Early Church Astronomy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
trth_skr:
The telescope has not disproven geocentrism. No observation of relative motions can disprove it.
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
This is quite true. Galileo, by his telescopic observations was able to make many important discoveries, but heliocentrism was something he could not prove. The only thing that does indicate heliocentrism is the phenomena of stellar parallax–the fact that the stars move as well, which indicates the sun and the earth are moving through space. There was no way to measure this in Galileo’s time and thus no way to prove it. This is one of the reasons (along with his stubborn theological presumptions about the truth of Scripture) that earned him the censure of the Church.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
This is quite true. Galileo, by his telescopic observations was able to make many important discoveries, but heliocentrism was something he could not prove. The only thing that does indicate heliocentrism is the phenomena of stellar parallax–the fact that the stars move as well, which indicates the sun and the earth are moving through space…
Click to expand...
There are geocentric equivalents for parallax, one being (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=811411&postcount=19),

“…In the neo-Tychonian, the stars are centered on the sun (making a simple explanation for parallax).”

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Hey when you guys who depend on the Bible for your science knowledge learn how to turn my lead fishing sinkers into Gold give me a call. 😃 🙂 🙂
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
Hey when you guys who depend on the Bible for your science knowledge learn how to turn my lead fishing sinkers into Gold give me a call. 😃 🙂 🙂
Click to expand...
I am not depending on the Bible for science knowledge. What I am doing is paying heed to:
  1. The authoritative interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers.
  2. Official proclamations by three Popes against the notion that the earth moves.
  3. The fact that neither 1 nor 2 has been overturned by the CHurch.
  4. The fact that science has not proven that
    a. The earth rotates
    b. The earth translates
I am afraid that the Church has not spoken authoritatively on alchemy. This is more the realm of people like Sir Isaac Newton.

I noticed you are from western Wisconisn. Are you near Eau Claire or Chippewa Falls?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
From: daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/meetjp/thepope/jpgalileo.html
40.png
Ahimsa:
Did the Church Fathers defend geocentrism?
Click to expand...
Yes, but they "failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.
40.png
Ahimsa:
If so, what does that mean insofar as the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium?
Click to expand...
It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, unable to dissociate faith from an age-old cosmology, believed quite wrongly that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgment, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo had much to suffer.* These mistakes must be frankly recognized, as you, Holy Father, have requested**" (L’Osservatore Romano, November 1, 1992).*

Here’s some interesting links to check out…
clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VO.html
space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/vatican_observe_000716.html
newadvent.org/cathen/02029a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
 
40.png
Fidelis:
This is one of the reasons (along with his stubborn theological presumptions about the truth of Scripture) that earned him the censure of the Church.
Click to expand...
As well as a centuries-late apology of sorts from JP2!

So on the one hand the church was right to censure him and on the other was right to apologize to him.

See how everything works out when you’re right all of the time? :rolleyes:

Peace
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
From: daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/meetjp/thepope/jpgalileo.html

Yes, but they "failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures %between%
newadvent.org/cathen/02029a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Galileo states:

According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis.

Copernicus was the first heliocentrist? I thought heliocentrism was argued 1500 years before, in pre-Christian Hellenistic times???
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
From: daughtersofstpaul.com/johnpaulpapacy/meetjp/thepope/jpgalileo.html

Yes, but they "failed to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures when they described the physical structure of the created universe. This led them unduly to transpose a question of factual observation into the realm of faith.

It is in that historical and cultural framework, far removed from our own times, that Galileo’s judges, unable to dissociate faith from an age-old cosmology, believed quite wrongly that the adoption of the Copernican revolution, in fact not yet definitively proven, was such as to undermine Catholic tradition, and that it was their duty to forbid its being taught. This subjective error of judgment, so clear to us today, led them to a disciplinary measure from which Galileo had much to suffer.* These mistakes must be frankly recognized, as you, Holy Father, have requested***" (L’Osservatore Romano, November 1, 1992).
Click to expand...
These opinions of Cardinal Poupard, summarizing the results from a study commisioned by JPII do not retract the condemnation of three Popes, nor do they reverse the unanamous consent of the Fathers. Vatican I says:

“…Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers…”

“…In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers…”

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
EA_Man:
As well as a centuries-late apology of sorts from JP2!

So on the one hand the church was right to censure him and on the other was right to apologize to him.

See how everything works out when you’re right all of the time? :rolleyes:

Peace
Click to expand...
No one has shown the Church was wrong the first time. No one has proven that the earth rotates or transltes, period. Why not just keep an open mind?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Galileo states:

According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis.

Copernicus was the first heliocentrist? I thought heliocentrism was argued 1500 years before, in pre-Christian Hellenistic times???
Click to expand...
This is factually incorrect. There were Greek heliocentrists by at least the 4th century BC (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism) years long before Corpenicus. This is just part of the modernist myth.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Galileo states:

According to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus, who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis.

Copernicus was the first heliocentrist? I thought heliocentrism was argued 1500 years before, in pre-Christian Hellenistic times???
Click to expand...
Yup, I think his name was Aristarchus of Samos who lived from 310 to 230 B.C. - a Greek; who first put fourth a Heliocentric system. Copernicus was the first Heliocentrist in the Christian era or at least the most well known during his time.
 
40.png
trth_skr:
No one has shown the Church was wrong the first time. No one has proven that the earth rotates or transltes, period. Why not just keep an open mind?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Nor has anyone shown the church to be correct on this issue. A terrible rationale by which to convict Galileo in any case.

For what was JP2 apologizing then, if not for inappropriate actions on the part of some?

Your position seeks to have its cake and eat it too. You exonerate the Church for “not erring” in their interpretation of Scripture and leave standing the condemnation of Galileo. But JP2 sought to redress the sentence of Galileo, why?

Peace
 
40.png
trth_skr:
This is factually incorrect. There were Greek heliocentrists by at least the 4th century BC (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism) years long before Corpenicus. This is just part of the modernist myth.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
It is correct if you consider it in the context of the Christian era. There was no Catholic Church in the 4th. Century B.C.

Why have you only cited sources in the Christian era for your support of the Geocentric System and not Anaximander of Miletus as well?
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Nor has anyone shown the church to be correct on this issue. A terrible rationale by which to convict Galileo in any case.

For what was JP2 apologizing then, if not for inappropriate actions on the part of some?

Your position seeks to have its cake and eat it too. You exonerate the Church for “not erring” in their interpretation of Scripture and leave standing the condemnation of Galileo. But JP2 sought to redress the sentence of Galileo, why?

Peace
Click to expand...
JPII apologized for the “treatment” of Galileo. He did not reverse the proclamations against him, nor did he admit that Galileo was correct (in fact he was wrong- Galileo claimed as fact that the sun was the center of the universe). Keep things in context.

It is clear that there are many people attacking the Church today, many within it. We are not punishing them the way we did Galileo. Perhaps he did this out of some perception of fairness. In any case it has no bearing on the science of the issue

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
JPII apologized for the “treatment” of Galileo. He did not reverse the proclamations against him, nor did he admit that Galileo was correct (in fact he was wrong- Galileo claimed as fact that the sun was the center of the universe). Keep things in context.

It is clear that there are many people attacking the Church today, many within it. We are not punishing them the way we did Galileo. Perhaps he did this out of some perception of fairness. In any case it has no bearing on the science of the issue

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Galileo was wrong but so was the church (in maintaining that the Aristotilean view of the Universe was confirmed by Scripture).

So while Galileo claimed that his view was not refuted by Scripture, the officials of the church claimed that it was. In fact neither position is correct. But who suffered?

Peace
 
40.png
Wildgraywolf:
…
Why have you only cited sources in the Christian era for your support of the Geocentric System and not Anaximander of Miletus as well?
Click to expand...
The case for geocentrism in my mind starts with the authority of the Church. To pre-Christian peoples, and argument can be made that they were only trying to explain observed phenomenon. In the case of the Church, we have unanomous Scriptural interpretation of the Fathers for a geocentric system, plus offiicial statements from three Popes. None of this has been rescinded by the Church. When you couple this with the fact that no one has yet been able to prove that the earth rotates or translates, then I ask why not have an open mind to geocentrism? Why and on what basis dismiss the Fathers of the Church, and the three Popes who have issued statements regarding geocentrism? Based on the unproven opinions of scientists? Psychologists have an unproven opinion that homosexuality is normal. Why not rescind the long standing Scriptural interpretation against sodomy? Sociologists have unproven opinions that they can describe humanity without God, or at least treating religion as strictly one of many social factors. Why not Remove the Scriptural interpretation regarding the establisment of a Church? Don’t you see this is modernism in action? Science has shown that there is no reason that women cannot be priests. Why not ordain them?

If we start putting limits on what the Church can validly interpret in the Scriptures, I have to ask “who interprets what is in the category which is allowed to be interpreted and what is not”? Clearly it has to come back to the Magisterium itself. So when the Magesterium performs Scriptural interpretation then by default it is valid. There is no non-Catholic objective arbiter in existence. God is all.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Galileo was wrong but so was the church (in maintaining that the Aristotilean view of the Universe was confirmed by Scripture).

So while Galileo claimed that his view was not refuted by Scripture, the officials of the church claimed that it was. In fact neither position is correct. But who suffered?

Peace
Click to expand...
Dear EA_Man:
I would say that both suffered. The Center of God’s plan is not the Earth, nor the Sun, nor Science, but it is and always has been man and his relationship to His Son.

Fiat
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Galileo was wrong but so was the church (in maintaining that the Aristotilean view of the Universe was confirmed by Scripture).

So while Galileo claimed that his view was not refuted by Scripture, the officials of the church claimed that it was. In fact neither position is correct. But who suffered?

Peace
Click to expand...
First, what the Church maintained is that
  1. The earth does not move (neither rotates nor translates).
  2. The sun and stars move around the earth.
Not specifically the Aristotilean view.

Since no one has proven that the earth moves, nor that the sun and stars do not move around it, how can you say the Church was wrong? Modern opinion of which form of relative motion is occuring does not constitute proof.

Galileo really claimed that his view refuted Scriptuer, also.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear EA_Man:
…The Center of God’s plan is not the Earth, nor the Sun, nor Science, but it is and always has been man and his relationship to His Son.

Fiat
Click to expand...
I cannot argue against that statement except to say it is being misinterpreted, in that authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures by the Fathers indicate that there is a physical dimension to this centrality. Whether you personally choose to accept that is of course your business, but He that inspired the Scriptures did make the effort to make this clear. It does take child-like faith to accept something that we are constantly told by the opinion of the world to be otherwise.

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