|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 12, 2015 21:16:26 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. I know it is a waste of time trying to get most who call themselves Catholic to believe their Church of the 17th century did not err when defining and declaring Heliocentrism as formal heresy. For centruries this same Church of theirs, has been undermined, ridiculed and laughed at for defending a geocentric reading of scripture. They are quite happy to accept this and will use all the excuses invented to keep their faith in heliocentrism. All that and not one of them can show scientific proof that the Church of 1616 was wrong. They chose their truth from the mouths of 'scientists' like Isaac Newton. When it comes to the doctrinal excuses to keep their faith in heliocentrism, they seek out the David Palms of this world rather than the records of the Holy Office of 1616-1633. Why they will even quote the geocentrist St Augustine's “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires," as some sort of pro Copernican argument. In fact St Augustine here warns against a heliocentric reading of Scripture, a reading contrary to that which he defended with the Fathers. Try reading Scripture with a heliocentric mind and it becomes impossible. Cardinal Bellarmine said this. For example, I posted two quotes from Scripture that tell us the earth is at REST. Young Ireland says 'they say nothing about the earth's motion.' If that is what Copernicanism/Modernism did for scriptural exegesis then it proves the results of the heresy. A heliocentric reading would have God's footstool going round and round. That is preposterous, makes the Scriptures look ridiculous. For 50 years I too was a heliocentricist and evolutionist. I was educated that way by Catholics. Only when I read a book written by a Protestant by the way, on the absurdity of evolutionism did I see the light. All my life I struggled with the story of the Galileo case. How could the Catholic Church get that episode in History wrong I asked myself. Oh yes I read all the excuses but none of them was Catholic. By that I mean the Church is not supposed to define truths as heresy, put a man on trial for it and then order all Catholic Universities the Church defined the idea formal heresy. Having been made an idiot out of me with evolution, even to the degree that popes said I could be an idiot and believe in it and still be a Catholic, I got quite angry and decided to research the story as to how we could all be led by Rome to be idiots and believe sponges could become elephants. Well finding the truth was easy. After the U-turn of 1741-1635, when even popes believed science had taught the Church a lesson, no pope dared rule against false philosophy again. They were not going to have another Galileo case to deal with again, so thery played it safe, Catholics can believe anything now that scientists tell them. They tell us even God can make square circles. Why they even believe in intelligent ALIENS today, which makes a joke out of 'no salvation outside the Church.' I therefore do not have to read the likes of Palm for my Catholic truth. I know word for word what the Church of 1633 taught and Palm is deceiving his readers. Yes STRICT HELIOCENTRISM was considered formal heresy. And again he is correct Galileo had no proof. Nor does Palm give any proof to dismiss the STRICT HELIOCENTRISM condemned, only 'no scientist today would claim the sun doesn't move.' He offers their non-proven belief in a moving sun as reason for Catholics to accept that the Church of 1633 got it wrong. Well it may suffice some's Catholicism, but not mine. Everything that follows from this falls into the same heresy. Excuses derived from false facts are not road to truth.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 12, 2015 21:40:58 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. I know it is a waste of time trying to get most who call themselves Catholic to believe their Church of the 17th century did not err when defining and declaring Heliocentrism as formal heresy. For centruries this same Church of theirs, has been undermined, ridiculed and laughed at for defending a geocentric reading of scripture. They are quite happy to accept this and will use all the excuses invented to keep their faith in heliocentrism. I'm not laughing at or ridiculing anyone. In fact I already said that the Pope and St. Robert Bellarmine acted in good faith in acting the way they did and that God will see this and reward them accordingly. (The latter is being rewarded as we speak.) Nor am I making excuses, I am just pointing out that your interpretations of those passages is not the only orthodox interpretation thereof. All that and not one of them can show scientific proof that the Church of 1616 was wrong. They chose their truth from the mouths of 'scientists' like Isaac Newton. Do you believe that Issac Newton wasn't a scientist?When it comes to the doctrinal excuses to keep their faith in heliocentrism, they seek out the David Palms of this world rather than the records of the Holy Office of 1616-1633. Why they will even quote the geocentrist St Augustine's “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires," as some sort of pro Copernican argument. In fact St Augustine here warns against a heliocentric reading of Scripture, a reading contrary to that which he defended with the Fathers. Have you a quote to back that up?Try reading Scripture with a heliocentric mind and it becomes impossible. Cardinal Bellarmine said this. For example, I posted two quotes from Scripture that tell us the earth is at REST. Young Ireland says 'they say nothing about the earth's motion.' If that is what Copernicanism/Modernism did for scriptural exegesis then it proves the results of the heresy. A heliocentric reading would have God's footstool going round and round. That is preposterous, makes the Scriptures look ridiculous. Or maybe the reference to a footstool is not meant to be taken literally, similar to the way the Church calls Our Lord the Lamb of God without saying that He is a Lamb rather than God-made-Man.For 50 years I too was a heliocentricist and evolutionist. I was educated that way by Catholics. Only when I read a book written by a Protestant by the way, on the absurdity of evolutionism did I see the light. All my life I struggled with the story of the Galileo case. How could the Catholic Church get that episode in History wrong I asked myself. Oh yes I read all the excuses but none of them was Catholic. By that I mean the Church is not supposed to define truths as heresy, put a man on trial for it and then order all Catholic Universities the Church defined the idea formal heresy. Having been made an idiot out of me with evolution, even to the degree that popes said I could be an idiot and believe in it and still be a Catholic, I got quite angry and decided to research the story as to how we could all be led by Rome to be idiots and believe sponges could become elephants. Well finding the truth was easy. After the U-turn of 1741-1635, when even popes believed science had taught the Church a lesson, no pope dared rule against false philosophy again. They were not going to have another Galileo case to deal with again, so thery played it safe, Catholics can believe anything now that scientists tell them. They tell us even God can make square circles. Why they even believe in intelligent ALIENS today, which makes a joke out of 'no salvation outside the Church.' How does belief in intellegent extra-terrestrial life "make a joke out of 'no salvation outside the Church'" as you put it? What if they are part of the Church, but we just don't know? I therefore do not have to read the likes of Palm for my Catholic truth. I know word for word what the Church of 1633 taught and Palm is deceiving his readers. Yes STRICT HELIOCENTRISM was considered formal heresy. And again he is correct Galileo had no proof. Nor does Palm give any proof to dismiss the STRICT HELIOCENTRISM condemned, only 'no scientist today would claim the sun doesn't move.' He offers their non-proven belief in a moving sun as reason for Catholics to accept that the Church of 1633 got it wrong. Well it may suffice some's Catholicism, but not mine. So you don't have a problem with heliocentrism then, just the strict interpretation thereof?Everything that follows from this falls into the same heresy. Excuses derived from false facts are not road to truth. Again, we're not making excuses, we're just debating against you.
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 13, 2015 11:03:17 GMT
Mar 12, 2015 21:40:58 GMT Young Ireland said: Mar 12, 2015 21:16:26 GMT Redmond as guest said: I know it is a waste of time trying to get most who call themselves Catholic to believe their Church of the 17th century did not err when defining and declaring Heliocentrism as formal heresy. For centruries this same Church of theirs, has been undermined, ridiculed and laughed at for defending a geocentric reading of scripture. They are quite happy to accept this and will use all the excuses invented to keep their faith in heliocentrism. I'm not laughing at or ridiculing anyone. In fact I already said that the Pope and St. Robert Bellarmine acted in good faith in acting the way they did and that God will see this and reward them accordingly. (The latter is being rewarded as we speak.) Nor am I making excuses, I am just pointing out that your interpretations of those passages is not the only orthodox interpretation thereof. You are an exception Young Ireland, but most others think those who adhere to to a literal geocentric reading of Scripture as laid down by Popes Paul V and Urban VIII are ignorant fools. Pope Urban VIII acted in more than good faith when he applied WE to his declaration that the 1616 decree was absolute. However, as I said, after that a new Modernist dogma was born, if you think such definitions of formal heresy, even when using the magisterium WE (the Church), were proven wrong by science then forget them, they only embarrass Catholicism today.
What I would like to know from any poster is 'Do you believe geocentrism was proven false by science?'
As regards Scripture, here is another passage to ponder on 'in good faith' whatever that means.
‘Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth?’ --- (Job. 38:31-33).
In the passages from the Book of Job above, we find the Lord querying Job about the order and mechanisms of the created cosmos. These questions, as understood by the Fathers, are intended to show that mankind knows little and can do nothing compared to the omnipotence of God. It is a lesson in humility for mankind. The same question of course infers that He, unlike man, knows the exact movements of the individual cosmic bodies and by what means they are caused to go about their business every day, month, year, 19 or 600 years.
‘For Your reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, the Word of God, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.’ --- Bellarmine’s Letter to Foscarini.
Let us now try to explain Job’s 38:31-33 heliocentrically, as churchmen since 1741-1835 have Catholics trying to do. This interpretation has God asking Job ‘trick’ questions. Had Job been a member of the 1981-1992 papal commission on Galileo, he would have answered like this; ‘Ah now Lord, we have long discovered the stars of Arcturus, as well as the sun and moon, do not actually turn around the earth each day as your Scriptures take for granted, no, it is the earth revolving that causes this illusion. And yes, we do now know the order of the heavens; it is Big Bang-heliocentric, due to universal gravitation as described by Newton and Einstein.’ In effect then, this cosmic lesson of humility in the Bible is now rendered redundant by the new Copernican exegesis. But is such a contradiction not heterodoxy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All that and not one of them can show scientific proof that the Church of 1616 was wrong. They chose their truth from the mouths of 'scientists' like Isaac Newton. Do you believe that Issac Newton wasn't a scientist?Isaac Newton was an Arian and an alchemist who mixed science with an anti-Catholic venom. One of the subjects investigated by Newton was Christianity, even learning Hebrew so as to translate the Bible for himself like the good Protestant he pretended to be. ‘As can clearly be seen from voluminous manuscripts that survive, Newton had early in his life reached the conviction that a massive fraud beginning with the fourth and fifth centuries had perverted the legacy of the early Church, and that central to the fraud was the Scriptures, which he believed had been corrupted to support the doctrine of the Trinity. In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin' (Richard Westfall: Never at Rest, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.314.)
‘Newton also proposed that the religion 'most ancient & most generally received by the nations in the first ages [i.e. after Noah] was that of the Prytanea or Vestal Temples.’ These temples, he explained, were circular structures with a burning flame at their centre that represented the Sun. In De Revolutionibus, of course, Copernicus had radically relocated the sun at the centre of the solar system, ‘this most beautiful of temples,’ whilst Vossius has considered the ancient cult of the Vestal fire as having represented the Sun. Newton believed these Vestal temples proved the ancients had originally understood the heliocentric universe as ‘rediscovered’ by Copernicus.’ --- David Boyd Haycock: The Long-Lost Truth. Chapter 6; The Newton Project.
There YoungIreland is where Newton found this 'science.' That is enough of him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When it comes to the doctrinal excuses to keep their faith in heliocentrism, they seek out the David Palms of this world rather than the records of the Holy Office of 1616-1633. Why they will even quote the geocentrist St Augustine's “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires," as some sort of pro Copernican argument. In fact St Augustine here warns against a heliocentric reading of Scripture, a reading contrary to that which he defended with the Fathers. Have you a quote to back that up?The backup is in the original quote. St Augustine, as every other Father and Doctor in the Church until Coperrnicus's time read the bible geocentrically. He then said not to part from the literal reading unless one has REASON to do so. In the case of the Bible, only clear proof for heliocentrism would give reason to depart. No one has ever found such proof. If one does not understand this logic why bring up what Augustine says as pro-heliocentric?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I posted two quotes from Scripture that tell us the earth is at REST. Young Ireland says 'they say nothing about the earth's motion.' If that is what Copernicanism/Modernism did for scriptural exegesis then it proves the results of the heresy. A heliocentric reading would have God's footstool going round and round. That is preposterous, makes the Scriptures look ridiculous. Or maybe the reference to a footstool is not meant to be taken literally, similar to the way the Church calls Our Lord the Lamb of God without saying that He is a Lamb rather than God-made-Man.The term footstool, far from being considered as incidental to the Holy Throne, is best considered as a key component of the DAIS of the Melchisedech Holy Throne, fashioned for one who is seated (in contradistinction to movement). In the Prophets and Apostles visions of God; The Father is always found seated on His throne. This is important. God is always at rest. There is nothing that disturbs Him. Even in the Book of Revelation where violent events taking place on earth are foretold you'll find God seated on His throne.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- They tell us even God can make square circles. Why they even believe in intelligent ALIENS today, which makes a joke out of 'no salvation outside the Church.' How does belief in intellegent extra-terrestrial life "make a joke out of 'no salvation outside the Church'" as you put it? What if they are part of the Church, but we just don't know? There is 'nothing new under the sun.' This is a Modernist version of the Antipode heresy, condemned by Pope Pius II in 1459. He condemned today's 'scientific' idea that the world will be naturally destroyed eventually, that God created another world, and that there are other men ( intelligent Aliens now) that are not descended from Adam and thus free of Original Sin. When I hear Catholics entertaining science-fiction and applying it to the Genesis revelation of the TRINITY, with the Son of God saving mankind to share heaven with aliens, I know the damage done when Copernicanism was placed into the womb of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Mar 13, 2015 15:20:56 GMT
Your argument seems to rest upon the assumption that science has not shown geocentrism to be false, and therefore there is no valid reason to interpret scripture metaphorically rather than literally. This is quite a weak argument, especially since, as I pointed out previously, the Holy Office, with the blessing of the Pope, declared in 1820 that heliocentrism may be taught. However heliocentrism has in fact been demonstrated to be true (in the first instance by observing the parallax of distant stars in relation to the Earth and Sun). Newton's heretical beliefs about Christianity have nothing to do with the scientific observations he made, which while not 100% accurate still described things we can see in the universe around us. Light passing through a prism is split into a rainbow, showing that white light is made up of all the colours, for instance. It was Newton who showed us this.
Regarding the antipodes, you are right in saying that Pope Zachary II condemned this as heretical, as it meant that there would be humans on the other side of the earth who were not descended from Adam. However, papal declarations MUST be interpreted in the strictest sense possible, and what Pope Zachary condemned was the belief in 'another world and other people existing beneath the Earth,' which clearly refers to the theory that there were inaccessible parts of the Earth where people lived who had not heard the Gospel.
It would require another authoritative Papal statement or an Ecumenical Council to rule against the existence of aliens. It is not permitted for you or I to broaden the meaning of Pope Zachary's condemnation. I am not saying that I believe there is life on other planets; I am uncertain, and since science has found no evidence and the Church has not ruled on this I will wait.
|
|
|
Post by Redmond as guest on Mar 13, 2015 17:57:45 GMT
Your argument seems to rest upon the assumption that science has not shown geocentrism to be false, and therefore there is no valid reason to interpret scripture metaphorically rather than literally. This is quite a weak argument, especially since, as I pointed out previously, the Holy Office, with the blessing of the Pope, declared in 1820 that heliocentrism may be taught. However heliocentrism has in fact been demonstrated to be true (in the first instance by observing the parallax of distant stars in relation to the Earth and Sun). Newton's heretical beliefs about Christianity have nothing to do with the scientific observations he made, which while not 100% accurate still described things we can see in the universe around us. Light passing through a prism is split into a rainbow, showing that white light is made up of all the colours, for instance. It was Newton who showed us this. Regarding the antipodes, you are right in saying that Pope Zachary II condemned this as heretical, as it meant that there would be humans on the other side of the earth who were not descended from Adam. However, papal declarations MUST be interpreted in the strictest sense possible, and what Pope Zachary condemned was the belief in 'another world and other people existing beneath the Earth,' which clearly refers to the theory that there were inaccessible parts of the Earth where people lived who had not heard the Gospel. It would require another authoritative Papal statement or an Ecumenical Council to rule against the existence of aliens. It is not permitted for you or I to broaden the meaning of Pope Zachary's condemnation. I am not saying that I believe there is life on other planets; I am uncertain, and since science has found no evidence and the Church has not ruled on this I will wait. ‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ --- Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). ‘We have no argument for the Copernican system,’ admits this leading philosopher of the 1800s. Like the Emperor with no cloths, heliocentrism had no empirical support, not then and not now. Unlike churchmen, Bradley’s ‘optical proof’ and Newton’s ‘mechanical proof’ were seen by the likes of von Humboldt for what they were, scientific proofs and falsifications for nothing. Accordingly, as befits immutable acts of the Church, the decrees against Copernicanism held firm in spite of the prevailing consensus and weakness in faith then affecting even the ‘elect’ of the Church; described more aptly by its Latin name timor mundanus – worldly fear arising from human respect, i.e., a reluctance to suffer the disapproval or scorn of men in academia rather than putting one’s faith in the simple word of God and His Church. And Ranger, be aware that Stellar Parallax was not seen until 1838, three years after as you say 'the Holy Office, with the blessing of the Pope, declared in 1820 that heliocentrism may be taught.' Let us now see how this came about: ‘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 banned 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. ‘Without explicit comment,’ now there is an interesting remark. It seems Pope Gregory XVI either could not explain how the 1616 ‘irreversible’ papal decree could be ignored, or did not want to say on what grounds he omitted the ban on the remaining books already condemned as heretical in their original form. There are only two ways in which the law pronounced against Copernicanism can be ‘revoked.’ The Church can: (A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done. (B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way. As no such abrogation, a possible derogation yes, was ever enacted, as far as the ‘theological problem’ was concerned, Copernicanism remains formal heresy incurring ipso facto excommunication for those who held it. On the other hand, the Index, employed in those days, but abandoned altogether after Vatican II, was merely an instrument used to examine books etc., for heresy and banning them if deviations from the faith were found. Taking books off the Index and even disposing of the Index altogether, does not of course mean that the heresies inherent in them have been abrogated and that they are no more. As for stellar Parallax proving the earth moves, well that is wishful thinking. Does parallax, if it can be said to be a true parallax, prove the earth orbits the sun? No it does not. Here again we have a case of confirming a consequent, and doing so does not prove a particular cause. Certainly if heliocentricism is true and the stars are spread throughout the universe and one could say with certainty that one was a near star, one would expect to find stellar parallax, and that is why, when parallax was found it supposedly proved the earth orbits the sun. What they all failed to consider however, even from the earliest times, was that it also confirms a consequent of geocentrism. In regard to appearances, they are the same but reversed, as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 27, 2016 23:04:02 GMT
I'm not sure if Redmond is still watching this thread or not, I'll just say that I only saw his response now, and I hopefully will put together a response tomorrow or the day after.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jan 28, 2016 21:01:02 GMT
Ok, here it goes: Your argument seems to rest upon the assumption that science has not shown geocentrism to be false, and therefore there is no valid reason to interpret scripture metaphorically rather than literally. This is quite a weak argument, especially since, as I pointed out previously, the Holy Office, with the blessing of the Pope, declared in 1820 that heliocentrism may be taught. However heliocentrism has in fact been demonstrated to be true (in the first instance by observing the parallax of distant stars in relation to the Earth and Sun). Newton's heretical beliefs about Christianity have nothing to do with the scientific observations he made, which while not 100% accurate still described things we can see in the universe around us. Light passing through a prism is split into a rainbow, showing that white light is made up of all the colours, for instance. It was Newton who showed us this. Regarding the antipodes, you are right in saying that Pope Zachary II condemned this as heretical, as it meant that there would be humans on the other side of the earth who were not descended from Adam. However, papal declarations MUST be interpreted in the strictest sense possible, and what Pope Zachary condemned was the belief in 'another world and other people existing beneath the Earth,' which clearly refers to the theory that there were inaccessible parts of the Earth where people lived who had not heard the Gospel. It would require another authoritative Papal statement or an Ecumenical Council to rule against the existence of aliens. It is not permitted for you or I to broaden the meaning of Pope Zachary's condemnation. I am not saying that I believe there is life on other planets; I am uncertain, and since science has found no evidence and the Church has not ruled on this I will wait. ‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ --- Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). ‘We have no argument for the Copernican system,’ admits this leading philosopher of the 1800s. Like the Emperor with no cloths, heliocentrism had no empirical support, not then and not now. Unlike churchmen, Bradley’s ‘optical proof’ and Newton’s ‘mechanical proof’ were seen by the likes of von Humboldt for what they were, scientific proofs and falsifications for nothing Does that mean that there is no such thing as a scientific proof? . Accordingly, as befits immutable acts of the Church, the decrees against Copernicanism held firm in spite of the prevailing consensus and weakness in faith then affecting even the ‘elect’ of the Church; described more aptly by its Latin name timor mundanus – worldly fear arising from human respect, i.e., a reluctance to suffer the disapproval or scorn of men in academia rather than putting one’s faith in the simple word of God and His Church. Redmond, that would imply that most heliocentrists really believe that geocentrism was true but are afraid to publicly admit that out of fear. Somehow, I doubt that this is in fact the case. Rather, it seems to me that most Catholics have assented to the view of St. John Paul II, as leader of Christ's Church that heliocentrism is not incompatible with the faith. If your view was correct, this would imply that the late Pontiff was not really a saint and his canonisation was invalid, since there is no evidence that he became a geocentrist before death.And Ranger, be aware that Stellar Parallax was not seen until 1838, three years after as you say 'the Holy Office, with the blessing of the Pope, declared in 1820 that heliocentrism may be taught.' Let us now see how this came about: ‘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 banned 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. ‘Without explicit comment,’ now there is an interesting remark. It seems Pope Gregory XVI either could not explain how the 1616 ‘irreversible’ papal decree could be ignored, or did not want to say on what grounds he omitted the ban on the remaining books already condemned as heretical in their original form. Perhaps he did not feel the need to, as he felt that removing them in itself was a declaration that the books were no longer seen as heretical.There are only two ways in which the law pronounced against Copernicanism can be ‘revoked.’ The Church can: (A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done. (B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way. As no such abrogation, a possible derogation yes, was ever enacted, as far as the ‘theological problem’ was concerned, Copernicanism remains formal heresy incurring ipso facto excommunication for those who held it. On the other hand, the Index, employed in those days, but abandoned altogether after Vatican II, was merely an instrument used to examine books etc., for heresy and banning them if deviations from the faith were found. Taking books off the Index and even disposing of the Index altogether, does not of course mean that the heresies inherent in them have been abrogated and that they are no more. Or perhaps they were put there in error - it has happened before, look at the Divine Mercy devotion.As for stellar Parallax proving the earth moves, well that is wishful thinking. Does parallax, if it can be said to be a true parallax, prove the earth orbits the sun? No it does not. Here again we have a case of confirming a consequent, and doing so does not prove a particular cause. Certainly if heliocentricism is true and the stars are spread throughout the universe and one could say with certainty that one was a near star, one would expect to find stellar parallax, and that is why, when parallax was found it supposedly proved the earth orbits the sun. What they all failed to consider however, even from the earliest times, was that it also confirms a consequent of geocentrism. In regard to appearances, they are the same but reversed, as simple as that. Sorry, I don't get what you are saying, if you could explain it a bit better that would be great.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 29, 2016 23:06:01 GMT
I understand Redmond's last point to be as follows: Stellar parallax (the fact that when observed over time the stars can be shown to be moving away from the earth) is usually interpreted as meaning that the universe is expanding. Redmond is saying that it can be interpreted by a geocentrist as meaning that the earth is standing still and the stars are moving relative to it because revolving around it.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Feb 11, 2016 19:32:50 GMT
Ok, here it goes: ‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ --- Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). ‘We have no argument for the Copernican system,’ admits this leading philosopher of the 1800s. Like the Emperor with no cloths, heliocentrism had no empirical support, not then and not now. Unlike churchmen, Bradley’s ‘optical proof’ and Newton’s ‘mechanical proof’ were seen by the likes of von Humboldt for what they were, scientific proofs and falsifications for nothing Does that mean that there is no such thing as a scientific proof? . Accordingly, as befits immutable acts of the Church, the decrees against Copernicanism held firm in spite of the prevailing consensus and weakness in faith then affecting even the ‘elect’ of the Church; described more aptly by its Latin name timor mundanus – worldly fear arising from human respect, i.e., a reluctance to suffer the disapproval or scorn of men in academia rather than putting one’s faith in the simple word of God and His Church. Redmond, that would imply that most heliocentrists really believe that geocentrism was true but are afraid to publicly admit that out of fear. Somehow, I doubt that this is in fact the case. Rather, it seems to me that most Catholics have assented to the view of St. John Paul II, as leader of Christ's Church that heliocentrism is not incompatible with the faith. If your view was correct, this would imply that the late Pontiff was not really a saint and his canonisation was invalid, since there is no evidence that he became a geocentrist before death.And Ranger, be aware that Stellar Parallax was not seen until 1838, three years after as you say 'the Holy Office, with the blessing of the Pope, declared in 1820 that heliocentrism may be taught.' Let us now see how this came about: ‘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 banned 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. ‘Without explicit comment,’ now there is an interesting remark. It seems Pope Gregory XVI either could not explain how the 1616 ‘irreversible’ papal decree could be ignored, or did not want to say on what grounds he omitted the ban on the remaining books already condemned as heretical in their original form. Perhaps he did not feel the need to, as he felt that removing them in itself was a declaration that the books were no longer seen as heretical.There are only two ways in which the law pronounced against Copernicanism can be ‘revoked.’ The Church can: (A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done. (B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way. As no such abrogation, a possible derogation yes, was ever enacted, as far as the ‘theological problem’ was concerned, Copernicanism remains formal heresy incurring ipso facto excommunication for those who held it. On the other hand, the Index, employed in those days, but abandoned altogether after Vatican II, was merely an instrument used to examine books etc., for heresy and banning them if deviations from the faith were found. Taking books off the Index and even disposing of the Index altogether, does not of course mean that the heresies inherent in them have been abrogated and that they are no more. Or perhaps they were put there in error - it has happened before, look at the Divine Mercy devotion.As for stellar Parallax proving the earth moves, well that is wishful thinking. Does parallax, if it can be said to be a true parallax, prove the earth orbits the sun? No it does not. Here again we have a case of confirming a consequent, and doing so does not prove a particular cause. Certainly if heliocentricism is true and the stars are spread throughout the universe and one could say with certainty that one was a near star, one would expect to find stellar parallax, and that is why, when parallax was found it supposedly proved the earth orbits the sun. What they all failed to consider however, even from the earliest times, was that it also confirms a consequent of geocentrism. In regard to appearances, they are the same but reversed, as simple as that. Sorry, I don't get what you are saying, if you could explain it a bit better that would be great.
Just checking and logged in. I will try to answer the questions posed above from Young Ireland as best I can. I will repeat the questions and you can read again their context as above.
Does that mean that there is no such thing as a scientific proof?
First an expert on the matter of 'proof.'
‘Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are often held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common of these concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief however, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists [should] prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to those for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.’
Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008
The history of cosmology, after all the 'proofs' for heliocentrism were presented to the world came crashing down on them, rather than go along with the evidence, they finally settled for RELATIVITY. In other words they all agreed science cannot tell which is the true order, geocentric or heliocentric. In further words the geocentrism of the 1616, 1633, 1664 decrees were never shown to be true.
Redmond, that would imply that most heliocentrists really believe that geocentrism was true but are afraid to publicly admit that out of fear. Somehow, I doubt that this is in fact the case. Rather, it seems to me that most Catholics have assented to the view of St. John Paul II, as leader of Christ's Church that heliocentrism is not incompatible with the faith. If your view was correct, this would imply that the late Pontiff was not really a saint and his canonisation was invalid, since there is no evidence that he became a geocentrist before death.
No Young Catholic, it does not imply what you suggest here. I speak about the post 1741 time, not today. Today very few would DARE suggest geocentrism was the true. What it implies that once heliocentrism was presented as a scientific truth, very few afterwards dared contradict it on faith ground. Indeed most were convinced by Newton that heliocentrism was true. If one dared challenge this 'science' one was considered a RETARD, FOOL or UNEDUCATED. The very same applies today as readers are well aware of. This is well illustrated in the history of the Galileo case. Here is what the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari, Professor of Church History at the Roman College, consultant to the Holy Office of the Roman Catholic Church said in 1758 when the first concession to heliocentrism was made by them.
‘(2) I say first that the opinion of the earth’s motion is today a common one in the principal academies and among the most celebrated of philosophers and mathematicians. Soon after our decree or thereabouts, this opinion began to get established, mostly through the work of Kepler, as he himself tells us in the Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. [Francis] Bacon of Verulam also said, as we have seen, that in his time the opinion was beginning to spread and expand. In book one of Kosmotheoros, Christiaan Huygens asserted: “Nowadays all astronomers, except those who are of a retarded mind or whose beliefs are subject to the will of men [the Church], accept without doubt the motion of the earth and its location among the planets.” This is even truer today after the discoveries of Newton or those made with the benefit of his system. It is enough to read the proceedings and journals of academies, even Catholic ones, and the works of the most celebrated philosophers and mathematicians, or even dictionaries and similar books that report on the most widely accepted opinions. And indeed, in the article on Copernicus in the Encyclopedia, or Reasoned Dictionary of Sciences, the famous mathematician D’Alembert writes: “Nowadays this system is generally followed in France and England, especially after Descartes and Newton each tried to confirm it by means of physical explanations…. It would be desirable that a country as full of intelligence and learning as Italy recognize an error so harmful to scientific progress and that she think of this subject as we do in France! Such a change would be worthy of the enlightened pontiff who governs the Church nowadays… Friend of sciences and himself a scholar, he ought to legislate to the Inquisitors on the subject, as he has already done for more important subjects.’---- .
Note above the label Huygens’s quote conjured up for those who disagree with the philosophical heliocentrism, ‘retards.’
Our second quote shows another apology from Fr E. R. Hull S.J.'s 1913 Galileo and His Condemnation, one of the most read and quoted accounts of the modern scientific view at that time.
‘At the present day no one in civilised life could, without being suspected of lunacy, maintain the geocentric system of astronomy that Galileo opposed, or entertain any serious doubt about the heliocentric system that Galileo maintained.'
This being the case let us now remind ourselves what Pope John Paul II's 1981-1992 Commission on Galileo reported as the reason why men in the Catholic Church did a U-turn on Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree condemning Galileoism as formal heresy:
‘In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Galileo Commission; Nov. 1992.p]
Interesting Young Ireland how you attach a CONSEQUENCE to anyone trying to PROTECT THE DECREE OF POPE PAUL V as a Catholic truth revealed in the Scriptures. Your CONSEQUENCE is that if one defends papal decrees defining formal heresy as catholic teaching, then Pope John Paul II cannot be a saint. Now that is interesting.
‘Without explicit comment,’ now there is an interesting remark. It seems Pope Gregory XVI either could not explain how the 1616 ‘irreversible’ papal decree could be ignored, or did not want to say on what grounds he omitted the ban on the remaining books already condemned as heretical in their original form.
Perhaps he did not feel the need to, as he felt that removing them in itself was a declaration that the books were no longer seen as heretical.
My answer to that once again is the same:There are only two ways in which the law pronounced against Copernicanism can be ‘revoked.’ The Church can: (A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done. (B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derogated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way.
Or perhaps they were put there in error - it has happened before, look at the Divine Mercy devotion.
So, what you imply are the following:
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe. 2. 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 com¬mitted to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, decisions that are false and perilous to the faith. 3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science. 4. 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. 5. 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. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See. 6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound. 7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith. 8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has confirmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Finally, you ask:
Sorry, I don't get what you are saying, if you could explain it a bit better that would be great.
Parallax can be explained in a geocentric order. Heliocentric parallax could be caused by the earth's annual orbit. If the stars are centred on the sun and it orbits the earth the same parallax will be seen.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Feb 11, 2016 22:12:01 GMT
I understand Redmond's last point to be as follows: Stellar parallax (the fact that when observed over time the stars can be shown to be moving away from the earth) is usually interpreted as meaning that the universe is expanding. Redmond is saying that it can be interpreted by a geocentrist as meaning that the earth is standing still and the stars are moving relative to it because revolving around it.
Hi Hibernicus, no, stellar parallax has nothing to do with expanding universe, but with the movement of far stars relative to a near star in the space of a year. If the earth orbits the sun, then a near star should move relative to far stars over a period of a year. This logic has been understood and looked for since the time of the earliest astronomers. It was the unfound ‘proof’ for an orbiting earth. Here is the logic. look at an object relative to something in the background, say the spire on O'Connell St. Now walk in a circle and the spire (near star) will change position relative to the GPO in the background (far star) until you return to where you started. If it is the far star doing the circling then from a stationary earth stellar parallax will be the same.
Expanding universe is a most interesting theory. It gave rise to the Big Bang theory, introduced in the 1920s by a Catholic priest no less, a Fr Lemaître in what he called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom,” a happening that supposedly occurred 15.5 billion years ago. This theory resulted from the first ever evolutionary theory, heliocentrism that gave rise to its formation by way of the Nebular theory.
Few know however that an expanding universe theory is directly connected to geocentrism. And who thought this one up, why Copernicus, in his De revolutionibus:
‘But why didn’t Ptolemy feel anxiety about the world instead; whose movements must necessarily be of greater velocity, the greater the heavens are than the Earth? Or have the heavens become so immense, because an unspeakably vehement motion has pulled them away from the centre, and because the heavens would fall if they came to rest anywhere else. But they say beyond the heavens there isn’t any body or place or void or anything at all; and accordingly it is not possible for the heavens to move outwards; in that case it is rather surprising that something can be held together by nothing. But if the heavens were infinite and were finite only with respect to a hollow space inside, then it will be said with more truth that there is nothing outside the heavens, since anything that occupied any space would be in them; but the heavens will remain immobile. For movement is the most powerful reason wherewith they try to conclude that the universe is finite.’ --- Book 1, par 8.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 16, 2016 20:54:41 GMT
Three points in relation to Redmond's theology: (1) In addition to abrogation and derogation, a law may be repealed by obrogation - the passage of a later enactment which takes its place/substitutes for it. (2) If a future Pope were to repudiate an ex cathedra pronouncement ex cathedra, we would not be able to ignore him and follow the first pronouncement; it would positively disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility. Redmond is arguing that a consistent succession of Popes since the C18 have done exactly that. (3)There is unfortunately a long list of examples of popes whose non-infallible official acts have given grave scandal (for example the Cadaver Synod - which by Redmond's argument we should treat as infallible even though its central principle about the wrongness of a bishop transferring from one see to another has been repudiated by the Church - the excommunication of St Athanasius by a Pope etc etc.). That is why the doctrine of infallibility was defined with such care and within such limits.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on May 2, 2016 21:34:24 GMT
Three points in relation to Redmond's theology: (1) In addition to abrogation and derogation, a law may be repealed by obrogation - the passage of a later enactment which takes its place/substitutes for it. (2) If a future Pope were to repudiate an ex cathedra pronouncement ex cathedra, we would not be able to ignore him and follow the first pronouncement; it would positively disprove the doctrine of papal infallibility. Redmond is arguing that a consistent succession of Popes since the C18 have done exactly that. (3)There is unfortunately a long list of examples of popes whose non-infallible official acts have given grave scandal (for example the Cadaver Synod - which by Redmond's argument we should treat as infallible even though its central principle about the wrongness of a bishop transferring from one see to another has been repudiated by the Church - the excommunication of St Athanasius by a Pope etc etc.). That is why the doctrine of infallibility was defined with such care and within such limits. Time now to carry on with our debate on the Galileo affair. I am at a loss how the Catholic Church can repeal 'an irreversible papal decree' by way of obrogation? (2) I agree, how in God's name could a pope legally 'repudiate' an ex cathedra decree ex cathedra? Yes, that would break Christ's promise of infallibility. What I KNOW is that a succession of popes from 1835 IGNORED the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V as redundant, and allowed a different version of the heliocentric heresy to be freely PUBLISHED in books. This omission of heliocentric books from the Index sent out a message that Catholics could ignore the 1616 decree of their predecessor. All this was done 'without comment' as the record shows. (3) The Galilean U-turn was one of those UNRECOGNISED examples of popes using non-infallible official acts causing all to THINK they could accept a non-heretical heliocentrism. The result of this scandal has depicted all the Fathers of the Church and the 17th century popes and theologians as ignorant fundamentalists, not knowing how to read the Scriptures properly. It demonstrates the nature of Vatican II as a very fallible synod when it described the scriptural geocentrists of 1616 as little more than troublemakers. ‘… 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. Here we have the 'suspected hertetic' Galileo and a succession of anti-Catholic heliocentrists as having been led by the hand of God while His popes, saints and theologians are 'deplored' as troublemakers for not obeying 'the rightful autonomy of science.' Never in the history of Catholic theology has 'science' been considered autonomous. St Thomas said all sciences are subject to the judgement of theology. (first article of the Summa). Surely the day has to come when the institution that represents truth will stand by truth and not adhere to human pride in going along with the lie that the geocentrism of Scripture was proven wrong or interpreted metaphorically in spite of one of its greatest theologians, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine stating quite clearly that the Scriptures cannot be read heliocentrically in many places.
|
|