Doctrine of structure of the universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nobody
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nobody

Guest
Could anyone point me to sources to refute this statement:

“…These philosophers [Aristotle & Plato] got the whole picture of the structure of the universe wrong, leading ultimately to the widespread acceptance of misconceptions about physics and natural phenomena. This ultimately became canonized in the doctrines of the authoritarian Catholic Church.”

From Symmetry & the Beautiful Universe by Lederman & Hill

I’m not looking to start a thread about the structure of the universe, but rather to find or disprove the “canonized in the doctrines” part of the quote.

Thanks!
 
Do you have a little more context? Aristotle, for instance, proved that a prime mover exists. St. Thomas Aquinas adopts a great portion of Aristotle’s philosophy in developing his theology. And St. Thomas, of course, is the Angelic Doctor.

Is there a reason to disprove the Lederman & Hill quote (except the “Aristotle and Plato got it wrong” part)?
 
He’s talking about the earth-centered universe, and celestial bodies being perfect spheres and orbits being perfect circles. To be honest, I haven’t read enough of Aristotle or Plato to know what they thought on these subjects. I’m more concerned with the claim that the church made these theories (or any physical/science theories) “doctrines”.
 
Aristotle wrote a book called “De Caelo” or “On the Heavens.” I haven’t read it, but my understanding is that it is full of errors. However, there is one bit of truth in that book:

“The reason is that a principle is great rather in power than in extent; hence that which was small at the start turns out a giant at the end.”

Aristotle’s small errors in the beginning turn out giant in the end 🙂
 
nobody said:
"…These philosophers [Aristotle & Plato]
got the whole picture of the structure of the universe wrong, leading ultimately to the widespread acceptance of misconceptions about physics and natural phenomena. This ultimately became canonized in the doctrines of the authoritarian Catholic Church."
Click to expand...

You mean the geo-centric model? The same geocentric model that was challenged by the churchman Copericus in his geocentric model? The first to bring up real opposition to the heliocentric model were Protestants because it was not biblically literal. The first “Catholic opposition” to it was 70+ years after it was formed and you can thank the arrogance of Galileo for that.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp
 
40.png
nobody:
Could anyone point me to sources to refute this statement:

“…These philosophers [Aristotle & Plato] got the whole picture of the structure of the universe wrong, leading ultimately to the widespread acceptance of misconceptions about physics and natural phenomena. This ultimately became canonized in the doctrines of the authoritarian Catholic Church.”

From Symmetry & the Beautiful Universe by Lederman & Hill

I’m not looking to start a thread about the structure of the universe, but rather to find or disprove the “canonized in the doctrines” part of the quote.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Nobody,

A year or two ago my wife read Galileo’s Daughter by Dava Sobel. She told me that in that book it said that the Church had not made any authoritative teaching on the Copernican theory and that Galileo (before he got into trouble) was concerned that the Church might do this and be wrong. So that book may be a good place to start.
  • Liberian
 
Geocentrism was never a Church doctrine. Most of the opposition to geocentrism came not from the Church, but rather from the universities where the Ptolemaic model was firmly entrenched.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Geocentrism was never a Church doctrine. Most of the opposition to geocentrism came not from the Church, but rather from the universities where the Ptolemaic model was firmly entrenched.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Mark,

I’ll not disagree with you, but there are a bunch of people over on Robert Sungenis’ website who do. I will simply plead ignorance on the subject.
  • Liberian
whose interest in geocentricism is largely scientific
 
My tongue and cheek response to this goes something like this. Church infallibility = Faith and Morals. Even if there were people within the hierarchy of the Church claiming geocentrism, it is outside its sphere of infallibility, and hence irrelevant to the places where the Church Magisterium claims authority.

That said, it wouldn’t surprise me if throughout the Middle Ages people within the Church held and claimed the Church’s position was the geocentric view. The Church encompassed all of European society; and the entrenched academic thought at the time was geocentrism.

The Church at the time was corrupted by individuals who sought worldly power through the Church. Unfortunately, this has been a blemish on the Church ever since. But thanks be to God, the salt of the true Church was always there, and the seeds were in the saints. He protected Her from teaching error in faith and morals, even though corrupt men and women used the Church as a means to political power and wealth.

All that said, it’s kind of funny when smug academics like the two you mention make a claim like the Church is the antagonist of science. It’s funny because there were thousands of years of history before the advent of the Catholic Church, and none of these scientific discoveries were ever made in different cultures. (Think about the Middle Ages: Galileo, Newton, Capernicus, etc. What an age of scientific discovery!) For some reason, scientific discovery always pittered out before it got started in cultures prior to Catholic Christian cultures. I think the true question to ask, instead of, “How did the Church stifle science?” is to ask, “What was it about the Church age that fostered scientific discovery?” Especially since those same discoveries were not made in prior cultures (and some of them extrermely advanced, such as Egypt, or Greece and Rome during the Hellenistic age.)

My feeling is that it takes a certain philosophical framework to foster scientific discovery, and Christian philosophy, with its ideas of progress (i.e. history is moving towards something) along with its openness to new ideas (that’s right I said it) through love of neighbor is what fostered that growth. These academics who call the Church “authoritarian” in regards to stifling science need to read a better history of science. They’ve become all too reliant on the misnomered “Enlightenment’s” history, which is rife with errors because it had an agenda; the destruction of all authority, the Church, and faith in God itself.
 
40.png
JP2Admirer:
My tongue and cheek response to this goes something like this. Church infallibility = Faith and Morals. Even if there were people within the hierarchy of the Church claiming geocentrism, it is outside its sphere of infallibility, and hence irrelevant to the places where the Church Magisterium claims authority.
Click to expand...
And who exactly has the authority to determine for the Church where God’s authority ends?
40.png
JP2Admirer:
…The Church at the time was corrupted by individuals who sought worldly power through the Church. Unfortunately, this has been a blemish on the Church ever since. But thanks be to God, the salt of the true Church was always there, and the seeds were in the saints. He protected Her from teaching error in faith and morals, even though corrupt men and women used the Church as a means to political power and wealth.
Click to expand...
What? This is the newest way to try and get the Church out of supporting geocentrism. “The Church was corrupt then”.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
All that said, it’s kind of funny when smug academics like the two you mention make a claim like the Church is the antagonist of science. It’s funny because there were thousands of years of history before the advent of the Catholic Church, and none of these scientific discoveries were ever made in different cultures. (Think about the Middle Ages: Galileo, Newton, Capernicus, etc. What an age of scientific discovery!).
Click to expand...
The Greeks had a heliocentric model long before Corpenicus.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
For some reason, scientific discovery always pittered out before it got started in cultures prior to Catholic Christian cultures. I think the true question to ask, instead of, “How did the Church stifle science?” is to ask, “What was it about the Church age that fostered scientific discovery?” Especially since those same discoveries were not made in prior cultures (and some of them extrermely advanced, such as Egypt, or Greece and Rome during the Hellenistic age.)
Click to expand...
There is some truth in that. Catholic Culture did produce great music, art, and science. But science is often used as a tool against the Church. The geocentrism case is the best example, where the Church authoritatively proposed it, science has not to this day disproven it, yet the Church is made to feel it is (was) wrong.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Geocentricity 101, Part I: veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html

Geocentricity 101, Part II: veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html
 
40.png
trth_skr:
And who exactly has the authority to determine for the Church where God’s authority ends?

What? This is the newest way to try and get the Church out of supporting geocentrism. “The Church was corrupt then”.

The Greeks had a heliocentric model long before Corpenicus.

There is some truth in that. Catholic Culture did produce great music, art, and science. But science is often used as a tool against the Church. The geocentrism case is the best example, where the Church authoritatively proposed it, science has not to this day disproven it, yet the Church is made to feel it is (was) wrong.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Geocentricity 101, Part I: veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html

Geocentricity 101, Part II: veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html
Click to expand...
Nobody really has the authority to tell God where His authority ends. The trouble is, God isn’t interested in revealing to us how the world functions. I’m sure He’s pleased with us researching it and our origins, but if scientific revelation was His goal, don’t you think Christ would have revealed all scientific truth to us? Why didn’t He just settle this debate when He came? Yes the Church fosters scientific discovery, but that is not Her purpose, and it is dangerous water to tread in when it comes to the redemption of souls.

How many souls do you think turned away from the true Church when geocentrism was apparently exposed? (I say apparently because some, such as yourself, feel geocentrism is true.) The scientific method is one of hypothesis and then test that hypothesis, i.e. it is often wrong before it is right.

When the Church gets involved in something such as science, it can really hurt Her credibility merely based on the methods of science. Science is about discovery; theology is about what is already revealed.

The fact that science is sometimes a tool used against the Church is exactly why she must be careful in that arena; and why Popes never issue encylicals (to my knowledge) about the way the world functions.

Also, I had forgotten that the Greeks developed a heliocentric model, but still, they were not able to accomplish what the Church age did.
 
40.png
JP2Admirer:
…The trouble is, God isn’t interested in revealing to us how the world functions…
Click to expand...
Whether the earth is at the center is not how the universe functions, buut rather how it is configured. God spent a lot of the Scriptures revea;ing the universe’s configuration and origins.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
How many souls do you think turned away from the true Church when geocentrism was apparently exposed? (I say apparently because some, such as yourself, feel geocentrism is true.) …
Click to expand...
I wonder what entity might twist truth and manipulate egos to make the Church look bad?
40.png
JP2Admirer:
When the Church gets involved in something such as science, it can really hurt Her credibility merely based on the methods of science. Science is about discovery; theology is about what is already revealed.
Click to expand...
Again, what has been revealed really, is
  1. The earth does not move
    2, The sun moves around it.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
The fact that science is sometimes a tool used against the Church is exactly why she must be careful in that arena; and why Popes never issue encylicals (to my knowledge) about the way the world functions.

…
Click to expand...
Pope Alexander VII issued a Bull against heliocentrism.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
nobody:
Could anyone point me to sources to refute this statement:

“…These philosophers [Aristotle & Plato] got the whole picture of the structure of the universe wrong, leading ultimately to the widespread acceptance of misconceptions about physics and natural phenomena. This ultimately became canonized in the doctrines of the authoritarian Catholic Church.”

From Symmetry & the Beautiful Universe by Lederman & Hill

I’m not looking to start a thread about the structure of the universe, but rather to find or disprove the “canonized in the doctrines” part of the quote.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Words which have a precise meaning as technical terms in “Churchspeak” 🙂 are often used in a non-technical sense: substance, person, dogma, hypostasis are a few examples: and canonize, is another. Some were adopted for theological use; some are derived from theological use.​

It is not clear from the quotation whether these authors are claiming that the cosmology of Plato & Aristotle was, in whole or in in part, formally canonized as a dogma; or whether they mean only that it became a or the standard cosmology in the Church, whether canonised or not. ##
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Whether the earth is at the center is not how the universe functions, buut rather how it is configured. God spent a lot of the Scriptures revea;ing the universe’s configuration and origins.

I wonder what entity might twist truth and manipulate egos to make the Church look bad?

Again, what has been revealed really, is
  1. The earth does not move
    2, The sun moves around it.
Pope Alexander VII issued a Bull against heliocentrism.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
First off, the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. If I’m not mistaken JP2 made a statement on geocentrism saying that it was too much of a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

Secondly, the Bull against heliocentrism placed Galileo’s work on the list of banned books since it was considered dangerous to Catholics. However, it has subsequently been removed from that list. The Church has not spoken authoritatively one way or another on this issue and has left it up to us. Since there is some ambiguity between different pope’s statements, I think its a bit rash to claim the Church holds one position over the other. The fact that there’s a dialectic within the See of Peter, might suggest that geocentrism has not been authoritatively defined; nor do I think it will be, since the Church’s infallibility is in regards to faith and morals. The Church doesn’t need to be an expert in science, and I’ll say it again, it’s dangerous for Her to get involved because the nature and methods of science are not conducive to the saving of souls.

You beleive geocentrism is true; there are a lot of scientists out there who disagree with you. I think the debate is good because it fosters research and discovery. However, I don’t think its right for either side, if there is still debate on the issue, to claim that it is right. I think that’s what you are doing.

Where has it been revealed that the earth does not move? Where has it been revealed that the sun moves around it? I don’t recall Christ ever making an authoritative statement on such issues; and whatever passages you cite within the OT, you have to make sure you are interpreting it with the right method. That’s why we should rely on the Church’s interpretation, and on this point She’s been ambiguous at best.
 
40.png
JP2Admirer:
First off, the Bible can be interpreted many different ways. If I’m not mistaken JP2 made a statement on geocentrism saying that it was too much of a literalist interpretation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
I think Cardinal Poupard made a comment like that. This is basically his personal opinion.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
Secondly, the Bull against heliocentrism placed Galileo’s work on the list of banned books since it was considered dangerous to Catholics.
Click to expand...
The Bull included all previous condemnations of heliocentric writings, and attached the index itself to the Bull. The theological reasons for the condemnation were that that heliocentrism goes against the Father’s interpretation of Scripture.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
However, it has subsequently been removed from that list. The Church has not spoken authoritatively one way or another on this issue and has left it up to us. Since there is some ambiguity between different pope’s statements, I think its a bit rash to claim the Church holds one position over the other.
Click to expand...
It was removed from the list with no explanation. It was put on the list with very specific explanations- heliocentrism is (or at least approaches) heresy.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
The fact that there’s a dialectic within the See of Peter, might suggest that geocentrism has not been authoritatively defined; nor do I think it will be, since the Church’s infallibility is in regards to faith and morals. The Church doesn’t need to be an expert in science, and I’ll say it again, it’s dangerous for Her to get involved because the nature and methods of science are not conducive to the saving of souls.
Click to expand...
I think it was authroitatively defined, subsequently (and likely incorrectly) became an embarrassment, and fortunately you are correct- the previous authoritative declarations have not been reversed.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
Where has it been revealed that the earth does not move? Where has it been revealed that the sun moves around it?
Click to expand...
Where has it been revealed or proven the earth does move? Nowhere.

The Fathers all held the geocentric position, mainly as a part of authoritative interpretation of Scripture.
40.png
JP2Admirer:
I don’t recall Christ ever making an authoritative statement on such issues; and whatever passages you cite within the OT, you have to make sure you are interpreting it with the right method. That’s why we should rely on the Church’s interpretation, and on this point She’s been ambiguous at best.
Click to expand...
The Father’s of the Church are the ones who authoritatively interpret Scripture. They interpreted it geocentrically. This is the Church’s interpretation.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Whether the earth is at the center is not how the universe functions, buut rather how it is configured. God spent a lot of the Scriptures revea;ing the universe’s configuration and origins.

I wonder what entity might twist truth and manipulate egos to make the Church look bad?

Again, what has been revealed really, is
  1. The earth does not move
Click to expand...

The words “the earth has been established, so that it shall not move” do occur in the Psalms -​

but:
  • that is not the same as saying that the immobility of of the earth has been revealed. Otherwise, one would have to say that the presence of the words “There is no god” in the Psalms, and twice at that, is a revelation of the truth of atheism.
The meaning of the words has to be decided by their function in the context of the literary units in which they occur - to treat that passage as “teaching” the immobility of the earth is a simple literary function-mistake; one might as well complain that Jesus is lying when He says that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. He’s speaking popularly, not teaching botany; and the Psalm is talking about the majesty of God, not about astronomy.

Besides, what would be the point of the presence in the Bible of such unverifiable statements about astronomy ? A text from the Ancient Near East which did that, would be a monstrosity: it would be about as profitable to the ancient readers of the Psalms, as dropping a crateload of Hebrew grammars over an island populated by head-hunters would be to them: they would have no means of profiting by such a gift: unless we are to suppose the Israelites invented the telescope. ##
2, The sun moves around it.

Pope Alexander VII issued a Bull against heliocentrism.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

Can you give any details ? If he denied what’s true, then he’s wrong. Nicholas V issued a Bull in 1454 saying that undiscovered peoples could be enslaved. He withdrew it in 1455, just before his death. When Popes insert their feet in their mouths, we have no obligation to listen to them, since these blunders do not do what Papal teaching is for - they do not build up the Church​

 
Gottle of Geer:

The words “the earth has been established, so that it shall not move” do occur in the Psalms -​

but:
  • that is not the same as saying that the immobility of of the earth has been revealed. Otherwise, one would have to say that the presence of the words “There is no god” in the Psalms, and twice at that, is a revelation of the truth of atheism.
…
. ##
Click to expand...
Actually, this is a supporting verse, but the main analysis really comes from Johua 10. THe Father’s of the Church have analyzed Joshua 10 and other verses, and came to this conclusion. I guess it is ok for theologians to question this theoretically, but according to Trent and Vat. I, the authority of the Fathers in Scriptural interpretation is where the buck stops.

Here is what St. Bellarmine had to say regarding the issue of the Fathers:

On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter, refusing Galilei’s scientific concept of the Sun being orbited by the Earth which proved wrong the doctrine: “I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.”
Gottle of Geer:

Can you give any details ? If he denied what’s true, then he’s wrong. Nicholas V issued a Bull in 1454 saying that undiscovered peoples could be enslaved. He withdrew it in 1455, just before his death. When Popes insert their feet in their mouths, we have no obligation to listen to them, since these blunders do not do what Papal teaching is for - they do not build up the Church​

This is a very good point. Nicholas V did retract the statement- i.e., the Church corrected its mistake. In the case of Alexander VII, no Pope has subsequently corrected it. Perhaps if the heliocentrists (acentrists) are correct, some day a Pope will correct it. As part of the correction, they will have to explain how the Fathers erred, and how Trent and Vat. I is to be interpreted in that light. As of today, no correction has been issued. Until such a “correction” comes, Alexander VII should not be considered wrong, especially on the basis of the opinion of secular science. Just removing some writings from the index (as occured in the 19th centurry) with no comment is not a correction.

The Bull was Speculatores Domus Israel. Here is part of the title page (courtesy of Robert Sungenis). He had to go to Catholic University in Spain, rare books collection to find a copy. Robert and Dr. Bennett will include a translation in his upcoming book, “Galileo was Wrong”.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter, refusing Galilei’s scientific concept of the Sun being orbited by the Earth which proved wrong the doctrine: “I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think either the Scripture writers or the fathers even had the concept of the earth as a planet so how they should be interpreted is not certain. The current Church certainly does not require the view that they be interpreted so that the planet earth does not move with respect to the stars. Galileo was probably wrong in that he thought the sun did not move and the earth revolved around it, whereas modern science would say that both the earth and sun revolve around the center of mass of the solar system (which is not quite coincident with the sun center), and the whole solar system is believed to revolve in the galaxi.

Sungenis’ whole argument for a still earth, (aside from a personal interpretation of Scripture and some old Church documents) relies heavily on a postulate of general relativity that says there is no preferred or absolute reference frame in the universe. That postulate defies all the scientific evidence that exists, so is not much backing for such a contrary view.
 
40.png
Nate:
I don’t think either the Scripture writers or the fathers even had the concept of the earth as a planet so how they should be interpreted is not certain. The current Church certainly does not require the view that they be interpreted so that the planet earth does not move with respect to the stars. Galileo was probably wrong in that he thought the sun did not move and the earth revolved around it, whereas modern science would say that both the earth and sun revolve around the center of mass of the solar system (which is not quite coincident with the sun center), and the whole solar system is believed to revolve in the galaxi.

Sungenis’ whole argument for a still earth, (aside from a personal interpretation of Scripture and some old Church documents) relies heavily on a postulate of general relativity that says there is no preferred or absolute reference frame in the universe. That postulate defies all the scientific evidence that exists, so is not much backing for such a contrary view.
Click to expand...
See here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=904636&postcount=1

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top