Let us now examine some of Fr Robinson’s thinking:
Fr Robinson answers questions.Question: Have you heard about Mr. Robert Sungenis? He is a Catholic who holds Geocentric position. AAnswer: I criticize Robert Sungenis in chapter 7 of my book. First criticism: he does not interpret the Bible as a Catholic. He makes geocentrism a theological question; in the mind of the Church, it is purely a scientific question.
Robert Sungenis was not the one who made geocentrism a theological matter, it was St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615, agreed to by Pope Paul V.
‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the Earth, and that the Earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’
Fr Robinson regurgitates the position taken up by Catholics after they fell for Satan’s ‘reasoning’ and abandoned the faith of all the Fathers of the Church. What we have here is Fr. Robinson thinking he has a better understanding of theology that one of the greatest Catholic minds in the history of the Church.
Fr Robinson: ‘Second criticism: he does not accept the very solid empirical evidence available in support of heliocentrism. Thus, for instance, he did not give Ken Cole the $1000 that he promised when Ken Cole refuted his position: he does not do science properly. He does not take empirical evidence and show how it supports geocentrism. Rather, he a) pokes holes in modern scientific theory; b) proposes that the geocentric model is plausible without providing real data to prove that the earth is actually at the center of the universe. In short, I don't trust Mr. Sungenis on the side of theology or on the side of science.
Here above Fr Robinson talks about evidence for heliocentrism and the lack of evidence for geocentrism. Now this scholar priest, who sides with Einstein, should know that there is no such thing as proof for either geocentrism nor heliocentrism.
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ -- Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18
Question: Does your position represent the position of Society of St. Pius X?
Answer: The SSPX does not hold official positions on science. The SSPX is a Catholic organization that holds to all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, full stop. But the Catholic Church has never mandated that Catholics hold to geocentrism or heliocentrism, or that they hold to the Big Bang Theory or any other theory. What I do in my book is try to indicate to Catholics what questions are theological and what questions are scientific. Then, on the scientific questions, I try to indicate what opinions correspond to realism and which do not. Heliocentrism and the Big Bang Theory (which allows for God and even points to God) correspond to realism and so a proper prudential intellectual judgment. Neo-Darwinian evolution, in large part, does not correspond to realism.
‘But the Catholic Church has never mandated that Catholics hold to geocentrism or heliocentrism,’ Fr Robinson says. Well now, what was all this about then: The Vatican records tell us that on Wednesday, February 24th 1616, in virtue of the Pope’s order, the Index disclosed the outcome of its investigation in the following manner: (1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” --- First publicly recorded by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644.
In other words Fr Robinson is suggesting the following:‘1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe…..
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science. [Already condemned in Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus]
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See….
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
If any of the above were true, Catholicism as a divinely guided religion is false.
Topic: Let us not forget Fr Robinson's (SSPX) pagan cosmology (Read 5293 times)