Geocentrism - ?

[Vetus Ordo]

In light of the statement from the Holy Office, it doesn't seem to be so much as an either/or as it is a both/and. In other words, concerning science and Scripture, it depends on what you mean by "center."

It seems quite clear to me that the Holy Office condemned heliocentrism as heresy. [...]

I don't think you quite understood my point.

It seems to me that your point would make the Roman Church's condemnation of heliocentrism and copernicanism absolutely meaningless, wouldn't it? How can the belief which states that the sun is the centre of the universe and that the earth moves around it be "false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures" if motion itself is all but a relative concept? How can the movement of the earth to be "repugnant to Scripture and to its true and catholic interpretation"? Were people being condemned in vain?

[Melkite]

I would ask you where in church teaching is the ensoulment of Adam/Eve...the nativity....the baptism in the Jordan (which I know is a major feast in the our Eastern rites)...even the Resurrection is held equal...where is the teaching that equalises these events?...hence in Tradition the resurrection crucifix is NOT the rubrick or norm.....of course there is guilt for sin......but again the Cross is the remedy....Before man existed Jesus existed as the CHRIST.....without the cross whence comes the Title.

I only brought up the ensoulment of Adam since, if we are the only rational life in the universe, it would seem that that would be a pretty important and defining event for the existance of the universe.  If the major objection to other life in the universe is that it reduces our significance as creatures, then it would seem a likely event to make the center of the universe if we really are that significant, since it is in that moment that we are defined as unique and separate from animals.

The resurrection is by far the most important event for Christianity, and it surprises me that you, as an easterner, would see the crucifixion as more important.  Without the resurrection, the crucifixion is nothing.  As St. Paul said, if there was no resurrection, we are to be most pitied.  Without the resurrection, our faith is futile, our sins are not forgiven, and the crucifixion was impotent.

This whole discussion is based on the idea that location is of vital importance, which is why you believe we are the center of the universe.  We see that importance in our iconography, especially of the crucifixion, where it is depicted to have taken place on the same spot where Adam was buried.  As mentioned above, the resurrection is obviously of greater importance than the crucifixion, so that would be a viable candidate.  The incarnation of the creator of the universe would also make sense.  Even Christ's baptism, because that is where he re-sanctified the physical universe.  If we are going to believe that the precise spot where an event took place marks the exact center of the universe, then it is of tremendous significance in understanding the reason why the universe was created to begin with, just as the crucifixion took place on the burial site of Adam, because it was precisely the cause of Adam's death that the crucifixion took place to remedy.  If the ensoulment of Adam was the center, it would tell us that the resson for the existance of the universe was God's love and to have someone with whom that love would be shared.  If the nativity, the purpose of the universe was for God to become incarnate and dwell among his creation.  If his baptism or resurrection, then the purpose of the universe is to show God's ultimate triumph over evil, to proclaim his omnipotence and his love.  But if the site of the crucifixion is the center, then Christ would necessarily have to be crucified in order for the universe's existance to be justified.  In order for the crucifixion to be justified, man would necessarily have had to succumb to sin and death.  This would mean God's purpose for creating the universe would require us to be sinners, in which case there is no free will, God actively chose us to sin.  While it would be a Calvinist's or a Jansenist's dream come true, it ultimately is born of a heretical mindset.

[INPEFESS]

No.  Of course he knew it would happen.  I'm saying that if the site of the crucifixion is actually the center of the universe, then God not only preordained our existence but our sin as well.  If God has willed for us to sin, then God must be evil, and we have no control over our sin, making hell unjust. 

What evil God permits is infallibly certain not by causal necessity but by logical necessity.

If man infallibly yet freely chooses to sin when given the choice, because sin always appears to his defective nature to be the highest good, unless God overcomes his perversity with special help, then man's sin is infallibly certain (but not caused or forced, since man acting alone is sufficient to sin) by way of God's decree not to withhold him from sin. The medium by which God's foreknowledge of this sin is infallible is the sin's permissive decree.

God's permissive decree of sin is merely a condition of sin, but not its cause: without this condition, man never sins; with this condition, man always sins. This permissive decree is infallible because without God's efficacious assistance we will infallibly sin, not by causal necessity but because of the principle of finality as it applies to defective creatures.

(And now we're discussing predestination on a thread about geocentrism . . .  I would say "only on fisheaters," but I can't say that this time!)

[Vetus Ordo]

If the nativity, the purpose of the universe was for God to become incarnate and dwell among his creation.  If his baptism or resurrection, then the purpose of the universe is to show God's ultimate triumph over evil, to proclaim his omnipotence and his love.  But if the site of the crucifixion is the center, then Christ would necessarily have to be crucified in order for the universe's existance to be justified.  In order for the crucifixion to be justified, man would necessarily have had to succumb to sin and death.  This would mean God's purpose for creating the universe would require us to be sinners, in which case there is no free will, God actively chose us to sin.  While it would be a Calvinist's or a Jansenist's dream come true, it ultimately is born of a heretical mindset.

Your logic is astounding!

If men weren't sinners, they wouldn't need a saviour. It's amazing that you have no problem with the site of the nativity or the resurrection hypothetically being the centre of the universe but then shy away from the thought of golgotha, conveniently forgetting that the Incarnation took place precisely so that our sins should be paid by that ultimate sacrifice in calvary.

The resurrection itself would make no sense if Christ hadn't died first.

[INPEFESS]

It seems to me that your point would make the Roman Church's condemnation of heliocentrism and copernicanism absolutely meaningless, wouldn't it? How can the belief which states that the sun is the centre of the universe and that the earth moves around it be "false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures" if motion itself is all but a relative concept?

In other words, motion must be declared to be relative to mankind and to no other created object or plane of the material order of the universe. The latter places the speculations of science above the Word of God, to which all motion must be defined as relative, and inverts the natural created order; the former defends the natural order of the material universe.

The decree serves as a defense of the natural order of the material universe as well as a condemnation of the techniques of modern science which seek to undermine it; it is not meant to be a scientific declaration about mass.

EDITED TO ADD: I apologize, Vetus. I should have said that in the beginning. I realize that I didn't explain myself well.

[Vetus Ordo]

It seems to me that your point would make the Roman Church's condemnation of heliocentrism and copernicanism absolutely meaningless, wouldn't it? How can the belief which states that the sun is the centre of the universe and that the earth moves around it be "false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures" if motion itself is all but a relative concept?

In other words, motion must be declared to be relative to mankind and to no other created object or plane of the material order of the universe. The latter places the speculations of science above the Word of God, to which all motion must be defined as relative, and inverts the natural created order; the former defends the natural order of the material universe.

The decree serves as a defense of the natural order of the material universe as well as a condemnation of the techniques of modern science which seek to undermine it; it is not meant to be a scientific declaration about mass.

The decree flatly condemns as heretical the notion that earth revolves around the sun. In fact, the very notion of the earth moving is declared to be false and contrary to Scripture. I cannot fathom how you're able to read into it that motion must be declared to be relative to mankind alone.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

 Inpef....sungenis answers many of your objections...and I am suprised to find only Vetus defending infallable teaching....against the squishy version that refuses to brook to geocentrism and therefore must manipulate the clear teachings to fit....watch the sungenis video...its very compelling

[INPEFESS]

It seems to me that your point would make the Roman Church's condemnation of heliocentrism and copernicanism absolutely meaningless, wouldn't it? How can the belief which states that the sun is the centre of the universe and that the earth moves around it be "false and contrary to the Sacred and Divine Scriptures" if motion itself is all but a relative concept?

In other words, motion must be declared to be relative to mankind and to no other created object or plane of the material order of the universe. The latter places the speculations of science above the Word of God, to which all motion must be defined as relative, and inverts the natural created order; the former defends the natural order of the material universe.

The decree serves as a defense of the natural order of the material universe as well as a condemnation of the techniques of modern science which seek to undermine it; it is not meant to be a scientific declaration about mass.

The decree flatly condemns as heretical the notion that earth revolves around the sun. In fact, the very notion of the earth moving is declared to be false and contrary to Scripture. I cannot fathom how you're able to read into it that motion must be declared to be relative to mankind alone.

I thought we were getting somewhere . . .  No we're just going in circles.

Motion is relative. Neither you, nor anyone else, as you already said, can prove which body "revolves around" which. The reason for this is because what is necessary for such proof is an objectively-stable reference point, which can't be proved to exist in space. Such an argument presupposes that one of the objects doesn't move, which assumes the point trying to be proved. Each "theory," if you will, simply defines its own center of motion: the Earth or the Sun.

The Church, being philosophically consistent with her perennial philosophy, therefore, has defended motion as being relative to what God says it is--Earth--, not to the Sun which is itself in motion in relation to something else.

[INPEFESS]

Inpef....sungenis answers many of your objections...

I am not objecting against geocentrism; I am rather defending it.

and I am suprised to find only Vetus defending infallable teaching....against the squishy version that refuses to brook to geocentrism and therefore must manipulate the clear teachings to fit....watch the sungenis video...its very compelling

I am defending the Church's teaching by defending its philosophy from which this teaching springs and by criticizing the approach of modern science, which makes quantifiable mass the object and center of all motion.

Mass explains the cause of gravitational motion; it is does define the objective direction of this motion. Each body that is attracted by another larger body also has mass, and so it likewise exerts a reciprocal influence on the attracting body. Each attracts each other, though to varying degrees. If all motion is relative to this quantifiable mass, then every body is moving. But that is useless in defining an objective center, since a center that moves can't really be an objective center. What moves and what doesn't move, therefore, must be defined relative to some point. It only makes sense that the Earth is that point, since that is what Scripture seems to indicate.

I am sorry if my defense is unclear.

[Christknight104]

It seems the Holy Office during the Papacy of Pope Pius VII had concluded that it is fine for a Catholic to accept the Heliocentric model:

PIUS VII, "Decree of Approval for the work Elements of Astronomy by Giuseppe Settele, in support of the heliocentric system," August 16, 1820.

Decree
[Rome], 1820 VIII 16
Vol. I, fol. 174v (Bruni, scribe)
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth's daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus' affirmation regarding the earth's movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.
 
Original Latin source: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernicus, Galileo, and the Church: The End of the Controversy (1820), Acts of the Holy Office (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp. 300-301.
 

[Melkite]

If the nativity, the purpose of the universe was for God to become incarnate and dwell among his creation.  If his baptism or resurrection, then the purpose of the universe is to show God's ultimate triumph over evil, to proclaim his omnipotence and his love.  But if the site of the crucifixion is the center, then Christ would necessarily have to be crucified in order for the universe's existance to be justified.  In order for the crucifixion to be justified, man would necessarily have had to succumb to sin and death.  This would mean God's purpose for creating the universe would require us to be sinners, in which case there is no free will, God actively chose us to sin.  While it would be a Calvinist's or a Jansenist's dream come true, it ultimately is born of a heretical mindset.

Your logic is astounding!

If men weren't sinners, they wouldn't need a saviour. It's amazing that you have no problem with the site of the nativity or the resurrection hypothetically being the centre of the universe but then shy away from the thought of golgotha, conveniently forgetting that the Incarnation took place precisely so that our sins should be paid by that ultimate sacrifice in calvary.

The resurrection itself would make no sense if Christ hadn't died first.

I'm only speaking of those abstractly.  In fact, I don't believe that any of them are the physical center of the universe, because I don't believe we need to be the physical center of the universe in order to be the theological center.  But, if our being the physical center was a theological necessity, any of those other spots would make more sense than golgotha.

[Melkite]

Inpef....sungenis answers many of your objections...and I am suprised to find only Vetus defending infallable teaching....against the squishy version that refuses to brook to geocentrism and therefore must manipulate the clear teachings to fit....watch the sungenis video...its very compelling

I'm surprised to find Catholics trying to defend as infallible teachings those which do not pertain to faith or morals, and so cannot be taught infallibly either by the Pope or the Church.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Inpef....sungenis answers many of your objections...and I am suprised to find only Vetus defending infallable teaching....against the squishy version that refuses to brook to geocentrism and therefore must manipulate the clear teachings to fit....watch the sungenis video...its very compelling

I'm surprised to find Catholics trying to defend as infallible teachings those which do not pertain to faith or morals, and so cannot be taught infallibly either by the Pope or the Church.

Inerrency of holy scripture vis vis Joshua 10:10-14

[LouisIX]

I am a geocentrist, but what I mean by Earth being the center of the universe is perhaps different from what the astronomer means.  Still spacial "center" is relative.

[Melkite]

Inerrency of holy scripture vis vis Joshua 10:10-14

Um, it says the sun didn't set for a whole day.  It doesn't say why.  It wouldn't be an error if the earth stopped spinning on its axis for a day.

You don't make a compelling argument for geocentrism when you have to read content into your prooftext that is not inherently there.