Before anything else, I should note how some of these say nothing, even implicitly, about geocentrism. For example, one of the earliest ones cited is:
• Arnobius: The moon, the sun, the earth, the ether, the stars, are members and parts of the world; but if they are parts and members, they are certainly not themselves living creatures (Arnobius Against the Heathen, Book 3, 350)
What in the world does this have to do with geocentrism or heliocentrism? The only thing he says is that none of the things he's cited are living creatures.
Now, to be fair, some actually do convey geocentrism, explicitly or implicity. The problem with spouting off quotes from the early Christians indicating they were geocentrists is that these quotes do not indicate that they felt such an idea was a matter of divine faith, passed on from the apostles, or anything like that. One can find various scientific claims they made that I don't think even the most ardent fundamentalist would make nowadays. Them making remarks about scientific matters does not constitute these claims to be matters of the faith even in their own view.
There's what I consider a good article about this here:
Now, this was written more specifically from a Catholic perspective (the author is Catholic and is criticizing the views of those who claim that early church fathers referring to geocentrism binds Catholics to believe it), so some of the things may not be relevant to someone not approaching it from a Catholic perspective. Still, much of it has general application, and it actually comments on a number of the quotes listed (for example, it also notes that Arnobius's quote says nothing at all in regards to geocentrism or heliocentrism). I can't quote the whole thing as it's rather long, but here are a few particularly relevant excerpts:
This can be confirmed by reading the various witnesses brought forth even in the geocentrist book Galileo Was Wrong (GWW). The claim there is that this book represents a comprehensive presentation of the patristic evidence for geocentrism and that “those quotes from the Fathers which have the most logical and comparative relevance have been listed” (GWW2, p. 88). Since it was compiled by an interested party, I will take this body of evidence as normative. If any other pertinent witnesses that are not presented in GWW2 are brought forward in the future, I’ll be happy to evaluate them.
What has struck me in looking into this particular topic is just how consistently, among the Church Fathers and the medieval theologians, these matters of cosmology were treated as matters of natural philosophy and not as matters of faith. For example, surveying the patristic quotations presented in GWW2, how many give any support to a central, immovable earth (geostationism) based on a scriptural citation, an actual appeal to the Bible? Unless I am missing some—which is possible, I’m open to correction—I see two: one from Athenagoras and one allegedly from Clement of Rome. I say allegedly because, although Sungenis presents it as from St. Clement, it is actually from one of the Clementine Homilies which are universally acknowledged not to emanate from St. Clement of Rome (Sungenis does not alert the reader to this fact). So from Sungenis’ evidence only one Father actually cites sacred Scripture on the matter of a centralized earth.
The quote from Athenagoras is as follows: “To Him is for us to know who stretched out and vaulted the heavens, and fixed the earth in its place like a centre” (link). Notice that this is simply a bare citation from the poetic Psalms. It’s not a patristic exposition supporting geostationism per se and from the context it’s clear that St. Athenagoras is simply making an appeal to the creative power of God generally, not making a statement about specific cosmological details.
Eight other patristic witnesses do speak, in various astrological/quasi-philosophical/quasi-scientific terms, of earth at the center of things. These are Sts. Anatolius of Alexandria, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgos, Hippolytus, and Methodius. But in none of these instances do the witnesses cite Scripture, say or even imply that they are passing on a sacred Tradition, or indicate that their view is divinely revealed by God. They express these views of the centrality of the earth as matters of natural philosophy, not divine revelation.
[Update on 11/19/2015: None other than Fr. Melchior Inchofer, the anti-Galileo theological consultant for the Holy Office in 1633 said this, “Regarding the Holy Fathers it must be noted that they presupposed, rather than argued, that the earth is at rest, in agreement with the common opinion of the philosophers” (from R. J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial, p. 119; emphasis mine.)]
Now these relatively few witnesses (ten, by my count, although “pseudo-Clement” does not count as a Father of the Church) certainly do not represent any “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. And notice that the vast majority even of these don’t cite Scripture or Tradition in support of geostationism. What or whom do they cite? St. Basil speaks generally of “inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth”; notice that he makes this a matter of natural science, not a theological point. And Methodius speaks of the “Chaldeans and Egyptians” and also of the mathematicians of the Greeks.
And, as is noted later on:
And it may be readily acknowledged that the Fathers actually held to geocentrism, especially if we leave the focus on their understanding that the sun moves (as we’ve seen, it is much more difficult to prove that the Fathers believed that the earth does not move.) As I’ve previously noted, this is hardly surprising because geocentrism was the best science of their day and we would expect men of their learning and intellect to hold this view. But this may be admitted without any prejudice to the case I’m making because demonstrating that a given Father holds to geocentrism as a matter of natural philosophy is very different from demonstrating that he held geocentrism as a matter of faith. And in the case of Sungenis’ patristic citations, there are quite a number that indicate that a given Father was a geocentrist (again, no surprise since it was the best science of the day), but fall completely short of making any connection whatsoever to establishing geocentrism as a matter of faith. So, for example, Sungenis cites St. Clement of Rome: “The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation” (link; see larger context.) These words are certainly true. But they’re just as true in a non-geocentric cosmology and do nothing to establish that St. Clement believed geocentrism to be a matter of divine revelation.
There is more, and I recommend reading the article, but those are the most important portions to note.
Interestingly, the Clement of Rome quotes alluded to in those quotes are found in the opening posts of this topic:
• Clement of Rome: The sun and moon, with the companies of the stars, roll on in harmony according to His command, within their prescribed limits, and without any deviation. (First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch XX).
• Clement of Rome: the Creator, long-suffering, merciful, the sustainer, the benefactor, ordaining love of men, counselling purity, immortal and making immortal, incomparable, dwelling in the souls of the good, that cannot be contained and yet is contained, who has fixed the great world as a centre in space, who has spread out the heavens and solidified the earth (Homily II, Ch XLV)
• Clement of Rome: For it is manifest even to the unbelieving and unskilful, that the course of the sun, which is useful and necessary to the world, and which is assigned by providence, is always kept orderly; but the courses of the moon, in comparison of the course of the sun, seem to the unskilful to be inordinate and unsettled in her waxings and wanings. For the sun moves in fixed and orderly periods: for from him are hours, from him the day when he rises, from him also the night when he sets; from him months and years are reckoned, from him the variations of seasons are produced; while, rising to the higher regions, he tempers the spring; but when he reaches the top of the heaven, he kindles the summer’s heats: again, sinking, he produces the temper of autumn; and when he returns to his lowest circle, he bequeaths to us the rigour of winter’s cold from the icy binding of heaven. (Pseudo-Clementine, Bk VIII, Ch XLV)
The second and third quotes are from the Clementine Homilies and Clementine Recognitions respectively (the Clementine Recognitions are similar, but not identical, to the Clementine Homilies). As noted in the linked article by David Palm, neither is regarded as having actually been written by Clement. Now, to be fair, it does credit the third one to "Pseudo-Clementine" but this is despite the fact it, at the start, of the quote attributes it to Clement of Rome. And the second one does not even say that, simply presenting it as if it is from Clement of Rome. This gives the reader the misleading impression that these are actual Clement of Rome quotes despite essentially no scholar believing these works are from Clement of Rome. Meanwhile, the only one that is from Clement of Rome gives no actual credence to geocentrism over heliocentrism, as his statement works in either context.
And even the true one at the start, about how the sun, moon, and stars "roll on in harmony according to His command," is perfectly true in the context of modern heliocentrism (it might contradict heliocentrism in which the sun does not move, but virtually no heliocentrist nowadays holds such a view). So even if in this case it is an actual Clement quote, it does not actually provide any evidence for Clement believing in geocentrism, let alone geocentrism to the extent that the Earth is stationary.
