There are some Traditionalist circles which teach that Geocentrism an infallible Doctrine of the Church and that Heliocentrism was infallibly condemned by the Church and thus, a faithful Catholic may not accept it. For example:

http://www.johnthebaptist.us/sbw/articles/rjmi%20catholic%20articles/ar16_earth_center_universe.htm
Moderator: The above link is the work of a complete nut job. Please beware! Visit at your own risk.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

Is this true? Must a Catholic accept Geocentrism? I'm not really well-read on this specific topic, theologically or scientifically, but I'm willing to consider the possibility of either Heliocentrism or Geocentrism and the arguments for either of them, so I'd like to read some of your answers and commentaries about it.

Thanks.

Quote

Is this true? Must a Catholic accept Geocentrism?

I hope not.

Those are my sentiments as well.

It is really settled science, folks.

Neither is dogmatic nor could they be - even Aquinas admitted that geocentrism was merely the most probable system derived at the time.  Both systems merely try to put order to the stars by their motion in the skies - both do a good job of it though some think geocentrism does a better job and explains some of the problems that heliocentrism has.

I tend towards geocentrism but not from a scientific perspective as I have too little knowledge of the subject - I do so out of respect for tradition and as it accords nicely with the scriptures.

So ultimately we will not know the true system unless we are blessed to join in the beatific vision.

I will say however, that we can certainly say that the universe has a center and an end point - that must be the case as the universe cannot be infinite.

The verdict of INQ in 1633( which is what matters and is still true today) was that Copernicanism is a false astronomical doctrine. One part of that 3 part doctrine is none the less true-- the idea that E rev around S.

I don't need an explanation for that Jamie. What about the center of the Universe? My understanding is that INQ decided that irrespective of the physical location of E, it is the center of U in a Spiritual sense above all else.

There is nothing in the U that is fixed although it may appear E is if someone was writing in an age when there was no scientific evidence to the contrary.  We have all ridden on an escalator when it seems like everything else is moving except us.

The verdict of INQ in 1633( which is what matters and is still true today) was that Copernicanism is a false astronomical doctrine. One part of that 3 part doctrine is none the less true-- the idea that E rev around S.

I don't need an explanation for that Jamie. What about the center of the Universe? My understanding is that INQ decided that irrespective of the physical location of E, it is the center of U in a Spiritual sense above all else.

There is nothing in the U that is fixed although it may appear E is if someone was writing in an age when there was no scientific evidence to the contrary.  We have all ridden on an escalator when it seems like everything else is moving except us.

I understand that the universe is moving - panta rhei in the worlds of (I think) Thales.  But the fact remains, if the universe has an outer bound, it has a central point.  That makes no difference to either heliocentrism or geocentrism - it can be true under both systems.

This also doesn't detract from the fact that the Earth is the spiritual center of the universe either - that is true regardless of any physical center.  But there is also no proof (and can't be in fact) that the earth is not also the physical center.

Acc to the above post by Jamie, St Thomas only thought geo-centrism probable- not a part of the magisterium that HAS  to be accepted. Having said that I do believe the Earth to be the center of the spiritual universe irrespective of it's physical location.

Last night I posted my Real Galileo research in the Unexplained Forum of Space.com It was removed by the time I woke up this AM.