Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #121  
Old Jun 4, '10, 8:10 am
Thing Thing is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2008
Posts: 2,478
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
Here's the problem. Some are trying to prove Geocentrism from science because they recognize the glaring contradiction. Some are disputing Geocentrism by science and trying to sweep under the rug the fact that Scripture and the Fathers point to a Geocentric Universe. Science, is meant to compliment and verify what is in Scripture, right? Faith and reason are not at odds. It is dogma to say that Scripture can't be in error. So if we claim the Fathers were wrong and Scripture doesn't mean what it says then the Church has hurled an anathema at you. Geocentrism is not a dogma, but claiming the Scriptures cannot be without error is.
Where am I wrong?
You are jumping the gun a bit. Does the Holy Spirit preface His inspired writing on Goecentrism by saying "Now I am speaking scientifically to you...".

What is the context of the writing on Geocentrism in Sacred Scriptures.

Is it a 'Divine thesis on planetary physics'?

Or is the author talking about some other matter than planetary physics?

Are we to view English poetry from the perspective of Physics?

Are we to view inspired thoughts on creation from the perspective of Quantitive Analysis?

Read those inspired writings only from the perspective of the mind which was inspired to write them.. that would seem to place one in the proper context.

Scripture cannot be in error but trying to learn to drive a car by viewing the rules of the road from the perspective of William Shakespeare's early odes is a mistake.

What are the Sacred Scriptures exactly regarding Geocentrism.

Are they written as science or in passing in the 'vernacular' while talking about some other subject?
__________________
We should silence anyone who opposes the right to freedom of speech. - Sir Boyle Roche
  #122  
Old Jun 4, '10, 8:19 am
jam070406 jam070406 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 20, 2007
Posts: 4,425
Religion: No Elephant In The Living Room Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing View Post
You are jumping the gun a bit. Does the Holy Spirit preface His inspired writing on Goecentrism by saying "Now I am speaking scientifically to you...".

What is the context of the writing on Geocentrism in Sacred Scriptures.

Is it a 'Divine thesis on planetary physics'?

Or is the author talking about some other matter than planetary physics?

Are we to view English poetry from the perspective of Physics?

Are we to view inspired thoughts on creation from the perspective of Quantitive Analysis?

Read those inspired writings only from the perspective of the mind which was inspired to write them.. that would seem to place one in the proper context.

Scripture cannot be in error but trying to learn to drive a car by viewing the rules of the road from the perspective of William Shakespeare's early odes is a mistake.

What are the Sacred Scriptures exactly regarding Geocentrism.

Are they written as science or in passing in the 'vernacular' while talking about some other subject?
No idea. That's why I'm asking.
  #123  
Old Jun 4, '10, 8:25 am
jam070406 jam070406 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 20, 2007
Posts: 4,425
Religion: No Elephant In The Living Room Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by clmowry View Post
And it is this, I believe erroneous, assertion that drives the controversy forward.

I’m still looking for someone to show me where either scripture or the church asserts as doctrine that “It is a scientific fact that the earth does not move.”

Even if we accept that the Church taught as Doctrine that Heliocentrism was heretical (and I don’t think we can even show this to be the case) it is quite convenient that Heliocentrism is no more a scientific fact than Geocentrism.

So in that regard, though perhaps for all the wrong reasons, the Church did not err in its supposed pronouncement on the falsity of Heliocentrism.

Chuck
Perhaps you are correct. I should not have made the assertion but, it did provide for a good response from you, so it served it's purpose.

I just don't understand those on the Helo side that get all in a tizzy and start declaring Helocentrism as a scientific fact. There seems to really be some hostility and I just understand where that comes form
  #124  
Old Jun 4, '10, 8:36 am
jam070406 jam070406 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: February 20, 2007
Posts: 4,425
Religion: No Elephant In The Living Room Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by clmowry View Post
And it is this, I believe erroneous, assertion that drives the controversy forward.

I’m still looking for someone to show me where either scripture or the church asserts as doctrine that “It is a scientific fact that the earth does not move.”

Even if we accept that the Church taught as Doctrine that Heliocentrism was heretical (and I don’t think we can even show this to be the case) it is quite convenient that Heliocentrism is no more a scientific fact than Geocentrism.

So in that regard, though perhaps for all the wrong reasons, the Church did not err in its supposed pronouncement on the falsity of Heliocentrism.

Chuck
Although I would like to go back in time with you to see the look on St. Robert Bellarmine's face when you tell him, sit down and be quiet with your erroneous assertion about Scripture.
  #125  
Old Jun 4, '10, 10:42 am
Thing Thing is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2008
Posts: 2,478
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by jam070406 View Post
No idea. That's why I'm asking.
And there was much confusion;


The following is list of Cardinal Bellarmine’s most salient quotes:

1. “to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens...and the earth... revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”




4. “If there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe…and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary…But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration.”


1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…being spread by... Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini…Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it decrees that the said... De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium..be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned.” Pope Paul V presided at this Congregation and, while his name is not on the decree, approved and ordered the decree as supreme teacher of the Church.




And it is quite true that it is false that the sun is at the center of the heavens and the earth orbits around it. The sun is not the fixed, immobile center of the universe and it would have been foolish to proclaim that it was since any of the Sacred Scriptures I've read so far and the few Fathers quotes can be read either way that the sun is seen as moving in the sky as we say ourselves every day. To say that the sun is the fixed, immobile center of the universe is quite different to anything the SS say, its different to what the Fathers thought, the few quotes I've read, and its different to what our science thinks today as is the profound bluntly factual statement in SS missing that the earth is the fixed immobile center of the universe and everything literally orbits around it.
__________________
We should silence anyone who opposes the right to freedom of speech. - Sir Boyle Roche
  #126  
Old Jun 4, '10, 12:56 pm
cassini cassini is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 17, 2008
Posts: 1,655
Religion: 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. 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.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#5

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.
  #127  
Old Jun 4, '10, 1:28 pm
didymus's Avatar
didymus didymus is offline
Veteran Member
Radio Club Member
 
Join Date: April 5, 2005
Posts: 10,387
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
23 Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. (1Kings (RSV) 7)
So does pi = 3 or 3.14159265 . . . ?


__________________
It's not hoarding if it's BOOKS.

  #128  
Old Jun 4, '10, 5:35 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterjedi747 View Post
You asked a question, and I found you an answer.
You found a banal and idiotic answer which you from someones blog. You should have had some respect before you posted it. The reason that you posted it was because you could not find anything better which could defend the utter shambollocking of science which has occurred. Negative Parallax readings should be impossible. The existence of negative readings in equal quantity with positive readings is scientific proof that what is being measured IS NOT STELLAR PARALLAX but is stellar aberration of some other kind. The reason that NASA and Harvard are deconvoluting the results is because they are hiding this obvious conclusion from us. The reason being is that the parallax measurements are lynch pins in their whole false premise that the world is not in the centre of the universe.

If there is no Parallax which is what Tycho Brahe claimed then THE EARTH IS IN THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE. There can be no other explanation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by masterjedi747 View Post
And so what? I don't think the explanation I provided said anything about how frequently these mistakes might occur. In fact, I suspect that they're known to happen quite often, which is why astronomers even today still have their work cut out for them.
But Jedi. You are ignoring and brushing over the reality. Its not just a mistake here and a mistake there. HALF THE READINGS ARE "MISTAKEN" and not by small margins but by as large margins as are the positive readings. If that many records are wrong by that amount then either the measuring equipment is completely unreliable and its readings cannot be relied upon to prove stellar parallax or else it is reliable and what is being measured is not parallax. Why are you ignoring this? Do you have it as an article of religion to believe in stellar parallax?

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterjedi747 View Post
I thought the point, as he clearly explained, what that you don't disregard anything. Not even the negative readings, which you know must have been in error. The point was that you simply measure it again, and again, and again, until you start getting a consistent answer, and can judge which of your two initial measurements must have been in error. And of course you don't just stop when you get your first positive reading... you continue to test it again, and again, and again, until you start getting a consistent answer, and can judge whether or not your earlier measurements were correct.
Is that how science works? If at first you don't succeed in getting a measurement which suits your ideology then try, try, try again? How many times do you keep trying until you give up and come to the inevitable conclusion that what is being measured is not stellar parallax at all but something else?
Even the scientists at NASA and Harvard do not claim that all the readings are errors or measurement. I even showed you the extensive document which describes how they deconvolute the negative readings to change them all into acceptable readings which suit their stellar parallax paradigm. What a con. What a complete and utter snow job they are doing on us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterjedi747 View Post
I'd very much like to see one respected Church authority who ever interpreted that passage as referring to a physical force in the universe. Seriously, one. I can tell you right now that Aquinas sure didn't.
You'd very much like to seen a respected Church who interpreted the passage this way would you? Why would that be? So that you could believe what I have said? I hardly think so. In fact you are determined to believe that everything we see in the physical realm has a natural explanation. In fact God has intervened repeatedly in human history and changed the physical elements of the world. An example is the long day of Joshua where the sun stood still in the sky for 24 hours. Can you find a natural explanation for that miracle. Or shall I suppose that you do not believe that this miracle occurred. If God can perform miracles as an extraordinary action upon the natural world, I see no reason to conclude (and certainly not from Aquinas or any Church authority) that he cannot perform miracles in ordinary and daily actions upon the natural world.

Like I said. You cannot prove that God does not cause the planets to orbit the sun and the sun to orbit the earth by direct supernatural power. And if that be the case then no scientific measurement will ever confirm one way or another whether this be the case or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterjedi747 View Post

I wish you were joking. The sad thing is, I don't think you are.
Of course I believe what I see that the sun does indeed rise in the morning and travels through the sky. I also therefore believe the witnesses who saw the risen Lord on Easter morning.

Jesus is himself called the "Sun of Righteousness". Therefore if the sun does not really rise but only seems to rise whereas in fact we are falling away from the sun, then maybe the rising of the "Sun of Righteousness" is also a trick of the senses, an optical illusion that those witnesses only thought they saw the risen "Son" but in fact he only appeared to be risen.
  #129  
Old Jun 4, '10, 5:40 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by didymus View Post
So does pi = 3 or 3.14159265 . . . ?


It makes me very sad to see how quickly Christians accept the accusations of error in our Bible. The Bible is inerrant.1 King 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. 25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. 26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

The problem here is that there are two things being measured here.
1. The brim is being measured.
2. The bowl is being measured.

The brim is a handwidth thick which is about 11cm and 10 cubits in diameter which is about 457 centimetres.
A cubit is about 45.7 centimetres.
The bowl is 30 cubits in circumference which is 30 * 45.7 / 3.141 = 436 cms diameter.
So if we subtract the diameter of the brims 11 cms on each side from the diameter of the brim we get the following calculation
457 - 11 - 11 = 435 cms

Close enough considering we are not exactly sure what a handwidth is or a cubit is.

Here is a picture to help understand the brim in relation to the bowl.
http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/P...0oxen%20la.htm

The only potential fault I find with this logic is the thickness of the brass. In verse 26 is it saying that the bowl is 11 cms thick of solid brass; or is it saying that the brim is 11 cms thick? Even if the brass of the bowl is 11 cms thick (which seems likely to strengthen the bowl adequately to contain 18000 gallons of water) does not preclude the possibility of the brim extending by 11 cms from the outer circumference of the bowl.

It is erroneus to insist that the molten sea had to be a perfect cylinder without any lip in the brim. I feel disappointed that Christians would prefer to say that the Bible is in error or that the artisans who built the temple could not measure correctly or they were sloppily rounding off; rather than conceding that they themselves do not absolutely understand what is being described.
  #130  
Old Jun 4, '10, 5:57 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: 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. 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.
... ... ...
The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, ... are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author.

This is not development of doctrine. There is a complete contradiction to Scripture & what the Church believed and taught.

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.
One of the best posts I have seen on the subject. The writer has grasped the issues very soundly.
It occurred to me when reading this that it is easy to hold to your Catholic faith when the whole world agrees with you, but when the tide turns against the Catholic faith and opposing teachings start to take the ascension, its frightening how quickly and how many Catholics get off and make excuses to abandon their beliefs. Look at England. When King Henry VIIIth put a bit of pressure on Catholics they denied the supremacy of the Pope and all departed the faith. The whole nation apostate, all the bishops and all the priests. Only a tiny minority were faithful. And also in the Arian crisis, virtually all the priests and all the Bishops supported the heresy. Even the Pope was a bit wishy washy on it. But the heresy was still the heresy even though the entire world and the majority of the church had turned about. The vast majority of the church was teaching heresy. This is why we cannot simply rely on what the current teaching is. As true Catholics we must defend the entire faith as it was received from the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition.

Having said that I deny that the Church teaches the Geocentrism is false. I deny that it teaches that Heliocentrism or Acentrism is true. I really don't think the Popes and the Cardinals understand the issue fully, and they are beset with far worse modernist issues than this.

I believe that the recent Popes who grew up in corrupted Catholic education systems do actually believe that the earth goes about the sun. But they could never speak with any authority saying so because they know that this would put them at direct odds against the church of the 1600-1800s. Even up until the 1920's as Jam's post shows there were strident comments by Popes against "science" (falsely so called) which opposed sacred revelation. It will never happen.
  #131  
Old Jun 4, '10, 6:13 pm
buffalo's Avatar
buffalo buffalo is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 7, 2004
Posts: 29,010
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Heliocentrism is wrong today and in the past. The sun is not the center of the universe. The Church said it in the past, science says it now. Galileo was wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe.

Science today puts forth acentrism. It has eliminated heliocentrism. Another case of science catching up to the Church.
__________________
IDvolution - God "breathed" the super language of DNA into the "kinds" in the creative act. Buffalo

"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is a thought of God."

“Science presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, the ‘design’ of creation.”

"A man of conscience, is one who never acquires tolerance, well- being, success, public standing, and approval on the part of prevailing opinion, at the expense of truth."
Pope Benedict XVI

  #132  
Old Jun 4, '10, 6:20 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by clmowry View Post
And it is this, I believe erroneous, assertion that drives the controversy forward.

I’m still looking for someone to show me where either scripture or the church asserts as doctrine that “It is a scientific fact that the earth does not move.”
you have been showed repeatedly where the church condemned the notion that the earth goes about the sun. You seek to be sneeky and clever with words by inserting "scientific fact". The church does not reveal truth by science. She reveals truth by divine revelation of the Holy Spirit, she expounds and preserves the true interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. These authorities are of higher quality and authority than the vagueries of Science. The philosophies of science change with the wind. The whole catholic world rushed to believe that the sun was in the centre of the universe. Then the whole catholic world rushed to believe that the sun was drifting through the universe. The conventional teaching is that the man is not special he is just another animal, the earth is not special it is just another planet, the sun is not special it is just another star. In fact the modern teaching has a striking similarity to the teachings of notorious heretic Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake for his heresies by the Congregation of the Inquisition. He is roundly regarded today as the first martyr for (the new religion) science. He was a philosopher and cosmologist in 1600. It is hard to find a subject which this guy did not speak heretically about. Now notice his cosmology as given in wikipedia.

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Bruno believed, as is now universally accepted, that the Earth revolves and that the apparent diurnal rotation of the heavens is an illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis. He also saw no reason to believe that the stellar region was finite, or that all stars were equidistant from a single center of the universe.

Most dramatically, he completely abandoned the idea of a hierarchical universe. The Earth was just one more heavenly body, as was the Sun.

Space and time were both conceived as infinite.

Under this model, the Sun was simply one more star, and the stars all suns, each with its own planets. Bruno saw a solar system of a sun/star with planets as the fundamental unit of the universe. According to Bruno, infinite God necessarily created an infinite universe, formed of an infinite number of solar systems
Notice how strikingly similar his teachings are to the beliefs advanced by modern science. This is what the world and it would seem the majority of the church believes. It shows how dramatically science changes whereas the truths of God are stable and unchanging throughout all the ages.

The striking alignment between Bruno's cosmology and the modern teaching is evidence to me that much of the Science we get fed today has spilled well over into the philosophical arena and is no longer truly science. Its driven not by the physical measurable facts but rather is driven by a heretical and vain philosophy of the world into which the physical facts are manipulated and contrived to fit.

Today if we are to believe modern science we have to concede that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office was wrong and that Giordano Bruno was right. And indeed we do. We fall over ourselves today making apologies for Giordano Bruno.

Such a situtation is completely untenable. I will NOT accept it. Its outrageous to suppose. Who is out there making some apologies for the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office ? Robert Sungenis is one such person who has written a book in two volumes entitled "Galileo was wrong: The church was right". Volume 2 covers the entire historical background for geocentrism including proofs from scripture, citations from church fathers and the charges of heresy applied by the church against heliocentrism.

I might write a book myself entitled "Giordano Bruno was wrong: The Church was right".
  #133  
Old Jun 4, '10, 6:21 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by clmowry View Post
Even if we accept that the Church taught as Doctrine that Heliocentrism was heretical (and I don’t think we can even show this to be the case) it is quite convenient that Heliocentrism is no more a scientific fact than Geocentrism.
Its really appalling. It does not seem to matter how much evidence is presented to show that the church taught that heliocentrism was heresy there will still be people who will say over and over again that the church did not teach that heliocentrism was heresy. The facts seem to make no impact on them. Its like the protestant who says over and over again. "Catholics worship Mary". You teach them and explain to them how we are devoted to Mary and how we only worship God, but you can say it from every different angle with as much evidence as you can muster and then turn around and lo and behold what do you hear them saying "Catholics worship Mary".

You know what this is. Its a kind of defence mechanism. If the protestant were to admit that the Catholic did not worship Mary then he might be compelled to accept Catholics and maybe even (shock/horror) become a Catholic. So it is easier to believe a lie than to go through that kind of pain. Its the same with this heresy issue. The Catholic will convince himself that the church never taught that heliocentrism was heresy so that he may avoid having to give up pivotal belief mechanisms upon which he has based his life. The pain is too great for him to change and confess error, therefore he makes up excuses for himself and prefers to believe a lie.

Sorry that is not good enough. There is no excuse for it. We must love the truth above all. The truth is that the church did condemn heliocentrism as heresy, therefore now that we know this it behoves us to make sense of it and reconcile it into our current world view.

And personally I believe that the only way this may be done is by rejecting the vague and constantly changing teachings of science (which are all based on a pagan and heretical ideology anyway) and returning to the pure word of the Scripture as expounded by the Medieval church.
  #134  
Old Jun 4, '10, 7:24 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo View Post
Heliocentrism is wrong today and in the past. The sun is not the center of the universe. The Church said it in the past, science says it now. Galileo was wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe.

Science today puts forth acentrism. It has eliminated heliocentrism. Another case of science catching up to the Church.
The church also said in the past that the earth is not moving. It also rejected Bruno's notion of an infinite universe where the stars were distant suns. Bruno refused to recant. One of his teachings was a dogged insistence in an infinite number of worlds and that the stars were distant suns. Here is his model of the universe

Here are some of his quotes and teachings
"This entire globe, this star, not being subject to death, and dissolution and annihilation being impossible anywhere in Nature, from time to time renews itself by changing and altering all its parts. There is no absolute up or down, as Aristotle taught; no absolute position in space; but the position of a body is relative to that of other bodies. Everywhere there is incessant relative change in position throughout the universe, and the observer is always at the center of things."

"As to us on Earth, the Earth seems to be the center of the Universe, so to inhabitants of the Moon, the Moon will appear as such http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js. Each world has its center, each its up and down; these differences are to be assigned relatively . . ."

"To a body of infinite size there can be ascribed neither centre nor boundary... Thus the Earth no more than any other world is at the centre."

"It is then unnecessary to investigate whether there be beyond the heaven Space, Void or Time. For there is a single general space, a single vast immensity which we may freely call Void; in it are innumerable globes like this one on which we live and grow. This space we declare to be infinite, since neither reason, convenience, possibility, sense-perception nor nature assign to it a limit. In it are an infinity of worlds of the same kind as our own."

AND here is the churches pronouncement of what they thought of Bruno's ideas.
"We hereby, in these documents, publish, announce, pronounce, sentence, and declare thee the aforesaid Brother Giordano Bruno to be an impenitent and pertinacious heretic, and therefore to have incurred all the ecclesiastical censures and pains of the Holy Canon, the laws and the constitutions, both general and particular, imposed on such confessed impenitent pertinacious and obstinate heretics... We ordain and command that thou must be delivered to the Secular Court... that thou mayest be punished with the punishment deserved... Furthermore, we condemn, we reprobate, and we prohibit all thine aforesaid and thy other books and writings as heretical and erroneous, containing many heresies and errors, and we ordain that all of them which have come or may in future come into the hands of the Holy Office shall be publicly destroyed and burned in the square of St. Peter before the steps and that they shall be placed upon the Index of Forbidden Books, and as we have commanded, so shall it be done..
Official judgment on charges of heresy (16 February 1600); as translated in Giordano Bruno : His Life and Thought (1950) by Dorothea Waley Singer, Ch. 7 "Martyrdom (1591-1600)""

SO IT IS CLEAR that the church has not only rejected heliocentrism but acentrism as well.
  #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

Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6635CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6233Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
5197Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4320Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3293For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2828Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Tis Bearself
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.