I'm curious if those who support Geocentrism find it a necessary theory is due to their understanding/interpretation of Holy Writ.

In other words, is Geocentrism, in your view, something Christians have a duty to believe based on Holy Scripture.

From the very beginning the immediate problem with this thread is the red herring...the equivalence of the Earth's lack of motion with its location...an Earth that is at rest/immobile/akinetic in the universe, as Scripture describes, with geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is at the center of the universe.
This strawman is intended to divert and confuse the dialogue...an indication that its source is the prince of deception and the father of lies.  

FIRST ERROR: Earth's immobility as defined in Scripture is geofixic (fixus, Latin, at rest ,immobile), which became conflated with geocentric by semantic drift at the time of Copernicus and Galileo. Unless the meaning of 'center' in geocentrism is defined,  geocentrism's discussion is vanity of vanities.  

GeoFixic verses:
1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.
Psalm 19:6: It [the sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.
Psalm 93:1: The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.
Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
Genesis 15:12 And when the sun was GOING DOWN...15:17 ...the sun WENT DOWN...19:23 The sun was RISEN UPON THE EARTH...28:11 ...the sun was SET...32:31 ...the sun ROSE upon him
Exodus 22:3 If the sun be RISEN upon him...22:26 ...the sun goeth DOWN:
Leviticus 22:7 And when the sun is DOWN...
Numbers 2:3 And on the east side toward the RISING of the sun
Deuteronomy 11:30 ...by the way where the sun goeth DOWN 23:11 ...when the sun is DOWN...24:13 ...when the sun GOETH DOWN...24:15 At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go DOWN upon it...
Judges 5:31 ...but let them that love him be as the sun when he GOETH FORTH in his might. 8:13 And Gideon the son of Joash returned from battle before the sun was UP, 9:33 And it shall be, that in the morning, as soon as the sun is UP..14:18 And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day beforethe sun WENT DOWN...19:14 ...the sun went down upon them
2 Samuel 2:24 ...the sun WENT DOWN...3:35 ...till the sun be DOWN.23:4 ...when the SUN RISETH...
2 Chronicles 18:34 the time of the sun GOING DOWN he died.
Psalms 50:1 ...RISING of the sun unto the GOING DOWN thereof. 104:19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his GOING DOWN. 104:22 The sun ARISETH...113:3 From the RISING of the sun unto THE GOING DOWN of the same the LORD's name is to be praised.
Isaiah 38:8 ...So the sun RETURNED ten degrees, by which degrees it was GONE DOWN. 41:25 from the RISING of the sun 60:20 Thy sun shall no more GO DOWN; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself...
Jeremiah 15:9 her sun is GONE DOWN...
Daniel 6:14 ...he laboured till the GOING DOWN of the sun to deliver him.
Amos 8:9 I will cause the sun TO GO DOWN at noon...
Jonah 4:8 And it came to pass, when the sun did ARISE...
Micah 3:6 the sun shall GO DOWN over the prophets...
Nahum 3:17 ...when the sun ARISETH...
Habakkuk 3:11 The sun and moon STOOD STILL in their habitation...
Malachi 1:11 For from the RISING of the sun even unto the GOING DOWN of the same 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness ARISE with healing in his wings...
Matthew 5:45 ...he maketh his sun to RISE...
Mark 1:32 And at even, when the sun did SET...
Luke 4:40 Now when the sun was SETTING...
Ephesians 4:26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun GO DOWN upon your wrath:
James 1:11 For the sun is no sooner RISEN...
All say the Sun moves or the Earth does not...

ERROR 2 ..some read that the Bible says the Sun is at rest:  
Nowhere is this true.
Joshua 10:12-13: On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
Joshua's long day is in fact the miraculous exception(Sun at rest) that proves the rule(Sun is kinetic).

2 Kings 20:9 Isaiah said, "This shall be the sign to you from the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that He has spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten steps or go back ten steps?" 10-So Hezekiah answered, "It is easy for the shadow to decline ten steps; no, but let the shadow turn backward ten steps."…
Hezekiah's shadow reversing ten steps implies motion is its  normal course, not rest.  

No need for the Magisterium here..with a literal reading and rational exegesis the meaning is transparent.

ERROR 3: The necessity of belief depends on the knowledge of the geofixic verses. Ignorance of the existence or the meaning of the GF verses cannot have salvific import, any more than can ignorance of Baptism.
But those who are cognizant of the GF verse content are bound by the inerrancy dogma to accept that geofixism is true, despite what mainstreeam science or any other source believes.
"To whom much is given, much is expected."
The adviser to Popes and Defender of the Faith, St and DC Roberto Bellarmino stated clearly that what is believed in a non-religious or secular context - like scientific and mathematical heliocentric models - can be freely believed or not, but what is described in the Bible - anywhere - must be accepted as true.  Else, the failure of one part questions all.
"Man does not live on bread alone, but on EVERY word from the mouth of God."  
Once the Bible is recognized as geofixed, the reader is bound to neither deny nor ignore geofixism.  

ERROR 4: Very prevalent in this forum is a misunderstanding of a most precious gift of God - the Magisterial interpretation of the deposit of faith handed down through the centuries via the Spirit of God.
The Magisterial gatekeepers are three:
Concerning matters of faith and morals,
The Pope acting alone, ex cathedra
The bishops acting collectively in union with the Pope
The unanimous belief of the Church Fathers.
Not the saints, no matter how holy or revered, not bishops separately from the Pope, not local parish priests, no matter how beloved....
No one else.

ERROR 5: Without the Magisterium the protestant exegesis of self-interpretation and aliteralism destroys Scriptural inerrancy.
One position is that we couldn't understand relative motion, that celestial rotations are only apparent and not real. So the Bible uses phenomenal language to agree with the cosmic kinetic appearances, because of our ignorance. So the earth moves, not the heavens.
The modernistas are quite willing to say that God lied to us because of our ignorance, because we can't understand relative motion...incredibile dictu!  
Further, if God is the source of our intellect, why would He neglect giving us the ability to understand His words and yet be bound by them?
 
Prots slice and dice the Bible into parts they choose to believe and parts they don't....because it fits their lifestyle and Weltanschauung.... .
Whole sections are questioned for veracity if self-designated as 'not relevant to salvation'...btw: also a liberal argument for Vat II obscurantism.
Or...
Poetry is emotional so not true!  
So...
God is love
Love is an emotion
Emotions are false
Ergo: God is false!

What about parables?  They may be true stories or not, or some combo of T/F. It's human nature to use fiction to make a moral point, but divine nature never lies (as would be the case if Scripture said the Earth moves).
This exposes the deep mystery of the God-man and the Trinity, most evident when the divine Christ says, "The Father and I are one", and another time, as human, "The Father is greater than I".

All of Holy Writ is true..... category partitions are just arbitrary classifications of content...science, philosophy, poetry. Understanding of the deposit of faith is not a matter of personal interpretation but defined by the Magisterium.

ERROR 6:  Mainstream science in its darkness proclaims that relativity has proven that geofixism is invalid.
Well, the relativity of motion principle holds that any observer can do physics...that is, apply the laws of dynamics to predict future motion.  
Since this includes an earth observer, the statement is self-contradicting.
Choosing to always use an earth observer is geofixism.

Now we can return to the original issue...
Is Geocentrism something Christians have a duty to believe based on Holy Scripture?
As GC is undefined the first correction is to replace GC with GF ... a universe with a fixed immobile Earth.
Next replace 'have a duty to'  with this;
Is GeoFixism something Christians commit a sin by denying or ignoring, based on Holy Scripture?
A mortal sin must
1- be a serious matter.....Inerrancy of the Bible?...you betcha.
2- have full knowledge of the matter by the intellect; that is,
a- all Biblical verses support GF; none deny GF
b- inerrancy of all content of Revelation is dogmatic
c- denial of GF is a serious sin
no knowledge => no sin
partial knowledge=> venial
3- have full consent of the will
denial of GF  based on 2a,b,c
Realistically ..only a small trad remnant even know that GF involves inerrancy of the Word of God and that 2a,b,c are true.
For those few that do, denial in invincible ignorance is mortal and heretical.
Thanks to current liberal catechesis and apologetics virtually all the faithful are immune from sin in their blissful ignorance.  
And so...the majority's vote that a fixed Earth is unnecessary to believe would be expected of any random secular poll....  just as a majority of catholics voted for Obama ...and probably will vote for Hillary.

For a couple of thousand years, up until the beginnings of modern science, everyone believed that the Sun went around a stationary Earth, and thought that that was what the Bible was saying. This includes a component of the Magisterium, the Church Fathers.  
 

With the errors in the beginning, by not defining terms and common ground, no wonder demonogenic confusion - like the Flat Earth diversion  - reigns throughout these pages.  


Truth forever on the gallows,
Lies forever on the throne.

AMDG

.... If the evidence for the position of the Earth in our universe is shown to be in one place, or another, it has absolutely no effect on our understanding and belief of Holy Scripture. ........
It would be a heresy, in my opinion, to think that geocentrism is a required belief of Catholics. I remember St. Thomas Aquinas speaking on this point specifically (but I can't remember where right now). He said (something to the effect of:), that if our understanding of the cosmos would have changed, which it very well may do, it would not have any affect on our Faith at all.

Position is not the issue in Scripture...absence of motion is.

GeoFixism, not GC, is a required belief for all Catholics with a fully-formed conscience.

St. Thomas (RIP) is not the Magisterium.  He did not believe in the Immaculate Conception, a dogma declared 150 years ago. btw: would appreciate a fact-checking link to his statement.

..... Whatever position I have the most evidence for, I'll adopt.

The GeoFixed verses were given in a prior post.  Science has no counter-proof that the Earth moves.
So....what position will you now adopt?

Well the Church did condemn heliocentrism as a heresy, some say infallibly. Then the Church later accepted heliocentrism, ane even taught it in their Catechisms (heliocentrism is taught in the Baltimore Catechism which I just reread). So I can understand Catholics holding both positions. ...

"the Church"  = ?
Specifically, the MAGISTERIUM did condemn heliocentrism as a heresy... infallibly.
In disputes of doctrine on this forum one rarely sees the Magisterium cited....  Why not?  

The Church accepted HC as a mathematical model simplifying understanding of cosmic motions but the MAGISTERIUM condemned HC as a heresy, when taken as reality.
E.g., the relative acceleration of a free-falling man is the same whether measured from the ground or by the man.  But only the man is really accelerating, not the Earth.

The Baltimore Catechism is a minor catechism - approved by the local ordinary.  When not in conflict with the Magisterium, the BC is a useful catechesis tool...but the BC is not the Magisterium.

.... Dogmatic truth is clear, defined and undeniable (in the sense that if one wishes to remain Catholic, one is unable to deny defined dogma (and doctrine for that matter)).
.....  St. Thomas said he would have no problem with it[GC or GF?] ..... Certainly holy popes and other holy and studied men seemed to have no problem with it. If they did, they didn't say as much, so I'm going to take their lack of controversy on the matter as a de facto acceptance, which I think fair.

So... Biblical inerrancy is clear, defined and undeniable.

Everyone had no problem with GF until 5 centuries ago.  After that HC was seemingly given baptism (as a secular belief of science). So no surprise that the GC or GF debate was pushed into the background.
But certainly the reasoning cannot be to accept as true what is not controversial...the logical fallacy of the majority rule.

Is Geocentrism Necessary to the Faith

In other words: Is a geocentric reading of Scripture necessary for the Catholic faith.


Throughout the drift into Modernism or neo-Gnosticism as it could be called, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a pope, bishop, priest or layperson thereafter saw the condemned heresy of a fixed sun at the centre of the universe or a moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their Catholic faith. This is because Galileo’s heresy undermined the basis of the faith like dry rot in a cathedral, invisible and unnoticed by those worshipping in the pews. The nature of this subversion had to be planned in hell, for unlike other heresies, its subject matter was one that seemed to be confined to the mere physical order as ascertained by science, one that seemed to have no consequence to Catholic belief, and yet it did more damage to the faith of millions thereafter as it affected Scripture, Scholastic philosophy and the credibility of the Church’s dogma of infallibility.

 "As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind." --- Teilhard de Chardin.

Seriously? "terrestrial life is not centred on mankind"? What's it centered on? Polar bears and dolphins? Amoebas? Quantum foam?

Pretty much - if you believe what the World Wildlife Federation tells you.

 

...I lived my whole life a trad and never heard of Geo/Helio until it was brought up on CI a while ago, I'm reasonably sure I know a lot of trads over the years who never heard of it either, many have long since died and we pray for them as members of the faithful departed - and I dare say that I highly doubt any of them were judged on whether or not they believed the earth is flat or not or whether the universe orbits around the sun.

They would presumably not be held to account for their incomplete catechesis, if not intentional or born of indolence.
But not so for you...Now the door to truth has been opened; it cannot now be closed.

....Not that it wasn't ever discussed, I just don't recall anyone pulling out their catechism or some Church Declaration/Dogma  to prove one way or the other. I've been under the presumption that this matter was up for discussion, more or less.

P.S. I thought that the main transgression of Galileo was not what he was teaching necessarily,  it was that he put science above the teachings of the Church. Comments welcome on this, please.

- Perhaps your discussions should begin...and end....with  Magisterial sources?

- What Galileo said re HC was inconsistent over time...not a way to charm or convince the Holy Office.  But basically he treated HC as reality, not as a calculational or conceptual aid in predicting cosmic motions.
...

from Pope Benedict XV's encyclical In Praeclara Summorum:

"...... though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, ...."

Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that something else than geocentrism might be true. Also, the heliocentric work were removed from the Index of Forbidden Books during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XIV, and Pope Pius VII approved printing books on movement of earth in Rome.

While I'm not opposed to geocentrism (I simply don't know, I have not studied the topic and evidence properly), it seems that the Church has not settled the matter yet.  

re center of the universe...
center....noun
1. the middle point of a circle or sphere, equidistant from every point on the circuмference or surface....the geometrical/mathematical meaning
2. the point from which an activity or process is directed, ....the active mode
3. the point upon which an activity or process is focused,    .....the passive mode

Re the quote from Pope Benedict XV ...   which of the 3 meanings of center was intended?   And what prior time was he referring to .... pre or post Copernicus?  The Pope may be questioning the Copernican meaning, #1, or the Biblical one, #3.  
Does any meaning of 'center' include or imply that the center is fixed and immobile?
'Center' does not appear in the D-R Bible but is a outcome of the focus on cosmic motion in the 16th century.
 
Books taken off the Index by both popes did not promote HC as reality, as least not explicitly.

Re proper evidence: Cassini has given necessary and sufficient apologetics re GC for all forum readers to understand the GC issues and reasons for belief ... After awareness comes an act of the will.... accept GC or reject it..... but remember the luke-warm Laodiceans.

Maybe the Church(=?) hasn't settled the GC issue yet, but the Magisterium has.

I don't imagine there are any geocentrists who believe in the Big Bang. It would seem like a clear contradiction in terms would it not? On the other hand, the vast majority of heliocentrists, including Christian ones appear to believe in the Big Bang.

Only a remnant of the traditional/true faith remains in the Church today...and that number is shrinking.
The Special Creationists base their belief on a literal Genesis, while GFs are founded on the literal verses concerning motion of celestial objects found throughout the Bible. Both proclaim Biblical inerrancy. Yet many Creationists reject GeoFixism because they subscribe to main-stream scientific errors, claim they have enough trouble contending with Darwinists, or don't want association with modern pariahs greater than themselves.  

Quote from: cassini

"As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind." --- Teilhard de Chardin.

Where did heretic De Chardin write this?

Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38.

Quote from: Stubborn

...I lived my whole life a trad and never heard of Geo/Helio until it was brought up on CI a while ago, I'm reasonably sure I know a lot of trads over the years who never heard of it either, many have long since died and we pray for them as members of the faithful departed - and I dare say that I highly doubt any of them were judged on whether or not they believed the earth is flat or not or whether the universe orbits around the sun.

They would presumably not be held to account for their incomplete catechesis, if not intentional or born of indolence.
But not so for you...Now the door to truth has been opened; it cannot now be closed.

Quote from: St Ignatius

....Not that it wasn't ever discussed, I just don't recall anyone pulling out their catechism or some Church Declaration/Dogma  to prove one way or the other. I've been under the presumption that this matter was up for discussion, more or less.

P.S. I thought that the main transgression of Galileo was not what he was teaching necessarily,  it was that he put science above the teachings of the Church. Comments welcome on this, please.

-

The first point Cassandar is most interesting. I have written on it before and you are the only one who recognise it. I have been banned from Catholic forums for discussing the heresy of popes and Catholics from 1741 who may have accepted heliocentrism as a truth and as the correct reading of Scripture. I gave sedevacantists a way-out of a dilemma for them by stating that there is culpable and Inculpable Ignorance, that is formal heresy and material heresy.

There is no doubt not one pope since 1741 committed formal heresy in this matter. They were totally convinced that heliocentrism was proven scientifically and geocentrism falsified. Thus their heresy was material, that is no real heresy at all. “Forgive them Father for they know not what they do!” as Jesus said from the Cross.

Now from 1905 the world of science has admitted H was never proven nor G falsified. Relative motion was the best science could offer, with H & G only scientific possibilities. Now, as Cassander says, choosing to reject the 1616 decree (H is heresy) cannot be done in ignorance (material heresy) any more, having been informed of the truth. Perhaps if one were to start the poll again some may want to change their mind.

But why did Churchmen continue 'accepting' heliocentrism and the error that the 1616 decree had been falsified after 1905? Was there not one Catholic alive who understood the significance of science's admission?

Here is an opinion on this aspect of the matter;

Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Church of the seventeenth century was not doctrinally or scientifically mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of Rome and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for the Catholic Church in so many spheres after three centuries of ridicule if this was made public. Alas, that message has already been rejected by the vast majority of Catholics aware of it, both shepherds and sheep. For two hundred and sixty years Catholics have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun and made share in the ‘embarrassment’ and shameful ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their Church, their predecessors, once defended a biblical fixed earth and moving sun while condemning Galileo for denying this definition. This of course meant nearly all Catholics had to support the magic, consensus and canonical contradiction that went with that U-turn and of course the popes involved. It was to the Galileans in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining the ‘scientific’ image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived lost face after the infamous Galileo case. Not for them the traditional account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote out of context when it suits them. Today’s Genesis must also be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in their eyes too. They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using that authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary obedience, the new wholesale ignorance and a propaganda machine second to none to have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ they say, when it is they, not the Church, that needs the obscurantism and consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Church in this matter more than their pride in ‘scientific’ knowledge.

happenby said:
 
...  there are very reasonable flat earth explanations for them but delving further belongs to those interested, since I cannot expect to reach anyone unwilling to do their own research.  I did provide one proof in the form of a link to a very short video destroying the notion that distant ships fall below the horizon on a globe.  Unquestionably debunked.
.
Cassandar said:

An interesting assertion.  No FE evidence will be provided because no one does research ...
Maybe no one accepts the inconsistent premises that clearly contradict reality....

..speaking of debunking... the floating ships on the horiizon, beyond the curvature horizon, are well- known optical effects of temperature inversion. A layer of warm air over a cold one bends the light path(refraction) to form images that aree beyond the horizon.


Bahahaha! Not a prayer. Temperature inversion? Warm air over cold? Smoke and mirrors? What rock did you dig this up from under? It has long ago been proven by many (including me) in every condition imaginable that ships that seemingly disappear great distances from a viewer have not disappeared behind the curve, rather, cameras zooming in prove ships to be visible on the horizon long after they "disappear". Without the help of the camera, it is ASSUMED the ship went below the curve because the unaided eye is unable to see it beyond a certain point. This is the kind of easy to find information you should check first before attempting to discuss something like flat earth.