If you can find the time, I would appreciate it if you could answer the following:
The first question concerns the phrase, “oh happy fault.” There are 2 parts.
1. First, we are taught that grace “raises” and perfects nature. Aquinas taught that grace is a “participation in the life of God.” The New Testament also says that grace makes the Christian to be a “sharer in the divine nature.” My question concerns Adam and Eve’s pre-fallen state. What exactly is it that is different between the New Testament’s idea of a “graced existence” and Adam and Eve’s “graced existence”? On account of the phrase “oh happy fault” I am led to believe that New Testament’s grace does for the Christian something that Adam and Eve (or anyone) would never have experienced were it not for the Cross of Christ. I just want to understand that difference. I hate it when my students simply conclude that Jesus’ Sacrifice, “just got us back to square one” (that is, to where Adam and Eve were before they sinned).
R. Sungenis: Damien, in Romans 5:12-20 St. Paul explains that now that we are joined with Christ rather than the pre-fallen Adam, we will share in the divine nature that Christ has, whereas, if we were still joined with Adam the most we could have hoped for was a pristine but very human existence. Hence, it is a “happy fault” because we will be much better being like Christ than we would have in being like Adam.
2. The second question has to do with geocentrism: The earth is supposed to be on one of the outer rims of the Milky Way and I have seen pictures of the Milky Way with an arrow pointing to earth. The shape of the Milky Way is a spiral and the center of that spiral is the center of the Milky Way. The galaxy has the appearance of water going down a drain, only without the water ever disappearing….the water just keeps going round and round the center of mass. From pictures of the Milky Way, I immediately get the impression that the swirl shape is created because everything is rotating around the center of the Milky Way, and you pointed out that modern cosmology believes that the solar system is orbiting the center of the Milky Way at 500 miles per second, which I know you disagree with.
My question is, how can we explain the spiral shape of the Milky Way (which itself is enough to convince the average person that everything in the entire Milky Way is orbiting the center of that same galaxy) is not caused by everything swirling around its center--including the earth. This would be like trying to convince someone that the piece of wood that is floating around in the outer current of a whirlpool is actually the center of activity. I wonder how you would come at this question.
R. Sungenis: Damien, the pictures you see with an arrow pointing on the outer edge of the Milky Way are fictitious. Think about. How could there possibly be a picture of us and the Milky Way taken from hundreds of thousands of light years away? The farthest we’ve ever been able to take a picture is near the outer planet of Neptune. The picture you see of the “Milky Way” is merely a picture of spiral galaxy taken somewhere in outer space, probably by Hubble, and then some scientist claims that this is what the Milky Way galaxy must look like and then puts an arrow on it to estimate where he thinks our solar system is. The truth is, there is no Milky Way galaxy with a core of which we are revolving around it. It is merely the product of a theory about galaxies which claims that most stars with planets are part of a galaxy. What we see at night is merely a band of stars that stretch across our sky that is similar to a globular cluster but much more spread out.
3. My last question again concerns geocentrism: If we can view the Milky Way from far away (I’m assuming at a location that is outside of our solar system) and get photographs of it, then surely wouldn’t we be able to view the earth rotating around the sun or vice versa?
R. Sungenis: As noted above, your question just begs the question, namely, how could we ever get a picture of the “Milky Way” outside the Milky Way? This just proves once again that modern science has given us nothing but smoke and mirrors about both cosmology and cosmogony.