So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

[hurst]

john doran:

when ***i ***read the scriptures, it doesn’t even occur to me to understand the passages in anything other than a heliocentric fashion …

I thought the same way many years ago. It would seem that God caused the earth to stop spinning in order to make the sun appear to stop moving…

However, notice the following passages:

Josue 10:13 And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

Habacuc 3:11 The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

Regardless of the universe’s orientation, the miracle must have not only stopped the relative sun/earth motion, but also the moon/earth motion, which is independent of either the sun or the earth’s rotation.

But why include the moon? Is it perhaps an indication that everything in the heavens must have stopped also, or because there is a special significance for the moon?

Just something to consider.

hurst

 

[JimG]

Well, I don’t believe in phlogiston theory. But not so long ago it was taken seriously by many scientists:

It may seem hard to believe that phlogiston theory, which is incorrect, was so persistent. How could it survive all of the attacks, and come back for more? I think the answer is that phlogiston theory is actually very close to the truth. If we consider a chemical’s tendency to take up oxygen, and call its lack of oxygen “phlogiston,” we can describe absolutely any chemical reaction involving oxygen.
jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm

Geocentrism occupied much the same position in cosmological theory in an earlier age as phlogiston theory did in chemistry. But I really don’t think that either of them will be making a comeback.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Well, I don’t believe in phlogiston theory. But not so long ago it was taken seriously by many scientists:

It may seem hard to believe that phlogiston theory, which is incorrect, was so persistent. How could it survive all of the attacks, and come back for more? I think the answer is that phlogiston theory is actually very close to the truth. If we consider a chemical’s tendency to take up oxygen, and call its lack of oxygen “phlogiston,” we can describe absolutely any chemical reaction involving oxygen.

jimloy.com/physics/phlogstn.htm

Geocentrism occupied much the same position in cosmological theory in an earlier age as phlogiston theory did in chemistry. But I really don’t think that either of them will be making a comeback.

Interesting point, but the Church has never made declarations regarding phlogiaston. The fathers have not unanamously supported the phlogiston theory. The Scriptures do not teach it.

Even if some fathers supported it, if it is close to the truth as you say, then it can be interpreted in that light (i.e., partial understanding, not unanomous, with no papl declarations or councils to define it).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[john_doran]

hurst:

I thought the same way many years ago. It would seem that God caused the earth to stop spinning in order to make the sun appear to stop moving…

However, notice the following passages:

Josue 10:13 And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.

Habacuc 3:11 The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

Regardless of the universe’s orientation, the miracle must have not only stopped the relative sun/earth motion, but also the moon/earth motion, which is independent of either the sun or the earth’s rotation.

maybe. if you take those passages literally. but why do that?

here’s the rest of the habakkuk passage:**[8]**Was thy wrath against the rivers, O LORD?

Was thy anger against the rivers,
or thy indignation against the sea,
when thou didst ride upon thy horses,
upon thy chariot of victory?
[9] Thou didst strip the sheath from thy bow,
and put the arrows to the string.

does that mean we are bound to believe that god rode on an actual chariot drawn by horses? or that he had an actual bow to which he nocked an arrow?

but whatever. why not believe that god stayed the earth’s ***and ***the moon’s rotation?

 

[JimG]

john doran:

maybe. if you take those passages literally. but why do that?

I agree. In addition, God does not necessarily have to make physical changes in order to effect a miracle.

The miracle of the sun, at Fatima, for example, had the appearance to those present of the sun diving toward the earth. Such an actual event–celestially–would have caused havoc worldwide. It did not. Yet, 70,000 people, believers and unbelievers alike, witnessed it locally.

Had the earth stopped spinning in order for the sun to appear to stand still for Joshua, the effects of tidal waves and broken stalactites would still be visible today. They are not.

Had the universe stopped rotating, the physical effects would be even more drastic! We need not expect physical events to always correspond with miraculous interventions.

 

[hurst]

john doran:

does that mean we are bound to believe that god rode on an actual chariot drawn by horses? or that he had an actual bow to which he nocked an arrow?

Certainly not physically, since God is pure Spirit.
john doran:

why not believe that god stayed the earth’s ***and ***the moon’s rotation?

That is one possibility. But my question is, why was it so important for the moon to have been stopped along with the sun? Why bother stopping the moon in its orbit, when that would not be necessary to keep the day long? Is there something special about the moon also stopping?

It would be easier to just let it go. Or was it because it was easier to make everything in the heavens stop?

hurst

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

maybe. if you take those passages literally. but why do that?

here’s the rest of the habakkuk passage:**[8]**Was thy wrath against the rivers, O LORD?

Was thy anger against the rivers,
or thy indignation against the sea,
when thou didst ride upon thy horses,
upon thy chariot of victory?
[9] Thou didst strip the sheath from thy bow,
and put the arrows to the string.

does that mean we are bound to believe that god rode on an actual chariot drawn by horses? or that he had an actual bow to which he nocked an arrow?

but whatever…

Please. It is pretty obvious what is taken as literal and what is figurative speech. With that kind of thinking, yuou can make any passage in the Bible figurative. “this is my body…”.

Jane stepped out the door. The wind made mockery of her thin, hair, which hung like limp noodles on her staircase shoulders…

This [Joshua 10, not the Jane bit ] is one of the main passages that led the fathers to interpret the Scriptures geocentrically. Clearly their view is of much greater authority than yours (or mine).
john doran:

…why not believe that god stayed the earth’s ***and ***the moon’s rotation?

Because that is not what the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to say. It is not what the father’s interpreted.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

I agree. In addition, God does not necessarily have to make physical changes in order to effect a miracle.

True, but it does not mean that he cannot do so. The fathers interpreted as though He did.

JimG:

The miracle of the sun, at Fatima, for example, had the appearance to those present of the sun diving toward the earth. Such an actual event–celestially–would have caused havoc worldwide. It did not. Yet, 70,000 people, believers and unbelievers alike, witnessed it locally.

Where have the fathers spoken on Fatima? Where have the popes made declaratrions regarding the physical mechanism of the miracle of the sun?

JimG:

Had the earth stopped spinning in order for the sun to appear to stand still for Joshua, the effects of tidal waves and broken stalactites would still be visible today. They are not.

Had the universe stopped rotating, the physical effects would be even more drastic! We need not expect physical events to always correspond with miraculous interventions.

What if the universe kept rotating, but the sun and moon were stayed? Maybe the universe was sped up a little to make up for the change in forces, who knows. Clearly regardless of what stopped, God accounted for the issues. And the fathers say the sun and moon stopped.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

hurst:

…That is one possibility. But my question is, why was it so important for the moon to have been stopped along with the sun? Why bother stopping the moon in its orbit, when that would not be necessary to keep the day long? Is there something special about the moon also stopping?

It would be easier to just let it go. Or was it because it was easier to make everything in the heavens stop?

hurst

Maybe the moon was stopped to help balance the forces caused by the sun stopping?

Maybe the universe was stopped. But this is not what is stated.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[hurst]

JimG:

In addition, God does not necessarily have to make physical changes in order to effect a miracle.

The miracle of the sun, at Fatima, for example, had the appearance to those present of the sun diving toward the earth. Such an actual event–celestially–would have caused havoc worldwide. It did not. Yet, 70,000 people, believers and unbelievers alike, witnessed it locally.

This is a good point, but did you also know that the thick mud from the long rains had also totally dried up in those few minutes of the miracle? It was not just an optical effect. There were physical changes.

hurst

 

[john_doran]

trth_skr:

Please. It is pretty obvious what is taken as literal and what is figurative speech.

exactly. i could just cut-and-paste this very line and use it as a response every time i read something like “geocentrism must be true because when it says “god stopped the sun in the heavens” in scripture, it must mean exactly what it says”.

 

[JimG]

hurst:

This is a good point, but did you also know that the thick mud from the long rains had also totally dried up in those few minutes of the miracle? It was not just an optical effect. There were physical changes.

hurst

Yes, I agree that there were quite real physical changes that were readily apparent to local observers, and which had physical effects on them and the weather. But as a miracle, the event was localized. The expected physical effects of a real movement of the sun were not observed elsewhere in the world. That’s not a problem for God. But it does mean that we need not necessarily try to correlate miraculous events with physical trails.

 

[RobNY]

john doran:

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)

Ok. That’s a helpful quote.

…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”?

Yes, that’s why I tried to put, “or certain foundational assumptions,” to try to make it more specific that he would have to say a certain tenet of QM was false.

And yes, it could be contrary to faith, I think. If Scripture infallibly proclaims X, and a scientific theory flatly rejects it saying, “the opposite of X,” then it weakens the assumption for Scriptural inerrancy, and thus the whole faith. Likewise, if the magisterium infallibly proclaims X, and scientific theory flatly rejects it saying, “the opposite of X,” then it weakens the faith by rejecting the infallibility of the Magisterium (in this case, the Pope’s specifically). And I think that is the issue.

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…

I see where you are coming from, and I am tempted to take that exact route. It seems to me that it is an assumption. Trth_skr accurately pointed out that other heliocentric theories existed, but they were not in the mainstream as geocentrism was, and it seems to be assumed onto it. My worries about this argument are that they risk being rather slippery.

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

…
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

This was my very first thought when I read the wording of the Bull.

… 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.

Of course we aren’t simply free to reject something. However, I do think this is a fairly unique case in Catholic thought.

 

[john_doran]

RobNY:

And yes, it could be contrary to faith, I think. If Scripture infallibly proclaims X, and a scientific theory flatly rejects it saying, “the opposite of X,” then it weakens the assumption for Scriptural inerrancy, and thus the whole faith. Likewise, if the magisterium infallibly proclaims X, and scientific theory flatly rejects it saying, “the opposite of X,” then it weakens the faith by rejecting the infallibility of the Magisterium (in this case, the Pope’s specifically). And I think that is the issue.

i think maybe we’re missing each other here.

sure. if scripture infallibly proclaims some physical feature of the world. but that’s exactly the point - the only reason there would be to believe ***that ***would be if the church declared that to be the meaning of such a passage. but what good reason could there be to believe that god would include such a pronouncement in holy writ - i.e. what sense does it make to suppose that “the earth is the immobile center of the universe” is as important to the salvation of one’s soul as “jesus is god”, “if one does not eat the flesh of the son of man, then he does not have life in him”, or “god is three persons in one being”, etc.?

look, if you simply stipulate that some proposition about the way the world is physically arranged has been infallibly proposed by god through the author of some book in the bible, then fine: we are bound to believe it. but the problem is precisely trying to determine whether or not any passage like that is properly the subject of the church’s charism of infallibility in the first place. and i just don’t understand how it could be, since i don’t understand what spiritual difference it makes whether the earth is at the middle of it all, or whether protons have spin 1/2 or 3/2.

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

…look, if you simply stipulate that some proposition about the way the world is physically arranged has been infallibly proposed by god through the author of some book in the bible, then fine: we are bound to believe it. but the problem is precisely trying to determine whether or not any passage like that is properly the subject of the church’s charism of infallibility in the first place. and i just don’t understand how it could be, since i don’t understand what spiritual difference it makes whether the earth is at the middle of it all, or whether protons have spin 1/2 or 3/2.

Does it matter that Adam was the first man? This could be a scientific statement.

Does it matter that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve?
This is mathematics. Clearly not the pervue of the Church.

Does it matter that there was a great flood? This is geology.

Does it matter that God created the earth, then on the fourth day he created the sun and moon? This is cosmogony.

If it does not matter, why i it in the Scriptures?

I would venture that everything is in the scripture for the sake of our salvation, and nothing is extra or uneeded.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

…the only reason there would be to believe ***that ***would be if the church declared that to be the meaning of such a passage. …

Interpreting Scripture is exactly one of the main jobs of the Magisterium. So if they declared such a meaning of a passage, that means they did their job.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogpost.com

 

[trth_skr]

RobNY:

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

…
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

This was my very first thought when I read the wording of the Bull.

Of course we aren’t simply free to reject something. However, I do think this is a fairly unique case in Catholic thought.

I did state that, but also, it is clear that Alexander VII explicitly attached those theological opinions, reviewed them, and since they are part of the index actually enjoined them to the faithful.

It is just not clear to me that it contains the manifest clarity required to consider it infallible. That is why I think it would require the Church to settle the issue.

It is sort of like saying that JPII consecrating the world in 1984 satisfied Mary’s request to consecrate Russia, since the world contains Russia.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[RobNY]

but what good reason could there be to believe that god would include such a pronouncement in holy writ - i.e. what sense does it make to suppose that “the earth is the immobile center of the universe” is as important to the salvation of one’s soul as “jesus is god”, “if one does not eat the flesh of the son of man, then he does not have life in him”, or “god is three persons in one being”, etc.?

John, I think it’s a mistake to argue merely from what is fitting. It may not seem fitting to you, but perhaps it is to God. Since we cannot comprehend the mind of God we can never have that answer. “What sense does it make,” quite honestly, who knows?

I think you’re parsing the Catechism’s statement, which is itself a quote of Dei Verbum, in the incorrect fashion. It says:

**107 **The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

Scriptures to teach truth without error that God wished to see confided to Sacred Scriptures. “For the sake of our salvation,” is parenthical to that sentence, which explains why God did it. It doesn’t restrict the truth to things that would only assist in our salvation, it merely explains that God upheld the inerrancy of Scripture because he wants us to be saved.

The point isn’t that it has to be important to our salvation, and that God only intends things in Scripture which are important to our salvation to be asserted, but rather that God wanted the Scriptures to be without error for the sake of our salvation. It doesn’t mean that God only intends to focus on theological/faith issues which our salvation hinges on, that’s still something that we have to take on a case by case basis when discovering what the author asserted.

but the problem is precisely trying to determine whether or not any passage like that is properly the subject of the church’s charism of infallibility in the first place. and i just don’t understand how it could be, since i don’t understand what spiritual difference it makes whether the earth is at the middle of it all, or whether protons have spin 1/2 or 3/2.

I don’t think it has to make a difference to our salvation. This may be where we’re hung up.

trth_skr:

I did state that, but also, it is clear that Alexander VII explicitly attached those theological opinions, reviewed them, and since they are part of the index actually enjoined them to the faithful.

Indeed. I ran out of room for comment. I keep brushing the 5000 limit and it annoys me.

It is just not clear to me that it contains the manifest clarity required to consider it infallible. That is why I think it would require the Church to settle the issue.

Yes. Things should be clear to be infallible. Of course, I’m personally wary should that ever happen, I don’t exactly want it to be infallible.

It is sort of like saying that JPII consecrating the world in 1984 satisfied Mary’s request to consecrate Russia, since the world contains Russia.

Yes. The Church is really the best arbiter of her own actions.

 

[pnewton]

Everytime I see a discussion that brings up documents that addressed a different people in a culture centuries ago I am reminded that besides the Bible and Tradition, we also have the authority structure of the Church. Does the catechism support geocentrism? Does the Holy Father, or anyone’s bishop?

 

[trth_skr]

pnewton:

Everytime I see a discussion that brings up documents that addressed a different people in a culture centuries ago I am reminded that besides the Bible and Tradition, we also have the authority structure of the Church. Does the catechism support geocentrism? Does the Holy Father, or anyone’s bishop?

The truth of God is for all people of all times, and does not change with times and cultures.

Absence of any comment (Catechism) is neither support nor rejection.

JPII may not have. I do ont know about Benedict XVI. Several popes did.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com