CathInfo.com

The infamous SSPX Press Release in fulll: https://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus


You are here:

• Home

The SSPX on geocentrism: press release

What is the SSPX's position concerning the heliocentric and geocentric scientific theories of the solar system?

PLATTE CITY, MO (8-30-2011) A recent news report implied that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teaching based upon the Bible. The SSPX holds no such position.

The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. As a religious congregation of the Catholic Church, the SSPX holds to these principles and does not teach any solar scientific theory.

---

The SSPX and the solar system

As declared by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, science cannot contradict the Faith:

There can never… be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, 'not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.'"

Even today, many commonly-held tenets of natural science are merely theories, not certainties. This is not the case with the Catholic Faith, which is a certainty.

The Church’s magisterium authoritatively teaches on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. As Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflatu Spiritu:

The Holy Ghost, Who spoke by them [the sacred writers], did not intend to teach men these things—that is the essential nature of the things of the universe... [which principle] will apply to cognate sciences…"

Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”). Such expressions are not scientific teachings about the cosmic world.

So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.

*************************************************************************************
And here is the infamous October 2003 Angelus Press Cover story on Galileo, penned by one Jason Winshel, a middle school teacher.
https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/galileo-victim-or-villain-october-2013-angelus.pdf

Of special note is footnote 6 which reads as follows:
"6 There are some, including certain prominent traditional Catholic authors,who still maintain that the Earth is the center of the universe in spite of
the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. Though it would appear
impossible to state definitively where the center actually is, or that there
is a center at all, given that everything seems to be in motion, to stand on
geocentrism as an article of faith is irresponsible precisely because it is not
an article of faith. To defend it as such, especially in light of the evidence, is
theologically unsound and unnecessary, while serving no positive purpose.
The Church has never defined geocentrism as a dogma binding on Catholics.
Moreover, Pope Urban VIII himself said that heliocentrism would never be
condemned as heretical. See Jerome J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the
Church, 3rd ed. (Ann Arbor, MI: 1992), p.113. That said, Robert Sungenis
puts up a good fight for geocentrism from a scientific standpoint as opposed
to a theological one. ..."


[At the time Robert Sungenis who is mentioned indirectly as well as directly in the footnote was not allowed by the SSPX to place a rebuttal to the article in the pages of the Angelus.]

9
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
Victim or Villain?
GALILEO
J a s o n W i n s c h e l
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei, Florentine,
aged 70 years,...having before my eyes and touching
with my hands the Holy Gospels, swear that I have
always believed, do believe, and with God’s help will
in the future believe all that is held, preached and
taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.1
Thus began one of the most famous–in many
circles, infamous–personal declarations of all time.
99

10
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
These are the first words in the public abjuration of the world-
renowned mathematician Galileo Galilei before the Holy Office
of the Inquisition. The date was June 22, 1633, and Galileo had
just been sentenced by the Inquisition in respect to the publication
of a book in which he clearly taught “that the Sun is the center of
the world and does not move from east to west and that the earth
moves and is not the center of the world.”3 In fulfillment of the first
part of his sentence, and to be absolved of the suspicion of heresy
and disobedience, he continued:
With sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the
aforesaid errors and heresies and generally every other error, heresy and
sect whatsoever contrary to the Holy Church, and I swear that in the future
I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might
furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me.4
With the completion of his formal abjuration, Galileo was to
be imprisoned and required to recite the seven penitential psalms
weekly for three years.
This much is clear. All of the above is part of the historical
record, part in fact, of the final proceedings of the trial of Galileo
before the Holy Inquisition. But it is at this point that confusion
enters; for few trials have been as misunderstood, misrepresented,
and entirely abused as Galileo’s. Historians and scientists alike
have heralded the interaction of Galileo and the Church as the
commencement of the fight of science versus faith, reason versus
authority and superstition. In our post-Christian world, the debate
thus characterized has become one of good versus evil with the
moribund Catholic Church playing the role of antagonist.
A popular account of the Galileo Affair would proceed as
follows: Galileo, a scientist of highest rank, proved the theory
advanced by Copernicus in the 16th century, namely that the sun
is the center of the world around which the earth revolves annually
while rotating on its axis. The Catholic Church, which held to the
geocentric model wherein the earth is static, condemned Galileo
as a heretic for his claim. He was then tortured, threatened with
execution until he recanted, imprisoned for life, blinded and
refused Catholic burial. The Church, as though to prove her
intransigence and her enmity toward science, refused to allow
heliocentrism (sun-centered universe) to be taught until the 19th
century when Galileo’s book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems was finally taken off of the Index of Forbidden Books.5
The implications of this popular portrayal of events are
profound for several reasons. Firstly, in terms of apologetics, if
the Church indeed pronounced solemnly that the Earth does
not revolve around the sun, then she almost certainly would
have erred.6 Naturally, this situation would eliminate her claim
of infallibility, which would in turn destroy her claim of Divine
institution. An alternative interpretation, if we want to protect
the Church’s claim of inerrancy, might be to allow a plurality
of contradictory truths. In other words, one might say that by
faith we believe one thing, by science we believe the opposite.7
Thus, we would concede that science and religion are indeed
incongruent, but not necessarily incompatible. However, this too is
unacceptable, because there is unity in truth. The Church cannot
hold true that which is opposed to a truth of science. One or the
other must be false since God is the author of all truth and cannot
contradict Himself.
But, beyond the questions about science and religion, what
does this rendition of the Galileo case portend for the reputation
of the Catholic Church? Did she really just arbitrarily condemn
Whatever
they can really
demonstrate
to be true of
physical nature
we must show
to be capable of
reconciliation
with our
Scriptures; and
whatever they
assert in their
treatises which
is contrary to
these Scriptures
of ours, that is to
the Catholic faith,
we must either
prove it as well
as we can to be
entirely false, or
at all events we
must, without
hesitation, believe
it to be so.
–St. Augustine 2

11
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
a man to life imprisonment in order to thwart a
scientifically proven truth? Was there any reason for
what happened beyond a simple desire to continue
to freely propagate her own errors? How should
a Catholic respond when confronted with such
accusations concerning this whole affair?
In the course of this essay, we will elucidate
the answers to these questions and objections by:
1) providing the historical context outside of which
no event of this magnitude can be understood; 2)
correcting factual errors and misconceptions; and
finally 3) drawing some conclusions and inferences
based on what we have found.
Context Part I: PERSONAL
Galileo the Man
Galileo was born in the Italian city of Pisa in
1564. Though it is often overlooked, he was raised
and always remained a loyal Catholic, even joining
for a year the Vallambrosan Order as a novice around
the age of 14.8 Although he failed to earn a university
degree for financial reasons, Galileo doggedly
pursued studies of mathematics and mechanics on his
own. By the age of 25, he had invented a hydrostatic
balance, written a highly praised essay on “the center
of gravity in solid bodies,” and had won the attention
of some high-ranking scholars and clerics including
the great Jesuit mathematician Christopher Clavius
and the Marquise Guidubaldo del Monte, the brother
of Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte. Withal, in
1589, at age 25 he obtained a position as Professor
of Mathematics at the University of Pisa. Three
years later, Guidubaldo assisted in gaining for him
an appointment to the chair of Mathematics at the
University of Padua, where he remained for 17 years.
Later, seeking greater freedom to research and fewer
teaching responsibilities, Galileo looked to remove to
Florence in Tuscany. In hopes of gaining a position
there, he went so far as to name the moons of Jupiter,
the “Medicean Stars” after Cosimo II de Medici,
Tuscany’s Grand Duke, and dedicated his first book,
the Starry Messenger, to the same nobleman. Finally, in
1610, Cosimo appointed him “First Mathematician of
the University of Pisa, and First Mathematician and
Philosopher to the Grand Duke.” He maintained this
post while living in Florence throughout most of his
period of troubles with the Church authorities.9
Much of the dispute between Galileo and the
Church has been attributed to an innate conflict
between science and religion. Galileo has even been
referred to as a martyr for science.10 The assertions
are false. Neither are science and religion opposed–
although their methods may differ, their objects are in
agreement–nor was Galileo condemned because of a
statement of scientific truth. In reality, central to this
conflict was the messenger, not the message.
We have seen the meteoric rise of a brilliant man,
but we have not seen the man. Galileo’s personality
was a breeding ground for discord. According to
Arthur Koestler, “Galileo had a rare gift of provoking
enmity; not the affection alternating with rage which
Tycho [Brahe] aroused, but the cold, unrelenting
hostility which genius plus arrogance minus humility
creates among mediocrities.”11 He was brash, abrasive,
proud, and provocative. In his first post at Pisa, he
had already earned the moniker “The Wrangler” due
to “his choleric and disputatious temper.”12 Besides
the run-in concerning heliocentrism, he disputed with
varying degrees of success the so-called Aristotelians
at the university concerning physics and astronomy,
fellow astronomers concerning who discovered
what heavenly things first, others concerning the
composition of comets, and many others about
whatever he could find. But it was not just that he
engaged in frequent debate–that would be expected in
the inquisitive atmosphere of the late Renaissance–but
in the mode of his attacks. Galileo was a tremendously
effective writer and rhetorician, who played his
audience masterfully. His pen soaked in sarcasm, he
refused to concede even the most minute of points,
but chose to attack fiercely those with whom he
disagreed. According to Will and Ariel Durant:
He was an ardent controversialist, skilled to spear a foe
on a phrase or roast him with burning indignation. In the
margin of a book by the Jesuit Antonio Rocco defending the
Ptolemaic astronomy, Galileo wrote, “Ignoramus, elephant,
fool, dunce...eunuch.”13
J.L. Heilbron suggests that indeed “Galileo posed
a special threat to the Church because he knew how
to write. Witty, sarcastic, informative, and profound,
he occupies a place among the stylists of Italian
literature.”14 And indeed to the Italian language
he occasionally turned. Instead of writing in Latin,
the universal language of scholars, and with an eye
toward a larger, less exclusively educated crowd,
Galileo penned his most controversial works in
Italian. He was a popular polemicist quick to admit
that he did not write for pedants.15 Consequently,
instead of a simple essay swamped in figures and
equations, he textured his prose with wit and
invective and aroused the passions of the multitudes.
In short, Galileo would be a dangerous man with a
delicate message.
Context Part II: HISTORICAL
Action and Reaction
Galileo lived in an age of upheaval. He was born
in the era during which the Protestant Revolution,
shaking and shattering Christendom, reached a
mature state. In 1642 he died, a month shy of his 78th
birthday, after the Catholic Church had re-asserted
herself and the sanguinary Thirty Years’ War still
had six years to go. These were the latter years of the
Renaissance, and the beginning of what is sometimes
referred to as the “Age of Reason.”16 New worlds were
opening up as explorers, traders, and settlers scattered

The Aristotelian Universe
The Earth is at the center, surrounded by
concentric spheres on which the sun, the
moon, and the other planets revolve.
The Copernican Universe
The sun is at the center, with the Earth
and other planets in circular orbits
around it.
Tycho Brahe’s Universe
A geocentric universe where all the
planets revolve around the sun, while the
sun turns around the Earth.
Reprinted with permission from Galileo, Science, and the Church, by Langford
(Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), pp.26,38,47.
T


The Aristotelian Universe
The Earth is at the center, surrounded by
concentric spheres on which the sun, the
moon, and the other planets revolve.
The Copernican Universe
The sun is at the center, with the Earth
and other planets in circular orbits
around it.
Tycho Brahe’s Universe
A geocentric universe where all the
planets revolve around the sun, while the
sun turns around the Earth.
Reprinted with permission from Galileo, Science, and the Church, by Langford
(Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), pp.26,38,47.
THREE
SYSTEMS
12

13
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
around the globe and nations sought empires in
exotic lands. It has been justly characterized as the
“Age of Adventure,”17 for adventures are defined
by uncertainty and excitement. And these are the
things that unseated the Catholic order that had
reigned supreme in the High Middle Ages.
But the uncertainty and excitement proved
perilous. For in their midst, souls were being lost.
The Renaissance gave rise to many great advances
in the arts and sciences, but its humanism also
served as a distraction for many away from
their heavenly goal. The Protestant Revolution,
beginning in the early 16th century, not only upset
the established social order, obliterated the unity
of Faith, and brought about bloody ιnѕυrrєcтισns
and warfare, but it destroyed souls in countless
quantity. The Catholic Church, whose Divine
mission was to see to the salvation of those souls,
was compelled to react. She did so impressively.
The 1500s witnessed: the all-encompassing
Council of Trent, which had so clearly defined so
many things Catholic, and condemned so many
things Protestant; the Catholic Reformation, where
the Church cleaned house; the inception of the
Jesuits, the most rigorously intellectual order of
the day and stout defenders of orthodoxy; the
codification of the Mass by Pope St. Pius V; a
deluge of catechetical works; an unparalleled
emphasis on apologetics, most importantly and
epically by St. Robert Bellarmine; and a more
resolute protection of the Sacred Scriptures that
had been so savagely attacked by Protestantism. In
sum, the Church tightened her grip on her divine
possessions. She kept much stricter vigil over her
dogmas, her Gospels, her sacred authority, all of
which had been questioned by the “Reformers.”
Moreover, she maintained the Holy Inquisition
and added, in 1559, the Index of Forbidden Books
as means of pursuing her resolve to shepherd
as many souls as possible to Heaven. Simply
put, circuмstances were poor for the promotion
of ideas that could possibly detract from the
authority of the Church or scandalize souls.
Context Part III:
COSMOLOGICAL
Three Systems
Onto a stage thus set, Galileo brought his
pugnacious style to a debate that at the onset
of the 17th century actually involved three
competing theories of the universe. Two of these
were geocentric and the third was heliocentric.
In their details none of them were wholly true,
but each seemed to supply an explanation for
what was visible to the naked eye. In so doing,
each was plagued by a dizzying number of
epicycles, or circles upon circles, that were needed
to reconcile the theory with what was clearly
visible in the heavens. This effort to make what
was apparent agree with a theory by postulating
various speculative additions was called “saving
the appearances.” It was bulky and complex,
but saving the appearances at least made the
workings of the universe predictable if not actually
comprehensible.
The most ancient view, and one that held sway
for centuries was a mixture of the observations
and speculations of Aristotle and Ptolemy.
Known as the Ptolemaic model of the universe,
this theory gained great esteem especially in the
first half of the second millennium AD when
Aristotle reigned supreme among philosophers
and theologians. Aristotle had been reintroduced
to the western world in the 1200s by the great
scientist and theologian St. Albert the Great.
However, where Albert sought proof and,
when necessary, correction of Aristotle’s claims
through experimentation, later scholars tended
to merely take “The Philosopher” at his word.18
In this case, the word of Aristotle, adapted by
Ptolemy, proclaimed a universe with all of the
celestial bodies moving in perfect circles around
a stationary earth. But it was not just on the basis
of Aristotle’s authority that people accepted this
model. In fact, as James Brodrick writes:
It answered well enough to their daily experience.
The earth certainly seemed at rest, and any man who
sat up late at night could see for himself the majestic
wheeling of the heavens. The Scriptures, the revealed
word of God, seemed to be permeated through and
through with the same idea, though the sacred writers
had never heard of Aristotle. The Fathers of the Church
did not so much believe the geocentric theory as take
it for granted. Ptolemy’s elaboration of Aristotle did in
fact account for the celestial phenomena well enough,
and by it eclipses could be predicted and ships guided
to their destinations with reasonable accuracy.19
Thus, the geocentric model of the universe,
which was hardly questioned for eighteen
hundred years seemed satisfactory not only on a
philosophic and theological level, but also on a
practical, common-sense level.
Canon Nicholas Copernicus, saw things
otherwise. Looking to a number of ancient writers
in combination with his own observations and
those especially of Cardinal Nicholas Cusa and
others in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, he
devised a comprehensive theory that accounted
for the appearances while positing that the sun
was the center of the universe. The Copernican
model of the universe found its greatest exposition
in his work, De Revolutionibus orbium coelum,
which was published while Copernicus lay on
his deathbed in 1543. This model was known in
most scholarly circles, taught as a theory in the
universities, and believed by some, but for the
most part it aroused little interest for about fifty
years. The book itself “was and is an all-time worst

14
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
seller.”20 While the general idea of heliocentrism
was reputable, Copernicus’s system was even more
complex than the old one, containing more circles
upon circles, and it was ensconced in a book that was
almost as unreadable as it was unread. Meanwhile,
the theory as Copernicus had it figured was so
weak that he was actually afraid to publish it for
fear of public embarrassment.21 Almost in spite of it
all, the heliocentric theory would rocket back into
prominence shortly after the turn of the 17th century.
The last system to vie for acceptance in this time
period was that of Tycho Brahe. Tycho, who was
arguably the greatest, most persistent and accurate
celestial observer, opposed the Ptolemaic model
because he could not reconcile it with the supernova
of 1572 and the great comet of 1577. He also opposed
the Copernican theory because of insufficient
evidence, and because he felt it contradicted
Scripture.22 In this last he followed the lead of his
Lutheran forerunners, Martin Luther and Melancthon.
To fill the void, he suggested a model wherein the sun
and moon circled around the earth while the planets
revolved around the sun in epicycles. A latecomer to
the scene, this theory would gain greater acceptance,
especially among the Jesuit astronomers, as new
discoveries made the old Ptolemaic scheme appear
less tenable.
Galileo Ascendant
In 1608 Hans Lippershey, a Dutchman, patented
the telescope. A year later Galileo began work on
his own, and by 1609 his “spyglass” was magnifying
objects a thousand times. The calm ended. The
tempest erupted. Immediately the heavens presented
new spectacles to the aided eye and new evidence
for the astronomical debate. As it turned out, the
evidence proved devastating to the Aristotelian-
Ptolemaic cosmology. Contrary to that theory, Galileo
observed that the moon’s surface was not perfectly
round and smooth, but “full of irregularities, uneven,
full of protuberances ... varied everywhere by lofty
mountains and deep valleys,”23 concluding that it
was of the same material as the earth. He identified
four moons that revolved around Jupiter instead of
the earth, as well as the phases of Venus, the lack of
proof of which had previously been a sticking point
in the Copernican model. A year after the publication
of these discoveries, he observed, with others, the
sunspots, indicating that the sun was of changeable
matter, again contrary to the model suggested by
Aristotle. In sum, the empirical evidence provided by
the telescope clearly mitigated against the Ptolemaic
theory of the universe that had been held so dear so
long.
Galileo published his initial observations in
a small book called the Starry Messenger in 1610.
Twenty-four pages long, its message was highly
accessible, and consequently sold out rapidly. The
effect was dramatic. The cosmological debate spread
like wildfire. Galileo was “lauded as the greatest
astronomer of the age.”24 While this was certainly
an overstatement, it indicates the spirit of the day.
Meanwhile, Fr. Christopher Clavius, the highly
renowned chief mathematician and astronomer at the
elite Jesuit Collegio Romano, whom Galileo had met
years before, wrote to tell him that the astronomers
at the college had confirmed his discoveries.
(Clavius would die just over a year later convinced
in part because of the telescopic discoveries that the
Ptolemaic system had become untenable.) So Galileo
set out for Rome with high expectations of convincing
the ecclesiastics there of the virtues of the Copernican
system.25 The Jesuits, many high ranking prelates and
cardinals, and even the Pope, Paul V, who granted
him a long audience, greeted him enthusiastically. He
was admitted to the newly-formed Accademia dei Lincei
whose common goal was to “fight Aristotelianism
all the way.”26 Writing, “Everybody is showing me
wonderful kindness, especially the Jesuit Fathers,”27 he
returned to Florence in triumph.
Galileo’s Obstacles
Galileo now proceeded to work at full throttle to
gain acceptance of the heliocentric universe not as a
theory, but as a proved fact. But while his confidence
increased so too did the rumblings of dissent. In
fact, the first condemnation of heliocentrism by the
Inquisition was less than five years off.
Four serious problems plagued the Italian
astronomer: 1) First of all, and most importantly,
he neither at this point, nor ever proved his theory.
He eventually offered numerous arguments, but
they were all flawed. In the meantime, he refused,
possibly out of pride, to accept or even acknowledge
Johann Kepler’s idea that the planets’ orbits are
elliptical. If he had done so, his arguments would
have been far more palatable for having gained
the one thing lacking in all other models, namely
simplicity (since the ellipses would eliminate the
cuмbersome epicycles). But, in spite of his various
shortcomings, he clearly illustrated the weakness
of the Ptolemaic model of the universe. However,
this brings us to the second problem. 2) Galileo
never gave the Tychonic model sufficient attention.
He could have completely annihilated the theory
of Aristotle and Ptolemy, but since that was not the
only geocentric alternative, it would still be far from
logical to conclude that heliocentrism must be true.
But this is exactly what Galileo did, as though Tycho
Brahe and his ideas never existed. In the meantime,
many of the Jesuit astronomers were taking to the
Tychonic model precisely because it could still
account for the various new telescopic discoveries
just as well as heliocentrism, but it did not pose the
Scriptural difficulties inherent in the sun-centered
theory. 3) The third problem facing Galileo then was

15
THE ANGELUS
October 2003
the simple fact that his theory seemed to fly blatantly
in the face of passages in Sacred Scripture such as
Jos. 10:12-13, where Joshua commands the sun to be
still in the valley of Ajalon. Not only were statements
like this in Scripture, but the Church Fathers took
them literally. As a result, an ancient teaching of the
Church appeared to be contradicted by heliocentrism.
4) The last major problem standing before Galileo
was his own personality. By championing the cause
of heliocentrism, he was treading on potentially
perilous ground. Copernicus and others had gotten
away with discussing heliocentrism as a theoretical
construction;28 by promoting it as true, Galileo was
taking the game to a whole new level. His disputatious
nature would impede his progress throughout the
pending ordeal.
The showdown between Galileo and the
Inquisition took part in two phases. The first occurred
in 1615-1616, the second 1632-1633. We will examine
them in chronological order.
The First Showdown
By 1615, Galileo had spent years loudly preaching
the Copernican theory as truth. He had defeated
many a foe in mathematical debate, but in time
the focus of the debate shifted from mathematics
and astronomy to theology. The transition to the
theological only occurred because Galileo insisted
that Copernicanism was true, and not merely
a hypothetical but practical tool. Indeed, using
heliocentrism as a convenient construct to predict
astronomical events and to save the appearances was
one thing, but to suggest it was actually true in the
face of and contrary to the authority of Sacred Writ
was another.
Inevitably, the scriptural objections noted
above were raised both by clerics and laymen, most
importantly, the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany.
In 1613, at a dinner in which the conversation turned
toward the subject of the day, she inquired in some
detail about the Copernican model and gave voice
to the usual scriptural protestations to a disciple
of Galileo’s, a Benedictine monk name Benedetto
Castelli. Castelli related the incident to Galileo, and
Galileo took the plunge into the dangerous waters
of theology. He hurriedly wrote and circulated his
Letter to Castelli. It would prove to be the beginning
of his downfall. In the Letter Galileo made clear his
position that the Bible sometimes speaks of things
according to common parlance, even if the speech is
not technically accurate. (Thus, we still speak of the
sun rising and setting even if we know that the earth’s
rotation accounts for the appearance of the motion of
the sun.) Scripture was not intended as a mathematics
textbook, and so should not be utilized as an authority
in that field when observation seemed to contradict it.
In this vein of thought originated the saying that the
Bible was meant to teach how to go to Heaven, not
how the heavens go.
Within about a year of the circulation of the
Letter to Castelli, the attacks on Galileo moved to the
pulpit and then beyond. A Dominican, Fr. Thomas
Caccini, attacked mathematics, mathematicians, and
the Copernican theory mercilessly, using as his text
for a sermon, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing
up into the heavens?” Fr. Niccolo Lorini, on behalf
of the Dominican monks of St. Mark’s in Florence,
sent the Letter to Paolo Cardinal Sfrondato, one of
the Inquisitors General, who in turn passed it on to
the Holy Office. In the cover letter, Fr. Lorini stated
the monks’ opinion that the Letter slighted Scripture,
the ancient Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the
philosophy of Aristotle “which has been of such
service to Scholastic theology.”29 Moreover, the monks
could see that allowing individual interpretation of
Scripture contrary to the teachings of the Fathers was
precisely the origin of the Protestant Revolution and
was condemned by the Council of Trent (1545-1563).30
Aside from their place in the narrative, the
interesting point about these two episodes is that in
both cases, the higher Church authorities decreed in
Galileo’s favor. Fr. Luigi Maraffi, Preacher General
of the Dominican Order apologized to Galileo for
the attack by Fr. Caccini to which he referred as an
“idiocy.” The Inquisitor assigned to read the Letter to
Castelli determined it to be orthodox.
As Galileo was gaining these two concessions,
however, he was at work on a revised version of the
Letter. In the interim between the two Letters he had
been warned by friends (including the future Pope
Urban VIII, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini) to cease the
promotion of his theory as a fact, and to quit dabbling
in theology and speak as a mathematician only. He
refused this advice, emboldened by the publication
of a book by a Carmelite Friar named Paolo
Antonio Foscarini that claimed to have reconciled
Copernicanism and Scripture. But Cardinal St.
Robert Bellarmine, in review of Foscarini’s work and
referring explicitly to Galileo as well as Foscarini,
said they must treat the matter as a theory and that
Scripture was not to be reinterpreted unless and until
there was “a true demonstration that the sun was
in the center of the universe and the earth in third
sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the
earth....”31 Even at that point, Bellarmine said, it would
be necessary to proceed with great caution in the
reinterpretation of the difficult passages. After all, the
faith of souls was at stake. On the part of Bellarmine,
speaking, as all knew, unofficially for the Church, the
thrust of his statement was judicious and prudent. It
allowed that geocentrism was not an article of faith,
thus leaving open the possibility that it might be
shown to be false. On the other hand, he made clear
that it was not a matter to be treated lightly, and that
if heliocentrism were indeed demonstrably true it had
to be dealt with delicately.
(continued on p.34)

THE ANGELUS
October 2003
But the reckless Galileo, true to form, would
not compromise. He believed Copernicus to be
right, but he could not prove it. He wanted others to
believe the same, but he could not convince them.
And he hardly acknowledged the Tychonic model,
the one system that stood as an entirely logical
alternative. Nevertheless, in his Letter to the Grand
Duchess Christina, the revision of that to Castelli,
he disregarded all exhortations for prudence and a
tempered message. After repeating and magnifying
all of his controversial methodological practices of the
past (e.g. interpreting Scripture, asserting the reality of
Copernicanism), he went so far as to suggest that his
theory must be accepted as truth until the theologians
had disproved it. In other words, the Bible must be
reinterpreted unless the theologians could disprove
heliocentrism. In this manner he appeared to shift
the burden of proof to the theologians.32 It was a
bold move and a hazardous decision. In spite of the
apparent rebelliousness of his approach, however, he
concluded by promising submission to the Church
and her judgment on matters concerning religion.
And yet he added, “I do not feel obliged to believe
that that same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.”33
In December, 1615, against the advice of many of
his cardinal friends and Robert Bellarmine, Galileo
took his case to Rome. Rumors had spread that
Copernicanism was to be banned by the Church
authorities. In order to thwart a decision against
Copernicus and to clear his own name, Galileo
stepped into the gauntlet.34 Amidst murmurs of heresy
and blasphemy, he pleaded his case before everyone
in the ecclesiastical hierarchy who would listen. In
February of 1616, as passions flew, he pressed the
Christopher
Clavius
Aristotle
Copernicus[/siz

Comment:Is this priest actually questioning God’s ability to flood the Earth with water as revealed in Genesis?

Yes, he absolutely is.  That's why he's a Modernist heretic.  One of the hallmarks of the Modernist approach to Sacred Scripture is the refusal to acknowledge that God works miracles that might defy the laws of nature.  So they try to come up with naturalistic explanations for eveything.  So, for instance, the parting of the Red Sea was just a low tide that revealed a sand bar that allowed the Jєωs to pass through.  God's miracle consisted mostly of working out the timing of the whole thing.

It's the same Deism that Lyell promoted, and also Descartes, that God's roll in creation was simply to "kick off" the entire process (which Pasteur rightly took him to task over).

This reminds me of the exchange I had with the Modernist heretic Van Beeck at Loyola University.  VB:  "We know that the Gospels were all written after 70 A.D."  I: "Why do you say that the Gospels were written after 70 A.D.?  What's the evidence for that?"  VB:  "That's because there are references in the Gospels to the fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 70."  I :  "Ah, so you mean where Jesus foretold the fall of Jerualem.  So, you're saying that Jesus isn't God and can't know the future."  VB:  Angry scowl.

Robinson is as bad as any of the Modernist heretics that I battled for 8 years in Jesuit schools.