Geocentric Universe?

[cassini]

In my most humble opinion I think we ought to follow the current findings of science. Scripture is God’s revelation of spiritual truths. Scientific truth is revealed to us through a reasoning mind, which is as much a gift of God as Scripture.

In my more humbler opinion I think Catholics ought to follow the infallible teaching of the Church for absolute truth. EVERYTHING IN SCRIPTURE is TRUTH. What you suggest is contrary to Church teaching,:

The most recent and accurate reiteration on this very point is to be found in Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture: Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, where he declares:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase –and indeed every word of Scripture– yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration –namely, absolute truth and immunity from error- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest –things concerning “profane knowledge”, the garments in which the Divine truth is presented- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.’

 

[EphelDuath]

In my more humbler opinion I think Catholics ought to follow the infallible teaching of the Church for absolute truth. EVERYTHING IN SCRIPTURE is TRUTH.

I agree brother, but not everything in scripture was intended for absolute literal interpretation. Furthermore, I know of not a single credible authority in the Catholic Church who says that Catholics are not free to believe in heliocentrism. Not a single one. Geocentrists can dig through and give their own personal interpretation of Church documents, but the Magisterium would not let its flock go astray in saying that lay Catholics may believe in scientific proofs.

 

[cassini]

This thread scares me.

No Pope in the modern era has denied heliocentrism. Ultra-traditionalists that never want to stray from the Church Fathers will suggest that geocentrism is somehow a more faithful belief, but I find this to be absurd.

And you ought to be scared EpheDuath, for here in this matter is the foundation of MODERNISM, the Devil’s greatest victory over the Church. When you read Gaudium et Spes no 36 and see the Council fathers calling the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 as TROUBLE-MAKERS youy ought to be scared.

 

[EphelDuath]

And you ought to be scared EpheDuath, for here in this matter is the foundation of MODERNISM, the Devil’s greatest victory over the Church. When you read Gaudium et Spes no 36 and see the Council fathers calling the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 as TROUBLE-MAKERS youy ought to be scared.

Odd how when the Jesuits scientifically proved heliocentrism in the 17th century, they weren’t banned for heresy. Could it perhaps be that heliocentrism is not a formal heresy and you’re misinterpreting the Magisterium’s documents?

 

[GeorgeSword]

I am unable to find a document particularly concerning Geocintricism, but in stating that everything, such as history and science, in the Scriptures must be taken as literal and innerently true, I ask you to read this. While it is not an Encyclical, I do think that the words are quite wise. It is an address John Paul II gave to concerning human evolution. If he accepted that we do not have to take Genesis literally, I don’t see why we should have to take the Geocentric statements in Scripture as literal, either: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

 

[cassini]

I agree brother, but not everything in scripture was intended for absolute literal interpretation. Furthermore, I know of not a single credible authority in the Catholic Church who says that Catholics are not free to believe in heliocentrism. Not a single one. Geocentrists can dig through and give their own personal interpretation of Church documents, but the Magisterium would not let its flock go astray in saying that lay Catholics may believe in scientific proofs.

Who are you to lecture the popes and theologians of the Church on how to interpret the Scriptures? Can you not see where the Devil has led you all with ‘science’. This is PROTESTANTISM. But you sre not alone for the WHOLE Church bar a few have been doing this since 1741.

 

[EphelDuath]

Who are you to lecture the popes and theologians of the Church on how to interpret the Scriptures? Can you not see where the Devil has led you all with ‘science’. This is PROTESTANTISM. But you sre not alone for the WHOLE Church bar a few have been doing this since 1741.

If the Church has been lead into heresy, then Jesus lied when he said that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” In that case, the Church was never from God in the first place.

 

[cassini]

I am unable to find a document particularly concerning Geocintricism, but in stating that everything, such as history and science, in the Scriptures must be taken as literal and innerently true, I ask you to read this. While it is not an Encyclical, I do think that the words are quite wise. It is an address John Paul II gave to concerning human evolution. If he accepted that we do not have to take Genesis literally, I don’t see why we should have to take the Geocentric statements in Scripture as literal, either: ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP961022.HTM

With respect George Sword, I would not waste my time reading John Paul II’s personal opinion on man from monkey evolution. If he had something to say OFFICIALLY why didn’t he put it out ex cathedra? Pope Paul V OFFICIALLY condemned a fixed sun as contrary to Scripture. If you prefer to reject this decree you have free will. I find it interesting that Catholics PREFER to believe the Church of 1616 and 1633 was WRONG and PREFER to keep their heliocentric theory as DOGMA.

Who says EVERYTHING must be taken literally. This is typical propaganda. At no time did the Church take everything literally.

 

[GeorgeSword]

Didn’t Pope Benedict XIV suspend the ban on helicentric works? Granted, its really an approval of it, but by allowing books on the subject doesn’t he seem to be saying it isn’t formally heresy?

 

[cassini]

If the Church has been lead into heresy, then Jesus lied when he said that “the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.” In that case, the Church was never from God in the first place.

Obviously you do not understand what this promise means. Jesus promised DIVINE PROTECTION to the Church when defining on matters of faith and morals.

The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition

In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.

Thus the 1616 decree was protected from the GATES OF HELL. That promise is still in vogue. No pope EVER DARED ABROGATE IT OFFICIALLY.

In other words EphelDuath, if you believe in Christ’s promise, you should be PROTECTING the 1616 decree and NOT THE PERSONAL OPINION OF CATHOLICS WHO FELL FOR THE HERESY.

 

[cassini]

Didn’t Pope Benedict XIV suspend the ban on helicentric works? Granted, its really an approval of it, but by allowing books on the subject doesn’t he seem to be saying it isn’t formally heresy?

For centuries now, Catholics have been spin-doctoring the history of the Galileo case for the simple reason that they fell for the Freemasonic propaganda that the H system has been proven. If this were true then the gates of Hell would have prevailed. But believe me (and Christ) the teaching AUTHORITY is perfectly safe.

What happened from 1741 to 1835 was ONE OF THE GREAT UNKNOWN SCANDALS OF THE CHURCH. POPES ETC., unleashed HERESY onto the world as orthodox. CONVINCED that science was RIGHT and the Church of 1616 and 1633 was wrong, they fell for the greatest fraud in history. They CHOOSE SCIENCE over FAITH.
However they did it all outside their OFFICIAL AUTHORITY, that is, they did it by DEFAULT rather than by OFFICIAL ACT.

They simply took the forbidden books off the INDEX. Now taking a book off the Index does not abrogate the heresy, merely allows such books to be read. Pope Paul VI got rid of the INDEX but all the heresies in them are still heresies.

 

[pickguard1]

I don’t know what kind of argument is going on here, but as far as I know, Catholics are allowed to acknowledge as a hypothesis that the Sun is the center of our *Solar System. * As for the “center of the universe” I don’t know that the geocentric or heliocentric positions ever held this anyway.

The decree of 1616, as far as I know, isn’t an ex cathedra statement, nor is it infallible.

Galileo was condemned for positing that his sytem was THE TRUTH, in spite of lacking any positive, concrete proof. He wasn’t condemned because his sytem was wrong per se but that he promoted it beyond what he could have legitimately proved to be true.

I don’t believe any dogma would ever be pronounced regarding this anyway - since it is rather irrelevant whether the earth spins or stays motionless, or whether the sun spins or stays motionless, or whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth. None of that affects the Deposit of Faith, nor does it pertain to faith or morals, per se. The only problem arises when one tries to posit that some scientific discovery disproves scripture.

 

[EphelDuath]

Obviously you do not understand what this promise means. Jesus promised DIVINE PROTECTION to the Church when defining on matters of faith and morals.

Allowing the belief of a formal heresy would sound like the gates of Hell have defeated the Church. Either your interpretation of Church documents is mistaken, or the Church has collapsed.

 

[cassini]

Allowing the belief of a formal heresy would sound like the gates of Hell have defeated the Church. Either your interpretation of Church documents is mistaken, or the Church has collapsed.

Now there is an interesting observation. In my opinion the Catholic Church is an empty shell these days. There is no real faith left. Plenty of OBEDIENCE to every word said to the Pontifical Academy Of Science, but none towards an official papal decree. As a result of the delivery of the Scriptures to a metaphorical (Protestant) interpretation, the same Copernican reformers then allowed ‘science’ to do away with the Flood, Noah’s Ark, a 6,000 year old martyrology, a direct creation of all living flora and fauna and man, whole and entire in a divine fiat, and of course the evolution of a monkey zapped with a soul and an Eve that comes from God knows where, which in turn makes Original sin a community joke that needs a Redeemer, whose body comes in the image of a monkey, and then Modernism, which contradicts the teachings of past popes, just as the Copernicans contradicted the teachings of past popes, and now we have a Church that has NO credibility on earth because of its scandals and a Church that no longer teaches the ten commandments to the world but only social issues. The Churches are closing down, seminaries and convents gone into the real-estate nightmare business, no vocations and popes who go around the world like pop stars.

Yes, you are right, the Church has collapsed as Pope Benedict Viii said it would if they rejected the interpretations of the Fathers.

 

[cassini]

I don’t know what kind of argument is going on here, but as far as I know, Catholics are allowed to acknowledge as a hypothesis that the Sun is the center of our *Solar System. * As for the “center of the universe” I don’t know that the geocentric or heliocentric positions ever held this anyway.

The decree of 1616, as far as I know, isn’t an ex cathedra statement, nor is it infallible.

Galileo was condemned for positing that his sytem was THE TRUTH, in spite of lacking any positive, concrete proof. He wasn’t condemned because his sytem was wrong per se but that he promoted it beyond what he could have legitimately proved to be true.

I don’t believe any dogma would ever be pronounced regarding this anyway - since it is rather irrelevant whether the earth spins or stays motionless, or whether the sun spins or stays motionless, or whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun around the earth. None of that affects the Deposit of Faith, nor does it pertain to faith or morals, per se. The only problem arises when one tries to posit that some scientific discovery disproves scripture.

Bet you don’t even know the meaning of the word ‘hypothesis’ pickguard1.

So now your saying there is a ‘fallible’ Church that can define and declare heresies willy nilly and later shout ‘April fools, it wasn’t infallible.’

Galileo was on trial for HERESY, nothing less.

Whether the sun moves or not may be irrelevant to you but the credibility of the Church’s claim to be the infallible interpreters of Scripture depends on it not moving.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So I came across something quite interesting…

I understand why many Christians reject evolution

However, a brother on Catholic-Answers told me the Church still infallibly holds to the geocentric theory. Is this true?

I know the Church condemns the heliocentric theory, and no one really believes the Sun is the center of the universe.

However, does she teach the geocentric theory?

http://z.about.com/d/astrology/1/0/U/4/-/-/ptolemaiclg.jpg

scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
scripturecatholic.xanga.com/7…-crazy-people/

It came as quite a shock since I’ve taken my share of university physics classes.

However, according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia"

Are we as Catholics allowed to believe the heliocentric nature of the solar system and the modern scientific view of the universe?

http://cosmicdiary.org/blogs/arif_solmaz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/solar_system1.jpg

That quotation does not amount to saying geocentricism is condemned - one of the things it says is that geocentrism is either not in the Bible, or not vouched for by it. And that quotation is the opinion of the author, not the authentic - never mind infallible - teaching of the Church. The article has the authority that the author’s competence to speak gives it: no less and no more. As the author rightly points out, the Bible can’t be used to settle the matter: it is not speaking to the issue of geocentrism, any more than it speaks to the issues of smoking, or the desirability of wind-farms, or the policy of the 2009 G8 summit meeting, or whether it is patriotic to buy a Volvo. Or a trillion other things people want or have wanted it to talk about. “Rubbish in” guarantees “rubbish out” - hardly a reverent procedure in dealing with a book claimed to be holy ​

“X is the case” does not always mean “The Church teaches as infallibly true that…” - not even in books by Catholics; not even in the CE.

 

[cassini]

That quotation does not amount to saying geocentricism is condemned - one of the things it says is that geocentrism is either not in the Bible, or not vouched for by it. And that quotation is the opinion of the author, not the authentic - never mind infallible - teaching of the Church. The article has the authority that the author’s competence to speak gives it: no less and no more. As the author rightly points out, the Bible can’t be used to settle the matter: it is not speaking to the issue of geocentrism, any more than it speaks to the issues of smoking, or the desirability of wind-farms, or the policy of the 2009 G8 summit meeting, or whether it is patriotic to buy a Volvo. Or a trillion other things people want or have wanted it to talk about. “Rubbish in” guarantees “rubbish out” - hardly a reverent procedure in dealing with a book claimed to be holy ​

“X is the case” does not always mean “The Church teaches as infallibly true that…” - not even in books by Catholics; not even in the CE.

Haven’t a clue what you are saying, Pope Gottle of Geer. I must be tired. I’m off to bed, Night all, God bless.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi Omyo. Yes, the Church defined and declared in 1616 that the scriptures reveal the sun moves (around the earth) and the earth is immobile at the centre of the universe. She did this by condemning a fixed sun as formal heresy and a spinning and orbiting earth around the sun as repugnant to the Catholic faith. A study of the history affair shows there has been no abrogation of the 1616 decree so it is still in force.

‘No one really believes the Sun is the center of the universe.’

Maybe not, but because of the nature of space, the sun COULD be at the centre of the universe. What people have been led to believe is that the sun is fixed and the earth orbits it. That is what was condemned as contrary to Scripture and thus heresy.

‘However, does she teach the geocentric theory?’

The Church teaches that the Scriptures reveal a geocentric world. Thus the Church teaches that we live on an immobile earth at the centre of the universe and that the sun (moon and stars) revolve around us.

‘It came as quite a shock since I’ve taken my share of university physics classes.’

Why so? Your university physics class surely taught that because of the nature of space all movement is relative. In other words, man has been long aware that unless one knows of a body that is at REST in the universe, we cannot know what moves relative to what. Thus a-centrism prevails, that is, anywhere can be at the centre of the universe. Accordingly the earth could be the immobile centre of the universe according to modern physics.

‘Are we as Catholics allowed to believe the heliocentric nature of the solar system and the modern scientific view of the universe?’

No your not. Up to now however, you have, like most Catholics, been inculpably ignorant of this, so no formal heresy prevails, only material heresy with no due punishment as no heresy was intended. But now that you know perhaps you might change your mind.

If this notion is so necessary to be believed - which is what the theological censure against the contrary proposition leads the reader to expect - why is it not taught ? And why is it not taught in the CCC ? The CCC is a publication of very high doctrinal authority - yet it does not teach geocentrism. In view of its stated function, this omission makes no sense.​

Which other catechisms teach geocentrism ? If they do not, this does not suggest that the issue is of any very great importance.
The Credo of the People of God of 1968 says nothing of it - very careless of Paul VI, who was the author of that document.

 

[thunderballs75]

Geocentrism and Creationism = epic fail.

And I am a staunch Mass of All Time-attending traditionalist.

 

[Omyo12]

Bet you don’t even know the meaning of the word ‘hypothesis’ pickguard1.

So now your saying there is a ‘fallible’ Church that can define and declare heresies willy nilly and later shout ‘April fools, it wasn’t infallible.’

Galileo was on trial for HERESY, nothing less.

Whether the sun moves or not may be irrelevant to you but the credibility of the Church’s claim to be the infallible interpreters of Scripture depends on it not moving.

So do you say the Church is 100% infallible? even when she doesn’t claim to be?

Remember, that heliocentrism is no longer accepted since science has developed since the time of Galileo.

What about
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

It contains an NIHIL OBSTAT and an IMPRIMATUR and featured on Catholic-Answers

The Church is infallible in matters of FAITH and MORALS

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) states:

The mathematical and experimental sciences, also known as exact sciences, have no contact whatever with faith, although at one time, it was erroneously believed that the geocentric system was contained in the Bible.

I think we can all agree geocentrism has nothing to do with morals…

So are nearly all Catholics heretics in your view?
I guess your answer would be yes?