"Interview with Fr. Paul Robinson, SSPX" First Fifth Reviewed · Continuing the interview with Fr Robinson, Second Fifth · Third Fifth of Same Interview · Fourth Fifth, Same Interview · Fifth Fifth, a Few Arguments and Strawmen to Round it Up
Same video as first post in this series.
33:01 Stellar aberration shifts direction by c. 20 arc seconds.
I've heard it uniformly explained this way: the light changes relative direction as the speed of earth does.
"that prediction has also been verified" 34:11
Prediction, well, I don't think it was predicted until it was discovered.
The problem is, for Heliocentrics, this too can be explained with angelic movers. I've basically covered it when discussing parallax. Partly in comments someone took down.
we have a very powerful telescopes now where we're able to uh 34:14 detect the Stellar aberration for for stars close closer to us and we're able 34:20 to detect the Stellar parallax for stars from what I understand within 3,000 light years
Father Robinson does not actually understand the science.
Aberration does not change with the distance of the star. It's supposed (by the interpretation it has its name from) to be due to the speed of earth through the light. This does not vary with how far away or close the light was emitted from (outside Earth and Moon, obviously).
Parallax is measured against the backdrop of aberration, and aberration has been observable (if aberration is the right cause assignment for changing angle) since Bradley, in 1727.
The ability of very modern telescopes to measure parallax for 3000 light years away (if true) is not relevant for the observation of aberration.
would claim that um I I just you you could you 34:34 can't you can't account for these phenomena with a geocentric model
One can very well, with Angelic Movers.
In that case, both the aberration change of angle and the parallax change of angle are Angels performing a kind of dance with the Stars as their lanterns.
it's 34:40 just possible to design a model a geocentric model that would predict 34:47 these outcomes like what what what are the forces that would cause this
I would say that when Angels act on Matter, they are not using as much as producing forces.
I answer that, As Dionysius says (Div. Nom. vii): "Divine wisdom has joined the ends of the first to the principles of the second." Hence it is clear that the inferior nature at its highest point is in conjunction with superior nature. Now corporeal nature is below the spiritual nature. But among all corporeal movements the most perfect is local motion, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. viii, 7). The reason of this is that what is moved locally is not as such in potentiality to anything intrinsic, but only to something extrinsic—that is, to place. Therefore the corporeal nature has a natural aptitude to be moved immediately by the spiritual nature as regards place. Hence also the philosophers asserted that the supreme bodies are moved locally by the spiritual substances; whence we see that the soul moves the body first and chiefly by a local motion.
I Pars, Q 110, Article 3. Whether bodies obey the angels as regards local motion?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm#article3
listening to your explanation um it it really 35:22 sounds like these Principles of Scientific Method are are actually a great statement in humility
(Brian McCall speaking)
I don't see why it is humbly to either forget or deny the possibility of angelic movers.
- Early Christian Beliefs
- @EarlyChristianBeliefs
- Very interesting points. Thank you!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @EarlyChristianBeliefs You are welcome.
but from the 35:36 mid Middle Ages philosophy of science of the scientific method
[Still Brian McCall, I'll signal when it goes back to Fr. Robinson]
Unlike modern versions of it, the method of astronomy in the Middle Ages very much didn't exclude angelic movers.
I object to the idea of "the scientific method" as if it were one thing, and so would they have done. From Aristotle, they would have picked up that in each enquiry search the degree of certainty by the methods appropriate for the specific question.
You cannot have the same certainty about whether Blücher or Wellington beat Napoleon at Waterloo or even whether he was beaten, as you can about 2 + 2 = 4. And you cannot approach this with the same method either.
Now, one could say history is not a "scientia" but a "historia" which is something else. It involves knowing about in ways that do not guarantee understanding. But between "historia" which falls outside "scientia" proper and arithmetic or logic, there are lots of shades in between.
And as Medievals understood astronomy, Angelic Movers were most certainly NOT excluded. While Riccioli differs from the Thomistic view on what moves Heaven as a whole each day, and says it's actually different celestial bodies proceeding in a void, while St. Thomas held God moved Heaven as a whole and individual celestial bodies were if anything moving the other direction, namely for instance Sun going around the Zodiac West to East in one year, or Moon going around the Zodiac West to East in one Sidereal Month (the Lunar month proper is the Synodic month, which comes from a combination of Sidereal month with year), both authors agreed that individual celestial bodies were moved each by an angel.
Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748
I P, Q 70, Article 3. Whether the lights of heaven are living beings?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3
we have an idea 35:50 we test it
How do you test theories about how the stars move?
When it comes to cars, there are lots of ways of testing diesel, gasoline or electricity (depending on type) plays a crucial role and will only work in a contraption called a motor.
But stars are too far off for testing.
You cannot halt the Solar System, take away one body, and see how that affects the movements of the other ones.
You cannot tell an angel to stop moving its body (unless you are Joshua!) and see if it moves without an Angelic Mover.
Riccioli doesn't resolve the question by testing, but by theological aptness.
if the Jesuits who did that had lived long enough to see it they would say well we thought that but now 36:10 that we have this stronger telescope their successors at least could do it say we we're now open to change that
The guys like Settele or Jesuits eventually supporting him (or preceding him, as Boscovich, who believed aberration to be aberration, not stars moved by Angelic Movers) were very clearly not motivated just by a changing view of things.
The aberration had NOT been predicted or discussed, as in Galileo's and St. Robert's time, both parties believed the speed of light to be infinite. Ole Rømer more or less proved a finite speed of light only in 1675.
The parallax of Bessel was different from the parallax discussed by Galileo and St. Robert.
All observations even with better telescopes are taken from the Earth, and are as such Geocentric. All Heliocentrism comes by re-interpretation of what is actually observed.
36:28 "if we get other data or get other tools"
What about reusing those in currency with St. Thomas and Riccioli, namely theoretic tools of understanding stellar motions as acted by Angels?
I think Cardinal Newman one said something 37:00 to the effect you can have more certainty of a um a dogma of the faith than of looking at your hand in front of 37:07 your face because even though you're pretty sure you're looking at your hand you have to be open to the fact that you 37:13 may be deceived
That's not how St. Thomas would have "seen" this ... it's actually borrowed from Descartes, probably partly via Kant, and probably is a hangover from his Anglican days.
the dogmas of the faith are based on the testimony of God Himself right is the do the 37:29 question my hand being in front of me is based on the testimony of my senses
[Back to Father Robinson]
True. As far as it goes.
But the testimony of God Himself is accessible through history, which is the testimony of someone else's senses.
this question of of God not wanting to give us revealed science that he just is not 38:26 want to give us okay here's your physics textbook here's here's your Supernatural textbook The Bible
Is it "revealed" that lions are ferocious?
And it was told the king of the Assyrians, and it was said: The nations which thou hast removed, and made to dwell in the cities of Samaria, know not the ordinances of the God of the land: and the Lord hath sent lions among them: and behold they kill them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 17:26]
Or do we suppose these lions were ferocious only by miracle, or that we have no natural knowledge of lions being ferocious?
True sense knowledge, accessible to everyone, not just those believing the revelation as revelation, is in fact confirmed in the Bible. In that sense radical scepticism is at least implicitly condemned.
I would classify Geocentrism as well as the existence of Natural Theology as part of this true sense knowledge. I think Romans 1 actually refers to Geocentrism, and so does John 5:17. God persists in turning the visible Universe around us every day.
Check the context:
Therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, because he did these things on the sabbath But Jesus answered them: My Father worketh until now; and I work
[John 5:16-17]
Sounds like an act of God that's done even on Sabbaths, right? Well, even on Sabbaths, the Universe turns around Earth, and only someone with inexhaustible forces could do that.
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 1:20]
Eternal power sounds like inexhaustible power.
Now, remember, all observations that are interpreted as supporting Heliocentrism are, with very few exceptions, Geocentric ones. The turning of the Universe around Earth is sth we actually see with our eyes.
He embeds uh all 38:50 these secrets in the universe of what He's done: He embeds all these Clues and we follow the trail of those 38:57 clues and we are delighted to to discover what what He's done to be able to figure it 39:02 out
But even more, we follow clues like Geocentrism (a k a sense observation), and figure out who did it.
According to Romans 1, that's not a secret. Just like lions being ferocious is not a secret.
and what you find there is is so amazing so 39:48 incredibly complex beautifully designed just really you see you're 39:56 able to investigate the the creativity of God
But there are aspects that do not even need investigation, like Geocentrism.
And Natural Theology falls into this category.
St. Paul can't have been talking of the flagellum of the bacterium, valuable as it is as proof, since he explicitly stated he's talking of things that are obvious since Creation:
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 1:20]
Geocentrism would fit the bill. Riccioli thought St. Thomas' Prima Via was about Geocentrism, and I agree.
