Posing Problems in the Westminster Confession of Faith

[JohnMartin]

If angels can move fix stars around, then parallax, as well as aberration can be angels moving stars.

Precisely as retrogrades are angels moving planets. (Not denying Tychonian orbits).

This way Geocentrism also deals with Distant Starlight Paradox, since the 13.5 billion light years away objects, which with normal speed of light contradict Biblical and therefore Liturgic Chronology, can be taken as only one light day away.

I am aware that angels are part of revelation and they can act on physical objects. I'm not sure what the relationship between physical theory which attempts to account for physical efficient causation and the causation of the angels is. If a theory, such as Newtonian mechanics attempts to describe physical motion, where do the angelic bodies fit in? After all many laws in Newtonian mechanics check out quite well, such as F=ma. So if I push a box, and that push corresponds to the Newtonian understanding of push, how do we know the angels ever push and where? If angels push stars, why not abandon physical theory and say the entire observed universe is dominated by non-bodily entities that do all the work? If so, then we seem to be denying any modelling power to physical efficient causality.

How do we establish what is going on with regard to the angels and how can their action be accounted for within a science model? I know of no such method.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Sungenis is flawed on this point.

Greek philosophy by the time of the Fathers no longer even had the Neo-Pythagorean school, which in its turn had not tried to revive the Heliocentrism of older Pythagoreans.

Sorry, don't take this as backstabbing!

So are you saying at the time of the fathers, the Greeks were all geocentrists?

JM

[JohnMartin]

So you pretend that a miracle worker would use phenomenal language in saying the words basically of God to the creature?

I find that horrible, it is like the Protestant Accomodation theory a hundred years ago, that when Jesus drove out demons with words expressing His real belief in existence of demons, this was just an accomodation to a cultural surrounding which believed in them.

Leonhard's method is anachronistic. He projects modern science theory into the biblical text, which had always been understood as geocentric and comes out with a heliocentric biblical cosmology.

JM

[Leonhard]

When the bishop of San Diego is competing with Swedish Church in being pro-gay, the bishops you speak of can hardly represent the Church of Christ.

I'm sorry you have such a schismatic mindset. This hereby ends my conversations with you. I will block you.

[Raphael]

I'm sorry you have such a schismatic mindset. This hereby ends my conversations with you. I will block you.

Didn't you know he considers the last several Popes to be anti-popes and follows a pope Michael. (all the while taking others to task for being schismatic)

[Leonhard]

I am unconvinced that your criteria are true, simply because matters of faith include all truths revealed in the sources of faith ... when the scriptures teach David was a king, that truth is a matter of history and faith.

It is up to the magisterium to decide what Catholics are bound to believe in these matters. Some points are important to dogma's, and such those we are not free to disbelieve. Within the Catholic community while there has been a sensus probabillis that Job was a historical figure, and he is even celebrated as a saint in some Eastern Orthodox church calenders (I think), however it was still discussed without any hint of this being heresy, whether he had actually existed as a historical person.

But the Fathers new the doctrine was contained within the OT, hence they taught that doctrine as true.

Actually the Church Fathers didn't teach geocentrism as doctrine. While they read passages in the light of this idea, which was the natural philosophy of their time, they never expound directly on it. They were almost completely uninterested in the subject, speaking more about other things of real importance, such as matters that relate to the Faith.

There are several other passages which clearly state the earth is stationary.

I won't be dealing with those. I don't find your exegesis of them anymore impressive than your exegesis of Joshua, which is by far the clearest example. It doesn't get better than this. And your hysteria that if we were deny that

The earth as the world is established and cannot be moved, indicating the earth is immobile as God's throne is everlasting.

If you reduce Joshua’s long day down to phenomena, then you have to equate the phenomena of the immobile sun, with the immobile moon, for both the sun and the moon stood still in the sky.

It was a miracle that made the sun appear to stand still in the sky. Its phenomenological language, describing that the yellow disc perceived in the sky, hung over the battle field. It is only by importing (eisegesis) the reading of geocentrism into the text, that you interpret the words to mean something about a gigantic ball of gas millions of kilometers away.

If you reduce Joshua’s long day down to phenomena when you can also reduce everything said by God and every action by God as phenomena, which can be interpreted by each individual or each academy as they see fit.

No, as it belongs to the magisterium to interpret the Bible, and we have the Catechism of St John Paul II, that gives us what we're bound to believe in, as well as the many helpful encyclicals by the popes. Again, if any historical fact, or fact of natural philosophy would impact on an article of faith, then and only then, could the magisterium bind our will to it.

The modern geo models account for parallax,

After it was proposed and discovered by the heliocentrists. Which is surprising given that geocentrism is (according to you) supposed to be true. Yet our instruments instead see exactly what would be naturally observed if modern cosmology is true. Geocentrists like yourself instead have to keep artifically inject fixes into the geocentric interpretation, so that it can keep up with the findings of modern science, rather than actually providing predictions of what the scientists ought to find. That's the hallmark of a failed idea, and it is quite impossible given what you believe and is every bit as ridiculous as the idea that God put fossils of dinosaurs into the ground to test our faith as some creationists believe.

The standard model predicted evidence for dark matter and dark energy, but very little evidence exists to support the predictions of the model.

This has nothing to do with what you're discussing, but it does illustrate that you're a crank who has no idea what he's talking about. The Standard Model has zero predictions regarding dark matter or dark energy, rather these two things were discovered by the instruments, and no one has a clear testable idea yet of what they could be. Dark matter is an even bigger problem for geocentrists though, they just ignore it.

May God bless you.

[Leonhard]

Didn't you know he considers the last several Popes to be anti-popes and follows a pope Michael. (all the while taking others to task for being schismatic)

Deus in adjutorium meum intende, Domine ad adiuvandum me festina.

I certainly don't regret my decision to block him then. I was bound by my spiritual advisor, Fr Yusuf Maria from the Transalpine Redemptorists to avoid dialogue with sedevacantists.

[JohnMartin]

But the Fathers new the doctrine was contained within the OT, hence they taught that doctrine as true.

Actually the Church Fathers didn't teach geocentrism as doctrine. While they read passages in the light of this idea, which was the natural philosophy of their time, they never expound directly on it. They were almost completely uninterested in the subject, speaking more about other things of real importance, such as matters that relate to the Faith.

John Salza has a good resource on Geocentrism

1616 – On March 5, the Congregation of the Index condemns all writings which treated Copernicanism as anything but an unproven hypothesis. The Congregation declared that such a theory was “false and contrary to Holy Scripture, which teaches the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun, and which is taught by Nicolas Copernicus in De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium…being spread by... Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini…Therefore, so that this opinion may not spread any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, it decrees that the said... De revolutiionibus orbium caelestium..be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father, Paolo Foscarini, be prohibited and condemned.” Pope Paul V presided at this Congregation and, while his name is not on the decree, approved and ordered the decree as supreme teacher of the Church.

1633 – On June 22, the Holy Office formally condemns Galileo for heresy: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo...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...after it has been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture...From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that...you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Pope Urban VIII took full responsibility for the condemnation of Galileo by enforcing “in forma communi” the Congregation’s prohibitions against books holding the Copernican system as truth.

The Church fathers said the following about cosmology -

1) The Fathers never say the earth moves, except at the end of time.

2) The Fathers always say the earth is at rest at the center of the universe.

3) The Fathers never say the sun is the center of the universe.

4) The Fathers never say the sun does not move around the earth, even in their scientific analysis of the cosmos.

5) The Fathers always say the earth is the center of the universe.

6) The Fathers always say the sun moves as the moon moves.

7) The Fathers recognize that some of the Greeks held that the earth moves and rotates, but they do not accept that teaching.

8) The Fathers accept the Chaldean, Egyptian and Greek teaching that the earth is at the center of the universe and does not move.

9) The Fathers hold that the earth was created first, by itself, and only afterward the sun, moon and stars.

10) The Fathers hold that light was created after the earth, but that this light preceded the light of the sun and stars.

A sample of the fathers statements is given below -

Aphrahat: For the sun in twelve hours circles round, from the east unto the west; and when he has accomplished his course, his light is hidden in the night-time, and the night is not disturbed by his power. And in the hours of the night the sun turns round in his rapid course, and turning round begins to run in his accustomed path. (Demonstrations, 24).

Athanasius: but the earth is not supported upon itself, but is set upon the realm of the waters, while this again is kept in its place, being bound fast at the center of the universe. (Against the Heathen, Book I, Part I)

Athenagoras: to Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a center (Why the Christians do not Offer Sacrifices, Ch XIII)

Augustine: For an eclipse of the sun had also happened; and this was attributed to the divine power of Romulus by the ignorant multitude, who did not know that it was brought about by the fixed laws of the sun's course (City of God, Bk III, Ch 15)

Basil: From thence the sun, returning to the summer solstice, in the direction of the North, gives us the longest days. And, as it travels farther in the air, it burns that which is over our heads, dries up the earth, ripens the grains and hastens the maturity of the fruits of the trees. (Homilies, 6, 8).

The fathers on Joshuas long day say the earth is stationary and the sun moves.

Chrysostom: Consider of how great value is the righteous man. Joshua the son of Nun said, "Let the sun stand still at Gibeon, the moon at the valley of Elom" (Josh. x. 12), and it was so. Let then the whole world come, or rather two or three, or four, or ten, or twenty worlds, and let them say and do this; yet shall they not be able. But the friend of God commanded the creatures of his Friend, or rather he besought his Friend, and the servants yielded, and he below gave command to those above. Seest thou that these things are for service fulfilling their appointed course?



Chrysostom: Therefore it was, that Joshua, the son of Nave, said, "Let the sun stand still in Gibeon, and the moon over against the valley of Ajalon.' And again the prophet Isaiah made the sun to retrace his steps, under the reign of Hezekiah; and Moses gave orders to the air, and the sea, the earth, and the rocks. Elisha changed the nature of the waters; the Three Children triumphed over the fire. Thou seest how God hath provided for us on either hand; leading us by the beauty of the elements to the knowledge of His divinity; and, by their feebleness, not permitting us to lapse into the worship of them. (Homily to Antioch, Homily X)

Also in the Index published by the Vatican in 1664, entitled Librorum prohibitorum Alexandri VII. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus contains the following statements -

approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience.”

The index also contains a ratification of previous Papal statments condemning the motion of the earth.

Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be
added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the
“monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on
the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and
to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Bellarmine
prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epitome Astronomić Copernicanć
the edict of August 10th, 1684, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo
di Galileo Galilei; and under the head “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes
docentes mobilitatem terrć, et immobilitatem solis, in decr. 5 Martii,
1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and
approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear,
therefore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and
approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly

Such action of the Popes over a long time period are consistent with the establishment of magisterial teaching and a lived tradition whereby scripture is understood in a particular way by the Church. The truth of geocentrism is assumed by the Popes and is therefore binding under the instruction given by John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger -

9. The Magisterium of the Church, however, teaches a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed (first paragraph) or to be held definitively (second paragraph) with an act which is either defining or non-defining. In the case of a defining act, a truth is solemnly defined by an "ex cathedra" pronouncement by the Roman Pontiff or by the action of an ecumenical council. In the case of a non-defining act, a doctrine is taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Bishops dispersed throughout the world who are in communion with the Successor of Peter. Such a doctrine can be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Roman Pontiff, even without recourse to a solemn definition, by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed (first paragraph) or as a truth of Catholic doctrine (second paragraph). Consequently, when there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly.17 The declaration of confirmation or reaffirmation by the Roman Pontiff in this case is not a new dogmatic definition, but a formal attestation of a truth already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church.

Geocentrism is contained within the teachings of several Popes and all the church fathers. The Popes have said the matter of geocentrism is a matter of faith by including the books of Galileo on the index, and ratifying the decision of two congregations which both condemned the moving earth theory as contrary to the Catholic understanding of scripture.

If you reduce Joshua’s long day down to phenomena when you can also reduce everything said by God and every action by God as phenomena, which can be interpreted by each individual or each academy as they see fit.

No, as it belongs to the magisterium to interpret the Bible, and we have the Catechism of St John Paul II, that gives us what we're bound to believe in, as well as the many helpful encyclicals by the popes. Again, if any historical fact, or fact of natural philosophy would impact on an article of faith, then and only then, could the magisterium bind our will to it.

So please show me where the magisterium has ever interpreted Joshuas long day to fit the Helio model. The Magisterium has stated several times that the motion of the earth is against scripture. So if you manage to produce some evidence for your claim, you should also show how the prior Papal teachings that exclude the motion of the earth are harmonised with the different, Helio understanding of the same passage.

JM

[One Bad Pig]

It is up to the magisterium to decide what Catholics are bound to believe in these matters. Some points are important to dogma's, and such those we are not free to disbelieve. Within the Catholic community while there has been a sensus probabillis that Job was a historical figure, and he is even celebrated as a saint in some Eastern Orthodox church calenders (I think), however it was still discussed without any hint of this being heresy, whether he had actually existed as a historical person.

Yes, Righteous Job the Long-Suffering is commemorated on May 6 (there is a service composed in his honor, albeit of the lowest rank) and on the 2nd Sunday before Nativity along with the rest of the Holy Forefathers.

[One Bad Pig]

When a Catholic John Martin and a Catholic Leonhard discuss what the authority of Popes binds us to, an Orthodox comes popping in and ignores as is fitting, disregards the tendentious Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:19 ..., which is not even universally held by the Western Fathers

Fixed that for you.

[One Bad Pig]

When the Orthodox, or Protestants fabricate problems with the Papacy, as you have done above, Catholic no longer take your claims seriously.

"Fabricate?"

Geocentrism need not be explicit in a creed or a confession of faith to have been revealed by God. The doctrine may be contained within another doctrine of God creating the universe, and God writing the scriptures. God then teaches the universe was created by God, which rotates once per day around the earth. The doctrine is found in the sensus fidei, the consent of the fathers, the liturgy, the catechism of Trent, scripture, Hildegard's approved visions, and is assumed to have been revealed by God in the 1633 condemnation of Galileo by the congregation under Pope Urban VIII.

The same truth taught in all of these sources has ever been recanted or revoked by the Church.

JM

As your sedevacantist buddy helpfully pointed out,

And Pius VII in the Settele affair did NOT settle for discrediting Geocentrism, he only settled that Heliocentric, new sense (not quite identic to Galileo's view) was not forbidden to maintain in debate. Or in books.

If heliocentrism is acceptable, then geocentrism is hardly a mandatory matter of faith, now is it?

[JohnMartin]

"Fabricate?"

Exaclty. That's what you have done.

As your sedevacantist buddy helpfully pointed out,

Sedevacantism is an error. Geo is true.

If heliocentrism is acceptable, then geocentrism is hardly a mandatory matter of faith, now is it?

The Catholic who says Heliocentrism is permitted by the Church must account for the binding statements from other Popes on the matter of Geo. The Catholic who believes in Helio must come up with a compelling argument for how several Popes can bind the faithful to a doctrine contained in the scriptures, then other Popes say its acceptable for Catholics to believe in a Helio model, even though Geo is contained in the sources of revelation.

Helio may be permitted as a hypothetical consideration only, but not as a belief. Geo is not a hypothetical consideration, but a realtiy found in the sources of revelation.

JM

[hansgeorg]

Fixed that for you.

No.

When a Catholic John Martin and a Catholic Leonhard discuss what the authority of Popes binds us to, an Orthodox comes popping in and ignores Matthew 16:19.

That is what you most often do when you pretend to be "as is fitting, disregard[ing] the tendentious Catholic interpretation of" Matthew 16:18 ..., "which is not even universally held by the Western Fathers"

Note, I said 16:19.

When that calumniator of the Catholic Church Paul Ballaster was deacon under another bishop, that other bishop gave an interpretation of 16:18 - which simply passed over 16:19 (yes, I forgot the reference, but instead of upbraiding me on that one, how about explaining "et dabo TIBI claves regni caeolorum" if you can).

[hansgeorg]

If heliocentrism is acceptable, then geocentrism is hardly a mandatory matter of faith, now is it?

Note, I did not say he gave any kind of admission that heliocentrism was acceptable in the faith.

He only said it could be maintained in debate or in books, as far as I have analysed his words.

[hansgeorg]

I am aware that angels are part of revelation and they can act on physical objects. I'm not sure what the relationship between physical theory which attempts to account for physical efficient causation and the causation of the angels is. If a theory, such as Newtonian mechanics attempts to describe physical motion, where do the angelic bodies fit in?

I would say that natural laws are on three levels:

I - ALL creatures do exactly what God wills them to do, insofar as He wills them to do anything in particular
II - all BODILY creatures do what spiritual even creatures will them to do, if the spiritual creature is not restricted from acting on them

example A : a blessed angel can act on a planet
example B : a man can act on his own fingers, determining which letters they strike on a keyboard, but is restricted from moving objects outside his body except through it
example C : a demon has the same power to act as angels, but since he is barred from getting up where the planets are and usually even from carrying human bodies (though Satan had one exceptional occasion Mt/Lk 4), is unusually favoured if God even allows him to use this on pots and pans, as a Poltergeist .... until someone's prayers makes God or His angels tell the demon "your time is up".

III - all bodily creatures influence EACH OTHER AS BODIES in ways which Newtonian laws tend to describe.

Now, the point is, some of the movements we observe are not adequately or correctly accounted for in this third way.

Day and Night show a level I law of nature, the turning universe immediately obeying the will of God.

The journeys along the ecliptic - either straight as with Sun or Moon or erratic as with Venus or Mars - show a level II law of nature, an angel moving a body

Supposing weather conditions are accounted for by day and night, by seasons and by westward movement of aether, then the rest of the things which happens in weather are starting with the ones directly caused by level I or II laws, and go on from them by level III laws. On the other hand, if weather is less lawbound than that, perhaps even in normal weather conditions you have angelic beings causing things by level II laws.

I'd say that the words of Christ to the wind and waves indicate sth like that.

So if I push a box, and that push corresponds to the Newtonian understanding of push, how do we know the angels ever push and where?

If your finger or hand or arms push a box (depending on its size), that will be an event (between finger/hand/arm/both arms and box) according to level III laws, since your mind only has level II law privileges over matter/bodies insofar as the bodies are parts of your body and not even all aspects of all of these.

On the other hand, you deciding to use your finger or hand or arm or both arms to push anything is insofar as you actually carry it out a very perfect example of a level II causality.

If angels push stars, why not abandon physical theory and say the entire observed universe is dominated by non-bodily entities that do all the work?

The entire universe is dominated by non-bodily entities, namely God and angels, who do the large works on which our everyday existence depends.

This does not mean that everything is only done by level II causations or level I causation (only One!), it means that those causations give the framework for smaller level III causations.

If so, then we seem to be denying any modelling power to physical efficient causality.

Not quite, since there are these level III laws between your finger or hand or arms and the box.

And the daily turning of the universe around us might through fairly straightforward level III causality be causing all Coriolis related.