Does time have a beginning?

[James_S_Saint]

and is it possible that the statement does not prove the earth is fixed and does not even require that?

I think that has been the point to the Catholic position throughout time. The “center” can be anywhere you declare it to be. The Science position has been one of Occam’s Razor concerns of simplicity involved in further calculations. It isn’t really a matter of reality, but rather about what to declare as “Truth” for sake of a mental model.

From what I have seen, I think it would be unwise for Science, considering their pursuit, to declare that the Earth is the center of the universe. Such would make their effort horrendously and unnecessarily difficult.

Much like a Laplacian transform, you can have different mental models of the same reality. You can convert from one to the other and back at your convenience. You just can’t mix them together and expect to not be totally lost.

 

[cassini]

Albert and James, this is terrific stuff, really good debate, hope we can all keep cool and see it as just that, an intellectual exchange and not survival of the fittest. But remember lads, there are a few Catholics reading this forum so the Catholic element must be catered for. Indeed, and here is the Irony of the debate, were you two fellas Catholics you COULD NOT debate like you do because Catholics have to defend what they PERCEIVE to be TWO mistakes of mine, one in FAITH and the other in SCIENCE. Now I can share an article I have only recently just reread on this very subject, it is called The god of astronomers and the god of theologians: An apology of Bellarmine (of his Letter to Foscarini 1615) written by Professor of Philosophy Marcello Pera (google in to see his credentials) and it comes in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo.

First though for Albert:

‘Any physical theory is always provisional in the sense
that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times
the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that
the next time the result will not contradict it.’ —Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, p.10.

‘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.

Apart from these principles, because of relativity the relationship between the sun and earth is only a matter of choice - NOT PROOF. That said there are cosmic truths that empirical science has established, like the planets DO orbit the Sun. If Albert does not concede to this LIMITATION then he is out of touch with modern thinking for the past hundred years and the debate has no further use for him. I do accept the problem of relativity and therefore the debate can go further for me:

Prof Pera was dismissing the autonomy of science in relation to Catholic faith, a rare position to be found in the realm of faith and science. He argued that like Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII in his Humani Generis (not in his 1940 statement that the Big Bang proves the CREATION) , certain factual statements in Scripture cannot be overturned by scientific theories because as a theory (like the Big Bang) SOMEDAY IT COULD BE OVERTURNED AND WHERE THEN THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. Thus Pius XII was wrong here. Pers says:

’One might object that this conflict concerns the relationship between
truths of faith and scientific hypothesis and not scientific truths.
But the objection is untenable. Firstly because, according to a more
adequate epistemology than Pius XII’s, ALL scientific truths are hypothetical.
Secondly, because the Pope denied that hypotheses contrary to
articles of faith can be maintained even qua hypotheses.
One might also object that Pius XII’s Encyclical did not give rise
to a new Galileo affair. (p.384)

A Catholic might claim that the latter part of Pera’s paragraph refers to ‘articles of faith’ only. Well the missing point is that in 1616 the Church did make a fixed earth moving sun it an article of faith.

Finally, Albert in particular and even YPPOP above question my intellectual ability when making a choice that the world has rejected these past 350 years. Yppop says I bring Catholicism into disrepute and give anti-Catholic elements a straw man to poke fun at. Yppop has no problem that the CHURCH and anti-Catholic elements have used the CHURCH of 1616 and 1633 as the GREATEST straw man in HISTORY. But now that CHURCHMEN have rowed behind metaphysical assumptions and reinterpreted Scripture accordingly, they have regained HUMAN RESPECT and do not want the likes of ME undermining this position.
Caytholics today have no problem either believing in MIRACLES before during and after Christ, miracles that the same discipline of empirical science reject OUT OF HAND.

Obviously then it takes a leap of FAITH of INCREDIBLE proportions to say to oneself as a Catholic ‘Could God have permitted HIS Church to commit itself to a fixed earth in Scripture if it were not true, bringing His Church into disrepute and breaking for the ONLY TIME IN HISTORY, a false decree defining a HERESY where none ever existed.’ After 20 years reading up on the matter and seeing the history of Faith and science from an official and unofficial Catholic way, I have come down on the side of the Church of 1616. It goes AGAINST all my SCIENTIFIC INDOCTRINATION in my life and yet I cannot find one single PROOF that I am wrong. It is the ABSENCE of PROOF that convinced me most for if it is of FAITH then PROOF is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[AlbertBall]

So you are claiming to be a research scientist???

Nope, i claimed that i am carrying out research right now. I do not know what the future will hold for me and to what level i will study to. I’m doing post-grad studies right now, i may or may not do a PHD.

I can send you my work of you like, i doubt you would find it interesting, i am currently researching the effect a change to 3D e-learning environments would have on students cognitive and learning styles.

An example from just weeks ago from a 20 year practicing physicist.

I fail to see what relevance this has to debating me about the credibility of the scientific method.

MY claim was merely THEIR claim and that is that history has SHOWN the evidence of the existence of God and His miracles. The “results” are obvious, such a Jesus walking on water, Moses dividing the Red Sea. They take what they are told of the past at face value and accept the explanation for it because the people relaying the information WOULD NEVER unintentionally deceive or lie… Just as YOU do.

Do you not realize that the Catholic Church ALSO requires peer reviewed material before it can be published under the Church’s name?

You worship “THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD” they worship “THE HOLY SPIRIT”.

You know nothing of their method, they know a great deal of yours.

No, you claimed science no different than that of scripture, you are incorrect. When i pointed out science is results based you claimed that one could equally claim scripture is results based. Again you are incorrect. You then further claim “The “results” are obvious, such a Jesus walking on water, Moses dividing the Red Sea.” These are NOT results in a scientific sense. Hence they CANNOT be compared to scientific results, hence scripture is NOTHING like science. If you are being charitable you best stop, for with every post you further demonstrate you have no idea how scientific research works.

Science is based on observable,** REPEATABLE, TESTABLE **evidence. Tell me, how can i go repeat Jesus walking on water, HOW can i verify the claim?

The results of the scientific method speak for there self, NOTHING comes CLOSE to science. Just look what it has done for our lifes. TV, Phones, Computers, Modern Medicine, etc etc etc. What has scripture given us?

 

[AlbertBall]

I agree cassini, to be totally honest i see many theories like M-Theory and String-Theory in the same light as i see religion. I don’t mean that as a slur, i mean that I’m my eyes they are untestable ideas. I am not a big fan of theoretical physics. Just my personal opinion though.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It might be important to note that a “center” is NOT a physical entity. A center does not exist to a real materialist. A center is merely a measured relative location and from what it is measured determines the usefulness of its declaration. It has nothing to do with reality itself, but rather a mental model from which one can deal with reality either easier or not.

Declaring a Center is much like declaring North and South on a map. Reality has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of convenience.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I agree cassini, to be totally honest i see many theories like M-Theory and String-Theory in the same light as i see religion. I don’t mean that as a slur, i mean that I’m my eyes they are untestable ideas. I am not a big fan of theoretical physics. Just my personal opinion though.

I agree with you on that one.

But in a few cases, I really CAN prove their theories wrong, but only to those deeply familiar with the real metaphysics from which physics is born. And some of what they say is much like the Bible in that they are really talking about a different thing entirely but letting people believe they are talking about physics.

 

[cassini]

I agree cassini, to be totally honest i see many theories like M-Theory and String-Theory in the same light as i see religion. I don’t mean that as a slur, i mean that I’m my eyes they are untestable ideas. I am not a big fan of theoretical physics. Just my personal opinion though.

How true Albert. I have a brother who became a Professor of Quantum Mathematics (in Canada) at the age of 27 (a long time ago). He gave it up as ‘The most USELESS profession ever INVENTED by man.’ He then went on with another brother to become two of the top ‘experts’ on James Joyce’s writings. From the frying pan into the fire as far as I am concerned.

 

[sidbrown]

Albert and James, this is terrific stuff, really good debate, hope we can all keep cool and see it as just that, an intellectual exchange and not survival of the fittest. But remember lads, there are a few Catholics reading this forum so the Catholic element must be catered for. Indeed, and here is the Irony of the debate, were you two fellas Catholics you COULD NOT debate like you do because Catholics have to defend what they PERCEIVE to be TWO mistakes of mine, one in FAITH and the other in SCIENCE. Now I can share an article I have only recently just reread on this very subject, it is called The god of astronomers and the god of theologians: An apology of Bellarmine (of his Letter to Foscarini 1615) written by Professor of Philosophy Marcello Pera (google in to see his credentials) and it comes in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo.

First though for Albert:

‘Any physical theory is always provisional in the sense
that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times
the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that
the next time the result will not contradict it.’ —Stephen Hawking, Brief History of Time, p.10.

‘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.

Apart from these principles, because of relativity the relationship between the sun and earth is only a matter of choice - NOT PROOF. That said there are cosmic truths that empirical science has established, like the planets DO orbit the Sun. If Albert does not concede to this LIMITATION then he is out of touch with modern thinking for the past hundred years and the debate has no further use for him. I do accept the problem of relativity and therefore the debate can go further for me:

Prof Pera was dismissing the autonomy of science in relation to Catholic faith, a rare position to be found in the realm of faith and science. He argued that like Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII in his Humani Generis (not in his 1940 statement that the Big Bang proves the CREATION) , certain factual statements in Scripture cannot be overturned by scientific theories because as a theory (like the Big Bang) SOMEDAY IT COULD BE OVERTURNED AND WHERE THEN THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. Thus Pius XII was wrong here. Pers says:

’One might object that this conflict concerns the relationship between
truths of faith and scientific hypothesis and not scientific truths.
But the objection is untenable. Firstly because, according to a more
adequate epistemology than Pius XII’s, ALL scientific truths are hypothetical.
Secondly, because the Pope denied that hypotheses contrary to
articles of faith can be maintained even qua hypotheses.
One might also object that Pius XII’s Encyclical did not give rise
to a new Galileo affair. (p.384)

A Catholic might claim that the latter part of Pera’s paragraph refers to ‘articles of faith’ only. Well the missing point is that in 1616 the Church did make a fixed earth moving sun it an article of faith.

Finally, Albert in particular and even YPPOP above question my intellectual ability when making a choice that the world has rejected these past 350 years. Yppop says I bring Catholicism into disrepute and give anti-Catholic elements a straw man to poke fun at. Yppop has no problem that the CHURCH and anti-Catholic elements have used the CHURCH of 1616 and 1633 as the GREATEST straw man in HISTORY. But now that CHURCHMEN have rowed behind metaphysical assumptions and reinterpreted Scripture accordingly, they have regained HUMAN RESPECT and do not want the likes of ME undermining this position.
Caytholics today have no problem either believing in MIRACLES before during and after Christ, miracles that the same discipline of empirical science reject OUT OF HAND.

Obviously then it takes a leap of FAITH of INCREDIBLE proportions to say to oneself as a Catholic ‘Could God have permitted HIS Church to commit itself to a fixed earth in Scripture if it were not true, bringing His Church into disrepute and breaking for the ONLY TIME IN HISTORY, a false decree defining a HERESY where none ever existed.’ After 20 years reading up on the matter and seeing the history of Faith and science from an official and unofficial Catholic way, I have come down on the side of the Church of 1616. It goes AGAINST all my SCIENTIFIC INDOCTRINATION in my life and yet I cannot find one single PROOF that I am wrong. It is the ABSENCE of PROOF that convinced me most for if it is of FAITH then PROOF is IMPOSSIBLE.

Are you saying that it is heresy to say that the earth revolves about the sun?
If it is a heresy to say that the earth revolves about the sun, then why do Catholic schools teach such. Doesn’t that mean that the Catholic Church has defected, since it now teaches a heretical theory?

 

[cassini]

Are you saying that it is heresy to say that the earth revolves about the sun?
If it is a heresy to say that the earth revolves about the sun, then why do Catholic schools teach such. Doesn’t that mean that the Catholic Church has defected, since it now teaches a heretical theory?

Wow Sid, talk about opening a can of worms. It was the CHURCH that defined the heresy like so:

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was 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.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

The second part of your question Sid, why do schools teach it, the heresy - is because CHURCHMEN, i.e popes, have allowed Catholics to believe it is the truth and not the Church’s 1616 and 1633 ruling.
And NO the CHURCH hasn’t defected, only the opinions and actions of Churchmen - all UNOFFICIAL. Note there was never an abrogation of the heresy or a retrial for Galileo, the only OFFICIAL way out of the heresy.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Wow Sid, talk about opening a can of worms. It was the CHURCH that defined the heresy like so:

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was 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.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

The second part of your question Sid, why do schools teach it, the heresy - is because CHURCHMEN, i.e popes, have allowed Catholics to believe it is the truth and not the Church’s 1616 and 1633 ruling.
And NO the CHURCH hasn’t defected, only the opinions and actions of Churchmen - all UNOFFICIAL. Note there was never an abrogation of the heresy or a retrial for Galileo, the only OFFICIAL way out of the heresy.

Ouch.

That means that practically speaking, one cannot be both an astronomer/cosmologist and a Catholic. Catholics might as well give up Science altogether… sad.

 

[sidbrown]

Wow Sid, talk about opening a can of worms. It was the CHURCH that defined the heresy like so:

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was 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.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

The second part of your question Sid, why do schools teach it, the heresy - is because CHURCHMEN, i.e popes, have allowed Catholics to believe it is the truth and not the Church’s 1616 and 1633 ruling.
And NO the CHURCH hasn’t defected, only the opinions and actions of Churchmen - all UNOFFICIAL. Note there was never an abrogation of the heresy or a retrial for Galileo, the only OFFICIAL way out of the heresy.

I don’t see where you have shown that geocentrism was declared infallibly. I am interested to see the link and references to the infallible declarations on this subject.

 

[cassini]

I don’t see where you have shown that geocentrism was declared infallibly. I am interested to see the link and references to the infallible declarations on this subject.

Ah Sid, the old infallible ploy. Hopefully we have two OBJECTIVE opinions on board here, Albert and James. Already it is interesting to see their view of things. In 1616, by virtue of a papal decree, a fixed sun relative to a moving earth was defined and declared to be FORMAL HERESY. When Catholics thought that had been proven false by science, they had to think up ways to WORM the CHURCH out of trouble. Catholicism remember, claims God is presiding over His Church and will NOT allow Popes to DEFINE AND DECLARE FALSELY on matters of faith and morals.

First here is the INSTRUMENT used by the Church to decide this issue in 1616:
The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition
In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

Bet that is the first time you ever read that Sid? We are all told it was decided by a few theologians of no count, weren’t we. Want me to quote Pope John Paul II’s special Galileo commission for you Sid? That report never even mentioned any POPE was involved.
In 1633 Pope Urban VIII said the decree was IMMUTABLE. In 1820 it was again deemed IRREVERSIBLE by Churchmen. So, if a papal decree is immutible it BETTER BE TRUE, yes Sid? Do you think James or Albert could take an institution seriously if told that this same Church could define something formal heresy and against Catholic faith and later dismiss this under the pretence that 'it was not defined infallibly? That would mean the Church could only guarantee TRUTH in ex cathedra or council infallible declarations. In other words every doctrine and theology outside these infallible conditions can be ignored just as they tried to ignore the 1616 decree? What about the infallible ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, declared but not define exactly at Vatican I?

No. it is much safer to say no science has ever shown a papal decree WRONG thus retaining the promise that God has indeed never allowed a false papal decree defining a formal heresy,

So what if others are CONVINCED a fixed sun relative to the earth is proven - it is not - and continue to know that God will not allow the Church to err on matters of faith and morals. Oh and don’t bother to try the next ploy, that it was not of faith for what the Scriptures reveal is essential to Catholic faith so is of faith as Bellarmine, Pope Paul v and Pope Urban VIII deemed.

But no, for this scientific assault on the Scriptures now has the backing of all in the Church but a few. Your faith is being tested against human intellectual pride, and you know what, intellectual pride wins hands down every time. Believing in turning water into wine is one thing, but in a fixed earth as depicted in Genesis at the beginning of time, well that is a FAITH TOO FAR, yes?

 

[cassini]

Ouch.

That means that practically speaking, one cannot be both an astronomer/cosmologist and a Catholic. Catholics might as well give up Science altogether… sad.

You know James, it is great to get your noner viewpoint. You ask the correct questions. Catholics can of course be astronomers because they look at stars and plot them. The greatest Catholic astronomer ever was Domenico Cassini and he refused to accept the philosophical assumption of a moving earth. Of course Catholics can be scientists, many were, many are. There are many worthy sciences that establish facts, such as medicine, chemestry, genetics etc. It is when they start trying to get their cosmic and evolutionary theories to comply with Catholic theology that trouble starts for THEOLOGY and PAPAL DECREES. That was Professor Pera’s thesis.

 

[sidbrown]

Ah Sid, the old infallible ploy. Hopefully we have two OBJECTIVE opinions on board here, Albert and James. Already it is interesting to see their view of things. In 1616, by virtue of a papal decree, a fixed sun relative to a moving earth was defined and declared to be FORMAL HERESY. When Catholics thought that had been proven false by science, they had to think up ways to WORM the CHURCH out of trouble. Catholicism remember, claims God is presiding over His Church and will NOT allow Popes to DEFINE AND DECLARE FALSELY on matters of faith and morals.

First here is the INSTRUMENT used by the Church to decide this issue in 1616:
The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition
In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

Bet that is the first time you ever read that Sid? We are all told it was decided by a few theologians of no count, weren’t we. Want me to quote Pope John Paul II’s special Galileo commission for you Sid? That report never even mentioned any POPE was involved.
In 1633 Pope Urban VIII said the decree was IMMUTABLE. In 1820 it was again deemed IRREVERSIBLE by Churchmen. So, if a papal decree is immutible it BETTER BE TRUE, yes Sid? Do you think James or Albert could take an institution seriously if told that this same Church could define something formal heresy and against Catholic faith and later dismiss this under the pretence that 'it was not defined infallibly? That would mean the Church could only guarantee TRUTH in ex cathedra or council infallible declarations. In other words every doctrine and theology outside these infallible conditions can be ignored just as they tried to ignore the 1616 decree? What about the infallible ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM, declared but not define exactly at Vatican I?

No. it is much safer to say no science has ever shown a papal decree WRONG thus retaining the promise that God has indeed never allowed a false papal decree defining a formal heresy,

So what if others are CONVINCED a fixed sun relative to the earth is proven - it is not - and continue to know that God will not allow the Church to err on matters of faith and morals. Oh and don’t bother to try the next ploy, that it was not of faith for what the Scriptures reveal is essential to Catholic faith so is of faith as Bellarmine, Pope Paul v and Pope Urban VIII deemed.

But no, for this scientific assault on the Scriptures now has the backing of all in the Church but a few. Your faith is being tested against human intellectual pride, and you know what, intellectual pride wins hands down every time. Believing in turning water into wine is one thing, but in a fixed earth as depicted in Genesis at the beginning of time, well that is a FAITH TOO FAR, yes?

Can you give us a specific reference to the infallible documents that you are quoting here?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You know James, it is great to get your noner viewpoint. You ask the correct questions. Catholics can of course be astronomers because they look at stars and plot them. The greatest Catholic astronomer ever was Domenico Cassini and he refused to accept the philosophical assumption of a moving earth. Of course Catholics can be scientists, many were, many are. There are many worthy sciences that establish facts, such as medicine, chemestry, genetics etc. It is when they start trying to get their cosmic and evolutionary theories to comply with Catholic theology that trouble starts for THEOLOGY and PAPAL DECREES. That was Professor Pera’s thesis.

Yes but you quoted a “Pope’s Order” involving the issue. On the “Time - for an IQ test” thread I have just run across another serious issue that I am trying to resolve concerning Papal decrees. I am not searching for error, but on the other hand, when something pops up, I cannot at this point, ignore it.

 

[cassini]

Can you give us a specific reference to the infallible documents that you are quoting here?

And which documents are you referring to Sid?

 

[cassini]

Yes but you quoted a “Pope’s Order” involving the issue. On the “Time - for an IQ test” thread I have just run across another serious issue that I am trying to resolve concerning Papal decrees. I am not searching for error, but on the other hand, when something pops up, I cannot at this point, ignore it.

Was that one you were looking for on the other thread James?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Was that one you were looking for on the other thread James?

I answered in the other thread. Thanks.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

I don’t see where you have shown that geocentrism was declared infallibly. I am interested to see the link and references to the infallible declarations on this subject.

I have the same question, I do not see that geocentrism was defined infallible by your references. Thank you.
Under the first proposition you cite, the apparent meaning is the sun is not the center of the universe. no problem.
under the second proposition: why could it not be understood to mean that this proposition can not be proven or disproven by scripture?
Again, a partial quote, out of context, can be honestly misunderstood.
another question might be the use of the word “world”.We may take that to mean all creation, or we might take it to mean the daily world we see and live in, the moral world. Ifthe meaning they intended for world was something other than the way you perceive it,how does that affect your understanding?

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Wow Sid, talk about opening a can of worms. It was the CHURCH that defined the heresy like so:

The following, according to the Vatican minutes, was the order of events after the examination. On Wednesday, February 24th, 1616 the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was 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.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

The second part of your question Sid, why do schools teach it, the heresy - is because CHURCHMEN, i.e popes, have allowed Catholics to believe it is the truth and not the Church’s 1616 and 1633 ruling.
And NO the CHURCH hasn’t defected, only the opinions and actions of Churchmen - all UNOFFICIAL. Note there was never an abrogation of the heresy or a retrial for Galileo, the only OFFICIAL way out of the heresy.

I think the verification has to do with the two propositions above. The second propositon needs more verifiable details to be understood correctly. Thank you
can you give us a link to your source?