I was reading this article in the LA TImes about a group of “Catholics” who reject heliocentrism in favor of geocentrism because the Bible says so or something. I it was a joke until…
A few conservative Roman Catholics are pointing to a dozen Bible verses and the church’s original teachings as proof that Earth is the center of the universe, the view that was at the heart of the church’s clash with Galileo Galilei four centuries ago.
The relatively obscure movement has gained a following among those who find comfort in knowing there are still staunch defenders of early church doctrine.
“This subject is, as far as I can see, an embarrassment to the modern church because the world more or less looks upon geocentrism, or someone who believes it, in the same boat as the flat Earth,” said James Phillips ofCicero, Ill.
There is nothing conservative or Catholic about this silly point of view. Honestly, I thought that these people must be having a little fun at somebody’s expense until I read this paragraph.
Those promoting geocentrism argue that heliocentrism, or the centuries-old consensus among scientists that Earth revolves around the sun, is a conspiracy to squelch the church’s influence.
“Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system,” said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. “False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.… Prior to Galileo, the church was in full command of the world, and governments and academia were subservient to her.”
Sungenis? I guess picking on the Jews all the time gets boring so one has to have his hobbies.
Why can’t we be satisfied to make the case that Galileo was a jerk who purposefully picked a fight with a Pope who initially supported him.
Truth is that Galileo was a tool but Sungenis is a bigger one.
September 1, 2011 at 1:33 pm
some corrections. I understand that the Fathers also contributed,quite vitally to Tradition (as well as tradition).
Also, we use Kepler's equations and Newton to study the planets around other stars, rather than the stars (for which we use some other concepts rooted more in atomic physics and statistical mechanics)
September 1, 2011 at 1:35 pm
@Rick,
Catholics are simply following the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, who enshrined the teaching of the Doctors Augustine and Thomas by stating that, "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.' 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" (Providentissimus Deus 18).
This teaching was repeated by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu 3. Pope John Paul II taught that, "the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning."
These are principles, which means that they apply broadly, unlike canonical penalties which the Church applies very narrowly. No Catholic today holds a belief that would fall under the seventeenth century discipline restricting Copernicanism (which of course has been removed regardless), but the principles laid out by Leo XIII, Pius XII, and John Paul II do illuminate what Catholics are bound to hold.
Leo XIII also taught that it is "in things of faith and morals, belonging to the building up of Christian doctrine" (PD 14) that an alleged consensus of the Father binds. But as we saw above, no such details of the physical universe were revealed by the Holy Spirit. So please stop insinuating that Catholics are anything less than faithful if they reject geocentrism in favor of more modern cosmological views.
September 1, 2011 at 1:59 pm
FWIW there a response to the matter of the CMB by Dr. Ethan Siegel may be found here:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/01/so_the_earth_is_6001_years_old.php
IMO the problem with the neo-geocentrists is that they fixate upon (and twist) these sorts of new cosmological measurements while at the same time ignoring the much better established evidence that turns geocentrism into a massive exercise in special pleading.
For example, "admiror" rightly brought up stellar parallax. It would never be predicted by a geocentric theory and in a geocentric universe it should not exist at all. Now, after it's proven to exist, what does the geocentrist say? Oh, no problem, we can still have stellar parallax (and aberration of starlight) as long as the movements of the stars are **centered on the sun**, not the earth. This is just one example of the kind of ad hoc special pleading that's necessary to uphold geocentrism in the face of the scientific evidence that we can get at most readily, right here in our own solar system.
September 1, 2011 at 4:21 pm
JoAnna asks: "Could that possibly be because the Church Fathers were theologians and not scientists, and they were more concerned with prolumgating the theological Truths of the faith as opposed to teaching science classes?"
>> No. The Bible is true in all that it asserts, and this includes matters touching upon science (for example, it is true that the world shall end, because the Bible asserts this, regardless of the degree of consensus attached to contrary arguments, e.g. of the existence of eternally inflating multiverses or an eternally existing steady state universe. It is also true that the human race begins with Adam and Eve, two original parents, and this is also true regardless of the degree of consensus attached to contrary arguments, e.g. those based upon the conclusions of genetics at a given point in the development of human knowledge.
One can argue whether geocentrism meets the criterion of a unanimous consensus of the Fathers, but not that the Bible is to be interpreted on a given point against a consensus of the Fathers merely because science claims that the consensus on that point is false.
The highest degree of authority exercised so far by the magisterium on the question of geocentrism is found in the Papal Sentence of 1633, which sounds a note rather challenging to modern ears:
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center 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."
This formal and binding act of the ordinary magisterium has certainly been abandoned in practice, but has never been reversed by any similarly authoritative act of the magisterium.
I do acknowledge that the above case does not in itself rise to the level of an infallible definition of the Faith, but then again, it does not have to, *if* the point at issue represents a unanimous consensus of the Fathers.
Trent infallibly proclaims that such a consensus is itself irreversible, and infallible under the ordinary magisterium.
JoAnn: "If all the early Church fathers, without dissent, also taught that ensoulment occurred at quickening and not before, would you believe that as well?"
>> Of course. This would represent an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, under your hypothetical circumstance, as defined at the Council of Trent.
There is no such consensus in reality, of course.
September 1, 2011 at 4:42 pm
No. The Bible is true in all that it asserts, and this includes matters touching upon science.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide proof (from a papal encyclical, or the early Church fathers) that the Bible is intended to be read as a scientific treatise on physical phenomena.
This article goes into greater detail about the Galileo situation and the papal sentence you reference above, but simply put: the pope was mistaken (as popes can be in private judgement!), and belief in heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council (or, so far as I'm aware, any papal encyclical).
Of course. This would represent an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium, under your hypothetical circumstance, as defined at the Council of Trent.
Heliocentrism and geocentrism aren't a matter of faith and morals (but rather of science), and that's one of the criteria for an infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium.
September 1, 2011 at 5:49 pm
JoAnna:
The Bible is true in all that it asserts. Surely you believe that? How could it be otherwise? It has God for its Author, and the Holy Spirit employed the human authors- who made use of their own faculties as true authors- in such a way as they wrote exact;y what He wanted, no more and no less.
No one suggests, unless tendentiously, that the Bible is scientific treatise. It is far far more.
But to suggest that it can never address a given scientific or historical question is much much worse than merely false.
September 1, 2011 at 5:50 pm
admiror said…
"Rick. I haven't spoken about the science because I do not think the argument needs to be made from the point of science. However, as an astrophysicist, I can speak from the point of science."
>> Thank you very much for engaging this question.
admiror: "What lead to the success of heliocentricism? Kepler's use of Newtonian gravity to develop orbital solutions to the planets motion which quite successfully predicted the positions of the planets without all of the complexities which the Ptolemaic system requires."
>> While Gingerich shows that the number of epicycles in Copernicus' system actually exceeds those in Ptolemy's, it is also true that Kepler received his observational data from the great geocentrist Tycho Brahe, who used them to develop the Tychonic geocentric system.
There is no difference at all in the observed motions, including in the case of stellar parallax, between Copernicus (suitably modified) and Tycho (suitably modified).
Newton certainly provided a compelling argument for heliocentrism at the time, but we now know it to have been based on assumptions concerning absolute space which have since *of necessity* been abandoned.
Einstein, in order to answer the repeated failures to directly measure the assumed orbital motion of the Earth over the previous two centuries, proposed the Theory of Relativity, one of the remarkable consequences of which he states in this way:
""The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."—The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212
But even Relativity's approach has failed drastically when we attempt to account for observations on any scale larger than a stellar cluster, as here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.5602v2
Excerpt:
"According to the standard concordance model of cosmology, over 95% of the energy content of the universe is extraordinary- dark matter or dark energy whose existence has been inferred from the failure of the Standard Model of particle physics plus General Relativity to describe the behavior of astrophysical systems larger than a stellar cluster- while the very homogeneity and isotropy (and inhomogeneity) of the universe owe to the influence of an inflaton field whose particle-physics identity is completely mysterious even after three decades of theorizing……testing the cosmological principle should be one of the key goals of modern observational cosmology".
I agree with Drs. Corpi and Huterer, and I can tell you they are far from alone. The Copernican Principle, remarkably successful as it has been, now faces truly dramatic challenges.
September 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm
It seems clear that the physics which works well on local scales cannot simply be assumed in any way to have been established scientifically at larger scales (this should not surprise us- after all Ptolemy worked quite well for centuries, and Newton as well, within the constraints of the era).
admiror: "The first support to heliocentric is parallax, in which a star changes position relative to further stars due to the Earth's motion (one looks at a star at one time of the year and then again much later in the year). This can only happen if the Earth moves."
>> Not so. A simple coordinate shift, with Earth at the center and the Sun and stars orbiting on the plane of the ecliptic (yes, the very same plane discovered to correspond to a universe-wide spanning axis of the CMB, interestingly enough) yields precisely the same observed parallax.
The point is made in here, University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 8:
"It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives. Thus if parallax were observed, a flexible Tychonean could adjust the theory to account for it, without undue complexity. What if parallax were not observed? For Copernicus, one only requires that the stars be far enough away for the parallax to be unmeasurable. Therefore the presence or absence of parallax doesn’t force the choice of one type of model over the other."
admiror: "Another support are observations of planets around other stars. One way in which we've detected planets and learned about them is observing the change in luminosity in a star, caused by an eclipse of the star by the planet. We then use Newtonian gravity and Kepler's equations to learn about the star."
>> This assumes that Earth is in orbit like the other planets, which is to be demonstrated, not assumed, in the present controversy. If Earth were to occupy a position analogous to the barycenter of a gyroscope, then we would observe exactly what you say, but the Earth would not be moving.
This is why the failure to measure the orbit directly was such a huge challenge to physics, and why Relativity had to be adopted. The only other alternative consistent with the observations of the optical experiments would have been a stationary Earth, which was rejected on philosophical, not scientific, grounds.
September 1, 2011 at 5:53 pm
admiror: "Some final points. I talk about Newtonian gravity. This is not an Aristotelean view. The Fathers knew nothing about Newtonian gravity. Their response might be that objects fall because the ground is the proper place for them. Would anyone here also contest Newtonian gravity or anything else in modern science?"
>> Newtonian gravity is utterly devastated by the observations of modern science (see Corpi, Hutere, et al above). Spiral galaxies do not obey Kepler's Laws, and the discrepancy is so vast that a hypothetical, never-observed entity called "dark matter" must be introduced, at the level of 70% of the entire mass of the universe, in order to bridge the gap between observation and theory.
It seems that the true viewpoint of scientists today is that these matters constitute a great challenge to the assumptions of the existing scientific consensus, and that the Copernican Principle itself is now called into question. As Corpi, Huterer, et al state above, we have now reached the point where this principle must be subject to observational test, rather than continued philosophical assumption.
In other words, the solution of Einstein (which incorporates and extends Newton) is now undergoing its collision with large-scale observation, on the scale of the observable universe, and the results are, unsurprisingly, highly suggestive of departures from the predictions of that theory.
admiror: "Further, we should note that the Fathers are NOT infallible."
>> However, a unanimous consensus of the Fathers as to a given interpretation *is* infallible, as Trent defines:
"…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".
Please see my earlier reply to JoAnna for the magisterium’s highest exercise of authority to date on the question of whether the Bible teaches geocentrism.
September 1, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Rick, from the article I linked above:
Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Leo XIII's encyclical, Providentis-sumus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius's quip that the bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy. St. Augustine wrote that:
"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."
And, a quote from the above-referenced encyclical:
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.
September 1, 2011 at 6:25 pm
@Rick,
[ The highest degree of authority exercised so far by the magisterium on the question of geocentrism is found in the Papal Sentence of 1633, which sounds a note rather challenging to modern ears:
"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center 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." ]
First, the decree of 1633 was not a "Papal Sentence". It issued from the Congregation of the Holy Office and never received the Pope's signature. This is an ongoing neo-geocentrist exaggeration. See:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2010/12/alexander-vii-and-speculatores-domus.html
Second, the Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial that canonical penalties must always be read *strictly*, that is, as narrowly and affecting as few people as possible. Reading this decree strictly, we find that the two statements above were *cited* in the 1633 decree, but they were never explicitly *adopted* in that decree. Thus the modern neo-geocentrists unfortunately continue to assert "that Copernicanism had been declared heretical", as Prof. Finocchiaro states, "which was to become one of the most persistent myths in the subsequent controversy" (Retrying Galileo, p. 32).
This is not simply my opinion but was put forward to the cardinals of the Holy Office by the Commissary General of the Holy Office in 1820. He said:
"The censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of 'false and contrary to Sacred Scripture,' as it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo; in it he is attributed the crime of having defended, or at least having represented as probable, an opinion 'after it had been declared and defined contrary to Sacred Scripture.' All the rest is folly." (cited in Retrying Galileo, p. 206).
The ground on which it was declared false and contrary to Sacred Scripture is that the doctrine put forth by Galileo was "absurd and false in philosophy", meaning natural philosophy (the 1633 decree says nothing about the Fathers.) It was so at that time. It no longer is so. And indeed, to assert that Scripture teaches something "absurd and false in philosophy" *is* to assert something contrary to Scripture.
Again, canonical penalties are to be interpreted *strictly*. Galileo held that the sun was the center of the universe and that the sun is immobile, which are key tenets of "the doctrine" which is mentioned by the 1633 decree. Neither of these are held by anyone anymore. So again the Commissary General of the Holy Office:
"One error must be immediately noted in the text of the full title of his [Anfossi’s] 'Motives' (Sum., p. 98): 'One must not allow Settele to teach as a thesis . . . the stability of the sun at the center of the world.' Along with modern astronomers, Settele does not teach that the sun is at the center of the world" (Retrying, 205).
At the very least, the Magisterium sees that this 1633 disciplinary decree against Galileo does not apply to anybody anymore, since nobody even holds the view for he was condemned.
And Leo XIII and Pius XII have laid out the principles, first championed by Sts. Augustine and Thomas, that sacred Scripture cannot be said to err if it uses figurative language or the language of appearances and is not, therefore, asserting anything about the physical nature of the universe.
September 1, 2011 at 6:26 pm
@Rick,
[ This formal and binding act of the ordinary magisterium has certainly been abandoned in practice, but has never been reversed by any similarly authoritative act of the magisterium. ]
Rick, we've been over this. Can you cite any other example of a doctrine that has (allegedly) been declared formally heretical and then "abandoned" by the Magisterium (I mean literally not taught at all) for over three centuries? Every single example that you and others have proposed has proven to be false. See:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2011/06/excessive-geocentric-interest-in-usury.html
The Magisterium does not abandon parts of the deposit of Faith for centuries, while at the same time allowing (and more, even encouraging) contrary views to flourish and spread. That is not compatible with the Church's indefectibility. The fact that geocentrism is your single, utterly isolated alleged example really does suggest that you fellows have read the ecclesiastical evidence wrong.
September 1, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Mr. Palm states:
"Catholics are simply following the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, who enshrined the teaching of the Doctors Augustine and Thomas by stating that, "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.'
>> Is it profitable unto salvation to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that it is forbidden to interpret it in contradiction to a unanimous consensus of the Fathers?
Yes, and yes.
DP: "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" (Providentissimus Deus 18)."
>> The Pope's words are very wise. However, what he says above cannot directly pertain to to our examination of geocentrism or heliocentrism, because In both the heliocentric and geocentric systems, figurative language is necessarily employed- the sun "rises", in *both* systems, only in a figurative sense.
But the magisterium of the Catholic Church, in a formal exercise of its authority, proclaimed in 1633 that Sacred Scripture teaches that the Sun is in motion around a motionless Earth. This proclamation is based explicitly on the authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church's magisterium.
It has never been reversed by any subsequent similar exercise of magisterial authority.
It is certainly completely legitimate for a Catholic seeking to form his or her conscience in accord with the True Faith, to assign a great deal more weight to this fact, than is likely to be found pleasing to the modern intellect, so deeply persuaded that science was right, and the Church wrong, in 1633.
The great service the present debate will serve, if nothing else, is to bring this question into the context of utterly astonishing new physical observations which present us with evidence of a geocentric orientation of the universe on its very largest observable scales.
To suggest that it is somehow established doctrine that Galileo was right, and the Church wrong, in 1633, is dramatically untrue.
September 1, 2011 at 7:16 pm
DP: "This teaching was repeated by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu 3. Pope John Paul II taught that, "the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning."
>> Certainly the details of the physical world are exactly the competence of science. But issues concerning Faith, which also necessarily touch upon science (for example, the question of whether the universe consists in eternally inflating multiverses, or an eternally existing steady state which has no beginning or end- *both* of which are scientific hypotheses, if only to the extent that they are derived as mathematically- consistent solutions to datasets corresponding to physical observations) are the subject of Revelation, and no Catholic is allowed to depart from the Faith once delivered, merely because a given, historically contingent, scientific consensus challenges one or another of its doctrines.
We must rely upon the magisterium to guide us on these questions, which are so difficult especially in this present era, where science has claimed for itself an ever-increasing privilege of encroachment into what were traditionally the domains of metaphysics and theology-see, for example, the recent Stephen Hawking intervention, where the Professor explicitly attempts to employ his scientific credentials in service of a woefully embarrassing metaphysical "argument" that physical laws obviate the need for a Creator- are we to surrender the doctrine of creation ex nihilo now as well, since "the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world"?
Of course not.
Where the Bible touches upon matters pertaining to science, it is exactly as infallible as it is when it addresses any other area. It need not provide the "details" in order for us to hold its assertions as necessarily true, since they have God for their Author.
Given the extremely anomalous nature of the geocentrism controversy, obviously a similar liberty of conscience exists for Catholics honestly striving to form their consciences in complete submission to the Truths of Faith, as has existed in other cases where a given doctrine was subjected to controversy.
The magisterium has not, as of this moment, acted to overturn the papal sentence of 1633, but has given many indications that the question has been undergoing a period of development and discernment.
It is uncharitable in the extreme to suggest that the Catholic geocentrist is somehow uncatholic, simply because he or she believes and holds what the Catholic Church has always believed and held, from the very beginning, as the authentic interpretation of Scripture, at least until very recent times, and certainly what She has taught in her highest exercise of authority on the question to date.
September 2, 2011 at 1:04 am
@Rick,
I wrote:
"Rick, we've been over this. Can you cite any other example of a doctrine that has (allegedly) been declared formally heretical and then "abandoned" by the Magisterium (I mean literally not taught at all) for over three centuries? Every single example that you and others have proposed has proven to be false. See:
http://thepalmhq.blogspot.com/2011/06/excessive-geocentric-interest-in-usury.html
The Magisterium does not abandon parts of the deposit of Faith for centuries, while at the same time allowing (and more, even encouraging) contrary views to flourish and spread. That is not compatible with the Church's indefectibility. The fact that geocentrism is your single, utterly isolated alleged example really does suggest that you fellows have read the ecclesiastical evidence wrong."
I didn't see your answer to this, Rick. Can you provide us with that list of doctrines of the Faith that the Magisterium has "abandoned" and ceased entirely to explicitly teach for more than three centuries, while at the same time not just permitting but actively promoting its corollary which alleged had been condemned as "formal heresy"?
September 2, 2011 at 1:25 am
@Rick,
As I'm sure you agree, it's hard to capture some of the nuances of this debate in these sound bites, but let's have a go here and I'll be following up with details in my ongoing series on neo-geocentrism.
[ But the magisterium of the Catholic Church, in a formal exercise of its authority, proclaimed in 1633 that Sacred Scripture teaches that the Sun is in motion around a motionless Earth. This proclamation is based explicitly on the authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church's magisterium. ]
This is an exaggerated reading of that decree. Reading strictly, that decree speaks of "the doctrine" (note, singular) that includes the proposition "that the Sun is the center of the world [universe] and does not move from east to west". But nobody believes that the sun is the immobile center of the universe. On this basis, among others, the Holy Office ruled in 1822 that at the very least modern cosmological views do not fall under this disciplinary decree and issued permission for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church.
[ To suggest that it is somehow established doctrine that Galileo was right, and the Church wrong, in 1633, is dramatically untrue. ]
What is established is that Catholics are free to hold to non-geocentric views on the motions of celestial bodies. That is all I have ever sought to demonstrate and I have done so.
[ Where the Bible touches upon matters pertaining to science, it is exactly as infallible as it is when it addresses any other area. It need not provide the "details" in order for us to hold its assertions as necessarily true, since they have God for their Author. ]
But if it uses the language of appearances and the author of sacred Scripture does not *intend* to pass on physical details, then it is erroneous both to accuse the author of Scripture of an error (neo-modernist) or to insist that Scripture teaches dogmatically some particulars of celestial motion (neo-geocentrist). Just what example better fits Leo XIII's statement about "more or less figurative language…which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science" than the language of "sun rise", which nobody takes to be erroneous language?
September 2, 2011 at 1:26 am
@Rick,
[ The magisterium has not, as of this moment, acted to overturn the papal sentence of 1633, but has given many indications that the question has been undergoing a period of development and discernment.]
Nonsense. In 1757 the general prohibition against books teaching Copernicanism was removed from the Index. In 1822 the Congregation of the Holy Office (the same Congregation that issued the 1633 decree), with the approval of the Pope, issued a general permission for works espousing non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church. In 1835 in the next edition of the Index the works of Galileo and Copernicus were removed. In 1893 Leo XIII issued the papal encyclical Providentissimum Deus which, as Prof. Finocchiaro says, "on the relationship between Scripture and physical science, the encyclical could be seen to advance Galilean views….It is not surprising that Leo’s encyclical has been widely perceived as the Church’s belated endorsement of the second fundamental belief for which Galileo had originally been condemned, namely that Scripture is not an authority in astronomy. As we shall see in a later chapter, this interpretation was also endorsed by Pope John Paul II in 1979–1992" (Retrying Galileo, pp. 265f.) In 1921 Pope Benedict XV put forth in a papal encyclical that it makes no difference to our Catholic faith if geocentrism has been proven false (a statement that would itself be formally heretical if non-geocentric views had been declared formally heretical by the Magisterium.) In 1943 Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu reaffirmed the principles laid out by Leo XIII. This, of course, is after numerous Catholic works had applied Leo XIII's teaching to the topic of geocentrism. Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have praised Galileo, with John Paul II stating publicly that his condemnation rested upon an "error". What are these "many indications" of which you speak?
September 2, 2011 at 1:29 am
@Rick,
[ It is uncharitable in the extreme to suggest that the Catholic geocentrist is somehow uncatholic, simply because he or she believes and holds what the Catholic Church has always believed and held, from the very beginning, as the authentic interpretation of Scripture, at least until very recent times, and certainly what She has taught in her highest exercise of authority on the question to date. ]
Excuse me? Who has said this? Rick, you know perfectly well that it's the neo-geos who harangue ordinary Catholics as if their faith is somehow defective if they don't hold to geocentrism. Shall I produce the quotes?
I have said repeatedly in my own rebuttals that you are free as a Catholic to hold to geocentrism, as wrong as I personally happen to think that view is in light of the evidence, as long as you equally acknowledge that I am free as a catholic to hold to non-geocentric views with no taint of doctrinal error.
You fellows sound so much like the churchman chided by the Commissary General of the Holy Office in 1820, not realizing that you all but rush headlong into a heresy yourself:
"with your alleged omission of publication, especially in a situation when it was supremely necessary to bring it about, namely on the occasion of the renewal of the Index and the collection of decrees of prohibition, you come along and tell us that “for reasons known to them” they have neglected to acknowledge the truth of the faith. But, Most Rev. Father, this smells a little of the doctrine that some truths are being obscured in the Church, especially on the part of the Holy Apostolic See; and this doctrine is indeed heretical and was condemned as such in the bull Auctorem Fidei, in the first proposition, if I am not mistaken. You know that, for you have defended this bull. So you are in the position of judging yourself by your own principles" (Retrying Galileo, p. 215).
Here's Bob Sungenis from the article cited in the original posting:
"'Heliocentrism becomes dangerous if it is being propped up as the true system when, in fact, it is a false system,' said Robert Sungenis, leader of a budding movement to get scientists to reconsider. 'False information leads to false ideas, and false ideas lead to illicit and immoral actions — thus the state of the world today.'"
And here is the proposition condemned in Auctorem Fidei is as follows:
And yet the Magisterium has allowed and even encouraged the spread of non-geocentric views.
"1. The proposition, which asserts "that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ,"—heretical."
Only a strict canonical interpretation will save these neo-geos from falling under that formal condemnation, the very strict interpretation that they deny to others with respect to the decree of 1633.
September 2, 2011 at 3:58 am
DP: "As I'm sure you agree, it's hard to capture some of the nuances of this debate in these sound bites, but let's have a go here and I'll be following up with details in my ongoing series on neo-geocentrism."
>> I agree that the discussion is probably headed toward a more accommodative forum than a combox, but I will address some points that have not been covered previously in my posts to you available at galileowaswrong.blogspot.com– and maybe even one or two that have.
RD: [ But the magisterium of the Catholic Church, in a formal exercise of its authority, proclaimed in 1633 that Sacred Scripture teaches that the Sun is in motion around a motionless Earth. This proclamation is based explicitly on the authoritative interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Catholic Church's magisterium. ]
This is an exaggerated reading of that decree.
>> To the contrary, your dismissal of its magisterial authority is instead an exaggerated derogation of it.
(This, by the way, constitutes the essential point of disagreement between us. I consider the formal disciplinary act of the curial dicastery expressly charged with the defense of the doctrinal purity of the Faith- what would today be called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith- in the 1633 sentence, to manifestly exhibit greater magisterial authority than a decision concerning the Index, or a papal allocution to a body of scientists. I do, however, ascribe due consideration to these latter acts, and interpret them, in the end, precisely as you *say* you do- to wit; that Catholics today enjoy liberty of conscience on the question of geocentrism. But you surely knew that already, since I expressly advanced that conclusion in my response to you many months back, and you acknowledged this on your own blog).
DP: "Reading strictly, that decree speaks of "the doctrine" (note, singular) that includes the proposition "that the Sun is the center of the world [universe] and does not move from east to west". But nobody believes that the sun is the immobile center of the universe.
>> That is well, since the Church's condemnation of the doctrine (note, singular; that is to say, the doctrine of “heliocentrism”) occurred at a time when a very great many people- especially among prominent natural philosophers of the time such as Galileo, Kepler, and Newton- *did* believe it. In fact, the Church's condemnation was prophetic, since it was only much later that science determined through direct observation that the Sun was in fact *not* motionless, and hence, *not* the center of the universe.
September 2, 2011 at 4:01 am
DP: "On this basis, among others, the Holy Office ruled in 1822 that at the very least modern cosmological views do not fall under this disciplinary decree and issued permission for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church."
>> The imprimatur granted in 1822 does not constitute a reversal of the Holy Inquisition’s decree of 1633, first because it does not represent an action of comparable magisterial authority, and second, because, as Father Coyne notes in his “Galileo and the Church”, the imprimatur was granted on false grounds: it was argued that since Copernicus’ system contained epicycles, that was the basis of the condemnation. It wasn’t. The condemnation makes no mention of epicycles anywhere. Imprimaturs have many times been granted to highly problematic works- a recent notable example being the infamous USCCB Adult Catechism of 2007, in which the false claim “therefore the covenant God made with the Jews through Moses remains eternally valid for them” similarly received an imprimatur.
Examples could be multiplied, but the essential point remains: a formal decision of the Holy Office is not reversed by a granting of an imprimatur. Just ask the author of “Christ Among Us”.
RD: [ To suggest that it is somehow established doctrine that Galileo was right, and the Church wrong, in 1633, is dramatically untrue. ]
DP: What is established is that Catholics are free to hold to non-geocentric views on the motions of celestial bodies. That is all I have ever sought to demonstrate and I have done so.
>>Since I have explicitly and repeatedly advanced precisely the same conclusion- and since you yourself have acknowledged this on your own blog- I think we have come to the logical conclusion of our business on this point- again. 🙂