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.

Quote from: mw2016

. . .

Quoting Salza:

Are you talking about John Salza??

If so, you could as likely impress me by quoting Gajewski, Pablo the Wetback, or a host of other lay charlatans masquerading as "theologians" and monopolistic omniscient purveyors of "truth."

Yes, I know. I have problems with Salza in a lot of ways, as discussed on another thread, but he did get it right on geocentrism.

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 dicentis

With 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.

cassini said:

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 dicentis

With 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.

Wow!  Thanks very much cassini.  That is a fantastic follow-up, one which I am definitely saving for my "files."  I'm sure I will be using it in the future.  Hats off to the great St. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine!

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.

The first verse of Genesis very clearly insists that the Earth came before the Light.  However, the Big Bang claims that the Light came before the Earth.  How is it that so many Christian heliocentrists who "swear by" the Big Bang don't seem to "swear by" the Bible even many of those who claim to accept Sacred Scripture as being entirely inerrant?  Just plain ignorance of the diametrically opposed view of Big Bang to Sacred Scripture or perhaps their notion that somehow Big Bang can be reconciled to Scripture in some hybrid fashion such as we see with the false Theistic Evolution idea?

OHCA said:

So what's your point?

You do know that if you insinuate an argument implicitly based on flawed logic that it's just as flawed as if you came out and said what you're getting at instead of beating around the bush, don't you?

Sorry for any confusion; none intended.

Soooooo....OK.  What don't you get?

Do you believe that a traditional reading of Genesis allows for the Big Bang with Light being created before Earth?  If yes, how so?  If no, you agree with me.

If you can provide a link to any geocentrists who are on record as supporting the Big Bang please provide me with same.  (I'd certainly like to see their reasoning.)  Perhaps, you have run across some.  As of yet, I have not.  

OCHA said:

It appears that you are trying to discredit heliocentrists because some of them are also Big Bangers.  These are two questions that have absolutely nothing to do with each other.  For what it's worth, I am not a Big Banger nor an evolutionist.

Fine, but you sound as though you may be a heliocentrist.  I wonder if you could make it clear for us.

Discredit heliocentrists?  I think heliocentrism is truly discredited for all kinds of reasons and geocentrism is falsely discredited.  That's where I stand.

I certainly don't have anything against heliocentrists as persons per se, nor for geocentrists as persons per se.  I was simply making an observation about what I perceive their positions in general to be concerning their acceptance of Big Bang (thoroughly discredited especially for traditional Catholics) or not accepting it.

If you are a heliocentrist then you are out of step with the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the subject.  You may deny that.  Fine; I'm not going to spend time debating you on the subject, especially with an individual who simply writes off (on your earlier post on this thread) one as learned on the subject as John Salza by calling him a "nut."  You speak as if his being a "nut" in your view disqualifies him -- in your mind anyway -- as one who is qualified to speak on geocentrism.  Well, so be it -- if that's how you feel, I doubt I will change your mind on much of anything concerning geocentrism.

Perhaps, this bears repeating one last time. I don't believe that one can logically accept the notion of Big Bang (which requires the light to come before the Earth) while at the same time accepting the traditional Catholic/Christian interpretation of the Genesis account which clearly has the Earth being created before the light.  Hope that helps and it it doesn't c'est la vie.

The Irony of it is that the Church HAS dogmatically defined heliocentrism (a fixed sun and moving earth) as formal heresy. This was confirmed by four popes in history, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, Pope Alexander VII and Pope Pius VII by way of the Holy Office.

There are records of these decrees you know, all held in the 'secret archives of the Vatican,' having been made public by Pope Leo XIII.

But then came along 'science,' a tool of the devil, a drug that found a home in intellectual pride. St Augustine had affirmed: ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’ An exorcist in Barcelona said in 2015 of all the sins preferred by Satan, pride was the greatest. We all want to be clever, and the cleverer the better, ‘vainglory in one’s own reasoning’ as Galileo put it. But such a talent has an internal, personal and social satisfaction that is irresistible to those that have it. It can bring honour, glory, respect, advantage, reward, and of course fame to some who excel in any given field of knowledge. Francis Bacon understood this well when he recognised ‘knowledge is power.’ Thus a consensus is compelling, contagious, and essential in order to succeed among one’s peers. But the temptations involved here are enormous, for such intelligence can also be the source of pride. The great intellectual saints - such as St Augustine, St Aquinas and St Bellarmine (all geocentrists of course) – knew this and refused accolades and honours, preferring instead to embrace humility and accept authority to human reasoning. They knew that here was an area that Satan has not neglected. What we are dealing with here was not only a test of reasoning but a crucial test of Catholic faith. To be a geocentrist today brings ridicule, and that very ridicule confirms to me that geocentrism is the order of God.  

THE DOCTRINE OF GEOCENTRISM: St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was “a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:” nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the middle ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation. Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. Though now known to be spurious [sic], they were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.
     ‘The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: “Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him, - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe that he may both serve and be served.” The vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real astronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo.
     ‘The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect between Aristotle and Newton; he to whom it was believed that an image of the crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this St Thomas carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.' --- A. D. White, A History, pp.116-120.

Here is the first dogma of the Catholic Church in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: ‘God, our Creator and lord, can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created things.’ (De fide.)

The geocentrism of all bar a few Pagans, all the Fathers, all the popes of the world until 1741, reflected the above dogma to perfection. Geocentrism is not open to any other 'theory' of origin other than a Creator. Heliocentrism on the other hand is an evolution theory (the Nebular theory), opening up 'the things that are made' to a natural cause. Billions of souls have chosen the heliocentric offer, the 'rock' upon which Atheism has been built.

Who instigated the philosophical and metaphysical war against the first listed dogma of the Church we can ask? The answer for Catholics has to be Lucifer, known also as Satan or the Devil,  an angel of the order of Cherubim,  chosen by God and placed above all the others angels, a spiritual creature of unimaginable intelligence created in the beginning, but one who choose not to serve, and more so when it was revealed to him this would include assisting in the well-being of the only creatures created of matter and spirit (immortal soul) – humanity, especially Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, God become man. All this was more than Lucifer could accept, for doing God’s bidding in any form was repugnant to his enormous pride.

Now if there is a devil such as Satan, intent on usurping the influence of a personal triune Creator within the minds and hearts of all rational, free-willed intellectual creatures, we must concede that the geocentric experience, that visible relationship and understanding between God, the universe, earth and mankind, could not expect to be left intact by this demon hell-bent on tearing this union apart. From the beginning, Satan knew that to attack the unique immobile footstool of creation and Revelation would dismiss the Holy Throne. Under the guise of natural philosophy, this master conspirator saw a wooden horse that could be used to damage the Catholic faith. But how did Lucifer with his worldly help deceive even the elect of an entity infinitely more powerful than he? A study of Hermetic gnosis shows us the kind of deceit involved:

‘[The kind that] cannot be taught by speech, nor learnt by hearing. Knowledge differing greatly from sense-perception…. Knowledge is incorporeal; the organ which it uses is the mind itself; and the mind is contrary to the body.’ --- G. Hancock and R. Bauval: Talisman, Michael Joseph, 2004, p.181.

In his Morals and Dogma of 1871, Albert Pike (1809-1891), Grand Master of the Ancient Scottish Rite of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, spelled out how this nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr equilibrium was achieved:

‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succuмbs to reasoning. For the two Columns of the Temple… must remain separated and be parallel to each other…. Harmony is the result of an alternating preponderance of forces.’ --- Morals and Dogma, p.306.

‘Among the sciences, the mathematical ones are those which have taken the more false and disastrous direction. They were the first to be included in the assault of the philosophers against Christianity; they have become deadly weapons in the hands of impiety and pride; they have broken every restraint; they have unchained all the passions; they have eroded the foundations of society and order.’--Gioacchino Ventura (1824): quoted by Massimo Mazzotti in his article The Geometers of God, ISIS review, vol. 89, 1998; p.674.

It was to the Galilean heliocentrists in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining the ‘scientific’ image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived lost face after the infamous Galileo case. Not for them the traditional account of the Creation and all that were taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote out of context when it suits them. Today’s Genesis must also be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in their eyes too. They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using that authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary obedience, the new wholesale ignorance and a propaganda machine second to none to have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ they say, when it is they, not the Church, that needs the obscurantism and consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Church in this matter more than their pride in ‘scientific’ knowledge.