Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 68

Author Topic: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis  (Read 77900 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jaynek

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #310 on: July 15, 2023, 06:03:56 PM »
Quote from: Pax Vobis on July 15, 2023, 04:29:50 PM
Jaynek, the 2 questions I have for you are:

1.  Based on Tradmans quotes, +Bellarmine believed the earth didn’t move, had a firmament, and also had a foundation.  Do you agree/disagree with +Bellarmine?

I agree that these were the correct beliefs at the time he said them. St. Robert Bellarmine, however, wrote to Foscarini:

 . . I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality.  He did not think that Galileo had demonstrated his theories to a point that warranted such a reevaluation.  I definitely agree with him on that.  

Given that the Church removed her condemnation of heliocentrism in the early 1800s and took the banned books on the subject off the Index, I suspect this means that she considered that the science had then reached a point that did warrant a new interpretation of Scripture. I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.  I know nowhere near enough about science to have a personal opinion on that, but I trust the Church's judgment.

I have no interest at all in learning about curvature measurements and have no opinion on the subject.  I have encountered many flat earth supporters with such clearly wrong views on history and/or interpretation of Scripture that it has destroyed their credibility in my eyes.  I don't expect them to be any better at science, but I have not actually investigated it.  
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #311 on: July 15, 2023, 08:03:37 PM »
??  Your quote from +Bellarmine is not a change from Tradman’s quote.  So do you believe in +Bellarmine’s globe earth view?  
Logged

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #312 on: July 16, 2023, 03:52:58 AM »

Quote
St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality. 


Ahh.  So then, you’d have to agree that if modern science could prove flat earth, then +Bellarmine would agree as well.  
Logged

Offline cassini

Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #313 on: July 17, 2023, 02:52:12 PM »
Quote from: Jaynek on July 15, 2023, 06:03:56 PM
I agree that these were the correct beliefs at the time he said them. St. Robert Bellarmine, however, wrote to Foscarini:

. . I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary; and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false.

But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me.

St. Robert believed that the Church could reevaluate her interpretation of Scripture if science could actually demonstrate that this understanding did not match observable reality.  He did not think that Galileo had demonstrated his theories to a point that warranted such a reevaluation.  I definitely agree with him on that. 

Given that the Church removed her condemnation of heliocentrism in the early 1800s and took the banned books on the subject off the Index, I suspect this means that she considered that the science had then reached a point that did warrant a new interpretation of Scripture. I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.  I know nowhere near enough about science to have a personal opinion on that, but I trust the Church's judgment.


'I trust the Church's judgement.' Which judgement Jaynek? The Church's Pope Paul V's decree of 1616 defining and declaring a fixed-sun solar system formal heresy, Pope Urban VIII's judgement confirming the 1616 judgment as absolute, or Pope Pius VII's judgement based on a lie?

'I think that Pope Leo explained these interpretive principles in Providentissimus Deus.'

This statement above has to be one of the greatest illusions in the history of the Catholic Church. Many agree with you Jaynek and I will quote a few of 12 I have recorded.

‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’(. C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.)

‘A century ago (1893), Pope Leo XIII echoed this [Galileo’s] advice in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’--- Pope John Paul II: Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission.

‘Galileo’s principle has apparently become the official hermeneutic criterion of the Catholic Church. It is alluded to in the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo (1893), referred to in Guadium et Spes of the Vatican Council II (1965).’ (The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998, p.367.)

‘On the other hand, Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’ (J. T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.)

‘Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’ (Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68)

‘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.

You see above, from a few of an endless number of quotes over the last 100 years or more, how Galileo's heresy entered the womb of the Church. According to the above that include the 1981-1992 Galileo Commission and the SSPX, it was Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus that set down the Catholic teaching that allowed Catholics to accept the heretical meaning of Holy Scripture and dismiss the ruling of 16126 and 1633.

 Well now, for the first time you will hear the truth.

Providentissimus Deus: 
‘14: His teaching [St Irenaeus] and that of other holy Fathers, is taken up by the Synod of the Vatican I, adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretations of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that “in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scriptures against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.” By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress

 Pope Leo XIII here teaches that one cannot deny any meaning that is unanimous with the Fathers. The ruling of 1616 was: (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 [denial of a revelation by God] 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.”

OK. So Providentissimus Deus teaches the heresy of heliocentrism cannot be changed. After that it went on to say:

‘18: To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation” (St Augustine). Hence, they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers, as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us, “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.’--- Providentissimus Deus.

The above passage is the one they have all used to OK the 1820 U-turn. It never mentions Galileo, or sunrise or sunset, but was put in to cover the 1820 U-turn by his predecessor Pope Pius VII. But having confirmed earlier in his encyclical that the Church teaching did not allow the moving-sun of all the Fathers to be changed, the letter cannot be used as a licence to change the 1616 decree. But they did use it and still do. 

The only positive outcome of this the greatest scandal tolerated within the Catholic Church in its history, is that it PROVES there is DIVINE PROTECTION at work. Try as they all did and do, not one pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree was an error. 
Logged

Offline Tradman

  • Supporter
Re: New Geocentrism Book by Robert Sungenis
« Reply #314 on: July 17, 2023, 03:35:18 PM »
Cassini said:

The only positive outcome of this the greatest scandal tolerated within the Catholic Church in its history, is that it PROVES there is DIVINE PROTECTION at work. Try as they all did and do, not one pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree was an error. 


Cassini and I don't agree on geocentrism, but the above statement is absolutely true.  Also, the Index maintains it's moral force against heliocentrism, whether or not subsequent volumes included it or the moderns admit it.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 61 62 [63] 64 65 ... 68
« previous next »