... on Modern Cosmology vs Angelic Movers of Celestial Bodies

Video

Catholics Watch & Respond to Star Size Comparison
New Catholic Generation | Ajoutée le 8 mai 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xumK4UsGFgs

My comments

in order of chronology by timesignatures in video.

Opinions differ:

that of the video commented on in video and that of those commenting on it being Modern Cosmology, without the shade of a doubt, and mine being Celestial bodies are most of them 1 light day up and moved by angels.

I

Would Renee and Joseph and the rest like to take a look at this minority report on stellar sizes?

New blog on the kid : Stellar Radiuses (If Sphere of Fix Stars is One Light Day Up)
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2018/02/stellar-radiuses-if-sphere-of-fix-stars.html

II

8:29 "we haven't mastered space travel"

Good one, if you think that the message is about life on exoplanets.

You might like this story:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Year 10 950 ARC (After Rocket Crash)
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2017/09/year-10-950-arc-after-rocket-crash.html

III

8:43 "Earth is not the centre of the universe"

Hmmm ... sounds like a very good reason to including billions of light years like sizes ...

Earth being immobile centre of universe and not even turning around itself would - on that view - involve movements of several billion light years' radius in the time of 24 hours.

A speed in which very distant stars would perhaps not be very wellhandled ...

Is this the speed Geocentrism of necessity involves?

No, since the stellar distances and therefore also stellar sizes (any calculated size is calculated from distance and apparent size, right?) are themselves calculated from Heliocentrism, via Stellar Parallax.

The 0.76 arc seconds difference of angle of proxima Centauri from December to June, not as directly observed, but as observed in relation to stars surrounding proxima Centauri and presumed to be further off, is in Heliocentrism presumed to be due to Earth moving between December and June, while proxima Centauri is supposed to be still.

Now, if proxima Centauri were exactly one light day up, if the 0.76 arc seconds of "parallax" and the broader picture of c. 20 arc seconds of "aberration of starlight" (measured in itself, unlike the 0.76 arc seconds) are due to an angel moveing each of those stars, what would we see differently?

Nothing.

What would we conclude differently?

Well, check a full Latin version of the Thomistic proof for God's existence in Summa contra Gentiles, book one or two, and whichever it was chapter 13.

IV

9:47 "getting to Heaven"

Which is where?

On St Thomas' view, the abode of faithful angels, saints, Our Lord Jesus in His Human form is Empyraean Heaven, just above the sphere of the fix stars.

[Someone might say:] "Heaven's not material!"

Pure spirituality is cheating. Christ is present in the sacrament, not without the dimensions of His body, but without these dimensions touching our space which is instead touched by the dimensions of what used to be and still tastes like bread.

But in Heaven, the dimensions of His body do indeed touch the surrounding space, so, Heaven is not purely spiritual.

Also when we get there just after death, most of us (the reverse perspective to that of St Paul who concentrated on "we who are still alive"), we don't come in bodies.

But, when Resurrection of the Flesh happens, we will be having our bodies again. Up there.

7 Day Adv solve it by saying we will actually be living on Earth after reigning from a a specific place in Heaven not yet there since before the Resurrection of the Just.

But we are not 7 D Adv, right?

So, Heaven is a material place and we will having bodies there, if we get there and don't squeeze in Hell (centre of Earth) ... if it is just beyond the fix stars ... how far are they?

V

12:37 My perspective on the beauty of a billions of light years big universe is ... God wanted even the errors to have some beauty.

God has a plan, it involves a Great Deception, that much Satan earned by Adam's disobedience to God.

Now, there is beauty to a sentence, also erroneous, but ... inspiring : "we all live in the gutter, but some of us look at the stars"

It is arguable, while God allows the Great Deception, it is not allowed to be "all gutter" and "no stars". Therefore He has planned what it would be allowed to involve.

(Didn't I give some reference for the quote about Lady Winderemere's Fan being a kind of King Arthur's attitude about Queen Guinevere, minus the royal and historical setting?)

VI

14:17 "everything seems to be going around us"

Well, as long as there is no proof positive to the contrary, that is at least preliminary proof that is what everything visible (Empyreal Heaven beyond fix stars not being visible) is doing.

VII

15:28 "and that Jesus did go to these other life forms and preach"

One such group would be 7 D Adv.

They take it as revealed in private revelation to Ellen Gould White.

As I recall it, planets we named thousands of years ago ("our solar system" except I don't consider the word choice correct, it reflects Heliocentric ideology) were included in those where Ellen Gould White pretends that Jesus went to preach to other creatures.

Now some of these seem honestly fairly lifeless by closeup pictures ...

VIII

15:57 I would most definitely not count Krishna as Jesus appearing in a Hindoo culture.

I suspect he was a pre-Flood saint (probably the flute player among the children of Lamech, see Genesis 4) who was unusually peaceful (acc to Mahabharata) in a time when And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, (Genesis 6:5), but he was definitely not Jesus appearing to Hindoos.

IX

16:02 - 16:09 "Padre Pio said to a reporter when asked about extraterrestrial life he said it would be an injustice to God's glory to limit His glory to this planet alone."

Reference welcome, if any.

16:12 "so he thinks that there are planets that"

The answer, as given, was evasive. We do not know it was that he meant, it is possible he was "leading the reporter on" without directly lying and letting him think it was that he meant.

16:15 "just like ours with beings that haven't fallen"

With unfallen only rational or intelligent creatures, a globe would not be "just like ours". Was that part of the quote or not?

16:25 "and I'm guessing"

Ah, ok, you are interpolating what padre Pio could have meant by initial quote.

There is another solution. Angels do give glory to God. Angels do move celestial bodies - this latter is not from padre Pio, but from a whole list of Church men, including St Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, I think ... no, I did not find Nicolas of Lyra, but on the other hand I did find Suarez and St Bonaventura.

St Thomas says it is of the faith that angels don't move celestial bodies only but also bodies down here, as he is quoted by Riccioli:

Sed placet S. Thomæ sententiam adnotare, qui q.6 de Potentia art.3. inquit : Fidei autem sententia est, quòd Angeli non solùm corpora cælestia suo imperio moueant localiter, sed etiam alia corpora Deo ordinante & permittente.

Reference being: Almagestum Novum. Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus cælorum
CAPVT I. An Cæli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura
and the quote is given on page 248 in the edition dedicated to Honoré II, Prince of Monaco (other editions could have other pagination, the volume is here Almagesti Novi Pars Posterior Tomi Primi)

St Thomas is further quoted from opusculum 10 art 3 and opusculum 11 art 2 as saying he doesn't recall reading any saint or philosopher denying that celestial bodies are moved by spiritual creatures and that on his view it would have to be either God directly or God through (giving orders to) angels, and he prefers the latter, at least outside miracles, due to the ordered degrees he takes from St Denys of the Areopagus.

Obviously, this solution is also well suited for God's glory to be there in the heavens, and either this or stars having souls (which Riccioli had dealt with in an earlier section, he's not repeating it and therefore I don't know what authorities would favour it, except I know from elsewhere St Augustine was neutral on that question) fit with certain passages of the Bible.

When you look up at the stars, you can say : "there are some guys who hated the guts of Sisera's army" - read Judges 5:19-20

[19] The kings came and fought, the kings of Chanaan fought in Thanach by the waters of Mageddo, and yet they took no spoils. [20] War from heaven was made against them, the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

I repeat last sentence : the stars remaining in their order and courses fought against Sisara.

Aha ... so, either the stars and planets in and of their own souls, if any, or the angels moving celestial bodies showed intentional action at a distance that time ...?

Well, can't just be big balls of gas then, however pretty these are!

Oh, the edition of Almagestum Novum is actually available online ... here is the page:

Almagesti Novi Pars Posterior Tomi Primi, p. 248
https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

16:55 [25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

This is certainly a reason to be attentive to Church Tradition not directly in Bible.

It is arguably a reason to be open for things neither in Bible nor Church tradition, but not contradicted.

But, it is not a reason to neglect what is actually in the Bible and Church tradition, as Judges 5:19-20 or as St Thomas Aquinas' view on angelic movers.