Galileo Was Wrong, Volume II released



Explore Mark Wyatt

The Galileo Was Wrong book is now complete. Currently, there are two volumes available:

  1. *Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume I: The Scientific Case for Geocentrism, *by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

  2. Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right, Volume II : The Historical Case for Geocentrism, by Dr. Robert Sungenis. 400 pages.

The current first volume is part of the original Volume I, and the second volume conatins the moved parts, plus sections on Scriptural support for geocentrism, the view of the fathers and theologians, and a very large section on the ecclesial case for geocentrism, amongst other things. The books are available in hardback, downloadable PDF, or on cdrom. The cdrom contains many extras, including animations of the geocentric and heliocentric system, including parallax, retrograde motion, the seasons, Newton’s laws of motion, Greek and Indian systems, plus more. Purchase of the hardcover books will include a cdrom.

The second volume is very important. It clears up the statements of the popes, it explains what actually happened in 1822, it explains what John Paul II actually said in 1992, and much more, incuding the true extent of what occured at the Galileo trial. Volume II conclusively shows that the Church did support geocentrism solidly through at least 1833, then to some degree became ambivalent to it without reversing its earlier decrees. Volume II also presents the Scriptural and patristic consensus for geocentrsim, the basis of the action of the popes.

Both these books are a "must read " for serious students of truth. This topic challenges a basic consensus in our current world, and can lead to understanding just how successful the deception the beast] has become. Very few in the centuries since Galileo have taken the time, and done the research to present the case for geocentrism. Almost all commentators start with the presumption that the earth moves, then attempt to reconcile the evidence to the presumption. All who read Galileo Was Wrong will be pleasantly suprised at what occurs when a researcher is open to the possibity of geocentrism. Things become more sraight forward and simple. There is no need to deconstruct Urban VIII’s intent (i.e., he was insulted by Galileo), no need to read a condemnation of geoecentrism into John Paul II’s 1992 speech (where none was stated). There is no need to ignore the fact that most observations place us in the center and not moving, then try to create more complex scientific theories to reconcile the observations with theory (i.e., making matter shrink, time contract, space warp, etc.).

Mark Wyatt


I was always taught that the problem with Galileo actually had nothing to do with the geocentrism/heliocentrism argument. According to what I was told and have read, Galileo misinterpreted a particular Bible verse (don’t remember the exact one) to be saying that the Earth was the center of the universe, when in fact the verse had nothing to do with that. He therefore tried to claim that the Bible was in error according to his own flawed interpretation. This is why he was charged with heresy, not because of his beliefs on the positioning of the Earth. That’s what I was always taught, anyway.


There are many deconstructionist theories about what actually happened- most of them very indirect. Robert Sungenis has put most of the original documentation into his book and shows why Galileo got in trouble. It does involve the Scriptures. The Scriptures were used to create a theological opinion against heliocentrism. Galileo was accused of being vehemently suspect of heresy.

I explain it partially in parts three and four of my blog series:

Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position

Robert goes into much more detail, and provides substantial documentation. From part III:

*Here is part of Urban VIII condemnation:
(Translation from: J.S. Daly, “The Theological Status of Heliocentrism”, October 1997)

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples… …and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

…We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…

Mark Wyatt


One of the more attractive attributes of Catholicism is its freedom; Catholics are free to believe in this sort of stuff if they so choose.


HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS exploring the Universe is laughing at such nonsense! Galileo wasn’t wrong. A mighty big thanks and a big hug to my CFA’s team of researchers for helping me out with this topic:clapping:


Who cares if fallible men are laughing?

Personally, I see no reason for there to be a
religious controversy over the issue, though.



27 But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. 28 And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his sight.

Mark Wyatt


I realize here that my response here may not have been entirely clear. I meant to say:

Catholics are free to believe in this sort of stuff if they so choose, and still be good Catholics.

Catholics are also free not to believe in this sort of stuff if they so choose, and still be good Catholics.

Whether or not such belief is good science is another matter entirely.


Haven’t we beat this dead horse enough?
*]Bible does not teach Geocentrism!
*]Geocentrism: Unorthodox or Unpopular?
*]Sungenis and Conslomagno Discusas Geocentrism in BBC Interview
*]So, we’re supposed to believe geocentrism?
*]Geocentrism - flogging a pink unicorn
*]Geocentrism poll results
*]Is Geocentrism Possible?
*]Geocentrism 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
*]Geocentrism 101, Part II: Basic Physics
*]Geocentrism: Gary Hoge’s Demonstration Disproven?
*]Geocentrism Question
*]Mr. Keating threatened by Geocentrism?
*]Geocentrism Continued
*]Response to Keating Critique of Geocentrism[/LIST]Besides, Sungenis is not the most rational source on this subject :rolleyes:


I highly disbelieve that the earth is the center of the universe - and I think catholicism supporting this makes it look just as bad as fundamentalism. How could the earth be the center of the universe? Would that mean that Nasa who’s been in space is lying to use? Trying to cover it up just like the aliens stored in a government bunker?

I wonder how the earth being the center of the universe would affect space travel?

Man if the Flat Earth Society was still going maybe you could call them…



I was shocked to come across this thread today. I guess my interests lie primarily in other areas, so perhaps I missed it in the past. I had no idea that there were still people trying to argue Geocentrism. Perhaps from a philosophical standpoint we could argue whether or not the Earth is “central” to the universe, but to try to claim that geocentrism is valid from an astrophysical standpoint is kind of laughable.

Now I have great respect for Robert Sungenis. He edited a great book on Sola Scriptura that should be required reading for all Catholics, if not Protestants as well. I must say I have not read this series on Geocentrism, and perhaps he is not actually advocating this position, but rather just presenting all the arguments as to why the Church responded as it did.

I think anyone who has taken a basic course in Astronomy…no wait, anyone who has a basic understanding of Astronomy will have no trouble disproving physical geocentrism. Most importantly though, Catholics should not feel threatened by science. God made this universe in whatever way He felt best. Science is merely the study of this universe and its properties. God’s creation can hardly contradict God Himself. Relax! If God chose to put the Earth somewhere other than the center of the universe then I’m sure He had a good reason. And if scripture scholars determine that simple science contradicts the Bible, then perhaps they misinterpreted that passage. They should also realize that contradicting easily verified facts discredits their other work, which in Sungenis’s case is extraordinary.

Oh, by the way…for those of you who are not Catholic, don’t worry, 99% of Catholics understand that Geocentrism died a long time ago. The other 1% are free to disagree however, because this really is not a Catholic issue and the Church does not have an official position on it anymore.


Actually, he was, but not about what the OP claims. Galileo’s explanations of the motions of heavenly bodies were inaccurate. He was right that the planets revolve around the Sun (which was hardly a new idea), but the mechanics of his explanation were faulty. What’s more Galileo couldn’t fully demonstrate the truth of heliocentrism. Empirical verification thereof didn’t come until the 19th century, IIRC.

It is instructive that while Galileo was censured, Copernicus and others were not. The issues were not primarly scientific, and, even when they were, most opposition to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from university professors.

– Mark L. Chance.



No one is necassarily trying to cover anything up. What I mean by that is this- NASA does not know. All we know is that there is a relative motion between “space” and the earth. There are those at NASA who are intellignet to know that we do not know, but they are going to present their favored theory- big bang with inflation, acentric unverse with barycentric solar system.

Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed [to detect earth’s motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe]. So much so that this failure has become the bedrock of relativity theory. There are two chapters in Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I dedicated to explaining this (as well as content in other chapters).

Many, many observations tell us that we are in or very near the center. But science applies unproven assumptions to make this go away (i.e., isotropy). They say that every where looks like the center. But they do not know that- they have never been anywhere else (anywhere in the solar system is our backyard). Stephen Hawkings claims we make that assumption out of modesty (while verifying that there is no scientific evidence for it). Much of the book deals with these observations, there implications, and science’s counter explanations.

Frankly, we just do not know. Science has its theories (based in naturalism and materialism- i.e., excluding the possiblity of God’s intervention). Until we can step outside the universe and look in we cannot know.

I do not know that it would. Most of it is relative motion. The similarity in dynamics between the two cases have been attested to by many scientists (including Einstein himself).

Flat earth has never been unanimously supported by the fathers, nor has the Church made any doctrinal statements regarding it. Nor can a good case be made that it is supported by Scripture (especially given the first two points, but even in its absence).

Mark Wyatt


No, it is not laughable. The funny thing is- it is actually quite possible!

Astronomy has not disprovevn geocentrism. In fact astronomy has provided a lot of evidence that supports geocentrism. Cosmology has created models, based on many unproven assumptions, that would make the observations of astronomy reject geocentrism. But if we took alternate assumptions, then those same observations would support geocentrism. What are some of those assumptions (i’ll look at 3)?

  1. Isotropy- the universe looks the same in any direction (and from any place)
  2. Homogeneity- The make-up of the universe is more or less the same everywhere.

Points 1 and 2 taken together are called the Cosmological Principle. Since it is a “principle”, this means that pretty much all cosmologists, astronomers, etc. will make this assumption. Wikipedia simplifies that Cosmological Principle “on a large scale the universe is pretty much the same everywhere”. What does Wikipedia call on for support?

“Observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), combined with the Copernican principle”

And what is the Copernican “Principle”?

“In cosmology, the Copernican principle, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position.[1] More recently, the principle is generalised to the simple statement that humans are not privileged observers.[2] In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle, with significant implications in the philosophy of science.”

Sounds a little circular to me!

What does Stephen Hawking say about these prinbciples (A Brief History of Time)?

[LEFT]"…all this evidence that the universe looks the
same whichever direction we look in might
seem to suggest there is something special
about our place in the universe. In particular,
it might seem that if we observe all other
galaxies to be moving away from us, then
we must be at the center of the universe."[/LEFT]

[LEFT]He does provide and alternative view, though:[/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2]“There is, however, an alternate[/FONT][/size]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman]explanation: the universe might look the
same in every direction as seen from any
other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen,
was Friedmann’s second assumption. We
have no scientific evidence for, or against,
this assumption. We believe it only on
grounds of modesty: it would be most
remarkable if the universe looked the same
in every direction around us, but not
around other points in the universe.”[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Let us continue on the assumptions.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]3. The nature of redshift- two leading ones are expansion of the universe and gravitational interpretation. The big bang model of course chosses the first one.[/LEFT]

[LEFT][size=3][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2]TO BE CONTINUED[/size][/size][/size][/size][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRoman]Mark Wyatt[/size][/size][/size][/size][/LEFT]




[LEFT]Interestingly, a top cosmologist named George Ellis created a model with earth at one of two centers. Paul Davies editor of Nature magazine commented on the results:[/LEFT]

[LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRoman]Often the simplest of observations will[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman]have the most profound consequences. It[/FONT]
[FONT=TimesNewRoman]has long been a cornerstone of modern
science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic
outlook, that the Earth attends a modest
star that shines in an undistinguished part
of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose
spontaneously and man evolved on this
miscellaneous clump of matter and now
directs his own destiny without outside
help. This cosmic model is supported by
the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe
concepts, which in turn are buttressed by
the simple observation that astronomers
see redshifts wherever they look.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]These redshifts are due, of course, to
matter flying away from us under the
impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can
also arise from the gravitational attraction
of mass. If the Earth were at the center of
the universe, the attraction of the
surrounding mass of stars would also
produce redshifts wherever we looked!
The argument advanced by George Ellis in
this article is more complex than this, but
his basic thrust is to put man back into a
favored position in the cosmos. His new
theory seems quite consistent with our
astronomical observations, even though it[/LEFT]
[size=2]clashes with the thought that we are godless[/size]
[LEFT][size=3][size=2]and making it on our own.[/size][/size][/LEFT]

[LEFT]Go back to Stephen Hawking’s comments. He is talking about the same observation of our centrality. [/LEFT]

[LEFT]Interstingly enough, what do you think the title of Paul Davie’s piece was? Interesting New Interpertation of Redshifts? No. Unique New Model Supports Earth’s Centrality? No. [/LEFT]

[LEFT]It was titled:
[LEFT][size=2]“Cosmic Heresy?” [/LEFT]

[LEFT][size=2]Nature, 273:336, 1978[/LEFT]

[LEFT]When Marcus Chown investigated the apparent alignement of the CMB and our ecliptic, what did he title his article? CMB aligned with Earth? No. Apparent Correlation of CMB and Solar System? No. [/LEFT]

[LEFT]He called it:

[FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2]Marcus Chown, “Axis of Evil[/size] Warps Cosmic[/FONT]
[LEFT][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman]Background,” [/size][/FONT][/LEFT]


[LEFT][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic][size=2]New Scientist[/size], October 22, 2005[/FONT][/LEFT]


[LEFT][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2]Mark Wyatt






[LEFT]What did Edwin Hubble write when he first discovered redshifts moving away from the earth everywhere he looked? Wow, look, we may be in the center? No. Hey we appear to have a central position, but maybe there are alternate explanations? No. [/LEFT]

[LEFT]He Said (The Observational Approach to Cosmology):[/LEFT]

[LEFT][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman]"…Such a condition would imply that[/size][/FONT][/FONT][/size]
[LEFT][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman][size=2][FONT=TimesNewRoman]we occupy a unique position in the[/size]
universe, analogous, in a sense, to the
ancient conception of a central
EarthThis hypothesis cannot be
disproved, but it is unwelcome and
would only be accepted as a last
resort in order to save the phenomena.
Therefore [size=4]we disregard this[/size]
[size=4]possibility[/size]… the unwelcome position
of a favored location must be avoided
at all costs… such a favored position
is intolerable…Therefore, in order to
restore homogeneity, and to escape
the [FONT=Comic Sans MS]horror of a unique position…must[/FONT]
be compensated by spatial curvature.
There seems to be no other escape."[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Things are not nearly as clear as they seem.

The Robert Sungenis that wrote the great book on Sola Scriptura you mentioned is the same Robert Sungenis that wrote the books on geocentrism. He is using the same reasoning and has done a substantial amount of research. You will be very suprised if you read these books.[/LEFT]

Mark Wyatt



I’ve always found this fact quite interesting. Basically motion only exists as a description of how two bodies move in relation to one another (or many bodies). In fact if there was only one body in the universe it would be impossible for it to “move” at all, because it would have nothing to move in relation to. Therefor every possible method of determining motion would be inconclusive. I think the key here is to understand that motion is relative, and any body can be described as being stationary, just as any body can at the same time be described as moving. The fact is, due to the complex gravitational fields which dictate the flow of the universe, we cannot describe ANY point or body as the exact immovable center. This becomes even more so the case when we consider how light, time, and space can warp and bend in response to mass and relative motion. Considering that it’s unnecessary to interpret the scriptures in a way that demands Geocentrism, and considering that Geocentrism (or any centrism) is impossible, I think a title that implies otherwise will attract more ridicule than readers. But as I stated in a previous post, I have not read the book, and I certainly should before I discredit it. My observations are only based on the title and other comments above. Other books I’ve read by Dr. Robert Sungenis have been well worth the read.

In fact if anyone knows Dr. Sungenis please ask him to check out the forums and give us a preview of the conclusions we can expect to find in the books. This would help us all understand a little better even if we don’t get the chance to read them in full.


Galileo, nor any heliocentrist has not been verified in any konwn empirical manner. Not in the 19th century, nor in the 20th. This is a misconception. Any “proof” for a heliocentric model can also be shown to be consistent with a geocentric model.

Copernicus died before Galileo was tried. This thing built up over decades. Regardless of whether university professors opposed heliocentrism, the Church acted. Volume II of Galileo Was Wrong goes into great detail of the actions, and they are much more substantial then is generally reported.

Mark Wyatt


There is one area where we are in the center. Right in the center between the biggest things and the smallest.


Much of what you are alluding to as fact is actually the result of observations interpreted through the unproven assumptions I listed a few posts back. If the assumptions were different, then the results would be different. In fact Robert shows that the assumptions chosen likely were chosen to keep earth out of the center.

Mark Wyatt

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit