Not entirely on subject , re biblical discussions and political involvement, may I get a few opinions on geocentrism as regards scripture, by asking for comment on this following, which seeks to deny it.. by a By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. who merely claims of no opinion or proof either way. I place my comment in red. DOES THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF REQUIRE ONE TO ACCEPT A GEOCENTRIC VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE? Thus far I have evaluated the question of whether any of the acts against Galileo or the movement of the Earth constitute an infallible teaching of the Church in favor of the geocentric view of the universe. I believe that I have shown that the answer is no.Thats just his opinion... But does the language of scripture require one to hold such a view? For instance: Psalm 103:5: " [God] Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever." Some advocates of the geocentric view of the universe say that this passage of scripture binds all to hold the geocentric position: John Daly, The Theological Status of Heliocentrism: "While some of the other texts which naturally suppose a geocentric system (Matthew 45:45 [sic] and Ephesians 4:26, for instance) could, at a stretch, be understood to refer to appearances and to employ common parlance without vouching for its scientific accuracy, this clearly does not apply to the foregoing or to Psalm 103:5: 'Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.'" In this context, people often cite a similar verse from Psalm 92: Psalm 92:1- "The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord isclothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved." To form a better opinion about whether these texts prove the geocentric view of the universe, here are three passages of scripture which, to my knowledge, have not yet been brought forward in this context: Proverbs 10:30- "The just shall never be moved: but the wicked shall not dwellon the earth." Psalms 14:5- "He that hath not put out his money to usury, nor taken bribesagainst the innocent: He that doth these things shall not be moved for ever." Psalms 111:5-6 "Acceptable is the man that showeth mercy and lendeth: heshall order his words with judgment. Because he shall not be moved for ever." We see that the scriptural declaration, it "shall not be moved for ever," is not only applied to Earth, but three times to the just man. Since we are obviously not required to hold that the just man is the immoveable center of the universe, this might show that the words in the book of Psalms do not necessarily mean that Earth stands immoveable at the center of the universe. What about the other passages of Holy Scripture that are frequently cited in this regard? John Daly: "As to the factual question of whether Holy Scripture does indeed unequivocally teach the geocentric system, we consider any attempt to deny the fact to share the same absurdity of those who would reconcile Genesis with evolution. In Josue 10:12,13 is recounted the miracle by which, in order to prolong the day for the Israelites to defeat the five kings who attacked Gabaon, God arrested the movement of the sun and the moon: 'And the sun and the moon stood still...the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.' "A similar miracle is recounted at 4 Kings 20:1 when the prophet Isaias actually caused the sun to move backwards as a sign to Achaz. It is true that the text refers only to the retrograde motion of the shadow on the sundial which, on the heliocentric hypothesis, could equally have been produced by reversing the diurnal motion of the earth, but this interpretation is ruled out by Isaias 38:8 which recounts the same event in objective terms: 'And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down.'" What about these arguments from the book of Josue and 4 Kings? In answering this it must be reiterated again that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God. It is true in all its parts, in all its history and in all the subjects it teaches. It would be heretical to assert that Sacred Scripture errs in its history or in its description of things as they took place. However, as Pope Leo XIII points out in his encyclical on Sacred Scripture: Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#18), Nov. 18, 1893: ". the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable to salvation' [St.Augustine]. Hence they 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. Ordinary speech primarily and properly comes from the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor [St. Thomas Aquinas] reminds us - 'went by what sensibly appeared,' [Summa Theologica, Pt. I, q. 70, a. 1, ad. 3] or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to." Noe here this is only a papal opinion, not an infallible offering. Take, as an example of what Pope Leo XIII is talking about, the following passage from Josue 18 - the same book which figures very prominently at the heart of the geocentrism controversy: Josue 18:15-16- "But on the south side the border goeth out from part of Cariathiarim towards the sea, and cometh to the fountain of the waters of Nephtoa. And it goeth down to that part of the mountain that looketh on the valley of the children of Ennom: and is over against the north quarter in the furthermost part of the valley of Raphaim, and it goeth down into Geennom (that is the valley of Ennom) by the side of the Jebusite to the south: and cometh to the fountain of Rogel." Here we see a clear example of what Pope Leo XIII is talking about. Do mountains look upon things? No. Sacred Scripture's declaration about the mountain is nevertheless absolutely true. It is describing the side of the mountain which faces the valley of the children of Ennom. That was signified, as Pope Leo XIII says, "in the way men could understand and were accustomed to," in this case by referring to "that part of the mountain that looketh on the valley," even though mountains don't literally "look upon" things. Another example would be a phrase which occurs throughout the Old Testament: God repeatedly promises His people that He would deliver their enemies "into their hands." Josue 10:8 -" And the Lord said to Josue: Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thy hands: none of them shall be able to stand against thee." The Bible also declares after the fact - in other words, as a historical fact - that the Lord delivered the Chanaanite and the Pherezite into their hands: Judges 1:4- "And Juda went up, and the Lord delivered the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite into their hands: and they slew of them in Bezec ten thousand men." Did the Lord literally deliver all ten thousand of them "into their hands"? Most of them were probably killed by the sword and didn't literally enter into all of their hands. So, even though some today might consider that statement to be improper according to the literal rule of how things are understood and expressed today, it was absolutely correct and historically accurate according to how things were expressed and understood then; for the Lord delivered their enemies into their power to be eliminated. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII emphasizes (while quoting St. Thomas) that the sacred writers accurately expressed "what sensibly appeared." Josue 10:12-13 - "Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day." Everyone who was present at this miracle would have seen the same thing according to external appearances: the sun and the moon stood still and did not go down. But, as Pope Leo XIII emphasizes, in accurately reporting this miracle and what occurred according to external phenomena, they did not "seek to penetrate the secrets of nature"; that is to say, the sacred books didn't seek or intend in this area to explain whether this external appearance was because the sun actually stood still or was created because the Earth actually did. Even today astronomers will speak of the sunrise at Philadelphia. Thus, even if the geocentric view of the universe is not correct, these passages of the Bible do not in any way detract from the power, the historical truth, or the accuracy of Sacred Scripture in all aspects of its teaching; for what is recorded is exactly what was observed according to external phenomena (as a result of a miracle of God), without penetrating into the reasons for the creation of these external phenomena. All that being said, I am open to the possibility that those passages of Sacred Scripture referred to above do indeed teach the geocentric view of the universe. I simply don't know one way or the other. The point of this article is not to attempt to demonstrate which position is true, but to examine whether the Catholic Church has infallibly taught the geocentric view of the universe or condemned the denial of it. I believe that the answer is no. Bro Dimond has a vested interest in forming this opinion. It suitably assists him in winning another doctrineal question, he opposes the doctrine of Baptism of desire. I oppose him on both counts.. Philip.