Geocentric Universe?

[Omyo12]

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

Yeah, I stopped following this thread weeks ago (I’m the OP ) lol

 

[Alethios]

the Catholic Church is divine.

Only its leader is divine.

Let’s just say that you have your “dark matter”, and we have our ether.

Besides dark matter there’s dark energy, zero-point energy, quantum foam, - all aliases for aether, the matter that has no name. .

You all can debate scientific matters – I want to know the paragraph number in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. Here’s a fast source for you to use to give me the paragraph number. Thank you.
www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

#107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

Relatively, we are stationary and the Sun rotates around the Earth, but that’s only due to our perspective.

Only one thing is lacking in this perspective: evidence that is is only a perspective.

Neo-darwinism then, gets its pre-eminent position as the foundational theory of biology not because it is a default atheistic view, but because it is a scientific theory overwhelmingly supported by evidence and therefore accepted by biologists on that basis.

Neo-darwinism fails the rules of scientific evidence embodied in the scientific method: repeatable under the original conditions and unambiguous.

Before Hubble’s telescope revealed the expanding universe and led to the “big bang” model, the overwhelming view among astronomers and cosmologists was that the universe had no beginning.

The red shift has multiple causes beside Doppler motion; Hubble’s ‘law’ is not unique evidence of expansion, but a possible cause out of several.

1. Edwin Hubble was never considered by his peers to be a crank

And the conclusion is that he can’t be wrong? Hubble in fact opposed the expanding universe interpretation of red shifts.

1. He published his findings in mainstream scientific journals.

That guarantees a one-sided agenda - paradigms opposing mainstream views have religious interpretations will not be published.

The fact is that Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” (from Darwin’s Black Box) has been shown by a number of critics to be fundamentally flawed.

Irreducible complexity is untestable in finite time; it can’t be proven - or disproven - using the scientific evidence.

Behe is setting himself against 70 years of work in mathematical genetics.

70 years of research? Then that’s the limit of genetic history that’s possibly testable under the scientific method… back to 1940.

Studying aether and light, James Bradley calculated the earth was mobile in 1727;

The neo-Tychonic model of geocentrism accounts for the observed stellar aberration.

The problem I see with Tychonic’s module is that it completely ignores gravity. Assuming the earth was the gravitational center, the planets would need to revolve around the earth along with the sun.

Brahe’s model with aether has no need for gravitational centers, but determines orbits via aether vortices. The Sun and Moon orbit the earth -primary vortex; the planets orbit the Sun - secondary vortex.

I would like the simple declarative statements about what the Catholic Church teaches to be true to its Deposit of Faith.

See the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed for a summary.

Science has never proven that the earth OR sun are the center of the universe because it cannot do so. Only philosophy can consider such questions.
…Really we have no idea where the center of the universe lies (scientifically speaking) …

True until a century ago. The Sagnac Effect and GPS operations support the geocentered Earth model.

1. I see all the other planets orbiting the Sun.

So do we… but not the Earth.

1. I have seen pictures taken from the moon and from orbiting the moon which shows a small blue ball that is exceptional amongst the planets only because of what is on the world.

And how do these pix refute geostatism?

1. I know of (Though have not performed) how the parallex of stars can be measured to demonstrate their distance from us… and what it implies about our solar system (i.e., that we orbit the sun).

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Parallax is the relative motion of 2 objects relative to a fiducial reference. It provides no help in determining what’s moving or at rest.

1. I have yet to find a way to reconcile geocentrism with the theory of Relativity.

No one can reconcile the two, since geocentrism is an absolute reference system and logically consistent. Relativity is logically inconsistent, as can be seen in the contradiction of the traveling twins. each being younger than the other, as one example

Also, I have never really seen a good geocentric explination for geosynchronous satellites.

Here 'tis:
All objects from the Moon to the galaxies rotate westward in the GS frame due to the primary aether vortex.
The LEO satellites and the general global atmospheric motion is eastward in the GS frame. The prevailing upper winds 5 miles up are the eastbound jet streams, with even higher speeds at higher altitudes… all caused by the aether vortex flow – eastward. Spacecraft are launched eastward to get a boost from the Earth’s rotation, according to MS Physics, but this is just the aether flow boost eastward.
Somewhere between the LEOs and the Moon, the aether flow reverses => at the geostationary distance(GSD) of 22,000 miles up. At the boundary there’s no aether motion - and no gravity. Below the GSD, Earth satellites orbit eastward; above, they orbit westward.

AMDG

 

[masterjedi747]

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.

No. You’re wrong, and Cardinal Bellarmine was still a great Catholic, and Pope Urban VIII did nothing at all extraordinary by distributing the decree of the Index. The key fact which you can’t seem to recognize is that NOT ALL CHURCH TEACHINGS CARRY EQUAL AUTHORITY. There can be Church teaching from the infallible Sacred Magisterium, and Church teaching from the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The 1616 decree came from the latter, and it was wrong, and that fact has no effect on the question of infallibility.

You are full of opinions but haven’t a document to stand on.

I only have the entirety of Rome on my side. No matter. Let’s start with:

“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.” trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

Pope Urban VIII is the only pope ever to assess the authority of the decree OFFICIALLY. He deemed it IMMUTABLE.

No he didn’t. He didn’t even SIGN the 1633 sentence of the Inquisition, much less formally elevate the statements (errors) contained with it to the level of infallible Church teaching.

The rest did not dare touch this immutible decree.

Until Pope Gregory XVI apparently discarded it with a wave of his hand…

Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees’.

True, he doesn’t argue that. But we do. And Olivieri certainly would have argued that, if the Church had clearly laid out the criterion for infallibility of papal decrees in his time. But since it had not yet done so, he was unable to prove that Anfossi was wrong, and so he simply made an (inferior) alternative argument in its place.

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.

He makes no such claim. He simply fails to make the full argument against the continuing authority of the 1616 decree, given that the whole issue of infallible teaching had yet to be clearly defined.

Finocchiaro uses the wrong word here, for the law of God does not ‘evolve’, that is ‘change’ from one meaning to another.

Finocchiaro’s wording is fine. It’s called development of doctrine, and the term "development translates quite naturally into the synonym “evolution”, in this context.

The Vatican Council of 1870 merely dogmatised what was already the law for papal acts.

According to which, the 1616 decree was neither infallible or irrevocable.

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.

Infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium has NOTHING to do with the authority of the 1616 decree. If you think it does, then you have a tragic misunderstanding of the requirements for infallibility with regard to the ordinary and universal magisterium.

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.

All planets circle the sun in the same direction. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about the spin of individual planets around their own axis, then that’s a different question, and in any case not *at all *something that you would be able to see with your your telescope.

 

[cassini]

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

Another poisoned fruit of the Copernican heresy, a slur on any who would try to right a terrible wrong perpetrated on the Church of 1616 for near three hundred years. With so many Copernican heretics now active making sure those popes and saints remain the laughing stock of history it seems

'there is no hope of a reconcilistion or a resolution of the long controversy, and we are condemned to living with the scandal of an anarchic status quo… Isaiah the prophet describes this kind of situation quite precisely:

…Judgement is turned away backwards,
and justice hath stood afar off; because truth
hath fallen down in the streets and equity could
not come in. And truth hath been forgotten…
(Isaiah 59: 14ff. cf Daniel 8:12 and psalm 11:2)

It is for the theologians of the Church to judge false knowledge that passes as true science; but today’s theologians have perverted their judgement and turned it ‘backwards’, that is, in opposition to the truth which is therefore cast down into the dust and forgotten. All of which comes perilously close to that sin against the Holy Ghost which is “impugning, that is, resisting/assailing the known (1616) truth” both of reason and faith.

God alone sees and judges the heart, and the present writer is well aware of of Our Divine Lord’s words (Matt 7:1-3; Luke 6:37; John 7:24) concerning judgements we are obliged to make in discerning truth from error in our daily lives. Especially do I take my stand upon the traditional teaching of the Church which Our Lord indicates for me when He says:

And if I do judge ;[1616], My judgement is true: because I am not alone,
but I and the Father Who sent Me. (John 8:16)

and

He that despiseth Me, and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him;
the Word that I have spoken, the, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:24) ’

— Paula Haigh, probably the greatest Thomist living saint remaining on earth.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Also ruled out: Evolution - the formation of new biotic kinds - that continued after the six days of creation.
For on the seventh day God rested from all He had created. No new kinds/‘baramin’ have been created since.

We say 98% is closer. We offer the same proof as above - none.

There’s no case for a world > 6 thousand years, with no prehistory being testable under the authentic scientific method.

The NT parables were said to be so, and understood to be so, by the disciples.
For thousands of years the Genesis creation verses were held to be literal by the Jews and the Fathers, until 150 yrs ago.
So, did God’s words change in the last century and a half, or did Biblical revisionists change them?

The CC is only a summary of some Magisterial teaching… ; geostatism is included under the general belief in biblical inerrancy.

…science, that is, does not conflict with revealed truth.

Once the discussion concerns what the Church teaches, then the sole authority is the Magisterium. Unless the following echo the Magisterium, they are not guaranteed sources of authentic belief: JPII, PB16, Dulles, Schoenborn , Chardin, McBrien, Reese, Coyne, Jaki, Consolmagno, Barr, Shea, Keating, cassini, not even Alethios.

What is not simple are the vague specifications of belief above: we are free to believe in MICRO- evolution and heliocentrism that excludes the Earth as a planet or treats HC as a model of convenience, not reality.

Tribunal papal decrees in which the Pope appoints the tribunal and approves the results are considered to be correct, immutable and irrevocable.

**They are no such thing. There is a long discussion of their authority and doctrinal weight in the Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture of 1953, which is so far from being “Modernist” that it not only has all the usual ecclesiastical licences as required by canon law, but keeps up a running rejection of all critical methods from the ****first page to the last. Its Fundamentalism is irreproachable. **​

The author of the pertinent article does not favour the interpretation that the decrees are immutable or irrevocable - they are not phrased in such a way; they are so phrased, as to allow for the possibility that future research will render their own positions in need of revision. So while the multiple authorship of the book of Isaiah is forbidden to be taught, the prohibition upon teaching this idea is not final and irreversible: it’s an ad interim judgement, which is binding until solid arguments for multiple authorship are forthcoming. And so, broadly speaking, with the other decrees: they are authoritative, but not **irreversible. They can’t be infallible, because (as is explained) Papal infallibility cannot be delegated anyway - it is personal to the Pope. **

Let’s reason this out:
Who defined infallibility??? … the Pope! he declared himself infallible - under prescribed conditions.
Now he had to be infallible to say this, that is , he was infallible before stating so. Else he was fallible in declaring infallibility.
Backpedal to the Galileo rulings - he was infallible then, in what he ruled himself or approved by the actions of the Holy Office.
Like the Immaculate Conception, infallibility was always thought to be resident in the Magisterium, until it was formally delared a part of the faith deposit.

So Galilean science proved that geostatism was wrong and heliocentrism is right.
Then modern science changed its mind and said acentrism is right.
So science was wrong in the past and maybe it still is? So why base any search for truth on such a fickle science?

Meanwhile the Magisterium (not the Church’s modernist teachers) has always held that geostatism is true.

An insight that can be usefully extended - to include why there is an order in the universe, a set of predictable relations bewteen natural causes and their effects. How can there be free will in the midst of chaos? If no action has predictable results, we can’t be responsible for any act.

HC is OK as an abstraction , heretical as a fact.

As a point of fact, has the Magisterium ever done multiple and yet still infallible interpretations of the same passage?

Yes, for many verses are both literal and symbolic.

AMDG

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

Maybe we should adopt the cosmology of Cosmas Indicopleustes, and postulate an earth shaped like the Tent of Meeting. ​

"The Topography relates the spread of Christianity and argues against the Ptolemaic view of the world." Sounds familiar…

• [http://ecole.evansville.edu/glossary/indicopleustes.html (http://ecole.evansville.edu/glossary/indicopleustes.html)
• [www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/cosmas_14_index.htm (http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/cosmas_14_index.htm)
• [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_00_2_intro.htm (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cosmas_00_2_intro.htm)
• [Home | Society for Classical Studies (Home | Society for Classical Studies)

 

[tjm190]

Neo-darwinism fails the rules of scientific evidence embodied in the scientific method: repeatable under the original conditions and unambiguous.

So does archeology- they’re retrospective, rather than predictive.

 

[buffalo]

Scientists: Earth May Exist in Giant Cosmic Bubble

…One problem with the void idea, though, is that it negates a principle that has reigned in astronomy for more than 450 years: namely, that our place in the universe isn’t special.
When Nicholas Copernicus argued that it made much more sense for the Earth to be revolving around the sun than vice versa, it revolutionized science.
Since then, most theories have to pass the Copernican test. If they require our planet to be unique, or our position to be exalted, the ideas often seem unlikely.
“This idea that we live in a void would really be a statement that we live in a special place,” Clifton told SPACE.com. “The regular cosmological model is based on the idea that where we live is a typical place in the universe. This would be a contradiction to the Copernican principle.”

more…

 

[Alethios]

Where is the center of the surface of the Earth? Pretty much any spot you stand looks like the center. Ditto for the Universe.

Where is the center of the circumference of a circle? We need evidence, not non-sequiturs.

But our knowledge of physics tells us that big things (like the Sun or a galaxy) do not orbit around little things.

Our knowledge of Newtonian physics tells us that both the Earth and Moon orbit around their barycenter, a point in space where there’s nothing!

1. ‘I know of (Though have not performed) how the parallex of stars can be measured to demonstrate their distance from us… and what it implies about our solar system (i.e., that we orbit the sun).’

Parallax can only be used to determine distances and relative motion - not absolute motion or rest.

And why do things orbit around the Earth when the Earth is only the 6th most massive object in the solar system (after the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune)? I want an answer other than God made it that way…
… So we essentially have a system where everything orbits the Sun, except the Earth. And despite the fact that the Earth looks like a rather smallish average planet, that the entire Universe revolves around it with no explination of the mechanisms involved other than that is the way that God made it.

The Earth is at the center of the primary aether vortex, which contains the Sun and Moon. The Sun is at the center of a secondary vortex, which contains all the planets. And yes, God made it that way.

The fact is that neither the Earth nor the Sun is standing still. Both are moving, and interacting with each other and to some degree every other object in the solar system

Where’s the evidence for this mass chaos?

To make the Geocentric model work, Neptune would have to be traveling at 2/3rds the speed of light in order to orbit the Earth every day . Objects out beyond pluto, which would include the stars would have to travel faster than the speed of light.

There’s no known limit to aether speed nor to light speed within the aether.

If we believe your model, man has already managed to accelerate spacecraft to the speed of light (The Pioneer and Voyager probes).

Not with respect to the Earth, the absolute standard of rest. Please explain your assertion.

… Fathers and Doctors of the Church are not protected from error… Only Church Councils and the Pope (under certain very specific circumstances) are protected from error.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church are collectively protected from error, in what they unanimously believe as a doctrine of faith.

… the Modern Synthesis is the foundational theory of modern biology because it is consistent with and overwhelmingly supported by the evidence from a wide range of disciplines including palaeontology, biogeography, systematics and phylogenetics, ecology, comparative anatomy, comparative physiology, molecular biology, genomics, population genetics, quantitative genetics, mathematical biology, systems biology, biochemistry, immunology, developmental biology and so on - described in hundreds of thousands of research papers in hundreds of journals and summarised in university texts …

A lot of wasted work - whatever in the Sinthesis violates the scientific method signifies nothing. Quantity need not produce quality.
A reminder - scientific method: An experiment is direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable under the same conditions as the hypothesis, unambiguous and logically consistent

I can assert it because it is true.

Logical fallacy here : truth by fiat is a divine prerogative - humans require the production of evidence.

AMDG

 

[Alethios]

They accept neo-Darwinism because the evidence for it is, as I have pointed out, overwhelming.

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

…neo-Darwinism holds sway because it is supported by the evidence in much the same way as any other well supported scientific theory.

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

the Modern Synthesis is the foundational theory of modern biology not because it is the only possible game in town - conversely it is the consensus because it is supported by the evidence.

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

Scientists of all worldviews therefore accept neo-Darwinism because it is a natural explanation with an overwhelming degree of evidential support.

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

Neo-darwinism then, gets its pre-eminent position as the foundational theory of biology not because it is a default atheistic view, but because it is a scientific theory overwhelmingly supported by evidence and therefore accepted by biologists on that basis

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

I am certainly not exaggerating the evidence which overwhelmingly supports the Modern Synthesis as a scientific explanation for the origin of species.

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

those who claim that there are “glaring issues” in the Synthesis which discredit it need to show what they are, and to put forward scientific (not miraculous) alternatives that better fit the data,

The scientific method is the key to presentation of evidence; we note that it is missing from the statement.

An experiment done under the scientific method is direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable under the same conditions as the hypothesis, unambiguous and logically consistent

re repeatable: Scientific laws are blind to single events; laws must be repeatable.
Evolution events are not repeatable
Evolution is not within the scope of science.

re ambiguous: the definition of species is still missing from the evol. theory.
The distinction between micro and macro evolution is blurred by dropping the qualifier.

re observable: evol fails to be observed now

re testable: conditions in prehistory are unknown => interpretations are invalid as evidence

every scientist has to submit to peer review - that is how scientific standards are maintained.

Those who violate or ignore the scientific method are not our peers.

…their purpose is not to allow people to air hairbrained ideas,

or scientific ideas that challenge an atheistic ideology.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Claims for neo-Darwinism must be examined individually, since none presented so far follows the rules of the scientific method for evidence.

people who write the same sentence repeatedly should be examined individually

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Alethios;5629428:

Neo-Darwinism fails the rules of scientific evidence embodied in the scientific method: repeatable under the original conditions and unambiguous.

Wrong.

Here…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

ONe does not have to kill someone to know someone has been murdered. A dead body with gunshot and stabs wounds does just fine.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Irreducible complexity is untestable in finite time; it can’t be proven - or disproven - using the scientific evidence.

Wrong again, Irreducible complexity is very testable and has been debunked.

 

[masterjedi747]

Our knowledge of Newtonian physics tells us that both the Earth and Moon orbit around their barycenter, a point in space where there’s nothing!

Actually, the Earth/Moon barycenter is located about 1707 kilometers beneath the surface of the Earth. And the Sun/Earth barycenter is located deep within the sun. It’s not until you take something like the Pluto and Charon system, or a binary star system, in which the bodies are so nearly equal in mass, that the barycenter is actually located at a point between the two bodies. Fancy animated diagrams located here.

Parallax can only be used to determine distances and relative motion - not absolute motion or rest.

You’re missing the point… the fact that parallax is even observed in the first place is an indication that the earth is being displaced by a distance of approximately 300 million kilometers every 6 months. Not to mention that at the same time, we observe corresponding redshift and blueshift in the starfield as we repeatedly move towards and away from the same stars every 6 months. We claim this as observed evidence that the Earth is traveling in a defined orbit around the Sun every 12 months, while you have no reasonable explanation for why the universal aether vortex should regularly “wobble” around the immobile Earth in this manner.

The Earth is at the center of the primary aether vortex, which contains the Sun and Moon. The Sun is at the center of a secondary vortex, which contains all the planets.

I’m curious (among other things) how do you propose to deal with Newton’s demonstration in the Principia (Book 2, Section 9) that the circular vortex theory is necessarily incompatible with Kepler’s laws and the observed elliptical nature of planetary orbits?

There’s no known limit to aether speed nor to light speed within the aether.

That last part doesn’t make any sense… the speed of light in a vacuum most certainly has a known limit, and the best you can do is simply substitute the term “aether” for the word “vacuum” in this case.

The Fathers and Doctors of the Church are collectively protected from error, in what they unanimously believe as a doctrine of faith.

The early Fathers and Doctors of the Church certainly held the ancient cosmological view, but they never taught it as an article of the Catholic faith, much less unanimously.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You’re missing the point… the fact that parallax is even observed in the first place is an indication that the earth is being displaced by a distance of approximately 300 million kilometers every 6 months. Not to mention that at the same time, we observe corresponding redshift and blueshift in the starfield as we repeatedly move towards and away from the same stars every 6 months. We claim this as observed evidence that the Earth is traveling in a defined orbit around the Sun every 12 months, while you have no reasonable explanation for why the universal aether vortex should regularly “wobble” around the immobile Earth in this manner.

Very good post, i think the above ends the debate. Not to mention the fact we have sent (and returned) probes from earth so we know it is moving.

 

[cassini]

Quote:
the Catholic Church is divine.

Only its leader is divine. AMDG

What in God’s name does this mean Alethios?

 

[cassini]

No. You’re wrong, and Cardinal Bellarmine was still a great Catholic, and Pope Urban VIII did nothing at all extraordinary by distributing the decree of the Index. The key fact which you can’t seem to recognize is that NOT ALL CHURCH TEACHINGS CARRY EQUAL AUTHORITY. There can be Church teaching from the infallible Sacred Magisterium, and Church teaching from the fallible Ordinary Magisterium. The 1616 decree came from the latter, and it was wrong, and that fact has no effect on the question of infallibility.

I only have the entirety of Rome on my side. No matter. Let’s start with:

“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum.” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.” trosch.org/the/ottintro.htm

No he didn’t. He didn’t even SIGN the 1633 sentence of the Inquisition, much less formally elevate the statements (errors) contained with it to the level of infallible Church teaching.

Until Pope Gregory XVI apparently discarded it with a wave of his hand…

True, he doesn’t argue that. But we do. And Olivieri certainly would have argued that, if the Church had clearly laid out the criterion for infallibility of papal decrees in his time. But since it had not yet done so, he was unable to prove that Anfossi was wrong, and so he simply made an (inferior) alternative argument in its place.

He makes no such claim. He simply fails to make the full argument against the continuing authority of the 1616 decree, given that the whole issue of infallible teaching had yet to be clearly defined.

Finocchiaro’s wording is fine. It’s called development of doctrine, and the term "development translates quite naturally into the synonym “evolution”, in this context.

According to which, the 1616 decree was neither infallible or irrevocable.

Infallibility of the ordinary and universal magisterium has NOTHING to do with the authority of the 1616 decree. If you think it does, then you have a tragic misunderstanding of the requirements for infallibility with regard to the ordinary and universal magisterium.

All planets circle the sun in the same direction. If, on the other hand, you want to talk about the spin of individual planets around their own axis, then that’s a different question, and in any case not *at all *something that you would be able to see with your your telescope.

masterjedi747, where does one start to try to answer the above reply. Apart from your correct correction of orbit to spin just above, is there anything you are not an expert on, correcting popes and saints, inventing canon laws that suit your purpose and shoulder to shoulder with those who can show one twin returns younger that the other twin who in turn is younger that the twin that returns (on another thread on M&M experiment - which no doubt you are also an expert on). Indeed I think this IS the best understanding of a Copernican’s mind set. Defending Church orthodoxy on the two twins one being younger than the other.

Anyway, here is a summary of the Copernican thinking by the man who blew the lid off the conspiracy in 1885: So far, no Churchman has ever officially answered his thesis.

1. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church may be, not only scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. Or, in other words, the Pope in and by a Bull addressed to the universal Church, may confirm and approve with Apostolic authority decisions that are false, unsound, and perilous to the faith.
2. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to oppose the free progress of science.
3. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
4. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions.
   We have often been told that the Church could not get on unless she possessed a living judge of controversies, always able to decide questions of importance with infallible truth.

This then is the CHURCH OF THE COPERNICANS

 

[grannymh]

Anyway, here is a summary of the Copernican thinking by the man who blew the lid off the conspiracy in 1885: So far, no Churchman has ever officially answered his thesis.

What follows is general information. Thus anyone can answer. And many so far have pointed out that general information is general.

1. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church may be, not only scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping.

This is general information regarding individuals speaking either about science, geography, literature, faith or morals etc. There has been a lot of such material since day one. When a person goes back to early Church history, one finds a lot of yelling and name calling on both sides of any issue. Because humans belong to the Church, the Holy Spirit is present to protect actual Divine Revelation regarding faith and morals…

Or, in other words, the Pope in and by a Bull addressed to the universal Church, may confirm and approve with Apostolic authority decisions that are false, unsound, and perilous to the faith.

As pointed out in post 362. This kind of speaking in the ordinary and usual forms of teaching by high ranking prelates or of highly educated and holy people is not infallible. Obviously, a lot of good regarding faith and morals is taught through the usual means of Catholic teaching. Apostolic authority is a source of teaching about issues of faith and morals, not the earth’s shape.

1. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to oppose the free progress of science.

I would truly like to see such. Could you possibiy be referring to teachings which place “The Catholic Deposit of Faith” above all else? Divine Revelation trumps.

1. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.

What you are saying is what we are trying to tell you. The Pope only has the charism of infallibility when it is exercised in conjunction with the major councils or in special circumstances in very recent history. This is not a personal charism which covers all opinions especially ones regarding to science.

1. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions.

This does not sound at all like the Catholic Church. However, there have been some nasty fellows beginning with a few in the Gospels. Yet, even in the bad times, actual Catholic teaching on faith and morals has remained steady. Divine Revelation trumps.

We have often been told that the Church could not get on unless she possessed a living judge of controversies, always able to decide questions of importance with infallible truth.

Are you saying that the Catholic Church has the important responsibility for its Deposit of Faith which includes faith and morals?

This then is the CHURCH OF THE COPERNICANS

I assume this refers to the science of the Copernicans who lived centuries ago. There may be modern Copernican organizations around but I doubt if they qualify as a church in the old traditional sense.

Note: I realize that one can be passionate about science. That is understandable.
But one does need to be careful about mixing science in with doctrines of faith especially on a Sunday.

Blessings,
grannymh

All human life is meant for eternal life with God.

 

[PaulF2]

Note: I realize that one can be passionate about science. That is understandable.
But one does need to be careful about mixing science in with doctrines of faith especially on a Sunday.

Best post in this wacky thread yet.

I was thinking of something related today. Pope John Paul II expressed a clear preference for creamy peanut butter. Yet, to this day millions of Catholics are wallowing in heresy by eating chunky - and the Vatican does nothing.

 

[masterjedi747]

is there anything you are not an expert on, correcting popes and saints, inventing canon laws that suit your purpose…

Notice that you’re once again shifting into ad hominem attacks, and not actually responding to my arguments. But yes, since you ask, there are many things that I’m not an “expert” on. In fact, I wouldn’t exactly consider myself an “expert” in most areas; more often than not, I simply have a general understanding of the basic principles involved across a broad range of subjects. I’m only an “expert” in any given subject from the perspective of people who clearly know far less about it than the little I do.

…shoulder to shoulder with those who can show one twin returns younger that the other twin who in turn is younger that the twin that returns

What are you talking about? There’s no absurd regress of “younger” and “younger” individuals. The twin that remained on Earth becomes the older twin, while the one who traveled becomes the younger twin. Because less time passed for the twin traveling at relativistic speeds, and more time passed for the twin who remained on Earth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Indeed I think this IS the best understanding of a Copernican’s mind set. Defending Church orthodoxy on the two twins one being younger than the other.

Please rephrase. Your second sentence makes no sense, neither grammatically nor in context.

Anyway, here is a summary of the Copernican thinking by the man who blew the lid off the conspiracy in 1885: So far, no Churchman has ever officially answered his thesis.

I’ve been through this with you before…

1. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church may be, not only scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping.

First of all, the entire content of that underlined portion is uncalled for: there is nothing theologically dangerous about geocentrism, even if it is scientifically false; and none of the decrees in question were “calculated” to prejudice or compromise anything. Second of all, you seem to have trouble understanding that “the ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible”. There is no guarantee that decrees confirmed by and/or virtually included in a Bull addressed to the universal Church cannot be scientifically false or irreversible.

Or, in other words, the Pope in and by a Bull addressed to the universal Church, may confirm and approve with Apostolic authority decisions that are false, unsound, and perilous to the faith.

The Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to all the faithful, may use his ordinary Apostolic authority to confirm and approve fallible decisions that may later be reversed. And again, the language of “unsound” and “perilous to the faith” is unnecessary and uncalled for.

1. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to oppose the free progress of science.

Nothing was “calculated” to oppose anything. Not only were those who issued the decrees were justified in acting to prohibit the spread of teachings which they deemed harmful to the faithful, but the true progress of science was clearly not impeded: Newton turned up just fine in 1687, a mere 50 years later.

1. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.

The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he cannot use his ordinary authority to approve the fallible opinions of Congregations which were established to (among other things) assist him in protecting the Church from error in matters of faith and morals.

1. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions.

Yes, just like any other Bishop could. The excommunication of St. Joan of Arc comes to mind. The only guarantee we have regarding the Pope is his infallibility in defining a doctrine of faith or morals ex cathedra.
newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility_of_the_Church