...I lived my whole life a trad and never heard of Geo/Helio until it was brought up on CI a while ago, I'm reasonably sure I know a lot of trads over the years who never heard of it either, many have long since died and we pray for them as members of the faithful departed - and I dare say that I highly doubt any of them were judged on whether or not they believed the earth is flat or not or whether the universe orbits around the sun.
They would presumably not be held to account for their incomplete catechesis, if not intentional or born of indolence.
But not so for you...Now the door to truth has been opened; it cannot now be closed.
....Not that it wasn't ever discussed, I just don't recall anyone pulling out their catechism or some Church Declaration/Dogma to prove one way or the other. I've been under the presumption that this matter was up for discussion, more or less.
P.S. I thought that the main transgression of Galileo was not what he was teaching necessarily, it was that he put science above the teachings of the Church. Comments welcome on this, please.
- Perhaps your discussions should begin...and end....with Magisterial sources?
- What Galileo said re HC was inconsistent over time...not a way to charm or convince the Holy Office. But basically he treated HC as reality, not as a calculational or conceptual aid in predicting cosmic motions.
...
from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"...... though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, ...."
Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that something else than geocentrism might be true. Also, the heliocentric work were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV, and Pope Pius VII approved printing books on movement of earth in Rome.
While I'm not opposed to geocentrism (I simply don't know, I have not studied the topic and evidence properly), it seems that the Church has not settled the matter yet.
re center of the universe...
center....noun
1. the middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circuмference or surface....the geometrical/mathematical meaning
2. the point from which an activity or process is directed, ....the active mode
3. the point upon which an activity or process is focused, .....the passive mode
Re the quote from Pope Benedict XV ... which of the 3 meanings of center was intended? And what prior time was he referring to .... pre or post Copernicus? The Pope may be questioning the Copernican meaning, #1, or the Biblical one, #3.
Does any meaning of 'center' include or imply that the center is fixed and immobile?
'Center' does not appear in the D-R Bible but is a outcome of the focus on cosmic motion in the 16th century.
Books taken off the Index by both popes did not promote HC as reality, as least not explicitly.
Re proper evidence: Cassini has given necessary and sufficient apologetics re GC for all forum readers to understand the GC issues and reasons for belief ... After awareness comes an act of the will.... accept GC or reject it..... but remember the luke-warm Laodiceans.
Maybe the Church(=?) hasn't settled the GC issue yet, but the Magisterium has.
I don't imagine there are any geocentrists who believe in the Big Bang. It would seem like a clear contradiction in terms would it not? On the other hand, the vast majority of heliocentrists, including Christian ones appear to believe in the Big Bang.
Only a remnant of the traditional/true faith remains in the Church today...and that number is shrinking.
The Special Creationists base their belief on a literal Genesis, while GFs are founded on the literal verses concerning motion of celestial objects found throughout the Bible. Both proclaim Biblical inerrancy. Yet many Creationists reject GeoFixism because they subscribe to main-stream scientific errors, claim they have enough trouble contending with Darwinists, or don't want association with modern pariahs greater than themselves.
Topic: Poll: Is Geocentrism Necessary to the Faith (Read 22456 times)