Thanks John Grace. Very interesting.

Since I read Dr. Sungenis book I'm a convinced Geocentrist and I teach my children Geocentrism as well.

The SSPX doesn't hold Geocentrism as a dogmatic fact apparently, but that's generally the side they believe is likely true. And they're probably right.

That's rather politic of them, don't you think ?  :scratchchin:

The Society's mission is to preserve the Catholic priesthood and Tradition. Not to espouse official viewpoints on historical events or scientific theories. It was a good move to get out of the business altogether. It would only serve to distract from the Society's true mission and give ample fodder for their detractors.

If Sungenis wants to explain his position on why he is a geocentrist, that is fine. But I can't understand the notion that the Society is doing something wrong by refusing to take a stand on an issue beyond their competence. Namely astronomy.

The whole thing about Geocentrism and Evolution is a massive distraction from things that actually do matter.

While geocentrism is not true in any meaningful physical sense, nor is it essential to believe in the fixity of the Earth in the sense that an ignorant person imagines as the reason for its seeming stability, it is essential to challenge the evolutionary view of the origin of man, (and it really follows from that one cannot very well believe in the evolution of animals without seriously violating principles of common sense) which is directly contrary to the view of special Creation in the Bible.

If the SSPX starts saying it doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or not - you can see that as a definite sign of incipient modernism.

I agree geocentrism and evolution are different. With evolution there are core Catholic principles at stake regarding original sin and only two parents of the human race. As Pius XII pointed out, there are certain evolutionary views which are non-starters, such as polygenism.

I don't think it is beyond Catholic teaching to believe that, over time, some adaptations can develop WITHIN species. In that micro-evolution sense, there isn't much problem.

The problem comes with Darwiniacs who insist their theory that species evolve into other species is fact when they can't even provide one transitionary fossil (much less the millions that should exist if the theory is true). Evolution is their dogma and they will defend it with blind will through intimidation, ridicule, and high-sounding scientific jargon. The same with man made "climate change". It is a theory that they are promoting as fact because it fits their agenda.

Quote from: twiceborn

The whole thing about Geocentrism and Evolution is a massive distraction from things that actually do matter.

While geocentrism is not true in any meaningful physical sense, nor is it essential to believe in the fixity of the Earth in the sense that an ignorant person imagines as the reason for its seeming stability, it is essential to challenge the evolutionary view of the origin of man, (and it really follows from that one cannot very well believe in the evolution of animals without seriously violating principles of common sense) which is directly contrary to the view of special Creation in the Bible.

If the SSPX starts saying it doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or not - you can see that as a definite sign of incipient modernism.

The SSPX never said it doesn't matter whether you believe in evolution or not.

So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science

Leaving Geo-centrism aside, this statement could be problematic as it promotes secularism and makes scripture (like the existentialists also do), only a "spiritual" book and also implies that the natural realm is autonomous from the supernatural.