Author Topic: Why? (Read 11023 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2023, 08:56:31 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 08:44:08 AM

St. Thomas Aquinas, who explicitly taught (as science) that the earth is a globe, wrote the following in the Summa Theologica:

OK? He followed Aristotle, and viewed it as a matter of science, as you pointed out. Some of Aristotle's "proofs" don't fly anymore due to various technological advances, including the old ships disappearing from view argument. Now that we have better optics, we can zoom in on said ships and see them coming back into full view when they had appeared to disappear from bottom up due to perspective and their convergence with the horizon.

St. Thomas also taught an incorrect view of the Immaculate Conception, to hold which now would be condemned.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:02:15 AM »

Aside from the Flat Earth issue, per se, one thing that the Church Fathers were unanimous on was about the existence of a real physical firmament that separated real physical waters from the earth. Sacred Scripture is very clear about that, and the Church Fathers unanimously upheld this view. So the replacement of this firmament with some notion of "space" would certainly be amenable to condemnation. There are other passages in Sacred Scripture that suggest Flat Earth, though it's not entirely unequivocal. I disagree that any Church Father believed in a ball earth, and those who wrote of it as a "sphere" were taking into account the shape of the entire world, including the firmament. But that's a separate question that would need to be studied.

Jaynek · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:03:18 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 08:54:23 AM

Certainly the Church could condemn it ... and could condemn a variety of other things that haven't been condemned.

I did not say it was impossible, merely difficult. The conditions under which the Church would condemn a belief in globe earth are not likely to occur after so many centuries of promoting the position through her educational institutions.

Jaynek · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:09:40 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 08:56:31 AM

St. Thomas also taught an incorrect view of the Immaculate Conception, to hold which now would be condemned.

Yes, if the Church were to teach as a matter of infallible doctrine that the earth is flat, then even the Angelic Doctor would have been wrong when he taught otherwise. However, since there is magisterial teaching which confirms St. Augustine's position that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth, it is hard to imagine the Church creating such a doctrine.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #19 on:** June 26, 2023, 09:56:13 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 09:09:40 AM

Yes, if the Church were to teach as a matter of infallible doctrine that the earth is flat, then even the Angelic Doctor would have been wrong when he taught otherwise. However, since there is magisterial teaching which confirms St. Augustine's position that Scripture is silent on the shape of the earth, it is hard to imagine the Church creating such a doctrine.

As I said, I think it require some more study. There are disputes about what St. Augustine meant. When he was debating the shape of the earth, he was, for instance, arguing about whether the "firmament" was shaped like a sphere or more like a teepee, since Sacred Scripture likened it to a tent. I don't believe any of the Church Fathers entertained the idea that the earth on which we walk would be a ball, but, rather were looking at the entire system, which included the firmament. They did all believe in a solid firmament that kept the waters out, and such a firmament around a ball would be an interesting concept to say the least. If you recall, many opponents of the Church's definition regarding the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility also argued that there was no evidence that these were part of the Deposit of Revelation. Now, the Church condemned heliocentrism because it undermined the Sacred Scriptures, and has probably not condemned globe earth (or flat earth) because FE or GE are not to be found unequivocally in Sacred Scripture and so there's no clearly-perceived harm to Sacred Scripture from holding either opinion. It's generally only when the Church perceives that there's some harm being done to the Faith when she intervenes, and she hasn't yet judged the globe to be harmful.

Jaynek · « **Reply #20 on:** June 26, 2023, 11:57:46 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 09:56:13 AM

As I said, I think it require some more study. There are disputes about what St. Augustine meant. When he was debating the shape of the earth, he was, for instance, arguing about whether the "firmament" was shaped like a sphere or more like a teepee, since Sacred Scripture likened it to a tent.

St. Augustine wrote, perfectly clearly, of others who debated the subject in DE GENESI. AD LITTERAM:

It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and, what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial.

What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side?...

Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation.

There is no dispute over the fact that he did not consider these matters to have been revealed by Scripture or relevant to salvation.

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 09:02:15 AM

... one thing that the Church Fathers were unanimous on was about the existence of a real physical firmament that separated real physical waters from the earth. Sacred Scripture is very clear about that, and the Church Fathers unanimously upheld this view.

I have not studied this question in depth, so I will take your word for it. But even if there is unanimity among the Fathers on the question, this does not mean that we are obliged to accept it. This was addressed by Pope Pius XII in Providentissimus Deus:

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."

How we understand the nature of the firmament is a physical matter rather than a question of faith. This is clearly the view of St. Thomas in the Summa passage I quoted, who treats it as something in which Christians are free to hold a variety of opinions. While St. Thomas might not be infallible, the Summa is an excellent guide to the Catholic faith.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #21 on:** June 26, 2023, 12:57:27 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 11:57:46 AM

There is no dispute over the fact that he did not consider these matters to have been revealed by Scripture or relevant to salvation.

Sure, I understand. But he could be mistaken. One might make the same statement regarding geocentrism, namely, that it's not important since it does not "avail for ... salvation". In the Holy Office condemnation of heliocentrism, the argument was that although in and of itself this was not a matter of faith, it became a matter of faith in so far as it contradicted Sacred Scripture, as St. Robert Bellarmine stated, even if not a matter of faith ex parte objecti, it's a matter of faith ex parte Dicentis ... because Galileo's theory would impugn the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

We have to be careful regarding the "avail for salvation" criterion, as it's a small step from that to the Modernist abuse of the notion into the assertion that Sacred Scripture could err where it comes to scientific matters, because Scripture only intended to teach those things that pertain to salvation. Even if something is a matter of history or science, and it wasn't the direct intent of Sacred Scripture to teach about history of science, this does not mean that Sacred Scripture could err in those matters.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #22 on:** June 26, 2023, 01:05:00 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 11:57:46 AM

I have not studied this question in depth, so I will take your word for it. But even if there is unanimity among the Fathers on the question, this does not mean that we are obliged to accept it. This was addressed by Pope Pius XII in Providentissimus Deus:

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For "in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,"(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: "When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith."

How we understand the nature of the firmament is a physical matter rather than a question of faith. This is clearly the view of St. Thomas in the Summa passage I quoted, who treats it as something in which Christians are free to hold a variety of opinions. While St. Thomas might not be infallible, the Summa is an excellent guide to the Catholic faith.

Yes, Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus (not Pius XII). No other Encyclical have been as badly abused by the Modernists.

While there are details about the firmament that are debated, the Fathers all held that the firmament was physical and that it kept physical waters from the earth due to their interpretation of Sacred Scripture. This was NOT simply an agreement on scientific matters. It was agreement on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Scripture very clearly described the firmament as physical and as keeping physical waters off the earth. Their opinion was due precisely to their reading of Sacred Scripture and not because of opinions of the time or scientific considerations. So this too would fall into the same category of being a matter of faith ex parte Dicentis.

But the citation from St. Thomas actually confirms the same thing. There was some debate about what the firmament was made of, as to its substance, and St. Thomas held that it could refer to a region of high-density air. All are agreed that it had to be something of a high enough density to keep physical water from falling through it. Fathers speculated about how, if it were solid enough to keep waters from the earth, how the sun, moon, and stars could move through it, since generally speaking solid objects can't move through solid objects. Some held they were fixed in the firmament and that the firmament itself rotated around the earth. Others thought that it was of some plasma-like substance. In this citation from St. Thomas, he was mentioning the possibility of a high-density layer of air. But in all cases, the criterion was that it had to be "firm" enough to keep the waters out.

Jaynek · « **Reply #23 on:** June 26, 2023, 01:29:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 12:57:27 PM

Sure, I understand. But he could be mistaken.

I don't see how he could be. His position was quoted and confirmed by magisterial teaching in Providentissimus Deus:

...we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.

Just as we know that St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Concpetion because he contradicted later magisterial teaching, we know that St. Augustine was right about Scripture's silence on the shape of the earth because this is confirmed by later magisterial teaching.

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 12:57:27 PM

In the Holy Office condemnation of heliocentrism, the argument was that although in and of itself this was not a matter of faith, it became a matter of faith in so far as it contradicted Sacred Scripture, as St. Robert Bellarmine stated, even if not a matter of faith ex parte objecti, it's a matter of faith ex parte Dicentis ... because Galileo's theory would impugn the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.

Galileo's theory did not impugn the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, but rather the Church's authority as the sole interpreter of Sacred Scripture. Rather than confining himself to science, he was giving interpretations of Scripture in support of his theories. He was also trying to manipulate Church authorities to confirm these interpretations. Obviously his actions were worthy of condemnation, but, as I understand it, not in a way that precluded the Church changing her interpretation in the future if there were a good reason to do so.

Jaynek · « **Reply #24 on:** June 26, 2023, 01:56:26 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 26, 2023, 01:05:00 PM

While there are details about the firmament that are debated, the Fathers all held that the firmament was physical and that it kept physical waters from the earth due to their interpretation of Sacred Scripture. This was NOT simply an agreement on scientific matters. It was agreement on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Scripture very clearly described the firmament as physical and as keeping physical waters off the earth. Their opinion was due precisely to their reading of Sacred Scripture and not because of opinions of the time or scientific considerations. So this too would fall into the same category of being a matter of faith ex parte Dicentis.

We are not obliged to follow the interpretation of the Fathers in our understanding of what is meant by the firmament. If this is not clear to you from the words of Leo XIII (thanks for the correction on the name of the pope) then perhaps it will be in this statement of Pontifical Biblical Commission under the authority of Pius X :

As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters? Answer: In the negative.

Miser Peccator · « **Reply #25 on:** June 26, 2023, 02:23:43 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 08:21:16 AM

In the early Patristic period, some Fathers taught that Scripture was silent on the question and believed (as a matter of science) the earth is a globe. A few thought Scripture taught flat earth. From the time of St. Bede, who used a globe earth model for calculating the date of Easter, there was a consensus among educated Catholics that the earth is a globe. St. Bede went so far as to claim that globe earth was supported by Scripture. St. Thomas Aquinas, however, while explicitly teaching (as science) that the earth is a globe, merely believed that there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that conflicts with this. Throughout the medieval period, globe earth was the official position taught in the Catholic operated university system, but as a matter of science not religious doctrine.

I have written many posts in this subforum giving quotes and references that establish these points. If you are interested in seeing these, I suggest using the forum search function to find these.

It would be difficult for the Church to condemn globe earth since that was the position held by educated Catholics for most of our history, including Fathers, Doctors and Popes. There is nothing comparable in regard to heliocentrism.

Ven. Bede believed in a solid firmament separating the waters from the waters and with the stars fixed within the firmament which he theorized to be a kind of ice:

“Described in these verses is the creation of our heaven in which the stars are fixed. It is established that the firmament is in the midst of the waters, for we understand that waters were placed beneath the firmament and in the air and the land; and we are taught about the placement of these waters above it by the authority of this Scripture passage and by the words of the prophet who said, “Spreading out heaven like a tent, you cover your chamber with waters.” It is in agreement then that the starry heaven was firmly set in the midst of the waters, and this does not prevent the belief that it was made from these waters.

We know the great strength, purity and transparency of crystalline rock that was made by the congealing of the waters. What could keep us from believing the same arranger of things of nature solidified the waters into the firmament of heaven? But if it disturbs one how the waters, whose very nature is always to flow and to settle to the lowest point, can settle above heaven whose shape we know is round, let him remember the Scripture saying of God, “He binds up the waters in his cloud, and the cloud is not rent under it.”

One may understand, furthermore, that the one who binds up the waters below heaven, when he wishes and occasion arises, supported it without a foundation of firm matter and sustained it only by the vapors of the clouds, so that the water does not fall, is also the one able to suspend the waters above the round sphere of heaven, not with some tenuous vapory mist but with the solidity of ice, so that they would never fall. Even if he willed these liquid waters to remain fixed, would this be any greater miracle than “he hangs the earth upon nothing,” as Scripture states?”[1]

[1] Severian of Gabala and Bede the Venerable. (2010). Commentaries on Genesis 1–3: Homilies on Creation and Fall and Commentary on Genesis: Book I. (M. Glerup, T. C. Oden, & G. L. Bray, Eds., R. C. Hill & C. S. Hardin, Trans.) (p. 119). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.

This diagram shows how the heavenly bodies would be in the firmament.

(I don't necessarily agree with their conclusion in the notation here. How do we know there isn't water above the stars?)

Ven Bede says Heaven is a round sphere. When we moderns hear the word "sphere" we automatically think of the Blue Marble photo, which was manufactured by computer artistry, (there are no actual photos of a ball earth) with upside down people on the bottom.

Yet sphere, or globe can also be consistent with Ancient Hebrew cosmology. The use of the word round can also apply to this model.

Bede explains the waters above and the waters below and I'm not sure if he is referring to a ball earth or a sphere with the flat earth inside,

however I have never seen a modern ball earth model that accounts for the firmament and the waters above and waters below.

That's what I was asking about in my earlier post.

cassini · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2023, 03:54:08 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 01:29:26 PM

I don't see how he could be. His position was quoted and confirmed by magisterial teaching in Providentissimus Deus:

...we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science.

In 1820, Pope Leo XIII's predecessors ruled that the heliocentrism of modern astronomers was not contrary to the 1616 decree by way of removing the last four heliocentric books from the Index. It was this U-turn, from the middle of the 19th century, that began the reinterpretation of Scripture that in turn began Modernism in the Catholic Church that caused the loss of millions of souls. So bad was this modernism that Leo XIII had to write this encyclical in order to try to stop the rot. The quote above has been used by so many sources since then as a way to show the U-turn is now Church teaching and that the popes of the U-turn were correct and the popes of 1616, 1633 and 1664 were wrong.

It is God Who protects His Church. Popes Paul V and Urban VIII defined and declared a fixed sun as Biblical heresy, formal heresy as it had long been declared as heresy before 1616. Now go read the above quote again. It does not say anything about THE SUBJECT MATTER of the 1616 decree.

In fact, earlier in the encyclical it stated

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

Now the 1616 decree stated;
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical [denial of a revelation by God] inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

So, having stated in his Providentissimus Deus that when all the Fathers agree on an interpretation, it cannot be changes, and the 1616 decree was one that all the Fathers agreed with, this encyclical actually confirmed the 1616 decree as irreversible.

In other words, all those who used Providentissimus Deus to confirm heliocentrism were cheating once again to have their way. Here below are a few cheats who used Pope Leo XIII's encyclical to promote an official U-turn on the 1616 decree in chronological order.

‘Similarly, “the sun stood still,” like our “the sun rises,” is a popular method of speaking, and involves the fact that in some way or another God Almighty did prolong the hours of light in the case of Joshua; They were men of their own time and not in front of it, and they fell into the errors natural to what figured in those days of science. But we should be careful to make use of the better guidance which we have obtained in such utterances as the “Providentissimus Deus” and avoid the mistakes which we can see our predecessors have made.’ (Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, 1920, p.81.)

‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’ (Fr James Brodrick, SJ: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.)

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

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

‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible…. “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’(D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225)

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

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

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

‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between Biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’ (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, 2007, p.264.)

‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to Biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”’ (Catholics United for the Faith – what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010)

‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’ (Vatican Observatory website 2013)

‘To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants.’ (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013)‘

The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”)’--- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

Is that a fact now Fathers SSPX. Ever read Pope Benedict X's 1920 encyclical Spiritus Paraclitusthat says the following:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science [like how the heavens go?].

See how they all throughout the years used false reading of an encyclical to promote a defined heresy. That is how serious this heresy fooled even the elect.

Jaynek · « **Reply #27 on:** June 26, 2023, 05:08:25 PM »

Quote from: cassini on June 26, 2023, 03:54:08 PM

In 1820, Pope Leo XIII's predecessors ruled that the heliocentrism of modern astronomers was not contrary to the 1616 decree by way of removing the last four heliocentric books from the Index. It was this U-turn, from the middle of the 19th century, that began the reinterpretation of Scripture that in turn began Modernism in the Catholic Church that caused the loss of millions of souls.

I see no reason to think that there was a U-turn in Church teaching or that any of the Pope's involved were wrong. The decree in 1616 was right. The change to the Index in 1820 was also right because the situation had changed. Pope Leo XIII wrote in continuity with his predecessors who allowed this change. This had nothing to do with causing modernism. The idea of interpretting Scripture in non-literal ways to reconcile it with science goes back to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. If this idea was harmful, surely the harm would have occured before the rise of modernism.

Modernism was caused by the twisting of Catholic teaching to incorporate Enlightment ideas. The Enlightment, in turn, was made possible by the attack on Church authority by the Protestant "Reformation".

The 1616 decree was made by the Congregation of the Index and was therefore not a statement of doctrine. It could not define a heresy. This Congregation's authority pertained to "the Index of books and their licensing, prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom". Its decrees are, by their very nature, reformable.

Jaynek · « **Reply #28 on:** June 26, 2023, 05:30:57 PM »

Quote from: Miser Peccator on June 26, 2023, 02:23:43 PM

Ven Bede says Heaven is a round sphere. When we moderns hear the word "sphere" we automatically think of the Blue Marble photo, which was manufactured by computer artistry, (there are no actual photos of a ball earth) with upside down people on the bottom.

Yet sphere, or globe can also be consistent with Ancient Hebrew cosmology. The use of the word round can also apply to this model.

St. Bede cites Pliny's work when describing his cosmology. This means he is using a Graeco-Roman model rather than a Hebrew/Babylonian one. In other words, it is a ball earth model rather than a flat earth contained within a sphere.

I'm sorry but I don't know how he incorporated the firmament into his model. I have the impression from the Summa passage I quoted earlier that there isn't an obvious solution to placing the firmament in this model This is why there were different understandings of the nature of the firmament among Catholics who accepted ball earth throughout the centuries.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #29 on:** June 26, 2023, 08:57:31 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on June 26, 2023, 05:30:57 PM

This is why there were different understandings of the nature of the firmament among Catholics who accepted ball earth throughout the centuries.

As I said, while there were different opinions regarding what the firmament was made of, the opinion was unanimous that it was indeed firm, firm enough to keep water from inundating the earth.

Author Topic: Why? (Read 11023 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Miser Peccator

Re: Why?

cassini

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Jaynek

Re: Why?

Ladislaus

Re: Why?