May 2, 2010

  • Question 248 - Science and Salvation

    Dear Robert,

    I understood everything you wrote.  I know very well that the Ordinary Magisterium is as Divinely Revealed as solemnly pronounced decrees and is to be believed under pain of mortal sin as was declared infallibly by the First Vatican Council.

    All I am trying to show is that beliefs in Physics not concerning faith and morals, are not binding under pain of mortal sin.

    As I mentioned earlier: Physics is a distinct science from moral science and not a sub-division.  Clearly the Church can not err in matters of faith and morals which it has authority over. I believe that the science of Physics is not necessarily an integral part of the teaching Authority of the Church, its Magisterium.

    R. Sungenis: I never said it was, Roger. The matter of physics being binding or not binding is your addition to this discussion, not mine. And if I may say so, it is a red herring. I only asked you to use physics to prove your contentions about the earth going around the sun. Since you haven’t, then you are obligated to believe in geocentrism because that is what the Church has traditionally taught and has never rescinded it, as a matter of faith and morals.

    Roger: Even science, that is, what we can conclude with our natural intellect and reason (philosophy), can not prove either way whether the Earth stands still in a revolving universe or not.  Since Philosophy can not prove this, then the issue remains a Mystery to us, because Theology deals with matters concerning faith and morals directly revealed by God. 

    R. Sungenis: This is where you either go off the track or simply won’t accept how the Church has argued against your position. It is not a “mystery,” as you call it. The Church has never called it a mystery. That is simply your invention to escape the inevitable. The Church has plainly said in a consensus of the Fathers, the Tridentine Catechism, and by numerous popes that the sun goes around the earth and the earth is motionless. The Church based this conclusion on its traditional reading of Scripture. So where’s the “mystery,” Roger?

    The only thing mysterious is why Roger Owen won’t accept the historical and scriptural evidence against his position when it is so overwhelming. Something is holding you back, and I think it’s the embarrassment of having to hold a position that 99% of the world rejects, including many of your “traditionalist” colleagues who won’t take the time to study the issue (I know because I’ve talked with many of them).

    All your references to “philosophy” and “physics” don’t amount to much, since I’m not arguing that physics is faith and morals. I am arguing that believing Scripture for what it literally says is faith and morals. It doesn’t matter whether Scripture says the bread turns into Christ’s body or the sun goes around the earth. Both are difficult to accept, but we accept them because Scripture says so.

    If you refuse to accept what Scripture says regarding geocentrism (as it was interpreted by the Fathers, medieval and popes), then you better have a good reason for doing so, that is, you better have absolute irrefutable scientific proof for your denial. But as far as I see, you not only have no irrefutable proof, you know very little about the physical laws of the universe.  

    Roger: Saint Thomas also refers to "that which is revealable" in Theology from Philosophy; because of this, the issue still remains a mystery. An OPINION either way will not condemn us just as having an opinion on the nature of the smallest sub-atomic particle, also will not condemn us.

    R. Sungenis: That kind of argument won’t save you, Roger, for the simple fact that Scripture says nothing about sub-atomic particles but it gives us reams of information about what body goes around what other body. The Church has said next to nothing about sub-atomic particles, but it has said reams for almost two millennia about what goes around what in outer space. Hence, you are entitled to hold any opinion you want about subatomic particles, but not about whether the Earth is motionless in space.

    Roger: I am inclined to believe that every object in the Universe is in some kind of orbit, because of the property of inertia that all mater possesses, that objects tend always remain in motion or accelerate unless outside physical forces decelerate them to rest.  Because of the nature of time, objects are always changing position, just as emotions can move our soul toward virtue or sin, again due to the nature of time itself.

    In +JMJ,
    Roger

    R. Sungenis: Yes, Roger, I’m also inclined to believe that every object in the universe is in some kind of orbit, but there is one unique place you haven’t considered yet. It is the one place of no motion, and there is only one place like that in the universe. It is called the center of mass. The very person you are referencing above to establish the principle of inertia (Newton) is the same person who said that there is no motion at the universe’s center of mass, and he said that the Earth could, indeed, occupy that position. If you are going to use physics to support yourself, Roger, then use it also where it may not support your preconceived notions.