So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlindSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ex cathedra statements are not the only dogmas.

For example, the trinity of persons in one God is a dogma. To find out more, check out Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

hurst
 
We see from the Galileo situation that the Church can be wrong in interpreting scripture. How does one know when the Church’s interpretation is right…or wrong?
 
40.png
Ortho:
We see from the Galileo situation that the Church can be wrong in interpreting scripture. How does one know when the Church’s interpretation is right…or wrong?
Rely on doctrine, and study the history of the Church’s thought on other matters. Doctrine doesn’t change (though it develops).
 
40.png
Ortho:
We see from the Galileo situation that the Church can be wrong in interpreting scripture. How does one know when the Church’s interpretation is right…or wrong?
This is what Fr. Roberts claimed in the late 19th century as he tried to prove papal infallibility wrong using this same issue.

The big mistake he made is the assumption that science had indeed disproven geocentrism. Sounds like you are making the same assumption [mistake].

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogpsot.com
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
Read this:law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
and tell me:
  1. Is the idea that the earth moves around the sun a “false doctrine”?
    -or-
  2. Did the Church change positions?
    -or-
  3. Neither (please explain)
I have to say, I’m not sure if I can stay in the Church if either 1 or 2 above is true.
In summary:The point in 1) has not changed. I.e., the Church has declared this and has not reversed it. It likely was not declared infallibly.

On the other hand, science has not disproven geocentrism. Science has yet to demonstrate that the earth moves (in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the universe).

Your faith as a Catholic need not be based on this. This issue is still useful to understand the level of deception present in our current world.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Okay, well for something to be ex cathedra it has to be a statement directed towards the universal church. Thus a condemnation directed at one man cannot have been and never was a definitive teaching of the Church.

So can we only truly trust infallible doctrines? Well, they are the only ones that by definition can’t change. When something new comes up in the Church, it’s best to hold off from it until the Church accepts. For example, the Church went back and forth in the early days of the infamous historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. Does that mean Church opinion means nothing. No, it means that the Church had insuficient time to determine whether or not it had merit, but it did not need any time to figure out that the method has certain dangers. For this reason the Church condemned it for the moment until they could guarantee our “safety”.

We’re always best to trust the Church in these matters.
 
trth_skr said:
This is what Fr. Roberts claimed in the late 19th century as he tried to prove papal infallibility wrong using this same issue.

The big mistake he made is the assumption that science had indeed disproven geocentrism. Sounds like you are making the same assumption [mistake].

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogpsot.com

Of course, it could also be that the earth does move *and *that it doesn’t disprove papal infallibility. Just because someone tried to use it to bludgeon the Church doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
 
Aaron I.:
Yes, and you can shake your head in disbelief. Honestly, that it really quite ignorant.

It is perhaps easier to understand the Church’s actions regarding Galileo if we apply those actions to Darwin. I’m not here to argue against evolution. I’m not entirely convinced of macroevolution as it has not been adequately defended, but microevolution through natural selection cannot be denied. Even though Darwin’s ideas were the most accurate at the time (as his views as have Galileo’s have been adjusted over time), they were harmful to the faithful. This is not because they were incompatible with the faith, but simply because they challenged our current understanding of the faith. Answers could have and have been found to reconciling [God-controlled] evolution with the faith, but this takes time. A time in which many people left the faith. The same took place in Galileo’s time. This did not happen because a helio-centric solar system is a threat to Christianity, but because it took time for people to reason through the implications of it. The Church saw the dangers of what would happen, and so prevented it. Before Galileo’s time, seminary’s even taught Copernicus’ system as a theory, so we know that the Church didn’t necessarily find anything inherently wrong with the theory. The Church merely felt the need to buy more time for its theologians.
Much of what you say may be true, but ultimately the Church did what it did, and stated explicitly why it did it. It was not done for the reasons you conjecture.

It is very simple really- the fathers interpreted Scripture in a certain manner. The Church followed this lead. Theologians at the time agreed with the fathers. Science could not demonstrate otherwise- then or now. The Church stood up for the obvious reading of Scripture, and the Church has yet to be proven wrong- even by many of its own members. The Church to this day has not reversed the decrees.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
RobNY:
Of course, it could also be that the earth does move *and *that it doesn’t disprove papal infallibility. Just because someone tried to use it to bludgeon the Church doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.
Granted, but I wanted Ortho to see what comapny he keeps making these arguments. The Galileo affair has been one of the most effective weapons against the Church, and for no good reason.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Aaron I.:
Okay, well for something to be ex cathedra it has to be a statement directed towards the universal church. Thus a condemnation directed at one man cannot have been and never was a definitive teaching of the Church.
This went beyond just Galileo. Read my blog series.
Aaron I.:
…For example, the Church went back and forth in the early days of the infamous historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation. Does that mean Church opinion means nothing. No, it means that the Church had insuficient time to determine whether or not it had merit, but it did not need any time to figure out that the method has certain dangers. For this reason the Church condemned it for the moment until they could guarantee our “safety”.

The Church went almost 1900 years withou the historical-critical methods, and it is hard to point to the “fruit” of the method.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Granted, but I wanted Ortho to see what comapny he keeps making these arguments. The Galileo affair has been one of the most effective weapons against the Church, and for no good reason.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
“What company he keeps,” is exactly what I think is unwarranted in this case. It’s like saying being a vegetarian is wrong because Hitler was a vegetarian, if you catch my drift (Would this classify as guilt by association [link cut out-- the nizkor site the last two times I’ve used it, I’ve had tons of pop ups come up]?). (Don’t get me wrong, it is hilarious to tell your vegetarian friends that, though.) We can go all day into the bad things that many enemies of our faith proposed, but we should always come back to things on our terms, not on theirs.

I’m also very dubious of the entire geocentrism idea because of hecd2’s various responses. I think, trth_skr, that to emphasize geocentrism is to risk bringing many people’s faith into crisis. It’s a very tough pill to swallow. Just as long as you realize the potential effect of the presentation of geocentrism…
 
40.png
RobNY:
“What company he keeps,” is exactly what I think is unwarranted in this case…[/qoute]

Again, granted, taking it too far this is true. For that matter, Fr. Roberts did a pretty good job showing the infallibility of the declarations. Many people were convinced, and the Church attacked its own authority further to “prove” that in fact they were not infallible.
40.png
RobNY:
I’m also very dubious of the entire geocentrism idea because of hecd2’s various responses. I think, trth_skr, that to emphasize geocentrism is to risk bringing many people’s faith into crisis. It’s a very tough pill to swallow. Just as long as you realize the potential effect of the presentation of geocentrism…
Faith was never meant to be easy.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
40.png
RobNY:
“What company he keeps,” is exactly what I think is unwarranted in this case…
Again, granted, taking it too far this is true. For that matter, Fr. Roberts did a pretty good job showing the infallibility of the declarations. Many people were convinced, and the Church attacked its own authority further to “prove” that in fact they were not infallible.

Faith was never meant to be easy.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
No we are not supposed to believe it, therefore it was not infalliably defined. As to what that means, I would recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is also a good way of knowing what the church really teaches. Everything the Church put out would fill a ware house. Very little was infallible.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
The three popes who issued decrees on the subject, (Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII) all ratified the statement: “the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith”.
So tell me, is it
a) they were right
b) they were wrong, but it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t infallible (in which case, what IS infallible?)
Everyone has been very nice for the past year, but it looks like as soon as you have doubts around here, no one bothers to give a straight answer or even be polite.
I forget the popes name of Copernicus’s time but he supported Copernicus and what he taught.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
They were not explicitly defined like the Assumption - not, apparently, infallible.
They were even more explicitely defined. Read the council of Nicea, Constantinople and the other ecumenical councils to get the doctrines of the Church. These councils are without error.
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Faith was never meant to be easy.
Pithy comments don’t advance the discussion.

You have a few options. You can prove that geocentrism was infallibly defined, which makes it incumbent on every Catholic to be a geocentrist or abandon the faith.

If that’s the case, then I believe most will realize that the arguments for geocentrism aren’t exactly convincing and conclude that the idea of papal infallibility is a joke. That’s OK though, because it only wrecks papal infallbility. If someone still wants to cling to apostolic Christianity, maybe they can run to Orthodoxy.

There is nothing to do with my faith being, ‘weak,’ that makes me worry about the truth of Catholicism if geocentrism is an infallible statement, it has to do with the probably absurdity of geocentrism.

There is theoretically the option also of trying to disprove that geocentrism is infallibly defined, while also trying to defend its possibility. I would respect that immensely, as it would cater to the possibility of weak faith in everyone. Perhaps something like what Paul meant, “Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions” (Rom 14:1).

And lastly, the option of disproving that geocentrism is infallible, while also disproving that it could work. You wouldn’t take this position.

And yes, coming back to your statement. Faith wasn’t meant to be easy. But neither is it to be made artifically hard. Don’t take your duty to bring others to the faith lightly. I would think that God would be displeased with someone who drives others from the faith by making it look absurd. I encourage you to take option three.

-Rob
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Are only explicitly defined dogmas, dogmas? That’s a new one. What’s your authority for this?
That’s what I would like to know. I was responding to Neithan’s statement that the Church’s position on geocentrism was not an explicitly defined dogma, and therefore could be wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top