Even so, the Church is in eclipse. With the state of things now, planetary orbits should be the LEAST of one's concerns. I have no opinion either way on geocentricism vs heliocentrism. Whatever position I have the most evidence for, I'll adopt.
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 (https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#7) sense. This approach is foreign to the Church, and should be sternly rejected and condemned.
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.
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.
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."
Quote from: s2sreaI 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 (https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#7) sense. This approach is foreign to the Church, and should be sternly rejected and condemned.
This is a load of malarkey.
Quoting Salza:QuoteWhen 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. [/b] 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.
Since when s2srea is Catholic teaching or not decided by opinion poll? It may well be for Protestants, but never for Catholics.
I don't know. 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.
Quote from: StubbornI don't know. 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.
Its cause you got a lot of armchair "experts" who have nothing better to do in life then make themselves feel mighty and powerful. How do you do that?
1. Pick a subject few people can speak on.
2. Cut and paste a bunch of times.
3. Become one of the self-styled "scholars and researchers"
4. Feel good.
I don't know. 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.
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.
Now geocentrism ex parte dicentis was defined as dogma by Pope Paul V (something defined as formal heresy confirms its opposite as a dogma). His decree of 1616 was irreversible. Pope Urban VIII confirmed that the matter was absolute:
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture."
In 1820 the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII upheld the nonreformable 1616 decree of Pope Paul V, and not one pope in history has ever DARED challenge the 1616 papal decree of Pope Paul V.
Now when one selects "No, geocentrism is not necessary to the faith" that is no different than saying, "I do not believe the Scriptures reveal geocentrism. No, I do not believe the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. No, I do not accept Pope Paul V's papal decree defining no-geocentrism as a contradiction of Scripture and therefore formal heresy."
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.
And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.
If you do not love the Truth, God, not Satan, will send you "the operation of error" to believe lies and you will be damned. If you do not love the truth, you are a goner, period.
. . .
Quoting Salza:
Mark 79QuoteIf you do not love the Truth, God, not Satan, will send you "the operation of error" to believe lies and you will be damned. If you do not love the truth, you are a goner, period.
Amen! One example -- as less and less Catholics believe in transubstantiation, more and more of them believe in universal salvation. Another one -- as less and less Catholics believe in Biblical/Fathers of the Church/Magisterium (not to mention a great amount of solid science) based geocentrism more and more of them believe in Big Baloney .... uh ...er...I mean Big Bang. And just one more -- as less and less Catholics believe in the literal Biblical Creation more and more Catholics believe in Theistic Evolution.
And the aliens are bent on hiding the truth of a flat earth............. NOT.
(Fooled you, mw2016!)
Some time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.
They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
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. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.
Some time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.
They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
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. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
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."
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
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: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
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.
Quote from: OHCAQuote 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.
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.
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?
OHCA said:QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: klasG4eOn the other hand, the vast majority of heliocentrists, including Christian ones appear to believe in the Big Bang.
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?
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.
OCHA said:QuoteIt 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.
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.
Ok, OHCA is a heliocentrist. I get it now.
:wink:
As your penance OHCA you are hereby ordered to listen to this entire talk by John Salza. As your homework you are hereby assigned to report back to us ASAP on everything in Mr. Salza's talk that you disagree with. You may give your precise reasons for your disagreement if you wish.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/ghZktd-PCOo[/youtube]
I won't suffer listening or reading anymore of his [John Salza's] self promotions.
Quote from: klasG4eOHCA said:QuoteSo 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.
Here is what I don't get:Quote from: OHCAQuote from: klasG4eOn the other hand, the vast majority of heliocentrists, including Christian ones appear to believe in the Big Bang.
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?
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.
Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Some time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.
They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
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. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: klasG4eOHCA said:QuoteSo 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.
Here is what I don't get:Quote from: OHCAQuote from: klasG4eOn the other hand, the vast majority of heliocentrists, including Christian ones appear to believe in the Big Bang.
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?
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.
All heliocentrists are Big Bangers or they don't know the philosophy behind heliocentrism and think they can marry good and evil.
Quote from: ArvingerSome time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.
They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
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. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.
The Church has settled the matter. In 1633 when She said: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[51]
And infallibly the Church declared:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;
Heliocentrism is condemned.
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
OHCAQuoteI won't suffer listening or reading anymore of his [John Salza's] self promotions.
Well, can't you at least humor me then by listening to the talk. I guarantee you he is not promoting himself in the talk, but rather the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I hereby grant you an exemption from my previously assigned homework and you can listen to the talk for fun, not for penance if you want to see it that way. Pleeeeez!
If it helps just remember the old saying of "principles before personalities." Even if you remain convinced he's trying to promote himself keep in mind that he is still giving a well versed talk on the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: ArvingerSome time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.
They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
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. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.
The Church has settled the matter. In 1633 when She said: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[51]
And infallibly the Church declared:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;
Heliocentrism is condemned.
Source?
Funny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
You two are apparently confusing the evil that is "globalism" which lies in its quest for NWO one world government and such, with the thought that the earth is a "globe." If you are correct that the earth is flat, then that former evil notion should be termed "flat-earthism" rather than "globalism" because the those evil forces are not truly seeking dominion over a globe. You are then, in fact, guilty of aiding and abetting in perpetuating the lie by acquiescing and going along with calling it "globalism."
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: ArvingerSome time ago the Dimonds put together an interesting article on the status on Geocentrism, arguing that the Church has not settled the matter.
They brought up an intereting quote from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:
"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."
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. Jut as Stubborn said, I highly doubt whether people are judged by God on whether they believed in geocentrism or heliocentrism, provided they remained of good will.
The Church has settled the matter. In 1633 when She said: Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[51]
And infallibly the Church declared:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world;
Heliocentrism is condemned.
Source?
Funny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
I'm watching the Salza talk now too.
I just thought of another proof of why a geocentric earth CANNOT be a ball: seasons!
The Bible (which we are obligated to take literally) says that the earth DOES NOT MOVE.
The ball-earth model says seasons are caused by the earth tilting on its axis. It can't. It cannot tilt - it cannot move.
Whats so funny is that those who would buy the geocentric ball model have to admit modern science lied about moving earth and non moving sun, but did not lie about the ball. Let's face it, the only reason people believe earth is a ball is because they think NASA has shown them photos of earth because we went to the moon. Yet not one picture NASA and modern science shows us of ball earth is authentic (admitted by NASA) and all are composite CGI renderings or paintings. No authentic photo or video of the ball earth exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaRurjWjf4Y
If you think we went to the moon...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI
Quote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: mw2016Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
You two are apparently confusing the evil that is "globalism" which lies in its quest for NWO one world government and such, with the thought that the earth is a "globe." If you are correct that the earth is flat, then that former evil notion should be termed "flat-earthism" rather than "globalism" because the those evil forces are not truly seeking dominion over a globe. You are then, in fact, guilty of aiding and abetting in perpetuating the lie by acquiescing and going along with calling it "globalism."
It is all hiding in plain sight...globalism encompasses both. You simply have to open your eyes. Devil worshiping globalists have indoctrinated us with lies in order to enslave us. They've worked on this for centuries really. Satan has successfully recreated the earth in his own image just in time for the coming of the antichrist. Satan controls the world because most people believe demonic lies about man's origins rather than God's Word. And as long as we believe the devil, he owns us. We know that lies enslave, and we know we are becoming more enslaved by the globalists, yet we cannot see our own participation in this? Heliocentrism is the grandfather of evolution, Big Bang, millions year old earth, global warming, limited resources, space aliens, and NASA (which means "to deceive"). All are part of the deception to maintain shock and awe lest we turn to the really impressive Almighty God. Globalists can't jack up prices and enrich themselves, control governments, legislate fake green laws, scare us enough, or punish us quite the same if we didn't all fall for the false theory that embodies our understanding of the world around us. And lets not forget the related problem of overpopulation for which they have the perfect solution. Funny how consistently globalists promote their evils as they work hoof in hand with NASA's heliocentric globe earth and godless version of the origin of man, which is the opposite of scripture's geocentric flat earth abundant with the goodness of God reality. But perhaps these are all mere coincidences lost on you.
I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
Quote from: OHCAI don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
Why do you keep bringing up "sailing off the edge" as though that were possible? The FE maps have been shown on this thread repeatedly. Antarctica encircles the seas by 360 degrees.
How in the world did this thread on geocentrism morph to a great degree into one about a supposed flat earth? Can't the flat earth discussion move to a different thread of their own? Puleeeez!
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: OHCAI don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
Why do you keep bringing up "sailing off the edge" as though that were possible? The FE maps have been shown on this thread repeatedly. Antarctica encircles the seas by 360 degrees.
Yes but I have never gotten a good explanation why airplanes do not go off the edge of the earth or crash into the firmament. All I got was a statement that airplanes do not fly that far south, then I posted a story about a man who flew to the south pole. He did not go off the edge of the earth or crash into the firmament.
All I got was a statement that airplanes do not fly that far south, then I posted a story about a man who flew to the south pole. He did not go off the edge of the earth or crash into the firmament.
Airplanes do not achieve sufficient vertical altitude to hit the firmament. They cannot fly south far enough to hit it, either.
Quote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Here is the history of geocentric debate;
One could say the overall truth of it began to emerge in 1860 with a lecture in Germany by a Professor C. Schoeppfer defending the geocentric cosmology of Tycho de Brahe called The Earth Stands Fast. The most recent and successful attempt to establish the truth of the Copernican revolution was in 1967 when the Dutch-Canadian schoolmaster Walter van der Kamp (1913-1998) began his writings, succeeded by Dr Gerardus Bouw, Marshall Hall, R.G. Elmendorf and others. Undoubtedly, Walter van der Kamp must be credited as the one who provided the foundations upon which a solution can be assessed. It was Walter’s writings that gave others just cause to follow him in his crusade to show how the matter of the Galileo ‘riddle’ could be resolved.
On the Catholic side we find the writings of Fernand Crombette, Solange Hertz, Martin Gwynne, John R. Fohne, and Paula Haigh, who in her writings emphasised the necessity of Thomistic metaphysics for Catholic theology. To these we must add the name of Paul Ellwanger, a man who disseminated the works and opinions of all the above at his own expense so that others could know the truth of this matter. More recently Robert Sungenis, Robert Bennett and Rick Delano, whose book Galileo Was Wrong and whose movie and DVDs The Principle have taken the matter of geocentrism much further than ever before. Each of the above and others in their own way but who would prefer not to be named have contributed enormously to solving the impasse in different ways
As regards catholic forums and geocentrism, well only CIF allows serious debate, the others have banned all such debate.
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.
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.
How old are you? How long have you been a traditional Catholic? Unless you are either very young or haven't been in the true very long, "knowing" something for 8 years is not very impressive. In fact, "knowing" something since 2008 simply isn't impressive any which way you cut it. It raises the question why didn't you "know" it before that. And if your age or newness to the Church explains that, then I won't take you as an authority anyway.
What exactly brought flat earth to your attention in 2008? I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
How in the world did this thread on geocentrism morph to a great degree into one about a supposed flat earth? Can't the flat earth discussion move to a different thread of their own? Puleeeez!
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: mw2016Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
You two are apparently confusing the evil that is "globalism" which lies in its quest for NWO one world government and such, with the thought that the earth is a "globe." If you are correct that the earth is flat, then that former evil notion should be termed "flat-earthism" rather than "globalism" because the those evil forces are not truly seeking dominion over a globe. You are then, in fact, guilty of aiding and abetting in perpetuating the lie by acquiescing and going along with calling it "globalism."
It is all hiding in plain sight...globalism encompasses both. You simply have to open your eyes. Devil worshiping globalists have indoctrinated us with lies in order to enslave us. They've worked on this for centuries really. Satan has successfully recreated the earth in his own image just in time for the coming of the antichrist. Satan controls the world because most people believe demonic lies about man's origins rather than God's Word. And as long as we believe the devil, he owns us. We know that lies enslave, and we know we are becoming more enslaved by the globalists, yet we cannot see our own participation in this? Heliocentrism is the grandfather of evolution, Big Bang, millions year old earth, global warming, limited resources, space aliens, and NASA (which means "to deceive"). All are part of the deception to maintain shock and awe lest we turn to the really impressive Almighty God. Globalists can't jack up prices and enrich themselves, control governments, legislate fake green laws, scare us enough, or punish us quite the same if we didn't all fall for the false theory that embodies our understanding of the world around us. And lets not forget the related problem of overpopulation for which they have the perfect solution. Funny how consistently globalists promote their evils as they work hoof in hand with NASA's heliocentric globe earth and godless version of the origin of man, which is the opposite of scripture's geocentric flat earth abundant with the goodness of God reality. But perhaps these are all mere coincidences lost on you.
I agree with the bulk of what you say here. I disagree that the earth not being flat (which I see as a separate issue from geocentrism) is the basis of the rest of the evils you set out--that NASA and NWO are getting that much mileage out of alleging that the earth is round. Even if they are though, they are as likely starting with a truth--the earth is round--and perverting lies out of that truth, as starting with a lie. I don't put it past NASA, NWO, etc. to deceive any which way they can. I just believe the earth is round despite them saying so too--not because they say so.
Quote from: OHCAI don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
Why do you keep bringing up "sailing off the edge" as though that were possible? The FE maps have been shown on this thread repeatedly. Antarctica encircles the seas by 360 degrees.
cassini said:
QuoteGeocentrism 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.
Atheists go bonkers with the absolutely unacceptable idea of geocentrism because they know very well that as Dr. Robert Sungenis likes to say if the Earth is at the center of the universe then Someone with a capital S put it there. That is why their "scientific" fantasies have contrived the multiverse. Of course, even with a supposed multiverse they still can't offer any sort of a reasonable (reasonable for a well ordered mind that is) explanation of how a multiverse came into existence.
Under the communist government, Saint Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersberg was stripped of religious trappings. In 1931, it was turned into the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism. The dove sculpture was removed, and replaced by that false "proof" of heliocentrism, the Foucault Pendulum.
P.S. Sungenis and others have thoroughly refuted the flat earth nonsense. Once geocentrism started to gain a lot more interest in the last few years the flat earth phenomenon really picked up a whole of steam.. I strongly tend to believe this was a planned way of trying to bring ever greater ridicule down upon geocentrism. A typical modus operandi of Satan and his minions and dupes!
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: OHCAI don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
Why do you keep bringing up "sailing off the edge" as though that were possible? The FE maps have been shown on this thread repeatedly. Antarctica encircles the seas by 360 degrees.
Yes but I have never gotten a good explanation why airplanes do not go off the edge of the earth or crash into the firmament. All I got was a statement that airplanes do not fly that far south, then I posted a story about a man who flew to the south pole. He did not go off the edge of the earth or crash into the firmament.
"Encircles the seas by 360 degrees?" On a flat earth?
P.S. Sungenis and others have thoroughly refuted the flat earth nonsense. Once geocentrism started to gain a lot more interest in the last few years the flat earth phenomenon really picked up a whole of steam.. I strongly tend to believe this was a planned way of trying to bring ever greater ridicule down upon geocentrism. A typical modus operandi of Satan and his minions and dupes!
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.
How old are you? How long have you been a traditional Catholic? Unless you are either very young or haven't been in the true very long, "knowing" something for 8 years is not very impressive. In fact, "knowing" something since 2008 simply isn't impressive any which way you cut it. It raises the question why didn't you "know" it before that. And if your age or newness to the Church explains that, then I won't take you as an authority anyway.
What exactly brought flat earth to your attention in 2008? I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
In the flat earth world, knowing since 2008 is practically ancient history.
Quote from: klasG4eHow in the world did this thread on geocentrism morph to a great degree into one about a supposed flat earth? Can't the flat earth discussion move to a different thread of their own? Puleeeez!
Several geocentrist here on CI seem to take the position that the two concepts are inseparable--to the point that I, being unfamiliar with the material, took them as synonymous. After some contemplation, it is "flat-earth" that I have the major major hang-up with.
Is this at all consistent with your view of the subject?
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: mw2016Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
You two are apparently confusing the evil that is "globalism" which lies in its quest for NWO one world government and such, with the thought that the earth is a "globe." If you are correct that the earth is flat, then that former evil notion should be termed "flat-earthism" rather than "globalism" because the those evil forces are not truly seeking dominion over a globe. You are then, in fact, guilty of aiding and abetting in perpetuating the lie by acquiescing and going along with calling it "globalism."
It is all hiding in plain sight...globalism encompasses both. You simply have to open your eyes. Devil worshiping globalists have indoctrinated us with lies in order to enslave us. They've worked on this for centuries really. Satan has successfully recreated the earth in his own image just in time for the coming of the antichrist. Satan controls the world because most people believe demonic lies about man's origins rather than God's Word. And as long as we believe the devil, he owns us. We know that lies enslave, and we know we are becoming more enslaved by the globalists, yet we cannot see our own participation in this? Heliocentrism is the grandfather of evolution, Big Bang, millions year old earth, global warming, limited resources, space aliens, and NASA (which means "to deceive"). All are part of the deception to maintain shock and awe lest we turn to the really impressive Almighty God. Globalists can't jack up prices and enrich themselves, control governments, legislate fake green laws, scare us enough, or punish us quite the same if we didn't all fall for the false theory that embodies our understanding of the world around us. And lets not forget the related problem of overpopulation for which they have the perfect solution. Funny how consistently globalists promote their evils as they work hoof in hand with NASA's heliocentric globe earth and godless version of the origin of man, which is the opposite of scripture's geocentric flat earth abundant with the goodness of God reality. But perhaps these are all mere coincidences lost on you.
I agree with the bulk of what you say here. I disagree that the earth not being flat (which I see as a separate issue from geocentrism) is the basis of the rest of the evils you set out--that NASA and NWO are getting that much mileage out of alleging that the earth is round. Even if they are though, they are as likely starting with a truth--the earth is round--and perverting lies out of that truth, as starting with a lie. I don't put it past NASA, NWO, etc. to deceive any which way they can. I just believe the earth is round despite them saying so too--not because they say so.
Round earth as opposed to flat earth is all part of the same paradigm. Do you really think they'd lie about movement, but not lie about shape? All ancients including those of Christendom believed earth to be flat. Not that that in itself is a proof, but when considering the literally 100's of proofs earth is flat, and literally no empirical proof its round, you realize that it really is all about total deception.
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.
How old are you? How long have you been a traditional Catholic? Unless you are either very young or haven't been in the true very long, "knowing" something for 8 years is not very impressive. In fact, "knowing" something since 2008 simply isn't impressive any which way you cut it. It raises the question why didn't you "know" it before that. And if your age or newness to the Church explains that, then I won't take you as an authority anyway.
What exactly brought flat earth to your attention in 2008? I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
In the flat earth world, knowing since 2008 is practically ancient history.
How can you say that, and also say that the Church dogmatically proclaimed this centuries ago? Or do you not insist that the Church has dogmatically proclaimed this?
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: mw2016Quote from: happenbyQuote from: mw2016Quote from: Neil Obstat
Another one -- a growing number of people today, including some Catholics, are starting to believe in extraterrestrials (UFOs, intelligent life from other planets, solar systems, galaxies), and even time travel.
Really? Name one. I can't.
I've never met a Trad Catholic (and I know a LOT) who believe in aliens. Every Trad I've ever met knows the reality of so-called "aliens" being demons. Honestly, I have never met a Trad who thought there was "life on other planets."
Not to worry, mw2016, he's talking about heliocentrists. Many do believe in aliens but that's because they are infected with globalism.
Agreed.
You two are apparently confusing the evil that is "globalism" which lies in its quest for NWO one world government and such, with the thought that the earth is a "globe." If you are correct that the earth is flat, then that former evil notion should be termed "flat-earthism" rather than "globalism" because the those evil forces are not truly seeking dominion over a globe. You are then, in fact, guilty of aiding and abetting in perpetuating the lie by acquiescing and going along with calling it "globalism."
It is all hiding in plain sight...globalism encompasses both. You simply have to open your eyes. Devil worshiping globalists have indoctrinated us with lies in order to enslave us. They've worked on this for centuries really. Satan has successfully recreated the earth in his own image just in time for the coming of the antichrist. Satan controls the world because most people believe demonic lies about man's origins rather than God's Word. And as long as we believe the devil, he owns us. We know that lies enslave, and we know we are becoming more enslaved by the globalists, yet we cannot see our own participation in this? Heliocentrism is the grandfather of evolution, Big Bang, millions year old earth, global warming, limited resources, space aliens, and NASA (which means "to deceive"). All are part of the deception to maintain shock and awe lest we turn to the really impressive Almighty God. Globalists can't jack up prices and enrich themselves, control governments, legislate fake green laws, scare us enough, or punish us quite the same if we didn't all fall for the false theory that embodies our understanding of the world around us. And lets not forget the related problem of overpopulation for which they have the perfect solution. Funny how consistently globalists promote their evils as they work hoof in hand with NASA's heliocentric globe earth and godless version of the origin of man, which is the opposite of scripture's geocentric flat earth abundant with the goodness of God reality. But perhaps these are all mere coincidences lost on you.
I agree with the bulk of what you say here. I disagree that the earth not being flat (which I see as a separate issue from geocentrism) is the basis of the rest of the evils you set out--that NASA and NWO are getting that much mileage out of alleging that the earth is round. Even if they are though, they are as likely starting with a truth--the earth is round--and perverting lies out of that truth, as starting with a lie. I don't put it past NASA, NWO, etc. to deceive any which way they can. I just believe the earth is round despite them saying so too--not because they say so.
Round earth as opposed to flat earth is all part of the same paradigm. Do you really think they'd lie about movement, but not lie about shape? All ancients including those of Christendom believed earth to be flat. Not that that in itself is a proof, but when considering the literally 100's of proofs earth is flat, and literally no empirical proof its round, you realize that it really is all about total deception.
I do realize that it's about deception and I do not put it past those forces to lie about the shape of the earth. But I am not going to call "black" "white" just because they, too, say "black" as "black." I believe the earth is round despite them saying so--not because of it.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.
How old are you? How long have you been a traditional Catholic? Unless you are either very young or haven't been in the true very long, "knowing" something for 8 years is not very impressive. In fact, "knowing" something since 2008 simply isn't impressive any which way you cut it. It raises the question why didn't you "know" it before that. And if your age or newness to the Church explains that, then I won't take you as an authority anyway.
What exactly brought flat earth to your attention in 2008? I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
In the flat earth world, knowing since 2008 is practically ancient history.
How can you say that, and also say that the Church dogmatically proclaimed this centuries ago? Or do you not insist that the Church has dogmatically proclaimed this?
I'm only speaking in relative terms since I believed this practically all alone in 2008. There was no one (seemingly) out there that knew, I assure you. As of 2016, the cat is finally out of the bag. Its been a long hard ride (for me). In reality, flat earth is old as the hills, so absolutely, I'm a newbie. But then, not as newbie as you. :wink:
This knowledge being lost for a few centuries and then revived within the last decade or so sounds a little Joseph Smithish to me.
Several geocentrist here on CI seem to take the position that the two concepts are inseparable--to the point that I, being unfamiliar with the material, took them as synonymous. After some contemplation, it is "flat-earth" that I have the major major hang-up with.
Is this at all consistent with your view of the subject?
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyQuote from: s2sreaFunny how there's minimal mention of geocentrism until a movie is made about it..... where were all these threads on the subject prior? :scratchchin:
I guess there'll always be trend followers...
Personally, I've known about flat geocentric earth since 2008.
How old are you? How long have you been a traditional Catholic? Unless you are either very young or haven't been in the true very long, "knowing" something for 8 years is not very impressive. In fact, "knowing" something since 2008 simply isn't impressive any which way you cut it. It raises the question why didn't you "know" it before that. And if your age or newness to the Church explains that, then I won't take you as an authority anyway.
What exactly brought flat earth to your attention in 2008? I don't recollect any stories of any sailors sailing off the edge of the earth in 2008.
In the flat earth world, knowing since 2008 is practically ancient history.
How can you say that, and also say that the Church dogmatically proclaimed this centuries ago? Or do you not insist that the Church has dogmatically proclaimed this?
I'm only speaking in relative terms since I believed this practically all alone in 2008. There was no one (seemingly) out there that knew, I assure you. As of 2016, the cat is finally out of the bag. Its been a long hard ride (for me). In reality, flat earth is old as the hills, so absolutely, I'm a newbie. But then, not as newbie as you. :wink:
This knowledge being lost for a few centuries and then revived within the last decade or so sounds a little Joseph Smithish to me.
Quote from: klasG4eHow in the world did this thread on geocentrism morph to a great degree into one about a supposed flat earth? Can't the flat earth discussion move to a different thread of their own? Puleeeez!
Several geocentrist here on CI seem to take the position that the two concepts are inseparable--to the point that I, being unfamiliar with the material, took them as synonymous. After some contemplation, it is "flat-earth" that I have the major major hang-up with.
Is this at all consistent with your view of the subject?
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: klasG4eHow in the world did this thread on geocentrism morph to a great degree into one about a supposed flat earth? Can't the flat earth discussion move to a different thread of their own? Puleeeez!
Several geocentrist here on CI seem to take the position that the two concepts are inseparable--to the point that I, being unfamiliar with the material, took them as synonymous. After some contemplation, it is "flat-earth" that I have the major major hang-up with.
Is this at all consistent with your view of the subject?
There is a considerable difference between geocentrism and the theory of a flat earth. The subject of geocentrism had a profound effect on the Catholic Church whereas the shape of the earth has not had the same effect.
In fact, the shape of the earth matters. Especially since one version is a lie. Heliocentrism necessarily embodies round earth. Historically geocentrism was always flat earth. Only since CGI pictures has anyone made the ridiculous bungle that earth is a globe hanging motionless in space.
Educated in The Holy Ghost Fathers Blackrock College as an evolutionist and heliocentrist, it was not until I was 50 that I first encountered creationist material. It took me about ten minutes to realise I had been educated as a FOOL. I was very angry and determined to let the Catholics of this world they were all duped with this nonsense. Then Pope John Paul II came out with his 'evolution is no longer a mere hypothesis.' So here I was trying to convince Catholics that evolution was an intellectual insult and the Pope was saying the opposite. It was then I knew it would take more than a few creationists to convince Catholics and I kind of gave up on that one. Anyway, a Catholic friend Ger Keane took over a wrote his book on creation/evolution followed by the Kolbe creation group.
Paul Ellwanger then told me evolution was not the real problem, but the heliocentrism of Galileo. Given the history of the Galileo story is a never ending attack on the credibility of the Church, whereas evolution never was, I began what is now a 20-year study of the matter concerning both faith and science. Paul was right, but what I saw the Holy Office do I knew not even traditional Catholics would believe.
Now I read about a flat-earth. As others laughed and threw science at my belief in direct creation, and more so with my geocentrism, I have had to consider the flat-earth assertion in case I could have been wrong here too.
But there is one HUGE difference, The flat earth subject was never defined as revealed in Scripture, and so remains ex parte objecti, that is confined only to the subject matter. Now popes have ruled that unless such subjects were unanimously believed by ALL the Fathers, differences of opinion are allowed among Catholics. Therefore the two are NOT linked theologically or otherwise.
My own research on a flat-earth found that there is a secular and Catholic history of its rejection.
In fact it was Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th century Alexandrian merchant who last seriously propagated that the earth is flat.
‘He was scornful of Ptolemy and others who held that the world was spherical. Cosmas aimed to prove that pre-Christian geographers had been wrong in asserting that the earth was spherical and that it was in fact modelled on the tabernacle, the house of worship described to Moses by God during the Jєωιѕн Exodus from Egypt. However, his idea that the earth is flat has been a minority view among educated Western opinion since the 3rd century BC. His view has never been influential even in religious circles; a near-contemporary Christian, John Philoponus, disagreed with him as did many Christian philosophers of the era’ --- Wikipedia.
“All educated persons of Columbus’ day, very much including the Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. The Venerable Bede (c. 673-735) taught that the world was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (c. 720-784), Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (c. 1224-74). All four ended up saints. Sphere was the title of the most popular medieval textbook on astronomy, written by the English scholastic John of Sacrobosco (c. 1200-1256). It informed that not only the earth but all heavenly bodies are spherical.’--- Rodney Stark: Catholicism and Science, Stark, 9/2004
Here is another indication that the earth is a globe that accommodates other bodies circling it.
‘“The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its circuмference. But as one centre may have many circuмferences, so, though there be but one earth, there may be many heavens.” St. Thomas (I, Q 68,a 4, ad l) here establishes two principles: (1) Earth is the centre of creation, and (2) there may be many heavenly bodies revolving along many pathways, thus producing many circuмferences around the Earth, and these may be referred to as “heavens.” Thus the Moon revolves around Earth in a lunar heaven; the sun in a fiery heaven, and so for the planets and stars. Likewise, the divisions or layers of Earth’s atmosphere are “heavens” of a corporeal nature.' --- Miss Paula Haigh: From the Beginning
Of interest on this matter is the statue of the Child of Prague. ‘Devotion to this statue began in the year 1556 when Maria Manriquez de Lara brought the image of the infant Jesus, a family heirloom, to Czechoslovakia from Spain on her marriage to Vratislav of Pernstyn. It is housed now in the church of Our Lady of Victory in Prague and is an object of veneration in many other countries.’ It is a globe (the earth) that is held steady in the hands of child Jesus.
It seems some individuals in the long past did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid. (‘It is he who sitteth upon the globe of the earth…’ (Isaias 40:22) Douay Challoner Catholic Bible, approved by Cardinal Stritch 1956.
That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient (atheistic) reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. (no proof whatsoever) That would not be the case if the earth were a flat disc. (wrong) The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also indicated the earth as a sphere (also wrong) and the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon demonstrated to them without doubt the curved nature of the earth.
PROOF POSITIVE SHIPS DO NOT FALL BEHIND EARTH CURVE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfbvwqjITLg
For me, knowing my own history of evolution and heliocentrism, I have no problem with discussion on a flat earth. I am not convinced, for my study of Domenico Cassini's geodesy (Earth measurement on a large scale.) shows it has been recorded as curved based on a partial measurement that would confirm a probable shape of the earth. There are other aspects of a flat-earth theory that seem to me to be against human reasoning. But fire away lads and if belief in it enhances your Catholic faith then more power to you. That said, please do not suggest non-belief in it is in any way anti-Catholic.
Finally, klasG4e is correct, this thread is a poll on geocentrism and the Catholic faith. Where the flat-earth theory comes into this poll I do not see. furthermore, it is a pity that one cannot change their mind (once polled no change is possible). The debate may well have convinced some no voters to change their mind, but they cannot show this.
EVERY conspiracy research group (NASA fake moon-landers, geocentrists, 9-11 truthers, etc.) claims that flat earth talk was intended to discredit their personal area of research - EVERYONE.
Quote from: OHCAThis knowledge being lost for a few centuries and then revived within the last decade or so sounds a little Joseph Smithish to me.
Then consider the fact that knowledge of geocentrism has been lost for 500 years in the Catholic Church, and is only now being revived.
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: OHCAThis knowledge being lost for a few centuries and then revived within the last decade or so sounds a little Joseph Smithish to me.
Then consider the fact that knowledge of geocentrism has been lost for 500 years in the Catholic Church, and is only now being revived.
No different--sounds Joseph Smithish. I don't believe the Church "loses knowledge." Which is why I do not believe the Church has made firm dogmatic pronouncements you and Parson Salza attribute to her.
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: OHCAThis knowledge being lost for a few centuries and then revived within the last decade or so sounds a little Joseph Smithish to me.
Then consider the fact that knowledge of geocentrism has been lost for 500 years in the Catholic Church, and is only now being revived.
No different--sounds Joseph Smithish. I don't believe the Church "loses knowledge." Which is why I do not believe the Church has made firm dogmatic pronouncements you and Parson Salza attribute to her.
Quote from: mw2016EVERY conspiracy research group (NASA fake moon-landers, geocentrists, 9-11 truthers, etc.) claims that flat earth talk was intended to discredit their personal area of research - EVERYONE.
How is this relevant?
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: mw2016Quote from: OHCAThis knowledge being lost for a few centuries and then revived within the last decade or so sounds a little Joseph Smithish to me.
Then consider the fact that knowledge of geocentrism has been lost for 500 years in the Catholic Church, and is only now being revived.
No different--sounds Joseph Smithish. I don't believe the Church "loses knowledge." Which is why I do not believe the Church has made firm dogmatic pronouncements you and Parson Salza attribute to her.
It wasn't lost.
They simply stopped fighting the heresy and even went so far as to eventually "recent" the doctrine of geocentrism.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: mw2016EVERY conspiracy research group (NASA fake moon-landers, geocentrists, 9-11 truthers, etc.) claims that flat earth talk was intended to discredit their personal area of research - EVERYONE.
How is this relevant?
Because FE carries such a stigma nobody in any other 'conspiracy' movement wants it "attached" to them for fear of it "discrediting" their own work.
Quote from: OHCA
"Encircles the seas by 360 degrees?" On a flat earth?
Yes.
The maps have been posted several times.
Because FE carries such a stigma nobody in any other 'conspiracy' movement wants it "attached" to them for fear of it "discrediting" their own work.
I have been thinking of and praying about the geocentrism debate and I have to say that belief in geocentrism just feels more Catholic to me than heliocentrism. I am not fully convinced but I would not be surprised if I do become a geocentrist out of love for God. I am not drawn towards belief in a flat earth as I am to the belief in a round geocentric earth.
Actually what is essential is Theo-centrism or that is God centered is essential to the faith. Or you could say Jesus-centrism that would be Jesus centered is essential to the faith.
this is what is essential to the faith. God allows our astronomers to see the sky and what is beyond so that they can appreciate His infinite majesty and the beauty of His creation.
You do know that the Holy Bible used by English speaking Roman Catholics, the Douay-Rheims, at Isaias 40:22 references "globe of the earth," don't you?
Quote from: OHCA
You do know that the Holy Bible used by English speaking Roman Catholics, the Douay-Rheims, at Isaias 40:22 references "globe of the earth," don't you?
We already covered this in the other thread.
The Latin Vulgate Isaiah 40:22 says:
"Qui sedet super gyrum terrae,"
Gyrum in Latin means "circuit, circle, ring, to go around, round about, a circular course," etc.
It does NOT mean globe, ball, or sphere.
Quote from: OHCA
You do know that the Holy Bible used by English speaking Roman Catholics, the Douay-Rheims, at Isaias 40:22 references "globe of the earth," don't you?
We already covered this in the other thread.
The Latin Vulgate Isaiah 40:22 says:
"Qui sedet super gyrum terrae,"
Gyrum in Latin means "circuit, circle, ring, to go around, round about, a circular course," etc.
It does NOT mean globe, ball, or sphere.
just don't privately interpret Scripture, twist the words, and insert your own words and/or those of heretics to feebly try to prove your case.
Recent research into the decisions of the 1820 Holy Office explains this 'loss of knowledge.' Indeed I believe this is the first place that the following facts are being made known.
Given they knew that Pope Paul V had defined and declared a fixed sun/ moving earth heliocentrism formal heresy, and that all believed that heliocentrism was proven and geocentrism falsified, the very credibility of the Church's infallibility was at stake. If proven then the Church is not divinely guided and is man-made.
So, how did churchmen of 1820 manage to have their Catholic infallibility cake and discard it at the same time?
They cheated. They invented the lie that in 1616 it was Galileo's KIND OF heliocentrism that was heresy, but not the heliocentrism 'of modern astronomers and philosophers.' Pope Pius VII fell for the lie and gave imprimaturs for the NEW MODERN HELIOCENTRISM.
In 1820 then, the heresy of Galileo, was recognised as condemned by an infallible papal decree, thus saving infallibility. This however, could be put away into the secret archives. No way did they ever make this farce public.
And given the world had a new 'proven' heliocentrism, one even for Catholics, geocentrism could also be put away as a false interpretation of Scripture, and Scripture could now be adopted as a metaphor for 'the new heliocentrism.' Indeed Geocentrism then BECAME THE FALSE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. Now what 'good' Catholic would want to defend geocentrism after THAT. And that is why the doctrine of geocentrism was abandoned.
And that is how they did it. The Galileans cheated the Church out of one of its dogmas, and inserted the same heresy inside the Scripture.
Indeed, it is this act of the Holy Office that IS the real SCANDAL OF THE GALILEO CASE. No wonder Catholic forums are banning an exposure of this episode of the Galileo case. Nevertheless, it is ALL ON RECORD, EVERY WORD OF IT, and in a Church that represents truth itself, will have to be faced up to some time.
Cheating to save infallibility, cheating to allow a heresy be believed by all Catholics, cheating that LED directly TO THE RISE OF modernism, and that insult to those popes and churchmen who defended the true meaning of Scripture inserted into Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes #36.
Look at the surface of the Moon through a high powered telescope. You will notice many things about the surface, including shadows that are cast from another light source, namely, the sun.
The moon does not give off its own light. We don't need NASA to tell us what we can readily observe through a good telescope.
Quote from: ManuelChavezLook at the surface of the Moon through a high powered telescope. You will notice many things about the surface, including shadows that are cast from another light source, namely, the sun.
The moon does not give off its own light. We don't need NASA to tell us what we can readily observe through a good telescope.
All you have to do is say it and its true? You have zero proof for what you say, except the indoctrination you've heard growing up or found recently on the Internet. Have you conducted experiments yourself? Until you do, you ought not just spout or parrot stuff about which you know nothing. Moonlight is totally different than sunlight. It measures different in every way. It is cool, causes moon sickness or "lunacy", is silver rather than golden, will destroy food left out rather than preserve it like sunlight. Full moonlight is cooler than moonlight blocked by a patio roof and this can be measured by an ordinary thermometer. It is nearly impossible to read a newspaper by full moonlight because moonlight blocks colors in the color spectrum. This is why red roses appear colorless in full moonlight. Now these are experiments you can do on your own to show that moonlight is not sunlight. What can you provide me to prove moonlight and sunlight are the same thing?
Quote from: happenbyQuote from: ManuelChavezLook at the surface of the Moon through a high powered telescope. You will notice many things about the surface, including shadows that are cast from another light source, namely, the sun.
The moon does not give off its own light. We don't need NASA to tell us what we can readily observe through a good telescope.
All you have to do is say it and its true? You have zero proof for what you say, except the indoctrination you've heard growing up or found recently on the Internet. Have you conducted experiments yourself? Until you do, you ought not just spout or parrot stuff about which you know nothing. Moonlight is totally different than sunlight. It measures different in every way. It is cool, causes moon sickness or "lunacy", is silver rather than golden, will destroy food left out rather than preserve it like sunlight. Full moonlight is cooler than moonlight blocked by a patio roof and this can be measured by an ordinary thermometer. It is nearly impossible to read a newspaper by full moonlight because moonlight blocks colors in the color spectrum. This is why red roses appear colorless in full moonlight. Now these are experiments you can do on your own to show that moonlight is not sunlight. What can you provide me to prove moonlight and sunlight are the same thing?
Your accusation, that I am merely parroting what I have learned, is inaccurate. I have looked through a telescope or two in my time, and I love to experiment with many things (science is fun). The light of the sun is reflected by the moon, but not perfectly as would a mirror. The materials of the moon absorb much of the light, and reflect only some of the sunlight back. This alters several facets of sunlight (appearance, heat levels, etc.). Many light experiments are easy enough to do at home, to see just how light can be altered by simple means and materials, which is what happens when the light of the sun reflects off the moon, travels through the earth's atmosphere and ... spoils your food? :facepalm:
The moon is not self-illuminating, and the facts in this matter are as clear as the waxing and waning of the moon. If it were self-illuminating, the moon would always be a full circle in the sky, much like the sun, and it would never wax nor wane. There should be no dark surface of the moon, yet there are, because the Moon is lit up by sunlight and not of its own light. It reflects light; it doesn't make light.
Quote from: pocheActually what is essential is Theo-centrism or that is God centered is essential to the faith. Or you could say Jesus-centrism that would be Jesus centered is essential to the faith.
this is what is essential to the faith. God allows our astronomers to see the sky and what is beyond so that they can appreciate His infinite majesty and the beauty of His creation.
I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying--sounds like Wojtyla and Bergoglio trying to talk over each other. Are you a flat-earther?
Waxing and waning prevent the moon from being self illuminated? And just saying that makes it so? I provided several specific proofs for you to work with to prove my case, but you provide nothing except that you said so? Not by any standards is that acceptable as proof of what you are claiming. The moon is provably self illuminated and scripture says it is one of TWO major lights God created. It is its own light because it is different light than the sun, as I've shown above. Until you can prove otherwise, your claims are moot.
I think that the focus on geo centrism is a back handed way of being self centered.
cassini:QuoteRecent research into the decisions of the 1820 Holy Office explains this 'loss of knowledge.' Indeed I believe this is the first place that the following facts are being made known.
Given they knew that Pope Paul V had defined and declared a fixed sun/ moving earth heliocentrism formal heresy, and that all believed that heliocentrism was proven and geocentrism falsified, the very credibility of the Church's infallibility was at stake. If proven then the Church is not divinely guided and is man-made.
So, how did churchmen of 1820 manage to have their Catholic infallibility cake and discard it at the same time?
They cheated. They invented the lie that in 1616 it was Galileo's KIND OF heliocentrism that was heresy, but not the heliocentrism 'of modern astronomers and philosophers.' Pope Pius VII fell for the lie and gave imprimaturs for the NEW MODERN HELIOCENTRISM.
In 1820 then, the heresy of Galileo, was recognised as condemned by an infallible papal decree, thus saving infallibility. This however, could be put away into the secret archives. No way did they ever make this farce public.
And given the world had a new 'proven' heliocentrism, one even for Catholics, geocentrism could also be put away as a false interpretation of Scripture, and Scripture could now be adopted as a metaphor for 'the new heliocentrism.' Indeed Geocentrism then BECAME THE FALSE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. Now what 'good' Catholic would want to defend geocentrism after THAT. And that is why the doctrine of geocentrism was abandoned.
And that is how they did it. The Galileans cheated the Church out of one of its dogmas, and inserted the same heresy inside the Scripture.
Indeed, it is this act of the Holy Office that IS the real SCANDAL OF THE GALILEO CASE. No wonder Catholic forums are banning an exposure of this episode of the Galileo case. Nevertheless, it is ALL ON RECORD, EVERY WORD OF IT, and in a Church that represents truth itself, will have to be faced up to some time.
Cheating to save infallibility, cheating to allow a heresy be believed by all Catholics, cheating that LED directly TO THE RISE OF modernism, and that insult to those popes and churchmen who defended the true meaning of Scripture inserted into Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes #36.
This post by cassini bears repeating. It is of absolute importance in understanding the modern dynamics of exactly what took place in the Church concerning its treatment of the Galileo/Geocentrism issue. If one takes the time to study it they should realize one more aspect of the diabolical disorientation so much of the the Church Militant faces.
Catholic Apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis, likely the most eminent geocentrist in the world today, exposed what cassini writes of here in his great multi-volume work Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. It is all true.
They didn't have the Galileo records since Napoleon had confiscated them in 1809 and took them back to Paris. So Pius VII had little to go on. Olivieri filled that vacuum by claiming that Galileo was only condemned for the wrong version of heliocentrism, but not heliocentrism itself. Fr. Anfossi, who, since he was Master of the Sacred Palace was the only one who could give or rescind imprimaturs, fought Olivieri tooth and nail, so Olivieri went to Pius VII, who was a very weak pope and didn't like controversy. Pius caved in, and the rest is history.
I, for one, am really looking forward to the release of the DVD The Church Versus Galileo which no doubt will cover the above in close detail. Part of its description reads as follows: "The movie will be presented in two formats, one a 5 hour detailed and comprehensive docuмentary, and the other a 90-minute version..." The trailer for same can be seen at THE CHURCH VERSUS GALILEO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzE68yeIVwk)
It can also be seen on youtube:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/hzE68yeIVwk[/youtube]
The earth is indeed the center of creation. But it is not a round earth. Geo Centrism to flat earth is like what the indult is to the true Mass said by truly Catholic priests.:roll-laugh1:
Quote
I think that the focus on geo centrism is a back handed way of being self centered.
That's ego centrism, not geo centrism. Spelling.
This authoritative book explains why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible.
Quote from: happenbyThis authoritative book explains why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible.
Allow me to stop you right there. If a 71 page docuмent is necessary to "explain why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible," then the declarations are not infallible. Same concept as where I have set the BoDers straight a few times--the idea of mealy-mouthed unclarity coming from the Church is a post-1958 (or at least very modern) idea. Previously the Church spoke clearly and firmly leaving no need for debate or private interpretation of her words.
Quote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyThis authoritative book explains why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible.
Allow me to stop you right there. If a 71 page docuмent is necessary to "explain why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible," then the declarations are not infallible. Same concept as where I have set the BoDers straight a few times--the idea of mealy-mouthed unclarity coming from the Church is a post-1958 (or at least very modern) idea. Previously the Church spoke clearly and firmly leaving no need for debate or private interpretation of her words.
Given the infallibility of the 1616 decree had been denied since 1741 by some churchmen, and that permission to publish books asserting heliocentrism as the true order of the world, it needed a 71 page synthesis to show its infallibility. He docuмents every step taked by theb Fathers and popes in making this so. Had he written a 2-page paper, it would have gone into the bin as not conclusive enough.So sure was Fr Roberts that it was infallible that he risked his SOUL on it. He did this by concluding that the Vatican I dogma on the infallibility of a pope HAD BEEN PROVEN FALSE. In other words he REJECTED a second dogma based on his belief heliocentrism was a PROVEN order.
Then there is this poll. Is geocentrism necessary for the Catholic faith or not. Well if we were to ask Fr Roberts that now, what do you think he would say? Is he in HELL because he rejected it and Vatican I's dogma?
But you are right in saying no book like this lays down the law of the Church. Only popes can do that. Well three popes CONFIRMED the 1616 decree was 'non-reformable,' a word used in those days to represent infallibility. Pope Urban VIII, Pope Alexander VII, and believe it or not Pope Pius VII. Moreover, the following popes upheld the decree in spite of philosophers demanding a retreat, Pope Innocent X, Pope Pope Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, Pope Innocent XII, Pope Clement XI, Pope Innocent XIII, Pope Benedict XIII, Pope Clement XII, Pope Benedict XIV (he left 5 books on the Index as heretical), Pope Pius VI, Pope Pius VII (he also left 5 books on the Index as heretical, Pope Pius VIII until Pope Gregory XVI dropped the books 'WITHOUT COMMENT.'
To all these popes, geocentrism was necessary to the Catholic faith.'
Interesting, it is those who voted NO who infer the above popes taught ERRONEOUS doctrine. This is a typical example of MODERNISM, and how even 'trad' Catholics on this (and every other Catholic forum) can be manipulated.
The earth is indeed the center of creation. But it is not a round earth. Geo Centrism to flat earth is like what the indult is to the true Mass said by truly Catholic priests.
The earth is indeed the center of creation. But it is not a round earth. Geo Centrism to flat earth is like what the indult is to the true Mass said by truly Catholic priests.
Quote from: cassiniQuote from: OHCAQuote from: happenbyThis authoritative book explains why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible.
Allow me to stop you right there. If a 71 page docuмent is necessary to "explain why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible," then the declarations are not infallible. Same concept as where I have set the BoDers straight a few times--the idea of mealy-mouthed unclarity coming from the Church is a post-1958 (or at least very modern) idea. Previously the Church spoke clearly and firmly leaving no need for debate or private interpretation of her words.
Given the infallibility of the 1616 decree had been denied since 1741 by some churchmen, and that permission to publish books asserting heliocentrism as the true order of the world, it needed a 71 page synthesis to show its infallibility. He docuмents every step taked by theb Fathers and popes in making this so. Had he written a 2-page paper, it would have gone into the bin as not conclusive enough.So sure was Fr Roberts that it was infallible that he risked his SOUL on it. He did this by concluding that the Vatican I dogma on the infallibility of a pope HAD BEEN PROVEN FALSE. In other words he REJECTED a second dogma based on his belief heliocentrism was a PROVEN order.
Then there is this poll. Is geocentrism necessary for the Catholic faith or not. Well if we were to ask Fr Roberts that now, what do you think he would say? Is he in HELL because he rejected it and Vatican I's dogma?
But you are right in saying no book like this lays down the law of the Church. Only popes can do that. Well three popes CONFIRMED the 1616 decree was 'non-reformable,' a word used in those days to represent infallibility. Pope Urban VIII, Pope Alexander VII, and believe it or not Pope Pius VII. Moreover, the following popes upheld the decree in spite of philosophers demanding a retreat, Pope Innocent X, Pope Pope Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, Pope Innocent XII, Pope Clement XI, Pope Innocent XIII, Pope Benedict XIII, Pope Clement XII, Pope Benedict XIV (he left 5 books on the Index as heretical), Pope Pius VI, Pope Pius VII (he also left 5 books on the Index as heretical, Pope Pius VIII until Pope Gregory XVI dropped the books 'WITHOUT COMMENT.'
To all these popes, geocentrism was necessary to the Catholic faith.'
Interesting, it is those who voted NO who infer the above popes taught ERRONEOUS doctrine. This is a typical example of MODERNISM, and how even 'trad' Catholics on this (and every other Catholic forum) can be manipulated.
What about how happenby intertwines "flat-earth" with "geocentrism" and claims this work supports the notion that this entire bundle has been infallibly declared? Incidentally, I must stop using "geocentrism" to refer to that whole bundle that some here do.
[/b]Quote from: happenbyWaxing and waning prevent the moon from being self illuminated? And just saying that makes it so? I provided several specific proofs for you to work with to prove my case, but you provide nothing except that you said so? Not by any standards is that acceptable as proof of what you are claiming. The moon is provably self illuminated and scripture says it is one of TWO major lights God created. It is its own light because it is different light than the sun, as I've shown above. Until you can prove otherwise, your claims are moot.
I could talk about how I have viewed the light coming from the moon under polarization filters and the polarization spectrum is consistent with light being reflected off of an object that is roughly spherical, but you will just find some other way to ignore that proof as well.
That said, what does any of this have to do with what the center of the universe is? The fact of the matter is that it is, by definition, impossible to tell what the center of the universe is given our limited observational capacity. You can't tell what the center of something is if you can't see the whole thing from the outside and define its edges.
Also, motion is measured (again, by definition) relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. It's equally possible to come up with a model of the universe that has the earth rotating around the sun and one that has the sun rotating around the earth. And those models would be completely equivalent. The only merit, from a scientific standpoint, that one can have over the other is the simplicity of the calculations.
For now then, Geocentrist writers will have to actually deny a flat-earth in order to keep geocentrism a scientific and theological truth. Too much work has gone into presenting geocentrism as a clear possible or probable scientific fact so that the theological aspect of it can be CORRECTED and PROTECTED.
Quote from: cassini
For now then, Geocentrist writers will have to actually deny a flat-earth in order to keep geocentrism a scientific and theological truth. Too much work has gone into presenting geocentrism as a clear possible or probable scientific fact so that the theological aspect of it can be CORRECTED and PROTECTED.
I appreciate your thoughts and thoughtfulness on the two issues.
However, I think the two topics are actually connected for a very different reason:
- the problem for geocentrism is that the closer it hews to the heliocentric model of the universe (merely trying to place earth at the center, but everything else is the same) actually negates geocentrism as a physical impossibility. The problem is in the acceptance by geocentrists of any part of "modern science's" decription of the model of the universe, because it is ALL wrong.
There is utterly NO aspect of the modern science model of God's Creation that can be salvaged - none.
One has to accept the flat earth model of His Creation in totality - the one described clearly in the Bible - in order for even the physical notion of geocentrism to work.
This is the plain truth. The longer the geocentric "movement" adheres to any aspect of the Luciferian lie told about Creation, the longer we all will have to wait for that theological correction.
What about how happenby intertwines "flat-earth" with "geocentrism" and claims this work supports the notion that this entire bundle has been infallibly declared?
It is evident that you are parroting the musings of others--probably protestants and probably the basest educated of them, at that, such as Pentecostals and stick dwelling "non-denominationalists" masquerading as some stripe of "baptists."
Quote from: OHCAIt is evident that you are parroting the musings of others--probably protestants and probably the basest educated of them, at that, such as Pentecostals and stick dwelling "non-denominationalists" masquerading as some stripe of "baptists."
You really don't know anything at all about the FE movement or what its proponents believe. Of the main three, one is a Buddhist, one is a fallen-away Catholic, the other I don't know his religion. Rob Skiba is probably Protestant.
But, keep on posting your silly snake picture.
:popcorn:
For now then, Geocentrist writers will have to actually deny a flat-earth in order to keep geocentrism a scientific and theological truth. Too much work has gone into presenting geocentrism as a clear possible or probable scientific fact so that the theological aspect of it can be CORRECTED and PROTECTED. Were it only a matter of science then who cares, but as a dogma or heresy then the Catholic faith is involved. Were geocentrists to put all this at stake under the auspices that NASA and every other photo from out there are fakes, well we all know what the result would be.
For what it is worth, I would prefer the flat-earthers isolated their quest to show flat-earthism is a possibility. But like geocentrism took 100 years to claim itself as a truth, flat earthism still has a long way to go. Riding on the back of the good work the geocentrists have done is not going to work, indeed the opposite, for you will be seen as endangering that 100 years of geocentric breakthrough and inviting opposition..
Somebody demonstrate proof of the ball (moving or not) that isn't a NASA cartoon. I've waited from the beginning of this thread for this proof, forwarded the case for flat, stationary earth, but with no legit responses, the case is settled. Earth is flat, stationary and the center of the universe around which the sun, moon and stars travel. Until proof of heliocentrism is supplied, the ancient Catholic position regarding earth stands.
Quote from: happenbySomebody demonstrate proof of the ball (moving or not) that isn't a NASA cartoon. I've waited from the beginning of this thread for this proof, forwarded the case for flat, stationary earth, but with no legit responses, the case is settled. Earth is flat, stationary and the center of the universe around which the sun, moon and stars travel. Until proof of heliocentrism is supplied, the ancient Catholic position regarding earth stands.
Amen.
Not a single ball-earther here has been able to provide a single proof of earth being a ball.
Instead they spout Neil DeGrasse Tyson's theories as fact, and choose to dibelieve their own eyes and God's Word.
Quote from: OHCAIt is evident that you are parroting the musings of others--probably protestants and probably the basest educated of them, at that, such as Pentecostals and stick dwelling "non-denominationalists" masquerading as some stripe of "baptists."
You really don't know anything at all about the FE movement or what its proponents believe. Of the main three, one is a Buddhist, one is a fallen-away Catholic, the other I don't know his religion. Rob Skiba is probably Protestant.
But, keep on posting your silly snake picture.
:popcorn:
So why not apply the same criterion to Pope Francis. Why should he be judged and not the anti-geocentric popes?
And that is how geocentrism is relevant to the Catholic faith.
Before I comment, could you flat-earthers please get out of this thread. Flat-earthism has no direct connection with a poll on geocentrism, none at all. You have a very successful thread of your own but seem determined to associate geocentrism and flat-earthism anywhere you find it.
It is really interesting to see 75% actually do not see the subject of geocentrism as necessary for the Catholic faith. The fact that it is revealed as a truth of Scripture according to all the Fathers, according to the irreversible papal decree of Pope Paul V, according to Pope urban VIII and even Pope Pius VII, and was upheld as such by the Church up to Galileo’s time and by 13 popes after Galileo’s time is irrelevant to the no voters.
It is also a fact of history that this one definition by Pope Paul V in 1616 led to an unprecedented attack on the divine claim of Catholicism, and led to an equally unparalleled U-turn and attack on the Church’s own magisterium.
It is also a fact that the attack on geocentrism began further attacks on Scripture, that led to Modernism. This attack also heralded the victory of science over faith, when the first evolution theory was applied to a solar system, evolving itself into long-ages, floral and fauna evolution and then the Big Bang. Research has shown that this process from geocentrism to the Big Bang beginning, that is modern ‘science,’ is the primary reason why millions lost all faith in the supernatural.
Nevertheless, in spite of the above posted already on this thread, 30 of you still discarded geocentrism as having any relevance to the Catholic faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK then, let us move on to its significance as regards heresy, the most dominant subject on this Catholic forum (SSPX Resistance News). What do we learn about heresy, formal heresy, under the subject matter of geocentrism. Well its contrary was defined as formal heresy and Galileo was tried for it. So how did the Supreme Holy Office determine if one is guilty of formal heresy? Galileo had written that he believed in it, he knew his belief was heretical. At his trial he denied he believed in the heresy. Bruno however, admitted he believed in his heresies so could be found guilty of them (not heliocentrism by the way). In Galileo’s case he could not be found guilty of heresy only suspected of heresy.
In other words to be a formal heretic one has to be aware their belief is heresy and deliberately deny its contrary. One has to admit the heresy is in their heart for others to be able to find the person guilty. That is the first heretical lesson of the Galileo case, the one where geocentrism was relevant to the Catholic faith.
Recently a friend sent me two websites to read.
https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/15/where-the-sspx-is-therefore-there-is-the-church/
In here you will find the following:
And yet every last one of us knows damned well that a formal heretic cannot be pope.
The second site is :
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/09/12/on-the-current-antipapacy-the-sspx-and-other-totally-non-inflammatory-topics/
In here you will find:
When I see trad Catholics, utterly desperate to deny that Bergoglio is an antipope, saying that “it doesn’t matter”, I shake my head.
And why is Pope Francis an anti-pope? Because he has uttered what could be classed as heresy. We see here a classic case of personal judgement that Pope Francis is a formal heretic. Has there been a trial like Galileo’s? Has he ever admitted he is aware that what he says is formal heresy? Given he is 100 Modernist, does he even know what he says is heresy? Is he deliberately contradicting a dogma knowing it is heresy? If he was asked what do you think he would say? Would he not deny it as Galileo did? Until there is a trial by another pope in the future, no one can find him guilty as charged.
Now let us go back to 1741-1835 when Catholics began to reject geocentrism on philosophical grounds aware it was defined as formal heresy. How many of these popes when rejecting geocentrism chose to be formal heretics?
So, let us do as today’s sedevacantists do with Pope Francis and make personal judgements. Any pope after 1616 who believed in heliocentrism became a formal heretic and so were anti-popes. That is the consequence of today’s sedevacantism. But didn’t heaven refer to some of them as ‘Pope?’ So do today’s sedevacantists know better than heaven? The lesson of course is that only Protestants make personal judgements.
Either popes since 1835 were all anti-popes, that is not popes at al, or they were notl. Do any think any of them actually deliberately choosing heliocentrism while aware it was formal heresy? No, not one of them chose heresy over orthodoxy. They were not deliberate heretics, merely material heretics unaware of the truth. So why not apply the same criterion to Pope Francis. Why should he be judged and not the anti-geocentric popes?
And that is how geocentrism is relevant to the Catholic faith.
[M]odern geocentrists think they've seen the ball earth but they've seen nothing more than CGI cartoons. That is the ONLY reason they think earth is a ball because they have no other proof.
It is really interesting to see 75% actually do not see the subject of geocentrism as necessary for the Catholic faith.
It is also a fact that the attack on geocentrism began further attacks on Scripture, that led to Modernism. This attack also heralded the victory of science over faith, when the first evolution theory was applied to a solar system, evolving itself into long-ages, floral and fauna evolution and then the Big Bang. Research has shown that this process from geocentrism to the Big Bang beginning, that is modern ‘science,’ is the primary reason why millions lost all faith in the supernatural.
Nevertheless, in spite of the above posted already on this thread, 30 of you still discarded geocentrism as having any relevance to the Catholic faith.
.....
Now let us go back to 1741-1835 when Catholics began to reject geocentrism on philosophical grounds aware it was defined as formal heresy. How many of these popes when rejecting geocentrism chose to be formal heretics?
So, let us do as today’s sedevacantists do with Pope Francis and make personal judgements. Any pope after 1616 who believed in heliocentrism became a formal heretic and so were anti-popes. That is the consequence of today’s sedevacantism. But didn’t heaven refer to some of them as ‘Pope?’ So do today’s sedevacantists know better than heaven? The lesson of course is that only Protestants make personal judgements.
Either popes since 1835 were all anti-popes, that is not popes at al, or they were notl. Do any think any of them actually deliberately choosing heliocentrism while aware it was formal heresy? No, not one of them chose heresy over orthodoxy. They were not deliberate heretics, merely material heretics unaware of the truth. So why not apply the same criterion to Pope Francis. Why should he be judged and not the anti-geocentric popes?
And that is how geocentrism is relevant to the Catholic faith.
Quote from: cassini
It is really interesting to see 75% actually do not see the subject of geocentrism as necessary for the Catholic faith.
It is also a fact that the attack on geocentrism began further attacks on Scripture, that led to Modernism. This attack also heralded the victory of science over faith, when the first evolution theory was applied to a solar system, evolving itself into long-ages, floral and fauna evolution and then the Big Bang. Research has shown that this process from geocentrism to the Big Bang beginning, that is modern ‘science,’ is the primary reason why millions lost all faith in the supernatural.
Nevertheless, in spite of the above posted already on this thread, 30 of you still discarded geocentrism as having any relevance to the Catholic faith.
Cassini:
Happenby made a very good point that so far you have sidestepped. I would like to see you address her point.
She rightly pointed out that the "modern day" version of geocentrism (not the 16th century one) is a model of geocentrism that ACCEPTS nearly all aspects of the heliocentric model. It really is just a mere reversal of the position of the sun and earth.
As such, it does not, and cannot, work due to the laws of physics.
So, what is your explanation for this and do you accept the ORIGINAL version of geocentrism, or do you labor under Robert Sungenis's modern version, which is incorrect?
Everything's relative, right? Relativity in the sciences supports the relativity in the heart of man and therefore, in the Church. It is the physical basis for modernism and the atheist scientists who teach heliocentrism, round earth ism, evolution, relativity, are all enemies of the Church and of science.
Quote from: happenbyEverything's relative, right? Relativity in the sciences supports the relativity in the heart of man and therefore, in the Church. It is the physical basis for modernism and the atheist scientists who teach heliocentrism, round earth ism, evolution, relativity, are all enemies of the Church and of science.
Amen.
I wonder, mw2016, how round earth works with the rising of Christ. Did Our Lord rise? Or did he "go up and out" RELATIVE to the center of the earth as round earthers believe?
Quote from: happenby
I wonder, mw2016, how round earth works with the rising of Christ. Did Our Lord rise? Or did he "go up and out" RELATIVE to the center of the earth as round earthers believe?
I have often thought this exact thing in relation to His return at the Second Coming.
The Bible says ALL will see Him and this would only be possible on a flat earth.
Cassini - thank you for answering that question so thoughtfully!
So, it seems that your model of geocentrism and the flat earth model agree on one VERY important point: there is no such thing as the "law" of gravity.
Therefore, if there is no gravity, in your model of geocentrism, the sun could go about the earth., which is exactly what is held to be true in the flat earth model.
HOWEVER - Robert Sungenis holds that gravity is real and true, and the distances of space (93 million miles, etc.) are real and true, and therefore his model of geocentrism is a physical impossibility. One CANNOT combine any aspect of the heliocentric model of the universe with a model of geocentrism and make it work. It does not work.
Like a duck...
If it looks like its flat, walks like its flat, flies like its flat, its a plane.
Round moving earth:
:sign-surrender:
I said I reject Newton's version of gravity, not that there is no gravity.
The level of absurdity of the statements made in these threads just keeps on climbing. mw, do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "force" (as used in physics).
Quote from: noOneImportantThe level of absurdity of the statements made in these threads just keeps on climbing. mw, do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "force" (as used in physics).
I think she has multiple Ph.D.s--physics, astronomy, geography, investigations, evidence, backyard experiments, etc.
Quote from: cassini
I said I reject Newton's version of gravity, not that there is no gravity.
Ok, well now that is just silly.
I take back what I said: your version of geocentrism does NOT have anything in common with the flat earth model, because the flat earth model does not have ANY gravity.
You cannot take the modern science definition of gravity and divide it up into "types" of gravity, because modern science does not do this. There is no "Newtonian gravity" vs. another type of gravity - there is only gravity, and it is supposedly responsible for objects falling and objects in space orbiting around other bodies in space.
The key part of the modern science definition is that gravity is a FORCE. It has the power to pull objects downward.
This is nonexistent in the flat earth model - there is no "mysterious" force. The idea that gravity is powerful enough to pull an earth to a sun, but yet light enough to let a butterfly fly above the flowers is absurd. A force cannot distinguish between objects and "apply itself" accordingly - that is nonsensical!
Objects fall when dropped due to their weight/mass/density and the buoyancy or lack thereof of the medium they are in.
SO, this negates your version of geocentrism.
Quote from: mw2016Quote from: cassini
I said I reject Newton's version of gravity, not that there is no gravity.
Ok, well now that is just silly.
I take back what I said: your version of geocentrism does NOT have anything in common with the flat earth model, because the flat earth model does not have ANY gravity.
You cannot take the modern science definition of gravity and divide it up into "types" of gravity, because modern science does not do this. There is no "Newtonian gravity" vs. another type of gravity - there is only gravity, and it is supposedly responsible for objects falling and objects in space orbiting around other bodies in space.
The key part of the modern science definition is that gravity is a FORCE. It has the power to pull objects downward.
This is nonexistent in the flat earth model - there is no "mysterious" force. The idea that gravity is powerful enough to pull an earth to a sun, but yet light enough to let a butterfly fly above the flowers is absurd. A force cannot distinguish between objects and "apply itself" accordingly - that is nonsensical!
Objects fall when dropped due to their weight/mass/density and the buoyancy or lack thereof of the medium they are in.
SO, this negates your version of geocentrism.
Oh my goodness, now we are denying that on a flat earth comets fall to earth, rocks thrown up never come down, blown up aeroplanes crash to earth, rain falls down from the clouds etc. The WORD used my mankind to describe all things loose in the air falling down to earth is GRAVITY. It is just a WORD, like THROW a ball, or KICK ass. Nevertheless it happens. What I hold is that CAUSES for these happenings are pure speculation and none of them LAWS.
Tell you what lads, start a poll thread.
I believe the earth is flat.
I do not believe the earth is flat.
I believe a flat earth is possible.
I don't believe a flat earth is possible.
Oh my goodness, now we are denying that on a flat earth comets fall to earth, rocks thrown up never come down, blown up aeroplanes crash to earth, rain falls down from the clouds etc. The WORD used my mankind to describe all things loose in the air falling down to earth is GRAVITY. It is just a WORD,
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential.
However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that gravity causes a force where two bodies of mass are directly drawn (or 'attracted') to each other according to a mathematical relationship,
The level of absurdity of the statements made in these threads just keeps on climbing. mw, do yourself a favor and look up the definition of the word "force" (as used in physics).
However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that gravity causes a force where two bodies of mass are directly drawn (or 'attracted') to each other according to a mathematical relationship,
According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to that which it exerts on a falling object. This means that the Earth also accelerates towards the object until they collide. Because the mass of the Earth is huge, however, the acceleration imparted to the Earth by this opposite force is negligible in comparison to the object's. If the object doesn't bounce after it has collided with the Earth, each of them then exerts a repulsive contact force on the other which effectively balances the attractive force of gravity and prevents further acceleration.
The force of gravity on Earth is the resultant (vector sum) of two forces:[25] (a) The gravitational attraction in accordance with Newton's universal law of gravitation, and (b) the centrifugal force, which results from the choice of an earthbound, rotating frame of reference. The force of gravity is the weakest at the equator because of the centrifugal force caused by the Earth's rotation and because points on the equator are furthest from the center of the Earth. The force of gravity varies with latitude and increases from about 9.780 m/s2 at the Equator to about 9.832 m/s2 at the poles.
Quote from: cassini
Tell you what lads, start a poll thread.
I believe the earth is flat.
I do not believe the earth is flat.
I believe a flat earth is possible.
I don't believe a flat earth is possible.
Sure, but best to have people who agree with the forums stance on the resistance do it, rather than those who do not...
And you accuse me of being stupid?? Good grief.
Per Wiki:
And you accuse me of being stupid?? Good grief.
Per Wiki:
Quote from: cassini
Tell you what lads, start a poll thread.
I believe the earth is flat.
I do not believe the earth is flat.
I believe a flat earth is possible.
I don't believe a flat earth is possible.
Sure, but best to have people who agree with the forums stance on the resistance do it, rather than those who do not...
[171] To the Very Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites in the Province of Calabria:The Essential Galileo (http://www.scribd.com/doc/18941494/The-Essential-Galileo) p. 146-148
My Very Reverend Father,
I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin which Your Paternity sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are all full of intelligence and erudition. You ask for my opinion, and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First, I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven⁴ and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.
[172] Second, I say that, as you know, the Council⁵ prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic,” it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.
Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, “The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again,”⁶ was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated. Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving. I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that this is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no scientist has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the sun moves, as it also is not in error when it judges that the moon and the stars move. And this is enough for now.
With this I greet dearly Your Paternity, and I pray to God to grant you all your wishes.
At home, 12 April 1615.
To Your Reverend Paternity.As a Brother,
Cardinal Bellarmine.
Notes
⁴“In the third heaven” just means in the third orbit around the sun.
⁵The Council of Trent (1545–63). [Session the Fourth, Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.ii.html#v.i.i.ii-p0.55); reiterated in Vatican I's Dei Filius (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.ii.i.html#v.ii.i-p11.9)]
⁶Ecclesiastes 1:5 [Douay-Rheims version]
But the fact that motion is caused by a force is a matter of definition, so stop being ridiculous and accept the necessary fact that there is a force which causes things to fall, and that it is conventionally called gravity.
Quote from: cassini
Oh my goodness, now we are denying that on a flat earth comets fall to earth, rocks thrown up never come down, blown up aeroplanes crash to earth, rain falls down from the clouds etc. The WORD used by mankind to describe all things loose in the air falling down to earth is GRAVITY. It is just a WORD,
You really have not read any aspects of the flat earth model.
Don't shoot the messenger because you do not understand the model - I didn't make it up.
Gravity is considered as a force or a phenomenon...
Gravity is considered unexplainable by modern scientists - all of them are perplexed by how it works, and they have no real explanation for its cause.
There is NO SUCH THING as "gravity" on the flat earth.
Gravity does not "give weight" to an object. Rocks thrown up come down because they weigh more than the air around them, same for airplanes crashing, and rain falling. It's very simple.
Quote from: cassini
Oh my goodness, now we are denying that on a flat earth comets fall to earth, rocks thrown up never come down, blown up aeroplanes crash to earth, rain falls down from the clouds etc. The WORD used by mankind to describe all things loose in the air falling down to earth is GRAVITY. It is just a WORD,
You really have not read any aspects of the flat earth model.
Don't shoot the messenger because you do not understand the model - I didn't make it up.
Gravity is considered as a force or a phenomenon...
Gravity is considered unexplainable by modern scientists - all of them are perplexed by how it works, and they have no real explanation for its cause.
There is NO SUCH THING as "gravity" on the flat earth.
Gravity does not "give weight" to an object. Rocks thrown up come down because they weigh more than the air around them, same for airplanes crashing, and rain falling. It's very simple.
then why do rocks fall down in a vacuum, where there is no ambient air around them?
I'm curious if those who support Geocentrism find it a necessary theory is due to their understanding/interpretation of Holy Writ.
In other words, is Geocentrism, in your view, something Christians have a duty to believe based on Holy Scripture.
Quote from: s2sreaI'm curious if those who support Geocentrism find it a necessary theory is due to their understanding/interpretation of Holy Writ.
In other words, is Geocentrism, in your view, something Christians have a duty to believe based on Holy Scripture.
From the very beginning the immediate problem with this thread is the red herring...the equivalence of the Earth's lack of motion with its location...an Earth that is at rest/immobile/akinetic in the universe, as Scripture describes, with geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe.
This strawman is intended to divert and confuse the dialogue...an indication that its source is the prince of deception and the father of lies.
FIRST ERROR: Earth's immobility as defined in Scripture is geofixic (fixus, Latin, at rest ,immobile), which became conflated with geocentric by semantic drift at the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Unless the meaning of 'center' in geocentrism is defined, geocentrism's discussion is vanity of vanities.
Truth forever on the gallows,
Lies forever on the throne.
AMDG
.... If the evidence for the position of the Earth in our universe is shown to be in one place, or another, it has absolutely no effect on our understanding and belief of Holy Scripture. ........
It would be a heresy, in my opinion, to think that geocentrism is a required belief of Catholics. I remember St. Thomas Aquinas speaking on this point specifically (but I can't remember where right now). He said (something to the effect of:), that if our understanding of the cosmos would have changed, which it very well may do, it would not have any affect on our Faith at all.
..... Whatever position I have the most evidence for, I'll adopt.
Well the Church did condemn heliocentrism as a heresy, some say infallibly. Then the Church later accepted heliocentrism, ane even taught it in their Catechisms (heliocentrism is taught in the Baltimore Catechism which I just reread). So I can understand Catholics holding both positions. ...
.... 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)).
..... St. Thomas said he would have no problem with it[GC or GF?] ..... 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.
GeoFixism, not GC, is a required belief for all Catholics with a fully-formed conscience.Geostaticism is the term I've seen scholars (e.g., Galileo expert Maurice Finnochiaro) use.
"As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind." --- Teilhard de Chardin.Where did heretic De Chardin write this?
Seriously? "terrestrial life is not centred on mankind"? What's it centered on? Polar bears and dolphins? Amoebas? Quantum foam?
I wonder if they really say that man be the bottom of the food chain.Quote from: Geremia
Seriously? "terrestrial life is not centred on mankind"? What's it centered on? Polar bears and dolphins? Amoebas? Quantum foam?
Pretty much - if you believe what the World Wildlife Federation tells you.
:facepalm:
...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.
....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.
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.
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.
First, Cardinal Bellarmine, backed by both Paul V and Urban VIII, argued that the Earth’s centrality and immobility were a “matter of faith,” if not so much in the explicit sense, then simply because of the fact that God is the author of Scripture, as even Leo states later in this encyclical (e.g., ¶21: “and that God, speaking by the sacred writers, could not set down anything but what was true”). Second, it is a fact that the Fathers were unanimous in their belief in geocentrism. There was not one dissenting voice. It is perhaps the strongest unanimity the Fathers ever held on a particular topic. Hence, on both counts, faith and patristic unanimity, history shows that geocentrism is not to be included in Leo XIII’s category of things to be “figuratively” interpreted or things that the Fathers expressed only “in the ideas of their times.”
... it is a fact of history that Aquinas was an avowed geocentrist who never entertained the possibility of heliocentrism.
Quote from: cassini"As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind." --- Teilhard de Chardin.Where did heretic De Chardin write this?
Quote from: GeremiaQuote from: cassini"As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind." --- Teilhard de Chardin.Where did heretic De Chardin write this?
Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38.
Quote from: Stubborn...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.Quote from: St Ignatius....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.
-
....he didn't get the geocentrist memo that the moon emits its own light rather than reflect light. Doesn't that make him some sort of heretic by geocentrist standards? ....
...... the assertion is being made that geocentrism is dogma, but I do not believe that it has been taught dogmatically. ....
When there is this much confusion and dissent among what I believe to be true Catholics, that makes me think the Church has not spoken dogmatically as to the issue.
..... I do not believe that there would be as many true Catholics who didn't know that it is dogma if it really was.
....there is a further puzzle, where does precession come into play with the heliocentric tilt?
The FE maps have been shown on this thread repeatedly. Antarctica encircles the seas by 360 degrees.
.
... there are very reasonable flat earth explanations for them but delving further belongs to those interested, since I cannot expect to reach anyone unwilling to do their own research. I did provide one proof in the form of a link to a very short video destroying the notion that distant ships fall below the horizon on a globe. Unquestionably debunked.
So, how did churchmen of 1820 manage to have their Catholic infallibility cake and discard it at the same time?
They cheated. They invented the lie that in 1616 it was Galileo's KIND OF heliocentrism that was heresy, but not the heliocentrism 'of modern astronomers and philosophers.' Pope Pius VII fell for the lie and gave imprimaturs for the NEW MODERN HELIOCENTRISM.
I doubt we went to the moon--fall a little short of saying I'm 100% certain that we didn't as I don't think anybody can do so and be fully cognizant and honest in doing so except perhaps a few "elites."
I am not drawn towards belief in a flat earth as I am to the belief in a round geocentric earth.
.... Sheba was literally at the ends of the
earth in relation to Palestine, because our Lord said (Matt. xii. 42) that
“the Queen of the South came from the ends of the earth” (“a finibus
terræ,”) to hear the wisdom of Solomon.
1- The fact of the matter is that it is, by definition, impossible to tell what the center of the universe is given our limited observational capacity. You can't tell what the center of something is if you can't see the whole thing from the outside and define its edges.
2- Also, motion is measured (again, by definition) relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. It's equally possible to come up with a model of the universe that has the earth rotating around the sun and one that has the sun rotating around the earth. And those models would be completely equivalent. The only merit, from a scientific standpoint, that one can have over the other is the simplicity of the calculations.
1- The literal sense necessarily includes flat earth. ... That geocentrism was always bound up with the flat earth becomes evident.
2- If a 71 page docuмent is necessary to "explain why the declarations of the Church on Geocentrism are infallible," then the declarations are not infallible.
the problem for geocentrism is that the closer it hews to the heliocentric model of the universe (merely trying to place earth at the center, but everything else is the same) actually negates geocentrism as a physical impossibility. The problem is in the acceptance by geocentrists of any part of "modern science's" decription of the model of the universe, because it is ALL wrong.
Quote from: noOneImportant
1- The fact of the matter is that it is, by definition, impossible to tell what the center of the universe is given our limited observational capacity. You can't tell what the center of something is if you can't see the whole thing from the outside and define its edges.
2- Also, motion is measured (again, by definition) relative to an arbitrary frame of reference. It's equally possible to come up with a model of the universe that has the earth rotating around the sun and one that has the sun rotating around the earth. And those models would be completely equivalent. The only merit, from a scientific standpoint, that one can have over the other is the simplicity of the calculations.
1- This is the geometrical interpretation of GC - a strawman for the passive meaning of GC given by the Magisterium.... viz., the focus of all processes and activity in the universe.
This diversion distracts from the core meaning of Scripture ... geofixism - an Earth at rest/immobile.
2- Here is correctly described a branch of mechanics called kinematics - the study of physical measurement using distance, speed, acceleration....and time. Relative motion in kinematics is as certain as 2+2 = 4.
BUT... Dynamics is the branch of physics that PREDICTS future motion based on kinematics, mass and forces. In dynamics the laws of motion (Newton and Maxwell) only correctly predict future motion if the Earth (lab/ground) is used as a reference frame for an observer! Newton's Bucket anomaly and his 2nd law are examples of the uniqueness of the Earth in applying the laws of natural motion.
It is dynamics that reveals the Earth as the only immovable platform from which trajectories can be foretold...
Although this uniqueness is easily made manifest, the mainstream demagogues of physics ignore the facts in fear of the consequences:
- the Church was right and Galileo/Copernicus were wrong
- the Big Bang and relativity -special and general - are a colossal hoax ...bigger than 9/11
- the centrality and immobility of Earth can mean only one thing... the God denied by the modern atheists EXISTS.
..... the "modern day" version of geocentrism (not the 16th century one) is a model of geocentrism that ACCEPTS nearly all aspects of the heliocentric model. It really is just a mere reversal of the position of the sun and earth.
As such, it does not, and cannot, work due to the laws of physics.
science agreed on the principle of RELATIVITY.
1- ‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [heliocentrism] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment ever proved the earth is in motion.”’
2- Yes, since the beginning of the twentieth century, science has conceded that there is no empirical way of proving the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot verify for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine movements about it.
3- 'God may have created laws of the universe that man will never know.' Indeed the Fathers believed God uses His angels to keep the universe in perfect order, 'bringing days and nights, and seasons on earth.'
The Bible says ALL will see Him and this would only be possible on a flat earth.
... Newton's theory geocentrism is possible just for argument's sake. I do not even entertain this as it actually gives a little credibility to Newton's 'heresy.'
1- the flat earth model does not have ANY gravity.
2- You cannot take the modern science definition of gravity and divide it up into "types" of gravity, because modern science does not do this. There is no "Newtonian gravity" vs. another type of gravity - there is only gravity, and it is supposedly responsible for objects falling and objects in space orbiting around other bodies in space.
3- The key part of the modern science definition is that gravity is a FORCE. It has the power to pull objects downward.
4- ....The idea that gravity is powerful enough to pull an earth to a sun, but yet light enough to let a butterfly fly above the flowers is absurd. A force cannot distinguish between objects and "apply itself" accordingly - that is nonsensical!
5- Objects fall when dropped due to their weight/mass/density and the buoyancy or lack thereof of the medium they are in.
6- So, this negates your version of geocentrism.
Gravity is considered as a force or a phenomenon. Per Wiki:QuoteGravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential....
Of importance to the subject matter is that one knows what was defined as formal heresy and what was not. It was a fixed sun that is the formal heresy because it contradicts Holy Scripture and its reading by all the Fathers. ......
1- We see here then the heresy is confined to the belief in a fixed sun. The position of the earth does not have any heretical complications, only right or wrong in faith.
The term geocentrism is given to the universe with the earth at the centre around which the sun, moon and stars turn. In other words it does represent the biblical moving sun as well as the earth at the centre of the universe.
The term heliocentrism is given to the universe that has the sun fixed around which the earth and planets orbit. In other words it represents the order that contains the heresy and the 'errors to faith.
2- So why Cassander(sic), do you you say the term geocentrism is a red herring.
3- Moreover, to be at the centre does not mean a mathematical centre, simply at the centre of the working universe.
4- What I would like is an explanation as to what exactly is "erroneous in faith.”
.....but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the CIRCLE of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.
Geostaticism is the term I've seen scholars (e.g., Galileo expert Maurice Finnochiaro) use.
..........
1- Now from 1905 the world of science has admitted H was never proven nor G falsified.
....
2- Relative motion was the best science could offer, with H & G only scientific possibilities.
.....
3- But why did Churchmen continue 'accepting' heliocentrism and the error that the 1616 decree had been falsified after 1905?
.....
.....Quote from: Cassandar
..speaking of debunking... the floating ships on the horizon, beyond the curvature horizon, are well- known optical effects of temperature inversion. A layer of warm air over a cold one bends the light path(refraction) to form images that are beyond the horizon.
Bahahaha! Not a prayer. Temperature inversion? Warm air over cold? Smoke and mirrors? What rock did you dig this up from under? It has long ago been proven by many (including me) in every condition imaginable that ships that seemingly disappear great distances from a viewer have not disappeared behind the curve, rather, cameras zooming in prove ships to be visible on the horizon long after they "disappear". Without the help of the camera, it is ASSUMED the ship went below the curve because the unaided eye is unable to see it beyond a certain point. This is the kind of easy to find information you should check first before attempting to discuss something like flat earth.
.......
Here is correctly described a branch of mechanics called kinematics - the study of physical measurement using distance, speed, acceleration....and time. Relative motion in kinematics is as certain as 2+2 = 4.
BUT... Dynamics is the branch of physics that PREDICTS future motion based on kinematics, mass and forces. In dynamics the laws of motion (Newton and Maxwell) only correctly predict future motion if the Earth (lab/ground) is used as a reference frame for an observer! Newton's Bucket anomaly and his 2nd law are examples of the uniqueness of the Earth in applying the laws of natural motion.
It is dynamics that reveals the Earth as the only immovable platform from which trajectories can be foretold...
Although this uniqueness is easily made manifest, the mainstream demagogues of physics ignore the facts in fear of the consequences:
- the Church was right and Galileo/Copernicus were wrong
- the Big Bang and relativity -special and general - are a colossal hoax ...bigger than 9/11
- the centrality and immobility of Earth can mean only one thing... the God denied by the modern atheists EXISTS.
1- Where on earth are you getting the idea that mass and force aren't included in kinematics? Where do you think the motions are being calculated from?
2- Your statement that the laws of motion are only correct if the Earth is used as a reference frame is patently false. Shifting between frames of reference is trivial. There is nothing in "dynamics" as you call it which requires any given frame of reference.
3- Also, what you call dynamics is encompassed under my original statements.
4- Also, calling relativity a "colossal hoax" is colossally ignorant. There's a reason the theory of relativity is held up as virtually untouchable.
5- It correctly predicted numerous previously unknown phenomena, many of which no one would have even thought to look for if they hadn't been predicted by said theory.
6- The original example is the bending of light around the sun so that stars behind it can be seen "through" it during an eclipse.
7- There are many others like that. When a model correctly predicts complex phenomena, it's a pretty sure sign that the model is working, and so it becomes a scientific "law".
...............
Kinematics is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points (alternatively "particles"), bodies (objects), and systems of bodies without consideration of the masses of those objects nor the forces that may have caused the motion.
Dynamics is a branch of applied mathematics (specifically classical mechanics) concerned with the study of forces and torques and their effect on motion, as opposed to kinematics, which studies the motion of objects without reference to its causes.
The geovariant law of dynamics solves the rotational paradox of Newton's Bucket , proposed in the 1687 Principia and unsolved....until now.
For a description of NB....but not a solution, see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument
In the lab frame of Newton the centrifugal force law correctly predicts a curved water surface, since he sees the water moving in a circle.
The core of the NB anomaly is that an observer co-moving with the bucket (the bucket's rest frame of reference) will predict a flat surface , contrary to fact, using the Centrifugal Force law, since he sees the water at rest! So the laws of rotational physics - the CF law, in this case- only are valid in the lab/Earth frame!
This is GeoVariance, not covariance...and the exposing of relativity as only valid for kinematics...i.e., for measurement of relative motion.
GV also holds for linear dynamics...
A car heading north accelerates past a hitch-hiker.
The driver of the car (accelerating in the lab frame) feels inertial forces pushing him into the seat, as predicted by Newton’s 2nd law..F = ma.
We have all experienced this force.
BUT… the HH feels NO inertial forces, even though the HH is accelerating from the car driver's point of view, so F = ma applied in the car reference frame would predict – FALSELY – that the HH would feel inertial forces, too.
Newton's 2nd law applies only in the ground/Earth/lab frame, just like the CF law in Newton's Bucket.
The proof of geovariance and geostatism has always been right before our eyes, since Newton and Mach debated the philosophical and physical meaning of the NB test. The lovers of darkness, the dark energy and dark matter demagogues, have blinded themselves to the truth.
Contrary to the stiff-necked mavens of mainstream physics, the laws of physical motion ONLY apply for an Earth observer, demolishing relativity's claim as a hypothesis in agreement with testing...as the sci method demands. The immobility of the Earth and its primacy in the universe is restored to its original role, as revealed in Holy Scripture.
The two postulates of Special Relativity are
1) Speed of Light(SoL) is constant = c in all reference frames
2) The laws of motion are equivalent in all inertial ref. frames...inertial covariance.
Consider the second logical method ...
#1 is false- from the results of any gas(non-vacuum) interferometer test.
Sol = c +- v, where v is the aether speed
#2 is false from the 2005 Wang Fiber Optic Conveyor test. The results are only valid in the lab/Earth frame ..and aether is dragged along with the conveyor. Sol = c +- v is only true in the lab frame.
Both SR premises are experimentally proven false, so no further consideration of SR is possible. Doing so would be worse than just being wrong.