The Four Elements and the Four Humours: Will You Go the Distance?

Can the New Geocentrists Go the Distance?


Are You Willing to Follow Them?

“But when the Council of Trent stated that we are to follow the consensus of the Fathers, it didn’t say we had to do so only if the Fathers based their arguments on Scripture. If the Fathers had a consensus, it became a matter of faith, regardless what mixture there was between natural philosophy and Scripture in the consensus”  (Robert Sungenis, “Debunking David Palm, Phase 5“; emphasis mine).

“The popes and councils were resolute in teaching that regardless of how the Fathers arrived at their consensus, they HAD a consensus, and thus the information they held in consensus was part of the deposit of faith” (Robert Sungenis, “How Do We Regard the Fathers’ Consensus on Geocentrism“; emphasis mine).

“According to Lumen Gentium 12, this consensus makes the belief in geocentrism “infallible” by virtue of the fact that the Holy Spirit led all these people, century after century, to believe in this very doctrine. If that is the case, then any departure from it is not another movement of the Holy Spirit (for we cannot make the Holy Spirit tell a falsehood in one era and tell the truth in another) but a movement of the devil seeking to bring the Church into apostasy, which Scripture, the saints and our 1994 Catechism affirm (see paras. 676-677)” (Robert Sungenis, Letter from Patron 12/18/2010; emphasis mine.)

Robert Sungenis and the new geocentrists have been trying to convince Catholics that they are bound to hold to geocentrism, as a matter of faith, because of an alleged consensus of the Church Fathers.  In addition, they have portrayed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as derelict in her duty to uphold the true faith of the Church and absolutely cowed by the modern scientific establishment.

I demonstrated in my articles, Geocentrism and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers, The Fathers Don’t Support an Immobile Earth, and Geocentrism in the Fathers: A Matter of Natural Philosophy, Not Theology that no such consensus of the Fathers exists on the matter of the motion of the earth –  the point that Sungenis himself insists is the crucial matter (link).  But let’s suppose, as we can expect, that the new geocentrists stick to their claim that a consensus of the Fathers automatically makes the point in question a matter of faith and binding on Catholics.  The next logical question is, are the new geocentrists willing to be consistent?  And the question for the reader, especially for those who find themselves sympathetic to Sungenis and Co., is whether you’re really willing to ride this train all the way to the end.  But before you answer that question, let’s see where it’s actually heading.

Two Areas of Patristic Consensus: Sungenis Should Be All Over These

As I’ve demonstrated in It’s Elementary My Dear Geocentrist, the Church Fathers are in consensus that the physical universe is made up of four and only four fundamental elements: fire, air, water, and earth.  And in The Geocentrists Have No Sense of Humour, I’ve demonstrated that they are also in consensus in following the ancient belief that the health of the human person, both physically and emotionally, is governed by the balance of the four humours—blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile.

Now, arguably, these two beliefs are even more important than geocentrism.  They deal, respectively, with the fundamental nature of the material universe and the fundamental, bodily and emotional nature of man.  Consider, for example, the huge fraud that the entire medical establishment represents, if the ancient consensus on the four humours is true.  Consider the countless lives that could have been saved if we had not been duped by the modernist “germ theory” of disease (which is only a theory, you know, and has never been proven to be true.)  Consider the misery that could have been saved if all the time, attention, and money poured into things like good sanitation, vaccinations, and the development of antibiotics could instead have been used to create better ways to balance the four humours.  Where is Bob Sungenis?  Where is Rick DeLano?  Why hasn’t there been a documentary—Louis Pasteur Was Wrong and the Church Was Right, perhaps—uncovering this massive fraud on the part of God-hating scientists and doctors?  And where are the articles denouncing the Magisterium of the Church for allowing this matter of our divine faith to slip away without one word of protest or warning to the faithful? Where’s the movie?  The marketing campaign?

The abandonment of the consensus view of the four elements is arguably an even greater affront.  Geocentrism only relates to our physical position in the universe.  But the ancient consensus on the four elements touches the very foundations of the entire physical universe.  What blasphemy for scientists to say, not only that there are many dozens more than just the God-given four elements, but to claim that they can make new elements themselves!  Where is the outrage?  Where is Sungenis’s voice against this damnable heresy?  Where are his denunciations of the weak and cowardly prelates—the popes and the bishops—who for centuries who have allowed this blasphemy to continue and have let the entire Catholic world to be led astray?

What compounds this glaring fault is that Sungenis knows better.  He has actually written about the four elements.  He’s aware of this.  But what does he do?  Does he stand up for the patristic consensus, in all its literal glory?  Does he thunder in its defense without apology or equivocation?  No.  Instead, he dissimilates.  He modernizes.  He panders to modern scientific discoveries.  Is the physical universe literally made up of four and only four elements?  Oh no, not literally.  Sungenis simply invents out of whole cloth the notion that protons represent earth, electrons are fire, neutrons are water, and the space between the electrons and the atomic nucleus is air.  And presto! Everything really is made up of the four original elements (wink wink).

Of course, were he to be consistent, he could have done the same with geocentrism—relativity would provide an obvious way to harmonize the ancient view with more modern scientific understanding.  But no.  On geocentrism, he hues tightly to a literal view and he’s willing to take on the whole scientific establishment.  But in the face of a blasphemous and heretical denial of the four elements—held by a consensus of the Fathers and Doctors and even mentioned in two ecumenical councils—he wants to have his cake and eat it, too.  So he panders, temporizes, and modernizes.  And with regard to the widespread apostasy from belief in the four humours, what have we heard from him?


Defender of Catholic Tradition?  Please.  He’s a Modernist of the very worst sort; one who duplicitously fights for Tradition with one hand while undercutting it with the other.

Seriously, Here Are The Facts:

The Catholic Church Doesn’t Teach Any of These Matters of Natural Philosophy as Matters of Faith

Obviously I’ve presented part of this matter with tongue firmly in cheek.  But there is a very serious side to this.  The new geocentrists insist that They Know Better.  They insist that when the Fathers are in consensus on any matter, that matter is by definition a matter of divine faith.  This is what they claim for geocentrism (although they happen to be wrong in their claim that the Fathers are in consensus on the earth’s motion—link.)  But when it comes to other matters on which the Fathers really are in consensus—e.g. the four humours and the four elements—suddenly there’s either silence, or even a ready willingness to liberally accommodate the ancient belief to modern scientific understanding.

But none of this is necessary.  The Magisterium teaches that a consensus of the Fathers binds us to belief only in matters of faith and morals.  And Pope Leo XIII explicitly taught in Providentissimus Deus that:

The unshrinking defence of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus §19)

The new geocentrists wring their hands and decry the alleged dereliction of the Magisterium in not teaching geocentrism as a matter of faith.  But the Magisterium has in fact been consistent—far more consistent than the geocentrists.  Let’s look at these matters: geocentrism, the four elements, the four humours, and let’s add the age of creation into the mix.  What do these all have in common?  They are matters of natural philosophy.   And the consistency of the Magisterium is that she does not teach any of these as matters of faith, but allows freedom to Catholics to believe any number of different views, as the physical evidence is evaluated.

I have said it numerous times throughout my writings on this topic: The Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not simply cease for centuries to teach matters of doctrine to the faithful.  No, she teaches 100% of the Faith, even during difficult times.  But she does not teach geocentrism.  That is because it is not now and never has been a matter of Catholic Faith.  It’s that simple.

Please see It’s Elementary My Dear Geocentrist showing that the Church Fathers are in consensus in the view that the physical universe is made up of only four fundamental elements: fire, air, water, and earth.

And please see The Geocentrists Have No Sense of Humour showing that the Fathers and Doctors are in consensus on the four humours.

The reader, especially one who has found himself influenced by the rhetoric of the new geocentrists needs to answer this question: are you ready to ride this train all the way out of the Catholic Church?  Because that’s where it’s leading.  On point after point, the approach adopted by the new geocentrists leads to the conclusion that the Magisterium of the Church simply cannot be trusted, that time and again the popes and bishops of the Church have for centuries at a stretch dropped the ball and failed to warn the faithful against the encroachment of modern science and have failed to teach the Faith in its fullness.

It really does boil down to who you are going to follow, the new geocentrists or the Magisterium of the Catholic Church?  It’s your choice.

This entry was posted in Fathers of the Church. Bookmark the permalink.