-
This is for those who are put off by the idea of geocentrism (stationary Earth at the center of a rotating universe) if for no other reason, than because of what they posit the incredible speed of the sun and the rest of the universe would have to be moving at relative to the Earth in order to go around the Earth once every 24 hours.
I don't imagine that anyone familiar with a basketball would try to argue that it is impossible for it to make one complete rotation within, well let's say 24 hours. Obviously we know it could do that in 24 seconds and even a good deal less than 24 seconds. After all, seeing is believing right? Well, let's imagine now that you were of the smallest theoretical -- according to science size, i.e., Planck Length. If we assign a size of 10 to the power of 0 for a full grown human, the Planck Length would be 10 to the power of negative 35 and the size of the known universe would be 10 to the power of 27. Earth would be 10 to the power of 7.
You can play around with these sizes and a whole lot more using the model shown here: http://htwins.net/scale2/ (http://htwins.net/scale2/)
In my thought experiment we have two little fellows reduced to the size of Planck Length or perhaps the size of a proton or neutron at the size of ten to the negative 15 or a neutrino at 10 to the negative 24, or smaller yet a quark at 10 to the negative 22 and they are placed inside a twirling basketball or shall we say at the very center of our Earth. Since they are so small they can only observe the outer limits of the basketball or the Earth and thus they believe it to be the outer limits of the known universe. Now, let's listen in on their discussion. One is arguing vehemently that it is absolutely absurd to even imagine that the universe they observe could be rotating around them every 24 hours while the other one calmly retorts that it is perfectly possible.
God looks down upon our tiny beings and certainly hears our back and forth discussions on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. Since God is eternally omnipotent He could certainly create a universe that goes around the Earth once every 24 hours. If he wanted to He could have the universe going around the Earth a million or a billion times every 24 hours for that matter. No problem!
-
This is for those who are put off by the idea of geocentrism (stationary Earth at the center of a rotating universe) if for no other reason, than because of what they posit the incredible speed of the sun and the rest of the universe would have to be moving at relative to the Earth in order to go around the Earth once every 24 hours.
I don't imagine that anyone familiar with a basketball would try to argue that it is impossible for it to make one complete rotation within, well let's say 24 hours. Obviously we know it could do that in 24 seconds and even a good deal less than 24 seconds. After all, seeing is believing right? Well, let's imagine now that you were of the smallest theoretical -- according to science size, i.e., Planck Length. If we assign a size of 10 to the power of 0 for a full grown human, the Planck Length would be 10 to the power of negative 35 and the size of the known universe would be 10 to the power of 27. Earth would be 10 to the power of 7.
You can play around with these sizes and a whole lot more using the model shown here: http://htwins.net/scale2/ (http://htwins.net/scale2/)
In my thought experiment we have two little fellows reduced to the size of Planck Length or perhaps the size of a proton or neutron at the size of ten to the negative 15 or a neutrino at 10 to the negative 24, or smaller yet a quark at 10 to the negative 22 and they are placed inside a twirling basketball or shall we say at the very center of our Earth. Since they are so small they can only observe the outer limits of the basketball or the Earth and thus they believe it to be the outer limits of the known universe. Now, let's listen in on their discussion. One is arguing vehemently that it is absolutely absurd to even imagine that the universe they observe could be rotating around them every 24 hours while the other one calmly retorts that it is perfectly possible.
God looks down upon our tiny beings and certainly hears our back and forth discussions on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. Since God is eternally omnipotent He could certainly create a universe that goes around the Earth once every 24 hours. If he wanted to He could have the universe going around the Earth a million or a billion times every 24 hours for that matter. No problem!
Planck theory is pagan and heliocentrism is condemned by the Church.
-
happenby
Planck theory is pagan and heliocentrism is condemned by the Church.
Max Planck is the originator of the Quantum Theory. He was a Lutheran who strongly criticized atheism. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the pagan reference or why you would even label the Planck Theory (i.e., the Quantum Theory) as pagan.
You are correct in maintaining that heliocentrism is condemned by the Church.
I hope this thread does not diverge from the point I was making in my thought experiment which I thought was fairly self-obvious.
-
This is a stupid thread.
The heavens (i.e. the "universe") are in motion, and they rotate around the stationary, flat plane of the earth once every 24 hours.
This is NOT in dispute.
What the heavens do NOT do is travel at a speed of 24 million MPH, and a distance of 584 million miles in that circuit every 24 hours. This is because the sun is NOT 93 million miles away.
How do we know this is true?
Simple.
You can take any two points on the flat plane of the earth, and calculate the known distance between the two points, either by car, or by air in nautical miles.
For example, it is 400 nm from Phoenix to Los Angeles. The difference between moonrise and sunrise times between LA and PHX is 30 minutes. In order to travel 400 miles in 30 minutes, the sun and moon have to be travelling at approximately 800 MPH.
The "throw" of the sun's light is a cone shape, and is slightly larger than the circular path the sun itself as an object travels in its circuit above earth. This is why you have light for about a half hour before you see the sun "rise" and why you still have light for about a half hour after you can no longer see the sun after it has "set."
Knowing the time and distance from viewpoint to viewpoint of rise and calculating the speed also gives you the size (in circuмference) of the sun's circuit, about 25,000 miles. While the total landmass circuмference of the reach of the cone of light extends to roughly a 72,000 mile circuмference, which corresponds exactly to the 69,000 mile circuмference reported by Captain James Cook Byrd in his traverse of the ice wall of Antarctica.
In 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”
-
There is NO PART of heliocentrism or its model that is correct - NONE of it.
Not the distances.
Not the rotation of the earth.
Not the rotation of the sun itself.
Not the rotation of the earth about the sun.
ALL of the scientific model of heliocentrism is based on the Kabbalah, and as such is sinful in and of itself.
The earth is a stationary, non-moving, non-tilting, non-rotating flat plane, that has a dome-shaped solid Firmament above that holds back the waters of the Great Deep, and the stars are lights afixed within it that circle above us, along with the sun and moon, giving us light - exactly as described in the Book of Genesis.
Any other model is an utter blasphemy to the Word of God.
-
Planck theory is pagan and heliocentrism is condemned by the Church.
Aristotle was a pagan, and the Church's official philosophy is based on Aristotle's philosophy. This is because reason is not pagan.
"Reason in man is rather like God in the world." - St. Thomas Aquinas
Stop lying to the public about this; the magisterium of the Church never condemned heliocentrism. The office of discipline is NOT the magisterium.
As well, Max Planck developed what other physicists starting referring to as "God's units". This is actually ridicule for something that is actually more accurate than anything to-date, because it recognizes that "infinity" cannot be represented in this finite world.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KodWGqWsUcE
-
mw2016, what it really comes down to, according your ilk, is - "anything is possible with God", so even if you cannot demonstrate or explain it, simply just claim that "IT IS SO" because anything is possible with God!
It REALLY comes down to the error that you either don't have the Faith, or youir Faith is almost gone, not to be able to see that the "HOLY" Catholic Church has allowed heliocentrism for generations in Her Catholic schools. A "holy" and "divine" Church would not have allowed that if it were harmful to the Faith.
You may not have more chances to consider this, so consider it well, and pray about it.
-
Interesting how the FlatEarthers seem to have a real knack for co-opting threads about geocentrism and turning them into arguments for Flat Earth. I feared this would happen with this one and apparently -- lo and behold!
-
Is it not also possible that the Earth is sitting in one spot yet spinning, like a top? And the rest of the planets are minimaly moving up and down, side to side, thereby providing the change in seasons, etc?
If a model of this sort could work, would that not mean that both geo and helio centrism could both be wrong, since no planet would be revolving around the other?
Just a thought that came to mind... make of it what you will.
-
the "HOLY" Catholic Church has allowed heliocentrism for generations in Her Catholic schools. A "holy" and "divine" Church would not have allowed that if it were harmful to the Faith.
You may not have more chances to consider this, so consider it well, and pray about it.
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Have you ever been to the Novus Ordo Church??
I could literally take any one of a dozen or more heretical things currently being taught RIGHT THIS MINUTE in the Holy Catholic Church.
Those things are ALL harmful to the faith, and they are all being ALLOWED by the Church explicitly - from the TOP.
Does this mean that you think the Church has ceased being "holy" and "divine" while it allows such errors?
Heliocentrism is undoubtedly a condemned ERROR and evolution is too - yet BOTH are taught in my childrens' Traditional Catholic school.
-
mw2016, You are a prime example of someone in the process of losing the Faith resulting from being determined to believe these men are not false popes. It's what happens.
Heliocentrism was NOT condemned by the magisterium.
-
You have GOT to be kidding me.
Have you ever been to the Novus Ordo Church??
I could literally take any one of a dozen or more heretical things currently being taught RIGHT THIS MINUTE in the Holy Catholic Church.
Those things are ALL harmful to the faith, and they are all being ALLOWED by the Church explicitly - from the TOP.
Does this mean that you think the Church has ceased being "holy" and "divine" while it allows such errors?
Heliocentrism is undoubtedly a condemned ERROR and evolution is too - yet BOTH are taught in my childrens' Traditional Catholic school.
That's what you would have to believe when you reject sedevacantism.
-
:)
-
mw2016, You are a prime example of someone in the process of losing the Faith resulting from being determined to believe these men are not false popes. It's what happens.
Heliocentrism was NOT condemned by the magisterium.
Did you miss the 1611 decree against Galileo?
-
That's what you would have to believe when you reject sedevacantism.
Yes, duh - I fully and completely reject sedevacantism.
-
The decree against Galileo wasn't a teaching decree, it was a disciplinary decree. That is not the magisterium. Magisterium means "teaching".
-
Yes, duh - I fully and completely reject sedevacantism.
Yeah, duh - no surprises there.
-
mw2016, what it really comes down to, according your ilk, is - "anything is possible with God", so even if you cannot demonstrate or explain it, simply just claim that "IT IS SO" because anything is possible with God!
It REALLY comes down to the error that you either don't have the Faith, or youir Faith is almost gone, not to be able to see that the "HOLY" Catholic Church has allowed heliocentrism for generations in Her Catholic schools. A "holy" and "divine" Church would not have allowed that if it were harmful to the Faith.
You may not have more chances to consider this, so consider it well, and pray about it.
Wow, What a thread. First GlasG4e opens the theme of this thread stating Catholic belief, that God can do anything by way of a mere thought. When humans cannot grasp this and try to limit God to their intellect, then they do not understand their God.
He then speculates such speeds are physically possible with Quantum theory , i.e., Albert Einstein physics of sub-atomic particles, proposing that they behave in an electromagnetic fashion, a not unreasonable proposition. As far as Einstein is concerned, this speculation is as far as he went in quantum physics and had no input thereafter except to regret introducing the idea in the first place as it progressed in weird speculation.
By 1927, a physicist named Werner Heisenberg had taken the lead in Einstein’s non-visible area of quantum or atomic physics. In Heisenberg’s quantum world however, nothing is predictable whereas in Einstein’s everything is predictable.
mn2016 says such speeds are not possible, not necessary because on a flat earth distances are so small such speeds are not necessary.
Bumphrery correctly replies saying Paganism is not always wrong, For example Aristotle got many things wrong but still the Church had to forbid other pagan ideas. This occurred in 1277AD, when Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris banned 219 pagan propositions (40 theological and 179 philosophical) from the University at Sorbonne, the leading school of learning at the time.
Glasg4e then says correctly that FLATEARTHISM is taking over this subject of geocentrism. You cannot mention Geo before Flat earthers invade.
Student of Q1 suggests a spinning earth geocentrism as a possibility. Sorry Student, Scripture says no it does not. Its all or heresy.
Bumphry repeats his opinion that the Church couldn't have condemned heliocentrism because the Church has allowed Catholics to believe it since 1835 at least.
Sorry Bump, but the Church did condemn it as heresy. The records are there in the Church's archives, now out in the public domain. In 1633 and again in 1820, it was acknowledged that the 1616 decree was an irreversible papal decree. You are in direct opposition to the Church by denying this.
The Church also condemned MODERNISM yet for 100 years it is rampant in the Church. Perhaps the greatest scandal of all Church history is the story of how churchmen allowed heliocentrism loose into the womb of the Church. Briefly, they said the heretical heliocentrism of Galileo was still heresy, but the 'heliocentrism of modern astronomers' was not. That is how desperate churchmen got when they lost FAITH and succuмbed to HUMAN REASON, That is MODERNISM personified.
-
Sorry Bump, but the Church did condemn it as heresy. The records are there in the Church's archives, now out in the public domain. In 1633 and again in 1820, it was acknowledged that the 1616 decree was an irreversible papal decree. You are in direct opposition to the Church by denying this.
The Church also condemned MODERNISM yet for 100 years it is rampant in the Church. Perhaps the greatest scandal of all Church history is the story of how churchmen allowed heliocentrism loose into the womb of the Church. Briefly, they said the heretical heliocentrism of Galileo was still heresy, but the 'heliocentrism of modern astronomers' was not. That is how desperate churchmen got when they lost FAITH and succuмbed to HUMAN REASON, That is MODERNISM personified.
Thank you cassini, I was wondering when you were going to show up.
You and I agree on one thing: the Church condemned heliocentrism. End of story. And, earth does not move. :)
-
Bumphrery correctly replies saying Paganism is not always wrong
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.
Bumphry repeats his opinion that the Church couldn't have condemned heliocentrism because the Church has allowed Catholics to believe it since 1835 at least.
Sorry Bump, but the Church did condemn it as heresy. The records are there in the Church's archives, now out in the public domain. In 1633 and again in 1820, it was acknowledged that the 1616 decree was an irreversible papal decree. You are in direct opposition to the Church by denying this.
Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between the magisterium and disciplinary decree.
-
I doubt you are Catholic
I would guess you would doubt that most of us are Catholics. If I remember correctly, you condemned Rita for considering non-sedevacantists Catholic and having communion with them and when I pointed out that the CMRI does the same you said they should not. So you would refuse communion with most of us being that this is a forum for una-cuм SSPX resistance supporters.
-
I would guess you would doubt that most of us are Catholics. If I remember correctly, you condemned Rita for considering non-sedevacantists Catholic and having communion with them and when I pointed out that the CMRI does the same you said they should not. So you would refuse communion with most of us being that this is a forum for una-cuм SSPX resistance supporters.
You just guessed wrongly.
You also don't remember correctly. I didn't "condemn" anyone. Where did you get that from?
I have expressed verbatim that non-sedevacantists can be "Catholic", so where did you get the contrary from?
I clearly said that we must avoid that which is a danger, even if it comes from a Catholic. This isn't rocket science. Everyone knows a parent keeps her children from playing with other Catholic children if they have a dirty mouth.
Matto, you got it all wrong, and you should carefully reflect why you did, because you just expressed falsehood about me and my position. Think carefully about why.
-
You condemned her as a tradcuмenist, or something or other, and said she was compromising the faith. And you showed your disagreement with the position of the CMRI allowing her members to attend una-cuм masses. So I guess you consider una-cuм traditional Catholics to be possibly Catholic but dangerous, so you avoid communion with them?
Wait a minute. I remember it was you, but it may have been bosco. If it was bosco, forgive me for misremembering.
-
You condemned her as a tradcuмenist, or something or other, and said she was compromising the faith. And you showed your disagreement with the position of the CMRI allowing her members to attend una-cuм masses. So I guess you consider una-cuм traditional Catholics to be possibly Catholic but dangerous, so you avoid communion with them?
Saying someone is wrong or mistaken, doesn't mean I "condemn" them, or do you "condemn" everyone you say has an error? Please stop being biased.
Yes, any danger morally or to our faith, must be avoided. Do you deny that moral principle?
There are some times where one can risk some danger, depending upon the balance to our need and ability. I say the CMRI is lax in their permitting exposure to danger to Faith. That is their problem.
-
Yes, any danger morally or to our faith, must be avoided. Do you deny that moral principle?
So you consider una-cuм masses to be a danger to the faith then? Then what are you doing here? By posting here and interacting with us you are willingly entering an occasion of sin if una-cuм trads are really dangerous to the faith. You are not even a priest yet you expose yourself to such temptations. If I thought about sedevacantists the way you seem to think about una-cuм trads I would not hang out at Te Deum.
-
So you consider una-cuм masses to be a danger to the faith then? Then what are you doing here? By posting here and interacting with us you are willingly entering an occasion of sin if una-cuм trads are really dangerous to the faith. You are not even a priest yet you expose yourself to such temptations. If I thought about sedevacantists the way you seem to think about una-cuм trads I would not hang out at Te Deum.
No, I don't consider una-cuм Masses to be a danger intrinsically. However, they are a danger extrinsically to the average Catholic. That extrinsic danger is not present here for me on this forum. If you would like to spar with me about what you are doing here reading sedevacantist material when you cannot handle it, just ask me.
-
No, I don't consider una-cuм Masses to be a danger intrinsically. However, they are a danger extrinsically to the average Catholic. That extrinsic danger is not present here for me on this forum. If you would like to spar with me about what you are doing here reading sedevacantist material when you cannot handle it, just ask me.
Wow! LOL. As I said, I do not consider sedevacantism to be a danger to the faith so there is nothing for me to not be able to handle. But I have no desire to spar with anyone really. I am not a "super hero" like you. I do think that you do not belong here, but that is not my decision to make.
-
I do not consider sedevacantism to be a danger to the faith
Cool. Then why be so inimical towards sedevacantists if there is no danger?
-
Cool. Then why be so inimical towards sedevacantists if there is no danger?
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.
-
Shhh!! Stop feeding the troll...if you ignore Bumphrey he might just go away.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?!
-
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?!
Hopefully Bumphrey this is the last post you have to drag out of me.
"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." --- Bumphrey
Under Vatican I’s ‘Arguments from the assent of the Church,’ we read:
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, [LIKE THE HOLY OFFICE OF 1616] have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)
Under Faith, and Faith and Reason, Vatican Council I teaches:
‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’ (Denz. 1792.)
Under the heading of faith and reason, the same Council anathematised the idea that scientific assertions that oppose revealed doctrine can be held. It also condemned the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, such as many of the apologists suggested, especially by members of the Holy Office in 1820, an important aspect of the Galileo case.
‘By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately revealed by God which has been proposed by the teaching authority of the Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council I explains: ‘All these things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogmas.
(1) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of revelation.
(2) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. This promulgation of the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
Do these conditions not cover the anti-Galilean decrees? Of course they do, as a reading of the Holy Office’s 1616-1644 records reveal.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Mercier Press, Cork Ireland, 1954.
-
Hopefully Bumphrey this is the last post you have to drag out of me.
"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." --- Bumphrey
Under Vatican I’s ‘Arguments from the assent of the Church,’ we read:
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, [LIKE THE HOLY OFFICE OF 1616] have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)
Under Faith, and Faith and Reason, Vatican Council I teaches:
‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’ (Denz. 1792.)
Under the heading of faith and reason, the same Council anathematised the idea that scientific assertions that oppose revealed doctrine can be held. It also condemned the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, such as many of the apologists suggested, especially by members of the Holy Office in 1820, an important aspect of the Galileo case.
‘By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately revealed by God which has been proposed by the teaching authority of the Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council I explains: ‘All these things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogmas.
(1) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of revelation.
(2) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. This promulgation of the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)
Do these conditions not cover the anti-Galilean decrees? Of course they do, as a reading of the Holy Office’s 1616-1644 records reveal.
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Mercier Press, Cork Ireland, 1954.
In no way does it say that "the Church" ruled such as part of the magisterium. You are you're own worst enemy in this.
Here is a quote from Catholic World, 1869:
Even Riccioli, the original source, up to within a few years, of all accounts of the trial and sentence of Galileo, and himself one of the strongest theological opponents of the theory of the earth's motion, expressly protests against the assertion that any declaration whatever had been made on the subject by the church itself. He says: "The Sacred Congregation of Cardinals, taken apart from the Supreme Pontiff, does not make propositions to be of faith, even though it should actually define them to be of faith, or the contrary ones heretical. Wherefore, since no definition upon this matter has as yet issued from the Supreme Pontiff, nor from any council directed and approved by him, it is not yet of faith that the sun moves and the earth stands still by force of the decree of the Congregation; but at most and alone, by the force of the sacred Scriptures to those to whom it is morally evident that God has revealed it. Nevertheless, Catholics are bound, in prudence and obedience, at least so far as not to teach the contrary."
-
Please consider most seriously the following historical developments and Magisterial pronouncements concerning geocentrism seen at the bottom of the page at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html)
or below.
Magisterium / History
Following is a brief chronological summary of the historical developments and Magisterial pronouncements in connection with the Church’s teaching on the universe:
1564 – Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8: the Council infallibly teaches that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures as supporting a geocentric cosmology.
1613 – Galileo publishes his Letters on Sunspots in which he praised the Copernican (heliocentric) theory.
1615 – Galileo writes a letter to one of his students, Fr. Benedetto Castelli, proclaiming the truth of Copernicanism, stating that “Scripture…in physical disputes should be reserved to the last place” as an authority for resolving those disputes. Galileo writes a similar letter to Dutchess Christina of Lorraine. Fr. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite friar, also writes a book defending the compatibility of Copernicanism with Scripture.
1615 – On April 12, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (a saint and Doctor of the Church) writes a letter to Fr. Foscarini, advising him that Copernicanism is contrary to Scripture.
The following is list of Cardinal Bellarmine’s most salient quotes:
1. “to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens...and the earth... revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
2. “the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining (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 center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.”
3. “Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith...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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.”
4. “If there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe…and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary…But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration.”
5. “I add 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.”
1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…being spread by... Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini…Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it decrees that the said... De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium..be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned.” Pope Paul V presided at this Congregation and, while his name is not on the decree, approved and ordered the decree as supreme teacher of the Church.
1632 – Galileo publishes the book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he openly and enthusiastically advocated the Copernican system and ridiculed the geocentric system. This publication was in direct conflict with the Council of Trent’s teaching that one could not hold a position contrary to the unanimity of the Fathers, Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter holding the Copernican theory contrary to Scripture, and the Congregation of the Index’s ban on all books that taught the Copernican theory.
1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.
1633 - Galileo signs a statement which reads “with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error, heresy and sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church...but, should I know any heretic or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to the Holy Office or to the inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…” 1664 – Pope Alexander VII issues Speculatore Domus Israel in which he solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596 to 1664. The pope declared “We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removes Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. This was consistent with the Congregation’s decree in 1616 that the book would be banned until “corrected.” However, the Church’s condemnations of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings are heretical and contrary to Scripture is not (and never has been) overturned.
1870 – The First Vatican Council, Canons and Decrees, Chapter III, infallibly declares that “the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth.” The Council also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture by dogmatically stating: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, 1870.
1885 – Father William Roberts publishes his book The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. In this book, Fr. Roberts presents a strong case for the position that the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism is infallible. He concludes: (1) Alexander VIII’s Speculatores was a papal act of supreme authority by which the pope, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, that heliocentrism was false; (2) heliocentrism was false because the Church declared it a heresy, and whoever says an opinion is heresy ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith; and, (3) infallible teachings, even those ex-cathedra, do not generally generate any fresh obligation of faith, but protect and vindicate one that already exists.
1893 – Pope Leo XIII issues Providentissimus Deus which affirms the teaching of the Council of Trent that the Scriptures are inerrant in all matters written, not just matters relating to salvation. The pope states “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow its inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being impossible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” (No. 20).
1907 – On July 3, Pope Pius X issues the encyclical Lamentabili Sane which condemned the errors of the modernists. In connection with creation, science and the inerrancy of Scripture, the following errors, inter alia, were expressly condemned: -Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences (no. 5). -They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations (no.8. -Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error (no. 11). -Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted (no. 64).
1920 – On September 15, Pope Benedict XV issues Spiritus Paraclitus in which he likewise affirms the teaching of the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council, and Lamentabili Sane on the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The pope states “by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church]…wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible...” The pope condemns contrary opinions by stating “For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines...is left to the feebleness of the writer...But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed.”
1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual.” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.” (no. 24).
1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church – paragraph 105 says “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Emphasis added.)
What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.
In fact, the Church has other dogmatic, infallible teachings such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary with less Scriptural, papal, patristic and medieval support than geocentrism. The Church has also not annulled her condemnations of heliocentrism. Those who hold the geocentric view believe that God made the earth the spiritual and material center of the universe for the Incarnation of His only-begotten Son, where Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetually offered “from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Mal. 1:11), and where Jesus dwells in His Eucharistic presence under the appearance of bread and wine.
It is, therefore, consistent with Catholic teaching to believe that Jesus Christ, the God-man, has united divinity with humanity at the center of the universe which is earth. On a more basic level, if the earth is the center of the universe, then this means that someone (God) put it there. Given the dynamics of the universe, the relative positions of the heavenly bodies, and the size of the earth, it would be impossible for the earth to be the center of the universe unless a divine agent worked out all the details.
If the earth is indeed the center, then God is trying to tell us that we are special to Him. We are unique. We are destined to be with Him forever. This is why He opens His written revelation with the creation account. This is also why the atheists and agnostics want so badly to disprove geocentrism, because if they can do that, they can argue that there is no God. They want to argue that there is no God because they don’t want to be accountable to Him. If science would definitively disprove the geocentric theory, then, as St. Bellarmine suggests, “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.
But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.”
-
What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.
In fact, the Church has other dogmatic, infallible teachings such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary with less Scriptural, papal, patristic and medieval support than geocentrism. The Church has also not annulled her condemnations of heliocentrism. Those who hold the geocentric view believe that God made the earth the spiritual and material center of the universe for the Incarnation of His only-begotten Son, where Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetually offered “from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Mal. 1:11), and where Jesus dwells in His Eucharistic presence under the appearance of bread and wine.
It is clear from the reaction of the Church that one is free to believe geocentrism or heliocentrism as long as you sincerely consider whichever more reasonable. However, "the Church" did not condemn either one, as I explained in my last post.
-
It is clear from the reaction of the Church that one is free to believe geocentrism or heliocentrism as long as you sincerely consider whichever more reasonable. However, "the Church" did not condemn either one, as I explained in my last post.
The Church condemned heliocentrism as the history listed below demonstrates. Catholics are not free to hold heliocentrism. Besides the Church's pronouncement on the subject, it is equally revealing that heliocentrism is eagerly promoted by modern man under the titles of: globalists, atheists, pagans, Jews, Freemasons, etc. Every single heliocentric scientist lauded as founding fathers of the cosmology of Pythagoras, a known Kabbalist, are occult demon worshipers. Go global, you'll be in fine company there!
-
The Church condemned heliocentrism as the history listed below demonstrates. Catholics are not free to hold heliocentrism. Besides the Church's pronouncement on the subject, it is equally revealing that heliocentrism is eagerly promoted by modern man under the titles of: globalists, atheists, pagans, Jews, Freemasons, etc. Every single heliocentric scientist lauded as founding fathers of the cosmology of Pythagoras, a known Kabbalist, are occult demon worshipers. Go global, you'll be in fine company there!
You're not Catholic, nor female. Liar.
-
*She* (because I know) speaks the truth.
You would do well to do some reasearch on the origins of the Babylonian mystery religion. And, yes, Pythagoras was a Kabbalist. Present day NASA is also.
Sorry to burst your bubble...or, globe... as it were. ;)
-
My sole purpose in starting this thread was to try to help some people who reject geocentrism out of hand due to a certain difficulty they perceive. That difficulty is in trying to even imagine how the entire universe with a diameter of some 93 billion light years could be traveling about the Earth once every 24 hours. They might say it defies common sense. People who reject geocentrism for whatever reason almost always assume the Earth makes a complete rotation on its axis once every 24 hours. They may take that as a non-debatable given.
Presumably, these people would have no problem in accepting how a a globe shaped object in space the size of Mount Everest could spin completely around in 24 hours or less. That being so let us consider a simple thought exercise. It may help to remind us of how small we really are and how infinitely great God is.
We start with a scale where a full grown human being has a size of 10 to the power of 0. Now, let us place our imaginary Mr. and Mrs. Neutrino who just happen to measure in at the size of a neutrino (10 to the negative 23) at the center of a Mount Everest size "universe" which would have a relative size of 10 to the power of 4 and which is making a complete 360 degree spin once every 24 hours.
Mr. and Mrs. Neutrino are having a lively debate about whether or not they themselves are turning around every 24 hours or the object they are in which they believe to be the entire universe is going around them every 24 hours. Mrs. Neutrino insists that they themselves are moving around since after all the vast majority of the world's scientists of whatever stripe say they are. Mr. Neutrino is not buying it. He insists that none of the scientists have ever actually proved that they themselves are moving around and at the same time he insists that none of the scientists have never actually disproved that the object they are in is moving around them. Keep in mind that the Mount Everest size "universe" that Mr. and Mr Neutrino are in appears to them relative to their own size as the size of the known universe (10 to the power of 27 or one with a 93 billion light year diameter) appears to us.
-
*She* (because I know) speaks the truth.
She? I am talking about what the DNA indicates, not what gender he identifies with!
-
My sole purpose in starting this thread was to try to help some people who reject geocentrism out of hand due to a certain difficulty they perceive. That difficulty is in trying to even imagine how the entire universe with a diameter of some 93 billion light years could be traveling about the Earth once every 24 hours. They might say it defies common sense. People who reject geocentrism for whatever reason almost always assume the Earth makes a complete rotation on its axis once every 24 hours. They may take that as a non-debatable given.
Presumably, these people would have no problem in accepting how a a globe shaped object in space the size of Mount Everest could spin completely around in 24 hours or less. That being so let us consider a simple thought exercise. It may help to remind us of how small we really are and how infinitely great God is.
We start with a scale where a full grown human being has a size of 10 to the power of 0. Now, let us place our imaginary Mr. and Mrs. Neutrino who just happen to measure in at the size of a neutrino (10 to the negative 23) at the center of a Mount Everest size "universe" which would have a relative size of 10 to the power of 4 and which is making a complete 360 degree spin once every 24 hours.
Mr. and Mrs. Neutrino are having a lively debate about whether or not they themselves are turning around every 24 hours or the object they are in which they believe to be the entire universe is going around them every 24 hours. Mrs. Neutrino insists that they themselves are moving around since after all the vast majority of the world's scientists of whatever stripe say they are. Mr. Neutrino is not buying it. He insists that none of the scientists have ever actually proved that they themselves are moving around and at the same time he insists that none of the scientists have never actually disproved that the object they are in is moving around them. Keep in mind that the Mount Everest size "universe" that Mr. and Mr Neutrino are in appears to them relative to their own size as the size of the known universe (10 to the power of 27 or one with a 93 billion light year diameter) appears to us.
-
Years ago I took a course called "the history of math" in college. What I came away with is that men have not changed, nor has math.
First off, the earth is not flat...
"It is He (God) that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: He that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." [Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22]
Second of all, I don't care whether Planck was pagan or not. 2+2=4 whether you are Pius X or a 33rd Degree Mason. The Planck constants resulted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the culmination of the dog and pony show that was WW2 (See some of my other posts.)
Thirdly, the geocentric people who are worried about the heavens spinning into chaos are fixated with the false theories of Newton and Einstein. The proof that special relativity is stupid is simple: If a photon (a hypothetical partical of light) attained the "speed of light" it would become so massive it would become a singularity and fall into its own black hole. The "space" of Star Trek and Star Wars is a Masonic construct. The stars are pinned on a firmament and the planets are movable stars.
Fourthly, the "background radiation" "Axis of Evil" proves the earth is the center of the universe.
Fifthly, the sun rises and sets and the moon rises and sets as God deigned it regardless of what theory one ascribes to...
As for the answers to all the math constructs, I can wait for Judgment Day.
regards.
-
Please consider most seriously the following historical developments and Magisterial pronouncements concerning geocentrism seen at the bottom of the page at http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html)
or below.
Magisterium / History
Following is a brief chronological summary of the historical developments and Magisterial pronouncements in connection with the Church’s teaching on the universe:
1564 – Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8: the Council infallibly teaches that no one could “in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine...interpret the sacred Scriptures…even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” The Fathers unanimously interpreted the Scriptures as supporting a geocentric cosmology.
1613 – Galileo publishes his Letters on Sunspots in which he praised the Copernican (heliocentric) theory.
1615 – Galileo writes a letter to one of his students, Fr. Benedetto Castelli, proclaiming the truth of Copernicanism, stating that “Scripture…in physical disputes should be reserved to the last place” as an authority for resolving those disputes. Galileo writes a similar letter to Dutchess Christina of Lorraine. Fr. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite friar, also writes a book defending the compatibility of Copernicanism with Scripture.
1615 – On April 12, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (a saint and Doctor of the Church) writes a letter to Fr. Foscarini, advising him that Copernicanism is contrary to Scripture.
The following is list of Cardinal Bellarmine’s most salient quotes:
1. “to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens...and the earth... revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing…by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.”
2. “the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining (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 center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.”
3. “Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith...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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.”
4. “If there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe…and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary…But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration.”
5. “I add 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.”
1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…being spread by... Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini…Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it decrees that the said... De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium..be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned.” Pope Paul V presided at this Congregation and, while his name is not on the decree, approved and ordered the decree as supreme teacher of the Church.
1632 – Galileo publishes the book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he openly and enthusiastically advocated the Copernican system and ridiculed the geocentric system. This publication was in direct conflict with the Council of Trent’s teaching that one could not hold a position contrary to the unanimity of the Fathers, Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter holding the Copernican theory contrary to Scripture, and the Congregation of the Index’s ban on all books that taught the Copernican theory.
1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth moves and is not the center of the world...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.
1633 - Galileo signs a statement which reads “with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error, heresy and sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church...but, should I know any heretic or person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to the Holy Office or to the inquisitor or Ordinary of the place where I may be…” 1664 – Pope Alexander VII issues Speculatore Domus Israel in which he solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596 to 1664. The pope declared “We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
1758 – Pope Benedict XIV removes Copernicus’ book from the Index, after editors removed nine sentences which taught that heliocentrism was a certainty. This was consistent with the Congregation’s decree in 1616 that the book would be banned until “corrected.” However, the Church’s condemnations of Copernicanism on the grounds that its teachings are heretical and contrary to Scripture is not (and never has been) overturned.
1870 – The First Vatican Council, Canons and Decrees, Chapter III, infallibly declares that “the Church, which together with the apostolic office of teaching, has received a charge to guard the deposit of faith, derives from God the right and duty of proscribing false science, lest any should be deceived by philosophy and vain deceit. Therefore all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science such opinions as are known to be contrary to the doctrines of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, but are altogether bound to account them as errors which put on the fallacious appearance of truth.” The Council also affirms the inerrancy of Scripture by dogmatically stating: “These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.” Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, chapter 2, paragraph 7, 1870.
1885 – Father William Roberts publishes his book The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. In this book, Fr. Roberts presents a strong case for the position that the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism is infallible. He concludes: (1) Alexander VIII’s Speculatores was a papal act of supreme authority by which the pope, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, that heliocentrism was false; (2) heliocentrism was false because the Church declared it a heresy, and whoever says an opinion is heresy ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith; and, (3) infallible teachings, even those ex-cathedra, do not generally generate any fresh obligation of faith, but protect and vindicate one that already exists.
1893 – Pope Leo XIII issues Providentissimus Deus which affirms the teaching of the Council of Trent that the Scriptures are inerrant in all matters written, not just matters relating to salvation. The pope states “But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow its inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being impossible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church” (No. 20).
1907 – On July 3, Pope Pius X issues the encyclical Lamentabili Sane which condemned the errors of the modernists. In connection with creation, science and the inerrancy of Scripture, the following errors, inter alia, were expressly condemned: -Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences (no. 5). -They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations (no.8. -Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error (no. 11). -Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted (no. 64).
1920 – On September 15, Pope Benedict XV issues Spiritus Paraclitus in which he likewise affirms the teaching of the Council of Trent, the First Vatican Council, and Lamentabili Sane on the inerrancy of the Scriptures. The pope states “by these precepts and limits [set by the Fathers of the Church]…wish, indeed, that inspiration itself pertain to all ideas, rather even to the individual words of the Bible...” The pope condemns contrary opinions by stating “For their belief is that that only which concerns religion is intended and is taught by God in the Scriptures; but that the rest, which pertains to the profane disciplines...is left to the feebleness of the writer...But how rashly, how falsely this is affirmed.”
1950 – On August 12, Pope Pius XII issues the encyclical Humani Generis which addressed false opinions that were threatening to undermine Catholic doctrine. The pope, in echoing St. Augustine and Providentissimus Deus, declared that the modern exegete’s desire to depart from a literal interpretation of Scripture in favor of a non-literal interpretation was foreign to Catholic teaching: “Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual.” (no. 23). “Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, and Benedict XV in the Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.” (no. 24).
1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church – paragraph 105 says “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” (Emphasis added.)
What is the conclusion? Heliocentrism cannot be taught as a certainty. It is only a hypothesis, and a hypothesis can either be a possibly true explanation, or an avowedly false one. Science has not proven either geocentrism or heliocentrism, but the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church support the geocentric position.
In fact, the Church has other dogmatic, infallible teachings such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary with less Scriptural, papal, patristic and medieval support than geocentrism. The Church has also not annulled her condemnations of heliocentrism. Those who hold the geocentric view believe that God made the earth the spiritual and material center of the universe for the Incarnation of His only-begotten Son, where Jesus’ sacrifice is perpetually offered “from the rising of the sun to its setting” (Mal. 1:11), and where Jesus dwells in His Eucharistic presence under the appearance of bread and wine.
It is, therefore, consistent with Catholic teaching to believe that Jesus Christ, the God-man, has united divinity with humanity at the center of the universe which is earth. On a more basic level, if the earth is the center of the universe, then this means that someone (God) put it there. Given the dynamics of the universe, the relative positions of the heavenly bodies, and the size of the earth, it would be impossible for the earth to be the center of the universe unless a divine agent worked out all the details.
If the earth is indeed the center, then God is trying to tell us that we are special to Him. We are unique. We are destined to be with Him forever. This is why He opens His written revelation with the creation account. This is also why the atheists and agnostics want so badly to disprove geocentrism, because if they can do that, they can argue that there is no God. They want to argue that there is no God because they don’t want to be accountable to Him. If science would definitively disprove the geocentric theory, then, as St. Bellarmine suggests, “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.
But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.”
Cassini, all of your posts on this thread have been insightful. I hope you will seriously consider writing a book on this subject. Nothing by a Catholic author currently exists. We have the choice of a new ager who does not use footnotes or an anti-Catholic who cites Chick Publications in his footnotes. Neither one addresses the Catholic perspective.
-
White Wolf, you cite
"It is He (God) that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: He that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." [Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22]
Do a word study on "circle" and "globe" and you will see that God sitteth upon the circle of the earth.
-
Cera, I couldn't agree with you more concerning Cassini where you state: "Cassini, all of your posts on this thread have been insightful. I hope you will seriously consider writing a book on this subject. Nothing by a Catholic author currently exists. We have the choice of a new ager who does not use footnotes or an anti-Catholic who cites Chick Publications in his footnotes. Neither one addresses the Catholic perspective." Please be informed, however, of the magnificent work by traditional Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis on the subject of geocentrism. I believe that nothing of recent vintage comes close to his overall great Catholic achievement in the area of geocentrism which is continually ongoing in his films, lecutures, articles and updating of his magnus opus, Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right which is seen at Galileo Was Wrong (http://galileowaswrong.com/) Also, see the following websites of Dr. Sungenis with information on more of his work concerning geocentrism: Journey to the Center of the Universe (https://gwwdvd.com/) and The Principle (http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/).
-
Planck theory is pagan and heliocentrism is condemned by the Church.
Helio- & Geo centrism have been shown wrong by science as we now know that E & S are Both in motion. :sleep:
-
Years ago I took a course called "the history of math" in college. What I came away with is that men have not changed, nor has math.
First off, the earth is not flat...
"It is He (God) that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: He that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." [Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22]
Second of all, I don't care whether Planck was pagan or not. 2+2=4 whether you are Pius X or a 33rd Degree Mason. The Planck constants resulted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the culmination of the dog and pony show that was WW2 (See some of my other posts.)
Thirdly, the geocentric people who are worried about the heavens spinning into chaos are fixated with the false theories of Newton and Einstein. The proof that special relativity is stupid is simple: If a photon (a hypothetical partical of light) attained the "speed of light" it would become so massive it would become a singularity and fall into its own black hole. The "space" of Star Trek and Star Wars is a Masonic construct. The stars are pinned on a firmament and the planets are movable stars.
Fourthly, the "background radiation" "Axis of Evil" proves the earth is the center of the universe.
Fifthly, the sun rises and sets and the moon rises and sets as God deigned it regardless of what theory one ascribes to...
As for the answers to all the math constructs, I can wait for Judgment Day.
regards.
A lot of fair enough stuff here, but I want to mention one thing that needs to be considered in regard to what I emboldened above.
The INFINITE is not an attribute of the material world. It is only an attribute of God. The nexial point is our own eternal souls (united with our material body) that can grasp the concept of the infinite, and many humans erroneously ascribe this attribute to the material world just because they can grasp the concept, not realizing that it only pertains to their souls.
Proof in point: The human (body & soul, remember) knows that distance can be halved repeatedly. The mind (the soul) takes this to its logical speculative conclusion that halving distance should never end. The closer a thing moves towards another, if the distance could always be halved infinitely, then the objects would NEVER meet. But the human mind (the spiritual soul) can decide to test the speculative theory, and finds instantly that objects always approach and meet each other. The CONCLUSION is that in the material world there is NO SUCH THING as infinitely divisible space, which means that there is such a thing as the "smallest possible distance".
Now, just because the speculative logic clashed with what was materially impossible, does not mean that we should cease to halve distances for practical matters in life. It is still good "practically" to consider "indefinitely" halving distances.
Likewise, just because some theories, such as Einstein's Relatvity, may clash with the logical results in the material world, does NOT mean the theory is wrong in the PRACTICAL material world.
Planck started to have it correct by trying to take the "infinite" out of mathematics.