Vatican II

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

…
While some people might think that they are better than the Bishops, I think that obedience to them seems to only apply to the ultra-conservative bishops or even schismatic bishops. Last time I checked the USCCB was an authoritative body and I personally enjoy their literature, including especially their book on the 1986 meeting of religion and science with such names as Edward O. Wilson and Dr. Lejeune of Paris present.

Where have the Bishops authoritatively said that geoecntrism is wrong ?

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[GodnCountry]

Modernism can chew up theology in a flash if one doesn’t pay attention.
We’re taught homosexuality is a mental disorder now. what if scientists claim gay gene is found?

 

[mark_a]

GodnCountry:

Modernism can chew up theology in a flash if one doesn’t pay attention.
We’re taught homosexuality is a mental disorder now. what if scientists claim gay gene is found?

Most of this is way over my head, but I think I agree w/ you. I don’t think that genetic programming is an excuse for any particular destructive behavior.

Women may be genetically programmed to find a better looking partner when they are most fertile, and men may be programmed to have as many partners as possible, but this behavior is destructive to the most important unit in society (the family).

 

[bear06]

This just came across my computer today. I don’t have a link, mea culpa. It is from thi: VATICAN CITY, JAN. 8, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Here is Benedict XVI’s address, delivered on Dec. 22, to cardinals, archbishops, bishops and members of the Roman Curia in the traditional exchange of Christmas greetings.

Here’s a quote from it regarding this topic. It’s a great article if you can find it.

he last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago.
This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council?
Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St. Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicaea: He compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamoring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or
failure the right doctrine of the faith …” (“De Spiritu Sancto,” XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).

 

[bear06]

I found the link:

zenit.org/english/ but it’s only the link to the home page. I suppose you can just look under the date if you’re reading this next week!

 

[EtienneGilson]

In order to avoid the accusation of bias, as to Mother Angelica, EWTN and the bishops (Foley, Mahony, Lynch), I will quote the conservative “Catholic League”:

When word reached Rome that a cloistered abbess was traveling the country in pursuit of her broadcasting dream, she ran into trouble with both American bishops and Vatican officials…

As to her own operations, Mother Angelica did not take kindly to those clerics who questioned her authority to showcase some bishops, but not others. “I happen to own the network,” she instructed. When told that this would not be forever, she let loose: “I’ll blow the damn thing up before you get your hands on it.”

In 1989, a report by the bishops complained that EWTN rejected “one out of every three programs submitted by the bishops conference.” The bishops and Mother Angelica were clearly on a collision course: she had no tolerance for the theological dissidence that was tolerated by many bishops and their staff.

catholicleague.org/research/motherangelica.htm

And of course you don’t see Sungenis mentioned in the article by Cardinal Schonborn because I was refering to his statements on fundamentalism and naive-literal interpretations of Genesis which bring the faith into scorn:

The Catholic position on this is clear. St. Thomas says that “one should not try to defend the Christian faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.” It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers. It is not right to use such false arguments and to expose the faith to the scorn of unbelievers. This should suffice on the subject of “creationism” and “fundamentalism”

stephanscom.at/edw/katechesen/articles/2005/12/02/a9719/

 

[EtienneGilson]

trth_skr:

Where have the Bishops authoritatively said that geoecntrism is wrong ?

I said Magisterium but if you don’t understand the difference between various pronouncements from the bishops and the teaching authority of the magisterium in totality, then how can you claim that geocentrism has been taught as part of the deposite of faith. I tend to agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree…

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares

It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope – who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope – and not of the body which calls itself the Church.
And von Gebler (“Galileo Galilei”):

The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

and

Opposition was first raised against the Copernican system by Protestant theologians for Biblical reasons and strange to say it has continued, at least sporadically, to our own days. A list of many of their Pamphlets is enumerated by Beckmann. On the Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo. On 5 March, 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index “until corrected”, and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV.

newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

I repeat the claim that such an unscientific theory brings the faith into scorn, irrisio infidelium.

 

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

I said Magisterium but if you don’t understand the difference between various pronouncements from the bishops and the teaching authority of the magisterium in totality, then how can you claim that geocentrism has been taught as part of the deposite of faith.

No, if you go back to my quote of you, you were speaking about bishops. If you cannot even read…

EtienneGilson:

I tend to agree with the Catholic Encyclopedia:
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

and newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

I repeat the claim that such an unscientific theory brings the faith into scorn, irrisio infidelium.

It is an opinion, and:

1. Neither I, not Robert Sungenis claim geocentrism was claimed infallibly by Paul V or Urban VIII.

I hold that very much of what we believe as Cathlics has not been proclaimed to the Vat. I level of papal infallibility.

1. Notice that they do not mention the Bull of Alexander VII (read here). Hmmm…

Either the non-authoritative authors of the article are wrong or three popes and the fathers are wrong.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EtienneGilson]

trth_skr:

No, if you go back to my quote of you, you were speaking about bishops. If you cannot even read…

I actually said **the ** bishops (as in the collective), meaning the ordinary, teaching, authoritative magisterium. I even constrasted it with individual bishops (including the bishop of Rome).

It is an opinion, and:

It may be an opinion, but it the opinion of (now you made me go brush off the dust from the CE 1913 edition):

Remy Lafort, S.T.D (censor disputatus)
John Cardinal Farley (Imprimatur and Archbishop of NY)

Charles G. Hermbermann, Ph.D., LL.D. (chief editor)
Edward A. Pace, Ph.D., D.D. (editor)
Conde B. Pallen, Ph.D., LL.D. (editor)
Thomas J. Shahan, D.D. (editor)
John J. Wynne, S.J. (editor)

John G. Hagen, S.J. (Vatican Observatory): Copernicus
John Gerard, S.J., F.L.S: Galileo

Not to mention Cardinal Poupard, Cardinal Schonborn, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.

1. Neither I, not Robert Sungenis claim geocentrism was claimed infallibly by Paul V or Urban VIII.

I hold that very much of what we believe as Cathlics has not been proclaimed to the Vat. I level of papal infallibility.

Then what is the point of your arguments from the “authority” of non-binding papal statements?

both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did.
newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

1. Notice that they do not mention the Bull of Alexander VII (read here). Hmmm…

So? It is merely about the index of 1664/5. Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus was removed by Benedict XIV from the Index in 1758. The Index never had any level of doctrinal authority and was even considerably embarrassing to many Catholics like John Henry Cardinal Newman who argued it should not be applied to the English world (as mentioned in the Lunn/Coulton debate ‘Is the Catholic Church anti-social?’)

Either the non-authoritative authors of the article are wrong or three popes and the fathers are wrong.

If that were true, than Catholicism is ‘the most pitiful’ of all creeds on earth.

 

[SHEMP]

mark a:

Has any other Church council been as controversial as VII within the first hundred years after the council ended??

Here is a quote from Pope Benedict in his address to the Roman Curia yeasterday:

The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here is the celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council 40 years ago. This memory prompts the question: What has been the result of the Council? Was it well received? What, in the acceptance of the Council, was good and what was inadequate or mistaken? What still remains to be done? No one can deny that in vast areas of the Church the implementation of the Council has been somewhat difficult, even without wishing to apply to what occurred in these years the description that St. Basil, the great Doctor of the Church, made of the Church’s situation after the Council of Nicaea: He compares her situation to a naval battle in the darkness of the storm, saying among other things: “The raucous shouting of those who through disagreement rise up against one another, the incomprehensible chatter, the confused din of uninterrupted clamoring, has now filled almost the whole of the Church, falsifying through excess or failure the right doctrine of the faith …” (“De Spiritu Sancto,” XXX, 77; PG 32, 213 A; SCh 17 ff., p. 524).
We do not want to apply precisely this dramatic description to the situation of the post-conciliar period, yet something from all that occurred is nevertheless reflected in it. The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

 

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

I…Pope Benedict XVI.

…

“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just”

Joseph Ratzinger,* Corriere della Sera*, March 30, 1990; 30 Dias, January 1993, p. 34.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Ettienne Gilson:

You keep coming at me with opinions. Obviously the common opinion in the world is that geocentrism is untue. This is held by many lay people, scientists, bishops, priests, cardinals, yes, even some popes (at least JPII, apparently).

I asked for authoritative declarations, like the ones from Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexnader VII. Regardless of your opinion of the Index, the Inquisition, the embarrassment it caused our Church to the world, etc., the specific declarations I talk about were by popes. The Bull of Alexander VII, regardless of why it was promulgated declared that the earth does not move, explicitly using the pope’s Apostolic authority, and enjoining everyone to it.

Infallible? Maybe not. Authoritative? Definitely. More so than the CE, or private opinions of cardinals or even private theological opinions of popes.

You can find many opinions supporting your case. Find one explicit authoritative document promulgated by a pope or an ecumenical council dealing with this. Good luck.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EtienneGilson]

trth_skr:

Ettienne Gilson:

You keep coming at me with opinions. Obviously the common opinion in the world is that geocentrism is untue. This is held by many lay people, scientists, bishops, priests, cardinals, yes, even some popes (at least JPII, apparently).

I asked for authoritative declarations, like the ones from Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexnader VII. Regardless of your opinion of the Index, the Inquisition, the embarrassment it caused our Church to the world, etc., the specific declarations I talk about were by popes. The Bull of Alexander VII, regardless of why it was promulgated declared that the earth does not move, explicitly using the pope’s Apostolic authority, and enjoining everyone to it.

Infallible? Maybe not. Authoritative? Definitely. More so than the CE, or private opinions of cardinals or even private theological opinions of popes.

If you have failed to see that the “authoritative” statements or only the opinions of popes and not part of the teaching magisterium that requires our present assent, then I cannot help you. The fact is the Church has no authority to rule in such areas and thus any “authoritative” statement is meaningless.

And maybe you should quote the entire passage about Galileo by the then Cardinal Ratzinger:

“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just”

Seems that Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t talking about the heliocentric argument but rather the terms of the first inquisorial trial preventing Galileo from teaching heliocentrism as established FACT (something it certainly wasn’t at that time). It is also important to remember that the second condemnation was never signed by the pope.

But the thread is about the Vatican council…sorry for the aside.

 

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

If you have failed to see that the “authoritative” statements or only the opinions of popes and not part of the teaching magisterium that requires our present assent, then I cannot help you. The fact is the Church has no authority to rule in such areas and thus any “authoritative” statement is meaningless.

How wrong you are. How can you say that official Church documents promulgated by the Holy Office and the popes are not authoritative documents? And who says the Church does not have authority to promulgate documents “in such areas”? The fact they did is an indication that they do indeed have such authority.

EtienneGilson:

…Seems that Cardinal Ratzinger isn’t talking about the heliocentric argument but rather the terms of the first inquisorial trial preventing Galileo from teaching heliocentrism as established FACT (something it certainly wasn’t at that time). It is also important to remember that the second condemnation was never signed by the pope.

Still today it is not established fact.

EtienneGilson:

But the thread is about the Vatican council…sorry for the aside.

I am not sure how much of an aside it is from [the spirit of] Vatican II.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EtienneGilson]

trth_skr:

How wrong you are. How can you say that official Church documents promulgated by the Holy Office and the popes are not authoritative documents? And who says the Church does not have authority to promulgate documents “in such areas”? The fact they did is an indication that they do indeed have such authority.

How can I say that those documents are not authoritative. Easy:

The right to teach is concerned solely with the manifestation of the revealed doctrine; the object of the power of jurisdiction is to establish and enforce such laws and regulations as are necessary to the well-being of the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

Now tell me where the index and inquisition lie…in the teaching authority or the jurisdictional authority.

Hint: They are not doctrinally authoritative statements but jurisdictionally authoritative statements (no longer binding) and not protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature.

newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

Now what authority was it that you were speaking of? The kind that the decrees don’t fall under or the non-buinding kind?

But you are right about this being a VII problem, a problem with people who have idealized the past and think that any development of doctrine and discipline, including the Novus Ordo mass are heretical…just as my signature reads.

 

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

…They are not doctrinally authoritative statements but jurisdictionally authoritative statements (no longer binding) and not protected by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

…

1. You have yet to produce an authoritative statement rescinding the previous ones.
2. You again turn to CE as the source of all knowledge. Read these:

]

Obedience of Faith:

*When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith. *

Certainly the 1616 theological opinion of the Holy Office (for whatever purpose; though it was to support the Index) ratified by Paul V, reaffirmed by Urban VIII (in his Inquisition), then enjoined to everyone by Alexander VII using his Apostolic authority (explicitly) is definitive.

Now maybe this is not infallible, but it certainly meets the second criteria. The issue dealt with faith (referring to the 1616 opinion):

the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

Clearly it is also divinely revealed (based on the Scriptures, its interpretation by the Fathers, and the opinion of 1616 reiterated at least three times in official declarations of popes)

And:

]

*One must therefore take into account the proper character of every exercise of the Magisterium, considering the extent to which its authority is engaged. It is also to be borne in mind that all acts of the Magisterium derive from the same source, that is, from Christ who desires that His People walk in the entire truth. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful. *

1…the extent to which its authority is engaged…

A. 1616 Opinion of theological qualifiers
B. “A” ratified by Paul V in exercise of Index.
C. “A” reaffirmed by Urban VIII and related to heresy, Galileo…vehemently suspect of heresy.

D. Decision of “B” 30th June 1633: The Pope orders a copy of the decree including the condemnation and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all Nuncios and all Inquisitors, to be drawn especially to the attention of mathematicians of the area for which each of them was responsible and most especially in Galileo’s city of Florence. This order was carried out and the recipients in turn acknowledged reception.
D. “A” explicitly attached to Papal Bull, the Bull approved by Apostolic authority (explicit) of Alexander VII and enjoined to everyone.

*Donum Veritatis *also says explicitly:

17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a “definitive” pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching.

For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.

Clearly the examples given (1616, 1633, 1664 Bull) were definitive.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

…
But you are right about this being a VII problem, a problem with people who have idealized the past and think that any development of doctrine and discipline, including the Novus Ordo mass are heretical…just as my signature reads.

Are you implying I claim the NO is heretical? I have made no such statement. I said [the spirit of] Vatican II, and said nothing about heresy. It is clear you read way too much into things.

As for the past, what was done was done, and it ain’t been undone.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[EtienneGilson]

1. You have yet to produce an authoritative statement rescinding the previous ones.
2. You again turn to CE as the source of all knowledge. Read these:

Why would the popes waste their time rescinding a statement that was never authoritative in the first place?

The reason I need to keep quoting the CE is because you have managed to simply ignore it and not deal with the statements I have posted and underlined for you claiming that the various bulls, statements etc. condemning Galileo and heliocentrism are not doctrinally binding.

Now maybe this is not infallible, but it certainly meets the second criteria. The issue dealt with faith (referring to the 1616 opinion):
…
Clearly the examples given (1616, 1633, 1664 Bull) were definitive.

Um, no. Since you seem to dislike the CE so much, here is a quote from VII’s Lumen Gentium (25):

*In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. * vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

And from your quotation of Benedict XVI:

17. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a “definitive” pronouncement but in the proposal of some teaching which leads to a better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals and to moral directives derived from such teaching

Explain to me how this clearly scientific question is an area that popes can claim to have any authority in by their status in the Church? Only in their jurisdictional authority can they prevent access to certain information that is harmful to the immature faith of some of the faithful (scandal and moral directives).

I will not argue that perhaps the popes thought their words carried more weight than they did, but they clearly over-stepped the bounds of their authority and hence the pronouncements are nothing but pastoral guides (as the CE repeatedly noted). There is no “doctrine” in the area to speak of.

I am reminded of what Chesterton (probably another flaming liberal to trth_skr) said about the heresy of Siger de Brabant and the Latin Averoeists in his book on St. Thomas Aquinas. The Church cannot err in science and be infallible in faith because the Church cannot pronounce anything in science.

If you truly believe trth_skr that the Church has authoritatively pronounced in this area, then in your view the Church must simply wrong. Just like the Church has been wrong about slavery, torture, the relation between Church and State or freedom of religion.

I am reminded of what a philosophy professor at a seminary once told me. Sometimes the circle of logic is perfect, but it is simply too narrow. By excluding science and starting from the position that it has already been decided, your position is simply too narrow.

 

[trth_skr]

EtienneGilson:

…Explain to me how this clearly scientific question is an area that popes can claim to have any authority in by their status in the Church? Only in their jurisdictional authority can they prevent access to certain information that is harmful to the immature faith of some of the faithful (scandal and moral directives).

First, the theological opinion approved by Paul V and used by him and the other popes said it was at least a matter of faith:

*…the second proposition *[that the earth moves] they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”…

Next, matters of Scriptural interpretation are directly the authority of the Church:

…the first proposition [the sun does not move (i.e., around the earth)] as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”

Finally, the attention given to it by the popes, clearly puts it under theologivcal consideration by Donum Veriaitis (if you must have a more modern citation), as I explained above…

Finally, this is not strictly a matter of science. Science may be involved, but science cannot disprove the declarations, nor demonstrate otherwise. Not only that, but it is a matter of Scripture, interpretation of the fathers, and faith.

EtienneGilson:

I will not argue that perhaps the popes thought their words carried more weight than they did, but they clearly over-stepped the bounds of their authority and hence the pronouncements are nothing but pastoral guides (as the CE repeatedly noted). There is no “doctrine” in the area to speak of.

And who says that? Some authors of articles in CE and other places? This is not even close to authoritative. The Church has not reversed the declarations. Clearly the action of the Holy Office and popes in the past far exceed the opinion of non-authoritative modern authors. I am not against the CE, but I realize it is not authoritative, and on this question, many people have been trying to find a way to explain the results away for centuries. Especially in the 19th century, most informed people thought that geocentrism was definitely disproven. In the 20th, Einstein changed that. It again became an open question.

EtienneGilson:

…The Church cannot err in science and be infallible in faith because the Church cannot pronounce anything in science.

As I explained above, this may involve science, but is much more.

EtienneGilson:

If you truly believe trth_skr that the Church has authoritatively pronounced in this area, then in your view the Church must simply wrong. Just like the Church has been wrong about slavery, torture, the relation between Church and State or freedom of religion.

So, basically, secular opinion has trumped the Church in all these areas.

EtienneGilson:

I am reminded of what a philosophy professor at a seminary once told me. Sometimes the circle of logic is perfect, but it is simply too narrow. By excluding science and starting from the position that it has already been decided, your position is simply too narrow.

You keep missing the point that science has not demonstrated geocentrism untrue, nor have they demonstrated that an alternative is true.

**This is the circle you are travelling in. **

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com