|
Post by Ranger on Mar 4, 2015 22:37:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 4, 2015 22:44:01 GMT
We know pretty well what Atheist Ireland will say, and I couldn't care less. The question ought to be "what will a reasonably unbiased enquirer say?" I might add that grand conspiracy theories tend to be harmful to those who espouse them, not just because they are (usually, not always) false but because they blind people to the real problems which need to be addressed. I expelled Winc not because he espoused geocentrism, but because of the arrogant and supercilious way he espoused it and insulted anyone who disagreed. Tolerating a reasonable Feeneyite or atheist is one thing, tolerating somebody who is only out to shout down and intimidate anyone who disagrees with him is another. Trying to argue with such people is a waste of time and effort (and I have tried). Hibernicus. Are you aware that what you accuse Winc of - and have banned him for - is actually the stock and trade tactics of those who defend and protect a heliocentric reading of the Bible. Here is an extract out of a book called THE EARTHMOVERS written ten years ago: As a consequent of the above, new readers will first endeavour to ignore this [geocentric] synthesis, and that failing will dismiss or censor it out of hand according to their needs. The credibility of four hundred years of Copernicanism and its promulgators in Church and State will be defended on every ground. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like the Catholic faith, reasoning, facts, data, demonstrations, logic, records, etc., and, as you will see for yourself, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them because their belief in Copernicanism is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically and empirically founded. Accordingly they will resort to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the author or subject of this book to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within. The entrenched Copernicans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the content of this book is outrageous, imbecilic according to science as well as an unwarranted criticism of the post-1741 Church authorities, of Vatican Council II and the opinions of Pope John Paul II. They will then claim the author is this or that, not a trained scientist, cosmologist, mathematician, historian or theologian like they are, so what could he know? It must be answered that if one were a coached professional in any such institution of Church or State around today, one could never have written this exposé in the first place, for, quite simply, one would have been fired for it, as many today are dismissed from their educational institutions because they place doubt on old-age evolutionism. It was of course freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be recorded.' For example Hibernicus, here is what you yourself said above: 'And you give as your authority a site run by a notorious anti-semite and conspiracy theorist whose use of the most dubious sources (when they suit his prejudices) is notorious, and who has been forbidden by his diocesan bishop to use the word "Catholic" in the title of his organisation?http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.ie/ Robert Sungenis, as far as I know, has explained, clarified, withdrawn, repented or whatever, his position as regards his position on the jews. But what has that got to do with the question of geocentrism? As for Winc, well some guys are like that, unable to debate in a neutral way. But you may know him better than I and must do what you feel is correct. It is a pity he came in with all guns blazing. But to reply to his positiopn with an atomic bomb shows that this subject needs to be debated properly. That I will do if allowed, for things are not as they seem. For example, you said: 'So, according to Winc, geocentrism is not just a private opinion but a doctrine of the faith which every Catholic must believe? THis implies BTW that those Popes who for the last few hundred years have taken the opposite view (that's all of them) have been heretics? I answer, no not according to Winc, but according to Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII. Yes, these are the 'troublemakers' condemned in Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II. Perhaps you would like to take it from here Hibernicus? Welcome back, Redmond. The forum has changed a lot since you were last here. Anyway, I should point out that it was I who realised that Winc was referencing Robert Sungenis and confronted him on it initially. This exchange was before Mr. Sungenis recanted his anti-Semitism, so I think it's unfair to judge what Hibernicus said two and a half years ago by today's standards. For my own part in the incident, I have already said that I could have been more charitable towards Winc at the time. Hibernicus will probably want to defend himself. As for a debate on geocentrism, I have no objection to such, though I will respect Hibernicus' wishes on the matter. However, I would be very surprised if Gaudium et Spes referred to the above Popes as troublemakers. Have you got a quote saying this, just out of curiosity? I would also point out that if geocentricism is binding on Catholics, what did Pope John Paul II apologise for in 1992? Did that make him a heretic?
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Mar 5, 2015 20:05:55 GMT
Hibernicus. Are you aware that what you accuse Winc of - and have banned him for - is actually the stock and trade tactics of those who defend and protect a heliocentric reading of the Bible. Here is an extract out of a book called THE EARTHMOVERS written ten years ago: As a consequent of the above, new readers will first endeavour to ignore this [geocentric] synthesis, and that failing will dismiss or censor it out of hand according to their needs. The credibility of four hundred years of Copernicanism and its promulgators in Church and State will be defended on every ground. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like the Catholic faith, reasoning, facts, data, demonstrations, logic, records, etc., and, as you will see for yourself, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them because their belief in Copernicanism is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically and empirically founded. Accordingly they will resort to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the author or subject of this book to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within. The entrenched Copernicans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the content of this book is outrageous, imbecilic according to science as well as an unwarranted criticism of the post-1741 Church authorities, of Vatican Council II and the opinions of Pope John Paul II. They will then claim the author is this or that, not a trained scientist, cosmologist, mathematician, historian or theologian like they are, so what could he know? It must be answered that if one were a coached professional in any such institution of Church or State around today, one could never have written this exposé in the first place, for, quite simply, one would have been fired for it, as many today are dismissed from their educational institutions because they place doubt on old-age evolutionism. It was of course freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be recorded.' For example Hibernicus, here is what you yourself said above: 'And you give as your authority a site run by a notorious anti-semite and conspiracy theorist whose use of the most dubious sources (when they suit his prejudices) is notorious, and who has been forbidden by his diocesan bishop to use the word "Catholic" in the title of his organisation?http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.ie/ Robert Sungenis, as far as I know, has explained, clarified, withdrawn, repented or whatever, his position as regards his position on the jews. But what has that got to do with the question of geocentrism? As for Winc, well some guys are like that, unable to debate in a neutral way. But you may know him better than I and must do what you feel is correct. It is a pity he came in with all guns blazing. But to reply to his positiopn with an atomic bomb shows that this subject needs to be debated properly. That I will do if allowed, for things are not as they seem. For example, you said: 'So, according to Winc, geocentrism is not just a private opinion but a doctrine of the faith which every Catholic must believe? THis implies BTW that those Popes who for the last few hundred years have taken the opposite view (that's all of them) have been heretics? I answer, no not according to Winc, but according to Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII. Yes, these are the 'troublemakers' condemned in Gaudium et Spes at Vatican II. Perhaps you would like to take it from here Hibernicus? Welcome back, Redmond. The forum has changed a lot since you were last here. Anyway, I should point out that it was I who realised that Winc was referencing Robert Sungenis and confronted him on it initially. This exchange was before Mr. Sungenis recanted his anti-Semitism, so I think it's unfair to judge what Hibernicus said two and a half years ago by today's standards. For my own part in the incident, I have already said that I could have been more charitable towards Winc at the time. Hibernicus will probably want to defend himself. As for a debate on geocentrism, I have no objection to such, though I will respect Hibernicus' wishes on the matter. However, I would be very surprised if Gaudium et Spes referred to the above Popes as troublemakers. Have you got a quote saying this, just out of curiosity? I would also point out that if geocentricism is binding on Catholics, what did Pope John Paul II apologise for in 1992? Did that make him a heretic? I accept that above about Sungenis Young Ireland. I did not realise the posts go from the latest to the earliest, whereas elsewhere they do the opposite. As regards your request about Gaudium et Spes and Pope John Paul II, I do hope you are prepared for the answer. Only when one accepts that Mother Church and its teachings are above the opinions and utterences of its members, especially popes, can one get to find the truth. If this is not your position then you have no hope of understanding the Pythagorean heresy and its aftermath. First the Catholic position: On February 24th 1616, the two propositions submitted for consideration were qualified in virtue of Pope Paul V’s order. The findings were as follows: (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.” (2) The second proposition, that is, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” Now perhaps readers will see at last who, why and how heliocentrism was defined as heresy. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII ordered Galileo be condemned as 'suspect of heresy' with these words: 'and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.' Then came the greatest illusion in the history of mankind, that science proved geocentrism was false. Satan fooled the world, including popes from 1741. Given they believed in scientists rather than having faith in the Fathers, they began the greatest U-turn in history. Now please do not bother trying to say science did falsify the 1616 decree and the papal recognotion of it in 1633 because it was not and cannot be proven - Just as St Robert Bellarmine predicted in his Letter to Foscarini in 1615. So now that you have been given the facts, let us press on to Gaudium et Spes. Here is the story of this utterence: Reading all above in the light that science never came within one of their ‘light-years’ to show the Church was wrong in the Galileo case, few would know they had all been duped, not even the elect. But such was the influence of the Copernican heresy throughout the centuries, now a Council was to be used to promulgate the illusion further among the flock. It seems one theme that constantly surfaced at Vatican II was that it was not enough for the 1960s Catholic Church to declare its regard for modern culture; it must also prove this by deeds. As a sure way to prove their ‘intentions decisively,’ Monsignor Elchinger, auxiliary bishop of Strasbourg and other cardinals and bishops suggested that there should be a full rehabilitation of Galileo. A petition from many European intellectuals and scientists was sent to Pope Paul VI asking for a solemn rehabilitation of Galileo. He in turn asked the Holy Office if they approved. They replied that by approving the publication of Paschini’s book on Galileo they had already signified their approval. At another session on the fourth of November 1964, Bishop Elchinger expressed the following opinion: ‘The rehabilitation of Galileo on the part of the Church would be an eloquent act, accomplished humbly but correctly. Such a decision, if enacted by the supreme Authority of the Church, could not fail to redound to the Church’s own credit, since with such an action it would reclaim the trust of the contemporary world and would perform a great service to the cause of human culture.’ Providentially, no official retrial happened, the supreme authority of the Church does not contradict itself. Instead it was decided to merely acknowledge their belief that a mistake was made. Three months later, a draft of what would be inserted into the documents of Vatican II was discussed. ‘Finally, a compromise was worked out: the explicit mention of Galileo in the text would be dropped, but a footnote reference to Paschini’s book would be added. The minutes of that meeting contain the following abbreviated notes that reveal the rational underlying the compromise: “Galilei. – Inopportune to speak of this in the document – Let us not force the Church to say: I made a mistake. The matter should be judged in the context of time. In Paschini’s work all is said in the true light.”’ This ‘occurred on the 7th December 1965 in their Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. The text reads like so: ‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36. The above, as agreed, is referenced with Fr Pio Paschini’s Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, a book Fr Paschini in 1945 refused to edit for the PAS right up to the time of his death in 1962. In his will he left his work to an assistant Fr Michele Maccarrone, a diocesan priest and medievalist who in 1963 tried to have it published once again, even agreeing to its being edited first. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who wanted to publish the book back in 1945 in conjunction with Galileo’s death in 1642, were still interested, but this time to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of Galileo’s birth due in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with the then Pope Paul VI who again approved its publication as he had with the original unedited book back in 1945 when he was Deputy Secretary in Rome. On October 2 1964, the manuscript was finally published under the name of its original author Pio Paschini with not a mention that it had been edited, or rather altered, to the extent that it was. ‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light’ they said. But in truth this was a distorted version of Paschini’s book. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two editions, one scholar described the book referenced in the documents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’ All this of course is nothing new merely in keeping with their behaviour after the infamous 1741-1835 Galileo U-turn. So who, according to Vatican II, were/are led by the hand of God and who were/are the troublemakers? Well Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo, Newton, Bradley and Foucault among others, must have been led by the hand of God; and the troublemakers must have been Pope Paul V, St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII and the many senior theologians involved in the censure of a fixed sun as formal heresy because it contradicted the unanimous geocentric interpretation of the Bible held by all the Fathers. Yes, Vatican II was here openly criticising the authority of the Church itself, the same authority upheld in its Dei verbum as speaking in the name of Christ. Shortly after the Council, at a Mass in Galileo’s hometown Pisa in June 1965, the then Pope Paul VI continued the charade by paying a ‘striking tribute’ to Galileo’s faith as well as his science. There was however, no such accolade for the members of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of Galileo’s time who placed their faith in a biblical revelation of a fixed earth and moving sun. That is real faith; that was real faith, pure and absolute. Now it is one thing proclaiming faith in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension or whatever, as even the Copernicans do; that is normal faith for Catholics, and while impossible in science, has never been doubted or abandoned by any of them because of it. But what about faith in something that most thought could be tested, even proven or falsified by science; now that is something different, perhaps the ultimate test of faith in revelation ever undergone by Catholics, faith in the Fathers interpretation of the Bible, faith in a papal decree, faith in the Church’s divine guidance? That kind of Catholic faith Galileo did not have. Nor did very many have such a faith when Newton and his followers claimed their gravitational falsifications for a moving sun and fixed earth. After them, science was considered a greater vehicle of truth in such matters than simple Catholic faith. Finally, when science falsified their heliocentric ‘proof’ in 1871, 1887 and 1905, not one churchman or scientist of note made this fact known, and this allowed the myth of the Copernican revolution to continue. Now Young Ireland, if you are ready for it I will answer your question on Pope John Paul II's Copernicanism another time. the above is enough for today.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Mar 5, 2015 20:39:04 GMT
The first link I posted above (http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.ie/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html) deals with your claims about Paul V by quoting the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia:
“It is the great merit of Galileo that, happily combining experiment with calculation, he opposed the prevailing system according to which, instead of going directly to nature for investigation of her laws and processes, it was held that these were best learned by authority, especially by that of Aristotle, who was supposed to have spoken the last word upon all such matters, and upon whom many erroneous conclusions had been fathered in the course of time. . . . t is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error [in condemning Copernicanism], and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. . . . That [Paul V and Urban VIII] 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 these pontiffs 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. . . . 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 judgement, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.”
In other words, the pronouncement of Paul V in this case not being Ex Cathedra, is not covered under infallibility, and thus is down to his personal opinion of how best to run the Church at the time, which has since been shown to be in error.
It would help if you gave sources for your quotations, which seem in some cases to be quotations within quotations; the context could also be useful for determining their actual meaning.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 5, 2015 20:53:35 GMT
Welcome back, Redmond. The forum has changed a lot since you were last here. Anyway, I should point out that it was I who realised that Winc was referencing Robert Sungenis and confronted him on it initially. This exchange was before Mr. Sungenis recanted his anti-Semitism, so I think it's unfair to judge what Hibernicus said two and a half years ago by today's standards. For my own part in the incident, I have already said that I could have been more charitable towards Winc at the time. Hibernicus will probably want to defend himself. As for a debate on geocentrism, I have no objection to such, though I will respect Hibernicus' wishes on the matter. However, I would be very surprised if Gaudium et Spes referred to the above Popes as troublemakers. Have you got a quote saying this, just out of curiosity? I would also point out that if geocentricism is binding on Catholics, what did Pope John Paul II apologise for in 1992? Did that make him a heretic? I accept that above about Sungenis Young Ireland. I did not realise the posts go from the latest to the earliest, whereas elsewhere they do the opposite. As regards your request about Gaudium et Spes and Pope John Paul II, I do hope you are prepared for the answer. Only when one accepts that Mother Church and its teachings are above the opinions and utterences of its members, especially popes, can one get to find the truth. If this is not your position then you have no hope of understanding the Pythagorean heresy and its aftermath. First the Catholic position: On February 24th 1616, the two propositions submitted for consideration were qualified in virtue of Pope Paul V’s order. The findings were as follows: (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.” (2) The second proposition, that is, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” Now perhaps readers will see at last who, why and how heliocentrism was defined as heresy. In 1633 Pope Urban VIII ordered Galileo be condemned as 'suspect of heresy' with these words: 'and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.' Then came the greatest illusion in the history of mankind, that science proved geocentrism was false. Satan fooled the world, including popes from 1741. Given they believed in scientists rather than having faith in the Fathers, they began the greatest U-turn in history. Now please do not bother trying to say science did falsify the 1616 decree and the papal recognotion of it in 1633 because it was not and cannot be proven - Just as St Robert Bellarmine predicted in his Letter to Foscarini in 1615. So now that you have been given the facts, let us press on to Gaudium et Spes. Here is the story of this utterence: Reading all above in the light that science never came within one of their ‘light-years’ to show the Church was wrong in the Galileo case, few would know they had all been duped, not even the elect. But such was the influence of the Copernican heresy throughout the centuries, now a Council was to be used to promulgate the illusion further among the flock. It seems one theme that constantly surfaced at Vatican II was that it was not enough for the 1960s Catholic Church to declare its regard for modern culture; it must also prove this by deeds. As a sure way to prove their ‘intentions decisively,’ Monsignor Elchinger, auxiliary bishop of Strasbourg and other cardinals and bishops suggested that there should be a full rehabilitation of Galileo. A petition from many European intellectuals and scientists was sent to Pope Paul VI asking for a solemn rehabilitation of Galileo. He in turn asked the Holy Office if they approved. They replied that by approving the publication of Paschini’s book on Galileo they had already signified their approval. At another session on the fourth of November 1964, Bishop Elchinger expressed the following opinion: ‘The rehabilitation of Galileo on the part of the Church would be an eloquent act, accomplished humbly but correctly. Such a decision, if enacted by the supreme Authority of the Church, could not fail to redound to the Church’s own credit, since with such an action it would reclaim the trust of the contemporary world and would perform a great service to the cause of human culture.’ Providentially, no official retrial happened, the supreme authority of the Church does not contradict itself. Instead it was decided to merely acknowledge their belief that a mistake was made. Three months later, a draft of what would be inserted into the documents of Vatican II was discussed. ‘Finally, a compromise was worked out: the explicit mention of Galileo in the text would be dropped, but a footnote reference to Paschini’s book would be added. The minutes of that meeting contain the following abbreviated notes that reveal the rational underlying the compromise: “Galilei. – Inopportune to speak of this in the document – Let us not force the Church to say: I made a mistake. The matter should be judged in the context of time. In Paschini’s work all is said in the true light.”’ This ‘occurred on the 7th December 1965 in their Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. The text reads like so: ‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36. The above, as agreed, is referenced with Fr Pio Paschini’s Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, a book Fr Paschini in 1945 refused to edit for the PAS right up to the time of his death in 1962. In his will he left his work to an assistant Fr Michele Maccarrone, a diocesan priest and medievalist who in 1963 tried to have it published once again, even agreeing to its being edited first. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who wanted to publish the book back in 1945 in conjunction with Galileo’s death in 1642, were still interested, but this time to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of Galileo’s birth due in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with the then Pope Paul VI who again approved its publication as he had with the original unedited book back in 1945 when he was Deputy Secretary in Rome. On October 2 1964, the manuscript was finally published under the name of its original author Pio Paschini with not a mention that it had been edited, or rather altered, to the extent that it was. ‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light’ they said. But in truth this was a distorted version of Paschini’s book. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two editions, one scholar described the book referenced in the documents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’ All this of course is nothing new merely in keeping with their behaviour after the infamous 1741-1835 Galileo U-turn. So who, according to Vatican II, were/are led by the hand of God and who were/are the troublemakers? Well Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo, Newton, Bradley and Foucault among others, must have been led by the hand of God; and the troublemakers must have been Pope Paul V, St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII and the many senior theologians involved in the censure of a fixed sun as formal heresy because it contradicted the unanimous geocentric interpretation of the Bible held by all the Fathers. Yes, Vatican II was here openly criticising the authority of the Church itself, the same authority upheld in its Dei verbum as speaking in the name of Christ. Shortly after the Council, at a Mass in Galileo’s hometown Pisa in June 1965, the then Pope Paul VI continued the charade by paying a ‘striking tribute’ to Galileo’s faith as well as his science. There was however, no such accolade for the members of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of Galileo’s time who placed their faith in a biblical revelation of a fixed earth and moving sun. That is real faith; that was real faith, pure and absolute. Now it is one thing proclaiming faith in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension or whatever, as even the Copernicans do; that is normal faith for Catholics, and while impossible in science, has never been doubted or abandoned by any of them because of it. But what about faith in something that most thought could be tested, even proven or falsified by science; now that is something different, perhaps the ultimate test of faith in revelation ever undergone by Catholics, faith in the Fathers interpretation of the Bible, faith in a papal decree, faith in the Church’s divine guidance? That kind of Catholic faith Galileo did not have. Nor did very many have such a faith when Newton and his followers claimed their gravitational falsifications for a moving sun and fixed earth. After them, science was considered a greater vehicle of truth in such matters than simple Catholic faith. Finally, when science falsified their heliocentric ‘proof’ in 1871, 1887 and 1905, not one churchman or scientist of note made this fact known, and this allowed the myth of the Copernican revolution to continue. Now Young Ireland, if you are ready for it I will answer your question on Pope John Paul II's Copernicanism another time. the above is enough for today. OK, there's a lot of arguments in that post. One thing I will respond to, Redmond, is your comment: "Only when one accepts that Mother Church and its teachings are above the opinions and utterences of its members, especially popes, can one get to find the truth.". That may be true regards individual members, but surely the Pope has the right (and the duty) to explain and interpret the Church's teachings to his flock. The idea that he can fall into heresy directly contradicts Matthew 16:18, which would be the case if geocentrism was a dogma of the Church. Your supposition that Satan has fooled every Pope for almost 300 years logically leads to the view that there has been no real Pope in all that time. This strikes me as extremely unlikely given that three popes in this period have been canonised, all adhering to the heliocentric position. The Church would never have canonised someone who did not assent to Church teaching as it was when that saint was on Earth. As for those who opposed Galileo in the 17th century, yes I accept that they did what they thought God wanted at the time, and that God will see this and reward them accordingly, but that doesn't mean that they didn't misinterpret the teaching of the Church. I might write another post as I think of more things to say.
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 6, 2015 11:53:46 GMT
OK, there's a lot of arguments in that post. One thing I will respond to, Redmond, is your comment: "Only when one accepts that Mother Church and its teachings are above the opinions and utterances of its members, especially popes, can one get to find the truth.". That may be true regards individual members, but surely the Pope has the right (and the duty) to explain and interpret the Church's teachings to his flock. The idea that he can fall into heresy directly contradicts Matthew 16:18, which would be the case if geocentrism was a dogma of the Church. Your supposition that Satan has fooled every Pope for almost 300 years logically leads to the view that there has been no real Pope in all that time. This strikes me as extremely unlikely given that three popes in this period have been canonised, all adhering to the heliocentric position. The Church would never have canonised someone who did not assent to Church teaching as it was when that saint was on Earth. As for those who opposed Galileo in the 17th century, yes I accept that they did what they thought God wanted at the time, and that God will see this and reward them accordingly, but that doesn't mean that they didn't misinterpret the teaching of the Church. I might write another post as I think of more things to say. Note YoungIreland, Galileo has you contradicting yourself without you even knowing it. You say 'but surely the Pope has the right (and the duty) to explain and interpret the Church's teachings to his flock.' In 1633 Pope Urban VIII explained the Church's teaching IN HIS OWN WORDS like so: “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.' Now when a pope uses the word WE he speaks officially as pope, using his full authority. Note he also convokes 'the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin.' Who told you popes cannot fall into heresy? The Church teaches that no pope can OFFICIALLY teach error. But down at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, in front of all those atheists sitting in their chairs advising Rome what the Church should accept as truth or not does not come under the auspices of official Church teaching. Here is what Vatican I said about the function of popes in its explanation of papal infallibility: ‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.) So Young Ireland, here is where you and all the Copernicans of the last three hundred years are at. Because you all accept Galileo was right and the Church was wrong, you are willing to accept the Fathers and the Church up to 1741-1835 had it wrong and that what they defined and declared was formal heresy was an error. Well note once again that leads to further heresy. It means you reject the Council of Trent's dogma that if all the Fathers agree on an interpretation of Scripture then it is an infallible teaching. It means you accept that popes can define and declare a truth as formal heresy. And all because you think the Copernican popes cannot have been wrong. If that is Catholicism then maybe all those other teachings of Trent and Vatican I got it wrong also.
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 6, 2015 12:04:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 10, 2015 11:44:05 GMT
The first link I posted above (http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.ie/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html) deals with your claims about Paul V by quoting the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia: “It is the great merit of Galileo that, happily combining experiment with calculation, he opposed the prevailing system according to which, instead of going directly to nature for investigation of her laws and processes, it was held that these were best learned by authority, especially by that of Aristotle, who was supposed to have spoken the last word upon all such matters, and upon whom many erroneous conclusions had been fathered in the course of time. . . . t is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error [in condemning Copernicanism], and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. . . . That [Paul V and Urban VIII] 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 these pontiffs 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. . . . 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 judgement, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.”
In other words, the pronouncement of Paul V in this case not being Ex Cathedra, is not covered under infallibility, and thus is down to his personal opinion of how best to run the Church at the time, which has since been shown to be in error.
It would help if you gave sources for your quotations, which seem in some cases to be quotations within quotations; the context could also be useful for determining their actual meaning. On revisiting this thread I see I never replied to your post Ranger. Did it ever occur to you Ranger that since 1835 Catholic encyclopedias were written by men convinced that heliocentrism was proven by science. By 1914, every possible excuse, ploy and sophestry had been invented to try to explain how the popes of the 17th century could have misled the world in the name of the Catholic Church. The world and its mothers have had to deny the infallibility of the anti-Copernican decrees but no pope has ever dared say it. Do we commit ourselves to the following absurdities: 1. That the Pope uniting with a Congregation to make a law for the universal Church does not, ipso facto, act in his official capacity as the Church’s supreme Legislator. 2. That the Supreme Pontiff referring in a Bull to the Pope in such terms as these, “Ubi nobis retulerint nostra auctoritate rejiciant” — “graviora quæcunque ad nos vel successores nostros deferantur, ut quid secundum Deum expediat, ejus gratia adjuvante, mature statuamus,” may be supposed to mean the Pope in his private capacity. 3. That a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s orders in testifying that an opinion since its condemnation by the Pope is to be regarded as a heresy, to be renounced among the other errors and heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, does not in effect attest that the Holy See has condemned that opinion. Here is a summary of the scenario defend by all who uphold heliocentrism: 1. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church may be, not only scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. Or, in other words, the Pope in and by a Bull addressed to the universal Church, may confirm and approve with Apostolic authority decisions that are false, unsound, and perilous to the faith. 2. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to oppose the free progress of science. (Condemned as false by Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors 1864) Denz 1712 for ref. 3. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error. 4. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions If that is the Catholic Church you defend then do not expect many to remain inside it and do not expect any to convert to it. It is not the Catholic Church I belong to. Many years ago I went in search of the truth and found it. But to most, like that site you posted for readers, there is always someone trying to prevent the truth getting out. It is nothing new for those who defend the teaching of Pope Paul v and Urban VII to be called 'lunatics.' That tactic began during the U-turn of 1820, was continued in the Jesuit Fr E. R. Hull's book : Galileo and His Condemnations, Examiner Press, Bombay 1913. Today many websites continue the ploy and the old enemy INTELLECTUAL PRIDE wins out and the mind closes down. Be aware that the geocentrism we defend is the geocentrism of Scripture and the Fathers. Today that geocentrism is presented as something for science to decide if it is true or not. Since 1741, when Churchmen forced popes to concede to the heresy assuring them the sun was proven to to move relative to the earth, human reason took over from Catholic faith.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Mar 10, 2015 15:09:37 GMT
Here is a further rebuttal of many of these arguments by David Palm: socrates58.blogspot.ie/2010/11/geocentrism-not-at-all-infallible-dogma.htmlIn summation, here are several key points that directly answer the some of the points you make above: 1) A papal bull is NOT regarded as infallible. It IS authoritative, which means that it must be treated with respect and due deference, but can be argued against as long as it is done so in good faith and with sufficient reason; Palm cites the case of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which was affirmed by Pope Leo II, in which a Papal Bull by his predecessor Pope Honorius was anathematized on account of the manner in which he attempted to deal with a particular heresy. Not every Papal statement is infallible. 2) You can cite a Papal bull disagreeing with Galileo, but you cannot cite a single Encyclical or Ecumenical Council which ever affirmed heliocentrism as a Dogma of the Catholic Church; it has never been held as a Dogma, which requires that level of authority. 3) Likewise, the Congregation of the Index dealt with matters of discipline and had no authority with which to define dogma; this was simply outside of its competence. 4) Your theory implies that every single Pope since Benedict XIV in the 18th century has failed in their duty to reject a heresy and indeed have embraced it. You're essentially contradicting yourself; you cite papal infallibility in the case of a bull regarding Galileo, but your theory requires that ever Pope in the last 275 years has held positions and indeed in some cases made statements in favour of them which are outright heresy. You can't have it both ways.
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 10, 2015 21:24:50 GMT
Here is a further rebuttal of many of these arguments by David Palm: socrates58.blogspot.ie/2010/11/geocentrism-not-at-all-infallible-dogma.htmlIn summation, here are several key points that directly answer the some of the points you make above: 1) A papal bull is NOT regarded as infallible. It IS authoritative, which means that it must be treated with respect and due deference, but can be argued against as long as it is done so in good faith and with sufficient reason; Palm cites the case of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which was affirmed by Pope Leo II, in which a Papal Bull by his predecessor Pope Honorius was anathematized on account of the manner in which he attempted to deal with a particular heresy. Not every Papal statement is infallible. 2) You can cite a Papal bull disagreeing with Galileo, but you cannot cite a single Encyclical or Ecumenical Council which ever affirmed heliocentrism as a Dogma of the Catholic Church; it has never been held as a Dogma, which requires that level of authority. 3) Likewise, the Congregation of the Index dealt with matters of discipline and had no authority with which to define dogma; this was simply outside of its competence. 4) Your theory implies that every single Pope since Benedict XIV in the 18th century has failed in their duty to reject a heresy and indeed have embraced it. You're essentially contradicting yourself; you cite papal infallibility in the case of a bull regarding Galileo, but your theory requires that ever Pope in the last 275 years has held positions and indeed in some cases made statements in favour of them which are outright heresy. You can't have it both ways. Ok Ranger, first things first. Do you realise what you are proposing, that the list above is possible within the Catholic Church, that popes can err when defining and declaring something formal heresy. Do you know what formal heresy is? Do you think you are better informed about the faith than St Robert Bellarmine? For something to be heretical it must oppose a dogma of the Faith. were the whole hierarchy of the 17th centruy ignorant of the Catholic Faith? Above you state the Congregation of the Index cannot define anything. I agree, they only announced the heresy and censored the books. The Congregation that DECIDED it was heretical was not the C.of the Index. Let me show readers their status: In the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level.
This power included the censorship of books etc. Later, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority. Finally, in 1620, Pope Paul V placed all departments in Rome under the Supreme Sacred Congregation. Of all the excuses invented over the centuries, the 'it was not infallible' one has to be the mosrt devious of them all. You offer readers David Palm, I will offer them Vatican I's dogma on infallibility: Vatican I confirms that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers is a dogma of the Church, thus confirming the geocentrism is a dogma under this ruling alone: VATICAN I: ‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ (Denz. 1788) But more, besides qualifying the doctrinal status of Copernicanism, the Church has always claimed the right to judge its philosophical standing. Under Faith, and Faith and Reason, Vatican Council I teaches: ‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’ (Denz. 1792) ‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ --- (Denzinger - 1795-98.) Also under the heading of faith and reason, the same Council anathematised the idea that scientific assertions that oppose revealed doctrine (1616) can be held. It also condemned the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, such as many of the apologists suggested, especially by members of the Holy Office in 1820, an important aspect of the Galileo case. ‘By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately revealed by God which has been proposed by the teaching authority of the Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council I explains: ‘All these things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogmas. (1) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of revelation. (2) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. The promulgation of the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.’ Do these conditions not cover the anti-Copernican decrees? Of course they do. Following this, under ‘Arguments from the assent of the Church,’ we read: ‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.) Again we could ask, surely one such ‘other help’ as indicated above was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office whose history we described earlier; created by popes to assist them in matters of serious heresy? With this ‘help’ it was the Pope as Prefect of this Holy Office who personally defined and condemned Copernicanism as formal heresy. Accordingly, no pope can formally reject a dogma already defined, such as biblical geocentrism, and introduce a new doctrine of biblical interpretation like Copernicanism; can he? Finally the Council dogmatised ‘the infallible “magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff.’ It began by stating that this freedom from error has been ‘proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated.’ So, to argue 'it wasn't infallible' so we can all ignore the definition as formal heresy, is not Catholic, as Vatican I decreed. Earlier I said that the Catholic faith is above the utterances and opinions of its members, especially popes. With the Church there is an OFFICIAL teaching and there are opinions. The anti-Copernican decrees were all official, explicit and binding as Vatican I teaches. Finally, you conclude that every pope since 1741 who accepted Copernicanism in the light of Scripture and in reality, is guilty of heresy according to the 17th century popes and Vatican I. But what kind of heresy? Did any one of these popes deny the dogma on doctrinal grounds? Did any of these popes intend to deny the dogma on dogmatic grounds. Of course not, they all accepted the heresy on the grounds that geocentrism was PROVEN false, that is on SCIENTIFIC grounds. What CHOICE had they? How could you expect a pope to defend a dogma they believed had been proven in error by science? So they did what they had to do, but not one of them opened their mouths officially when doing their U-turn. ‘On December first, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, B. Garofalo and Bartolomeo Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the documentary trail is lost, but not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ --- Retrying Galileo, p.198. Note how the Holy Ghost prevents popes teaching formal heresy. Material heresy is what the Copernican popes were guilty of, and material heresy carries no fault or punishment. But the damage done to the Church by the Modernism that sneaked past these popes, with the help of the Copernicans right up to this very day cannot be allowed to progress any further, now that the dogs in the street know science never came within a light-year of proving the 1616 decree false.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Mar 11, 2015 12:40:48 GMT
But here are two things you have not demonstrated which your entire argument relies upon:
1) That the Church Fathers unanimously held that it was a matter of Faith that the Earth does not move, and that we must interpret these passages of scripture in a strictly literal sense
2) That the Congregation involved in the case DOES constitute the teaching authority of the Church; you merely assert that it does by attributing to it the status of 'help' as mentioned in Vatican I without showing that it has the status of helping to define dogma rather than simply helping the Church to spread its teachings or rebut false dogma.
Nor does this explain why geocentrism was never promulgated either by a Pope (outside of the Papal Bull specified above, which, I repeat, does NOT fall under infallibility, as demonstrated by the anathematization of Honorius I's Bull) or by an Ecumenical Council or Synod.
If this was a Dogma of such key importance, as you believe it was, why has it never been stated clearly and unambiguously by one of the above?
If you are concerned that people will not convert to a Catholic Church that has no issue with a heliocentric system, then rest assured, I have met many who have converted to Catholicism and have no problem with the views of the last few Popes on the heliocentric solar system.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 11, 2015 22:02:22 GMT
But here are two things you have not demonstrated which your entire argument relies upon: 1) That the Church Fathers unanimously held that it was a matter of Faith that the Earth does not move, and that we must interpret these passages of scripture in a strictly literal sense 2) That the Congregation involved in the case DOES constitute the teaching authority of the Church; you merely assert that it does by attributing to it the status of 'help' as mentioned in Vatican I without showing that it has the status of helping to define dogma rather than simply helping the Church to spread its teachings or rebut false dogma. Nor does this explain why geocentrism was never promulgated either by a Pope (outside of the Papal Bull specified above, which, I repeat, does NOT fall under infallibility, as demonstrated by the anathematization of Honorius I's Bull) or by an Ecumenical Council or Synod. If this was a Dogma of such key importance, as you believe it was, why has it never been stated clearly and unambiguously by one of the above? If you are concerned that people will not convert to a Catholic Church that has no issue with a heliocentric system, then rest assured, I have met many who have converted to Catholicism and have no problem with the views of the last few Popes on the heliocentric solar system. Well said, Ranger. I will say three things: 1. I am sure that St. Pius X must be very surprised to hear Redmond call him a Modernist because he supported heliocentrism, when he did everything he could to stamp that very thing out of the Church. 2. It is true that the Church Fathers were geocentrists. It is not true that they held geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Also, the fact that the Church opposes abortion and contraception and upholds the existence of Hell in the face of significant opposition dispels the notion that the Church is too cowardly to uphold dogma. 3. I would appreciate it, Redmond, if you could make your posts a bit shorter. I find it very hard to read through very long posts, and find it easier to understand your point of view if you broke them up. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 12, 2015 14:03:34 GMT
But here are two things you have not demonstrated which your entire argument relies upon: 1) That the Church Fathers unanimously held that it was a matter of Faith that the Earth does not move, and that we must interpret these passages of scripture in a strictly literal sense 2) That the Congregation involved in the case DOES constitute the teaching authority of the Church; you merely assert that it does by attributing to it the status of 'help' as mentioned in Vatican I without showing that it has the status of helping to define dogma rather than simply helping the Church to spread its teachings or rebut false dogma. Nor does this explain why geocentrism was never promulgated either by a Pope (outside of the Papal Bull specified above, which, I repeat, does NOT fall under infallibility, as demonstrated by the anathematization of Honorius I's Bull) or by an Ecumenical Council or Synod. If this was a Dogma of such key importance, as you believe it was, why has it never been stated clearly and unambiguously by one of the above? If you are concerned that people will not convert to a Catholic Church that has no issue with a heliocentric system, then rest assured, I have met many who have converted to Catholicism and have no problem with the views of the last few Popes on the heliocentric solar system. Well said, Ranger. I will say three things: 1. I am sure that St. Pius X must be very surprised to hear Redmond call him a Modernist because he supported heliocentrism, when he did everything he could to stamp that very thing out of the Church. 2. It is true that the Church Fathers were geocentrists. It is not true that they held geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Also, the fact that the Church opposes abortion and contraception and upholds the existence of Hell in the face of significant opposition dispels the notion that the Church is too cowardly to uphold dogma. 3. I would appreciate it, Redmond, if you could make your posts a bit shorter. I find it very hard to read through very long posts, and find it easier to understand your point of view if you broke them up. Thanks.Yes Yes Young Ireland I agree, long posts are not the best when discussing subjects on forums. Trouble is the questions asked of me to qualify what I said necessitate proper answers that can be long. Let me first answer Ranger as briefly as I can. 1. The popes of 1616, 1633 and 1644 all decreed that a geocentric reading of Scripture was held by all the Fathers. I posted a video above to show details of this belief taken from the writings of many of them 2. Who decides if the Holy Office, with the pope at its head, when they define something as a matter of faith, is binding on all or not? You Copernicans, or the Church itself? Were I to tell you in 1820, the then Copernican filled Church Holy Office ADMITTED the decree was infallibly binding, would even that convince you? I tell you that when popes and churchmen from 1741 believed the 1616 decree was an error, then they HAD to disown that decree. How they did this would make you ashamed of them now that we know the 1616 decree was never proven erroneous. That is why this dogma was never mentioned after then. This they could do because the doctrine was then portrayed as a SCIENTIFIC issue, not a matter of faith. Now let me continue with Young Ireland 1. To my knowledge, Pope Pius X never said one explicit word on the subject. What he did do as you say, was continue the condemnation of Modernism 'the heresy of all heresies' begun by the way by Pope Pius IX. So, what is Modernism? Modernism is applying modern thought to traditional teachings so that they no longer contain the certainty that illustrates unchangable Catholic teaching. The first ever recorded Modernism in the Church came about when the ideas of modern astronomy were applied to the geocentric revelations in Scripture. Throughout the long ‘U-turn’ into Modernism, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man or woman thereafter saw the condemned biblical interpretation of a fixed sun or moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their Catholic belief. This is because the Copernican heresy undermined the basis of the Catholic faith like dry rot in a cathedral, invisible and unnoticed by those worshipping in the pews. After the biblical U-turn from geocentrism to a ridiculous heliocentric reading, Genesis, the very book of the Bible that records God's ex nihilo act, plus the origin of man and original sin, the sin that caused Christ to become man and to die for us, was transferred from fact to myth and pagan story telling. Once science was falsely allow the bible to be discredited, Modernism became rampant. 2. You say it is not true that the Fathers considered geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Is belief in the revelations of Scripture not a matter of faith? Did the Church of 1616 and 1633 when defining and declaring that not know what they were talking about? Here again is proof of that. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghZktd-PCOo&feature=youtu.be‘Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool: what is this house that you will build me? And what is this place of my rest? My hand made all these things, and all these things were made, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 66:1-2) ‘The heaven is my throne, and the earth a footstool for my feet. What house will you build me says the Lord, or what shall be the place of my resting?’ (Acts 7:49) As time went by, this geocentric doctrine was developed further to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of man and the infinite theology of God, a synthesis of thought found in the reasoning refined and articulated in a Christian way over the centuries by all the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, especially Dionysius the Areopagite (1st century AD), St Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) - who held that the altar in the Jewish tabernacle was ‘a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe’ - Peter Lombard (twelfth century) and then St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). ‘With great power and clearness,’ wrote Andrew D. White, ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas, the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the “Angelic Doctor,” brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relation to God and man,’ a composite of theology and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church. All writing up myths of course, if you are a Copernican.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 12, 2015 17:18:32 GMT
Well said, Ranger. I will say three things: 1. I am sure that St. Pius X must be very surprised to hear Redmond call him a Modernist because he supported heliocentrism, when he did everything he could to stamp that very thing out of the Church. 2. It is true that the Church Fathers were geocentrists. It is not true that they held geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Also, the fact that the Church opposes abortion and contraception and upholds the existence of Hell in the face of significant opposition dispels the notion that the Church is too cowardly to uphold dogma. 3. I would appreciate it, Redmond, if you could make your posts a bit shorter. I find it very hard to read through very long posts, and find it easier to understand your point of view if you broke them up. Thanks.Yes Yes Young Ireland I agree, long posts are not the best when discussing subjects on forums. Trouble is the questions asked of me to qualify what I said necessitate proper answers that can be long. Let me first answer Ranger as briefly as I can. 1. The popes of 1616, 1633 and 1644 all decreed that a geocentric reading of Scripture was held by all the Fathers. I posted a video above to show details of this belief taken from the writings of many of them 2. Who decides if the Holy Office, with the pope at its head, when they define something as a matter of faith, is binding on all or not? You Copernicans, or the Church itself? Were I to tell you in 1820, the then Copernican filled Church Holy Office ADMITTED the decree was infallibly binding, would even that convince you? Can you provide evidence for what you have said? I tell you that when popes and churchmen from 1741 believed the 1616 decree was an error, then they HAD to disown that decree. How they did this would make you ashamed of them now that we know the 1616 decree was never proven erroneous. That is why this dogma was never mentioned after then. This they could do because the doctrine was then portrayed as a SCIENTIFIC issue, not a matter of faith. One would think that if geocentrism was a dogma on a par with pro-life and transubstantiation, surely we would have heard Pope Benedict, if not Pope Francis say some words on this.Now let me continue with Young Ireland 1. To my knowledge, Pope Pius X never said one explicit word on the subject. What he did do as you say, was continue the condemnation of Modernism 'the heresy of all heresies' begun by the way by Pope Pius IX. So, what is Modernism? Modernism is applying modern thought to traditional teachings so that they no longer contain the certainty that illustrates unchangable Catholic teaching. St. Pius X did not strike me as the type to stay quiet on a matter of faith and morals. Quite the contrary in fact.The first ever recorded Modernism in the Church came about when the ideas of modern astronomy were applied to the geocentric revelations in Scripture. Throughout the long ‘U-turn’ into Modernism, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man or woman thereafter saw the condemned biblical interpretation of a fixed sun or moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their Catholic belief. This is because the Copernican heresy undermined the basis of the Catholic faith like dry rot in a cathedral, invisible and unnoticed by those worshipping in the pews. After the biblical U-turn from geocentrism to a ridiculous heliocentric reading, Genesis, the very book of the Bible that records God's ex nihilo act, plus the origin of man and original sin, the sin that caused Christ to become man and to die for us, was transferred from fact to myth and pagan story telling. Once science was falsely allow the bible to be discredited, Modernism became rampant. I don't think that any Catholic would say that Genesis is a "myth" or "pagan story-telling". God did create the world, the Fall did happen. Evolution does not contradict the dogma that the world was created out of nothing. Nothing is impossible with God. Your argument could be used to justify denying women the vote, since it can be aruged that it allowed radical feminism and abortion to become rampant. Also that the abandonment of the divine right of kings led to secularism , because the atheist revolutionaries in France were reacting against it.2. You say it is not true that the Fathers considered geocentrism to be a matter of faith. Is belief in the revelations of Scripture not a matter of faith? Did the Church of 1616 and 1633 when defining and declaring that not know what they were talking about? Here again is proof of that. That's not a valid comparison. Geocentrism is not on a par with belief in Scripture.www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghZktd-PCOo&feature=youtu.be‘Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is my throne and the earth my footstool: what is this house that you will build me? And what is this place of my rest? My hand made all these things, and all these things were made, saith the Lord.’ (Isaiah 66:1-2) The verse from Isaiah says nothing about the motion of the earth.‘The heaven is my throne, and the earth a footstool for my feet. What house will you build me says the Lord, or what shall be the place of my resting?’ (Acts 7:49) Neither does the verse from the Acts of the Apostles.As time went by, this geocentric doctrine was developed further to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of man and the infinite theology of God, a synthesis of thought found in the reasoning refined and articulated in a Christian way over the centuries by all the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church, especially Dionysius the Areopagite (1st century AD), St Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) - who held that the altar in the Jewish tabernacle was ‘a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe’ He may have meant that in a metaphorical sense. - Peter Lombard (twelfth century) and then St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). ‘With great power and clearness,’ wrote Andrew D. White, ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas, the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the “Angelic Doctor,” brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relation to God and man,’ a composite of theology and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church. All writing up myths of course, if you are a Copernican.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Mar 12, 2015 17:54:13 GMT
I have examined the quotes from the Church Fathers on John Salza's website (http://scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html) and I must say that many of these do not state in any way that the earth does not move. Rather, they state that the sun DOES move; in the case of St. Ambrose, he states that the sun is like the other stars, which, as we 'Copernicans' as you insist on calling us know to be true from modern science. Moreover, in most of these quotes (I didn't check all of them to be honest) they do not address this as an article of faith or dogma but rather are drawing on their limited knowledge of natural philosophy to illustrate various points.
Regarding the Bible, John Salza himself admits that 'The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires,' a quote from Pope Leo. The scientific proof of heliocentrism should be sufficient cause to require us to depart from a literal interpretation, understanding scripture to then be speaking a metaphorical rather than a literal truth.
David Palm quotes here (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/) the definitive ruling of the Holy Office with the approval of the Holy Father in 1820 stating that the movement of the earth may be taught; if future Popes did not address this issue, it was because of the principle of Roma locuta est, causa finita est (Rome has spoken; case closed, to translate loosely).
Palm also states here (http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/the-new-geocentrism-and-strict-canonical-interpretation/) that the Church in 1633 ruled against STRICT HELIOCENTRISM, that is to say not the idea of movement of the earth but rather the notion of the Sun being the UNMOVING centre of the universe, as Galileo did not have the proof to show that this was true; indeed, no scientist nowadays would claim that the sun does not move as it can be shown to do so; but the earth moves too.
So you cannot dragoon in the Fathers or Scripture as the Church understands it; the case WAS closed in 1820 by the Holy Office with the approval of Pope Pius VII (who is now declared a Servant of God by Pope Benedict XVI) with a definitive ruling in favour of the teaching of the movement of the Earth and the rulings against Galileo, even if I were to grant that they were infallible (and this is highly debatable) were against STRICT HELIOCENTRISM, which anybody who has studied modern physics knows to be false.
|
|