Bob Sungenis and Geocentrism

[charlesbarkley]

I have been reading excerpts from Bob’s Sungenis’ (Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right) book on geocentrism. One of the arguments Sungenis makes (from the theological point of view–I hope this thread deals with geocentrism from that perspective) is that Popes Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander VII (as well as all the Fathers and the faithful for years) condemened the teaching that the earth moves around the sun as contrary to the faith and the teaching of scared scripture.
Sungenis argues that even if their decress arent infallible they still must be obeyed (since the 2nd Vatican council and Vatican I taught that the Holy Roman Pontiff’s decrees must be obeyed even when they arent speaking infallibly). They, also must be obeyed because no other Pope has revocked or overturned their teaching.

Sungenis seems to also add that he believes the teaching is infallible based on Lumen Gentium’s teaching about the sense of the faithful.
Sungenis writes, LUMEN GENTIUM: THE WHOLE BODY CANNOT ERR

"Perhaps the most signifigant reason why the doctrine of geocentrism should be considered infallible comes, quite surprisingly, from one of the more modern declarations concerning the teaching of the Church. Earlier we quoted from Lumen Gentium 25 to show that catholics are required to give obiedience to both infallible and non-infallible teachings of the Church. Yet Lumen Gentium contains an even more signifigant requirement for obiedience 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 of him,  especially by a life and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising His name.  (emphasis Sungeis') THE WHOLE BODY OF THE FAITH WHO HAVE AN ANNOINTING THAT COMES FROM THE HOLYONE 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....

Sungenis continues(his words), " 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 equivication in the doctrine of geocentrism from the begginning of the Catholic church and throughout two millenia, and who " 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 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 mewn who, because of their own misguided convictions, sought todepart 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."

Sungenis contunues, " 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 the geocentric doctrine. It has only been in the last one hundred years or so that this consensus waned." (these excerpts from Sungenis’s book can be found at the front of his web site–pages 42-47)
I would appreciate your thoughts. Are his a rguments strong that geocentrism was/is taught infallible by the magisterium.

 

[abucs]

Wasn’t Gallileo supporting the theory put forward by Father Copernicus ?

Wasn’t Father Copernicus working on the relationship of the planets and sun under the direction of the church in trying to produce a more accurate calendar ?

Wasn’t Father Copernicus’ published book on heliocentrism accepted by the church and his calendar largely introduced before the Gallileo affair ?

Didn’t many members of the church, including Gallileo and bishops and other clergy go further and accept Father Copernicus’ theory as fact ?

when Gallileo started teaching Father Copernicus’ theory as fact didn’t the Pope tell Gallileo that there was no problem with advocating a helio-centric view of the world, but that he could not present it as fact until there was enough proof ?

I don’t see where an infallibility regarding geocentrism comes in at all with regards to the church ?

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

 

[charlesbarkley]

Wasn’t Gallileo supporting the theory put forward by Father Copernicus ?

Wasn’t Father Copernicus working on the relationship of the planets and sun under the direction of the church in trying to produce a more accurate calendar ?

Wasn’t Father Copernicus’ published book on heliocentrism accepted by the church and his calendar largely introduced before the Gallileo affair ?

Didn’t many members of the church, including Gallileo and bishops and other clergy go further and accept Father Copernicus’ theory as fact ?

when Gallileo started teaching Father Copernicus’ theory as fact didn’t the Pope tell Gallileo that there was no problem with advocating a helio-centric view of the world, but that he could not present it as fact until there was enough proof ?

I don’t see where an infallibility regarding geocentrism comes in at all with regards to the church ?

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

I dont know where you get that from? If you read the Popes actual statments they are clear that they condemn the heliocentric view as counter to scripture and the faith.

Here is one quote approved by Pope Urban VIII,

Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our DEFINITIVE SENTENCE WE SAY, PRONOUNCE, JUDGE, AND DECLARE, THAT YOU THE SAID GALILEO…HAVING BELIEVED AND HELD A DOCTRINE which is falseand contrary to the sacred and divine scriptures- to wit, that the sun is in the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the center of the universe; AND THAT AN OPINION CAN BE HELD AND DEFENDED AS PROBABLE AFTER IT HAS BEEN DECLARED AND DEFINED TO BE CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE.
(The sentence of 1633 against galileo, approved by Pope urban VIII, and sent out to all Papal nuncios, and their underlings in Europe)

 

[abucs]

I think the historical papers show it was the inquisition, for their own reasons, after winning the scientific arguement against Gallileo changed the charge against him to a ‘suspicion of heresy’.

Of course this legal pronouncement was given full force of civc law even though when we look at the actual punishment to Gallileo it was tame in the extreme. And also many in the Church continued to beleive the heliocentric view was more correct and the Jesuits would be teaching the heliocentric view in China in a few short decades and then in Africa and the New World.

If a citizen of say France or England had written a play where he made the king out to be a bit stupid, especially where that citizen was friend to the King, i would not suppose the punishment would have been so weak.

From Gallileo’s point of view he argued that he was told by the earlier Pope not to teach heliocentrism as fact, until he had proof. After his friend and supporter became Pope, he started teaching it as fact again and his response was that he now had the proof. He didn’t.

One of the biggest mistakes the inquisiton made was to tie Gallileo’s disobediance to the right and wrongness of heliocetrism.

It makes them today look silly (since the science has developed further).

Another mistake was that they changed the charge against Gallileo after they won the arguement. They would no longer win the debate on scientific grounds today, simply because the heliocentric advocates would have a better arguement. Instead of a split decision against the fact of heliocentrism, today it would be a unaminous decision for it.

We have to remember that the Pope presiding over the affair was Urban VIII, Gallileo’s friend, and that he had actually stood with Gallileo before the previous Pope and they both had argued for the heliocentric model.

The idea that somehow the geocentric view is a Papal infallible doctrine is all a bit silly. Perhaps it’s good for a short time in stirring up trouble but being silly it will soon join other silliness in a long list of forgotten nonsense.

While respecting what today has become the bible, i do not see it as the verbatim dicate of God and Gallileo argued, along with others such as St Augustine the same way.

But having said that, could you tell me which passages, presumably in the Old Jewish writings, are used to portray a geocentric solar system / universe ?

britannica.com/eb/topic-619410/Urban-VIII

 

[charlesbarkley]

I think the historical papers show it was the inquisition, for their own reasons, after winning the scientific arguement against Gallileo changed the charge against him to a ‘suspicion of heresy’.

Of course this legal pronouncement was given full force of civc law even though when we look at the actual punishment to Gallileo it was tame in the extreme. And also many in the Church continued to beleive the heliocentric view was more correct and the Jesuits would be teaching the heliocentric view in China in a few short decades and then in Africa and the New World.

If a citizen of say France or England had written a play where he made the king out to be a bit stupid, especially where that citizen was friend to the King, i would not suppose the punishment would have been so weak.

From Gallileo’s point of view he argued that he was told by the earlier Pope not to teach heliocentrism as fact, until he had proof. After his friend and supporter became Pope, he started teaching it as fact again and his response was that he now had the proof. He didn’t.

One of the biggest mistakes the inquisiton made was to tie Gallileo’s disobediance to the right and wrongness of heliocetrism.

It makes them today look silly (since the science has developed further).

Another mistake was that they changed the charge against Gallileo after they won the arguement. They would no longer win the debate on scientific grounds today, simply because the heliocentric advocates would have a better arguement. Instead of a split decision against the fact of heliocentrism, today it would be a unaminous decision for it.

We have to remember that the Pope presiding over the affair was Urban VIII, Gallileo’s friend, and that he had actually stood with Gallileo before the previous Pope and they both had argued for the heliocentric model.

The idea that somehow the geocentric view is a Papal infallible doctrine is all a bit silly. Perhaps it’s good for a short time in stirring up trouble but being silly it will soon join other silliness in a long list of forgotten nonsense.

While respecting what today has become the bible, i do not see it as the verbatim dicate of God and Gallileo argued, along with others such as St Augustine the same way.

But having said that, could you tell me which passages, presumably in the Old Jewish writings, are used to portray a geocentric solar system / universe ?

britannica.com/eb/topic-619410/Urban-VIII

Ok well you still didnt answer the fact that numerous Popes taught that the earth going around the sun was contrary to scripture and the Christian faith.
You also didnt answer Sungenis’ argument about geocentrism being infallible based on Lumen Gentium.

Here are a few verses:
The mobility of the sun
The most important biblical quote supporting a geocentric universe can be found in the Book of Joshua. This will be used as the starting point for our scriptural cosmology.

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

The miracle of Joshua appears again as a reference in The Book of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk 3:11
The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.

The evidence in support of a geocentric model is overwhelming here. Joshua commanded the sun to stand still. He did not order the earth to cease rotating nor did he qualify his statement with the divine knowledge that the sun was merely made to appear stationary. The sun was commanded to stand still because it is the sun that moves. Descriptions of its motion can be rather poetic.

Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

I could provide more!!!

 

[garysibio]

Whether the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is a matter of science, not of faith or morals, and is not, therefore, not covered by by papal infallibility.

Galileo’s error was not astronomical in nature. He erred in stating that the Bible was in error for its use of phenomenological language.

Gary

 

[charlesbarkley]

Whether the Earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is a matter of science, not of faith or morals, and is not, therefore, not covered by by papal infallibility.

Galileo’s error was not astronomical in nature. He erred in stating that the Bible was in error for its use of phenomenological language.

Gary

I dont know about that Gary. If the Church declares that the Bible(God’s word) teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, and that any other interpretation (such as the sun being the center) is contrary to scripture and the Christian faith then it becomes a matter of faith. Because the Church says that God’s word teaches this!!! This is Bob Sungenis’s arguemtn.

 

[garysibio]

I dont know about that Gary. If the Church declares that the Bible(God’s word) teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, and that any other interpretation (such as the sun being the center) is contrary to scripture and the Christian faith then it becomes a matter of faith. Because the Church says that God’s word teaches this!!! This is Bob Sungenis’s arguemtn.

It’s a bad argument. Astronomy still has nothing to do with faith or morals which are the only areas covered by papal infallibility. No matter what arguments are used to support it, it is still an astronomical issue.

Gary

 

[pnewton]

I dont know about that Gary. If the Church declares that the Bible(God’s word) teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, and that any other interpretation (such as the sun being the center) is contrary to scripture and the Christian faith then it becomes a matter of faith. Because the Church says that God’s word teaches this!!! This is Bob Sungenis’s arguemtn.

If. The Church does not declare this. The fact that prior popes may have believed it is no more relevant than prior popes belief that all matter is made of fire, earth, air and water; or that the earth is flat.

I have never understood the obsession Sungenis has with this silliness.

 

[garysibio]

If. The Church does not declare this. The fact that prior popes may have believed it is no more relevant than prior popes belief that all matter is made of fire, earth, air and water; or that the earth is flat.

I have never understood the obsession Sungenis has with this silliness.

EWTN is airing a series entitled “The Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization” which is hosted by historian Thomas A Woods. It’s a great series. I mention it because one of the things that he brings up is that almost nobody believed the world was flat. It seems that this is a myth invented in the 19th century. There are only two historical sources available today that say the Earth was flat, one from the 3rd century and one from the 6th. The latter one was written in Greek which very few people could actually read in the 6th century. On the other hand there are many documents picturing the world as round prior to Columbus. According to Woods the reason people warned Columbus that his trip was a bad idea is because they believed the Earth was bigger than Columbus thought and that he would have run out of food before reaching India. And they were right. Had Columbus not bumped into Haiti, he and his men would have starved.

Gary

 

[charlesbarkley]

If. The Church does not declare this. The fact that prior popes may have believed it is no more relevant than prior popes belief that all matter is made of fire, earth, air and water; or that the earth is flat.

I have never understood the obsession Sungenis has with this silliness.

Well Sungenis is saying quite clearly that the Church has declared it, and is presenting arguments for that. I havent seen any of you deal with the arguments presented. It appears that the Church has stated, and taught that geocentrism is what is taught by scripture(see the quote above, approved by Pope Urban VIII ), and that anything that contradicts that is contrary to scripture.

 

[charlesbarkley]

It’s a bad argument. Astronomy still has nothing to do with faith or morals which are the only areas covered by papal infallibility. No matter what arguments are used to support it, it is still an astronomical issue.

Gary

What do you mean “it is a bad argument?” I mean it seems clear, from what I quoted above, that the Church has taught that scripture says that the earth is the center of the universe.

 

[abucs]

charlesbarkley,

as far as i am aware the idea of Papal Infallibility and ‘what the church teaches’ are not the same thing.

Thankyou for providing quotes from the Old Testament. It seems if you wanted to argue against the written absolute truth of the old testament, the greater arguement is whether or not the moon or sun stood still, not what the Jewish people of 4000 years ago thought about the earths relationship to the sun or moon.

If you thought the bible was the infallibile word of God (which as a Catholic i don’t) you could argue about phrases of speech and what if i said ‘the night was still’ or ‘it was a still night’ or the seasons ‘came around’ or i hit my head and ‘saw stars spinning around’ or many other English plays on words. To me your quotes sound quite reasonable that the people speaking them thought that the sun moved around the earth, and like Catholics everywhere i read the bible with common sense.

catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp

If you take the line though that the Church infallibly taugh geocentrism because of those quotes then you can say ‘hey the Sermon of Jesus was on the mount, no wait, in another Gospel it was on the plain - therefore the Church teaches that the Jesus’ sermon on peace was on the mount and on the plain. There that was somehow a Papal infallible teaching, therefore Catholics have to believe both’.

Or you could quote the church when it supports geocentrism as with your previous quote and i could quote the church in accepting Copernicus work previous to that. we could say that the Church both taught heliocentrism and geocentrism and somehow we could tie this to Papal infallibility and say Catholics have to believe both.

It’s silly and it is not the nature of Papal infallibilty as i am aware of stated above.

The Church is 2000 years and has gone onto every populated continent to spread education, found schools and universites and has taught a great many things directed by a curriculum set out by Bishops and members of Holy Orders who are acting under the authority of the Pope.

But just because the curriculum it teaches is ultimately sponsored by the Pope does not make it infallible. The same with when people in the Church teach geocentrism or heliocentrism.

As an aside you could argue with Bohr that Quantum Mechanics invalidates both views but that’s another discussion.

 

[garysibio]

What do you mean “it is a bad argument?” I mean it seems clear, from what I quoted above, that the Church has taught that scripture says that the earth is the center of the universe.

I mean that a pope cannot make an infallible statement regarding astronomy even if he is convinced that the Bible teaches it. It is outside the realm of the charism of infallibility which the pope receives upon taking office.

To say that he has the authority to do so because he believes it is found in Scripture is a bad argument because it is the object of his declaration that determines if it falls under papal infallibility, not his reason for believing. I would hope that everything that a pope declares as true would be because it is found in the Bible and/or Sacred Tradition. However, regardless of why he believes what he believes regarding geocentrism, it is still a matter of astronomy and falls outside his authority.

Gary

 

[charlesbarkley]

I mean that a pope cannot make an infallible statement regarding astronomy even if he is convinced that the Bible teaches it. It is outside the realm of the charism of infallibility which the pope receives upon taking office.

To say that he has the authority to do so because he believes it is found in Scripture is a bad argument because it is the object of his declaration that determines if it falls under papal infallibility, not his reason for believing. I would hope that everything that a pope declares as true would be because it is found in the Bible and/or Sacred Tradition. However, regardless of why he believes what he believes regarding geocentrism, it is still a matter of astronomy and falls outside his authority.

Gary

Well you keep saying that, but I dont believe you are correct. The Church can infallibly interpret a biblical passage as regards to it’s meaning. You know that the Church teaches that the Bible is without error in ALL matters even historical. The Church can, and according to Sungenis has , declared that the Bible teaches that the earth is the center of the universe. I dont see how you can say that the Pope doesnt have that authority.
I would agree with you if the Church made the statement such as this, “After examing science we pronounce , declare, and define…etc” , however this isnt the case. The Popes have clearly said it is what scripoture teaches, and is therefore contrary to the faith to believe that the sun is in the center.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Are traditionalists that believe in geocentrism more “traditional” than traditionalists who don’t believe in geocentrism?

 

[pnewton]

Well Sungenis is saying quite clearly that the Church has declared it, and is presenting arguments for that. …

Find it in the catechism for me. Any other recent papal documention agree with Sungenis? The fact that Sungenis is convinced that this has been declared has no bearing as he has not authority in the Church.

I do not think anyone refutes his arguments because no one cares. It is so far out in left field.

 

[charlesbarkley]

Find it in the catechism for me. Any other recent papal documention agree with Sungenis? The fact that Sungenis is convinced that this has been declared has no bearing as he has not authority in the Church.

I do not think anyone refutes his arguments because no one cares. It is so far out in left field.

The new catechism doesnt say either way, in fact that is part of Sungenis’ whole point. He states, that the only Papal decrees we have are ones that affirm geocentrism as being what scripture teaches. See the decree of the Inquisition approved by Pope Urban VIII that I quoted earlier in this thread. No Pope has overturned these previous decrees.

 

[abucs]

Charles,

i think the difference between us is what the definition of Papal Infallibility is.

If think if Sungenis has his definition of what Papal Authority is or should be, then pnewton is quite correct in stating that “I do not think anyone refutes his arguments because no one cares”.

For the arguement to go anywhere, you have to accept the Catholic definition of Papal Infallibility otherwise if we have Sungenis definition then Catholics will not care and you end up having an arguement with yourself.

I would also say that you cannot both define something and argue with someone else against your own definition.

Atheists try to do this quite often by defining what God is, or what He should be and then argue against him. In this case it’s Papal infallibility that Sungesis is both defining and argueing against.

There’s only an arguement if you accept the protagonists original definition.

Catholics don’t.

Perhaps you see it a different way. Fair enough, that’s up to you. I wish you good luck.

 

[charlesbarkley]

Charles,

i think the difference between us is what the definition of Papal Infallibility is.

If think if Sungenis has his definition of what Papal Authority is or should be, then pnewton is quite correct in stating that “I do not think anyone refutes his arguments because no one cares”.

For the arguement to go anywhere, you have to accept the Catholic definition of Papal Infallibility otherwise if we have Sungenis definition then Catholics will not care and you end up having an arguement with yourself.

I would also say that you cannot both define something and argue with someone else against your own definition.

Atheists try to do this quite often by defining what God is, or what He should be and then argue against him. In this case it’s Papal infallibility that Sungesis is both defining and argueing against.

There’s only an arguement if you accept the protagonists original definition.

Catholics don’t.

Perhaps you see it a different way. Fair enough, that’s up to you. I wish you good luck.

HAHAHA CLEVER!! it doesnt cut the mustard though. The fact that the Popes refer to geocentrism as supported by scripture makes it a matter of faith doesnt it??? The Popes arent appealing to science to defend their statements they are appealing to scripture.