Catholicism: Is Geocentrism 'de fide' (an Obligatory Article of Faith)? Yes and No.

[AveChristusRex]

This is a Catholic analysis of Geocentrism in the Church, as Jude1:3Contendforthefaith brought up verses and quotes from the Fathers [good read] on the matter:

1 Sam. 2:8 – “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and on them he has set the world.”

2 Sam. 22:16; Psalm 18:15 – “Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare…” (Describing the earth as having “foundations” is consistent with an earth that is fixed and established and does not move, as many Scriptures reveal).

1 Chron. 16:30 – “yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.” This and many other passages say very plainly that the earth does not move.

Job 26:7 – “He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.”

Job 38:4; cf. Job 9:6 – “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?”

Psalm 8:29 – “…when he marked out the foundations of the earth.”

Psalm 93:1 – “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.”

Psalm 102:25 – “Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”

Psalm 104:5 – “Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken.”

Psalm 119:90 – “thou has established the earth, and it stands firm.”

Isaiah 24:18 – “…for the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.”

Isaiah 48:13 – “My hand laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens…”

Isaiah 66:1 – “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.”

Joshua 10:12-14 – “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, ‘Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.’ And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord hearkened to the voice of a man; for the Lord fought for Israel.”

Judges 5:20 – “From heaven fought the stars, from their courses they fought against Sisera.”

Judges 5:31 – “So perish all thine enemies, O Lord! But thy friends be like the sun as he rises in his might.”

2 Kings 20:11 – “And Isaiah the prophet cried to the Lord; and he brought the shadow back ten steps, by which the sun had declined on the dial of Ahaz.”

Job 9:7 – “who commands the sun, and it does not rise.”

Psalm 19:5-6 – “In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridgegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.”

Psalm 104:19 – “Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.”

Eccles. 1:5 – “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”

As we all know, in 1633, Galileo was considered suspect of heresy for having written something favorable to heliocentrism after it had previously been condemned by the eleven theologians of the Holy Office. Obviously, therefore, the Holy Office of the Inquisition considered adherence to heliocentrism to be heretical on the grounds that it contradicted the decree of the eleven theologian qualifiers of the Holy Office in 1616, among other things. Galileo made the abjuration required by the Inquisition and was absolved: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you” (quoted by John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism).

In March 1664, Pope Alexander VII promulgated his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus prefaced by a Papal Bull in which he directs the entire Index to be deemed part of the bull itself and sharing its direct papal authority. This index includes all previous 'condemnations of Geocentric' [meaning Heliocentric] books in general and in particular and is confirmed and approved by apostolic authority: “Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden ‘all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun’” (John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism). The significance of this is that in 1775, French astronomer, Jospeh Lalande, went to the Vatican to seek to remove Galileo’s name from the Index, but he was told by the Holy Office that it could not be done unless the verdict of Galileo’s trial was rescinded. It has not been rescinded until this very day.

However, Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum (#4), April 20, 1921 says: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende ini una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

However, Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum (#4), April 20, 1921 says: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende ini una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

This is not shared by many saints, as St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, says: “But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false… Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also 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 center of the universe. Now consider whether 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 is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

We see very clearly that St. Robert Bellarmine held that geocentrism is de fide. He further stated that it was the position of all the theologians and all the fathers. As another writer on this issue said: “Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (Paula Haigh, Galileo’s Heresy #6).” Another fascinating quote on Geocentrism is by John Daly: “Ward quoted St. Robert Bellarmine’s letter to Father Foscarini in defence of this opinion, as the saint therein says that it is unobjectionable to write of heliocentrism as an hypothesis. But this fact is of no help to the argument because ( i ) it is quite plain from the context and the rest of what we know of Bellarmine’s thinking on the subject that he was referring only to a per impossibile hypothesis, useful, perhaps, as a basis for making practical calculations, but in no way recognising heliocentrism as being even possibly true, and ( ii ) this letter was not written in 1624 as Ward alleged in his first article in the Dublin Review on this subject (the saintly author having been already three years dead by that time), nor in 1620 as he alleged in his second article, but in 1615, before the Holy See had pronounced definitively on the topic; and no statement of Bellarmine’s can be traced subsequent to the 1616 decrees which could appear by any stretch of the imagination to attribute even hypothetical possibility to the heliocentric system.” (John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism)

With these quotes in mind, there are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe; or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide. If #1 is true, it not only means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical In Praeclara Summorum but that numerous popes allowed heresy to be taught by lifting decrees that forbade its publication. To accept that these popes were wrong which we must do if we believe that St. Robert Bellarmine and the theologians of the Holy Office were correct about Geocentrism, then it would actually prove that St. Robert Bellarmine could have been wrong. For if numerous popes could have been wrong about the theological status of a teaching that is actually de fide, then certainly a mere Doctor of the Church could have been wrong in his evaluation that such a teaching is de fide.

This is because “by the very apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the Magisterium is also comprehended…” (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chap. 4, Denz. 1832). Note that a pope doesn’t exercise the supreme power of the Magisterium in all of his acts, but he is the one who possesses it. Theologians or Doctors of the Church do not hold the supreme power of the Magisterium, so if a Pope could have been wrong and failed to recognize that something is de fide, then necessarily a mere saint or theologian, or Doctor of the Church could have been wrong in considering something to be de fide.

In favor of Geocentrism as 'de fide'

In favor of Geocentrism as not 'de fide'

1616: eleven theologians of the Holy Office condemn heliocentrism with tacit approval of Pope Paul V, St. Robert Bellarmine transmits this decision to Galileo and considers it binding; he considers Geocentrism to be de fide. The Cong. of the Index published a Decree forbidding all works favoring Heliocentrism 1633: The Holy Office considers Galileo suspect of heresy for favoring heliocentrism; he is required to make an abjuration which indicates that Heliocentrism is heretical and that geocentrism is de fide; this is done with approval from Pope Urban VIII, 1664-1665: Pope Alexander VII promulgates an Index on his own authority forbidding all works which contradict Geocentrism.

1757: Pope Benedict XIV suspends Decrees of the Congregation of the Index against Heliocentric works, 1822: With approval of Pope Pius VII, the Holy Office decides that books on movement of Earth could be printed at Rome, 1921: Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that the Earth might not be the center of the universe in In Praeclara Summorum, All popes from 1757- at least tacitly agree that, Heliocentrism or a non-Geocentric view of the universe may be held [but it is not held by the Church].

Therefore, it is clear that the acts against the denial of geocentrism are not infallible but are the correct viewpoint of the Church. As I stated, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held, but the Church does not hold it. Though St. Robert Bellarmine stated that Geocentrism was magisterially binding, it is not the case. However, even though it is not de fide, it is the constant, universal teaching of the Fathers, Saints, and Church, as seen above. What do you think?

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that, what we have here is an ancient near eastern cosmological perspective depicted in the old testament. And so you have a situation where geocentrism is the true and factual, original concept describes in the old testament. The early church was correctly reading the Bible.

However, the complication arises in that God wouldn't not have intended the Bible to be utilized in a way that teaches things like astronomy, and thus, even though the early church correctly read and interpreted the Bible, they simply were mistaken in how to apply what they were reading.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I think that, what we have here is an ancient near eastern cosmological perspective depicted in the old testament. And so you have a situation where geocentrism is the true and factual, original concept describes in the old testament. The early church was correctly reading the Bible.

I agree!

However, the complication arises in that God wouldn't not have intended the Bible to be utilized in a way that teaches things like astronomy, and thus, even though the early church correctly read and interpreted the Bible, they simply were mistaken in how to apply what they were reading.

Well, my irk is that the Scriptures [which we both agree are divinely inspired, as such it contains truths that reflect God’s perfect knowledge of all things including the natural world] make specific claims about the order of nature, and the workings of the heavens (e.g., Genesis 1, Job 38-39, Psalm 104); For instance:

• Isaiah 40:22 describes God as sitting above "the globe [globus] of the earth."
• Job 26:7 states that God "hangs the earth upon nothing," which aligns with the understanding of the earth suspended in space.
• Levitical laws regarding sanitation and quarantine (e.g., Leviticus 13:45-46) reflect modern epidemiology.

Ive always liked this equation:

The Bible	Science Then (in its consensus)	Science Now
The Earth Is a Sphere – Isaiah 40:22	The Earth Is a Flat Disk	The Earth Is a Sphere
Innumerable Stars – Jeremiah 33:22	Only 1,100 Stars	Innumerable Stars
Air Has Weight – Job 28:25	Air Is Weightless	Air Has Weight
Each Star Is Different – 1 Corinthians 15:41	All Stars Are the Same	Each Star Is Different
Light Moves – Job 38:19-20	Light Is Fixed in Place	Light Moves
Free Float of Earth in Space – Job 26:7	Earth Sat on a Large Animal	Free Float of Earth in Space
Winds Blow in Cyclones – Ecclesiastes 1:6	Winds Blow Straight	Winds Blow in Cyclones
Ocean Floor Contains Deep Valleys and Mountains – 2 Samuel 20:16 & Jonah 2:6	The Ocean Floor Is Flat	Ocean Floor Contains Deep Valleys and Mountains
Blood Is the Source of Life and Health – Leviticus 17:11	Sick People Must Be Bled	Blood Is the Source of Life and Health
Creation Made of Invisible Elements – Hebrews 11:3	Science Is Mostly Ignorant on the Subject	Creation Made of Invisible Elements (atoms)
The Ocean Contains Springs – Job 38:16	Ocean Is Only Fed by Rivers and Rain	The Ocean Contains Springs

Moreover, many great scientists (e.g., Newton, Kepler) were inspired by biblical principles believing that studying the natural world revealed God’s design. As such, the Bible’s descriptions of nature can serve as a reliable foundation for scientific exploration and contains fundamental truths that can be harmonized with scientific inquiry.

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree!

Well, my irk is that the Scriptures [which we both agree are divinely inspired, as such it contains truths that reflect God’s perfect knowledge of all things including the natural world] make specific claims about the order of nature, and the workings of the heavens (e.g., Genesis 1, Job 38-39, Psalm 104); For instance:

• Isaiah 40:22 describes God as sitting above "the globe [globus] of the earth."
• Job 26:7 states that God "hangs the earth upon nothing," which aligns with the understanding of the earth suspended in space.
• Levitical laws regarding sanitation and quarantine (e.g., Leviticus 13:45-46) reflect modern epidemiology.

Ive always liked this equation:

The Bible	Science Then (in its consensus)	Science Now
The Earth Is a Sphere – Isaiah 40:22	The Earth Is a Flat Disk	The Earth Is a Sphere
Innumerable Stars – Jeremiah 33:22	Only 1,100 Stars	Innumerable Stars
Air Has Weight – Job 28:25	Air Is Weightless	Air Has Weight
Each Star Is Different – 1 Corinthians 15:41	All Stars Are the Same	Each Star Is Different
Light Moves – Job 38:19-20	Light Is Fixed in Place	Light Moves
Free Float of Earth in Space – Job 26:7	Earth Sat on a Large Animal	Free Float of Earth in Space
Winds Blow in Cyclones – Ecclesiastes 1:6	Winds Blow Straight	Winds Blow in Cyclones
Ocean Floor Contains Deep Valleys and Mountains – 2 Samuel 20:16 & Jonah 2:6	The Ocean Floor Is Flat	Ocean Floor Contains Deep Valleys and Mountains
Blood Is the Source of Life and Health – Leviticus 17:11	Sick People Must Be Bled	Blood Is the Source of Life and Health
Creation Made of Invisible Elements – Hebrews 11:3	Science Is Mostly Ignorant on the Subject	Creation Made of Invisible Elements (atoms)
The Ocean Contains Springs – Job 38:16	Ocean Is Only Fed by Rivers and Rain	The Ocean Contains Springs

Moreover, many great scientists (e.g., Newton, Kepler) were inspired by biblical principles believing that studying the natural world revealed God’s design. As such, the Bible’s descriptions of nature can serve as a reliable foundation for scientific exploration and contains fundamental truths that can be harmonized with scientific inquiry.

I think this approach to scripture just pulls you into some rough areas. Like supporting tycho's geocentrism. I don't think I could go to that length.

And I don't think the passages really help in the above table. For example, Isaiah 40:22, it doesn't actually say that the earth is a sphere. It just references the "circle" of the earth. Which, circles of course are not spheres. Circles are flat, like a disk. There has never been a consensus among scientists that Earth has sat on top of a large animal. Even the earliest of Greeks to perform science of course recognized that the earth was not flat, so I don't think it's fair to say that there was a "scientific consensus" of a flat earth in the past. Even Job 26:7. it says that heaven is stretched out over tohu and that earth hangs on beliymah. But these Hebrew terms, tohu for example, are translated as "nothing" the earth hangs on "nothing". But in the Old Testament, tohu is not empty space. Rather it is something like an empty desert where there is "nothing". Like if you turned on the TV and couldn't find anything to watch, and you said "There is nothing on tv!". There is a difference between "nothing" in terms of meaning or purpose, and "nothing" in terms of material matter.

So the text doesn't really clarify the issue. The "circle" of the earth is ambiguous. It may very well just be talking about a flat circle. And so, is it really sufficient to justify a belief in geocentrism based on ambiguous text?

 

[AveChristusRex]

And I don't think the passages really help in the above table. For example, Isaiah 40:22, it doesn't actually say that the earth is a sphere. It just references the "circle" of the earth. Which, circles of course are not spheres. Circles are flat, like a disk.

The word translated "circle" is חוּג (chug) and only occurs three times in the OT:

• Job 22:14 where it describes the "vault" of heaven
• Prov 8:27 - "When He [God] inscribed a circle on the face of the deep", ie, created the horizon which appears as a circle surrounding the observer from a vantage point
• Isa 40:22 - "circle of the earth".

There are two possible interpretations here:

• חוּג (chug) describes the horizon
• חוּג (chug) describes the vault of the heaven above which appears like a dome (see Gen 1:6f)

I also note that חוּג (chug) is preceded by the adverb "above" suggesting that God sits above the vault of the heaven covering the earth. Thus, the ancients thought of the earth as a circular disc capped by the vault of the heavens as per Gen 1:6 and Job 22:14. Many commentaries (and lexicons) arrive at the same conclusion.

• BDB: only of vault of the heavens חוּג שׁמים התהלך Job 22:14; בְּחֻקֿוֺ חוּג עלֿ תהום ׳פנ Proverbs 8:27; הישֵׁב עַלחֿוּג הארץ Isaiah 40:22.
• Ellicott: (22) The circle of the earth—i.e., the vault of heaven over-arching the earth (Job 22:14; Proverbs 8:27).
• Cambridge: the circle of the earth] i. e. the horizon, where earth and heaven meet (see Proverbs 8:27), “at the confines of light and darkness” (Job 26:10). The earth with its surrounding ocean is conceived as a flat disc, on which the arch of heaven comes down. The rendering “on the vault of the earth” (see Job 22:14, “vault of heaven,” the same word) is possible, though not so good.
• Pulpit Commenatry: Verse 22. - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth; rather, above the vault of the earth; above the vault of sky which seems to arch over the earth. As grasshoppers; i.e. minute, scarcely visible (comp. Numbers 13:33). That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain. So in Psalm 104:2, only that here the "curtain" is represented as one of thin gauze. The idea is common to Isaiah with Job (Job 9:8), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 51:15), and Zechariah (Zechariah 12:1), and is a favourite one in these later chapters (comp. Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13).
• Barnes: The circle of the earth - Or rather, "above" (על ‛al) the circle of the earth. The word rendered 'circle' (חוּג chûg) denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch"; and is applied to the arch or vault of the heavens, in Proverbs 8:27; Job 22:14. The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.

The Douay Rheims (the official Bible of the Church) refers to 'the globe of the earth' in Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”

But in the Old Testament, tohu is not empty space. Rather it is something like an empty desert where there is "nothing". Like if you turned on the TV and couldn't find anything to watch, and you said "There is nothing on tv!". There is a difference between "nothing" in terms of meaning or purpose, and "nothing" in terms of material matter.

I see this in relation to atoms, that being invisible / 'nothing,' yet still 'there.'

 

[Job 33:6]

The word translated "circle" is חוּג (chug) and only occurs three times in the OT:

• Job 22:14 where it describes the "vault" of heaven
• Prov 8:27 - "When He [God] inscribed a circle on the face of the deep", ie, created the horizon which appears as a circle surrounding the observer from a vantage point
• Isa 40:22 - "circle of the earth".

There are two possible interpretations here:

• חוּג (chug) describes the horizon
• חוּג (chug) describes the vault of the heaven above which appears like a dome (see Gen 1:6f)

I also note that חוּג (chug) is preceded by the adverb "above" suggesting that God sits above the vault of the heaven covering the earth. Thus, the ancients thought of the earth as a circular disc capped by the vault of the heavens as per Gen 1:6 and Job 22:14. Many commentaries (and lexicons) arrive at the same conclusion.

• BDB: only of vault of the heavens חוּג שׁמים התהלך Job 22:14; בְּחֻקֿוֺ חוּג עלֿ תהום ׳פנ Proverbs 8:27; הישֵׁב עַלחֿוּג הארץ Isaiah 40:22.
• Ellicott: (22) The circle of the earth—i.e., the vault of heaven over-arching the earth (Job 22:14; Proverbs 8:27).
• Cambridge: the circle of the earth] i. e. the horizon, where earth and heaven meet (see Proverbs 8:27), “at the confines of light and darkness” (Job 26:10). The earth with its surrounding ocean is conceived as a flat disc, on which the arch of heaven comes down. The rendering “on the vault of the earth” (see Job 22:14, “vault of heaven,” the same word) is possible, though not so good.
• Pulpit Commenatry: Verse 22. - It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth; rather, above the vault of the earth; above the vault of sky which seems to arch over the earth. As grasshoppers; i.e. minute, scarcely visible (comp. Numbers 13:33). That stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain. So in Psalm 104:2, only that here the "curtain" is represented as one of thin gauze. The idea is common to Isaiah with Job (Job 9:8), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 10:12; Jeremiah 51:15), and Zechariah (Zechariah 12:1), and is a favourite one in these later chapters (comp. Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13).
• Barnes: The circle of the earth - Or rather, "above" (על ‛al) the circle of the earth. The word rendered 'circle' (חוּג chûg) denotes "a circle, sphere, or arch"; and is applied to the arch or vault of the heavens, in Proverbs 8:27; Job 22:14. The phrase 'circle,' or 'circuit of the earth,' here seems to be used in the same sense as the phrase orbis terrarum by the Latins; not as denoting a sphere, or not as implying that the earth was a globe, but that it was an extended plain surrounded by oceans and mighty waters. The globular form of the earth was then unknown; and the idea is, that God sat above this extended circuit, or circle; and that the vast earth was beneath his feet.

The Douay Rheims (the official Bible of the Church) refers to 'the globe of the earth' in Isaias (Isaiah) 40:22: “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”

I see this in relation to atoms, that being invisible / 'nothing,' yet still 'there.'

Neither of the above, the dome interpretation or the horizon, suggest anything about the shape of the earth and whether or not it is a sphere. That passage has nothing to do with the spherical shape of the earth.

And all you've done is affirm the passages ambiguity on the topic.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Neither of the above, the dome interpretation or the horizon, suggest anything about the shape of the earth and whether or not it is a sphere. That passage has nothing to do with the spherical shape of the earth.

And all you've done is affirm the passages ambiguity on the topic.

Well, in regards to Scripture, we see it differently. The Douay-Rheims is the faithful and exact translation of St. Jerome's Vulgate, which is declared infallible and divinely inspired by the Church. If the Latin of the Vulgate uses 'globus,' then '[He] sites on a globe' is the correct interpretation and is scientifically sound. Much love!

 

[Job 33:6]

Well, in regards to Scripture, we see it differently. The Douay-Rheims is the faithful and exact translation of St. Jerome's Vulgate, which is declared infallible and divinely inspired by the Church. If the Latin of the Vulgate uses 'globus,' then '[He] sites on a globe' is the correct interpretation and is scientifically sound. Much love!

When did any church ever declare any Bible translation to be infallible? You just said it yourself that there are multiple ways to interpret this.

This is not evidence of the Bible speaking about the shape of the earth if the text has numerous interpretations. The hug is specifically used in reference to the firmament elsewhere in the Bible. It has nothing to do with earths shape.

This is more of a matter of selective reading.

 

[AveChristusRex]

When did any church ever declare any Bible translation to be infallible?

The reason it is so important to be true to the Vulgat is that the Vulgate was proclaimed “authentic” by the Council of Trent in 1546, who proclaimed: “No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (4th Ses., April 8, 1546). Pope Pius XII declared that this [the Vulgate, and subsequently, the Douay-Rheims] means it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” (1943); moreover stating that it was free from all errors and SUPERIOR to all vernaculars and that all vernacular translations must use the Vulgate as their basis.

As such, in the Catholic mind [Magisterially], any non-Vulgate scripture is 'lesser' or of lesser quality than that of direct Vulgate translation, which only the 1609 Douay-Rheims can claim. Though I do not pull the ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church) card very often, I will say that if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons. I'll stop there, but I will quote the Rt. Rev. Henry Graham's 'Where We Got the Bible': “…At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and who, living so near the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountain-head, was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equaled.” For more, read my thread: Is the Vulgate a 'Divinely Inspired' Translation? Is the Douay-Rheims its Faithful English Counterpart?

You just said it yourself that there are multiple ways to interpret this.

Correct! Multiple interpretations may exist, but the scriptural basis must originate from the Vulgate.

This is not evidence of the Bible speaking about the shape of the earth if the text has numerous interpretations. The hug is specifically used in reference to the firmament elsewhere in the Bible. It has nothing to do with earths shape.

That is a fair interpretation! Even if it is speaking on the Earth, let's remember that "...[the sacred writers] did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science" (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893). It shows that the Scriptures may provide figurative language in some subjects, but it is the Church that decides and develops the science; in this case, the sphericity is not debated among the Fathers, thus defining it in doctrine.

 

[Job 33:6]

The reason it is so important to be true to the Vulgat is that the Vulgate was proclaimed “authentic” by the Council of Trent in 1546, who proclaimed: “No one [may] dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.” (4th Ses., April 8, 1546). Pope Pius XII declared that this [the Vulgate, and subsequently, the Douay-Rheims] means it is “free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals.” (1943); moreover stating that it was free from all errors and SUPERIOR to all vernaculars and that all vernacular translations must use the Vulgate as their basis.

Authenticity and usability are not infallibility. What you've said is incorrect. The church does not claim infallibility of any translation. And saying that it is free from error in matters of faith and morals, is not to say that it is free from error of other topics such as translation or science.

This is similar to how many Protestants focus on the fact that scripture is "God breathed" and good for teaching. But that is not to say that the Vulgate is infallible or even superior to the original languages, such as when hug is used elsewhere in the Bible to refer to the firmament, and not the earth.

Here are the terms other uses:

Job 22:14 NKJV
[14] Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.’

Here again, referring to the firmament. God walks on it. Thick clouds veil him because it is a circuit that rises above the earth.

Proverbs 8:27-29 NKJV
[27] When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep, [28] When He established the clouds above, When He strengthened the fountains of the deep, [29] When He assigned to the sea its limit, So that the waters would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth,

Again, here we see the hug drawn upon the face of the deep. That is, the circle drawn upon the surface of the waters. The surface of the waters are also flat, affirming that this term is not referring to a sphere. Also, it even describes that this structure served as the boundary for the sea. This is the function of the firmament. It has nothing to do with earths shape.

Job 26:10 NKJV
[10] He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.

Same as above. Again, here we additionally see the circumference or the circle, the horizon, where the sun sets, described as the boundary between light and dark. That's flat. The horizon is not a sphere. It is the circumference, or the circle of the firmament. The boundary of the sea. The horizon etc.

It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It's not about the earth. That's why it is the circle of the earth. It's not the circular earth. Rather it is the circuit that is upon or of the earth.

s such, in the Catholic mind [Magisterially], any non-Vulgate scripture is 'lesser' or of lesser quality than that of direct Vulgate translation, which only the 1609 Douay-Rheims can claim. Though I do not pull the ECNS ('extra Ecclesiam nulla salus,' i.e., no salvation outside the Church) card very often, I will say that if the Catholic [and Orthodox Church ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia] Church is the One, True, Church; and because the Greek and Hebrew were written by individuals who did not pertain to Catholic principles, we cannot trust these translations to provide the fullness of the Magisterial Appeal, though they are not entirely out of the picture for use. The Vulgate is superior to Hebrew and Greek for these reasons. I'll stop there, but I will quote the Rt. Rev. Henry Graham's 'Where We Got the Bible': “…At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and who, living so near the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountain-head, was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equaled.” For more, read my thread: Is the Vulgate a 'Divinely Inspired' Translation? Is the Douay-Rheims its Faithful English Counterpart?

Correct! Multiple interpretations may exist, but the scriptural basis must originate from the Vulgate.

According to you. This isn't an argument, it's just rhetoric.

That is a fair interpretation! Even if it is speaking on the Earth, let's remember that "...[the sacred writers] did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science" (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893). It shows that the Scriptures may provide figurative language in some subjects, but it is the Church that decides and develops the science; in this case, the sphericity is not debated among the Fathers, thus defining it in doctrine.

The Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1979, is the official Latin Bible for the Church today. However, it is a revision of the Vulgate based on the original languages, demonstrating the importance the Church places on those texts.

The Nova Vulgate also does not use the word "Globe".

Isaiah 40 from the 'Nova Vulgata' translation freely available online!

Consolamini, consolamini populum meum, dicit Deus vester. Loquimini ad cor Ierusalem et clamate ad eam, quoniam completa est militia eius, expiata est

www.studylight.org

.https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=gyrus

It refers to a circuit or circle. Or a circle or compass according to the Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin.

For although the words of the Vulgate, when, as often happens, they are more clearly in harmony with the original texts than those of other editions, deserve due consideration, nevertheless, in many cases, the ancient versions must be had recourse to in order to elucidate the true meaning of the Scriptures. And likewise, the original text, which was written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any translation, however ancient, be it even the Vulgate.”
(Divino Afflante Spiritu, §21)

“For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking, and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”
(Dei Verbum, §12).

All you're doing is taking a specific translation, making false claims about it being infallible which no one has ever said, disregarding all other translations, including the terms use in the original Hebrew, in which it is used to refer to the firmament elsewhere in scripture (it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth), and you're just abusing the text for the sake of justifying a belief in geocentrism, and not only geocentrism but a model of geocentrism that was disproven centuries ago. Tycho was wrong topics such as the phases of Venus and stellar parallax and it's just a basic fact of history that he was wrong.

Then when asked about how the US, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, The EU, the UK, and even the UAE, all have devices in deep space and all have affirmed heliocentrism, you just assume them all to be a part of some giant conspiracy to hide some bizarre idea that the sun orbits the earth.

This is all so bad, that I can only conclude that you're being intentionally dishonest. And with that, I'm going to move on. I don't see any value in continuing our conversation.

 

[AveChristusRex]

Authenticity and usability are not infallibility.

The term authentic (Latin: authentica) can imply a higher degree of reliability than mere usefulness, suggesting that the Vulgate carries a special providential preservation; it also specifically says exegesis [exposition]: "The Vulgate edition, which, inasmuch as it has been approved by the Church, has been used in public readings, disputations, preaching, and exposition (Latin: expositionibus), is to be held authentic, and no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.” In the same session, the Council refers to expositionibus in its decree on Scripture: "Nulli liceat ... contra unanimem consensum Patrum ipsam Scripturam sacram interpretari, vel exponere." Here, exponere (to explain or interpret) aligns directly with Latin term expositio and its variations (exponere, expositionibus), and function as direct equivalents to the Greek exegesis. The importance here is that individuals such as St. Augustine frequently use expositio to describe the act of interpreting Scripture, such as in Expositio in Psalmos (Commentary on the Psalms); and as such, the Council was directly stating that the Church has used the Vulgate in its exegesis of Scripture historically. So just as the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and is protected by the Holy Spirit from error in matters of faith and morals, since the Scriptures are the foundation of faith, any officially promulgated version of the Bible must be trustworthy and free from substantial error. To assert otherwise would undermine confidence in the Church’s divine authority and guidance.

Moreover, the "Vulgate" is not one specific work but a tradition of works, as neither Jerome's work nor others of his time were entirely complete, with the Douay-Rheims using the Leuven Edition. The Council of Trent used "old and vulgate edition" (vetus et vulgata editio) which referred broadly to the textual tradition descending from St. Jerome's translation and commonly used in liturgical and theological contexts; At the time, this textual tradition existed in various manuscript forms, none of which were entirely uniform. This was until the bull Cum Sacrorum which asserted that every subsequent edition of scripture must be assimilated to the Clementine Vulgate, that no word of the text may be changed and that variant readings may not be printed in the margin: "We command therefore all and every one, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Churches and localities, even regular Prelates, to see to it that the letters before them are observed inviolably by all in their respective Churches and jurisdictions." As such God would not allow His Church to universally promulgate an imperfect Scripture as the standard for faith. As St. Augustine wrote regarding the Scriptures: “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (Contra Epistolam Manichaei, 5.6). Applying this principle, if the Church, as the divinely guided authority, promulgated the Vulgate as the authentic (authentica) version for exposition (expositionibus), it must necessarily be trustworthy and inerrant in all essential matters.

The church does not claim infallibility of any translation. And saying that it is free from error in matters of faith and morals, is not to say that it is free from error of other topics such as translation or science.

You said, "For although the words of the Vulgate, when, as often happens, they are more clearly in harmony with the original texts than those of other editions, deserve due consideration, nevertheless, in many cases, the ancient versions must be had recourse to in order to elucidate the true meaning of the Scriptures. And likewise, the original text, which was written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any translation, however ancient, be it even the Vulgate." The Church’s teaching on the authority of the Latin Vulgate version of the Bible does not prohibit the use of original biblical languages and an examination of textual variants to confirm the Vulgate, as stated in Divino Afflante Spiritu (#22): “Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word…” (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu #22, Sept. 30, 1943).

Pius states that the authority of the Vulgate is not being questioned, and an examination of textual variants will corroborate and confirm the Vulgate. Not only this, he out-and-out states that the original texts make the authority of the Vulgate clear and evident. Moreover, Pius doesn't directly state to forgo the Vulgate in using other source texts, but he adds on to the previous declaration [through the conjunction 'nor'] that Trent does not condemn the usage of other texts for the confirmation of the Vulgate, but, again, the original texts make the authority of the Vulgate clear and evident. Pius himself says in #21: "Hence this special authority or as they say, authenticity of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals; so that, as the Church herself testifies and affirms, it may be quoted safely and without fear of error in disputations, in lectures and in preaching; and so its authenticity is not specified primarily as critical, but rather as juridical." Clearly, the Vulgate is inerrant, and it is preferrable to all other source texts: "the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.""

Pius is coagulating the Vulgate's authority with that of Providentissimus Deus: "because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author." I don't think it would be far-fetched to consider the Vulgate to be divinely inspired, as Providentissimus Deus states that the Vulgate is the incarnation of the Scriptures' "truth;" he said: "In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down. Let them loyally hold that God, the Creator and Ruler of all things, is also the Author of the Scriptures - and that therefore nothing can be proved either by physical science or archaeology which can really contradict the Scriptures. If, then, apparent contradiction be met with, every effort should be made to remove it. Judicious theologians and commentators should be consulted as to what is the true or most probable meaning of the passage in discussion, and the hostile arguments should be carefully weighed. Even if the difficulty is after all not cleared up and the discrepancy seems to remain, the contest must not be abandoned; truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself; and if no such mistake can be detected, we must then suspend judgment for the time being."

Note that prior, he stated that the only valid interpretation of scripture was the "ancient Latin Vulgate," and thus, by saying the "interpretation of Scripture is without error," it would be logical that the Vulgate is indeed without error in any way; and in implying that the Vulgate is the incarnation of the truth of the Scriptures ("truth cannot contradict truth"), he also implies that the Holy Ghost employed St. Jerome as His instrument to provide the Vulgate to the Church [at least, the Holy Spirit guided the Church into the actualization of the Vulgate]. In regards to Doctrine, the Church infallibly dictates what the Canon of Scripture is, and [by nature of infallibility] does this with the grace of the Holy Spirit; note then that all books that were declared Canon by the Church were originally translated through St. Jerome, thus constituting that Jerome's work was not infallible in itself, but constitutes perfection. Moreover, if we are to consider things such as the words of Jesus from the cross in Luke: "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," [while our earlier texts don't have that line, we consider it to be] a divinely inspired addition, then Jerome's changes and translation decisions constitute divinely inspired changes.

According to you. This isn't an argument, it's just rhetoric.

Possibly, I don't discount that, but I am not the only one to make this assertion, as Rt. Rev. Henry Graham's 'Where We Got the Bible' says in regards to the Vulgate: “…At a single leap we thus arrive at that great work, completed by the greatest scholar of his day, who had access to manuscripts and authorities that have now perished, and who, living so near the days of the Apostles, and, as it were, close to the very fountain-head, was able to produce a copy of the inspired writings which, for correctness, can never be equaled."

It has nothing to do with the shape of the earth. It's not about the earth. That's why it is the circle of the earth. It's not the circular earth. Rather it is the circuit that is upon or of the earth.

I don't discount this as a possibility, but that's why in my original message in Geocentric or Heliocentric (what shape is the earth) ? I talked about proofs in the Church specifically, such as Pope Leo XIII using the French word for globe in his Sep. 8, 1899 encyclical, Depuis Le Jour (#1): “... [God chose] Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe [French: confins du globe], and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism.” I think you took one of the nine points and extrapolated it to be a lot more substantial in the point I was making than was originally implied.

The Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1979, is the official Latin Bible for the Church today. However, it is a revision of the Vulgate based on the original languages, demonstrating the importance the Church places on those texts.

I do not accept the Nova Vulgata for various reasons, as it is erroneous in many ways and in who promulgated it, take this as an example: Problems with the Nova Vulgata in the Gospel of Matthew.

All you're doing is taking a specific translation, making false claims about it being infallible which no one has ever said, disregarding all other translations, including the terms use in the original Hebrew, in which it is used to refer to the firmament elsewhere in scripture (it has nothing to do with the shape of the earth), and you're just abusing the text for the sake of justifying a belief in geocentrism, and not only geocentrism but a model of geocentrism that was disproven centuries ago. Tycho was wrong topics such as the phases of Venus and stellar parallax and it's just a basic fact of history that he was wrong.

My belief in geocentrism is not based on the Vulgate alone, in fact I formulated by views on geocentrism after I began to study the Vulgate. I think you also forgot that I specifically mentioned the modified tychonian model, proposed by Dr. Sungenis et al., I never said that I believed in the antiquated tychonian model, which has its issues. You say the same thing here: "you just assume them all to be a part of some giant conspiracy to hide some bizarre idea that the sun orbits the earth," to which I specifically denied: "No. I think that those that do [follow 'global conspiracies'] are not fully following the Scripture: "Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread" (Isaiah 8:12-13)."

I forgive you for the misinterpretation, but you disregarded what I had said prior, and I think that is a mistake, but if it is not, I forgive you anyway! I feel that you are tensive about this subject, and I will pray that you are restored to a mentality of peace. God bless!

 

[Job 33:6]

The term authentic (Latin: authentica) can imply a higher degree of reliability than mere usefulness, suggesting that the Vulgate carries a special providential preservation.

It's just not referring to infallibility in terms of translation or in terms of concepts of science. What you've said is just plainly false and that's about all there is to this topic.

Clearly, the Vulgate is inerrant, and it is preferrable to all other source texts: "the same Council rightly declared to be preferable that which "had been approved by its long-continued use for so many centuries in the Church.""

No. Again, free of error with respect to matters of faith and morals is not the same as infallibility in terms of translation or science, among other things.

Pius is coagulating the Vulgate's authority with that of Providentissimus Deus: "because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author." I don't think it would be far-fetched to consider the Vulgate to be divinely inspired, as Providentissimus Deus states that the Vulgate is the incarnation of the Scriptures' "truth;" he said: "In order that all these endeavours and exertions may really prove advantageous to the cause of the Bible, let scholars keep steadfastly to the principles which We have in this Letter laid down.

The original scriptures are not the Vulgate.

I don't discount this as a possibility, but that's why in my original message in Geocentric or Heliocentric (what shape is the earth) ? I talked about proofs in the Church specifically, such as Pope Leo XIII using the French word for globe in his Sep. 8, 1899 encyclical, Depuis Le Jour (#1): “... [God chose] Apostolic men destined to preach the true faith to the limits of the globe [French: confins du globe], and to carry the light of the Gospel to the nations yet plunged in the darkness of paganism.” I think you took one of the nine points and extrapolated it to be a lot more substantial in the point I was making than was originally implied.

Again, faith and morals, is not equivalent to translation or matters of science.

I do not accept the Nova Vulgata for various reasons, as it is erroneous in many ways and in who promulgated it, take this as an example: Problems with the Nova Vulgata in the Gospel of Matthew.

Of course you don't accept the Nova Vulgate. The church does not identify it as erroneous, but of course you do, I mean, you also believe in geocentrism.

My belief in geocentrism is not based on the Vulgate alone, in fact I formulated by views on geocentrism after I began to study the Vulgate. I think you also forgot that I specifically mentioned the modified tychonian model, proposed by Dr. Sungenis et al., I never said that I believed in the antiquated tychonian model, which has its issues. You say the same thing here: "you just assume them all to be a part of some giant conspiracy to hide some bizarre idea that the sun orbits the earth," to which I specifically denied: "No. I think that those that do [follow 'global conspiracies'] are not fully following the Scripture: "Do not call conspiracy everything this people calls a conspiracy; do not fear what they fear, and do not dread it. The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread" (Isaiah 8:12-13)."

Scripture, as you've noted, doesn't require a position of geocentrism. So it's not even reasonable to say that they aren't following scripture. You are very plainly promoting a conspiracy theory of geocentrism. As though millions of scientists and astronomers worldwide have been sending satellites and shuttles and rovers into deep space, but for whatever reason, everyone has somehow magically concluded that the earth orbits the sun despite your belief in geocentrism based on some ideas from Tycho back centuries ago. People are landing rovers on mars and sending them past Jupiter and saturn, but for whatever reason, according to your belief in a medieval belief of geocentrism, they just mysteriously have missed the fact that the sun is actually orbiting the earth.

It's just ridiculous.

And saying "it's a modified version" is completely meaningless when there is no published literature on such a thing in any scientific journal. There is absolutely nothing scientific or scientifically accurate about what you're saying. Indeed, there literally is no peer reviewed published literature supporting such an outdated and extensively disproven belief.

You may as well believe that the sun is orbiting a giant blob of gummy bears, and you could just say "well it's a modified model". I could care less. There's no scientific peer reviewed literature on anything like what you're describing. What you're describing is completely imaginary misinformation.

And you say that your belief in geocentrism isn't based on the vulgate. Well it certainly isn't based on anything in science either. It's not based on anything credible at all but your own personal imagination.

 

[AveChristusRex]

I apologize if this has made you upset, as you seem upset and that was not my intention; and I hope my response will be in accordance with Proverbs 15:1: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

It's just not referring to infallibility in terms of translation or in terms of concepts of science. What you've said is just plainly false and that's about all there is to this topic.

The Church provides the interpretation of scripture, so to are they able to declare what is scientific and what is not; First Vatican Council declares: "[the Church] derives from God the right and the duty of proscribing false science" (Dei Filius 1798).

No. Again, free of error with respect to matters of faith and morals is not the same as infallibility in terms of translation or science, among other things.

You, again, misunderstand what the Vulgate is. From Wikipedia: "It is largely the work of St. Jerome who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels used by the Roman Church." As I said, the "Vulgate" is not one specific work but a tradition of works, as neither Jerome's work nor others of his time were entirely complete, with the Douay-Rheims using the Leuven Edition. The Council of Trent used "old and vulgate edition" (vetus et vulgata editio) which referred broadly to the textual tradition descending from St. Jerome's translation and commonly used in liturgical and theological contexts; At the time, this textual tradition existed in various manuscript forms, none of which were entirely uniform. When I say the Vulgate is "infallible," I am referring to the inerrancy of the Scriptural tradition, and that it was a divinely inspired tradition that was actualized through the Clementine Vulgate, according to Cum Sanctorum: "When the text of the Vulgate edition of the sacred Bibles, restored with great labor and vigilance, and purged as accurately as possible of errors, may the Lord bless us, let it come to light from our Vatican printing press." He later states: "...we order that this caution be used, so that no one presumes to order this edition of the Holy Scriptures to be printed, unless he has first obtained a copy in the Vatican printing press: the form of which copy, not even the smallest particle of the text has been changed, added, or taken away from it unless if something occurs which is clearly to be attributed to typographical carelessness, it will be observed inviolably." The last sentence is important, as it [the edition] is observed inviolably [secure from violation or profanation], or, in another sense, doctrinally infallible.

Of course you don't accept the Nova Vulgate. The church does not identify it as erroneous, but of course you do, I mean, you also believe in geocentrism.

I do not accept the Nova Vulgata because it was promulgated under the authority of John Paul II, whom I do not recognize as a valid, legal pontiff. See my post in the thread Two more Italian priests sanctioned for claiming Francis is ‘anti-pope’ for more information.

Scripture, as you've noted, doesn't require a position of geocentrism. So it's not even reasonable to say that they aren't following scripture. You are very plainly promoting a conspiracy theory of geocentrism. As though millions of scientists and astronomers worldwide have been sending satellites and shuttles and Rogers into deep space, but for whatever reason, everyone has somehow magically concluded that the earth orbits the sun despite your belief in geocentrism based on some ideas from Tycho back centuries ago. People are landing rovers on mars and sending them past Jupiter and saturn, but for whatever reason they just mysteriously have missed the fact that the sun is actually orbiting the earth.

These satellites provide good information, but they have not conclusively proven that the earth revolves around the sun, see Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p. 212 (p. 248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS." Moreover, Hawking says that believing that we are not unique in the universe is only a position that can be held 'out of modesty' in principle (A Brief History of Time): "…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."

Marcus Chown in New Scientist, October 22, 2005, said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology) that the apparent alignment of the Cosmic Microwave Background and our ecliptic could only be denied because it is 'unwelcome': "…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” Secondly, you cannot see what revolves around one another through observations from a rover, nor a satellite, shuttle, or roger; according to George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations; for instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”

And saying "it's a modified version" is completely meaningless when there is no published literature on such a thing in any scientific journal.

I am unsure whether you specified "in any scientific journal" because of the fact that I cited published literature prior, but I will say that scientific journals base their publications on philosophy as well as science, according to George Ellis: "What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” We may in the future see publication of it in a scientific journal, but not at this time.

You may as well believe that the sun is orbiting a giant blob of gummy bears, and you could just say "well it's a modified model". I could care less. There's no scientific peer reviewed literature on anything like what you're describing. What you're describing is completely imaginary misinformation.

The 'modification' is from recent findings on elliptical orbits, and is described in the aforementioned "The TYCHOS - Our Geoaxial Binary System (2nd Edition)."

And you say that your belief in geocentrism isn't based on the vulgate. Well it certainly isn't based on anything in science either.

I am confused as to your anger on this topic, as this seems like an unwinnable discussion for the both of us, as no observation nor scientific study at this time has been able to state that geocentrism or heliocentrism wins over the other. Sir Fred Hoyle, "Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course," (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416, 1975: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." You have continued to be rather insulting with some of your language, regardless of my petitioning to "agree to disagree." I pray that we find peace in this matter and end on a good note, as I do not like to discuss things in bad will, and will never speak in bad will intentionally, as I am a pacifist and wish to be in accordance with Proverbs 15:1 and James 1:26: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless."

You previously attempted to continue the discussion after my petition for peace, but I will restate what I believe you overlooked originally: We can both agree, however, that the Church Fathers [and the Church as a whole] has historically taught and held geocentrism in its bosom, and as such has ramifications that are seen in different respects between the two of us. I think that your position is fair, and I would not consider you wrong or anything such as, but I will say that we both respectfully disagree with one another on the scientific matter, and thus we should revel in what we do agree on and expand our understanding thusly. Let us remember Romans 12:18: "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." God bless!

 

[Edwin Wright]

Well, in regards to Scripture, we see it differently. The Douay-Rheims is the faithful and exact translation of St. Jerome's Vulgate, which is declared infallible and divinely inspired by the Church. If the Latin of the Vulgate uses 'globus,' then '[He] sites on a globe' is the correct interpretation and is scientifically sound. Much love!

The ORIGINAL (1582/1609/1610) Douay-Rheims Holy Bible is as you say, “a faithful and exact translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate.” The Challoner revision (1749–52), however, is a corruption of that translation, a glaring example of which is Isaiah 40:22. St. Jerome’s Vulgate uses the expression gyrum terrae that is translated correctly in the original Douay-Rheims as compass of the earth but incorrectly in the Challoner revision as globe of the earth.

The Vulgate does use the word globus (only once, I believe) but in a completely different context—a military context—in Numbers 16:11 where globus is translated as company (i.e., a group or company of men).

A web page explaining the entire matter is included on my website—see The Corrupted Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible (1749–1752).

 

[AveChristusRex]

The ORIGINAL (1582/1609/1610) Douay-Rheims Holy Bible is as you say, “a faithful and exact translation of St. Jerome’s Vulgate.” The Challoner revision (1749–52), however, is a corruption of that translation, a glaring example of which is Isaiah 40:22. St. Jerome’s Vulgate uses the expression gyrum terrae that is translated correctly in the original Douay-Rheims as compass of the earth but incorrectly in the Challoner revision as globe of the earth.

The Vulgate does use the word globus (only once, I believe) but in a completely different context—a military context—in Numbers 16:11 where globus is translated as company (i.e., a group or company of men).

A web page explaining the entire matter is included on my website—see The Corrupted Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible (1749–1752).

I wish I had found your website before, you are exactly right! Though, I believe globus and compass both mean the same, though in different contexts [such as "ends of the earth"], but you are right in saying the Challoner is corrupted, as I spoke on it here: My struggle with bibles

I love the info on your website, am I able to use it / take from it in the future? It is a joy to see another 1609 Douay-Rheims here!

 

[Edwin Wright]

I wish I had found your website before, you are exactly right! Though, I believe globus and compass both mean the same, though in different contexts [such as "ends of the earth"], but you are right in saying the Challoner is corrupted, as I spoke on it here: My struggle with bibles

I love the info on your website, am I able to use it / take from it in the future? It is a joy to see another 1609 Douay-Rheims here!

Appreciate your comments. Feel free to quote from my website as you require. As you know, the original Douay-Rheims (with its copious notes, annotations and references) was never reprinted or republished after about the mid-1600's because of the penal laws. It's time for Catholics to have the original Douay-Rheims Holy Bible professionally reprinted and republished WORD-FOR-WORD exactly as it appeared in the seventeenth century (and possibly interlinear with the Latin Vulgate) the only change being modernization of the spelling (although I have mixed feelings about even making that change). My hope would be for a Catholic group or organization to approach a world-class publisher in this regard. We need to set the record straight vis-à-vis Catholic scripture.

 

[AveChristusRex]

It's time for Catholics to have the original Douay-Rheims Holy Bible professionally reprinted and republished WORD-FOR-WORD exactly as it appeared in the seventeenth century (and possibly interlinear with the Latin Vulgate) the only change being modernization of the spelling (although I have mixed feelings about even making that change). My hope would be for a Catholic group or organization to approach a world-class publisher in this regard. We need to set the record straight vis-à-vis Catholic scripture.

Personally, I got in touch with Derek Barnell of Church Latin Publishing Co. and requested a special copy be made for me in hardcover (because the hardcover editions were no longer in print); you can find it here: Original Douay Rheims Bible 3 Volume Set | churchlatin.com (and don't worry, they don't come out blue, but they only come in paperback now)

I also have a .PDF of it, though I had to archive it because it was a rather large file, but this website provides it too: Original Douay Rheims Bible (1582 & 1610)

Appreciate your comments. Feel free to quote from my website as you require.

Glory be to God for your amazing work on the Scriptures and our geocentric cosmos!

 

[Edwin Wright]

Personally, I got in touch with Derek Barnell of Church Latin Publishing Co. and requested a special copy be made for me in hardcover (because the hardcover editions were no longer in print); you can find it here: Original Douay Rheims Bible 3 Volume Set | churchlatin.com (and don't worry, they don't come out blue, but they only come in paperback now)

I also have a .PDF of it, though I had to archive it because it was a rather large file, but this website provides it too: Original Douay Rheims Bible (1582 & 1610)

Glory be to God for your amazing work on the Scriptures and our geocentric cosmos!

Thanks for the above links. They are excellent resources. About a year ago, I posted links to online facsimiles of the 1598 Vulgate (HathiTrust) and the 1582/1609/1610 and 1635 Douay-Rheims (Internet Archive) with a publication appeal to my readership. Here is the link to that Blog A post on my website: LINKS TO THE LATIN VULGATE & ORIGINAL DOUAY-RHEIMS HOLY BIBLE. Hope you find these to be a convenient reference.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is a Catholic analysis of Geocentrism in the Church, as Jude1:3Contendforthefaith brought up verses and quotes from the Fathers [good read] on the matter:



As we all know, in 1633, Galileo was considered suspect of heresy for having written something favorable to heliocentrism after it had previously been condemned by the eleven theologians of the Holy Office. Obviously, therefore, the Holy Office of the Inquisition considered adherence to heliocentrism to be heretical on the grounds that it contradicted the decree of the eleven theologian qualifiers of the Holy Office in 1616, among other things. Galileo made the abjuration required by the Inquisition and was absolved: “We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before us the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you” (quoted by John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism).

In March 1664, Pope Alexander VII promulgated his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus prefaced by a Papal Bull in which he directs the entire Index to be deemed part of the bull itself and sharing its direct papal authority. This index includes all previous 'condemnations of Geocentric' [meaning Heliocentric] books in general and in particular and is confirmed and approved by apostolic authority: “Pope Alexander VII publishes a new Index in which are forbidden ‘all books and any booklets, periodicals, compositions, consultations, letters, glosses, opuscula, speeches, replies, treatises, whether printed or in manuscript, containing and treating the following subjects or about the following subjects…the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun’” (John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism). The significance of this is that in 1775, French astronomer, Jospeh Lalande, went to the Vatican to seek to remove Galileo’s name from the Index, but he was told by the Holy Office that it could not be done unless the verdict of Galileo’s trial was rescinded. It has not been rescinded until this very day.

However, Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum (#4), April 20, 1921 says: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende ini una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

However, Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum (#4), April 20, 1921 says: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende ini una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

This is not shared by many saints, as St. Robert Bellarmine, Letter to Paolo Antonio Foscarini, says: “But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false… Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also 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 center of the universe. Now consider whether 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 is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. 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 mouths of the prophets and apostles.”

We see very clearly that St. Robert Bellarmine held that geocentrism is de fide. He further stated that it was the position of all the theologians and all the fathers. As another writer on this issue said: “Cardinal Bellarmine assures us that the consent of the Fathers and their commentators is unanimous in holding a geocentric and geostatic view of the universe based on Holy Scripture (Paula Haigh, Galileo’s Heresy #6).” Another fascinating quote on Geocentrism is by John Daly: “Ward quoted St. Robert Bellarmine’s letter to Father Foscarini in defence of this opinion, as the saint therein says that it is unobjectionable to write of heliocentrism as an hypothesis. But this fact is of no help to the argument because ( i ) it is quite plain from the context and the rest of what we know of Bellarmine’s thinking on the subject that he was referring only to a per impossibile hypothesis, useful, perhaps, as a basis for making practical calculations, but in no way recognising heliocentrism as being even possibly true, and ( ii ) this letter was not written in 1624 as Ward alleged in his first article in the Dublin Review on this subject (the saintly author having been already three years dead by that time), nor in 1620 as he alleged in his second article, but in 1615, before the Holy See had pronounced definitively on the topic; and no statement of Bellarmine’s can be traced subsequent to the 1616 decrees which could appear by any stretch of the imagination to attribute even hypothetical possibility to the heliocentric system.” (John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism)

With these quotes in mind, there are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe; or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide. If #1 is true, it not only means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical In Praeclara Summorum but that numerous popes allowed heresy to be taught by lifting decrees that forbade its publication. To accept that these popes were wrong which we must do if we believe that St. Robert Bellarmine and the theologians of the Holy Office were correct about Geocentrism, then it would actually prove that St. Robert Bellarmine could have been wrong. For if numerous popes could have been wrong about the theological status of a teaching that is actually de fide, then certainly a mere Doctor of the Church could have been wrong in his evaluation that such a teaching is de fide.

This is because “by the very apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the Magisterium is also comprehended…” (Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chap. 4, Denz. 1832). Note that a pope doesn’t exercise the supreme power of the Magisterium in all of his acts, but he is the one who possesses it. Theologians or Doctors of the Church do not hold the supreme power of the Magisterium, so if a Pope could have been wrong and failed to recognize that something is de fide, then necessarily a mere saint or theologian, or Doctor of the Church could have been wrong in considering something to be de fide.

In favor of Geocentrism as 'de fide'

In favor of Geocentrism as not 'de fide'

1616: eleven theologians of the Holy Office condemn heliocentrism with tacit approval of Pope Paul V, St. Robert Bellarmine transmits this decision to Galileo and considers it binding; he considers Geocentrism to be de fide. The Cong. of the Index published a Decree forbidding all works favoring Heliocentrism 1633: The Holy Office considers Galileo suspect of heresy for favoring heliocentrism; he is required to make an abjuration which indicates that Heliocentrism is heretical and that geocentrism is de fide; this is done with approval from Pope Urban VIII, 1664-1665: Pope Alexander VII promulgates an Index on his own authority forbidding all works which contradict Geocentrism.

1757: Pope Benedict XIV suspends Decrees of the Congregation of the Index against Heliocentric works, 1822: With approval of Pope Pius VII, the Holy Office decides that books on movement of Earth could be printed at Rome, 1921: Pope Benedict XV explicitly states that the Earth might not be the center of the universe in In Praeclara Summorum, All popes from 1757- at least tacitly agree that, Heliocentrism or a non-Geocentric view of the universe may be held [but it is not held by the Church].

Therefore, it is clear that the acts against the denial of geocentrism are not infallible but are the correct viewpoint of the Church. As I stated, all popes from 1757 onward at least tacitly agree that Heliocentrism or a non-geocentric view of the universe may be held, but the Church does not hold it. Though St. Robert Bellarmine stated that Geocentrism was magisterially binding, it is not the case. However, even though it is not de fide, it is the constant, universal teaching of the Fathers, Saints, and Church, as seen above. What do you think?

What do I think? I think that essentially, Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo did with their own re-evaluation of the existing, not quite valid conjunction of the Christian faith and Greek philosophical ignorance as Moses did with his re-evaluation of the not quite valid conjunction of ancient faith in the Divine and Mesopotamian metaphysical ignorance.

No one has to be bound by either illogical mistakes or worn out paradigms from the past. Why? Simple: God is bigger than both.

He's also bigger than His Church.

 

[JSRG]

This is a Catholic analysis of Geocentrism in the Church, as Jude1:3Contendforthefaith brought up verses and quotes from the Fathers [good read] on the matter:

There are considerable problems with the barrage of copy/pasted quotes in that topic, which I indeed noted in another topic where the same group of copy/pasted quotes was posted.

To repeat my ideas in briefer form, some cannot be seen as any kind of argument for geocentrism on the grounds they are perfectly compatible with geocentrism or heliocentrism. We also run into the problem that some of the quotes are inaccurate, like when it attributes to St. Clement the words of the Clementine Homilies, a work written well after his death falsely claiming to be written by him.

But, some indeed are clearly geocentrist. The problem is, are they geocentrists because they see it as a matter of faith, or because that was just what was regarded as the accurate science at the time? Because if they weren't viewing this as a matter of faith, then the whole list of quotes becomes meaningless because it's just them utilizing what was believed by the scientists themselves at the time.

Although not apparently addressing that exact list of quotes, David Palm (who wrote a lot about this subject from a Catholic perspective) does discuss a list of "geocentrist" quotes which appears to have considerable crossover with the ones from that topic:

Geocentrism and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers

(this is part of a larger article on the subject; the link should take you straight to the part of the page analyzing the quotes)

He asserts that when one looks into them, you'll find few if any that give any indication their geocentrist statements are based on scripture or tradition. Their statements therefore appear to be simply based on the prevailing scientific ideas of the time rather than what they regarded as any kind of required religious belief, or that they derived geocentrism from religious belief at all. If so, it doesn't

We now turn to the question of Galileo. You end up concluding that the decrees against him weren't infallible and geocentrism wasn't de fide anyway, but there is something to note, which is that the heliocentrism that Galileo was teaching was not the heliocentrism that is accepted in the modern day.

Galileo's heliocentrism taught that the Sun was immobile and everything in the universe revolved around it, directly or indirectly (indirectly in the sense of moons, which revolve around something revolving around the Sun).

Modern heliocentrism asserts that the Earth and a bunch of other things in the Solar System revolve around the Sun, but the Sun is not immobile and not everything in the universe revolves around the Sun (only the things in the Solar System).

David Palm asserts, in an argument that seems very strong to me, that the condemnations of heliocentrism were limited to the "extreme" heliocentrism of Galileo but did not extend to modern heliocentirsm:

The 1633 Decree Strictly Addresses Copernicanism as a Unity: An Immobile Sun at the Center of the Universe and a Mobile Earth

To the extent that it specifically addresses a doctrinal point, the 1633 decree strictly addresses Copernicanism as a unity. Throughout, the decree addresses a singular doctrine/opinion which has two facets, an immobile sun at the center of the universe and a mobile earth:

“the false doctrine [NB: singular] taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion”
“the false opinion [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun”
“the doctrine [NB: singular] of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the Sun is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended or held.”
“the doctrine [NB: singular]—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world”

Again, what the 1633 decree actually addresses is a singular doctrine/opinion which includes two points—notice that they are connected with the conjunction “and”, not “or” —viz., that that the sun is the immovable center of the universe and that the earth moves and is not the center of the universe.

But as the Commissary General of the Holy Office rightly pointed out in 1820, during the “Settele affair” in which the Holy Office ruled that non-geocentric views could be disseminated in the Catholic Church:

Along with modern astronomers, Settele does not teach that the sun is at the center of the world [universe]: for it is not the center of the fixed stars; it is not the center of heavy bodies, which fall toward the center of our world, namely of the earth; nor is it the center of the planetary system because it does not lie in the middle, or center, but to one side at one of the foci of the elliptical orbits that all planets trace. Still less does he teach that the sun is motionless; on the contrary, it has a rotational motion around itself and also a translational motion which is performs while carrying along the outfit of all its planets (Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, 205)

Canon Giuseppe Settele had written a book presenting a non-geocentric view as its thesis and Fr. Anfossi, the Master of the Sacred Palace and hence chief censor for Rome at the time, denied it an imprimatur on the basis that such a view violates the 1633 decree. But the Commissary General of the Holy Office argued—and the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office agreed with him—that modern cosmological views are not addressed by the 1633 decree. This is nothing other than a strict canonical reading of that decree. And reading this decree strictly—that is, according to the Catholic Church’s immemorial canonical principles—it becomes clear that modern cosmological views do not fall under its condemnation at all.

Indeed, the quote you offer from Bellarmine apparently has him also combine the two. "But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself [turns upon its axis] without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false." Bellarmine here, when describing the two, uses an "and" rather than an or, and then uses "is" (singular) to indicate this is the combined idea, not the two separately.

So, what would their opinions have been on the idea of the Earth going around the Sun but the Sun not being immobile? The original 1616 judgment against Galileo, as quoted in the 1633 declaration actually did treat them separately, and asserted:

"The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith."

Now, "absurd and false philosophically" refers to science, and does reflect the prevailing scientific consensus at the time in favor of geocentrism (Galileo did not have the evidence that later heliocentrists had to make their case). But what matters for our purposes is the theological judgments. We may note that it asserts the idea that the Sun is the center of the universe and does not move is heretical. It does not say this about the Earth being mobile and not the center of the universe; while it considers it "erroneous" it does not declare it heretical.

In other words, at least according to this, to assert that the Earth is not the center of the universe, that the Earth moves, that it has a diurnal motion, while asserting the Sun is mobile and not the center of the universe, would not have been judged as heretical. And this non-heretical position just so happens to be the exact idea that modern science has, and indeed had already been adopted when the decrees against heliocentrism were being rescinded.

Thus even if these remarks of Bellarmine or those declarations from 1616 and 1633 were regarded as permanently binding and authoritative, they end up not declaring modern heliocentrism to be heretical, only the version espoused by Galileo, which has been completely abandoned.