Heliocentricism


#1

we were discussing this in my college history class. the professor brought up that until JPII apologized, the Church’s official documents stated a belief in geocentricism. If this is true, why did it take so many centuries to change the official documents? and if it did take so long, what does that say about the Catholic Church? are there any pros or cons about waiting for centuries before changing a document?

I read the older posts on the subject and couldnt find anything about the official documents.

Rachel <><


#2

I don’t think the Church has made a statement about this since it is science.

However, it may interest you and your professor to see that this is still being debated. Either position cannot be proven until we view it from outside this frame of reference.

Challenge your Prof to debate Sungenis - see how far he gets.

Ken Cole (meteorologist) Fourth Attempt at the Geocentric Challenge Part 1


#3

[quote=buffalo]I don’t think the Church has made a statement about this since it is science.

However, it may interest you and your professor to see that this is still being debated. Either position cannot be proven until we view it from outside this frame of reference.

Challenge your Prof to debate Sungenis - see how far he gets.

Ken Cole (meteorologist) Fourth Attempt at the Geocentric Challenge Part 1
[/quote]

:rotfl: I could not be so cruel as to challange anyone to debate RS on this topic (let alone on his expertise in the field of apologetics).

However, there are those who differ in points of view… none of whom appear to make any dent in the just-as-valid theories proposed and explained by RSungenis.

Interest stuff, to be sure.


#4

[quote=buffalo]I don’t think the Church has made a statement about this since it is science.

However, it may interest you and your professor to see that this is still being debated. Either position cannot be proven until we view it from outside this frame of reference.

Challenge your Prof to debate Sungenis - see how far he gets.

Ken Cole (meteorologist) Fourth Attempt at the Geocentric Challenge Part 1
[/quote]

i can’t believe people waste time debating this stuff… lol

:slight_smile:


#5

[quote=cowgirl]we were discussing this in my college history class. the professor brought up that until JPII apologized, the Church’s official documents stated a belief in geocentricism. If this is true, why did it take so many centuries to change the official documents? and if it did take so long, what does that say about the Catholic Church? are there any pros or cons about waiting for centuries before changing a document?

I read the older posts on the subject and couldnt find anything about the official documents.

Rachel <><
[/quote]

Please ask your professor which official Catholic Church document stated a belief in geocentricism.


#6

[quote=cowgirl]we were discussing this in my college history class. the professor brought up that until JPII apologized, the Church’s official documents stated a belief in geocentricism. If this is true, why did it take so many centuries to change the official documents? and if it did take so long, what does that say about the Catholic Church? are there any pros or cons about waiting for centuries before changing a document?

I read the older posts on the subject and couldnt find anything about the official documents.

Rachel <><
[/quote]

Your professor is just spreading anti-Catholic lies here. The Church encouraged scientific inquiry not suppressed it. He has swallowed whole and without question old allegations and lies that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo and other such myths invented by those with an ax to grind. A professor of history ought to do a bit of real research into such questions before spouting off before a classroom full of impressionable young people or any other group. The information he needs is readily available to anyone who really wants to know. It is indeed sad that he, and so many others, are content to pass along hearsay and poor scholarship rather than take the time and trouble to find the truth. Show him this article on the topic to get him started: Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?


#7

[quote=Della]Your professor is just spreading anti-Catholic lies here. The Church encouraged scientific inquiry not suppressed it. He has swallowed whole and without question old allegations and lies that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo and other such myths invented by those with an ax to grind. A professor of history ought to do a bit of real research into such questions before spouting off before a classroom full of impressionable young people or any other group. The information he needs is readily available to anyone who really wants to know. It is indeed sad that he, and so many others, are content to pass along hearsay and poor scholarship rather than take the time and trouble to find the truth. Show him this article on the topic to get him started: Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
[/quote]

then church, believed that Galileo’s theories were both wrong
from a scientific sense, and went against scripture… he went
before an inquisition, they told him his work was heretical and
he must denounce it, and he did…

:slight_smile:


#8

[quote=cowgirl]we were discussing this in my college history class. the professor brought up that until JPII apologized, the Church’s official documents stated a belief in geocentricism. If this is true, why did it take so many centuries to change the official documents? and if it did take so long, what does that say about the Catholic Church? are there any pros or cons about waiting for centuries before changing a document?

I read the older posts on the subject and couldnt find anything about the official documents.

Rachel <><
[/quote]

It is false. The Catholic Church has never taken an official position against heliocentrism and infact the pope at the time of Copernicus supported Copernicus’s teachings.

newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm


#9

[quote=jimmy]It is false. The Catholic Church has never taken an official position against heliocentrism and infact the pope at the time of Copernicus supported Copernicus’s teachings.

newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm
[/quote]

newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

“In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture.”

:slight_smile:


#10

so I guess my question is answered in that there is no official document stating a belief in either heliocentricism or geocentricism, correct?

Rachel <><


#11

[quote=johnshelby]then church, believed that Galileo’s theories were both wrong
from a scientific sense, and went against scripture… he went
before an inquisition, they told him his work was heretical and
he must denounce it, and he did…

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

The Heresy that Galieo was tried for was that he said the Church should rewrite the Bible, taking out references if the sun moving.

Guess what, that is still heresy today.

And the model he proposed was actually LESS accurate than the terrocentric model then in use.

Galieo’s theory was that the orbits were circular, so that when his model was used to predict planetary movement, he was way off.

If someone tried to get a paper with a prediction model that was LESS accurate than the current model, it wouldn’t make it past peer review.


#12

[quote=cowgirl]we were discussing this in my college history class. the professor brought up that until JPII apologized, the Church’s official documents stated a belief in geocentricism. If this is true, why did it take so many centuries to change the official documents? and if it did take so long, what does that say about the Catholic Church? are there any pros or cons about waiting for centuries before changing a document?

I read the older posts on the subject and couldnt find anything about the official documents.

Rachel <><
[/quote]

Rachel:

I hope you have read these:

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
[list]
*]Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
*]Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
*]Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
*]Gecentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
[/list]1. The opinion of the eleven theological qualifiers in 1616:

24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.

( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.

  1. Paul V ratified and approved this statement:

…And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture,…

3. Urban the VIII repeated it verbatim in his condemnation of Galileo (Galileo was convicted of being vehemently suspect of heresy).

4.Alexander VII explicitly included Paul V’s statement and another similar statement in a Papal Bull (an authoritative document), and approved it explicitly with his Apostolic authority.

The Church has indeed made official and authoritative declarations regarding geocentrism.

As to JPII :

All he did was make a private speech to a private audience (the Pontiifical Academy of Sciences). Here he basically apologized for the treatment of Galileo. Unlike all the previous declarations, this was not a legal or official act of the Church. It in no way has any bearing oin the previous decrees.

In JPII’s (or whomever wrote the speech) private *opinion, *Urban the VIII was wrong. This is only an opinion. A Pope cannot condemn another Pope without explicitly stating the error and the condemnation in an official manner (which this was not, nor was it intended to be) .And he did not even mention the decrees of Paul V or the Bull of Alexander the VII- probabbly the most authoritative statement on geocentrism.

If you read the above links, you will see that science has not disproven geocentrism, nor proven alternatives. In the 19th century many were convinced of some form of heliocentrism, but 20th century science actually changed that. I say stick with God. Truth does not change with scientific fads.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.


#13

[quote=Brendan]The Heresy that Galieo was tried for was that he said the Church should rewrite the Bible, taking out references if the sun moving…
[/quote]

No here is what Urban the VIII said the heresy was:

*Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples… …and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

…We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…*

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.


#14

[quote=johnshelby]newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm

“In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, presented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation declared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works. Neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture.”

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Obviously this is a controversial issue. These private authors just condemned three Popes in their private opinion.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.


#15

[quote=jimmy]It is false. The Catholic Church has never taken an official position against heliocentrism and infact the pope at the time of Copernicus supported Copernicus’s teachings.

newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm
[/quote]

Really?

Here is what “the Pope at the time” said in the official version (not the 20th century, gosh we Catholics are so embarrassed apologetics version):

"And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture, is now spread abroad and accepted by many . . .; therefore in order that an opinion ruinous to Catholic truth not creep further in this manner, the Sacred Congregation decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus . . . be suspended until corrected; and that all other books similarly teaching the same thing be prohibited: as accordingly it prohibits, damns, and suspends them all by the present Decree. "

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.


#16

Scroll down through this article on Copernicus to the Ptolemaic system on down to see that Copernicus didn’t have it right, either. Although he put the sun at the center of the solar system he was wrong about the movement of the other heavenly bodies. Yet, the Church never had him before the inquisition because he didn’t say that the Bible must be wrong and the Church had to accept his theories as correct. Thank goodness the Church never accepted anyone’s theories as totally correct because NONE of them were completely right.


#17

[quote=Della]Your professor is just spreading anti-Catholic lies here. The Church encouraged scientific inquiry not suppressed it. He has swallowed whole and without question old allegations and lies that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo and other such myths invented by those with an ax to grind. A professor of history ought to do a bit of real research into such questions before spouting off before a classroom full of impressionable young people or any other group. The information he needs is readily available to anyone who really wants to know. It is indeed sad that he, and so many others, are content to pass along hearsay and poor scholarship rather than take the time and trouble to find the truth. Show him this article on the topic to get him started: Why Did the Catholic Church Condemn Galileo?
[/quote]

Or, you can pass your professor to the articles I linked, where I actually use the statements of the Popes, rather than a dumbed down, highly spun, dialogue.

Real history professors like to go back to the original content, not 20th century desperate attempts to cover up the truth.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.


#18

[quote=trth_skr]Obviously this is a controversial issue. These private authors just condemned three Popes in their private opinion.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.
[/quote]

by “these private authors” are you refering to the New Advent
encyclopedia?

i might be getting lost here… lol

:slight_smile:


#19

[quote=johnshelby]by “these private authors” are you refering to the New Advent
encyclopedia?

i might be getting lost here… lol

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Yes, the authors of Catholic Encyclopedia. The authors of the article you linked condemend Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander the VII as being in error.

Funny thing is no Pope has done so in an official manner, but maybe in private opinion (i.e., JP II’s speech to the PAS).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com


Scientism is a god. It fidgets in the modern pantheon because of the presence of the True God, who accepts no other gods.


#20

**Most people today would not use the Bible in a scientific controversy, but that wasn’t the case in the seventeenth century. ** Many leading thinkers of that day believed that the Bible taught that the earth cannot move. For example, the great observational astronomer Tycho Brahe, himself a Lutheran, thought this way. He believed that this agreed with the physics of motion as then understood. And remember, there was simply no compelling evidence of the earth’s motion. For people at that time, if physics and the Bible seemed to agree, that constituted strong reasons to reject the motion of the earth.
(from the article: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp )

Most people today would not use the Bible in a scientific controversy. In Galileo’s time, it was the Church which made that mistake. Now, it seems that current geocentrists are making the same mistake.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.