Heilocentrism infallibly condemned

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheWhim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck
    I compel you to read “The Pontificial Decrees etc.” The question is discussed therein. Well, the pope can’t tell one particular church that anyhting opposed to heliocentrism is heresy, but tell the other particular church that heliocentrism is perfectly accetable. If he would do so, we would have got two conflicting infallible-utterances and the unity of the faith would be broken. Most theolgians, and indeed very Catholic theologians, do therefore hold the opinion that when the pope by an official utterance just forces ONE individual of the church(for example: Galilei) to embrace something as divine faith, every other member of the church must follow. Because otherwise you would have some Catholics believing this to be heresy, others believing THAT to be heresy and so on — But we should’nt speculate on this anymore: I point to the Papal bull of Alexander already mentioned - adressed to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. Point 4 is won.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church condemned anything contrary to geocentrism as HERESY.

This is fact. Embrace geocentrism - or leave the Catholic church.

But I’m waiting for further arguments. As I’m a Roman Catholic, I don’t feel compelled to leave my church.

Yours ever.

(I may mention that I could have spared myself this half-an-hour in composing the reply if you, VociMike, would have cared to read my former postings carefully or to read “The Pontificial Decrees etc.” - I’ve only repeated now what I have already said.)
 
TheWhim,
I haven’t seen you prove that the earth isn’t the center of the universe, yet.
 
TheWhim,

You claim heliocentrism as a “scientific truth.” Right off the bat, you show everyone that you lack any credibility. Science does not even claim to know where the center of the universe is with any confidence whatsoever. Please show me the “proof” that the sun is the center of the universe, or please show me the scientific evidence that proves where the center of the universe is.

In reading your post, it appears you know little about science or Catholicism.

Also, what do you mean by “infallibly condemned?” Which exercise of the solem magisterium infallibly condemned this? I don’t think you understand the difference between an exercise of the ordinary magisterium and an exercise of the solemn magisterium.
 
Dear Joe Gloor,

TheWhim,
I haven’t seen you prove that the earth isn’t the center of the universe, yet.

One should’nt seperate the idea of geocentrism from the idea of the earth’s immobility - please note what I have already written. One shuld also take care of the INTENTION of the popes in question: they truly believed that the earth was IMMOVABLE and the center of the universe, with the sun rolling around it - and that’s the very reason why they condemned heliocentrism - it was “repugnant to Scripture” “the sun stood still” and so on…

Dear istjustdave,

Also, what do you mean by “infallibly condemned?”

Already expplained -- I did sort through the requirements, didn’t I? The point is, that the definition of 1870 is nowhere talking about the solemn, that is, DOGMATIC magisterium - to reduce Papal infallability to procalmation of Dogmas was even refuted by the council when the bid of some bishops, to insert the term “dogmatic” concerning the popes infallible magisterium, was REFUTED. But haven’t I already written this? Anyway, if something is condemned as “heresy” by a pope, this can’t be more infallible. It requires divine faith: I repeat a quotation already given above -- :

“It is satisfactory to obtain so frank an acknowledgment from my
opponent that the terms of the condemnation meant “heresy,” and nothing
short of it; that the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities considered, and
in effect said, that heliocentricism is a heresy. Now, I submit that, no
matter who says it, ‘whether a ‘Pope speaking ex cathedrâ, or a mere
layman, whoever says categorically that an opinion is “heresy,” ipso facto
says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with
sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine
faith. To generate an obligation of faith, it is by no means necessary that
the witness to the fact of revelation should claim for his testimony
infallible certainty, but only such certainty as will exclude all prudent fear,
ne non locutus sit Deus. And to say that an opinion is “heresy” is to say
more than that its contradictory is matter of faith. There is an implicit
reference to the infallible testimony of the Church. The assertion means
that the contradictory is not only of faith, but of Catholic faith.”

Ignorance, ignorance and blindness and darkness everywhere - where’s some light?

Yours ever.
 
Oh! I’ve got to correct me. I wrote:

Hoewever, the first Christian centuries, including Pauls letter to the Corinthians, know of no priests having character indelible etc.

What I meant was: the firtst Christian DECADES

Yours ever.
 
TheWhim,

I’m a post-grad student in Catholic theology, and I can’t find any text on dogmatic theology that lists Geocentrism as among the de fide dogmas of Catholicism. Can you cite a reference which has an Imprimatur of the Church which explains that this teaching is more than an assertion of the ordinary magisterium, but an exercise of the solemn magisterium.
 
40.png
TheWhim:
…This is fact. Embrace geocentrism - or leave the Catholic church…
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I’d rather not.

Considering that this issue has rattled around for nearly half a millenium, that it has been addressed by minds much more adept than mine, and that the Church is still here (as Christ promised), I frankly couldn’t care less about the whole question.

Then again, I hate to argue for the sake of arguing.

I know the universe has a center but I have no idea where it is, and I understand that the Church doesn’t either (no matter what the theologians of the 17th century might have said on the subject).

I’m ok with that.

Next thing you’ll be saying is that the earth isn’t really flat. 😉
 
TheWhim,

From the view of dogmatic theology, the reason Geocentrism does not appear in dogmatic theology texts as *de fide *dogma of Catholicism rests upon several factors used within dogmatic theology to determine the level of certainty of magisteral teachings.

Isn’t it true, for example, that geocentrism (a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones; (b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office?
 
If you could read the CA Library before posting these kinds of threads, that would save a lot of time and energy for everyone:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
 
Scientific cosmolgy is not the Church’s doman.

This issue been concluded centuries ago. Were you born just yesterday?

Pax tecum
 
My dear fellow Catholics,

Though I’m fond of yours replies, and fond of haing you an argumentation with me, I’m a bit desperated at your carelessness. For example, itsjustdave writes, and also Eden dwells on it:

(b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office

I can only repeat what I have already written:
[It is made clear that Galielo was, in preaching heliocentrism, preaching a theory already and finally condemned as “heresy” by the church. Some poeple have objected that both decrees were not signed by the pope and that therefore the necessary attribute for an ex-cathedra-statement was missing - however, this decree-signing came in use not until much later and both opoes gave their explicit consent to the decisions. Furthermore, both decrees were FORMALLY APPROVED by one of their succesors:]

These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and
approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his BULLl. It is clear,
therefore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and
approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but PUBLICLY IN THE FACE OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all
the faithful. Nay, more—and I call particular attention to this point— the
Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and
approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though
actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and
therefore it, AND ALL IT CONTAINED[inclusive the two theoligical censures of 1616 and Galileos abjurement under Pope Urban], came to the Church DIRECTLY FROM THE POPE HIMSELF, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household
of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to
protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed
by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of
truth.”

I cannot get away from the idea that you do not even care to actually READ my postings.

As for the second pont:

(a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones

You maz be studied in another way than I am, or may have read different books than I have, but as far as I know it doen|t matter what form the document has in which the pope adresses his decision on faith and morals to the church. The Dogma nowhere says> @When the pope adresses in a formally doctrinal document / or when the pope solemly proclaims a dogma to the church< but it reads> when he decided on faith and morals as binding to all the faithful. He can do this in a brief, bull, motio proprio, whatever. Next, if the pope decided in a bull tocall a new General Council in the year 2010, this, of course, is just a question on disclipline. But if he says in a bull that something is HEREY, you|ve got a decision on faith.

Well, I would rather say that the reason, why Geocentrism isn|t listed among the De fide in Catholic textbooks, is simply this> It would be quite embrrassing, would|nt it, to let everyone no that the Church itself has refuted Papal infallability by making Geocentrism binding on all the faithful.

Finally, I would also like to adress the assertion of some who have posted here, that, according to General Relativity, undoubtedly a cscientific truth, the earth isas good a center of the universe as the sun is. But this doen fit with the intention of the popes in question. They obviously didn|t believe in General Relativity, because they condemned heliocentrism as heresy / but according to the theory, you get very well stick to heliocentrism / the sun centered in the UNIVERSE.

I may note that I think you are all, undoubtedly, intelligent man /but I|m also convinced that you are ignorant man. I|m getting this idea because you seemingly don|t read my posts and also haven|t @The Pontificial Decrees@ read yet. Well, I|ll leave the Catholic church. I don|t want to believe in geocetrim under pain of heresy. Therefore, I|m urgently awaiting someone, someone like bengeorge, though calling me a troll, actually READS my posts, tries to understand them, and is a careful and honest mind.

Yours ever.
 
40.png
TheWhim:
My dear fellow Catholics,

Though I’m fond of yours replies, and fond of haing you an argumentation with me, I’m a bit desperated at your carelessness. For example, itsjustdave writes, and also Eden dwells on it:

(b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office

I can only repeat what I have already written:
[It is made clear that Galielo was, in preaching heliocentrism, preaching a theory already and finally condemned as “heresy” by the church. Some poeple have objected that both decrees were not signed by the pope and that therefore the necessary attribute for an ex-cathedra-statement was missing - however, this decree-signing came in use not until much later and both opoes gave their explicit consent to the decisions. Furthermore, both decrees were FORMALLY APPROVED by one of their succesors:]

These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and
approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his BULLl. It is clear,
therefore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and
approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but PUBLICLY IN THE FACE OF THE WHOLE CHURCH, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all
the faithful. Nay, more—and I call particular attention to this point— the
Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and
approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though
actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and
therefore it, AND ALL IT CONTAINED[inclusive the two theoligical censures of 1616 and Galileos abjurement under Pope Urban], came to the Church DIRECTLY FROM THE POPE HIMSELF, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household
of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to
protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed
by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of
truth.”

I cannot get away from the idea that you do not even care to actually READ my postings.

As for the second pont:

(a) was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones

You maz be studied in another way than I am, or may have read different books than I have, but as far as I know it doen|t matter what form the document has in which the pope adresses his decision on faith and morals to the church. The Dogma nowhere says> @When the pope adresses in a formally doctrinal document / or when the pope solemly proclaims a dogma to the church< but it reads> when he decided on faith and morals as binding to all the faithful. He can do this in a brief, bull, motio proprio, whatever. Next, if the pope decided in a bull tocall a new General Council in the year 2010, this, of course, is just a question on disclipline. But if he says in a bull that something is HEREY, you|ve got a decision on faith.

Well, I would rather say that the reason, why Geocentrism isn|t listed among the De fide in Catholic textbooks, is simply this> It would be quite embrrassing, would|nt it, to let everyone no that the Church itself has refuted Papal infallability by making Geocentrism binding on all the faithful.

Finally, I would also like to adress the assertion of some who have posted here, that, according to General Relativity, undoubtedly a cscientific truth, the earth isas good a center of the universe as the sun is. But this doen fit with the intention of the popes in question. They obviously didn|t believe in General Relativity, because they condemned heliocentrism as heresy / but according to the theory, you get very well stick to heliocentrism / the sun centered in the UNIVERSE.

I may note that I think you are all, undoubtedly, intelligent man /but I|m also convinced that you are ignorant man. I|m getting this idea because you seemingly don|t read my posts and also haven|t @The Pontificial Decrees@ read yet. Well, I|ll leave the Catholic church. I don|t want to believe in geocetrim under pain of heresy. Therefore, I|m urgently awaiting someone, someone like bengeorge, though calling me a troll, actually READS my posts, tries to understand them, and is a careful and honest mind.

Yours ever.
Click to expand...
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.
 
40.png
TheWhim:
My dear fellow Catholics,

Though I’m fond of yours replies, and fond of haing you an argumentation with me, I’m a bit desperated at your carelessness. For example, itsjustdave writes, and also Eden dwells on it:

(b) was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office

I can only repeat what I have already written:
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that you can only repeat yourself, as your polemic has run its course unconvincingly.

My dear TheWhim, when you study dogmatic theology a bit more thoroughly you will find that a tribunal’s or Sacred Congregation’s teachings, even if approved or ratified by the pope can never equate to an ex cathedra pronouncement. I refer you to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (*Imprimatur *1952) to learn more about this…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 (cf. D 1839). 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 (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). 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. (Dr. Ludwig Ott, *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, *Introduction).

Simlarly, according the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia (which also carries the Imprimatur of the Catholic Church)…It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name (Infallibility) Thus, your thesis that this decision of Roman congregations and tribunals of the Church, since it was approved by the pope makes for an ex cathedra pronouncement is incongruent with Catholic dogmatic theology. Perhaps when you study this further you’ll see how why your thesis is absurd.

For now, I still challenge you to find a dogmatic theology text with an Imprimatur which refers to Geocentrism as a de fide or infallible teaching of the Church. If all you can do is repeat your weak polemic, then I suppose your unconvincing attempt to declare what is infallible for Catholics–as if you were vested with magisterial authority–has fizzled into the wacky thesis that it really it. As a Catholic, I’m bound to the authentic doctrines of the living Catholic magisterium. When they issue a pronouncement that geocentrism is to be assented to by all Catholics, I’ll champion that doctrine to all the faithful. Until then, I recommend you study dogmatic theology with an attempt to seek to understand, not with the goal of seeking to promote your own opinion.
 
Canon 749.3 of the 1983 code says: “No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”

Alexanders VIII’s Bull it the only document issued in the name of the pope on the subject. I’d like to read it all instead of just excerpts. However, it reads like a it was primarily a judicial act — an exercise of the Pope’s judicial authority rather than an his teaching authority. According to professors of dogmatic theology, such as Fr. Brian Harrison of the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico, such context is important in determining the magisterial value of a text and whether a doctrine is understood as defined infallibly.

When Geocentrism is manifestly defined infallibly, instead of asserted as such by those who are not vested with magisterial authority, then you’ll have a good thesis. But even so, as someon who has made a lviing as a spacecraft engineer for many years, I have no scientific problem with geocentrism. The universe can be modeled such that it rotates about the earth, mathematically speaking.

If you wanted to leave the Catholic Church, this exercise was an unnecessary excuse. Nobody is forcing you to be Catholic.

Yet, the pope himself does not teach geocentrism (although it is supposedly an article of Catholic faith???). I’ll stick with the pope and not try to invent a Catholicism that is different from his, just so I can construct a pretense for leaving God’s Holy Catholic Church.
 
itsjustdave wrote:
But even so, as someon who has made a lviing as a spacecraft engineer for many years, I have no scientific problem with geocentrism. The universe can be modeled such that it rotates about the earth, mathematically speaking.
Click to expand...
I hope I won’t be taking the thread way off topic if I ask a question about physics here (considering that I don’t think an entire thread is needed to deal with my question).

What about gravity. Wouldn’t the center of the universe or even a solar system have to have enormous gravity to hold everything in its orbit?

Our sun is much bigger than earth and has a much stronger gravity, as does Jupiter. We are between these two huge bodies that keep us where we are in space. Isn’t that so?

If the earth were the center of the universe it would have to have tremendous gravity to hold everything in its orbit–gravity so great no living thing could possibly live on it. Aren’t I right about that?
 
40.png
TheWhim:
Though I’m fond of yours replies, and fond of haing you an argumentation with me, I’m a bit desperated at your carelessness. For example, itsjustdave writes, and also Eden dwells on it:
Click to expand...
Whim? Why are you concerned about a scientific theory that has been proven false? Galileo, for instance, believe that the sun was the center of the universe. That is false. Heliocentrism was not accurate so what are you trying to prove? The sun is not the center of the universe, it is the center of the solar system and the sun revolves around the center of the universe. You are condemning the Church for rejecting an inaccurate scientific theory? Please update your scientific knowledge to the 21st century.

Why would you expect anyone to question their faith over the Church’s position on heliocentrism, especially because if they had approved it they would have been in error. Sorry, I’m not getting your point.
 
40.png
Eden:
Whim? Why are you concerned about a scientific theory that has been proven false? Galileo, for instance, believe that the sun was the center of the universe. That is false. Heliocentrism was not accurate so what are you trying to prove? The sun is not the center of the universe, it is the center of the solar system and the sun revolves around the center of the universe. You are condemning the Church for rejecting an inaccurate scientific theory? Please update your scientific knowledge to the 21st century.

Why would you expect anyone to question their faith over the Church’s position on heliocentrism, especially because if they had approved it they would have been in error. Sorry, I’m not getting your point.
Click to expand...
What TheWhim has put forward is the idea that the Church infallibly defined geocentricism as de fide, a matter of faith we must believe. But, as itsjustdave pointed out, this was not the case, so TheWhim is truly acting on a whim instead of on solid Catholic teaching, sad to say. What say you, dear whim?
 
My apologies. I was responding to Whim’s opening line of the thread:
40.png
TheWhim:
Yes, it is true. Heloicentrism, a scientific truth, was infallibly conedmned by Rome as “repugnant to Scripture” and flat-out “heresy”.
Click to expand...
I was responding to the statement that heliocentrism is a “scientific truth”.
 
40.png
Della:
itsjustdave wrote:
I hope I won’t be taking the thread way off topic if I ask a question about physics here (considering that I don’t think an entire thread is needed to deal with my question).

What about gravity. Wouldn’t the center of the universe or even a solar system have to have enormous gravity to hold everything in its orbit?

Our sun is much bigger than earth and has a much stronger gravity, as does Jupiter. We are between these two huge bodies that keep us where we are in space. Isn’t that so?

If the earth were the center of the universe it would have to have tremendous gravity to hold everything in its orbit–gravity so great no living thing could possibly live on it. Aren’t I right about that?
Click to expand...
Firstly, when evaluating the “truth” of geocentrism, what we need is clear terms. What do we mean by “center”? The inertial center? The gravitational center? The energy center? The spacial center? The moral center? The religious center? The economic center? The human center? I think the answer depends upon one’s intent. These “centers” of the universe are not necessarily the same. It’s clear from Scripture that the authorial intent is that of a earth-centered reference frame for the religous purpose of the text. But reference frames can be translated elsewhere. It’s all relative.

As for gravity, it is a force that exists between two bodies, not attached to one body or the other. Thus, the gravity of the earth is just as much “my gravity” as it is the “earth’s gravity” with respect to the force between me and the earth. So, the earth and I rotate around each other, in a sense. It is a mutual attraction.

Likewise, a spacecraft rotates around the earth, from an earth-centered reference frame. However, from a spacecraft-centered reference frame, the earth rotates around the spacecraft. It all depends upon your chosen reference frame, which is relative to your practical needs.

We don’t know as much about the “stuff” in the universe as people think we do. There are many postulates thrust at us with confidence, however, we don’t know the mass of all the celestial bodies and cosmic dust that is out there, so attempting to specify where the inertial center of the universe is would be rather absurd. Heck, we don’t even know how many planets are in our solar system. :o Furthermore, from a practical science perspective, why would we even care? Theoretically, it would be neat to know the exact point where all the universe has its inertial center. Yet, I don’t see my life improving because of this knowledge.

I can model the universe, mathematically speaking, as a earth-centered universe. In fact, I can model the universe as one that moves around my belly-button (which is my theory for the center of the universe 😉 ). It really is relative, and the reference frames we use in spacecraft operations are based upon our intended purpose, our practical needs.

The practical needs of the Sacred authors of Scripture clearly did not include a sun-centered universe (which is no more objectively true then my “belly-button-centered universe” thesis). Most of the emphemeris we calculate uses an earth-centered reference frame (just like the frame of reference for Scripture), because it is that reference frame that has the greatest value in practical spacecraft applications.

My squadron used to calculate the ephemeris for a spacecraft called the Advanced Composition Explorer. It orbited a Lagrangian point about 1.5 million km from Earth and 148.5 million km from the Sun (a point in space, which had no celesital body present). For our practical purposes, we calculated the orbit location with an earth-centered reference frame. Why? Because we wanted to communicate with the spacecraft and wanted to know where to point our antenna. Thus, even though the spacecraft was not earth-orbiting (in the common sense), we chose a frame of reference which calculated vehicle-viewing-angles as though it was an earth-orbiting satellite. Thus, there is no “objectively true” reference frame. It is arbitrarily chosen to meet practical needs. It’s a lot like saying driving on the right side of the road is “objectively true” and those weird Japanese who drive on the “wrong” side of the road have proven themselves fallible.
 
40.png
Eden:
My apologies. I was responding to Whim’s opening line of the thread:

Originally Posted by TheWhim
Yes, it is true. Heloicentrism, a scientific truth, was infallibly conedmned by Rome as “repugnant to Scripture” and flat-out “heresy”.

I was responding to the statement that heliocentrism is a “scientific truth”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I told him that, too. :tiphat: But it didn’t satisfy his objection, which he later refined as being that the Church defined geocentricism as de fide, which is what we have been responding to since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top