Author Topic: Speed of the Universe (Read 5442 times)

mw2016 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 06, 2017, 07:56:16 PM »

Shhh!! Stop feeding the troll...if you ignore Bumphrey he might just go away.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #31 on:** April 06, 2017, 08:06:49 PM »

Quote from: Matto on April 06, 2017, 07:53:10 PM

It is not sedevacantism that I oppose. But the kind of sedevacantism that considers non-sedevacantists to be non-Catholic, or in your case dangerous to the faith.

So, you now say you oppose the idea that other Catholics can be a danger to the faith! Is that what you really mean to say?

Matto · « **Reply #32 on:** April 06, 2017, 08:10:02 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 06, 2017, 08:06:49 PM

So, you now say you oppose the idea that other Catholics can be a danger to the faith! Is that what you really mean to say?

I think I will take mw2016's advice and ignore you from now on. LOL.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #33 on:** April 06, 2017, 08:15:31 PM »

Quote from: Matto on April 06, 2017, 08:10:02 PM

I think I will take mw2016's advice and ignore you from now on. LOL.

So, you have no good response, so that is what a Catholic does...ignore?

cassini · « **Reply #34 on:** April 07, 2017, 05:23:14 AM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 06, 2017, 05:56:13 PM

I doubt you are Catholic, because you sure have a mindframe of a disgruntled waysider.

No, I didn't say Paganism is not always wrong. I said reasoning is not part of paganism. Duh.

Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between the magisterium and disciplinary decree.

First of all Bumphrey why don't you stick to the discussion and refrain from trying to insult posters. Then try using simple language and maybe more readers will understand exactly what you are trying to say.
'Reasoning is not part of paganism. Duh.'

More importantly however is your opinion that the 1616 decree was disciplinary. This could generate a marvelous debate if not intermingled with attempts to undermine opinions and facts with ‘ad hominems.’
First let me set off with a couple examples of disciplinary decrees.
Trent said Marriage is indissoluble. It did not say it is heresy to say marriage is indissoluble, it implies any who differ are rebellious to the Church.
Priestly celibacy is disciplinary, and it is not heresy for someone to suggest priests should marry.

'When a general council cannot be summoned, or when it is not deemed necessary, the general government of the Church is conducted by the pope. In matters of faith it is admitted that if he issues a decree, ex cathedra, OR AS HEAD OF THE CHURCH, such definition or decree is binding and final.

^{The standard Bumpy reply to this is 'But it was not of faith, merely natural science.' This pits them against St Robert Bellarmine, successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Master of Controversial Questions and Consulter of the Holy Office (Roman Inquisition) as well as cardinal member of the Congregation of the Index. He said:}

^{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 (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.’}

Pope Urban VIII agreed and ordered the following be known to the Catholic world:that an opinion can be held and defended as probable [DISCIPLINARY] after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.

OK Bumpy, now it is your turn. Tell us how a decree defining and declaring a HERESY can be DISCIPLINARY. Less telling us we are all waysiders and more on how it can be heresy today, not heresy tomorrow.

cassini · « **Reply #35 on:** April 07, 2017, 06:20:31 AM »

Pope Urban VIII agreed and ordered the following be known to the Catholic world: that an opinion can be held and defended as probable [DISCIPLINARY] after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.

The above, as I reread it is out of context. It should have read:

“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.

klasG4e · « **Reply #36 on:** April 07, 2017, 11:14:26 AM »

God bless you cassini! You are a true defender and promoter of the Catholic Faith! Very unfortunate how your knowledge of the Faith seems to fall on deaf ears sometimes, but I am confident that you do not let that discourage, or at least not overly discourage you. God speed! Keep up the good fight!

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #37 on:** April 07, 2017, 12:18:37 PM »

St. Robert Bellarmine at the time stated that the earth going around the sun would have to be "demonstrated". He would not have suggested that because that would have been calling something of the faith into doubt.

Many centuries have gone by, and no Saint or theologian said it was a magisterial teaching. People here are doing something that has not been done, except by enemies of the Faith.

cassini · « **Reply #38 on:** April 07, 2017, 03:31:26 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 07, 2017, 12:18:37 PM

St. Robert Bellarmine at the time stated that the earth going around the sun would have to be "demonstrated". He would not have suggested that because that would have been calling something of the faith into doubt.

Many centuries have gone by, and no Saint or theologian said it was a magisterial teaching. People here are doing something that has not been done, except by enemies of the Faith.

Before I go on Bumphrey I sincerely hope you are open to the truth. I was once a convinced heliocentrist and evolutionist. Most of us were. That is what they taught us throughout schooling over the years. I thank God I must have had an open mind because when the truth was made known to me I realised I had been a victim of indoctrination.

As regards the Galileo case, I always had a worry that if the Church got that wrong, then what else might they have gotten wrong. Not good for a faith that claims divine protection. When I understood the Church's decrees were never proven wrong it enhanced my faith immensely.

But then there were so many loose ends that it took me years of study to sort them all out. Perhaps the hardest lesson was to realise that popes are only guaranteed infallibility when they define doctrine. Papal opinions are not infallible, and if they make mistakes they are not officially undermining papal infallibility. My findings were that of all the mistakes of their U-turn, not one was directed at the the 1616 decree. That was left untouched, they invented a way around it. They did so because they believed geocentrism was falsified by science, so had to think a way out without challenging the authority of the 1616 decree. That is how the Holy Ghost protected the infallibility of the 1616 decree.

Now that the truth is out, I do not hold my breath for any admittance that it was the U-turn that was a disastrous episode in Church history. To do that they would have to admit the Church doctrine that the Scriptures reveal geocentrism. They know they would be laughed out of Rome and their human pride will not let the truth out.

Now back to the many myths conjured up to avoid having to admit the 1616 decree was absolute. What Bellarmine said is used in the manner you put it. To know the truth you have to know what he said, when he said it, and the context in which he said it.

It came in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini. 1615 Bummphrey, one year before a fixed sun was defined as formal heresy. So even if he said what they make him say, it was said BEFORE the 1616 decree and counted no longer.

What he said was:

‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the 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.

In other words: IF GALILEO HAD PROOF, OF COURSE WE WOULD HAVE TO REREAD SCRIPTURE AGAIN THAT WAY. Bellarmine was addressing the assertion that Galileo had proof there and then, IN THE PRESENT TENSE

U-turn history however, twists Bellarmine's words to make it appear he said: IF A TRUE_DEMONSTRATION WERE EVER FOUND ............ See the difference, they make it look like Bellarmine was addressing the FUTURE TENSE.

The proof that Bellarmine was not addressing the future comes immediately after the above in his letter.

'But as for myself, I do not believe that there is [ THERE IS --- PRESENT TENSE] 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 centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth 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.'

Your second 'question' is another interesting one but it too has a twist. There were theologians who knew the 1616 decree was infallible, but they tried to use this FACT to dismiss the dogma of infallibility of Vatican I. Here is one:
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

Another is CURRENT..Hans Kung in his 1983 book Infallible argues that the 1616 decree was infallible and it proves the dogma is not true. Indeed Pope Francis said they would meet to discuss this matter.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #39 on:** April 07, 2017, 06:01:48 PM »

You speak on the premise that the decree was teaching, and it was not. You constantly beg the question. It was disciplinary, and it gave the reason why. The reason was materially wrong, but the REASON WHY was a presumption, not a teaching. Yet, the reason was formally correct, because the purpose of discipline is to protect souls. The presumption was that it was intrinsically dangerous, but it was really extrinsically dangerous to souls AT THAT TIME. Extrinsics can change, intrinsics cannot. You appear to be taking scandal that was not given, because you don't have a mind that can understand the distinctions. Somehow, Cassini, you think you are smarter than all the theologians and Saints that lived and died NOT thinking like you are now.

cassini · « **Reply #40 on:** April 08, 2017, 03:57:58 PM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 07, 2017, 06:01:48 PM

You speak on the premise that the decree was teaching, and it was not. You constantly beg the question. It was disciplinary, and it gave the reason why. The reason was materially wrong, but the REASON WHY was a presumption, not a teaching. Yet, the reason was formally correct, because the purpose of discipline is to protect souls. The presumption was that it was intrinsically dangerous, but it was really extrinsically dangerous to souls AT THAT TIME. Extrinsics can change, intrinsics cannot. You appear to be taking scandal that was not given, because you don't have a mind that can understand the distinctions. Somehow, Cassini, you think you are smarter than all the theologians and Saints that lived and died NOT thinking like you are now.

THE 1616 DECREE

(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.”

Something defined as formal heresy remains formal heresy in Catholic teaching.

We could of course subject Catholicism to a series of Bumphrey disciplinary dogmas in that if

it could be proven Mary's body was ever found, then her ascension into heaven would no longer be a dogma, or
if it is ever proven Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ then that dogma could be demoted to a disciplinary one,
or if they ever found Jesus's body in a grave then He couldn't have risen from the dead on Easter Sunday.

You see how trying to wiggle out of one teaching can put others under threat?

mw2016 · « **Reply #41 on:** April 08, 2017, 04:26:56 PM »

Quote from: cassini on April 08, 2017, 03:57:58 PM

We could of course subject Catholicism to a series of Bumphrey disciplinary dogmas in that:

if it could be proven Mary's body was ever found, then her ascension into heaven would no longer be a dogma,

or

if it is ever proven Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ then that dogma could be demoted to a disciplinary one,

or

if they ever found Jesus's body in a grave then He couldn't have risen from the dead on Easter Sunday.

You see how trying to wiggle out of one teaching can put others under threat?

Good point.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #42 on:** April 08, 2017, 06:13:50 PM »

Quote from: cassini on April 08, 2017, 03:57:58 PM

THE 1616 DECREE
(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.”

Something defined as formal heresy remains formal heresy in Catholic teaching.

We could of course subject Catholicism to a series of Bumphrey disciplinary dogmas in that if

it could be proven Mary's body was ever found, then her ascension into heaven would no longer be a dogma, or
if it is ever proven Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ then that dogma could be demoted to a disciplinary one,
or if they ever found Jesus's body in a grave then He couldn't have risen from the dead on Easter Sunday.

You see how trying to wiggle out of one teaching can put others under threat?

The decree was not teaching the Church. You have no idea, apparently, what is "teaching", and what is a decree to "discipline" an individual. The object of the decree was a man, not the faithful of the Church.

cassini · « **Reply #43 on:** April 09, 2017, 09:56:26 AM »

Quote from: BumphreyHogart on April 08, 2017, 06:13:50 PM

The decree was not teaching the Church. You have no idea, apparently, what is "teaching", and what is a decree to "discipline" an individual. The object of the decree was a man, not the faithful of the Church.

It is not often that a poster changes his opinion of something after insisting on it over many posts, no matter how often their points are shown to be wrong. Human pride is involved here, something we all have to be careful of. Obviously Bumphrey you are one of those. But others, non posters, who may share your views, might well see the truth, and it is for this reason I bother to reply to your position.

The 1616 decree I posted above, for anyone who can read, is a clear definition that heliocentrism is formal heresy, BECAUSE it contradicts Scripture and the way all the Fathers understood it. Not one word is addressed to anyone in particular, but applies to everyone as all dogmas do.

'The object of the decree was a man, not the faithful of the Church.'
Are you not conscious Bumphrey at the nonsense you have resorted to? I suppose you would reply it was meant for Galileo alone, and that no other 'faithful Catholics' were adopting heliocentrism at the time. What about the Benedictine abbot Dom Benedetto Castelli who went public in 1613 and took thousands with him. At a gathering of the ruling Medici family he wrote:

‘I began to play the theologian with such assurance and dignity that it would have done you good to hear me. Don Antonio assisted me… and I carried the discussion off like a paladin. I won over the Grand Duke and his Archduchess completely and Don Paolo contributed to my help a very apt quotation from the Scriptures. Only Madam Christine remained against me, and as for Professor Boscaglia, he never opened his mouth [after I argued my position].’

Books by Rheticus, Bruno, and Kepler were all over the place for years before Galileo. Then there was Fr Paolo Foscarini who in 1613 published his ‘Lettera sopra L’opinione dei Pitagorici e del Copernico.’ This synthesis also attempted to concord the heliocentric theory with Holy Scripture. The affair, we see, had advanced somewhat given that members of the PRIESTHOOD were now promoting books privately reinterpreting Holy Scripture, contrary to the canons of Trent.

Enough was enough. In 1616 Pope Paul V decided to make heliocentrism formal heresy AS A TEACHING OF THE CHURCH, to put a stop to the HERESY. So where now your 'The object of the decree was a man, not the faithful of the Church.'

As for 'discipline,' well all dogmas, even the Virgin Mary's, and Christ's Resurrection from the dead, could be classed as disciplines in that ONCE DEFINED AND DECLARED, anyone who contradicts them will be guilty of formal heresy. You however use the term to try to undermine the dogma to suit your position.

BumphreyHogart · « **Reply #44 on:** April 09, 2017, 02:52:07 PM »

Pretty desperate, aren't you, when you have to resort to what Hans Kung thought in 1983, when you have SO many generations before Vatican II to resort to!

I would say after 1870 is the best time to quote from since infallibility was deeply considered at the top level of the Church, and the Gallileo affair was a prime consideration.

Somehow, you are smarter after Vatican II, and claim something to the contrary?!

Author Topic: Speed of the Universe (Read 5442 times)

mw2016

Re: Speed of the Universe

BumphreyHogart

Re: Speed of the Universe

Matto

Re: Speed of the Universe

BumphreyHogart

Re: Speed of the Universe

cassini

Re: Speed of the Universe

cassini

Re: Speed of the Universe

klasG4e

Re: Speed of the Universe

BumphreyHogart

Re: Speed of the Universe

cassini

Re: Speed of the Universe

BumphreyHogart

Re: Speed of the Universe

cassini

Re: Speed of the Universe

mw2016

Re: Speed of the Universe

BumphreyHogart

Re: Speed of the Universe

cassini

Re: Speed of the Universe

BumphreyHogart

Re: Speed of the Universe