Early Church Astronomy

[trth_skr]

EA_Man:

All this does is tap dance around the question.

Is the cosmological question of heliocentricity or geocentricity posed in this thread a MATTER OF FAITH AND MORALS OR NOT?

Your answer is of the “have the cake and eat it too” variety. You claim that this is an important issue otherwise the Holy Spirit and three church fathers would not have written about it and then commented on it. But where is the truth claim? What is the church’s position on this question? You seem to be saying that they were correct in censuring Galileo, so according to that logic we “know” that Galileo was “wrong”.
Peace

Three Popes, and the Fathers found it improtant enough to act on. Scripture discusses cosmology at great length. This is the Holy Spirit speaking.

But what is the explicit position of the church regarding whether or not the Earth moves? I would think that this is a settled matter as three popes have made declarations concerning it.

The explicit position of the Church based on authoritative Scriptural interpretation of the Fathers and the declarations of three Popes, not reversed by any others, is that the earth does not move.

Modernists do a lot of hand waving, but this fact is inescapable. The Church has declared that the earth does not move. No one in the Church has reversed this. Modernists are currently trying to attack the authority of the Church to remove this declaration (as well as others). Can you see that happening?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EA_Man]

trth_skr:

Modernists do a lot of hand waving, but this fact is inescapable. The Church has declared that the earth does not move. No one in the Church has reversed this. Modernists are currently trying to attack the authority of the Church to remove this declaration (as well as others).

The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Earth does not move?

The Earth does not revolve around the sun?

Peace

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

Note that they say, “…Much to the surprise of the search team, the distances to the supernovae have been greater than those predicted by the Big Bang…”.

Then they say, “…This has lead to a theory of a “dark energy” much like the “dark matter” of which the MACHOs form a part…”

What is happening is that they need to postulate the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Note that these substances are undefined and have never been detected. If they do not exist, then the current big bang theory goes away. I.e., one could say, “dark matter and energy have the unique property of keeping the big bang theory viable”. They also have the property of being undetected, hypothetical, and supposedly composing around 96% of the matter of the universe.

If the big bang theory collapses because dark matter and dark energy are non-existent, then the redshift question comes back. What is redshift indicating? If it is expansion, then we will end up needing new theory.

Welcome to cosmology.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

WOAH! So you’re telling me you know better than Vatican Observatory; staffed by Jesuits - ordained priests as well as astronomers; which has existed in some form since Pope Gregory XIII (circa 1580). And existed with full papal approval ever since that time?

Yet, you promote a geocentric system based on “authoritiative statements” by three popes and the Church Fathers from 17th. Century and before?

I’d love for you to explain that aparent contradiction…

 

[JimG]

Wildgraywolf:

… If the universe were expanding would not the rotation of the universe also have to increase proportionately to remain within the 24 hour window?

Yes. As the expansion of the universe creates more space between the galaxies, its diameter, currently estimated at about 10 billion light years, would increase. So if earth is at the center and immobile, those galaxies at the edge–5 billion light years away and increasing–would have to travel at a sufficient rotational speed to make a complete circuit of the universe every 24 hours.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

JimG:

Yes. As the expansion of the universe creates more space between the galaxies, its diameter, currently estimated at about 10 billion light years, would increase. So if earth is at the center and immobile, those galaxies at the edge–5 billion light years away and increasing–would have to travel at a sufficient rotational speed to make a complete circuit of the universe every 24 hours.

Correct me if I’m wrong… If it weren’t for the distance then all we’d see would be streaks of light and not individual stars.

 

[trth_skr]

EA_Man:

The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Earth does not move?

The Earth does not revolve around the sun?

Peace

This is the only official position ever taken by the Church.

Opinions of the Vatican Observatory, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, individual Cardinals, etc. are not the official position of the Church. Nor are personal opinions of Popes. The Holy Spirit protects official acts.

Again, modernists can wave their hands, try to limit the authority of the Church, etc., but ultimately they have to admit that the only official position the Church has ever taken is that the earth does not move. Combine that with the fact that no one has yet proven that the earth moves. Pretty mind boggling isn’t it. Think about this for a while.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JimG]

Wildgraywolf:

Correct me if I’m wrong… If it weren’t for the distance then all we’d see would be streaks of light and not individual stars.

I don’t know–the whole idea seems strange to me, but I’m not a geocentrist.

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

Correct me if I’m wrong… If it weren’t for the distance then all we’d see would be streaks of light and not individual stars.

Wrong. We see stars moving at an angular rate of 15 degrees per hour (360 degrees per day). Also, if there were no distance, then the stars would be travelling much slower (but still 15 degrees per hour).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Ahimsa]

trth skr:

Again, modernists can wave their hands, try to limit the authority of the Church, etc., but ultimately they have to admit that the only official position the Church has ever taken is that the earth does not move. Combine that with the fact that no one has yet proven that the earth moves. Pretty mind boggling isn’t it. Think about this for a while.

“The Church has declared that the earth does not move” – strikes me as performing the function a Zen koan performs: transcending the rational mind.

I’m sure if you do think about this statement for a while, something will happen to you. I just don’t know if what happens will be something you necessarily want to happen.

 

[trth_skr]

“The Church has declared that the earth does not move” – strikes me as performing the function a Zen koan performs: transcending the rational mind.

…

The Church, protected by the Holy Spirit, Headed by Christ, does transcend the rational mind.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

“The Church has declared that the earth does not move” – strikes me as performing the function a Zen koan performs: transcending the rational mind.

…

(catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7194&postcount=67)

Here is some stuff to mull over:

The three Popes are Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII.

(sources Dorothy Stimson. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the Universe. Peter Smith, 1972. Originally published 1917. & Robert Sungenis www.catholicintl.com)

“At the meeting of the Congregation on February 25, the Pope ordered Cardinal Bellarmin to summon Galileo and, in the presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove recusant, warn him to abandon the condemned opinion and in every way to abstain from teaching, defending or discussing it; if he did not acquiesce, he was to be imprisoned. The Secret Archives of the Vatican contain a minute reporting this interview, in which the Cardinal is said to have ordered Galileo to relinquish this condemned proposition, “nec eam de caetero quovis modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis,” and that Galileo promised to obey…
The Cardinal replied: We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmin, having heard that Signor Galileo was calumniated and charged…but only was informed of the declaration made by his Holiness and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held (non si possa difendere ne tenere). And in witness of this we have written and signed these presents with our own hand, this 26 day of May, 1616. Robert Cardinal Bellarmin.”

Here is Stimson on Urban VIII:
“On the 23 of September, he [Urban VIII] ordered the Inquisitor of Florence to notify Galileo (in the presence of concealed notary and witnesses in case he were ‘recusant’) to come to Rome and appear before the Sacred Congregation before the end of the next month.”

“by order of the Pope, Galileo was once again interrogated, this time under threat of torture. Once again he declared the opinion of Ptolemy true and indubitable and said he did not hold and had not held this doctrine of Copernicus after he had been informed of the order to abandon it. ‘As for the rest,’ he added, ‘I am in your hands, do with me as you please.’ ‘I am here to obey.’ Then by the order of the Pope, ensued Galileo’s complete abjuration on his knees in the presence of the full Congregation coupled with his promise to denounce other heretics (i.e., Copernicans). In addition, because he was guilty of the heresy of having held and believed a doctrine declared and defined as contrary to the Scriptures, he was sentenced to ‘formal imprisonment’ at the will of the Congregation, and to repeat the seven penitential Psalms every week for three years.”

we saw that already in the time of Paul V the statement from Bellarmine:
“…the declaration made by his Holiness and PUBLISHED by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures…” So here we have the condemnation of Copernicanism, specifically, “PUBLISHED” by the Sacred Congregation under a “declaration MADE BY HIS HOLINESS” that Galileo’s teaching is “contrary to the Holy Scriptures.” As Andrew White…shows:

“And again, what Galileo was made, BY EXPRESS ORDER OF Pope Urban, and by the action of the Inquisition under threat of torture, to abjure in 1633, was ‘the error and heresy of the movement of the earth.’” Stimson further states:

“Pope Urban had no intention of concealing Galileo’s abjuration and sentence. Instead, he ordered copies of both to be sent to all inquisitors and papal nuncios that they might notify all their clergy and especially all the professors of mathematics and philosophy within their districts, particularly those at Florence, Padua and Pisa…From Wilna in Poland, Cologne, Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, as well as from all Italy, came the replies of the papal officials stating that the order had been obeyed. He [Urban VIII] evidently intended to leave no ground for a remark like that of Fromundus about the earlier condemnation.

TO BE CONTINUED

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

CONTINUED

“True, the Pope [Urban VIII] did not formally sign the decree against the Copernican theory then; but this came later. In 1664 **Alexander VII **prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and ‘all books which affirm the motion of the earth’ a papal bull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful.”

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the decrees were not infallible:

Here is a quote from one of Robert Sungenis’ challenges:
"According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, here’s what the Church did: The Inquisition of 1615 in Rome declared the position of Galileo to be “scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it” (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 6, p. 344). Following this was a decree from the Congregation of the Index on March 5, 1616, prohibiting various heretical works, and among them were those advocating the Copernican system. As for the Pope at that time, Paul V, “there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided” (Ibid, p. 344). To Galileo’s dismay, the next Pope, Urban VIII, would not annul the judgment of the Inquisition.

The Encyclopedia concludes: That both these pontiffs [Paul V and Urban VIII] were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did” (Ibid, p. 345).

So despite what anyone says, the Catholic Church has never endorsed the Copernican theory and no pope has ever annulled the decrees of Paul V or Urban VIII. "

The Bull is Speculatores Domus Israel, Alexander VII, 1664

---

This is not official, but interesting:

This sums it up:

From St. Bellarmine (bold emphasis mine, capitals Sungenis):
“…speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed Copernicus spoke. for to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, IS A VERY DANGEROUS THING, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false…I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary…BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH DEMONSTRATION; NONE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO ME. It is not the same thing to show that the APPEARANCES are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun REALLY is in the center and the earth is in the heavans"

(The demonstration has yet to be made- Mark)

On 12 April 1615, he [Bellarmine] 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.”

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

This is the only official position ever taken by the Church.

Geocentricism has never been dogmatically or doctrinally defined as teaching of the Catholic Church. What is clear from history regarding geocentricism is that; "…theologians 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.” “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**"*

trth_skr:

Opinions of the Vatican Observatory, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, individual Cardinals, etc. are not the official position of the Church. Nor are personal opinions of Popes.

Except when it comes to endorsing a geocentric system by those who are unable “to grasp the profound, non-literal meaning of the Scriptures“ and those who are “…unable to dissociate faith from an age-old cosmology…”

trth_skr:

The Holy Spirit protects official acts.

Geocentricism has never been dogmatically or doctrinally defined as teaching of the Catholic Church, but three popes and some Church Fathers thought it was a neat idea. Too bad a papal investigation concluded in 1992 that the theologians of that time “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.”*

trth_skr:

Again, modernists can wave their hands, try to limit the authority of the Church, etc., but ultimately they have to admit that the only official position the Church has ever taken is that the earth does not move. Combine that with the fact that no one has yet proven that the earth moves. Pretty mind boggling isn’t it. Think about this for a while.

Yes, Pope John Paul II was a modernist who attempted to limit the authority of the Church to faith and morals. This is evidenced by the Galileo investigation he commissioned in 1992. The conclusion of this papal investigation was that *"…theologians 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).*

 

[Wildgraywolf]

JimG:

I don’t know–the whole idea seems strange to me, but I’m not a geocentrist.

Yep… As I understand it the moon is slowly spiraling away from earth – away from earth orbit, so perhaps, if there is any truth to the geocentric system; it may be doomed to extinction anyway.

Speaking of the moon… The moon rotates on it’s own axis at the same rate as earth rotates on it’s own axis. Is this not why we see only one side of the moon?

In a geocentric system where the earth does not have angular rotation shouldn’t we be able to see the “dark side” of the moon at some point during the lunar cycle? I suppose the geocentrists will say that the moon doesn’t experience angular rotation either.

 

[JimG]

trth_skr:

Wrong. We see stars moving at an angular rate of 15 degrees per hour (360 degrees per day). Also, if there were no distance, then the stars would be travelling much slower (but still 15 degrees per hour).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

On the surface of the earth, an object moving 15 degrees covers about 1042 miles. At the edge of the circumference of the universe, an object moving 15 degrees covers about 1.31 light years. Quite a difference in distance covered, since in each case the distance must be traveled in one hour’s time.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

On the surface of the earth, an object moving 15 degrees covers about 1042 miles. At the edge of the circumference of the universe, an object moving 15 degrees covers about 1.31 light years. Quite a difference in distance covered, since in each case the distance must be traveled in one hour’s time.

Ok, but our eyes do not know the distance. We see specks of light at some apparent distance (i.e., the celestial sphere) moving at 15 degrees per hour.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

…
Yes, Pope John Paul II was a modernist who attempted to limit the authority of the Church to faith and morals. …

You said it, not me.

I think you are reading too much into what JP II did (on this topic). None of it is even within the ordinary magesterium (except perhaps the apology for the injust treatment of Galileo).

Was the Holy Spirit wrong to include cosmological ideas in Scripture? Is Scripture fallible?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Wildgraywolf:

Yep… As I understand it the moon is slowly spiraling away from earth – away from earth orbit, so perhaps, if there is any truth to the geocentric system; it may be doomed to extinction anyway.

Speaking of the moon… The moon rotates on it’s own axis at the same rate as earth rotates on it’s own axis. Is this not why we see only one side of the moon?

In a geocentric system where the earth does not have angular rotation shouldn’t we be able to see the “dark side” of the moon at some point during the lunar cycle? I suppose the geocentrists will say that the moon doesn’t experience angular rotation either.

The moon takes something like 27.3 days to orbit the earth. In the heliocentric system, the moon takes the same time to rotate on its axis. But on earth we “observe” the moon travelling around the earth every 24 hours (in either system).

In a Geocentric system the moon does not rotate on its axis, thus it also is alway having the same face to the earth, just as in the heliocentric system.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

You said it, not me.

I think you are reading too much into what JP II did (on this topic). None of it is even within the ordinary magesterium (except perhaps the apology for the injust treatment of Galileo).Na, you’re not reading enough. You wish to make the universe conform to a system you find aesthetically pleasing based on erroneous scriptural conclusions from theologians who "…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.”

Somehow you can easily accept 17th. Century science and the opinions of popes and theologians who couldn’t separate “*faith from an age-old cosmology” *and regard this with greater primacy than the conclusions of a 20th. Century investigation commissioned by Pope John Paul II.

trth_skr:

Was the Holy Spirit wrong to include cosmological ideas in Scripture?

The Holy Spirit did not define the structure of the universe in scripture. Had the Holy Spirit done so I am certain that there would not have been theologians who "…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.”

trth_skr:

Is Scripture fallible?

That’s a broad question so I will answer it in the context of this thread by restating the conclusions of the papal investigation from 1992: "…theologians 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.”

 

[Wildgraywolf]

trth_skr:

In a Geocentric system the moon does not rotate on its axis, thus it also is alway having the same face to the earth, just as in the heliocentric system.

If it hasn’t be proven or disproven that the earth rotates on it’s axis how can you say that the moon doesn’t rotate on it’s own axis?