Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: roscoe on December 03, 2009, 01:41:51 AM
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
-
And I S/E. Ciao.
-
And I: does it matter? How does this lead us to salvation?
-
The point is this: When a person starts to believe that the Holy Scriptures and the Church fathers can be disregarded by favouring unproven 'scientific' theories, one has begun a precedent of compromise with reality, compromise with the truth. It is a very specious position in which to place oneself.
In other words, if you read the Scriptures and the Church Fathers and see their unanimity in interpreting Scripture geocentrically, but yet you deny that this is how the universe is arranged, you imperil your soul by contradicting the same Fathers and Scriptures.
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
The Earth goes about the Sun. That is as much of a fact as the computer keyboard that I am typing on!
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
The Earth goes about the Sun. That is as much of a fact as the computer keyboard that I am typing on!
maybe it does, maybe it does not, even scientists and others still debate this.....it is an opinion, not a 100% provable fact...either way....
-
The point is this: When a person starts to believe that the Holy Scriptures and the Church fathers can be disregarded by favouring unproven 'scientific' theories, one has begun a precedent of compromise with reality, compromise with the truth. It is a very specious position in which to place oneself.
In other words, if you read the Scriptures and the Church Fathers and see their unanimity in interpreting Scripture geocentrically, but yet you deny that this is how the universe is arranged, you imperil your soul by contradicting the same Fathers and Scriptures.
would you then, for the record, declare that a person believing in heliocentrism is going to Hell?
(I am open on this topic and have no set stance as of yet, still learning)
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
The Earth goes about the Sun. That is as much of a fact as the computer keyboard that I am typing on!
maybe it does, maybe it does not, even scientists and others still debate this.....it is an opinion, not a 100% provable fact...either way....
It is both provable and 100% certain. To say otherwise is to obfuscate one's own sense of reality.
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
The Earth goes about the Sun. That is as much of a fact as the computer keyboard that I am typing on!
maybe it does, maybe it does not, even scientists and others still debate this.....it is an opinion, not a 100% provable fact...either way....
It is both provable and 100% certain. To say otherwise is to obfuscate one's own sense of reality.
then why is there mountains of evidence, biblical, Fathers,Popes,secientific and othersise that still bring into question your personal opinion?
Have you flown to space and watched the movements? conduct testing?
You beleive in heliocentrism because it was taught to you as fact, just like many are tought as fact evolution.....poor teaching that admits no other views to weigh and compare....
again, maybe helio view is correct, maybe Geo view is...but it is not a matter of "reality", whatever that means....it is a matter of scienctific and faith investigation
-
will add, when praying tonight, will let the Holy souls-Popes,fathers,etc, now that you believe they were not realistic in their geocentrism.. :pop:
-
That the Earth moves is absolutely certain, no doubt whatsoever. No one "taught" me this. I can prove it, experimentally, all on my own, and so can you! Lots and lots of good information online! All it takes is backyard telescopes, gyroscopes, and perhaps a pendulum or two, and this is just scratching the surface. I have already defended this issue in previous posts, so this is all that I have to say about it now. As for the Fathers of the Church, they were wrong on this issue, as was nearly everyone else, and as it was outside the Deposit of Faith to begin with, there are no consequences to Catholic theology whatsoever by not getting a scientific fact about the World correct. One might as well impugn their theological credibility for not having divined the correct formula for a Big Mac! Just face it, the science of geography was not very good in those days. So what?!
-
would you then, for the record, declare that a person believing in heliocentrism is going to Hell?
It is heresy to contradict the unanimous Biblical interpretation of the Church Fathers, as per Pius IX at the Vatican Council. There has never been any form of retraction, either formal or informal, of the Church's censure against the proposition that the earth moves around the sun.
That being said, this proposition is not contained in the basic Christian Creed - is not a necessary dogma like the Incarnation of Christ, without the explicit knowledge of which a person is certainly damned - there are certainly people who have not the resources to realize all this (people on this board could not reasonably be included in this group) and who may simply be in material heresy on the matter. Such people would not be on the road to hell for their material heresy.
-
Don's arguments are quite unsubstantial in the face of the Church Fathers and Scripture, and of course the historical scientific experiments that support the geocentric conclusion (and those experiments still taking place)
-
After work, I'll post a very interesting forum discussion I found by one defending the geocentric truth of the universe.
-
CM's conception that S/E flys in the face of 2( only 1 is needed) scientific proofs-- Newton and Bradley.
St Robert Bellarmine--' If Copernicanism( or any part of it-- my comment) were verified, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the scriptures that seemed contrary and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say something is false which has been proven'.
This will be dismissed by CM because of his allegation that Card Bellarmine is a 'BoD heretic'.
http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com
-
CM's conception that S/E flys in the face of 2( only 1 is needed) scientific proofs-- Newton and Bradley.
St Robert Bellarmine--' If Copernicanism( or any part of it-- my comment) were verified, then it would be necessary to use careful consideration in explaining the scriptures that seemed contrary and we should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say something is false which has been proven'.
This will be dismissed by CM because of his allegation that Card Bellarmine is a 'BoD heretic'.
http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com
Of course, this was before the Theory of Relativity (developed by Poincaré, Lorentz, and then, finally, Einstein), so you have one scientific theory which explains another. The Scriptures are not false, that is, the Sun does move relative to the Earth, and the Earth moves relative to the Sun. Cardinal Bellarmine was, of course, unaware of the scientific concept of relativity, as was Newton himself. What BoD ideas did Cardinal Bellarmine subscribe to?
-
You will have to ask CM
-
In this case I was not using the term relativity in the sense of physics but your conception of the motion of Sun AND Earth w/o using the terms helio or geocentrism is quite correct.
If there is a center of the Universe, we do not know where it is nor does it matter. Earth is the center of the Universe in a spiritual sense because revealed truth tells us Jesus has been here. EENS
-
I simply asked if Bellarmine taught BoD. After more looking into it, here is what I have found thus far:
Such is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine. Taken in their proper context, the terms body and soul of the Church prove to be instruments employed by St. Robert in establishing his contention "that there is one Church and not two," and that this one Church of Jesus Christ is as visible an organization as any civil society. It was not St. Robert, but rather the followers of Luther and of Calvin who distinguished between a visible and an invisible Church. This was the very error which the great Doctor of the Church set out to overthrow.
St. Robert speaks of the three theological virtues as the soul in or of the Church. Manifestly there can be no such thing as a "member of the soul of the Church" in this sense. Faith, hope and charity constitute neither a body nor a society. The people whom St. Robert designated as "of the soul of the Church" are, in the light of his own teaching, those who possess the virtues which are found within the Catholic Church and which the heretics had claimed as requisite for membership in the Church. Those who are "of the soul and not of the body" are precisely the individuals who have these virtues without being actually members of Church. Neither the soul nor the persons who are said to be "of" that soul could be considered as forming a society in any way distinct from the one visible Church of
Jesus Christ.
-
Alright Don, have at it: Interesting discussion on geocentrism (http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2503)
-
I have a few times in the past described you as accusing St Robert as a BoD heretic and you never objected.
The phoney Sungenis again....
-
I simply asked if Bellarmine taught BoD. After more looking into it, here is what I have found thus far:
Such is the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine. Taken in their proper context, the terms body and soul of the Church prove to be instruments employed by St. Robert in establishing his contention "that there is one Church and not two," and that this one Church of Jesus Christ is as visible an organization as any civil society. It was not St. Robert, but rather the followers of Luther and of Calvin who distinguished between a visible and an invisible Church. This was the very error which the great Doctor of the Church set out to overthrow.
St. Robert speaks of the three theological virtues as the soul in or of the Church. Manifestly there can be no such thing as a "member of the soul of the Church" in this sense. Faith, hope and charity constitute neither a body nor a society. The people whom St. Robert designated as "of the soul of the Church" are, in the light of his own teaching, those who possess the virtues which are found within the Catholic Church and which the heretics had claimed as requisite for membership in the Church. Those who are "of the soul and not of the body" are precisely the individuals who have these virtues without being actually members of Church. Neither the soul nor the persons who are said to be "of" that soul could be considered as forming a society in any way distinct from the one visible Church of
Jesus Christ.
I have a few times in the past described you as accusing St Robert as a BoD heretic and you have not objected until now.
The phoney Sungenis again....
-
Sungenis delusions re: Copernicanism and the Galileo case are quite obvious as has been shown.
-
Did he teach BoD or didn't he? If he did, he's to be held as a BoD heretic. If he didn't, then he is not to be held as a BoD heretic.
If he had been canonized by a pope rather than by an antipope, then there would be no question. The canonization in the external forum would be a loud and clear legal declaration from the Church that he is believed to have lived and died in the state of grace, and who are we to argue with the Church?
But it was Pius XI (http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/09/antipope-pius-xi.html) that 'canonized' him.
-
Sungenis delusions re: Copernicanism and the Galileo case are quite obvious as has been shown.
Has not been shown to me. Show me.
-
Why are you asking me if Bellarmine taught BoD because I have no idea. BoD and NFP are distractions anyway. You are alone here is declaring Pius XI(XII) an anti-pope.
-
Sungenis delusions re: Copernicanism and the Galileo case are quite obvious as has been shown.
Has not been shown to me. Show me.
I cannot give any more evidence than has been presented-- you aren't buying it. You are at least one of the few around here that is willing to go on record as saying something.
-
CM apparently does not accept the scientific proofs of Newton and Bradley who independently collaborate and corroborrate article one of Copernicanism.
-
Roscoe, your poor comprehension is such a barrier to communication. I'm saying that I haven't heard of this "Newton and Bradley proof". Present it.
-
I only post on CathInfo.
-
Roscoe, your poor comprehension is such a barrier to communication. I'm saying that I haven't heard of this "Newton and Bradley proof". Present it.
This has been posted a few times in the past.
http://firstjesuits.wordpress.com
-
If by this time CM doesn't even have a basic understanding of Newton's theory of gravity, there isn't much purpose in having a discussion. Ciao
-
It is to be expected that someone who doesn't understand Newton's Universal Theory would think the Sun rev around Earth.
-
That again? Perhaps you can explain to me which part of it renders geocentrism untenable in light of Newtonian gravity, in an aether filled universe. Ciao.
-
An aether filled rotating universe, that is.
-
What little I know of the UNIVERSAL Theory of Gravity says that a larger body has a more intense gravitational field than a smaller one thereby holding the less powerful field in revolution. There is nothing in the universe that is not in motion.
I have no idea how to deal with something called an aether filled rotating universe.
-
What little I know of the UNIVERSAL Theory of Gravity says that a larger body has a more intense gravitational field than a smaller one thereby holding the less powerful field in revolution. There is nothing in the universe that is not in motion.
I have no idea how to deal with something called an aether filled rotating universe.
Doesn't explain why we have satellite television, does it?
-
What doesn't explain why we have satellite television?
-
What doesn't explain why we have satellite television?
Geocentricism.
-
Newton's theory of Gravity explains why we have satellite TV. Is this what you are getting at? :confused1:
-
Newton's theory of Gravity explains why we have satellite TV. Is this what you are getting at? :confused1:
:bob-marley: :thinking: :bob-marley:
-
:confused1:
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
I remember a funny quote from Galileo:
"Scripture shows us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go!"
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
I remember a funny quote from Galileo:
"Scripture shows us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go!"
I don't know if I would agree that the quote is 'funny' but it is worth noting tha Galileo and Copernicus both mistakenly deduced that the Sun was stationary and in the center of the Universe.
-
Newton's theory of Gravity explains why we have satellite TV. Is this what you are getting at? :confused1:
It explains why we have satellites, hence, satellite television.
-
I would like to remind the Forum that some here acquire great anxiety when asked to declare whether they believe that Earth rev around the Sun or the other way around.
I am on record as saying E/S.
I remember a funny quote from Galileo:
"Scripture shows us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go!"
I don't know if I would agree that the quote is 'funny' but it is worth noting tha Galileo and Copernicus both mistakenly deduced that the Sun was stationary and in the center of the Universe.
That is true. However, theirs was a step in the right direction. Copernicus also believed that the planets orbited the Sun in perfect circles, which, of course, was wrong. Kepler fixed that. The ancients did not have everything wrong. Ptolemy, in his Almagest, adopted an oval (elliptical) orbit for Mercury. Of course, that orbit was about the Earth and not the Sun.
-
Newton's theory of Gravity explains why we have satellite TV. Is this what you are getting at? :confused1:
It explains why we have satellites, hence, satellite television.
I thought that is what you were getting at-- the satellites are in a fixed position at 22,500 miles up-- geo-synchronus.
-
Newton's theory of Gravity explains why we have satellite TV. Is this what you are getting at? :confused1:
It explains why we have satellites, hence, satellite television.
I thought that is what you were getting at-- the satellites are in a fixed position at 22,500 miles up-- geo-synchronus.
Exactly. Relative to a rotating Earth. Hence, they spend roughly 12 hours in darkness (so we can watch TV at night) and 12 hours in daytime (so we can watch TV during the day), the latter time is when they recharge their batteries using sunlight from the Sun!
-
for my buddy roscoe.