Author Topic: SSPX and Fr Robinson SSPX on Biblical Genesis and geocentrism (Read 1302 times)

cassini · « **on:** December 10, 2025, 12:50:47 PM »

The Society of Saint Pius X holds no such position [Biblical geocentrism]. 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. 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”)’--- SSPX press release, 30/8/2011.

‘Does the Bible want us to read it like a science textbook using scientific language? Or is it meant to be read in another way? The answer is obvious from the very beginning of the Bible, which presents serious challenges for anyone seeking to find properly scientific information about the formation of the world [THE CREATIVE ACT OF GOD], at least anyone possessing today’s knowledge of the universe’s true architecture.’-- Fr P. Robinson. A Realist Guide to Religion and Science, Gracewing, 2018, p.248.

‘That the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science.’ (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I.46.2)

‘From a scientific perspective [which I hold], it [the universe] began its infancy at time 0, 13.72 billion years ago, it is now in its middle age and is heading towards old age billions of years in the distant future.’--- Fr Paul Robinson p.367

Made up star distances we see, is now used to age the universe, such as asserted above with their Big Bang star-age calculation, that is, the furthest star from Earth if measured at 13.7 billion light-years away, 'proves' the universe must be 13.7 billion years old.

‘[Churchmen of 1616 and 1633] admittedly went too far but in no way did it involve the Church’s infallibility or make geocentrism a dogma of Catholic belief.’---Fr Paul Robinson: The Realist Guide to Religion and Science, p.284.

The Vatican records show that on February 24th 1616 Pope Paul V approved the following as Prefect of the Congregation of the Inquisition.

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.” (2) The second proposition, “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

Bellarmine’s 1615 Letter reply to Paolo Foscarini: ‘Second: I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but 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 [geocentrism] 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.’

the Inquisition’s 1633 Sentence
, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”

‘As Fr Jaki points out, it was not really until a statistically significant parallax shift was observed that heliocentrism was grounded in strict scientific evidence.’ (Fr Paul Robinson: The realist Guide to Religion and Science. 2018, p282.)

So, is stellar parallax proof that the earth orbits the sun? Of course it‘s not, for the very same parallax will be found in the geocentric model.

‘In the fossil record, there is a series of simple to complex. Yes, it does show there is a progression from simple to complex but it doesn’t show us how that progression happened. It could have happened through animation [evolution] by natural selection, or could have been something else [theistic evolution?] .’--- Fr Paul Robinson.

‘Evolving from the simple to the complex’ is a joke. There is no such thing as the simple life in nature. Look at the eyes of the simple creatures below. Are the ‘simple’ bug-eyes shown below less ‘complex’ than the fully ‘evolved’ cow’s eyes on the right?

‘Since Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), Catholic exegetes have abandoned the idea that the Bible is meant to teach science, adding this principle to the age-old Catholic principle that the Bible must be reconciled with science, at least with settled science. Pope Leo explicitly states that Sacred Scripture speaks in a popular language that describes physical things as they appear to the senses, and so does not describe them with scientific exactitude. The Fathers of the Church were mistaken in some of their opinions about questions of science. Catholics are only obliged to follow the opinion of the Fathers when they were unanimous on questions of faith and morals, where they did not err, and not on questions of science, where they sometimes erred.’--- Fr Paul Robinson.

Is that a fact now Fr Robinson, no ‘science’ in the Bible? the Bible describes the ‘vapours’ emitted by the sun, not discovered until the 20th century. It also records its floodwater-caused geology, its water cycle (Eccles.1:7), its fixity of kinds, diversity of species, assessments of nutrition, methods of generation, its sanitation laws (Deut. 23:12-14), its rules for quarantining (Lev.13:1-5) and many other mundane profane references:

Moreover, on this subject, in 1920: Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus contradicted Pope Leo and Fr Robinson

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, following St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks --we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture….’--- Spiritus Paraclitus.

The triumph of the Big Bang theory was a triumph for science, for the universe corresponding to it can be explored by the scientific mind to an astonishing level of detail.’---Fr Paul Robinson SSPX: Realist Guide, p.366-7.

All this contradiction began in 1820 when Pope Pius VII adopted a fixed sun as the true meaning of Scripture.

Author Topic: SSPX and Fr Robinson SSPX on Biblical Genesis and geocentrism (Read 1302 times)

cassini

SSPX and Fr Robinson SSPX on Biblical Genesis and geocentrism