I
inocente
Guest
I canāt keep up with you fashionistas. Are you off to Paris and Milan this year as usual ?
Personally, I want the team with the black shirts to win. Black is the new beige.
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
Correct. There is *no *science of geocentrism in the first chapter of Genesis.
It is time for people to realize that Holy Scripture should not be referred to as a source for Geocentrism. However, I do recognize that anyone can interpret whatever they want in regard to Holy Scripture. At the same time, it is proper to recognize that the Catholic Church, as a visible institution founded by Jesus Christ, is not in the business of approving a strictly science demonstration.
Please note. It is when interpretations of natural science conflict with Catholic doctrines, then the Catholic Church has the duty to point to Divine Revelation, not human revelation.
Divine Revelation trumps.
I
inocente
Guest
Well said.
John Paul II instigated a 13-year investigation into the Galileo affair, and gave an address on it in 1992. He explicitly states that the theologians at the time were wrong and Galileo right, that scripture does not impose geocentrism, that the affair ultimately led to a better understanding of scripture, and that revelation is one realm of knowledge while the experimental sciences + philosophy are another.
*"Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so.
Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. āIf Scripture cannot errā, he wrote to Benedetto Castelli, ācertain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many waysā. ā¦]
The upset caused by the Copernican system thus demanded epistemological reflection on the biblical sciences, an effort which later would produce abundant fruit in modern exegetical works and which has found sanction and a new stimulus in the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum of the Second Vatican Council. ā¦]
By virtue of her own mission, the Church has the duty to be attentive to the pastoral consequences of her teaching. Before all else, let it be clear that this teaching must correspond to the truth. But it is a question of knowing how to judge a new scientific datum when it seems to contradict the truths of faith. The pastoral judgement which the Copernican theory required was difficult to make, in so far as geocentrism seemed to be a part of scriptural teaching itself. ā¦]
If contemporary culture is marked by a tendency to scientism, the cultural horizon of Galileoās age was uniform and carried the imprint of a particular philosophical formation. This unitary character of culture, which in itself is positive and desirable even in our own day, was one of the reasons for Galileoās condemnation. 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.
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical worldās structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. ā¦] In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning."
LāOsservatore Romano, 4 Nov 1992, from its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html*
Amen. Or do only Baptists and grannies listen to Popes???
H
hildegaard
Guest
I guess the Holy Spirit was not very smart in the case of Genesis? It is not a scientific description, but it is a qualitative description with a time sequence.
There is NO conflict of OBSERVATIONS and GEOCENTRISM. Most observations imply geocentrism. It is science theory that says, well it appears that we are in the center, but for these abstract unprovable reasons we ASSUME that it is not. You may or may not understand that, but it is true.
The Catholic Church has historically recognized everything in Scriptures as true, within their interpretive framework. They have spoken of the earth being stationary, and the sun moving around the earth, and authoritatively (note I did not say infallibly).
The eleven theologians at the Galileo trial stated:
"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 (āmundiā) and absolutely immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (āmundiā); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.
All unanimously censure the first proposition as āfoolish, 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 theologiansā; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise āabsurd in philosophyā and theologically āat least erroneous in faithā.
This was then attached to a Bull of Alexander VII, āā¦which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein, we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedienceā¦ā
(veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html)
H
hildegaard
Guest
I suppose Christine Niles is also a bad person? Here is her interview of Rick Delano, the guy who actually made the film:I made it clear I wouldnāt want to see a junk movie called The Principle.
Everyone can read about it here:rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/07/star-trek-actress-lends-her-gravitas-to-film-promoting-idea-that-sun-revolves-around-earth/?onswipe_redirect=no
Here is part of what is on that page:
The film, which is set to be released sometime this spring, was bankrolled in part by the ultra-conservative and anti-Semitic Robert Sungenis, who maintains the blog āGalileo Was Wrong.ā
Robert Sungenis is horrible man!!! Iāve already provided links that prove him wrong not only on this topic but other topics! I should mention that Alec MacAndrew (hecd2) also helped out and other people too.
youtu.be/VBWG-Hy_H4w
P
pnewton
Guest
The Catholic Church does not see a conflict between the Holy Spirit inspiring Genesis and Genesis not being taken literally at every point. Oh, and Man was not created twice, as written literally in Genesis (1:27 an 2:7) Interpretive framework allow for non-literal figures of speech and non-linear time.
There is not conflict or implication that the Holy Spirit is not āsmartā. The same can not be said for all readers of the Genesis.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I respectfully refer to Catholic protocol, accompanied by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Chapter 14, Gospel of John.
The eleven theologians and all the early Church Fathers are not equal to a major Catholic Church Ecumenical Council.
Please note that not every verse of every chapter of Sacred Scripture automatically becomes a Catholic doctrine. I cannot speak for other Christian religions regarding the first three chapter of Genesis.
I
inocente
Guest
Yes, but subsequently popes have said those theologians were wrong:
*"When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.
Pope John Paul II named a commission to investigate again the Galileo affair; after the work of Galileo commission was completed, Pope John Paul IIās discourse to the Pontifical Academy of science in 1992 stated that Galileoās sufferings at the hands of some individuals and church institutions were tragic and inescapable, and a consequence of a mutual incomprehension in those times between church theologians and the new scientists such as Galileo. To be clear, science as we know it was just being born and not even scientists of those times could comprehend fully what was happening. The Church officially apologized to Galileo in 2000."
vaticanobservatory.org/research/history-of-astronomy/54-history-of-astronomy/the-galileo-affair/370-the-galileo-affair*
My quote is from the Vatican Observatory. The original of JPIIās address (post #160) is at the Vatican. These are both official Church sites while youāre citing an amateur dude with a free blog on (the secular) blogspot.com.
Iām the non-Catholic here, how come youāre the one who is a Catholic yet appears to be arguing against the Vatican? Seriously, whatās going on?
G
grannymh
Guest
Reply to hildegaard, post 161
Seriously?
You are an intelligent guy just like other non-Catholics I know.
Iām the non-Catholic here, how come youāre the one who is a Catholic yet appears to be arguing against the Vatican? Seriously, whatās going on?
Seriously?
You are an intelligent guy just like other non-Catholics I know.
H
hildegaard
Guest
That is a canard. Please do not attack the scriptures to uphold your secular views. It is the same story told from two different perspectives. There are no errors in the scriptures.
H
hildegaard
Guest
Sorry. You are INTERPRETING indirect words of Popes to counter DIRECT and REPEATED AUTHORITATIVE and DIRECTLY documented actions of previous Popes.Yes, but subsequently popes have said those theologians were wrong:
*"When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.
Pope John Paul II named a commission to investigate again the Galileo affair; after the work of Galileo commission was completed, Pope John Paul IIās discourse to the Pontifical Academy of science in 1992 stated that Galileoās sufferings at the hands of some individuals and church institutions were tragic and inescapable, and a consequence of a mutual incomprehension in those times between church theologians and the new scientists such as Galileo. To be clear, science as we know it was just being born and not even scientists of those times could comprehend fully what was happening. The Church officially apologized to Galileo in 2000*."
vaticanobservatory.org/research/history-of-astronomy/54-history-of-astronomy/the-galileo-affair/370-the-galileo-affair
My quote is from the Vatican Observatory. The original of JPIIās address (post #160) is at the Vatican. These are both official Church sites while youāre citing an amateur dude with a free blog on (the secular) blogspot.com.
Iām the non-Catholic here, how come youāre the one who is a Catholic yet appears to be arguing against the Vatican? Seriously, whatās going on?
There is no conflict between scientific observations and the possibility that earth is in a preferred location. There is a conflict between scriptures, Church teaching, and scientific ASSUMPTIONS (isotropy, homogeneity, etc.), but that is not protected by the Church. Only scientific demonstration is protected, and should be.
Even if JPII did apologize (which I do not think actually happened, this was the NY Times headline), it is very unclear for what. Perhaps for his treatment. That is not the same as the Church declaring he was correct, only that he should have been allowed to express his opinion, perhaps (as future popes allowed astronomers in the 19th century).
I am not arguing against the Vatican. Itās authoritative declarations on this topic are very clear. No direct refutations of this have been forthcoming, to the frustration of many Catholics (including Dr. Coyne of the Vatican Observatory who was disappointed about JPIIās speech in 1992, saying it did not go far enough to clear up the issue). Why would the Church act against the Scriptures and past popes, when in fact the Copernican Principle is being challenged by the scientific community based on very powerful evidence against it? The Church is wise (guided by the Holy Spirit), and is not against just waiting to see where the evidence leads.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I gently request that you provide book, chapter, and verse for the āscripturesā you are referring to in post 168. Hope to hear from you. Thank you.
H
hildegaard
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
John Paul II did not say that Galileo was right about what he taught, because that was " proven " only by Issac Newton. He had not demonstrated that the sun was the center of the universe. John Paul IIās emphases was a criticism of the method employed by theologians of the time and of course of the Inquisition system as employed. You seem to relish putting as black an interpretation on the foibles of the Church as possible.
And I ask you as well, what good did the apology do? Not much judging from the fact that the secular world still canāt let it go. Todayās science texts are full of condemnations still, and the university professors never let an opportunity pass to take a swing. And then there are the Pied Pipers of modern Cosmology who are constantly bringing it up.
And have any of these people bothered to point out that Galileo never demonstrated the validity of the Copernican system? Have any of them apologized for the errors of Newton, presumably corrected by Einstein? And are they absolutely certain that we have the truth even now. No. But never mind, the Inquisition punished the great Galileo, that is all that matters. And that appears to be all that matters to you as well.
Never mind that if it hadnāt been for the Church there would never have been a university system in the first place, there would never have been a Copernicus or a Galileo or a Newton evenā¦
Linus2nd
P
pnewton
Guest
There is no contradiction. The statement in the article that the passage can not be interpreted phenomenalogically is just that, a statement. It is not a fact and one can most assuredly ignore the statement as false and use Catholic understanding of Scripture and interpret this using phenomenalogical language. This is not really all that hard.
M
Muzhik
Guest
Two things you also have to keep in mind when discussing Galileo:
In Galileoās day, Theology was the dominion of the Dominicans. If he had studied with the Dominicans and gotten their sign-off on his theological writings, things might have been different. But he didnāt get their sign-off and so stepped on some mighty important toes.
Still, he might have gotten away with only a censure if he had āwatched his language.ā By that I mean, if Galileo had published his work in Latin, it would have been read only by other intellectuals and professors, who would have published their own criticisms of his work, and heliocentrism would have worked its way into acceptance. But Galileo DIDNāT publish his work in Latin; he published it in Italian. Italian was the lingua franca of the day, the international language of commerce, like English is today.
The effect was like Stephen Hawking publishing a radical new theory of relativity in the New York Post, without the academic review a scientific journal uses. By publishing it in Italian, the work could be read by any merchant from Germany, or France, or even England. Never mind the astronomy ā the theology in the book would be read by people who didnāt have the background to understand many of the concepts and ideas, leading to confusion and possibly heresy. And it was published by someone who was generally known to have good standing in the papal court.
That good standing didnāt last long. Galileoās enemies in the papal court were able to convince the Pope that by publishing this work in Italian, Galileo was directly challenging the authority of the Church. Galileo was soon being tried in a court based on the contents of the book, both the astronomy AND the theology. Since the astronomy and theology were bound together (literally), Galileo could not renounce one without renouncing the other. By binding the two together and not āwatching his languageā, his heliocentric views were condemned along with his theology.
The enemies of the Church like to point out that Galileo spent the rest of his life in house arrest. It was a truly horrendous punishment: he was living in a house by the Bay of Naples, where only 14 rooms had a view of the ocean. He was limited in the number of his visitors at any one time, usually only 10 or 12 for dinner, where they would spend the evenings in discussions and arguments. And he couldnāt leave his house, except for 3 times a year so he could visit his daughter, who had taken vows and lived in a nearby convent.
So given the events, Iām not sure any apology is necessary.
- He got into trouble for teaching without a license, and
- He didnāt watch his ālanguage.ā
In Galileoās day, Theology was the dominion of the Dominicans. If he had studied with the Dominicans and gotten their sign-off on his theological writings, things might have been different. But he didnāt get their sign-off and so stepped on some mighty important toes.
Still, he might have gotten away with only a censure if he had āwatched his language.ā By that I mean, if Galileo had published his work in Latin, it would have been read only by other intellectuals and professors, who would have published their own criticisms of his work, and heliocentrism would have worked its way into acceptance. But Galileo DIDNāT publish his work in Latin; he published it in Italian. Italian was the lingua franca of the day, the international language of commerce, like English is today.
The effect was like Stephen Hawking publishing a radical new theory of relativity in the New York Post, without the academic review a scientific journal uses. By publishing it in Italian, the work could be read by any merchant from Germany, or France, or even England. Never mind the astronomy ā the theology in the book would be read by people who didnāt have the background to understand many of the concepts and ideas, leading to confusion and possibly heresy. And it was published by someone who was generally known to have good standing in the papal court.
That good standing didnāt last long. Galileoās enemies in the papal court were able to convince the Pope that by publishing this work in Italian, Galileo was directly challenging the authority of the Church. Galileo was soon being tried in a court based on the contents of the book, both the astronomy AND the theology. Since the astronomy and theology were bound together (literally), Galileo could not renounce one without renouncing the other. By binding the two together and not āwatching his languageā, his heliocentric views were condemned along with his theology.
The enemies of the Church like to point out that Galileo spent the rest of his life in house arrest. It was a truly horrendous punishment: he was living in a house by the Bay of Naples, where only 14 rooms had a view of the ocean. He was limited in the number of his visitors at any one time, usually only 10 or 12 for dinner, where they would spend the evenings in discussions and arguments. And he couldnāt leave his house, except for 3 times a year so he could visit his daughter, who had taken vows and lived in a nearby convent.
So given the events, Iām not sure any apology is necessary.
G
grannymh
Guest
I am familiar with that website. Thank you. You certainly may use it.
However, please note that so far I have not found a Catholic geocentrism doctrine specifically proclaimed as a Scripture quote on that website.
Naturally, that website has plenty of interpretations of Scripture. Individuals may choose whatever Scripture fits their position. There are a number of interpretations geared to geocentrism. But again, interpretations geared to geocentricism are not the same as a major Catholic Church Ecumenical Council.
What I would like to know is ā Does the geocentrism proposal intersect any Catholic doctrine?
H
hildegaard
Guest
The Catholic Church, until recent years, has interpreted the scriptures FIRST as literal, then, looked for secondary meanings in other categories (i.e., symbolic, typological, etc.). The rule generally is that unless there is a specific reason, one should take the words at face value. You cannot just say, well, this verse does not match current scientific ASSUMPTIONS, so therefore I am going to interpret it as symbolic. That is nonsense.
And with Joshua 10 you run into logical errors if you try and say, well God just stopped the rotation of the earth. In that case, the sun and moon still have relative velocities and would have moved apart over the several hours noted. The Holy Spirit ādictatedā that the sun and moon were stopped, not that the earth was stopped rotating and the sun and moon were stopped. And you cannot just say it was a miracle, because the Holy Spirit supplied the author with reasons- the sun was stopped and the moon was stopped.
Are we in a crisis of faith today, that we throw the Church under the bus to not feel embarrassed towards mainly atheistic scientists and their ASSUMPTIONS?
H
hildegaard
Guest
I would suggest reading these articles:
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html
veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/geocentricity-101-supplement.html
H
hildegaard
Guest
That is a nice story, but does not get around the official and authoritative actions taken against Galileo, and on this whole cosmology and scriptures issue. Ascribing petty motives is really very insulting to the former popes involved. They are in heaven looking down now, remember.Two things you also have to keep in mind when discussing Galileo:
- He got into trouble for teaching without a license, and
- He didnāt watch his ālanguage.ā
- Status