Posted on 05/11/2005 10:04:08 AM PDT by NYer
Did or did not the RCC accept and build on Aquinas's geocentric cosmology?
Let me be blunt, Petronius. You don't know what you are talking about. That's not an insult. It's simply a fact. You throw around phrases like Aquinas's cosmology. If by cosmology you mean the Ptolemaic view of the universe, then the answer is no, because that was a scientific theory and no doctrinal or dogmatic Church statement ever enshrined the Ptolemaic or Newtonian scientific theories as dogma--for the simple reason that science and philosophy/theology do different things.
If by Aquinas's cosmology you meant belief that God created the heavens and the earth and actively sustained them, then the Church of course dogmatically asserts that--but Ptolemy and Aristotle wouldn't have touched that with a ten-foot pole and Aquinas knew that and dealt extensively with the differences between Christian belief in creation and ancient Greek belief in the eternal existence of the universe etc.
Your assumption that Aquinas was taken in by a "false" cosmology and that the Church foollishly endorsed it shows that you don't know the first thing either about the philosophy of science or theology or how the two both relate and differ from each other.
The Ptolemaic theory was the best theory anyone had come up with based on the data they had. It was as "true" as any scientific explanatory model ever is. All scientific theories or explanatory models are by their very nature temporary, ripe for revision--unlike eternal truths of philosophy and theology. The Church did not endorse the Ptolemaic model because the Church does not do science in her doctrinal teaching. Most Christians before Copernicus accepted the Ptolemaic model of explanation because it was the one that made the most sense. The time of transition between reigning scientific paradigms is always a time of controversy and confusion. The Galileo case and the debate over the shift from Ptolemy to Copernicus/Kepler would have been just another scientific debate if scientists and philosophers on both sides of the issue had not been foolish--Galileo in claiming philosophical implications for the scientific theory he had embraced that were not within the province of science and Galileo's opponents (many of whom were scientists who were also philosophers and theologians) who likewise did not keep the proper distinctions between the two forms of knowledge clear. But give them a break--it was a time of momentous philosophical and scientific change and it would be surprising if no confusion between theology, philosophy, and science had taken place.
In disciplining Galileo the Church was making a disciplinary action, not a dogmatic doctrinal teaching. And the officials erred in some aspects of their discipline of Galileo, even as he erred in some aspects of his behavior toward the Church. That is what the JPII commision findings essentially boil down to. There was a miscarriage of justice, not a miscarriage of doctrine.
Yet, in the courts of the Papal States and the Roman Inquisition at that time you received a far fairer trial, had more opportunity to know the accusations against you and defend yourself than you had in any of the courts of the kings of Europe of that day. In England there was the Star Chamber court where you had no rights whatever and the Carthusian martyrs under Henry VIII were left to starve to death without even a trial of any sort. Philip II of Spain, the Swedes, and so on down the line were far more arbitrary and unjust in their legal systems and failure to provide due process than the Papal States were at the time. That is the consensus of a wide variety of secular historians of the Inquisition: Henry Kamen, John Tedeschi, Edward Peters. Yet it is only right to say, as the JPII commission did, that Galileo was the victim of injustice in his trial. Scientists and anti-Christian philosophers who embrace scientism have used the Galileo case to make philosophical and theological points for which it is not relevant. And by employing it the way you have employed it, you too are blurring the boundaries between scientific knowledge (always temporary, based on always increasing, changing data that eventually forces a paradigm shift in explanatory models) and theological and philosophical knowledge that has to do with "perennial things," eternal truths.
And it also suggests that you get your information about the Catholic Church from modern scientistic sources that have it in for the Catholic Church, have distorted her record on matters of science and faith to support the "big bad Church and poor innocent persecuted scientists" myth, a myth that Protestants have taken a major part in perpetuating because they thought it served their anti-Catholic purposes, not realizing that it turns around to bite them in the form of scientistic attacks on Bible-believing Protestants.
You anti-Catholic, you live with a chip on your shoulder against Catholics, despite all your "let's just be friends" rhetoric, and in this case it has led you to accept some very bad science and very lousy history.
Correction in last line of 1121: "You are anti-Catholic.
Serious question ...
Were you trained to interpret any questioning of your beliefs as an attack ?
Yes, of course, regarding temporal mundanities, I'm sure there was no lack of variation based on time and setting.
But He was also a faithful Jew who followed closely the laws of Moses. The Pharisees may have accused Him of running afoul by performing miracles on the Sabbath, but Jesus rebuked them for allowing their self-righteousness to distort "the law" as God intended when He gave it to Moses. So, in essence, Christ did not have "pragmatic freedom" when it came to fulfilling His mission, but walked a very narrow path to the Cross. Christ's will was to do the Father's will. In essence, He was perpetually in bondage to the Father's will - and by manner of His own free will. 2 Corinthians 3:17
"... where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Galatians 5:1
"For freedom Christ has set us free;"
Yes, but "the Truth will set you free". Truth is rigid, not flexible. Facts are imprisoned by truth. They cannot deviate or have pragmatism applied to them. In other words, 1 + 1 = 2. It's never anything different. The formula doesn't equal "three" when it's raining outside, or in certain time zones. It's rigid.
The same can be said for the Truth which "sets us free". This Truth is not made of putty. It can't be reshaped for the sake of pragmatism. Jesus didn't say, "Do something kind-of sort-of like this in memory of me." It was "do this in memory of me."
So, yes, the Old Testament is certainly more replete with rules and regulations, but so is the New Testament:
You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, etc.
Do unto others...
Love your enemies
Turn the other cheek
Forgive 70 times 70 times
etc. etc. etc.
In fact, the only pragmatism Christ applied to His teaching was in using parables. And the reason He used parables was that the sinfulness of that generation (and the others before) prevented them from seeing and hearing what the Apostles could see and hear in Christ's Word.
In sum, the story of salvation is the story of contradictions. Because man does not think like God, what is Truth can oftentimes run contrary to our natural inclinations. We give in order to receive; we forgive in order to be forgiven; we die in order to have eternal life; Christ "became" sin in order to conquer Satan; poverty here stores riches in heaven, and in order to be free, one must surrender to Truth and follow wherever the Shepherd leads.
The Truth is one and always. There has to be a guarantor of the Truth and a body to receive an affirm it. That gurantor is the Holy Spirit; that body is the Catholic Church, built on Peter, the rock.
You have emptied out the value of the bible. I'm afraid I'm a bit too discouraged to continue. I simply can't seem to do what I want to do, as my SN implies, and make the bible seem important to you.
So what IS the value of the Bible? The quality of paper? The most recent translation? God inspired a rulebook but doesn't inspire its application and tradition?
The fact is, we don't even know who wrote the Gospels, but you take on faith that they were inspired by God. On what do you base that faith? Scripture?
So, yes, the Old Testament is certainly more replete with rules and regulations, but so is the New Testament:
You shall love the Lord God with all your heart, etc.
Do unto others ...
Love your enemies
Turn the other cheek
Forgive 70 times 70 times
... etc. etc. etc.
Yes ... such as you list above is a good representation of the commandments set forth in the NT.
I am reminded that Paul sets out love as the basis for any valued service in the kingdom of God.
If love is not the root of what we do ... then whatever we do has no value.1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, ... but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.In fact, the only pragmatism Christ applied to His teaching was in using parables. And the reason He used parables was that the sinfulness of that generation (and the others before) prevented them from seeing and hearing what the Apostles could see and hear in Christ's Word.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, ... but have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, ... but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Actually, this isn't quite the case ...
Pragmatics ran afoul of Old Testament Law when Jesus and His disciples gleaned corn from the fields on the Sabbath, ... and in the matter of the disciples not washing their hands before eating.Mark 2:23 Now it happened that He went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and as they went His disciples began to pluck the heads of grain.
24 And the Pharisees said to Him, "Look, why do they do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"
25 But He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him:
26 how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?"
27 And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.
...................................................................
Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"
6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
"...and make the bible seem important to you."
The Bible IS important to me. I prayed from the Divine Liturgy this morning - 3 Psalms and a reading from the Scriptures. Read today's Gospel from Mark. Read the last three chapters of Galatians, with my study notes. During lunch, I will pray 3 more Psalms. Later, I will meditate on the Gospel (which would be very pertinent to this conversation - I HIGHLY suggest you read it, Biblewonk - Mk 9:38-40 Oh, heck, it's short. Here it is: "Now John answered Him, saying, 'Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.").
Before turning in, 3 more Psalms will be prayed. I will also read more commentaries on the second half of Galatians later, but I am at work, so it depends on that schedule first.
Does this look like the schedule of someone who doesn't consider the Bible important? Again, I remind you, Catholics do NOT take EVERYTHING from the Scriptures. God speaks also through Apostolic Tradition. The decisions of the Councils (the precedence we saw in Acts 15). The teachings of the Church, such as from encyclicals. The Bible is at the center, but it is not all-encompassing.
JESUS IS!
Beware of worshipping the Bible! It is a book meant to lead us to Christ, not an end in of itself.
Here is another reading from Scripture that I humbly present to you:
Also Jesus spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18: 9-14)
I can't help but think of this parable when you write as you do regarding "those RC's who don't read the Bible 3 times a year for 18 years".
Regards
The fact is, we don't even know who wrote the Gospels, but you take on faith that they were inspired by God. On what do you base that faith? Scripture?
The universal testimony of the church.
Furthermore, Christ was referencing a common practice of various Kings of that age, who would literally entrust the keys to their castles to one person, who would effectively become the point-man for the monarchy, and speak for the King when dealing with subjects outside the walls.
Also, in reference to the "Gates of Hell", a king would station his most battle-hearty troops at the gate, so when Jesus says, "the Gates of Hell", He's referring to the most powerful demons assaulting the Church.
This is an oxymoron. The mere existence of Protestantism belies any assertion of "universal testimony" outside the Catholic Church - "catholic", of course, meaning " universal.
In fact, one could say that Protestantism is a collection of many thousands of "parallel" universes, with no two testimonies coinciding...
Do you celebrate the pagan-rooted holiday of Christmas? Do you attend services on Sunday? Heck, do you think Sunday is a "holy" day?
The universal testimony of the church.
This is an oxymoron. The mere existence of Protestantism belies any assertion of "universal testimony" outside the Catholic Church - "catholic", of course, meaning " universal.
The centrality of Jesus Christ and the integrity of the scriptures are point of commonality for all of the churches.
Do you celebrate the pagan-rooted holiday of Christmas? Do you attend services on Sunday? Heck, do you think Sunday is a "holy" day?
I celebrate the Incarnation.
I attend services on Sunday, Wednesday, and sometimes Saturday.
I do not consider Sunday to be a day any more holy than any other.
I am reminded that Paul sets out love as the basis for any valued service in the kingdom of God.
If love is not the root of what we do ... then whatever we do has no value.
Agreed. And this is the crux of what Christ was condemning when He castigated the "traditions" of the Pharisees. It was not a condemnation of tradition per se, but the hypocrisy of approaching ceremony without a loving disposition. If Christ did not support tradition, He would not have followed the laws of Moses to begin with. He would not have become the Paschal sacrifice and the Last Supper would have simply been "dinner with friends". He would not have been circumcised or presented to His Heavenly Father.
But I agree, wholeheartedly, ceremony or ritual approached without love is a slap in the face of God -- but it doesn't invalidate the tradition anymore than a heretic invalidates the Bible.
"Do this in memory of Me"...
The fact is, we don't even know who wrote the Gospels, but you take on faith that they were inspired by God. On what do you base that faith? Scripture?
Are you saving that the bible is worth even less than we have said so far? Am I a fool for taking on faith that they are inspired because it says so and a Christian told me it was so? Am I a fool for believing that John wrote John and Luke wrote Luke?
And it ends there. Everyone who speaks English shares a universal alphabet - it doesn't mean everyone knows how to spell.
Here is another reading from Scripture that I humbly present to you:
Also Jesus spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank You that I am not like other men--extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.' And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18: 9-14)
I can't help but think of this parable when you write as you do regarding "those RC's who don't read the Bible 3 times a year for 18 years".
That hurt. I'm worshipping the bible because I read it and believe it and worshipping the bible is wrong? I can only assume that worshipping the bible is not worshipping God's Word because it is just a book and God's Word Jesus Himself, to an RC. I'm also out of line for noticing that people who have less regard for the bible read it less and I am trusting that I am righteous because I read the bible. So I should quit reading the bible so I can quit trusting that I am right in my understanding of what it says and then I won't be on the wrong side of the prayer hill in Luke 18.
I have to say, that's sounds pretty twisted to me.
But WHERE does it say so? And why THESE four Gospels? What about the other forty? Who had the authority to determine the canon of the New Testament and why?
Am I a fool for believing that John wrote John and Luke wrote Luke?
No, you're not a fool, just uninformed. In fact, you'll probably lose your lunch if you do a little scholarly research and realize that Matthew is a composite of Mark and the "un-inspired" Gospel of "Q", and written not by Matthew, but his disciples. The Gospel of Matthew, in its entirety is infallibly inspired. "Q" by itself is not. And God obviously inspired "Matthew" to use elements from "Q" to round out his work. But it's an attributed work of Matthew, not an evident one.
The centrality of Jesus Christ and the integrity of the scriptures are point of commonality for all of the churches.
And it ends there. Everyone who speaks English shares a universal alphabet - it doesn't mean everyone knows how to spell.
Jesus set forth Himself (or "His Name", specifically) as the common point fof the Christian community (the church) ... He did not insist that we all follow in an identical way.
From jo kus' previous posting ...Mark 9:38-40 Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us."
But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.