Mr. Keating threatened by Geocentrism?


#1

I noticed that Therese Martin closed Michael Forrest’s thread on Geocentrism. I figured, perhaps it had gotten too big, and by policy it got closed. I started a second thread, Geocentrism Continued. After something like 9 threads, it got closed, also, by Ms. Martin.

Is the Church’s official position on Geocentrism (as expressed by 2 popes, the Fathers, St, Robert Bellarmine, etc.) an embarrassment to Mr. Keating?

Mark Wyatt


#2

[quote=Markjwyatt]I noticed that Therese Martin closed Michael Forrest’s thread on Geocentrism. I figured, perhaps it had gotten too big, and by policy it got closed. I started a second thread, Geocentrism Continued. After something like 9 threads, it got closed, also, by Ms. Martin.

Is the Church’s official position on Geocentrism (as expressed by 2 popes, the Fathers, St, Robert Bellarmine, etc.) an embarrassment to Mr. Keating?

Mark Wyatt
[/quote]

But not one of the opinions are infallible. Yes that is right even a saint can get some things wrong. What is more, there are people who can misinterpret a saint and also get it wrong.

Maggie


#3

Maggie wrote:

But not one of the opinions are infallible. Yes that is right even a saint can get some things wrong. What is more, there are people who can misinterpret a saint and also get it wrong.

Maggie

Agreed. It still defines the Church’s official position on Geocentrism.

Is the Church’s official position in error?

99% of what we believe as Catholicis has never been defined infallibly by a Pope.

Maybe Geocentrism should be listed as a banned topic on this forum, since the embarrassment it causes is too great.

Can you imagine those imbecillic popes and saints and fathers and that error-ridden bible claiming geocentrism when the likes of Galileo (hallelueau, hallelueau, hallelueau) and Corpenicus (hallelueau, hallelueau, hallelueau) and Einstein {choir of angels singing, with halos and wings fluttering, etc.} have the clear opinion it is untrue? Clearly the catholic church has the wrong priorities :confused: .

Sorry to break into a spell of sarcasm. This is not directed personally at you, Maggie. As I said in the closed threads where we were discussing the issue, I found it somewhat shocking when I first came across the idea on Robert Sungenis’ website (www.catholicintl.com). I would say, have an open mind. Things in cosmology are no where near as well defined as is claimed.

Take a look at the two threads on this forum re. Geocentrism.

In Jesus,

Mark Wyatt


#4

There is nothing wrong with “Geocentrism”- as the planet which holds God’s special creation, man, the Earth is worth infinitely more than every other object in the universe combined. A man’s is worth more than all the solar system. So, in this sense, geocentrism is correct- and everything in the universe would seem to “revolve” around the earth. Physically speaking, the Earth and all the planets revolve around the sun, but the Sun was made to be a energy source for the planet which would contain God’s special creation- man.


#5

I saw the other thread before it was closed down. It seemed to be alot of todo about nothing to me. I can barely work my can opener at home so I definitely do not have time to worry about Geocentrism. :smiley:

What is there to get so worked up about? In the end, the only thing that matters is your relationship with God. Your relationship and that’s it.

Use the KISS method and stop worrying about where Pluto is. That’s what we’re talking about right :wink: .

Adios,
Trevor


#6

[quote=Markjwyatt]Maggie wrote:

Agreed. It still defines the Church’s official position on Geocentrism.

Is the Church’s official position in error?

99% of what we believe as Catholicis has never been defined infallibly by a Pope.

Maybe Geocentrism should be listed as a banned topic on this forum, since the embarrassment it causes is too great.

Can you imagine those imbecillic popes and saints and fathers and that error-ridden bible claiming geocentrism when the likes of Galileo (hallelueau, hallelueau, hallelueau) and Corpenicus (hallelueau, hallelueau, hallelueau) and Einstein {choir of angels singing, with halos and wings fluttering, etc.} have the clear opinion it is untrue? Clearly the catholic church has the wrong priorities :confused: .

Sorry to break into a spell of sarcasm. This is not directed personally at you, Maggie. As I said in the closed threads where we were discussing the issue, I found it somewhat shocking when I first came across the idea on Robert Sungenis’ website (www.catholicintl.com). I would say, have an open mind. Things in cosmology are no where near as well defined as is claimed.

Take a look at the two threads on this forum re. Geocentrism.

In Jesus,

Mark Wyatt
[/quote]

Well, Mark, that might get you banned. Or this thread sent to limbo (which revolves around the earth too ).

We all have our own cheering sections.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_7_24.gif

Actually I think it is support for the Sungenis site that is the “problem” here at CA. Mr Keating and Mr Shea have been excellent apologists, and for them, I personally am grateful.

Perhaps if they just recognized that in this field of apologetics, Mr Sungenis is every bit their peer. And perhaps in the area of this physics discussion, his “opinions” are more interesting and plausible that others. But they have not been proven wrong, or worthy of the abuse he has weathered so well.

Have you noticed that he, Sungenis, has not stooped to be critical or argumentative on this site. He sticks to his own site with his own opinions. Those who criticize him seem to have formed a clique, and that’s just the way it is.


#7

No, they were closed down since a thread on geocentrism in 2005 is just stupid. :smiley:

Keating dealt with the geocentrism issue near the beginning of that first thread and in his e-letter. The stars are not rotating around the earth at 247 BILLION times the speed of light. That’s my calculation for NGC 4603 which is 108 MILLION light-years from earth.

Now evolution-creation-intelligent design is more relevant, at least the general public thinks that issue is “controversial.” So we let those threads reach 10 to 20 pages, or 1000 to 2000 posts each. :cool: No one buys geocentrism today, except a few folks stuck in the 15th-16th century.

What else do you accept Mark? The earth is 10,000 years old? Or do you accept a 4.5 billion year old non-rotating, non-revolving earth? :confused:

Phil P


#8

Mark << Is the Church’s official position on Geocentrism (as expressed by 2 popes, the Fathers, St, Robert Bellarmine, etc.) an embarrassment to Mr. Keating? >>

No, read this: The Galileo Controversy

Phil P


#9

trevor says:

What is there to get so worked up about? In the end, the only thing that matters is your relationship with God. Your relationship and that’s it.

In the end we will all have to stand before our Maker and account for the things we did and did not do. But this is not all tha matters. It is not all about you or me.

If Geocentrism is the reality (and NOTHING has disproven it, see the threads on this topic), then a great deception has been placed oin all of humanity. Who the hell do you think may have created this great deception?

The Catholic Church is barely taken seriously because of its perceived COMPLETE STUPIDITY in supporting Geocentrism over the perceived PROVEN heliocentrism. It has lost credibility and has retreated to 1% of what it once was. If you cannot see how much this has effected the Church, then you need to do some reading.

The truth is neither heliocentrism nor acentrism have a scintilla of proof proving them correct, nor does Gecentrism have a scintilla of proof proving it incorrect.

In the mean time satan is running rampant on earth with the Church in no position to stop it. Millions of babies are murdered every year. Our childern are brainwashed in public and Catholic schools. We are in a state of complete deception with even our Church proclaiming a new Springtime in the Church. Do keep faith though, it will not be destroyed. This is a promise from our Lord.

So, no, Trevor, that is not all that matters,

In Jesus,
Mark Wyatt


#10

I have a question. Is something like the Grand Canyon many tens of thousand of years old or older, or could God have made it less than ten thousand years ago and we now determine its “age” with our rules and methods?


#11

Mark << If Geocentrism is the reality (and NOTHING has disproven it, see the threads on this topic), then a great deception has been placed on all of humanity >>

You say the same thing about the age of the earth ? Is this a great deception placed on humanity too? That’s my speciality, we can start a thread on that one. :smiley: Do you have Dalrymple’s book on the age of the earth?

Foucault Pendulum is very clear, the earth must be rotating. If the “universe” were rotating, the pendulum would not change its position. The ground (i.e. earth) is moving underneath the pendulum. There’s one at Univ South FL, I went back recently to see it.

Phil P


#12

Phil Vaz says:

No, they were closed down since a thread on geocentrism in 2005 is just stupid. :smiley:

Is that the official reason? If Phil Vaz thinks it is stupid, do not allow it to be discussed?

Keating dealt with the geocentrism issue near the beginning of that first thread and in his e-letter. The stars are not rotating around the earth at 247 BILLION times the speed of light. That’s my calculation for NGC 4603 which is 108 MILLION light-years from earth.

First of all, you cannot prove that NGC 4603 is 108 Mly’s from earth. What basis for the calculation? Redshifts? Ever heard of Halton Arp? He has a significant amount of credible data throwing the whole question of redshift as distance indicator into question.

Second, let’s just say it is going “that fast”. So what. It is the matrix of space (call it aether) that is travelling that fast. I already showed an example where your purportedly acceptable physics claim that this matrix of space expanded at 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 X the speed of light (the inflation period of the big bang).

The local speed of light is not exceeded in the scenario being posited by Sungenis. It had to have been in the inflation of the universe though.

Now evolution-creation-intelligent design is more relevant, at least the general public thinks that issue is “controversial.” So we let those threads reach 10 to 20 pages, or 1000 to 2000 posts each. :cool: No one buys geocentrism today, except a few folks stuck in the 15th-16th century.

Who are “we”. The self appointed censors to the Holy See? Clearly Mr. Keating can do whatever he wants on his web site. But he is implying an open atmosphere for discussion.

What else do you accept Mark? The earth is 10,000 years old? Or do you accept a 4.5 billion year old non-rotating, non-revolving earth? :confused:

I have not studied this issue to the level of detail I have studied the Geocentric one. Considering the apparent level of deception accepted by even well meaning apologists, I am skeptical about a 4.5 billion year earth. By the way, there is a relation between these two topics (Geocentrism, age of the universe), in case you missed it.

Mark Wyatt


#13

[quote=Markjwyatt] It still defines the Church’s official position on Geocentrism.
[/quote]

Okay, Mark, I guess the following still defines the Church’s official policy about loaning money with interest, too.

I. The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract. This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

II. One cannot condone the sin of usury by arguing that the gain is not great or excessive, but rather moderate or small; neither can it be condoned by arguing that the borrower is rich; nor even by arguing that the money borrowed is not left idle, but is spent usefully, either to increase one’s fortune, to purchase new estates, or to engage in business transactions. The law governing loans consists necessarily in the equality of what is given and returned; once the equality has been established, whoever demands more than that violates the terms of the loan. Therefore if one receives interest, he must make restitution according to the commutative bond of justice; its function in human contracts is to assure equality for each one. This law is to be observed in a holy manner. If not observed exactly, reparation must be made.

–Pope Benedict XIV–Vix Pervenit

So everything a pope promulgates is for everyone forever? Bah!!

John


#14

Wow Mark,

You really are emotional aren’t you? Yes there are many evil things in the world that happen Mark. If our relationships with God were what they should be, we wouldn’t have great evils like abortion, wars, etc, etc.

It really is quite that simple. If we are doing what God wants US to there would be no evil. And there are varying degrees of evil. I don’t believe that the Catholic position on Geocentrism is on a par with abortion. Do you?

Bottom line: I side with Keating and the Church. I side with the Church because WE are supposed to be obedient. Even when our superiors are wrong. I side with Keating because he hasn’t steered us wrong yet. And Geocentrism is kinda nutty although I know you believe in it.

And now if you will excuse me, I have to go and tackle that can opener.

God bless you Mark, I know your heart is good. It’s your head I am worried about. Just kidding. :smiley:

FYI if you have to use the word, use it like this; H E double hockey sticks.

Your brother in Christ,
Trevor


#15

MrS << Is something like the Grand Canyon many tens of thousand of years old or older >>

The Grand Canyon is many million of years old. The top and youngest layer called Kaibab Formation is (as I understand it) around 250,000,000 years old, with the oldest layers the Unkar Group pushing 2 billion years. There are different theories how it exactly formed, but no competent geologist today believes it was formed in a worldwide flood about 5000 years ago. That was abandoned about 200 years ago by even Christian creationist geologists.

The best book is Grand Canyon Geology by Beus/Morales (Oxford Univ Press, 2003, 2nd edition) which I recently found at USF. The earth is dated by the various radiometric methods, which I have shown in my soon-to-be-finished response to Sungenis, are very very reliable and very very reasonable based on thousands of published dates, based on the oldest rocks from earth, moon rocks, and meteorites. We have known the earth is 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old since the 1950s within a couple of a percent.

Changing Views of the History of the Earth

Phil P


#16

Mark << I have not studied this issue to the level of detail I have studied the Geocentric one. Considering the apparent level of deception accepted by even well meaning apologists, I am skeptical about a 4.5 billion year earth. >>

Well OK excellent, get studying darn it, so we can have our debate on the age of the earth in here. You quoting AnswersInGenesis, trying to deny the thousands of radiometric dates, and me quoting TalkOrigins and the standard sources like Dalrymple. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


#17

Phil Vaz says:

[ **

******Foucault Pendulum is very clear, the earth must be rotating. If the “universe” were rotating, the pendulum would not change its position. The ground (i.e. earth) is moving underneath the pendulum. There’s one at Univ South FL, I went back recently to see it
](“http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/”)

Albert Einstein to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913:

[left]If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by the shell experiences an accelerativeforce. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolisforce arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around…[font=TimesNewRoman][size=2]Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” andthat the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown,this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating fromthe motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotationaleffect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated asbeing at rest.[/size]

[/left]

[/font]

Mark Wyatt


#18

Shut 'em down Phil. I am going to go make some popcorn and watch the debate.

Can anyone tell me how to get this can opener working?

Trevor


#19

Mark << Who are “we”. The self appointed censors to the Holy See? >>

No, the moderators of Catholic Answers who apparently agree with me :smiley: since they shut down the geocentrism threads (like this one, shortly :wink: ) and left open almost all the creation-evolution-Darwinism threads the past 8 months. There are about 50 of those btw, much more interesting than the geocentrism stuff. :slight_smile:

Phil P


#20

[quote=trevor]Wow Mark,

I FYI if you have to use the word, use it like this; H E double hockey sticks.

Your brother in Christ,
Trevor
[/quote]

Sorry, Mark is right on. There are no hockey sticks cuz there is no pro hockey.

The owners think hockey revolves around them, and the players think hockey revolves around them. You know, they both could be right!

By the way… which view is that the infallible church teaches?

Or which view does the Church allow or disallow one to believe.

Or which statement by Mr Keating encourages one to “follow” him? All I have seen is his opinions which seem to me to have been laid bare by those with more evidence. Me bad???


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.