CathInfo.com

One last thing, mw2016. You come off as a bit of an ass. I'm sure you're passionate about this subject, but please realize I"m just trying to have a debate. You don't know me, sure. But throwing around "Therefore, either you believe the Bible to be the INERRANT Word of God, or you don't. [and] If you do, you have replaced your God with science" and other false dichotomies are useless. YOU may believe they are not false dichotomies, but there are other opinions out there, and isn't that the purpose of discussion? Hearing what others have to say? Sharing what we've learned? I know I'm on a Traditional Catholic forum and all, but c'mon... have some manners.

Since when s2srea is Catholic teaching or not decided by opinion poll? It may well be for Protestants, but never for Catholics.

That said, centuries of propaganda within and outside the Catholic Church has left the truth of this matter extremely difficult to find.

Today however, scholars and researchers like myself have found the truth and it has made us free.

So, what can I say to help others find the answer. Well, there is nobody who could surpass Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmine in his knowledge of the matter, except perhaps Solomon. Here is what he wrote in 1615:

‘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.’

We see then, there are TWO kinds of geocentrism, one ex parte objecti, and the other ex parte dicentis.

So, which of the two decides the matter in your opinion poll? Well history shows the subject matter decided the biblical answer. How so? Well since Isaac Newton most (99%), inside and outside the Church decided geocentrism was proven wrong. The Church's enemies celebrated and Catholic churchmen humiliated in 'embarrassment,' stopped defending ex parte dicentis but allowed books advocating a 'new version of ex parte objecti' to be published and read by Catholics.

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.

Let us now go back to geocentrism ex parte objecti. By 1900 science ADMITTED man never falsified geocentrism. It took Einstein to conjure up a THEORY that allowed heliocentrism back again as a possibility against all the evidence that showed the earth does not move. In other words one selects heliocentrism on human faith alone.

The choice then is back to geocentrism ex parte objecti, or ex parte dicentis.

Now when one selects no geocentrism is not necessary to the faith that is no different to 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 a contradiction of Scripture and therefore formal heresy.

No geocentrism allows heliocentrism as a truth, the first ever evolutionary theory and all that follows. One therefore prefers personal interpretation of the Scriptures, just like a Protestant.

When one chooses yes, one is adhering to the tradition of all the Fathers, the geocentrism of Trent, the correctness of Pope Paul's 'unrevisable' decree. One is then placing the universe back into God's creation, free from the clutches of modern science, the bedrock of atheism.