A
Augustine3
Guest
Anybody?
- Status
P
PiousTemplar
Guest
When a person is excommunicated then he is no longer eligible to receive the holy Eucharist. Does that mean he is no longer in the state of grace? If he remains excommunicated until death would he surely go to hell?
Pretty much. Unless it was an invalid or incorrect excommunication. If it was a mistaken Excommunication, then the person is still in a State of Grace. He’s not going to be condemned, God knows the person did nothing wrong!
T
twinc
Guest
so you didn’t click on www.galileowaswrong.com - you see Galileo was wrong for not just the sun but the whole universe revolves around the earth and the Church,Bible and God were not and cannot be wrong - twinc
A
Asbury
Guest
You have got to be kidding me; you are going to tell me that you actually believe in a geocentric view of the universe. If you believe that the earth is the center of the universe based on a purely literal interpretation of the bible you might as well believe the world is flat.
Isaiah 11:12
*12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. *(KJV)
Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)
Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)
L
larsenl1
Guest
I haven’t been back online until just now.
IF a person has been excommunicated and IF that person dies without repenting and asking for forgiveness, we can conclude (because of what Jesus taught us) that the judgment may be eternal damnation to hell. Jesus warned us of hell more than he talked about redemption. However, we as persons, do not truly know the state of a person’s soul. Hell may well be empty. God can do anything at any time.
Applying this to the case of Galileo is moot because it has been clearly stated that he was not excommunicated at any time.
Thanks for sparking this discussion, it makes my brain work and staves off dementia!
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I think one would go to purgatory if they were repentent.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Good points! The Bible is not a science book - it is poetic and allegorical. I rather doubt the sun stood still when Joshua fought the battle of Jerico either!!
E
edwest2
Guest
The Bible contains accounts of things God actually did. God is not limited by our understanding of science.
Here is the story about Galileo:
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
Peace,
Ed
Here is the story about Galileo:
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
Peace,
Ed
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
It’s true that Galileo was not entirely correct, but he was right about the earth revolving around the sun.
Here is the ending of the article you cited above:
"It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth."
Although he was not entirely correct, I think we hopefully all agree on a heliocentric solar system!
T
twinc
Guest
who do you mean by we - excepting God and the Church Fathers presumably they got it wrong - see Geocentricism at www.scripturecatholic.com - twinc
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
The church admits it got it wrong, didn’t you read the quote? I can’t open your link to Geocentricism. How about you summarize it for me?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Pope John Paul II regretted the treatment which Galileo received, in a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1992. The Pope declared the incident to be based on a “tragic mutual miscomprehension”. He further stated:
Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele. . . . The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.
Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius “Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur”. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.
There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.
Cardinal Poupard has also reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele. . . . The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture.
Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius “Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur”. In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.
There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. To the latter belong especially the experimental sciences and philosophy. The distinction between the two realms of knowledge ought not to be understood as opposition.
E
edwest2
Guest
Yet too often, Catholics are confronted here with certain questions and certain statements. This conflict between different realms of knowledge does occur in the secular world because it does not like the idea that the Church can say anything at all about the physical world. This will continue to be an issue here.
Peace,
Ed
B
Brendan
Guest
No, Special Relativity showed that there is no such thing as a standard reference frame.
The description of motion requires what is called a inertial reference frame, the presumed point from which motion is described. To say that the earth revolves around the sun is a statement that the earth’s motion is relative to the sun (hence the term ‘Relativity’)
What Einstein showed in Special Relativity is that there is no such thing as an objective standard refernce frame.
Thus, when describing motion, it is equally valid to use either point ( sun or earth) as the inertial reference frame.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame
What Galileo did was to change what was then the internal reference frame from the Earth ( all motion was described relative to the Earth) to the Sun (all motion was described relative to the Sun). But Einstein show that there really is no true inertial reference frame, only relative one (again, that’s why Relativity is called ‘Relativity’ :
)
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
How about the other planets in our solar system? Do they revolve around the sun or does the sun do loop-de-loops around all the planets?No, Special Relativity showed that there is no such thing as a standard reference frame.
The description of motion requires what is called a inertial reference frame, the presumed point from which motion is described. To say that the earth revolves around the sun is a statement that the earth’s motion is relative to the sun (hence the term ‘Relativity’)
What Einstein showed in Special Relativity is that there is no such thing as an objective standard refernce frame.
Thus, when describing motion, it is equally valid to use either point ( sun or earth) as the inertial reference frame.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame
What Galileo did was to change what was then the internal reference frame from the Earth ( all motion was described relative to the Earth) to the Sun (all motion was described relative to the Sun). But Einstein show that there really is no true inertial reference frame, only relative one (again, that’s why Relativity is called ‘Relativity’ :
Rather than relativity, it sounds like you might actually be a believer in Tycho Brahe’s geo-heliocentric system, where the sun revolves around the earth but the rest of the planets revolve around the sun.
B
Brendan
Guest
No, I’m an Engineer and my wife is a Physics Professor.
It is because of Relativity that you cannot legitimately say that a rocket is moving away from the Earth rather than the Earth moving away from the rocket.
There is no standard interial reference frame.
If that was not the case, the speed of light would be different when measured from the rocket than it would be from the earth. Since that is not the case, the speed of light is the same no matter where you measure it, you cannot state that one is moving relative to the other without the reverse being true.
Go read the articel I posted.
T
twinc
Guest
There is really no issue for Catholics/Christians - the Church,Scriptures,God were not and cannot be wrong - it is the greater than and cleverer than God individuals that must be and are always wrong - btw try again www.galileowaswrong.com and www.scripturecatholic.com - twinc
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I can’t make heads or tails of it.
How do you explain the other planets’ motions? How is space travel possible if everything is relative to one another. How did we send a spacecraft to Mars? How do you explain the seasons and the 365 day year? . Does the space shuttle revolve around the earth or does the earth revolve around the space shuttle and the same with our moon? If the earth is revolving around the moon, how do you explain the phases of the moon or the tides? When we look at Jupiter through a telescope we can see moons revolving around it, not Jupiter revolving around its moons. I could go on and on…
Relativity makes no sense to me.
A
Asbury
Guest
Why are you using Special Relativity to understand the motion of the Earth? From my memory, Special Relaivity tends to be used to understand the physics of large objects traveling at very fast speeds (ie close to the speed of light). Whereas Classical Physics tends to be used for large objects traveling at slow speed or those we as humans can more easily relate to. Therefore it seems that to understand the motion of the planets using classical physics should be quite sufficient. Thus we can use Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation to understand the gravitational forces at work to cause the Earth to orbit around the Sun. While we could be more accurate using general relativity to understand the Earth’s orbit, it seems like it would hardly be necessary.No, Special Relativity showed that there is no such thing as a standard reference frame.
The description of motion requires what is called a inertial reference frame, the presumed point from which motion is described. To say that the earth revolves around the sun is a statement that the earth’s motion is relative to the sun (hence the term ‘Relativity’)
What Einstein showed in Special Relativity is that there is no such thing as an objective standard refernce frame.
Thus, when describing motion, it is equally valid to use either point ( sun or earth) as the inertial reference frame.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Lack_of_an_absolute_reference_frame
What Galileo did was to change what was then the internal reference frame from the Earth ( all motion was described relative to the Earth) to the Sun (all motion was described relative to the Sun). But Einstein show that there really is no true inertial reference frame, only relative one (again, that’s why Relativity is called ‘Relativity’ :
B
Brendan
Guest
Classical motion and Relativistic Motion are very similar at low speeds, but Classical breaks down at higher speeds.
But the point of relativity was that there are no real absolute reference frames. Galileo did lay the foundation for that, it showing that the mathematics are a whole lot easier to describe planetary motion if one uses the Sun as the reference frame.
(As I mentioned earlier, his mathematics were actually WAY off, in that he used circles as his model for planetary motion. They orbits are really eliptical relative to the sun)
But in ‘real’ terms, any reference frame is equally valid. All the Galilean model indicated was the mathematics of planetary motion is easier if you consider the sun to be stationary. That allowed for Kepler and Newton to develop their equations, which are excellent approximations given the low speeds involved.
- Status