Religion and Science

[DavidPalm]

My fingers/brain failed me and I kept typing 1636 above when it should be 1633. Sorry.

 

[gentle_atheist]

David, you are missing Cassini’s point. Suppose the Church were to now say that Christ was only speaking figuratively when He said, “This is My Body…This is My Blood,” because scientific analysis of the consecrated species has proven that the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine. What effect would that have on the Catholic faith? Should the Church subordinate faith to science?

Here is Cassini’s excellent post earlier in this thread:

The whole relationship between religion and Science - if we presume religion refers to Catholicism - is based on that infamous battle between geocentrism (Religion) and heliocentrism (science). Science won hands down and religion, Catholicism and faith lost. Thus the Church’s interpretation of Scripture is now in question. If it could not get it right in 1616 then everything else could be in error too. The controversy of the placement of the earth led directly to Modernism. Modernism in turn can be judged by its fruits, the way the Lord told us we can judge. At Vatican II the Church of 1616 was ridiculed for ‘causing trouble’ showing how the Copernicans had taken over the Church. Today, 250 years after capitulating to the Copernican heresy, the Church’s reputation is in shreds, its influence on world affairs is zero, its teachings and doctrines perverted and ignored, its miracles and sainthood tarnished, what is left of its priesthood and religious decimated and damaged by scandals, its sacraments devalued, its liturgy in chaos, many of its churches now museums or denuded of the sacred are near empty, few seminaries and convents remain due to the dearth of vocations, the Vatican is now in the news more for its search for extraterrestrials than its tradition, World Youth Days of rock and roll prayer jamborees are the highlight of the Catholic year, and the Pope has acquired the status of a travelling pop-star celebrity. In effect, with a few exceptions, much of the institutional Church today is little more than an empty shell of its past.

 

[Windfish]

Except in those cases where the Eucharist actually DID turn in flesh and blood, that is exactly what the scientific tests would turn out. And I don’t see how that conflicts with Catholicism, in fact, Catholicism would predict that to be the case.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I think that if a religion is true it must conform to science and likewise true science must include the possibility of a creator.

What are your thoughts on this?

I believe latter to be true. But if science is not correct and we try to fit our religion to science it’s not correct. I personally believe that God not only transcends time and space but can change anything at any time to give the illusion that the universe, for example, developed as evolution theory suggest (but I’m not going to get into that topic). It’s like theology. Theology is wonderful and really fun to “play with”, but if it does not conform to Church teaching it is not ordered or can not be considered correct if it contradicts the authoritative teaching of the Church. Let’s not forget the fact that these men that have given their lives radically for Christ are no dummies. Many of the scientific revelations/discoveries were made by clerics. The Big Band theory was proposed by a priest for example. These men, and women, are brilliant. But, if you’ve been around the bush in the academic world, like me, then you can easily see that everyone stakes claim to the throne of being “right”. But the disagree and contradict each other. Someone has to be right and the others wrong. so why are there so many brilliant minds in such dire disagreement? God is much more brilliant than all the minds of mankind that have ever existed and therefore He must know something we can never truly understand unless he makes us perfect in Heaven. That’s my simpleton way of putting it.

 

[DavidPalm]

David, you are missing Cassini’s point. Suppose the Church were to now say that Christ was only speaking figuratively when He said, “This is My Body…This is My Blood,” because scientific analysis of the consecrated species has proven that the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine. What effect would that have on the Catholic faith? Should the Church subordinate faith to science?

Well, I think that your example is a poor one because the Church has always known that the accidents of the bread and wine remain that of bread and wine and that therefore a scientific analysis would show just that. This dogma cannot be proven or disproven by scientific analysis. I know you claim to be an atheist (although from your posting history I don’t personally believe that ), but why would any knowledgeable Catholic be shaken by such an analysis?

Rather, what we are talking about are “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable unto salvation” of which St. Augustine spoke. There has been no reversal of the Church’s teaching in this area. She has upheld and reiterated the teaching of St. Augustine, which was taken up by the medievals and especially St. Thomas, and even acknowledged by St. Robert Bellarmine (although it would seem that he, perhaps understandably but unfortunately, misapplied this in the Galileo incident.) These patristic and medieval principles have been taught officially by the Popes, most notably by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus. And even Cassini himself has acknowledged that geocentrism is the most obvious reference of Pope Leo’s words: “The only interpretation of note in the history of the Church that the encyclical could be referring to was the fixed sun/moving earth heresy [sic].” Pope Leo’s affirmation of the teaching of St. Augustine and St. Thomas was reiterated by Pope Pius XII and the Church applies these principles in other areas as well. Thus, they cannot be the very poison from Hell that Cassini states, since such a view cannot be reconciled with the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility.

It is my view that it is easy to reconcile the error of two Roman congregations in the seventeenth century with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. I believe it is impossible to reconcile the treatment of these matters by Cassini and other neo-geocentrists with that dogma. For them the Church has been doling out poison to her children for centuries. I don’t expect an atheist like you ( ) to uphold the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility, but it seems that to a man the neo-geocentrists end up attacking the very Church they profess to love and serve.

 

[tonyrey]

But, if you’ve been around the bush in the academic world, like me, then you can easily see that everyone stakes claim to the throne of being “right”. But the disagree and contradict each other. Someone has to be right and the others wrong. so why are there so many brilliant minds in such dire disagreement? God is much more brilliant than all the minds of mankind that have ever existed and therefore He must know something we can never truly understand unless he makes us perfect in Heaven. That’s my simpleton way of putting it.

Not so. You have hit the nail on the head. There have been many scandals in the scientific Establishment because it is a closed shop. New ideas are unwelcome if they come from an outsider. It is an illusion that all scientists are detached observers who are prepared to admit they are wrong in an important matter, especially if it concerns their reputation and perhaps their career. They are subject to temptation like anyone else.

 

[grannymh]

David, you are missing Cassini’s point. Suppose the Church were to now say that Christ was only speaking figuratively when He said, “This is My Body…This is My Blood,” because scientific analysis of the consecrated species has proven that the bread is still bread and the wine is still wine. What effect would that have on the Catholic faith? Should the Church subordinate faith to science?

It would be better if one went back to the beginning of the Catholic Church as a visible institution. Then one would know that back then, the Catholic Church formally declared and duly proclaimed that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. Forever after, there could be no suppose regarding the Catholic Eucharist.

As one discovers, each time the suppose regarding the Catholic Eucharist occurred, those who believed in the suppose had a free choice – to accept the Catholic teaching or not.

The basic dogma of the Catholic Eucharist is based on the basic dogma that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. Can anyone imagine that the members of the Catholic Church, which is based on the teachings of God, would deny that the God, Whom they long to be with eternally, doesn’t exist?

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[grannymh]

This old brain is trying to make sense out of these sentences:

“The whole relationship between religion and Science - if we presume religion refers to Catholicism - is based on that infamous battle between geocentrism (Religion) and heliocentrism (science). Science won hands down and religion, Catholicism and faith lost.”

The “faith” of the universal Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, did not disappear because of a local event.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

“The whole relationship between religion and Science - if we presume religion refers to Catholicism - is based on that infamous battle between geocentrism (Religion) and heliocentrism (science). Science won hands down and religion, Catholicism and faith lost.”

As I keep going over these sentences …

" geocentrism (Religion)"
I didn’t know that geocentrism is a religion. Really?

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[DavidPalm]

“The whole relationship between religion and Science - if we presume religion refers to Catholicism - is based on that infamous battle between geocentrism (Religion) and heliocentrism (science). Science won hands down and religion, Catholicism and faith lost.”

The “faith” of the universal Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, did not disappear because of a local event.

Indeed, grannymh. What’s more, we see the papal encyclicals such as Providentissimus Deus, Divino Afflante Spiritu, and Humani Generis drawing on principles which themselves are part of our Catholic Tradition, championed especially (but not solely) by the two great Doctors St. Augustine and St. Thomas. If these principles had been heeded in the seventeenth century, the “battle” between science and the Faith may have been averted. Again, I think that the reaction of the seventeenth century churchmen was understandable in their historical context–I am not one who paints them black. And what has been said above about scientists too often succumbing to human temptations is true as well.

But what we do see is that the Church gives her children principles with which to address these questions, such as geocentrism/acentrism, and then gives freedom to come to differing conclusions based on the physical evidence, as long as the truthfulness of sacred Scripture is upheld (which it clearly is if we simply see, for example, that the language of “sun rise” and “sun set” are “more or less figurative language . . . which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science” but which do not convey details of “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable unto salvation.”)

 

[grannymh]

Should the Church subordinate faith to science?

Let’s look at this question in terms of everyday life of real people.

“Should the Church subordinate faith to science?” If “Church” refers to Catholicism, then the question would be phrased as such-- Should Catholicism subordinate its properly defined and universally declared theological dogmas to science?" Perhaps it is time to get realistic about this question.

For example. The medical profession and airline pilots submit to science. Most people consider their own beliefs about health and flying as subordinate to science. In other words, in real life, real science benefits people whose real goals are to stay healthy and travel by air.

Therefore, in practical life, how does real science benefit the real goals of Catholicism?

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[cassini]

The Congregation of the Index, which issued the public 1616 decree, had as its competence which works should and should not be included on the Index of Forbidden Books. At that time it was ruled that works that presented the Pythagorean theory as a thesis rather than a hypothesis should not be read by Catholics and therefore a number of works that did so were put on the Index. It was therefore a disciplinary decree and not irreformable. In fact, as Fr. Brian Harrison, O.S. has rightly said:

Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est

David, you can believe what you like, no, you have to believe the likes of Fr Harrison, you have no other way out of your dilemma. Just look at fr with his Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est (Rome has spoken, that is the end of it. Don’t you know this was said in 1616 and 1633 also:

**'You (Galileo) have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” ** Was that not the Church’s FIRST Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. How many Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Ests does the Catholic Church have? You can accept Fr Harrison’s Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est, But for me the Church’s FIRST Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est
is the one that is Catholic teaching. No pope, no church instrument can CHANGE the Church’s first teaching.

For centuries the doctrine of geocentrism prevailed in the Church. In the religious or sacred world, as A White wrote: ‘St Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) established that the altar in the Jewish tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe.” Nothing more was needed; the geocentric/geostatic theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture.’ Later the geocentric reasoning was refined and articulated in a Christian way over the centuries by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, especially Dionysius, Peter Lombard, St Thomas Aquinas and St Robert Bellarmine; a composite of theology, philosophy and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church.’ Everything now had a place in the universe; the earth, sun, moon, stars, man and God were fully united. Later, this geocentric doctrine was developed even further to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of man and the infinite theology of God.

It was Galileo who challenged the confirmation of a fixed earth and moving sun in Scripture. The pope, as official head of the Holy Office defined and declared belief in a fixed sun formal heresy because it contradicted Scripture. In 1633 under another pope the Church declared this ruling immutable.
‘you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.’

Then came ‘proofs’ from Isaac Newton (1687) and Bradley (1726) that the earth did in fact move about the sun.

So, here is the scenario: 1700 years of belief in geocentrism, one papal decree defining and declaring a fixed sun formal heresy, one trial confirming the immutability of this definition and judgement of Galileo as a suspected heretic (he pretended he was a geocentrist all the time) and confinement to house arrest for life, was shown to be an error. This remember, in a Church or religion that claims special protection from God against errors of faith and morals.

Continued

 

[cassini]

So, the Catholic Church was faced a dilemma it thought was impossible. Their whole DIVINE PROTECTION had been blown away by these ‘proofs’ for a fixed sun.

The Church HAD TO BE SAVED. Imagine that. In 1820 only one churchman had FAITH enough to believe the Church was not wrong. The others, including the pope thought the Church protected by the Holy Ghost was wrong.

Now how did they SAVE THE CHURCH. Well now, there is a history of this. Deny this, then that, then the other, and as Catholicism is a religion that follows instructions the flock and all future theologians can be made reject one teaching to be replaced by its contrary one, the one that used to be formal heresy, even stamping the old Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est underneath it. That will change minds very quickly.

One great ploy was to say it was not infallible so could be changed. No one would ever have suggested it was not infallible had the ‘proofs’ for a fixed sun not been found. Thus the Ordinary Magisterium, the medium for** MOST** Catholic teaching, was demoted to an institution of POSSIBLE ERROR. We see the heresy was gathering ** FRUITS** now, as heresies do.

What you did not show readers David was this from the record:

**The Status of the 1616 Decree **
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all, for in it he confirms the authority of the 1616 decree.

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees’. No he does not, the reverse in fact, for he confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and of a kind that could not be reversed. How about that for Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est David

Finoccchiaro then records the outcome of it all.
‘On December first, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, B. Garofalo and Bartolomeo Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the documentary trail is lost. But not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ — Retrying Galileo, p.198.

In other words, I will not abrogate the 1616 decree itself, I will hide it under the carpet where it will disappear from the official annals of Church teachings like Denziners and in time all will think the error of defining a false formal heresy will be forgotten.

Well David, you can join the apologists and minimisers and the false proofs that caused churchmen to betray their predecessors and their Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est
, but I will stick with the teachings of the Church

 

[PbloPicasso]

Not so. You have hit the nail on the head. There have been many scandals in the scientific Establishment because it is a closed shop. New ideas are unwelcome if they come from an outsider. It is an illusion that all scientists are detached observers who are prepared to admit they are wrong in an important matter, especially if it concerns their reputation and perhaps their career. They are subject to temptation like anyone else.

I’ll have to study your choice of words to discover how we disagree on this matter. I think what you said is spot on.

 

[grannymh]

For centuries the doctrine of geocentrism prevailed in the Church.

I have read the majority of your “evidence” posts since you arrived on CAF.

As I recall, not once have you mentioned the date, place, and name of the Catholic Church Council which properly defined and universally declared a theological dogma stating the exact position of any planet anywhere.

Information for readers:

There are some Christian websites which promote geocentrism science as part of their own particular Christian belief system. Please note that kind of promotion is not Catholic dogma.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

**The Status of the 1616 Decree **
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all, for in it he confirms the authority of the 1616 decree.

Since there were no universal Catholic Church Councils in session when the 1616 degree was written, this 1616 decree is considered a local disciplinary action.

 

[grannymh]

So, the Catholic Church was faced a dilemma it thought was impossible. Their whole DIVINE PROTECTION had been blown away by these ‘proofs’ for a fixed sun.

Do you really want people to believe that a dispute over the physical/material position of earth, one of many objects in the created universe, is capable of removing the Creator’s Divine Protection from the Catholic Church?

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

One great ploy was to say it was not infallible so could be changed.

The “infallible ploy”? This sounds like stuff on a website which is promoting a geocentric based religion other than Catholicism.

Caution – there are a number of websites which distort Catholicism.

Blessings,
granny

 

[DebChris]

I believe you have things backwards here. Science doesn’t exclude God; if anything, science requires God. Think about it. How is it that we have laws of nature that only the supernatural can break? Laws didn’t just pop into existence by themselves. Even if we grant the possibility of matter/energy being the eternal first cause, how could matter or energy bring immaterial things like laws into existence? Laws of nature aren’t made. They are discovered. So just why is it that gravity and the laws of mathematics are? Moreover, if we are products of evolution and are not created in the likeness of God, why is it that we can think logically in the first place?

Perhaps I’m looking at it all wrong, but with those thoughts in mind materialism seems ridiculous.

Words from the hymn used in Evening Prayer, O Father, Whose Creating Hand:
*O Spirit, your revealing light Has led our questing souls aright;
Source of our science, you have taught The marvels human minds have wrought,
So that barren deserts yield The bounty of your love revealed. *

 

[cassini]

I believe latter to be true. But if science is not correct and we try to fit our religion to science it’s not correct. I personally believe that God not only transcends time and space but can change anything at any time to give the illusion that the universe, for example, developed as evolution theory suggest (but I’m not going to get into that topic). It’s like theology. Theology is wonderful and really fun to “play with”, but if it does not conform to Church teaching it is not ordered or can not be considered correct if it contradicts the authoritative teaching of the Church. Let’s not forget the fact that these men that have given their lives radically for Christ are no dummies. Many of the scientific revelations/discoveries were made by clerics. The Big Band theory was proposed by a priest for example. These men, and women, are brilliant. But, if you’ve been around the bush in the academic world, like me, then you can easily see that everyone stakes claim to the throne of being “right”. But the disagree and contradict each other. Someone has to be right and the others wrong. so why are there so many brilliant minds in such dire disagreement? God is much more brilliant than all the minds of mankind that have ever existed and therefore He must know something we can never truly understand unless he makes us perfect in Heaven. That’s my simpleton way of putting it.

Pblo, cannot let such an excellent post go by without endorsing it. As we all know, religion and science only conflict where the two overlap. The Church has been long in this business of correcting ideas and theories of human reasoning that challenge its teaching. Having reconciled Aristotle’s metaphysics with Christianity, it was then time to cleanse other ideas of the Greek scholar’s in the light of Christian Revelation and dogmas of the Catholic Church, the understanding that everything presupposes the Creation by God. This occurred in 1277AD, when Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris banned 219 propositions of Aristotle’s from the University at Sorbonne, the leading school of learning at the time. For example, Aristotle, aware ‘it is impossible to make something out of nothing,’ reasoned that the universe must always have existed. The Old Testament however, reveals that the world had a beginning in time when God created it. Here then, in 1277, the theology of the Church began to assert itself over the rational ideas of man. Other metaphysical beliefs shared by all the major pagan cultures including the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Hindus, the Chinese, as well as the Greeks, were then eliminated from the Sorbonne, myths like Animism (that the world is an animal); Pantheism (that the world and God are the same thing); Astrology (that the movement of the stars influence happenings and people on earth), and Cyclic History (that all events in history repeat themselves exactly in time). It was the removal of these heresies that opened up the doors to natural science. For example, Pantheism holds that God and the world are the same. How then could nature be investigated objectively? But a world created by God offered intelligibility in creation that could be examined. This of course led to discoveries in many fields that showed an interacting world working according to natural laws.

Astronomy and Cosmology was of profound interest to Catholicism, the first for practical reasons the other for spiritual understanding. The Galileo case was the next historic stand of the Church to keep science within its limits and under the auspices of the Omnipotence of God and theology. The Church insisted on ‘clear and certain’ proofs before that science could be used to improve human wisdom and understand the meaning of Scripture
The universe was created metaphysical. It exists in space making the order of movement of its bodies impossible for man to determine in any clear and certain way. But with the backing of Freemasonry, the heresy was declared a truth of science, and Churchmen, whose expertise is not science, fell for the lie of false science. Thereafter, unlike 1277, the Church no more condemned false philosophy, merely reiterated the dogmas on origins and allowed science to dictate to the flock a new story of origins. Fearful of a second Galileo case, in which it thought/thinks it got it disastrously wrong , it ceased to condemn false philosophy (science) leaving it to do as much damage to dogmas that it can. Thus we find Catholics arguing about this and that, lost in a religion that has two sets of rules on faith and science, even allowing a new theology that complies with the theory of this or that, rersulting in a theory of theology on this or that.

Had churchmen held firm in 1741-1820, with faith in divine protection and GUIDANCE, the false relationship between faith and science would not exist. We would be discussing spiritual experiences instead. But that is the MYSTERY OF INITQUITY. Even today, when man has a choice of orders for the world, either H or G, he still prefers the heresy to the revealed G. No matter that the choice of G restores the protection of the Holy Ghost to those churchmen in 1616 and 1633, they still argue in favour of the one that denies this.