God bless you cassini for all your great material on the subject of geocentrism. I know I have really benefited as no doubt a good number of others have as well.
I hope you could comment on this passage from my previous post in this thread: "The Church also said that even if someone could argue that geocentrism was not a matter of faith intrinsically, it was still a matter of faith extrinsically (i.e., ex parte dicentis), since it was a matter of the truth of the testimony of Scripture that was at stake. That is, if Scripture could be proved wrong on one of its propositional truths, then Scripture is completely undermined." I am of the understanding that if a matter is of faith extrinsically (i.e., ex parte dicentis) it is just as binding upon Catholics as if it were a matter of faith intrinsically. I think this is an important point for Catholics who defend the Church's traditional stance on geocentrism to bring to the forefront of the discussion, but it all too often it is not even mentioned.
Thank you klasG4e. Since I researched the Galileo case I have a far better Catholic faith now in that every time I admire the stars, the clouds, the mountains and plains, trees, flowers, insects, anything like that, I give glory to God for his omnipotence. It is like a little prayer, crediting such wonder and beauty to almighty God, and regretting how billions credit evolution with this beauty and design. Evolution was a direct bad fruit of heliocentrism by way of the Nebular theory, how their solar system originated. With the geocentrism of Scripture, there can be no other theory other that special creation by God.
You need go no further that St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine to find comment on the above teaching in your post:
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’ --- Letter to Foscarini, 1615.
One could ask, why has the Galilean heresy of a fixed sun/ orbiting earth never been taken seriously since 1741. It is because the heresy was seen as a scientific heresy rather than a heresy of contradicting the Scriptures and Fathers. No one saw the question as to whether the sun or earth moves as akin to denying a Virgin birth of Christ. When science said it had proved the earth moves around as fixed sun it did not take much to go along with
ex parte objecti and forget
ex parte dicentisWith the
ex parte dicentis now ignored the real; heresy began to eat into the Catholic faith like DRY ROT in the pews, undermining Scripture resulting in the Modernism.
Topic: Poll: Is Geocentrism Necessary to the Faith (Read 22383 times)