CathInfo.com

Cassini,
 
However, does the Catholic Church actually teach geocentrism?

Yes Meg, the Catholic Church does teach a geocentric revelation in Scripture which makes geocentrism a truth of creation.

However, ever since popes were convinced from 1820 at least that heliocentrism was proven correct by science, and thus biblical geocentrism was wrong, the Church's teaching on geocentrism was cleverly put on the shelf like so many other heresies condemned by the Church in the first three centuries of Catholicism.

But so too is it Catholic teaching that to believe and profess there are many worlds is Heretical. Just read A A Martinez's book BURNED ALIVE and you will get details of many heresies to do with heliocentrism, many worlds and aliens. For example he lists Thesarus of the Christian Religion (1559) and in Philaster's Book of Heresies (1578}. 'Other theologians too cited this heresy for centuries. They explained the problem: "we cannot assert that there exist two or many worlds, since neither do we assert two or many Christs." In 1459 Pope Pius II condemned the doctrine that God created another world like ours (Denzinger). In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII issued laws and such heresies in his Corpus of Canon Law. In 1616 Pope Paul V decreed heliocentrism was FORMAL heresy and Pope Urban VIII confirmed this in 1633. Today Rome boasts about other worlds and had a CONFERENCE about what the Church would say when ALIENS were found. Pope Francis said he would BAPTISE a martian if necessary.

But when 'proof' for heliocentrism was believed to be proven by science, followed by the Nebular theory (evolution of their solar system) churchmen found a way to ignore all the heresies in order to make Catholicism comply with their SCIENCE. Thus when Big Bangism evolved from heliocentrism Pope Pius XII felt he had to take the Church teaching further in line with SCIENCE. Including the body of Adam.

Now what is that SCIENCE that eliminated previous Church teaching and heresies? Well we are talking about the SCIENCE of ORIGINS here now, not about other sciences dealing with facts. The SCIENCE OF ORIGINS works this way. Extrapolate backwards but no supernatural or divine causes allowed. In other words this SCIENCE OF ORIGINS is ATHEISTIC. Do you get that?

Now when popes decided to accept atheistic science and make Catholic teaching comply with it, you get 'theistic atheism' called theistic evoluition, taught by Fr Paul Robinson SSPX and promoted by the SSPX websites. But when you eliminate the literal geocentric meaning in Scripture, and replace it with atheistic heliocentrism, you do not get truth, you get applause from the atheists in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and you join the intellectual pride enjoyed in SCIENCE. If you write a book like Fr Robinson, go look on its website and see how proud Fr Robinson must be with all those intellectuals telling us it is the best read since Gulliver's Travels.

So Meg, it is a long story, this atheistic reinterpreting of Scripture, and the hiding of those long forgotten heresies. In 1741 it all began but was finalised in 1820. They said the 1616 decree finding heliocentrism was heresy was infallible, but it applied to a VIOLENT HELIOCENTRISM. The heliocentrism allowed by Pope Pius VII was a NON-VIOLENT heliocentrism "held by modern astronomers.' So, in other words, the heresy of 1616 is still on the books, but the non violent SCIENCE is allowed. In fact the heresy had nothing to do with the earth, moving violently or not, it was to say that the sun is fixed in order to allow the Earth to orbit it. So in fact what the popes in 1820-1835 allowed the flock to believe was formally heretical.

Once taken into the womb of the Church and Scripture, all the doctrines on creation by God were compromised. One by one the teachings fell until today Popes openly profess heresies once condemned by the Fathers and FEW ARE AWARE OF THESE HERESIES. Faith on Earth is now SCIENCE and Genesis, Noah's Ark etc, all fiction to try to get the ignoramuses of those days to believe in a God created world.

But try to convince Catholics, especially traditional Catholiocs, that their popes have allowed heresies to run rampant in the Church for centuries and you will be called a LUNATIC and a heretic.

Thank you for your response, Cassini.

I should have been more clear in my question, but what I meant to ask is if there is an explicit teaching of the Church for geocentrism. There may be. But just because there isn't an explicit teaching doesn't mean that Popes didn't believe it. I think that the Flat earth (which I still believe in), is in the same boat, in that earlier Fathers of the Church believed it, but since there was no explicit teaching, or unanimity about it, it is dismissed. I'm not trying to push for a flat earth on this thread at all, and I don't want to distract away from the topic for too long. I'm just trying to see if there really is an explicit teaching for geocentrism.

I do agree with much of what you write in the rest of your post. I may try to read Martinez' book Burned Alive to see the details regarding heresies having to do with heliocentrism. But can there be a case of heresy against a teaching of the Church that isn't actually explicit? You mention that these heresies were ignored by churchmen in order to comply with Nebular theory. I haven't heard of that theory (evolution of their solar system), but I'll try to research it. You mention that Big Bangism evolved from heliocentrism. That makes sense.

You related the Science of Origins, which is atheistic, and the way it works is to extrapolate backwards but with no divine or supernatural causes allowed. I would agree that that is where we are today with science. Unfortunately, the idea that the sciences must be informed by theology (with God as the first cause) has gone by the wayside.

I have heard of theistic evolution, and I know of at least one forum member who pushed for that idea back when we were debating a flat earth awhile ago here. It is the idea (if I'm not mistaken) that God has sanctioned evolution, though I can't recall if it had to do with God being directly involved in the process or not. However, supporters of it might not agree that it is atheistic, but it sounds pretty dicey to me. I can see why you disagree with Fr. Robinson in the issue, since he supports it.

I'm not understanding the difference between violent and non-violent heliocentrism. Does it have to do with the earth moving around the sun?

I agree that the false science has compromised doctrines on creation by God. It has been, IMO, one of the main forces that has allowed Modernism to take over the Church, or rather, it has helped to allow a Modernist sect to occupy the Church.

Thanks for your well thought out and excellent post here Meg!

In answer to your question -- yes indeed, "there is an explicit teaching of the Church for geocentrism."  I will let Cassini fill you in on this.  Unfortunately, of course, the explicit teaching has gone by the way side to be  buried under a lot of JP II and others' obfuscation, etc.

As for the question of flat earth, I cannot recommend highly enough Robert Sungenis' outstanding and in my opinion very balanced and fair study of the question in his most exemplary book Flat Earth / Flat Wrong.  I really hope you can afford to get a copy and have the time to give it a good read.  I truly believe you will feel that you have been richly rewarded by same.  See http://flatearthflatwrong.com/.

You can get a PDF copy of the 736 page book with color pics for only $10 via the above link.  I truly believe that if you read this even handed book you will be able to resolve for yourself once and for all the question of flat earth vs. spherical earth.  God speed!

Thank you for your good explanation, Cassini. I've only perused it this morning, and will take a more thorough look later today. At first glance, I find it interesting that the Pope, in 1616, found it formally heretical that scripture and the Fathers were contradicted in regards to the earth being the center of the world. That there was no explicit teaching of the Church that the earth is in the center is very telling.

In my opinion, in a flat earth model, the earth is also at the center of the world. What I find heartening is that the Pope didn't say anything about the shape of the earth.

I agree that evolution is absurd. If evolution were true, it would mean that our bodies (and that of animals, too) have the intelligence to re-create themselves all on their own, which seems ridiculous.

I'll be sure to study the links you provided.

Thank you again!