Geocentricism

Here’s my hyper-condensed, non-expert summary, according to my understanding:

—There is no real proof of heliocentricism. It is accepted as fact because of a philosophical bias: because geocentricism, even though it is supported by strong observational evidence, makes modern, atheistic cosmologists uncomfortable because the geocentric model, with the privileged position it gives us in the universe, points to something they do not want to admit . . . God.

As Robert Sungenis puts it at the end of one article:

As I see it, the bottom line is this: the devil, using popular science to rule the hearts of men today, has completely deceived us about the motions of the cosmos, just as he had deceived Adam and Eve about who was running the cosmos. And it is all for one reason: to convince us to abandon our trust in God and put it in ourselves. Scientists know and admit that if the Earth is in the center of the universe, it could only be there if Someone put it there, since it obviously couldn’t happen by chance. Hence, it is much easier for atheists and agnostics to believe that the Earth is just a speck of dust somewhere out there in the far recesses of deep space. In the late 1970s, the famous astrophysicist George Ellis proposed, based on the commonly known and published telescopic evidence, that Earth was in a central position in the universe. Paul C. W. Davies, the editor of Nature and recent winner of the Templeton prize was forced to reply: “His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.” I rest my case.

—The heliocentric model creates problems, which then necessitate solutions like theorizing the existence of “Dark Matter.” But the geocentric model has none of these problems.

Quote from the same article:

A recent case in point is the article in New Scientist this past year that admitted cosmologists basically have two choices left with the recent astrophysical data they have found. Either they: (a) keep touting the theoretical idea that Dark Energy and Dark Matter comprise 95% of the universe (since neither Newton’s nor Einstein’s laws will work without them, despite that fact that no one has ever discovered one ounce of either substance actually existing); or (b) they can adopt the simple solution of abandoning the Copernican universe and putting Earth in the center. I’ll let them say it in their own words:

This startling possibility can be accommodated by the standard cosmological equations, but only at a price. That price is introducing dark energy – an unseen energy pervading space that overwhelms gravity and drives an accelerating expansion. Dark Energy is problematic. No one really knows what it is. We can make an educated guess, and use quantum theory to estimate how much of it there might be, but then we overshoot by an astounding factor of 10120. That is grounds enough, says George Ellis…to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle…. Whatever our theoretical predilections, they will in the end have to give way to the observational evidence.” So what would it mean if … the outcome were that the Copernican principle is wrong? It would certainly require a seismic reassessment of what we know about the universe…. If the Copernican Principle fails, all that goes that [the Big Bang] goes out the window too…. Cosmology would be back at the drawing board. If we are in a void, answering how we came to be in such a privileged spot in the universe would be even trickier.

“Trickier,” indeed! It would require the total abandonment of the now popular Big Bang ‘time & chance’ universe to be replaced with Someone who put the Earth in the center, for it could happen no other way. In fact, so upsetting is this evidence to the scientific status quo that New Scientist labeled the universe’s orientation around Earth as the center, “THE AXIS OF EVIL,” since this geocentric picture destroys its cherished Copernican principle.

This is that article, which I suggest reading first, if only because it covers some of the science, the ecclesiastical details involving Galileo, and the problems with Catholic apologists on these issues:

http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/articlereviews/Review_of_Lockwoods_article_on_Galileo_typos_corrected.pdf

For a highly detailed, and lengthy, essay on the ecclesiastical, etc., aspects of the topic:

http://catholicintl.com/articles/Subterfuge%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Hierarchy.pdf

(I actually haven't read the entire thing yet.)

For more of a purely scientific overview, there's a lot in the following critique that Sungenis gives in response to a physicist:

http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Answer_to_Alec_MacAndrew_on_Geocentrism.pdf

This should suffice for now, although there is more available. It's a little overwhelming at times, and much of the scientific argument goes over my head, I admit, but there is enough understanding there for a layman to start putting the puzzle pieces together.

Thank you, DeSelby, for posting this. I have not had a chance to read it yet and will get back to you when I have.

Well. I've read the first of those Sungenis articles and part of the second and I say, that should set the cat firmly among the pigeons for all who exercise blind faith in the atheistic-driven, heliocentric view of the universe.

It's plain to see that the historical facts surrounding the whole Galileo affair have never really been given the light of day and much has been accepted as fact without any serious research. Like you said DeSelby, it opens one up to ridicule to go against "infallible" scientific opinion and maybe we are lacking Catholics of real courage to stand up and say what they think.
I for one have (being devoid of any scientific gumption) always intuitively felt that heliocentrism was false but didn't think that there'd ever be a way of proofing this besides recourse to Holy Scripture. I know intuition can't be relied upon but it's darn hard to shake off.

Some very interesting observations were made in the articles, one of which blows holes in the assumption which many Catholics have that the whole affair was not a matter of Faith and Morals and therefore nothing infallible could result from the Churches condemnation. However, as was pointed out, the reason the Church condemned the notion of heliocentrism was precisely because it contradicted a long-held doctrine of faith (even if never definitively pronounced upon) and no condemnation would have been required if this were not the case.

Another well stated point was that of the modern idea of science being the infallible new teacher of doctrine and the Church needs play second fiddle to all its pronouncements (no one can stand ridicule it seems even if it's to protect the purity of the faith).
I have more reading to do but looking forward to hearing more comments

Thank you Deselby for the links. It's made my day.

Columba, just wanted to say you are a very pleasant person I always enjoy your posts. Deep but with no angst.

cowboy wrote:Columba, just wanted to say you are a very pleasant person I always enjoy your posts. Deep but with no angst.

Thanks Cowboy.

This is one of those occasions where second opinions aren't welcome.

GALILEO'S HERESY

By Paula Haigh

Excerpt:

Error always has consequences. The real conclusion to be drawn from Gardner's explanation is that there simply is no human way of knowing the structure of the universe. But God has revealed it! This was the basis on which Galileo was condemned by the Holy office in 1633. It is, therefore, a fact of divine revelation, a truth of Faith.

The same holds true for the origin of all things and the earliest history of mankind. So called "salvation history" (no more than any history) does not begin with Abraham nor with any imagined "prehistoric" event or process. All history begins with the beginning of time on the First Day of the First Week of the World Creation Week. It is all very simply and most plainly given to us by God in Holy Scripture, for God knows that we not only desire to know these things but that we need to know them. Mythology proves that if men do not take God's word for the origin and structure of the universe, they will surely take the Devil's.

And so, it is a great pity to find Catholics apologetic and embarrassed about the action of the Church in the Galileo case. Here is a brief resumé of the facts in the Galileo case.

Due to the spread of the Copernican theory and complaints of theologians, the Holy Office in 1616 condemned the following propositions and explained why they are false:

I. The sun is the center of the world and completely immovable by local motion.

II. The earth is not the center of the world, not immovable, but moves according to the whole of itself, and also with a diurnal motion.

The first proposition was declared unanimously to be foolish and absurd in philosophy and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages, both in their literal meaning and according to the general interpretation of the Fathers and Doctors.

With regard to the second proposition all were agreed that this proposition merits the same censure in philosophy, and that, from a theological standpoint, it is at least erroneous in the faith. Fr. Jerome Langford, from whose book these propositions are taken, goes on to explain the meaning of the censures in more detail:

The theologian Antonio of Cordova, writing in 1604, explains the generic meaning of these censures. The formally heretical in the first censure means that this proposition was considered directly contrary to a doctrine of faith. This shows that the apparent affirmations of Scripture and the Fathers, that the sun moves, was held by the Consultors to be a doctrine of faith. In other words, there is no room for apologetic excursions here. The Consultors tagged the proposition with the strongest possible censure, as being directly contrary to the truth of Sacred Scripture. In the second proposition, the motion of the earth was censured as erroneous in the faith. This meant that the Consultors considered it to be not directly contrary to Scripture, but opposed to a doctrine which pertained to the faith according to the common consensus of learned theologians. In other words, Scripture was not as definite in stating the immobility of the earth. But the Holy Writ did reveal that the sun moved, and since human reason could conclude that the sun and the earth were not both moving around each other, the Consultors felt that the immobility of the earth was a matter which fell under the domain of faith indirectly, as a kind of theological conclusion.[10] (Emphases added)

Galileo himself, because he had published a book on sunspots in 1613 wherein he praised the Copernican theory, was personally admonished on the basis of these condemnations about the sun and the earth, by Cardinal (Saint Robert) Bellarmine.

However, in 1632, Galileo published his Dialogue on the Great World Systems in which he openly and enthusiastically, not to say dogmatically, advocated the Copernican system and shamelessly ridiculed the traditional Aristotelian geocentric system. This brought about his trial in 1633 by the Roman Inquisition or Holy Office. Of Galileo's condemnation, noted Church historian Ludwig von Pastor says: "Now if he adhered internally to an opinion which competent authority assured him to be contrary to Holy Writ, a suspicion was bound to arise that he doubted the inerrancy of the Scriptures and since this was in itself a heresy, he became suspect of heresy."[11] (Emphases added)

The Church cannot be accused of interfering in what may be considered the proper domain of the physical sciences because Galileo's crime was only indirectly concerned with the Copernican theory. His heresy was specifically to doubt the inerrancy of Holy Scripture.

End notes:
10 - Jerome J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church. Foreword by Stillman Drake. New York: Desclee Co, 1966, pp.89-90.
11 - History of the Popes, Vol. 29, p.54.

GALILEO'S HERESY

By Paula Haigh

Excerpt (con’t):

The real centerpiece of the Galileo affair is the Letter that Saint Robert Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to the Carmelite friar, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, after reading Galileo's Letter to Castelli and Foscarini's sixty four page book defending the compatibility of the new Copernican system with Holy Scripture. Foscarini died June 10, 1616, just two months after his book had been condemned by the Congregation of the Index. Fr. Jerome Langford does not tell us if there is any record of the Carmelite friar's reaction to the condemnation, to Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, or whether he submitted to the Church's judgment before he died.[19]

As one would expect of a saint, Cardinal Bellarmine's letter is a model of supernatural wisdom and prudence. It is fair to scientific opinion but unrelentingly firm in the defense of Catholic doctrine. I give the Letter in full, and I have divided it into numbered paragraphs for convenient reference. I take the text from Langford's book. (See note 19)

1. I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

2. First, I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke.

3. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this and it is sufficient for mathematicians.

4. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false.

5. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

6. Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators.

7. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

8. Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth, but the earth circled around the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them, than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

9. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.

10. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun is really in the center and the earth in the heavens.

11. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.

12. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc." were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.

13. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges the sun to move, just as it is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move.

14. And that is enough for the present. I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Fraternally,
Cardinal Bellarmine
12 April 1615

Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (#6). Just how far the contemporary Church has departed from Catholic tradition is emphasized by this as well as by the other points of Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter, for he refuses to recognize the distinction, rejected also in our times by Benedict XV and Leo XIII, between references to physical things and supernatural facts (#7) as dividing truth from possible error in Holy Scripture. Fr. Jerome Langford is of the modernist mentality and reads the Decree of Trent according to Galileo: "... the Fathers had to affirm, explicitly or implicitly, that the text under consideration pertained to a matter of faith or morals." But as we have already shown, this is not what Trent said nor could have so said because both Benedict XV and Leo XIII have emphatically reaffirmed the integrity of Holy Scripture in all its parts and all its meanings, both physical and spiritual, both natural and supernatural.

Galileo and the heliocentrists or Copernicans attacked a truth of faith, namely, that Holy Scripture is inspired and inerrant in all its parts and that we may not depart from the common agreement of the Fathers in our interpretations.

Contrary to what most modern commentators on the Galileo case maintain, Cardinal Bellarmine did not make any mistake except to believe (#2) what the Lutheran theologian Osiander said in his Preface to the book of Copernicus - that Copernicus himself did not believe his theory to be fact but took it only as a convenient hypothesis. After four centuries of experiments and mathematical demonstrations, there is still nothing remotely resembling an irrefutable, demonstratively necessary proof of the heliocentric theory.

Note 19 - Jerome Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church. New York: Desclee, 1966, p. 59 about Fr. Foscarini and pp. 60 63 for Cardinal Bellarmine's Letter.

Very informative Mike.
I wonder if St Robert Bellarmine would have taken a decisive stand on the matter if he had been elected pope 10 or 11 yrs prior. I reckon if he had, the whole affair would never had got off the ground and geocentrism would still be the common belief to the present day.
As a side note: Pope Leo XI election (in preference to Cardinal Bellermine and one other likely candidate) was slightly sullied by suspicions of simony arising from King Henry IV of France making huge financial donations to ensure his election.
The fact that Pope Leo XI took ill immediately after his election and reigned only for 26 days, might add to the suspicion that his election was not approved by God.

Off topic I know so back the matter at hand.

When I was a little girl, my older sister told me that the earth revolves around the sun. I asked her, if the earth was spinning all the time, why we didn't feel it. She answered that was because it was spinning so fast we couldn't feel it.

I thought that answer was ridiculous then, even to an eight year old mind, and I think it is even more ludicrous today.

When I was a little boy (couple of yrs ago) our teacher told us that if the Earth were to suddenly stop spinning we'd all fly off into space at 1000 mph (depending on ones latitudinal position). However I don't see a problem with the Earth spinning on its own axis. I don't thing this contradicts scripture.

columba wrote:When I was a little boy (couple of yrs ago) our teacher told us that if the Earth were to suddenly stop spinning we'd all fly off into space at 1000 mph (depending on ones latitudinal position). However I don't see a problem with the Earth spinning on its own axis. I don't thing this contradicts scripture.

I retract that last statement.
I do see a problem with earth rotating within a geocentric universe.
Well I don't actually see the problem, but I do see a unanimous belief among geocentrics that a rotating earth would somehow violate a principle of geocentrism.

Does anyone know if this be because of some scientific necessity or, would it be contrary to the biblical account of creation?

Another question. For those who believe that the Church erred in her condemnation of Galileo, how do you know the Church erred if heliocentrism can't be proven?

columba wrote:Does anyone know if this be because of some scientific necessity or, would it be contrary to the biblical account of creation?

I'm not sure, actually. I'll keep an eye out...

columba wrote:Another question. For those who believe that the Church erred in her condemnation of Galileo, how do you know the Church erred if heliocentrism can't be proven?

Good question.