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. A
Answer: 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.
Two points to consider:
1. The ordinary magisterium can be fallible, depending on the circuмstances. It is only infallible if it teaches "what has always been taught" and if its teachings are "consistent and in union with the whole of Tradition". So, to say that the ordinary magisterium erred is possible.
On the 5th March 1616, the Congregation of the Index published the following condemnation, under orders from Pope Paul V:
‘Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the Earth and the immobility of the sun....
We see here above that Galileo's heresy is referred to as 'the false Pythagorean doctrine.' As we know from history, the Church Fathers condemned Pythagoreanism for 500 years after Christ. In 1600 the Church again condemned Bruno for these heliocentric heresies. Galileo's heresy was described in 1616 as a continuation of the Pythagorean heresy. Therefore infallibility will apply to the 1616 decree as it was "consistent and in union with the whole of Tradition."
The term 'infallible' was not in use before Vatican I. The 1616 decree was deemed 'irreversible' by Pope Urban VIII in 1633. In 1820, the 1616 decree was again admitted by the Holy Office to be 'irreversible.' Now a papal decree that is 'irreversible' cannot be reversed, can it? How then could an irreversible decree be reversed?
2. A legal matter (i.e. related to canon law) is not necessarily a matter of faith and morals. A canonical decision being admitted as an error, has nothing to do with faith and morals, therefore it has nothing to do with doctrine and infallibility (infallibility ONLY relates to matters of faith and morals, nothing else).
In 1765, Joseph Lalande (1732-1897), the famous French astronomer, while on business in Rome at the time, approached the head of the Congregation of the Index in the hope that the Holy Office would remove Galileo’s Dialogo from it, one of the five remaining prohibited books on the Index. Given, he said, that in 1758 they had removed the general ban on other books touching on the subject of heliocentrism, then why not those remaining on the Index. He, like others at the time of Pope Clement XIII’s (1758-1769) reign, interpreted the removal of the wider-ranging ban from the Index by Pope Benedict XIV in 1758 as a retreat from the 1616-1640 decrees. Here is Finocchiaro’s account of what happened:
‘But he was told by the head of the Congregation of the Index that Galileo’s case was different because it involved a trial, and so one would first have to revoke the sentence pronounced against him; he was also told that the just-deceased Pope Clement XIII had been inclined to move in that direction. Lanande did not have the opportunity to pursue the matter.’--- Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.154.
A pope ‘inclined’ and a pope not doing are two different things so no comment is necessary. There was no retrial, ever.
Interesting that the 1981-1992 papal commission on the Galileo case nerver once referred to the 1616 decree but only to the 1633 trial condemnations. Here is what John Paul II told the world;
‘Cardinal Poupard has reminded us that the sentence of 1633 was not irreformable, and that the debate, which had not ceased to evolve thereafter, was closed in 1820 with the imprimatur given to the work of Cannon Settele.’ --- Pope John Paul II.
Here we find another conjuring trick, no retrial, yet they considered the sentence 'reformed' by way of imprimatur. Boy I would love to get that lot in court.
Now, I think we would all agree that geocentrism IS a matter of faith and morals, to a degree. However, depending on the framing of the legal question that the Church was answering related to Galileo, Her decision might not have been a STRICTLY faith/morals question. Therefore, the canonical decision could've been an error and admitting this in no way diminishes her ordinary magisterium nor any doctrine.
Cardinal Bellarmine and the popes confirmed it was a matter of faith, compared to the virgin birth, given that both were revealed by the Word of God in His Scriptures. There is no point in speculating any further now that it is known the decree of 1616 was never proven wrong in any way. The Church of 1616, 1633, 1664 and 1820 confirmed its definition of formal heresy was absolute. It was only when churchmen fell for the lies of reason did the Galileo case become the subject of theological and canonical speculation and fraud, yes fraud, all trying to find a way out of their illusion that the decree had been found to be an error. By all means the points above may be valid, but can no longer be used to doubt the 'irreversibility' of the 1616 decree.
Very interesting GlasG4e, having rejected the astronomy of the senses, Leo XIII sets up an observatory to continue the work of the Pythagorean heretics under the guise of 'astronomy.', for that is what it did.
Two years later, 1893, the Pope produced Providentissimus Deus.
But then came a paragraph in Pope Leo XIII’s instructions reminiscent of the type of thing Galileo wrote in 1615 when he was attempting to convince all how to interpret the Scriptures heliocentrically. Galileo wrote:
‘Galileo: From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that, since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended in a plane, nor whether the Earth is located at its center or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or rest of the Earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls.’--- Galileo’s Letter to Christina, 1615.
Now let us see what Providentissimus Deus said next:
’18: 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.” (St Augustine) 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,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to [Like ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’?]. The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Hence, in their interpretations, we must carefully note what they lay down as belonging to faith, or as intimately connected with faith, what they are unanimous in. For “in those things which do not come under the obligation of faith, the Saints were at liberty to hold divergent opinions, just as we ourselves are,” according to the saying of St. Thomas Aquinas. And in another place he says most admirably: “When philosophers are agreed upon a point, and it is not contrary to our faith, it is safer, in my opinion, neither to lay down such a point as a dogma of faith, even though it is perhaps so presented by the philosophers, nor to reject it as against faith, lest we thus give to the wise of this world an occasion of despising our faith.” The Catholic interpreter, although he should show that those facts of natural science which investigators affirm to be now quite certain are not contrary to the Scripture rightly explained, must nevertheless always bear in mind, that much which has been held and proved as certain has afterwards been called in question and rejected.’
The above was so worded that it was seized by the Catholic (and Protestant) world who used it to support a Galilean exegesis and hermeneutics, a conclusion found everywhere throughout the years after it.
‘Similarly, “the sun stood still,” like our “the sun rises,” is a popular method of speaking, and involves the fact that in some way or another – and various ways have been suggested – God Almighty did prolong the hours of light in the case of Joshua; certainly does not necessarily involve inferences which churchmen of the time of Galileo unwisely read into the statement. They, as we have seen, were men of their own time and not in front of it, and they fell into the errors natural to what figured in those days of science. But we should be careful to make use of the better guidance which we have obtained in such utterances as the “Providentissimus Deus” and avoid the mistakes which we can see our predecessors have made and which, indeed, it would have been exceedingly difficult for them to have avoided.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)
‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn2)
‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn3)
‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul II’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn4)
‘On the other hand Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn5)
Galileo’s views on the interpretation of scripture were fundamentally derived from St Augustine; but his restatement and development of Augustine’s teaching were destined to be influential in the future. Galileo’s views, expounded in the Letter to Castelli and his Letter to Christina and elsewhere, are in fact close to those expounded three centuries later by Pope Leo XIII, who in his encyclical on the divine inspiration of Holy Scripture [Providentissimus Deus], declared….’ [6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn6)
‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn7)
‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus 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.’[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn8)
‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’[9] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn9)
‘To excite Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm) students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm).’[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn10)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, 1920, p.81.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref2) James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref3) E.C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931.
[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref4) D. A. Crombie’s ‘A History of Science from Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, 1996, p.225.
[5] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref5) J.T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.
[6] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref6) Cardinal Cathal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, 2004, p.68.
[7] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref7) M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, 2007, p.264.
[8] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref8) Catholics United for the Faith - Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded to help the faithful learn what the Catholic Church teaches, 2010. (http://www.cuf.org/)
[9] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref9) Vatican Observatory website 2013.
[10] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref10) Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013.
Consider all the above in the light that heliocentrism WaS NEVER PROVEN RIGHT, NOR THE 1616 DECREE PROVEN WRONG, and you will witness Catholicism falling under the spell of intellectual pride and the Galilean REFORMATION.