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

Author Topic: Sun and Earth  (Read 17894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Sun and Earth
« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2022, 01:22:36 PM »
No Roscoe, the Dimonds are on your side, they try to show that the 1616 decree and the confirmation of its authority by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 and by the Holy Office in 1820 meant nothing by way of Pope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclical on Dante In Praeclara Summorum.
First a quote from this encyclical:

'If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory shines in a part more or less elsewhere: and though this Earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.'

The Dimonds say:
Here we see Pope Benedict XV, in a 1921 encyclical, declare that “this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought.”  In all the discussions of the issue with which I’m familiar, I’ve never seen the above quotation from Pope Benedict XV brought forward.  People such as John Daly, Solange Hertz, Paula Haigh, etc., who have spent much time on this issue, were obviously unaware of this quotation.

There are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe; or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide.

If #1 is true, that means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical.  It also means that he and other numerous other popes (as will be explained below) were ignorant of the true theological status of geocentrism.

My answer to this is:
It has been asserted by certain men, like the Dimond brothers, that the above encyclical shows the 1616 edict was not an irreversible (infallible) decree because Benedict XV did not confirm a geocentric universe. The Pope was of course referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity of his time as the progress of science that held ‘the world rested on no sure foundation.’ In other words, a geocentric universe was still as viable as a heliocentric one. Moreover, the Ptolemaic system of the universe was the universe of Dante, and yes, the Pope was right about it no longer being the true system. Given the fact that in his time geocentrism was still considered falsified by the Jesuits surrounding him, one surely would have expected the Pope to say the Earth ‘is not at the centre.’ But he did not, nor that the sun does not orbit the Earth, leaving the 1616 decree as defined and declared. One could equally say Pope Benedict XV with the words ‘may not be’ did not accept the physical non-violent heliocentrism ‘of modern astronomers’ insisted on by the Holy Office from 1820.
Pope Benedict XV may not have denied that the Earth is geocentric, but that doesn't mean the 1616 decree was infallible. If it were, His Holiness or any of the other popes between 1757 and today would have noted as much.

Re: Sun and Earth
« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2022, 03:31:20 PM »
Pope Benedict XV may not have denied that the Earth is geocentric, but that doesn't mean the 1616 decree was infallible. If it were, His Holiness or any of the other popes between 1757 and today would have noted as much.

No pope ever denied the infallibility of the definition and declaration of the anti-Biblical heresy of a fixed sun in 1616 by Pope Paul V and confirmed in 1633 by a second pope. All any pope did was to take heliocentric books off the Index. Pope Paul VI took all books off the Index but all the heresies in them remained heresies.

Very few know the details of the U-turn of 1820. Fr Olivieri, head of the Holy Office in 1820 admitted the 1616 decree was infallible. He knew this. So how then did Catholic churchmen have their infallible cake and eat it? He actually told his pope that the infallible decree of 1616 was a condemnation of a violent heliocentrism but that modern astronomers had confirmed heliocentrism of 1820 was a non-violent one. Obviously Olivieri had not read Copernicus's or Galileo's book in which both dismiss the old idea that if the Earth orbited all would be disturbed on its surface. This proves that Olivieri made up the lie about the infallible 1616 decree to leave it untouched. 

And that is why the 1820 decrees allowing books to be read always made this clear:
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII

But then in 1822 the Holy Office, issued another decree, actually applying penalties for not allowing the publication of books presenting the heliocentric solar system ‘according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.’
 
I will comment on tyhe Diamond Brothers denial of infallibility soon.
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun [the defined heresy in 1616], according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’
 
Now why do you think decrees of a pope would always put in the phrase according to the common opinion of modern astronomers? Because the decree of 1616, the infallible one, could not be touched as promised by Christ's Church. And the ploy worked. But as the Lord said;

For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest
 nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)




Offline Yeti

  • Supporter
Re: Sun and Earth
« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2022, 04:14:08 PM »
From Sungenis's book:


Quote
Since the geocentric star field is offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit, then, as the star field rotates around the Earth on a 93 million mile radius, it will produce the same circular and elliptical formations of Gamma Draconis as that which is claimed for the heliocentric system.


This is a contradiction. The center of a ball is a point that is equidistant from every point on the surface. For the earth to be the center of the universe, that would mean that the stars remain always the same distance from the earth as they rotate around it. So when Sungenis is saying the stars are offset from the earth by one astronomical unit, he is saying the earth is actually not the center of the universe.

Re: Sun and Earth
« Reply #48 on: July 17, 2022, 04:35:10 AM »
From Sungenis's book:

This is a contradiction. The center of a ball is a point that is equidistant from every point on the surface. For the earth to be the center of the universe, that would mean that the stars remain always the same distance from the earth as they rotate around it. So when Sungenis is saying the stars are offset from the earth by one astronomical unit, he is saying the earth is actually not the center of the universe.
First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the stars, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.

Re: Sun and Earth
« Reply #49 on: July 17, 2022, 08:07:59 AM »
First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the sun, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.

My typo error. 'Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the sun,