Author Topic: Poll: Is Geocentrism Necessary to the Faith (Read 22385 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** August 30, 2016, 12:56:42 PM »

Truth is truth.

Jesus Christ is the truth.

If one denies just ONE SINGLE Catholic dogma, he is a condemned heretic and he will find himself in Hell for eternity unless he repents.

So apparently truths hang together, and removal of one truth unravels many others.

I believe that you either LOVE the truth, and you want all truth, or you are apathetic, in which case you might not be so adept or successful at reaching the truth about Catholic things as well. Especially in a time of Crisis like we live in today.

So I believe all truths are important -- at least those which touch on the Faith.

Which baseball player made the most home runs last year I don't care about, because that is trivial. It doesn't matter.

Who did 9/11, however, most certainly matters. The issue of 9/11 and the War on Terror touches on the government, tyranny, the Jєωιѕн question, and my own freedom.

Likewise, the truth about Geocentrism touches on science, religion, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, God, and creation. I'd call that pretty important.

mw2016 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 30, 2016, 02:41:20 PM »

I think it is de fide because it is in the Bible.

We are obligated to believe it.

We are to, in all circuмstances, firstly interpret the Bible literally.

Therefore, either you beilieve the Bible to be the INERRANT Word of God, or you don't. You cannot make an exception for this subject. No matter what "science" says.

If you do, you have replaced your God with "science."

mw2016 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 30, 2016, 02:51:35 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

I believe that many Traditional Catholics have come to be influenced in how they interpret the Bible by many fundamentalist Protestants who erroneously interpret the bible in a literalist sense. This approach is foreign to the Church, and should be sternly rejected and condemned.

This is a load of malarkey.

Quoting Salza:

Quote

When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893. This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise. This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).

We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.

s2srea · « **Reply #8 on:** August 30, 2016, 03:08:41 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Truth is truth.

Jesus Christ is the truth.

If one denies just ONE SINGLE Catholic dogma, he is a condemned heretic and he will find himself in Hell for eternity unless he repents.

So apparently truths hang together, and removal of one truth unravels many others.

I believe that you either LOVE the truth, and you want all truth, or you are apathetic, in which case you might not be so adept or successful at reaching the truth about Catholic things as well. Especially in a time of Crisis like we live in today.

So I believe all truths are important -- at least those which touch on the Faith.

Which baseball player made the most home runs last year I don't care about, because that is trivial. It doesn't matter.

Who did 9/11, however, most certainly matters. The issue of 9/11 and the War on Terror touches on the government, tyranny, the Jєωιѕн question, and my own freedom.

Likewise, the truth about Geocentrism touches on science, religion, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, God, and creation. I'd call that pretty important.

Matt, I think you're too closely conflating dogmatic truth with non-dogmatic truths. Dogmatic truth is clear, defined and undeniable (in the sense that if one wishes to remain Catholic, one is unable to deny defined dogma (and doctrine for that matter)). The Jєωιѕн question/Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ/et. al. is a real question. 9/11 is a real question. You're right, they're important. But I wasn't asking what's important, I was asking what's necessary. It may seem a distinction without a difference, but there actually is a difference.

You can't take the Jєωιѕн Question/Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ out of 9/11. But you can certainly take geocentric out of our Faith with no problem- that is, until you start to read the bible like a heretic. And that is what I"m at issue with, primarily. Certainly, as I'd mentioned above, St. Thomas said he would have no problem with it (I'm going to find that quote, so feel free to hold me to that). Certainly holy popes and other holy and studied men seemed to have no problem with it. If they did, they didn't say as much, so I'm going to take their lack of controversy on the matter as a de facto acceptance, which I think fair.

s2srea · « **Reply #9 on:** August 30, 2016, 03:12:38 PM »

Quote from: mw2016

I think it is de fide because it is in the Bible.

We are obligated to believe it.

We are to, in all circuмstances, firstly interpret the Bible literally.

Therefore, either you beilieve the Bible to be the INERRANT Word of God, or you don't. You cannot make an exception for this subject. No matter what "science" says.

If you do, you have replaced your God with "science."

That is exactly what I agree with. Did you read the link I posted? Did you read the very next paragraph I wrote? Its a "literalist" interpretation that I am at issue with.