Geocentric Universe?

[Prodigal_Son]

What you do not SEE is the earth orbiting the sun, NOBODY has ever SEEN the earth orbiting the sun. You ASSUME the earth orbits the sun. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a CHOICE we can all make.

The logic above just doesn’t work. The structure: You do not see x. Nobody has seen x. You assume that x. Therefore, it is possible that not-x. We all must choose between x and not-x.

Consider a comparison: You do not see “2+2=4”. Nobody has ever seen “2+2=4”. You assume “2+2=4”. Therefore, it is possible that “2+2=4” is wrong.

Or: You do not see “stealing is wrong”. Nobody has ever seen “stealing is wrong”. You assume “stealing is wrong”. Therefore, it is possible that “stealing is right”.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

The logic above just doesn’t work. The structure: You do not see x. Nobody has seen x. You assume that x. Therefore, it is possible that not-x. We all must choose between x and not-x.

Consider a comparison: You do not see “2+2=4”. Nobody has ever seen “2+2=4”. You assume “2+2=4”. Therefore, it is possible that “2+2=4” is wrong.

Or: You do not see “stealing is wrong”. Nobody has ever seen “stealing is wrong”. You assume “stealing is wrong”. Therefore, it is possible that “stealing is right”.

Deleted

My bad, read it wrong

 

[tjm190]

What you do not SEE is the earth orbiting the sun, NOBODY has ever SEEN the earth orbiting the sun. You ASSUME the earth orbits the sun. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a CHOICE we can all make.

I have never SEEN you. I ASSUME you exist. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that you do not exist. It is CHOICE we can all make.
Of course, there is overwhelming evidence both that you exist and that the Earth orbits the sun- so not accepting either of those realities makes you look rather silly.

 

[grannymh]

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.’

Thank you. I did notice the important restriction to that primary or religious element.

 

[grannymh]

SPIRITUS PARACLITUS
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XV on St. Jerome

(39) “Would that all Catholics would cling to St. Jerome’s golden rule and obediently listen to their Mother’s words, so as modestly to keep within the bounds marked out by the Fathers and ratified by the Church.”

The full story is that Pope Benedict XV encouraged people to follow the path of St. Jerome regarding what was ratified by the Church.

And what were the bounds marked out by the Fathers? And ratified by the Church?
The answer below was stated by Pope Leo XIII.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture

“the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

Regarding a question in a previous post: “Is there any way to get across to you Copernicans how to present the case of G v H?”

Those who recognize the workings of the visible Church know that the above quotes do not limit research into other fields such as the various sciences.

1. As an institution, the Church opened universities.
2. Catholics, including prelates, legitimately present arguments regarding both geocentricism and heliocentricism.
3. Catholics are often inspired by particular Scripture verses.

These valid points do not suggest that science is a part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

In other words to answer the question regarding G v H. Both geocentricism and heliocentricism have to stand on their own scientific merits.

 

[pickguard1]

**This is a huge paradigm shift for many of us. I was very surprised to learn that there were geocentrists. I was shocked to learn that it cannot be proven either way. It took me a while to get used to the possibility, for I was taught differently for most of my life. **
There is a huge commitment to relativity by the science establishment. There is even a bigger commitment to acentrism by materialists.

This is EXACTLY how I feel!

 

[pickguard1]

In various posts/threads, I have pointed out that individuals and their individual opinions can be wrong about issues of science. But dogmatic science is not part of the Catholic Church period. Therefore, how could I possibly say that the Catholic Church’s Deposit of Faith is wrong about an issue (regarding specific scientific theories) that is totally outside of its realm. That would be illogical.

I would say you are correct here in a sense - for example, (while this is a bit off topic, it is relevant tangentally) if science were to definitively PROVE evolution. The church would in no way have any reason to dogmatically define, nor could she dogmatically define, declare etc. that evolution is how humans came to be, simply because it is not a part of divine revelation. It’s not something the church has always held. Not defining it wouldn’t make it less of a truth, it’s just that the proving or disproving of evolution would have no bearing on matters of faith and morals to be believed de fide whatsoever. Put simply, it’s a matter of science, not faith.

However, in the current discussion, I think the issue whether or not the earth is the immovable center hinges on whether it can be said that this is something that IS a part of divine revelation - namely that that is how it’s described in Sacred Scripture. To that end, the issue is whether those passages in the bible that refer to the motionless earth and movement of the sun around it are to be taken in their literal sense or in a phenomenological sense.

One thing that hasn’t been brought up - or maybe it has (this thread is getting so long it’s hard to keep track ) is that, while it may be said that the Church most definitely DID hold that the literal sense of these scripture passages should take precedence, the fact that of late (the past few hundred years) the Church has allowed a phenomenolical interpretation seems to me to mean that either geocentrism or what I’ll call geolocomotion can be held, since if we believe that the Church does hold the keys to infallible interpretation of the Bible, allowing the phenoenological sense falls under that authority.

 

[JimG]

Matters of science are not matters of revelation or of Church dogma.
Trying to mix the two usually has bad consequences for the Church.

Geocentrism is not a doctrine of the Catholic Faith.

If anyone believes it is, perhaps he should write the CDF seeking a clarification.

 

[grannymh]

I would say you are correct here in a sense - for example, (while this is a bit off topic, it is relevant tangentally) if science were to definitively PROVE evolution. The church would in no way have any reason to dogmatically define, nor could she dogmatically define, declare etc. that evolution is how humans came to be, simply because it is not a part of divine revelation. It’s not something the church has always held. Not defining it wouldn’t make it less of a truth, it’s just that the proving or disproving of evolution would have no bearing on matters of faith and morals to be believed de fide whatsoever. Put simply, it’s a matter of science, not faith.

However, in the current discussion, I think the issue whether or not the earth is the immovable center hinges on whether it can be said that this is something that IS a part of divine revelation - namely that that is how it’s described in Sacred Scripture. To that end, the issue is whether those passages in the bible that refer to the motionless earth and movement of the sun around it are to be taken in their literal sense or in a phenomenological sense.

One thing that hasn’t been brought up - or maybe it has (this thread is getting so long it’s hard to keep track ) is that, while it may be said that the Church most definitely DID hold that the literal sense of these scripture passages should take precedence, the fact that of late (the past few hundred years) the Church has allowed a phenomenolical interpretation seems to me to mean that either geocentrism or what I’ll call geolocomotion can be held, since if we believe that the Church does hold the keys to infallible interpretation of the Bible, allowing the phenoenological sense falls under that authority.

I agree that it is hard to keep track. I had to print out masterjedi747 posts regarding the workings of the visible Church separately for reference.

In addition, one needs to recognize that references to the earth are in Scripture but are not part of Divine Revelation which is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned recently, there is a limit to this train of thought

since if we believe that the Church does hold the keys to infallible interpretation of the Bible,<<

Infallible interpretation does not pertain to every word in each of the 72 books (including poetry) of the Bible. Infallible interpretation pertains only to matters of faith and morals which have been reveled through Divine Revelation. As masterjedi747 has explained, Divine Revelation is protected by a strict process. That is why geocentricism, being science, is not included as a doctrine in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *

Therefore, how the various verses reflecting the earth are interpreted is moot regarding this particular thread. Both geocentricism and heliocentricism have to stand solely on their scientific merits.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[pickguard1]

Infallible interpretation does not pertain to every word in each of the 72 books (including poetry) of the Bible. Infallible interpretation pertains only to matters of faith and morals which have been reveled through Divine Revelation. As masterjedi747 has explained, Divine Revelation is protected by a strict process. That is why geocentricism, being science, is not included as a doctrine in the *Catechism of the Catholic Church. *

Therefore, how the various verses reflecting the earth are interpreted is moot regarding this particular thread. Both geocentricism and heliocentricism have to stand solely on their scientific merits.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

While it may not pertain, *per se * to every word (in that it’s not under the Church’s purview to determine the definition of the word “the” or “along” (to make extreme examples), it is the Church’s authority to determine the sense in which any given passage should be understood. I think the argument that cassini, in particular, is trying to make is that the Church dogmatically defined that the literal sense is the only sense that these particular passages could be understood under, and therefore any scientific theory that posits the motion of the earth is heretical.

This necessarily leads the discussion to, as you have pointed out, how the Church actually works with regards to defining things dogmatically, including the method and the material.

My point is that, since the Church DOES have the charsim of infallibility in determining the sense that scripture should be interpreted, simply because she said that it should be interpreted one way in the past doesn’t mean that she can’t later determine that it isn’t the only way that the passage can be interpreted, in light of new scientific theory or discovery.

I think that cassini’s argument from extremes in this case is unwarranted, because there doesn’t need to be ANY fear whatsoever that the church “got it wrong” back in the 1600’s or that the church has “gotten it wrong” now. It CAN’T happen. So, if it appears that the Church is contradicting itself, we know that it’s not the case - we just have to figure out how we’re misunderstanding the apparent contradiction, because that’s the only possible problem. Not the Church being wrong.

 

[j1akey]

cassini:

What you do not SEE is the earth orbiting the sun, NOBODY has ever SEEN the earth orbiting the sun. You ASSUME the earth orbits the sun. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that the earth does not orbit the sun. It is a CHOICE we can all make. We use different criteria in making that choice. I chose to go with the Church of 1616 because my faith tells me that if the Church was wrong on this one then it is NOT THE CHURCH GUIDED BY GOD. Just ONE such error is enough to TOTALLY undermine what the Church claims based on Catholic faith. Now you Copernicans, popes included, chose to go with ASSUMPTIONS based on what you think proves your choice, but I go on TRUST in that God allowed the 1616 papal decree DEFINING and DECLARING G as a revelation of Scripture. It is a matter of faith as Bellarmine said in 1615, just as the Virgin Birth is a matter of faith, both revealed in the Scriptures, both deemed IMPOSSIBLE by science.

I see that wood burns, therefore it must contain fire, I have observed this and therefore it must be true!

Seriously though, some things just aren’t a choice. Things are the way they are whether you like it or not. Your ignorance and ‘choice’ to believe in a geocentric universe doesn’t make it any more true.

It seems to me that is your faith hinges on whether or not the earth is the center of the universe then it seems that your faith wasn’t that strong to begin with. Even for catholics and christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old, this is stretching it a bit. It’s as if people purposely choose to walk through life wanting to be completely oblivious to the rest of the world / universe as long as something doesn’t contradict their faith.

Is faith all people have?

 

[buffalo]

I see that wood burns, therefore it must contain fire, I have observed this and therefore it must be true!

Seriously though, some things just aren’t a choice. Things are the way they are whether you like it or not. Your ignorance and ‘choice’ to believe in a geocentric universe doesn’t make it any more true.

It seems to me that is your faith hinges on whether or not the earth is the center of the universe then it seems that your faith wasn’t that strong to begin with. Even for catholics and christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old, this is stretching it a bit. It’s as if people purposely choose to walk through life wanting to be completely oblivious to the rest of the world / universe as long as something doesn’t contradict their faith.

Is faith all people have?

Faith is everything. It is a choice and commitment, so when people make it they are in all the way. Most do not want to be fooled into faith. Faith does not need to hinge on the earth being the enter of the universe or the earth being 10000 years old.

The issue is reconciling what we observe and interpret with Revelation (what we were told). The points of intersect must be resolved. It will in time as faith and reason cannot be opposed.

You must admit that methodological naturalism is an attempt to undermine Revelation. This by its very nature is suspect and not trustworthy. Science by its a priori approach is actually undermining itself in the public square. The NSCE has finally figured this out and is now attempting to reconcile science and religion even thought the directors are atheists. This outreach is a fraud and people know it. Does anyone think this will help science in the long run and its integrity?

 

[cassini]

Are you even reading my posts, or are you just deliberately ignoring my points. Where did i say i see the earth orbit the sun, i SAID i have a Meade. i can see the moons orbit JUPITER, i can SEE the spiral shape of Andromeda. What we never see, ANYWHERE is an object of larger mass orbiting an object of lesser mass.

So why on earth ANY rational person believe that the earth (in a cosmos that has a 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars.) is the ONLY exception to that rule.

I am reading your posts Charles, it’s just that you do not explain yourself properly. It looked to me like you were basing your argument on what can be SEEN.
It is my error to put it as ‘the sun could be orbiting the earth.’ in the first place. Thanks for leading me to this correction, It is a very important point. I will never use it again…

The Church definition said nothing about anything orbiting anything, just that a fixed sun is contrary to revelation and that the earth is the immovable centre of the universe is in accordance with Catholic faith. To put these two truths in perspective we can only conclude it is the WHOLE universe that rotates around the earth, Now that would necessitate God creating it that way, and being God, that is not a problem.

 

[cassini]

The logic above just doesn’t work. The structure: You do not see x. Nobody has seen x. You assume that x. Therefore, it is possible that not-x. We all must choose between x and not-x.

Consider a comparison: You do not see “2+2=4”. Nobody has ever seen “2+2=4”. You assume “2+2=4”. Therefore, it is possible that “2+2=4” is wrong.

Or: You do not see “stealing is wrong”. Nobody has ever seen “stealing is wrong”. You assume “stealing is wrong”. Therefore, it is possible that “stealing is right”.

Sonny, In its proper context my post makes perfect logic.

As for your use of maths, well 2+2=4 works every time for me.

 

[cassini]

I have never SEEN you. I ASSUME you exist. Thus there is a POSSIBILITY that you do not exist. It is CHOICE we can all make.
Of course, there is overwhelming evidence both that you exist and that the Earth orbits the sun- so not accepting either of those realities makes you look rather silly.

The I see, you see, out of context pal.

As for ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the earth orbits the sun, since when did ‘overwhelming evidence’ establish anything for certain? What you need is proof, not assumptions or useless theories, especially when heresy is the result of the wrong choice.

‘Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict it.’ — S. Hawking, Brief History, p.10.

 

[pickguard1]

‘Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict it.’ — S. Hawking, Brief History, p.10.

Very true, otherwise Jesus would not have been able to walk on water, or rise from the dead, contrary to some well established physical “laws.” Of course, God created any such “laws” as we perceive them in time and space, and has the unlimited ability to alter them at will.

 

[pickguard1]

Very true, otherwise Jesus would not have been able to walk on water, or rise from the dead, contrary to some well established physical “laws.” Of course, God created any such “laws” as we perceive them in time and space, and has the unlimited ability to alter them at will.

…or to conceal their mechanisms, such as how gravity works or the catalyst for the motions of the parts of atoms…

 

[cassini]

SPIRITUS PARACLITUS
Encyclical of Pope Benedict XV on St. Jerome

(39) “Would that all Catholics would cling to St. Jerome’s golden rule and obediently listen to their Mother’s words, so as modestly to keep within the bounds marked out by the Fathers and ratified by the Church.”

The full story is that Pope Benedict XV encouraged people to follow the path of St. Jerome regarding what was ratified by the Church.

And what were the bounds marked out by the Fathers? And ratified by the Church?
The answer below was stated by Pope Leo XIII.

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture

“the Holy Fathers, We say, are of supreme authority, whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893, no. 14).

Regarding a question in a previous post: “Is there any way to get across to you Copernicans how to present the case of G v H?”

Those who recognize the workings of the visible Church know that the above quotes do not limit research into other fields such as the various sciences.

1. As an institution, the Church opened universities.
2. Catholics, including prelates, legitimately present arguments regarding both geocentricism and heliocentricism.
3. Catholics are often inspired by particular Scripture verses.

These valid points do not suggest that science is a part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

In other words to answer the question regarding G v H. Both geocentricism and heliocentricism have to stand on their own scientific merits.

Granny, PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS was one of the fruits of the Copernican heresy. It was written by a top Freemason if I remember correctly. It tried to have a Catholic cake and eat it. It can be used by anyone to interpret the Scriptures according to the Fathers and at the same time against them if ‘science’ dictates.

(39) “Would that all Catholics would cling to St. Jerome’s golden rule and obediently listen to their Mother’s words, so as modestly to keep within the bounds marked out by the Fathers and ratified by the Church.”

and according to the dictates of science. Any encyclical that can be quoted to attack the interpretation of the Scriptures according to the Fathers and a papal decree is not worth anything as a guide to interporetating Scripture.

Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope PaulV and Pope Urban VIII defined and declared that the revelation as regards a moving sun and fixed earth was a matter of faith.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Now show me any official Church contradiction of this statement. You cannot. Only Copernicans desperate to get Catholics to commit heresy.

 

[grannymh]

While it may not pertain, *per se *to every word (in that it’s not under the Church’s purview to determine the definition of the word “the” or “along” (to make extreme examples), it is the Church’s authority to determine the sense in which any given passage should be understood.

It is good to discuss this topic with you. Thank you.

Regarding the above, there is authority and there is authority as masaterjejdi747 describes. Historically, the Church has applied infallibility to truths in keeping with its mission of preserving Divine Revelation regarding faith and morals as contained in its Deposit of Faith. Recently, I learned that the Deposit of Faith closed with the teaching of the Apostles. Thus, there would be no new public revelation. There are, however, further explanations and teachings about these truths as time passes.
Check out the sections which begin with and follow “Christ Jesus – Mediator and Fullness of All Revelation”. A good way to find out how the Church interprets Scripture and Tradition is to read the footnotes in the Catechism.

I think the argument that cassini, in particular, is trying to make is that the Church dogmatically defined that the literal sense is the only sense that these particular passages could be understood under, and therefore any scientific theory that posits the motion of the earth is heretical.

As one who has read cassini’s posts since November, 2008, there are a number of versions of his argument that geocentrism is a defined dogma, the denial of which is heretical.

This necessarily leads the discussion to, as you have pointed out, how the Church actually works with regards to defining things dogmatically, including the method and the material.

I agree.

My point is that, since the Church DOES have the charism of infallibility in determining the sense that scripture should be interpreted, simply because she said that it should be interpreted one way in the past doesn’t mean that she can’t later determine that it isn’t the only way that the passage can be interpreted, in light of new scientific theory or discovery.

Pardon me, but I see that we differ on the charism of infallibility.

The charism applies to the Deposit of Faith not to methods of interpreting Scripture at different points in history. The Deposit of Faith is infallible which means it can’t be interpreted in a different way in the light of new scientific theory or discovery. Divine Revelation trumps.

I think that cassini’s argument from extremes in this case is unwarranted, because there doesn’t need to be ANY fear whatsoever that the church “got it wrong” back in the 1600’s or that the church has “gotten it wrong” now.

It all depends on what you mean by it in “got it wrong” between the 1600’s and now. What is being generated by the various extremes is not necessarily fear. Rather, some of the extremism is being viewed as an attempt to discredit the current Catholic Church regarding its authority to teach Divine Revelation. The extreme case would be attacks on the current Catholic Church because of its heresy promoted by Copernicans. Part of this appears in post 598 and other posts/threads.

So, if it appears that the Church is contradicting itself, we know that it’s not the case - we just have to figure out how we’re misunderstanding the apparent contradiction, because that’s the only possible problem. Not the Church being wrong.

There is contradicting and contradicting. Unfortunately, the misunderstanding concerns how the Church handles both contradictings.

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[grannymh]

. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, …

“Your Reverence” has already pointed out the jurisdiction of the Church Fathers.
By the way, I had to drop the “Your Reverence” idea a few years back when I bowed to Church authority regarding no women priests. Dang! If you wish, you may call me Sweetie.