Author Topic: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him (Read 13644 times)

Jaynek · « **Reply #30 on:** December 28, 2017, 08:13:34 AM »

Quote from: Smedley Butler on December 27, 2017, 08:48:46 PM

Said the heliocentrist.

I would not call myself that. While I do not know enough about science to reject the prevailing understanding, neither do I feel strongly enough about it to identify myself with the position. I just do not care very much about physical science.

Speaking spiritually, I am definitely a geocentrist. I consider the Incarnation the central event of creation. All events before it lead up to it and all the events after it come forth from it. Just as the Incarnation is the center of history, the location of the Incarnation is the spiritual center of the universe.

happenby · « **Reply #31 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:01:51 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on December 28, 2017, 08:32:11 AM

Explain how I made errors and I will correct them. The Scriptures says the compass of the Earth in Is. 40:22 (since you don't accept globe of the earth) and It says "four corners of the Earth" in Apoc. 7:1. There cannot be four corners on a compass because a compass is round (TiE tried to show how this is possible but ended up with 12 corners). Also, in Is. 66:1 It says "Heaven is my throne, and the Earth my footstool." but again in Is. 40:22 It says that God "sitteth upon the Compass/globe of the Earth". Does God sit on heaven or the Earth? God does not change so one of these would be incorrect if it is taken literally in the sense that you think literally means.

This brings me to my statement about the literal sense being the sense in which the author intends it. This is taken from the Fathers and is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis.
You should read this whole article on Biblical Exegesis. It serves to show anyone who is not specially equipped by God to interpret Scriptures, that they have no business trying to prove things in Scripture when they don't even know the True meaning of the passages.

With regards to the form of the earth, we do know the exegeses from the Fathers of the Church. Earth is not a moving sphere, the Fathers describe it to be a vast plane with mountains and valleys. With four corners, referring to the four directions. The land is encompassed around by water. And there is a dome above the earth in which the sun, moon and stars revolve, with water above the dome. And the dome is actually bound to the earth on all sides. Lo and behold, Scripture says it all in those same words! Its not that we don't know what Scripture says, or what the Fathers taught, its that some of you don't want to hear it, but rather pretend the obvious isn't obvious because you prefer the pagan version. Kind of reminds me of the Protestants that say John 56 isn't talking about the literal flesh of Christ. Or, that in Matthew 16 Christ didn't make Peter the head of the Church but Christ made Peter's confession the head of the Church. Why do people do this?

Jaynek · « **Reply #32 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:25:47 AM »

Quote from: happenby on December 28, 2017, 09:01:51 AM

With regards to the form of the earth, we do know the exegeses from the Fathers of the Church.

We know that the authors of Scripture do not intend to speak of physical science. This was explicitly taught by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various papal encyclicals. What you think has been implied by the Fathers does not trump clear Church teachings to the contrary.

While it is possible to find Fathers who personally believed in the flat earth, there is no consensus among them that Catholics are obliged to accept it de fide as teaching from Scripture. I doubt you could even come up with two Fathers who take such a position.

The Church teaches that the literal meaning of Scripture, i.e. the sense that the authors intended, does not teach flat earth, globe earth, or any other shape of earth. The Church teaches that Scripture is silent on this question. Anyone who looks to Scripture to answer this question is going against Church teaching on exegesis and making a personal interpretation of Scripture. This is, ironically, one of things that Galileo was condemned for.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #33 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:34:08 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on December 28, 2017, 08:32:11 AM

Explain how I made errors and I will correct them. The Scriptures says the compass of the Earth in Is. 40:22 (since you don't accept globe of the earth) and It says "four corners of the Earth" in Apoc. 7:1. There cannot be four corners on a compass because a compass is round (TiE tried to show how this is possible but ended up with 12 corners). Also, in Is. 66:1 It says "Heaven is my throne, and the Earth my footstool." but again in Is. 40:22 It says that God "sitteth upon the Compass/globe of the Earth". Does God sit on heaven or the Earth? God does not change so one of these would be incorrect if it is taken literally in the sense that you think literally means.

This brings me to my statement about the literal sense being the sense in which the author intends it. This is taken from the Fathers and is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis.
You should read this whole article on Biblical Exegesis. It serves to show anyone who is not specially equipped by God to interpret Scriptures, that they have no business trying to prove things in Scripture when they don't even know the True meaning of the passages.

Clearly you did not read the article posted by Clemens Maria, which shows the error of your indifference and your malicious and dishonest definition of "literal interpretation" of the Bible.
I will specifically point you to Section 3, page 55and all of Iits paragraphs, which illustrates the totality of your error.

happenby · « **Reply #34 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:40:19 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on December 28, 2017, 09:10:22 AM

Nothing like some good old fashioned condemnations for not believing in something the Church doesn't teach.

Even after my last post you still don't understand what the literal sense means. It never even dawns on you that what the words in English mean and what you interpret it to mean may not be what the Author intended. You accuse us of being like protestants?

Amazing.

You're right if you think I don't understand the literal sense if you're going to insist it isn't actually literal. Nor will I understand the opposite of what the Church teaches and consider it based on literal Scripture especially when the opposite is the case. Getting all tangled up in what isn't is a perfect way to ruin a good mind.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #35 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:44:38 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 28, 2017, 08:13:34 AM

I would not call myself that. While I do not know enough about science to reject the prevailing understanding, neither do I feel strongly enough about it to identify myself with the position. I just do not care very much about physical science.

Speaking spiritually, I am definitely a geocentrist. I consider the Incarnation the central event of creation. All events before it lead up to it and all the events after it come forth from it. Just as the Incarnation is the center of history, the location of the Incarnation is the spiritual center of the universe.

Such waffling nonsense from the fool.
She who wants an out in case she is wrong, so she just gives herself one, as though she is God.
Believe or not, she says.
Believe what you like, she says.
I don't really care, she says.
It's only, spiritual, not literally the center, she says.
But whatever you do, do not believe the literal reading of the Word, she says.
Believe in "science" she says.
Enough of the anti-Catholic nonsense from this resident fool.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #36 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:52:35 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven on December 28, 2017, 08:32:11 AM

Explain how I made errors and I will correct them. The Scriptures says the compass of the Earth in Is. 40:22 (since you don't accept globe of the earth) and It says "four corners of the Earth" in Apoc. 7:1. There cannot be four corners on a compass because a compass is round (TiE tried to show how this is possible but ended up with 12 corners). Also, in Is. 66:1 It says "Heaven is my throne, and the Earth my footstool." but again in Is. 40:22 It says that God "sitteth upon the Compass/globe of the Earth". Does God sit on heaven or the Earth? God does not change so one of these would be incorrect if it is taken literally in the sense that you think literally means.

This brings me to my statement about the literal sense being the sense in which the author intends it. This is taken from the Fathers and is taught in the Catholic Encyclopedia on Biblical Exegesis.
You should read this whole article on Biblical Exegesis. It serves to show anyone who is not specially equipped by God to interpret Scriptures, that they have no business trying to prove things in Scripture when they don't even know the True meaning of the passages.

There are zero contradictions.
Compass = circle
Circles divide to quarters.
Quarters have corners.
Upon = above
A dictionary is a useful tool. You should buy one.
Literally.

happenby · « **Reply #37 on:** December 28, 2017, 09:53:28 AM »

Quote from: Smedley Butler on December 28, 2017, 09:44:38 AM

Such waffling nonsense from the fool.
She who wants an out in case she is wrong, so she just gives herself one, as though she is God.
Believe or not, she says.
Believe what you like, she says.
I don't really care, she says.
It's only, spiritual, not literally the center, she says.
But whatever you do, do not believe the literal reading of the Word, she says.
Believe in "science" she says.
Enough of the anti-Catholic nonsense from this resident fool.

Indeed. Add this to lack of evidence for her non case and you have an unbeliever.

Smedley Butler · « **Reply #38 on:** December 28, 2017, 10:15:02 AM »

God is in Heaven above earth, as the Bible says.
Hell is under the earth.
Do you not understand the Bible?
It seems you failed math too.
I do not lack humility because I submit myself to the Church's teachings and the Word.
Your arrogance has prevented you from submitting, and you have placed your faith in men of science. And your lukewarmness has made you believe you are allowed indifference, which you are not.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #39 on:** December 28, 2017, 10:28:55 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 28, 2017, 08:13:34 AM

I would not call myself that.

Nor would most modern scientists accept the label "heliocentrist" ... it's an abandoned position. If you believe in gravity (the existence of which actually remains in doubt), everything would revolve around the center of mass and not the sun, and the sun itself is not stationary as the heliocentrists would have it. Even the sun rotates around this center of mass. That's even by modern science.

cassini · « **Reply #40 on:** December 29, 2017, 03:22:30 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria on December 27, 2017, 08:18:06 PM

John Daly wrote an interesting article on the Galileo affair: http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf

Here is a better thesis on the Galileo affair. Daly is a Sedevacantist and therefore is biased against the infallibility of the 1616 decree.

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Ladislaus · « **Reply #41 on:** December 29, 2017, 03:29:57 PM »

Quote from: cassini on December 29, 2017, 03:22:30 PM

Here is a better thesis on the Galileo affair. Daly is a Sedevacantist and therefore is biased against the infallibility of the 1616 decree.

http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Some sedevacantists actually exaggerate the scope of infallibility. So it's hit or miss with them.

happenby · « **Reply #42 on:** December 29, 2017, 03:34:31 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on December 28, 2017, 09:25:47 AM

We know that the authors of Scripture do not intend to speak of physical science. This was explicitly taught by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and various papal encyclicals. What you think has been implied by the Fathers does not trump clear Church teachings to the contrary.

While it is possible to find Fathers who personally believed in the flat earth, there is no consensus among them that Catholics are obliged to accept it de fide as teaching from Scripture. I doubt you could even come up with two Fathers who take such a position.

The Church teaches that the literal meaning of Scripture, i.e. the sense that the authors intended, does not teach flat earth, globe earth, or any other shape of earth. The Church teaches that Scripture is silent on this question. Anyone who looks to Scripture to answer this question is going against Church teaching on exegesis and making a personal interpretation of Scripture. This is, ironically, one of things that Galileo was condemned for.

Clearly this passage teaches science regarding kinds of creatures. But then again, you don't believe anyone can understand scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:41

All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes. 40And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. 41One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory.

happenby · « **Reply #43 on:** December 29, 2017, 03:38:46 PM »

Jaynek: The Church teaches that the literal meaning of Scripture, i.e. the sense that the authors intended, does not teach flat earth, globe earth, or any other shape of earth. The Church teaches that Scripture is silent on this question. Anyone who looks to Scripture to answer this question is going against Church teaching on exegesis and making a personal interpretation of Scripture. This is, ironically, one of things that Galileo was condemned for.

If (ironically) Galileo was condemned for it, your first premise that Scripture doesn't teach us about the earth is false. The Church doesn't condemn for no reason.

cassini · « **Reply #44 on:** December 29, 2017, 04:51:06 PM »

Quote from: RoughAshlar on December 27, 2017, 12:08:24 PM

To clarify:
1) I was not claiming that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a hoax.
2) Even though it was two separate sentences, it should have been two separate posts. I was defending Truth is Eternal and believe that I was clarifying his statement that Leo XIII was not a freemason.
3)Leo Taxil was a scam artist with a vendetta against the Church. What I was referring to with Leo Taxil was that he had printed "secret' masonic accounts from a lady that claimed to survive ritualistic/sɛҳuąƖ/conjuring/murder and magics by the freemasons. He got to meet with Leo XIII and was paid by the Vatican to continue his works. When he ran out of material, he announced in a theater that it was all hoax to slander the Church (who he hated) and the freemason (who kicked him out). The transcripts of the big reveal are online somewhere, I read them years ago.

Pope Leo XIII ended his 1884 Encyclical Humanum genus by specifying certain actions that could be performed by the faithful in exposing and resisting the aims of Masonry. This prompted a deluge of books and newspaper articles with disclosures on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, detailing many of their beliefs, activities and influences. Of note were those details about Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ by a French journalist Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, an anti-clericalist who supposedly converted to the Catholic faith in the 1885. Following this, he was solemnly received into the Church when he renounced his earlier works. In 1887 he had an audience with Pope Leo XIII , who then rebuked the Bishop of Charlestown for denouncing the man’s confessions as a fraud. In 1896 Pope Leo XIII sent his papal blessing to the anti-Masonic Congress when it was held in Trent that year.

Writing under the name of Leo Taxil, Jogand-Pagès published a sensational story that one branch of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was following a form of devil-worship called Palladianism, of which one Diana Vaughan was a High Priestess. The Masons however, advancing a public constitution of promoting tolerance, benevolence and good-fellowship, vehemently denied any connection with Lucifer or that they indulge in sorcery, witchcraft, magic or any such occultism. Following this came Masonic disclosures under the name of Diana Vaughan herself. Of all the revelations by many authors of the time, some of which were probably gross exaggerations and fabrications, those written under the name of Miss Vaughan suggested they were the most authoritative and revealing of all. In the book A Manual of Sex Magick[1] the author wrote: ‘It was announced that a lineal descendent of the celebrated mystic and occultist Thomas Vaughan of England had been discovered in Paris and that she was a woman of the highest magical attainment. It was not long before a substantial membership had been taken in the Order.’ This woman was Miss Diana Vaughan.

[1] Louis Culling: A Manual of Sex Magic, Llewellyn Publications, USA, 1971.

Author Topic: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him (Read 13644 times)

Jaynek

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

happenby

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Jaynek

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Smedley Butler

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

happenby

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Smedley Butler

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Smedley Butler

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

happenby

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Smedley Butler

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Ladislaus

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

cassini

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

Ladislaus

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

happenby

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

happenby

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him

cassini

Re: Galileo was wrong and the Church was right to condemn him