Would Tuas Libenter Condemn Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism Because of the Theologians who were Fine with Heliocentrism and Deep Time?

Great Bishop of Geneva! Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible? · Creation vs. Evolution: Would Tuas Libenter Condemn Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism Because of the Theologians who were Fine with Heliocentrism and Deep Time? · somewhere else: "God is Being Itself, Creationism Portrays Him as a Cause Among Others"

Consensus of theologians is mentioned here:

Qua falsa opinione ipsius Ecclesiae auctoritas in discrimen vocatur, quandoquidem ipsa Ecclesia non solum per tot continentia saecula permisit, ut ex eorumdem Doctorum methodo, et ex principiis communi omnium catholicarum scholarum consensu sancitis theologica excoleretur scientia, verum etiam saepissime summis laudibus theologicam eorum doctrinam extulit, illamque veluti fortissimum fidei propugnaculum et formidanda contra suos inimicos arma vehementer commendavit.*

Or here:

Atque etiam Nobis persuademus, ipsos noluisse declarare, perfectam illam erga revelatas veritates adhaesionem, quam agnoverunt necessariam omnino esse ad verum scientiarum progressum assequendum et ad errores confutandos, obtineri posse, si dumtaxat Dogmatibus ab Ecclesia expresse definitis fides et obsequium adhibeatur. Namque etiamsi ageretur de illa subiectione, quae fidei divinae actu est praestanda, limitanda tamen non esset ad ea, quae expressis, oecumenicorum Conciliorum aut Romanorum Pontificum, huiusque Apostolicae Sedis decretis definita sunt, sed ad ea quoque extendenda quae ordinario totius Ecclesiae per orbem dispersae magisterio tanquam divinitus revelata traduntur, ideoque universali et constanti consensu a catholicis Theologis ad fidem pertinere retinentur.**

Perhaps also other places in:

PIUS PP. IX
EPISTOLA TUAS LIBENTER
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/la/documents/epistola-tuas-libenter-21-decembris-1863.html

So, there appears to have been a consensus among theologians, not just since Vatican II, but since Matthias Joseph Scheeben (who died in 1888) that we are able to admit Deep Time or for that matter probably Heliocentric astronomy.

Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik. 7 parts. Freiburg: 1873–87.

Now, I said "there appears" ... one of those admitting Deep Time, namely Fr. Mangenot, a Jesuit writing in 1920, also implicitly admitted that while Scheeben wrote, this was not a solid consensus. He gave theological opinions from 1890's as divided into three opposing schools on Genesis 1.

• literal six days contiguous with the first act of creation (Young Earth Creationism);
• literal six days, but after a long history ending in a catastrophy (Gap Theory);
• non-literality of "days" so they mean long periods, but there were literally six of them. (Day-Age Theory)

So, while the ones favouring Young Earth Creationism were probably not considering the other ones (Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory) as heretics, they arguably were arguing for the compulsory nature of the traditional reading, which really and truly already had those "so many consecutive centuries" behind it.

I would also argue that the fact of not adhering to Young Earth Creationism is not by itself, even if taken collectively by all bishops up to 1950 or to Vatican II, an endorsement against it, it would need a specific endorsement for a specific other view (Day-Age, Gap, Framework Theory, one of them), that endorsement to present itself as compulsory, and for that to be shared across dioceses around the world. And for long enough. 1873 (when Scheeben started publishing) to 1950 is perhaps not long enough, it's just 77 years. But more importantly, we do not have a consensus for a specific other theory being compulsory.

First, I think "older and quirkier"*** than framework theory persisted, whether "Fundie Deep Time" (Day Age or Gap) or even straight endorsements of Literal Six Days (at least as a possibility). Second, they would have been divided for some time on endorsing Gap Theory or Day Age before going for (later on, especially US Conference of Bishops and French Episcopate) Framework Theory. This division means they were not endorsing some specifical alternative as trumping Literalism. Third, access to older theologians (from before even Day Age and Gap Theory were things) has gone up, it has even skyrocketed since Vatican II, during my lifetime, and especially after 2000 with the internet.

So, no, even for Deep Time "theologians" don't have a sufficient or sufficiently long standing consensus to ditch Literalism.

When it comes to Heliocentrism, as late as Benedict XV, in his encyclical on Dante, he isn't stating "even though Dante's cosmology was wrong" but "even if Dante's cosmology were wrong" mentioning the Heliocentric position only indirectly and hypothetically, and without giving explicit categorical consent.°

Similarily, some guys seem to believe that Pius VII and Gregory XVI required Heliocentrism to be believed and taught as truth. But in fact, the Inquisitor Filippo Anfossi (probably son or nephew or sth of the composer Pasquale Anfossi, both are born in Taggio and their lifespans are overlapping by about what you'd expect from a father and son couple) who had wanted to forbid the categorically Heliocentric book by Giuseppe Settele, was not in any way shape or form required to give up Geocentrism. Simply to accept that the magisterium was not actively condemning it. You will find individual theologians who are treating Heliocentrism as a what-if.

In 1859, after Fr. George Leo Haydock died, the commentary on the Bible that was reprinted in a new edition that year contained this "dialogue" between Calmet (prior to the decision by Pius VII) and Haydock (possibly already posterior to it, but cited in this reprint°° which is from even after Gregory XVI:

Calmet

The pretended impossibility of it, or the inconvenience arising to the fatigued soldiers from the long continuance of the day, will make but small impression upon those who consider, that God was the chief agent; and that he who made all out of nothing, might easily stop the whole machinery of the world for a time, and afterwards put it in motion again, without causing any derangement in the different parts. (Calmet)

Haydock

It is not material whether the sun turn round the earth, or the contrary. (Haydock)

Calmet

The Hebrews generally supposed that the earth was immovable; and on this idea Josue addresses the sun. Philosophers have devised various intricate systems: but the Scripture is expressed in words suitable to the conceptions of the people. The exterior effect would be the same, whether the sun or the earth stood still. Pagan authors have not mentioned this miracle, because none of the works of that age have come down to us. We find, however, that they acknowledged a power in magic capable of effecting such a change.

Cessavere vices rerum dilataque longæ,
Hæsit nocte dies: legi non paruit æther,
Torpuit & præceps audito carmine mundus. (Lucan, Phars. vi.)

See Homer, Odyssey xii. 382., and xxiii. 242.

This miracle would not render Josue superior to Moses, as some have argued. For all miracles are equally impossible to man, and equally easy to God: the greatness of a miracle is not a proof of greater sanctity. (Calmet)

Calmet forgot how the miracle of Josue, as a historic memory, seems to have influenced the action of Agamemnon before Troy, as he prayed to Helios for a similar occurrence with a similar purpose. That's also an indirect confirmation. And since Agamemnon failed to obtain his wish of routing Trojans, well, that would have discredited the memory and made them go "oh, no, that far off Phoenician or sth didn't get such a favour from Helios if even our own Agamemnon didn't" ....

But though Calmet and Haydock are both obviously aware of Heliocentrism, neither subscribes to it as the obvious truth. In England, the Haydock Bible would be part of the ordinary magisterium up to the footnoted Knox Bible. In the US, the Haydock Bible was even longer the voice of the Magisterium.

In other words, we do not have even one century of magisterium (papal or local, extraordinary or ordinary) united in expressing Heliocentrism as the truth involved in Josue 10.

Remember what Tuas Libenter said about "per tot continentia saecula"? Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism have more of that than Heliocentrism and Deep Time compromise.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Feast of Guardian Angels
2.X.2024

Festum sanctorum Angelorum Custodum.

PS, next day (thank you, St. Thérèse!) I note the Roman Martyrology which was in common use by all Latin Rite Catholic priests for December 25 states:

IN the year, from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five, thousand, one hundred and ninety-nine; from the flood, two thousand, nine hundred and fiftyseven; from the birth of Abraham, two thousand and fifteen; from Moses and the coming of the Israelites out of Egypt, one thousand, five hundred and ten; from the anointing of king David, one thousand and thirty-two; in the sixty-fifth week, according to the prophecy of Daniel ; in the one hundred and ninety-fourth Olympiad; in the year seven hundred and fifty-two from the founding of the city of Rome; in the forty-second year of the empire of Octavian Augustus, when the whole earth was at peace, in the sixth age of the world, Jesus Christ, eternal God, and Son of the eternal Father, desirous to sanctify the world by His most merciful coming, having been conceived of the Holy Ghost, and nine months having elapsed since his conception, is born in Bethlehem of Juda, having become man of the Virgin Mary. THE NATIVITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH.

Roman Martyrology 25 December
https://roman-martyrology.brandt.id.au/martyrs/12-25.html

There are other readings than this one, four more./HGL

PPS, in case you missed the relevance, the liturgy is also part of the magisterium. If a prayer in Mass asks God to lead us into a good life, we are not free to assume that living a life pleasing to God comes from our own initiative rather than God's and if the martyrology reading for Christmas day (in use while St. Thérèse lived on earth!) says Jesus was born 5199 after Creation, we can't assume He was born 13.8 billion from Creation./HGL

* Own Translation of quote 1:

By which false opinion the authority of the Church herself is jeopardised, since the Church herself not only by so many consecutive centuries allowed, that from the same Doctors' method, and from the common sanctioned principles of all Catholic schools' consensus the theological science be perfected, but also often has extolled with the highest praises their theological doctrine, and has commended it vehemently aas a very strong rampart and a fearful arm against her enemies.

** Own Translation of quote 2:

And We are also persuaded, they themselves have not wanted to declare, that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they admit to be totally necessary to obtain a real progress of sciences and to refute errors, can be obtained, by showing faith and sympathy only for the Dogmas expressly defined by the Church. Since, even if it were about that subjection, which we owe to divine faith in act, it should still not be limited to that, which is defined in expressed decrees of Ecumenical Councils or Roman Pontiffs, or of this Apostolic See, but it is to be extended to that which is delivered as divinely revealed by the ordinary magisterium of the entire Church spread out throw the globe, and is therefore by universal and constant consensus of Catholic Theologians retained as pertaining to the faith.

*** Quirkier to Atheist and New Agers, obviously, as well as to Liberal Protestants (but I'm repeating myself).

° Relevant quote from IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM

Latin:

Quod si de caelestibus rebus scientiae pervestigatio progrediens aperuit deinceps eam mundi compositionem sphaerasque illas, quae veterum doctrina ponerentur, nullas esse, naturamque et numerum et cursum stellarum et siderum alia esse prorsus atque illi iudicavissent, manet tamen hanc rerum universitatem quoquo eius partes regantur ordine eodem administrari nutu quo est condita Dei omnipotentis qui omnia quaecumque sunt, moveat et cuius gioria plus minus usquequaque eluceat: hanc autem terram quam nos homines incolimus licet ad universi caeli complexum iam non quasi centrum, ut opinio fuit, obtinere dicenda sit, ipsam tamen et sedem beatae nostrorum progenitorum vitae fuisse, et testem deinde tum eius, quam illi fecerunt ex eo statu prolapsionis miserrimiae tum restitutae Iesu Christi sanguine hominum salutis sempiternae.

Official English translation:

If the progress of science showed later that that 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 in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre 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.

I underlined the less than categorical admissions of Heliocentrism, and "may not be" corresponds to "may not be ought-to-be-said-[to-be]" as "dicinda sit", but the choise of "sit" (subjunctive) instead of "est" (indicative) is very well translated in "may not be" rather than "is not" ...

°° Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
JOSUE - Chapter 10
https://johnblood.gitlab.io/haydock/id545.html