Faith and Science

[grannymh]

Note readers, Warp has NOTHING to show that the Church abrogated the anti-Copernican decree. Again I challenge all. Show me where the Church abrogated the heresy officially?

Challenge Accepted

First, let’s approach this from the view point of semantics. Early Church leaders were very concerned about semantics which led to the choice of Latin over Greek as the official language of the Catholic Church. Semantics has remained crucial. Thus, it is important to consider that a decree is not necessarily a heresy. That green grass thing is applicable. Grass is green but not all green things are grass. Officially (following Church protocol) declared heresy may use decrees but not all decrees are officially declared heresy.

In order to properly answer your challenge “Show me where the Church abrogated the heresy officially?” I ask you to share the source where the Church stated the heresy and what was actually written.

As far as I am concerned, any and all discussions about science are viable. Though, with modern technology, some discussions would be concluded.

What I am concerned about is that there is so much half information about the Catholic Church. Thus, I prefer precise terms used in such a serious matter as heresy. Dealing with decrees is far different than dealing with declared heresy. It would be appreciated if you provided the source for the heresy stated above, how it was written, etc. Thank you.

Note:
In post 473, I presented a simplified clarification of heresy and how canon law is different from official declarations of heresy.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[buffalo]

Note readers, Warp has NOTHING to show that the Church abrogated the anti-Copernican decree. Again I challenge all. Show me where the Church abrogated the heresy officially?

Challenge Accepted

First, let’s approach this from the view point of semantics. Early Church leaders were very concerned about semantics which led to the choice of Latin over Greek as the official language of the Catholic Church. Semantics has remained crucial. Thus, it is important to consider that a decree is not necessarily a heresy. That green grass thing is applicable. Grass is green but not all green things are grass. Officially (following Church protocol) declared heresy may use decrees but not all decrees are officially declared heresy.

In order to properly answer your challenge “Show me where the Church abrogated the heresy officially?” I ask you to share the source where the Church stated the heresy and what was actually written.

As far as I am concerned, any and all discussions about science are viable. Though, with modern technology, some discussions would be concluded.

What I am concerned about is that there is so much half information about the Catholic Church. Thus, I prefer precise terms used in such a serious matter as heresy. Dealing with decrees is far different than dealing with declared heresy. It would be appreciated if you provided the source for the heresy stated above, how it was written, etc. Thank you.

Note:
In post 473, I presented a simplified clarification of heresy and how canon law is different from official declarations of heresy.

Blessings,
grannymh

The Real Truth Behind the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism

 

[TMC]

Back to square one. If anything you say above has any truth, then show us where and when the Church abrogated the 1616 decree. The Church has laws you know, canon law. She cannot willy nilly go defining and declaring a heresy and then dropping it as a mistake in a similar fashion similar to the way Protestants did it.

I don’t think the Church’s actions can be described as “willy nilly.” The Church thought long and hard and concluded it made a mistake. Are you saying the Church doesn’t make mistakes? (Or maybe that it didn’t used to make mistakes?) Certainly the Church has changed its position on issues with much greater theological and practical importance than geocentrism.

 

[StAnastasia]

i dont think that free will is a matter of ‘swerve’, that seems little more than a crass attempt to account for free will with some imaginary ‘random’ uncaused change in the positions of particles.
instead i believe in G-d. and one of the proofs of His existence is free will, without it we would be nothing but puppets to determinism.

Correct – Lucretius and other early atomists had no explanation for “swerve.” But how does human free will serve as a proof of God’s existence?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Real Truth Behind the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism

sorry but it looks like another kooky conspiracy theorist.

but thats not even my point.

i only care that heliocentrism is the truth and geocentrism is false from the observational evidence.

the Pontifical commission was quite clear that a mistake had been made, the church recognizes that mistake, any “official reversal” is unimportant to that fact.

no such official reversal will indeed alter the path of the planets, so its just arguing about words, or word games, which i despise.

galileo was right and everybody knows it

 

[StAnastasia]

galileo was right and everybody knows it

Warpspeedpetey, evidently not everybody knows it. I still contend the universe revolves around me when I twirl with my children in my backyard; I can see it going around!

 

[buffalo]

sorry but it looks like another kooky conspiracy theorist.

but thats not even my point.

i only care that heliocentrism is the truth and geocentrism is false from the observational evidence.

the Pontifical commission was quite clear that a mistake had been made, the church recognizes that mistake, any “official reversal” is unimportant to that fact.

no such official reversal will indeed alter the path of the planets, so its just arguing about words, or word games, which i despise.

galileo was right and everybody knows it

Dark Energy: Is It Merely An Illusion?

…Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held.

Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land. Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Correct – Lucretius and other early atomists had no explanation for “swerve.” But how does human free will serve as a proof of God’s existence?

well, the argument would go something like this…

the choices would seem to these

1. we live in a physical universe and nothing else exists
   

   in a closed system, if you know the complete starting state then you can predict the state of that system at any point along its development. i.e. nothing can be any different than it is. it is all predetermined by that original state.
   
    in practice that means that you could have no thought other than the one you are having right now. we would have no free will in such a system.

2. we live in a physical universe, and supernatural things do exist.
   

   here we are still in a closed system, same rules apply, but as a function of these supernatural things we are able to exercise free will.

that said the proof of G-d is this,

we know we live in a physical universe that obeys certain laws. we should not have free will, yet we obviously do, if it is illusory it is so good as to be no different than actual free will, therefore something supernatural must exist.

and that is my argument, it could be more finely phrased, but i think it is intelligible.

 

[StAnastasia]

well, the argument would go something like this…
…
and that is my argument, it could be more finely phrased, but i think it is intelligible.

Warpspeed petey, I’m not convinced by the argument, but thanks any for articulating it.

StAnastasia

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Dark Energy: Is It Merely An Illusion?

…Although dark energy may seem a bit contrived to some, the Oxford theorists are proposing an even more outrageous alternative. They point out that it’s possible that we simply live in a very special place in the universe - specifically, we’re in a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low. The suggestion flies in the face of the Copernican Principle, which is one of the most useful and widely held.

Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land. Living in a Void: Testing the Copernican Principle with Distant Supernovae. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, 131302 (2008) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.131302

and it may well be an illusion, most of what i have seen claims the existence of dark matter and energy by an argument from necessity. to make astrophysical phenomenon work, it may be there it may not, its yet to be proven.

but heliocentrism is an observed reality both here and in other star systems. it cannot be credibly denied.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeed petey, I’m not convinced by the argument, but thanks any for articulating it.

StAnastasia

dont tease me!

tell me what doesn’t convince you.

i dont throw that one around much and if there is a hole in it i sure would like to know. i would like to refine it. to something more intelligible.

 

[grannymh]

The Real Truth Behind the Imprimatur given to Canon Settele for Heliocentrism

Dear buffalo,

You link is appreciated. However, due to commitments, I can’t read the entire article at the moment.

However, I should point out that Imprimatur which is used with Nihil Obstat can be misunderstood. In fact, some current books now carry an English explanation. According to the explanation, the Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat means that the book has been examined by so and so and nothing contradicted official church doctrines. Then there is a disclaimer that this Imprimatur does not mean that the Church agrees with the opinions expressed or the contents, etc. or something similar.

I also saw something about a canonical trial and have a history update. The most recent Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983 for the Western Church and in 1991 for the Eastern Church. It is my understanding that canonical trials settle issues between people, ordained and lay, within the Church. This is different from attacks on the core beliefs of the Catholic Church which would be officially declared heresy by the appropriate protocol.

Another thing I saw was a reference to the Pope and Cardinals but that would not be the same as an officially gathered Church council even if these individuals condemned something. Maybe there is a reference later in the document so I will reserve evaluation.

One last thing. I don’t intend to get in the middle of a science
discussion. But because of modern confusion regarding the Catholic church, I would like to be clear about matters regarding the extremely serious issue of heresy.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

well, the argument would go something like this…

that said the proof of G-d is this,

we know we live in a physical universe that obeys certain laws. we should not have free will, yet we obviously do, if it is illusory it is so good as to be no different than actual free will, therefore something supernatural must exist.

and that is my argument, it could be more finely phrased, but i think it is intelligible.

Dear warpspeedpetey,

I have a bunch of commitments today but needed to reply to your proof of G-d. Don’t loose that thought. .

What about adding that humans are both physical and
spiritual; therefore, they have an innate ability to reach up to the supernatural in some way or another. This idea too should be more finely phrased.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[buffalo]

Dear buffalo,

You link is appreciated. However, due to commitments, I can’t read the entire article at the moment.

However, I should point out that Imprimatur which is used with Nihil Obstat can be misunderstood. In fact, some current books now carry an English explanation. According to the explanation, the Imprimatur/Nihil Obstat means that the book has been examined by so and so and nothing contradicted official church doctrines. Then there is a disclaimer that this Imprimatur does not mean that the Church agrees with the opinions expressed or the contents, etc. or something similar.

I also saw something about a canonical trial and have a history update. The most recent Code of Canon Law was promulgated in 1983 for the Western Church and in 1991 for the Eastern Church. It is my understanding that canonical trials settle issues between people, ordained and lay, within the Church. This is different from attacks on the core beliefs of the Catholic Church which would be officially declared heresy by the appropriate protocol.

Another thing I saw was a reference to the Pope and Cardinals but that would not be the same as an officially gathered Church council even if these individuals condemned something. Maybe there is a reference later in the document so I will reserve evaluation.

One last thing. I don’t intend to get in the middle of a science
discussion. But because of modern confusion regarding the Catholic church, I would like to be clear about matters regarding the extremely serious issue of heresy.

Blessings,
grannymh

From what I get of the article the Church never officially approved heliocentrism to this day.

 

[buffalo]

and it may well be an illusion, most of what i have seen claims the existence of dark matter and energy by an argument from necessity. to make astrophysical phenomenon work, it may be there it may not, its yet to be proven.

but heliocentrism is an observed reality both here and in other star systems. it cannot be credibly denied.

Heliocentrism claims that the sun is the center of the universe. It has been proven false and is not observed anywhere else. Acentrism is the today’s position.

 

[StAnastasia]

From what I get of the article the Church never officially approved heliocentrism to this day.

Darn – and they haven’t yet approved of water boiling at 212 degrees as sea level, or freezing at 32 degrees. Whatever is that ol’ Magisterium doing with its time?

 

[buffalo]

Darn – and they haven’t yet approved of water boiling at 212 degrees as sea level, or freezing at 32 degrees. Whatever is that ol’ Magisterium doing with its time?

Pontificating about evolution.

 

[The_Barbarian]

What about adding that humans are both physical and
spiritual; therefore, they have an innate ability to reach up to the supernatural in some way or another. This idea too should be more finely phrased.

How about this?

**Roman 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. **

 

[grannymh]

How about this?

**Roman 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. **

How about this?

The Little Prince – What is essential is invisible to the eye.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Heliocentrism claims that the sun is the center of the universe. It has been proven false and is not observed anywhere else. Acentrism is the today’s position.

ok, then come up with a better word, as acentric in reference to the solar system is an impossibility.

i think the modern usage of heliocentrism is fine, since it in no way changes any of the arguments, and is understood by most now as a reference to a sun centered star system.

if it confuses some then a new word is fine too.

but the truth of the arguments dont change.