Catholic heliocentrism

[Cojuanco]

Can someone explain to me the Vatican’s position on the Copernican thory on the relationship among the Earth, the sun and the planets? I mean, a Catholic can believe it as a scientific fact in good conscience, right?

And what’s with the Sungenis conference on geocentrism?

 

[St_Francis]

Copernicus was a Catholic monk and the Vatican accepts heliocentrism. Sungenis is… well, he’s not the Pope, he’s not a scientist, so we really don’t have to pay any attention to what he says.

 

[awatkins69]

Copernicus was a Catholic monk and the Vatican accepts heliocentrism. Sungenis is… well, he’s not the Pope, he’s not a scientist, so we really don’t have to pay any attention to what he says.

 

[Dale_M]

I mean, a Catholic can believe it as a scientific fact in good conscience, right?

Yep. A fundamental teaching of the Church is that there is no conflict between faith and science.

Here is a snippet from the old Catholic Encyclopedia entry on “Science and the Church”:

The mathematical and experimental sciences, also known as exact sciences, have no contact whatever with faith, although at one time, it was erroneously believed that the geocentric system was contained in the Bible. The celestial phenomena mentioned in the Scripture, like the star of the magi, the solar eclipse during the Paschal full moon, the stars falling from heaven as forerunners of the Last Judgment, are all of the miraculous kind and beyond the laws of nature.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Science_and_the_Church

The Catholic Church doesn’t formally embrace the heliocentric theory, so if someone wants to believe in the geocentric theory, that is their right. Similarly, the same applies to evolution or a literal interpretation of Genesis: Catholics are free to believe in either, so long as they do not reject God’s oversight of, and involvement in, creation

And what’s with the Sungenis conference on geocentrism?

There are 75 million Catholics, more or less, in the US. Some of them have beliefs which are a bit out of the ordinary. But that is probably also true in any group of 75 million people.

 

[St_Francis]

…There are 75 million Catholics, more or less, in the US. Some of them have beliefs which are a bit out of the ordinary. But that is probably also true in any group of 75 million people.

Fabulous way to put this! LOL

 

[hugh_r.miller]

Can someone explain to me the Vatican’s position on the Copernican thory on the relationship among the Earth, the sun and the planets? I mean, a Catholic can believe it as a scientific fact in good conscience, right?

And what’s with the Sungenis conference on geocentrism?

From which Pope? Here is a quote from a Cardinal that recently became Blessed during Pope Benedict’s visit to England.

…it is true…that Revelation has in one or two instances advanced beyond its chosen territory, which is the invisible world, in order to throw light upon the **history **of the material universe. Holy Scripture…does declare a few momentous facts, so few that they may be counted, of a physical character. It speaks of a process of formation out of chaos which occupied six days; it speaks of the firmament, of the sun and moon being created for the sake of the earth; of the earth being immovable; of a great deluge and of **several other similar facts and events **(emphasis added).12

12 The Idea of a University (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1959), p. 399.
Perhaps modern science is now catching up with scripture and Genesis 1-10.
To the above I would add another “development” of our understanding of creation that was unavailable to Cardinal Newman. It is based on scientific discoveries in the past fifty or so years and has been perhaps best expressed by “Buffalo” in another forum: He currently calls it IDvolution:

God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

For the “immovable” part of the above quote by the blessed cardinal go to catholicintl.com/ and catholicintl.com/galileowaswrong/index.html Conference in South Bend IN November 6, 2010

 

[DavidPalm]

From which Pope? Here is a quote from a Cardinal that recently became Blessed during Pope Benedict’s visit to England.

…it is true…that Revelation has in one or two instances advanced beyond its chosen territory, which is the invisible world, in order to throw light upon the **history **of the material universe. Holy Scripture…does declare a few momentous facts, so few that they may be counted, of a physical character. It speaks of a process of formation out of chaos which occupied six days; it speaks of the firmament, of the sun and moon being created for the sake of the earth; of the earth being immovable; of a great deluge and of several other similar facts and events (emphasis added).12

I’m afraid this is spoken like a true follower of Sungenis–take Cardinal Newman out of context and make it look like he supports a literal six day creation and geocentrism, which he did not. For the full context of the quote above, please go here: The Life of John Henry, Cardinal Newman, pp. 400ff.

 

[The_Exodus]

It’s easy to throw rocks at Sungenis, seeing as his views are not contemporary or popular. But seeing as the man has probably put more research into the topic than everyone on this forum combined, it doesn’t seem prudent to simply toss him out of court without a hearing. Who here has read his work and scrutinized his evidence? Until that is done, “bulverizing” (claiming a view is wrong but not actually demonstrating it is) is simply a telling practice of fideism, which, hypocritically, is the object of ridicule in Sungenis himself.

With that said, all of us need to be humble regarding things like the cosmos. Who here can honestly say they “know” about such things?

Furthermore, as it seems to me, geocentrism is a perfectly plausible theory, seeing as the perspective phenomena cannot be solved (i.e. all our knowledge of the cosmos assumes, a priori, a geocentric vantage point; and thus, were it the case that the earth is not the center, we could never, as a matter of principle, find out.)

 

[DavidPalm]

It’s easy to throw rocks at Sungenis, seeing as his views are not contemporary or popular. But seeing as the man has probably put more research into the topic than everyone on this forum combined, it doesn’t seem prudent to simply toss him out of court without a hearing. Who here has read his work and scrutinized his evidence?

For my part, I’m saying something different. I have found Sungenis to engage in such shoddy scholarship, tell so many falsehoods, plagiarize so many sources, utilize so many morally corrupt sources, deployed so many bogus quotations, and believe so many outlandish conspiracy theories, that at some point his character does indeed become the issue. He’s absolutely credulous–on certain subjects he’ll believe anything, no matter how outlandish and no matter how poorly supported or how well debunked.

But the fact remains that, in my opinion, on this and many other issues Sungenis has indeed been answered well and thoroughly. It becomes apparent after a while that for those in such circles it is not on the grounds of reason and evidence that these things will be decided.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m afraid this is spoken like a true follower of Sungenis

I believe Hugh Miller will be one of the speakers at the Sungenis conference on geocentrism, specifically on the topic of Carbon-14 dating showing support for Young Earth creationism.

 

[buffalo]

Copernicus was a Catholic monk and the Vatican accepts heliocentrism. Sungenis is… well, he’s not the Pope, he’s not a scientist, so we really don’t have to pay any attention to what he says.

All one has to do is prove him wrong.

 

[Anselm33]

All one has to do is prove him wrong.

He has been proved wrong many times. The problem is that the people who believe in him don’t listen to reason and don’t know anything about science or physics. If someone tells me the moon is made of green cheese and I say it’s not, I’ve seen a rock from the moon (which I have, at my last university), he’ll say it was a fraud…there is no way to convince invincible ignorance. (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
However for those other readers who are open to reason, here’s a web site that does a good job of refudiating (my favorite neologism) the geocentrists:
philvaz.com/apologetics/p92.htm
And for you geocentrists and young earth enthusists–go ahead, enjoy your computers, your satellite TV’s, MRI’s and all the benefits of science and technology. You can do that without knowing anything about physics or having a consistent world view. You don’t have to pay your intellectual dues.

 

[LilyM]

The Catholic Church doesn’t formally embrace the heliocentric theory, so if someone wants to believe in the geocentric theory, that is their right. Similarly, the same applies to evolution or a literal interpretation of Genesis: Catholics are free to believe in either, so long as they do not reject God’s oversight of, and involvement in, creation

Well, there are certain parts of Genesis that we are required to take literally, such as that human beings DID all descend from two common ancestors, one male (Adam) and one female (Eve). Mind you, the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ scientific theory seems to support this anyway.

If you’re talking about things like a literal 6-day creation, ‘young earth’ theory, patriarchs all living for centuries and the like, well, as far back as Augustine (if memory serves) it’s been open to Catholics not to believe those literally.

 

[neophyte]

…And what’s with the Sungenis conference on geocentrism?

I don’t know, but anyone who makes fun of the phrase “boundary condition at infinity” doesn’t have enough grasp of math to be taken seriously in matters of theoretical physics.

 

[buffalo]

The Questions and Answers

 

[inocente]

The Catholic Church doesn’t formally embrace the heliocentric theory, so if someone wants to believe in the geocentric theory, that is their right. Similarly, the same applies to evolution or a literal interpretation of Genesis: Catholics are free to believe in either, so long as they do not reject God’s oversight of, and involvement in, creation

In two thousand years, has no one in the Church thought to go beyond anything to do with Creation except God done it? I mean there’s conservative and ultra-conservative but…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

In two thousand years, has no one in the Church thought to go beyond anything to do with Creation except God done it? I mean there’s conservative and ultra-conservative but…

Of course members of the Church have thought of it. But the Church is only bound to tell what God has revealed to them. God has revealed to them that He has created the universe. Not much more (I hesitate to say something as constricting as nothing more).

 

[inocente]

Of course members of the Church have thought of it. But the Church is only bound to tell what God has revealed to them. God has revealed to them that He has created the universe. Not much more (I hesitate to say something as constricting as nothing more).

It didn’t stop someone working out an detailed moral system though. On the other hand if you’re arguing for sola scriptura, who am I to blow against the wind?

 

[cassini]

Can someone explain to me the Vatican’s position on the Copernican thory on the relationship among the Earth, the sun and the planets? I mean, a Catholic can believe it as a scientific fact in good conscience, right?

And what’s with the Sungenis conference on geocentrism?

Depends what you mean by the ‘Vatican’ Cojuanco. If you mean the Church then it has defined and declared that the Copernican theory of a fixed sun relative to the earth is formally heretical based purely on its being contrary to the Scriptures and the interpretation of it by all the Fathers of the Church… If you mean the men inside the Vatican, those supposedly about the business of protecting the Church’s position,well they all turned Copernican bar one in 1741-1835 and thus propagate their opinion that Catholics can now accept what was once defined and declared as formal heresy as a truth compatible with the Scriptures.
As for what one believes, well if your belief in the formal heresy is done through inculpable ignorance then you will not be held at fault. But since 1905 when Einstein reintroduced relativity as a scientific fact and all heliocentric bets were off, that certainty that the sun is fixed relative to the earth was not possible to prove and that a material geocentric world was possible, one has a duty to re-examine the situation in the light of the Church’s ruling of 1616 and 1633. The problem cannot be solved by science, only by faith, as it was in 1616 and as it remains today.

Sungenis’s conference on geocentrism would be the perfect place to do your research.

 

[grannymh]

Catholics are to believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth.

The Catholic Deposit of Faith does not include any duly defined and universally declared theological dogmas on the physical position or movements of the physical, material earth.