So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

[trth_skr]

Ortho:

Just a clarification.

Do you contend geocentrism was defined as an infallible position of the Church?

I tend to feel it was not infallible. There are others who disagree with this.

Regardless, it is a very safe theological opinion at minimum.

Many things we believe as Catholics are not defined infallibly.

Have you read the four articles on my blog? If not, you really should.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[clmowry]

JimG:

In any case, didn’t Pope John Paul II apologize for the treatment Galileo received? Would he do that if he were convinced of geocentrism?

Here’s another galileo link:

Appologizing for his treatment is neither acceptance nor rejection of geocentrism. It’s an appology for his treatment.

That said I don’t belive JPII taught geocentrism.

Chuck

 

[john_doran]

trth_skr:

No demonstration was made then, nor has one been made since then, so, yes, his point still stands:

“…one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.”

well, i suppose it depends on what you consider to be a demonstration.

also, what bellarmine said was, “and in a case of doubt…one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained [unanimously] by the holy Fathers.”

so. is heliocentrism really doubtful?

 

[john_doran]

RobNY:

I believe Bellarmine also believes the Fathers to be unanimous on geocentrism. That doesn’t help us any.

i’m not sure i see what you’re getting at. bellarmine said that if it could be shown that the sun was the stationary centre of the solar system, then we’d have to say that we’d misunderstood scripture. the gravity of the statement derives precisely from his conviction in the unanimity of the fathers on geocentrism: in spite of their unanimity, scriptural exegesis would have to be modified to accommodate physical fact.

RobNY:

But what if Pope Benedict XVI said that Scripture teaches that quantum mechanics is absurd? He isn’t able to pronounce infallibly on science, but he sure is able to do so with Scripture, and that seems to be the assertion in these cases.

well, if by that you mean what if he said that scripture says that quantum mechanics is contrary to faith, then unless quantum mechanics necessarily entailed something like “god does not exist”, or “there are no souls”, or “no man can be true god”, then i’d say that he was wrong. i mean, the scriptures aren’t science textbooks, and i just can’t see what physical facts about the world have to do with one’s faith or the salvation and redemption of mankind.

do you see what i mean? unless some scientific theory can be demonstrated to have grave negative theological implications, then it’s got nothing at all to do with faith. and i can’t see the theological implications - negative or otherwise, grave or otherwise - of heliocentrism.

 

[Ortho]

john doran:

i’m not sure i see what you’re getting at. bellarmine said that if it could be shown that the sun was the stationary centre of the solar system, then we’d have to say that we’d misunderstood scripture. the gravity of the statement derives precisely from his conviction in the unanimity of the fathers on geocentrism: in spite of their unanimity, scriptural exegesis would have to be modified to accommodate physical fact.

well, if by that you mean what if he said that scripture says that quantum mechanics is contrary to faith, then unless quantum mechanics necessarily entailed something like “god does not exist”, or “there are no souls”, or “no man can be true god”, then i’d say that he was wrong. i mean, the scriptures aren’t science textbooks, and i just can’t see what physical facts about the world have to do with one’s faith or the salvation and redemption of mankind.

do you see what i mean? unless some scientific theory can be demonstrated to have grave negative theological implications, then it’s got nothing at all to do with faith. and i can’t see the theological implications - negative or otherwise, grave or otherwise - of heliocentrism.

Future theological implications of science may really be fun.

Quantum physics leads scientists to speculate on the nature of existence. I use the word “speculate” here since these ideas haven’t yet reached even the stage of hypothesis. But every hypothesis was once a speculation.

One such speculation is that we live in a multiverse with universes constantly being generated, one for each possible state of a universe. For example, as a fashion plate, I am now wearing white socks. Another universe exists where I am wearing blue socks. Another brown socks. Another red socks, etc.

There would be trillions of other universes in which I reside, each just slightly different from the other - maybe the rotation of a single electron - and indistinguishable from one another by humans.

Let the games begin.

 

[JimG]

Ortho:

One such speculation is that we live in a multiverse with universes constantly being generated, one for each possible state of a universe.

I really dislike the idea of multiple universes, because it implies that whenever I make a decision, the universe splits–in as many ways as the decision could go. That would mean there are way too many copies of me out there. One is enough.

But maybe T.S. Eliot was ahead of his time when he had the indecisive J. Alfred Prufrock say, in trying to evade decision: “Do I dare / Disturb the universe?”

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

well, i suppose it depends on what you consider to be a demonstration.

also, what bellarmine said was, “and in a case of doubt…one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained [unanimously] by the holy Fathers.”

so. is heliocentrism really doubtful?

Until demonstrated, yes. Especially considering the Church has spoken on it.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

i’m not sure i see what you’re getting at. bellarmine said that if it could be shown that the sun was the stationary centre of the solar system, then we’d have to say that we’d misunderstood scripture. the gravity of the statement derives precisely from his conviction in the unanimity of the fathers on geocentrism: in spite of their unanimity, scriptural exegesis would have to be modified to accommodate physical fact.

To build on John’s thoughts:

What Bellarmine said was:

“…it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated…”

I.e., IF science demonstrated heliocentrism (which it has not to date) or it demonstrated the earth moves (which it has not to date, at least not in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the universe) THEN

It would be better to say we do not understand the Scriptures rather than to say a valid demonstration was untrue.

Since the movement of the earth is not been demonstrated than it is not a fact at this point, and the previous declarations stand.
john doran:

well, if by that you mean what if he said that scripture says that quantum mechanics is contrary to faith, then unless quantum mechanics necessarily entailed something like “god does not exist”, or “there are no souls”, or “no man can be true god”, then i’d say that he was wrong. i mean, the scriptures aren’t science textbooks, and i just can’t see what physical facts about the world have to do with one’s faith or the salvation and redemption of mankind.

do you see what i mean? unless some scientific theory can be demonstrated to have grave negative theological implications, then it’s got nothing at all to do with faith. and i can’t see the theological implications - negative or otherwise, grave or otherwise - of heliocentrism.

This quantam mechanics analogy seems somewhat fickle. Where did the fathers make contentions regarding quantam mechanics? Where did three popes make declartations regarding quantam mechanics? I would agreee that poopes cannot randomly create doctrine, but geocentrism ios not a random thing. It was held by the Church for 1600 -1700 years.

And there has been no demonstration in science to reverse it. Only opinions.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[RobNY]

i’m not sure i see what you’re getting at. bellarmine said that if it could be shown that the sun was the stationary centre of the solar system, then we’d have to say that we’d misunderstood scripture. the gravity of the statement derives precisely from his conviction in the unanimity of the fathers on geocentrism: in spite of their unanimity, scriptural exegesis would have to be modified to accommodate physical fact.

I may be working from a misconception here. I thought that, as Catholics, we had bound ourselves to the teaching of the Fathers whenever it was unanimous. Are there exceptions? I’m not trying to be argumentative, that was just my perception of how things work.

well, if by that you mean what if he said that scripture says that quantum mechanics is contrary to faith, then unless quantum mechanics necessarily entailed something like “god does not exist”, or “there are no souls”, or “no man can be true god”, then i’d say that he was wrong. i mean, the scriptures aren’t science textbooks, and i just can’t see what physical facts about the world have to do with one’s faith or the salvation and redemption of mankind.

But I think you may be restricting the scope of Scriptures, in this case, to be too narrowly theological. If Holy Scripture asserts X or Y about historical or scientific subject Z, then it is without error. Scripture is inerrant on all that it asserts because it is coauthored by the Holy Spirit (Scripture’s inerrancy is not reduced merely to faith and morals, like the pope’s infallibility is, but is considered completely inerrant). The essential question then is, what did the author intend to assert?

From there, my question became, what if the Pope tells us that the author of Scripture asserted that Quantum Physics is absurd (or rather, that certain foundational assumptions of Quantum Physics are absurd)? My point here is that while the Pope cannot merely say, “Quantum Physics is wrong,” he can say, “Scripture says that Quantum Physics is wrong,” and still be within his purview because he is not ruling on science, but rather on Scripture, which is a matter of faith. Right?

Is this at all clearer? That’s what I was meaning to say.

And yes, I agree that Scripture isn’t a science textbook, but we must also bear in mind that if Scripture does assert something to be true, then it is. Hence, in this specific case, we’re looking at a case where the situation is thus: the Pope interprets Scripture, in an infallible fashion, and says that it positively asserts proposition X. Now given *that, *it would seem that propsition X is infallible and/or inerrant, no matter what it has to deal with. (Because the Pope 1. is proclaiming that Scripture says something, which is within his purview of ‘faith and morals,’ 2. because whatever Scripture (that is, the sacred author) asserts is inerrant).

I hate to sound like a broken record, but would you do me a favor and tackle that, even if it sounds like I just repeated what my first response said?

do you see what i mean? unless some scientific theory can be demonstrated to have grave negative theological implications, then it’s got nothing at all to do with faith. and i can’t see the theological implications - negative or otherwise, grave or otherwise - of heliocentrism.

I see what you mean, but I think I disagree with you. This lies on the interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is inerrant in all areas, not merely theological. If the Pope is interpreting Scripture and applying the consent of the Fathers in regards to interpretatin, then he is doing something which is within his power of ‘faith.’

Now, here’s the question. Does the Pope try to couch the discussion in terms Scriptural interpretation and consent of the Fathers’ interpretation? Or does he just assert it? Because if he just asserts it flat out, that’s very different than asserting it indirectly because Scripture Y’s correct interpretation is so, and because Fathers D, E, F interpret it so.

trth_skr:

I tend to feel it was not infallible. There are others who disagree with this.

Could you please lay out the case for it not being infallible, as you believe? I’d much appreciate it.

 

[Ortho]

trth_skr:

To build on John’s thoughts:

What Bellarmine said was:

“…it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated…”

I.e., IF science demonstrated heliocentrism (which it has not to date) or it demonstrated the earth moves (which it has not to date, at least not in a manner distinguishable from counter movement of the universe) THEN

It would be better to say we do not understand the Scriptures rather than to say a valid demonstration was untrue.

Since the movement of the earth is not been demonstrated than it is not a fact at this point, and the previous declarations stand.

This quantam mechanics analogy seems somewhat fickle. Where did the fathers make contentions regarding quantam mechanics? Where did three popes make declartations regarding quantam mechanics? I would agreee that poopes cannot randomly create doctrine, but geocentrism ios not a random thing. It was held by the Church for 1600 -1700 years.

And there has been no demonstration in science to reverse it. Only opinions.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

1,700 years? Does this make it part of Tradition?

 

[Liberian]

Blind Sheep,

There’s a joke in my field that the world really does revolve around engineers because they get to pick the coordinate system.

The difference between geocentric theory and the standard cosmology is a coordinate transformation. One can point to some reasons why a geocentric formulation of the equations of motion would be hard to use in some circumstances, and one can raise some philosophical questions about geocentric theory, but one cannot prove it wrong.

• Liberian

 

[trth_skr]

RobNY:

…

Could you please lay out the case for it not being infallible, as you believe? I’d much appreciate it.

I will try and lay out my feelings on the topic.

The basic issue in my mind is that of the “manifest certainty” of the status of heliocentrism in Alexander VII’s Bull. This is the single document which comes closes to meeting the Vat. I definition of Papal Infallibnility.

I will be working from The Theological Status of Heliocentrism, and my blog.
.

In the 1917 code of canon law, it is stated:

“Nothing is understood to be dogmatically declared or defined unless this shall be

manifestly certain.” (Canon 1323 of the 1917 *Code of Canon Law, *footnoted therein to the

constitution *Inter Cunctas *of Pope Martin V, 22 February 1418, volume 1, n.43 of Cardinal

Gasparri’s *Fontes *and volume 3, II, p.419-46 of the Bullarium Romanum.)

I am not sure if this was extended to the 1983 code or not. It is the principle involved that I am interested in. How certain was it that Alexander VII meant to dogmatize that the earth was stable and the sun moved around it? Looking at the conditiuons to meet papal infallibility, Vat. I:
Vatican I:

“We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman

Pontiff, when he speaks *ex cathedra, *that is, when ( i ) exercising the office of

shepherd and teacher ( ii ) of all Christians, ( iii ) by his supreme and apostolic

authority ( iv ) he defines a doctrine ( v ) concerning faith or morals ( vi ) to be held by

the whole Church, …”

It is clear that Alexander’s Bull met (i), as he was protecting Catholics from bad writings. Also it is clear he met (ii):

…and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere …

Also for (iii):

…and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents…

Also for (v) I think it is pretty clear, as the Index concerns faith and morals, the theological opinion of 1616 indicated it dealt with faith, and Bellarmine stated it dealt with faith (Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.).

(vi) seems clear:

…and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…

What seems less clear is (iv), i.e., defining a doctrine. It is clear that Alexander explicitly enjoined a doctrine to the Bull, including:

1. The decree of Paul V: …And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture…

2. the “monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation".

Continued…

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Continued…

These were in the Bull, and approved with Apostolic authority. But what was directly enjoined to everyone everywhere is to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience.

The direct object of the Bull was the Index, not the theological opinions contained therein.

So it is simply a matter of clarity. One could put Alexander’s Bull together with the 1616 declaration of Paul V and the 1633 declaration against Galileo (indicating heresy), and a number of other things, and perhaps make a good case for infallibility, but I think it would require a ruling from a present pope to acertain that status. Still I believe the declarations were theologically quite certain and authoritative.

I think it is really quite silly for people to say that since something was not infallibly pornounced, we are free to reject it. Under these circumstances, much of what we believe as Catholics is an option (cafeteria Catholicism?).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

1,700 years? Does this make it part of Tradition?

Interesting point. According to the 1983 canon law, anything practiced continuously by the universal Church for 1000 years is an immemorial custom, and even has status above the canon law itself.

I am not sure how geocentrism would fit into this.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Ortho]

trth_skr:

Interesting point. According to the 1983 canon law, anything practiced continuously by the universal Church for 1000 years is an immemorial custom, and even has status above the canon law itself.

I am not sure how geocentrism would fit into this.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Well, geocentrism would be an immemorial custom with status above canon law…

 

[john_doran]

RobNY:

I may be working from a misconception here. I thought that, as Catholics, we had bound ourselves to the teaching of the Fathers whenever it was unanimous. Are there exceptions? I’m not trying to be argumentative, that was just my perception of how things work.

not exactly - Providentissimus Dei says this:

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published…” (emphasis mine)

we’re bound to unanimous patristic scriptural interpretation only concerning issues of faith or morals. obviously, then, the key to trth_skr’s reasoning is in demonstrating that geocentrism is a matter of faith or morals, which he does by quoting the condemnation of galileo, in which the pope says that heliocentrism is erroneous in faith.

RobNy:

But I think you may be restricting the scope of Scriptures, in this case, to be too narrowly theological. If Holy Scripture asserts X or Y about historical or scientific subject Z, then it is without error. Scripture is inerrant on all that it asserts because it is coauthored by the Holy Spirit (Scripture’s inerrancy is not reduced merely to faith and morals, like the pope’s infallibility is, but is considered completely inerrant). The essential question then is, what did the author intend to assert?

that’s precisely the question.

RobNy:

From there, my question became, what if the Pope tells us that the author of Scripture asserted that Quantum Physics is absurd (or rather, that certain foundational assumptions of Quantum Physics are absurd)? My point here is that while the Pope cannot merely say, “Quantum Physics is wrong,” he can say, “Scripture says that Quantum Physics is wrong,” and still be within his purview because he is not ruling on science, but rather on Scripture, which is a matter of faith. Right?

i don’t think he can say that - he would need to say just what it is about QM that is absurd and contrary to faith, and point out the passages of scripture that QM falsifies or makes nonsensical. and that, i think, can only be done by some theological implication of QM. again, i just don’t understand what it means to say that some proposition that is descriptive of the physical constitution of the world could be contrary to faith. i mean, how could “the earth revolves on its axis around the sun” be any more dangerous to one’s faith than, “electricity and magnetism are aspects of a single force”?

 

[john_doran]

RobNY:

And yes, I agree that Scripture isn’t a science textbook, but we must also bear in mind that if Scripture does assert something to be true, then it is. Hence, in this specific case, we’re looking at a case where the situation is thus: the Pope interprets Scripture, in an infallible fashion, and says that it positively asserts proposition X. Now given *that, *it would seem that propsition X is infallible and/or inerrant, no matter what it has to deal with. (Because the Pope 1. is proclaiming that Scripture says something, which is within his purview of ‘faith and morals,’ 2. because whatever Scripture (that is, the sacred author) asserts is inerrant).

but that’s not what happened. what actually occurred is that the fathers all agreed that the scriptures talk about a geocentric and geostatic universe. but what else would you expect? that was the science of the day. which suggests that what the fathers were doing with those scriptural passages was less “interpretation” than simply “assuming”, in the same way that you and i simply assume that the attendees of the miraculous meal of the loaves and fish were eating because they needed food for sustenance (rather than simply to fulfil some artistic ritual, say).

interpretation is something that typically occurs when there is competing semantic content for one syntactic form - i.e. when a sentence is ambiguous and has two or more possible meanings, meanings the reader believes are possible. but in patristic times, there simply wasn’t any competing understanding of the constitution of the physical universe. which implies that the fathers didn’t consider the relevant scriptural passages as ambiguous in the same way that we don’t consider other passages to be ambiguous, such as ones where someone says “and X travelled to Y”.

i think “interpretation” is required only at such time as new meanings become possible. which, for the issue currently in question, is at the time when a competing model of the solar system becomes plausible…

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

…interpretation is something that typically occurs when there is competing semantic content for one syntactic form - i.e. when a sentence is ambiguous and has two or more possible meanings, meanings the reader believes are possible. but in patristic times, there simply wasn’t any competing understanding of the constitution of the physical universe. which implies that the fathers didn’t consider the relevant scriptural passages as ambiguous in the same way that we don’t consider other passages to be ambiguous, such as ones where someone says “and X travelled to Y”.

…

Not true. The Greeks had heliocentric theories before Christ was born, and the fathers were aware of them.

Also, an honest reading of Scripture leads to a geocenrtic interpretation regardless of what the science of the day was for the fathers. Truth does not change with science of the day.

Still the most important point is that science has yet to make Bellarmine’s demonstration. Most honest scientists admit that. So the competing understanding is simply another opinion, no an established fact. This leads to (in my opinion) the reasonable expectation of at least being open to the possibility that God revealed geocentrism, the fathers supported it and the popes declared it.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[john_doran]

trth_skr:

Not true. The Greeks had heliocentric theories before Christ was born, and the fathers were aware of them.

perhaps, perhaps not. but if they were aware of them, it would have been in much the same way that we’re aware that there used to be a theory that the earth was flat. simple awareness of a position does not make it a legitimate alternative.

trth_skr:

Also, an honest reading of Scripture leads to a geocenrtic interpretation regardless of what the science of the day was for the fathers. Truth does not change with science of the day.

that’s just absolutely false. c’mon - you don’t have to have done any reading on the theory-ladenness of interpretation to know that people’s linguistic comprehension occurs within a context of fundamental beliefs - that when you read something, you’re reading it and understanding it based on an enormous number of tacit assumptions.

when ***i ***read the scriptures, it doesn’t even occur to me to understand the passages in anything other than a heliocentric fashion (unless, of course, i read the passages in the context of a debate concerning that very subject).

trth_skr:

Still the most important point is that science has yet to make Bellarmine’s demonstration. Most honest scientists admit that. So the competing understanding is simply another opinion, no an established fact. This leads to (in my opinion) the reasonable expectation of at least being open to the possibility that God revealed geocentrism, the fathers supported it and the popes declared it.

again:it depends on what counts as a demonstration for you.

can you define what degree of certainty is required for something to count as a demonstration?

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

perhaps, perhaps not. but if they were aware of them, it would have been in much the same way that we’re aware that there used to be a theory that the earth was flat. simple awareness of a position does not make it a legitimate alternative.

Ok. But just because we are aware of an acentric (or heliocentris-like) theory today, which remains unproven, even by admission of those who purport it, does not invalidate past Church actions. The issues today are no different than they were in the 17th century, only the number of people holding the acentric/heliocentric opinion is greater. Something has had to change in order for there to be a need for reconsideration, and a democratic vote on preferred cosmological opinion *du jour *is not a change.
john doran:

that’s just absolutely false. c’mon - you don’t have to have done any reading on the theory-ladenness of interpretation to know that people’s linguistic comprehension occurs within a context of fundamental beliefs - that when you read something, you’re reading it and understanding it based on an enormous number of tacit assumptions.

when ***i ***read the scriptures, it doesn’t even occur to me to understand the passages in anything other than a heliocentric fashion (unless, of course, i read the passages in the context of a debate concerning that very subject).

It did occur to the fathers. It did occure to the eleven theological qualifiers of the Holy Office in 1616. This opinion was ratified by Paul V. It was used verbatum by Urban VIII in his condemnation of Galileo. It was included in the Bull of Alexander VII.

Nothing of any official significant nature has been done to reverse this. The closest thing to an action is the report of Cardinal Poupard, which was not ratified by a pope, nor holds a candle in authority to the condemnations of Paul V, Urban VIII, or especially the Bull of Alexander VII.
john doran:

again:it depends on what counts as a demonstration for you.

can you define what degree of certainty is required for something to count as a demonstration?

No. But since science itself claims no demonstration, then there really is no issue of a demonstration. Since the Church itself has not acknowledged a deminstration, then there is no issue of a demonstration.

The next move is in the Church’s court, not yours, nor mine.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com