Aren't there tons of saints who believed the globe model though? I mean I lean flat earth cause it seems to align with Scripture and private revelation (think the saints describing where Hell is or Fatima) more intuitively but I think there's a bunch who don't believe that or see the conflict and are in good standing/solid saints.
but I think there's a bunch who don't believe that or see the conflict and are in good standing/solid saints.
You think?No I'm not talking about NASA. Just that the earth was a ball. The molecules to man is a joke and pretty sure it's a heresy that was condemned by the Vatican at one point. Same with the big bang, multiverse etc. I'm talking just about the earth being a ball and space existing.
I'd be interested in some references.
I mean that's a pretty bold statement -- you think that various saint(s) actually believed in the NASA religion -- outer space, spinning ball planets, space travel, aliens, Theory of Relativity, the multiverse, Big Bang, molecules-to-man evolution, abiogenesis, and all that?
No I'm not talking about NASA. Just that the earth was a ball. The molecules to man is a joke and pretty sure it's a heresy that was condemned by the Vatican at one point. Same with the big bang, multiverse etc. I'm talking just about the earth being a ball and space existing.I consider outer space as the inside of the firmament but I don't think what we've been told about space is correct.
If I remember correctly, I think the actual 'computing capacity' is no more than 1 jpeg's worth of data. From billions of miles away. Who is sitting there monitoring it, waiting for that single jpeg to come in? What will a jpeg tell us - that it's cold out there?What is 1 jpeg's worth of data? I have a jpeg on my computer that is 29.5MB. 29.5MB can equate to 10-15min of high quality music, or 40-60min of medium quality speech audio. That's several floppy disks worth of information. Why don't you look up what they are trying to record? I know you won't believe them, but it's more credible than speculation.
On a related subject this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/23/voyager-1-transmitting-data-again-after-nasa-remotely-fixes-46-year-old-probe so you're telling me a 70s computer billions of miles away is able to receive a signal on an ancient medium (that somehow is still working) in 22hrs with no obstructions? No meteors, flares, planets etc obstruct the signal there and back? Come on70's computers still work. Maybe it's the beefy simple design that aids their durability. I can't comment on the durability of tapes though, but I don't know why they couldn't send a command for it to rewrite it's programming to correct for corruption. They likely built the components to be more durable knowing it was going into space. You can actually buy circuit board components rated for use in space. I think they are gold plated to shield from radiation. It is hard to believe it can still receive signals from that far away with old tech, and that signals from it can be heard all the way here, but maybe the new tech we have is capable of sending a strong enough signal, and capable of detecting such faint signals from it. I don't know, I don't work there and neither do you, so I won't say what is and isn't possible. Once upon a time touch screen smartphones were a certain impossibility.
No I'm not talking about NASA. Just that the earth was a ball. . . . I'm talking just about the earth being a ball and space existing.Everyone grew up being taught, through the "educational" system, the controlled media (movies, tv, comic books, magazines, books, newspapers, online content) that the earth is a ball and anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-theorist.
Please explain. How a guy I know, who lives on my street, who takes these photos with his telescope, gets these pictures? Are you telling me that this random guy who does this as a hobby is part of the outer space conspiracy.Did anyone look at these pictures? They are taken from earth by a guy in his backyard. If outer space is a deception, then explain these pictures.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10232430841454537&set=pob.1261312087
Did anyone look at these pictures? They are taken from earth by a guy in his backyard. If outer space is a deception, then explain these pictures.What we're are told about space is a deception, God's firmament is very really, and the moon, suns, stars etc are inside it.
I plugged 'how cold is space' into google. This is what it put out:Regular computers don't need to withstand cold temps, so they are not designed for it. Supercooled electronics is a real thing to greatly enhance performance. They can design the Voyager probe to function well in very cold temps, it's just a matter of taking into account tolerances and the thermal contraction of components, and any internal heating systems needed. I think it runs on a little nuclear reactor, so that alone generates heat. Scientists are quite smart when they aren't lying for political reasons, they can figure this all out. It raises my mind to God seeing how pretty much everything imaginable is possible with the basic elements and laws of physics he created. There's probably a million different substances made out of just 3 elements.
"Space is very, very cold. The baseline temp is minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning it is barely above absolute zero, the point where molecular motion stops."
I then plugged in 'what temperature do computers stop working'. This was the result:
"Electronic devices suffer from temperature extremes. Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) of laptops, phones, and PDAs really do freeze. Laptops have been designed to work within a safe temperature range, typically between 50 to 95 degrees F (10 - 35 degrees C)."
Voyager 1 is a metallic, mechanical device. It has been in an environment 'where molecular motions stops' for 45 years with no break. That thing is frozen solid.
What we're are told about space is a deception, God's firmament is very really, and the moon, suns, stars etc are inside it.But all of that space goes straight up from the earth? I need to see pictures of how the planets and stars hang in this flat earth scenario. I need to understand why Australia is heading into winter as we are heading into summer. Quick explanations that make logical sense. Scientific examples of why this occurs. Why some flight patterns do exist that cannot be explained by a flat earth and can only be explained by a globe earth?
But all of that space goes straight up from the earth? I need to see pictures of how the planets and stars hang in this flat earth scenario. I need to understand why Australia is heading into winter as we are heading into summer. Quick explanations that make logical sense. Scientific examples of why this occurs. Why some flight patterns do exist that cannot be explained by a flat earth and can only be explained by a globe earth?First I didn't mention flat earth here, a firmament is part of scripture and the father. The sky and space are not the same space.
Here is a video example, but I do not like his delivery at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd-FAyHdpxI
First I didn't mention flat earth here, a firmament is part of scripture and the father. The sky and space are not the same space.Ok i am confused. How are the sky and space not the same space? We look in to the sky and we see stars. A random person looks into the sky and is able to take pictures of strange things that we are told are nebulas or galaxies or planets. But there is a deception? What is the deception?
Did anyone look at these pictures? They are taken from earth by a guy in his backyard. If outer space is a deception, then explain these pictures.One needs a facebook account to see these pictures. Could you post one or two?
Did anyone look at these pictures? They are taken from earth by a guy in his backyard. If outer space is a deception, then explain these pictures.
But all of that space goes straight up from the earth? I need to see pictures of how the planets and stars hang in this flat earth scenario. I need to understand why Australia is heading into winter as we are heading into summer. Quick explanations that make logical sense. Scientific examples of why this occurs. Why some flight patterns do exist that cannot be explained by a flat earth and can only be explained by a globe earth?
They can design the Voyager probe to function well in very cold temps ...
Did anyone look at these pictures? They are taken from earth by a guy in his backyard. If outer space is a deception, then explain these pictures.
I was able to image M42, the Orion Nebula. Unfortunately, I could only get 33 minutes of data from the system (since my Seestar has had horrible tracking issues), but it was enough that I could still process the data and have some decent detail in the image... and I came up with this! I processed this imaging data with PixInsight, Photoshop, and Irfanview
May I quote from the guy in his backyard:Everytime
He did not say, I photographed M42. He says he imaged M42, that he could "process the data" and that he used some software like photoshop to come up with that image. Only the author of that image could explain it.
One needs a facebook account to see these pictures. Could you post one or two?
I don't know when astronomers decided that stars were "distant suns" rather than just lights in the sky. The "distant sun" concept is unprovable and the notion that these "distant suns" are all moving rapidly outwards because of the big bang, should make constellations unrecognisable, yet they never change, millenium after millenium
Regarding radio transmission, the variables involved with its use on earth are much different than what's involved using it in space. Almost an apples to oranges comparison.
Radio waves, a type of electromagnetic radiation, follow the inverse square law, which means the intensity of radio waves decreases inversely with the square of the distance from the transmitter. For example, if you are 100 meters away from a radio transmitter, the intensity of the radio wave will be one-tenth as strong as it is if you are 10 meters away.
No, it's about the angles at distances. You just make stuff up, don't you? Whatever sounds good that you can latch on to with your confirmation bias. Radio waves get weaker over distance because they spread outward from their source. It's very similar to how light works, also in waves. There's something referred to as the inverse square law that applies to anything that moves in waves, whether it be light or sound.And you tend to oversimplify stuff. It's so much easier that way. It's so much easier to be novus ordo than consider the complexities of viewing the current situation in the church in the light of tradition. It's so much easier to believe there is no pope. It's so much easier to be protestant and just believe in Jesus, be baptized and sin all you want. It's easier to just be a careless atheist sheep.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/inverse-square-law
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq2JJKILSWfmCBLlc8ocp1VNb21kblzhOKkhbEBuyjgA&s)
Not in the 1970s they couldn't, and they also couldn't produce technology required to got to the moon in the 1960s either ... so the faked the moon landing. Just remember what kinds of junk cars people were driving in the 1960s and 1970s.
I worked at NASA and often participated in radiation/temperature testing of electronic components, and even with today's technology, 90% of the tech they claimed was resistant to radiation and extreme temperatures failed the tests miserably, and this was in the early 2000s, not in the 1970s.
And this is to say nothing of the fact that it's the height of absurdity to pretend that Voyager can beam meaningful signals back to earth using a 23 watt radio ... from allegedly 24 billion miles away. That signal would be so dispersed over those distances that it could not contain any meaningful data (similar to the absurd claim that Webb is beaming high-definition data from a million miles away). In real practice, the higher bandwidth you get, the more concentrated the signal has to be and the more power you need to send it. If we could beam high definition data across millions of miles, cell phone companies would have gotten rid of the cell towers they have to build every mile or two a LONG time ago, to say nothing of the absurdity of hitting the target with a high bandwidth signal from a million miles that would be so tiny as to be imperceptible ... WHILE the earth is allegedly rotating at (an average of) 700 MPH AND revolving around the sun at over 6,000 MPH. You'd be a great shot if you could hit something the size of a jar lid from 100 yards away. Now move it to a mile away, and then to 1,000 miles ... and you're not even close to the proportions we're talking about from million miles away. And now put the target into motion at 6,000 MPH.
You recently had a company set a record for high-bandwidth transmission at about 230 miles (across the Mediterranean), and they had to use line of sight microwave signals, since you need a very concentrated (and therefore line of sight) beam to carry high-bandwidth data. Now try to send high-bandwidth data over a MILLION miles. To get high bandwith, you need a concentrated, tight, and therefore line of sight signal ... and I'm sure we're getting that from Webb at about a million miles away, as the earth rotates 700MPH and flies around the sun at 6000MPH. Suuure. Of course, on a side note, at 230 miles (with the aforementioned microwave signal across the Mediterrean), it couldn't have been line of sight on a globe, since the target (150 foot towers) would have been obscured by 8 miles of curvature bulge.
Back in the day when we hard our rabbit-ear antennas, and then even the small dishes, to get a decent TV signal from most stations, you had to point the in just the right direction and just at the right angle to have some stations come in ... and that's when the transmitters were about 20 miles away, much less 24 billion.
So what are those pictures of? Are you implying because his software couldn't track properly it is faked? The way I think this photography works is that it takes many snapshots in a time period and then those images are combined together and rendered to create the photo you see. Granted I am guessing.
It is also could be that shutter on the camera has to stay open for a lengthy amount of time to capture the image. The computer is just used to make the photo more crisp from all the shaking of the camera. Again I am guessing.
Why does Saturn appear like a globe and Earth is not a globe? Please direct me to a FE model that shows how the stars planets and all hang in the sky in relation to this flat earth. Are you implying that we are in like a snow globe? Doesn't that put limitations on God? Why can't God create a vast Universe for us to discover? I really don't know why I bother. I mean really the fact people like to argue these things is silly. God isn't going to say oh you thought my Universe is (fill in the blank), you are going to hell. You need to believe in God and follow his rules. It is just that simple. Science is just what humans do to figure out what God already put into place.
Well, truth matters. Not only the Catechism, but everything that is truth is of our interest.So we can agree that if a vast amazing discoverable universe makes me feel closer to God's Awesomeness and a flat earth with the Saints looking at us like a snow globe makes you feel God's Awesomeness, then it doesn't really matter which one is right. Only God knows that, and as long as we are contemplating God. All is good.
If God cared enough to put some cosmology in the book of Genesis, it means that it has some importance.
It seems to me that to imagine that we are on a blue ball that floats on a endless black space makes us distant from God. On the other hand, if we believe that the world has some kind of roof (the firmament) and that Our Lord and Our Lady and all the saints and angels are watching us, it somehow makes us more aware of God. It does to me anyway.
Of course that are many saints who did not bother to investigate if the Earth was round or flat, and they are in Heaven anyway.
If it works for you, it is just as good. But other people might benefit from this kind of knowledge. It has certainly been good to me to think about this kind of thing.
It seems to me that to imagine that we are on a blue ball that floats on a endless black space makes us distant from God. On the other hand, if we believe that the world has some kind of roof (the firmament) and that Our Lord and Our Lady and all the saints and angels are watching us, it somehow makes us more aware of God. It does to me anyway.To me it seems absurd that a pure spirit could be physically far away. The Pure Spirit who knows every speck of dust at all times. Such an expanse is fitting for God's creation.
So we can agree that if a vast amazing discoverable universe makes me feel closer to God's Awesomeness and a flat earth with the Saints looking at us like a snow globe makes you feel God's Awesomeness, then it doesn't really matter which one is right. Only God knows that, and as long as we are contemplating God. All is good.
But now we have relativism. Now what?
So we can agree that if a vast amazing discoverable universe makes me feel closer to God's Awesomeness and a flat earth with the Saints looking at us like a snow globe makes you feel God's Awesomeness, then it doesn't really matter which one is right. Only God knows that, and as long as we are contemplating God. All is good.Objective reality is part of Catholic teaching, as is love of the truth.
But now we have relativism. Now what?
God and the Angels are right here with us everyday. If the earth is a globe or flat it doesn't really matter for our Salvation. But us silly humans want to pick the right team and then we battle it out. And while we battle we miss an opportunity to walk in the park, visit a cemetery, or call a friend because we had the inspiration.The battle for souls is important in a time of apostasy, a time when "if it were possible even the elect may be deceived."
If the earth is a globe or flat it doesn't really matter for our Salvation.
Maybe it doesn't matter for yours, but there are billions who have fallen outside the path that might even begin to lead to salvation on accoutnt of the fraud that is modern science. Without the Big Bang giant swirling universe cosmology, evolution completely falls apart. There are a number of (high profile) FEs who were atheists when the first came to believe in FE who then found religion (albeit not [yet] the true one, but at least they're a step closer). Why? Because if we live on a flat earth covered by a firmament, Intelligent Design is absolutely unavoidable. It could not have evolved from swirling masses of matter.I agree everything we see was put their by God, but God put many things into the world for humans to discover. We didn't start out making metal objects. We didn't start out making computers. People 1000 years ago didn't even have imaginations for computers.
I agree everything we see was put their by God, but God put many things into the world for humans to discover. We didn't start out making metal objects. We didn't start out making computers. People 1000 years ago didn't even have imaginations for computers.How did we cut our hair and nails without metal objects? Metallurgy, like speech and writing are probably available to man since the fall, around 6000 years ago and certainly since the flood approximately 4,400 years ago.
I agree everything we see was put their by God, but God put many things into the world for humans to discover. We didn't start out making metal objects. We didn't start out making computers. People 1000 years ago didn't even have imaginations for computers.
How did we cut our hair and nails without metal objects? Metallurgy, like speech and writing are probably available to man since the fall, around 6000 years ago and certainly since the flood approximately 4,400 years ago.Sorry I didn't think that one through. Let me be clear I believe in creation, not evolution. My point is that whatever we had before the flood is moot, because only so much knowledge was brought on Noah's Arc. Automobiles have only been in existence for a little over 100 year and planes less. Technological developments take time and didn't happen overnight. Men innovate, but where do these inspirations come from? I think some of these innovations have gone off the rails because the changes of Vatican 2 stopped the moral compass that the Catholic Church regulated. Maybe as a whole society has become dumber and more gullible. I don't know. What I do know is that no one here has been able to give me satisfactory answers to proove that the earth is flat. And my mathematician science focused husband agrees.
The battle for souls is important in a time of apostasy, a time when "if it were possible even the elect may be deceived."Indeed.
Those who have fallen for the lies of evolution theory, globe earth theory, outer space theory, the earth is only one of millions of other planets theory, etc. are vulnerable to the coming fake alien deception. Forewarned is forearmed.
How did we cut our hair and nails without metal objects? Metallurgy, like speech and writing are probably available to man since the fall, around 6000 years ago and certainly since the flood approximately 4,400 years ago.Good point.
Objective reality is part of Catholic teaching, as is love of the truth.This makes sense. Relativism was the wrong word. I am sorry but I have tendency to pick words I think work to find out later by discussion that it really is not what I meant.
Differing opinions are part of life, but are not the same as relativism, which says that each man is his own little god and determines his own truth.
As Catholics we seek the truth (aka objective reality) which may include reevaluating falsehoods which dominate and shape our current culture.
The idea that the Earth is just a seashell bobbing around in an infinite ocean of "outer space" is such nonsense. And it's calculated to weaken faith in God and religion, and bolster the atheistic Big Bang model of cosmology.Absolutely. Been a flat-earther since 2015 and have been pretty open about my views. Strangely (and maybe fortunately), less people seem to balk over it these days
At the end of the Apocalypse, God says He will create "a new heaven and a new earth". Why? If you have ALL THAT REAL ESTATE, why waste your time? (with all due respect). I mean seriously -- according to science, there HAS to be an earth-like, or even BETTER than earth-like, planet out there somewhere in the Cosmos, perhaps too far away for humans to reach. EVEN IF there is no life out there besides earth (which no "official science" textbook would ever suggest). Why wouldn't God just move his Elect instantly to another great planet he made? Why even bother with this ol' Earth? Just toss it into the sun, and move on with Your (infinite) life.
And does that new heaven and new earth include a new sun? Because it would be a shame for the New Jerusalem to get swallowed up by a red giant Sun, golden streets and all!
I always used to think deep down, "Can I pass on that new heaven/earth? I'd really rather like to check out those many cool exoplanets You created millions of light years away, with my new glorified body, if You don't mind that is..."
See the problem with trying to bring atheistic religion's nonsense into the Catholic Faith? It really doesn't work.
See, like everything else, the Bible and religion seems quite silly when you try to fit it into the atheistic context of Carl Sagan's "The Cosmos", with billions of galaxies, planets, etc. And besides, you also would expect countless other civilizations, which they are ALSO programming us to believe.
Our Lord ascended into heaven. Which direction did he actually exit the ball Earth? Sideways? Upside down?
Hell is supposed to be DOWN. What, into the center of the earth? And if they go too deep into hell, they emerge in China on the other side of the "planet"? Ridiculous.
Joshua made the sun stand still. It didn't say he stopped the earth turning. And if he DID, wouldn't everything be destroyed by the sudden stop? The wind and G-forces would have been cataclysmic, and wiped out all life on earth, according to science. But Scripture says clearly: the sun stood still. I would rather take that literally, than bend over backwards to find excuses and convoluted explanations, all to defend some atheist's "billiard ball cosmos" worldview.
They have all those cross-section cutaway views of the earth's layers and core. Guess how far they've drilled down. Anybody? Answer: 7.6 miles. That's it. All the rest of that they're pulling completely out of their butt. It's not science, it's human "faith" in some bizarre science cult.
If heaven is ABOVE the firmament than Our Lord ascending UPWARDS makes sense. But what is heaven in the globe model? Outer space? No heaven there. Sorry, kids. Just a harsh, cruel vacuum. I guess mommy and daddy deceived you about the nature of the universe and world you live in.
So you see, you HAVE to call bullshit on either A) the Catholic Faith or B) the heliocentric/globe model with Carl Sagan, Einstein, Steven Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and all the rest of those clowns. NASA can't be where the truth is; they lie too much. They've been caught in more lies and deceptions than I can count. WHY are they lying?
I choose Holy Scripture, God, and the Catholic religion. I encourage you all to do the same. But it is difficult to keep one foot in each camp. Eventually, you pick a side. May you pick the right side.
Having your WHOLE self, your life, your beliefs, your hopes and dreams ALL in one side, all in one worldview, makes for the most stability and chance of salvation. There is no need, nor is it wise, to attempt to "square the circle" and reconcile two vastly different, contradictory, competing worldviews.
On a related subject this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/apr/23/voyager-1-transmitting-data-again-after-nasa-remotely-fixes-46-year-old-probe so you're telling me a 70s computer billions of miles away is able to receive a signal on an ancient medium (that somehow is still working) in 22hrs with no obstructions? No meteors, flares, planets etc obstruct the signal there and back? Come onThe astronauts called Houston from the moon on a land line. :cowboy:
Ok i am confused. How are the sky and space not the same space? We look in to the sky and we see stars. A random person looks into the sky and is able to take pictures of strange things that we are told are nebulas or galaxies or planets. But there is a deception? What is the deception?"Planets" are also stars. Says so In Scripture somewhere. Have you ever seen a random star through a telescope? They look crazier than "planets", like a rave in Heaven.
The battle for souls is important in a time of apostasy, a time when "if it were possible even the elect may be deceived."This. Our alien-obsessed glowbots are banking on it.
Those who have fallen for the lies of evolution theory, globe earth theory, outer space theory, the earth is only one of millions of other planets theory, etc. are vulnerable to the coming fake alien deception. Forewarned is forearmed.
The creed says Jesus came down from heaven:
Our Lord ascended into heaven. Which direction did he actually exit the ball Earth? Sideways? Upside down?
But all of that space goes straight up from the earth?What is beneath the flat earth and what is holding it up?
What is beneath the flat earth and what is holding it up?
Absolutely. Been a flat-earther since 2015 and have been pretty open about my views. Strangely (and maybe fortunately), less people seem to balk over it these daysI've been awake since that time also, but have told only my dh and one close friend. I admire your courage.
The astronauts called Houston from the moon on a land line. :cowboy:That's right up there with the video of "man's first step on the Moon." Just who got there first with the camera?
This makes sense. Relativism was the wrong word. I am sorry but I have tendency to pick words I think work to find out later by discussion that it really is not what I meant.You are actually on the right track, Gray.
The idea that the Earth is just a seashell bobbing around in an infinite ocean of "outer space" is such nonsense. And it's calculated to weaken faith in God and religion, and bolster the atheistic Big Bang model of cosmology.Setting aside the fact that the "Big Bang" was originally calculated by a Physics PhD who was also a Jesuit priest...
Setting aside the fact that the "Big Bang" was originally calculated by a Physics PhD who was also a Jesuit priest...
Believe what you want as a matter of faith, just don't bear false witness against your neighbors by claiming all astronomers and scientists are liars / stupid.
The physical evidence is quite clear, and has been for over 100 years, the Earth is spherical, and the solar system is heliocentric.
Setting aside the fact that the "Big Bang" was originally calculated by a Physics PhD who was also a Jesuit priest...
Believe what you want as a matter of faith, just don't bear false witness against your neighbors by claiming all astronomers and scientists are liars / stupid.
The physical evidence is quite clear, and has been for over 100 years, the Earth is spherical, and the solar system is heliocentric.
Speaking of bearing false witness, are your or are you not the same poster who was formerly banned as JJoseph?
Despite his flurry of activity, he's avoided answering this question.
FYI he was banned several hours ago.
Setting aside the fact that the "Big Bang" was originally calculated by a Physics PhD who was also a Jesuit priest...
The physical evidence is quite clear.
In Pope Pius XII’s next encyclical Humani Generis (1950), he allowed discussion of Adam’s body coming from ‘pre-existing living matter.’ As usual, Eve’s body is never mentioned. A year later, on Nov. 22, 1951, Pius XII gave an address at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences called ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ With the immediate creation of all in their whole substance by God long dogmatised, and St Thomas’s teaching that the creative act of God cannot be demonstrated by unaided reason, both now redundant in the modern Church, Pius XII invented a new Big Bang creation theology for our time in the following holy manner:Just to be clear.. Are saying that Pius VII was a heretic?
The rot began in 1820 when Pope Pius VII accepted the heliocentrism of modern astronomers and emptied the Index of the last remaining five heliocentric books. that led to Pius XII's Big Bang creation and things got worse after that as we all know.
Just to be clear.. Are saying that Pius VII was a heretic?
Was Pius XII also a heretic?
First of all Marcellinus, it was not me who defined and declared heliocentrism a Biblical heresy. It was popes since the beginning of the Church. That is why it was called formal heresy in 1616 when once more declared a heresy by Pope Paul V.You did not answer my question. Are Pius VII and Pius XII heretics? Yes or no?
That said, Pius VII and Pius XII based their heliocentrism on their belief that heliocentrism was proven true by science. Accordingly, it became a ‘material’ heresy for those who thought it was proven, which is a kind of ‘non-punishable’ heresy.
That said again, for a heresy to go it must be abrogated, that is, abolish it completely. For a definition of heresy to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should explain why this is being done. That never happened.
But here is the problem, now that it is known the moving-sun of Scripture was never proven wrong by science, as you are now being told, to reject the Bible's heliocentrism is a heresy.
So, be careful what you ask.
You did not answer my question. Are Pius VII and Pius XII heretics? Yes or no?Yes I did, they are.
Yes I did, they are.That quote is quite a keeper. Here is the complete letter that Bellarmine wrote to Foscarini
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote;
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but 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 centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to [all] the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). 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 prophets and apostles.’
(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 already defined as heresy] 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.”
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Yes I did, they are.Wow. Thank you, Holy Office of Cassini.
Wow. Thank you, Holy Office of Cassini.
That quote is quite a keeper. Here is the complete letter that Bellarmine wrote to Foscarini
http://www.spaceship-earth.org/OrigLit/Bellarm.htm
(http://www.spaceship-earth.org/OrigLit/Bellarm.htm)The letter is used by "pope" John Paul II in 1992 in a speech at the Pontifical Academy of Science https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/fr/speeches/1992/october/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze.html#_ftnref4
(https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/fr/speeches/1992/october/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze.html#_ftnref4)In the speech JPII says " Robert Bellarmin, who had perceived the real stakes of the debate, considered for his part that, faced with possible scientific proof of the orbit of the earth around the sun, we must interpret with "careful consideration" any passage in the Bible which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and "to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven" "
According to JP2, Robert Bellarmine anticipated that the Church would be ready to change it's opinion once 'science' had shown it to be false.
It's probably too reductive to blame everything on Vatican 2 though, there are no 19th century Encylicals warning the faithful about the lies of evolution and dinosaurs.
Yes I did, they are.So if Pius 7 and 12 are heretics what would that mean for the good things they did/wrote? I am not familiar with Pius 7 but Pius 12 wrote some useful docuмents.
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote;
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but 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 centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to [all] the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). 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 prophets and apostles.’
(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 already defined as heresy] 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.”
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those popes just quietly remove the prohibition against heliocentrism? Is there any evidence that they believed it themselves? Such moves can be done for various political motives.
I do think it's disputed whether the Holy Office decision against heliocentrism was infallible and irreformable. I know that cassini believes that it was, but I don't think there's a consensus on the matter. With that said, the decision was clearly the right one.