Bible does not teach Geocentrism!

[trth_skr]

…That the Church Fathers support something suggests we should pay attention to it, but not simply accept it. If it is supported again by the Church in a council, then it should be accepted (or, as Catholics would assert, in the magisterium). Either way, nothing has been asserted in this manner by the Catholic Church…

From Geocentricity 101, Part III:

Sticking with the time tested and authoritative methods of Biblical exegetism, one has to conclude that the Fathers were correct in their interpretation. And as was said at Trent:

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published…”

Similarly, Vatican I states (Session 2, Profession of Faith):

"…Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers…"

And again (Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2- On Revelation):

"…In consequence, it isnot permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture…against the unanimous consent of the fathers."

Quite the opposite, to the point where the Catholic Church has denied its ability to declare truth in scientific matters (“we will all be able to profit from the fruitfulness of a trustful dialogue between the Church and science.”, a statement from Pope John Paul II establishes this separation). This would naturally apply to their ability to interpret Scripture, such that the Church cannot use Scripture to make definitive statements on Scientific Truths.

His private speech to the PAS does not reverse what previouos popes have said, and was nothing more than a private speech. The 17th century popes recognized this as a matter of faith.

Again from the same Geocentricity 101, Part III:

“…Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus…”

(Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu)

…

*24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.

( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

I do not disagree with the assertion that Scripture is entirely scientifically accurate. I believe this.

I take issue with the Catholic Church’s ability to interpret the scientific truth from Scripture. And, I believe, not without precedent.

Any scientific teaching is entirely skew to the teachings of the Church Fathers in matters of faith and morals, and so their teaching on matters of faith and morals never comes into contact with any consensus (such as from astronomy) outside this regime.

The last statement I would still reject as not even part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And though I reject the Magisterium, even if I did hold to Roman Catholic Teaching, I would not be compelled in any way to accept this teaching, and in many ways from Church Council, to reject the position of these eleven misguided theologians.

 

[trth_skr]

I do not disagree with the assertion that Scripture is entirely scientifically accurate. I believe this.

I take issue with the Catholic Church’s ability to interpret the scientific truth from Scripture. And, I believe, not without precedent.

Any scientific teaching is entirely skew to the teachings of the Church Fathers in matters of faith and morals, and so their teaching on matters of faith and morals never comes into contact with any consensus (such as from astronomy) outside this regime.

The last statement I would still reject as not even part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And though I reject the Magisterium, even if I did hold to Roman Catholic Teaching, I would not be compelled in any way to accept this teaching, and in many ways from Church Council, to reject the position of these eleven misguided theologians.

But Paul V ratified their decision and Urban the VIII used the opinion verbatum in his condemnation of Galileo. Finally, Alexander VII included the essence of the opinion in a Bull, approved with apostolic authority and transmitted to all the Church.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

But Paul V ratified their decision and Urban the VIII used the opinion verbatum in his condemnation of Galileo. Finally, Alexander VII included the essence of the opinion in a Bull, approved with apostolic authority and transmitted to all the Church.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

As this is not an issue of faith or morals, it doesn’t matter how loudly the Pope and Bishops proclaims it, nor how often. Their proclamations are not binding, but rather a clamor that weakens the appearance of Church authority, and thus risks damaging those who would potentially come to the faith.

It is very good the Magisterium does not make scientific proclamations anymore.

 

[trth_skr]

As this is not an issue of faith or morals, it doesn’t matter how loudly the Pope and Bishops proclaims it, nor how often. Their proclamations are not binding, but rather a clamor that weakens the appearance of Church authority, and thus risks damaging those who would potentially come to the faith.

It is very good the Magisterium does not make scientific proclamations anymore.

It is a matter of faith and morals. Anything doing with Scriptural inerrancy is a matter of faith and morals. As I showed it was determined to be a matter of faith and morals.

Also given that there has been no demonstration of the earth moving and many observations indicating the earth is central to the universe, the scierntific question remains open.

The Magesterial statement is simply one of physical fact, like “Adam was the first man”, or “Abraham had 12 children”. Clearly, the magesterial statement cannot be construed as a complete cosmological theory; though certainly some boundaries for such a theory. The Magesterium is not excluded from making such statements, and in fact defines their own scope. Finally, it is ultimately the Holy Spirit who narrated the Scriptures, which were interpreted by the Fathers, then validated by the Magesterium in its capacity as final interpreter.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
JMJ+

 

[noma]

I suppose, unless you can find a statement from the extraordinary magisterium (etc.) stating that the Church has authority over scientific issues, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I see nothing remotely common to faith and morals about geocentrism, heliocentrism, or any other such theory.

For the Scriptures teach us not how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven. The same is true of the Roman Catholic Churth Authority proper. And that is how I would draw my dividing line.

If I accepted the magisterium in the first place.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s what happens when you get caught up in protestant style Scriptural literalism. Us Catholic geocentrists go with what the Church has definitiviely taught about the Scriptures.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I think you may have missed the point.​

If people are going to say that the literal sense favours geocentricism - they can’t ignore the literal sense of the passages that don’t favour geocentricism.

The same OT that states “the earth is established so that it shall never be moved”, also mentions the details listed above, whether by me or by others. Crying “Protestantism !” does not deal with the objections - those things remain in the texts; nor does it explain why they are there in the text, if the OT is so favourable to geocentricism. To cry “Protestantism !” does not show what is Protestant in quoting those texts against geocentricism, nor why that need be a bad thing (as apparently it is): I wasn’t aware the late Pope was a Protestant - or that Father Jaki was anything but a Catholic, a scientist, & a Benedictine monk.

Refutation by sloganeering is abysmally unconvincing - all it does is show that the sloganeer has used unreason to make his case. Geocentricism hasn’t a leg to stand on, if one is relies on the OT to validate it - for reasons explained already: & completely ignored.

Your quarrel isn’t with me, or with Father Jaki, or the Pope; but with those (such as Isaiah) who were inconsiderate enough to mention things you (presumably) don’t believe in, such as “the mountain of the LORD”, the “assembly of the gods”, the monster Rahab slain by the LORD, & the other assorted bits & pieces that make the use of the OT as evidence for geocentricism so ludicrous. They are not the ones who are making the OT ridiculous by insisting it is valid for science.

If those things are to be believed in - why not go the whole hog & believe that rainfall is caused by pouring water through sluice-gates in the heavens (see Genesis & Malachi); & that the earth floats upon sweet subterranean waters ? The Israelites & Babylonians believed in both these things.

Why is it so important to treat creation-myths as scientifically valid ? What next: quotations from “The Hobbit” to prove that the faery folk lived in subterranean mounds ? What better explanation of mounds from 7000 BC could there be ? Explanation by “The Hobbit” is every bit as scientifically valid as explanation by the OT: for neither text is intended to be a scientific text, neither has anything to offer the sciences, both are perverted if abused by being quoted as scientifically valid. The value of Tolkien’s myth is, that no sane person mistakes its literary function, so no sane person goes on expeditions to excavate Hobbiton or Rivendell (not yet; by 4000 AD, who knows ?) But the OT ? That is inspired, therefore it is scientifically valid, therefore what it says about the LORD being “enthroned above the flood” is valid for science.

Still, at least we know that it is the “voice of the LORD” that causes animals to drop calves - which will doubtless be of interest to veterinary surgeons (see Psalm 29 for more scientific tips)

Which science do:

• “the sword of the LORD”
• His bow
• arrows
• shield
• chariot
• tent
• nostrils
• eyes
• hand
• city
• sons
• daughters

• fall under ? “The LORD is my rock” - which one, please ? The Bible is many things - but it is not a scientific text, any more than the “Rocky” films are; they are obviously commentaries on Matthew 16. ##

 

[trth_skr]

I think you may have missed the point.​

If people are going to say that the literal sense favours geocentricism - they can’t ignore the literal sense of the passages that don’t favour geocentricism.

…

Actually, we are saying that what matters is what the Magesterium has declared. They have declared (through the fathers and papal actions) that the earth does not move. They have not made any deeclarations on the other issues you raise. Those points are open for interpertation until they do. We would probably agree on many of the interpretations of those points.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[noma]

“The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation, and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”

“In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun, one should ‘interpret with great circumspection’ every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and ‘say that we do not understand, rather than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false’. Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine when he wrote: ‘If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly. It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it. That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant’. A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: ‘Truth cannot contradict truth and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself’.”

“In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo’s position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them.”

These are statements made by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and was approved by Pope John Paul II as valid de fide teaching on the relationship between the Church and Science.

Since it appears that the magisterium has now declared that, as a matter of faith, it is acceptable to accept the heliocentric view; that neither is detrimental to the faith.

So this leaves four obvious options:

1. The initial authorities you have quoted are not really part of the magisterium.
2. The statements above that bear all the signs of being part of the ordinary magisterium are not really part of the ordinary magisterium.
3. Both (1) and (2).
4. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible in this matter.

I hold (4).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

"The majority of theologians did not recognize the formal distinction between Sacred Scripture and its interpretation,

That’s worrisome for a start if such an elementary distinction isn’t made by the very people who should have the intelligence & theological wisdom to make it, what hope is there for the average Catholic pleb who knows nothing of these things ? Talk about “the blind leading the blind” ​

And why should those who have the wit to make that distinction take the slightest notice of those who don’t ? The authority of truth exceeds the authority of position, including Church position.

When people’s official position in the Catholic caste system has more weight than what comes out of their mouths, theology is in a bad way. The facts of cosmology are what they are, despite all the Popes, cardinals, theologians, Fathers, & infallible ignoramuses in the universe. Those who fight with scientific truths fight with God. The longer they are denied, the more of a headache the champions of anti-science store up for the Church in the future. ##

and this led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation."

In plain English - they made an almighty ten-star blunder no first-year student in astronomy, geography, or theology would be capable of today. To call it infallible or binding in conscience now, is to make the Church look a thousand times more witless than a legion of Richard Dawkinses could in a thousand lifetimes. Only anti-Catholics gain from Catholic folly​

"In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proofs that the earth orbited round the sun, one should ‘interpret with great circumspection’ every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and ‘say that we do not understand, rather than affirm that what has been demonstrated is false’.

Which is why the Church admits that the Bible uses a variety of literary genres - the Bible is to be understood against its background, & not against ours. That is how the dozens of passages which give the lie to geocentricism can be understood side by side with the passages that are said to favour geocentricism; that way, all can be interpreted, & none have to be ignored, & the Holy Bible stops looking idiotic. It looks ANEastern instead - which is what it is anyway.​

Those who sacrifice the meaning of the Bible to their antiquated & inaccurate ideas, ideas which owe less to the the Bible than to Aristotle & Ptolemy, aren’t interested in the Bible - let alone the Church. If they were, they would not ignore Divino Afflante Spiritu or more recent Papal documents on the interpretation of the Bible. ##

…A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: ‘Truth cannot contradict truth and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself’."

“In Galileo’s time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or in the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points has the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo’s position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them.”

These are statements made by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and was approved by Pope John Paul II as valid de fide teaching on the relationship between the Church and Science.

Since it appears that the magisterium has now declared that, as a matter of faith, it is acceptable to accept the heliocentric view; that neither is detrimental to the faith.

So this leaves four obvious options:

1. The initial authorities you have quoted are not really part of the magisterium.
2. The statements above that bear all the signs of being part of the ordinary magisterium are not really part of the ordinary magisterium.
3. Both (1) and (2).
4. The ordinary magisterium is not infallible in this matter.

I hold (4).

Ditto ​

 

[noma]

Though this blunder has been cannon fodder for those who deny Christ’s Church, it reminds me more of Israel.

Through all the monumental failings of God’s Holy People, The Father still watches after His children, and by miracle guides them on the rocky road to deeper and deeper acceptance of Right Thought and Right Worship.

If there were no mistakes in all Church Teaching about everything ever, that would be a minor miracle.

But that God preserves His authority in the Church despite the attempts of even the humans highest up in the hierarchy to destroy it, establishes beyond doubt the authority that Christ has intended to bestow on His Children, is a miracle the immensity and glory of which is beyond compare.

The Chrism is everlasting, vanishing not even unto the attempts of some given the blessing to blot it out.

 

[trth_skr]

…So this leaves four obvious options:…

The most obvious option is that the PAS has no official authority. It is simply a consultory body, made up mainly of atheists/agnostics to start with. JPII did not make their statements de fide teaching of the Church.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

… In plain English - they made an almighty ten-star blunder no first-year student in astronomy, geography, or theology would be capable of today. To call it infallible or binding in conscience now, is to make the Church look a thousand times more witless than a legion of Richard Dawkinses could in a thousand lifetimes. …

There is no blunder until such blunder is proven. Science has yet to demonstrate the earth moves, nor have they demonstrated that it is not in the center.

In fact all atetmpts to prove it moves yielded results which would be interpreted as it not moving.

All observations of our postion and many others indicate we are in the center.

Scientists reject this evidence based on their presumptions and assumptions.

Don’t condemn the past popes on opinions of modern astronomers- most who have an atheistic/agnostic outlook to start with. Note that cosmology is guided by philosophy, and most of what we are talking about is philosophy. Stephen Hawkings rejects the centrality assumption for the non-centrality assumption because of what he calls “modesty”.

It may be modest for an atheist/agnostic to reject our centrality (though not when faced with all the obsevations), but not for a Catholic, who should at least keep an open mind.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Liberian]

Gottle << Besides, what other cosmology could have been used ? The OT would have been monstrous & incomprehensible if it had been scientifically accurate - & not just to men 3000 years ago, but to us now too, because there is plenty we don’t know either. >>

Yes. Take the Big Bang Theory–or something more modern. Explain it to somebody in the Neolithic Age, or even somebody in the Bronze Age. Have him explain it to his grandchildren, and have them explain it to their grandchildren, who write it down. What would it look like?

The OT would read like a Starfleet Technical Manual and that would be cool.

Not to disagree with you too harshly, but have you ever read anything in The Urantia Book?

• Liberian

 

[noma]

As for the “de fide teaching”:

The Pope signed the review, and gave report of his endorsement. Your critiques are based on ad hominem assertions (all the writers are atheists, so they can’t talk accurately about faith and science).

Even if all writers were atheists, the logic does not follow.

All observations of our postion and many others indicate we are in the center.

This is most certainly not true.

That observations may be interpreted this way is a possibility. But your statement, as made, is obviously false, as indication is empirical, and so relies on partially subjective information and the interpretation of that information, and currently the interpretation is that such information favors a universe without a preferred center in space alone.

If all observations clearly indicated that the earth were the center of the universe, trust me, scientist would publish as much (I know; I have seen and studied the data).

This is simply not the case.

 

[PhilVaz]

Lib << Not to disagree with you too harshly, but have you ever read anything in The Urantia Book? >>

Ah yes, I’ve heard of it. Fascinating now that’s what I’m talking about…blows away the boring O.T. cosmology

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

…If all observations clearly indicated that the earth were the center of the universe, trust me, scientist would publish as much (I know; I have seen and studied the data)…

I beg to differ. Galileo Was Wrong has quote after quote from scientists rejecting such observations out of hand. Often stating things like, 'but Copernicus taught us…", or “…it is intolerable…”. It is clear to me after reading the book, that science is not only not open to the possibility, but deathly afraid of it.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[R_McGeddon]

There is no blunder until such blunder is proven. Science has yet to demonstrate the earth moves, nor have they demonstrated that it is not in the center.

Has anyone in your group of misguided moonies convincingly demonstrated that the Earth is motionless and in the centre???

In fact all atetmpts to prove it moves yielded results which would be interpreted as it not moving.

Some bona fide sources to back this up?

All observations of our postion and many others indicate we are in the center.

Some examples of these observations?

 

[MrS]

Has anyone in your group of misguided moonies convincingly demonstrated that the Earth is motionless and in the centre???
Some bona fide sources to back this up?
Some examples of these observations?

nice comment, but consider the source…

are you sure your real birthday is not one day later??

Neither theory has either been proven nor disproven… it seems that for the time being, the “majority” tries to rule.

 

[R_McGeddon]

nice comment, but consider the source…

I did, but I just couldn’t resist a little dig.

are you sure your real birthday is not one day later??

Absolutely positive, I was there y’know

Neither theory has either been proven nor disproven… it seems that for the time being, the “majority” tries to rule.

There are plenty of things that point to heliocentricism though.