A Geocentrist Response to the Church’s Strict Canonical Interpretation

One modern geocentrist has attempted a response to the matter of strict canonical interpretation.  Sungenis writes:

R. Sungenis: So let’s interpret the canonical trial of 1633 “strictly.” It stated that any system that makes the earth move and the sun not revolve around the earth is “formally heretical.” So that means that any system, be it Copernican, Galilean, Keplerian, Newtonian, Einsteinian or whatever, is “strictly” prohibited because all those theories make the earth move and the sun not revolve around the earth. Very simple. Not much wiggle room there. Of course, if one is going to accept Olivieri’s fabricated reasons for why the 1616 and 1633 Church rejected Copernicanism (as Mr. Palm does), then one would naturally see the 1633 canonical trial as accommodating modern views of cosmology. But since those magisteriums [sic] DID NOT see it the way Olivieri did, Mr. Palm is just digging his hole deeper and deeper (“Response to David Palm on the Tridentine Catechism’s Treatment of Cosmology, p. 17).

This highlights so well how Sungenis not only completely misconstrues the canonical norm of strict interpretation, but how he simply fabricates aspects of the 1633 decree that aren’t even there.  Notice, for example, that he misses the fact that the 1616 report is cited, not actually adopted in the 1633 decree and that the phrase “formally heretical” does not appear in the actual sentence against Galileo.  He then applies the phrase “formally heretical” to the motion of the earth, when even the 1616 report of the theological qualifiers itself does not do so—he just takes the liberty of extrapolating from his own mishandling of the 1633 decree that the phrase he cited can also be applied to the motion of the earth.  His extension of the 1633 decree’s treatment of a singular doctrine of a strict Copernicanism to “any system, be it Copernican, Galilean, Keplerian, Newtonian, Einsteinian” directly violates the Church’s norms of strict canonical interpretation.  He yet again accuses Fr. Olivieri, the Commissary General of the Holy Office, of “fabricated reasons”, in the very context of this series of his own blunders (for more of Sungenis’s blunders with respect to Fr. Olivieri see here and here.)  And finally, notice that he does admit that if Fr. Olivieri’s reasoning is correct, then “one would naturally see the 1633 canonical trial as accommodating modern views of cosmology”.  But the fact is that Fr. Olivieri’s reasoning was grounded in the Church’s own canonical norms and the Commissary General convinced both the cardinal-prefects of the Holy Office and the pope that on the basis of those norms modern cosmological views can be harmonized with the 1633 decree.

As I’ve already said, far from interpreting the 1633 decree against Galileo strictly according to the Church’s norms, the modern geocentrists do exactly the opposite.  They repeatedly interpret the decree as broadly as possible and even go to the extreme of inserting words and phrases into magisterial documents that don’t exist (see how Sungenis does this also with the Roman Catechism here).  They denounce and deride as the worst sort of traitors officials of the Church who faithfully apply and act upon the Church’s own canonical norms, while simultaneously trusting and relying upon their private judgment in order to uphold and promote their own private dogma.
Back    Next