Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[cassini]

Here is an exchange between hecd2 and mitch2.

Mitch said 'Also, his [Galileo’s] heliocentric, that is, sun static view, was taken to be a reality to the point where he claimed scriptures as being wrong, for example in the case where the sun stood still for Joshua

hecd2 replied:
Well he was right about that. The earth cannot stop rotating all of a sudden and then start again, which is what would have had to happen.

There are so many inaccuracies being spread on this thread it would take me 24 hours a day to correct all of them. I post this as an example.

Galileo never ever stated, said or hinted that the Scriptures were wrong.

And hecd2, he was not ‘right about that’.

Any objective study of the Galileo case from the paradigm that the Church cannot make erroneous definitions on faith and morals gives one the ability to record the events without inventions and errors. The documents are preserved so no doubt can be sustained, the facts are there to be recorded once again. However, read any account of the Galileo case, be it by a Catholic or an atheist, one will find both have to pervert the facts to show the case in the way they would like it to have happened.
In 1992 a papal commission, with no Church authority at all but one that was supposed to represent the truth of the affair, was probably the most perverted of all. This perversion is upheld by the heliocentricists debating on this thread as the CHURCH’s position on the whole matter. Google in to this commission and read even Fr George Coyne’s opinion of it, and he is a heliocentricist, and you will see who is right.

 

[pnewton]

I and others are absolutely convinced that the Devil has fooled the combined intelligence of the whole human race.

The combined intelligence of the human race…except you and a couple others.

. Others will be informed, you can bank on that now, for I will see to it that it is recorded and the truth will out.

So you are here to “promote a single-mindedd agenda.” How are all the Catholics in the wrong who follow the Catholic Church and our Holy Father? I notice you have not been selected pope, at least by the Catholic Church.

 

[pnewton]

It is not enough to recognize ridiculous statements about the Catholic Church. The real picture needs to be explained from various view points for the benefit of the thread’s readers

I understand, but since my area is not astrophysics I have to leave that to others. What I can bring is a type of common sense Occam’s Razor to such issues. Cassini is not unique to these forums in coming in with ideas foreign to the Catholic faith. The first line of defense is to point to the Catechism, which is our sure norm for Catholic Church. This wonderful gift has been provided so the Catholic in the pew does not have to be an expert in every area. I have repeatedly asked for documentation from the Catechism, which of course, does not exist. Instead I get the same document presented over and over claiming it made geocentrism a dogma of the Church.

A second approach in explaining the cassini’s of the world is to look at any large population of people. There will always exist those that think the are unique in understanding something or other. In the NT, they had the gnostics that did the same thing. The Baptist have Westboro Baptist in Topeka. Catholics have lots of pockets that think they know something no one else does. It is part of our human nature to want to prove our uniqueness.

The bottom line for anyone who jumps over here to see what Catholics believe is that this is nothing but a forum, with Catholicism as a topic. If one wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches, go to the Catechism. That is what it is there for.

One more thing, this link, unlike cassini’s post has both a NIHIL OBSTAT and an* IMPRIMATUR*:

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 

[warpspeedpetey]

one will find both have to pervert the facts to show the case in the way they would like it to have happened.
In 1992 a papal commission, with no Church authority at all but one that was supposed to represent the truth of the affair, was probably the most perverted of all. This perversion is upheld by the heliocentricists debating on this thread as the CHURCH’s position on the whole matter. Google in to this commission and read even Fr George Coyne’s opinion of it, and he is a heliocentricist, and you will see who is right.

yes, yes, you are the only true holy ones, the rest of us have been misled.

JPII the successor to Peter, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit appointed that commission under Papal Authority.

under that authority, granted by Christ in Matt 16:18, the pontifical commission found that a mistake had been made in the galileo affair, that is the churches official position. if you want more paperwork wait another 400 years and you might get it

point being that you are denying the very promise of Christ, the foundation of all Christianity. you are denying the very faith you claim to uphold

here is the score against your position, so far.

1. pictures of the solar system, from outside the frame of reference. on these links.

solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam3.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam2.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam1.gif

1. all of physics. you will find no proper physicist, who supports your position, doubtful even your erstwhile brother.
2. observational evidence from every national space agency, observatory, and university on the planet.
3. the Roman Catholic Church, who, under Papal Authority, found the galileo affair to be a mistake.

on your side

1. your opinion, misunderstanding physics, theology, and infallibility. in matters of Faith and Morals, not science.

i know you wish these pics would go away, or that they could be excused, even though they specifically contradict your position , in a manner used by astronomers for longer than recorded history, but they wont.

that is all the evidence we need.

but that is not all we have,

and your reply?

all this is disproved by the opinion of Bellarmine, and a the misunderstanding of some experiments from a century ago.

you suppose that a statement from 400 years ago makes heliocentrism a heresy, even though it is not a matter of faith or morals, then you disregard that same office changing its opinion.

bottom line is that no infallible statement was made over matters of faith or morals, regardless of bellarmines personal opinion. a very fallible statement was made concerning science.

the current Papal office says so with all the force and authority of that same office 400 years ago, further backed by 4 centuries of scientific study.

conclusion :the current model of the solar system is incorrect

aside. pnewton is correct, you are a protestant, you are protesting something you think the church is mistaken about, the pontifical commission of 1992, that is the classical definition of a protestant.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Dear CWBetts (post 94)

You have made some very sound comments. May I expand?

To me 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. And what is this Scripture? The Hebrew Scriptures establish the existence of God and His relationship to humanity all in preparation for the coming of Jesus Christ. The New Testament establishes Jesus Christ as true God and true man, the universal Savior Who establishes the Catholic Church. The Church can be seen as the relationship of humanity with God. This is done in 73 books written in a variety of styles, none of which can be compared to scientific texts.

CWBetts, you are right, the Bible is not a science book. Nor was it ever intended to be a science book. So why the non-issue? Why does the thread connect to Jesus being born of the Virgin Mary? It is the basic check-out lane tabloid trick of getting someone’s attention so that the Catholic Church can be attacked. Notice the date, December 26, on the OP. Sounds like another version of the “Christmas culture wars.”

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is the basic check-out lane tabloid trick of getting someone’s attention so that the Catholic Church can be attacked.

Blessings,
grannymh

:sad_yes:

 

[cassini]

Originally Posted by CWBetts
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.

Now for my reply to this same post. A non-issue. Well 8,000 books have been written on this non issue. Why do you think this is grannymh and CWBetts? This non issue appears in Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes no 36. Herein, in the references, for the first time in history appears the name of a layman, a suspected heretic to boot. This Church council ‘deplored’ the Church of 1616 for causing conflict and controversy and for misleding 'many into opposing faith and science.
It is my contention that if anyone wants proof that the Holy Ghost was not present at this Council, here it is. But sure we all know this don’t we.It was non-dogmatic with two papal rejections of infallibility. So, using the understanding of infallibility to be found on this thread, it can be dismissed as the waffling of Copernicans and dismissed out of hand.

Contrary to what you people think, this issue was/is a matter of salvation to many. It is so because it gave ‘science’ an authority over the interpretations of Scripture and thus degraded Catholic theology. It opened the way for an acceptance of evolutionism as another interpretation of the Scriptures. Once these beliefs made progress, man had now an alternative to theism.

The German poet, Johanne von Goethe (1749-1832), said of it:

‘Among all the discoveries and convictions, probably not a single fact has had a deeper influence on the human spirit than the teaching of Copernicus…Humanity has probably never been asked to do more, for consider all that went up in smoke as a result of realising this change: a second paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety, the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetic and religious faith; small wonder that one did not want to give this up, that people in every possible way resisted such a doctrine, which those who accepted it justified and summoned to a so far unknown, yet unthought of freedom of thinking and greatness of vision.’

And recently, Arthur Koestler describes the transition like so:

‘Their cosmic quest, destroyed the medieval vision of an immutable social order in a walled-in Universe with its fixed hierarchy of moral values, and transformed the European landscape, society, culture, habits and general outlook as thoroughly as if a new species had arisen on this planet.’

The first atheists, according to a book written on the subject recently - started their influential writings after Galileo. This atheism and rejection of Christianity is rampant in our time. here is an example:

‘It was Freud who observed that after Copernicus, belief in God who had created the world and kept it in his care was no longer tenable. Although four-and-a-half centuries after the great astronomer’s death, there are millions who have still not heard the bad news.’ John Banville: Irish Times, December 31, 1999.

CWBetts and grannymh agree that:
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.

No you cannot, for who determines what ‘true science is’? If false science is substituted for true science where does that leave the truth of true science and the Bible? Here are a few more quotes for you all to ponder on.

‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succumbs to reasoning. For the two Columns of the Temple to uphold the edifice, they must remain separated and be parallel to each other…. Harmony is the result of an alternating preponderance of forces.’ — Morals and Dogma, p.306.

‘Once the key to Genesis is in our hands, the scientific and symbolical Kabalah unveils the secret. The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the Lord God are identical…. Thus Satan, once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious dogmatic, unphilosophical spirit of the Churches, grows into the grandiose image of one who makes of a terrestrial, a divine man.’ Helena Petrovna Blavatski: The Secret Doctrines, London, 1893, p.446

‘I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to emotionalise and mythologise their science to such an extent that what is, in effect, a belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the enemy. The “Life Force”, the worship of sex, and some aspects of psychoanalysis, may prove useful. If once we can produce our perfect work – the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits” – then the end of the war will be in sight.’ — Letter from a senior to a junior devil. C.S. Lewis: The Screwtape Letters, (1942) W. Collins, Glasgow, 1989, p.40.

'’Protocol No. 2: For them let that play the principal part that we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want…
In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press… But the Goyim States have not known how to make use of this force, and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade…’ Protocols (of the Illuminati)… published in 1905, pp.15-16.

 

[cassini]

continued:

‘Sigmund Freud believed science (including psychoanalysis) to have inflicted three severe blows to man’s perception of himself. In the sixteenth century Copernicus inflicted a cosmological blow by demonstrating that the earth moved around the sun, and was not the centre of the universe. In the nineteenth century Darwin inflicted a biological blow by showing man’s evolutionary continuity with the animals, and in the twentieth, his own emphasis on the unconscious determination of human behaviour dealt a drastic blow to man’s sense of psychological freedom. Stephen Wilson: The B. Book of the Mind, Bloomsbury, 2003, p.312.

This revolution was applied slowly to Catholic theology under the guise of neo-scholasticism. As a direct consequence of accepting the heliocentric and evolutionary worldview, a new synthesis with Catholic doctrine and dogma was thought necessary, for having perverted, abandoned and deprived the Church of its scholastic exegeses and theologically based philosophy by conceding to the condemned heresy of the Earthmovers, the Copernicans had thereby created a vacuum, inviting a novel theology to fill it. A version of this new hermetic theology - the dream of Bruno and Campanella of the sixteenth century, a ‘development of doctrine’ as they called it, was begun in the main by John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926) and Canon Henry de Dorlodot (1865-1929) but taken to bizarre heights by Fr Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a Jesuit priest who as a child adored the forces in pieces of iron , Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, and other modernist reformers of the twentieth century.

‘The imprint of his [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin] thinking is on the minds of individuals who have rejected the God of the Bible for a god who is nothing more than the “energy” [force] that flows through the sum of all creation. The circle of Chardin’s influence continues to widen, even after his death, for not only did he write a number of widely read volumes, but many of his disciples have their works on the bestseller lists.’ Ted Flynn: Hope of the Wicked, MaxKol, Virginia, USA, 2000, p.55.

Besides de Chardin, many high-ranking Church theologians also tried their hand at the new ‘scientific’ synthesis. One of these was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who in 1981 set himself the task of attempting a creation catechesis in the cathedral of Munich for adults in four Lenten homilies. Referring to the Genesis account as unscientific ‘poetry’, he went on to say: ‘yet these words give rise to a certain conflict, but are they also true? Everything seems against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just heard.’ There followed a makeshift theistic-evolutionary scenario on creation and Original Sin, a mixture of scientific and theological opinions as incomprehensive and absurd as the scientific fables that dictated its conclusions. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: In the Beginning, Sunday Visitor Pub., p.12.

‘The impetus given by de Chardin exerted a wide influence. With daring vision it incorporated the historical movement of Christianity into the great cosmic process of evolution.’ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p.335.

 

[thistle]

continued:

‘Sigmund Freud believed science (including psychoanalysis) to have inflicted three severe blows to man’s perception of himself. In the sixteenth century Copernicus inflicted a cosmological blow by demonstrating that the earth moved around the sun, and was not the centre of the universe. In the nineteenth century Darwin inflicted a biological blow by showing man’s evolutionary continuity with the animals, and in the twentieth, his own emphasis on the unconscious determination of human behaviour dealt a drastic blow to man’s sense of psychological freedom. Stephen Wilson: The B. Book of the Mind, Bloomsbury, 2003, p.312.

This revolution was applied slowly to Catholic theology under the guise of neo-scholasticism. As a direct consequence of accepting the heliocentric and evolutionary worldview, a new synthesis with Catholic doctrine and dogma was thought necessary, for having perverted, abandoned and deprived the Church of its scholastic exegeses and theologically based philosophy by conceding to the condemned heresy of the Earthmovers, the Copernicans had thereby created a vacuum, inviting a novel theology to fill it. A version of this new hermetic theology - the dream of Bruno and Campanella of the sixteenth century, a ‘development of doctrine’ as they called it, was begun in the main by John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926) and Canon Henry de Dorlodot (1865-1929) but taken to bizarre heights by Fr Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a Jesuit priest who as a child adored the forces in pieces of iron , Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, and other modernist reformers of the twentieth century.

‘The imprint of his [Pierre Teilhard de Chardin] thinking is on the minds of individuals who have rejected the God of the Bible for a god who is nothing more than the “energy” [force] that flows through the sum of all creation. The circle of Chardin’s influence continues to widen, even after his death, for not only did he write a number of widely read volumes, but many of his disciples have their works on the bestseller lists.’ Ted Flynn: Hope of the Wicked, MaxKol, Virginia, USA, 2000, p.55.

Besides de Chardin, many high-ranking Church theologians also tried their hand at the new ‘scientific’ synthesis. One of these was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who in 1981 set himself the task of attempting a creation catechesis in the cathedral of Munich for adults in four Lenten homilies. Referring to the Genesis account as unscientific ‘poetry’, he went on to say: ‘yet these words give rise to a certain conflict, but are they also true? Everything seems against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just heard.’ There followed a makeshift theistic-evolutionary scenario on creation and Original Sin, a mixture of scientific and theological opinions as incomprehensive and absurd as the scientific fables that dictated its conclusions. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: In the Beginning, Sunday Visitor Pub., p.12.

‘The impetus given by de Chardin exerted a wide influence. With daring vision it incorporated the historical movement of Christianity into the great cosmic process of evolution.’ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p.335.

What is the point in all of this? Get it into your head. The Church does NOT teach geocentricism and Catholics are free to believe it or not. It is a matter of science and not faith and is not essential for our salvation.

 

[mlchance]

As has been pointed out, there’s nothing about any cosmological model in the Creed or in the Catechism. The Virgin Birth, OTOH…

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

continued:

‘Sigmund Freud believed science (including psychoanalysis) to have inflicted three severe blows to man’s perception of himself. In the sixteenth century

a whole lot of words, almost none of them yours and none of them change the orbit of the earth.

for all that needs to be said on the subject please refer to these links.

solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam3.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam2.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam1.gif

geocentrism is wrong, Christs Promises protect the Body of Christ, im pretty sure He doesnt need your help

 

[pnewton]

It is my contention that if anyone wants proof that the Holy Ghost was not present at this Council, here it is.

So you reject the Second Vatican Council. This comes as no surprise. You also reject the teaching of the Holy Father in your second post. Again, no surprise.

So we have here a man who believes that the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church meeting in Council (at least this century) or the Holy Father. Yet he knows the truth. We should ignore the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church today because it is all “Churchmen” and listen to him (the Post-man?).

 

[mich2]

First, Cassini, thank you for correcting me on what I wrote. Sometimes I, although I’m certainly
not the only one, will write down a post, from which a flow of thought will lead the writing. And in doing this, we sometimes express ourselves with the wrong words…So let me try again, if you will…

Here is an exchange between hecd2 and mitch2.

Mitch said 'Also, his [Galileo’s] heliocentric, that is, sun static view, was taken to be a reality to the point where he claimed scriptures as being wrong, for example in the case where the sun stood still for Joshua

Very true…he never claimed the scriptures to be false,but only the interpretation thereof. My point was that, as I seem to understand Galileo, and I may be wrong in assuming this, he refered to only one possible frame of reference as being a possible reality…the sun. What was his interpretation when scriptures refered to a static earth? I don’t know, I am in the process in trying to find out…If he was claiming that, for example, the sun stood still in appearances only,implying the earth was what came to be at rest, then he must have place the sun as being truly static, this being part of his astronomical reality. It is only in this particular case that I believe that Galileo was wrong. He had the support of the church to deliver
the heliocentric view as an hypothesis, or a model, if you wish…if he would have simply stuck to this
method, he would have continued to be supported by the church.

There are so many inaccuracies being spread on this thread it would take me 24 hours a day to correct all of them. I post this as an example.

Galileo never ever stated, said or hinted that the Scriptures were wrong.

Maybe you can enlighten me, then, Cassini. First Galileo had the support of the Church to continue his research on the heliocentric model, then, condemned of heresie because he upheld things contrary to the scriptures. Why?

We do know that it had something to do with the
problem of the heliocentric model as being real, and that there was indeed only one reality. We also know that Galileo attempted to interpret the scriptures problematic to a moving earth. In this, he may have been set up and “forced” to explain the so called controversies within scriptures, I don’t know. again,I am in the process of trying to find Galileo’s scriptural explanation in order to see whether he really believed the sun to be truly static.

Andre

 

[mich2]

We can be sure of the diurnal rotation of the earth with respect to the star field, and with respect to the CMB, and we can also be sure of the annual movement of the earth owing to its orbit around the sun with respect to these things. So, if you define the universe by the star field and the CMB (and I don’t know how else you would define it), then we can see that there is motion between the earth and the universe (diurnal rotation, annual orbit) not shared by the sun. The sun and earth together of course, share the motion of the solar system with respect to the local standard of rest, with respect to the Hubble flow and with respect to the CMB. The point however is that the earth has rotational and orbital motion with respect to the star field and the CMB not shared by the sun.

I am not implying that the earth has no motion. My reasoning of a geocentric universe is purely philosophical in essence…we, as observers must be at the center of the universe because no other center can be found. The sun certainly is not the center, nor is it immovable. Nor is there any other place in the universe where a static central frame exists…so, all that is left to claim as central, must be us.

Not sure what you mean here.

First, understand that I am only a layman and do not claim that the following explanation is based on scientific reasoning, because it is mostly based on a philosophical one.
Although I have been taught that the planets orbit the sun, I have never been told why. Certainly the gravitational theory does explain somewhat the observation, however, why are the planets not simply falling into the sun? Some will say that the planets indeed accelerate towards the sun but a secondary velocity away from the sun creates an orbital displacement instead. Now, why does such a secondary motion exist, and what is it’s cause?
If we account for the motion of the sun, a perfectly circular planetary orbit would not be interpreted in the same way as if we leave the sun to be static. For a static sun, the orbital acceleration is constant, where as for a moving sun, it would not be, since the planet’s velocity would be the sun’s velocity + X, for one part of the orbit, and the sun’s velocity - X for the other part, for such a frame of reference. From here, certain other laws for our solar system’s planetary movements would need to be considered.

Just an aside, but 2nd C AD is hardly the Middle Ages.

But that’s the point; the middle ages’ philosophers, following Ptolemy’s model could not have been caught off guard by Copernicus’ model; while most would just consider it absurd, it was for philosophical, if not scientific reasoning…not because of scriptures. Why the scriptures were thrown in the debate, in my opinion must have been due to Galileo’s position that only a sun static frame could be accepted as real.

He was right about the fact that on a rotating earth forces appear, but completely wrong about their magnitude, because he had no way of calculating the centrifugal and Coriolis forces due the earth’s rotation
And this is an argument about linear motion which is completely wrong conceptually because it ignores Galilean relativity.

My point was not to support his philosophy of motion, which was based on Aristotle, because I don’t. It was mearly to show how powerful philosophical reasoning was used when in supporting a geocentric model, and this, in the second century. Are we to believe that the middle age belief system was based on illogical superstitions? I fail to see this.

Of course - that is not in question.But Copernicus was first to pull the threads of the arguments together and present a fully worked out system in terms familiar to modern science.

agreed

No. It is not a change of period but a rotation of the plane of the pendulum in a way that depends only on the earth’s rotation and the latitude of the pendulum.

My question would be that if a simple solar eclipse
can make a small deflection on the movement of Foucault’s pendulum, then, in my opinion, gravity must play somewhat of a major role,it would seem.
Also, the difference in gravitational attraction, again, in my opinion, would be much greater when the sun changes it’s position relative to the pendulum, where at one time it is located at the opposite side of the earth, relative to the pendulum,than the gravitation variation an eclipse might induce.

Quite apart from the fact that the effect of the sun and moon’s gravity at the earth’s surface is tiny and won’t explain the magnitude or the direction of the effect, the pendulum is not attracted to the centre of gravity of the earth-moon-sun (which is somewhere deep in the sun) and the Foucault pendulum effect is symmetric about the equatorial not the ecliptic plane.

Sorry, I did not mean center of gravity in such a way, but more of a spacetime curvature image, where the gravity pull would be directed on the pendulum from the earth, since the pendulum is closest to the earth, although this spacetime
medium, if you will ( hypothetical medium for gravity) would continuously be changed by the movements found relative between the earth, sun and moon. We do know that a free fall is caused and directed by gravity, which is what the pendulum is simply doing.

No. These forces have nothing to do with GR - they arise in classical mechanics on a rotating earth and are not significantly influenced by the presence of the sun or moon.

It was only a thought which doesn’t concern the issue we are discussing, but only wanted to ask since you seem to be knowledgeable in this field.
Thank you for replying to my question.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[grannymh]

The Case Against Denying The Virgin Birth As In The Thread’s Title

The issue of this thread is the alleged relationship between geocentricism and the Virgin Birth. The topic of this thread needs to be treated from the Catholic point of view because of what it implies about the Catholic Faith. First I will treat the source of the alleged relationship. At the end, I will offer a personal opinion.

Scripture was given as the source for the alleged relationship in this thread. For some reason geocentricism is portrayed as being in Scripture. The following is why geocentricism as a scientific theory is not in Scripture.

To be fair, this thread contains arguments supporting both geocentricism and heliocentricism. Notice that the language of the “scientific” posts is far different than the language in Genesis. Even more significantly, the goal of science is directed to the physical matter of the universe which is far different than the goal of the beginning chapters of Genesis which is directed to the existence of God. Thus, the creation of the sun, etc., acts as visible evidence. Of course, there are other opinions regarding language and goal of the Bible but they, too,
are not in the scientific mode. The difference in language is significant.

From the beginning, Catholic tradition saw the 73 books of the Bible as a source of Divine teaching. The apostles and the early Church fathers, as the teachers, were the interpreters of Scripture. When there were differences, councils were held to determine the truth. The first Church council is recorded in Acts.

Did the Catholic Church over and over again teach the importance of Scripture? Yes. Did anyone take verse by verse of the Bible and declare it infallible? No. Did the Church declare some of the teachings of scripture and tradition (which is based on scripture) infallible? Yes. One needs to notice the difference between verse by verse and teachings. This is significant.

Did the Catholic Church declare geocentricism was an infallible teaching because it was in Scripture. No? Was geocentricism taught as an infallible teaching in the centuries following the acceptance of heliocentricism? No. Why not? Because it was never accepted as part of Divine Revelation.

To avoid the “he said/she said” type of discussions regarding Catholic teaching, I need to point out that in this forum there has been quite a misuse of words like doctrine, dogma, infallible, etc. Personally, I wouldn’t even attempt to figure out the semantics
which were in place centuries ago. Instead, I like my Irish Mother’s saying – the proof is in the pudding. If one takes the time to scan just the footnotes in the CCC, one will find a full range of sources. Yet, with all these verifiable documents, the teaching of geocentricism did not get in the CCC.

In practical terms, neither geocentricism nor heliocentricism contradicts the Catholic teaching that God is the primary Creator. Unfortunately, it was not the best of times for Copernicus. It definitely was one of the bad periods in Church history. I am very sad about this.

Obviously science has not taken over the authority of the Church to interpret Scripture because heliocentricism is not in the CCC.

One final note about salvation of souls.

There is no doubt in my mind that souls are in trouble. There is no doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church offers the way to eternal life with the loving Creator of the universe. There is no doubt in my mind that the 4th century heresy Arianism is still around drawing souls away from the real Jesus Christ. Denying the Virgin Birth is one way of denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I rest my case.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Denying the Virgin Birth is one way of denying the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

grannymh

oooooooooooohhhhhhhh…

aint that the truth.

 

[mich2]

I don’t think I understand the point you are making - perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean?

If we isolate the earth / moon system, making the earth static, what seems to be a very regular orbit of the moon around the earth is not at all. There is even speculation of dark matter existing close to the earth in order to explain some anomalities. Exterior elements need to be taken into consideration as well in order to understand more about the moon’s orbit…the orbital displacement of the earth for one is important. Therefore,I think that, while we are indeed learning about the universe when studying the heliocentric model, I believe that many discrepancies cannot be taken in account due to the sun being static.

Well the Franciscans were deeply opposed to it for one thing . Plus Galileo was rather rude to the Pope and he challenged the Pope’s and Bellarmine’s authority.

True, many could not accept a heliocentric view, but in my opinion , it was because of the reasoning of Ptolemy, and not because scriptures forbid it…Augustine, in the third century wrote of this issue.

.

Well he was right about that. The earth cannot stop rotating all of a sudden and then start again, which is what would have had to happen.

This is what I’m trying to find about …what was his interpretation? We do know that he did indeed give his scriptural interpretation. If he believed the sun was truly static, which is what I suspect, he might have claimed the earth stopped rotating, giving the impression that the sun stood still.
as for the centrifugal forces involved,remember that those who opposed heliocentrism, used this particular argument, which is simply the argument given by Ptolemy, while Galileo did not seem to find it problematic.

I am sorry - this makes no sense at all from a scientific point of view. The sun and the earth won’t suddenly change their translation or rotation, unless they crash into something big and the consequences of that would be that we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Furthermore they’d have to start up again soon afterwards. Galileo was right about this.

Again, I’m not a scientist, however, it seems that a body will follow a spacetime curvature and be in an
inertial frame while it does. I personally don’t see why some hypothetical anomality within space could affect the motion of the sun, and a retarded
affect on the earth, causing the illusion that the sun seemed to have stopped.
There certainly could be other explanations for the sun to stand still, such as sundog mirrage…or whatever other causes.

Not in my reading of it: “Galileo was by the said Commissary commanded and enjoined, in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the said opinion that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves”

Well, the two sentences were separated"
**
…therefore (this Holy Tribunal being desirous of providing against the disorder and mischief which were thence proceeding and increasing to the detriment of the Holy Faith) by the desire of his Holiness and the Most Emminent Lords, Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the sun, and the motion of the earth, were qualified by the Theological Qualifiers as follows:

1 The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures.

2 The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world, nor immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal action, is also absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith. **

Notice that the movement of the earth was found to be at least erroneous in faith, while heliocentrism was found as being formally heretical.

Not so. What you call “guided evolution” is not science but religion, and is not allowed in a science class but can be explored in a religious affairs class. In this case, the Church was meddling in science, to the extent that Galileo’s and Copernicus’s books were on the Index for a long time. This was not just a case of Galileo being admonished and prevented from teaching, but a case where the Church attempted to suppress the heliocentric view in a systematic way by banning access to the ideas. And that is wrong, regardless of whether the ideas are right or wrong.

I respect your argument. However, when I wrote “guided evolution” I did not mean “god’s hand” guiding evolution, but the hypothesis that some non-random specific form of mutations might be involved in the process of evolution. I totally respect the fact that you do not accept this; however, if within some one hundred years from now, a form of intelligent process is found to be responsible in giving an “arrow” to the evolutionnary process allowing life to develop in an increasing form of interaction with the universe…if such a theory could evolve, then the insistance of not letting such an hypothesis to be taught in a learning environment would be viewed, in my opinion, in the same way we accuse the middle age church to have forbidden to claim helliocentrism as truth…again, just an opinion.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Andre

 

[cassini]

As has been pointed out, there’s nothing about any cosmological model in the Creed or in the Catechism. The Virgin Birth, OTOH…

– Mark L. Chance.

‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…’

That Holy Catholic Church defined and declared the Church believes the Scripures when it states the sun moves around the earth. If you believe in the Holy Catholic Church then you must accept its definitions.

Rant all you like about science, photos of heliocentricism, non-infallibility, me pointing out that the Vatican Council II Fathers contradicted this same Catholic Church they were supposed to be upholding, but none of you can show where and when the Church’s decision was abrogated, where the Vatican II popes, cardinals and bishops got a legal and canonical right to ridicule their predecessors in the eyes of the world. That is all that matters. If one of you can show me an abrogation I will disappear immediately. But you cannot show me or anybody where this decree - supported by the 1633 pope and the 1664 pope - was ever recinded legally. This is what you guys just cannot cope with. Call me all the names under the sun if you like, but you still have to deal with what Providence allowed the Church to decree in 1616.

 

[mlchance]

That Holy Catholic Church defined and declared the Church believes the Scripures when it states the sun moves around the earth.

No, she didn’t. Your errors have been repeatedly pointed out. Merely repeating them ad nauseum doesn’t make them less erroneous.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[pnewton]

‘I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…’

That Holy Catholic Church defined and declared the Church believes the Scripures when it states the sun moves around the earth.

So you keep saying. And continue to beg the question. Where in the Catechism does it state that the Church “defined and declared the Church believes the Scripures when it states the sun moves around the earth?”

Have you eve read the Catechism, or do you just prefer writing it yourself?