In his reply to the very last part of my article “Geocentrism and the Pitfalls of Over-literal Interpretation“, Bob Sungenis claims that he has “trapped” non-geocentrists by his insistence that God could only have accomplished the miracle of Joshua 10 in “two ways”. But ironically, he has left the keys to this “trap” in easy reach, providing the solution to his own dilemma right in the pages of his book Galileo Was Wrong.
Check out this new full-length article:
Bob Sungenis has repeatedly stated that the mobility of the earth is the real key to this whole controversy over geocentrism:
the historical record shows that it was only Galileo’s insistence that the earth moved that the Church addressed (“Mark Shea and the Ostriches”; emphasis mine.)
And,
But in my article “Geocentrism and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers“, I cited J. M. Lewis who states:
The eleven [theological experts of the Holy Office] would no doubt have consulted the Fathers of the Church and modern commentators and would have found nothing in them about the motion of the Earth – but they would have found nothing which denied it either (Galileo in France: French Reactions to the Theories and Trial of Galileo, p. 45).
This is now confirmed by a very interesting source. Fr. Melchior Inchofer, S. J. was a vigorous enemy of Galileo who played an important part in the trial and wrote the lengthy Tractatus Syllepticus against Copernicanism. But with respect to the Fathers and the immobility of the Earth he had this to say:
I have not found a single one of the Holy Fathers who has dealt with the motion of the earth clearly and positively, as the saying goes. But from some of them it is possible to deduce a few things that seem relevant here (from R. J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, p. 112.)
But one cannot possibly build an alleged “unanimous consent of the Fathers” out of what none of the Fathers deal with “clearly and positively” and what can at most be “deduced” out of “some of them”. Once again we find that when one looks behind the confident statements of the new geocentrists they just don’t deliver the goods.
“The heavens show forth the significance of man and the firmament declares the work of man’s hands”, thus sayeth the Scriptures?
No, wait, that’s not right.
Scripture says,
“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declares the work of his hands” (Psa 19:1).
There is a notion being bandied about by a certain group of Catholics that the Earth really needs to be at the physical center of the universe, otherwise man just isn’t “significant”. As an emotional or psychological argument this resonates with some people. But as a valid theological argument it limps badly.
By itself creation doesn’t proclaim the significance of man. How many of us have felt incredibly small compared to the vastness of the sea, or sensed our utter insignificance before the sweeping heights of the mountains? How much more do we instinctively understand our insignificance when we ponder the enormity of a universe consisting of billions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars? Guess what? In the physical realm we really are that paltry compared to the vastness of the created order.
Is it bad that compared to the universe man ends up looking pretty insignificant? Of course not. Creation testifies to the greatness of God, not the significance of man: “since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:20).
There is no good theological reason why our physical position in the universe must somehow validate our existential and/or theological “significance”. In fact, this whole notion can be flipped on its head. The immensity of the universe testifies to the immensity of God and our insignificance compared to Him. A theme that runs all through salvation history is that God regularly uses the weak and insignificant to shame the great and mighty. The greater our physical insignificance, the greater we may stand in awe and rejoice at the Divine condescension to become incarnate here.
That’s much better theology.
