Heilocentrism infallibly condemned

[TheWhim]

Dear ItsJustDave,

my dear fellow Roman Catholics (and as I still formally belong to this church, I may adress you in this manner),

Please take the time to read “The Pontificial Decrees” in full. Print it out and read it. It’s worth printing it. Truth is always worth being printed. Here’s the link again:

http://www.lewisdt.com/research/Geocentrism/roberts.pdf#search='The Pontifical D ecrees%20Against%20the%20doctrine%20of%2 0the%20Earth’s%20Movement’

My postings weren’t more than a summary of this great reading. (save the mention of the important Canon of the First Vatican Council on keeping the intention of definitions)
I tell you that I felt perfectly Roman Catholic before having printed it out, but that, after reading it, I knew that, if I wished to remain a honest person, I had to leave the church and turn to Orthodoxy or Protestantism. And this, most likely, I’ll do.

I hadn’t much hope left when wrting the first postings - not much hope to get arguments. I may note that I was shocked at the hatred and disgust that I encountered in this thread(which is, after all, a hatred for the truth). Well, I’m not only desperated but rather EXASPERATED at being insulted and ill-treated instead of getting a cultivated discussion on this topic… Well, I may exaggerate now a bit

But somehow, I’m feeling like this

I don’t feel inclined to post in this htread anyhting anymore. I leave this thread now. I won’t comment on further postings(which most surely will just repeat the old pamphlets).

I don’t know what do you think about straight-forwardedness and honesty. I’s all the same to me.

but I’ll leave the church - and now leave this thread.

Yours ever.
Goodbye.

 

[JSmitty2005]

TheWhim:

but I’ll leave the church - and now leave this thread.

To whom shall you go?

 

[masterjedi747]

TheWhim:

In the decrees concerned, doctrines adversary to geocentrism are condemned as “heresy” “errouneous in faith” and “repugnant to Scripture.” Therefore, this concerned a matter of faith.

Your logic here is so incredibly flawed, it’s not even funny.
Not only are your premises flat-out wrong, but your conclusion does not necessarily follow.

The point is that the Church has no authority whatsoever do declare the heliocentric model of the solar system (a scientific theory) as “heresy”, “errouneous in faith”, or “repugnant to Scripture.” It is not a matter of faith or morals. Besides the fact that it is not heresy, it is not errouneous in faith (it doesn’t even have anything remotely to do with faith in the first place), and it is not repugnant to Scripture. The Church had no authority whatsoever in this matter.

TheWhim:

Therefore, the church teaches us history…you will admit that the church can teach in profan science - history in this case. And so on… Point 2 is also won.

Oh, no it’s not…not by a long shot. Since when are science and history interchangeable terms? I’ll give you a hint: they’re not. Matters of faith can involve history, such as the existence of Adam and Eve, Noah’s flood, Christ’s resurrection, and Mary’s assumption…but that has absolutely nothing to do with science. I’m 18 also, and I can you tell that you still have a long way to go with your studies. You’re just plain wrong. I don’t know how else to say it. Sorry.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

TheWhim,

I note from your profile that you were born in 1987.

(Snort! Wiping tears from eyes and drool from keyboard). Sigh…I was wondering when anyone was going to do an age check. Ah, ya gotta love these teens who think they’re turning the world on its head!

Young man (or woman): Dave treated you with far greater courtesy than your argument deserved (and this can be seen clearly with your more recent posts in this thread). You would do well to attend upon what he tells you, as it would prevent you, at the least, from looking as foolish next time.

Dave, as always, a pleasure to read your posts.

 

[masterjedi747]

TheWhim:

I tell you that I felt perfectly Roman Catholic before having printed it out, but that, after reading it, I knew that, if I wished to remain a honest person, I had to leave the church and turn to Orthodoxy or Protestantism. And this, most likely, I’ll do.

http://bestsmileys.com/fainting/1.gif Are you serious? Please…have another look at the following parable:

“Other seed fell on rocky ground where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep.And when the sun rose, it was scorched and it withered for lack of roots.” - Mark 4:5-6
I mean I honestly can’t believe you’re saying this. That has got to be the most illogical solution I’ve ever heard. Leave the Catholic Church because of a non-infallible incorrect proclimation on the heliocentric solar system? Are you kidding me? Talk about no roots in the faith…you need a serious crash-course in Catholicism. Please, pick up this book…I personally own it, and it’s great. There is absolutely no need to choose between the Church and science. And let me tell you, you’re not going to find a better Church out there…Christ only founded one. :bible1:

 

[mosher]

TheWhim:

Dear ItsJustDave,

my dear fellow Roman Catholics (and as I still formally belong to this church, I may adress you in this manner),

Please take the time to read “The Pontificial Decrees” in full. Print it out and read it. It’s worth printing it. Truth is always worth being printed. Here’s the link again:

http://www.lewisdt.com/research/Geocentrism/roberts.pdf#search='The Pontifical D ecrees%20Against%20the%20doctrine%20of%2 0the%20Earth’s%20Movement’

My postings weren’t more than a summary of this great reading. (save the mention of the important Canon of the First Vatican Council on keeping the intention of definitions)
I tell you that I felt perfectly Roman Catholic before having printed it out, but that, after reading it, I knew that, if I wished to remain a honest person, I had to leave the church and turn to Orthodoxy or Protestantism. And this, most likely, I’ll do.

I hadn’t much hope left when wrting the first postings - not much hope to get arguments. I may note that I was shocked at the hatred and disgust that I encountered in this thread(which is, after all, a hatred for the truth). Well, I’m not only desperated but rather EXASPERATED at being insulted and ill-treated instead of getting a cultivated discussion on this topic… Well, I may exaggerate now a bit

But somehow, I’m feeling like this

I don’t feel inclined to post in this htread anyhting anymore. I leave this thread now. I won’t comment on further postings(which most surely will just repeat the old pamphlets).

I don’t know what do you think about straight-forwardedness and honesty. I’s all the same to me.

but I’ll leave the church - and now leave this thread.

Yours ever.
Goodbye.

Ok, this is just silly. The OP’s drama concerning the decrees against heliocentricism are not only apart from the decrees that could be considered infallible but also there is a strong missunderstanding of that charism of the Holy Father. Further there is definatelly a problem with his understanding of the documents themselves. I would suggest further reflection on the pertinent points that have been addressed by others in this thread.

 

[JSmitty2005]

I hope that the OP knows that one of the reasons the Church took a stand on this issue was because the Protestants were more fired up about Galileo than anyone. They were accusing the Church of ignoring Scripture. I suggest that you read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” If you do leave the Church, become Orthodox. At least they have better liturgies than we have now. You may also want to check out the link in my signature.

 

[JSmitty2005]

(Snort! Wiping tears from eyes and drool from keyboard). Sigh…I was wondering when anyone was going to do an age check. Ah, ya gotta love these teens who think they’re turning the world on its head!

Attacking someone’s age is going to do nothing but turn them off. There are a few of us teens that have our heads on straight!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

JSmitty2005:

Attacking someone’s age is going to do nothing but turn them off. There are a few of us teens that have our heads on straight!

Yes, JSmitty, that is certainly true…but do they possess humility? Reverence for those they address? The gentleness and lowliness exhibited by Our Savior, who should be THE model of us all? I’ve had conversations with lots of teens on these forums and while many have their facts and their heads straight, they sound (and thus seem) to be lacking the other aforementioned qualities (your good self excluded, of course…and Eamon, he’s above reproach).

Plus, while Dave may have been firm with the OP, he was hardly unkind. Compare that to the OP’s assertion that we either embrace geocentrism or “leave the Church.” Do you see what I mean?

 

[JimG]

Embrace geocentricism or leave the Church?? And I thought my neice was a drama queen. . .

 

[JSmitty2005]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, JSmitty, that is certainly true…but do they possess humility? Reverence for those they address? The gentleness and lowliness exhibited by Our Savior, who should be THE model of us all? I’ve had conversations with lots of teens on these forums and while many have their facts and their heads straight, they sound (and thus seem) to be lacking the other aforementioned qualities (your good self excluded, of course…and Eamon, he’s above reproach).

Yeah right!

Plus, while Dave may have been firm with the OP, he was hardly unkind. Compare that to the OP’s assertion that we either embrace geocentrism or “leave the Church.” Do you see what I mean?

I don’t think that Dave really did anything wrong, and I definitely see what you mean. I just don’t think that age has everything to do with it. I’ve been on another thread and my age has come up as a problem when none of the people there (regardless of age) don’t exhibit much humility, lowliness, reverence, or gentleness. See here.

 

[coyote]

thistle:

I’m just impressed by you being the only Catholic (if that’s what you are) who knows about this heresy. Imagine the Pope, all the Bishops and 1.2 billion faithful all being heretics!!
Who cares about geocentrism, heliocentrism or any other ism. None of that affects my faith at all.
It seems you are a sensationalist and want a bit of attention.

Really? What about Evolution-ism? Are you emotionally invested in that?

RE: the OP wanting “a bit of attention”. This IS a diaolog forum isn’t it? Does that mean that everyone that asserts a position and hopes for replys is a “sensationalist” that just “want a bit of attention”?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Yeah right!

I don’t think that Dave really did anything wrong, and I definitely see what you mean. I just don’t think that age has everything to do with it. I’ve been on another thread and my age has come up as a problem when none of the people there (regardless of age) don’t exhibit much humility, lowliness, reverence, or gentleness. See here.

Yes, I saw that thread, but I was kind of under the impression that you and your main “opponent” were contemporaries of one another. I was mostly on your side of the argument.

I’m not giving up hope on teens, I was one once (and I’m a teacher)…and I thought I knew everything, and it turned out I didn’t, and I learned that it pays to be as “nice” as you can humanly be (and that doesn’t mean sacrificing the truth). Hey, I’m not always the most reasonable soul, but I do think there is something to the notion of age bringing wisdom (well, hopefully, anyway). And respect for an elder will always result in a blessing and never a curse. Right, stepping off of soap box now.

 

[RobNY]

JKirkLVNV:

Yes, JSmitty, that is certainly true…but do they possess humility? Reverence for those they address? The gentleness and lowliness exhibited by Our Savior, who should be THE model of us all? I’ve had conversations with lots of teens on these forums and while many have their facts and their heads straight, they sound (and thus seem) to be lacking the other aforementioned qualities (your good self excluded, of course…and Eamon, he’s above reproach).

That’s funny. I was going to respond and say, “don’t leave out Eamon,” who, although I’ve never really had a conversation with, is always quite pleasant. Of course, I thankfully reread your post before posting that.

To me, bringing up age never really occurs. That’s a perspective I don’t have. I suppose that our adult posters here have a certain perspective about how they’ve matured. I suppose that, looking back in thirteen years (which would make me thirty) I’ll think the same of myself.

As for infallability, I may add that what the theoligians of the past sixty years want us to believe, that only SUCH pronouncements of the Pope are infallible that are clearly DOGMATIC definitions. Of course, they teach this becuse the Second Vatican Council is clearly in conflict with former tradition.

Don’t believe everything the radical traditionalists tell you. Vatican II and Quanta Cura are reconcilable.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

coyote:

Really? What about Evolution-ism? Are you emotionally invested in that?

Not terribly, no. I think God created the Heavens and the Earth and His method and timeframe are a bit out of my range, if you know what I mean. I’m more emotionally invested in when Jesus is going to come back, but really, my attitude to the end AND the beginning are about the same: I’ve no idea how one came about or how the other will come about. I simply trust that the Holy One accomplished the first and that He will without doubt accomplish the second.

Geezo Pete, it’s getting to the point that one’s going to have to have a degree in physics AND theology AND anthropology in order to be a Christian. I can see it now,“I baptize you in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…and here’s your multi-discipline PhD.” And of course, I’m sure it will all be said in Latin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

JSmitty2005:

Attacking someone’s age is going to do nothing but turn them off. There are a few of us teens that have our heads on straight!

As for my intent, I wasn’t attacking his age (whatever that means), but pointing out that our dear thewhim has probably not sufficiently studied dogmatic theology enough to know what is and is not de fide doctrine, as though he were more learned than the living magisterium on the matter. I think theologians of all ages need to keep in mind what the most learned St. Thomas Aquinas asserted: “We must abide rather by the pope’s judgment than by the opinion of any of the theologians, however well versed he may be” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Questiones Quodlibetales, IX:8). More importantly, no matter how learned any theologian becomes, they need to keep in mind what Sacred Scripture teaches: Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

I’ve been studying theology since before thewhim was born, and I still have so much more to read on the subject. In fact, the doctrine of papal infallibility itself is still being studied by learned theologians, as Vatican I did not exhaustively treat the matter, and Vatican II served to continue the teaching on ecclesiology that was prematurely cut short at Vatican I.

It is tragic that thewhim has put so little time into studying dogmatic theology, yet has no doubt that he knows more than the Vicar of Christ as to what is de fide according to the Catholic Church.

A good example in contradiction to Fr. Roberts’ thesis of ex cathedra pronouncements is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Is it an ex cathedra pronouncement? The pope who authored it said no, yet if one were to apply Fr. Roberts’ 1885 dubious criteria for *ex cathedra *pronoucements the actual pope who promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is wrong.

Obviously, if the pope doesn’t intend to to exercise the solemn magisterium, then he did not. We have a living magisterium for a reason, so that we can seek clarification from those Divinely ordained to teach and govern our souls. Yet, TheWhims epistemology seems that of sola traditio, much like Protestants who cling to *sola scriptura. *The Church’s teaching is considered irrelevant to this kind of false epistemology, as we supposedly need only read the documents of the past for ourselves and come to the truth by the primacy of personal opinion. The primacy of personal opinion trumps Heb 13:17 in both sola traditio and sola scritpura, which is absurd.

Our poor thewhim seems like a leaf blowing in the wind when it comes to religious studies, going from one extreme to another. He wants others to be convinced that Fr. Roberts’ book is the definitive word on the subject, but for those of us who have read more than just Fr. Roberts’ version of theology, it is easy to see why his thesis in 1885 was met with criticism and was for the most part, ignored by more learned theologians.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

itsjustdave1988:

As for my intent, I wasn’t attacking his age (whatever that means), but pointing out that our dear thewhim has probably not sufficiently studied dogmatic theology enough to know what is and is not de fide doctrine, as though he were more learned than the living magisterium on the matter.

Oh, no, Dave, JSmitty was talking to me, I was the one who made the age wisecrack.

 

[masterjedi747]

itsjustdave1988:

A good example in contradiction to Fr. Roberts’ thesis of ex cathedra pronouncements is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Is it an ex cathedra pronouncement? The pope who authored it said no, yet if one were to apply Fr. Roberts’ 1885 dubious criteria for *ex cathedra *pronoucements the actual pope who promulgated Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is wrong. Obviously, if the pope doesn’t intend to to exercise the solemn magisterium, then he did not.

Alright, now I’m just confused.
I have absolutely no idea who Father Roberts is…but Pope John Paul II’s statement in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is indeed quite clearly infallible. It’s so obvious it’s not even funny.

“In order that all doubt may be removed, regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren [Luke 22:32], I declare that the Church has no power whatsoever to confirm priestly ordination on women, and that this judgment is to be held by all the Church’s faithful.” - Pope John Paul II, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

All four of the requirements for Papal infallibility are clearly present, in the following order:
1) Settles The Question
2) Regarding Matters Of Faith And Morals
3) Speaking As Pope [Ex Cathedra]
4) Binding The Whole Church

For more information, please read this: Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Infallible Teaching?
It answers every possible objection you might find. “Objections to the contrary notwithstanding, the teaching in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is infallible because it fulfills the only requirements that must be fulfilled: those specified in Pastor Aeternus and repeated in Lumen Gentium.”

 

[SPH1]

TheWhim:

We just got these two alternatives: reject the Catholic church or embrace Geocentrism.

Cut the drama, this is fallacious. You would make the entire Church heretics if not adopting Geocentrism, including the Pope. The Church makes no such draconian choice: why do you?

Anyway, the links below (including one from these forums) show that the issue is not necessarily cut-and-dried:

geocentricity.com/

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=90187

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

TheWhim:

I tell you that I felt perfectly Roman Catholic before having printed it out, but that, after reading it, I knew that, if I wished to remain a honest person, I had to leave the church and turn to Orthodoxy or Protestantism. And this, most likely, I’ll do.

This is the real point, one I’ve never understood. If somehow, someone can “prove” that the Catholic Church is wrong on some teaching, one MUST leave it. Leave it for what? For even more fallible, erroneous and wrong religious groups? The Holy Catholic Church, under the guidance of Peter (the Papacy) and the Holy Spirit, is as good as it gets: there is no other religious group with more truth. Protestantism (formally anyway) doesn’t even CLAIM to be infallible, hence, is rife with errors. Easily seen in all of the conflicting denominations. How is descending into that cesspool of error a step up? Or is it that the only real sin here is to claim infallibility? Fallibility and error are okay; infallibility not okay.

My understanding of the Galileo issue is that the Church really didn’t care so much about the science. Rather, the ONLY real concern was protecting Holy Scripture, which suggests that the Sun moved around the Earth: The Sun stood still, etc.

So one might post the same choice to The Whim: Accept that the Sun moves or reject Holy Scripture and Christianity for something else.

The Galileo matter was just the begining of the tension between Science and Faith, seen today in Creationism vs. Evolution, etc. Simplistic Protestants* use it to attack Christ’s Church, while atheists and others use it to attack God & religion altogether.

---

• The Wiki link above references Lutherans holding to Geocentrism well into the 1900’s. Fact is, Luther & Calvin were more against Galileo than the Catholic Church…but that doesn’t count. They aren’t infallible (meaning, they can be and are wrong.)

 

[porthos11]

I can’t understand the arguments.

OP claimed that heliocentrism is a “scientific” truth.

This alone should bust any “infallibility” claims he makes. The Church has never claimed infallibility in matters of science.

Yes, I know you feel you “won” this objection but no matter what, even if the Church were to try, she can never be infallible in science. “That the earth is not at the center of the universe is contrary to faith” is still a statement with a scientific premise, in which the Church is not infallible. This differs from presises such as marks of holy orders, Mary’s Assumption (Mary left no relics), the Resurrection, the dual natures of Christ, which are indeed matters of faith.

But even if we grant your argument we have yet to see the phrase “We pronounce, declare and define”. Only then will we accept it as an attempt to engage infallibility. Without at least the phrase “We define” or “I define”, it is not considered infallible, which has been traditional in papal definitions, or the phrase “If anyone says that so-and-so, let him be anathema.” in the case of Ecumenical Councils.

What a silly thread.