Geocentric Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omyo12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EphelDuath said:
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.
Click to expand...
There have been periods in the Church’s history where virtually the entire Christian population adhered to one heresy or another (i.e. Arianism). You don’t argue that the gates of hell prevailed then do you?
 
cassini said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don’t bet too much Cassini 😛

I think you need to calm down and take a deep breath. The Church’s claim to be infallible most definitely does NOT hinge on whether the earth moves.
 
pickguard1 said:
There have been periods in the Church’s history where virtually the entire Christian population adhered to one heresy or another (i.e. Arianism). You don’t argue that the gates of hell prevailed then do you?
Click to expand...
No, since it’s not what the lay Catholics believe that matters but what the Magisterium teaches. The Magisterium teaches that it’s acceptable to believe in evolution and heliocentrism, and therefore I do so.
 
Because the Churches infallibility is ONLY on faith and morals,it really doesn’t matter what it has pronounced on other subjects as far as infallibility goes. The Pope might get up one day and say the moon is really made of green cheese but the faith would be not effected at all by this.
 
EphelDuath said:
No, since it’s not what the lay Catholics believe that matters but what the Magisterium teaches. The Magisterium teaches that it’s acceptable to believe in evolution and heliocentrism, and therefore I do so.
Click to expand...
Ok - please reference the document that says its ok to believe in evolution.
 
buffalo said:
Ok - please reference the document that says its ok to believe in evolution.
Click to expand...
Humani Generis, 36.
For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter…
Click to expand...
 
EphelDuath said:
No, since it’s not what the lay Catholics believe that matters but what the Magisterium teaches. The Magisterium teaches that it’s acceptable to believe in evolution and heliocentrism, and therefore I do so.
Click to expand...
Sorry EphelDuath, I think I misunderstood your post as claiming that the spread of heresy = gates of hell prevailing.

I agree that if the Magisterium teaches it as acceptable to believe, then it is acceptable to be believed.

by the way I like your user name 👍
 
buffalo said:
Sorry - the Pope is stating it can be investigated - this is not the same as Magisterial affirmation that it is true.
Click to expand...
Which is not what I said. The Magisterium does not demand that one believes in evolution, but it does not disallow it either. Reason can never be in conflict with faith; both are gifts of God.
In addition - polygenism is ruled out - where does that leave evolution?
Click to expand...
Uh… the same place as before? 🤷

I’m not sure I understand your question. You are aware that evolution necessitates that every classification of “species” began with one pair, right?
 
buffalo said:
Sorry - the Pope is stating it can be investigated - this is not the same as Magisterial affirmation that it is true.

In addition - polygenism is ruled out - where does that leave evolution?
Click to expand...
I don’t think that EphelDuath was stating that he believed the church says they’re true. Only that the Church says that at this moment they’re theories than can be believed unless and until Holy Mother Church declares otherwise.

The theory of evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of a first pair of humans, from which all other humans are descended. Although many who ascribe to this theory (evolution) hold the (false) theory of polygenism, that doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution (as a whole) is necessarily false as well.
 
pickguard1 said:
I don’t think that EphelDuath was stating that he believed the church says they’re true. Only that the Church says that at this moment they’re theories than can be believed unless and until Holy Mother Church declares otherwise.

The theory of evolution doesn’t rule out the existence of a first pair of humans, from which all other humans are descended. Although many who ascribe to this theory (evolution) hold the (false) theory of polygenism, that doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution (as a whole) is necessarily false as well.
Click to expand...
First off many of the evolutionists here will argue that there was no bottleneck of human populations ruling out Adam and Ave.

Ruled out:

Evolution that does not include Adam and Eve
Evolution that does not allow Eve coming from Adam
Evolution that is unguided
Evolution that is materialistic

What is left?
 
buffalo said:
First off many of the evolutionists here will argue that there was no bottleneck of human populations ruling out Adam and Ave.

Ruled out:

Evolution that does not include Adam and Eve
Evolution that does not allow Eve coming from Adam
Evolution that is unguided
Evolution that is materialistic

What is left?
Click to expand...
Again, I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at. Despite what many YECs like to spout, evolution is agreed upon by 99% of reputable scientists in the world. There is literally no case for the world being a few thousand years old, according to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

What exactly is wrong with accepting theistic evolution? Isn’t God capable of speaking in metaphors in the Bible, just as he told parables whilst on earth?
 
EphelDuath said:
Again, I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at. Despite what many YECs like to spout, evolution is agreed upon by 99% of reputable scientists in the world. There is literally no case for the world being a few thousand years old, according to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

What exactly is wrong with accepting theistic evolution? Isn’t God capable of speaking in metaphors in the Bible, just as he told parables whilst on earth?
Click to expand...
So the remaining question is - did God know what Adam would look like?
 
EphelDuath said:
Yes, because God knows everything. Yet I am still unclear as to what you are getting at, brother.
Click to expand...
It looks more like this -

God created the language of DNA and set it into the kinds. From this all life sprang forth.
 
buffalo said:
It looks more like this -

God created the language of DNA and set it into the kinds. From this all life sprang forth.
Click to expand...
This is true, because God is the First Cause of everything that exists. All natural phenomenon (that is, everything but that which is a result of free will) is therefore a mechanization of God’s creation.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

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.
Click to expand...
Why is it not taught ? And why is it not taught in the CCC?

For the simple reason that since 1735 those supposedly running the Church prefered to believe fallible human reason than put their trust in the Church’s judgement of 1616. Now go to Denzingers history of dogma and you will find doctrine laid down by that SAME HOLY OFFICE of the time - still the teaching of the Church. Can we dismiss it saying ‘it’s not infallible so hard cheese.’ Now search as you may you will NOT find the decree against the false interpretation of Scripture. In other words, SO-CALLED SCIENCE is considered a GREATER AUTHORITY IN THE MODERN CATHOLIC CHURCH than papal decrees.
 
cassini said:
For the simple reason that since 1735 those supposedly running the Church prefered to believe fallible human reason than put their trust in the Church’s judgement of 1616.
Click to expand...
Human reason is indeed quite fallible. But the infallible Church has said that we are free to believe in scientific theories like heliocentrism and evolution, so I have to trust the Magisterium’s God-given infallibility!
In other words, SO-CALLED SCIENCE is considered a GREATER AUTHORITY IN THE MODERN CATHOLIC CHURCH than papal decrees.
Click to expand...
Citation, citation, wherefore art thou citation?

Papal and council decrees like Pius XII’s “Human Generis” are what have allowed Catholics to believe in science. The Church does not put human reason above faith in God. They can never be truly at odds with one another.
 
thunderballs75 said:
Geocentrism and Creationism = epic fail.

And I am a staunch Mass of All Time-attending traditionalist.
Click to expand...
Is that a fact? So was Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII and they did believe. Maybe you ought to pray for some grace at your Mass of All Time to believe the Church does not make mistakes in defining matters of Faith and morals. And what the Bible says is a matter of faith. Maybe you ought to consider that your belief system is contrary to that of a million saints, popes and theologians of the Church up to modern times when ‘science’ took over the Church. You think you have truth and they all had myths, ignorance, and a lack of ‘science’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top