T
twinc
Guest
not at all - where did you get this misinformation for it is the sun that moves and the earth stands still as it has always done - try "Galileo was wrong"in your search box or at www.kolbecenter.org etc - twinc
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Well, Cassini, the sun did rise up above the eastern hills in his golden chariot this morning. But my neighbors tell me this is an optical illusion: that the sun only appears to rise an set, because actually the earth is rotating on its axis. Even my parish priests believe this heresy.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I got this misinformation from my parents and teachers, from my priests and bishops. Oh, and from NASA Shall I rebel against them all and retreat to the world before Galileo?
T
twinc
Guest
as for all living organisms being related,humans are related only to other humans,what was the first organism related to - twinc
T
twinc
Guest
most certainly and of course since they are wrong unless of course you want to be wrong with them - btw it seems NASA makes all its calculations as if the earth is stationary - twinc
R
ricmat
Guest
Dr. StA - when you get backed into a corner, it seems that you always appeal to science instead of God or the Church. Quite interesting.
Science is not God. What science reveals to us is not the same as divine revelation.
Science is not God. What science reveals to us is not the same as divine revelation.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Certainly right.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Actually twinc, what does it really matter if the world has it wrong, if Copernicanism is a mistake? What practical danger is there in the world acting as if Galileo were right? What’s the import of it all?
C
cassini
Guest
St A. You know well that the phenomenon of spatial relativy precludes the human sciences from establishing whether the earth moves relative to the sun and stars or whether the sun and stars move relative to the earth. But God, not your neighbours, does know and only if HE reveals the truth could man know it. Now in the Scriptures He reveals this many times. And how do we know God revealed this? Because the Church actually defined and declared it in 1616. That is a fact. Now this definition has never been abrogated nor has Galileo ever had a retrial. Thus the condemnation of a fixed sun and moving earth as formal heresy has never been abrogated as is necessary according to canon law.
But your magisterium - ‘your neighbours’ - seems to be of more importance to you - and your parish priest by the way, than an act of the Church. ‘Science’ has drained the faith out of so many since its institution by Galileo & Co. that it has to be Satan’s greatest instrument in destroying the faith.
T
twinc
Guest
no magic at all but exactly the same only different - twinc
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t know whether I will be able to convince my bishop. He may see geocentrism as the gospel of some crank.
C
cassini
Guest
Originally Posted by cassini
Thus the condemnation of a fixed sun and moving earth as formal heresy has never been abrogated as is necessary according to canon law.
St A answered:
I don’t know whether I will be able to convince my bishop. He may see geocentrism as the gospel of some crank
Ricmat, I agree with you. St A always places science ahead of theology and the traditional teachings of the Church. St A is the patron of science on C A Forum. He - and a few others I could name - watches for anyone with a belief in the simplicity of Genesis wherein every dogma of the Church flows faultlessly and without any complexity, and rubbishes the faith of the Fathers with a scientific theory that makes all dogmas look like fairy tales.
When he has no answer to perfectly relevant questions he worms his way out of it with what ‘his neighbours’, believe or ‘his parish priest’, and now his ‘bishop’. Next he will quote the Copernican popes who have no authority to accuse their predecessors of ignorance of science and incapable of interpreting the Scriptures properly. These are the same popes who used a Church Council, Vatican II, to slander their predecessors (Gaudium et spes #36) with accusations of leading the flock astray without any abrogation or retrial, proving to me that the Holy Ghost was NOT present at that council. The Holy Ghost does not slander His popes who defended the Scriptures against the metaphysical assumptions of limited science.
Now go tell that Bishop of yours that he is supposed to be about the work of God as witnessed by the Church, not consulting some paid scientist and making up his own mind about these things.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I don’t know that he’s got a paid cosmologist or astronomer on staff. He probably just relies on his education.
C
cassini
Guest
Ever hear of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences St A, most of them atheists and agnostics?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
So, how far do we take this ? What principles should govern the use of that type of objection so that it works as an intelligent argument ?
Jesus spoke Aramaic - do we have to ?He lived in an occupied country - do we have to ?
He had no antibiotics - are we to do without them ?
Are we to cast off all the medical knowledge - and other kinds too - gained since his time, in order to be Christians ?
Surely not. The “imitation of Christ” has never meant the mimicking or even the sharing of the contingent details of his earthly life - such as being Jewish, male, crucified, for example - for otherwise, only those who are all three of those things could be Christian. Which would narrow the membership of the Church down to St Peter, & possibly St. Andrew. Women, being of a sex not that of Jesus, would not be Christian.
So why must other contingent details - in this case, knowledge of evolution - be forbidden to Christians ? The argument from the example of Jesus does not tell us.
- If Christians are not forbidden to use antibiotics, even though Jesus did not use them
- If Christians are not forbidden to have national flags, even though Jesus did not have them
- If Christians are not forbidden to have degrees in chemistry, even though Jesus did not have one
- If Christians are not forbidden to use computers or to speak in English while using them, even though Jesus did neither
- what makes talking about evolution, or assenting to belief that some form of it is credible, incompatible with following Christ ?
So arguments from the example of Jesus have to be used with care, if they are not to be absurd. That Jesus had nothing to say about Australia, does not make Australia unfit for mention by all later generations of his followers. And the same applies to evolution; for if it is a fact, then it is a fact, as much so as Australia, even though - on the evidence available - Jesus was as silent about Australia as about evolution.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
They are not my bishop’s advisors.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Jesus wasn’t a Christian either, and yet we abhor not those who call themselves Christians.
A
Abu
Guest
Facing Reality
The International Theological Commission is not noted always for fidelity to doctrine and refers to “a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” This peculiar use of the term “humanoid” does nothing to demolish the ape-man fantasy which is widespread. Relying on this sort of assumption is not likely to help anyone to acknowledge reality.
(Communion And Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, 2002)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that “the existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason. . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance” (CCC 286, 295).
From Msgr McCarthy at rtforum.org/lt/lt128.html:
‘Noting that some neo-Darwinians have sought to portray Pope Benedict XVI as a “satisfied evolutionist,” on the ground that, as Cardinal Ratzinger, this pope had presided over the International Theological Commission at the time when it published a 2004 document which seemed to profess no difficulty with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, [Cardinal] Schönborn points out that the same document actually cautioned against the neo-Darwinian approach, especially because this theory projects “an unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence,” a picture which, said the document, “simply cannot exist.” The Catholic Church, he concludes, faced in this 21st century with claims like neo-Darwinism and the hypothesis of many universes invented to offset “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,” will rise again to “defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.” ’
‘(8). However, the ITC was not affirming the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory. In the same paragraph, the document questions whether the available data do support inferences of chance, and it notes that “a growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design.” In fact, as of February 2007 over 700 scientists had signed a statement prepared by the Seattle-based Center for Science and Culture opposing the neo-Darwinian tenets of random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for the rise of biological species.13’
[13 The signed statement can be viewed on the Internet at www.dissentfromdarwin.org]
The International Theological Commission is not noted always for fidelity to doctrine and refers to “a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.” This peculiar use of the term “humanoid” does nothing to demolish the ape-man fantasy which is widespread. Relying on this sort of assumption is not likely to help anyone to acknowledge reality.
(Communion And Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, 2002)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church asserts that “the existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason. . . . We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance” (CCC 286, 295).
From Msgr McCarthy at rtforum.org/lt/lt128.html:
‘Noting that some neo-Darwinians have sought to portray Pope Benedict XVI as a “satisfied evolutionist,” on the ground that, as Cardinal Ratzinger, this pope had presided over the International Theological Commission at the time when it published a 2004 document which seemed to profess no difficulty with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, [Cardinal] Schönborn points out that the same document actually cautioned against the neo-Darwinian approach, especially because this theory projects “an unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence,” a picture which, said the document, “simply cannot exist.” The Catholic Church, he concludes, faced in this 21st century with claims like neo-Darwinism and the hypothesis of many universes invented to offset “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,” will rise again to “defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.” ’
‘(8). However, the ITC was not affirming the validity of the neo-Darwinian theory. In the same paragraph, the document questions whether the available data do support inferences of chance, and it notes that “a growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design.” In fact, as of February 2007 over 700 scientists had signed a statement prepared by the Seattle-based Center for Science and Culture opposing the neo-Darwinian tenets of random mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for the rise of biological species.13’
[13 The signed statement can be viewed on the Internet at www.dissentfromdarwin.org]
T
twinc
Guest
of course you are misinformed and misled and,therefore misleading,dont take my word for it.Certainly the world was created in six 24hr days and is only thousands and not millions or billions of years old and no Pope has or can undermine Scripture and Tradition - for scripture and tradition and the teachings of the Church and Church Fathers see www.ScriptureCatholic.com - scroll down L/H column to Science and geocentrism and Evolution - twinc
- Status