Geocentrism 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as other researchers (as noted). Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005), which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.
Review of Part II is not required, as we are currently moving out of science and into the position of the Church and Scriptures.
In Part III the followng will be summarized:
1. The View of Scripture and the unanimous assent of the Fathers towards geocentrism (and its ramifications), based on Scripture.
2. The declarations of three Popes for geocentrism / against heliocentrism. The Popes were Pope Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII.
3. The lack of any authoritative retraction of former declarations
THE VIEW OF SCRIPTURE AND ITS AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE FATHERS:
The Father's of the Church have interpreted the Scriptures as supporting geocentrism, and rejecting heliocentrism. Probably the main contributer to this is Joshua 10, the stopping of the sun in the sky and the stopping of the moon. This was supported with other portions of Scripture. St. Bellarmine, one of the leading officials working for Paul V in condemning Galileo, summed it up.
On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter to Father Foscarini:
"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."
Ultimately what was defined most strongly is that:
1. The earth does not move (including diurnally, i.e., 24 hour rotation)
2. The sun does move (around the earth).
Geocentrism clearly is the only reasonable existing theory to reconcile these statements.
Looking at Joshua 10 (Douay Rheims, Challoner edition):
12. Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.
13. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.
14. There was not before, nor after, so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.
One could argue that God stopped the rotation of the earth. But this would make the Holy Spirit a liar. One can think of the Holy Spirit as "dictating" the verses to the inspired writer. Why would not the Holy Spirit simply say "and God stopped the rotation of the earth to create the appearance of the sun stopping in the sky for Joshua. Oh, and by the way, God also stopped the additional velocity of the moon so that it also appeared to stay". Based on these types of arguments, and other verses, the Fathers concluded the above two points. Many modern Biblical exegetes do not agree with the Holy Spirit "dictating" the Scripture. But then again, they cannot agree that Genesis was not a Babylonian myth, and that Adam and Eve even existed, etc.
Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, and Denzinger's 1951) had this to say:
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."
Sticking with the time tested and authoritative methods of Biblical exegetism, one has to conclude that the Fathers were correct in their interpretation. And as was said at Trent:
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published..."
Similarly, Vatican I states (Session 2, Profession of Faith):
"...Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers..."
And again (Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2- On Revelation):
"...In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture...against the unanimous consent of the fathers."
One could argue that the position of the earth in universe is not a matter of faith and morals (and many do), but texts of cosmological significance are expounded on in the Scriptures in many places. Clearly, accepting that the earth is the center of the universe, as authoritative interpretations of Scripture by the Fathers indicate it is, is a matter of faith, especially in light of intense pressure to accept the opinion of secular science to the contrary. Finally, it was clear to Urban VIII that it was a matter of faith, as astated in the condemnation [of Galileo] of 1633:
"...The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith..."
Also, though it is defined (Vatican I) that Papal infallibility is restricted to matters of faith and morals, the Scriptures are not:
"...Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus..."
(Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu)
PAPAL DECLARATIONS RELATED TO GEOCENTRISM
(Based on and quoted from a timeline from J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997)
24th May 1543: Nicolas Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium is published with ecclesiastical approval ... The study ... is prefixed by a preface explaining that heliocentrism is advanced only hypothetically
8th February 1564: Galileo Galilei is born at Pisa.
1600: Giordano Bruno is tried for heresy.. Heliocentrism considered, but not part of the final charges..
1613: Galileo publishes Letter to Padre Castelli in which he discusses the scriptural and theological arguments being advanced against the heliocentric system Cardinal Sfondrato submitted this letter to the theological Consultors of the Holy Office: their report was mild.
End of March, 1615: Father Caccini, O.P. formally denounces Galileo to the Holy Office.
12th April 1615: Cardinal Bellarmine (later St. Robert) writes to Father Paolo Foscarini, a Carmelite who had presented him with a copy of his recently published study favourable to heliocentrism. Bellarmine, writing in his private capacity as theological adviser, but with intimate knowledge of the reflections of the Consultors of the Holy See and the pope behind the scenes and his own studies, provoked by the recent heliocentric movement, implicitly criticises Foscarini for not restricting himself to a hypothetical presentation. ... He acknowledges that if there were real proof in favour of heliocentrism it would be necessary to “proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary”, but refuses to believe that any such proofs exist or could be found.
7th December 1615: Galileo arrives at Rome himself with his newly-perfected telescope and attracts great interest .... He is received with respect and friendship by many cardinals including St. Robert Bellarmine, and by the Pope. ...Cardinal Barberini who became a particular friend of his but was later, as Pope Urban VIII, to condemn him in 1633.
24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:
( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.
All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.
25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.
26th February 1616: Cardinal Bellarmine summons Galileo to his home and before witnesses transmits the Pope’s orders, commanding him in the name of the Pope and of the whole Congregation of the Holy Office to abandon the position in question and no more to hold, teach or defend it on pain of being proceeded against by the Holy Ofice. Galileo promises to obey.
3rd March 1616: Bellarmine reports Galileo’s submission to the Pope.
5th March 1616: The Congregation of the Index publishes a decree on the order of Pope Paul V condemning absolutely the study of Father Foscarini referred to above and prohibiting circulation of the writings of Copernicus and Zunica until they had been corrected; it also forbids in general all books teaching the doctrine of the immobility of the sun. It makes no specific mention of Galileo or his writings. The decree explains that the reason for the condemnation is that the doctrine of the immobility of the sun is “false and in absolute contradiction with the Holy Scripture”, but it does not use the word “heretical”. These edicts were published by the Master of the Apostolic Palace on the orders of the Pope.
Here is an excerpt from condemnation of Paul V :
"And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture, is now spread abroad and accepted by many . . .; therefore in order that an opinion ruinous to Catholic truth not creep further in this manner, the Sacred Congregation decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus . . . be suspended until corrected; and that all other books similarly teaching the same thing be prohibited: as accordingly it prohibits, damns, and suspends them all by the present Decree. "
March 5, 1616, Declaration of the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books of the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church.
(Source)
9th or 11th March 1616: Pope Paul V receives Galileo in honourable audience.
26th May 1616: Bellarmine furnishes Galileo with a testimonial whereby to refute allegations of his adversaries that he had been obliged by the Holy Office to recant and abjure his doctrines. Bellarmine’s certificate declared that Galileo had made no abjuration and incurred no penance but that “the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index was intimated to him, wherein it is declared that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun is in the centre of the universe and does not move from east to west is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.”
1620-21: The Sacred Congregation of the Index condemns Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, the edict being signed by Bellarmine.
17th September 1621: Bellarmine dies.
1623: Galileo’s devoted friend Cardinal Barberini is elected Pope, taking the name Urban VIII. He accepts the dedication of Galileo’s work Il Saggiatore. A curious and not necessarily reliable letter of Galileo to a friend alleges that Urban, though disfavouring heliocentrism, had told Galileo that it had not been condemned as heretical and that he himself would never so condemn it. [Since Urban VIII subsequently did so condemn it, the entire allegation may be considered as very doubtful and we are not therefore entitled to list Pope Urban VIII among those who doubted whether the 1616 condemnation had branded heliocentrism as heretical.]
1624: Galileo starts writing a work in dialogue-form in which the three fictional participants discuss the controversy between heliocentrism and geocentrism and in which heliocentrism clearly emerges triumphant, though with some lip service still being paid to the question’s not having been definitively decided.
February 1632: The above study entitled Dialogue of Galileo Galilei Concerning the Two Great Systems of the Universe, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican… is published. The work bears the ecclesiastical approval of Florence (where Galileo lived) and that of Rome. ..the approbation was granted only on condition that certain changes be made and these conditions had not been fulfilled. Pope Urban VIII appointed a Commission of theologians to examine the work and report on it. September 1632: The theological Commission makes a highly unfavourable report. The Pope refers the case to the Inquisition and Galileo is summoned to Rome for trial.
February 1633: Galileo arrives in Rome voluntarily ...
April 1633: The trial begins. Its objects were to establish the objective meaning of the Dialogue, Galileo’s beliefs on the subject of heliocentrism, and his intention in writing the Dialogue.
12th and 30th April and 10th May 1633: Galileo is examined ...
16th June 1633: Pope Urban VIII orders a new interrogation of Galileo concerning his belief since 1616 ...
21st June 1633: Galileo continues to maintain his innocence on this point.
22nd June 1633: Galileo is sentenced as vehemently suspect of heresy and required to abjure heliocentrism and be absolved of the censures and penalties he was deemed to have incurred. Galileo made the abjuration in question and was accordingly absolved. He was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment of the Inquisition, a sentence commuted on the same day so that he was allowed to reside as a private gentleman for the rest of his life though limited in his movements and communications...
Here is part of Urban VIII condemnation:
(Translation from: J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997)
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples... ...and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:
The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
...We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;...
30th June 1633: The Pope orders a copy of the decree including the condemnation and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all Nuncios and all Inquisitors, to be drawn especially to the attention of mathematicians of the area for which each of them was responsible and most especially in Galileo’s city of Florence. This order was carried out and the recipients in turn acknowledged reception.
March 1664: Pope Alexander VII promulgates his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus prefaced by a papal bull in which he directs the entire Index to be deemed part of the bull itself and sharing its directly papal authority. This Index includes all previous condemnations of geocentric books in general and in particular and is confirmed and approved with apostolic authority.
The bull was Speculatores Dominus Israel. Below is a reproduction (Courtesy of Robert Sungenis) of the cover page of the bull:
“For this purpose,...[ pursues the Pontiff]...we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted. Since then all these directions have been faithfully and accurately carried out, and a general Index of this kind has been composed,—to which also the rules of the Tridentine Index, with the observations and instructions added to the Clementine Index, have been prefixed; this same general Index as it is put forth, composed by our order, revised, and printed at the press of our Apostolic Camera, and which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein, we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience..."
(Translation from: "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)
1665: Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden “all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”
his 1665 edition is considered an abridged edition of the 1664 Index.
THE LACK OF ANY FORMAL RETRACTION OF THE PAPAL DECREES
(timeline, ibid.)
First it is clear that the Church was not against discussing heliocentrism as a theoretical issue, as evidenced here (as well as February 1632, above) :
1620: The De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium of Copernicus is reprinted at Rome with ecclesiastical permission and containing a monitum addressed to the reader and certain corrections to the text in order that its expressions favourable to heliocentrism should be understood only as a hypothesis proposed on account of its potential practical utility. One amendment to the text specifically observes that geocentrism and heliocentrism are equally capable of “saving the appearances”– a position accepted as correct by many scientists in the 20th century.
Galileo and others pushed the issue as absolute when in fact they had no evidence it was (and still no evidence exists, see Part I and II of this series Geocentrism 101). There has been no retraction of the decrees above. Note that when the decrees were made, specific reasons for the decrees were given. It is true that some things have changed regarding the issue, but no explanation has been given as to why the changes were made. For instance:
1742: Catholic mathematicians, Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims publish with ecclesiastical approbation a text of Newton’s Principia with annotated explanations, prefaced by the following note: “Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.”
it included this in the introduction:
"Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.”
(Translation from: "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)
[Image added 7/17/2007]
Clearly this is analogous to the 1620 case above, where Corpenicus' works were permitted to be published with explanation of heliocentrism being treated as hypothetical.
16th April 1757: The scholar-pope Benedict XIV in recognition of the new status held by heliocentrism in the scholarly world since the writings of Isaac Newton suspends the decrees of the Congregation of the Index against heliocentric works.
Benedict XIV removed the phrase prohibiting books teaching immobility of then sun and mobility of the earth from his revised Index. Still, the books currently on the Index were not removed (Dorothy Stimson. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the Universe.). It is not clear what this means. Clearly Benedict XIV was not against some teaching of heliocentrism, but any statement beyond that is speculation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it specifically this way:
On 5 March 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index ‘until corrected,’ and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV.
I.e., Benedict the XIV was only completing what was started in 1616 in the case of Corpenicus.
1820: A Canon Settele applies for the Roman Imprimatur from Mgr. Anfossi to authorise publication of his openly heliocentric Elements d’Astronomie. Anfossi refuses this, but Settele appeals to Pope Pius VII who upholds the appeal and allows publication.
"...the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome..."
(source)
The above two cases were tantamount of the Popes saying they will allow modern scientists to express their opinions. This in no way implies that the Church has changed it's opinion.
11th September 1822: The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition decides that the printing of books teaching the movement of the earth would thenceforth be permitted at Rome.
25th September 1822: Pope Pius VII approves this decree.
Clearly, now heliocentrism may be expressed as an opinion of modern astronomers. No rescinding of previous decrees was stated.
I will add, in 1992 John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo. This was done in a private speech to a private group (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), and had no official Church status. In no way did he officially say that the Church now recognizes heliocentrism (or acentrism) as true. He did say that [(note added 5/31/06)the theologians of] Urban VIII were wrong, but this is his personal opinion (and that of Cardinal Poupard and possibly other members of the Galileo task force). Also he did not discuss the other decrees, nor did he mention the Bull of Alexander VII. So on top of being unofficial, it is incomplete. We should not ignore the speech, but the speech needs to be considered in the context of previous Church declarations. Being private and unofficial, where it contrdicts, the previous decrees are maintained.
There are no official statements explaining why these actions were permitted, other than allowing modern scientists to express their opinions and completing the will of the 1616 Index. One can speculate that the Church reversed itself, but in order to reverse the decrees, the following would be at least expected (author's opinion):
1. A bull or encyclical authoritatively reversing decrees against movement of the earth and a fixed position of the sun.
2. Explanations (likely in the bull or encyclical) as to how to explain:
Review of Part II is not required, as we are currently moving out of science and into the position of the Church and Scriptures.
In Part III the followng will be summarized:
1. The View of Scripture and the unanimous assent of the Fathers towards geocentrism (and its ramifications), based on Scripture.
2. The declarations of three Popes for geocentrism / against heliocentrism. The Popes were Pope Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII.
3. The lack of any authoritative retraction of former declarations
THE VIEW OF SCRIPTURE AND ITS AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETATION BY THE FATHERS:
The Father's of the Church have interpreted the Scriptures as supporting geocentrism, and rejecting heliocentrism. Probably the main contributer to this is Joshua 10, the stopping of the sun in the sky and the stopping of the moon. This was supported with other portions of Scripture. St. Bellarmine, one of the leading officials working for Paul V in condemning Galileo, summed it up.
On 12 April 1615, he wrote in a letter to Father Foscarini:
"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."
Ultimately what was defined most strongly is that:
1. The earth does not move (including diurnally, i.e., 24 hour rotation)
2. The sun does move (around the earth).
Geocentrism clearly is the only reasonable existing theory to reconcile these statements.
Looking at Joshua 10 (Douay Rheims, Challoner edition):
12. Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.
13. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.
14. There was not before, nor after, so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.
One could argue that God stopped the rotation of the earth. But this would make the Holy Spirit a liar. One can think of the Holy Spirit as "dictating" the verses to the inspired writer. Why would not the Holy Spirit simply say "and God stopped the rotation of the earth to create the appearance of the sun stopping in the sky for Joshua. Oh, and by the way, God also stopped the additional velocity of the moon so that it also appeared to stay". Based on these types of arguments, and other verses, the Fathers concluded the above two points. Many modern Biblical exegetes do not agree with the Holy Spirit "dictating" the Scripture. But then again, they cannot agree that Genesis was not a Babylonian myth, and that Adam and Eve even existed, etc.
Pope Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus, and Denzinger's 1951) had this to say:
"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."
Sticking with the time tested and authoritative methods of Biblical exegetism, one has to conclude that the Fathers were correct in their interpretation. And as was said at Trent:
"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published..."
Similarly, Vatican I states (Session 2, Profession of Faith):
"...Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which holy mother church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers..."
And again (Session 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Chapter 2- On Revelation):
"...In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture...against the unanimous consent of the fathers."
One could argue that the position of the earth in universe is not a matter of faith and morals (and many do), but texts of cosmological significance are expounded on in the Scriptures in many places. Clearly, accepting that the earth is the center of the universe, as authoritative interpretations of Scripture by the Fathers indicate it is, is a matter of faith, especially in light of intense pressure to accept the opinion of secular science to the contrary. Finally, it was clear to Urban VIII that it was a matter of faith, as astated in the condemnation [of Galileo] of 1633:
"...The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith..."
Also, though it is defined (Vatican I) that Papal infallibility is restricted to matters of faith and morals, the Scriptures are not:
"...Later on, this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, which claims for these books in their entirety and with all parts a divine authority such as must enjoy immunity from any error whatsoever, was contradicted by certain Catholic writers who dared to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture to matters of faith and morals alone, and to consider the remainder, touching matters of the physical or historical order as obiter dicta and having (according to them) no connection whatsoever with faith. Those errors found their condemnation in the encyclical Providentissimus Deus..."
(Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu)
PAPAL DECLARATIONS RELATED TO GEOCENTRISM
(Based on and quoted from a timeline from J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997)
24th May 1543: Nicolas Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium is published with ecclesiastical approval ... The study ... is prefixed by a preface explaining that heliocentrism is advanced only hypothetically
8th February 1564: Galileo Galilei is born at Pisa.
1600: Giordano Bruno is tried for heresy.. Heliocentrism considered, but not part of the final charges..
1613: Galileo publishes Letter to Padre Castelli in which he discusses the scriptural and theological arguments being advanced against the heliocentric system Cardinal Sfondrato submitted this letter to the theological Consultors of the Holy Office: their report was mild.
End of March, 1615: Father Caccini, O.P. formally denounces Galileo to the Holy Office.
12th April 1615: Cardinal Bellarmine (later St. Robert) writes to Father Paolo Foscarini, a Carmelite who had presented him with a copy of his recently published study favourable to heliocentrism. Bellarmine, writing in his private capacity as theological adviser, but with intimate knowledge of the reflections of the Consultors of the Holy See and the pope behind the scenes and his own studies, provoked by the recent heliocentric movement, implicitly criticises Foscarini for not restricting himself to a hypothetical presentation. ... He acknowledges that if there were real proof in favour of heliocentrism it would be necessary to “proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary”, but refuses to believe that any such proofs exist or could be found.
7th December 1615: Galileo arrives at Rome himself with his newly-perfected telescope and attracts great interest .... He is received with respect and friendship by many cardinals including St. Robert Bellarmine, and by the Pope. ...Cardinal Barberini who became a particular friend of his but was later, as Pope Urban VIII, to condemn him in 1633.
24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:
( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.
All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.
25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.
26th February 1616: Cardinal Bellarmine summons Galileo to his home and before witnesses transmits the Pope’s orders, commanding him in the name of the Pope and of the whole Congregation of the Holy Office to abandon the position in question and no more to hold, teach or defend it on pain of being proceeded against by the Holy Ofice. Galileo promises to obey.
3rd March 1616: Bellarmine reports Galileo’s submission to the Pope.
5th March 1616: The Congregation of the Index publishes a decree on the order of Pope Paul V condemning absolutely the study of Father Foscarini referred to above and prohibiting circulation of the writings of Copernicus and Zunica until they had been corrected; it also forbids in general all books teaching the doctrine of the immobility of the sun. It makes no specific mention of Galileo or his writings. The decree explains that the reason for the condemnation is that the doctrine of the immobility of the sun is “false and in absolute contradiction with the Holy Scripture”, but it does not use the word “heretical”. These edicts were published by the Master of the Apostolic Palace on the orders of the Pope.
Here is an excerpt from condemnation of Paul V :
"And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture, is now spread abroad and accepted by many . . .; therefore in order that an opinion ruinous to Catholic truth not creep further in this manner, the Sacred Congregation decrees that the said Nicholas Copernicus . . . be suspended until corrected; and that all other books similarly teaching the same thing be prohibited: as accordingly it prohibits, damns, and suspends them all by the present Decree. "
March 5, 1616, Declaration of the Congregation of the Index of Forbidden Books of the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic Church.
(Source)
9th or 11th March 1616: Pope Paul V receives Galileo in honourable audience.
26th May 1616: Bellarmine furnishes Galileo with a testimonial whereby to refute allegations of his adversaries that he had been obliged by the Holy Office to recant and abjure his doctrines. Bellarmine’s certificate declared that Galileo had made no abjuration and incurred no penance but that “the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index was intimated to him, wherein it is declared that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun is in the centre of the universe and does not move from east to west is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.”
1620-21: The Sacred Congregation of the Index condemns Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae, the edict being signed by Bellarmine.
17th September 1621: Bellarmine dies.
1623: Galileo’s devoted friend Cardinal Barberini is elected Pope, taking the name Urban VIII. He accepts the dedication of Galileo’s work Il Saggiatore. A curious and not necessarily reliable letter of Galileo to a friend alleges that Urban, though disfavouring heliocentrism, had told Galileo that it had not been condemned as heretical and that he himself would never so condemn it. [Since Urban VIII subsequently did so condemn it, the entire allegation may be considered as very doubtful and we are not therefore entitled to list Pope Urban VIII among those who doubted whether the 1616 condemnation had branded heliocentrism as heretical.]
1624: Galileo starts writing a work in dialogue-form in which the three fictional participants discuss the controversy between heliocentrism and geocentrism and in which heliocentrism clearly emerges triumphant, though with some lip service still being paid to the question’s not having been definitively decided.
February 1632: The above study entitled Dialogue of Galileo Galilei Concerning the Two Great Systems of the Universe, the Ptolemaic and the Copernican… is published. The work bears the ecclesiastical approval of Florence (where Galileo lived) and that of Rome. ..the approbation was granted only on condition that certain changes be made and these conditions had not been fulfilled. Pope Urban VIII appointed a Commission of theologians to examine the work and report on it. September 1632: The theological Commission makes a highly unfavourable report. The Pope refers the case to the Inquisition and Galileo is summoned to Rome for trial.
February 1633: Galileo arrives in Rome voluntarily ...
April 1633: The trial begins. Its objects were to establish the objective meaning of the Dialogue, Galileo’s beliefs on the subject of heliocentrism, and his intention in writing the Dialogue.
12th and 30th April and 10th May 1633: Galileo is examined ...
16th June 1633: Pope Urban VIII orders a new interrogation of Galileo concerning his belief since 1616 ...
21st June 1633: Galileo continues to maintain his innocence on this point.
22nd June 1633: Galileo is sentenced as vehemently suspect of heresy and required to abjure heliocentrism and be absolved of the censures and penalties he was deemed to have incurred. Galileo made the abjuration in question and was accordingly absolved. He was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment of the Inquisition, a sentence commuted on the same day so that he was allowed to reside as a private gentleman for the rest of his life though limited in his movements and communications...
Here is part of Urban VIII condemnation:
(Translation from: J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997)
Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples... ...and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:
The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:
The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.
...We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;...
30th June 1633: The Pope orders a copy of the decree including the condemnation and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all Nuncios and all Inquisitors, to be drawn especially to the attention of mathematicians of the area for which each of them was responsible and most especially in Galileo’s city of Florence. This order was carried out and the recipients in turn acknowledged reception.
March 1664: Pope Alexander VII promulgates his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus prefaced by a papal bull in which he directs the entire Index to be deemed part of the bull itself and sharing its directly papal authority. This Index includes all previous condemnations of geocentric books in general and in particular and is confirmed and approved with apostolic authority.
The bull was Speculatores Dominus Israel. Below is a reproduction (Courtesy of Robert Sungenis) of the cover page of the bull:
“For this purpose,...[ pursues the Pontiff]...we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted. Since then all these directions have been faithfully and accurately carried out, and a general Index of this kind has been composed,—to which also the rules of the Tridentine Index, with the observations and instructions added to the Clementine Index, have been prefixed; this same general Index as it is put forth, composed by our order, revised, and printed at the press of our Apostolic Camera, and which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein, we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience..."
(Translation from: "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)
1665: Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden “all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”
his 1665 edition is considered an abridged edition of the 1664 Index.
THE LACK OF ANY FORMAL RETRACTION OF THE PAPAL DECREES
(timeline, ibid.)
First it is clear that the Church was not against discussing heliocentrism as a theoretical issue, as evidenced here (as well as February 1632, above) :
1620: The De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium of Copernicus is reprinted at Rome with ecclesiastical permission and containing a monitum addressed to the reader and certain corrections to the text in order that its expressions favourable to heliocentrism should be understood only as a hypothesis proposed on account of its potential practical utility. One amendment to the text specifically observes that geocentrism and heliocentrism are equally capable of “saving the appearances”– a position accepted as correct by many scientists in the 20th century.
Galileo and others pushed the issue as absolute when in fact they had no evidence it was (and still no evidence exists, see Part I and II of this series Geocentrism 101). There has been no retraction of the decrees above. Note that when the decrees were made, specific reasons for the decrees were given. It is true that some things have changed regarding the issue, but no explanation has been given as to why the changes were made. For instance:
1742: Catholic mathematicians, Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims publish with ecclesiastical approbation a text of Newton’s Principia with annotated explanations, prefaced by the following note: “Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.”
it included this in the introduction:
"Newton in this third book assumes the hypothesis of the earth’s movement. The author’s propositions could not be explained except on the same hypothesis. Hence we have been obliged to put on a character not our own. But we profess obedience to the decrees, made by the Supreme Pontiff against the movement of the earth.”
(Translation from: "The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them", Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)
[Image added 7/17/2007]
Clearly this is analogous to the 1620 case above, where Corpenicus' works were permitted to be published with explanation of heliocentrism being treated as hypothetical.
16th April 1757: The scholar-pope Benedict XIV in recognition of the new status held by heliocentrism in the scholarly world since the writings of Isaac Newton suspends the decrees of the Congregation of the Index against heliocentric works.
Benedict XIV removed the phrase prohibiting books teaching immobility of then sun and mobility of the earth from his revised Index. Still, the books currently on the Index were not removed (Dorothy Stimson. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the Universe.). It is not clear what this means. Clearly Benedict XIV was not against some teaching of heliocentrism, but any statement beyond that is speculation.
The Catholic Encyclopedia explains it specifically this way:
On 5 March 1616, the work of Copernicus was forbidden by the Congregation of the Index ‘until corrected,’ and in 1620 these corrections were indicated. Nine sentences, by which the heliocentric system was represented as certain, had to be either omitted or changed. This done, the reading of the book was allowed. In 1758 the book of Copernicus disappeared from the revised Index of Benedict XIV.
I.e., Benedict the XIV was only completing what was started in 1616 in the case of Corpenicus.
1820: A Canon Settele applies for the Roman Imprimatur from Mgr. Anfossi to authorise publication of his openly heliocentric Elements d’Astronomie. Anfossi refuses this, but Settele appeals to Pope Pius VII who upholds the appeal and allows publication.
"...the printing and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of modern astronomers, is permitted at Rome..."
(source)
The above two cases were tantamount of the Popes saying they will allow modern scientists to express their opinions. This in no way implies that the Church has changed it's opinion.
11th September 1822: The Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition decides that the printing of books teaching the movement of the earth would thenceforth be permitted at Rome.
25th September 1822: Pope Pius VII approves this decree.
Clearly, now heliocentrism may be expressed as an opinion of modern astronomers. No rescinding of previous decrees was stated.
I will add, in 1992 John Paul II apologized for the treatment of Galileo. This was done in a private speech to a private group (the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), and had no official Church status. In no way did he officially say that the Church now recognizes heliocentrism (or acentrism) as true. He did say that [(note added 5/31/06)the theologians of] Urban VIII were wrong, but this is his personal opinion (and that of Cardinal Poupard and possibly other members of the Galileo task force). Also he did not discuss the other decrees, nor did he mention the Bull of Alexander VII. So on top of being unofficial, it is incomplete. We should not ignore the speech, but the speech needs to be considered in the context of previous Church declarations. Being private and unofficial, where it contrdicts, the previous decrees are maintained.
There are no official statements explaining why these actions were permitted, other than allowing modern scientists to express their opinions and completing the will of the 1616 Index. One can speculate that the Church reversed itself, but in order to reverse the decrees, the following would be at least expected (author's opinion):
1. A bull or encyclical authoritatively reversing decrees against movement of the earth and a fixed position of the sun.
2. Explanations (likely in the bull or encyclical) as to how to explain:
- The interprtation of the Fathers
- Trent and Vatican I position regarding interpretation of the Fathers.
In any case, an action at least as authoritative as the action creating the decrees would be needed.
CONCLUSION
Keep in mind that in the 18th and 19th century many people were becoming convinced that heliocentrism was true. In the 20th century, Einstein's General Relativity removed that notion. Had the Church acted authoritatively, it would have been a big mistake. It is still scientifically possible that the Church was not wrong in the first place. The Holy Spirit does protect the Church from error in certain official acts of the Popes.
It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility. Clearly they have reached at least the level of being worthy of consideration by the faithful (and possibly much more), but given the Vatican's ambiguity towards the issue in recent centuries, there is probably little moral culpability for the average person who has been taught unimpeded from early childhood (even taught at Catholic schools) that we know that the earth goes around the sun and spins on its axis. Clearly science supports the notion that we do not know either way (see Parts I and II, Geocentricity 101).
posted by Mark Wyatt at Wednesday, August 31, 2005
35 Comments:
All this was tongue-in-cheek, right? Because I loved it. Fringe Trads must of course be geocentrists. An believers in a young Earth too, btw. Heck, fringe Trads must have more things in common with Fundamentalists than with Catholics.
Very interesting Mark. I've learned more about the general theory of relativity from trying to follow this argument than I ever did in school. It looks to me like you win.
But what I find must disturbing is the this idea that scripture is dictated to the prophets. Really? Then wouldn't the syntax and phrasing and vocabulary all be similar? Even Augustine (a father of the church, by the way) admitted that the prophets and apostles were not writing science books. He stated that if science and the gospel were in conflict, then perhaps we needed to reinterpret our reading of the gospel (Okay, not exactely what he said, but something very similar).
Perhaps the pope and his minions were right after all. But they didn't know why they were right. And you got to admit that they were way out of line. Come on, condemn Copernicus works to the index. Please! A bit of an over-reach there. And surely deserving of a certain amount of opprobrium even if they were right.
“It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility. Clearly they have reached at least the level of being worthy of consideration by the faithful (and possibly much more)” - Mark Wyatt, CONCLUSION paragraph of the above article
Dear Mark, here are excerpts from “dogmatic fact” article on New Advent.org's Catholic encyclopedia:
“by a dogmatic fact, in wider sense, is meant any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of the dogma to a particular case depends.” and
“The Church, in all ages, has exercised the right of pronouncing with authority on dogmatic facts; and this right is essential to her teaching office. She has always claimed the right of defining that the doctrine of heretics, in the sense in which it is contained in their books, or in their discourses, is heretical; that the doctrine of an orthodox writer, in the sense in which it is contained in his writings, is orthodox.”.
Now, every definition is infallible since if statement is not infallible it is not a definition but an opinion which can fail.
Therefore, the above condemnation by Urban VIII of immovability of The Sun as formally heretical is infallible and cannot be licitly reversed.
That's why there are only some men, holding high offices in The Church, speaking only unofficially in favor of Heliocentrism and thus against Geocentrism (whose part that The Sun moves is the truth revealed by The Holy Scripture).
Thus eternal salvation of every man and woman equally depends on rejection of Heliocentrism (or at least on intention to obey The Church in everything i.e. on intention to reject Heliocentrism (since it contains heretical teaching about immovability of The Sun)) as it depends on belief in The Holy Trinity, Incarnation of Jesus Christ and other revealed or defined truths (dogmas).
P.S. Theory of evolution is also formally heretical and eternally damning for anyone who professes it while being able/obliged to know Catholic teaching regarding that issue.
Because theory of evolution denies that in the beginning there was creation (bringing into existence from nothing) by God while Vatican I (not II) defined as dogma and pronounced an anathema (excommunication from The Church) on anyone who doesn't profess that God from nothing created the world and everything in it, material and spiritual, in whole their substance.
Patrick Shea wrote the truth: There is only one Bride of Jesus Christ, the one built on The Rock, Apostle Simon Peter and his successors - the popes, who alone confirms all brethren in faith (Luke 22:32).
Since others reject The Rock or subjection to it they don't belong to The Catholic Church, The Bride of Christ, and hence don't belong to Jesus Christ Himself.
Whoever says differently blasphemes against Jesus Christ as if He were a Polygamist i.e. as if He had more brides at the same time.
After repeated looks at the post it comes out that there is no written condemnation, by any pope, of the doctrine of immovability of The Sun.
But there are two important points regarding the condemnation of immovability of The Sun and Galileo by The Holy Inquisition:
1. the condemnation used terrifying words that the doctrine of immovability of The Sun is, quote, “formally heretical” because it is “expressly contrary to The Holy Scripture”.
To anyone with the holy fear of God this is more than sufficient to stay away.
2. infallibilty of general councils of The Church and all its definitions (decrees) absolutely requires formal papal confirmation.
But in many general councils confirmation was not written. From article “General Councils” on New Advent.org:
“When the council is convened for the express purpose of carrying out a papal decision previously arrived at, as was the case with most of the early synods; or when the legates give their consent in virtue of a special public instruction emanating from the pope; in these circumstances the papal ratification pre-exists, is implied in the conciliar decision, and need not be formally renewed after the council.” etc. (par. “Confirmation, point 2)
Similarly, even without written condemnation, acts of the popes Paul V and Urban VIII regarding the condemnation by The Holy Inquisition of immovability of The Sun as formally heretical clearly approve the condemnation and make it papal and so infallible, irrevocable and forever binding on all faithful.
So Heliocentrism is indeed infallibly heretical due to its infallibly heretical principle.
However, there are still some objections against: infallibility of the condemnation (1), its address to The Church (2), Geocentrism as constant doctrine of The Church (3). There are also some arguments: against (3) and in favor of Heliocentrism.
So, let's see: O-Objection; R-Reply.
(1)
O: the condemnation was just an opinion of a bunch of theologians in The Holy Inquisition and nothing more so it cannot bind The Church.
R: “Theologians are unanimous in teaching that the Church(!), or the pope, is infallible, not only in defining what is formally contained in Divine revelation, but also in defining virtually revealed truths or generally in all definitions and condemnations(!) which are necessary for safe-guarding the body of revealed truth.” (New Advent, “Dogmatic facts”).
So condemnation of The Church is a definition and not a mere opinion.
Every definition of The Church and hence its infallibility is, of course, only due to the gift given by Jesus Christ to the pope alone (Luke 22:32; Matthew 16:18-19) with which he confirms judgement of The Church and makes it a definition. The Holy Inquisition and the pope represented The Church in Galileo case.
(2)
O: Galileo case was addressed to Galileo alone. Therefore, proclamation from its decree cannot bind The Church.
R: 30th June 1633: The Pope orders a copy of the decree including the condemnation and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all Nuncios and all Inquisitors... This order was carried out and the recipients in turn acknowledged reception.
Therefore, proclamations out of the trial were addressed to The Church, through all nuncios and all inquisitors.
Also, there are decretals which are papal replies to some particular difficulty and when stated thus having the force of the law for all following analogous cases. (New Advent web-site, article “Bulls and briefs”).
So, outcomes of some particular cases can become a general law of The Church and it happened with Galileo case.
And finally, the essence of Galileo case was the matter of faith (inerrancy of The Holy Scripture) and thus was of the highest importance to The Church. The condemnation of immovability of The Sun says generally “formally heretical” and not particularly “formally heretical in case of Galileo alone” and thus concerns The Church and not Galileo alone.
(to be continued)
(continued)
(3)
O: The Church has never taught Geocentrism. It was only a theological opinion on certain passages of The Holy Scripture.
R: Unanimous teaching of The Holy Fathers is teaching of The Church. So The Church has always taught Geocentrism.
! There is an argument against Geocentrism as the irrevocable teaching of The Church:
statement of St. Robert Bellarmine:
“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 the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of scriptures which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false that has been demonstrated.”
So, Geocentrism was only an opinion of The Church and could change.
+ Sentences beginning with “if” can contain false or senseless statement in their if-part and still be true and make sense: e.g. if carrot grows from a bulb then I will do this and this (note: whether “this and this” be a senseless thing or not doesn't matter).
Note that St. Bellarmine says an impossible thing in the then-part of his statement: “we(!) would rather have to say that we did not understand them”. We, The Church led by The Holy Spirit, that didn't understand?
So, St. Bellarmine's statement proves nothing and the above argument is unfounded. Geocentrism
! There are proofs for Heliocentrism.
+ Whatever is called proof of Heliocentrism is infallibly spurious since it is the matter of faith, forever binding on all faithful, that God and The Church cannot err.
Somehow Mark and me have missed the clearest evidence of all: decree of the general council of Trent forbidding interpretation of The Holy Scripture contrary to unanimous consent of The Fathers of The Church (see above in Mark's text).
All decrees of general council are infallible, irrevocable and binding on all.
The Fathers of The Church unanimously taught that The Sun moves and that in accordance with the texts of The Holy Scripture.
So of necessity follows that the contrary i.e. that The Sun stands still contradicts the decree of The Church and is due to that infallibly formally heretical.
And due to that heretical proposition Heliocentrism is also necessarily heretical.
Galileo was bound by the decree of Trent and violated it.
This is sufficient for infallibility of his condemnation, condemnation of immovability of The Sun etc.
If The Catholic Church erred in Galileo case then The Church is no better than anything else in this world, Catholic faith can err too, The Catholic Church is not of God because He cannot err etc. etc.
I am sure people will explain before God how they claimed The Church could err and always be led by Him who cannot err.
And will be damned for eternity after their "uh, oh, well, uh, oh, well, uh, oh...".
Only a lunatic would say the earth moves. The moon and the sun both orbit from east to west. Have you ever flown in planes, helicopters, or hot air ballons? The earth is not moving. All navigation is based on a fixed earth. All navigation that works is based on afixed earth.
Besides this, consider how a spinning and moving earth would confuse and scramble the natural intelligence and experience of all the birds, bees, dragonflies, and butterflies, etc. A moving and spinning earth is not what anybody sees or has ever seen. It's crazy.
Celestial analysis will prove the stars, sun, and moon orbit the earth. Take the time to consider the geometry of the lines and angles of the aspects, and you'll see it proves they're moving and the earth is not.
For example, consider Jupiter at
30" rising on the ascendant, in the east, and Venus at 30" setting on the descendant, in the west. The
120" angle between Jupiter and Venus seen from earth forms a simple line, an axis going from the surface of the earth to the midheaven. One can see a polygon with two 120" angles and two 60" angles. This sideways diamond wouldn't hold its form for so long, more than an hour and up to two, if the earth were spinning away from it and to the east. If the earth were spinning away from Jupiter and Venus in the sky, the angles and lines of this sideways diamond wouldn't last so long. The earth spinning away would dissolve these celestial patterns much more quickly from view.
So, if the universe revolves around a stationary earth, how fast are the most distant objects moving to complete their rotation in one day?
OK, I did the math.
In Einstein's universe, the speed of light (C) is a physical limit (300,000 km/s), which means that nothing can travel faster than C.
So the most distant object in the universe can travel no faster than C as it revolves around the earth. That means in one day (86,400 seconds), it has a (circular) orbit of 25,920,000,000 km.
The circumference of a circle is given by 2 x PI x r, where r is the radius or, in this case, distance from the earth.
Which means that in Einstein's geocentric universe, the most distant object is 4,125,296,124 km from earth. Which is less than the distance from Neptune to earth in the heliocentric universe.
So, the geocentric universe is a whole smaller than the geocentric universe. Unless Einstein was also completely wrong. Or, of course, I completely fail to understand how anybody who lives in the modern world can believe in a geocentric universe.
If The Earth rotates around itself counterclockwise in 24 hours then an observer standing at the equator (geographical latitude of 0 degrees) will have an approximate velocity of 40 000 km (circumference of The Earth and at latitude of 0 degrees) / 86 400 s (24 hours) = 0.46 km/s.
Also, observers standing at latitudes of 45 degrees (e.g. approximately Portland, Oregon, USA for the northern latitude) will have velocity of approximately (40 000 km / 86400 s) * cos (45 degrees) = 0.46 km/s * cos (45 degrees) = 0.33 km/s and observers standing on the poles (latitudes of 90 degrees) will have 0.46 km/s * cos (90 degrees) = 0 m/s.
Since The Moon has velocity of approximately 1.02 km/s in his rotation (also counterclockwise) around The Earth and velocities of observers on latitudes of 0 and 45 degrees would be approximately 1/2 and 1/3 of The Moon's velocity respectively and in the same direction as The Moon's velocity then it necessarily comes out that to all observers there The Moon would appear to move approximately 50% and 33% slower than it actually moves.
Thus The Moon would come to the same position much faster than observed and calculated: in approximately half of the calculated time (for 0 degrees latitude) and two thirds (2/3) of the calculated time (for 45 degrees latitude).
Note that at different latitudes there would be different expected times for The Moon's return: a complete mess.
But nothing like this exists in reality: observers on all latitudes observe equal movement of The Moon which gives the same expected time of The Moon's return for all latitudes. And this expected time is equal to the actual time of The Moon's return.
Thus The Earth doesn't rotate around itself.
The necessary consequence of this is that The Sun then cannot be stationary but must move around The Earth.
And the necessary consequence of the Sun moving around The Earth is that The Earth also doesn't rotate around The Sun but is completely stationary.
Just as The (Catholic) Church has alone always taught and has alone forever condemned Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler and all like them as heretics for contradicting the reality, the truth, The Bible, The (Catholic) Church and The Holy Spirit i.e. God Himself.
But we aren't finished yet with unbelievably insane lies (which obviously have nothing to do with science but obviously with the hatred and the war against The (Catholic) Church).
They say that light has the speed of 300 000 km/s.
But the whole heavenly hemisphere above an observer's horizon is way larger than 300 000 km or so of the same or close order of magnitude.
Thus it would take not seconds nor minutes, but hours, days, weeks or even much more that the dark part of the heavenly hemisphere above an observer's horizon be once enlightened by light traveling at the speed of relatively very small 300 000 km/s. Obvious falsity and a sheer insanity.
We don't see that the dark part of the heavenly hemisphere slowly decreases and that the light part of it slowly increases (e.g. as it happens with The Moon) with the elapse of much time (until the darkness is completely driven out by light).
We see that the heavenly hemisphere above an observer's horizon is whole (from east to west) instantaneously enlightened when The Sun appears at the horizon (intensity of the light indeed increases with the elapse of time but this happens simultaneously, as The Sun rises above the horizon, in the hemisphere that is wholly enlightened and not partially (as it would be if light had speed and traveled through space) ).
Thus there is no movement of light through space at all nor there is any speed of light at all.
And this 300 000 km/s as the ostensible speed of light is yet another unbelievably insane lie viciously contradicting reality, the truth and thus God Who is Himself The Truth (John 14:6) and The (Catholic) Church Who alone is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
My special gratitude to St. Thomas Aquinas etc. for this (you can read about this from him on http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1067.htm#article2).
I don't deny that 300 000 km/s is speed of something and that that something has connection with light (that has no speed at all but is present or is not present).
What I deny (based on the sheer fact i.e. on the sheer reality stated in the post above) is the sheer insanity that 300 000 km/s is the speed of light itself.
My word John! God bless you. I had to read your explanation (of why the earth is not rotating) a few times to finally understand it. But when i finally understood it, it is rather shocking how anyone could believe that the world is rotating.
An explanation for dummies like me might be needed as an alternative for the slightly complex explanation you have given.
But on the whole, God bless you you wonderful man!
Ave Maria.
(in repayment for your wonderful information: the consecration of Russia has not happened. Our Lady said when Russia is consecrated, Peace will be given to ALL mankind. Now then, do you think we are living in a time of peace?)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Please disregard all what I have written before, excepting the last three comments (October 7 and 8, 2010), because it isn't conclusive.
Here we go again:
Mark Wyatt: "CONCLUSION (...) Had the Church acted authoritatively, it would have been a big mistake. (...) It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes reached the level of infallibility.".
But in the text above we read "Here is part of Urban VIII condemnation:
(Translation from: J.S. Daly, "The Theological Status of Heliocentrism", October 1997) (...) ...We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy (...)".
HOW CAN ANYONE BE SUSPECT OF HERESY IF IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE GONE AGAINST A DEFINITION REGARDING FAITH OR MORALS? Which necessarily means that it was ALREADY A DEFINITION that the opinion held by Galileo (and Copernicus) was heretical.
Hence, necessarily follows that The Church acted authoritatively and that the statements of the popes condemning heliocentrism, Copernicus and Galileo ARE INFALLIBLE.
(continued below)
But when The Church defined the opinion of Copernicus and Galileo as heresy?
In the text above we read "5th March 1616: (...) Here is an excerpt from condemnation of Paul V : (...) the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture".
Can there be a "false doctrine altogether incompatible with divine Scripture" that isn't heretical?
In the text above we read "All unanimously censure the first proposition as “(...) formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians".
Hence, it is a DEFINITION by pope Paul V that heliocentrism is formally heretical.
(continued below)
Mark Wyatt: "One can speculate that the Church reversed itself, but in order to reverse the decrees, the following would be at least expected (author's opinion): (...) In any case, an action at least as authoritative as the action creating the decrees would be needed.".
Vatican 1 DEFINED (Session 4, chapter 4. "On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff"): such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of The Church, irreformable.
What "such"?
Chapter "On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff" speaks very much about defense of the Faith from false teachings.
Defense of the Faith is obviously not only by positive definitions (dogmas) but is also by negative definitions (condemnations of false teachings).
Hence, from the mentioning of defense of the Faith in the chapter addressing papal infallibility necessarily follows that papal condemnations are included in infallible and irreformable definitions.
Hence, no one can licitly reverse decrees containing papal definitions which condemn heliocentrism, Copernicus and Galileo.
(continued below)
Why did the popes as Benedict XIV and Pius VII allow the books containing formally heretical doctrine as heliocentrism to be published and read?
Maybe because they judged the decrees to be well-known (correct: everybody knows that The Church condemned Galileo) so that that should be sufficient to keep believers away from acceptance of the heretical doctrine.
And maybe that the false statements in those books can be found and refuted.
In any case the decrees and definitions condemning heliocentrism, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and all their followers forever remain in force.
WOW... You guys are all crackpots... we've had people claiming that light doesn't travel at the speed of light... that the earth couldn't possibly be spinning because this would "scramble birds intelligence and navigation", all backed up by something the Catholic Church said hundreds of years ago...
I'm just waiting for someone to jump in a claim that the world is indeed still Flat!!! All those picture from space are from Satan, are false and heretical.
Perhaps my favourite however was the statement that believing in the death, burial & resurretion of Jesus Christ is all well and good... but all for nothing if you belive the Earth revolves around the sun!!! That is correct ladies and gentlemen... the price of heaven according to the catholic church is puting on your intellectual blinkers, and avoiding
all evidence.
Brilliant...
You all do realise don't you... that the decrees you're basing your arguements on, were written hundreds of years ago, right? Before electricty? Before Telescopes, and Oh yeh... Space Travel... We've actually been up there, in space... and guess what... YOU'RE WRONG!!!
Truly the bible (the only authoritative text on the matter)[Thats right... not MAN i.e the Pope] was right when it says "not everyone who cries 'Lord Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven"
According to you... its only Idiots who get to go into heaven!
You claim the church cannot err? Really? And who made that decree... was it... les me guess... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH??? Funny that isn't it... Bit of a circular arguement though.
Anonymous of January 19, 2011: "Perhaps my favourite however was the statement that believing in the death, burial & resurretion of Jesus Christ is all well and good... but all for nothing if you belive the Earth revolves around the sun!!! That is correct ladies and gentlemen... the price of heaven according to the catholic church is puting on your intellectual blinkers, and avoiding
all evidence. Brilliant..."
The Church says that the opinion that The Sun stands still is "formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words (...)".
No one can defend inerrancy and Divine inspiration of The Bible if according to the proper meaning of the words The Bible statements are false.
And The Bible statements must be considered as false if the opinion of Copernicus and Galileo is accepted.
Thus from belief in the opinion of Pythagora, Copernicus, Galileo etc. necessarily follows belief that The Bible statements are false and that The Bible isn't from God (since God cannot lie).
Hence The Church has spoken definitively to defend Divine inspiration and inerrancy of The Bible and protect humans from eternal damnation for believing the contrary.
(continued below)
If you believe in Divine inspiration and inerrancy of The Bible then necessarily follows that you cannot believe that the opinion about the stationary Sun is true.
If you think that you can believe in both then necessarily follows that you think that contradictions can be reconciled. Which is a manifest foolishness and a lie from the father of lies (John 8:44).
Anonymous of January 19, 2011: "You claim the church cannot err? Really? And who made that decree... was it... les me guess... THE CATHOLIC CHURCH??? Funny that isn't it... Bit of a circular arguement though."
The Bible says (1 Timothy 3:15): "(...) the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.".
Let the whole world see how you, Anonymous of January 19, 2011, and all like you (Protestants) contradict and disbelieve The Bible when you ridicule The Bible statement which explicitly says that The Church cannot err.
For how can anyone be the pillar and ground of the truth if he can fall into lie?
(continued below)
Anonymous of January 19, 2011: "the bible (the only authoritative text on the matter)[Thats right... not MAN i.e the Pope]".
The Bible says (Luke 22, 31-32): "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.".
Let the whole world see how you, Anonymous of January 19, 2011, and all like you (Protestants) contradict and disbelieve The Bible when you deny The Bible statement which explicitly says that a single man, Apostle Simon Peter and every of his successors called popes, can have a Divine gift of inerrant (unfailing) faith and has to use it to confirm his brethren in faith.
For how can anyone confirm others if he himself isn't firm i.e. confirmed?
You have clearly shown us, Anonymous of January 19, 2011, how you disbelieve The Bible, the written word of God. Thus unfortunately you clearly aren't a Christian in spite of using (falsely, of course) Christian name for yourself.
(continued below)
Anonymous of January 19, 2011: "WOW... You guys are all crackpots... we've had people claiming that light doesn't travel at the speed of light... that the earth couldn't possibly be spinning because this would "scramble birds intelligence and navigation", all backed up by something the Catholic Church said hundreds of years ago...".
Please demonstrate to all of us here, Anonymous of January 19, 2011, what exactly is wrong with the arguments derived from purely natural facts and not from anything what The Catholic Church said as you slander us (orbit of The Moon around The Earth, instantaneous enlightenment of the whole heavenly hemisphere).
Or with the conclusions made from those arguments which necessarily declare opinions about the stationary Sun or the speed of light as false opinions i.e. lies.
For if there is an error in the arguments or conclusions it must be demonstrable.
If you demonstrate an error there you win and prove us wrong.
If you don't demonstrate an error there we win and have proven you wrong and a slanderer (for "crackpots").
The argument against rotation of The Earth around itself is flawed.
I am in search for the proof explaining why "The geocentric model was nearly universally accepted until 1543" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution#New_ideas) i.e. why for more than 2 000 years(!!) nearly all scientists rejected Heliocentrism.
Now you can see on galileo-rout.blogspot.com why Heliocentric construction of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and their followers is logically untenable and thus necessarily unreasonable and unscientific.
That could easily be the reason I was searching for why nearly all scientists (astronomers before all) before 16th, 17th century AD rejected Heliocentrism as certain falsity.
New website at galileowaswrong.com: http://galileowaswrong.com/
John you do very greatly err both in your argument about the relative velocities of the moon at different points on the earth and more importantly in your unbending defence of strict catholic superiority and apostolic succession.
It is one thing to say that there are differing opinions on the cosmological model. It is quite another to condemn as heretics in danger of losing their souls those who hold a heliocentric belief.
We read clearly in the New Testament that there are differences of opinion and belief and practice but that no-one can lay any other foundation than that of Christ himself. We are urged not to condemn others for those of their beliefs which are not attendant on their salvation or basic belief in Christ.
Your argument about the moon's movement is nonsense - it makes no difference to the actual observations whether the moon or the earth is moving - the effect would be the same and it frankly isn't simply because the moon is at a distance where any observational difference is negligible.
Anonymous, you haven't seen galileo-rout.blogspot.com at all or for some time. There's nothing about the Moon.
No doubt, a whole lot of people still come here to read this. This has nothing to do with the subject matter, but I must say, this is terribly difficult to read on my phone because of all of the entries in yellow on a white background. How about a darker color? Sorry for the seemingly unimportant criticism.....
I mean, try viewing it on an Android browser....
In Conclusion it is written: "It is not clear whether the statements of the Popes [note: regarding condemnations of Heliocentrism and anti-Geocentrism] reached the level of infallibility.".
Galileo was tried and condemned by Sacred Tribunal of The Church for his Heliocentrism and anti-Geocentrism;
on June 30th 1633 Pope Urban VIII ordered copy of the decree with the condemnations and abjuration of Galileo to be sent to all nuncios and Inquisitors to be drawn especially to the attention of mathematicians of the area for which each of them was responsible;
In 1742 French mathematicians professed obedience to the condemnation against daily rotation of The Earth;
it is of Catholic faith that all condemnations of The Church are infallible and irrevocable (for if they were not, The Church would condemn some innocent and sin and be proven as not Divine).
The Church cannot and doesn't condemn nor requires obedience to any doctrine that isn't certain for Her: e.g. heated discussion in The Church about the nature of grace has never been decided on and both sides (Thomists and Molinists) were allowed to hold their opinion, nobody was condemned.
So the condemnations of Heliocentrism and anti-Geocentrism are infallible.
What about the books being put on the Index and then left out of it and permitted for printing?
Catholic Encyclopedia replies: "It is evident that the permission granted by the church can exempt only from the ecclesiastical law. In spite, therefore, of a special dispensation, the licensee would not be at liberty to read such books as would for some reason or other cause him grievous harm in faith and morals. For him also, the obligation of the natural law remains intact, just as before the license was granted." (article "Censorship of Books").
In short, even when you are allowed by The Church (by ecclesiastical law) to read a book containing condemned doctrine you are by God (by natural law) forbidden from accepting or approving of the condemned doctrine as truth.
Even enemies of The Church know very well that She never retracts Her condemnations. How then it isn't clear to some Catholics that, even when they are given permission to read books with condemned doctrines, such doctrines are forbidden to them for good?
If Conclusion not be amended and the condemnation of Heliocentrism and anti-Geocentrism (daily rotation of The Earth) not be stated in the clearest terms here are the calamities that will ensue:
people, especially Catholics, will be scandalized to believe lie that The Church can err and erred in this particular case (heresy);
they will believe that condemnations of The Church aren't infallible and can be disregarded at will and the doctrine condemned by The Church freely held (heresy);
they will accept condemned doctrine of Heliocentrism (heresy) or anti-Geocentrism (about daily rotation of The Earth; not heresy but mortal sin);
they will lose faith if Catholics or sin mortally;
they will bear false witness due to being seriously misinformed;
responsible for the above scandals and sins will have many very grievous sins;
etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home