So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

[john_doran]

trth_skr:

I disagree with that statement. Since the Scriptures are inerrant, they are inerrant in all subject matters. Again, Pius XII:

i’m not sure if it’s just that i’m not being clear, or what…

look, i will grant your assumption that scripture is inerrant in all matters. my point is that we can only know what a particular passage of scripture (inerrantly) **means **if the church tells us what it (inerrantly) means. and the church only does that with regard to faith and morals. so even if it’s true that the earth is the immobile center of the universe, and even if it’s true that it says so in scripture, we can’t be sure that it says so without the say-so of the church. but the church can’t say so unless some exegesis is provided that makes it have something to do with faith and/or morals.

do you see what i’m saying? it’s the difference between a proposition actually being true or false, and our knowing its truth-value. it’s a difference between ontology and epistemology.

trth_skr:

And again, I am not claiming it was infallible, but certainly it was theologically certain. Much of what we believe as Catholics is not infallible.

well, unless and until i get some better evidence, i will remain agnostic on this one.

trth_skr:

Three popes, eleven theological qualifiers and Bellarmine believe it does (for starters).

sure, but why? what’s the reason that it’s relevant to one’s faith?

trth_skr:

Let me help complete that thought:

Thus to interpret one must have absolute knowledge. Thus only God can interpret. Thus God sent the Holy Spirit to help the Church interpret. And the Church did interpret. And this is why I am arguing for geoecentrism.

no, it didn’t. the “church” relied on the unanimity of the fathers, and then a couple of popes simply stipulated that geocentrism was a matter of faith, thereby placing it under the exegetical aegis of patristic interpretive consensus.

i believe the much better explanation - as i have said - is that the fathers mentioned geocentrism because they had no reason not to, and that the pope’s (and theological qualifiers and bellarmine’s) opinions concerning geocentrism were politically motivated.

trth_skr:

They taught what they taught. Why do you think they taught it?

politics. to preserve the appearance of their authority in the face of a corrosive threat to that authority.

trth_skr:

If science is not clear on the issue, but the Church is, and one chooses an opinion of science against the Church, this begins to sound like scientism. I do understand that there can be legitimate questions regarding the validity of a position of the Church. But I would propose that we, as Catholics, ought to think very carefully about what the Church has said, and not presume that our status as “modern men” has granted us as much insight as we would like to think. Bellarmine and the popes in the 17th century understood the issues then, and the issues have not changed in form (though perhaps in quantity of data they have changed). On the other hand I acknowledge that the Church itself has been ambiguous towards geocentrism in recent centuries, especially the 19th century, during which time many intellectuals were convinced (incorrectly) that Newtonian mechanics had disproven geocentrism. General relativity (for starters) has obliterated that perspective.

This is why I see geocentrism as a pivotal issue in regards to the issues of faith and the Church in these “post-modern” times.

pivotal to whom? certainly not to me…

trth_skr:

The declarations speak for themselves. Unlike most arguments against geocentrism they are pretty explicit and clear.

right. clearly and explicitly inconclusive.

 

[JimG]

The fact that the author of Genesis wrote using the customary cosmological worldview of his time, does not seem to me to imply that he intended to make that cosmological worldview definitive for all times. It seems more an accident of history, similar to the language used in writing. No one claims that the fact that the original scriptures were set down in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, makes those languages binding on all future generations.

And since there are two creation stories in Genesis, which one do we use for our cosmology? The first one, apparently, which begins with the six days of creation, since the second one, beginning with the garden of Eden and the creation of man, contains no particular cosmology.

But in fact, neither creation story sets forth a cosmological theory which would be entirely consistent with modern geocentric theory. There is simply not enough data given.

Yet, in Galileo’s time, both theologians and scientists felt that they had to somehow merge the two disciplines. Not content to simply set forth his heliocentric theory, Galileo (and others) felt compelled to state that the bible was wrong. In our own time, neither theologian nor scientist would think that a proposition made in one arena needed or implied any statement about the other.

If one accepts geocentric cosmology, must one then also accept a literal six day creation? Must one conclude that God ‘needed’ that seventh day to rest?

Using the bible as a science text is simply unworkable.

Finally, it seems untenable to use relativity as a justification for geocentricism. The claim is made that because all reference frames are equally valid, then geocentrism is equally as valid as heliocentrism or acentrism. But if that is true, it simply means there is no fixed reference frame, and so all viewpoints can be said to be equally invalid.

 

[pnewton]

trth_skr:

.
The Church has pronounced it,…

Yes, you are continually begging the question. If it were not so, I would not respond to the above with the simple, “Say’s who?” You, whoever you are? My priest disagrees that the church has prononounced infallibly on geocentrism(and he represents the church), so do you overide him? Perhaps you are a bishop?

If the church has pronounced this as a dogma we are to believe, then we would not be having this thread. It would be in the catechism and preached in homilies, like the other doctines of the faith.

 

[Aquarius]

pnewton:

Yes, you are continually begging the question. If it were not so, I would not respond to the above with the simple, “Say’s who?” You, whoever you are? My priest disagrees that the church has prononounced infallibly on geocentrism(and he represents the church), so do you overide him? Perhaps you are a bishop?

If the church has pronounced this as a dogma we are to believe, then we would not be having this thread. It would be in the catechism and preached in homilies, like the other doctines of the faith.

I had never read her Galileo opinion before, so I thank the first poster for linking to it. It was enlightening. The opinion provides two bits of information that I think have been a bit glossed over in other things I have read about the affair.

1. The judgement and judges were all Church officials. The sentence was imprisonment in the Holy See. This makes it completely a church matter without involvement from secular authorities.
2. The opinion, which apparently is joined by eight cardinals and the pope, says geocentrism and diurnal motion are theologically linked to faith.

What can geocentrism and diurnal motion possible have to do with faith? Faith is unnecessary in matters where observation is sufficient.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

he fact that the author of Genesis wrote using the customary cosmological worldview of his time, does not seem to me to imply that he intended to make that cosmological worldview definitive for all times.

First it is not just Genesis, but Joshua 10, and other passages. The fathers, three popes, amonngst others felt the cosmological view was for all time. Whether the author of Genesis used the cosmological language of the day or not has no bearing on the inerrancy of the cosmology revealed.

JimG:

It seems more an accident of history, similar to the language used in writing. No one claims that the fact that the original scriptures were set down in Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, makes those languages binding on all future generations.

Truth can be expressed in any language. The fact that the author of genesis may have worn a purple tunic would not indicate we should be wearing one, either. I am not sure the relevance of the language issue.

JimG:

And since there are two creation stories in Genesis, which one do we use for our cosmology? The first one, apparently, which begins with the six days of creation, since the second one, beginning with the garden of Eden and the creation of man, contains no particular cosmology.

I think it more accurate to say there is one creation story, perhaps told from two different perspectives.

JimG:

But in fact, neither creation story sets forth a cosmological theory which would be entirely consistent with modern geocentric theory. There is simply not enough data given.

The geocentric-ness of Genesis is less direct than other passages (such as Joshua 10). What is really certain is

1. The earth does not move
2. The sun moves around it.

No one has claimed a scientific treatise on cosmology is written in the Scriptures.

JimG:

Yet, in Galileo’s time, both theologians and scientists felt that they had to somehow merge the two disciplines. Not content to simply set forth his heliocentric theory, Galileo (and others) felt compelled to state that the bible was wrong. In our own time, neither theologian nor scientist would think that a proposition made in one arena needed or implied any statement about the other.

Truth is consisent across “disicplines”. Do not presume that God is required to compartmentalize reality into empirical categories to satisfy the intellectual comfort of modern empiricism.

JimG:

If one accepts geocentric cosmology, must one then also accept a literal six day creation? Must one conclude that God ‘needed’ that seventh day to rest?

There were 6 day-night sequences. The first three were before the sun and moon were created. I suspect there is some interprative freedom in whether the night-day sequences would actually translate into todays 24 hour period. Starting the fourth day, the sun and moon were created. Still, since creation is ongoing, there may be some interprative freedom as to what rate the sun circled the earth, but taken at face value, one would think 24 hours.

Also the Scriptures did not say God ‘needed’ to rest on the 7th day. It simply stated He did. Perhaps he was setting a precedent for the sabbath.

JimG:

Using the bible as a science text is simply unworkable.

Granted. But what is revealed is truthful. Stating the earth does not move and the sun moves around it is a simple statement of fact, much like ‘Joshua had 12 sons’ (or is this to be excluded since it is mathematics?).

JimG:

Finally, it seems untenable to use relativity as a justification for geocentricism. The claim is made that because all reference frames are equally valid, then geocentrism is equally as valid as heliocentrism or acentrism. But if that is true, it simply means there is no fixed reference frame, and so all viewpoints can be said to be equally invalid.

Relativity states all reference frames are valid, not invalid. Also acentrism is an assumption of relativity, and not a reference frame. The idea being if there is no referecne frame, than choose one and describe the universe from the chosen reference frame’s perspective. This is much like Leibniz’s monads, each mirroring the universe from its perspective (in fact Lebniz probably influenced Einstein through Mach).

The point ultimately being that choosing an earth reference frame demonstrates (if GR is correct) a consistent set of forces to explain how the earth could be fixed in the universe. The rest is theology.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

pnewton:

Yes, you are continually begging the question. If it were not so, I would not respond to the above with the simple, “Say’s who?” You, whoever you are? My priest disagrees that the church has prononounced infallibly on geocentrism(and he represents the church), so do you overide him? Perhaps you are a bishop?

For th nth time, I have stated it is likely not infallible, so I agree with your priest. Still, it not being infallible does not mean it is not theologically certain.

pnewton:

If the church has pronounced this as a dogma we are to believe, then we would not be having this thread. It would be in the catechism and preached in homilies, like the other doctines of the faith.

If it is not infallible, I guess it is not dogma.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Aquarius:

…What can geocentrism and diurnal motion possible have to do with faith? Faith is unnecessary in matters where observation is sufficient.

First geocentrism goes beyond just galileo.

Go to this link and read part III and the supplement for more explanation:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1266823&postcount=24

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

i’m not sure if it’s just that i’m not being clear, or what…

look, i will grant your assumption that scripture is inerrant in all matters. my point is that we can only know what a particular passage of scripture (inerrantly) means if the church tells us what it (inerrantly) means. and the church only does that with regard to faith and morals. so even if it’s true that the earth is the immobile center of the universe, and even if it’s true that it says so in scripture, we can’t be sure that it says so without the say-so of the church. but the church can’t say so unless some exegesis is provided that makes it have something to do with faith and/or morals.

do you see what i’m saying? it’s the difference between a proposition actually being true or false, and our knowing its truth-value. it’s a difference between ontology and epistemology.

You are splitting theological hairs (and granted, sometimes theology may come down to this).

Clearly three popes felt it was a matter of faith and morals and did approve some exegesis regarding the non-movement of the earth and the roundabout movement of the sun.
john doran:

well, unless and until i get some better evidence, i will remain agnostic on this one.

Certainly this is a better position than rejecting it in favor of science’s opinion. The Church ahs been pretty ambiguous on it in recent centuries.
john doran:

sure, but why? what’s the reason that it’s relevant to one’s faith?

It relates to Scriptural inerrancy.
john doran:

no, it didn’t. the “church” relied on the unanimity of the fathers, and then a couple of popes simply stipulated that geocentrism was a matter of faith, thereby placing it under the exegetical aegis of patristic interpretive consensus.

i believe the much better explanation - as i have said - is that the fathers mentioned geocentrism because they had no reason not to, and that the pope’s (and theological qualifiers and bellarmine’s) opinions concerning geocentrism were politically motivated…

Well, maybe the Church’s position on cotraception is political. Maybe their stance on homosexuality is political. If we disagree, and think it is political, we can just ignore some things!

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Hildebrand]

Has anyone mentioned that inquisitional court rulings are NOT infallible?

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Has anyone mentioned the court which oversaw the condemnation of Galileo, was not presided over by the pope? Therefore, the sentence of Galileo was the "Sentence of Galileo ", not the “Papal Condemnation of Galileo”. The pope sanctioned the court; he was not one of the judges who sat in on the trial of Galileo. Even if the pope were a judge in the trial of Galileo (which he wasn’t), the fact that inquisitional court rulings are not infallible is very important in understanding all this.

The pope sanctioned the Spanish Inquisition and other tribunals. Does that mean every ruling of the Spanish Inquisition was the “Papal Condemnation of [insert name of person]”?

 

[Hildebrand]

For those who say the Church infallibly proclaimed the earth to be the center of the universe:

If the Church’s official teaching were so clear on the matter, why then was Pope Urban VIII open to Galileo writing a book on the merits of Copernican system, a “heresy” (according to the above)? Was he a lover of heretics and heresy?

 

[biblesound]

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.

why do you let anyone control what you are to believe in. read the bible to find out what to believe in. just an opinion

 

[trth_skr]

Hildebrand:

Has anyone mentioned that inquisitional court rulings are NOT infallible?

http://www.catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

Has anyone mentioned the court which oversaw the condemnation of Galileo, was not presided over by the pope? Therefore, the sentence of Galileo was the "Sentence of Galileo ", not the “Papal Condemnation of Galileo”. The pope sanctioned the court; he was not one of the judges who sat in on the trial of Galileo. Even if the pope were a judge in the trial of Galileo (which he wasn’t), the fact that inquisitional court rulings are not infallible is very important in understanding all this.

The pope sanctioned the Spanish Inquisition and other tribunals. Does that mean every ruling of the Spanish Inquisition was the “Papal Condemnation of [insert name of person]”?

It likey was not infallible.

The Pope (Urban VIII) was very involved in the proceedings; though you are correct that technically he was not a judge.

The pope was not involved in the Spanish inquisition.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

biblesound:

why do you let anyone control what you are to believe in. read the bible to find out what to believe in. just an opinion

This is a Catholic forum. The magesterium interprets the Bible.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Hildebrand]

trth_skr:

It likey was not infallible.

I repeat, it was NOT infallible.

trth_skr:

The Pope (Urban VIII) was very involved in the proceedings;

Do you know why? Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to write about the Copernican system. First off, Galileo insulted the Pope Urban VIII in his book. Second, Galileo disobeyed the pope’s guidelines for the book.

You would think the Pope would be heavily involved after all this.

trth_skr:

though you are correct that technically he was not a judge.

This is not some technicality. The pope was NOT one of the judges, therefore it cannot rightly be called the “Papal Condemnation of Galileo”. The pope was probably very, very happy in the results of the trial because Galileo had crossed him.

trth_skr:

The pope was not involved in the Spanish inquisition.

Was the pope friends with Spaniards who insulted him? You are now comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Aquarius]

Hildebrand:

I repeat, it was NOT infallible.

Do you know why? Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to write about the Copernican system. First off, Galileo insulted the Pope Urban VIII in his book. Second, Galileo disobeyed the pope’s guidelines for the book.

You would think the Pope would be heavily involved after all this.

This is not some technicality. The pope was NOT one of the judges, therefore it cannot rightly be called the “Papal Condemnation of Galileo”. The pope was probably very, very happy in the results of the trial because Galileo had crossed him.

Was the pope friends with Spaniards who insulted him? You are now comparing apples and oranges.

"*This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, by command of His Holiness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center 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."*

Were they wrong to invoke the pope’s name here? Was it not by the command of His Holiness?

 

[Hildebrand]

Aquarius:

Were they wrong to invoke the pope’s name here?

No, it was not wrong because the pope appointed a special commission to investigate the Galileo matter.

The pope was not a judge in the tribunal. Like other tribunals, the pope sanctioned it, but was not part of the judging and sentencing.

 

[trth_skr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
It likey was not infallible.

Hildebrand:

I repeat, it was NOT infallible.

I guess we LARGELY agree.

Hildebrand:

Do you know why? Pope Urban VIII gave Galileo permission to write about the Copernican system. First off, Galileo insulted the Pope Urban VIII in his book. Second, Galileo disobeyed the pope’s guidelines for the book.

You would think the Pope would be heavily involved after all this.

You impute motives. He did it ultimately because it was his duty as pope to do so. He did like Galileo. He tried to warn him against positing heliocentrism as absolute. Still, in the end he did what he had to do.

Hildebrand:

This is not some technicality. The pope was NOT one of the judges, therefore it cannot rightly be called the “Papal Condemnation of Galileo”. The pope was probably very, very happy in the results of the trial because Galileo had crossed him.

It was a papal condemnation. He was directly involved in it. It was done with his knowledge, consent, and assistance, and by his authority.

Hildebrand:

Was the pope friends with Spaniards who insulted him? You are now comparing apples and oranges.

You are the one who brought up the Spanish inquisition, not me. You are right it is apples and oranges, that is why I responsded. The Spanish inquisition was done at the behest of Isabella with the pope’s permission and authority. Galileo’s was done at the pope’s behest.

And the issue of geocentrism is bigger than just Galileo.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Hildebrand]

trth_skr:

It was a papal condemnation. He was directly involved in it.

He was directly involved with it, but he was not involved as a judge.

You can call it “The Papal Commission’s Condemnation of Galileo”. That would be accurate. Calling it “The Papal Condemnation of Galileo” IS slightly misleading.

 

[BJRumph]

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

Kinda says it all, really. Science isn’t even involved here, just philosophical positions and their equally ephemerial consequences.

Philosophically, the Earth is necessarily the center of our existence/universe, and its astronomical/scientific cosmic position is irrelevant to the discussion ecept as far as it impacts the philosophy.

From a philosophical standpoint, to declair the Sun the centerpoint of the universe is to philosophically deny our own dignity, from the position of the Church, from its God given and ordained position, to a near meaningless by-product of some arbitrary celestial mechanism, a POV the Church continues to strive against even today.

As some here have tried to point out, it is not a matter of questioned science, but the philosophical perspectives being inserted into it by those who wish to use science against religion, a situation which would not naturally occurr.

So, does a Catholic have to be an Astronomical Geocentrist? No.
Do they have to be a Philosophical Geocentrist? Yes, when understanding the point correctly and addressing it as such.

I did read the debate listed previously; not the model of apologetics I must say. Additionally, other articles referenced on the site gave a host of scriptural references that “demand” the geocentricity of the Earth, and despite the number of references, it comes down to a couple of “historical” incidences (Hezikiah’s shadow being reveresed and Joshua’s battlefeild Sun stopper), and a couple poetic references (which if needing to be taken literaly as suggested, why do we then ignore the literalness of the Four Pillars which hold up the Earth as well mentioned in a following verse?), one cite had absolutely nothing to do with celestial mechanics on any level. In the end, nothing which suggests that there is quite the volume of scriptural demands of a celestial geocentric model as posited. Apparently a shoddy attempt to prove a point by over-representing an evidence that the author did not anticipate their audience would actually research. Reminds me of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”

Even in my college astronomy class we discussed the “rising” and “setting” of the Sun, even as we denied the geocentric astronomical reference that is apparently “mandated” by such terminology.

While I do contend that one could provide a ptolemic model of our solar system that could accurately explain observations, the fact remains that such a model would be incredibly complex to utilize, and significantly more complicated in comparison to the currently used Heliocentric models, making the ptolemic model unusable on a utilitarian assessment.

As to its heterodoxy, that is again a technical determination that is accurate on a scriptural (that is literal/literary) level, despite having progressed beyond a point of requiring Copper domes holding back the Celestial Sea, and angels bearing the Stars as candles. This is where the Pilgrim Church, that recognizes its own room for groth in understanding of God’s creation, is so appreciated by little souls such as myself.

But then, its all just mho.

Inter arma caritas

 

[trth_skr]

Hildebrand:

He was directly involved with it, but he was not involved as a judge.

You can call it “The Papal Commission’s Condemnation of Galileo”. That would be accurate. Calling it “The Papal Condemnation of Galileo” IS slightly misleading.

I think you are somewhat splitting hairs.

Urban the VIII was directly involved. He ordered Galileo to Rome. He ordered a second hearing and told the judges what to do (i.e., threaten him with torture, but don’t actually do it; if found guilty, accuse him of being vehemently suspect of heresy, not a heretic, etc.). After the trial, the pope ordered the results sent throughout the universities.

It was Urban VIII’s condemnation.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com