C
cassini
Guest
Rossum, your reasoning is truly magnificent. Newton and Einstein and Rossum from now on, in the same breath.
- Status
C
cassini
Guest
Haven’t a clue what you are trying to say. Let us redefine gobbledygook.
C
cassini
Guest
mchale, Brilliant summation but with corrections needed. You used the word FORMALLY above. Now maybe you did not mean it as OFFICIALLY, but that is how I interpret that word FORMALLY. No pope ever FORMALLY assisted the heresy. They stood back and allowed the Holy Office to FOOL the flock into believing a fixed-sun interpretation of Scripture was then considered orthodox. They did not DEFEND their predecessors decrees. They assisted then more by default that by any official statement or decree. In effect by allowing books on Copernicanism to be eliminated from the Index - which is all they did by consent - they allowed the flock to THINK the heresy was no longer a heresy.
As regards the sedevacantist argument, this is indeed one that scared those who adhere to sedevacantism. I have read essays addressing this point wherein the secevacantists have done their best to keep their valid popes until Vatican II.
My opinion is that the problem is nobody can judge a pope to be a heretic except another pope or council under a pope. By then the possible heretic pope is dead and a new pope occupies Peter’s place. So for me sedevacantism cannot be sustained 100%. their arguments often get close to the 100% mark and at times I cannot argue with them. But the ultimate decision lies with each of us as individuals and I cannot make such a judgement.
The next consideration is that like mortal sin, heresy must be intended with full knowledge and consent. The first popes to relax the VISIBILITY of the 1616 decree, from 1741 to 1835, were well aware of the decree but MUST have been TOTALLY CONVINCED that science had FALSIFIED the decree. In other words they LOST FAITH IN THE CHURCH’S DECISION and adopted the INFALLIBILITY of SCIENCE. This IS the SAND upon which the MODERN CHURCH is based on.
Their heresy is thus MATERIAL not FORMAL. Material heresy carries no penalty and as thus probably does not qualify these Copernican popes to lose their position as true popes in the sedevacantist way…
C
cassini
Guest
As to what does cause the inertial field around the earth there are three possibilities, (1) a rotating earth could cause it, (2) a rotating universe could also be responsible for it using a physics as yet not fully understood (a property of the mysterious ether perhaps), and (3) something else might cause it. Now lest any reject a geocentric situation on ideological grounds, it must be said, for what it is worth, theoretical physicists like Einstein and Mach - to secure their own ideas - fully accepted that the earth’s inertial field could be caused by a rotating universe around a stationary earth.
So hecd, go tell the above to Einstein and Mach, pals of yours I believe.
C
cassini
Guest
Isn’t yankee_doodle a chicken?wow … this thread still exists? If there’s anyone here who seriously doubts the sun is the center of our solar system, we orbit around it, and our solar system is part of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of galaxies in a vast expanding universe … might I suggest a trip to your nearest department store to pick up a decent telescope (and you can see for yourself).
If I use a telescope I can deduce all the planets orbit the sun. Two of them in the opposite direction of the others which falsifies the ‘nebular theory’ and demonstrates the problem with an evolved solar system. But yankee_doodle MY TELESCOPE SHOWS ME THE MOON, SUN AND STARS ORBITING THE EARTH.
Now maybe a chicken looking through a telescope would see himself orbiting the sun and maybe that explains your confusion.
C
cassini
Guest
yankee_doodle, if you think THINGS attempt to redeem the CC from Galileo is bizarre, you would want to read the documents upon which the popes from 1741-1835 wormed their way out of the Galileo affair. It is all documented in the book ‘RETRYING GALILEO’. They could distinguish between Galileo’s Copernicanism and Newton’s Copernicanism and say one was condemned but the other was not.holy smokes … I get it (you’re actually trying to redeem the CC from the Galileo affair by saying they didn’t really mean center, they meant axis … or some other similarly bizarre argument). You gotta be kidding me
C
cassini
Guest
My oh my, there’s a mouthful. First of all I am not alone for there are now thousands who know the truth. We do no more than adhere to the teaching of the Church. If we are wrong then Cardinal Bellarmine was a Protestant and Pope Urban VIII out of his mind when he ordered the decrees and trial statements distributed to all of Christendom so that all would know the teaching of the Church. What I may be alone in is stating the CONSEQUENTS of the U-turn for what it was and is. You are full of opinions but haven’t a document to stand on. You can show no justification for any U-turn but oipinions.
Pope Urban VIII is the only pope ever to assess the authority of the decree OFFICIALLY. He deemed it IMMUTABLE.
The rest did not dare touch this immutible decree. Read this.
The Status of the 1616 Decree
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all, for in it he confirms the authority of the 1616 decree.
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’
Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees’. No he does not, the reverse in fact, for he confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and of a kind that could not be reversed.
Finocchiaro comments:
‘This reply is interesting. Insofar as it spoke of unrevisability rather than infallibility, it was dealing with a more manageable concept. Moreover, it seems to presuppose that there was a papal decree against the earth’s motion, and so Olivieri’s criterion for a papal decree seems less stringent than those prevailing today. He seems to regard a papal decree as one which the pope made while discharging his official functions, such as being president of the Congregation of the Holy Office; examples of such decrees would be Paul V’s decision that [a fixed sun was formally heretical] and that the earth’s motion was contrary to Scripture (endorsed at the Inquisition meeting of 25 February and 3 March 1616) and Urban VIII’s decision that Galileo be condemned (reached at the Inquisition meeting of 16 June 1633). Although Olivieri’s criterion was probably historically correct, it is important to point out that the definition of a papal decree ex cathedra was undergoing some evolution…’
Finocchiaro uses the wrong word here, for the law of God does not ‘evolve’, that is ‘change’ from one meaning to another. The Vatican Council of 1870 merely dogmatised what was already the law for papal acts. What the Fathers of the council did was clarify the conditions for a pope’s extraordinary infallibility but it also reiterated that the Church has an ordinary infallibility that extends to defined disclosures of revelation in the Scriptures.
So here in 1820 the Holy Office once again agrees the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible, just as it did in 1633. Now it seems to us that a papal decree that is irreversible must by inference be infallible in some way. In justice it must be so, for the Church could not claim divine assistance if an ‘immutable’ papal decree defining and declaring a truth revealed in Scripture, could later be considered erroneous and false, let alone proven to be so. The concept for Catholicism is absurd.
C
cassini
Guest
The only things I would question above thing is ‘the universe exists in infinity.’ I may be interpreting this incorrectly but I hope you do not mean the universe IS infinite because only God is infinite and an infinite universe cannot rotate around a centre daily.
About Pope Urban’s alleged ‘fury’ at Galileo’s Simplico’s remarks, this is a ploy used by the Copernicans to explain Galileo’s trial. It places the motives for the Pope’s actions on REVENGE rather than on a defence of the Church’s defininion in 1616. Fr Roberts’s investigation shows the pope acted in ther interest of the Church he was elected to govern as Peter and not a spoiled brat looking for revenge.
C
cassini
Guest
‘It is common sense which can connect faith to reality. The Catholic Church’s mission is to unite humanity with God for all eternity.’
Absolutely correct. And this is why St Paul’s words, apart from a litany of quotes from the Psalms, said the following:
‘*For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made’ *(Romans 1:20).
CLEARLY SEEN BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE. Thus the doctrine of geocentricism was elivated by the Church as the pinnacle of all human observation.
But look at this thread and seen ‘Catholics’ try to convince all that St Paul was talking as an ignorant man, unaware that what he sees is not reality. These same ‘Catholics’ will undermine the CHURCH of 1616 and 1633, both their authority, their faith and their WISDOM. Today Catholics, as seen on this forum, sneer and laugh at the idea that God gave witness to HIM by creating his most loved at the centre where He would come to redeem us. Alas, now, thanks to the puffed up copernicans with their intellectual pride in their new DOGMA - science, make sure NOBODY will ever see God again in His geocentric universe,
And here is who is to blame:
Now if there is such a creature as Satan, intent on usurping the influence of a personal triune God and Creator within the minds and hearts of us rational, free-willed intellectual creatures, we must agree that geocentricism, that intimate relationship and understanding between Him, the universe, earth and mankind, could not expect to be left intact by this same demon hell-bent on tearing the union apart. To fully appreciate why any power or any man would want to wage war against the concept of an immobile earth at the centre of the universe, we must know the object of the exercise was to assist Satan in attacking the Holy Throne and God’s footstool, the stable earth, manifested in and explained by the Catholic Church alone.
‘The Goyim are not guided by piratical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them – let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes…. For them let that play the principle part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science. It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories [heliocentricism, uniformitarianism and then evolutionism]. The intellectuals of the Goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.’ — PROTOCOLS of the Learned Elders of Zion: published by Sergyei Nilus in Russia in 1905. A copy of this book is in the British Museum. Dismissed as a ‘forgery’ by those who would have us think its dictates have not come to pass.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
In a general sense it is.The sun is not at the center of the solar system.
M
mchale
Guest
This is going to be my last post in this thread. I should have known that it was pointless to argue against geocentrism – not because geocentric models have any validity, but rather because followers of geocentric models will not accept any evidence, no matter how conclusive that there is no particularly good scientific reason to treat the Earth as the center of the Universe (even if General relativity will let you get away with it).
Lets put it in simple terms, if the geocentrists are right, then all the Popes since heliocentric books were taken off the index in 19th century are formal heretics, as are all the bishops of the church. They were all trained well enough in theology to know (if the geocentrists are right) that they should ignore what science says on the issue… they cannot claim ignorance on this issue. The Popes did not simply maintain silence, they have remained patrons of Astronomy and the Vatican observatory still remains an internationally known astronomical research facility.
I stayed in thread for so long for a simple purpose; I want to make sure that anyone else who happens on this thread does not for a moment think that the geocentric model is somehow integral to Catholic Faith. They can claim otherwise all they want, they can argue based on 17th century documents, but ultimately, even they have to admit, that their position is essentially a fringe position amongst Catholic Believers (one poster has claimed that there are thousands of geocentrists in the Church, well, if we accept thousands to mean as many as 10,000, that is a pretty small fraction of the world’s 1 billion Catholics.
Ultimately, such arguments are pointless. They do nothing to encourage the faithful, correct essential wrongs in the faith (Though obviously geocentrists might feel differently). No one is saved based on whether they believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe or any of the other apparent truths that some believe the Bible teaches. Rather they are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, conversion of life and the sacrements of the Church.
–
Bill
Lets put it in simple terms, if the geocentrists are right, then all the Popes since heliocentric books were taken off the index in 19th century are formal heretics, as are all the bishops of the church. They were all trained well enough in theology to know (if the geocentrists are right) that they should ignore what science says on the issue… they cannot claim ignorance on this issue. The Popes did not simply maintain silence, they have remained patrons of Astronomy and the Vatican observatory still remains an internationally known astronomical research facility.
I stayed in thread for so long for a simple purpose; I want to make sure that anyone else who happens on this thread does not for a moment think that the geocentric model is somehow integral to Catholic Faith. They can claim otherwise all they want, they can argue based on 17th century documents, but ultimately, even they have to admit, that their position is essentially a fringe position amongst Catholic Believers (one poster has claimed that there are thousands of geocentrists in the Church, well, if we accept thousands to mean as many as 10,000, that is a pretty small fraction of the world’s 1 billion Catholics.
Ultimately, such arguments are pointless. They do nothing to encourage the faithful, correct essential wrongs in the faith (Though obviously geocentrists might feel differently). No one is saved based on whether they believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe or any of the other apparent truths that some believe the Bible teaches. Rather they are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, conversion of life and the sacrements of the Church.
–
Bill
J
JimG
Guest
It is rather pointless. If one wishes to hold to geocentrism as a matter of faith, fine–but it’s not the Catholic Faith. And arguing for geocentrism from a scientific standpoint is like trying to support a 6,000 year old earth on a scientific basis.
G
grannymh
Guest
From reading posts here and on other threads, common sense finds that the “doctrine of geocentricism” is not in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
The scientific doctrine of geocentrism is found on CAF threads and in numerous books. This is a big difference.
Furthermore, the reality of the Catholic Church is to unite humanity with God for all eternity through the preservation of the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This Catholic Deposit of Faith does not include the scientific explanation of geocentricism. It does include the fact that God created the earth. The fact that God is Creator is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
Regardless of how many high-and-mighty decisions are penned to paper, the decisions which are dogmatically binding are in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
The following link contains the Catholic Deposit of Faith. This is the kind of common sense being referred to.
R
rossum
Guest
I am glad you agree with it.
Unfortunately I am nowhere near to being in their league.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
Matthew 27:51 “And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom: and the earth quaked and the rocks were rent.” [emphasis added] The earth does move - the Bible tells us so.
rossum
T
Thing
Guest
They have not known nor understood: they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth shall be moved.
Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
Maybe the Earth can move and not move at the same time. And be the center of everything.
T
Thing
Guest
*I mean within infinity, as the universe needs something to expand into. The something can be nothing, of course. And nothing is infinite. And every point in infinity must be the center as infinity is infinitely ‘far’ in every direction. So for us we *are *at the center.
(And the center does not need to be the point around which everything rotates.)
G
grannymh
Guest
Can’t help it --imagining you, and some other people I know, as belonging in the league of Newton and Einstein makes me
.As for myself, I am in the league of Pooh Bear regarding the separation of geocentric universe from actual Catholic dogma. “If the person you are talking to doesn’t appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear.” With that, adieu.
C
cassini
Guest
The Church’s duty is to determine and preserve the truth of Revelation. The Church revealed by pontifical decree the Scriptures reveal a fixed earth and an orbiting sun. If this definition is reversed then the Scriptures are not worth the paper they were written on, nor can the Church be trusted to interpret the Bible correctly, thus its claim to be the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is also false. If this was an incorrect revelation then we can question all the others. If this Church of changing interpretations and heresies that can be made orthodox is put forward as the instrument to lead men to God then it too is a false claim. Chopping and changing its interpretations, from pope to pope doesn’t give me any hope that it knows the truths of salvation let alone the way to salvation.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Bill, I understand your frustration. I think most of the geocentrists are as they are not out of scientific conviction, but simply to be noticed. When you assume a crank position, you do attract attention.
StAnastasia
- Status