Timestamps: 0:00 - Intro 1:03 - Welcome & Prayer requests 5:27 - 2025 Roman Catholic Calendars for sale 7:34 - The positive side of modesty 23:59 - Is heliocentrism heresy? 46:50 - Crucifix requirements 52:28 - Christ's siblings? 1:00:04 - Donating to liberal organizations 1:03:39 - Spanish Bible? 1:07:21 - Vote for your God-given right to oppose abortion 1:24:41 - Francis' Soviet Church of Synodality
God forever Bless Father Jenkins, a treasure also in The United Kingdom. His love for our Lord is also a beacon of beauty, shine on in perpetuity Father.
If you are voting in the 2024 election then you are NOT voting for good- you are voting for EVIL... do NOT call evil- GOOD & do NOT call GOOD= evil. Harris is ineligible regardless of whether you give her a pass for all the corruption & her loyalty to the SAME garbage as all of them = drome lynching, war profiteering slaughtering Palestinians in the Holy Land corporofascism etc etc trump aka cinnamon fuhrer threw a coup that succeeded for an hour- regardless of whether you give him a pass for selling out the country to Saudi Arabia, Israehell, raping young girls & women, his career criminality & money laundering for criminals globally There is NO choice of a "lesser" evil there is just GOOD & evil & when ALL the choices are evil then you do NOT justify or rationalize that choice you REFUSE to CHOSE evil... so you still have a choice to NOT say amen to all of them as far as trump is concerned he is fully on board with roe vs wade, turning sin into sacrament & institutionalizing sin, while commodifying the person & killing people for profit... so are all the dems It IS NOT your fault that they are presenting you with only choices between evils... but it IS YOUR fault IF YOU SAY AMEN to it by voting for one of the evil choices presented! Everyone must consider what GOD thinks of THEM rather than acting like what they think is most important. SIMPLE = REFUSE to vote for evil & killing people for profit IS evil!
As to brothers and sisters, I can attest that in my native language we used to call our cousins brothers and/or sisters. The word “cousin” was just not in use. As a matter of fact, we still call our cousins brothers or sisters. People whose language use “brother” and “sister” as a description of first or second or even third cousins, never question our Blessed Mother’s virginity.
Just FYI, I LOVE the veil, I love how I feel in it, I feel hidden and as my Lord is hidden I love it. I have never taken it as a negative. It is so nice not to be seen to much. When I was in the NO Church there was a pious woman who had the most gorgeous hair,, long and blond and thick and she wore it down in Mass and what did I see? I saw her hair and it distracted even me, but think of the men in the Church. I'm sure that woman didn't realize this or if she did, then she didn't know what to do, but here in our chapel, we have the blessing of seeing just veils and some of the veils are very beautiful as well but not in a distracting way. Just my little opinion.
There used to be a man in a traditional chapel whose hair and clothes distracted me, a woman. I wasn’t attracted, rather, repelled by his effeminate, too flashy attire. His hair was long, gray, parted in center and pulled back in a stringy ponytail decorated with different colored rubber bands. He usually wore a bold plaid suit in pastel colors or another suit with a patchwork quilt pattern. He’d wear highly polished, pointy toed, leather snakeskin boots, a showy Rolex, and too much aftershave! He drove a red vintage Mustang convertible. Since he was probably in his 60’s, it was extremely vain, and frankly, pathetic. No dignity, no class, just showing off his money.. He came for maybe a year and something happened, the subject of lots of gossip, that caused him to leave. Whatever that was, I never found out, nor do I wish to know. I hope he got his act together.
Heliocentrism came out of the Corpus Hermeticum, Hermetic/Occult teachings. And it's not just a heresy. It represents was the defining event of modernity as Hermetic cosmology paved the way for the acceptance of Darwinism. More Hermetic teachings and more heresies
The miracle of the sun at Fatima is Divinely given proof of geocentric reality. We are the center of creation. We arent meaningless specks of dust floating through a void.
_"__24:52__ geocentrism says essentially that the sun revolves around the earth with the idea that all the celestial bodies __25:00__ revolve around the earth because the Earth is the center of the universe"_ Geocentrism does not say that all celestial bodies revolve _directly_ around earth in their periodic orbits. In their daily circuit, yes, all revolve around earth full circle 23 h 56 minutes or for some bodies a bit variation around that, like 24 h for the Sun. But in Geocentrism, a body need not move directly around the Earth in the periodic orbit. Io revolves around Jupiter, which revolves around Sun, which revolves around Earth, and when we speak of the periodic orbit of the Sun, it's the c. four minutes slower than the fix stars each day we are talking of, it's a movement Eastward. The reason the Sun is moving Westward each day is, it goes along with the Universe, apart from those c. 4 minutes. _"the fact that __25:42__ the uh Earth revolves orbits around the Sun is that a __25:49__ heresy uh no it is not a heresy it was not condemned as a heresy by the church"_ That's what Dimond Brothers like to say in comparison to the Father Feeney case ... _"because he was maintaining a __26:07__ Geocentric view okay that the Earth revolves around the Sun"_ That's a Heliocentric view, and he was indeed required to abjure it. Galileo never said that the entire Universe revolved around Earth, up to the abjuration. _"so __27:15__ heliocentrism not only appeared to be a rejection __27:21__ of what was written in sacred scripture right descriptions of the sun __27:26__ standing still as Joshua was leading battle you know um but uh even of all __27:33__ previous science right that it was a rejection of all previous science"_ The Church is generally speaking not responsible for scientific truth or protocol. There is no Inquisitorial procedure for denying Harvey or Pasteur. And frankly, the idea is a bit projecting back to St. Robert and Pope Urban the kind of deference to science some Catholic clergy have today. 26:45 _"By the Fathers of the Church"_ You mean the criterium of Trent Session IV?
I don’t need to vote for a right that I’m already guaranteed by the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. All I have to do is exercise it. Next week at this time, I will be praying the Rosary outside of the local polling place. Hopefully, some people will join me. But if not, God + 1 = a majority.
(Second Comment. First comment is below) You also distorted the issue about Bellarmine’s dealing with Galileo. You claimed that Bellarmine told Galileo that Galileo found heliocentrism to be a fact, and that since he did so, Bellarmine had to adjust his interpretation of Scripture. You then certify that rendition of history by saying, “that is exactly what happened.” No, that is not what happened. As everyone knows, Galileo had no proof for a heliocentric system, whether it be the tides, the phases of Venus or the moons of Jupiter. Because of this lack of proof, Bellarmine never had to change his interpretation of Scripture to accommodate heliocentrism. Not only did Bellarmine not change his interpretation, he reinforced it by using the 11 consultors’ recommendation (that heliocentrism is a “formal heresy”) as the backdrop to giving Galileo a canonical injunction not to teach heliocentrism for the rest of his life, which were both used to convict Galileo at his 1633 trial. You also claim that Scripture is written “from our point of view” and that challenging the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is not the same thing as challenging Scripture. First, we can all agree that Scripture is often written from our point of view. When we say the sun rises or sets, heliocentrists do not mean the sun actually rises above the horizon but that the Earth rotates against a fixed sun. Likewise, geocentrists mean that the sun revolves around the Earth each day but it looks like the sun is rising above some underground place beneath the horizon. But when it comes to reality, Scripture does not use phenomenal language, and this is true in the case of Joshua 10, the very passage that Bellarmine used against Galileo and for which Galileo did not have an answer. Joshua 10:10-14 says that the sun and the moon were stopped in the sky for a whole day. In his letter to Bellarmine, Galileo said that this could be accomplished by God stopping the Earth from rotating for a whole day. Bellarmine said that stopping the Earth would not work because, while it might hold the sun in the sky, it would not hold the moon in the sky since the moon moves independently of the sun. In fact, if the moon were not stopped with the sun, then the moon would dip into the Mediterranean Sea in about five hours, but Joshua insists that it stayed in the sky a whole day, just like the sun. The only way it could stay a whole day is if it and the sun were stopped together.
You stated several times in your answer that we know the Earth is not in the center of the universe. You didn’t offer any proof for this assertion except to imply that the Big Bang is true and therefore the Earth cannot be in the center. But the Big Bang is not proof, since there is no proof to the Big Bang itself. You referred to the Doppler Shift, but the Doppler shift of galaxies can be caused by many more things than an expansion. The gravity of the galaxy is the most likely source. When the light leaves the galaxy, the gravity of the galaxy stretches the wavelength so that we will see a redshift on Earth. But as I noted earlier, the very reason you are even talking about a Big Bang model is because someone before you, Edwin Hubble, forced you into it because he wanted to get away from a geocentric universe. In other words, Hubble wanted to get you away from the very universe that the Jewish Old Testament, the Fathers, the medievals, the two popes who condemned Galileo, confirmed to you by the three Catholic authorities of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. How does a Catholic priest make such lopsided decisions? Lastly, Fr. Jenkins, you made reference to the idea that “it depends on the inertial system you are in.” This tells me that you are familiar with both the Newtonian and Relativity systems of physics since both used inertial frames. So allow me to repeat what I put in my last response to you. Prior to relativity, everyone was in the grip of Isaac Newton who conveniently made his laboratory our solar system and thus eliminated the rest of the universe, making it inert and absolute (i.e., could not move). Thus, if the solar system is the laboratory, then because the sun is much bigger in mass than the Earth and the planets, all of them would have to rotate around the sun to escape being pulled in by the sun. But Einstein’s General Relativity can hold two diverse views: (A) that the Earth rotates daily and revolves yearly in a fixed universe; and (B) that the universe rotates daily around a fixed Earth. This is why Einstein, in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, said: “Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” It is also why Stephen Hawking said the same in his 2010 book, The Grand Design: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.” There is more. Not only could (B) be true as an idea, but “relativity” requires that Einstein provide the math to show how the geocentric alternative would work, which math has been provided not only by Einstein but by many physicists in the 20th century (e.g. Barbour-Bertotti, Bondi, Toleman, Lemaitre, Moller, Nightengale, Hoyle, Bouw, Assis, et al). In short, the Foucault Pendulum changes its angle of rotation because the universe, and its accompanying inertial forces, rotates around a fixed Earth and pulls the free-swinging pendulum. The same for stellar parallax. The observer on Earth sees a parallax angle change every six months because the universe has a precession in its rotation around the Earth. In other words, Fr. Jenkins, Einstein’s General Relativity allows the “inertial frame” wherein the Earth is the non-moving center of mass for the universe. It is the absolute “inertial frame” because it doesn’t move. THAT is the way God built the world; not with everything moving randomly in a mass of confusion. Even Newton allowed this kind of universe, as long as there was a sufficient force outside the solar system to balance out the sun. Newton said in his Principia: “Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.” It was Mach and Einstein who found that force for Newton two hundred years later. Michelson-Morley saw it. Hubble saw it. Hawking saw it, and do does everyone else in modern physics today who is honest with the evidence. There is much, much more, Fr. Jenkins, and you need to see it before you teach again on this subject. May God be with you, Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
28:53 I suppose your bias against Geocentrism made you say Geocentrism instead of Heliocentrism. It was actually the efforts to harmonise it with Sacred Scripture which put people in Florence on the guard in the years leading up to 1616. Two Dominicans, Tommaso Caccini and Niccolò Lorini were involved in saying NO, that harmonisation does not work. Now, for Josue 10:13, one might argue, "phenomenological language" as the narrator describes what already happened. But in the previous verse, Josue gives a word on behalf of God to the creatures involved in the miracle. The Israelites were not the ones the words adressed, they were only the audience. If Heliocentrism were true, and if it was Earth that stopped rotating, it would have been the ONLY time in Sacred Scripture or in known to me Church History, that a miracle worker adresses the wrong thing and the miracle happens. It's as if someone said "God cures you of your cold" and God then cured AIDS. Instead, not on top of. Hasn't happened. The words of a miracle worker are inspired to God and are God's words through the mouth of the Thaumaturge to creature. The idea of this being stated backwards in accordance with popular but erroneous beliefs of the then Israelites, well, it has by 19th C. Swedish Lutherans been taken further. Some of them have stated that with similar accomodations God cured epilectics and people with mental problems when He cast out (according to the words in the miracle!) demons. That's one of the reasons I converted FROM Lutheranism, and it is one of the reasons why now I would not endorse Heliocentrism or see it very lightly if others endorse it.
Great segment on synod! Please clip it and post separately. @wcbfullepisodes And "Francis" wants to turn pope on paper to be a CEO, term limits, elected.
Father, thank you for pointing out that the Russian equivalent of the word “synod” is “soviet.” I’ve been saying this for years. The whole “synodal process” is geared to spread the errors of modernist Rome to the ends of the earth, with even more efficiency than they have up to now.
The only thing I knew about the word Synod is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. That is what came to mind when I heard the word synod, but then the Novus Ordo is kinda reminiscent of the Lutheran Church in my opinion.
@@carolynhernandez1596 RIght, but the vast majority of these churches and shops are run by Novus Ordo Catholics and they probably don't know what the Church has taught. Novelty is often preferred in the Novus Ordo.
The earth is the center of the universe. The center of mass. All planets revolve around the earth and the sun. Space moves. This explains the problem of red-shift in the heliocentric model.
27:47 Heliocentrism was not the "rejection of all previous science". Copernicus hearkened back to a Pythagorean, and Pythagoreans did things one could call science. Again, in Galileo's day, Copernicanism was still a minority view, but Tychonian Geocentrism was an even smaller minority. The Inquisitors, whether the process involving The Assayer in 1616 or the process about himself in 1633, were not insisting on the majority view of science, Ptolemaic Geocentrism. They were instead in 1616 suggesting the even smaller than Copernicanism Tychonian view. One reason according to some scholars (who could be wrong), why Copernicanism with modifications won, was, Tychonianism was the one Geocentrism that was logically viable, and it was less widely known, at least to the general public, than Heliocentrism. But another reason why it was not the "rejection of all previous science" is ... *there was no such thing.* Science as a university institution was a relatively new thing, and everyone still recalled that astronomy and other things had been differently explained by different philosophers.
With all do respect to Father and his wealth of knowledge, I'd watch these QnA's more often and more of the episode if he made the effort to be more concise... like Robert Sungenis, a well known apologist and geocentrist, who hosts a live QnA once a week, if left unchecked there can be quite a bit of looping and covering adjacent subjects...
I'm discovering all the "world" of traditionalism , and without any bad intention I would like to know the diference between the saint Pius V, the SSPX or the resistance. I admit that I' m quiet lost with all this. The only thing I know is that the other denominations are from the Ecclesia Dei; I have already attended some of them. Thanks
In a nutshell, the SSPX and the resistance believe that Francis is a catholic pope and the church of the Vatican 2 council is the true Catholic Church along with all it prelates. The SSPV hold all of what’s mentioned above to be doubtful at best. The SSPV do not view any of what’s mentioned above to have any authority and therefore adhere to the teachings prior to the late 50’s and the Council of Trent.
CSPV/SSPV are non-dogmatic sede, similar to CMRI. Resistance is mostly priests/bishops kicked out of the SSPX for opposing a proposed agreement with modernist Rome, but are not sede. The current SSPX has deviated from the position of "no practical agreement before doctrinal agreement" of +ABL. Ecclesia Dei is under the modernist church and have doubtful sacraments/clergy. Pray the Rosary and ask for an understanding of the ongoing crisis in the Church; God bless.
SSPV holds the sedevacantist position whereas the SSPX does not. Essentially the same but one believes there is no Pope, whereas the other believes there is a (bad) Pope
Abraham and Lot were referred to as “brethren “” in fact they were uncle and nephew respectively. I tried to explain that to a Protestant minister but he didn’t buy it, 😮
Modern geocentrism is not an overreaction to scientism. It's simply pointing out the fact that geocentrism, properly understood, was never overthrown, from Galileo till this day. The physics of a rotating universe and a fixed earth were actually written about by Einstein.
The traditional clergy aren’t telling us! They ARE telling us not to vote for Harris. So far as voting for Trump since he’s done a flip flop on abortion, IVF, and the 🏳️🌈, he’s always accepted. It’s up to the individual conscience. There are legitimate arguments both for and against. There is also debate among traditional Catholics regarding the morality of voting for a third party or write-in and refraining from voting altogether. Again, vote or don’t vote according to your conscience.
The Big Bang is part of evolution, so Fr. Jenkins is unlikely to believe in it. Besides, the Bible gives us a detailed description of the creation on earth and specifically, of man, in His Image and Likeness. There IS no definitive ruling from the Church on helio or geo centrism that we obliged to believe.
There’s nothing negative about chapel veils. Their main purpose is for women to show proper respect to God when in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. God has set up an order of authority in His Church among the Faithful and clergy. Christ, Man, Woman. This is symbolized by veiling or unveiling (men) in His Presence. See 1 Corinthians chapter 11. There is nothing in the text about women being a sexual distraction to men during Mass!
Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
1:03 - Welcome & Prayer requests
5:27 - 2025 Roman Catholic Calendars for sale
7:34 - The positive side of modesty
23:59 - Is heliocentrism heresy?
46:50 - Crucifix requirements
52:28 - Christ's siblings?
1:00:04 - Donating to liberal organizations
1:03:39 - Spanish Bible?
1:07:21 - Vote for your God-given right to oppose abortion
1:24:41 - Francis' Soviet Church of Synodality
Father Jenkins is a national treasure.
AMEN!
Amen
AMEN!❤
Wasnt Father Jenkins at Econe with Archbishop Lefebvre?
Great discussion on the beauty & positive side of modesty. Thank you, Father Jenkins!
God bless you Father Jenkins. You are truly a gift to Catholic souls ✝️
Father, the more I listen to you, the more I admire your wisdom and love for our Lord. Can’t say thank you enough.
Wow I wish all could hear this, Thank you Father God bless you.
God forever Bless Father Jenkins, a treasure also in The United Kingdom. His love for our Lord is also a beacon of beauty, shine on in perpetuity Father.
Yes God bless Fr Jenkins 🙏 from Australia
Great episode. Thank you for the section on modesty.
Father, what a wonderful explanation! Thank you! You are so right and so positive. Thank you.
Thank you!
Thank you, Father.
Thank you Father for sharing your opinion on the positives of the election!
If you are voting in the 2024 election then you are NOT voting for good- you are voting for EVIL... do NOT call evil- GOOD & do NOT call GOOD= evil.
Harris is ineligible regardless of whether you give her a pass for all the corruption & her loyalty to the SAME garbage as all of them = drome lynching, war profiteering slaughtering Palestinians in the Holy Land corporofascism etc etc
trump aka cinnamon fuhrer threw a coup that succeeded for an hour- regardless of whether you give him a pass for selling out the country to Saudi Arabia, Israehell, raping young girls & women, his career criminality & money laundering for criminals globally
There is NO choice of a "lesser" evil there is just GOOD & evil & when ALL the choices are evil then you do NOT justify or rationalize that choice you REFUSE to CHOSE evil... so you still have a choice to NOT say amen to all of them
as far as trump is concerned he is fully on board with roe vs wade, turning sin into sacrament & institutionalizing sin, while commodifying the person & killing people for profit... so are all the dems
It IS NOT your fault that they are presenting you with only choices between evils... but it IS YOUR fault IF YOU SAY AMEN to it by voting for one of the evil choices presented!
Everyone must consider what GOD thinks of THEM rather than acting like what they think is most important.
SIMPLE = REFUSE to vote for evil & killing people for profit IS evil!
Thank you for taking the time to re-address the "Modernist/Progressive" question about the rationale for a woman veiling in Mass. 😇🙏🥰
As to brothers and sisters, I can attest that in my native language we used to call our cousins brothers and/or sisters. The word “cousin” was just not in use. As a matter of fact, we still call our cousins brothers or sisters. People whose language use “brother” and “sister” as a description of first or second or even third cousins, never question our Blessed Mother’s virginity.
24:49 _"the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun"_
Observed? No.
Proven? How?
Just FYI, I LOVE the veil, I love how I feel in it, I feel hidden and as my Lord is hidden I love it. I have never taken it as a negative. It is so nice not to be seen to much. When I was in the NO Church there was a pious woman who had the most gorgeous hair,, long and blond and thick and she wore it down in Mass and what did I see? I saw her hair and it distracted even me, but think of the men in the Church. I'm sure that woman didn't realize this or if she did, then she didn't know what to do, but here in our chapel, we have the blessing of seeing just veils and some of the veils are very beautiful as well but not in a distracting way. Just my little opinion.
There used to be a man in a traditional chapel whose hair and clothes distracted me, a woman. I wasn’t attracted, rather, repelled by his effeminate, too flashy attire. His hair was long, gray, parted in center and pulled back in a stringy ponytail decorated with different colored rubber bands. He usually wore a bold plaid suit in pastel colors or another suit with a patchwork quilt pattern. He’d wear highly polished, pointy toed, leather snakeskin boots, a showy Rolex, and too much aftershave! He drove a red vintage Mustang convertible. Since he was probably in his 60’s, it was extremely vain, and frankly, pathetic. No dignity, no class, just showing off his money.. He came for maybe a year and something happened, the subject of lots of gossip, that caused him to leave. Whatever that was, I never found out, nor do I wish to know. I hope he got his act together.
saddened that someone even questioned veils but this is modernism I guess
Father is quite knowledgeable about cosmology
My church has a huge picture up of pope Francis in it. I cringe when I walk in and there it is…
I used to attend a Novus Ordo community and they had a picture of Bergoglio that made me sick to my stomach whenever I saw it.
The modernists have made a god to their own image and likeness
Heliocentrism came out of the Corpus Hermeticum, Hermetic/Occult teachings. And it's not just a heresy. It represents was the defining event of modernity as Hermetic cosmology paved the way for the acceptance of Darwinism. More Hermetic teachings and more heresies
The miracle of the sun at Fatima is Divinely given proof of geocentric reality.
We are the center of creation. We arent meaningless specks of dust floating through a void.
_"__24:52__ geocentrism says essentially that the sun revolves around the earth with the idea that all the celestial bodies __25:00__ revolve around the earth because the Earth is the center of the universe"_
Geocentrism does not say that all celestial bodies revolve _directly_ around earth in their periodic orbits. In their daily circuit, yes, all revolve around earth full circle 23 h 56 minutes or for some bodies a bit variation around that, like 24 h for the Sun. But in Geocentrism, a body need not move directly around the Earth in the periodic orbit.
Io revolves around Jupiter, which revolves around Sun, which revolves around Earth, and when we speak of the periodic orbit of the Sun, it's the c. four minutes slower than the fix stars each day we are talking of, it's a movement Eastward. The reason the Sun is moving Westward each day is, it goes along with the Universe, apart from those c. 4 minutes.
_"the fact that __25:42__ the uh Earth revolves orbits around the Sun is that a __25:49__ heresy uh no it is not a heresy it was not condemned as a heresy by the church"_
That's what Dimond Brothers like to say in comparison to the Father Feeney case ...
_"because he was maintaining a __26:07__ Geocentric view okay that the Earth revolves around the Sun"_
That's a Heliocentric view, and he was indeed required to abjure it.
Galileo never said that the entire Universe revolved around Earth, up to the abjuration.
_"so __27:15__ heliocentrism not only appeared to be a rejection __27:21__ of what was written in sacred scripture right descriptions of the sun __27:26__ standing still as Joshua was leading battle you know um but uh even of all __27:33__ previous science right that it was a rejection of all previous science"_
The Church is generally speaking not responsible for scientific truth or protocol.
There is no Inquisitorial procedure for denying Harvey or Pasteur.
And frankly, the idea is a bit projecting back to St. Robert and Pope Urban the kind of deference to science some Catholic clergy have today.
26:45 _"By the Fathers of the Church"_
You mean the criterium of Trent Session IV?
I don’t need to vote for a right that I’m already guaranteed by the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. All I have to do is exercise it. Next week at this time, I will be praying the Rosary outside of the local polling place. Hopefully, some people will join me. But if not, God + 1 = a majority.
(Second Comment. First comment is below) You also distorted the issue about Bellarmine’s dealing with Galileo. You claimed that Bellarmine told Galileo that Galileo found heliocentrism to be a fact, and that since he did so, Bellarmine had to adjust his interpretation of Scripture. You then certify that rendition of history by saying, “that is exactly what happened.” No, that is not what happened. As everyone knows, Galileo had no proof for a heliocentric system, whether it be the tides, the phases of Venus or the moons of Jupiter. Because of this lack of proof, Bellarmine never had to change his interpretation of Scripture to accommodate heliocentrism. Not only did Bellarmine not change his interpretation, he reinforced it by using the 11 consultors’ recommendation (that heliocentrism is a “formal heresy”) as the backdrop to giving Galileo a canonical injunction not to teach heliocentrism for the rest of his life, which were both used to convict Galileo at his 1633 trial.
You also claim that Scripture is written “from our point of view” and that challenging the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is not the same thing as challenging Scripture. First, we can all agree that Scripture is often written from our point of view. When we say the sun rises or sets, heliocentrists do not mean the sun actually rises above the horizon but that the Earth rotates against a fixed sun. Likewise, geocentrists mean that the sun revolves around the Earth each day but it looks like the sun is rising above some underground place beneath the horizon.
But when it comes to reality, Scripture does not use phenomenal language, and this is true in the case of Joshua 10, the very passage that Bellarmine used against Galileo and for which Galileo did not have an answer. Joshua 10:10-14 says that the sun and the moon were stopped in the sky for a whole day. In his letter to Bellarmine, Galileo said that this could be accomplished by God stopping the Earth from rotating for a whole day. Bellarmine said that stopping the Earth would not work because, while it might hold the sun in the sky, it would not hold the moon in the sky since the moon moves independently of the sun. In fact, if the moon were not stopped with the sun, then the moon would dip into the Mediterranean Sea in about five hours, but Joshua insists that it stayed in the sky a whole day, just like the sun. The only way it could stay a whole day is if it and the sun were stopped together.
You stated several times in your answer that we know the Earth is not in the center of the universe. You didn’t offer any proof for this assertion except to imply that the Big Bang is true and therefore the Earth cannot be in the center. But the Big Bang is not proof, since there is no proof to the Big Bang itself. You referred to the Doppler Shift, but the Doppler shift of galaxies can be caused by many more things than an expansion. The gravity of the galaxy is the most likely source. When the light leaves the galaxy, the gravity of the galaxy stretches the wavelength so that we will see a redshift on Earth. But as I noted earlier, the very reason you are even talking about a Big Bang model is because someone before you, Edwin Hubble, forced you into it because he wanted to get away from a geocentric universe. In other words, Hubble wanted to get you away from the very universe that the Jewish Old Testament, the Fathers, the medievals, the two popes who condemned Galileo, confirmed to you by the three Catholic authorities of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. How does a Catholic priest make such lopsided decisions?
Lastly, Fr. Jenkins, you made reference to the idea that “it depends on the inertial system you are in.” This tells me that you are familiar with both the Newtonian and Relativity systems of physics since both used inertial frames. So allow me to repeat what I put in my last response to you. Prior to relativity, everyone was in the grip of Isaac Newton who conveniently made his laboratory our solar system and thus eliminated the rest of the universe, making it inert and absolute (i.e., could not move). Thus, if the solar system is the laboratory, then because the sun is much bigger in mass than the Earth and the planets, all of them would have to rotate around the sun to escape being pulled in by the sun. But Einstein’s General Relativity can hold two diverse views: (A) that the Earth rotates daily and revolves yearly in a fixed universe; and (B) that the universe rotates daily around a fixed Earth. This is why Einstein, in his 1938 book, The Evolution of Physics, said: “Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: ‘the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.” It is also why Stephen Hawking said the same in his 2010 book, The Grand Design: “So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true….one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”
There is more. Not only could (B) be true as an idea, but “relativity” requires that Einstein provide the math to show how the geocentric alternative would work, which math has been provided not only by Einstein but by many physicists in the 20th century (e.g. Barbour-Bertotti, Bondi, Toleman, Lemaitre, Moller, Nightengale, Hoyle, Bouw, Assis, et al). In short, the Foucault Pendulum changes its angle of rotation because the universe, and its accompanying inertial forces, rotates around a fixed Earth and pulls the free-swinging pendulum. The same for stellar parallax. The observer on Earth sees a parallax angle change every six months because the universe has a precession in its rotation around the Earth.
In other words, Fr. Jenkins, Einstein’s General Relativity allows the “inertial frame” wherein the Earth is the non-moving center of mass for the universe. It is the absolute “inertial frame” because it doesn’t move. THAT is the way God built the world; not with everything moving randomly in a mass of confusion. Even Newton allowed this kind of universe, as long as there was a sufficient force outside the solar system to balance out the sun. Newton said in his Principia: “Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system.” It was Mach and Einstein who found that force for Newton two hundred years later. Michelson-Morley saw it. Hubble saw it. Hawking saw it, and do does everyone else in modern physics today who is honest with the evidence.
There is much, much more, Fr. Jenkins, and you need to see it before you teach again on this subject.
May God be with you,
Robert Sungenis, Ph.D.
Wow, what a nice surprise to see your comment. I can't see your first comment though, unless I've missed it.
28:53 I suppose your bias against Geocentrism made you say Geocentrism instead of Heliocentrism.
It was actually the efforts to harmonise it with Sacred Scripture which put people in Florence on the guard in the years leading up to 1616.
Two Dominicans, Tommaso Caccini and Niccolò Lorini were involved in saying NO, that harmonisation does not work.
Now, for Josue 10:13, one might argue, "phenomenological language" as the narrator describes what already happened.
But in the previous verse, Josue gives a word on behalf of God to the creatures involved in the miracle. The Israelites were not the ones the words adressed, they were only the audience. If Heliocentrism were true, and if it was Earth that stopped rotating, it would have been the ONLY time in Sacred Scripture or in known to me Church History, that a miracle worker adresses the wrong thing and the miracle happens.
It's as if someone said "God cures you of your cold" and God then cured AIDS. Instead, not on top of. Hasn't happened. The words of a miracle worker are inspired to God and are God's words through the mouth of the Thaumaturge to creature.
The idea of this being stated backwards in accordance with popular but erroneous beliefs of the then Israelites, well, it has by 19th C. Swedish Lutherans been taken further. Some of them have stated that with similar accomodations God cured epilectics and people with mental problems when He cast out (according to the words in the miracle!) demons. That's one of the reasons I converted FROM Lutheranism, and it is one of the reasons why now I would not endorse Heliocentrism or see it very lightly if others endorse it.
Great segment on synod! Please clip it and post separately. @wcbfullepisodes And "Francis" wants to turn pope on paper to be a CEO, term limits, elected.
Clare, we have made a clip of the Synod segment! You can find that here: th-cam.com/video/SLHnIxGFUwY/w-d-xo.html
Father, thank you for pointing out that the Russian equivalent of the word “synod” is “soviet.” I’ve been saying this for years. The whole “synodal process” is geared to spread the errors of modernist Rome to the ends of the earth, with even more efficiency than they have up to now.
The only thing I knew about the word Synod is the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. That is what came to mind when I heard the word synod, but then the Novus Ordo is kinda reminiscent of the Lutheran Church in my opinion.
What do you think about the crosses with the "risen Jesus"?
Wouldn't it be condemned due to not showing Our Lord's suffering, like Fr. mentioned?
@@briantorsell I would think that, too, but I often see these in Catholic churches and shops.
@@carolynhernandez1596 RIght, but the vast majority of these churches and shops are run by Novus Ordo Catholics and they probably don't know what the Church has taught. Novelty is often preferred in the Novus Ordo.
@@briantorsell Sad, but true
The earth is the center of the universe. The center of mass. All planets revolve around the earth and the sun. Space moves. This explains the problem of red-shift in the heliocentric model.
Research the origins of NASA
27:47 Heliocentrism was not the "rejection of all previous science".
Copernicus hearkened back to a Pythagorean, and Pythagoreans did things one could call science.
Again, in Galileo's day, Copernicanism was still a minority view, but Tychonian Geocentrism was an even smaller minority.
The Inquisitors, whether the process involving The Assayer in 1616 or the process about himself in 1633, were not insisting on the majority view of science, Ptolemaic Geocentrism. They were instead in 1616 suggesting the even smaller than Copernicanism Tychonian view.
One reason according to some scholars (who could be wrong), why Copernicanism with modifications won, was, Tychonianism was the one Geocentrism that was logically viable, and it was less widely known, at least to the general public, than Heliocentrism.
But another reason why it was not the "rejection of all previous science" is ... *there was no such thing.* Science as a university institution was a relatively new thing, and everyone still recalled that astronomy and other things had been differently explained by different philosophers.
I tried to order a new calendar on Etsy but it didn’t work. 😢
Wait a few more weeks, hopefully they'll be there.
Find them on our Etsy shop here: www.etsy.com/shop/WhatCatholicsBelieve
@@WCBFullEpisodesthank you for the update.
Vōtum in Latin literally means "vow".
Serious stuff.
Don't vote for the lesser evil, vote for the greater good.
Love means “willing the good of someone. “You can’t will the good of somebody if you don’t care about the person or their soul.
With all do respect to Father and his wealth of knowledge, I'd watch these QnA's more often and more of the episode if he made the effort to be more concise...
like Robert Sungenis, a well known apologist and geocentrist, who hosts a live QnA once a week, if left unchecked there can be quite a bit of looping and covering adjacent subjects...
Research the origins of NASA
Pretty sure Sungenis replied above. Almost no likes or comments and it is a long articulate post. Check it out.
I'm discovering all the "world" of traditionalism , and without any bad intention I would like to know the diference between the saint Pius V, the SSPX or the resistance. I admit that I' m quiet lost with all this. The only thing I know is that the other denominations are from the Ecclesia Dei; I have already attended some of them. Thanks
In a nutshell, the SSPX and the resistance believe that Francis is a catholic pope and the church of the Vatican 2 council is the true Catholic Church along with all it prelates. The SSPV hold all of what’s mentioned above to be doubtful at best. The SSPV do not view any of what’s mentioned above to have any authority and therefore adhere to the teachings prior to the late 50’s and the Council of Trent.
CSPV/SSPV are non-dogmatic sede, similar to CMRI. Resistance is mostly priests/bishops kicked out of the SSPX for opposing a proposed agreement with modernist Rome, but are not sede. The current SSPX has deviated from the position of "no practical agreement before doctrinal agreement" of +ABL. Ecclesia Dei is under the modernist church and have doubtful sacraments/clergy. Pray the Rosary and ask for an understanding of the ongoing crisis in the Church; God bless.
SSPV holds the sedevacantist position whereas the SSPX does not. Essentially the same but one believes there is no Pope, whereas the other believes there is a (bad) Pope
So is the Synodal way in the Church equivalent to Populism in politics?
That’s why the last popes haven’t consecrated Russia to Mary?
How does one buy the 2025 calendar that was shown at the beginning of the show? Didn't find it on WCB Etsy store.
We ran out last year.
Me neither.
The “dark matter “ seems to be in their heads.
I have a cross hanging on the wall that is a non-catholic cross. Should I get rid of it. It is leftover from before I converted. Thanks. 😮
Abraham and Lot were referred to as “brethren “” in fact they were uncle and nephew respectively. I tried to explain that to a Protestant minister but he didn’t buy it, 😮
Modern geocentrism is not an overreaction to scientism. It's simply pointing out the fact that geocentrism, properly understood, was never overthrown, from Galileo till this day. The physics of a rotating universe and a fixed earth were actually written about by Einstein.
Who do we vote for
The party against abortion. Very clear. Killing babies is against God.
The traditional clergy aren’t telling us! They ARE telling us not to vote for Harris. So far as voting for Trump since he’s done a flip flop on abortion, IVF, and the 🏳️🌈, he’s always accepted. It’s up to the individual conscience. There are legitimate arguments both for and against. There is also debate among traditional Catholics regarding the morality of voting for a third party or write-in and refraining from voting altogether. Again, vote or don’t vote according to your conscience.
I’m voting for Dr. Shiva.
I believe in geocentridm. #flatearth
But Also Didn't Jesus call All His followers and disciples brothers ?
Yup.
Father Jenkins not only supports heliocentrism but the Big Bang theory?
Heliocentrism and especially big bang theory are anti Catholic nonsense. Geocentrism is true.
The Big Bang is part of evolution, so Fr. Jenkins is unlikely to believe in it. Besides, the Bible gives us a detailed description of the creation on earth and specifically, of man, in His Image and Likeness. There IS no definitive ruling from the Church on helio or geo centrism that we obliged to believe.
What’s the problem with that?
There’s nothing negative about chapel veils. Their main purpose is for women to show proper respect to God when in the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. God has set up an order of authority in His Church among the Faithful and clergy. Christ, Man, Woman. This is symbolized by veiling or unveiling (men) in His Presence. See 1 Corinthians chapter 11. There is nothing in the text about women being a sexual distraction to men during Mass!
So confusing …
Please put a muff on Father's microphone. There are a lot of distracting hissing, popping, and spitting sounds