Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[cassini]

Relativity does not support this idea of yours that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

You need to understand acceleration and centripetal force. A mass like the sun would not be captured by the earth’s gravity. It is too massive to change direction continuously to form a circular orbit around the earth. It would require a huge force to make the sun do that, much larger than the force of the Earth’s gravity. What do you suppose provides that force?

It doesn’t make much sense.

Neil, Relativity does allow as a possibility that the sun orbits the earth. According it does ‘support’ a geocentric earth as far as it goes.

You argue using Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. You cannot dismiss geocentrism using heliocentric physics. Do you not understand this?

 

[cassini]

No one has suggested this. Yet he was not infallible in all his statements. He was not divine. He also only had a seventeenth century understanding of science. These obvious facts in no way disparage the man. However, this whole thread shows the danger of sola tradition, in which each Catholic interprets tradition for himself. The Catholic Church does not disdain all Church teaching from the first to the seventeenth century as some have suggested. Most of the Catholic doctrine taught today originated in this time. But neither does the Catholic Church stagnate at any time.

pnewton, sorry for delay. I agree that no Father nor doctor is immune from making mistakes. But in this case Bellarmine knew what he was talking about. This was confirmed when Pope Paul V defined and declared as FINAL, that the earth did not orbit the sun. Thus his opinion on this and his book (still in print) remain an inspiration to mankind. Copernicans, on principle, undermine his opinion here as the most senior Churchman next to the Pope and render his book as fantasy.

Bellarmine was interest in astronomy and I credit him with the first public recognition of relativity. In his letter to Foscarini 1615, we find:

'And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.
I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness. From my house, April 12, 1615,
Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine

 

[cassini]

Geocentricism is NOT a Church teaching and Catholics do NOT have to believe it.

thistle, let me give you a fair answer to this profound question. In essence, geocentricism IS a defined and declared papal decision. This was confirmed by the Church twice, in 1633 and 1820. It was declared as formal heresy.

But this heresy was different. It was chosen by the Devil because it was different. The heresy came under the following principle:

‘. 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.’

Because of these double edged conditions, probably the only one of its kind in the history of the Church, it was not contradictable on faith, but open to contradiction in its subject matter. It was this that led to the crisis from 1741 to 1835. Alas, Churchmen fell for the fraud that Heliocentricism was proven so the crisis became very serious indeed.

Now there are two way such legislation can be interferred with, it can be abrogated or derogated.
(A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done.
(B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way.

Now this presented the Church of 1741 and 1820 with an impossible decision. Because it was a papal definition and declaration it was immutable, but this one was perceived to be a false one. But even in its chaos the Holy Ghost was still protecting the Church with its divine guidance. In the end that Churchmen involved derogated the decree out of sight. This they had the divine power to do. But they had no power to abrogate the decree without admitting to an original error. The crisis was avoided when:

Finoccchiaro records the outcome of it all.

‘On December first, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, B. Garofalo and Bartolomeo Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the documentary trail is lost. But not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ — Retrying Galileo, p.198.

‘Without explicit comment’! Again we see the Holy Ghost at work, there being no attempt to deny an ‘irreversible’ papal decree. ‘Hell’ Christ promised, ‘would not prevail against the Church’, and here is evidence to prove that divine protection. While His elect were insisting Copernicanism was orthodox and fit for an imprimatur in order that the church would not appear to be contradicting ‘science’ - the consequences of which Pope Urban VIII said ‘would put the Catholic faith in danger’ - the solemn pontifical decree of Pope Paul V remained safe from ‘official’ denial.

Copernicanism then was in effect demoted from formal heresy to material heresy by virtue of the derogation. Material heresy is where the person intends no contradiction to Church teaching in his or her belief. Under the impression science has proven H, the Copernican feels he or her has no choice but to reject the 1616 decree.

But the principle remains. The Church is perceived as having made an error while defining and declaring on a matter of faith. there are those of us who now - against huge odds - try to reassure Catholics that no such error exists. Alas, faith in science has now surpassed faith in faith. This forum and various threads prove this.

So, we must admit, in a way Catholics are not obliged to accept the decree as it stands derogated. However, should a future pope reverse this error, - which I doubt before the final judgement - it could once again become an obligation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Neil, Relativity does allow as a possibility that the sun orbits the earth. According it does ‘support’ a geocentric earth as far as it goes.

You argue using Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. You cannot dismiss geocentrism using heliocentric physics. Do you not understand this?

i can dismiss it with these excellent photos taken from voyager as it left the solar system

 

[Luke65]

sorry, the earth is circling the sun, regardless of the model you claim geocentrism is falsified by observation…keep wiggling though, im getting a good laugh at the crackpottery:whacky:

Oh my poor brother, you really should educate yourself before you rage against those of us who know the truth - better yet, don’t rage at all! How do you know the pictures show the earth rotating around the sun and not the sun rotating around the earth? Answer: You don’t. The pictures will look exactly the same either way. And any honest scientist will tell you that - if it’s not common sense. The only thing those pictures prove is that Ptolemy was wrong, which everybody already knew. That should be your first clue as to why NASA didn’t claim that they had falsified geocentrism. Wake up!

i dont care about philosophy, or anything else in regard to this subject, only that geocentrism is proven false

Well, you said a mouthful there. The only thing you care about is proving that a decree of the Catholic Church was in error. Even the heathen confess that they can’t prove the Church was in error - but not you.

Here is wisdom: 400 years ago a canonical court and a pope of the Catholic Church officially declared that the sun rotates around an immobile earth, and to say otherwise was heresy. At the time, Cardinal Bellarmine predicted that the Church’s position would never be falsified. 400 years later modern science has revealed that the Church’s position can never be falsified. So, did the Church just get LUCKY?!! Is this just an incredible coincidence?! No! The Lord has done this and it is wonderful in our eyes! :bowdown:

And then there is this:

White on the Doctrine of Geocentricism
…
Pictured by Dante… the three great order of angels in heaven, as real as the three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth;

So, the three great orders in the Church Militant are bishops, priests, and deacons. While the three great orders in the universe are stars, planets, and moons. Thus, bishops are represented by stars, priests by planets, and deacons by moons.

“The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches… To the angel [bishop] of the church in Smyrna write…” (Revelation 1:20,8)

Now, who is the center of this Creation? Answer: Jesus Christ - Son of God, Son of Man - all things are under Him. Is Christ a bishop? No. Is Christ a deacon? No. Is Christ a priest? Yes! But not just any priest:

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. (Hebrews 4:14)

Now, what is the center of the universe? Answer: Planet Earth, the High Priest of the universe!

Love the truth, it’s much more beautiful than the lie.

 

[mich2]

how is that bad? that removes voyager from any relationship with the solar system allowing the pics to show the entire system, with multiple data points to plot the orbits, the earth orbits the sun, as do all the planets.

There is absolutely nothing wrong nor bad with this frame of reference. The question is why are other frames concidered false?
The pictures were taken in such a way that the sun was shown as being stationnary. Do you beleive the sun is stationnary? I don’t. Therefore the picture doesn’t
capture the true reality of the situation does it?
But where, in the universe could we claim a place to be really at rest ? Nowhere. For this reason, everything is measured according to relative positions (place of rest) that we call a frame of reference.
It is said to be sun centered in this case.
Again, I repeat myself. This particular prefered frame of reference shows a much less complex
relative movement existing between the sun and planets which is why it is prefered, and yes, scientific laws of nature can be more easily discovered when using such a model.

However,if a bullet, which was first at rest relative to the gun, is given a momentum of 100 miles/hr relative to the gun, and passes by a car moving at 50 miles/hr.,
would the observer in the car claim the bullet’s velocity was 100 miles/hr just because the gun was the cause of it’s momentum?Or would the observer in the car, rather refer himself as being stationnary in claiming the bullet to have a velocity of 50 miles/hr instead?

we have observational evidence, geocentrism is proven false.

Again, geocentrism is mearly a different frame of reference, just as valid as the heliocentric one for observation purposes.
How would you respond to Dr. Fred Hoyle’s comment?

i dont care about philosophy, or anything else in regard to this subject, only that geocentrism is proven false

ok; but if geocentrism is clearly a false way to look at the universe, then why is it that everything in the universe is catalogued according to the geocentric frame of reference?

the pictures tell the whole truth.

But pictures can be taken from earth as well…why would those be false? While there is nothing wrong in using the heliocentric model even from the observation we get from earth, and allow movement to the earth instead, which is what Copernicus did, there is also nothing wrong in claiming that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Both can be used; the former for scientific reasoning, and the latter for a philosophical point of view.
The problem in not allowing the geocentric view to exist, would be similar to state that colours do not exist, but are simply gross interpretation of what the eyes identify light to be; whereas light is really made of photons having different energy levels. One is not more real, nor better than the other. The first reveals a philosophical view of light whereas the latter is a scientic view.

Andre

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh my poor brother, you really should educate yourself before you rage against those of us who know the truth - better yet, don’t rage at all!

its not rage its laughter, big difference

How do you know the pictures show the earth rotating around the sun and not the sun rotating around the earth? Answer: You don’t. The pictures will look exactly the same either way. And any honest scientist will tell you that - if it’s not common sense. The only thing those pictures prove is that Ptolemy was wrong, which everybody already knew. That should be your first clue as to why NASA didn’t claim that they had falsified geocentrism. Wake up!

because we can plot multiple data points from the photos, that data shows the earth orbits the sun. the pictures falsify geocentrism

Well, you said a mouthful there. The only thing you care about is proving that a decree of the Catholic Church was in error. Even the heathen confess that they can’t prove the Church was in error - but not you.

photos dont lie the church was wrong, and they admitted it in 1992.

400 years later modern science has revealed that the Church’s position can never be falsified.

funny because the pictures from voyager are from outside the solar system, and they falsify geocentrism

Now, who is the center of this Creation? Answer: Jesus Christ - Son of God, Son of Man - all things are under Him.

the only true thing you have said so far

Now, what is the center of the universe? Answer: Planet Earth, the High Priest of the universe!

funny, but the photos prove that is not true

Love the truth, it’s much more beautiful than the lie

i do, that is why i like these pics, they show the truth, no matter how one tries to twist it.

 

[Mintaka]

You do know that St. Albert the Great fought hard for the principle that there was only one Truth, and that scientific truths and discoveries come from Jesus the Truth? That if Scripture seems to be contradicted by scientific discovery, it doesn’t mean that you twist or segregate science, but that you reinterpret Scripture in the light of this new evidence from God? (And vice versa, of course.)

But let’s go farther back. You know that the Church Fathers, back to the earliest Christians, were great fans of science? That they advocated astronomy and mathematics as preludes to scripture study, on the grounds that the arts and sciences opened and broadened the mind? That the Church copied and recopied the science-friendly Greek philosophers? That it loved to use the astronomical and scientific knowledge of the day as illustrations of the greatness of God the Creator to refute Gnostic hatred of matter? That they fought hard to find what was true in order to worship Truth, which was one of their favorite names for Jesus?

The letter by Cardinal Bellarmino that you quote is part of a very complicated theological and pastoral discussion, and the positions of all the people in it changed as new data came to light and new interpretations were advanced. The Church’s whole quarrel with Galileo was that, without sufficient evidence and corroboration of his theories (some of which were demonstrably wrong), he wanted to force scriptural and theological interpretation into a path chosen by Galileo alone, instead of letting time and other scientists examine his work and theologians work out a sound way to absorb the new data. (Insisting that the Church think your way and your way alone is indeed a heretical way of going about things.) Bellarmino was asked for his professional opinion and he gave it. Others were asked for their opinion also.

However, once geocentrism had been disproved more fully, and once theologians had time to figure out a good interpretation without giving away the store to the heliocentric-hating Protestants who also took an overly literal view, heliocentrism was not only not condemned by the Church, but taught by its many astronomers who were also priests and religious.

New beauties of Biblical interpretation could be seen. Christians had always worshipped toward the East and the coming Bridegroom, the Sun of Justice. Now it could be seen that the entire solar system was a foreshadowing of Christian worship, turning toward and around the Sun. (Of which they are small images and likenesses, too.) Theories of hierarchy and the Great Chain of Being could use the solar system as a very apt illustration. And so on.

You obviously aren’t interested in following that whole argument or in Truth; rather, you pick and choose a letter that you like. This is an insult to the sainted Cardinal, who submitted his judgment always to the Church and to the Truth. He would have rather admitted that he was wrong and rethought his position than have been defended in your manner.

You advance some ridiculous and inelegant theory of the solar system’s construction that is an insult to God as an artist and Creator. You don’t pay attention to just how dubious the math is, and you reject all evidence you don’t like. You mention the Fathers, but you don’t seem to read them or know how they thought. Finally, it’s clear that you’re not interested in listening to the Church’s considered interpretation of Scripture as given by Christ and the Holy Spirit and then developed through the ages. Apparently the Church ended for you at the time of Galileo and hasn’t been studying the Bible at all since then.

The Biblical writers wrote about rain as if it came from a ceiling panel in the sky. Is that what you believe about rain? Do you honestly think that the Biblical writers’ poetic expressions and the notions they had about science must be true, lest they invalidate the Bible, when God had commissioned them to write about Himself and not Meteorology 101? And which version of the Bible do you believe is the science book? The one where it takes ten months for a baby to be born? The translation with the unicorns, or the one with the wild donkeys? Is this how you plan to refute atheists – by telling them to disbelieve Creation in order to believe the Creator?

If you want to believe in some wild conspiracy theory, you can do that without dragging the Bible into it.

If you’re really interested on the interaction between Bible and science, you should go read St. Gregory Thaumaturgus or St. Irenaeus or St. Albert the Great, or the cool bit where the resurrection is illustrated by playing the bar game of dunking flies in water and watching them come back to life. You can read early Christian answers to common objections caused by scientific info or overly literal readings of Scripture. You could look up all the great priest astronomers, and find out how they interpreted the Bible. You could read Fr. Copernicus’ beautiful words on the subject, even.

But only if you love Him Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Only if you wish to know all there is to know about Creation and the creatures in order to glorify the Creator.

 

[pnewton]

. But in this case Bellarmine knew what he was talking about. This was confirmed when Pope Paul V defined and declared as FINAL, that the earth did not orbit the sun. Thus his opinion on this and his book (still in print) remain an inspiration to mankind. Copernicans, on principle, undermine his opinion here as the most senior Churchman next to the Pope and render his book as fantasy.

But the Catholic Church does not agree with this, nor teach this. Check the Catechism. it is simply not Catholic teaching.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is absolutely nothing wrong nor bad with this frame of reference. The question is why are other frames concidered false?
The pictures were taken in such a way that the sun was shown as being stationnary. Do you beleive the sun is stationnary? I don’t. herefore the picture doesn’t
capture the true reality of the situation does it?

it shows the reality of the earth orbiting the sun.

But where, in the universe could we claim a place to be really at rest ? Nowhere. For this reason, everything is measured according to relative positions (place of rest) that we call a frame of reference.

and photos outside this frame of reference show geocentrism is false

It is said to be sun centered in this case.
Again, I repeat myself. This particular prefered frame of reference shows a much less complex
relative movement existing between the sun and planets which is why it is prefered, and yes, scientific laws of nature can be more easily discovered when using such a model.

try applying occams razor, but you dont need to we have pics

However,if a bullet, which was first at rest relative to the gun, is given a momentum of 100 miles/hr relative to the gun, and passes by a car moving at 50 miles/hr.,
would the observer in the car claim the bullet’s velocity was 100 miles/hr just because the gun was the cause of it’s momentum?Or would the observer in the car, rather refer himself as being stationnary in claiming the bullet to have a velocity of 50 miles/hr instead?

no escaping the pictures. relativity has nothing to do with it, the photos were taken outside the frame of reference. it would be like someone looking down from a plane and seeing the bullet shot from the gun, passing the car, etc.

not like a guy in a car as in your analogy

Again, geocentrism is mearly a different frame of reference, just as valid as the heliocentric one for observation purposes.
How would you respond to Dr. Fred Hoyle’s comment?

i would show him these pictures

ok; but if geocentrism is clearly a false way to look at the universe, then why is it that everything in the universe is catalogued according to the geocentric frame of reference?

doesnt have to be, they could use any object, anywhere in the light horizon. its not geocentric its ethnocentric

But pictures can be taken from earth as well…why would those be false? While there is nothing wrong in using the heliocentric model even from the observation we get from earth, and allow movement to the earth instead, which is what Copernicus did, there is also nothing wrong in claiming that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Both can be used; the former for scientific reasoning, and the latter for a philosophical point of view.

since philosophy can be defined as “the search for truth” it would seem that a false viewpoint would be a hindrance to that goal, so geocentrism is an inferior, nay opposite view point from that search for truth

The problem in not allowing the geocentric view to exist, would be similar to state that colours do not exist, but are simply gross interpretation of what the eyes identify light to be; whereas light is really made of photons having different energy levels. One is not more real, nor better than the other. The first reveals a philosophical view of light whereas the latter is a scientic view.

the problem with allowing the geocentric viewpoint is that it is false, and everyone else knows it, by supporting and defending a false point of view in public you heap scorn upon my beloved faith.

geocentrism is a lie in the face of modern evidence, and we all know the source of lies

 

[mich2]

it shows the reality of the earth orbiting the sun.

agreed; however it shows only one reality relative to a sun centered system…there are other frames
one could choose.One which the sun moves relative to something else, for example.

and photos outside this frame of reference show geocentrism is false

Again, I agree. But how does it prove the heliocentric model to be the only true model?The sun’s unknown motion prevents us to know this. If the sun is moving along a spacetime curvature at a great speed , relative to the source of gravity, and , along with it, the planets follow suite, while at the same time crossing the sun’s path since they are influenced by it’s own spacetime curvature,giving the illusion of orbits, when observed on the heliocentric frame, then, the planets motion, viewed on such a frame would be greatly due to the unknown gravitational source.

try applying occams razor, but you dont need to we have pics

This is why such a frame is prefered by the scientific view,it is less complex. However, while I’m not a scientist, we do know that a three body system’s outcome gives and extremly complicated
system. Could it be possible that the heliocentric view, while less complex, is not the best in revealing the physical laws of nature? Could it be that another frame could give us more enlightment to the theory of gravity?

no escaping the pictures. relativity has nothing to do with it, the photos were taken outside the frame of reference. it would be like someone looking down from a plane and seeing the bullet shot from the gun, passing the car, etc.

All you are doing in this case in introducing yet another frame. So, now the observer in the plane will claim the car is moving at x miles/hr relative to him ect… He will nevertheless claim three different speed for the bullet. One x+100 miles/hr relative to him, 100 miles/hr relative to the gun and 50 miles/hr relative to the observer in the car. Which of the three velocities is the “true velocity” of the bullet leaving the others simply illusions and unreal?

i would show him these pictures

Do you think the pictures would convince him?

doesnt have to be, they could use any object, anywhere in the light horizon. its not geocentric its ethnocentric

I don’t think you understood what I was trying to ask. Why are we always using the geocentric model when we observe the nightsky to identify the location and movements of the celestial bodies, if such a model is erronious and false?

since philosophy can be defined as “the search for truth” it would seem that a false viewpoint would be a hindrance to that goal, so geocentrism is an inferior, nay opposite view point from that search for truth

I use the word philosophical approach in order to differentiate the scientific approach. I will once again specify that I don’t believe that the geocentric model is the only true model. I am only saying and arguing that the heliocentric model is not the only true model as well. So if the geocentric view is opposite to the true heliocentric view, why do we use the geocentric model all the time except when doing calculations for planetary orbits…something that we don’t do everyday, you know.

the problem with allowing the geocentric viewpoint is that it is false, and everyone else knows it, by supporting and defending a false point of view in public you heap scorn upon my beloved faith.

So why do we all keep using it then, if it’s false?

geocentrism is a lie in the face of modern evidence, and we all know the source of lies

Well, the next time you speak of the sun rising above the horizon, you can tell yourself that you have just told a lie.

ok…I respect, although do not agree with your point of view. Just one question…

Having God’s permission to rewrite scriptures; how would you have discribed the “sun as standing still for Joshua”?

Andre

 

[cassini]

You do know that St. Albert the Great fought hard for the principle that there was only one Truth, and that scientific truths and discoveries come from Jesus the Truth? That if Scripture seems to be contradicted by scientific discovery, it doesn’t mean that you twist or segregate science, but that you reinterpret Scripture in the light of this new evidence from God? (And vice versa, of course.)

But let’s go farther back. You know that the Church Fathers, back to the earliest Christians, were great fans of science? That they advocated astronomy and mathematics as preludes to scripture study, on the grounds that the arts and sciences opened and broadened the mind? That the Church copied and recopied the science-friendly Greek philosophers? That it loved to use the astronomical and scientific knowledge of the day as illustrations of the greatness of God the Creator to refute Gnostic hatred of matter? That they fought hard to find what was true in order to worship Truth, which was one of their favorite names for Jesus?

The letter by Cardinal Bellarmino that you quote is part of a very complicated theological and pastoral discussion, and the positions of all the people in it changed as new data came to light and new interpretations were advanced. The Church’s whole quarrel with Galileo was that, without sufficient evidence and corroboration of his theories (some of which were demonstrably wrong), he wanted to force scriptural and theological interpretation into a path chosen by Galileo alone, instead of letting time and other scientists examine his work and theologians work out a sound way to absorb the new data. (Insisting that the Church think your way and your way alone is indeed a heretical way of going about things.) Bellarmino was asked for his professional opinion and he gave it. Others were asked for their opinion also.

However, once geocentrism had been disproved more fully, and once theologians had time to figure out a good interpretation without giving away the store to the heliocentric-hating Protestants who also took an overly literal view, heliocentrism was not only not condemned by the Church, but taught by its many astronomers who were also priests and religious.

You obviously aren’t interested in following that whole argument or in Truth; rather, you pick and choose a letter that you like. This is an insult to the sainted Cardinal, who submitted his judgment always to the Church and to the Truth. He would have rather admitted that he was wrong and rethought his position than have been defended in your manner.

You advance some ridiculous and inelegant theory of the solar system’s construction that is an insult to God as an artist and Creator. You don’t pay attention to just how dubious the math is, and you reject all evidence you don’t like. You mention the Fathers, but you don’t seem to read them or know how they thought. Finally, it’s clear that you’re not interested in listening to the Church’s considered interpretation of Scripture as given by Christ and the Holy Spirit and then developed through the ages. Apparently the Church ended for you at the time of Galileo and hasn’t been studying the Bible at all since then.

If you want to believe in some wild conspiracy theory, you can do that without dragging the Bible into it.

But only if you love Him Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Only if you wish to know all there is to know about Creation and the creatures in order to glorify the Creator.

Reads great, doesn’t it. All those pius references would have you think the heliocentric heresy was the work of God. Prior to the 1981-1992 commission on Galileo, this sentiment was expressed:
Among its members was the American Fr. William Wallace, O.P., a former electrical engineer, physicist and Commander in the Navy, who now teaches history and philosophy at Catholic University in Washington, D.C. Lecturing in March 1982 at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, he disclosed this alarming information:

‘The total content of revelation was not available for authoritative definition with the death of the last Apostle. Only through slow and pains-taking scientific investigation were the literary genres of the Bible uncovered and the rules for its interpretation ascertained. The example is simple, but it illustrates well the true complementarity of science and religion, of reason and belief. Were such rules known to Rome in 1615 and 1633, Galileo would have been spared the indignity to which he was finally subjected. But had he not suffered that indignity, had he not been motivated by that passionate desire for truth that brought it about, Scriptural studies would never have achieved the status they enjoy today.’

Sound familiar mintaka? In other words the Church’sd claim to be the infallible interrpreter of the Scriptures is according to Wallace, mintaka etc., a false notion. Now that is Protestantism. No wonder Pope Urban VIII said this heresy had the potential to 'put the Catholic faith in danger@.

It is certain from all the above that a geocentric/geostatic universe was held by all the Fathers; and we know that it was also the view of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Church’s greatest theologian. Therefore, the geocentric/geostatic essence of the medieval cosmology is infallible truth and de fide. It is an integral part of the Deposit of Faith and of Apostolic tradition.

Ah but that had to go too, thanks to the dictates of the Copernican heretics.

What minkata failed to add to his history of the affair was the bit about the Church defining Copernicanism as formal heresy. So arrogant have they gotten since their leader Isaac Newton gave them their new exegesis and the ability to write off the Church’s duty to condemn heresy that they now consider it a non-event that can be dismissed as a nusance and no more.

to be continued

 

[cassini]

Continued:

So wrong have Churchmen been since they rejected the divine guidance of the Church in 1616 and 1633 that the following letter had to be written to Pope John Paul II in an effort to put him and Wallace right about the so called falsification of geocentricism.

’ (3) Geocentricity has not “turned out to be false” and modern science has not disproved any truth of Divine Revelation, including this one. The late Walter van der Kamp1 addressed a letter to Pope John Paul II in an addendum to his 1988 book, De Labore Solis: Airy’s Failure Reconsidered. This was in 1983 when rumors of a rehabilitation of Galileo were just beginning to gain attention. Here are some of van der Kamp’s statements most relevant to the unwarranted assertions of the CA Tract that heliocentrism and/or a-centrism have been proven:
…at bottom the Galilei case is not a physical but a philosophical dispute. For the proud and myopic scientific realism of the Newtonian period with its “Science has proven that…” is not only lingering on among laymen, but also among the learned cadres of today,…
You are undoubtedly aware that according to the prevailing Einsteinian adage the pre-Copernican viewpoint, to quote Sir Fred Hoyle, is "as good as anyone else’s – but no better”, all motion at the present held to be relative in a finite but unbounded universe of which the circumference is nowhere and the centre everywhere. Inevitably, however, any discussion about motion assumes a shared preconception of rest. Or, as the late philosopher of knowledge Polanyi with admirable candor formulates it, "every object we perceive is set off by us instinctively against a background which is taken to be at rest.”
Overlooking the obvious question whether astronomical statements procured on such a sub-logical basis should ever be seriously considered, Christians, surely, have no need to build their cosmology on an instinctive, unverifiable notion. They believe, and therefore know, that there exists a higher mode of being than the one in which they temporarily find themselves alive, and that only observed from that mode, from the Great White Throne of Almighty God, the last Word about absolute motion and absolute rest can be ex cathedra proclaimed. And has been proclaimed!
During the first sixteen centuries of the Ecclesia Christi she, on authority of Divine Revelation entrusted to her, held on to an unmoved Earth hung upon nothing in the centre of the observable Universe, the unaided senses of all men daily attesting to the veracity of this proposition. Be it since 1822 hushed up, officially this is still your Church’s position. And I submit that there is not the slightest need for her to change this traditional attitude. Empirical science has no voice in the matter, since, says the late atheist Bertrand Russell, it “ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved, by observation – and no observations can distinguish the rotation of the earth from the revolution of the heavens.”

---

Allow me to end with Bellarmine: only if not —- as still is the case – by means of an invalid modus ponendo ponens, but experimentally it would be demonstrated that the Earth, moving through space, circles 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.”
Until today that required hard-nosed and logically impeccable demonstration has not been given, and is according to the ruling theory impossible to give. Why then should the Bible have to buckle under the weight of an hypothesis about a motion that cannot be shown to be a motion?
With the prayer that He, Who created the Universe and Who is the only One for Whom this Universe is truly an object, may prevent you from judging the fallible word of man more trustworthy than His infallible Word, I remain,
With due respect,
W. van der Kamp

Now here is a contradiction that any Catholic should be alarmed with. In his summary speech in 1992, Pope John Paul II while endorcing Poupard’s commission findings, actually mentioned that today’s physics shows there is no centre to the universe, that anywhere could be the centre.

Can you believe that? Here this pope, considered of superior intellect, could not conclude from his own words that therefore the Church of 1616 was never proven wrong. This is the CHAOS (and this is a word from the Bible that expresses the Devil’s ability to get man to overlook reality to accomodate his own wishes) that Copernicanism has wrought. In other words, here is PROOF that even popes do not know what they are saying when it comes to defending what it is politically correct to think.

 

[CWBetts]

The funny thig about all of this science, is thathe OP has yet to show any kind of connection between heliocentrism and denial of the Virgin Birth. If you want to deny heiocentrism, I reaaly don’t care. I mean, in our day to day lives does it really matter what revolves around what? Its not like I am an astrophysicist or anything. In our day to day affairs it is a moot point. My beleif is that this is a non-issue blown way out of proportion because somebody thinks our salvation is dependent on geocentrism. I think we can let this rest by saying no true science contradicts the Bible, keeping on mind the Bible is not a science book.

 

[cassini]

Now, what is the center of the universe? Answer: Planet Earth, the High Priest of the universe!

Love the truth, it’s much more beautiful than the lie.

Luke, old pal, there is no such thing as ‘planet earth’. A planet moves, The earth does not. It is earth or Mother Earth. I used to make that mistake. Keep up the good work.

Mitch2, great to have your support. Now it is the three Muskateers. We are growing in numbers. On our own the Copernicans try to pick us off as crackpots. With three of us on the same thread that is more difficult.

 

[cassini]

the church was wrong, and they admitted it in 1992.
.

Warp, surely that dishonourable cheating, selective, denying report from the 1981-1992 papal galileo commission does not represent ‘the Church’ in your eyes, does it? Seemingly it does. Accordingly you give it more authority that the papal decree of 1616 which you all say is worthless because you say it wasn’t ‘infallible’. Was the 1992 whitewash more infallible then?

 

[cassini]

The funny thig about all of this science, is thathe OP has yet to show any kind of connection between heliocentrism and denial of the Virgin Birth. If you want to deny heiocentrism, I reaaly don’t care. I mean, in our day to day lives does it really matter what revolves around what? Its not like I am an astrophysicist or anything. In our day to day affairs it is a moot point. My beleif is that this is a non-issue blown way out of proportion because somebody thinks our salvation is dependent on geocentrism. I think we can let this rest by saying no true science contradicts the Bible, keeping on mind the Bible is not a science book.

Why is it that nothing seems to get through to the Copernicans? No I take that back, I do know, it is the effect this heresy has on the mind.

CWBetts, the connection between heliocentricism and the virgin birth is that one of the greatest doctors of the Church made it clear that the SOURCE for geocentricism and the Virgin Birth is the same. Both, he said, backed up by the CHURCH in 1616 have as their source biblical revelation.

The dogma of the Virgin Birth has no ‘proof’ other than the word of the Scriptures. There is no proof for any order of the universe other than the word of the Scriptures. Bellarmine said if you can find reason to deny one then the same criterian could be used to deny the other. So, G and the VB are united in that both are scriptural revelations and nothing more. Both were eventually defined and declared to be true. Alas the devil, using his guile to be able to deceive the combined intellect of the world, used the Freemasons of the Royal Society to lay down the greatest illusion of all, to get men to deny their own eyes and accept a mind-order of their own instead.

Finally I couldn’t care what anyone believes goes around what either, but I do care that the Church has been ridiculed for 300 years for having got a papal decree wrong when it didn’t. I feel that integrity is worth fighting for if you do not. Its to do with Catholicism as a pseudo-religion or a divinely guided religion. I believe that even ONE error would prove the Church is NOT a divinely guided faith but a pragmatic faith that changes its teaching at any whim of ‘science’.

 

[rossum]

Luke, old pal, there is no such thing as ‘planet earth’. A planet moves, The earth does not.

False. The earth is not a single object. Parts of it are moving relative to other parts; with continental drift America is moving away from Europe. Earthquakes are also movements of part of the earth relative to another part. Which part of the earth is actually stationary? All the other parts will be in motion relative to that part.

What experiments can we perform to show that some parts of the earth are moving relative to the part which is stationary? Where is your evidence?

rossum

 

[cassini]

False. The earth is not a single object. Parts of it are moving relative to other parts; with continental drift America is moving away from Europe. Earthquakes are also movements of part of the earth relative to another part. Which part of the earth is actually stationary? All the other parts will be in motion relative to that part.

What experiments can we perform to show that some parts of the earth are moving relative to the part which is stationary? Where is your evidence?

rossum

Rossum; Interesting that you should bring up these movements ON the earth. The theologians had to distinguish between these and the earth’s non-movement. Here is a simulation of the theologians’ thinking in 1616:

‘Very good. Let us now proceed to the second proposition, the idea that the earth moves and is consequently not at the centre of the world? Here then is a selection of some passages of Scripture for our consideration.

“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever.” —Ecclesiastes 1:14

“Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support (super stabilitatem suam); it shall not be moved for ever.” —Ps. 103:5

“He hath fixed the earth, which shall not be moved.” —Ps. 92:1

“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if thou hast understanding… Upon what are its bases grounded? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?” —Job 38:4-6

“He has made the world firm, not to be moved.” —Ps. 95:10

‘Our first consideration is that if the sun moves, the earth does not, for both cannot be moving. These passages, if language is to have any meaning at all, indicate the earth’s immobility. Take for example Ps. 103:5 ‘Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support; it shall not be moved for ever.’ If we are to accept a heliocentric view then we should now have to interpret it so: ‘Thou who didst place the earth in its orbit; it shall not cease from steadily revolving therein.’ We can of course apply the same logic with equal efficacy to every text we find. Now how in God’s name can we subject the Scriptures to such interpretation? This simply could not be done without totally departing from the meaning of words, which of course would render the Holy Scriptures totally redundant as a coherent source of revelation. Moreover it would mean that the Holy Ghost did not infuse Solomon, the Apostles, Fathers and those given the gift of knowledge and understanding with a full revelation of the Holy Books, for, according to the Copernicans, that would have to wait until the lesser sciences revealed the true meaning of the Bible. Such a proposition is outrageous, a threat to our very understanding of the Holy Ghost and our Catholic faith. What passage of Scripture could the Church propound with certainty anymore? Where would it all end? It is that, or concede to the fact that the authors applied a false perception of immobility to the Scriptures, which then could only mean the Scriptures err in this matter. Neither of these options is open to us and therefore we have no choice but to read them in the same manner as all the Fathers. But we have a job to do, and so we must consider all likely contrary entries.

“The earth shook and trembled.” —Ps. 76:19

“All the foundations of the earth shall be moved;” —Ps. 81:5

“At the presence of the Lord the earth was moved;” Ps. 113:7

“He shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.” —Job. 9:6

‘Now I submit we qualificators are all trained theologians, well versed in Scriptural knowledge and in the interpretations and opinions of the Fathers, Doctors and eminent exegetes of the Church throughout the ages. We know instantly that particular texts of Scripture referring to the ‘earth’ differ from the others in that these and other similar ones are in these cases of a metaphorical movement of the whole earth, that is, by presenting the earth as representative of the men who live on it, and who either through fear or astonishment at some divine occurrences are moved in many different ways. In other cases sometimes such passages merely refer to earthquakes confined to certain parts of the earth, but not the whole earth itself.’

Now I realise this actually discredits your opinion rossum, but you brought it up.

 

[pnewton]

Why is it that nothing seems to get through to the Copernicans? No I take that back, I do know, it is the effect this heresy has on the mind.

You really should avoid accusing people of heresy as you pontifiacte your view from the fringe. Yes, papal commisions represent the Church in that where the Bishop of Rome is there is the Catholic Church. No, the pronouncement in 1992 was not infallible. Few things are. This commission did not even address any items of faith and morals. It is, however the most recent statement we have and is what Catholics believe, unless you think the Catholic Church today is no longer the real Catholic Church.