Author Topic: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather) (Read 16715 times)

apollo · « **Reply #30 on:** April 24, 2018, 02:53:10 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on April 23, 2018, 11:06:13 AM

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine ... [who said:]

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me ... and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly ....

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture 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 center 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, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

Here we have the words of St Robert Bellarmine, who in the Third part admits the possibility of a true demonstration of Heliocentrism. It sure sounds like he is NOT CONDEMNING Heliocentrism. He even says, if Heliocentrism is found to be true,
then we must say that we have not understood Scriptures (rather than say Scriptures are false).

It's 2018, not 1613. We have telescopes now that did not exist in 1613. So, it's time to apply what he allows for in the Third part. So, now tell me, where is the infallible teaching that Heliocentrism is a heresy ??

apollo · « **Reply #31 on:** April 24, 2018, 03:03:03 PM »

Quote from: Smedley Butler on April 24, 2018, 02:52:43 PM

The Bible is without error.

Yes, but the interpretation of the verses are subject to the authority of the Church.
And in the case of Geocentrism, it is not a defined dogma, only the opinions of many
of the Church Fathers, but not all.

cassini · « **Reply #32 on:** April 24, 2018, 04:39:06 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 03:03:03 PM

Yes, but the interpretation of the verses are subject to the authority of the Church.
And in the case of Geocentrism, it is not a defined dogma, only the opinions of many
of the Church Fathers, but not all.

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

If 'not all the Fathers' interpreted the Scriptures geocentrically, then why did the 1616 decree condemn a fixed sun as formal heresy 'as understood by the Fathers.'
Moreover read Bellarmine again 'Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.
Now Trent said ALL the Fathers, not some of the Fathers. Bellarmine meant all the Fathers, not some of them. The 1616 decree referred to all the Fathers so let there be no undermining of their judgements to try to undermine a defined dogma. Besides it it the Church who decides what is a dogma, no one else. That is the Protestant way.

cassini · « **Reply #33 on:** April 24, 2018, 04:58:18 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:53:10 PM

Here we have the words of St Robert Bellarmine, who in the Third part admits the possibility of a true demonstration of Heliocentrism. It sure sounds like he is NOT CONDEMNING Heliocentrism. He even says, if Heliocentrism is found to be true,
then we must say that we have not understood Scriptures (rather than say Scriptures are false).

It's 2018, not 1613. We have telescopes now that did not exist in 1613. So, it's time to apply what he allows for in the Third part. So, now tell me, where is the infallible teaching that Heliocentrism is a heresy ??

First of all this Letter to Foscarini was written in 1615, one year BEFORE Pope Paul V's decree. This letter has to be read in its entirety to know what Bellarmine actually says.
Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them

Here Bellarmine is addressing GALILEO'S CLAIM THAT THERE IS proof for heliocentrism, that is all. But later in his letter he rejects Galileo's clain, saying he does not believe there will ever be such a proof.

But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I
He is not condemning heliocentrism. Are you kidding us Apollo? Bellarmine and two Cardinals present at the time of the 1616 decrees had been involved in Bruno's seven year trial when all the Pythagorean heresies were condemned, as they were from 100Ad to 340Ad

Finally;

Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:

‘With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the Earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever (senza dubbio aleuno) contrary to Scripture.’Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131.

apollo · « **Reply #34 on:** April 24, 2018, 06:30:21 PM »

OK, then it looks like I made an error. I hereby correct my statement to say: "ALL the fathers believed in Geocentrism," until I find otherwise
by additional research.

Now, since ALL the Fathers and this council are such experts in science, can someone please give me their explanation of how this works,
from a mathematical and astronomical point of view, because there can be no incorrect science in the Bible.

Please explain how this works, scientifically. This is 2018. There must be a way to explain this, by now. How does this work?
And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.

I thought the Pope was the only one who could make an infallible declaration on faith and morals, not a council. Oh I get it. This does
not pertain directly to faith and morals, right? Then how can it be a heresy?

What if I believe that Saturn does not have rings? Could I go to hell?

klasG4e · « **Reply #35 on:** April 24, 2018, 06:53:10 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 06:30:21 PM

OK, then it looks like I made an error. I hereby correct my statement to say: "ALL the fathers believed in Geocentrism," until I find otherwise
by additional research.

Now, since ALL the Fathers and this council are such experts in science, can someone please give me their explanation of how this works,
from a mathematical and astronomical point of view, because there can be no incorrect science in the Bible.

Please explain how this works, scientifically. This is 2018. There must be a way to explain this, by now. How does this work?
And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.

I thought the Pope was the only one who could make an infallible declaration on faith and morals, not a council. Oh I get it. This does
not pertain directly to faith and morals, right? Then how can it be a heresy?

What if I believe that Saturn does not have rings? Could I go to hell?

Do you not know how to do any good solid research on the Internet? Do you expect people to try to walk you through baby step by baby step all the way through everything? It seems like as soon as you get your questions answered you immediately throw up new ones. Why not do some real research on your own and report back with your own docuмentation after same. If you teach yourself I suspect you will become more firmly convinced rather than have others spoon feed you along.

wallflower · « **Reply #36 on:** April 24, 2018, 07:18:49 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 02:53:10 PM

It's 2018, not 1613. We have telescopes now that did not exist in 1613.

All the gadgets in the world are worth very little in the hands of people who would rather make up theories than acknowledge the simple truth of God's existence or the truth of the Bible. We live in a world full of people who have all the smarts and technology but without much wisdom, understanding or humility. That combination does not bode well for reaching truth, no matter the topic, no matter the year.

apollo · « **Reply #37 on:** April 24, 2018, 09:12:59 PM »

1.
If I ask a question, it does not mean that I don't know how to do the research. It can mean that if you answer the question,
you will see how silly your argument is.
2.
The Council that declared Copernicanism a "formal heresy" was the opinion of Pope Urban VIII speaking as a "man" not as "pope"
(in an infallible way). That means that it's an opinion. The Church cannot make dogmas that pertan to science that has not been
revealed by God. And, the Bible does not give us a revelation from God on the subject of Geocentrism.
3.
The reason you cling to your ancient theory of Geocentrism is that you believe the Bible is divine revelation on Geocentrism. It is
not. If you look at the current state of the Church's teaching you will see that you are out of date.
4.
"The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus §19)"
5.
"Both Popes had been too cautious to endanger this highest privilege of the papacy by involving their infallible authority in the decision of a scientific controversy; they therefore refrained from conferring their sanction, as heads of the Roman Catholic Church, on the measures taken, at their instigation, by the Congregation “to suppress the doctrine of the revolution of the earth.” Thanks to this sagacious foresight, Roman Catholic posterity can say to this day, that Paul V. and Urban VIII. were in error “as men” about the Copernican system, but not “as Popes.” (Karl von Gebler, Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, trans. J. Sturge, London: C. Kegan Paul & Co., 1879, pp. 235-6)"
6.
"In 1820, the Catholic Church officially closed the debate: Catholics are perfectly free to accept and teach modern cosmological views concerning the motion of the earth while rejecting geocentrism. In 1822, the Church went even further and declared penalties for not allowing the publication of books that present the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science."
7.
"In the early 1800s a Catholic astronomer, Canon Giuseppe Settele wrote a book presenting a non-geocentric view—and specifically the motion of the earth on its axis and around the sun—as a clear and logical conclusion from the scientific evidence. Fr. Filippo Anfossi, the Master of the Sacred Palace and hence chief censor for Rome at the time, denied this book an imprimatur on the ground that such a view violates the 1633 decree against Galileo. When Canon Settele appealed directly to Pope Pius VII, the question was examined by the Holy Office (the same church body that issued the decree against Galileo), and as result the question of whether it is permitted for Catholics to believe in the mobility of the earth was answered officially in two decrees. Here is the first:
Decree
[Rome], 1820 VIII 16
Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order. [1]
It’s hard to overstate the importance of this decree. Unlike the 1633 decree against Galileo, this decree explicitly invokes the pope’s authority and does not address a single individual but makes a broader decision on the matter. And it rules that there are “no obstacles” and “no difficulties” for Catholics to hold to modern cosmological views, which include both the rotational and translational motion of the earth. It is little wonder, then, that in a 1992 address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Pope John Paul II stated, “the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele” [2].
In 1822 the Holy Office issued a follow-up decree, which actually applies penalties for not allowing the publication of books that present the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science:
The most excellent [cardinals] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.[3]
This decree, too, was approved by Pope Pius VII."

apollo · « **Reply #38 on:** April 24, 2018, 09:19:19 PM »

My last reply was just the tip of the iceberg. For the whole iceberg see:

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

I'm getting tired of all the attacks which turn out to be out-of-date or ridiculous arguments.
Some of you will never admit you are wrong anyway. This may be my last reply.

Believe what you want. I don't care what you believe and I don't care what you have to say
anymore.

klasG4e · « **Reply #39 on:** April 24, 2018, 10:18:30 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:19:19 PM

My last reply was just the tip of the iceberg. For the whole iceberg see:

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

I'm getting tired of all the attacks which turn out to be out-of-date or ridiculous arguments.
Some of you will never admit you are wrong anyway. This may be my last reply.

Believe what you want. I don't care what you believe and I don't care what you have to say
anymore.

And if you don't do what I want I'm going to take my bat and ball and go home. Anyway, say hi to David the palm reader unless you are him.

Incredulous · « **Reply #40 on:** April 24, 2018, 10:21:48 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:24:31 AM

Like I said, calling me names proves nothing.

Why not search the Bible at http://drbo.org and find the verse(s)
that prove Geocentrism.

Also explain how planets in our solar system appear to travel backward
in their orbit at certain times during the year. If they are orbiting the
earth, this is impossible.

"Apollo" is an ancient god. "apollo" is not.

Oh, that's right... apollo lost his heliocentric fight with Ivan Drago...

It's all coming back to me now

cassini · « **Reply #41 on:** April 25, 2018, 07:10:29 AM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 06:30:21 PM

OK, then it looks like I made an error. I hereby correct my statement to say: "ALL the fathers believed in Geocentrism," until I find otherwise
by additional research.

Now, since ALL the Fathers and this council are such experts in science, can someone please give me their explanation of how this works,
from a mathematical and astronomical point of view, because there can be no incorrect science in the Bible.

Please explain how this works, scientifically. This is 2018. There must be a way to explain this, by now. How does this work?
And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.

I thought the Pope was the only one who could make an infallible declaration on faith and morals, not a council. Oh I get it. This does
not pertain directly to faith and morals, right? Then how can it be a heresy?

What if I believe that Saturn does not have rings? Could I go to hell?

Are you rerally interested in the questions you ask Apollo, some of which you answer yourself, or are you trying to catch us non educated geocentrists out in one way after another? I suspect you are a closed-shop heliocentrist not willing to be open minded, one who feels safe in your belief with 99.999% of post-U-turn Catholics today.
How could one reason with someone like yourself who posts Bellarmine's letter to Foscarini to make a point and then write what you do above in red in particular? 'This does not pertain directly to faith and morals, right?' Did you not read Bellarmine's letter you posted earlier? Obviously not, or either you were not really interested in what he said other than use it to try to twist the history of the Galileo case as the heliocentrists have been doing for centuries. Anyway, for others who might think you are actually correct here again is what Bellarmine's letter said, a copy of what you posted earlier;

Second. I say: 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, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Now is your own post not clear enough even for you? Why do you post things you do not read or perhaps not understand? Do you, and a history of like-minded heliocentrists, feel you are more informed or blessed theologians than St Robert in that you know better and biblical geocentrism is a matter for or of science and not of faith? AND THAT IS HOW CONTRADICTING SCRIPTURE by prefering to believe in a fixed-sun solar system, IS HERESY, just as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ.

A Catholic council is always called by and presided over by a pope. Unless that pope, or popes if it goes on after one or more dies, declares it is not an infallible council, such as Vatican II, then it is infallible by means of the pope who called and presided over its decrees.

Finally you want to know how geocentrism works before you will believe in it. 'And no fantasy forces please, no pseudo forces either.' God you cannot be serious, you heliocentrists with your Newtonian theories, your Einsteinian theories, falsified so many times (but you wouldn't know about such falsifications, would you?) to try to make your heliocentrism work.

How does what you see every day and year WORK? Well, try asking God, because only He knows how 'it works.' Here He is telling us that:

‘Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the Earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the Earth?’ (Job 38: 31-33)

Oh, by the way, St Thomas Aquinas had no problem in thinking God could have put an angel in charge of every star and body in the heavens so that they operate His creation and cause it to do exactly what he created them to do.

cassini · « **Reply #42 on:** April 25, 2018, 08:15:33 AM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 09:12:59 PM

1.
If I ask a question, it does not mean that I don't know how to do the research. It can mean that if you answer the question,
you will see how silly your argument is.
2.
The Council that declared Copernicanism a "formal heresy" was the opinion of Pope Urban VIII speaking as a "man" not as "pope"
(in an infallible way). That means that it's an opinion. The Church cannot make dogmas that pertan to science that has not been
revealed by God. And, the Bible does not give us a revelation from God on the subject of Geocentrism.
3.
The reason you cling to your ancient theory of Geocentrism is that you believe the Bible is divine revelation on Geocentrism. It is
not. If you look at the current state of the Church's teaching you will see that you are out of date.

Let us begin with Pope Leo XIII's encyclical you quote above. Note he says 'the opinions which each of the Fathers' had. Well this is Catholic teaching. It does not however make Pope Leo XIII deny the Council of Trent that decreed:

‘The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc.

‘The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, - keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament - seeing that one God is the author of both - as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema…. Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denz – 783/786)

Pope Leo XIII did not deny Trent, he wrote 'EACH OF THE FATHERS' not 'ALL OF THE FATHERS.'

Now given churchmen before him had allowed heliocentric books to be printed in the wake of them all falling for the 'proofs' that the earth moves, and the encyclical was meant to curb the 'scientific' attacks on ther Bible's revelations, all begun by Galileo and continued by Churchmen, and the fact that pope Paul V had issued a papal decree defining a fixed sun formal heresy, which churchmen took to be an error (that turned out not to be an error), a Church harming 'mistake' that had to be covered over. So what did they do, they used this encyclical, just as you do apollo, as referring to the 1616 decree that condemned heliocentrism as formal heresy BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTED THE UNANIMOUS CONCENT OF THE FATHERS, and used it forevermore as some sort of infallible rejection of the 1616 decree.

Here are two such examples of hoax.

‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’ ---D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’--- James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.

‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy.’--[1] Catholics United for the Faith - Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded to help the faithful learn what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010.

happenby · « **Reply #43 on:** April 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM »

Quote from: apollo on April 24, 2018, 11:59:16 AM

Please tell me where to find the condemnation of Heliocentrism by the Catholic Church.
The earth is not flat, but that is another discussion. Next, someone will tell me that the
Moon is made of green cheese and the Bible says so. It's this kind of thinking that made
me lose interest in CathInfo a few years ago.
In found this statement by a good Catholic priest:
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around
the Sun and not vice-versa.
You can find it here: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12

The earth is provably not a globe. This entry you provided is based on a false notion of modern pagan science. The answer given is erroneous.

Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (#6). Just how far the contemporary Church has departed from Catholic tradition is emphasized by this as well as by the other points of Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, for he refuses to recognize the distinction, rejected also in our times by Benedict XV and Leo XIII, between references to physical things and supernatural facts (#7) as dividing truth from possible error in Holy Scripture. Fr. Jerome Langford is of the modernist mentality and reads the Decree of Trentaccording to Galileo: "... the Fathers had to affirm, explicitly or implicitly, that the text under consideration pertained to a matter of faith or morals."(20) But as we have already shown, this is not what Trent said nor could have so said because both Benedict XV and Leo XIII have emphatically reaffirmed the integrity of Holy Scripture in all its parts and all its meanings, both physical and spiritual, both natural and supernatural.
Galileo and the heliocentrists or Copernicans attacked a truth of faith, namely, that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant in all its parts and that we may not depart from the common agreement of the Fathers in our interpretations.
Besides these distinctions, there is the authority of the Church as the one guardian and only true interpreter of Holy Scripture. Vatican I,Canons and Decrees, Chapter III: Of Faith, says:
... all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God,, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary teaching (magisterium),proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. ... ... although faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason; since the same God Who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The false appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due, either to the dogmas of faith not having been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having been taken for the verdicts of reason. We define, therefore, that every assertion contrary to a truth of enlightened faith is utterly false. Further, the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit (can.ii) Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth. (D1797-8)

After giving the text of Galileo's abjuration, Fr. Langford says: "The condemnation of Galileo was now complete. The scientist had tried to batter down the old view of the universe and the traditional exegesis of Scripture by beating his head against a wall of conservatism and mocking those who felt that it should not be torn down ... "(29) Thus have the truths of faith, i.e., that the Scriptures are inerrant and that the Church can rule upon their meaning -- for all time -- these truths have been cast by Fr. Langford and most of his contemporaries, into the ephemerally temporal political category of a stiff-necked conservatism. But the Decree of the Holy Office against Galileo has never been abrogated -- nor can it be. The wording is quite absolute. It is otherwise with the Index of Forbidden Books, as we shall see presently.
Living in the midst of triumphant modernism as we do today (in the1990's), it is easy to recognize in the Decree against Galileo what is perhaps the first specific condemnation of a primary modernist tenet: "that any opinion may be held and defended as probable [even] after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture." The modernists of today do this all the time. Galileo's Heresy --Paula Haigh

Spiritus Paraclitus (Sept. 15, 1920):
... by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church] the opinion of the more recent critics is not restrained, who, after introducing a distinction between the primary or religious element of Scripture, and the secondary or profane, wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all the ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible, but that its effects and especially immunity from error and absolute truth be contracted and narrowed to the primary or religious element. For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines and serves revealed doctrine as a kind of external cloak of divine truth, is only permitted and is left to the feebleness of the writer. It is not surprising then, if in physical, historical, and other similar affairs a great many things occur in the Bible, which cannot at all be reconciled with the progress of the fine arts of this age. There are those who contend that these fabrications of opinions are not in opposition to the prescriptions of our predecessor [Leo XIII] since he declared that the sacred writer in matters of nature speaks according to external appearance, surely fallacious. But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed, is plainly evident from the very words of the Pontiff.

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo Affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."

Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893), paragraph numbers 124-127.(16)
It may also happen that the sense of a passage remains ambiguous, and in this case good hermeneutical methods will greatly assist in clearing up the obscurity. But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred author has erred. As to the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think,) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it -- this system cannot be tolerated.

This link to the book below, written by a Catholic priest, explains that the decrees issued in the Galileo Affair were binding.

The Pontifical decrees against the doctrine of the earth's movement and the Ultramontane defence on them by William Roberts
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them By Rev. William W. Roberts (1885) Introductory commentary by a Catholic layman in 2002 1543 Nicolaus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium (On the Revolutions of Spheres). 1534-1549 Reign of Pope Paul III, who was quite aware of Fr. Copernicus’ work. The two were actually friends. 1605-1621 Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning pro-heliocentricity work of Galileo Galilei. 1623-1644 Reign of Pope Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism. 1655-1657 Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1664] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical.

forlorn · « **Reply #44 on:** April 25, 2018, 02:02:41 PM »

Quote from: happenby on April 25, 2018, 12:57:16 PM

The earth is provably not a globe. This entry you provided is based on a false notion of modern pagan science. The answer given is erroneous.

The Church condemned Galileo for heliocentrism, not globe-earthism you tool. The Church at the time, including St. Bellarmine and the Pope, believed in a geocentrism and a globe-Earth.

Author Topic: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather) (Read 16715 times)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

cassini

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

cassini

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

klasG4e

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

wallflower

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

klasG4e

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

Incredulous

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

cassini

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

cassini

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

happenby

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

forlorn

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)