Friday, January 6, 2012

Geocentrism.......Wow! A Reply and a Thank You to Stacy Trasancos

There is a very special Catholic blogger out there.

Her name is Stacy Trasancos, and she has guts.

Her blog, "Accepting Abundance", has run a feature by Stacy which, I think, might be the very first of its kind within the "mainstream" Catholic blogosphere.

Update 1/11/12:

Stacy has upped the ante quite considerably.

This is the best piece on the resurgence of geocentrism I have ever seen from a "mainstream" Catholic blogger.

Bravo, Stacy.

Imagine! A Catholic blog addressing the recent upsurge of interest in geocentrism (influenced by Dr. Robert Sungenis' ultra-controversial book "Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right") that does not essentially reduce to a series of screams- or, alternatively, a series of sneering idiocies that would make.............

Bill Maher proud.

Stacy suggests that this issue is really not all that big of a deal, and in this she is certainly wrong.

But I think Stacy has adopted this thesis primarily because she does not like- I mean, really really really does not like!- conflict among Catholics, and if there is any issue absolutely ga-ron-teed to create conflict among Catholics, it is this one.

So....why don't we all just agree that it's not that big of a deal and move know....progress?

Here's why.

The real heart of the matter here is the Copernican principle itself.

This is a metaphysical assumption.

It underlies essentially the totality of the "interpretive" side, as opposed to the strictly operational/experimental/observational side, of modern science.

Everything is interpreted through this fundamental lens, which states in essence:

"We are insignificant. We are nothing special."

*All* the observational data is interpreted through this metaphysical lens.

The cosmological data.

The biological and genetic data.

The archaeological data.

The reason the geocentrism issue is so vital, is that it was *precisely with the implementation of the heliocentric model* that this principle was first employed, and it has grown since to become, as I have said, the foundational metaphysical assumption underlying all of modern science.

What really bothers most Catholics about the geocentric issue, is that most Catholics believe the Church was wrong, and Galileo was right.

Many Catholics even believe that to take the other side of the question is-- now stop and think about this for a minute-- *unCatholic*!

This is a total, one-hundred-per-cent inversion of the Faith, and if it doesn't scare the h**l out of you it is because you haven't really grasped the implications.

God, through His Scriptures, attested by His Apostles, the Fathers, and His Church's ordinary magisterium, proposed a doctrine unanimously held as certain for at least 1,800 years.

From the beginning.

It was not held on the basis of science, but on the basis of Revelation.

But the scientific persuasiveness of heliocentrism- I mean, think about it, *we got the theory of gravity directly as a result of the heliocentric hypothesis!*- the persuasiveness was so profound, that it makes evolution, by comparison, look like a fairy tale cooked up by a couple of crackheads.

Geocentrism was certainly wrong.

Heliocentrism was certainly right.

The evidence was completely, utterly scientifically certain.

Except it was wrong.

All of it.


Every single basis of every single argument that led the Church to climb down- *on scientific grounds*- from the defense of a doctrine She had received- *on grounds of Faith*- has since been *scientifically* falsified..

But here we are, in the middle of arguably the worst crisis of Faith in the history of the Church, and the easiest way to get yourself banned from a combox is to mention the simple fact that every single argument advanced against geocentrism- from the trial of Galileo right up to the beginning of the 20th century- has been scientifically falsified.

This is diabolical disorientation itself.

In action.

This is how the Faith can be re-molded into something alien to Tradition.

And on what grounds?

Why, on the grounds of science- ***which has since been scientifically falsified!***.

Are we no longer capable of being appalled, outraged, shocked, offended, that we should have so meekly surrendered to an heresy, an inversion of Faith, that implicitly shapes our modern-day thinking?

"Reason is above Faith, but never in conflict with it".

That is heresy.

The truth is found in the precise inversion of the terms.

Faith is above reason, but never in conflict with *right* reason.

I love science.

Science is a precious jewel among the Catholic Church's gifts to Her civilization.

But science without metaphysics is insanity.
We alone have the true metaphysics by which to rescue science from its present, immediate and existential crisis.

We alone have the ability to show them that the problem is the very principle by which they have achieved their awesome successes (doesn't that just sound like the way God works, eh?).

The Copernican Principle is wrong.

Or else science is useless in establishing universal physical principles.

Simple as that.

And even the scientists are, at long last, forced to face this in all its awful truth.

My sincere thanks to Stacy, whom I admire very much. 


  1. Rick,

    Thanks for a terrific statement. You really hammer the nail on the head again and again and again.

    Today, more than ever, the scientists are scrambling around like blind mice on the sinking SS Heliocentric trying to blow more hot air hypotheses into the bowels of their sinking vessel. Their desperate and ever more bizarre attempts to keep it afloat shall ultimately fail, however; every last one of them. As the ship of fools goes down it will drag down the mother ship -- the flag ship of the fleet of false science, the SS Copernican Principle with it.

    As for the term "diabolical disorientation" which you employ above, it is quite apropos. I am reminded of how Sr. Lucia of Fatima used that same term in the latter years of her life to describe the condition of our times.

    James Phillips

  2. This is very progressive. Thank you! Bravo. :-) I'll spend some time trying to learn this step by step.

  3. Robert Sungenis just emailed me a long rebuttal to my post. I want to make something clear that seems to have been lost. I wrote that to encourage people to at least consider the things you are saying instead of summarily dismissing them. It wasn't addressed to you, Robert or James. And -- no one went nuts and a few people actually have decided to think it over. Only they emailed me privately. I'm seeing a pattern here.

  4. I was quite surprised at the lack of hysteria in the responses as well, Tracy. I understand your intent, and I want to again tell you that I very much appreciate it.

    I read Bob's response and I thought it was brilliant.

    Did you disagree with it?

  5. No. At first it felt like being flattened by a monster truck, but I got over it. You come on a bit strong is all.


    "What really bothers most Catholics about the geocentric issue, is that most Catholics believe the Church was wrong, and Galileo was right."

    I think, or I'd like to try to help communicate it based on the assumption, that this is something most Catholics don't understand, but really, really, really want to know better. They are tired of having to answer for Galileo, but they need information they can process and then communicate. Maybe start out avoiding controversial, poorly understood, terms like "geocentrism" and just talk about the history. And I'd tell them about the prevalent dishonesty in the modern science community, which is something most people already get.


  6. Well, Stacy, if there were a way to truthfully report l'affaire Galileo without reference to geocentrism, I cannot imagine what it might entail....

    It seems to me that the one thing not readily available out there is the simple, unvarnished truth:

    Galileo advanced an hypothesis as if it were an established fact; Bellarmine shot him down, Galileo decided to push the issue, and the Pope decided to enforce the unanimous Faith of the Church.

    Two centuries later, a stellar parallax was observed, and the Church essentially abandoned defense of the doctrine.

    Seventy years after that, science admitted that it could not provide any experimental evidence of any absolute motion of the Earth- *ever* (btw, this admission constitutes a complete and total vindication of the 1633 sentence of the Holy Office).

    By this time the Church's efforts were focused, not on defending the doctrine, but on defending the proposition that it was reformable.

    One hundred years after this, the Church essentially signaled- though never with the authority of the magisterium- that Galileo was right.

    Just in time for the galaxy surveys and WMAP to begin reporting back the astonishing evidence of a geocentric universe.

    The truth is:

    The Church should have stood Her ground, and didn't.

    The subsequent cost has been appalling.

    Think you can sell that?

  7. Rick,

    Could we rightly say it is an actual grace properly cooperated with to know and believe in geocentrism?

    If that be the case it would seem that we could then correctly assume that some people will most likely never believe geocentrism no matter how strong the evidence is presented to them.

    Along these lines it may be well to remind ourselves of how a good number of people did not accept the truth spoken by Jesus Christ. They did not accept the truth even though they were direct witnesses to the incarnate Truth and the miracles He performed, miracles which should have confirmed for them the inerrancy of the word spoken by this individual, one who Scripture tells us spoke with authority.

    Of course, some of the non-believers, accused the Lord of performing miracles through the power of the devil. I could well imagine that people with a mind set like this may very well never accept geocentrism unless God, Himself literally forces His way through their hard obstinacy, that being perhaps a rather unlikely scenario.

    James Phillips

  8. James:

    I have been thinking about your question for a couple of days, because it is an excellent one.

    There are two grounds upon which geocentrism can be advanced:

    First, on theological grounds, as a truth of Scripture, which proceeds from God and is, as you say, to be accepted on Faith, as an act of the will in conformity to the promptings of actual grace.

    On these grounds no scientific demonstration is necessary, or even relevant.

    Second, geocentrism can be advanced upon scientific grounds.

    On these grounds, no claim to Faith is necessary, or even relevant.

    The claim is advanced on grounds of reason alone, and *should*, in theory, be susceptible of acceptance on those grounds alone.

    But there is a huge impediment in this regard, which is, exactly, the virtually-universally accepted metaphysical assumption that the Copernican Principle is true.

    First, this Copernican Principle must be scientifically falsified.

    This has already occurred, as a matter of fact, in the face of the new cosmological observations addressed in my post "Lead, Follow, Or Get Out Of The Way", and which are dealt with in extensive scientific detail in "Galileo Was Wrong".

    Once the door is open to a new metaphysics, based upon a correct assumption about reality; that is, the precise opposite assumption to that advanced by the Copernican Principle, then it is possible we might see a resurgence of the geocentric hypothesis on scientific grounds, even strictly natural grounds, apart from Faith.

    But once such a natural-reason based change of view occurs, it leads necessarily to certain metaphysical, and ultimately theological, implications, doesn't it?

    Grace builds on nature.