I, for one, do not believe this. 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. I believe that many Traditional Catholics have come to be influenced in how they interpret the Bible by many fundamentalist Protestants who erroneously interpret the bible in a literalist sense. This approach is foreign to the Church, and should be sternly rejected and condemned.

The Catholic approach, is the literal interpretation of Scripture. Reading Scripture with the understanding of the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. Independent of Science- which can err- we can place our confidence in the passages of the Bible regarding the Earth. 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.

Even so, the Church is in eclipse. With the state of things now, planetary orbits should be the LEAST of one's concerns. I have no opinion either way on geocentricism vs heliocentrism. Whatever position I have the most evidence for, I'll adopt.

Those are also my sentiments.

Truth is truth.

Jesus Christ is the truth.

If one denies just ONE SINGLE Catholic dogma, he is a condemned heretic and he will find himself in Hell for eternity unless he repents.

So apparently truths hang together, and removal of one truth unravels many others.

I believe that you either LOVE the truth, and you want all truth, or you are apathetic, in which case you might not be so adept or successful at reaching the truth about Catholic things as well. Especially in a time of Crisis like we live in today.

So I believe all truths are important -- at least those which touch on the Faith.

Which baseball player made the most home runs last year I don't care about, because that is trivial. It doesn't matter.

Who did 9/11, however, most certainly matters. The issue of 9/11 and the War on Terror touches on the government, tyranny, the Jєωιѕн question, and my own freedom.

Likewise, the truth about Geocentrism touches on science, religion, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, God, and creation. I'd call that pretty important.

I believe that many Traditional Catholics have come to be influenced in how they interpret the Bible by many fundamentalist Protestants who erroneously interpret the bible in a literalist sense. This approach is foreign to the Church, and should be sternly rejected and condemned.

This is a load of malarkey.

Quoting Salza:

When interpreted literally, the Scriptures teach us that the earth does not move. Should we interpret the Scriptures literally? The Catholic Church, having adopted the rule of St. Augustine, teaches “not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires; a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.” Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, No. 15, 1893.  This was affirmed by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, No. 36, 1950.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 116, also says: “The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."


In other words, we are to interpret the Scriptures literally unless there is a compelling reason to interpret them otherwise.  This is why the Church interprets literally, for example, Matt. 16:18 (Peter is the rock); Matt. 19:9 (remarriage after divorce is adultery); Matt. 26:26-28 (“this is my body”); John 6:51-58 (“eat my flesh”; “drink my blood”); John 3:5 (born of water means baptism); John 20:23 (“whose sins you forgive are forgiven”); 1 Peter 3:21 (“baptism saves you”); and James 5:14-15 (“anoint the sick with oil to save them and forgive their sins”).


We must also remember that the Scriptures were dictated to the sacred writers by the Holy Ghost. Thus, we take God’s Word for what it says, for He is the author of Scripture. There does not seem to be a compelling reason to depart from the literal and obvious sense of the following Scriptures which teach, both implicitly and explicitly, that the earth does not move.

I think it is de fide because it is in the Bible.

We are obligated to believe it.

We are to, in all circuмstances, firstly interpret the Bible literally.

Therefore, either you beilieve the Bible to be the INERRANT Word of God, or you don't. You cannot make an exception for this subject. No matter what "science" says.

If you do, you have replaced your God with "science."

That is exactly what I agree with. Did you read the link I posted? Did you read the very next paragraph I wrote? Its a "literalist" interpretation that I am at issue with.

One last thing, mw2016. You come off as a bit of an ass. I'm sure you're passionate about this subject, but please realize I"m just trying to have a debate. You don't know me, sure. But throwing around "Therefore, either you believe the Bible to be the INERRANT Word of God, or you don't. [and] If you do, you have replaced your God with science" and other false dichotomies are useless. YOU may believe they are not false dichotomies, but there are other opinions out there, and isn't that the purpose of discussion? Hearing what others have to say? Sharing what we've learned? I know I'm on a Traditional Catholic forum and all, but c'mon... have some manners.

Since when s2srea is Catholic teaching or not decided by opinion poll? It may well be for Protestants, but never for Catholics.

That said, centuries of propaganda within and outside the Catholic Church has left the truth of this matter extremely difficult to find.

Today however, scholars and researchers like myself have found the truth and it has made us free.

So, what can I say to help others find the answer. Well, there is nobody who could surpass Saint Cardinal Robert Bellarmine in his knowledge of the matter, except perhaps Solomon. Here is what he wrote in 1615:

‘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.’

We see then, there are TWO kinds of geocentrism, one ex parte objecti, and the other ex parte dicentis.

So, which of the two decides the matter in your opinion poll? Well history shows the subject matter decided the biblical answer. How so? Well since Isaac Newton most (99%), inside and outside the Church decided geocentrism was proven wrong. The Church's enemies celebrated and Catholic churchmen humiliated in 'embarrassment,' stopped defending ex parte dicentis but allowed books advocating a 'new version of ex parte objecti' to be published and read by Catholics.

Now geocentrism ex parte dicentis. was defined as dogma by Pope Paul V (something defined as formal heresy confirms its opposite as a dogma}. His decree of 1616 was irreversible. Pope Urban VIII confirmed that the matter was absolute: '

“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy,  that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture."

In 1820 the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII upheld the nonreformable 1616 decree of Pope Paul V, and not one pope in history has ever DARED challenge the 1616 papal decree of Pope Paul V.

Let us now go back to geocentrism ex parte objecti. By 1900 science ADMITTED man never falsified geocentrism. It took Einstein to conjure up a THEORY that allowed heliocentrism back again as a possibility against all the evidence that showed the earth does not move. In other words one selects heliocentrism on human faith alone.

The choice then is back to geocentrism ex parte objecti, or ex parte dicentis.

Now when one selects no geocentrism is not necessary to the faith that is no different to saying I do not believe the Scriptures reveal geocentrism. No I do not believe the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. No I do not accept Pope Paul V's papal decree defining no-geocentrism a contradiction of Scripture and therefore formal heresy.

No geocentrism allows heliocentrism as a truth, the first ever evolutionary theory and all that follows. One therefore prefers personal interpretation of the Scriptures, just like a Protestant.

When one chooses yes, one is adhering to the tradition of all the Fathers, the geocentrism of Trent, the correctness of Pope Paul's 'unrevisable' decree. One is then placing the universe back into God's creation, free from the clutches of modern science, the bedrock of atheism.