Originally Posted by jam070406
Here is what I am trying to reconcile. Heliocentrism contradicts Sacred Scripture. That's the crux of the argument. It was in 1616, it is now on these threads. That's why we often hear: "the Bible is not a science book"
It also contradicts it according to the Church Fathers.
I am not a scientist, don't care to be. So all the scientific talk goes over my head. But as a simple matter of Faith, I see a problem.
Vatican I declared:
2. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
Pope Leo XIII declared in Providentissimus Deus (1893), paragraph numbers 124-127.(16)
Pope Benedict XV Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.
Either Heliocentrism, as a theory, as much as evidence seems to point to it, is in error because it is human studies opposed to Divine revelation or.... the Church's claim to infallibilty appears to be a giant lie.
Is it not a dogma that the Scripture are innerrant because they have God as their author? Was it not declared at the Council of Trent that Scripture cannot be interpretated against the unanimous consent of the Fathers?
I'm not trying to argue either way but this seems to be the Elephant in the room. Can anyone offer any insight? Because I am really struggling with this.
Jam, you are now in face-to-face warfare with Satan. Your Catholic instincts and blessed Catholic faith are bursting out of this post, so Satan will try his best to confuse you with all those 'The Bible is not a science book' tricks.. Everything you say above is absolutely correct. I have deleted Providentissimus Deus because it is useless as an encyclical. Here is my opinion of it.
in 1893, Pope Leo XIII produced his all encompassing encyclical letter on the Bible, Providentissimus Deus. In it, as well as setting out all the rules, advice and warnings as to how the Scriptures should and should not be interpreted, in a paragraph entitled ‘natural science’
, gave approval to an exegesis that had been advocated first by Galileo. This new hermeneutics allowed certain interpretations of the Fathers to be ignored; ‘for it may be that, in commentating on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect.’
That was enough, now it was open season on the literal interpretations, an invitation to quote the Pope as ruling not only in favour of Copernicus and Galileo but on every scientific theory on origins, from the Big Bang to the evolution of everything on earth against that traditional ‘anti-science’ literal 6,000-year-old, six-day creation of a geocentric earth - with all its creatures, inanimate and animate, including man, each complete according to its nature - whose topography and geography was later reformed by a global flood that also distributed its inhabitants accordingly.
We think it may have been written by Cardinal Campolla a Freemason who almost became Pope after Leo XIII died. Only when his name was opposed by civil authorities ijn Europe at the time that had a veto and God plucked St Pius X out of obscurity was the papacy saved. Note the encyclical is 100% Catholic until we get to the anything goes bit. The only interpretation of note in the history of the Church that the encyclical could be referring to was the fixed sun/moving earth heresy. This is how Satan works even within the Church to bring about its destruction. Every revisionist, apologiser and minimiser after this encyclical quotes the bit above to say the Church gave sanction for the Church of 1616 to be contradicted.
This is Satan's greatest heresy. He has them all fooled and has Catholics defending his lie so that no one like you Jam gets to see the truth. I implore you to stay with Catholic teaching and see the truth - it will set you free, not fallible human reasoning.