For those following the Geocentrism Debate – I especially enjoyed the one on Pitfalls of Over-literal Interpretation

by Steve Ray on February 28, 2015

From my friend David Palm who runs the website It almost seems crazy to post blogs debating whether the sun rotates around the earth, or that the earth is the center of the universe with everything revolving around IT. But there are actually people out there with aluminum foil caps with antennas :-)  who still believe this.


The last update of Geocentrism Debunked focused on the false scientific claims of the new geocentrists, specifically their extravagant claims about the cosmic microwave background (CMB).  This update will focus more on the theology, specifically from a Catholic vantage (but those from a non-Catholic background, please read on to the end.)

 A traditional Catholic supporter of the new geocentrists recently insisted in an on-line discussion that the whole matter is a “tempest in a teapot”. To him “[Robert Sungenis] is clearly no threat to the integrity of faith and morals”. He asks, “Is the geocentrist theory a threat to faith and morals? No on all counts” and insists that “At any rate, these people aren’t bothering anybody.”

 These claims prompted me to finish an article that I’ve had in the works for a long time. Geocentrism as a scientific view is a massive exercise in special pleading gummed together with conspiracy theories. But taken by itself, it’s not theologically erroneous. The problem is that that geocentrist hold it first and foremost as a matter of faith. And for the Catholic geocentrists, this runs them right onto the rocks of an actual heresy that has been formally defined by the Catholic Church.

 This is documented in the new article “Geocentrism: Tempest in a Teapot or Theological Shipwreck?

 Presented in three parts, this piece answers directly the brush-off that the new geocentrism “is clearly no threat to the integrity of faith and morals” and that the new geocentrists, “aren’t bothering anybody”.  Ironically, in their zeal to uphold what they think is the “True Faith”, the Catholic geocentrists end up falling into a serious theological error that has been formally condemned by the Catholic Church.

 We also have three other articles that support that thesis and highlight the defective scholarship of the new geocentrists:

 “Geocentrism and the First Vatican Council”, which highlights still further the serious theological challenges faced by the new geocentrists. It’s not just the 1820-22 decrees that they have to face, declaring that there are “no obstacles” or “any difficulties” for Catholics to hold to non-geocentric views, but many other official acts since then.

 “Sungenis and Pius VII: Turning the Evidence on Its Head”, in which Robert Sungenis gets the import of an entry in the Acta of the Holy Office exactly backwards, and…..

 “It’s All in the Translation”, in which Sungenis mistranslates a French word and distorts a scholar’s meaning.

 Now, for those who come at this issue more from the vantage of what sacred Scripture has to say on the matter, please consider these articles:

 “Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10”, in which Sungenis himself admits that there are “inumerable” ways in which God could have accomplished the miracle recorded in Joshua 10 and,

 “Geocentrism and the Pitfalls of Over-literal Interpretation”, highlighting the sometimes humerous results when one applies a wooden literalism, even to the poetic parts of sacred Scripture.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

James Brady February 28, 2015 at 1:57 PM

I am interested in Vatican I. The “tempest in the teapot” also applies to the irrelevance of cosmological study in the greater scheme of things anyway. It just ain’t that important. Having said that I find the lack of unanimity of thought among cosmologists in general edifying itself. It may appear as “settled science” in most quarters but the door is wide open for alternative and ancient viewpoints (unpopular as they may seem). Since it appears the decree from that council “allows” for the heliocentric theory it doesn’t slam the door on geocentrism either. We have to be open to the fact that God made it in His way. In my view the debate is more about a “pissing match” among rivals than it is about a healthy objectivity of KNOWN facts, not theories heaped on theories (dark matter, etc). Another nefarious angle has to be acknowledged here as well. This is not dissimilar to the global warming debate in that sometimes you have to “follow the money”…

Leave a Comment


Previous post:

Next post: