Dave has copied David Palms article, "On Credibility, Conspiracies, and Caution (Guest Post by David Palm Re: Robert Sungenis)" and he has now blocked off any further comments in the combox , so I have decided to propose questions to HG, here against the anti geocentric position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WG - The Holy Father has no divinely protected authority when speaking on a matter of natural science, as it is considered in itself. He may speak infallibly with regard to the ethical use of the physical sciences, but the sciences themselves are outside his sphere of competency.
JM - This is simply not true and shows the gapping hole in your approach. Pope Leo XIII has taught that the unanimous consent of the fathers is binding on the faithful. The fathers have taught the sun and moon move and the earth is stationary. As such the stationary earth is a matter of faith and this was reiterated by the Popes in response to Galileo and is stated no less than four times that the stars move and the earth is stationary.
Now how do we handle the problem of Leo’s statements about science and the doctrine of geocentrism. Well, as good Catholics we harmonize the statements of all the Popes and we do not perform some poor eisegesis of one or two statements of Popes in isolation.
When Leo XIII made statements about the non binding nature of the church fathers opinions of the science of the day, he did so in the context of having bound the faithful to the unanimous consent of the fathers. As such, any science opinion of the fathers that the faithful are permitted to reject cannot be unanimous consent of the fathers, otherwise Leo has made a very big contradiction right in the same document – Providentisimus Deus.
Further, if we take WG’s comment to its logical conclusion, we can ask the following questions.
Q1- Why do anti geocentrists only selectively quote from Papal statements and ignore the statements concerning the unanimous consent of the fathers as binding on the faithful?
Q2- Why do anti geocentrists believe the removal of books from the index mean the church now teaches the doctrine of geocentrism is no longer part of the faith when the catechism of the council of Trent and other Papal statements against the moving earth have not been overturned?
Q3- Why do anti geocentrists not see that modern science is largely pantheistic and therefore hostile to the faith, whereas geocentrism is thoroughly supernaturalist and therefore, fully compatible with the faith?
Q4- Why do anti geocentrists not see that when geocentrists note that geocentrism is fully compatible with the faith and anti geocentrists fight against the model, then they actually undermine the faith and promote pantheism?
Q5- Why do anti geocentrists not see that geocentrism supports a literal understanding of the creation event in Genesis and as such, why do they attack such a key doctrine of the faith.
Q6- Why do anti geocentrists not see that by attacking geocentrism, they are also attacking the church that taught for 1900 years, that geocentrism was revealed by God?
Q7- Why do anti geocentrists systematically avoid discussing the problems with relativity, Newtonian mechanics and modern cosmological models, yet expect geocentrists to take them seriously on their criticisms of the geocentric model?
Q8- Why do anti geocentrists not see that their often superficial and silly arguments against geocentrism only confirms the geocentric model further and shows geocentrists that the anti geocentrists are so, because of fundamental misunderstandings in physics and cosmology?
Q9- When the fathers taught with a unanimous consent that the earth was stationary, why is this considered a matter for science, when the question of the motion of the earth could not have been studied under science at the time of the fathers?
Q10- When the fathers taught with a unanimous consent that the earth was stationary, why is this considered a matter for science, when the fathers obtained their knowledge of the stationary earth from the sources of revelation and not from any science experiment?
Q11- The NT portrays the cosmos as being Christo-centric, whereby the universe was created by Christ, redeemed by Christ and will be restored by Christ at the end of time. Why then wouldn’t the greatest acts of God, whereby He became man, instituted the Eucharist and the church, died, rose from the dead, ascended into haven and will return again be made at the most significant point within the universe?
Q12- Following this - As modern science says there is no unique point in the universe, but geocentrism teaches the stationary earth is the unique point in the universe, how then does geocentrism conflict with the NT understanding of the universe being Christo-centric?
Q13- Also, as modern science says there is no unique point in the universe, but geocentrism teaches the stationary earth is the unique point in the universe, how then is heliocentrism in conformity with the universe and especially the earth being Christo-centric?
Q14- What parts of scripture use science terminology or science experiment to express the realities that came under the senses, as recorded in the text?
Q15- If there were no experiments performed by the prophets who wrote of the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, how then are they to know what bodies are moving past what bodies?
Q16- If the prophets only knew what bodies were moving past other bodies according to the phenomena seen at the time, how do we know that the description given of the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth is only phenomenological and not real?
Q17- Where the scriptures make statements concerning the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, what is the literal sense of those texts?
Q18- Where the scriptures make statements concerning the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, how do we know from the laws of exegesis that the text means that the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth is the intended meaning of the authors?
Answer – we examine the context, genre and the grammatical structure as see that texts throughout the OT literally mean what they say concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies and stationary earth. We also see this is the same understanding expressed by the unanimous consent of the fathers, the catechism of the Council of Trent and the Popes at the time of Galileo. We then conclude the method used is solidly Catholic in all its aspects.
Q19- Where the scriptures make statements concerning the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth, how do we know from the laws of exegesis that the text means that the moving sun, moon and stars, and the stationary earth is the intended meaning of the authors?
Probable answer – the anti geocentrists must arrive at the conclusion that the statements made in scripture concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies are always in error and only ever state what occurs phenomenally. But to arrive at this conclusion that the scriptures always record motions of the heavenly bodies and the stationary earth phenomenally, means the anti-geocentrist exegete must use a literary method which is currently unknown in biblical exegesis.
Q20- So why would anyone want to use an unbiblical and non magisterial method to arrive at a conclusion concerning the meaning of many statements within scripture that are opposed to what the church thought the texts meant for over 1900 years, using a novel and hence non Catholic method?
Q21- The scriptures state the earth is set on a foundation and cannot be moved. What is the phenomenological basis for these statements and how did the prophets know the earth was set on a foundation, even though modern anti-geocentric science says the earth is not set on any foundation?
Q22- If the statements in scripture concerning the motion of the heavenly bodies and the stationary earth are only to be taken as phenomenal interpretations of events, how then do we know that many other events, which are supposedly historical, are merely interpretations of hearsay, or perhaps even misunderstandings of the author, or even embellishments by the author? After all, if several authors got it wrong on the motions of the heavenly bodies and the stationary earth, why not say the same for many other observations?
Q23- How does the anti-geocentrists account for the approved visions of Hildegard von Bingen, who saw a multi-layered universe that rotated around a stationary earth?
Q24- If the anti geocentrists ignore or refuse to give assent to the approved visions of Hildegard von Bingen, what is their theological basis against the church’s magisterial authority to do so?
Q25- When God created the universe; He did so to then act with and not against His creation. Why then did God make the sun dance at Fatima, when at the time the church taught the earth is stationary and the sun is orbiting the stationary earth?
JM
No comments:
Post a Comment