicebant sér-VU-s. Escribit@r s e r ü ü s, k@ li ãtik disei@nt sér-VOU-s.
Et papa decaedit de sola disciplina aut et de fide?  É li pap@ decid@ d@ la soul@ disiplin@ outh é d@ la feith?
Decaedit et de fide, exempli gratia condemnando eos qui negant Adam casum fuisse per peccatum proprium. Decid@ eth d@ feith, por eisempl@ condemnant els ki ni@nt Adam füth cadüth por petchié propr@.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

And Dark Ages ....

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Were Heruli, Ostrogoths and Vandals the Three Uprooted Horns? · 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : The Penitents of Each would be Equally Absolved · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : And Dark Ages ....

The Pastor, whose video I am not linking to because he is not allowing comments under it, but his name is David Assherick*, cites:

That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution, which has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history.

In the internet scanned pdf edition, it is on page 40 that I find this of William Edward Hartpole Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, but it is a revised edition from 1919. Probably Assherick cited original edition from the author's lifetime.

Now, there are two problems with Lecky.

One is, he was a Protestant and believed Protestants could have a competent knowledge of history while remaining Protestants. That much is clear from the quote. But second problem is that he died in 1903, well before the insitution called Trench Warfare in WW-I, well before Communism, well before all the horrors of Communism. And as a side kick, the somewhat lesser ones of Nazism.

So, supposing innocent blood was indeed shed very much by Catholics, which I do not agree to be the case, since I do not agree the heretics were all that innocent or all that many (I don't know where Assherick got 100 millions from, as I glean through the rest of the chapter, the figures I get from Lecky, or his revisor, are 31,000** killed by Spanish Inquisition in Spain, and 50,000 or 100,000 killed by same institution in the Netherlands under Charles V, and it is generally granted that Spanish Inquisition was more prone to shed blood than the older anti-Albigensian one).

But citing Lecky means forgetting that after Lecky died there has been Communism. And of course Abortion. Where the victim is REALLY guaranteed to be an innocent person.

Now, next Mr Assherick claims that the "Dark Ages" WERE so called - sounds as if so called while still ongoing, right? - because the Word which is lantern of my feet was forbidden.

As an example Mr Assherick cites Bibles chained to the walls of monasteries and churches (he used the word temples). To me that sounds like - accessible.

OK, you could NOT take that Bible along home. You had to read it on the spot.

And rather often (though not quite invariably) it was in Latin.

Assherick says Latin was not the language of the people. English is these days the language of certain peoples, while other peoples, whose language it is NOT actually learn it. As having learned both English and Latin, I can state this: Latin has an easier system of tenses, and an easier pronunciation - on the other hand to a speaker of Germanic languages, like Swedish and German, English may be easier because more words are similar. To a speaker of French or Italian, Latin would be easier also from that point of view.

There was no actual ban on learning Latin imposed on laymen. Especially as people who has started universities and left before becoming priests, as well as lawyers, as well as medical practitioners, all knew Latin. And especially as monasteries and convents were acting schoolmasters for the monks and friars to have a good deed to do, not just for economic gain, and so poor people were more likely to learn Latin during Middle Ages than some of the later centuries - or even most of the later centuries.***

A layman who knew Latin (or in countries where the language had a translation approved by Catholic Church) and who regularly said his prayers and kept the commandments was not likely to have his demand, if such, to read the Bible at home refused as soon as editions were available that were not in need of being chained to walls because they were so expensive. Or if he could get a copy because he was rich or because a rich man bought it for him.

Every Mass, two doctrinal and narrative texts are read, Epistle and Gospel. After each Gospel read on a Sunday or a major Holiday, from 813 on in France, a sermon had to explain or even basically translate the Gospel, and the sermon had to be in a language the people understood. Up to 800, they had understood Latin as it was pronounced there, but that was not as well understood by clergy from outside France.

What happened was basically as if English as spoken in England was no longer good enough for use in Church, they wanted to restore the pronunciation which the spelling is mostly based on, that of Chaucer. When they did, with Latin and not English, of course, people ceased to understand what was pronounced at Epistle and Gospel readings, and then the sermon was added very quickly in order to restore the understanding. Italy and Spain went through a similar process about 200 years later. And that is how Catholic priests having to deliver sermon in a language henceforth defined as distinct from Latin, became founders of French, Provençal, Italian, Castilian, Catalan, Galician°.

Bible truth was also given in a very easy to understand form in the Mystery Plays. Cecil B. DeMille gave us one in 1956, it is called The Ten Commandments. Oberammergau founded one as a promise to get rid of a plague. They got rid of it and kept promise, every ten years new actors and actresses°° grow beards (in appropriate characters) and make a similar play about the Passion of Christ. Mel Gibson made a similar one. Christmas trees come from having a mystery play about Adam and Eve doing the wrong thing in Eden - held on December 24th. What fruit is ripe and fresh during Christmas (before imported oranges)? Apples. What tree is green in winter (Adam and Eve were hardly picking from a tree that was bald because leaves had fallen)? Spruces and pines. So, a tree of spruce or pine variety is for that mystery play decked with apples. After the play, around Christmas Midnight Mass, not consecrated Hosts are added, to represent salvation through Christ.

No, it is not as if Biblical truth was being withheld from the public during Middle Ages. David Assherick is wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
Easter Lord's Day

* Talk held before 4th of August 2014. ** 290,000 condemned to sentences less severe than death - that mean prison while inquisitors try to convert them (and everyone except the 31,000 or those who escaped, which might be half - or even half of the 31,000 themselves, if the number is based on sentences rather than nactual executions), or seven years penance, or pilgrimage to Santiago, or wearing a certain type of cross during the time of penance. And of course, in case of people actually having held a heretical view and abandoning it, public abjuration. These were the most common events during the autos da fé, and what auto da fé (act of fiath) gets its name from. *** About as soon as school ceases to be a privilege for those able to pay for it, except very elementary ones, Latin ceases to be as widely taught in schools. Not quite same thing as in Catholic countries, where the spirit of the Middle Ages was kept up : the Mozarts were NOT well off and NOT priesthood, but they learned Latin all right (the composer we think of as a homeschooler and his less well known son with a free or very cheap place at the Piarist school). ° The most famous dialects of Galician are now Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese. But in the Middle Ages the relevant literary language was based on the dialect of places like Santiago, Lugo, Coruña - which are now in Spain. °° Blessed Virgin Mary traditionally played by a virgin!

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Were Heruli, Ostrogoths and Vandals the Three Uprooted Horns?

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Were Heruli, Ostrogoths and Vandals the Three Uprooted Horns? · 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : The Penitents of Each would be Equally Absolved · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : And Dark Ages ....

Heruli actually seem to actually do have modern descendants. They returned to a kind of place called Värend, which is in a region called Småland, which is a region of the kingdom called Sweden.

Moreover, Ostrogoths would be represented in both Austria and Italy.

And some Vandals would have joined the Arabs and Berbers. But most indentical to self, Heruli in Småland in Sweden. Also referred to as Virdar.

So, neither the then Pope nor Justinian can be said to have fulfilled that part of Bible prophecy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
Easter Saturday, Evening

Monday, March 7, 2016

Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers?

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

On my debate with Sungenis, we came into questions of authorities.

Here I looked up some, though my reference to St Cyril of Jerusalem is still lacking.

The Divine Institutes (Lactantius) Book III Of the false wisdom of philosophers Chapter 24. Of the Antipodes, the Heaven, and the Stars.

How is it with those who imagine that there are antipodes opposite to our footsteps? Do they say anything to the purpose? Or is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? Or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? That the crops and trees grow downwards? That the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth? And does any one wonder that hanging gardens are mentioned among the seven wonders of the world, when philosophers make hanging fields, and seas, and cities, and mountains? The origin of this error must also be set forth by us. For they are always deceived in the same manner. For when they have assumed anything false in the commencement of their investigations, led by the resemblance of the truth, they necessarily fall into those things which are its consequences. Thus they fall into many ridiculous things; because those things which are in agreement with false things, must themselves be false. But since they placed confidence in the first, they do not consider the character of those things which follow, but defend them in every way; whereas they ought to judge from those which follow, whether the first are true or false.

What course of argument, therefore, led them to the idea of the antipodes? They saw the courses of the stars travelling towards the west; they saw that the sun and the moon always set towards the same quarter, and rise from the same. But since they did not perceive what contrivance regulated their courses, nor how they returned from the west to the east, but supposed that the heaven itself sloped downwards in every direction, which appearance it must present on account of its immense breadth, they thought that the world is round like a ball, and they fancied that the heaven revolves in accordance with the motion of the heavenly bodies; and thus that the stars and sun, when they have set, by the very rapidity of the motion of the world are borne back to the east. Therefore they both constructed brazen orbs, as though after the figure of the world, and engraved upon them certain monstrous images, which they said were constellations. It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven; that is, that it should raise aloft mountains, extend plains, and have level seas. And if this were so, that last consequence also followed, that there would be no part of the earth uninhabited by men and the other animals. Thus the rotundity of the earth leads, in addition, to the invention of those suspended antipodes.

But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions, why all things do not fall into that lower part of the heaven, they reply that such is the nature of things, that heavy bodies are borne to the middle, and that they are all joined together towards the middle, as we see spokes in a wheel; but that the bodies which are light, as mist, smoke, and fire, are borne away from the middle, so as to seek the heaven. I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another; but that I sometimes imagine that they either discuss philosophy for the sake of a jest, or purposely and knowingly undertake to defend falsehoods, as if to exercise or display their talents on false subjects. But I should be able to prove by many arguments that it is impossible for the heaven to be lower than the earth, were is not that this book must now be concluded, and that some things still remain, which are more necessary for the present work. And since it is not the work of a single book to run over the errors of each individually, let it be sufficient to have enumerated a few, from which the nature of the others may be understood.

It is fairly remarcable that Robert Sungenis quotemined a middle in the text passage, referring to what had been introduced with "The origin of this error must also be set forth by us," of previous paragraph and followed in next paragraph with "But if you inquire from those who defend these marvellous fictions," as if the sole words quotemined involved Lactantius accepting himself the argument he is referring:


Lactantius: "It followed, therefore, from this rotundity of the heaven, that the earth was enclosed in the midst of its curved surface. But if this were so, the earth also itself must be like a globe; for that could not possibly be anything but round, which was held enclosed by that which was round. But if the earth also were round, it must necessarily happen that it should present the same appearance to all parts of the heaven."

Even if he skimmed over the rest of what I just quoted and he referred to, how come he didn't get "it followed" (past tense) as indicating "it followed subjectively in their reasoning" as opposed to "it follows" (present tense), where one says "it follows" in order to imply "always and therefore objectively"?

I am confident, if I looked up the Latin original, I would even find a kind of oratio obliqua, which in itself would indicate his referring to others's opinion rather than stating his own, in the quote. Or at least, what is later known as erlebte Rede.

Hexameron, I Homily: starting 2nd half of chapter 8

If I ask you to leave these vain questions, I will not expect you to try and find out the earth's point of support. The mind would reel on beholding its reasonings losing themselves without end. Do you say that the earth reposes on a bed of air? How, then, can this soft substance, without consistency, resist the enormous weight which presses upon it? How is it that it does not slip away in all directions, to avoid the sinking weight, and to spread itself over the mass which overwhelms it? Do you suppose that water is the foundation of the earth? You will then always have to ask yourself how it is that so heavy and opaque a body does not pass through the water; how a mass of such a weight is held up by a nature weaker than itself. Then you must seek a base for the waters, and you will be in much difficulty to say upon what the water itself rests.

9. Do you suppose that a heavier body prevents the earth from falling into the abyss? Then you must consider that this support needs itself a support to prevent it from falling. Can we imagine one? Our reason again demands yet another support, and thus we shall fall into the infinite, always imagining a base for the base which we have already found. And the further we advance in this reasoning the greater force we are obliged to give to this base, so that it may be able to support all the mass weighing upon it. Put then a limit to your thought, so that your curiosity in investigating the incomprehensible may not incur the reproaches of Job, and you be not asked by him, "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened?" Job 38:6 If ever you hear in the Psalms, "I bear up the pillars of it;" see in these pillars the power which sustains it. Because what means this other passage, "He has founded it upon the sea," if not that the water is spread all around the earth? How then can water, the fluid element which flows down every declivity, remain suspended without ever flowing? You do not reflect that the idea of the earth suspended by itself throws your reason into a like but even greater difficulty, since from its nature it is heavier. But let us admit that the earth rests upon itself, or let us say that it rides the waters, we must still remain faithful to thought of true religion and recognise that all is sustained by the Creator's power. Let us then reply to ourselves, and let us reply to those who ask us upon what support this enormous mass rests, "In His hands are the ends of the earth." It is a doctrine as infallible for our own information as profitable for our hearers.

10. There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth. Placed, they say, in the middle of the universe and not being able to incline more to one side than the other because its centre is everywhere the same distance from the surface, it necessarily rests upon itself; since a weight which is everywhere equal cannot lean to either side. It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the centre of the universe. It is its natural and necessary position. As the celestial body occupies the higher extremity of space all heavy bodies, they argue, that we may suppose to have fallen from these high regions, will be carried from all directions to the centre, and the point towards which the parts are tending will evidently be the one to which the whole mass will be thrust together. If stones, wood, all terrestrial bodies, fall from above downwards, this must be the proper and natural place of the whole earth. If, on the contrary, a light body is separated from the centre, it is evident that it will ascend towards the higher regions. Thus heavy bodies move from the top to the bottom, and following this reasoning, the bottom is none other than the centre of the world. Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the centre of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement contrary to nature should displace it. If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. Grand phenomena do not strike us the less when we have discovered something of their wonderful mechanism. Is it otherwise here? At all events let us prefer the simplicity of faith to the demonstrations of reason.

Note that he is here proposing Aristotelic Round Earth cosmology with a previous and an ensuing warning:

"There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth. Placed, they say, in the middle of the universe ..."

Great display of words is never a good criticism in a Church Father.

"If there is anything in this system which might appear probable to you, keep your admiration for the source of such perfect order, for the wisdom of God. "

Which might appear probable to YOU?

In other words, he is refraining from judging in favour of this Round Earth cosmology. He is leaving his hearers both options.

The Hexaemeron quote of the work by Sungenis, p.36:


Basil : “These are lakes, and there is only one sea, as those affirm who have traveled round the Earth.”

Hexameron, Homily IV, 4.

First, some historical context. Travelling around the Earth in Magellan's day was NOT travelling around the globe Magellan wise, or even across the Atlantic Columbus wise.

They probably meant, they had travelled from Polar Sea where it touches Atlantic, over Atlantic just outside Europe and Africa, into Indian Ocean to India. Hardly even that they had travelled across India and Indochina into Pacific where it touches Asia, from South East to North East, to where Pacific touches Polar Sea once again.

Second, whether they meant the earlier or the later, presumably the earlier, it is consistent with a "primitive Flat Earth geography". Not the one now used by Flat Earthers, with North Pole in centre (that is a loan from Indian Flat Earth, which is another deal), but one where Old World is basically THE supercontinent, which it can be whether Earth is flat or not (falt except the cavities down into which the waters float, that is.)

Third, here is whole of chapter:

4. To say that the waters were gathered in one place indicates that previously they were scattered in many places. The mountains, intersected by deep ravines, accumulated water in their valleys, when from every direction the waters betook themselves to the one gathering place. What vast plains, in their extent resembling wide seas, what valleys, what cavities hollowed in many different ways, at that time full of water, must have been emptied by the command of God! But we must not therefore say, that if the water covered the face of the earth, all the basins which have since received the sea were originally full. Where can the gathering of the waters have come from if the basins were already full? These basins, we reply, were only prepared at the moment when the water had to unite in a single mass. At that time the sea which is beyond Gadeira and the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators, which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain, did not exist. But, all of a sudden, God created this vast space, and the mass of waters flowed in.

Now if our explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to experience, (because it is evident that all the waters did not flow together in one place,) many answers may be made, all obvious as soon as they are stated. Perhaps it is even ridiculous to reply to such objections. Ought they to bring forward in opposition ponds and accumulations of rain water, and think that this is enough to upset our reasonings? Evidently the chief and most complete affluence of the waters was what received the name of gathering unto one place. For wells are also gathering places for water, made by the hand of man to receive the moisture diffused in the hollow of the earth. This name of gathering does not mean any chance massing of water, but the greatest and most important one, wherein the element is shown collected together. In the same way that fire, in spite of its being divided into minute particles which are sufficient for our needs here, is spread in a mass in the æther; in the same way that air, in spite of a like minute division, has occupied the region round the earth; so also water, in spite of the small amount spread abroad everywhere, only forms one gathering together, that which separates the whole element from the rest. Without doubt the lakes as well those of the northern regions and those that are to be found in Greece, in Macedonia, in Bithynia and in Palestine, are gatherings together of waters; but here it means the greatest of all, that gathering the extent of which equals that of the earth. The first contain a great quantity of water; no one will deny this. Nevertheless no one could reasonably give them the name of seas, not even if they are like the great sea, charged with salt and sand. They instance for example, the Lacus Asphaltitis in Judæa, and the Serbonian lake which extends between Egypt and Palestine in the Arabian desert. These are lakes, and there is only one sea, as those affirm who have travelled round the earth. Although some authorities think the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed in their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they communicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the Great Sea. It is thus that, according to their account, the Red Sea and that beyond Gadeira only form one. Then why did God call the different masses of water seas? This is the reason; the waters flowed into one place, and their different accumulations, that is to say, the gulfs that the earth embraced in her folds, received from the Lord the name of seas: North Sea, South Sea, Eastern Sea, and Western Sea. The seas have even their own names, the Euxine, the Propontis, the Hellespont, the Ægean, the Ionian, the Sardinian, the Sicilian, the Tyrrhene, and many other names of which an exact enumeration would now be too long, and quite out of place. See why God calls the gathering together of waters seas. But let us return to the point from which the course of my argument has diverted me.

OK, where exactly is he proposing Round Earth?

Hexaemeron IX:6, at the end:

But evening, which long ago sent the sun to the west, imposes silence upon me. Here, then, let me be content with what I have said, and put my discourse to bed. I have told you enough up to this point to excite your zeal; with the help of the Holy Spirit I will make for you a deeper investigation into the truths which follow. Retire, then, I beg you, with joy, O Christ-loving congregation, and, instead of sumptuous dishes of various delicacies, adorn and sanctify your tables with the remembrance of my words. May the Anomœan be confounded, the Jew covered with shame, the faithful exultant in the dogmas of truth, and the Lord glorified, the Lord to Whom be glory and power, world without end. Amen.

I skimmed up to here, and found no more direct allusions to shape of Earth than these ones. In Hexaemeron. As I pointed out to him in debate, the work De Fide Orthodoxa, which he quotes more than once as St Basil, is actually another saint, St John of Damascus.

Now, I was a bit hasty when skimming through the ninth and final sermon. Here is chapter one, sentence by sentence, with the relevant ones highlighted by underscore:

How did you like the fare of my morning's discourse?

It seemed to me that I had the good intentions of a poor giver of a feast, who, ambitious of having the credit of keeping a good table saddens his guests by the poor supply of the more expensive dishes.

In vain he lavishly covers his table with his mean fare; his ambition only shows his folly.

It is for you to judge if I have shared the same fate. Yet, whatever my discourse may have been, take care lest you disregard it. No one refused to sit at the table of Elisha; and yet he only gave his friends wild vegetables. 2 Kings 4:39

I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others.

There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends.

For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel." Romans 1:16

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth.

If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the forth of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor.

It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes; he has not said that the earth is a hundred and eighty thousand furlongs in circumference; he has not measured into what extent of air its shadow projects itself while the sun revolves around it, nor stated how this shadow, casting itself upon the moon, produces eclipses.

He has passed over in silence, as useless, all that is unimportant for us.

Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit?

Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls?

It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture.

It is to believe themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and to bring forth their own ideas under a pretext of exegesis. Let us hear Scripture as it has been written.

I take this as his denying the question has importance, as his refusing to decide. Precisely as when he left Aristotelic cosmology to the discretion of his hearers and readers.

So much for his lack of authorities to Round Earth being believed by ALL Church Fathers.

Now, he is also claiming that angels have as sole function to help us. Well, those moving celestial objects to make seasons, they obviously do that. But he was probably referring to what guardian angels do.

Now, are all angels guardian angels? No more than all are angelic movers of heavenly bodies.

Catechism of St Pius X:

24 Q. What became of the Angels who remained faithful to God?
A. The Angels who remained faithful to God were confirmed in grace, for ever enjoy the vision of God, love Him, bless Him, and praise Him eternally.

25 Q. Does God use the Angels as His ministers?
A. Yes, God uses the Angels as His ministers, and especially does He entrust to many of them the office of acting as our guardians and protectors.

He is stating that guardian angels of men are more important than angelic movers (if such) of heavenly bodies - not that these do not exist.

Earlier on:

13 Q. Which are the noblest of God's creatures?
A. The noblest creatures created by God are the Angels.

14 Q. Who are the Angels?
A. The Angels are intelligent and purely spiritual creatures.

15 Q. Why did God create the Angels?
A. God created the Angels so as to be honoured and served by them, and to give them eternal happiness.

In other words, as long as angelic movers of planets or of windgusts turning this way rather than that are honouring and serving God in doing so, they are not forfeiting their eternal happiness.

Council of Trent:

(First clause of creed, somewhat into the text)


Moreover, He created out of nothing the spiritual world and Angels innumerable to serve and minister to Him; and these He enriched and adorned with the admirable gifts of His grace and power.

That the devil and the other rebel angels were gifted from the beginning of their creation with grace, clearly follows from these words of the Sacred Scriptures: He (the devil) stood not in the truth.59 On this subject St. Augustine says: In creating the Angels He endowed them with good will, that is, with pure love that they might adhere to Him, giving them existence and adorning them with grace at one and the same time. Hence we are to believe that the holy Angels were never without good will, that is, the love of God.60

As to their knowledge we have this testimony of Holy Scripture: Thou, my Lord, O king, art wise, according to the wisdom of an angel of God, to understand all things upon earth.61 Finally, the inspired David ascribes power to them, saying that they are mighty in strength, and execute his word,62 and on this account they are often called in Scripture the powers and the armies of the Lord.*

But although they were all endowed with celestial gifts, very many, having rebelled against God, their Father and Creator, were hurled from those high mansions of bliss, and shut up in the darkest dungeon of earth, there to suffer for eternity the punishment of their pride. Speaking of them the Prince of the Apostles says: God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them, drawn by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgment.63 *


The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth.64 He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.*


Lastly, He formed man from the slime of the earth, so created and constituted in body as to be immortal and impassible, not, however, by the strength of nature, but by the bounty of God. Man's soul He created to His own image and likeness; gifted him with free will, and tempered all his motions and appetites so as to subject them, at all times, to the dictates of reason. He then added the admirable gift of original righteousness, and next gave him dominion over all other animals. By referring to the sacred history of Genesis the pastor will easily make himself familiar with these things for the instruction of the faithful.*

"Of all Things Visible and Invisible"

What we have said, then, of the creation of the universe is to be understood as conveyed by the words heaven and earth, and is thus briefly set forth by the Prophet: Yours are the heavens, and yours is the earth: the world and the fullness thereof you have founded.65 Still more briefly the Fathers of the Council of Nice expressed this truth by adding in their Creed these words: of all things visible and invisible. Whatever exists in the universe, whatever we confess to have been created by God, either falls under the senses and is included in the word visible, or is an object of mental perception and intelligence and is expressed by the word invisible.

God Preserves, Rules and Moves all Created Things

We are not, however, to understand that God is in such wise the Creator and Maker of all things that His works, when once created and finished, could thereafter continue to exist unsupported by His omnipotence. For as all things derive existence from the Creator's supreme power, wisdom, and goodness, so unless preserved continually by His Providence, and by the same power which produced them, they would instantly return into their nothingness. This the Scriptures declare when they say:if not called by thee?66

Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes. For His invisible influence extends to all things, and, as the Wise Man says, reachesfrom end to end mightily, and ordereth all things sweetly. 67 This is the reason why the Apostle, announcing to the Athenians the God whom, not knowing, they adored, said:He is not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and are.68 *

Creation is the Work of the Three Persons

Let so much suffice for the explanation of the first Article of the Creed. It may not be superfluous, however, to add that creation is the common work of the Three Persons of the Holy and undivided Trinity, - of the Father, whom according to the doctrine of the Apostles we here declare to be Creator of heaven and earth; of the Son, of whom the Scripture says, all things were made by him;69 and of the Holy Spirit, of whom it is written: The spirit of God moved over the waters,70 and again, By the word of the Lord the heavens were established; and all the power of them by the spirit of his mouth.71 *

Not one word to exclude angelic movers from being secondary causes relevant for movement of celestial bodies. Unless? Look here:

He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes.

If stars are moving and acting by an internal power, or if angels are moving stars and hence acting astronomy by their internal power, either way secondary causes clause and "by an internal power" clause is respected. So, no. This clause does not preclude angelic movers.


(here too somwhat into the text)

"On Earth as it is in Heaven"

We also pray for the standard and model of this obedience, that our conformity to the will of God be regulated according to the rule observed in heaven by the blessed Angels and choirs of heavenly spirits, that, as they willingly and with supreme joy obey God, we too may yield a cheerful obedience to His will in the manner most acceptable to Him.

God requires that in serving Him we be actuated by the greatest love and by the most exalted charity; that although we devote ourselves entirely to Him with the hope of receiving heaven as reward, yet the reason we look forward to that reward should be that the Divine Majesty has commanded us to cherish that hope. Let all our hopes, therefore, be based on the love of God, who promises to reward our love with eternal happiness.

There are some who serve another with love, but who do so solely with a view to some recompense, which is the end and aim of their love; while others, influenced by love and loyalty alone, look to nothing else in the services which they render than the goodness and worth of him whom they serve, and, knowing and admiring his qualities consider themselves happy in being able to render him these services. This is the meaning of the clause On earth as it is in heaven appended (to the Petition).

It is then, our duty to endeavour to the best of our ability to be obedient to God, as we have said the blessed spirits are, whose profound obedience is praised by David in the Psalm in which he sings: Bless the Lord, all ye hosts; ye ministers of his that do his will.

Should anyone, adopting the interpretation of St. Cyprian, understand the words in heaven, to mean in the good and the pious, and the words on earth, in the wicked and the impious, we do not disapprove of the interpretation, by the word heaven understanding the spirit, and by the word earth, the flesh, that every person and every creature may in all things obey the will of God.

Next psalm (103) has:

[4] Who makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire. [5] Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever. [6] The deep like a garment is its clothing: above the mountains shall the waters stand. [7] At thy rebuke they shall flee: at the voice of thy thunder they shall fear.

Where fire and water are either animate or moved by angels.

So, would some of the angels who obey God IN HEAVEN possibly be angelic movers of celestial bodies?

St Robert's contemporary Riccioli said a resounding yes.

Back to Round or Flat Earth in St Cyril, I found this discussion on ethical atheist:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem – It is said that he followed Basil’s teaching. Seems to have been in the flat earth camp. Quotes frequently from the Bible and portrays earth as firmament floating on water using Gen. i. 6. He wrote in his Catechetical Lectures: Lecture IX: “Him who reared the sky as a dome, who out of the fluid nature of the waters formed the stable substance of the heaven. For God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water. God spake once for all, and it stands fast, and falls not. The heaven is water, and the orbs therein, sun, moon, and stars are of fire: and how do the orbs of fire run their course in the water? But if any one disputes this because of the opposite natures of fire and water, let him remember the fire which in the time of Moses in Egypt flamed amid the hail…” [85] For a biography, see [83]

Some argue that he was not influential and note that his view did not prevail. (Also see discussion on “Influential or Fringe Writers?” in Chapter 3.)

Meaning, the case for St Cyril being a flat earth writer depends on the passage in Genesis being a flat earth statement. Which it is not.

So, the case for St Cyril being Flat Earth falls. This case at any rate. However, St Cyril was ... no, St Chrysostomus was believing the box shaped universe, this according to Hannam, who does not give reference:

Some early Christians were victims of misinterpretation. Lactantius rejected the existence of the antipodes - lands on the other side of the equator - on the grounds that anyone who lived there would be upside down. It's a childish error, but does not mean he also believed the earth to be flat. St John Chrysostom thought the heavens were a box rather than a sphere, but he never says the earth is not a sphere in the centre of the box. Other writers may well have simply been using common language that we still use today. Saying "to the ends of the earth", "the four corners of the world" or "the sun sank into the sea" does not make you a flat Earther and we should treat ancient people with the same generosity. ....

To this can be said, he does not say that St John Chrysostom said that the earth IS a sphere in the centre of the box either.

And his treatment of Lactantius is disingenious, since as quoted above (Hannam does not give reference for Lactantius either), this writer actually rabbled off the arguments for a round earth, and argued that these were fictions and folly of philosophers (see also the general title of Book III of Divine Institutes). He gives a similar disingenious interpretation of St Basil, according to our correspondence, here I am extracting from it:

Finally, re-reading St Basil, it is clear he knew perfectly well what the shape of the earth was and could reel off the standard arguments from Aristotle and Ptolemy. He just didn't think it mattered much!

St Basil citing the arguments of Aristotle does not necessarily mean he believed them.

  • 1) Lunar eclipses could theoretically be due to some other body than Earth.

    Vedic astronomy which IS tied to flat earthism has a special planet Rahu with the sole function of explaning eclipses. Solar and Lunar. Accepting our explanation would involve admitting it was Earth's shadow on a Lunar eclipse. Hence, Rahu.

    Though St Basil might nowhere have shown knowledge of this theory, he might have been no great astronomy buff, he might nevertheless have considered the argument from Lunar eclipses insufficient.

  • 2) Experiment of Eratosthenes and sightings of objects crossing horizon (in aparent motion parallactic to a ship motion or in own motion if object was mast and hull of a ship) certainly suggest Earth is bent, but not necessarily a full globe.

  • 3) Geographic argument was strongest when Aristotle considered Straits of Gibraltar to be on other side of Ganges, but before the time of St Basil this might already have been debunked as the misidentification it was, while he wrote about a thousand years before Vasco da Gama supplied real best argument (which has since been redocumented in the Vasco da Gama form time after time).

So, he may well have been exactly as undecided himself as he considered one should be.

Correcting "as he considered one should be" to "as he considered one could be". And obviously da Gama to Magellan.

So, Flat Earth, while erroneous and somewhat absurd after Magellan, is nevertheless not a heresy, since some Church Fathers allowed it. And angelic movers, which are truly there (unless stars are themselves alive) are also not a heresy in angelology.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Monday after Laetare Sunday

Tuesday, March 1, 2016

One More Quote, if I May, Please!

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

GWW calls a heading "Is There a Copernican Conspiracy?" We are now on pages 92-93.

As there are many honest scientists and biblical exegetes who might reveal these facts to the public, there are just as many uneducated ones who are oblivious to them, or knowledgeable but dishonest ones who hide them. Still others are afraid to reveal them and hope that few people will seek to become educated and make provocative inquires, for then the proverbial cat will be out of the bag. Alexander von Humboldt, the founder of modern geography and of whom Charles Darwin said that he was “the greatest scientific traveler who ever lived,” and, of whom, after his death, Geoffrey Martin said “no individual scholar could hope any longer to master the world’s knowledge about the Earth,” acknowledged geocentrism’s viability but also fear of revealing it:

Reference to Geoffrey Martin
Geoffrey J. Martin and Preston E. James, All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas, p. 131. If there was anyone who knew his trade, it was Humboldt. In addition to the thirty volumes he wrote about his geographical field studies, in 1845, at the age of 76, he wrote the book Kosmos, which is said to contain everything he knew about the Earth. The first volume, a general overview of the universe, sold out in two months and was promptly translated into many languages. Humboldt died in 1859 and the fifth and final volume was published in 1862, based on his notes for the work.

Alexander von Humboldt
1769 – 1859
I have known, too, for a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasp’s nest. You will but bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude. If once a famous astronomer arises against the present conception, I will communicate, too, my observations; but to come forth as the first against opinions which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.

Quoted in F. K. Schultze’s synopsis and translation of F. E. Pacshe’s Christliche Weltanschauuing (cited in De Labore Solis, p. 133). Also cited in C. Schoepffer’s The Earth Stands Fast, C. H. Ludwig, 1900, p. 59.

With such a culture of personal deference, you do not need any conspiracy.

And this is the culture of Prussia, the place where Humboldt was from.

What shall we say of Prussia? Here I will get to Gilbert Keith Chesterton. A man who had the sense of loving Austria and Bavaria, and hating Prussia (with a brother dead fighting the Prussians in The Great War).

I first go to my Βιβλιογράφικα/Bibliographica blog. Here I find a page for Chesterton, Belloc and other English and French Catholics and other mystery writers, which links to G. K. Chesterton's Works on the Web of which I always forget the url. On which I do not find what I sought as a direct link, so I google g k chesterton koepenick and get a good hit:

Thoughts Around Koepenick
from 'All Things Considered'

I now get back to his works on the web and find that 'All Things Considered' is from (1908).

Soldiers have many faults, but they have one redeeming merit; they are never worshippers of force. Soldiers more than any other men are taught severely and systematically that might is not right. The fact is obvious. The might is in the hundred men who obey. The right (or what is held to be right) is in the one man who commands them. They learn to obey symbols, arbitrary things, stripes on an arm, buttons on a coat, a title, a flag. These may be artificial things; they may be unreasonable things; they may, if you will, be wicked things; but they are weak things. They are not Force, and they do not look like Force. They are parts of an idea: of the idea of discipline; if you will, of the idea of tyranny; but still an idea. No soldier could possibly say that his own bayonets were his authority. No soldier could possibly say that he came in the name of his own bayonets. It would be as absurd as if a postman said that he came inside his bag. I do not, as I have said, underrate the evils that really do arise from militarism and the military ethic. It tends to give people wooden faces and sometimes wooden heads. It tends moreover (both through its specialisation and through its constant obedience) to a certain loss of real independence and strength of character. This has almost always been found when people made the mistake of turning the soldier into a statesman, under the mistaken impression that he was a strong man. The Duke of Wellington, for instance, was a strong soldier and therefore a weak statesman. But the soldier is always, by the nature of things, loyal to something. And as long as one is loyal to something one can never be a worshipper of mere force. For mere force, violence in the abstract, is the enemy of anything we love. To love anything is to see it at once under lowering skies of danger. Loyalty implies loyalty in misfortune; and when a soldier has accepted any nation's uniform he has already accepted its defeat.

Nevertheless, it does appear to be possible in Germany for a man to point to fixed bayonets and say, "These are my authority," and yet to convince ordinarily sane men that he is a soldier. If this is so, it does really seem to point to some habit of high-faultin' in the German nation, such as that of which I spoke previously. It almost looks as if the advisers, and even the officials, of the German Army had become infected in some degree with the false and feeble doctrine that might is right. As this doctrine is invariably preached by physical weaklings like Nietzsche it is a very serious thing even to entertain the supposition that it is affecting men who have really to do military work It would be the end of German soldiers to be affected by German philosophy.

Chesterton was, unless mistaken, prophetic. Germany (as in Prussian state of 1870!) did loose two wars after the Koepenick incident.

But even more to our point here:

The most absurd part of this absurd fraud (at least, to English eyes) is one which, oddly enough, has received comparatively little comment. I mean the point at which the Mayor asked for a warrant, and the Captain pointed to the bayonets of his soldiery and said. "These are my authority." One would have thought any one would have known that no soldier would talk like that. The dupes were blamed for not knowing that the man wore the wrong cap or the wrong sash, or had his sword buckled on the wrong way; but these are technicalities which they might surely be excused for not knowing. I certainly should not know if a soldier's sash were on inside out or his cap on behind before. But I should know uncommonly well that genuine professional soldiers do not talk like Adelphi villains and utter theatrical epigrams in praise of abstract violence.

We really do see a parallel to Humboldt here.

They think the soldier is wearing the right hat, and so they submit.

And those who criticise them "in Germany" (Bavaria might have had more sense than Koepenick, back then!) do very much hang the argument on the hat instead of hanging the hat on the argument.

But what has this to do with modern scientific community?

We cannot believe modern science comes from Prussia, can we?

Well, the attitude of Humboldt has had opportunity of spreading from Prussia.

How? Through Communism.

What has Communism got to do with Prussia? Everything! Marx and Engels were Prussians, though living in spiritually related Victorian England. And Lenin was partly Swedish, at a time when Swedish élite was heavily influenced by ... the Prussian one.

I now go to his works on the web again and consult one or other of his final works, Well and Shallows or The Thing.

On Well and Shallows, I find a promising chapter heading, THE BACKWARD BOLSHIE.

AFTER all, the Bolshevist is really a Victorian. His is a nineteenth-century dream, even if it be a twentieth-century reality. It is notably so in the aspect which now makes the dream a nightmare; I mean the mad optimism about the advantages of machinery.


Marx was much more of a Victorian than Morris. He may not have been technically a subject of Queen Victoria, though it is quite likely that he was. By geographical extraction I suppose he was a German--like Queen Victoria's husband and more remotely, Queen Victoria herself. By real or racial extraction he was a Jew; like Queen Victoria's favourite Prime Minister and a good many other persons unnecessary to mention. But the late Victorian period was the very period at which the Jews, and especially the German Jews, were at the very top of their power and influence. From the time when they forced the Egyptian War to the time when they forced the South African War, they were imperial and immune.


Now, as a matter of fact, our heads have in many ways advanced a little, since the days when our own Five Year Plan filled England with filth and smoke. Some rather deeper questions have arisen; questions about the individual, about the purpose of life, about religion in history, and so on. Philosophy, even Thomist philosophy, is heard again in Paris and Oxford.

Now Marx had no more philosophy than Macaulay. The Marxians therefore have no more philosophy than the Manchester School.


I was actually wrong to recall Chesterton considered Marx specifically Prussian.

But it is not a really long stretch, is it?

Marx was, via Feuerbach (a Bavarian of the type that admires Prussia), and Hegel (a West German with less resistance to Prussia than Bavarians have) a disciple of Kant (a Prussian from what is now Kaliningrad).

Anyway, outside Bavaria and Austria, the culture of men like Humboldt was very predominant in the Germanies, at least in cities.

And that is, irrespective of any philosophical discipleships (I am not sure what the reference to Macaulay is supposed to imply, unless it means Macaulay was like Marx Epicurean - which Marx was while still a "Christian" and during his thesis in philosophy), was the culture from which we get so many masters of the modern world like Marx, Engels, Lenin - and who have been especially prominent in the Scientific Community.

Unfortunately, the unhealthy attitude of Humboldt, against sticking out ones neck (Sungenis has Italian American heritage and I was partly raised in Austria!) is even in my own limited experience alive and well. In what would otherwise be a scientific community.

One example: when I was visiting the Freie Universität Berlin back in 2004/2005 (ending March 17th 2005), I was giving a project description to a professor. Namely of collecting the areas of vocabulary in which Indo-European languages do NOT concur with each other. If feet and hearts and eyes and ears and knees are the same from India to Ireland, hands simply aren't. Nor are heads. My point being a scenario in which original Indo-European was less a mother tongue than a failed lingua franca, like Medieval Latin. And I also added my purpose was to counter the idea that Indo-European linguistics and rate of language changed prove ages older than Deluge for a proto-Indo-European language.

This was NOT well received, and the answer was very brief: "here we do science".

Obviously that Prussian professor believed in the kind of scientific culture in which you don't stick your neck out, everything is reglimented by people wearing the right hat, like it was supposed to be in Koepenick.

And as obviously, this is not the real accent of a real scientist. But before asking "what conspiracies are there" we should ask what culture is there. And it is a culture in which Protestant views of "fallen man" have become Prussian views of inadequate individual reason. One in which the collective reason can become deified and anyone refusing that idolatry can be accused of taking himself for God, because he takes himself as equal of the collective which he is immediately up against.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Tuesday after III Lord's Day in Lent

GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW

1) New blog on the kid : GWW got Aristotle and St Thomas wrong. · 2) HGL's F.B. writings : What Mechanism? Are "Angelic Movers Outside Natural Sciences"? · 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : GWW vs Plato, HGL vs GWW · 4) New blog on the kid : Was There No Celestial Mechanics for Tychonian System? Oh, yes! · 5) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : One More Quote, if I May, Please! · 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Sungenis Countering Flat Earthers - with Some Lacks in his Argument · 7) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Any Fathers NOT Supporting Round Earth? Any Authorities that DO support Angelic Movers? · 8) HGL's F.B. writings : Debating with Sungenis, Mainly

Same format as on GWW's take on Aristotle.

Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus’ idea of placing the sun rather than the Earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato’s Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.…Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status…then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the Earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the Earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea.

[Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187. Popper is referring to Dominicus Maria da Novara, a mathematician and astronomer in Italy. Indulging in a bit of anachronistic evaluation, Popper goes on to defend him, suggesting that even though Copernicus’ idea came before the observation, he was nevertheless correct and “not a crank.” More of Popper’s a-posteriori thinking appears later in the book: “The Copernican system, for example, was inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had to occupy the ‘centre’ because of his nobility. This indicates how myths may develop testable components. They may, in the course of discussion, become fruitful and important for science” (ibid., p. 257).]

p. 56

Popper, being a supporter of the heliocentric revolution, couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus’ brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship.

Er, no. One can be, and there have been, Christian Platonists who agreed well enough with Plato on this one, but who, nevertheless, cannot be considered Pagans.

Take St Francis who said:

Citing Cantico delle creature
"Altissimu, onnipotente, bon Signore,

tue so' le laude, la gloria e 'honore et onne benedictione.

Ad te solo, Altissimo, se konfàno et nullu homo ène dignu te mentovare.

Laudato sie, mi' Signore, cum tucte le tue creature, spetialmente messor lo frate sole, lo qual è iorno, et allumini noi per lui. Et ellu è bellu e radiante cum grande splendore, de te, Altissimo, porta significatione. ..."

HGL again
Confer how many lines there are between God and Sun-and-Moon in another canticle of similar thematics:

Citing Benedicite:
Daniel 3:[52] Blessed art thou, O Lord the God of our fathers: and worthy to be praised, and glorified, and exalted above all for ever: and blessed is the holy name of thy glory: and worthy to be praised, and exalted above all in all ages. [53] Blessed art thou in the holy temple of thy glory: and exceedingly to be praised, and exceeding glorious for ever. [54] Blessed art thou on the throne of thy kingdom, and exceedingly to be praised, and exalted above all for ever. [55] Blessed art thou, that beholdest the depths, and sittest upon the cherubims: and worthy to be praised and exalted above all for ever.

[56] Blessed art thou in the firmament of heaven: and worthy of praise, and glorious for ever. [57] All ye works of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [58] O ye angels of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [59] O ye heavens, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [60] O all ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all for ever.

[61] O all ye powers of the Lord, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. [62] O ye sun and moon, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. ...

HGL again
Compared to Shadrach, Mesach and Abed-Nego, St Francis was clearly agreeing with Plato (and perhaps with King David too), and some Puritans would, for this reason, probably accuse him of sunworship in a Pagan way.

Their Bibles (I think?) often have shorter versions of Daniel chapter three. But will they say the same thing of King David?

Citing Caeli enarrant
Psalm 18:[6] He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way: [7] His going out is from the end of heaven, And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide himself from his heat.

HGL again
So was King David agreeing with Plato? Or was it rather Plato who agreed with King David?

But in that case, perhaps Plato wasn't wrong.

Note, Plato was not a Heliocentric. Saying the Sun is the HIGHEST does not make it IMMOBILE.

Actually, when Newton makes Sun most relatively immobile part of "our Solar System" and this because Sun has "most mass" (i e is heaviest), very far from making Sun the noblest part, he is making Sun LOWER than Earth.

That is my own objection to Heliocentrism of the Newtonian variety.

It makes us look "up" in terms of solar system only at night, and it makes us get our daily light from below.

However, of this ghastly fault, Copernicus was as such not yet guilty. Nor was Kepler.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Tuesday after III Lord's Day in Lent

PS, on God as mover of daily movement:

This very question had troubled the Greeks and Romans over two thousand years ago. Seneca, for example, writes a description very similar to what Born, Hoyle, or Hawking write today, only back then he didn’t have anyone to provide him a scientific answer:

It will be proper to discuss this, in order that we may know whether the universe revolves and the Earth stands still, or the universe stands still and the Earth rotates. For there have been those who asserted that…risings and settings do not occur by virtue of the motion of the heaven, but that we ourselves rise and set. The subject is worthy of consideration…whether the abode allotted to us is the most slowly or the most quickly moving, whether God moves everything around us or ourselves instead.

Seneca, Nat. Quaest. vii. 2, 3. Cited in Aristarchus of Samos: The Ancient Copernicus, Sir Thomas Heath, 1913, p. 308.

p. 79

A God who moves the whole universe around us, as we observe (unless assuming we could correct our observations from some other place of rest which we cannot) is the God who is Lord over all of the universe.

The God who turns only US around might be some only local God of this Earth.

Which is of course a kind of Satanism to presume. This is why philosophy is best if sticking to face value of observations, unless they are really proven wrong. Which they aren't./HGL