How would Newton’s Laws explain the 24 hour rotation of the enitre universe, including all of the distant stars and galaxies about an earth fixed in space? I believe that it is untenable if you hold to Newton’s laws of motion.It is contested, by Sungenis, that geocentrism is untenable because of Newton’s laws. The point and the question i am asking about, is the Church’s teaching regarding scripture teaching geocentrism. It is pretty clear theat three Popes have taught just that. That the Bible teaches geocentrism.
here is Sungenis----I guees people arent going to resposnd to the real topic and that is what the Church taught on geocentrismHow would Newton’s Laws explain the 24 hour rotation of the enitre universe, including all of the distant stars and galaxies about an earth fixed in space? I believe that it is untenable if you hold to Newton’s laws of motion.
No doubt. Perhaps if I understand why this particular craw in Sungenis’ gullet had to do with discipleship, Christianity or Catholicism I would view him a such a fringe element.I wasn’t aware that there was a Catholic doctrine on gravity.
the Catholic Church may have taught geocentrism, but it also taught that women were to wear headcovering in Church. It looks to me like both teachings have been thrown out.here is Sungenis----I guees people arent going to resposnd to the real topic and that is what the Church taught on geocentrism:
No Pope has ever overturned the statments (I quoted earlier) that geocentrism is the teaching of scripture.the Catholic Church may have taught geocentrism, but it also taught that women were to wear headcovering in Church. It looks to me like both teachings have been thrown out.
“I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.”
Pay attention please. The quotes concerning geocentrism, from the various Pontiffs, are referring to scripture. They have stated scripture teaches geocentrism. That is Bob Sungenis’ arguemtn why it isa matter of faith!!! Because it directly deals with, according to the Popes, what scripture teaches.The infallibility of the Church (and thereby the Roman Pontiff) exists concerning matters that cannot be known by natural means. If the Church lost these truths, there is no way of recovering them. Things like whether or not the earth travels around the sun or not can be discovered by natural means.
I generally like St. Robert Bellarmine’s approach. Note that while he didn’t believe a demonstration existed, he was open to the possibility and he gave the proper response given its existence:
What about Pope Pius VII in 1820, and Pope John Paul II in 1992? Pope John Paul II said that as far as the Church was concerned, the heliocentric debate “was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.” It is true, isn’t it, that on August 16, 1820, it was decided that professor Settele could treat the Copernican system as established fact, and that decision was approved by Pius VII.No Pope has ever overturned the statments (I quoted earlier) that geocentrism is the teaching of scripture.
good point! let me check on that and get back to youWhat about Pope Pius VII in 1820, and Pope John Paul II in 1992? Pope John Paul II said that as far as the Church was concerned, the heliocentric debate “was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.” It is true, isn’t it, that on August 16, 1820, it was decided that professor Settele could treat the Copernican system as established fact, and that decision was approved by Pius VII.
Actually it doesnt appear that you are correct about “established fact.” here is what I found. It appears as if the Church simply allowed Canon Settele to publish his book.What about Pope Pius VII in 1820, and Pope John Paul II in 1992? Pope John Paul II said that as far as the Church was concerned, the heliocentric debate “was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele.” It is true, isn’t it, that on August 16, 1820, it was decided that professor Settele could treat the Copernican system as established fact, and that decision was approved by Pius VII.
But it shows that heliocentrism is not contrary to Church teaching, according to JPII?Actually it doesnt appear that you are correct about “established fact.” here is what I found. It appears as if the Church simply allowed Canon Settele to publish his book.
"Fourth, regarding Canon Settele, he appealed to Pope Pius VII and the pope referred the matter to the Congregation of the Holy Office. On August 16, 1820, they decided to allow Settele to publish his book. Then on September 11, 1822, the cardinals worded their allowance with the following words: “…the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome.” This decree was ratified by Pius VII, but it was not until thirteen years later, in 1835, that an edition of the Index which contained no reference to a condemnation of works expressing the motion of the earth.
The most significant fact for this discussion is HOW the cardinals worded their 1822 statement. They do not endorse Copernicanism as an established fact, nor do they suggest that they agree with works asserting Copernicanism. As far as we can tell, the Church is still endorsing Geocentrism. They only thing they state to the contrary is that they will allow works to be published that are in accord with the “general opinion of modern astronomers.” Notice that they refer to the OPINION of the astonomers. As far as the Church is concerned, nothing has been proven regarding heliocentrism. It is merely an “opinion” of the astronomers of that day. Thus, citing the Settele case does not prove anything for those who think the Church has adopted heliocentrism."
Perhaps, but the Pope wasnt speaking offically. It was in a general audience. The point being, I believe, that no Pope has officially overturned the" decrees" on geocentrism.But it shows that heliocentrism is not contrary to Church teaching, according to JPII?
I thought that he implied that it wasn’t necessary, in view of the decision to give the imprimatur to a book endorsing heliocentrism in 1820. This decision was approved by Pope Pius VII.Perhaps, but the Pope wasnt speaking offically. It was in a general audience. The point being, I believe, that no Pope has officially overturned the" decrees" on geocentrism.
I am almost positive PopeJohn Paul II’s statements were in a speech not in a formal statement.I thought that he implied that it wasn’t necessary, in view of the decision to give the imprimatur to a book endorsing heliocentrism in 1820. This decision was approved by Pope Pius VII.
Right, but not what are referred to as “matters of faith.” Faith and reason go hand in hand. Reason is used to attain knowledge of one class of truths and faith another. The infallibility of the Magisterium is in regards to the latter, not the former.Pay attention please. The quotes concerning geocentrism, from the various Pontiffs, are referring to scripture. They have stated scripture teaches geocentrism. That is Bob Sungenis’ arguemtn why it isa matter of faith!!! Because it directly deals with, according to the Popes, what scripture teaches.
And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right
The fact that Scripture is involved does not make it a matter of faith. There is also grammar, geography and, of course, science. We understand what you are saying about Sungesis’ argument. I for one think he is far out there on this topic. I asked earlier how astrophysics affect the economy of salvation and never got an answer. I noticed that even though this topic has never been defined by the Church, you are quick to grant centuries old statements to the status of infallibility and denegrate current statements to nothing more than a passing opinion. This type of weighting in favor of one’s opinion is why we have a sure teaching in the CCC. It does not support geocentrism.They have stated scripture teaches geocentrism. That is Bob Sungenis’ arguemtn why it isa matter of faith!!!
Listen I am not saying that geocentrism is formally defined as(Sungenis SEEMS to say it is infallible based on a various of arguments) infallible, but anything in scripture MUST be a matter of faith. Scripture is God’s word!!!(and the Church teaches that inspiration is for ALL of scripture) So!!! The Pope may define a passage of scripture as meaning a particular meaning if he so chooses. If the Pope says definitively, that this particular passages means that the earth is the center of the universe then that would be infallible(it appears that Pope Urban VIII clearly states that scripute teaches geocentrism, but the question remains did he formally define it-). not because of science, but because of what the Pope said the biblical passage means. I am saying IF the Pope said this, I am not saying those previous Popes did define infallibly geocentrism.The fact that Scripture is involved does not make it a matter of faith. There is also grammar, geography and, of course, science. We understand what you are saying about Sungesis’ argument. I for one think he is far out there on this topic. I asked earlier how astrophysics affect the economy of salvation and never got an answer. I noticed that even though this topic has never been defined by the Church, you are quick to grant centuries old statements to the status of infallibility and denegrate current statements to nothing more than a passing opinion. This type of weighting in favor of one’s opinion is why we have a sure teaching in the CCC. It does not support geocentrism.
Good evening Charles!Listen I am not saying that geocentrism is formally defined as(Sungenis SEEMS to say it is infallible based on a various of arguments) infallible, but anything in scripture MUST be a matter of faith. Scripture is God’s word!!!(and the Church teaches that inspiration is for ALL of scripture) So!!! The Pope may define a passage of scripture as meaning a particular meaning if he so chooses. If the Pope says definitively, that this particular passages means that the earth is the center of the universe then that would be infallible(it appears that Pope Urban VIII clearly states that scripute teaches geocentrism, but the question remains did he formally define it-). not because of science, but because of what the Pope said the biblical passage means. I am saying IF the Pope said this, I am not saying those previous Popes did define infallibly geocentrism.