Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case · Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Great Bishop of Geneva! | Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?
Church v. Galileo? ONE true Church? Veils on women? Naming children? Catholicism and race.
What Catholics Believe - Full Episodes | 16 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULLWYdT0dGA
I am sorry.
B U T ... saying that the passages present phenomenological language is:
1) the position of Galileo that was condemned
2) not a position that Leo XIII directly vindicated in Providentissimus Deus
3) not compatible with the context of Joshua 10 specifically verse 12.
It is also not compatible with what St. Paul says in Romans 1. Natural theology is not about the vastness of the universe as discovered (pretendedly) by telescopes or about the irreducible complexity of the flagellum of the bacterium.
Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:19-20]
A universe 13 billion light years across is not the argument for God St. Paul had in mind, if true, since that was not seen since the beginning of creation.
The flagellum of the bacterium is also not what he had in mind, despite being true and despite proving God, since it was just recently discovered and is not visible to the naked eye.
However, in Thomistic Geocentrism, God is every day turning the universe (not just or even mainly solar system objects) around Earth each day, which Riccioli, a Geocentric, acknowledged as being St. Thomas Prima Via. Day and night clearly are visible, and with this mechanism show God's power inexhaustible.
I would definitely not say the Bible teaches Geocentrism like it teaches the Trinity or the Necessity of the Catholic Church. It teaches Geocentrism like it teaches that lions roar, and like it teaches Our Lord was judged by Pontius Pilate.
12:11 "and this was what got him into trouble"
Well, because he contradicted all of the Church Fathers, precisely as a Heliocentric does today.
12:31 "he was not a theologian"
Strictly speaking irrelevant. Father Foscarini was, and his thesis got condemned too.
15:05 With a fairly good overview of the scientific debate since his day, I've read two books by Frédéric Chaberlot,astronomer and historian of science, Galileo's point and related non-Geocentric points are to this day not proven.
16:12 I suppose the Wilson Quarterly gave a source for what you paraphrase as "then the theology can give way to that" .... ?
17:09 How much theology was there really in Dialogo?
The extracts I have read seem like it was a philosophical debate. Yes, Galileo is an Italian Classic, and in an anthology of Italian Classics, you can find an extract from Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (fortunately for my understanding with French text on the facing page). Along extracts from Pinocchio, Promessi Sposi, Dei delitti e delle pene ...
The one thing any reader could gain from Dialogo was, philosophically speaking, Galileo was pretty convinced of Heliocentrism.
17:50 "because it was making assertions that could not be proven"
That in itself is an assertion that can not be proven.
The condemnation, in which the Pope was not directly involved, but which he promulgated to all of the Catholic world once it was done, like Pius XII did with that of Fr. Leonard Feeney, condemned specifically two THESES, not "thesis papers" but two categorical sentences, these being, quoting the paragraph in full, from Famous Trials:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, 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; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you.
Here are the two theses, the latter has also been designated as at least philosophically false, but that could be from the trial of his book in 1616:
- 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
So, according to this quote, both the statement about Sun and that about Earth, are a doctrine "which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures"
Obviously, a thing which is contrary to the sacred Scriptures cannot be actually proven as true, but that in and of itself is not a sufficient reason for house arrest for life, under the back then view of ecclesiastic penalties.
19:01 House arrest in whatever confort is kind of a persecution.
He was kind of a widower, his former mistress Marina Gamba had died (before all of this started) and being consigned in house arrest prevented him from getting a wife or a mistress.
19:21 In the 1616 trial, which didn't feature Galileo as a suspect, but just one of his books, St. Robert was very prolix in verifying the degree of proof.
In the 1633 trial, this was not so.
As far as the 1633 trial was concerned, St. Robert Bellarmine had already shown there was no proof for Heliocentrism.
19:58 It's more like he was given a chance of, and he took it, pursue his work until he realised he was perfectly free to accept the sentence of cursing Heliocentrism, which he did.
Some have constructed that letter in which he told Francesco Rinuccini on the 29 March 1641 that "the falseness of the Copernican system should not be put into any doubt and least of all by us Catholics" as hypocritical and a way of escaping consequences. Many however consider this letter as perfectly corresponding to his genuine convictions.
Francesco Beretta wrote a paper about this in 2003.
UNE DEUXIÈME ABJURATION DE GALILÈE OU L'INALTÉRABLE HIÉRARCHIE DES DISCIPLINES
Francesco Beretta
Bruniana & Campanelliana Vol. 9, No. 1 (2003), pp. 9-43 (35 pages) Published By: Accademia Editoriale
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24333106
20:22 The Church actually didn't say "OK" ... unless you count Wojtyla's speech in 1992 or the CCC § 283 as speaking for the Church.
Pius VII didn't say "OK, you can believe this" but just "OK, you can read this" and Gregory XVI added "even Galileo and Copernicus" ...
Leo XIII didn't say "Joshua X can be understood as phenomenological language" but only that phenomenological language was one of the possible solutions to a whole array of problems concerning Scripture and Science, the ones who were convinced Heliocentrics obviously rushed to the occasion of applying this to Joshua X, but Providentissmus Deus doesn't mention it.
The sentence "or even earth might not be the centre of the universe" in an encyclical about Dante is in a concessive subjunctive, not a sufficient assurance of the Heliocentric position actually having become licit.
I would say, these men did pretty much what Honorius I did. Not professing an error, but refraining from condemning it.
because sacred scripture relates the movement of the sun according to the uh 20:52 position of the relative to The Observer here on Earth 20:57 okay
Doesn't seem to be the case with Romans chapter 1.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable
[Romans 1:18-20]
What is revealed from Heaven, and reveals God's eternal or in other interpretations perpetual power?
It also has to be a thing observed from Creation.
If Earth each day revolves around itself, that could be due to some lesser God than that of the whole universe, and even due to purely physical factors. If each day and each night are the work of God in a Geocentric setting that reveals not just perpetual power but also that it is infinite or at least encompassing all of creation.
21:26 Speaking of which, we have observed the universe from the standpoint of Earth. We have not observed it from a standpoint outside the Solar System and independent of both Earth and Sun, which would be the requirement for proving Heliocentrism by observation, minimally, and that leaves the direct observation, Geocentrism, as the default interpretation.
We cannot say the perspective of a passenger in the train remains the default interpretation, because we have seen trains from the outside while standing still on hills or in houses. But we have no corresponding ocular proof that a universe revolving around ourselves is the illusion of the train passenger.
24:16 The beautiful tomb of Galileo was accorded a man who had done his penance, and who had, with conviction, abjured Heliocentrism.
24:56 "even when Galileo died, it has not been established empirically that the Heliocentric view is correct"
Nor has it since.
I've gone through the six proofs for Earth's supposed annual movement and the six proofs for Earth's supposed daily movement in Chaberlot, and no, they do not prove that.
My decade old reading of Chaberlot:
Série contre l'héliocentrisme du deuxième livre de Chaberlot: 1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Les fameux (et pas toujours fumeux) paradigmes en science et philosophie, 2) Et le paradigme héliocentrique, est-il fumeux?, 3) Frédéric Chaberlot dans l'éthique, 4) Fr. Chaberlot sur le paradigme héliocentrique - avec mes critiques
Série contre l'héliocentrisme de Chaberlot dans son premier livre: 1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : En lisant La Voie lactée par Chaberlot : en guise de Proesme, 2) Les définitions de Chaberlot, 3) Inégalité des mythes payens - ou prétendument tels, 4) Chemin des oiseaux migrateurs, 5) Roemer n'était pas Jésuite, 6) Wright, cosmologue héliocentrique de l'infini, 7) La cosmologie moderne, repose-t-elle sur spéculation non vérifiée ou non?, 8) La Statistique Stellaire de Herschel - a-t-elle refuté le géocentrisme?, 9) Dom Calmet et George Leo Haydock sur la louange des étoiles
No comments:
Post a Comment