Disturbing news about Catholic Answers

[Era Might]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Aug 22 2005, 11:38 PM']Thank you for the semantics.
[right][snapback]695089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, it's more than semantics. Not that I'm not known to be a pedant, but it's an important distinction, because theologian is a formal role in the Church. It's like calling them priests when they in fact aren't.

[JP2Iloveyou]

EENS, if I am not mistaken, geocentricism is the view that the sun revolves around the earth, correct, and that the earth is the center of the universe? This seems totally unjustifiable to me in light of modern science which has, in my mind anyway, proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the earth revolves around the sun. (On a side note, this debate is actually what kick-started the modern era of philosophy between the rationalists and the empiricists, but that is a different story altogether.) Anyway, I'm curious why you subscribe to this theory.

I won't respond tonight. I'll try to tomorrow. I'm going to bed now though. Good night everyone.

Edited August 23, 2005 by JP2Iloveyou

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Aug 22 2005, 11:39 PM']Well, it's more than semantics. Not that I'm not known to be a pedant, but it's an important distinction, because theologian is a formal role in the Church. It's like calling them priests when they in fact aren't.
[right][snapback]695090[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not so much refering to the Vaticans dictionary in as much as I am refering to Websters. Yes, I realize the distinction, perhaps there are those who do not, so you bring up a valid point.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]iblical geocentrism references:

  1. Earth fixed. Psalm 104:5
      He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
  2. Sun moves: Eccl 1:5 plus 66 similar …..

The sun rises and the sun sets , and returns back to where it rises

  1. Moon moves: Joshua 10:12
      ….. Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel:

"O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."

  1. Stars move Job 38:32
      Can you bring forth the morning star in its season or lead out the Bear with its cubs?

Motions are complete circuits or paths – circles are not named.

  1. Finite universe.

The bounds in time are stated in the first three words of Genesis; the bounds of space are set forth by Gen 1:7, where the waters above the firmament (WAF) form the roof of the cosmos.

  1. Earth shape is round: Is 40:22

It is he that sits on the globe of the earth.

    * No counter examples for 1 through 6 are found in Scripture.

Even the Apocrypha give testimony to geocentrism:

...great is the earth, high is the heaven,

swift is the sun in his course,

for he compasses [circles] the heavens round about

and fetches [returns with] his course again

to his own place in one day. I Esdras 4:34

We distinguish carefully the revealed world structure of geostatism from the physical models that attempt to harmonize geostatism with current science facts (not interpretations!).

The sense of central in geocentrism is not mathematical, as in modern thought.

It’s important not to impose current understandings or assumptions upon geostatism.

Geocentrism is not a geometric concept in the Bible:

    * The Sun was made 3 days after Earth; how could the Sun be the cosmic center?
    * The heavens are sandwiched between Earth and WAF
    * The shape of the WAF is unknown. Perhaps ‘geofocused’ would
      be a better expression.

Geostatism support is found in Scripture, the Fathers and the Magisterium.[/quote]

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 10:47 PM']
[right][snapback]695098[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
still doesn't answer as to why YOU believe it

[Era Might]

EENS,

You might want to take a lesson from Pope Leo XIII:

[quote]The unshrinking defense 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.

--Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus Deus"[/quote]

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

because of the biblical verses that support it & because the Galileo ruling was the churches last "offical" (yet still fallibile) statment on the subject.

[zabbazooey]

Come on guys, move it to the debate table!

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

that dosen't mean Geocentrism is wrong. it can't be disproven.

[Brother Adam]

Well, you've offered your support for Geocentricism in scripture which ignores simple exegesis, the intent in which the author wrote, cultural understanding, and focuses simply on a authors choosen translation. Now where is the support in the Fathers and the Magisterium?

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote]  1.  The Church’s Galileo rulings still stand.

Removing a book from the Index does not constitute a reversal of doctrine.

  1. Deliberate demonic confusion exists between Copernicanism (CP) and Geostatism (GS)

This is similar to the contrived conflation of micro and macro evolution in the mind of the theistic evolutionist.

    * Defiance of Geocentrism (GC) was the first step to modernism, including evolution.

The Galileo affair was the devil’s entrée to produce the moral chaos of modernity. In the parable of the weeds and wheat Christ predicted, in Matt 13:25:

But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. …….'An enemy did this,' the owner said to the workers…
’Let both grow together until the harvest…

And so we are still asleep as the weeds grow among us!! Our apathy had been foretold two thousand years ago. But it is His will to wait until the harvest. The response will come with the return of the owner of the wheat fields.

At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.

  1. Same core issues for GC (GeoCentrism) vs. HC (HelioCentrism) as for Creation vs. Evolution
        1. Literal interpretation and
        2. Primacy of belief – Scripture or science.
  2. It will be demonstrated in the following that heliocentrism and acentrism (AC) are provably wrong & geocentrism is circumstantially correct, by the weight of current evidence.

Geocentrism is more consistent with experiments. There’s no smoking gun yet – but scientific demonstrations of geocentric validity won’t be believed anyway, by the anti-religious modern mindset.

Note: The science proofs for geocentrism at the end of this presentation are my only original contributions to the centrism debate.

The Catholic creationist today comprehends, but is not complacent with, his minority role in the Church today, and his even lower credibility in the secular world. But there’s a position even lower in this regard than special creation, a minority within a minority, which also had unanimous acceptance by the orthodox faithful until the rise of modernism.

Its rotten fruits, quite evident today in the moral decay of the world and the subliminal heresies within the fragmented Church, are thought to have risen 200 years ago in the philosophy of Rousseau and the naturalism of Darwin. But there was a fundamental break between science and Scripture that planted the seed of doubt and disbelief well before Darwin.

Events in the sixteenth century lead ultimately to the revolution of evolution. It’s known popularly as the trial of Galileo and scientifically as geocentrism (GC). Being the first clash in the Enlightenment between faith and reason, geocentrism, like evolution, is far from a minor or inconsequential issue. Virtually contemporaneous with the Reformation, the publishing of De Revolutionibus by Copernicus is predated by the posting of Luther’s 90 theses by 25 years. Heliocentrism is the first modernist heresy and the dogmatic crack in the theological dike, enabling the infiltration of all the -isms of modernity via the collective Galilean guilt trip we still are on.

Today most laymen know nothing of the real issues, thanks to the media, but do have a common belief that the publishing of De Revolutionibus by Copernicus and the fallout from Galileo’s trial was the first triumph of science and reason over the Church, and Darwinian evolution was the next.

Other prevailing modern myths are that:

    * Galileo’s science was right; Church’s was wrong
    * A primitive document like the OT could not possibly be right if
      it conflicts with the vast truths discovered by modern science
    * Until Columbus and Galileo, the world was thought to be flat.

As a consequence of modernism most people today believe that science has the ultimate authority over the Church and her theologians to rule on how to interpret Scripture. This is the devil’s foothold on our spiritual destruction.

The New Age and occult practices of today’s youth had its start in the opposition to geocentrism.

Heliocentrism was founded on occult tradition, when mystical meaning was associated with symbols and numbers. Our postmodern era is the modern Dark Ages of spiritual darkness – the Lost Ages of modernism.

The Church’s image is that of a tyrannical and cruel foe of natural discovery and knowledge, an image based on outrageous historical falsification with far-reaching effects.

The importance of the truth of Scripture over science, in those areas where there is a common overlap, has been anticipated (as usual) by He Who knows all things:

If I have spoken to you of earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? John 3:12

Even the poet Goethe sensed what was lost with heliocentrism, the sentinel heresy of modernism:

    * The wonder of innocence
    * The witness of the senses
    * The conviction of faith.

It’s more than time to come to our senses – in believing the literal Bible and challenging the fantasies of science.

We will use an historical approach, beginning with orthodox Geocentrism …[/quote]

[Era Might]

[quote]because of the biblical verses that support it [/quote]

Why do you spurn the plain teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter "Providentissimus Deus"?

[quote]To understand how just is the rule here formulated 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." 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. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared," or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.[/quote]

[quote]the Galileo ruling was the churches last "offical" (yet still fallibile) statment on the subject.[/quote]

St. Robert Bellarmine specifically convinced the Pope not to issue a condemnation himself, because he knew there was a good possibility it would be proven wrong. The matter was left to the Holy Office, whose prudential judgement was by no means infallible, and today, is by no means binding. I will document if you insist.

And it is untrue that the last judgement of the Church on this matter was in the 17th century. As I have already pointed out, Leo XIII addressed this matter in the 19th century, and Pope John Paul II addressed it in 1992:

[quote][T]he sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and . . . the debate which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Canon Settele. . . . Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the center of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. . . . In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.[/quote]

Edited August 23, 2005 by Era Might

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Aug 22 2005, 11:53 PM']that dosen't mean Geocentrism is wrong. it can't be disproven.
[right][snapback]695107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Basically, I agree. Scientifically it can't be disproven given we cannot compare the movement of the earth to the outer edges of the entire universe.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

this is a dumb argument. if you want to debate it email Catholic apologetics international.

[zabbazooey]

you're the one debating it, EENS