P
PRmerger
Guest
What “official” actions were taken against Galileo? Do you mean something proposed officially in the area of faith and morals regarding him?
- Status
M
Muzhik
Guest
I don’t see anything “petty” in the papal actions. All leaders must depend on the information they are given to make decisions; that’s why it’s so essential to have advisors that won’t try to color or slant the information they provide.
(As an example of “slanting”, Henry Kissinger advised President Nixon to cut off all aid to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, because he “wanted to teach the Israelis a lesson.”
Galileo was no young buck fighting the system. He was an accomplished researcher and author whose works revolutionized science, and he knew how to play the patronage game. (I.e., he knew who and how to schmooze to get the government grants.) I can only ascribe arrogance to Galileo’s actions: by not publishing in Latin, the language of science, he prevented other scholars from taking is ideas and either expanding on them or debating them. To think that the Popes were not aware of that and of the major ramifications his actions implied (“If we don’t act now and decisively, the next thing you know some priest is nailing heretical statements to the door of his church”) and relegate the Popes’ actions to being “petty” is in itself a grave insult to the Popes.
P
pnewton
Guest
They are? I must have missed a lot of canonizations somewhere.
H
hildegaard
Guest
I guess I am giving them the benefit of the doubt.
P
pnewton
Guest
The discussion was the language used, and quite frankly, I do not agree with this. Let me interject a little Catholic dogma here:
However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers**, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.** (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert,** due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another**
Verbum Die.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
But this article is by a highly qualified astro-physicist:
Originally Posted by Ashok K. Singal
Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?
Ashok K. Singal
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions.
The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
Linus2nd
H
hildegaard
Guest
The links posted here outline it pretty well:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12105056&postcount=176
And I said Galileo and this whole cosmology issue, not just Galileo.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah. I see, then. Thanks.
H
hildegaard
Guest
That is all fine, but it does not say anywhere there to reject the obvious meaning of words and take as symbolic that which conflicts with ASSUMPTIONS of modern science to keep from being embarrassed.
Suire you have to take into account what the author wanted to assert, but you also ahve to take into account that the author was “dictated” to by the Holy Spirit.
Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, and Denzinger’s 1951):
“For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”
Last I checked, the Holy Spirit does not lie.
And from Vatican I:
“…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…”
P
pnewton
Guest
No, I do not. Verbum Dei is sufficient. It is dogma. Is the Bible inerrant? Yes, but nothing forbids phenomenalogical language.
I do not think anyone in their right mind takes the “rising sun” to mean that the sun goes around the earth as the “obvious meaning of words”.
I thought I had all this stuff behind me when I became Catholic and didn’t need to worry about the KJV only folks any more.
Hey, if the Church comes out and supports all the geocentrism stuff, I will listen. Until then, I will relegate it to the fringe I believe it so rightly deserves. I believe it as logical as belief in humor, the four elements and other forms of ignorance I thought we put behind us long ago.
Movie producers do.
H
hildegaard
Guest
Correct, it is phenomenological in the geocentric and heliocentric systems. In the geocentric, the sun goes around the earth and in the heliocentric it is the spin of the earth that appears to cause the sun to go around the earth. Only in Hildegard of Bingen’s geocentrism, maybe you could talk about a literal sun rising.
This is one case that one could perhaps ascribe some phenomenological meaning. But, still it talks about the sun moving, not the earth rotating, and that is still a key point. There is no reason not to consider that. The scriptures support stationary earth, kinetic sun over many, many verses with no exceptions (except perhaps in scriptures relating to the end of the world, where earth trembling movement is talked about).
H
hildegaard
Guest
Do you ignore everything that does not happen today on TV? The Church expended considerable effort on the geocentrism stuff over a few centuries.
H
hildegaard
Guest
It is not a compromise. The bit about the earth going around the sun was a quote from Lawrence Krauss. That is an interpretation of his. The more basic observation is that the signals are correlated to the ecliptic and equinoxes. So this could be ascribed to the earth or the solar system. Lawrence Krauss’ personal preference is expressed in how he stated the fact. I would say it is more proper to say the earth, because the orientation of the ecliptic and equinoxes are unique to the earth; though related to the sun secondarily.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Are you saying that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun? If so, how did you get that conclusion from that article?
G
grannymh
Guest
I do believe that my question has been misunderstood. My apology if I were not clear.
This is my question from post 174.–
“Does the geocentrism proposal intersect any Catholic doctrine?”
In my humble opinion, in order to answer the question properly, one has to first present the specific Catholic doctrine. For example. One needs to find a geocentrism point which intersects with a specific Catholic doctrine such as the existence of God as the Maker of heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1) I truly doubt that those two links devoted to geocentrism would dare to say that it denies any Catholic doctrine. I could be wrong.
In any case, you can forget my dumb question.
H
hildegaard
Guest
Will you listen to the Catechism of Trent?I do believe that my question has been misunderstood. My apology if I were not clear.
This is my question from post 174.–
“Does the geocentrism proposal intersect any Catholic doctrine?”
In my humble opinion, in order to answer the question properly, one has to first present the specific Catholic doctrine. For example. One needs to find a geocentrism point which intersects with a specific Catholic doctrine such as the existence of God as the Maker of heaven and earth. (Genesis 1:1) I truly doubt that those two links devoted to geocentrism would dare to say that it denies any Catholic doctrine. I could be wrong.
In any case, you can forget my dumb question.
" The words " heaven" and " earth" include all things which the heavens and
the earth contain ; for, besides the heavens, which the Prophet
called " the work of his fingers," 5 he also gave to the sun its
brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty : and that they
may be " for signs and for seasons, for days and for years," 8** he
so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course,
that nothing varies more their continual revolution**, yet nothing
more fixed than that variety. "
"The earth, also, God commanded to stand in the midst of the
world, rooted in its own foundation, and " made the mountains
to ascend, and the plains to descend into the place which he had
founded for them." "
“Does the sun, by his light, do the other heavenly bodies, by the harmony of their motions, minister to man ?”
archive.org/stream/thecatechismofth00donouoft/thecatechismofth00donouoft_djvu.txt
R
Rick09
Guest
I’ve been away for some time and had to shake my head to see this at the CAF. These are the people we’re supposed to listen to? Really? 
Some Background on the New Geocentrists
Geocentrism and the Catholic Church
The Magisterium Rules: The Debate Is Over
Some Background on the New Geocentrists
Geocentrism and the Catholic Church
The Magisterium Rules: The Debate Is Over
R
Rick09
Guest
I found this website back a few weeks ago and have been reading it. It’s well done, even though I can’t believe it’s necessary in this day and age to spend this much time turning people away from such bunk and hucksterism. I’m still shaking my head that anyone listens to the people behind geocentrism. It’s a pattern with these people. They’re the Alex Joneses of “science”.
Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10
Geocentrism and the Pitfalls of Over-literal Interpretation
R
Rick09
Guest
I’ve been away for some time and had to shake my head to see this at the CAF. These are the people we’re supposed to listen to? Really?
I found the debunking geocentrism website back a few weeks ago after all the media coverage and have been reading it off an on. It’s well done, even though I can’t believe it’s necessary in this day and age to spend this much time turning people away from such bunk and hucksterism. I’m still shaking my head that anyone listens to the people behind geocentrism. These people are the Alex Joneses of “science”.
Some Background on the New Geocentrists
Geocentrism and the Catholic Church
The Magisterium Rules: The Debate Is Over
I found the debunking geocentrism website back a few weeks ago after all the media coverage and have been reading it off an on. It’s well done, even though I can’t believe it’s necessary in this day and age to spend this much time turning people away from such bunk and hucksterism. I’m still shaking my head that anyone listens to the people behind geocentrism. These people are the Alex Joneses of “science”.
Some Background on the New Geocentrists
Geocentrism and the Catholic Church
The Magisterium Rules: The Debate Is Over
- Status