Dear Robert,
If you can show me an Ex Cathedra pronouncement concerning the earth and the sun, I will believe. I only believe what the Church teaches which is in matters of faith and morals. It is a dogmatic principle that the Church can not err in matters of faith and morals. Physics is a distinct science from moral science and not a sub-division.
In +JMJ,
Roger
R. Sungenis: Roger, the burden is not on me to show an ex cathedra pronouncement that the sun revolves around the earth, since the larger percentage of our faith does not rest on ex cathedra papal pronouncements. Papal ex Cathedra pronouncements are extremely rare and are only given when it is absolutely necessary to do so.
By the same token, however, I could turn the tables against you. As Cardinal Bellarmine argued against Galileo, the infallible Council of Trent declared that no interpretation can be accepted that goes against the consensus of the Church Fathers. Bellarmine, backed and approved by decrees of Pope Paul V, told Galileo that the Church Fathers were in consensus on geocentrism and they opposed, in consensus, the heliocentrism taught by Pythagoras, since the Fathers all believed that Scripture divinely revealed that the sun revolved around the earth. The Council of Trent was approved by the then reigning pope, and he did so infallibly, as I’m sure you would agree.
So, there you have it – an infallible pronouncement regarding the necessity to believe in geocentrism. The logical question is, why do you hold it in contempt, especially when you have provided no scientific proof that heliocentrism is correct and geocentrism is wrong? At the least, you should be siding with the Church’s judgment until, if and when, you find scientific proof to the contrary (which, incidentally, was the same argument that Bellarmine gave to Galileo). Your position should be to accept geocentrism humbly and docily until you find irrefutable scientific proof against it; not automatically reject geocentrism based on the flimsy claims of modern science which you know relies on atheism for all its conclusions and interpretations.
More to the point, the burden is on you to convince us that the Holy Spirit would mislead all of the Fathers, all of the medievals, numerous popes and Trent’s catechism to proclaim officially by the ordinary magisterium for over 1800 years that the sun revolves around the earth, and do so by teaching us that Scripture cannot lie and must be interpreted literally unless there is irrefutable proof to the contrary. To claim that you will not believe unless you see an “ex cathedra” statement makes a mockery of our tradition, in addition to subjecting the ordinary magisterium to the most devilish and erroneous of beliefs in matters of faith and morals. In light of this overwhelming tradition facing against you, your demand for a “miraculous” ex cathedra pronouncement reminds me of the people in Jesus’ day who said, “show us a miracle and we will believe,” when, in fact, Jesus’ ordinary teaching was sufficient to show that he was who he said he was. They simply didn’t want to believe him because they had another agenda to promote.
While we are on the subject, let’s look a little close at Vatican I’s teaching on ex cathedra and ordinary magisterial teachings:
“Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.” Denz 1792
As you can see, in regard to “those things proposed by the Church,” Vatican I makes no distinction between a “solemn pronouncement” (an infallible, ex cathedra, definition) and the ordinary magisterium, insofar as it concerns the truth of a doctrine. Both sources are to be considered as “divinely revealed.” Hence, if the condemnations of heliocentrism, which were “declared and defined” as being “formally heretical” and “erroneous in faith” were not “solemn pronouncements,” it follows that they were then authoritative decisions from the “ordinary magisterium,” and are likewise to be understood as “divinely revealed.”
Let’s move on. Vatican I also said:
“By enduring agreement the Catholic Church has held and holds that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only in principle but also in object: (1) in principle, indeed, because we know in one way by natural reason, in another by divine faith; (2) in object, however, because, in addition to things to which natural reason can attain, mysteries hidden in God are proposed to us for belief which, had they not been divinely revealed, could not become known.”
In this case, the matter of geocentrism, which, on one level, the Church proposed as a “matter of faith,” it is a fact that modern science, especially the relativistic forms, admits that it cannot determine whether the Earth moves or is stationary. In effect, the immobility of the Earth is something that can only be revealed by “divine faith.”
Vatican I then says:
“But, although faith is above reason, nevertheless, between faith and reason no true dissension can ever exist, since the same God, who reveals mysteries and infuses faith, has bestowed on the human soul the light of reason; moreover, God cannot deny Himself, nor ever contradict truth with truth. But, a vain appearance of such a contradiction arises chiefly from this, that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and interpreted according to the mind of the Church, or deceitful opinions are considered as the determinations of reason. Therefore, “every assertion contrary to the truth illuminated by faith, we define to be altogether false.”
In regards to the issue of geocentrism, both of the above warnings come into play: (a) Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that geocentrism was a “matter of faith” and that the Church, based on the consensus of the Fathers, could not interpret Scripture in opposition to the same literal interpretation that had been passed down to it through the preceding centuries. In essence, Galileo was accused of not interpreting Scripture “according to the mind of the Church”; (b) since false claims of scientific proof for heliocentrism were consistently being advanced (e.g., Foscarini, Galileo, Kepler, Bradley, Settele, Boscovich, Newton, Bessel), and from which many people became convinced that heliocentrism was correct, these would have to be classed as “deceitful opinions [that] are considered as the determinations of reason.”
Vatican I also says:
“Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine Providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” [1Tm 6:20], “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” [Cl 2:8]. Wherefore, all faithful Christians not only are forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.”
Obviously, Galileo was “forbidden to defend opinions” of “knowledge falsely so called,” concerning the claims of science that asserted the Earth revolved around the sun. Galileo was reminded in 1633 that heliocentrism, as early as 1616, had already been “declared and defined as opposed to Scripture,” and was now declared to be “formally heretical” and “erroneous in faith” in 1633. Hence, the Church made it known that heliocentrism was, in the language of Vatican I, “known to be contrary to the teaching of faith,” since it had clearly “been condemned by the Church,” even though it was commonly believed to be a “legitimate conclusion of science.” These “legitimate conclusions,” the Church warned, could “present a false appearance of truth,” which is certainly the case for heliocentrism since geocentrism can be demonstrated to work just as well on a geometric basis. It is quite clear that the ordinary magisterium can, without invoking infallibility, declare these theoretical beliefs of science as propping up a “false appearance,” and are thus “formally heretical” and “erroneous.” It is clear that this was done in 1616, 1633 and 1664, and these teachings against heliocentrism were never officially and formally rescinded or reformed.
Vatican I then says:
“And, not only can faith and reason never be at variance with one another, but they also bring mutual help to each other, since right reasoning demonstrates the basis of faith and, illumined by its light, perfects the knowledge of divine things, while faith frees and protects reason from errors and provides it with manifold knowledge. Wherefore, the Church is so far from objecting to the culture of the human arts and sciences, that it aids and promotes this cultivation in many ways. For, it is not ignorant of, nor does it despise the advantages flowing therefrom into human life; nay, it confesses that, just as they have come forth from "God, the Lord of knowledge" [1 Samuel 2:3], so, if rightly handled, they lead to God by the aid of His grace. And it (the Church) does not forbid disciplines of this kind, each in its own sphere, to use its own principles and its own method; but, although recognizing this freedom, it continually warns them not to fall into errors by opposition to divine doctrine, nor, having transgressed their own proper limits, to be busy with and to disturb those matters which belong to faith.”
If, for example, “right reasoning” was employed in 1887 when the Michelson-Morley experiment was preformed, it would have shown that a slight impedance of light’s velocity would be due to the rotation of space around a stationary Earth and not because matter shrinked when it moved or that time slowed down. In that case “reason” would have worked very well with “faith.” But Einstein, being an atheist, had no faith. He ridiculed Christianity. Therefore, he would consider the rotation of space around a stationary Earth as “unthinkable,” and his colleague Edwin Hubble, a like-minded atheist, even though he saw through his telescope evidence that the Earth was in the center of the universe, rejected it as a “horrible” conclusion and something that must be “avoided at all costs.” Faith in Scripture could have provided the necessary boundaries for the crucial interpretations of the scientific experiments of the late 1800s and 1900s. Science would have been spared the wild goose chase it was forced to run as it began inventing a world in which twins age at different rates, clocks slow down at will, matter shrinks upon movement, where one is forced to say that up may be down and left may be right in order to have at least some answer to the crucial experiments. As Thomas Aquinas put it:
The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology, must be condemned as false. (Summa Theologica, I, Ques. 1, Art. 6, ad. 2.)
Lumen Gentium
Perhaps the most significant reason why the doctrine of geocentrism should be considered infallible comes, quite surprisingly, from one of the more modern declarations concerning the teachings of the Church. Earlier we quoted from Lumen Gentium 25 to show that Catholics are required to give obedience to both infallible and non-infallible teachings of the Church. Yet Lumen Gentium contains an even more significant requirement for obedience in regards to geocentric doctrine, and it certainly seems to make the doctrine infallible. It is stated in Paragraph 12:
The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful” they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The people unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.
Since it is a fact that the “People of God,” which includes “the bishops to the last of the faithful,” have believed unanimously, firmly and without equivocation in the doctrine of geocentrism from the beginning of the Catholic Church and throughout two millennia, and who were “guided by the sacred teaching authority” to do so, this belief necessarily fulfills the criteria of Lumen Gentium 12 that these same People of God “cannot err.” It is an undeniable fact that all the Fathers, all the medievals, all the bishops, priests, saints, doctors, theologians and the remaining Christian faithful of every nation believed in the doctrine of geocentrism. Additionally, three popes and their Holy Offices officially confirmed this absolute consensus in the 17th century against a few men who, because of their own misguided convictions, sought to depart from that consensus, making the attempt in the wake of unproven scientific claims with the express purpose of reinstituting a novel and subjective interpretation of Holy Writ.
As we have seen, even many years after modern science began to treat heliocentrism as a scientific fact, the Catholic faithful still maintained their vigilance for geocentric doctrine. It has only been in the last one hundred years or so that this consensus has waned.
Because of the waning consensus, some objectors might themselves appeal to the principle of Lumen Gentium 12 and posit that the Holy Spirit is now teaching the “People of God” that heliocentrism has been correct all along. But that notion, of course, is impossible, since the “People of God” could not have been “aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth” into believing that geocentrism was correct for 1900 years and then have the Spirit suddenly change His mind to teach them the opposite. It would make the Holy Spirit a liar, which is certainly impossible. The reality is, if the “People of God” were led to believe that geocentrism was the truth, and which was, according to the stipulations of Lumen Gentium 12, “guided by the magisterium” to confirm their consensus, then there is simply no possibility that a change in their belief could be understood as a movement of the Holy Spirit.
The above facts, sadly enough, leave open only one other possibility for the shift in thinking against geocentrism, yet a shift that is taught and confirmed by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Quite simply, for the present people of the world to depart from the previous consensus of the “People of God” means that the people have been led astray by false teachings. Is such deception possible on a mass scale? According to Scripture and Tradition, it is not only possible, it is predicted to happen some time before the return of Christ. A worldwide apostasy from the faith predicted by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12 may be the only possible reason why the masses could depart from almost two millennia of consistent personal belief and magisterial decrees, not only concerning the doctrine of geocentrism, but every doctrine that is affected by the same non-literal and “historically critical” hermeneutic foisted on the Church in the last hundred years. As we noted earlier, the new hermeneutic, spawned as it was by insisting that Scripture could be interpreted figuratively where it was once interpreted literally, coupled with the idea that Scripture could err when it addressed non-salvation topics, has totally undermined man’s docile belief in Holy Writ in the modern age.
Another possibility is that the current rejection of the Church’s original teaching on both cosmogony and cosmology is following the pattern of blindness to which Jesus alerted us in the Gospels. For example, in Jesus’ conversation with the Pharisees about divorce, we learn that the practice was common in Israel, so much so that almost all the populace believed that it was one’s God-given right to divorce one’s spouse. For a long time, the illusion of the freedom to divorce seemed to be a positive societal development permitted by God, even as heliocentrism and evolution presently enjoy the same apparent freedom today. So confident were the people in their lifestyle of divorce that they brought the issue to Jesus even though they already knew He had condemned divorce. They reasoned that they could catch Him denying both the Mosaic law and ultimately God’s law which inspired Moses to allow divorce. Jesus, as He always managed to do when He was being tested by hypocrites, turned the tables on them. Little did the divorce advocates realize, until Jesus opened their eyes to the stark reality, that their belief in divorce, which opposed the original decree of God, was given to them not because God discovered a better way for them to manage marital conflicts, but for nothing more than the “hardness of their hearts.” In other words, Moses, under God’s direction, allowed them to divorce because the people were spiritually destitute. It is a divine principle that is often displayed in Scripture – God turns the rebel over to his own desires as a punishment for his rebellion. Similarly, many today are enjoying the illiusion that they have permission to believe and practice many things that were once condemned, claiming that modern science has enlightened them to a new way of life (contraception, artificial insemination, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, eugenics, abortion, same-sex marriage and child adoption, etc.). They believe that society has been enlightened as never before to wonderful inventions and increased knowledge for the benefit of the human race. But in reality, nothing has changed in Scripture, Tradition or the Catholic Magisterium. The inventions and knowledge only make them sin faster than they ever did before. They believe in false notions and engage in immoral practices because they have been deceived by the hardness of their own hearts.
These examples, however, are not to say that those who do not believe in geocentrism are either no longer individually faithful to the Catholic Church or that they are an integral part of the apostasy. The masses cannot be blamed for what they have been taught by their authorities. It only means that one of the signs of the general apostasy predicted by Holy Scripture will be a general and pervasive turning away from the previously accepted truths of Scripture and Tradition. The mass rejection of geocentrism is just one sign of that eventuality.
In the words of Catholic scientist, author, and professor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Wolfgang Smith:
Today, four centuries later, what lay concealed in that beginning has become clearly manifest, for all to see; as Arthur Koestler has said, it is “as if a new race had arisen on this planet.” Could this be the reason why St. Malachy, in his famous prophesies, has characterized the reign of Pope Paul V (1605-1628) by alluding to the birth of “a perverse race”? One needs to recall that what is sometimes termed the first Galileo trial took place in the year 1616. What, then, could be the “perverse race” to which the saintly prophet refers? Given that Galileo is indeed “the father of modern science,” one is compelled to answer that it is none other than the race of modern scientists, and by extension, the community of individuals imbued with the modern scientistic outlook….
As everyone knows, Galileo was formally tried in 1633 and forced to recant his Copernican convictions. The proposition that the Sun constitutes the immobile center of the universe was declared to be “formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scriptures.” And so the matter stood until 1822, when, under the reign of Pius VII, the Church commenced to soften its stand with regard to what it termed “the general opinion of modern astronomers.” Thus began a process of accommodation with “the new race” which came to a head in 1979, when Pope John Paul II charged the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to re-open the Galileo case, and if need be, to reverse the verdict of 1633. Given the mentality which came to the fore in the wake of Vatican II, the outcome of that inquiry was never in doubt: Galileo was exonerated – some would say, “canonized” – following which Pope John Paul II in effect apologized to the world for wrongs committed by the Church. Could this be the reason, perhaps, why St. Malachy alludes to this Pope in the enigmatic words “De Labore Solis”? To be sure, the phrase, which traditionally refers to the movement of the Sun, does relate to Galileo, the man who denied that the Sun does move. Could it be, then, that St. Malachy, having previously signaled the birth of a “perverse race,” is now alluding to the fact that some four hundred years later the Church has reversed its stand and relinquished its opposition to that “race,” which is to say, to that new philosophy? Certainly St. Malachy’s allusion can be interpreted in other ways as well; for example, “De Labore Solis” might be taken as a reference to the fact that this Pope, who has traveled far more extensively than any of his predecessors, has so many times “circled the globe” in his papal airliner (named, interestingly enough, “Galileo”).
But be that as it may, the fact remains that the Church has now joined the rest of Western society in adopting a scientistic worldview; during the reign of Pope John Paul II, and with his sanction, a Copernican Revolution has finally taken place within the Church itself. Yet, to be precise, it is not the Church as such that has undergone change – that has “evolved,” as the expression goes – but what has changed is simply the orientation of its human representatives: it is Rome, let us say, that has reversed its position. Humanly speaking, the ecclesiastic establishment may have opted for the only viable course: given the sophistication and prowess of contemporary science – given the “great signs and wonders” that could deceive even the elect – it may not indeed be feasible to stem the mounting tide of scientistic belief. Nonetheless one must insist, in light of our preceding analysis, that the contemporary cosmology, in any of its forms, is not in fact compatible with Christian doctrine. To the extent, therefore, that Rome has embraced a scientistic outlook, it has compromised the true teaching of the Church: this is the crux of the matter. Call it human failing, call it “political correctness,” call it apostasy – the fact is that Rome has become “a house divided against itself.” (Wolfgang Smith, The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology: Contemporary Science in Light of Tradition, 2003, pp. 180-181.)
In addition to all this evidence, you must also face the fact that the Church, neither in its extraordinary or ordinary magisterium, has never rescinded the canonical judgment either against Galileo or against heliocentrism as “formally heretical.” According to the magisterium and the code of canon law, canonical judgments are binding unless lifted. The weight against you is overwhelming, Roger. As Jesus said to Paul, why do you kick against the pricks?
Recent Comments