A
Ahimsa
Guest
I thought relativism was a no-no?
- Status
J
jam070406
Guest
I don’t think you’ve really touched on the whole point of it. It’s not really about the location of the planet Earth but rather, the fact that the Church is what bears witness to the Truth as revealed by God. If by Faith, as revealed by scripture, the Fathers and the Church, the Faithful always believed in Geocentrism (which a few have seem to have been able to point out) and science comes along and debunks and shatters this belief then how can people of the world take serious the claims of the the Church? What results is the growing apostasy, atheism and secularization that we see rampant in our world today. It may not matter to you because you already believe. But the spiritual implication matters when it comes to unbelievers. Why believe what the Church says about the real presence, or any part of the deposit of Faith, when the Church is made to look like a laughing stock in regards to the movement of the Earth and Sun? The placement of the Eucharist in the Church is a moot point if you can’t even get the modern world to trust the Church as witness to the Divinely revealed Truth of the Eucharist. As you can see, even fellow Catholics have labeled those that are trying to share the historic context, and open discussion, as “nutters” “finge group” “egocentric” etc. Like one poster said what will you do when science concludes that the Virgin birth is scientifically not possible and didn’t happen? It’s a valid question.A very valid obvervation on Mr Einstein’s part.
I recall a little skit from amny years ago on Seseme Street. The muppet Kermit was trying to help the muppet Grover get from “here” to “there”. Grover did not want to be “here”, he wanted to be “there” yet each time he went “there”, it became “here”. Needless to say poor Grover got highly frustrated (as muppets do). You can imagine how funny it was
I also think about our Catholic Church buildings, how they are generally and traditionally layed out. Consider…
What is the “center” of a Catholic Church building?
…The Eucharist of course
What is the most important container in the building? -
…The Tabernacle containing the Eucharist.
Is the Tabernacle in the center of the Church?
…No - it is a one end, or off to the side or even in a seperate chapel
Does it’s physical location detract from it’s importance as the “Center” of The Church?
…No it does not. It’s physical location does not effect it’s spiritual importance.
So if the physical location of the tabernacle does not effect it’s spiritual importance of what it contains in the eyes of Catholics, why would the physical location of the planet earth effect the spiritual importance of what it contains in the eyes of God?
Peace
James
I find it an interesting topic. And I believe that is the point that some posters are trying to make. I could be wrong. I’m trying to remain open. But as an outsider watching the discussion unfold, I don’t think all the name calling (not you specifically per say) is doing any good to get to the Truth of the matter. And it’s really shows a weakness on the part of those that do it. What are so many afraid of for even entertaining the thought. Ridicule? The world thinking you are a “nutter”?
S
Stylites
Guest
Yes, moral-relativism is a grave error. Relativity is science and knowledge, which can only be good.
.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
So, whether the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium, is relative?
T
Thing
Guest
I think relativity is to do with motion: my speed is *relative *to what it is measured against, a plane, a spinning earth, a car, a walking person, stc., etc.
J
JRKH
Guest
I think that I have been clear from the beginning of theis discussion that I consider the Physical and Spiritual aspects of things to be two different things. Just as the physical aspects of the location of the tabernacle has no bearing on it’s importance, or the importance of what it contains, so to the location of the earth relative to the rest of the universe has no bearing on it’s importance to God, to us or to our spiritual walk.
There is much that has been believed and taught in the past both by the Church AND by “secular” groups that has since been shown to be wrong. (I’m talking here about the phisical world here and not spiritual matters).
The “Flat Earth” issue would be a case in point. The Bible does not say the earth is flat or round. It is silent on the matter, yet from the dawn of time until relatively recently it was believed and taught in most cultures that the earth was flat.
Does discovering it is round change the nature of God?
Does it change the faith walk?
If we must rely on the “truth” of “Geocentism” as a “draw” for people to come to Christ, we need to do some serious work on our Evangelistic efforts.
Peace
James
B
buffalo
Guest
J
jam070406
Guest
No, I never said Geocentrism was needed for people to come to Christ. I was reiterating the point being made by others that the modern world has so far moved from the position of Geocentrism (which scripture, the Fathers & the Church prior to 17th century held) that the Church has become laughable to them, and Catholics are embarrassed by that point in History. So if the Church declared Heliocentrism a heresy (which some seem to suggest) and got that wrong how can anyone trust anything the Church says regarding issues of Faith and morals? You’re right, the bible doesn’t say the Earth is flat, but it does seem to indicate that the Earth is fixed. And the Church Fathers all agreed on it. I’m not sure if the Church addressed the “flat Earth” issue but it did address the Geocentrism issue.
It doesn’t change the nature of God, it calls into question the Church as being the witness to Truth. If the Church condemned Heliocentrism in the 17th century then we have a conundrum that nobody wants to deal with, can’t defend and tends to skirt around the issue.
R
Redratfish
Guest
Just a minute sir, you are far out of line on a bunch of issues here. Yes the Bible is God’s revelation to the human race, no, not all of it is to be taken literally. Some, (and quite of bit of the Old Testament) is symbolic.
Because the mathematics of herliocentrism is simpler? I find it funny how you do not present ANY evidence supporting geocentical earth except what appears to happen in space from Earth. If I was go to to the moon, the same would occur. Based on your “math” and “logic” Neil Armstrong could have said that the moon was the center of the universe, and you would go along with him … Not sure about you, but that sounds like easy “math”.
Atheism was formed from heliocentrism? I about died from laughing after reading that. People have refused to believe God’s existence since the dawn of consciousness. Heliocentrism did hardly anything to change that. I don’t know if you noticed, but most people are still believers in God.
*Does it not matter to you that the Catholic Church once defined and declared that Scripture Revealed a geocentric world and that therefore we have God’s word for it and that its contrary a fixed sun relative to a moving earth was formal heresy?
*
Key word is in bold for you. The Church’s understanding of scripture can always enhance itself, few things are set in stone.
Heres a history lesson for you. Understanding does diminish over time. We can only learn MORE, not less. Galileo discovered a geocentric earth was false, and then Copernicus proved it.
Finally, the Church has NEVER claimed to be infallible in all matters. ONLY in dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. A geocentric earth has nothing to do with a dogmatic teaching, or morals. Therefore, anything previously said can be added upon.
C
cassini
Guest
OK Redratfish. let us see what you know.
’ Galileo discovered a geocentric earth was false, and then Copernicus proved it.'
Now that just about sums up your contribution. Copernicus was dead 70 years before Galileo got his come-uppance for trying to tell the Church how to interpret the Bible.
C
cassini
Guest
Jam, it is a pleasure to read your posts. God has blessed you with a wisdom one rarely sees any more.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
davidmacd.com/catholic/galileo.htm
Quote:
…if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers (Bellarmine 1615).
Heliocentrism was a heresy because it contradicted how the Church interpreted the Bible at the time. Once given overwhelming proof of heliocentrism the Church changed her intepretation of the Bible and heliocentrism stopped being a heresy.
Quote:
…if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers (Bellarmine 1615).
Heliocentrism was a heresy because it contradicted how the Church interpreted the Bible at the time. Once given overwhelming proof of heliocentrism the Church changed her intepretation of the Bible and heliocentrism stopped being a heresy.
C
cassini
Guest
There is no answer to that James is there? I could ask then why you entered the thread on the side of the heresy. How do you think Christ your King feels about that? It seems to me it is just your way to avoid answering akward questions.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
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. 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. 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. - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
V
VociMike
Guest
Not all motion, only one very specific type of motion.
C
cassini
Guest
It is posts like this that makes one want to pull one’s hair out. ‘how the Church interpreted the Bible at the time.’ There is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII was right when he said this heresy puts the Catholic faith in danger. If I were to list the aberrations to Catholic doctrine, theology and authority that have arisen out of Copernicanism I could set up a new Protestant sect. The Church does not change its defined and declared interpretations of Scripture. If it did not one word already interpreted could be taken seriously. Take for example the Church’s sentence on Galileo:
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
:
Are not the words in bold your opinions also Marc, already condemned by the Church. Of course they are but you have Copernican licence don’t you, like the others, licence to ignore the authority of the Church based on that Luciferial lie that there is ’ **overwhelming proof of heliocentrism’ **, which there isn’t.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
**…not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. **
** 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. **
** 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. **
- Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
M
masterjedi747
Guest
Why so you insist so relentlessly on conflating the different levels of teaching authority in the Church? Is it because you realize that these distinctions are fatal to your arguments?
Seriously, educate yourself a little bit more. Start with this chart: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magisterium#Levels
There is. You don’t admit it, and I don’t have the time or patience to explain it to you myself (not that I’d expect you to listen to me even if I did), but it’s there, whether you and a handful of people as confused as you are realize it or not.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
masterjedi747-I hope you realize that I copied this directly from your post on the other geocentrism thread!
C
cassini
Guest
There is only one teaching authority in the Church, the Pope. The very idea that wikipedia could teach me anything more that that is a joke.
Of course you do not have time to explain that there are proofs for a fixed sun and moving earth. That would mean regurgitating the usual one sided interpretations of phenemena. Come on, tell us all how you can get past relativity. You could win a Nobel prize for your genius.
- Status