View Single Post
  #135  
Old Jun 4, '10, 11:51 pm
masterjedi747 masterjedi747 is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2005
Posts: 818
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
Here is what I am trying to reconcile. Heliocentrism contradicts Sacred Scripture. That's the crux of the argument.
Our claim is precisely that it does not contradict Sacred Scripture, properly understood. The heliocentric model of the solar system certainly contradicts a literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture... our argument, however, is that Sacred Scripture is simply speaking with regard the appearances (as we still to do in our language even today), rather than actually intending to advocate any geocentric doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous... But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred author has erred.
Right. And we're not doing either of those things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
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.
Or, on our account... neither of those things has to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
Is it not a dogma that the Scripture are innerrant because they have God as their author?
It sure is. But that fact alone is nowhere near sufficient to settle this argument. The question then becomes: which sense of this Scripture passage am I supposed to understand as being the correct (intended) one? And this is where the Church steps in to clarify essential questions. We know that some passages must be taken literally ("this is my body"). We know that other passages must not be taken literally ("God repented"). But there remain plenty of other passages (such as the "days" of creation) which are left open to a certain measure of interpretation, provided that we always remain under the guidance of the Church. For more detail, see Augustine's work De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Doctrine).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
Was it not declared at the Council of Trent that Scripture cannot be interpretated against the unanimous consent of the Fathers?
It sure was. But providing quotes which prove that the Church Fathers personally held geocentrism (which is all John Salza does) is not the same as providing evidence that they held it to be a a revealed truth of the Christian faith. In fact, none of the Church Fathers (much less all of them) ever made such a claim. Again, let me point out that when Saint Thomas argues for geocentrism in the Summa, he argues based on the observations of a natural scientist and a pagan: Ptolemy. Not a single Church Father. Not a single passage of Scripture. Ptolemy. Geocentrism is a question for natural science, not a truth of the Catholic faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
Can anyone offer any insight? Because I am really struggling with this.
Read the above, and let me know what you're still struggling with.
__________________

"The theory of Darwin, true or not, is not necessarily atheistic; on the contrary, it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill." - Cardinal John Henry Newman