Author Topic: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium? (Read 729 times)

Cryptinox · « **on:** July 29, 2021, 03:44:12 PM »

I simply don't see how it couldn't be since in medieval times it was universally held to my knowledge. I can't think of a single Father who explicitly rejects it nor of a single bishop before Copernicus that denied it.

Cryptinox · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2021, 08:31:10 PM »

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2021, 10:52:26 PM »

Well, cassini would argue that it’s more than that.

Hermes · « **Reply #3 on:** August 01, 2021, 06:48:36 PM »

Quote from: Cryptinox on July 29, 2021, 03:44:12 PM

I simply don't see how it couldn't be since in medieval times it was universally held to my knowledge. I can't think of a single Father who explicitly rejects it nor of a single bishop before Copernicus that denied it.

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/

Hermes · « **Reply #4 on:** August 01, 2021, 06:49:37 PM »

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

cassini · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2021, 07:26:21 AM »

Quote from: Hermes on August 01, 2021, 06:48:36 PM

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/

To try to understand the Catholic Church's position on a geocentric creation as depicted literally in Scripture, one has to have studied the history of what I call Copernicus's revolution and Galileo's reformation , a study that took me 30 years. Indeed, we are in a much better time today to access the truth than any other time because all the docuмents of the subject have now been released from the Vatican's secret archives, and science has moved on over the last 400 years. Moreover, there was a time when all (especially traditional Catholics) thought Rome and the papacy couldn't put a foot wrong. Well since Vatican II and its popes, especially the latest one Pope Francis, it and they have demonstrated how churchmen now don't know where they are coming from or going to. Having studied the decline from Trent, its Mass and teachings, to Vatican II, it is now beyond doubt that it was the concession by popes and churchmen to heliocentrism that lowered the SUPERNATURAL Catholic faith down to a faith based on naturalism. Once this heresy entered the womb of the Church in 1820, it began a decline into Modernism that eventually manifested itself into the chaos we find in the Church today.

To understand the geocentric v heliocentric reading of the Scriptures, one must go back to the early Church Fathers who had to defend the Catholic faith from the Gnostics and others who we are told refused to accept a literal reading of Scripture and claimed it was all metaphor. They were all Pythagoreans, men who brought many heresies with them into the Church, heresies condemned by the Fathers for over 300 years. Eventually these heretics put all their false beliefs into book form and waited for better times. That happened in 1460 when all the books were taken from the raided libraries of the Ottoman Turks were brought back into Italy. These books contained all the anti-Catholic heresies condemned by the Fathers, from divine wisdom that came directly from Thoth, the wisdom of god of the post-diluvian Egyptians to the formation of their many heliocentric worlds from atoms. In 1600 Bruno was burned at the stake for not repenting on many of these heresies.

From 1545 to 1563, the Church held the Council Of Trent to stop all the heresies of the Protestant Reformation. Here is what it 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 anyone 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 judgment 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.’ -- (Denzinger – 783/786)

In his book, Copernicus makes reference to Pythagoras as inspiring his heliocentrism. But Osiander had put a preface in the book saying it was not written to prove heliocentrism as only God knows the order of the universe. But when Galileo said the Bible was interpreted wrong, Pope Paul V, in 1616 defined and declared his heliocentrism was formal heresy because it contradicted the Bible and its meaning HELD BY ALL OF THE FATHERS. Five of those who advised Pope Paul V heliocentrism was formal heresy HAD PRESIDED AT BRUNO'S trial in 1593-1600. In 1633 Pope Urban VII at Galileo's trial made it perfectly clear that the 1616 decree was ABSOLUTE and FINAL.

But then came the 'proofs' and EVIDENCE for heliocentrism as Palm states above which I will deal with in the next post. Now such was the PRESSURE on the Church to admit it was wrong that in 1820 Fr Olivieri of the Holy Office persuaded Pope Pius VII to take heliocentric books off the banned-books-Index. This he did and thus began the cfforts of so many to try to demote the 1616 and 1633 decrees from irreversible decrees to nothing more than disciplinary. From then on any TOM, DICK, HARRY and DAVID were able to decide the Church's teaching to be believed by any who sought the truth.

Now I have learned that we do not get our Catholic faith decisions from Toms, Dicks or David Palms, but from popes. NO POPE IN HISTORY EVER SAID THE 1616 DECREE WAS NOT INFALLIBLE, REVERSIBLE, OR WRONG. This to me was PROOF of its infallibility.
But Pope Urban VIII made it quite clear that it was an 'infallible' decree. So did Fr Olivieri in 1820.

cassini · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2021, 08:47:53 AM »

Quote from: Hermes on August 01, 2021, 06:48:36 PM

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/

Now I shall address this post by Hermes, an apt name for one who would defend heliocentrism, if that is what you intended to do Hermes. You do know of course who Hermes, the founder of the MYSTERIES was;

‘Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel [Bal and Baal], and Bel is said to have been the founder of Babylon… If Ninus was Nimrod, then who was the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for “Cush begat Nimrod” (Gen. X.8), and Cush is generally represented as having been the ringleader in the great apostasy. But again, Cush, as the son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the “son of Ham.” Now, Hermes was the great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans as the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods… Mercury then, or Hermes, or Cush, “the son of Ham,” was the “divider of the speeches of men.” He, it would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme for building the great city and tower of Babel; and, as the well-known title of Hermes, -“the interpreter of the gods,” would indicate, had encouraged them, in the name of God, to proceed in their presumptuous enterprise, and so had caused the language of men to be divided, and themselves to be scattered abroad on the face of the Earth… That Cush was known to pagan antiquity under the very character of Bel “The Confounder,” a statement of Ovid very clearly proves. The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus “the god of gods,” from whom all the other gods had their origin, is made to say of himself “the ancients…called me Chaos.” Now, first this decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of confusion, but also as the “god of Confusion.” But secondly, who that is at all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one of the established names of Chūs or Cush?

Now for some of Palms trickery. He begins with quotes from two post-1820 encyclicals when popes were tricked into taking heliocentric books off the banned book Index. Now in 1966 Pope Paul VI took all the books off the index but all the heresies in them remained heresies. But in order to have their heretical heliocentrism they make the 1820 book release a Church teaching that heliocentrism is no longer a heresy. Yet, there is no record in history where the 1616 decree has been ABROGATED. So heliocentrism became a SECRET heresy of the Catholic Church from 1820.

Palm first puts up these paragraphs from Providentissimus deus in 1893 and then Divino Afflante Spiritu of 1943.

'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)

For over 100 years this paragraph from this encyclical is quoted as making the U-turn of 1820 Church teaching and I can show you any amount of such inferences especially this one:

‘The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’ --- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

Now having stated in providentissimus deus that interpretations of ALL THE FATHERS cannot be changed, but having to abide by the 1820 allowance of heliocentric books that fooled all into believing heliocentrism had been abrogated as a heresy, Leo XIII had to address this aspect in Church biblical history. But how do you do this? Well, he didn't. Instead he wrote what the Church has long held that '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. Now 'each of the Fathers' is not 'all of the Fathers.' and ironically the heliocentric interpretation of 'more recent interpreters' like the heliocentric one, is the one he says is not binding.

Next is Palm's odd quote:

[T]here are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu §47)

If I wanted to point out a place where a pope infers that the unanimous geocentric interpretation is infallible and binding on all here it is.

in my next post I will address Palm's science in Debunked.

cassini · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2021, 11:06:49 AM »

Quote from: Hermes on August 01, 2021, 06:48:36 PM

https://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-unanimous-consent-of-the-fathers/

Now Hermes, on Palm's website that you put up he also has his opinion why geocentrism is bad science. He got there before Fr Paul Robinson SSPX got his book A Realistic Guide to Religion and Science published, both full of faith and science reasons why the Biblical geocentrism understood by all the Fathers, held by Trent and defined as dogma in 1616 was false exegesis and reasoning.
Palm begins:

It Really Is That Simple: Geocentrism Lacks Basic Evidence, by David Palm: In this long-running scientific controversy it’s good to get back to basics. It’s very easy to show why modern geocentrism is not a viable scientific viewpoint. For geocentrism to be viable, the geocentrists would have to provide observational evidence for both the existence of and precise motion of masses that at every instant of time are positioned perfectly to offset the enormous gravity of the Sun and other planets, thus leaving the Earth motionless. There is no such observational evidence. Therefore, geocentrism is not a viable scientific theory. (And no, the geocentrists don’t get to appeal to General Relativity to save themselves.)

First Palm denies that God could have used unknown causes to operate geocentrism . Indeed in Tradition, it was held that God used his angels to move the heavens. But that is faith that few have any longer.

Note that Palm takes as 'scientific fact' that Newton's theory of gravity is a law of science, beyond doubt. If this is the basis of his scientific argument, then he must know that theories are not facts and that Newton's theory is only one of three or four trying to explain gravitation. Moreover, Newton's theory depended on Kepler's elliptical orbits to be true. When Domenico Cassini measured orbits he found they were Cassinian ovals, ovals found in electromagnetism and had the same mathematics as Phi, found in leaves, shells, blood etc. So using Newton as his god of science, palm shows his ignorance of the matter

Obviously Palm never heard of The 1870 Airy and 1887 Mitchelson & Morely tests that denied the Earth orbits the sun. Einstein tried to rescue heliocentrism with his STR but had to admit that human science cannot determine for certain if G or H is the true order. In other words Palm tries to use a metaphysical argument to reject the Biblical geocentrism held by all the Fathers and popes until 1820 at least.

Fr Paul Robinson SSPX is another full of naturalism. In his Q&A forum he says because the evidence shows the stars are 13.8 billion years old, then creationists who hold the Bible tells us it is only 6-7,000 years old are PROVEN wrong by science. Now like Palm, we can ask how does Fr Paul know the furthest stars are 13.8 billion light years away. Well if you take Pope Pius XII's Big Bang creation doctrine, that said the furthest stars are 13.8 billion light years asway, then starting from a band it took 13.8 billion years for the stars to reach that point. Creationisdts on the other hand, say that in Genesis day 4 God created the stars to shine on Earth, the same time that He created the birds in the sky, two days before He created Adam and Eve. So, if we believe in God, a Creator, could create so many stars in the universe, some even 13.8 billion light years away, fixed and visible to man on Earth when he was created, then Fr Robinson's Big Bang theology is little less that naturalism, not Catholic teaching.

Finally, all this bull from Palm and Fr Robinson, who teaches Thomism to SSPX seminarians, that they know science shows us when and how the world was created by God, there is one teaching both have neglected. And here it is:

‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.’ --- St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa theologiae I.46.2)

Needless to say Hermes and Cryptinox, if there are any questions or rebuttals you want to post I am happy to answer them.

Author Topic: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium? (Read 729 times)

Cryptinox

Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

Cryptinox

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

Ladislaus

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

Hermes

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

Hermes

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

cassini

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

cassini

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?

cassini

Re: Is geocentrism ordinary universal magisterium?