Geocentrism: why doesn't it just die and be done with?

[razredge]

Either that or the Bible is not the word of God after all.

Shh, don’t tell excubitor he is about 1600 years behind on how to read Scripture and still hasn’t caught up to Augustine.

You atheists must be glad you don’t have to spend eternity with people like excubitor.

Actually the issue is a matter of faith. The church declared it as heresy which was injurious to the faith. This was affirmed by a series of Popes who placed books, pamphlets and glosses treating heliocentrism upon the Index of Prohibited books. This was enforced by the Sacred Congregation of the Index. Galileo confessed and recanted from his heresy in the most flowery and absolute terms emphatically affirming that he had uttered heresy, and today all scientists affirm that he had inadequate evidence to support his theory.

You are correct on that. The Church has recently tried to play down the case and indulge in a bit of historical revisionism as Fr Coyne points out:
astro.washington.edu/users/balick/rome1/coyne.pdf

The Church was simply in genuine error with Galileo.

I will repeat my rationale. Because we are in the moving frame of reference of the universe, it is not possible for us to determine the absolute motion of any object within the universe. The only way to determine the absolute motion of any object within the moving frame of reference is to be standing in a static position outside the moving frame of reference.

What has this got to do with the observation that the Earth goes around the Sun? Are you saying that it merely looks that way?

Now either you believe God, or you don’t, and that is what makes it clearly a matter of faith, and not of science. But as the church has very clearly stated, there is no conflict with faith and reason. So where there appears to be a conflict, we can for sure that our reason is faulty, because the divine revelation cannot lie.

That’s some dilemma you have there - either you believe in geocentrism or you don’t believe in God

 

[excubitor]

First, consider yet again that the Popes have made it clear that the Holy Spirit “did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation. Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science” (Providentissimus Deus 18, cf. Divino Afflante Spiritu 3). excubitor’s buddy “Cassini” agreed with what is obvious, namely, that geocentrism was the primary example covered in this part of the encyclical: “.” Indeed.

With his position openly undermined by a papal encyclical, not too surprisingly “Cassini” chalks up that part of the encyclical to a Masonic plot: “We think it may have been written by Cardinal Campolla a Freemason . . . “

Ahem….

[to be continued…]

Thanks David for at least making an effort. But why do you need to use the rolleyes icon?
You brought up Divino Afflante Spiritu which states several interesting things.

When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.

Therefore you may not disregard the scriptures by claiming that they are not allowed to make any comment on physical science. Whatever the scripture says is the truth, no matter whether it is science, history, nature, faith, morals. It is all truth.

The other quote which you provided is hardly an abrogation of former rulings by the Holy See. More it was a rather weak effort at bolstering the faith in the scriptures of those whose faith had been severely shaken by a long series of attacks on all kinds of historical and scientific facts described in the scriptures. At the time of Pope Leo 1893 which was right in the heat of the horrendous modernist period, some of these battles were still in the balance, and one in particular (geocentrism) had been almost irrevocably lost.

 

[excubitor]

In that same encyclical, Pope Leo XIII teaches that the dictum of Trent and Vatican I concerning the unanimous consent of the Fathers pertains to matters of faith and morals (section 14). If the Holy Spirit did not even put details of the physical universe into sacred Scripture, then those details certainly cannot be a matter of faith and morals. And therefore, even if the the Fathers were unanimous on a matter of natural philosophy, it would not bind as Catholic doctrine. Their testimony is binding on matters of faith and morals.

Please demonstrate how Pope Leo XII teaches this from Trent and Vatican 1. I think you are making this up. Please show where the church teaches that Sacred Tradition may not speak from the Holy Spirit in matters of the natural world. Please prove that the position of the earth in the heavens is not a matter of faith. The medieval fathers certainly regarded it as a deposit of the faith as I have stated in previous posts.

I am not just manufacturing this distinction.

Fr. William A. Most, theology professor at the Notre Dame Apostolic Catechetical Institute in Alexandria, Virginia, draws attention to two separate items. First of all, he claims, there are at least three conditions that need to be filled before one can claim something in the Patristic writings is authoritative. First, the Fathers must be nearly unanimous on the subject in question at least one time in history.

Which they are in the case of Geocentrism.

Second, they must admit to be relating something they themselves have received from the beginning; that is, from Christ and the Apostles. Finally, the Church must check the proposed finding against the entire deposit of faith, of which she is the custodian and judge (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15, 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14) (ewtn.com/library/answers/extreccl.htm).

Which it is. The apostles all believed that the earth was not moving. As did the prophets. As did King Solomon who was given special wisdom from God and was regarded as the wisest man on the earth with all matters including those related to the natural world. He clearly wrote that the earth was stationery and the heavens are moving.

And here is Fr. Ludwig Ott, focusing more specifically on matters of natural philosophy:

The data [in sacred Scripture] inspired per accidens is also the Word of God, and consequently without error. However, as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation is possible here. The Church gives no positive decisions in regard to purely scientific questions, but limits itself to rejecting errors which endanger the faith. Further, in these scientific matters there is no value in a consensus of the Fathers since they are not here acting as witnesses of the Faith, but merely as private scientists. (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 92.)

Fr Ludwig Ott is quite wrong. He is effectively saying that the Fathers of the medieval church were out of line in ruling against heliocentrism, and that they were dabbling in purely scientific matters outside of the proper purview. What a cheek. In any event he says. The church makes no positive decision. Of which he is speaking of the modern church which is almost expert at making no positive decision. The medieval church however was very emphatic to the point of dogmatism is absolutely refuting heliocentrism and proclaiming it as being a heresy, injurious to the faith. When compared to the insipid comments of modern theologians and even modern Popes, the mediaeval church produced strong, unambiguous and direct statements against heliocentrism which to this day have never been abrogated with similar strong pronouncements from the Holy See. So our keen sense of Canon Law should tell us that what has not been abrogated by an equal or higher power, retains its moral force. Even Pope Benedict XVI said something similar with regards to the Index of Prohibited books which had many works on heliocentrism on it. So if it retains its moral force then we should take it very very seriously, instead of finding pathetic excuses not to believe like the ones you have presented here.

 

[excubitor]

Even Sungenis seems to understand this principle and indeed pushes it even further (at least when it comes to dismissing doctrines about The Jews that he doesn’t like):

It is the divine origin of a particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medievals or theologians and prelates of today (Enoch and Elijah, p. 3).

Sungenis is not supporting your principle in any way. He is not in any way denying the Sacred Tradition which was passed on via the patristic fathers medievals (ah that;s how its spelt). He is merely pointing to the divine origin of that Sacred Tradition which gives it its authority.

[N]ot one of the [patristic] witnesses ever provide exegesis of the passages, nor cited early patristic support for their interpretation, nor showed that the apostolic tradition demanded their interpretation." (“Intense Dialogue” – Question).

I’m not aware of the full context which he has made this statement. I suspect however that he is pointing out that they expressed their belief in a static earth as a simple and obvious belief that they never anticipated that any Catholic would challenge.

. . . no Catholic is under any compulsion whatsoever to abide by whatever was predicted about Israel among even a majority of patristic writers … even if the Fathers are in consensus on a given topic, we are still permitted to add information that has been gleaned from fresh studies of Scripture (Never Revoked, p. 12).

He tends not to apply those same principles to his pet topic, geocentrism.

I think I agree with you on this point. I concede that there seems to be a contradiction here. I’m assuming that he is rejecting the patristic fathers belief that there would be a future large conversion of the Jews before the return of Christ. If that’s what the patristic fathers said in the majority over a period of centuries as a tradition then we can’t have it both ways. Its part of Sacred Tradition and therefore we may not reject it. However I hope that you are more open minded than this. Clearly David you see the faults of Sungenis in bold and striking relief. In fact you seem quite fixated on his faults to the point where you are even stalking and harassing him on these forums.

This issue is bigger than Sungenis’ failings or any individual’s failings. Please address the issues themselves rather than finding fault with the messenger.

As I have pointed out elsewhere here on CAF, the Holy See has given every possible indication that this is not a matter of faith.

[to be continued…]

It has not. It has made a few lame and ambiguous statements permitting Catholics to believe certain unspecified things of science which might appear to be contrary to what the writers of scripture believed or seemed natural and obvious to them. They don’t even mention geocentrism.

The church has given this indult because of the mass disobedience of the people in the 1700’s both laity and clergy, who utterly rebelled and ignored the rulings of the Holy See and who quite happily and without any compunction read the forbidden books, thinking themselves wise. Now is the modern church good at granting indults for all kinds of things which do not form part of the body of Sacred Tradition? Allowing the removal of altar rails communion on the tongue, female eucharist ministers, cantors, lectors, altar girls, abandonment of the veil, no longer kneeling to receive the sacrament, priests facing the people, etc. etc. Indult after indult in an age of indults. Starting with the biggest indult of all time, which was just turning a blind eye on the judgements and rulings of the medieval forefathers.

Not good enough, and Cassini was flat out correct that the clergy in the 1700’s dropped the ball in a massive way. But the clergy dropped the ball in a massive way during the Arian crisis where very few hung on to the traditional belief in Christ’s deity. Fortunately there were enough tough nuts in the laity to preserve that teaching. I pray that in these latter days people like me, Cassini, Sungenis, Salza will be the ones from which resurgence is born and our bishops are brought to task to restore Sacred Tradition.

The only future for the church is to recapture Sacred Tradition. Not picking and choosing what we want to believe and follow for the sake of convenience, but obeying the Sacred Tradition even when it hurts. That’s what being faithful is all about.

 

[excubitor]

That’s some dilemma you have there - either you believe in geocentrism or you don’t believe in God

For those who study into into the subject and come to realise that God is speaking to them through the scriptures and sacred tradition and the rulings of the medieval church, then yes they should feel obligated to obey God and believe despite their reservations and the oppositions of science falsely so-called.

However there are others who are ignorant of this subject. Of course they can and do believe in God. Whether or not they are willfully ignorant on the subject or not is a matter for God to decide at the judgement.

I think you know that you are twisting my words, to say something that I never said, in order to ridicule and discredit my person and my argument. Of course I understand that there are people who do not believe in geocentrism and who do believe in God. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. You are just being deliberately fractious. How about confronting some of the arguments which I have raised instead of kicking up the dust and obfuscating the debate with cheap shots.

 

[grannymh]

Exactly.

One question for Catholic critics of geocentrism:

Did the trial of Galileo take God by surprise?

In other words, didn’t God know that certain verses of Scripture would be used to support geocentrism? And yet He goes ahead and inspires men to write those verses anyway? What possible explanation could there be other than that geocentrism is true?

Either that or the Bible is not the word of God after all.

In reference to the above. Obviously, the mutually exclusive *either-or" and the rest of the post do not refer to Catholicism which has been practiced since John, Chapter 14.

 

[grannymh]

Sungenis is not supporting your principle in any way. He is not in any way denying the Sacred Tradition which was passed on via the patristic fathers medievals (ah that;s how its spelt). He is merely pointing to the divine origin of that Sacred Tradition which gives it its authority.

Pardon my doubts. But if Sungenis is “merely pointing to the divine origin of that Sacred Tradition which gives it its authority,” from post 290, then he is promoting at least one of the Protestant religions which refer to some of the Early Church Fathers.

FYI – when any person tries to claim that the Holy Spirit is bound to all the words of the Catholic Fathers, that person is ignoring how the Holy Spirit safe guards Divine Revelation within the Catholic Church.

I am guessing that Sungenis is covering his *** in regard to his leading people astray with his avoidance of the real Catholic protocol which happens to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In any case, too many Catholics are being fooled by his disregard for the way the real Catholic Church acts in regard to theological doctrines.

Again, I beg people to stick with the issues of science.

Blessings,
granny

John, Chapter 14

 

[grannymh]

The only future for the church is to recapture Sacred Tradition. Not picking and choosing what we want to believe and follow for the sake of convenience, but obeying the Sacred Tradition even when it hurts. That’s what being faithful is all about.

I make the plea that people need to go beyond the Protestant evaluation which has been chosen by some Catholics to support a particular scientific theory regarding one individual planet as debated at a local judicial trial.

David Palm is explaining how the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church since day one in Acts. Pardon me for being cranky, but it is time for Catholics to pay attention to Catholic protocol instead of accepting Protestant protocol because it is being promoted by public figures.

Personally, I prefer being faithful to the real version of Catholicism and not a modern bookseller’s version which is on the short side of Catholicism.

I rest my case,
granny

 

[Al_Moritz]

I make the plea that people need to go beyond the Protestant evaluation which has been chosen by some Catholics to support a particular scientific theory regarding one individual planet as debated at a local judicial trial.

David Palm is explaining how the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church since day one in Acts. Pardon me for being cranky, but it is time for Catholics to pay attention to Catholic protocol instead of accepting Protestant protocol because it is being promoted by public figures.

Personally, I prefer being faithful to the real version of Catholicism and not a modern bookseller’s version which is on the short side of Catholicism.

I rest my case,
granny

Bravo, I fully agree. Too much Protestantism among Catholic folk here.

 

[grannymh]

General Information regarding the operation of the visible Catholic Church on earth.

Vatican I was after the time of Galileo. This is important to note because at the time of Galileo, theological dogmas were defined at major, universal Church Councils. There was no Church Council in session at the time of the local event concerning Galileo.

Papal Commissions are not Church Councils and do not have the authority of Church Councils. Members of commissions, including popes and saints, can express their opinions. A specific theological dogma is a certainty and not a bunch of opposing opinions as in the case of Renaissance science.

Jesus Christ did not build His Church on opinions regarding scientific theories in the 17th century.

The Congregation of the Holy Office was not empowered to define a new specific theological dogma about the precise position of one material/physical planet in the entire universe. Of course, members of the congregation could give their individual opinions. The Catholic Deposit of Faith is not made up of opinions from the 17th century.

There was a tradition dating from the Apostolic Age that when there was an important issue of faith, a great deal of time (sometimes years) and many consultations took place before any theological dogmas were presented to a Church Council for approval. The written notes of these consultations or local decrees and teachings are not the same as theological dogmas defined and proclaimed at an universal Church Council.

The powers of the Congregation of the Index did not include writing new dogmas specifically stating the physical position of earth in relationship to the rest of God’s creation.

There is no record of a properly called Church Council proclaiming a specific 17th century scientific theory regarding one material/physical planet in the entire universe as a theological dogma. There is plenty of evidence that Popes did express their opinions about Renaissance science.

Catholic theological dogmas are not papal opinions about Renaissance science.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1:1

 

[grannymh]

General Information regarding the operation of the visible Catholic Church on earth, part two

The next thing to be clarified is that the way the Holy Spirit protects Divine Revelation is by guiding the formulation of theological dogmas. The protocol of Church Councils expresses this guidance.

Theological dogmas develop the full significance of Divine Revelation. Gathering in a Church Council usually occurs when there is a challenge to Catholic teaching regarding God and the salvation of human beings.

In addition, Church Councils dealt with the general norms or rules for good order in the visible society of the Church. These are referred to as “cannon law” and are not the same as theological dogmas.

It is very important to understand that Catholic leadership focused on God as the Creator who continually calls us to share in His life through knowledge and love.

Since God is calling us, the Catholic leadership focuses on human nature and what we must choose to do in order to remain in God’s friendship. In relationship to salvation, the Catholic leadership focused on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the validity of Seven Sacraments.

Because the Catholic focus is on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Catholic leadership searched the Church Fathers for their teachings about Jesus Christ and salvation. Knowledge about the physical/material universe was good in itself, but it was deemed unnecessary for salvation. Knowing how the sun and moon work has nothing to do with sanctifying grace. Acknowledging that God exists does not depend on an exact knowledge of natural science.

Consequently, the Catholic Church does not have properly defined theological dogmas regarding the position of any individual material/physical planet.

Catholicism does not depend on the affirmation of geocentrism. To even imply that the position of one particular material/physical planet is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith is promoting false information.

One certainly may present the science of geocentrism as worthy of belief.
But one should not mislead readers about what is contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

Blessings to all,
granny

 

[Rick09]

Me: I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

Excubitor: Obviously you are having a little dig at my quaint and childlike faith.

Not obvious at all, excubitor. Discernment really isn’t your strength. The key to discerning my intention here was the word “genuinely” - I was communicating sincerity. There’s a part of me that genuinely resonates with your outlook. My intention wasn’t to “have a little dig at you.”

Me – But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Excubitor – I agree with this, but the problem you are failing to grasp is that science is dabbling into philosophy which is their equivalent of our faith.

I’m aware of the fact that sometimes, some scientists also tend to blur the necessary distinctions between philosophy and science as well. Cardinal Schonborn addressed this problem in regard to evolution (science) vs. Darwinism (philosophy). There’s a very interesting exchange about it amongst Schonborn and some others - here. But two wrongs don’t make a right. As soon as geocentrists start postulating faeries, angels and the supernatural, they have left the realm of science.

Excubitor – What I am saying however is that what is directly observeable and verifiable by science and natural reason can quite readily be resolved to a geocentric universe. Now Sungenis argues that the earth is at the same place where the gravitational mass of the universe is centred. Nobody can prove him wrong. They can only argue against him for philosophical reasons.

I haven’t seen that. What I have seen from geocentrists is akin to the approach many Protestants apologists take in regard to religion. Protestant apologists often seem to believe that poking some holes in Catholicism is enough to validate their own faith. They don’t seem to realize that it’s incumbent upon them to illustrate that their way is actually better by making their own, complete and positive presentation. The geocentric presentation seems very weak in comparison to the current norm.

If and when geocentrists are able to develop something more scientific than “faeries”, “angels” and the seemingly omnipotent “ether” which is “more rigid than steel” and yet simultaneously “more flexible than any known substance” (here), I’ll become more interested.

So, do the work like real scientists do, like everyone else has to - develop the science. Develop the math. Submit to the rigorous peer-review process. Take your lumps like everyone else does. But don’t try to leap-frog over everything and everyone by telling us we have to believe geocentrism because it’s required by the Catholic Church while simultaneously acting as though you’ve actually made the case scientifically because it’s not (required by the Church) and you haven’t (made the case scientifically).

A good place to start would be to scientifically explain all the Lagrange Points (here) and then scientifically explain how the earth can remain completely fixed in space while a non-homogenous universe swirls around it (which would necessarily cause the universe’s center of mass to move as well) - see here.

Until the geocentrists get serious, all they’re doing is becoming a stumbling block to potential converts and a source of embarrassment to the Church. Just look at the one commenter who already noticed the bind in which you intend to place the Church: if geocentrism is not true, then the Bible is false. This is foolishness.

And, while you candidly admit you’re not at all an expert on these matters, you rely on the “expertise” of people from the Galileo Was Wrong conference like Sungenis – who has no degrees in science (nor even any degrees in Catholic theology or philosophy for that matter) and who believes NASA is out and about making crop circles and faking the moon landings (here and here). Another one of the GWW experts describes himself as a “tenth grade drop-out” and who works in Hollywood (here).

And you can’t see how silly all of this is.

That continues to be my point, excubitor. Whether in regard to distinguishing scientists from hucksters or satire from serious comment, your difficulty is not with basic intelligence, it’s with common sense and discernment. I honestly don’t intend to insult you - I’m trying to get you to open your eyes and see your strengths and weaknesses (and those you choose to follow) more objectively.

Peace.

 

[hansgeorg]

Actually, you do destroy apologetics, the priests are completely right. Agnostics and atheists are laughing at types like you and become even further removed from the Church than there should be any reason to.

But how on earth could they be justified in such a thing?

I am not the Church, I do not pretend to be the Church.

What is more important: why should agnostics and atheists of that particular culture get all the priorites in apologetics?

There are other infidels than they. Some of whom seem to me to be more honest as seekers.

I had one - a heliocentric as most - talking to me about “if we sat in a train going X miles per h with blinded windows we could not tell whether it is still or not”, I answered that normally trains have windows transparent and we see hills pass by and know it cannot be the hills moving. BUT IN THIS CASE, we cannot know that. We cannot because we believe in angels. And obviously angels could be moving stars in a dance, if that was part of some kind of heavenly liturgy.

At least we cannot deny possibility of angels actually moving stars yet, not before checking from Mars, which so far has not been done, or if done not been told very widely.

 

[Rick09]

Me: I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

Excubitor: Obviously you are having a little dig at my quaint and childlike faith.

Not obvious at all, excubitor. Discernment really isn’t your strength. The key to discerning my intention here was the word “genuinely” - I was communicating sincerity. There’s a part of me that genuinely resonates with your outlook. My intention wasn’t to “have a little dig at you.”

Me: But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Excubitor: I agree with this, but the problem you are failing to grasp is that science is dabbling into philosophy which is their equivalent of our faith.

I’m aware of the fact that sometimes, some scientists tend to blur the necessary distinctions between philosophy and science as well. Cardinal Schonborn addressed this problem in regard to evolution (science) vs. Darwinism (philosophy). There’s a very interesting exchange about it amongst Schonborn and some others - here. But two wrongs don’t make a right. As soon as geocentrists start postulating faeries, angels and the supernatural, they have left the realm of science.

Excubitor: What I am saying however is that what is directly observeable and verifiable by science and natural reason can quite readily be resolved to a geocentric universe. Now Sungenis argues that the earth is at the same place where the gravitational mass of the universe is centred. Nobody can prove him wrong. They can only argue against him for philosophical reasons.

I haven’t seen that. What I have seen from geocentrists is akin to the approach many Protestants apologists take in regard to religion. Protestant apologists often seem to believe that poking some holes in Catholicism is enough to validate their own faith. They don’t seem to realize that it’s incumbent upon them to illustrate that their way is actually better by making their own, complete and positive presentation. The geocentric presentation seems very weak in comparison to the current norm.

If and when geocentrists are able to develop something more scientific than “faeries”, “angels” and the seemingly omnipotent “ether” which is “more rigid than steel” and yet simultaneously “more flexible than any known substance” (here), it will become more credible from a scientific standpoint.

So, do the work like real scientists do, like everyone else has to - develop the science. Develop the math. Submit to the rigorous peer-review process. Take your lumps like everyone else does. But don’t try to leap-frog over everything and everyone by telling us we have to believe geocentrism because it’s required by the Catholic Church while simultaneously acting as though you’ve actually made the case scientifically because it’s not (required by the Church) and you haven’t (made the case scientifically).

A good place to start would be to scientifically explain all the Lagrange Points (here) and then scientifically explain how the earth can remain completely fixed in space while a non-homogenous universe swirls around it (which would necessarily cause the universe’s center of mass to move as well) - see here.

Until the geocentrists get serious, all they’re doing is becoming a stumbling block to potential converts and a source of embarrassment to the Church. Just look at the one commenter who already noticed the bind in which you intend to place the Church: if geocentrism is not true, then the Bible is false. This is foolishness.

And, while you candidly admit you’re not at all an expert on these matters, you rely on the “expertise” of people from the Galileo Was Wrong conference like Sungenis – who has no degrees in science (nor even any degrees in Catholic theology or philosophy for that matter) and who believes NASA is out and about making crop circles and faking the moon landings (here and here). Another one of the GWW experts describes himself as a “tenth grade drop-out” and who works in Hollywood (here).

And you can’t see how silly all of this is.

That continues to be my point, excubitor. Whether in regard to distinguishing scientists from hucksters or satire from serious comment, your difficulty is not with basic intelligence, it’s with common sense and discernment. I honestly don’t intend to insult you - I’m trying to get you to open your eyes and see your strengths and weaknesses (and those you choose to follow) more objectively.

Peace.

 

[Rick09]

Me: I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

Excubitor: Obviously you are having a little dig at my quaint and childlike faith.

Not obvious at all, excubitor. Discernment really isn’t your strength. The key to discerning my intention here was the word “genuinely” - I was communicating sincerity. There’s a part of me that genuinely resonates with your outlook. My intention wasn’t to “have a little dig at you.”

Me: But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Excubitor: I agree with this, but the problem you are failing to grasp is that science is dabbling into philosophy which is their equivalent of our faith.

I’m aware of the fact that sometimes, some scientists tend to blur the necessary distinctions between philosophy and science as well. Cardinal Schonborn addressed this problem in regard to evolution (science) vs. Darwinism (philosophy). There’s a very interesting exchange about it amongst Schonborn and some others - here. But two wrongs don’t make a right. As soon as geocentrists start postulating faeries, angels and the supernatural, they have left the realm of science.

Excubitor: What I am saying however is that what is directly observeable and verifiable by science and natural reason can quite readily be resolved to a geocentric universe. Now Sungenis argues that the earth is at the same place where the gravitational mass of the universe is centred. Nobody can prove him wrong. They can only argue against him for philosophical reasons.

I haven’t seen that. What I have seen from geocentrists is akin to the approach many Protestant apologists take in regard to religion. Protestant apologists often seem to believe that poking some holes in Catholicism is enough to validate their own faith. They don’t seem to realize that it’s incumbent upon them to illustrate that their way is actually better by making their own, complete and positive presentation. The geocentric presentation seems very weak in comparison to the current norm.

If and when geocentrists are able to develop something more scientific than “faeries”, “angels” and the seemingly omnipotent “ether” which is “more rigid than steel” and yet simultaneously “more flexible than any known substance” (here), it will become more credible from a scientific standpoint.

So, do the work like real scientists do, like everyone else has to - develop the science. Develop the math. Submit to the rigorous peer-review process. Take your lumps like everyone else does. But don’t try to leap-frog over everything and everyone by telling us we have to believe geocentrism because it’s required by the Catholic Church while simultaneously acting as though you’ve actually made the case scientifically – because it’s not (required by the Church) and you haven’t (made the case scientifically).

A good place to start would be to scientifically explain all the Lagrange Points (here) and then scientifically explain how the earth can remain completely fixed in space while a non-homogenous universe swirls around it (which would necessarily cause the universe’s center of mass to move as well) - see here.

Until the geocentrists get serious, all they’re doing is becoming a stumbling block to potential converts and a source of embarrassment to the Church. Just look at the one commenter who already noticed the bind in which you intend to place the Church: if geocentrism is not true, then the Bible is false. This is foolishness.

And, while you candidly admit you’re not at all an expert on these matters, you rely on the “expertise” of people from the Galileo Was Wrong conference like Sungenis – who has no degrees in science (nor even any degrees in Catholic theology or philosophy for that matter) and who believes NASA is out and about making crop circles and faking the moon landings (here and here). Another one of the GWW experts describes himself as a “tenth grade drop-out” and who works in Hollywood (here).

And you can’t see how silly all of this is.

That continues to be my point, excubitor. Whether in regard to distinguishing scientists from hucksters or satire from serious comment, your difficulty is not with basic intelligence, it’s with common sense and discernment. I honestly don’t intend to insult you - I’m trying to get you to open your eyes and see your strengths and weaknesses (and those you choose to follow) more objectively.

Peace.

 

[hansgeorg]

Your belief is well outside the limits of science. The Dover decision means that it cannot be taught in a science classroom. I will leave it up to others to decide whether it should be taught in a theology classroom. Would you say that this supernatural force is mediated by gandharvas or by kinnaras?

rossum

I think you are mixing his geocentric model with mine. In my case a Hindoo might be reminded of gandharvas and a Buddhist of kinnaras.

A Christian does not have to deny the people of India had some point in speaking about heavenly musicians. He has to avoid adoring them instead of their creator and King, God the Son.

Which is why I somewhat prefer speaking of angels than of gandharas or kinnaras.

 

[hansgeorg]

I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Once you decide that something is a miracle (supernatural), then you have necessarily left the realm of science because science can only deal with the natural. By definition, supernatural phenomena are inherently inexplicable in natural (scientific) terms. …

Peace.

Miracle and supernatural phenomenon are not same. Miracles are extraordinary too. We can have optical science of ordinary ones.

 

[Rick09]

Me: I would never ridicule you for believing essentially that God is so directly involved in all these matters. Actually, I find it very touching in a way (genuinely).

Excubitor: Obviously you are having a little dig at my quaint and childlike faith.

Not obvious at all, excubitor. Discernment really isn’t your strength. The key to discerning my intention here was the word “genuinely” - I was communicating sincerity. There’s a part of me that genuinely resonates with your outlook. My intention wasn’t to “have a little dig at you.”

Me: But geocentrists need to understand and respect that there is a valid distinction that must be maintained between science and faith. When properly understood, the two complement one another but they are distinct from one another.

Excubitor: I agree with this, but the problem you are failing to grasp is that science is dabbling into philosophy which is their equivalent of our faith.

I’m aware of the fact that sometimes, some scientists tend to blur the necessary distinctions between philosophy and science as well. Cardinal Schonborn addressed this problem in regard to evolution (science) vs. Darwinism (philosophy). There’s a very interesting exchange about it amongst Schonborn and some others - here. But two wrongs don’t make a right. As soon as geocentrists start postulating faeries, angels and the supernatural, they have left the realm of science.

Excubitor: What I am saying however is that what is directly observeable and verifiable by science and natural reason can quite readily be resolved to a geocentric universe. Now Sungenis argues that the earth is at the same place where the gravitational mass of the universe is centred. Nobody can prove him wrong. They can only argue against him for philosophical reasons.

I haven’t seen that. What I have seen from geocentrists is akin to the approach many Protestant apologists take in regard to religion. Protestant apologists often seem to believe that poking some holes in Catholicism is enough to validate their own faith. They don’t seem to realize that it’s incumbent upon them to illustrate that their way is actually better by making their own, complete and positive presentation. The geocentric presentation seems very weak in comparison to the current norm.

If and when geocentrists are able to develop something more scientific than faeries, angels and the seemingly omnipotent “ether” which is “more rigid than steel” and yet simultaneously “more flexible than any known substance” (here), it will become more credible from a scientific standpoint.

So, do the work like real scientists do, like everyone else has to - develop the science. Develop the math. Submit to the rigorous peer-review process. Take your lumps like everyone else does. But don’t try to leap-frog over everything and everyone by telling us we have to believe geocentrism because it’s required by the Catholic Church while simultaneously acting as though you’ve actually made the case scientifically – because it’s not (required by the Church) and you haven’t (made the case scientifically).

A good place to start would be to scientifically explain all the Lagrange Points (here) and then scientifically explain how the earth can remain completely fixed in space while a non-homogenous universe swirls around it (which would necessarily cause the universe’s center of mass to move as well) - see here.

Until the geocentrists get serious, all they’re doing is becoming a stumbling block to potential converts and a source of embarrassment to the Church. Just look at the one commenter who already noticed the bind in which you intend to place the Church: if geocentrism is not true, then the Bible is false. This is foolishness.

And, while you candidly admit you’re not at all an expert on these matters, you rely on the “expertise” of people from the Galileo Was Wrong conference like Sungenis – who has no degrees in science (nor even any degrees in Catholic theology or philosophy for that matter) and who believes NASA is out and about making crop circles and faking the moon landings (here and here). Another one of the GWW experts describes himself as a “tenth grade drop-out” and who works in Hollywood (here).

And you can’t see how silly all of this is.

That continues to be my point, excubitor. Whether in regard to distinguishing scientists from hucksters or satire from serious and reasonable comment, your difficulty is not with basic intelligence, it’s with common sense and discernment. I honestly don’t intend to insult you - I’m trying to get you to open your eyes and see your strengths and weaknesses (and those of whom you choose to follow) more objectively.

Peace.

 

[DavidPalm]

Grannymh is exactly right. No condemnation touching this matter has been promulgated by an ecumenical council or in a papal decree. It has never been the subject of a doctrinal declaration of any kind. All of the decrees on this matter are disciplinary, touching on the books Catholics should and should not read and on the person of Galileo himself. The seventeenth century Popes knew how to define a doctrine as doctrine for the universal Church. On this, they did no such thing. I have laid out that evidence in another essay and won’t reproduce that here (link thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/alexander-vii-and-speculatores-domus.html).

excubitor bids us employ “our keen sense of Canon Law”. Good idea. He and others insist that modern, non-geocentric models of the solar system/universe fall under the seventeenth century proscriptions. In doing so they smack headlong into a fundamental axiom of the Catholic Church’s canon law, namely, that ecclesiastical condemnations are to be interpreted strictly. What is meant by strictly?

Laws that establish penalties, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law must be interpreted strictly (c. 18) It is long-standing canonical tradition that restrictive laws must be narrowly applied. . . . Strict interpretation means that the sense of the words of the canon and the scope of its application are limited as much as reasonably possible. (J. A. Coriden, An Introduction to Canon Law, 202-3)

The canonical maxim In poenis benignior est interpretatio facienda—“The most favourable interpretation should be adopted with regard to penalties”—has been part of the Church’s written code at least as far back as the reign of Pope Boniface VIII (A.D. 1294 – 1303; internetsv.info/Regulae3.html). It has been in continuous effect and is embodied in the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law (Canons 2219 and 18 respectively).

So while the neo-geocentrists strive to have a seventeenth century decree affect as many people as possible and be interpreted as broadly as possible, the Church’s perennial canonical tradition opposes this. I am putting the last touches on an essay on this topic of the canonical trial canard. I’ll post a link to it when it’s done. I post so much here already that I’d rather hold off and then just include some highlights at that time.

Thanks David for at least making an effort. But why do you need to use the rolleyes icon?

Because as I have pointed out many times here before, when the neo-geocentrists can’t make the case on the merits, they inevitably fall back on conspiracy theories. “Cassini” admitted that the primary referent of Leo XIII’s encyclical was geocentrism/heliocentrism controversy, which is true and obvious. At that point his case is dead. So to get around that “Cassini” had to fall back on Masonic conspiracies. So, do you agree with “Cassini” that the encyclical was tainted and undermined by a Masonic ghost-author?

Therefore you may not disregard the scriptures by claiming that they are not allowed to make any comment on physical science. Whatever the scripture says is the truth, no matter whether it is science, history, nature, faith, morals. It is all truth.

You know perfectly well that it is one thing to say that Scripture errs—which I have never said and do not believe—and quite another to say that the writers of Scripture used common language such as “the sun rose” and “the sun went down” without having any intention of relating details of the physical universe. Using such language of the senses is not an “error”, but neither does it convey details of the physical universe which then somehow become doctrines of faith. That is what Leo XIII says of the writers of Scripture:

the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.” Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Please demonstrate how Pope Leo XII teaches this from Trent and Vatican 1. I think you are making this up. Please show where the church teaches that Sacred Tradition may not speak from the Holy Spirit in matters of the natural world.

What he says in section 14 is that the consensus of the Fathers concerning “the true sense of Holy Scripture” pertains to matters of “faith and morals”. What he says in section 18 (quoted above) is that details of the physical universe were not put into Scripture at all. The Fathers can’t make into a matter of faith and morals what isn’t even in Scripture to begin with.

Please prove that the position of the earth in the heavens is not a matter of faith.

The burden of proof is, of course, on you to prove otherwise. But in a nutshell the Church has never declared it so. She gives her children complete freedom to believe in the mobility of the earth. If the immobility of the earth really was a matter of faith this would not be consist with her indefectibility. Ergo, the immobility of the earth is not a matter of faith. For your part, you have yet to harmonize your view with the indefectibility of the Church, which is a dogma of our Faith.

 

[DavidPalm]

The medieval fathers certainly regarded it as a deposit of the faith as I have stated in previous posts.

You have stated it. But you have not proven it. I have shown above that St. Thomas certainly did not. I have asked for a single quote from any Father in which he presents this as a matter of faith. I have stated that as far as I can see there are a total of eight witnesses brought forth by Salza/Sungenis supporting the immobility of the earth. Eight Fathers isn’t a unanimous consent on any score. And of those only one actually even contains a quote from Scripture. The rest present it as a matter of natural philosophy, backed up by the opinions of various Greek/pagan philosophers.

The apostles all believed that the earth was not moving. . . .

You continue to assert that which you need to demonstrate. You have not proved that the language of Scripture is not just what Pope Leo XIII said, “more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time . . . Ordinary speech . . . in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.” The Church allows her children to hold just that. On what authority do you restrict it?

I’ll accept your concession with regard to Sungenis’ double standards without further comment.

Fr Ludwig Ott is quite wrong. He is effectively saying that the Fathers of the medieval church were out of line in ruling against heliocentrism, and that they were dabbling in purely scientific matters outside of the proper purview. What a cheek. In any event he says. The church makes no positive decision. Of which he is speaking of the modern church which is almost expert at making no positive decision. The medieval church however was very emphatic to the point of dogmatism is absolutely refuting heliocentrism and proclaiming it as being a heresy, injurious to the faith.

Refuted above. There was no such dogmatic definition. What Fr. Ott wrote is fully in line with what was taught by Leo XIII, who in turn was enshrining the teachings of the Doctors Augustine and Thomas.

When compared to the insipid comments of modern theologians and even modern Popes, the mediaeval church produced strong, unambiguous and direct statements against heliocentrism which to this day have never been abrogated with similar strong pronouncements from the Holy See. So our keen sense of Canon Law should tell us that what has not been abrogated by an equal or higher power, retains its moral force.

You sound so incredibly much like the clergyman who was chided in 1820 by the commissary general of the Holy Office (the same Roman congregation that issued the 1633 decree on Galileo):

you claim that the condemnation was a solemn judgment; that it originated from the pope himself and the Holy See; that it was an unrevisable judgment; that it declared a doctrine “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith”; and that it targeted the doctrine of the earth’s motion as it is taught even today. Then you do not realize you are committed to the inexorable self-refuting argument that after 1634 popes have been deceptive because they have no longer spoken against this doctrine despite the fact that it was constantly acquiring more and more embellishments from supporters and was becoming universally held. Finally, with your alleged omission of publication, especially in a situation when it was supremely necessary to bring it about, namely, on the occasion of the renewal of the Index and the collection of decrees of prohibition, you come along and tell us that “for reasons known to them” they have neglected to acknowledge the truth of the faith. **But, Most Rev. Father, this smells a little of the doctrine that some truths are being obscured in the Church, especially on the part of the Holy Apostolic See; and this doctrine is indeed heretical and was condemned as such in the bull Auctorem Fidei **, in the first proposition, if I am not mistaken. You know that, for you have defended this bull. So you are in the position of judging yourself by your own principles. (cited in Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, p. 215).

The premises are wrong, therefore so are the conclusions. And the situation has gotten a heck of a lot worse for you neo-geocentrists in the intervening 200 years.

I pray that** in these latter days** people like me, Cassini, Sungenis, Salza will be the ones from which resurgence is born and our bishops are brought to task to restore Sacred Tradition.

From the papal bull Auctorem Fidei:

Obscuring of Truths in the Church [From the Decree de Grat., sec. I]

1. The proposition, which asserts “that** in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths** pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,”—heretical.