There is an exhaustive THEOLOGICAL treatment of Geocentrism on the Dimond brothers website:
.
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Geocentrism.pdf
,
Their conclusion is that Geocentrism is NOT an infallible teaching of the Church and
they give strong evidence and arguments for this.
.
From the SCIENTIFIC point of view, there are several strong arguments against Geocentrism:
.
1. The Earth does not have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the Earth and
there is NO other know measurable force which can keep the Sun in orbit.
.
2. Neptune would have to be traveling at a velocity faster than the speed of light to circle
the Earth in 24 hours. The Andromeda galaxy would have to be moving at 6 million times the
speed of light to circle the Earth in 24 hours.
.
3. Stellar Parallax has been measured by modern telescopes. The Geocentrism theory has
no explanation how this can happen. The Heliocentrism theory has no problem with Stellar
Parallax.
.
I've heard the Geocentrism arguments about Aether, Electromagnatism, and God-Can-Do-It,
but one must realize that Geocentrists cannot understand gravity, celestial mechanics or
Stellar Parallax. Here is an explanation of Stellar Parallax:
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax
.
I did not plan to divert this thread into a Geocentric argument, but some people keep harping
on Geocentrism and telling lies about it. Lies should be exposed as such.
.
If you cannot understand Stellar Parallax and cannot understand that telescopes in 1633 were
not capable of measuring Stellar Parallax, then don't tell me I'm wrong, and don't expect me
to reply to your lies (er ... I mean opinions :-*)
.
I have read the Dimond Brothers attempt to render the 1616 and 1633 decrees no worth the paper they were recorded on. 'Their conclusion is that Geocentrism is NOT an infallible teaching of the Church.' you say and obviously believe. So, here we have the Protestant version of theology, thinking they know more than the judgement of Rome.
When Pope Urban VIII put Galileo on trial for heresy in 1633, on what grounds did he base his prosecution? Can a pope try a man for a heresy that did not exist? When Urban VIII dictated the grounds of the heresy: 'since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture,' was he chancing his arm? The sentence against Galileo was worded like this: “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."
Now are you and the Dimond Brothers saying you guys know better that Rome. But more than that for the Dimond Brothers did not know of a docuмent discovered in the Secret Archives in Rome that showed the basis on which that imprimatur was granted to Settele's heliocentric book in 1820.
This docuмent was first published by Maffei in 1987 and in Brandsmiller and Greipi in 1992. in this docuмent, given to the consultants and Pope Pius VII in 1720, was a confirmation that the 1616 dercree was irreversible/non reformable. that is infallible.
Now it is important to note all Catholic heliocentrists argue the 1616 and 1633 decrees 'were not infallible.' They think that is enough to eliminate all the conditions of the Church's life long teaching that the Scriptures REVEAL a geocentric Earth and that all the Fathers agree with this revelation. They think their 'it was not infallible' will wash away the fact that the Catholic Church directed all Catholics to hold this as a truth or suffer self-excommunication. Are you joking Dimond brothers? Are you joking Apollo? Is that how you think the divinely guided Catholic Church operates, defining as heretical something that was never heretical but true?
All these accusations against the geocentrism of Scripture, against the Sacred Doctrine of Geocentrism begun by a convert of St Paul, continued by Peter Lombard, St Thomas Aquinas and finally Cardinal Robertt Bellarmine, came about when the Freemasons of the Royal Society put out the lie that heliocentrism was proven.
Thus the issue became one of the greatest tests of faith ever put to man, Catholic FAITH in the Fathers and Decrees of 1616 and 1633, or faith in the fact that science proved the Church wrong.
As for your science Apollo, it is a joke. If heliocentrism was proven correct, why did science announce to the world from 1905 that relativity prevails. Do you even understand what relativity means? It means heliocentrism was never proven by Newton, not by stellar parallax, or anything else, that geocentrism was never proven wrong, that the Sacred Doctrine of Geocentrism was never proven wrong, that the interpretation of all the Fathers was never proven wrong, that the 1616 and 1633 decrees were never proven wrong.
Topic: Amazing Scientific Evidence for God (Read 5857 times)