Geocentrism: Unorthodox or Unpopular?

[pnewton]

If this is not a fringe idea that bears no more importance than the color of fabric on church kneelers, perhaps an enthusiast of geocentrism could point out a reference in our current, huge Catechism that addresses this topic. This large book covers pretty much all the core of Catholic faith in a rather exhaustive manner. Surely any topic of value will be referenced there.

 

[Contarini]

JMJ + OBT​

I guess Rudolf Bultmann’s ideas were the imaginary inevitable product of an imaginary divide between science and religion.

Actually yes. When I read Bultmann’s infamous passage about how no one could believe in spirits in an age of radios, I thought “what was this guy smoking.” Particularly when I sat in the grad student lounge with a bunch of theology students and they were all taking this stuff seriously (in their defense, they had been assigned Bultmann for a class–taught by a professor who certainly did not agree with him–and were trying to take him seriously; I wasn’t in the class and so was somewhat at odds with what they were trying to do). I said then–and I still think–that only a minoirty of modern Christians even worries about believing in the supernatural. Most folks don’t seem to have a problem with it. Bultmann was dealing with a largely imaginary problem. He was trying to “save” the Christian Faith from a problem confined to a few Western intellectuals.

Edwin

 

[rightandreason]

Robert’s statment on women Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers may have been a bit harsh, however this abuse needs to be addressed by the Church. I think it is important to note that the duty of the Extraordinary Eucharistic minister has gone way beyond what it was intended for. No one seems to be following the guidleines established by the Church in Immensae Caritatis which states these guidelines which are never followed…

{ Local Ordinaries possess the faculty enabling them to permit fit persons, each chosen by name as a special minister, in a given instance or for a set period or even permanently, to give communion to themselves and others of the faithful and to carry it to the sick residing at home:

1. whenever no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available;
2. whenever the same ministers are impeded from administering communion because of another pastoral ministry, ill-health, or old age;
3. whenever the number of faithful wishing to receive communion is so great that the celebration of Mass or the giving of communion outside Mass would take too long.

The same local Ordinaries possess the faculty of granting individual priests in the course of their ministry the power to appoint, for a given occasion, a fit person to distribute communion in cases of genuine necessity

The local Ordinaries also may delegate these faculties to auxiliary bishops, episcopal vicars, and episcopal delegates.

The fit person referred to in nos. I and II will be designated according to the order of this listing (which may be changed at the prudent discretion of the local Ordinary): reader, major seminarian, man religious, woman religious, catechist, one of the faithful–a man or a woman. }

The loophole most of the priests and bishops use is this, “(which may be changed at the prudent discretion of the local Ordinary)”
unfortunately the word prudent doesn’t apply to most of these people allowing 6 to 15 Extraordinary Ministers to swagger down the aisle of the Nave and surround the altar like a bunch of vultures. Most Catholic Churches I have been to do not need anywhere near the amount of ministers as they use. It should be a rare case, if the pecking order is used like the document says, that we see a women layperson in this role.

 

[Liberian]

Catholic Dude,

Actually, I don’t get around it at all. Strictly speaking, geocentricism is not directly applicable to my everyday life, faith, and morals.

• Liberian

 

[Catholic_Dude]

JMJ + OBT​

Picture the surface of a perfectly spherical inflated(/ing) balloon. Where is the center of that surface? (I’m not talking about the 3-D volume of air that is inclosed within the surface.) It doesn’t have one, strictly speaking; or you could say that any point on the surface could be arbitrarily indicated as the “center,” or mathematical origin, in a coordinate system you choose to impose upon it. Note, too, that the 2-D surface of the balloon is finite.

In the Lamda-CDM model of the “Big Bang” standard model (known with capital letters as the “Standard Model”) of phsyical cosmology, the universe is understood to be mostly described according to the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric and Friedmann equations, which for simplicity’s sake you can think of as describing a 4-dimensional (3 spatial dim. + 1 time dim.) hypersurface, or “hyperballoon,” which likewise does not contain a point which can be, strictly speaking, understood as the “center,” though just like with the 2-D surface of the balloon any point could be arbitrarily chosen as the mathematical origin of an arbitrary coordinate system imposed upon it.
In Christ.
IC XC NIKA

Now the question is, what is the shape of the universe? I have never heard of it described as a sphere so thats a new one for me, I dont even see how it works though I see what you mean by a sphere surface not having a true “center”. I have never been able to visualize 4-d so I cant follow that so well, I guess I have the impression the universe is 3d and according to some they say its expanding (is it symmetrical in expansion?).

Really though, the more I think about it it seems there has to be a true center…apart from perfect symmetry in the universe, which given the fact the nearby planets are different, I dont see the sphere/balloon surface idea as probable.

JMJ + OBT
Maybe it was all an imaginary projection of the imagination of Thomas Hobbes.

Good article!

 

[JimG]

Now the question is, what is the shape of the universe? I have never heard of it described as a sphere so thats a new one for me, I dont even see how it works though I see what you mean by a sphere surface not having a true “center”.

I have often heard the universe described as a sphere with a 3-D “surface.” That would be the case if space has positive curvature.

If that is the case, then just as traveling along the surface of a sphere such as the earth in a “straight line” will eventually bring you back to your starting point, so traveling in a straight line through the universe would eventually bring you back to your starting point, having circumnavigated the spherical surface. (though it might take billions of light years to do so.)

For an expanding universe, imagine the surface of a spherical balloon on which are printed dots. If you blow air into the balloon, it expands, and all the dots get further away from each other. For the analogy, the dots represent the galaxies, the surface is the 3-D space of the universe, and the air being blown into the balloon represents the passage of time.

[Of course, if one takes M-theory seriously, then we don’t really live in 3-dimensional space, but more like 10-dimensional space. In any case, those spatial dimensions would still represent the *surface of the expanding sphere.]

 

[DustinsDad]

…perhaps an enthusiast of geocentrism could point out a reference in our current, huge Catechism that addresses this topic.

The point would be contained in paragraph 107:
[107](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/107.htm’) 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.”
It depends on how you interpret the part I highlighted. One can interpret it in two ways - that all of the Bible is true and revealed by God for our salvation, or only parts are true, those parts which deal with our Salvation.

If one wants to condemn someone for believing the former, you go farther than the Church.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Hegesippus]

The point would be contained in paragraph 107:
[107](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/107.htm’) 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.”
It depends on how you interpret the part I highlighted. One can interpret it in two ways - that all of the Bible is true and revealed by God for our salvation, or only parts are true, those parts which deal with our Salvation.

If one wants to condemn someone for believing the former, you go farther than the Church.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

The Church teaches that the entire bible is true and free from all error.

 

[JimG]

The point would be contained in paragraph 107:
[107](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/107.htm’) 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.”
It depends on how you interpret the part I highlighted. One can interpret it in two ways - that all of the Bible is true and revealed by God for our salvation, or only parts are true, those parts which deal with our Salvation.

If one wants to condemn someone for believing the former, you go farther than the Church.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I don’t think it is a question of whether or not all or only parts of Scripture is true. All of Scripture is inerrant. That still does not mean that the creation stories in Genesis must be taken in a literal manner.

Must we believe, for example, that the parables of Jesus relate actual events? Or are these simply stories told to make a point? Should we ask, “wait a minute, was there really a man named Lazarus who had this conversation from the bosom of Abraham?” If not, do we accuse Jesus of lying to us?

Is the Genesis creation account intended as history? As cosmology? As physics? As an all inclusive summary of the beginnings of the universe, from time zero to time 0+7 days?

I think that the interpretation by Jimmy Akin to which someone else posted a link, is much more likely correct than any of the above.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Must we believe, for example, that the parables of Jesus relate actual events? Or are these simply stories told to make a point? Should we ask, “wait a minute, was there really a man named Lazarus who had this conversation from the bosom of Abraham?” If not, do we accuse Jesus of lying to us?

Of course not…we know Jesus was speaking in parables…and the Church has always taught as such, and the text of Holy Scripture is obvious in this.

The question remains, in the Genisis account for example, as to whether the divinely inspired author was speaking figuratively or literally (or perhaps a mixture of both).

Both points of view are tolerated by the Church - one view just happens to outdate the other by a few millenia

Pope Leo XIII back in 1893 laid out some groundrules on the various “senses” of Biblical interpretation in Providentissimus Deus. It’s a good read.

I think that the interpretation by Jimmy Akin to which someone else posted a link, is much more likely correct than any of the above.

I’m not so sure…Sugenis does a pretty good job of challenging Akin’s take on it here.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[JimG]

It’s certainly true that one is free to accept the “literal day” theory of Genesis. It just seems to me that doing so creates unnecessary problems. What could a literal 24-hour ‘day’ mean in a context where three days pass before the sun is created, the sun being the basis of the measurement of a day, even in ancient times?

Sungenis seems to think that Akin’s is a symbolic interpretation. When I read Akins “framework” theory, it didn’t seem to be treating the Genesis events as symbolic. Rather he sees the text as using the Hebrew week as a framework on which to place the events of creation, giving order to them. Akin’s interpretation relies mainly on textual analysis.

 

[DustinsDad]

It’s certainly true that one is free to accept the “literal day” theory of Genesis. It just seems to me that doing so creates unnecessary problems. What could a literal 24-hour ‘day’ mean in a context where three days pass before the sun is created, the sun being the basis of the measurement of a day, even in ancient times?

The problem with this is that the early Church fathers knew about the measurement of day and night’s connection with the sun. Nonetheless, the fathers of the Church didn’t have a problem with the literal interpretation of Genisis - didn’t see it as an “unnecessary problem”. As Sugenis notes:“Of the thirty or so Church Fathers that gave at least some interpretation to Genesis 1, all of them, with the exception of one (Origen), and possibly two (Augustine), believed that the days of Genesis 1 were six literal days of twenty-four hours each.”

And he deals with the sun-light argument more specifically on the second page of that article:"…The fact is that, as much as the Fathers saw the apparent discrepancy between the light of the first day being at odds with the sun and stars created on the fourth day, none of them refused to harmonize the texts, and neither did the medievals who followed them for the next thousand years. For example, Aquinas postulated that the effusive light on the first day was created as the sun and stars on the fourth day, perhaps similar to God fashioning man on the sixth day from the dust He created on the first day."
Interesting stuff - kind of puts it all in a different perspective. Perhaps - just perhaps - alot of what we take for granted as fact are really just unproven scientific theories (like evoloution) and maybe - just maybe - Genesis is more literal than allegorical after all.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad