18 responses

  1. Is there any evidence other than Scripture that says Geocentrism is fact, as opposed to Heliocentrism which is universally adhered to by the scientific community?

  2. This is an incredibly important issue. The entire modern world view depends upon a heliocentric solar system in which the Earth revolves around the Sun. If, instead, the Sun revolves around a stationary Earth, the modern world view falls apart.

    Did I hear this properly, but at 13.42 Robert Sungenis claims that according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Galileo affair was one of the reasons for Vatican II? A reference is then made to an article in l’Oservatore Romano of Feb 14, 2013. According to Cardinal Ratzinger, the article claimed,”the Church was wrong about Galileo and therefore had to find a new apologetic to talk to the world”.

    So ….. what does it mean for Vatican II if the Church was right?

    Editor,

    I’m looking for that Edward Hubble quote.

    • Below is the quote from Pope Benedict, who had been looking back to his days as a scholar and as a Cardinal.

      “…. we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period, right from the outset, had been slightly fraught, beginning with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei; we were looking to correct this mistaken start and to rediscover the union between the Church and the best forces of the world, so as to open up humanity’s future, to open up true progress. Thus we were full of hope, full of enthusiasm, and also eager to play our own part in this process.”

      http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2013/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20130214_clero-roma_en.html

      • Awkward Customer,

        Seems Pope Benedict hasn’t read the encyclical Providentissimus Deus (Pope Leo XIII) – see extracts posted by me below in response to PerpetuaFelicitas.

        I mean, what kind of times are we living through when even the popes are highly confused. And I mean “highly” as in confusion on a Ben Nevis scale.

        • Just watched the Michael Voris video….amazed…. Hope it leads to change on a “global” scale, could be just the thing to make people think again about our place in things.

          As for the Popes getting confused, haven’t read Pope Leo XIII as you have…..Pope Leo was writing just as modern science was getting in to stride……the church has to move carefully, St Augustine taught this back in the 4 th century…..so the recent Popes….who have messed up the mass….all but destroyed the church….and so on…..on this we all agree……we must give them the benefits of the doubt when we can…..they like us are living through these times when “science” is seen as “god” ….trying to stand soap box like against all the so called observable “facts” would only make the conversion of humanity much harder……if this video is right…..then now might be the time for mounting the soap box…..and putting our case…..wise….like the dove.

  3. The 2006 BBC Horizon documentary ‘Is everything we know about the Universe wrong?’ looks at how dark matter was something fabricated by scientists to cover a gap in knowledge and to make the formula for the Big Bang work. I am not a scientist but a Catholic homeschooler teaching science. I am not teaching evolution or the Big Bang as fact but as flawed theories.
    The horizon documentary and the forthcoming film discussed above are great boosts as my children can see that not all scientists agree with what their friends are being taught as fact in science lessons at Catholic schools.
    What is the traditional,Catholic position on teaching scientific theories that contradict the Bible. For example that the Earth is more than 7213 years old?

    • PerpetuaFelicitas,

      Below are some extracts from the landmark encyclical on The Study of Sacred Scripture – Providentissimus Deus, by Pope Leo XIII. These extracts explain, very clearly, the correct Catholic attitude to any apparent disagreements between Catholic teaching and science:

      “…There can never, indeed, be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, “not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.”(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.”(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – `went by what sensibly appeared,”(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

      19. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith-what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,”(55) according to the saying of St. Thomas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.”(56) The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected….

      23. In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures – and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures [emphasis added]. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being. There have been objections without number perseveringly directed against the Scripture for many a long year, which have been proved to be futile and are now never heard of; and not infrequently interpretations have been placed on certain passages of Scripture (not belonging to the rule of faith or morals) which have been rectified by more careful investigations. As time goes on, mistaken views die and disappear; but “truth remaineth and groweth stronger for ever and ever.”(61) Wherefore, as no one should be so presumptuous as to think that he understands the whole of the Scripture, in which St. Augustine himself confessed that there was more that he did not know, than that he knew,(62) so, if he should come upon anything that seems incapable of solution, he must take to heart the cautious rule of the same holy Doctor: “It is better even to be oppressed by unknown but useful signs, than to interpret them uselessly and thus to throw off the yoke only to be caught in the trap of error.”(63)

      There’s much more of use in Pope Leo’s encyclical, so I encourage you to read it all for yourself – click here

      The Daylight Origins Science For Catholics website is also worth a visit.

    • You are a disgusting example of the human race if you find it acceptable to indoctrinate young, impressionable children with pseudo-science.
      By all means, teach that you can challenge scientific concepts, that’s how science works. If it does not stand to scrutiny, it is bust. Evolution has stood this test and there is no evidence (as of now) that it is incorrect. However, the ‘big bang’ (I use that term loosely because it is a very bad way of describing the theory) is simply what is predicted by relativity, but is still the most correct picture of the beginning of the universe.
      What’s more is that you teach ‘science’ to your children, with scientific knowledge.
      How can you live with yourself knowing that your children will never be able to understand the beauty, not only physical but also mathematical, and complexity of the world we live in, and instead believe in whatever other garbage you feed them.

      • Anonymous Atheist,

        “… a disgusting example of the human race …’

        What a way to talk! You must have been seriously disturbed by the subject being discussed here.

        But really, why does the possibility of an Earth-centered universe upset you so much? Don’t tell me, let me guess. Because it seriously threatens your Godless universe. Would any child be as upset by geocentrism as you are? I doubt it.

        Is it acceptable to teach young, impressionable children about ‘dark matter’, the matter that no modern scientist can prove exists, but that modern science claims must exist for their theories to work? When scientists actually find this missing matter, you will be in a better position to accuse others of promoting pseudo-science.

  4. I am starting to wonder if a revolutionary paradigm shift in the scientific and philosophical basis of modernity, that of Darwinism and ‘geo-insignificantism’ to creationism and geocentrism will be one of the main affects of the consecration of Russia? I believe belief in geocentrism is that powerful.

  5. Heliocentrism (usually) does not hold that the sun is the centre of the universe, just that it’s an insignificant star among billions.

  6. I have the feeling that Galileo was discussed on an earlier thread in the past two years. Michael Voris on this link discusses Galileo and the controversy of Galileo’s ideal of heliocentrism and how the theory could not be proved at the time – Galileo making the case for Faith and Science.

  7. One thing worth noting is that in the Medieval geocentric universe, as well as being at the central point of the universe, the Earth was also, crucially, at the lowest point.

    According to the Medievals, the realm of God was beyond the sphere of the stars. Moving from a stationary Earth past the revolving Sun and planets was an ascent. It was movement upwards. The realm of God was beyond the planetary spheres and the sphere of the stars. Planet Earth was the farthest planet from the realm of God. Earth, in fact was the lowest point in the universe, in keeping with our fallen nature. Dante placed Satan at the centre of the Earth, the absolute lowest point in the entire universe and farthest from God.

%d bloggers like this: