Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gospel Puzzles?; [Revised Catholic Edition]
Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. April 2007, 22:25 (1,409 Views)
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Here's a Catholic site (which doubtless you will dismiss, Mairtin) which gives the verdict of various scientists on the book "Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right".

For example:
Quote:
 
"There exists no better exposition of the history and science of geocentrism. Very highly recommended and a must for all those interested in the issues surrounding geocentrism today" (Gerardus Bouw, Ph.D., Astronomy)

"In their over 700-page book, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett make a convincing case for the special and central position of the earth in the cosmos" (Vincent Schmithorst, Ph.D., Physics)

"Galileo Was Wrong is a work of monumental proportion which ranks, in my opinion, on a par with the meticulous observations of the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, and the tireless efforts of Walter van der Kamp" (Neville Jones, Ph.D., Physics)


S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 09:28
If Protestant fundamentalists happen to agree with the Popes and Fathers, then I guess that makes the Popes and Fathers Protestant fundamentalist too.
So which Popes or Fathers are in agreement with the Protestant fundamentalists by insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis as Creation taking place over 6x24 hour days?

Quote:
 
Now, there are geocentrist scientists, I just haven't found a site that conveniently gives a list of them.

That's probably because there aren't enough of them to contitute a list.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 09:34
Here's a Catholic site (which doubtless you will dismiss, Mairtin) ...
I certainly don't regard a site produced by a layman with no authority or endorsement from the Church as some sort of authoritative "Catholic site".

You really do pose me some really tough decisions, Clare!

Who should I listen to in regard to science, men and women who have devoted their lives to that profession, who have the highest possible qualifications in there area of expertise and are at the very top of their game, or a guy who has no scientific qualifications whatsoever?

Who should I listen to in regard to the Bible, the greatest theological minds or some self appointed layman?

Gosh, it's really difficult to make up my mind about this :wh:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 09:37
Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 09:28
If Protestant fundamentalists happen to agree with the Popes and Fathers, then I guess that makes the Popes and Fathers Protestant fundamentalist too.
So which Popes or Fathers are in agreement with the Protestant fundamentalists by insisting on a literal interpretation of Genesis as Creation taking place over 6x24 hour days?

Catholic Truths blog

Quote:
 
...
The Father's of the Church have interpreted the Scriptures as supporting geocentrism, and rejecting heliocentrism. Probably the main contributer to this is Joshua 10, the stopping of the sun in the sky and the stopping of the moon. This was supported with other portions of Scripture. St. Bellarmine, one of the leading officials working for Paul V in condemning Galileo, summed it up.

On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter to Father Foscarini:

"I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe."
...
Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, and Denzinger's 1951) had this to say:

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

Sticking with the time tested and authoritative methods of Biblical exegetism, one has to conclude that the Fathers were correct in their interpretation. And as was said at Trent:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published..."

Similarly, Vatican I states (Session 2, Profession of Faith):

"...Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers..."

And again (Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2- On Revelation):

"...In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture...against the unanimous consent of the fathers."

...Finally, it was clear to Urban VIII that it was a matter of faith, as astated in the condemnation [of Galileo] of 1633:

"...The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith..."

...
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Clare
Member Avatar
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
Mairtin
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 09:54
Who should I listen to in regard to the Bible, the greatest theological minds or some self appointed layman?

Gosh, it's really difficult to make up my mind about this :wh:

It evidently is difficult because you ignore both, as well as the Church.
S.A.G.

Motes 'n' Beams blog

Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Clare
Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 10:14
It evidently is difficult because you ignore both, as well as the Church.
Let's see what a "proper" Catholic site has to say - Catholic Answers, which, as far as I am aware, is generally regarded as having a very conservative approach:

Quote:
 
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.

The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact "that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same "day" as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).

Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator" (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.


The rest of the article with appropriate quotations from the various Fathers can be found here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Add Reply