Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[pnewton]

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1616:

Now pnewton, show us any abrogation of this ‘dogma’ and you will be a hero on this thread.

I do not have to. Again, you beg the question. It is not dogma. This statement was not ex cathedra. It is not a matter of faith and morals.

Besides this 1616 statement that you have fixated upon, where in the Catechism is this belief you claim to be dogma proclaimed. And calling the magisterium “Churchmen” to put your self in authority over them won’t wash. We do not each get to interpret tradition individually to suit our own whims or sell our books. I do not listen to what the posters here say the Church teaches. I listen to the Church (a.k.a. Churchmen).

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warp. Boy I would love you on my side. you never give up do you?

nope and with these pics i dont have to do any real work either

Well neither will I, so we cannot go on forever

.

yeah right, i smell blood in the water now

Our exchange reminds me of those movies where the two opponents batter each other until neither is left standing.

this aint rocky, you aint apollo creed. its more like mr. magoo versus the terminator, and i dont wear glasses

Usually, if it is a good movie, both become friends and live happy ever after. Want to shake on it warp?

no way, no how. you are denigrating the faith, you are holding the Body of Christ up to public ridicule. you have no support from the legitimate authority of the Church, in fact you deny it.

you dont even have the agreement of the scientific community.

so no, i wont shake on it, i will show these photos, anywhere i see geocentrism mentioned. they will not go away. you will find no converts here.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I do not have to. Again, you beg the question. It is not dogma. This statement was not ex cathedra. It is not a matter of faith and morals.

Besides this 1616 statement that you have fixated upon, where in the Catechism is this belief you claim to be dogma proclaimed. And calling the magisterium “Churchmen” to put your self in authority over them won’t wash. We do not each get to interpret tradition individually to suit our own whims or sell our books. I do not listen to what the posters here say the Church teaches. I listen to the Church (a.k.a. Churchmen).

:clapping:

 

[hecd2]

You seem to be very knowledgeable in scientific matters Alec, so if you don’t mind, I 'd like to ask you some questions since I’m not a scientist of any kind.

Andre, you only asked one question, at the bottom of your post, but I’ll comment on a couple of your assertions.

First, I support the geocentric view,not in terms of a physical reality, but a philosophical one. We observers ought to be viewed as being on the prefered frame…again, not because it is the only true frame that can be used, but it is the best for most purposes.

I don’t have a problem with anyone regarding the earth as the most important place in the universe. In many senses it is, (at least relatively for us). That is a religious or a philosophical view, and has nothing to do with the physical location of the earth within the universe, which is what this thread has been about.

Also there is no such thing as an “only true frame” . One frame of reference is no “truer” than any other.

We need to understand that Ptolemy was using the accepted Aristotilian scientific understanding of his day. Gravity was the reason why the earth was the center of the universe, not scriptures.

One of the reasons put forward to support the idea that earth was at the centre of the universe was the incorrect notion that the earth is the only source of gravity in the universe.

However, the position of earth as being the center of the universe, seemed to have been introduced in order to explain why we do not feel any movements coming from the earth, if the earth was moving, since it would constitute a breaking of the inertial law of motion. Yes, I do believe the early greek thinkers were just as great as the great scientists . They knew that accelerations introduce the feeling of forces.

I don’t think that this is correct. The laws of classical mechanics were poorly understood before Newton formulated them, and no-one understood that an object in free-fall experiences no forces. It was thought that an object required a constant force to keep it in motion, and it was further thought that if the earth was rushing through space we should feel it. The erroneous Greek argument, which survived until Galileo’s time, was not about accelerated motion but constant motion.

In fact, although there are no forces arising from the earth’s translation through space, we can measure forces on the earth’s surface due to its diurnal rotation.

The concept of epicycles did indeed explain the observation of retrograde motions. I question your statement that they were wrong, due to the fact, that such a system was not introduced in order to explain a scientific physicality of the orbits, but was simply a model to help predict the passage of the celestial bodies for time keeping purposes only.

That is one purpose of Ptolemaic model, but it is absolutely not correct to say that it was not intended to reflect the reality of the universe. It is a cosmology. And, as such, it is wrong because other observations such as the phases of Venus disprove it.

Even Copernican’s model was used for this purpose. It is Galileo (and others as well) who introduced the concept of “physical realities” within the orbits. Galileo was indeed a great thinker, however, to introduce physical realities for the displacement of bodies, a static universal space system was needed, and he chose the sun.
This was excellent if he would have used it as a model only, but I believe the church was right in claiming him to be wrong in him using such a system as the only true system one could use.

Since Galileo was the first to formulate a truly relational physics, he understood more clearly than anyone else at the time that one can transform between different frames in constant motion. He was not making a claim about which frame was absolutely at rest in order to support his physics, so much as pointing out that the planets orbit the sun rather than the sun orbiting the earth.

The Church, therefore condemned Heliocentrism as a truth, which even today, most believe the church to be wrong in doing so…However, the sun is not static, meaning, that just as geocentrism is wrong if used as the only true or real frame of reference, the heliocentric one is just as wrong, for the same reason. To use the word “solar system” today, is trying to escape the fact that the word universe was used by Galileo, and even this conclusion is not without any scientific physical problems.

I don’t disagree with most of this, but remember that Galileo was looking at the relationship of solar system objects, whatever word he might have used. No scientific theory is complete, and in the context of the day - a fixed absolute space and very imperfect understanding of the universe outside the solar system - Galileo’s (And Copernicus’s) cosmology was closer to reality than Ptolemy’s. Furthermore, Galileo was also condemned for teaching that the earth moves, which it does.

Also, I believe that he was dead wrong in bringing such a model in the arena of religion, which is why he was put to trial by the inquisition.

Why shouldn’t any scientist challenge religious claims about nature? Furthermore, whether Galileo was right or wrong is not the point. The key point of the Galileo affair was that it encapsulated the issue of the freedom of thought and expression, and challenged the Church’s authority, as it then stood, to decide which scientific teaching is acceptable and which is not.

However, do the planets’ orbit around the sun truly explain everything for a heliocentric realty?

It depends very much on what is meant by heliocentric. If, by heliocentric, you mean that the sun is fixed at the centre of the universe, well clearly that is not correct.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Now given that geocentricism has never been falsified, surely one can see that the Church of 1616 has never been shown to be wrong either?

The flaw in your argument is the premise. Geocentrism cannot be true according to many lines of evidence in classical mechanics and in GR. As I have pointed out, you cannot explain how the forces that arise at the earth’s surface as a consequence of its rotation, and the effects they give rise to, can be explained.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[1holycatholic]

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1616:

‘That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, [is] unanimously declared to be foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.’

Now pnewton, show us any abrogation of this ‘dogma’ and you will be a hero on this thread.

On which page in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma will I be able to find this?

 

[cassini]

On which page in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma will I be able to find this?

Interesting, isn’t it. I show you a papal decree, ask anyone to show me where this decree has been abrogated in history, and I get this denial. That is exactly what Catholics have been up to sice 1741, denying the existence of a decree that was distributed to every Catholic country at the time. If I were to take you Copernicans to court and you spoke to the judge like that, do you think you would get away with it. Only in a now CORRUPT organisation could such denial be so blatant.

 

[Orogeny]

Interesting, isn’t it. I show you a papal decree, ask anyone to show me where this decree has been abrogated in history, and I get this denial. That is exactly what Catholics have been up to sice 1741, denying the existence of a decree that was distributed to every Catholic country at the time. If I were to take you Copernicans to court and you spoke to the judge like that, do you think you would get away with it. Only in a now CORRUPT organisation could such denial be so blatant.

Is the Catholic Church corrupt?

Peace

Tim

 

[hecd2]

hecd2, I have said many times I fully accept geocentricism because the Church of 1616 defined and declared the Scriptures say it is so,

I have said that I don’t have a problem with you believing in whatever bizarre thing you like, as long as you don’t claim that science supports your view. You have made scientific claims, specifically about relativity, and I am asking you to back them up.

I have repeatedly said also that because of relativity man cannot say for certain what the order of the universe is.

And I asked you what version of relativity you were relying on. You need to define exactly what you mean by relativity, which you have never done. Apart from that you would have to define “the order of the universe” in a precise scientific way. Clearly, we can say many things about the universe with certainty to the extent that we trust our lives to them.

I have said that BASED ON THIS SAME PRINCIPLE, man cannot determine the scientific LAWS that prevail in the universe.

Again you need to define the principle that you are relying on in precise way, and you have to show why that principle is true. You haven’t done this. Clearly we can determine scientific laws, so your statement appears proma facie to be false.

Just because the Copernicans have INVENTED LAWS for their system does not mean that these laws prevail and that others do not.

It is clear, on the basis of evidence that at least certain aspects of the way the universe behaves is discernible and can be described, and conversely, we can falsify other ideas about the universe. To claim, as you are doing, that we cannot discern anything about the universe is wrong.

Look at Warp, he still thinks his pictures disprove G.

Petey is not a trained scientist and he is misunderstanding what he thinks he sees in those photos. He is right in his conclusion that heliocentrism is nonsense (and that it hurts the Church) and wrong in his choice of evidence to show it.

But H physics is full of anomolies and contradictions, changing every year. It currently relies on Einstein’s special theory of Relativity and boy is it a fairy tale, disproven by many physicists.

There is no such thing as H physics and G physics. There is just physics and it doesn’t support heliocentrism as a viable cosmology. You are also completely wrong to claim that GR is disproven - it has never failed an empirical test.

The G of the Scriptures and of the Church is based on revelation. It needs no physics to prove because there are no physics to prove matters of faith.

That would be fine if you would only stay away from the physics.

Your belief that only rotation of the earth can result in certain phenomena that we on earth experience is like saying that trailing smoke out of a ship’s chimny is proof that it is moving. The possibility that the ship is at anchor and that a wind blows the smoke into a trail shows the initial opinion is flawed. Who knows how the rotating universe around an immobile earth causes these same phenomens.

Not a good analogy, because in the case of the ship the cause of the phenomenon is simply that the smoke is at rest with respect to the air and if we know the velocity of the air with respect to the sea, we can derive the motion of the ship. It is easy to derive the equations that show this (they are simple co-ordinate transformations) and the physics is easy and fully understood. In the case of the phenomena I have described, they arise only from rotation with respect to the inertial frame of reference at the earth (which is itself aligned to the rest of the universe and the CMB). You haven’t shown physically how a rotating universe would create these forces on a static earth, so your claims are not credible.

Has anyone ever proposed a theory? No, because that might give the possibility some credibility in the world and not even Rome wants that.

Have you ever heard of the Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging? This is an effect predicted by GR (tee-hee, according to you, a fairy tale) that suggests that Coriolis-like forces can arise that affect a test particle inside a rotating massive shell. Frame-dragging near the earth has been demonstrated. This is the only potential explanation for creating these forces by a rotating universe (and there are other problems with it that we don’t need to go into now), but unfortunately it relies on GR, and in GR the concept of the unmoving centre of the universe is completely meaningless.

If you reject GR, you are left with classical mechanics in which the presence of the Coriolis force can only be interpreted by absolute rotation of the earth.

While I personally uphold G as a matter of faith that cannot be falsified, and never will, there are others who have devised answers for the likes of yourself hecd2, and I’m sure Robert Sungenis PhD and Robert Bennett PhD have twenty pages of physics on these points that will really give you something to get your teeth into if you really want to know.

Sungenis relies on the Lense-Thirring effect, but like you rejects GR, so his claim is logical nonsense. He doesn’t accept his own premise. How silly is that? Furthermore, his knowledge of physics is woeful.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

 

[grannymh]

We are opponents in some matters and probably not in others. I have never met someone that I either disagreed with or agreed with on everything. I think that people should always celebrate when they find common ground - we should be looking for ways to work together, not constantly seeking division and disagreement.
Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Dear Alec,

Just started reading this thread. Am on page 11 with five previous posts I need to comment on and then I found this gem of yours. Life would be so boring if we all agreed or disagreed on the same things. More importantly, we would not have the science etc. etc., that we have now if someone hadn’t disagreed with the status quo. We would be hunters instead of gatherers.

If you don’t mind my toasting with a Pepsi, I will celebrate all the interesting people I’ve meet at CAF who have kept my life from being boring… Nonetheless, life is real. So I add the hope that disagreements will be honest ones and not deliberate attempts to cause hurt.

What I find strange is that only a few posts have questioned the relationship of the virgin birth to geocentricism. From reading the posts so far it seems to me that their relationship is based on the same foundation, that of various teachings of early Christianity through the first great period of scientific discovery. (Note to self: make cheat sheet of dates.)

But why choose the virgin birth? Is the reverse plausible? If one accepts the virgin birth, one accepts geocentricism? Maybe down the line I’ll find comments about these questions to which I can add my thoughts.

The very title of this thread tickles common sense. I need a second Pepsi or some chocolate.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

P.S.

I did check out link above. Read the yellow box as directed and appreciated the line under the box.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[cassini]

I do not have to. Again, you beg the question. It is not dogma. This statement was not ex cathedra. It is not a matter of faith and morals.

Besides this 1616 statement that you have fixated upon, where in the Catechism is this belief you claim to be dogma proclaimed. And calling the magisterium “Churchmen” to put your self in authority over them won’t wash. We do not each get to interpret tradition individually to suit our own whims or sell our books. I do not listen to what the posters here say the Church teaches. I listen to the Church (a.k.a. Churchmen).

pnewton. first of all let me say that ALL Catholics should distinguish between the Church and Churchmen. What do you say when someone says something like this : ‘The Catholic Church is rotten at the core. Just look at all those scandals that mark it over the last 40 years.’

The Catholic Church is the unblemished Body of Christ. It is protected by the Holy Ghost. But the Church is run by fallen men as Providence allows. The only time Churchmen running the Church cannot err is when defining and declaring matters of faith and morals, Churchmen, not the Church, bring shame on the name of the Church. You cannot blame the Church on the behaviour of Churchmen. Thus pnewton, I use the terms in their proper place.

The Church, by order of Pope Paul V, using the instruments provided by the Church, made known to all that the 1616 decree had defined and declared an non-orbiting sun as formal heresy. Now the Church does not make false decrees and does not declare truths as formal heresy because it contradicts Scripture and if true would render the Scriptures contained errors. The Church does not contradict itself or it would indeed be a human organisation and not a divine institution. So when the decrees were rejected they were rejected by CHURCHMEN, not the Church. For the Church to reject the decree - an unheard of happening in the history of the Church in matters such as this - the same Churchmen would have to abrogate the 1616 decree, and in justice would have to tell the faithful why this was being done.
No pope ever tried to abrogate it. One pope was open to an official retrial of Galileo as was required by Canon law before the Church could release him from his judgement, but never did. No pope ever tried to abrogate the anti-Copernican decree either, indeed the opposite is the case. In 1820 the immutibility of the decree was acknowledged, just as it had been in 1633. ‘Immutable’ was how the Church described infallible before 1870 when infallibility was made a dogma. Contrary to what you would like, there are two sources of infallibility, one extra-ordinary, one ordinary. The 1616 decree belongs somewhere in the middle.

The reason why Copernicans think they can decide on the authority of the 1616 decree - a shocking presumption on any Catholic’s part - is because of the disgraceful behaviour of Churchmen in their treatment of this papal decree. In 1820, the 1616 decree, was considered untouchable, a papal decree that was the definition of the Church. So how did they get past this dilemma? They were all Copernicans at that stage. They, according to the documents reproduced in Maurice A. Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, CHEATED their way out of it. They said the immutable 1616 decree was against the old heliocentricism, the pre-Newtonian understanding of it, but not the new ‘proved’ version of it. In any court, other than their own, they would have been run out of it as CHANCERS. They said the 1616 decree had to stand as Church teaching but that the new version of heliocentricism could be accepted as proven and thus the current situation must comply to this science, including a new Catholic exegesis of the Bible.

In 1835 Pope GregoryXVI decided to remove all trace of the decree’s binding on Catholics by removing the Index’s ban ‘without comment.’ In other words, here a pope HIDES the decree which in justice demanded an abrogation.

And why did he and his fellow Churchmen hide the decree without comment and without abrogation? Because they all thought the Church of 1616 had been proven wrong. They lacked Catholic FAITH in their own Church’s decrees prefering instead to accept the dictates of false scientific reasoning. So the only way they could SAVE THE CHURCH IN THEIR MINDS was to cheat, hide and conjure up all the excuses that are still being offered to this day by the Copernicans on this forum. It never occurred to them the CHURCH doesn’t need saving, it is Christ Himself.

Pnewton and his fellow Copernicans on this earth continue with the same conspiracy, pretend the 1616 decree was not of the Church, deny its infallibility, and keep face with the atheists that occupy the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

 

[cassini]

Is the Catholic Church corrupt?

Peace

Tim

Orogony, I give you the same answer as I give the others. The Church is not corrupt, it is the unblemished body of Christ. It has cannon laws to keep it uncorruptable.

But Churchmen have no such divine protection outside the laws of the Church. I ask you too, in the light of the paedophile scandals over the last 40 years is the Catholic Church corrupt? No.but I naw ask you are these Churchmen corrupt? Yes. Are those Bishops and Church leaders who protected the sodomites corrupt? Yes.

Now let us apply this reasoning to the 1616 decree against Geocentricism. Did the Copernican Churchmen of 1741 and 1820 comply with the laws of the Church when dealing with the authority of the 1616 decree? No they did not. So can one say they were acting on behalf of the Church? NO. Indeed their behaviour was disgraceful, CORRUPT in my opinion. The popes involved simply approved any document put before them by those of the Holy Office of the time. Finally Pope Gregory XVI unlawfully put away the decree when he dismissed it 'without comment.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Petey is not a trained scientist and he is misunderstanding what he thinks he sees in those photos. .

excuse me? i understand exactly what the implications of the the pictures are, and why they disprove any notion of geocentrism. they are outside the local frame of reference, as they show multiple data points, one can comparatively determine the orbits of of the bodies of the solar system. one of the oldest astronomical techniques. reliably used since the creation of stonehenge, just done with pictures that voyager shot when it left the solar system

though i am curious as to how you deduced, that i am not a ‘trained scientist’, is there some training beyond university that i am unaware of? like some secret scientist club? do i need to know a secret handshake or something?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Orogony, I give you the same answer as I give the others. The Church is not corrupt, it is the unblemished body of Christ. It has cannon laws to keep it uncorruptable.

the promises of Christ keep the church incorruptable.

But Churchmen have no such divine protection outside the laws of the Church

.

the promises of Christ cover the church, there is no such thing as ‘churchmen’ separate from the church. those people are just called ‘men’

 

[cassini]

I have said that I don’t have a problem with you believing in whatever bizarre thing you like, as long as you don’t claim that science supports your view. You have made scientific claims, specifically about relativity, and I am asking you to back them up.
And I asked you what version of relativity you were relying on. You need to define exactly what you mean by relativity, which you have never done. Apart from that you would have to define “the order of the universe” in a precise scientific way. Clearly, we can say many things about the universe with certainty to the extent that we trust our lives to them.
Again you need to define the principle that you are relying on in precise way, and you have to show why that principle is true. You haven’t done this. Clearly we can determine scientific laws, so your statement appears proma facie to be false.
It is clear, on the basis of evidence that at least certain aspects of the way the universe behaves is discernible and can be described, and conversely, we can falsify other ideas about the universe. To claim, as you are doing, that we cannot discern anything about the universe is wrong. Petey is not a trained scientist and he is misunderstanding what he thinks he sees in those photos. He is right in his conclusion that heliocentrism is nonsense (and that it hurts the Church) and wrong in his choice of evidence to show it. There is no such thing as H physics and G physics. There is just physics and it doesn’t support heliocentrism as a viable cosmology. You are also completely wrong to claim that GR is disproven - it has never failed an empirical test.

That would be fine if you would only stay away from the physics.
Not a good analogy, because in the case of the ship the cause of the phenomenon is simply that the smoke is at rest with respect to the air and if we know the velocity of the air with respect to the sea, we can derive the motion of the ship. It is easy to derive the equations that show this (they are simple co-ordinate transformations) and the physics is easy and fully understood. In the case of the phenomena I have described, they arise only from rotation with respect to the inertial frame of reference at the earth (which is itself aligned to the rest of the universe and the CMB). You haven’t shown physically how a rotating universe would create these forces on a static earth, so your claims are not credible.
Have you ever heard of the Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging? This is an effect predicted by GR (tee-hee, according to you, a fairy tale) that suggests that Coriolis-like forces can arise that affect a test particle inside a rotating massive shell. Frame-dragging near the earth has been demonstrated. This is the only potential explanation for creating these forces by a rotating universe (and there are other problems with it that we don’t need to go into now), but unfortunately it relies on GR, and in GR the concept of the unmoving centre of the universe is completely meaningless.

If you reject GR, you are left with classical mechanics in which the presence of the Coriolis force can only be interpreted by absolute rotation of the earth.

Sungenis relies on the Lense-Thirring effect, but like you rejects GR, so his claim is logical nonsense. He doesn’t accept his own premise. How silly is that? Furthermore, his knowledge of physics is woeful.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pink_unicorn.htm

Hecd2, if you think I am going to answer all these points of yours then think again. I will comment on one point you gleefully refer to above. ‘Have you ever heard of the Lense-Thirring effect or frame-dragging?’ Now let me tell readers that this ‘theory’ was invented to get the earth moving again after the Airy experiment that falsified stellar aberration as a proof for heliocentricism. Indeed it showed that geocentricism was more probable. Similarly, the M&M experiment in 1887 also showed no orbiting of the earth around the sun. This resulted in that dirty old man Einstein being allowed to make an idiot out of science in order to get the earth moving again.

Physics is an ongoing machine, inventing anything it likes so long as the result confirms the earth is moving.

‘Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession: liar-to-readers.’ —Pratchett, Stewart & Cohen, The Science of Discworld, p.39.

One final word on physics. I have a brother who is a Professor of Quantum Physics. He studied in Canada and remained at the University for one year after getting his professorship. He gave up his career after one year telling me it was ‘the most useless career ever invented by man’. Only last week, many years after he went into something more useful, I dumped many of his text books, every aspect of physics you could name.
So hecd2, there you have it from the horses mouth so to speak. The worth of current physics. I prefer the science of wisdom in which theology is the Queen, not the physics of heliocentric ideology.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton. first of all let me say that ALL Catholics should distinguish between the Church and Churchmen. What do you say when someone says something like this : ‘The Catholic Church is rotten at the core. Just look at all those scandals that mark it over the last 40 years.’
.

This is easy, because your analogy is so bad. First, you are talking about a few people in the latter case as opposed to the popes since 1835, the current pope, the curia, etc. Second, the example you used is a problem of sin and corruption, as opposed to doctrine; personal behavior, as opposed to the charism they receive.

FYI - I am not a Copernican.

 

[cassini]

Orogony, I give you the same answer as I give the others. The Church is not corrupt, it is the unblemished body of Christ. It has cannon laws to keep it uncorruptable.

But Churchmen have no such divine protection outside the laws of the Church. I ask you too, in the light of the paedophile scandals over the last 40 years is the Catholic Church corrupt? No.but I naw ask you are these Churchmen corrupt? Yes. Are those Bishops and Church leaders who protected the sodomites corrupt? Yes.

Now let us apply this reasoning to the 1616 decree against Geocentricism. Did the Copernican Churchmen of 1741 and 1820 comply with the laws of the Church when dealing with the authority of the 1616 decree? No they did not. So can one say they were acting on behalf of the Church? NO. Indeed their behaviour was disgraceful, CORRUPT in my opinion. The popes involved simply approved any document put before them by those of the Holy Office of the time. Finally Pope Gregory XVI unlawfully put away the decree when he dismissed it 'without comment.

Further to the above is the ‘magisterium’ (referred to by one Copernican poster above) of 1992. This was the findings of the 1981-1992 papal commission on the Galileo case presented to the world press by Cardinal Poupard and Pope John Paul II who commissioned the enquiry soon after being elected pope.
Never in the Church has there ever been such a dishonourable report. I could go through it and show sentence by sentence how to spin-doctor history. It will remain as an example of the Copernican heresy and what effect it had on corrupting the minds of Churchmen.

 

[grannymh]

Why is this thread still continuing? Whether geocenticism is correct or not is irrelevant. It is NOT part of the deposit of faith and is not a teaching of the Church and Catholics are free to believe it or not. Nothing presented in this thread supports it is a Church teaching.
It is a matter of science and not faith.

This thread is continuing because of the implied relationship in the title. There is an undercurrent that if one denies geocentricism then one denies the virgin birth. Consequently, if geocentricism is false, it is knocked out of the equation.
I may be wrong – but it seems that the only thing that ties geocentricism to the virgin birth is that both the loving Creator of the universe and the loving Mother of Jesus appear in Scripture.

 

[cassini]

This is easy, because your analogy is so bad. First, you are talking about a few people in the latter case as opposed to the popes since 1835, the current pope, the curia, etc. Second, the example you used is a problem of sin and corruption, as opposed to doctrine; personal behavior, as opposed to the charism they receive.

FYI - I am not a Copernican.

Since when has personal sin been greater than an act of heresy?