T
- Status
T
Third_Day
Guest
You’re comparing the murder of millions of innocent children to marijuana and the execution of adult criminals?
P
Petergray
Guest
This is taken from:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
Under
This means that it is not fully literal that there were 2 of every aninmal etc…
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
They are all things that our tax dollars pay for that I personally wish they didn’t. And yes, I do compare the MURDER of a criminal to that of an unborn child. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. Murder is murder.
J
JackQ
Guest
But if science one day proves that homosexual attraction is genetic, how will that contradict Church teaching?
J
JackQ
Guest
The Hebrew word for firmament denotes a solid dome or vault, and comes from a root that means to beat out or spread out with a hammer, like with a thin metal plate.
In the flood story you will see a reference to the windows of heaven being opened. What is being described there is a situation where some of the waters on the other side of the sky-dome (the waters above the heavens) were being allowed to pass through in order to cause the flood. Of course, the sky had to be solid to both contain windows and hold back the waters above it.
You’ve read about the foundations of the earth in various places of the Bible. Those are references to actual foundations that were believed to underlie the earth and hold it up.
Also, as to your other point there is this article from the NY Times in 1991:
nytimes.com/1992/11/01/world/vatican-science-panel-told-by-pope-galileo-was-right.html
I generally screw up the hyperlinks, so if it doesn’t work you can just copy and paste the address.
Here are the actual remarks by the Holy Father to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:
its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
The media called this an apology, so that’s what I called it. But I guess you might say it was more of an acknowledgment of error on the part of the Pope, which makes sense, since the only people to apologize to are now dead.
Now, if you don’t mind, I’d like for you to answer a question for me. Are you geocentric folks in earnest, or are you here to make Catholicism look ridiculous? Frankly, it looks to me as if the geocentric posters are basically making the claim that anyone who would believe in Catholicism, or, perhaps, even in God, are people who would believe that the earth was the center of the solar system. In other words, Catholics are ridiculous. Is that the point that the geocentrism posters are trying to make on these forums?
T
Third_Day
Guest
The Hebrew word is raqiya’, raw-kee’-ah; frm H7554; prop. an expanse, i.e. the firmament or visible arch of the sky
The Greek word used is stereoma {ster-eh’-o-mah} from 4732; TDNT - 7:609,1077; n n 1) that which has been made firm 1a) the firmament, the arch of the sky.
You are putting too much emphasis on the idea of a “solid” dome. What exactly is meant by that? Moses saw the sun, moon and stars in the firmament so how “solid” was the firmament. Hebrew was a limited language and Moses was using what was available.
Genesis 1:8 says “And God called the firmament Heaven.” Seems to me the firmament was quite expansive. Its meaning is in one sense the same as Heaven.
Science says there are massive amounts of water in space and therefore more than enough to flood the entire earth. As Peter tells us “by the word of God heavens existed long ago and **an earth formed out of water **and by means of water through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.” 2 Peter 3:5-6
Psalm 148:4 says: ‘Praise Him, highest heavens, and the waters that are above the heavens!
astrobio.net/pressrelease/142/cold-clouds-and-water-in-space
You’re assuming that by” foundations” it is meant that the earth is being held up. The word could also be used to show the earth does not move which is a description of geocentrism which has never been disproven
The article put words in Pope Joh Paul’s mouth.
The media may call it an apology but John Paul never said the charge of heresy was removed. I have the Pope’s speech in its entirety in the book Galileo *Was Wrong the Church Was Right *with an analysis of every line of his speech.
You may think that the Pope overturned the decision to condemn Galileo by his speech but this is not the case. There was no bull, no encyclical, no decree, and no abrogation of the Galileo charge of heresy. This is no accident. The Holy Spirit would not allow the Pope to commit error.
After ten years of preparation, the speech without any papal authority, was given to a small group of scientists not to the Church. All he had to say was “the Church accepts heliocentrism” but he did not.
Without a formal disavowal nothing has changed. The charge against Galileo still stands. Nowhere in his speech does the Pope say Galileo was right the Church was wrong to condemn him. All he had to say was that the charge of heresy was an error and he didn’t say that.
In Pope Benedict’s book *Jesus of Nazareth *he writes "It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium but it is solely an expression of my personal search. Everyone is free to contradict me.’
Pope John Paul’s speech was also not an exercise of the magisterium.
Read *Galileo Was Wrong the Church Was Right *and see if you change your mind.
As MIT Physics Professor Wolfgang Smith says in his book *The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology “*As regards the Galilean controversy, I propose to show that Galilean heliocentrism has proved to be scientifically untenable, and that in fact the palm of victory belongs to the wise saintly Cardinal Bellarmine.”
D
DavidPalm
Guest
This is incorrect.
The Church officially reversed the actions of the seventeenth century with regard to geocentrism as follows:
Code:
16 August 1820 The Congregation of the Holy Office, with the pope's approval, decrees that Catholic astronomer Joseph Settele can be allowed to treat the earth's motion as an established fact. . . .
11 September 1822 The Congregation of the Holy Office decides to allow in general the publication of books treating of the earth's motion in accordance with modern astronomy. . . .
25 September 1822 Pope Pius VII ratifies this decision. . . . (from [Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, p. 307](http://books.google.com/books?id=k7D1CXFBl2gC&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=%22The+Congregation+of+the+Holy+Office+decides+to+allow+in+general%22&source=bl&ots=nvyiOkock5&sig=qbLBLCCu8AI3CVJiFiIaEe1DZqc&hl=en&ei=ZAVMTeaMDMWBgAffoZxA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Congregation%20of%20the%20Holy%20Office%20decides%20to%20allow%20in%20general%22&f=false))In addition, the Church also laid out general principles on which such questions may be addressed. Pope Leo XIII stated in the papal encyclical Providentissimus Deus 18-19 that the Holy Spirit did not put any such information about the physical nature of the universe in sacred Scripture, establishing that this is not a matter of faith. This was reiterated by his successor Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu 3. And this is bolstered by John Paul II in his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Science in which he echoes his predecessors by stating that, “the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world” and that, “The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.”
Neo-geocentrists can continue to assert based on their private judgment that these things have not been addressed by the Magisterium, but the facts indicate otherwise.
D
DavidPalm
Guest
Ah yes, as always a conspiracy theory to explain everything. So in other words, this really was the reversal of the seventeenth century decrees, but we can ignore it because we can drum up a conspiracy theory to explain it away.
And of course, according to another CAF neo-geocentrist, Leo XIII’s teaching in Providentissimus Deus (which was echoed by his successor Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu) was also the product of a Masonic plot. So that can be ignored too. How convenient.
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
F
Faith1960
Guest
Don’t confuse us with facts.
G
grannymh
Guest
In the first seven pages, the Latin word “Imprimatur” as used by the Catholic Church is being used incorrectly by Dr. Sungenis.
G
grannymh
Guest
From reading the first pages of this link, may I respectfully point out that Dr. Sungenis is not using the Latin word Imprimatur in the manner used by Catholicism. Since he is using the word in a non-Catholic meaning, probably taken from a dictionary such as the American Heritage College Dictionary, it is difficult, at least for me, to figure out what he is trying to prove on the secular science level.
Furthermore, Dr. Sungenis apparently is confusing decrees with dogmas. In the Catholic Church, only a dogma can be declared infallible.
T
Third_Day
Guest
. .
Can you post the entire document from the Congregation of the Holy Office so I can see where the words “as an established fact” are?
.
OK. They allowed the publication of books. How does that prove that the Church has accepted heliocentrism as a fact and not a theory?
OK The Pope ratified the decision to allow books. THis proves what? Where does any Pope say that heliocentrism is a teaching of the Church and geocentrism is rejected?
What does this prove? The Church is open to scientific investigation. None of this is saying that the Church rejects the literal interpretion of scripture on the movement of the earth.
Where does this give Catholics permission to teach heliocentrism as an official teaching of the Church?
Continued
T
Third_Day
Guest
.
I don’t see where Pope Leo XIII really helps your position. He never mentions Galileo. What a perfect time for him to say that the Church erred in her literal interpretation of scripture. But he never did. Feel free to quote what you want from Providentissimus-Deus. Here are some quotes that I like:
- In the second place, we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether
Can you show me one Church Father that taught heliocentrism?
19….The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected. And if writers on physics travel outside the boundaries of their own branch, and carry their erroneous teaching into the domain of philosophy, let them be handed over to philosophers for refutation.
20…But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true
- It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings, either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration, or make God the author of such error And so emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error,… and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true
T
Thoughtfulone
Guest
f
Which is why it is important to recognize openly that the writers of scripture were not scientists and that it is O.K. for them to have been mistaken on certain points relating to such things as geocentrism or global flooding. Rather than burying our heads in the sand and insisting that scripture is 100% literal at all times, it is important to acknowledge that the expertise of the writers of scripture extended only to matters of faith, not to matters of astrophysics. Trust me, kids will much more easily lose faith in scripture if we insist on literalistic interpretations of things that have all but been proven false than if we tell them that the important and infallible messages in scripture relate to God and Jesus Christ and not to the movement of the Earth or some supposed global flood that is scoffed at by every reputable scientist alive today.
B
buffalo
Guest
The question as always is - what has been the constant teaching and understanding of the Church?
T
TMC
Guest
The constant teaching and understanding of the Church has been that the Bible is not a science text and that we should not be trying to use Scripture in that manner. Augustine in particular taught that trying to use Scripture as a guide to science is dangerous to the faith. From De genesi:
Also from De Genesi:
D
DavidPalm
Guest
This is very well put. I think that supporters of matters like geocentrism fail to see that the patristic and medieval teaching which the Church has enshrined as her authentic teaching is precisely that put forward most admirably by Sts. Augustine and Thomas, namely, that these details of the physical universe were not put into sacred Scripture at all and therefore they are not matters of faith. That is the official teaching of the Church as enshrined in papal encyclicals and is indeed what the Church has always held.
It has been brought to my attention that we are way off topic in discussing geocentrism. I will check with the moderator to see if it’s appropriate for me to address the questions raised above in detail, but otherwise that discussion may have to take place elsewhere.
- Status