So, we're supposed to believe geocentrism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlindSheep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
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.
40.png
BJRumph:
Kinda says it all, really. Science isn’t even involved here, just philosophical positions and their equally ephemerial consequences.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if we can compare the word ‘philosophy’ then and now. Still I agree it sums it up, but the point being more that it is contrary to Scripture.
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
Click to expand...
The philosophy invloves the ability to demonstrate heliocentrism, thus opening the question of questioning Scripture. The demonstration was not made then, nor has it been made today.
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
Click to expand...
I read nothing about dignity in any of the condemnations. This sounds like a modern reinterpretation of what occured 300+ years ago.
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
Click to expand...
Sounds nice, but really it is baseless to the evidence.
40.png
BJRumph:
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 …[snipped to stay < 5000 chartacters] Reminds me of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The fathers interpreted these passages geocentrically- especially Joshua 10 and Hezekiah’s shadow. They used other passages to support it.
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
Click to expand...
They did not claim that obviously figuratiuve language proved geocentrism. Please give the fathers some credit. As Robert Sungenis recently pointed out, the “sun rising and setting” is figurative in both the heliocentric and geocentric systems.
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
Click to expand...
Again, it is not the Ptolemaic model being posited.
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
…
Click to expand...
Copper domes and angels with candles were not unanomous conclusions of the fathers, nor were they the object of official declarations of the Church.

You are trying to use some general principles and some common sense (incompletely applied) to overturn specific and explicit actions of the Church, involving the fathers, three popes, at least 11 theologians (in official capacity), and St. Bellarmine over a period of more than 50 years- then supported by popes explicitly for another ~175 years (even to this day, maybe 2 or 3 popes might have undermined the decisions, but it is not clear), and still to this day not reversed. Even Galileo himself recanted heliocentrism before his death.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
I am not sure if we can compare the word ‘philosophy’ then and now. Still I agree it sums it up, but the point being more that it is contrary to Scripture.
Click to expand...
True, the word “Philosophy” as used today is quite different than it was used then (when it typically included the phsyical sciences). Nevertheless, the objections to any argument are based upon modern, or more specifically, current, concepts.
I read nothing about dignity in any of the condemnations. This sounds like a modern reinterpretation of what occured 300+ years ago.
Click to expand...
First, why would you expect to see such, as the Church did not speak in such terms at that point. Secondly, why is that a bad thing, as it is modern people discussing the issue, from a necessarily modern-bias of thought, despite any attempt to hide such. What, really, is the point of questioning it today, if it didn’t apply to your current/modern circumstance? IIRC, the original post posited this as a point of Faith wherein a current “crisis” was involved; therefore it must necessarily be topically discussed from a modern veiw. Instead it seems that the only point of “modern” thought allowed in the discussion, is to use modern standards to condemn the issue, rather than evaluating it within its actual context. Can’t really be too selective in what points are to be modern, and which have to be addressed in their historical context. Would the Church, under BXVI, act the same as it did under Urban? Why not? Regardless, we cannot use modern standards to judge the affairs while trying to isolate the circumstances and specifics to historical criterion exclusively. Otherwise, what is the point of having a continuing Magesterium, or priesthood for that matter, if it is going to be ignored in its present existence.
They did not claim that obviously figuratiuve language proved geocentrism. Please give the fathers some credit. As Robert Sungenis recently pointed out, the “sun rising and setting” is figurative in both the heliocentric and geocentric systems.
Click to expand...
And yet it is precisely Sungenis who trys to utilize such biblical references as positive support for his absolute Geocentricism, which you are here saying the Fathers reject as being figurative. I agree, the Fathers were far more reasonable than is being presented. Out of the several scriptural references provided as proof by Sungenis, it boils down to only Hezikiah and Joshua (as all other are either retellings or references to either of these two occurances, or are composed of the same “figurative” language you recognize as such). Admittedly, both instances make more sense from a geocentric model than a heliocentric one, even still, such occurances, if taken literally, are still miracles of a high order that defies physical explaination even under a Geocentric veiw. As such, to assert that a heliocentric model invalidates the miracles involved is in error, as under any model, those two events are not naturally explainable.
Even Galileo himself recanted heliocentrism before his death.
Click to expand...
And? It is equally erroneous to assert the Sun as the center of the universe as it is to assert the Earth is, geographically speaking. Besides which, as mentioned, I agree that it was less about a purely scientific point than it was about theological philosophies covering ideological politics. Who was more obnoxious about it doesn’t concern me personally.

If you say that a Catholic is bound by your list of Church officials to be bound to a Geocentric Model of the Universe, I have already agreed, to a point that is consistent with the entirety of the Church’s teachings (which includes the determination that it is not an “expert” on scientific matters, and only applies itself to their moral applications). Does that exclude the practical use of the heliocentric model from the toolbox of Astronomers? I’d have to say no.

As a matter of it being still considered an actual Heresy, I have to conclude that it is not. As we both agree, at the time of trial, the term “Philosophy” embraced the physical sciences; however, it no longer does. As our veiws and classifications of things have changed, it is also necessary to re-evaluate the assumptions and conclusions created by prior systems. The current Church views the Scripture in a very different light than it did 300 years ago; as such, I do not believe that it would currently hold that the scriptures “creating” the necessity of a geocentric model are to be viewed as a literal necessity (outside the record of a miracle of God), thereby being a matter of actual Faith, and therefore would not rise to the level of being a matter that can be classified as capable of being “Heresy”.

Outside of that, I fail to see how the matter further appertains to a current person’s crisis of Faith, unless one is using this circumstance as merely the limited exemplar of a larger charge against the Church, thereby creating the present crisis.
 
40.png
BJRumph:
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.
Click to expand...
What does the selection of the centerpoint have to do with dignity? We are enormously ignorant, yet we must be the center? Why?
 
40.png
BJRumph:
True, the word “Philosophy” as used today is quite different than it was used then (when it typically included the phsyical sciences). Nevertheless, the objections to any argument are based upon modern, or more specifically, current, concepts.
Click to expand...
That is the important point. We must interpret what was said from this knowledge, thus we cannot replace the word “philosophy” as defined then with the defintion today as I felt you were doing.

Quote:
I read nothing about dignity in any of the condemnations. This sounds like a modern reinterpretation of what occured 300+ years ago.
40.png
BJRumph:
First, why would you expect to see such, as the Church did not speak in such terms at that point. Secondly, why is that a bad thing, as it is modern people discussing the issue, from a necessarily modern-bias of thought, despite any attempt to hide such. What, really, is the point of questioning it today, if it didn’t apply to your current/modern circumstance? IIRC, the original post posited this as a point of Faith wherein a current “crisis” was involved; therefore it must necessarily be topically discussed from a modern veiw. Instead it seems that the only point of “modern” thought allowed in the discussion, is to use modern standards to condemn the issue, rather than evaluating it within its actual context. Can’t really be too selective in what points are to be modern, and which have to be addressed in their historical context.
Click to expand...
The Church can re-examine the issue from a modern perspective. I guess we as individuals can speculate as to what such a modern re-examination may look like, but we are not the Church. I interpreted your “dignity” thought as your explanation of what "really " occurred (as opposed to what the declarers declared). If the Church were to accept your dignity arument, plus explain how it is consistent with what was done, plus explicitly reversed what was done with authority equal or greater than originally used, perhaps yoiur “dignity” thought could be viewed as an explanation.

Until such time, the explanation of what occured is best obtained from reading the actual declarations from the popes who made them.

This is reinforced by the fact that the scientific aspect of the issue has not changed- i.e., science has still not made Bellarmine’s demonstration. If the basic issue has not changed, why ought the conclusions change?
40.png
BJRumph:
Would the Church, under BXVI, act the same as it did under Urban? Why not? Regardless, we cannot use modern standards to judge the affairs while trying to isolate the circumstances and specifics to historical criterion exclusively. Otherwise, what is the point of having a continuing Magesterium, or priesthood for that matter, if it is going to be ignored in its present existence.
Click to expand...
It really matters not what Benedict XVI would have done, because Paul V, Urban VIII,a nd Alexander VII did what they did do.

As I have said a number of times, I believe the Chuch could reverse the decrees IF they had reason to. It would be foolish to even consider reopening the case in an official manner until at least Bellarmine’s demonstration is made. JPII did reopen it somewhat, but never actually did anything (beyond a private speech to the PAS).

I do not think Bellarmine’s demonstration will be made. This is the true issue. Science does not know, and God did reveal. Still, no one seems interested in this aspect of it.
40.png
BJRumph:
And yet it is precisely Sungenis who trys to utilize such biblical references as positive support for his absolute Geocentricism, which you are here saying the Fathers reject as being figurative. I agree, the Fathers were far more reasonable than is being presented. Out of the several scriptural references provided as proof by Sungenis, it boils down to only Hezikiah and Joshua (as all other are either retellings or references to either of these two occurances, or are composed of the same “figurative” language you recognize as such). Admittedly, both instances make more sense from a geocentric model than a heliocentric one, even still, such occurances, if taken literally, are still miracles of a high order that defies physical explaination even under a Geocentric veiw. As such, to assert that a heliocentric model invalidates the miracles involved is in error, as under any model, those two events are not naturally explainable.
Click to expand...
So do you accept the possibility that the earth is immobile at the center of the universe?

Continued…

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Continued…
40.png
BJRumph:
And? It is equally erroneous to assert the Sun as the center of the universe as it is to assert the Earth is, geographically speaking. Besides which, as mentioned, I agree that it was less about a purely scientific point than it was about theological philosophies covering ideological politics. Who was more obnoxious about it doesn’t concern me personally.
Click to expand...
You really cannot have it both ways. What the popes declared involved physical issues.
40.png
BJRumph:
If you say that a Catholic is bound by your list of Church officials to be bound to a Geocentric Model of the Universe, I have already agreed, to a point that is consistent with the entirety of the Church’s teachings (which includes the determination that it is not an “expert” on scientific matters, and only applies itself to their moral applications). Does that exclude the practical use of the heliocentric model from the toolbox of Astronomers? I’d have to say no.
Click to expand...
Even the popes in the 17th century had no issue with using the heliocentric model as a mathematical representation to simplify predictions (which never panned out).

You seem to be saying you do agree with geocentrism, but yet you do not. You cannot have it “philosophically” but not physically. It just does not work.
40.png
BJRumph:
As a matter of it being still considered an actual Heresy, I have to conclude that it is not. As we both agree, at the time of trial, the term “Philosophy” embraced the physical sciences; however, it no longer does.
Click to expand...
But since it did at that time, our interpretation must account for this fact. The proclamations, regardless of semantics did involve the physical aspect.
40.png
BJRumph:
As our veiws and classifications of things have changed, it is also necessary to re-evaluate the assumptions and conclusions created by prior systems.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Bellarmine’s demonstration has not been made. All that has changed is opinion.
40.png
BJRumph:
The current Church views the Scripture in a very different light than it did 300 years ago; as such, I do not believe that it would currently hold that the scriptures “creating” the necessity of a geocentric model are to be viewed as a literal necessity (outside the record of a miracle of God), thereby being a matter of actual Faith, and therefore would not rise to the level of being a matter that can be classified as capable of being “Heresy”.
Click to expand...
Scriptural truths are inerrant, and do not change. True, our understanding of them may change. Until Bellarmine’s demonstration is made, It would be foolish to attempt to change our understanding, since it would be done from a position of not understanding and only reacting to unfavorable opinions of “the world”.
40.png
BJRumph:
Outside of that, I fail to see how the matter further appertains to a current person’s crisis of Faith, unless one is using this circumstance as merely the limited exemplar of a larger charge against the Church, thereby creating the present crisis.
Click to expand...
That is a fair assesment.

Science has not made Bellarmine’s demonstration. It IS still quite possinble that the universe is geocentric:
  1. The only way this would occur, statistically, is if God chose it to be so- to the denigration of the evil one.
  2. Catholics go so far out of their way to support the undemonstrated opinions of science, even while denigrating the Church.
  3. The universe may well be (and I believe is) exactly as God revealed, as interpreted by the fathers and verified by the popes. Think about that.
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
It’s noteworthy that probably the only place one might find a discussion of the validity of geocentrism is on a religious forum such as this. Are there any such discussions to be found in scientific journals?

So the Church was wrong once about a scientific matter. That’s not a problem. The only lesson it need learn from that is to be very cautious about making pronouncements in the scientific arena.

It seems to me that perhaps one impetus behind the geocentric model is the philosophical view of mankind as the only rational animal—the centerpiece of material creation, ontologically less than angels, but higher than plants and animals, and the recipient of God’s promises.

That the human creature could be located on one planet of an (astronomically) obscure star, located in a spiral arm of one of millions of similar galaxies within a vast spherical universe—does that somehow seem to diminish mankind, and thereby God’s creation? Not in my view. I think it rather enhances our understanding of God’s creative power. Indeed, a geocentric universe seems to me rather to diminish God’s scope.

But that is neither science nor philosophy, just some random thoughts.
 
40.png
JimG:
…So the Church was wrong once about a scientific matter…
Click to expand...
The whole premise of the matter rests on this one assumption, doesn’t it JimG?

I will repeat:

Science has not demonstrated that the earth moves (in a manner distinguishable from countermovement of the universe).

Removing that obstacle, why be so quick to dismiss the interpretation of the fathers and the declarations of three popes, guided by the Holy Spirit (unchallenged by any subsequent popes- at least in any official manner)?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
JimG:
So the Church was wrong once about a scientific matter. That’s not a problem. The only lesson it need learn from that is to be very cautious about making pronouncements in the scientific arena.
Click to expand...
But the question is whether or not it is a problem. If the Church and the Pope, it its lawful capacity infallibly proclaimed that geocentrism is true, then it’s not merely a “so what,” position. It cuts to the heart of infalliblity. If the Church proclaimed something infallibly and was wrong then the whole idea of infalliblility is a sham. That’s what bothers me. And if the Church did incorrectly proclaim, infallibly, that geocentrism is true, then perhaps that is a problem.

This is exactly what my exchanges with John Doran were about. 1. Can the Church, in Her capacity, proclaim infallibly on these issues in the manner we’re discussing? and 2. Did She?
 
40.png
RobNY:
…This is exactly what my exchanges with John Doran were about. 1. Can the Church, in Her capacity, proclaim infallibly on these issues in the manner we’re discussing? and 2. Did She?
Click to expand...
Again, even if it is not infallibe, meaning that it was proclaimed according to the formula which would lead to it being infallible- does not mean it is not theologically certain.

Not everything that is certain theologically has been proclaimed in a manner which meets the formula for infallibility.

I personally tend to think it was not infallible, but others do disagree and feel it was infallible.

I think the important thing is not whether it is infallible or not, but rather whether it is true or not.

Whether or not it is infallible, the Church placed its authority on the line. The Church has been under attack for the proclamations, including from Catholics (not completely their fault as they have been taught heliocentrism since age 5). The Church has become afraid to stand behind the decision.

All this, and yet there is no demonstration that the Church was wrong to begin with. It is still well within the realm of possibility, even from a scientific perspective, that the Church was in fact correct. What a pity. What a lack of faith. This is very similar to Fatima.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
RobNY:
If the Church proclaimed something infallibly and was wrong then the whole idea of infalliblility is a sham.
Click to expand...
But it didn’t. It adopted a common ancient and medieval worldview. That’s not a problem to me. I’m not an expert on the matter, but it seems that the heliocentric worldview was postulated by many clerics. Come to think of it, those on both sides of the arguent were mostly Catholics in good standing.

In any case, heliocentrism also turned out to be wrong. The sun is no more the center of the universe than is the earth. And in the 16th century, nobody was aware of the existence of other galaxies distant from our own. Neither were they aware of the actual size of the universe. The visible stars were thought to be pretty much equally distant from the earth.

Turns out the universe is a lot more complex than that. It just goes to show that it is a mistake make astronomy into a theological discipline.
 
40.png
JimG:
But it didn’t. It adopted a common ancient and medieval worldview. That’s not a problem to me. I’m not an expert on the matter, but it seems that the heliocentric worldview was postulated by many clerics. Come to think of it, those on both sides of the arguent were mostly Catholics in good standing.

In any case, heliocentrism also turned out to be wrong. The sun is no more the center of the universe than is the earth. And in the 16th century, nobody was aware of the existence of other galaxies distant from our own. Neither were they aware of the actual size of the universe. The visible stars were thought to be pretty much equally distant from the earth.

Turns out the universe is a lot more complex than that. It just goes to show that it is a mistake make astronomy into a theological discipline.
Click to expand...
The entire cosmology and cosmogony of our universe was not declared. What was is:
  1. The earth does ont move.
  2. The sun moves around it.
Modern science has not demonstrated that other than that is true. The Church has spoken on those issues, and we can have confidence that those two points are correct.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
The entire cosmology and cosmogony of our universe was not declared. What was is:
  1. The earth does ont move.
  2. The sun moves around it.
Modern science has not demonstrated that other than that is true. The Church has spoken on those issues, and we can have confidence that those two points are correct.
Click to expand...
  1. Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion can be shown to be consequences of Newton’s Second Law of Motion and the Law of Universal Gravitation. Do you disagree with these two laws of Newton? and if so, where is your disagreement?
  2. Kepler’s first Law can be derived from these two laws of Newton. But does not Kepler’s first Law of planetary motion contradict your two statements above? For example, one statement of it is that a planet revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus. This is demonstrated in almost any decent elementary calculus book, and it looks to me like it contradicts what you are claiming. For example, to take the proof from wikipedia:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler’s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Kepler.27s_first_law_2
    Where do you disagree with this derivation?
    Also see:
    csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonkepler.html
 
40.png
trth_skr:
The entire cosmology and cosmogony of our universe was not declared. What was is:
  1. The earth does ont move.
  2. The sun moves around it.
Click to expand...
But these two propositions are pretty much based upon the ancient and medieval worldview of earth at the center of a series of concentric spheres, with the fixed stars being the outermost circle.

Geocentrism as you seem to propose it involves a fixed and non-rotating earth, with the entire universe rotating around it once every 24 hours. Needless to say, with a universe whose diameter is in excess of 20 billion light years, that involves galaxies at the periphery traveling at speeds far in excess of the speed of light. I’m not sure what speeds like that would do to the red or blue shift of light from those galaxies, but certainly it would be different from what is observed, i.e. a universal red shift.
 
40.png
stanley123:
  1. Kepler’s Laws of planetary motion can be shown to be consequences of Newton’s Second Law of Motion and the Law of Universal Gravitation. Do you disagree with these two laws of Newton? and if so, where is your disagreement?
As a general principle, they work mathematically. But, you cannot treat the sun and earth or the soilar system as an isolated system, ignoring the rest of the universe (this basically stems from Mach’s principle). If the entire universe is rotating, with earth as its stable center, then the sun gets carried around with the universe. The planets then orbit the sun with Keplerian elliptical orbits, plus any disturbances.
  1. Kepler’s first Law can be derived from these two laws of Newton. But does not Kepler’s first Law of planetary motion contradict your two statements above? For example, one statement of it is that a planet revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with the Sun at one focus. This is demonstrated in almost any decent elementary calculus book, and it looks to me like it contradicts what you are claiming. For example, to take the proof from wikipedia:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler’s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Kepler.27s_first_law_2
    Where do you disagree with this derivation?
    Also see:
    csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtonkepler.html
Click to expand...
As a general principle, Newtons’s laws work mathematically. But, you cannot treat the sun and earth or the solar system as an isolated system, ignoring the rest of the universe (this basically stems from Mach’s principle).

If the entire universe is rotating, with earth as its stable center, then the sun gets carried around with the universe. The planets then orbit the sun with Keplerian elliptical orbits, plus any disturbances. This is the modern Tychonian system.

I have explained how this can work in the first two parts of this series:

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett will explain even more int he upcoming book Galileo was Wrong.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Aren’t you all going off topic? The purpose of this thread was not to disucss the validity of geocentrism, but whether this is an official Church teaching; or ever had the status of such a teaching. And if so, what implications this may have on the future changing of Church teachings.
 
40.png
JimG:
But these two propositions are pretty much based upon the ancient and medieval worldview of earth at the center of a series of concentric spheres, with the fixed stars being the outermost circle.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is not true. Tych Brahe had proposed his geocentric system by that time. Regardless of what “worldview” some people may have had, the popes did not make any declarations concerning it [the world view]. The popes and theologians at the time knew what the earth was ( a sphere in space) and knew what the sun was.
40.png
JimG:
Geocentrism as you seem to propose it involves a fixed and non-rotating earth, with the entire universe rotating around it once every 24 hours. Needless to say, with a universe whose diameter is in excess of 20 billion light years, that involves galaxies at the periphery traveling at speeds far in excess of the speed of light. I’m not sure what speeds like that would do to the red or blue shift of light from those galaxies, but certainly it would be different from what is observed, i.e. a universal red shift.
Click to expand...
A universal redshift is usually interpreted as the universe expanding radially outwards, not angularly. In Genesis, the Hebrew word raqiya is derived from a root word to “beat out” or spread out", meaning the frmament (fabric of the universe) was “spread out” during the creation (and possibly continuing). This could be the origin of the redshift.

I have explained in part II of my blog (with Part I to set up the scenario) the issue of light speed.

**Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top