Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[cassini]

First read what Cardinal Bellarmine said in 1615:

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

We know all but a few have denied God’s word that the world is geocentric. We know all but a few deny the fact that it is impossible to tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or the earth relative to the sun. Most accept relativity but reject its consequences. Most ridicule those who accept relativity as a fact and geocentricism as a consequence of this fact.

But most interesting of all is that the Virgin Birth is now under a similar denial. Once one rejects one interpretation of the Fathers, one cannot guarantee any other.

 

[thistle]

First read what Cardinal Bellarmine said in 1615:

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

We know all but a few have denied God’s word that the world is geocentric. We know all but a few deny the fact that it is impossible to tell if the sun moves relative to the earth or the earth relative to the sun. Most accept relativity but reject its consequences. Most ridicule those who accept relativity as a fact and geocentricism as a consequence of this fact.

But most interesting of all is that the Virgin Birth is now under a similar denial. Once one rejects one interpretation of the Fathers, one cannot guarantee any other.

The Church nor any of its cardinals have any authority to talk infallibly on scientific matters so it is irrelevant what any of them say about geocentrism. It is simply their opinion which we do not have to accept.

I’m a bit confused about your last paragraph. Who is denying the virgin birth?

On the Church Fathers their opinion is not always doctrine anyway. For example, Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is now dogma (it wasn’t in the time of Aquinas).

 

[MarcoPolo]

While I appreciate cassini’s continued fire for the faith, I think it’s of importance to include the following paragraph in that same letter by Cardinal Bellarmine:

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to* proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures** that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.*The physical structure of the solar system was not at that time observable as it is now. It thus is not a matter of “faith.”

 

[cassini]

The Church nor any of its cardinals have any authority to talk infallibly on scientific matters so it is irrelevant what any of them say about geocentrism. It is simply their opinion which we do not have to accept.

I’m a bit confused about your last paragraph. Who is denying the virgin birth?

On the Church Fathers their opinion is not always doctrine anyway. For example, Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is now dogma (it wasn’t in the time of Aquinas).

The Cardinal here is not writing on scientific matters but on scriptural interpretation that does contain infallible teachings. I put up this thread mainly to show how any attack on the traditional understanding of the Scriptures has knock on effects. Here Bellarmine states quite clearly that there are truths that have as their basis scriptural revelation. Deny one, he say, and you pave the way to deny other truths. Up to his time all Christians accepted that the Scriptures reveal Abraham had two sons, the world is geocentric, and the virgin birth was a miraculous one that left Mary complete in her virginity.

It was the Catholic heretics who introduced their ‘science’ that began this assault on Catholic Scriptural exegesis. This continued with uniformitarianism and evolutionism. Today everything is up for ‘reinterpretation’.

I have in my hand a newspaper full of opinions on the virgin birth. Most do not believe its literal meaning from the Scriptures, many so-called Catholics included.

The Immaculate Conception was never a unanimous understanding of all the Fathers, geocentricism and the Virgin Birth were. This unanimous opinion was once held as a sign of infallibility, but that too has now been consigned to the dustbin by ‘science’.

 

[cassini]

While I appreciate cassini’s continued fire for the faith, I think it’s of importance to include the following paragraph in that same letter by Cardinal Bellarmine:

Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to** proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures** that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false.The physical structure of the solar system was not at that time observable as it is now. It thus is not a matter of “faith.”

Here again is another perversion of Bellarmine’s teaching. They (the Copernican heretics) took out this one passage of a long letter and tried to use it for their purposes. It betrays the letter as a whole in that in context it shows Bellarmine was merely addressing the so-called proofs that Galileo had to show the Fathers etc., were interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly. It was written in the present tense but was/is presented as Bellarmine supposedly writing in a future tense. Anyone reading what Bellarmine said before this passage and especially after this passage would see it in the spirit that it was written. It is well documented that before he wrote this letter Bellarmine was convinced a fixed sun was heresy, and after the Church defined and declared it formal heresy one year later Bellarmine again enforced its new status as a pontifical defined heresy.

I Note Marco ends with the same attack on Scripotural exegesis as Galileo. Could one find a better confirmation of the point I am trying to get accross on this thread that it was so-called ‘science’ that caused ‘Modernism’ inside the Catholic Church, that ‘synthesis of all heresies’ that can reinterpret dogmas, doctrines and Catholic theology to make them mean anything.

 

[thistle]

The Cardinal here is not writing on scientific matters but on scriptural interpretation that does contain infallible teachings. I put up this thread mainly to show how any attack on the traditional understanding of the Scriptures has knock on effects. Here Bellarmine states quite clearly that there are truths that have as their basis scriptural revelation. Deny one, he say, and you pave the way to deny other truths. Up to his time all Christians accepted that the Scriptures reveal Abraham had two sons, the world is geocentric, and the virgin birth was a miraculous one that left Mary complete in her virginity.

It was the Catholic heretics who introduced their ‘science’ that began this assault on Catholic Scriptural exegesis. This continued with uniformitarianism and evolutionism. Today everything is up for ‘reinterpretation’.

I have in my hand a newspaper full of opinions on the virgin birth. Most do not believe its literal meaning from the Scriptures, many so-called Catholics included.

The Immaculate Conception was never a unanimous understanding of all the Fathers, geocentricism and the Virgin Birth were. This unanimous opinion was once held as a sign of infallibility, but that too has now been consigned to the dustbin by ‘science’.

The Church has never infallibly taught that the earth is the centre of the universe irrespective of what the Fathers opinions were and just because the Fathers on whatever topic all had a similar opinion did not by default make that an infallible teaching.

You think people deny the virgin birth because you’ve read a few opinions in a newspaper??
“Many so-called Catholics”? How many out of the 1.2 billion is that?

 

[ConallCernach]

Geocentrism isn’t part of the Apostles’ Creed. The Virgin Birth is.

End of story.

 

[cassini]

The Church has never infallibly taught that the earth is the centre of the universe irrespective of what the Fathers opinions were and just because the Fathers on whatever topic all had a similar opinion did not by default make that an infallible teaching.

You think people deny the virgin birth because you’ve read a few opinions in a newspaper??
“Many so-called Catholics”? How many out of the 1.2 billion is that?

In 1633 Pope Urban VIII made it known that the papal decision defining a fixed Sun as Formal Heresy was ‘immutable’. This was of course long before the dogma on infallibility itself was defined so it was the language used up to 1870. In 1820, again this immutible papal definition was upheld by Pope Pius VIII. No abrogation of this definition has ever been enacted by the Church supporting its ‘immutability.’

So, either the Church is not infallible (having made an incorrect ‘immutable’ doctrine that has been shown to be false) or
the 1616 decree must be upheld as true.

No doubt you and other Copernicans know better and want others to follow your teaching and not theirs.

I have no doubt the dogma of the Virgin birth is now denied by millions, like all the other doctrines destropyed by ‘science’.

 

[ConallCernach]

In 1633 Pope Urban VIII made it known that the papal decision defining a fixed Sun as Formal Heresy was ‘immutable’. This was of course long before the dogma on infallibility itself was defined so it was the language used up to 1870. In 1820, again this immutible papal definition was upheld by Pope Pius VIII. No abrogation of this definition has ever been enacted by the Church supporting its ‘immutability.’

So, either the Church is not infallible (having made an incorrect ‘immutable’ doctrine that has been shown to be false) or
the 1616 decree must be upheld as true.

No doubt you and other Copernicans know better and want others to follow your teaching and not theirs.

I have no doubt the dogma of the Virgin birth is now denied by millions, like all the other doctrines destropyed by ‘science’.

Heliocentrism doesn’t teach that the sun doesn’t move. It’s still moving, but the earth is moving in relation to the sun.

 

[cassini]

Heliocentrism doesn’t teach that the sun doesn’t move. It’s still moving, but the earth is moving in relation to the sun.

Is that a fact or an interpretation of relativity. Look, all this nonsense and excuses were thrashed out in 1820. What was found contrary to scripture and thus heresy was to say that the sun does not orbit the earth.

Worm your way out of that then Conall.

 

[MarcoPolo]

In 1633 Pope Urban VIII made it known that the papal decision defining a fixed Sun as Formal Heresy was ‘immutable’.

Which document is this from?

 

[ConallCernach]

Is that a fact or an interpretation of relativity.

After the big bang, the universe expands, it is continuing to expand. The milky way galaxy is speeding away from the other galaxies. The Sun is part of the milky way galaxy which is moving. Therefore the sun is moving.

 

[cassini]

Which document is this from?

 The Congregation, having so far carried out the Pope’s orders, dismissed him to his place: The next day Galileo was summoned to the convent of the Minerva; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence was pronounced:’

‘… “And to the end,” said the document, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.”
And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question.
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Thus the declaration of the Index, for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed, was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence.
. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture

 

[cassini]

After the big bang, the universe expands, it is continuing to expand. The milky way galaxy is speeding away from the other galaxies. The Sun is part of the milky way galaxy which is moving. Therefore the sun is moving.

Is that in Scripture or a theory based on the red-light blue-light phenomenon?

 

[MarcoPolo]

‘… “And to the end,” said the document, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.”

This is from the tribunal ordering Gallileo to stop teaching his position publicly. I’m asking for the document of Pope Urban’s that says the teaching of a fixed sun was “immutable” as you earlier had in quotations.

 

[ConallCernach]

Is that in Scripture or a theory based on the red-light blue-light phenomenon?

This is from the idea of when things blow up, they push things away.

 

[Luke65]

Here again is another perversion of Bellarmine’s teaching. They (the Copernican heretics) took out this one passage of a long letter and tried to use it for their purposes. It betrays the letter as a whole in that in context it shows Bellarmine was merely addressing the so-called proofs that Galileo had to show the Fathers etc., were interpreting the Scriptures incorrectly. It was written in the present tense but was/is presented as Bellarmine supposedly writing in a future tense. Anyone reading what Bellarmine said before this passage and especially after this passage would see it in the spirit that it was written.

Exactly, including the fact that St. Bellarmine did write in the future tense when he said that he didn’t believe geocentrism would ever be falsified. His “prophecy” has proven true.

In 1633 Pope Urban VIII made it known that the papal decision defining a fixed Sun as Formal Heresy was ‘immutable’. This was of course long before the dogma on infallibility itself was defined so it was the language used up to 1870. In 1820, again this immutible papal definition was upheld by Pope Pius VIII. No abrogation of this definition has ever been enacted by the Church supporting its ‘immutability.’

Those are the facts.

 

[Luke65]

After the big bang, the universe expands, it is continuing to expand.

There was no “big bang”, as mainstream science teaches. God told us how He created the universe - see “the Bible”. But yes, the universe was expanded and is apparently still expanding - just not from a singularity:

“He made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.” (Jeremiah 51:15)

The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him… (Zechariah 12:1)

 

[ConallCernach]

There was no “big bang”, as mainstream science teaches. God told us how He created the universe - see “the Bible”. But yes, the universe was expanded and is apparently still expanding - just not from a singularity:

If the hypothesis of the primevil atom was contradictory to Catholicism I’m sure Fr. Georges wouldn’t have published, or would have dropped his faith.

 

[cassini]

This is from the tribunal ordering Gallileo to stop teaching his position publicly. I’m asking for the document of Pope Urban’s that says the teaching of a fixed sun was “immutable” as you earlier had in quotations.

“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

I could not count the posts that defy this teaching of the magisterium.

Marco. How well you see only what you want to see. Yes the part you quote is the 1616 decree. But surely you read on? The part I quote above is the decision of the 1633 Church. The pope then ordered this decision sent to ALL Inquisitions in the Catholic world so that all Catholics would know what Rome had decided.

See it explicitedly says the 1616 decree was immutable and could NEVER be held as probable.