St. Thomas Aquinas wasn't heretical last time I checked

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Who would agree that, whichever the sides be that be right - I'm Geocentric, but I am asking about a thing Heliocentrics could agree on - the shift in culture from Geocentrism to Heliocentrism, first owed a lot to Desaguyliers the Freemason being Newtonian, but second, to a combination of on the one hand aberration and later parallax, so called (as Geocentric I think they are misnomers) and on the other hand, lightning rods having contributed to outmode the view that angelic creatures (in the case of lightning typically fallen ones) basically help God run the physical universe?

I

Nicholas Landholdt

???

Must be over my head. lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Nicholas Landholdt OK.

Two arguments were *pretty* prominent around 1750 / 1850 - namely Aberration and Parallax.

If angelic spirits could move stars, both arguments fall flat.

And that is what St. Thomas thought (I think it's Prima Pars, Q 70, A3). Angels do move celestial bodies.

Now, he also thought that angels and demons rule over physical events on a lower scale - like demons ruling over thunderstorms and lightnings.

This is not per se refuted logically by lightning's physical components obeying other interference too (like lightning rods) but it was socially perceived as outmoded after the lightning rod.

Is this still over your head?

Nicholas Landholdt

You're getting closer, Hans-Georg Lundahl.

Since I am a simple laymen and "stuff" like metaphysics and theology and the like is not required in my job description for saving my soul, I focus more on temporal Catholic Action and getting rid of Satan's children here in America using the Second Amendment.

As Dirty Harry once said: "A man's got to know his limitations." https://youtu.be/JfwYe1484EQ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Sure, but this group is a bit beyond the necessary truths about which no one must be ignorant.

Nicholas Landholdt

Hoping to find activists who want Catholic Action to take care of business vs. the #SOS, I "lurk" more than anything and p/u a thing or two in the process.

Never know what you might learn or who you come across. I ended up interviewing Robert Sungenis on my "Christian Revolt" talk radio show some time back.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Nicholas Landholdt // who want Catholic Action to take care of business vs. the #SOS, I "lurk" more than anything //

What is that?

Now, obviously, whatever it is, it is also beyond the truths on which no one must be ignorant.

Robert Sungenis and I have two divergences about Geocentrism.

1) I consider angels move celestial objects;
2) and that "parallax" and "aberration" are really proper movements, executed by angels, that neither tell us of heliocentrism NOR of distances. This means, with angelic movers and geocentrism, I have a very simple solution to the distant starlight problem for young universe : stars aren't all that distant.

He denies both and prefers an exotic solution (at least one where light travels faster than the two way speed of light) to the distant starlight problem, and thinks the distances and sizes underline the greatness of God.

Nicholas Landholdt

Does the Church have any de fide teaching on either of those "two divergences about Geocentrism", Hans-Georg Lundahl?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

Nicholas Landholdt No.

Historically, however, there is a clear preference (not a de fide definition) for angelic movers (divergence one) as I could read on the appropriate page of the Almagestum Novum by the Jesuit Astronomer Riccioli. There are also clear preferences for things involved in fix stars being, not exactly near, but nearer than 13 billion light years : an easier motivation for the Biblical timeline, and a somewhat more humanly comprehensible "Heaven where angels adore God and where blessed dead go is above the fix stars" or even "above the sphere of the fix stars."

There are priests now who totally deny that Heaven is an actual place, despite it being de fide that Christ is THERE. When Protestants many of them also deny that Heaven is a place, they come to see, often enough and heretically, the Assumption as a kind of reversal of the Incarnation : with no bilocation of His flesh and blood into the Eucharist and no motherhood left for Mary, their view sometimes being that the "spiritual resurrection body" is another one than the one She bore and which suffered on Calvary.

Obviously, Sungenis does not deny the truths, but having stars a kind of nearly thin "stratum" between the cosmos we see and the throne rooms of God makes it so much more accessible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

I am obviously not counting what Wojtyla and Ratzinger said in the early 90's as "de fide" or even as being backed by ecclesiastic authority on a lower level of the ordinary magisterium, I rather count it among my arguments these men were not Catholics and held no authority as Pope or Cardinal in the Church.

II

Johnny Proctor

Be careful about things that belong to both cosmology and angelology... We cannot modify cosmological models that include the angels as movers and manitainers of the physical systems with doing violence to the de fide doctrine of angels.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Author

There is no de fide doctrine pertaining to angels that excludes the angelology and cosmology of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Remark : "cosmological models that include the angels as movers and manitainers of the physical systems" I don't know what Johnny Proctor means with saying of angels (on my view) "maintainers of physical systems" unless by a "physical system" he means the movements that angels perform. The angels on my view are certainly not maintainers of the existence of the bodies, they do not control the nature, just the place of objects that they are moving./HGL