C
cassini
Guest
Well 1holy, that’s a new one, not a papal decree. Pity you were not around since 1616, you could have changed history with your knowledge.
- Status
C
cassini
Guest
Disagree away Douglas and why not write your own version of it.
S
sidbrown
Guest
What percentage of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and clergy beleive today that the sun revolves about a stationary earth? Can you name one living Roman Catholic clergyman in the whole world who has taught this?
C
cassini
Guest
Getting back to the theme of this thread,
Eternity and Aeviternity
That state without time, ‘eternity’, the ‘duration of what is altogether unchangeable’, i.e., that which subsists by its essence and has no kind of succession, without beginning or end, and without the possibility of either.
‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ (Apoc.1:8)
Christian theology teaches us that God created the universe we live in now from eternity. Thus time and no time exist together. This gives rise to the state of aeviternity, what the scholastics call periodic or irregular intervals of change - a mean between the changeless duration of eternity and the constant change of time. Such a happening would apply to an image, a spirit, or a person permitted by God to go out of eternity into time and back again.
But there are further complications that show we humans will never fully understand the Christian teaching, and isn’t that why we talk about the MYSTERIES of faith. If we fully understood all things there would be no mysteries at all.
Here is a problem. Did time exist in LIMBO, where all the faithful went before the Incarnation?
Does time exist in Purgatory, given that situation?
Eternity and Aeviternity
That state without time, ‘eternity’, the ‘duration of what is altogether unchangeable’, i.e., that which subsists by its essence and has no kind of succession, without beginning or end, and without the possibility of either.
‘I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ (Apoc.1:8)
Christian theology teaches us that God created the universe we live in now from eternity. Thus time and no time exist together. This gives rise to the state of aeviternity, what the scholastics call periodic or irregular intervals of change - a mean between the changeless duration of eternity and the constant change of time. Such a happening would apply to an image, a spirit, or a person permitted by God to go out of eternity into time and back again.
But there are further complications that show we humans will never fully understand the Christian teaching, and isn’t that why we talk about the MYSTERIES of faith. If we fully understood all things there would be no mysteries at all.
Here is a problem. Did time exist in LIMBO, where all the faithful went before the Incarnation?
Does time exist in Purgatory, given that situation?
C
cassini
Guest
I know two priests personally that fully accept the fixed earth, moving sun of Holy Scripture.
Besides, what does your question try to prove, that Christianity is a democracy where majority belief is the truth? Given popes from 1741 have allowed science to prevail over the interpretation of the Fathers, and the whole world believes the lie that H is proven, what would you expect from living Roman Catholic clergymen. It could prove that Christ was correct, that Satan is the Father of lies, that even the elect could be hoodwinked by him, that the whole world, every clergyman bar the two I know could be indoctrinated to a mind-view that contradicts the witness of their eyes, but you probably wouldn’t believe that either. When the Scriptures tell us that God can be SEEN in the things that are made and Catholics laught at that idea, that takes some really, really clever mindbending, yes? I could go on but I think you should have the picture by now.
S
sidbrown
Guest
So out of the entire Catholic clergy and hierarchy, there are only two priests who hold the theory of geocentrism, while in every Catholic school in the entire world, it is taught that the planets revolve about the sun? This shows that the Catholic hierarchy and clergy of today do not accept geocentrism and that they do not accept your line of reasoning.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
There is no infallible papal decree of 1616. Your insistence that there is doesn’t make one come into existence ex nihilo.
The Galileo Controversy (with NIHIL OBSTAT and an IMPRIMATUR)
…
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
…
I’ll side with the Church on this matter.
S
sidbrown
Guest
Do you say that those Catholics who maintain that the earth revolves about the sun are heretics?
D
Douglas_Kraeger
Guest
That you understand the Bible the way you do, does not prove there is not another paradyme that brings a more consistant explanation.
I do not seewhere you answered my question as to whether or not there are any possible actions that you would know and believe to be absolutely, objectively, morally, wrong and evil? DO you know it would be absolutely, objectively, morally evil for a parent to torture and slowly kill their young children in order to make a lot of money? If you do not know it would be absolutely,objectively, morally evil, just say so.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Guys, the “center” of something is just a declared reference point. It has nothing to do with physical reality except as a convenience reference marker. The Pope could declare his left foot to to be the center of the universe and still not be false (although he might have trouble walking a straight line). The “center” is a point of reference, much like a “frame of reference” it is a thing of the mind only.
A
avflf
Guest
One should not have to “explain” the Word of God, as you believe it to be. Why do you change from eating a neighbour to killing children? It shows that I have given you my reply to the original question. I know that the Bible sanctions the killing of children at the instigation of the parents if the children continuously refuse to do as they’re told. Would you go to these extremes when dealing with your own child? If you did you’d only be following divine law so you could carry out the act with a clear conscience. After all, God sent his own son to die. He himself did not volunteer to die for the sins of the world, did he? I must confess I’m not sure what you aiming at with your questions. How about answering them yourself?
C
cassini
Guest
Two that I know of, I dare say there may be more. Yes, it does show that the Catholic hierarchy and clergy of today do not accept geocentrism and that they do not accept my (and the Church’s) line of reasoning. But we all know that. But that is their problem for what matters is what the Church DEFINED and DECLARED. Unless you can show me any legal abrogation wherein the decree was abolished and giving the reason thereof. Just because nearly every pope, clergy and layman since 1741 decide to ignore a papal decree and believe what was deemed foirmal heresy does not change the situation one iota.
S
sidbrown
Guest
So are most Catholics today guilty of the mortal sin of heresy in this matter which you have brought up?
G
Godisatrinity
Guest
It seems to me time BEGAN in Genesis 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING … Time as we know it BEGAN at that point in time.
See also 2 Timothy 1:9 which speaks about “the beginning of time”.
See also 2 Timothy 1:9 which speaks about “the beginning of time”.
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
**Apocalypse 7:1 **
After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree.
So I guess Science is wrong about that one too.
C
cassini
Guest
1Holy, there is no point in your regurgitating the standard excuses and sophistry in order to try to explain to me how it is that since 1741 Catholic churchmen ignored a papal decree defining a fixed sun/moving earth scenario FORMAL heresy. I can open Ott’s Fundamentals of Cartholic Dogma and find DOZENS of teachings that were never infallible declarations yet are part of Catholic doctrine and theology. One could say they belong to the ORDINARY INFALLIBILITY of the Church.
I also observe the matter-of-fact way Copernicans have presented their heresy as the new infallible truth at the expense of the credibility of Church teaching. Someone on the outside looking in objectively at this infamous U-turn, the ‘once only’ so-called non-infallible blunder of a papal decree that held all Christians to obey a revealed truth under pain of excommunication and even hell that turned out to be false? Stuttering that it was not infallible - whatever that is supposed to mean - does not change the fact that all Copernicans hold their Church CAN make mistakes of THAT MAGNITUDE. By God, what else then is there that can be trusted? Only infallible decrees? Sure its no wonder that Agnosticism and Atheism flourished as a result of the Copernican revolution.
‘By confusing the mathematical outlook with the physical it is possible to arrive at all sorts of conclusions. It is not easy for an untrained mind to distinguish what is rightly proved from what is little more than speculation. Some of these conclusions are startling, and appeal to the popular imagination. It requires only a further step to apply them to the most obtrusive and sacred matters of philosophy and religion. In this respect our most popular scientific writers are to be severely criticized. They are not satisfied with expounding the really astounding facts of modern astronomy and science in general, but they write them up so as to appeal to the novelty of the half-educated classes – that is, to those who have received no scientific or critical training. In the case of conclusions which tend to undermine the great beliefs on which human life is founded, this is almost criminal.’ — Fr H. V. Gill, pp.70-71.
‘Among the sciences, the mathematical ones are those which have taken the more false and disastrous direction. They were the first to be included in the assault of the philosophers against Christianity; they have become deadly weapons in the hands of impiety and pride; they have broken every restraint; they have unchained all the passions; they have eroded the foundations of society and order.’ — Giacchino Ventura (1824): quoted by Massimo Mazzotti in his article The Geometers of God, ISIS review, vol. 89, 1998, p.674.
‘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.
‘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.
And that is the Copernican heresy CHAMPIONED by members of the Catholic Church since 1741. And you don’t side ‘with the Church’ 1holy, you have been conned into thinking that, you side with the heretics. Are you all BLIND or what? Is CATHOLIC INSTINCT gone with the heresy?
C
cassini
Guest
If we are Catholics and adhere to the teaching of the Church, then in the absence of any legal act of the Church abrogating an immutible papal decree, then yes.
So, what is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a thing? Hilaire Belloc, prolific author, wrote:
‘Like most modern words, ‘heresy’ is used both vaguely and diversely… Today, with most people, the word ‘heresy’ connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead; because it deals with matters no one now takes seriously.’
But understanding heresy, Belloc goes on to say, is crucial to the individual and to society, and is of special interest for anyone who would now try to understand the world and its history. ‘Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. Heresy then, is a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind because it is bound up with the subject of religion, without which no human society has endured, or ever can endure.’ The history of Europe, the very heart of civilisation, the source or catalyst of world domination and influence, cannot be separated from the successive anti-Catholic heresies, and especially not from the Copernican heresy, which the Catholic Belloc himself – along with all within the Catholic Church – unwittingly shared.
It is however worth noting that heresies usually lead on to destroy further doctrine and eventually undermines the Church itself.
With Rome’s abandonment of the geocentric interpretation and tradition, this heresy would eventually eat into every aspect of Catholic faith and belief especially scholastic theology and philosophy. The Bible could no longer be read as the Fathers read it, and its interpretation was now subjected to the dictates of metaphor and ever changing ‘science’. In time, other popes writing on the Holy Scriptures had to concede somewhat to this ‘scientific’ licence in their advice to exegetes. Throughout the retreat however, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man, woman or child thereafter saw the matter of a fixed sun or moving earth of any significance or bearing on their Catholic belief. But this heresy was designed and destined to undermine the basis of the faith like dry rot in a cathedral, unnoticed and invisible by those worshipping and praying in the church while effecting changes that would give rise to modernism in the twentieth century and eventually undermine the very sources of grace themselves.
What is beyond question or contradiction is that this mutation of doctrine, this surrender of the hierarchical sacred doctrine of the world, and all that it supported and destroyed, and the profound effect it had on the very understanding of the Bible as history, came from the top, the papacy itself. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is such that wherever the Pope goes the Catholic world follows. Moreover, any pontiff who, even implicitly, repudiates the decisions of his predecessors, risks eroding the whole Petrine authority and consequently his own. Accordingly, from the moment that Popes Benedict XIV, Pius VII and Gregory XVI gave belief to the doctrine of the Earthmovers by way of imprimaturs based on mere human reasoning, ignoring the decisions of Popes Paul V and Urban VIII - the historic rulings that set Galileo’s fate - not only did the whole intellectual world become Copernican, but the teaching Church was compromised; its tradition, its doctrine and its authority. The lesson shown as Churchmen and laity pitted themselves against geocentricism a declared matter of faith the Church had clearly upheld as irreversible, gave rise to scientific agnosticism and evolutionism, the core principle of modernism, i.e., the precedent to question any Catholic teaching that did not comply with the scientific thinking and its ideology of the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Once it was perceived that the Church’s interpretation of the Bible could no longer guarantee full truth or literal certainty where the Fathers read it, it was clear the final assault on the stability of the Lord’s footstool had reached its climax. With the Church (rather, Churchmen that ran it) and the State now agreeing to a ‘scientific’ origin and design for the world rather than that held by the Church Fathers, the triune God, recognised by billions up to the time of the Earthmovers, was demoted as sole acting Creator and Master of His own universe.
The Copernican revolution then - without a single authority or influence now left to contain its diabolical lust to dominate the world of knowledge - would now affect all the sciences, including philosophy and theology, blowing them apart so to speak, awaiting others who would try to bind them all together again. Once the Earthmovers Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Einstein were allowed to transfer the order of the heavens from first causes to false ideas and hypothetical laws, a new theoretical extrapolation was invented yet granted the status of a ‘science’ worthy of consideration by both Statesmen and Churchmen.
C
cassini
Guest
**In the case of MOST since 1741, their heresy is MATERIAL, not deliberate, not intentional, based on absolute ignorance, INCULPABLE IGNORANCE, belief that the cowboys actually proved the sun is fixed relative to the earth. There is no punishment due with material heresy.
But this in turn raises a crucial question and could be the subject of a thread of its own. INCULPABLE IGNORANCE can be breached. If one is told the truth, and one does not search to the best of one’s ability to seek out this truth, then pleading inculpable ignorance at the time of one’s judgement may be rejected. **
C
cassini
Guest
James, It has been recognised since they were written that the Scriptures contain literal truths, metaphors, allegories, symbols, poetry etc. The Fathers and doctors of the Church were men given grace by God to interpret the same Scriptures. If they did not know the difference then the Church would be an absurd institution.**Apocalypse 7:1 **
After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree.
So I guess Science is wrong about that one too.
The first recorded science-lesson as to the shape of the earth appeared in Isaias, yes, in the Old Testament, the Bible itself:
‘It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.’ — Ch. 40:22.
That the earth is a globe was also the conclusion of ancient science. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also demonstrated to them a sphere and of course the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon illustrates the curved nature of the earth. So no, nobody had to show the Church or the philosophers and astronomers of 5,700 years something they didn’t know already, as the Copernican propagandists would have us believe.
Aware the earth is a globe, it is obvious that the reference to the ‘four corners of the earth’ means the whole earth. In other words, this is not a literal statement by a metaphor for everywhere.
And sure you really knew that James, only playing the game, yes?
J
James_S_Saint
Guest
Are you trying to say that the Earth DOESN’T have four corners?? 
Just because the Bible says, “Four corners of the Earth” doesn’t mean that there are any. And just because the Bible says, “In the Beginning…”, doesn’t mean that there was one.
Yes, but that is the OLD Covenant. We are under the NEW Covenant.
Just because the Bible says, “Four corners of the Earth” doesn’t mean that there are any. And just because the Bible says, “In the Beginning…”, doesn’t mean that there was one.
- Status