Galileo

[mich2]

JUBILEE FOR SCIENTISTS
ADDRESS OF PROF. NICOLA CABIBBO
TO THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II
25 May 2000

Holy Father,

Coming from the land which gave birth to Nicolas Copernicus, You have engaged in a process of reconciliation between the world of Science and the world of Religion. Some of the many important contributions You have given to this process are:

• The conclusion, in Your solemn address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1988 of the Galilei controversy which for centuries had marred the relationship between the scientific world and the Church.
• As a fitting consequence of this, the opening-up of the secret archives to all interested scholars.
• The recognition of the theory of evolution, and the acknowledgement that the recent discoveries in molecular biology represent an “impressive manifestation of the unity of nature” (Co-88).

In re-establishing a discourse between the world of science and that of religion, Your aim goes beyond mere reconciliation, it delineates a process towards a new unity. In your letter to the Director of the Vatican Observatory, in 1988, you clearly define the scope of this process:
“As dialogue and common searching continue, there will be growth towards mutual understanding and a gradual uncovering of common concerns which will provide the basis for further research and discussion… **Each discipline should continue to enrich, nourish and challenge the other to be more fully what it can be and to contribute to our vision of who we are and of who we are becoming”. **

As the focal point for the meeting of science and religion You thus pose the sapiential dimension, which in the Encyclical Letter “Fides et Ratio” You define as “a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life”. To this You add: “This sapiential dimension is all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of humanity’s technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values”. In the conclusion to the Encyclical You urge scientists “to continue their efforts without ever abandoning the sapiential horizon within which scientific and technological achievements are wedded to the philosophical and ethical values which are the distinctive and indelible mark of the human person”.

The science driven advancement of technical capabilities poses ethical problems, which can only be clarified through an intense and open dialogue between science and religion. This is certainly true of the new methods for the modification of living beings, with their promise of improved cures for many diseases, but which may in some cases endanger the integrity of the human person.

Other ethical problems are of a more global nature, threats to the well-being of entire populations and of humanity as a whole. Ethical problems of this scale, be it those arising from nuclear weapons or from possible alterations in the natural balance of the environment, require decisions at the level of national and international public policy, and on these themes You have generously offered your advice and the authority of Your voice.

The rapid advance of scientific knowledge and technical capabilities poses a problem of justice and equity. Most of the scientific knowledge is produced in the rich counties, and it is these counties which most enjoy the economic fruits of the new technologies. **The gulf between rich and poor widens, and the poor become more and more dependent on the rich for their basic necessities. The problem is wider than science, and You have even recently raised Your voice against this injustice. The poor contries must become able to contribute the advancement of scientific knowledge and to partake equitably in the fruits of progress. **

Holy Father,

We are deeply grateful for this great occasion to celebrate in Your presence the Jubilee for men and women from the world of learning. This ceremony and Your words will remain forever in our memory. For this and for your work and guidance we are grateful.

Thank you.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/documents/rc_pa_acdscien_doc_20000525_cabibbo-jubilscien-2000_en.html

Thank you Wildleafblower for this excellent post.

Andre

 

[cassini]

I have posted this pertinent paragraph in threads with cassini before, so he has seen it but I’m not sure how many other people have. But Cardinal Bellarmine said in his 1615 letter to Father Foscarini the following:Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false. - Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 1615.So in 1615, we see the possibility for new science to show otherwise still existed. Cassini says the issue was “defined” in 1616. However, the requirements for a dogma to be defined do not include tribunals. And I appreciate his zeal for defending the Church fathers on this matter, but I cannot support the claim that the Church ever dogmatically defined geocentrism in a physical sense.

So even after the tribunal, Cardinal Bellarmine’s hypothetical would still apply. There’s no reason why it suddenly wouldn’t. The Church simply was not convinced that Gallileo’s presentation was a “true demonstration.” And the Church should be given some credit, given Gallileo’s claim of a heliocentric universe, on which current science supports the tribunals on the matter.

My but doesn’t the plot get thicker. All I get on this thread are apologetic opinions whereas I post documented history. In answer to the above I have already replied that the above patragraph is but one of many in a lengthy letter to Foscarini. It is taken out of context for when read in context with all the other parts it is obvious the Cardinal was speaking in the present tense about Galileo’s so-called proofs. Anyone interested in this can google in Bellarmine’s letter and read what he said before and after this.

I then went on to say that how well the Copernicans over the years, including JP2 in 1992, treat this mere letter with an authority they refuse to give the Holy Office in 1616 and 1633. But worse than that, for you can read into it a suggestion that Bellarmine actually held this position AFTER the 1616 decree. Well please do not tarnish this wonderful obedient Catholic Saint with such a slanderous suggestion.

And now to documentary evidence for this.

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’ — Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131…’ —

This opinion was given three months BEFORE Bellarmine wrote his letter.

Now read what he said AFTER the 1616 decree:

'letter on May 26, 1616:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus -that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.
In witness whereof we have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this 26th day of May 1616.
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’

Here Bellarmine totally enforces the POPE’s declaration.

I submit then that the Copernicans’ argument posted above is like every other argument they put up for two hundred years, fraudulent, dishonest and unworthy to be associated with the Catholic religion that insists on honesty and truth.

 

[mich2]

Let’s recap: you claimed that the maths works for a geocentric universe. I asked you to show me the maths that underpins the Coriolis force, the launch of satellites eastwards, the difference between the acceleration due to gravity at the poles and the equator and the rotation of Foucault’s pendulum on a stationary earth and you tell me that others who you can’t even name have done it and you believe them. That’s pathetically lame.

First, let me specify my position. Wildleafblower has given us an excellent post, which we ought to use as a guide for this thread. I believe in geocentrism, as philosophical position, since, so far, science has not given any physical local centre to the universe. **If ** one day science would identify one physical stationnary local , universal central point, I would suspect it to be the earth…however, so far, no true physical locality has been identified.

Since this thread is about Galileo, I will again state my belief that Galileo was in error, not because he supported the heliocentric view of Copernicus, but claimed it as the only reality. One must understand that, in order for Galileo to speak in such a way, he had to claim the sun to be fixed, and use this argument as a reality and not simply a model, for the latter was something that he was free to use.

I also believe that science, today, is opening up many doors for us, including metaphysical concepts,which, according to our two recent Holy Fathers,are starting to bridge back once again, science and religion.

I will stress again, Alec, that I am not a scientist of any kind, so will certainly fumble on most of the
arguments you have presented. The reason why I will propose the counter arguments, is because I personally believe, just as the double slit experiment has been interpreted to mean that particle/wave is not a contradiction in term, but just a weird reality which comes out of Quantum Mechanics, the observations made for the earth’s movements could potentially be interpreted for a static earth as well.

For all your upper arguments, it seems to me personally that a “space medium” which G.R. calls spacetime, could explain the phenomena. Your argument seems to be based on an empty space type of model, which is ok as well.

Do you know that only geocentrists (and flat-earthers!) call Airy’s stellar aberration experiment “Airy’s failure”? What was the failure? That it failed to confirm the existence of an aether that we now know does not exist.
Indeed, the results of the experiment are perfectly compatible with a modern understanding of physics, astronomy and optics, if the earth is moving with respect to the star field in an ellipse with the same axes as its rotation around the sun. Doesn’t seem much like a failure to me. More evidence that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You have been duped.

Again, since we know that the light’s path is greatly influenced by the spacetime cuvature,a direct linear path for the light from a star would be an oversimplification, it seem. A moving sun, in my opinion, by continuously changing the spacetime ought to affect the path of light as well.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Critique%20of%20Humphreys%20article.htm

Andre

 

[warpspeedpetey]

still trying to prove geocentrism or that the galileo affair was not a mistake?

ok im game!

1. these pics, taken by voyager 1 from outside the solar frame of reference disprove geocentrism.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-solarsystem.html

1. other observed star systems planets, circle their stars
2. the physics of observed phenomenon disprove the elements of geocentrism
3. Vatican 1, officialy defined infallibility as concerning matters of faith and morals only.
4. the Papal commission of 1992 said the galileo affair was a mistake.

so whats left to argue?

we can prove geocentrism false beyond any reasonable doubt.

the church itself invalidated the decrees of the 1600’s in 1870 at Vatican 1

in 1992 the church admitted the mistake.

so if you are a loyal son of the church or a completely atheistic scientist.

there is nothing left to argue, all bases are covered.

 

[cassini]

Do you know that only geocentrists (and flat-earthers!) call Airy’s stellar aberration experiment “Airy’s failure”? What was the failure? That it failed to confirm the existence of an aether that we now know does not exist. Indeed, the results of the experiment are perfectly compatible with a modern understanding of physics, astronomy and optics, if the earth is moving with respect to the star field in an ellipse with the same axes as its rotation around the sun. Doesn’t seem much like a failure to me. More evidence that you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. You have been duped.

Now I will tell readers why it is called ‘Airy’s failure’. This experiment was recommended by the Copernican Jesuit Boscovitch after the discovery of stellar aberration (1726) led to assertions by the Copernicans that they had found proof that the earth orbits the sun. Indeed this ‘proof’ influenced the Church traitors to begin the great U-turn in 1741, that con-trick that deprived the Church of its papal decree on 1616.

Simply, it was found that over a year the stars move in a 360 degree turn. This was lauded as proof for an orbiting earth, but as any first year physics student should know - if they were allowed think - the phenomenon could be caused by an orbiting stars.
So, a two telescope experiment was conducted that could show if it was the earth that orbited under the stars or if the stars orbited around a stationary earth. This gave the ‘proof’ nearly 100 years to get into the psyche of the people of the world.

Now if any scientist did this simple test with two telescopes, one filled with water, the other as normal (air) and proved it was the earth that moved, then they would be named in history. But, guess what? It was not until Airy in 1824 did it that science admitted they found it was the stars that moved relative to the earth.

BUT WE CANNOT HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE? I mean, the Church (Churchmen rather) and State had by now gone Copernican by then. So, all the great scientists started to offer ad hoc theories as to why Airy failed to find the earth moving.

So, while Airy cannot be said to prove geocentricism, because no such proof is possible, it did stop the Copernicans claiming stellar aberration is proof for an orbiting earth.

Somehow I don’t think you got this from the brilliant hecd2 above?

 

[mich2]

still trying to prove geocentrism or that the galileo affair was not a mistake?

ok im game!

1. these pics, taken by voyager 1 from outside the solar frame of reference disprove geocentrism.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-solarsystem.html

1. other observed star systems planets, circle their stars

Following this line of reasoning, warpspeedpetey,
that is, the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the milky way…it stands to reason that the universe is orbiting a central point as well…where is it?

1. the physics of observed phenomenon disprove the elements of geocentrism

I am not a scientist, but I’ve heard the science of General Relativity does not forbid the earth to remain static according to the physical laws of nature…is this true or not?

1. Vatican 1, officialy defined infallibility as concerning matters of faith and morals only.

I am not claiming geocentrism as an infallible truth…only a personal one. I never quoted the Church’s position when I presented my arguments.
You must be mistaking me for someone else.

1. the Papal commission of 1992 said the galileo affair was a mistake.

so whats left to argue?

However…not after a lengthy investigation…why, if the error was so obvious?

we can prove geocentrism false beyond any reasonable doubt.

This is something I have a problem with,warpspeedpetey. Do you have scientific documents which speaks of this?

the church itself invalidated the decrees of the 1600’s in 1870 at Vatican 1

in 1992 the church admitted the mistake.

so if you are a loyal son of the church or a completely atheistic scientist.

there is nothing left to argue, all bases are covered.

I have no doubts that mistakes were made during Galileo’s trial, and the Church admitted to it. However, what were the errors commited by the Church? Was it to condemn Heliocentrism as wrong? How can such a decision be wrong when today we know as a fact that the sun is not static?

Andre

 

[Fidelis]

:slapfight:

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Following this line of reasoning, warpspeedpetey,
that is, the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the milky way…it stands to reason that the universe is orbiting a central point as well…where is it?

why should it stand to reason that the universe orbits a central point? i can think of any reason that it should.

I am not a scientist, but I’ve heard the science of General Relativity does not forbid the earth to remain static according to the physical laws of nature…is this true or not?

false

I am not claiming geocentrism as an infallible truth…only a personal one. I never quoted the Church’s position when I presented my arguments.
You must be mistaking me for someone else.

i didn’t quote you, why do you think i am mistaking you for someone else? further, why would you want to hold an obviously false position, even just personally, how does that benefit you?

However…not after a lengthy investigation…why, if the error was so obvious?

the fact is they said it was a mistake, timing doesnt matter, you either believe the Churchs authority or you dont.

This is something I have a problem with,warpspeedpetey. Do you have scientific documents which speaks of this?

sure i posted the pictures. observational evidence from outside the solar frame of reference.

I have no doubts that mistakes were made during Galileo’s trial, and the Church admitted to it. However, what were the errors commited by the Church? Was it to condemn Heliocentrism as wrong? How can such a decision be wrong when today we know as a fact that the sun is not static?

they attempted to speak infallibly on a matter of science, that was the mistake.

the sun being static is a red herring, it has nothing to do with geocentrism at all. it could be doing the box waltz, and that would still not change that geocentrism is false. we are interested in the relationships between the planet and its sun. not between the sun and the galactic center.

 

[mchale]

Now I will tell readers why it is called ‘Airy’s failure’. This experiment was recommended by the Copernican Jesuit Boscovitch after the discovery of stellar aberration (1726) led to assertions by the Copernicans that they had found proof that the earth orbits the sun. Indeed this ‘proof’ influenced the Church traitors to begin the great U-turn in 1741, that con-trick that deprived the Church of its papal decree on 1616.

Simply, it was found that over a year the stars move in a 360 degree turn. This was lauded as proof for an orbiting earth, but as any first year physics student should know - if they were allowed think - the phenomenon could be caused by an orbiting stars.
So, a two telescope experiment was conducted that could show if it was the earth that orbited under the stars or if the stars orbited around a stationary earth. This gave the ‘proof’ nearly 100 years to get into the psyche of the people of the world.

The stars apparent movement of the heavens has been known since ancient times, and probably better than most modern people understand it (since so few of us really look at the sky anymore).

Of course there are more direct tests using the stars that is consistent with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun; specifically the ability to measure the parallax of some stars and thus using basic math, derive their distance from us.

Now if any scientist did this simple test with two telescopes, one filled with water, the other as normal (air) and proved it was the earth that moved, then they would be named in history. But, guess what? It was not until Airy in 1824 did it that science admitted they found it was the stars that moved relative to the earth.

Well, besides the fact that the information I find suggests that Airy did the test in 1871, I would also point that for the result to be interpreted in the manner you suggest, you need for light to be traveling through a medium (i.e. aether). Since modern theories of light do away with that requirement, it can’t be used to prove that the Earth stays stills and the stars move.

BUT WE CANNOT HAVE THAT NOW CAN WE? I mean, the Church (Churchmen rather) and State had by now gone Copernican by then. So, all the great scientists started to offer ad hoc theories as to why Airy failed to find the earth moving.

I really can’t understand how you can claim that the leaders of the Church have embraced the “Copernican heresy” and yet not be heretics? To me it seems that you are trying to balance on a wire because if you admit that the leaders of the Church are in fact heretics then it is hard to defend against the argument that the Church has failed… which of course according to the Bible it can’t and therefore, you would be the one who was wrong.

So, while Airy cannot be said to prove geocentricism, because no such proof is possible, it did stop the Copernicans claiming stellar aberration is proof for an orbiting earth.

Somehow I don’t think you got this from the brilliant hecd2 above?

True, but why worry about it when we have numerous other tests that strongly support the heliocentric model of the Solar System.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Following this line of reasoning, warpspeedpetey,
that is, the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits the milky way…it stands to reason that the universe is orbiting a central point as well…where is it?

There is no center of the Universe; in addition the expansion of the Universe is so rapid, that only Galaxies in relative local proximity to each other are close enough to interact gravitationally.

How ever think of it from this perspective, the Universe, as we see it, is kind of like the surface of a gigantic 4 dimensional sphere. We can only see the surface, so there is no center we can perceive for things to orbit around.

I am not a scientist, but I’ve heard the science of General Relativity does not forbid the earth to remain static according to the physical laws of nature…is this true or not?

Sort of. It only works when you adopt non-inertial reference frames. I.e., you could conceivably model the movements of every object in the Universe relative to the Earth with the Earth remaining in a single spot, but you effectively have to ignore everything regarding inertia and mass. I.e., an object 9 billion kilometers from the Earth will be traveling roughly at the speed of light with respect to the Earth.

–
Bill

 

[grannymh]

Regarding Post 66 by Cassini

The Church’s official scope is not to be found in the development of mere human knowledge but in the preservation of divine knowledge. Now there are times when in order to protect divine knowledge the Church has to correct or prohibit false philosophy (Vatican I).

Who would ever imagine that a clear statement like the above would need clarification!

The Catholic Church has the responsibility both to preserve the teachings of Divine revelation and to clarify them. This is far different from “Divine knowledge”. For example, God knows the truth regarding the movements within the universe. But He has not revealed the exact details. What He has revealed is that He is the Creator of both the universe and human beings. He has revealed that human beings are both physical and spiritual; therefore human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

The Catholic Church was not given the responsibility to preserve Divine knowledge which is the infinite attribute of God. The responsibility of the Church is to preserve the teachings of revelation so as to aid mankind in their quest for harmony with God and to enjoy eternal life with God after human death. This includes the areas of faith and morals.
One could say that over time, God has shared knowledge of the workings of the universe. But growing in knowledge of God’s creation is not required to gain entrance to heaven.

The remaining clarification of the above quote regards false philosophy. False philosophies have existed since day one. The usual way to correct false philosophies is to restate the truth. This is done in a prescribed, official manner, by either a council or a pope who is acting in his public position as head of the Church. This is far different than a theologian or pope acting as a private individual or as a member of a special group.

Note: the only false “philosophies” which come under the responsibility of the Catholic Church are those regarding faith and morals.

Blessings,
granny
Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[cassini]

My goodness, I can only be glad that St. Thomas and St. Robert have thicker skins than you! Lets put it in simple terms, every one, even the holiest man (save of course Jesus and the Virgin Mary) is subject to sin and error. I am not saying and have never said that any of the above were fools or less than intelligent or competent. However, any individual, no matter how smart is going to make mistakes from time to time, particularly when it comes to drawing conclusions from insufficient data. This is not rubbishing them, it is a simple statement of fact.

–
Bill

You know I have received some of the most pathetic replies on this thread and they continue to roll in. The Copernican heresy has you Catholics really twisted. The things you have to invent and make up as you go along will hopefully be seen by any objective reader as the result of a lie trying to gety out of its category. Of course I get angry at this constant attack on the Fathers, doctors and popes who held the doctrine of geocentricism as part of the Catholic faith. Telling others on this thread they were sinners and prone to error is to totally undermine their place in Catholic history. You are calling into question their judgement in regard to their understanding of Catholic revelation, tradition as well as the laws of the Church they served. And on whose word do you people base your theology, on the word of declared heretics, arians, Protestants, freemasons, atheists, and a list of Church enemies I could name in the history of ‘victorious heliocentricism.’

Just how low will your defence of a declared heresy go?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You know I have received some of the most pathetic replies on this thread and they continue to roll in. The Copernican heresy has you Catholics really twisted. The things you have to invent and make up as you go along will hopefully be seen by any objective reader as the result of a lie trying to gety out of its category. Of course I get angry at this constant attack on the Fathers, doctors and popes who held the doctrine of geocentricism as part of the Catholic faith. Telling others on this thread they were sinners and prone to error is to totally undermine their place in Catholic history. You are calling into question their judgement in regard to their understanding of Catholic revelation, tradition as well as the laws of the Church they served. And on whose word do you people base your theology, on the word of declared heretics, arians, Protestants, freemasons, atheists, and a list of Church enemies I could name in the history of ‘victorious heliocentricism.’

Just how low will your defence of a declared heresy go?

forever, Vatican 1 declared the proper sphere of infallibility in 1870.

then a direct admission of mistake was made in 1992.

you have no defenders in the church and your personal opinion is not enough to change that.

we are all afraid that an innocent make take your opinion as truth or fact and be dissuaded.

 

[cassini]

The stars apparent movement of the heavens has been known since ancient times, and probably better than most modern people understand it (since so few of us really look at the sky anymore).

Of course there are more direct tests using the stars that is consistent with the orbit of the Earth around the Sun; specifically the ability to measure the parallax of some stars and thus using basic math, derive their distance from us.

Well, besides the fact that the information I find suggests that Airy did the test in 1871, I would also point that for the result to be interpreted in the manner you suggest, you need for light to be traveling through a medium (i.e. aether). Since modern theories of light do away with that requirement, it can’t be used to prove that the Earth stays stills and the stars move.

I really can’t understand how you can claim that the leaders of the Church have embraced the “Copernican heresy” and yet not be heretics? To me it seems that you are trying to balance on a wire because if you admit that the leaders of the Church are in fact heretics then it is hard to defend against the argument that the Church has failed… which of course according to the Bible it can’t and therefore, you would be the one who was wrong.

True, but why worry about it when we have numerous other tests that strongly support the heliocentric model of the Solar System.

Bill

From the top. Stellar aberration was NOT know since ancient times. It was discovered in 1726.

Stellar parallax is completely seperate from stellar aberration.

You are correct, the Airy experiment was done in 1871 not 1824, my mistake. But this is all the more reason to be suspicious of Copernicanism as an ideology. Here you had a discovery in 1726 that could be challenged simply by doing a two telescope test. Any man that would have found the earth moves using this test would have gone down in history. But what happened? Did nobody want to be as famous as Copernicus or Galileo? Are we really supposed to believe it took 145 years for this simple test to be done? Well I don’t accept that. I believe the Freemasons of the Royal Society had it done but because it showed an immobile earth they hid the findings. Only when heliocentricism was home and dry was Airy’s failure announced. By then of course all were convinced this failure could to be reversed with some theory and nobody would question it. The ether ploy was then introduced as an excuse, now used in a sly way above as kind of a fact.

How in God’s name do ‘modern theories on light’ do away with anything? Sorry, I forgot you are Copernicans for a second. Your truths are based on theories, aren’t they?

Tell you what Copernicans. How about you guys now PROVE to me the Airy failure did not prove geocentricism. If you can you will not see me for dust, as I could not deny true science could I?

I never claimed any Copernican was/is not a heretic. According to the law of the Church, all Copernicans are heretics. At this stage the heresy is material, not formal, and if you need an explanation of that I will give it to you. Then again maybe you can show me where and when this law was abrogated. Only that can reverse a heresy. But then again, the Church has never defined a heresy that is not infallible, so it is not surprising there is no abrogation. Yes, not even the Copernican popes dared touch the 1616 decree because they cannot abrogate a Church teaching. But they derogated it, that is allowed it to be promulgated in books etc., and that sufficed to look like an abrogation.

I wrote:
‘While Airy cannot be said to prove geocentricism, because no such proof is possible, it did stop the Copernicans claiming stellar aberration is proof for an orbiting earth.’
You answered:
‘True, but why worry about it when we have numerous other tests that strongly support the heliocentric model of the Solar System.’

So, here we have the first admittance that history LIED about finding proof for H. Well they still LIE about stellar aberration being proof. Look here:

‘This discovery [stellar aberration] provided the first direct physical conformation of the Copernican theory.’ McGraw-Hill, Encyclopaedia of Science p.175.

‘1728. English astronomer James Bradley provides first evidence of the Earth’s motion through space on the aberration of starlight.’ — Dava Sobel: Galileo’s Daughter, p.390.

Ah, says mchale ’ but why worry about it when we have numerous other tests that strongly support the heliocentric model of the Solar System.’

Now who would buy a second hand car from these swindlers?

 

[cassini]

Regarding Post 66 by Cassini

Who would ever imagine that a clear statement like the above would need clarification!

The Catholic Church has the responsibility both to preserve the teachings of Divine revelation and to clarify them. This is far different from “Divine knowledge”. For example, God knows the truth regarding the movements within the universe. But He has not revealed the exact details. What He has revealed is that He is the Creator of both the universe and human beings. He has revealed that human beings are both physical and spiritual; therefore human life is worthy of profound respect. Human life is sacred.

The Catholic Church was not given the responsibility to preserve Divine knowledge which is the infinite attribute of God. The responsibility of the Church is to preserve the teachings of revelation so as to aid mankind in their quest for harmony with God and to enjoy eternal life with God after human death. This includes the areas of faith and morals.
One could say that over time, God has shared knowledge of the workings of the universe. But growing in knowledge of God’s creation is not required to gain entrance to heaven.

The remaining clarification of the above quote regards false philosophy. False philosophies have existed since day one. The usual way to correct false philosophies is to restate the truth. This is done in a prescribed, official manner, by either a council or a pope who is acting in his public position as head of the Church. This is far different than a theologian or pope acting as a private individual or as a member of a special group.

Note: the only false “philosophies” which come under the responsibility of the Catholic Church are those regarding faith and morals.

Blessings,
granny
Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

Semantics grannymh, divine revelation is divine knowledge.

Given the Church’s duty is to preserve truth, and truth is reality, physical, philosophical and spiritual reality that permeates all time, past, present and future, even to its co-relationship with eternity, then all things that threaten truth must be condemned and corrected by the Church. This obligation was dogmatised at Vatican Council I of 1869-70:

‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

So, here we have as a dogma the Church of 1616’s right to protect the flock from false philosophy (let alone contradicting the Scriptures).

 

[grannymh]

Semantics grannymh, divine revelation is divine knowledge.

LOGIC, cassini – All Divine revelation is Divine knowledge, but not all Divine knowledge is revealed to humanity.

Divine knowledge, i.e. omniscience is an eternal, timeless attribute of God.
Divine revelation is that which was given to humanity at a definite point in human time.

Blessings,
granny
Bible means: basic instructions before leaving earth

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is further evidence that the Church has not defined geocentrism as dogma. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is used to teach the faith to seminarians, the following statement is made regarding Scripture and the interpretation thereof:Even though all Holy Writ is inspired and is the Word of God, still, following St. Thomas (Sent. II.d.12.q.I.a.2), a distinction must be made between that which is inspired per se, and that which is inspired per accidens. As the truths of Revelation laid down in Holy Writ are designed to serve the end of religious and moral teaching, inspiration per se extends only to the religious and moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word to the religious-moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger the faith. Further, in* these scientific matters there is no value in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists.**

• Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 92.*

 

[cassini]

There is further evidence that the Church has not defined geocentrism as dogma. In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is used to teach the faith to seminarians, the following statement is made regarding Scripture and the interpretation thereof:Even though all Holy Writ is inspired and is the Word of God, still, following St. Thomas (Sent. II.d.12.q.I.a.2), a distinction must be made between that which is inspired per se, and that which is inspired per accidens. As the truths of Revelation laid down in Holy Writ are designed to serve the end of religious and moral teaching, inspiration per se extends only to the religious and moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word to the religious-moral truths. The data inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger the faith. Further, in** these scientific matters there is no value in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists.**

• Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 92.

Sorry Marco Polo, but haven’t the Copernicans on this thread already rubbished St Thomas’s opinion, so why do you now presume to use an utterence of his in your defence of the Copernican heresy?

But I do not take that position and therefore give great merit to anything St Thomas said.

The facts of this case however, is that the fathers considered the matter of faith, not science, as numerous writings of the fathers shows. I have not read his book, but I believe Sungenis gives many examples.

That aside, I once again ask: do you think you know something that the Church of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries didn’t. Are you trying to say that when Pope Paul V ordered the promulgation of the following on Wednesday, February 24th he had it all wrong because St Thomas had written the above four hundred years earlier?

(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.”

Now let us review the above according to the different opinions on this thread. Here the Holy Office, the most important instrument the Church had to determine matters of a serious heretical nature, they didn’t know the defference between faith and science, were so incompetent they would define and declare a heresy that was no heresy but a mistake of science. That they would order the flock to obey this order under threat of self-excommunication? If this is so, do you not think we belong to a religion that has no more divine guidance than Protestantism?

Good God how can you all be so blind?

 

[grannymh]

Good God how can you all be so blind?

Dear Gentle Readers,

Cassini asks how can we be so blind? (Post 98)

It is not that we are blind. Rather, we are focused on the One, True, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. This Church has existed since Jesus, Himself, sent her forth with these words:

“All power in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28: 18-20

Jesus is keeping His word this very day by being truly present in the Holy Eucharist. He is loving and forgiving us in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The truth of His salvation for all is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Cassini speaks about an “heresy” connected with Copernicus, who died in 1543. He presents a lot of material related to Galileo. He uses a lot of church-type words. In real life, there will always be an heresy this or an heresy that. No matter what, the Catholic Church remains true to her Founder. Jesus clearly states:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” *Matthew 16: 18. *In Post 66, Cassini says: “The Copernican heresy was so successful that it really did eliminate Catholic faith.”

See for yourselves. The Catholic Church doors are wide open to welcome you.

Blessings,
granny

 

[StAnastasia]

Good God how can you all be so blind?

Cassini, do you sometimes feel like a lone voice crying in the wilderness?