Heliocentrism aggravates the wound of ignorance?

New blog on the kid: Heliocentrism aggravates the wound of ignorance? · Creation vs. Evolution: Sigh. There Are People Who Consider Me a Conspiracy Theorist Already · CMI Seems to Have a Will to Hammer Away Geocentrism

Here is a quote from Archbishop Lefebvre:

Thought for the day of Archbishop Lefebvre

The wound of ignorance explains why we have a hard time seeing God in creatures. We see it already in children and sometimes in those who have been baptized as adults. We are completely destitute of the order which our first parents knew. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was perfectly ordered toward the good. Instinctively they saw the presence of God in all creatures. They could not help seeing that all creation was the effect of the almighty power of God.

Sent by SSPX US District in Daily Devotional for July 22 | Quote from Archbishop Lefebvre

I have seen it complained about that my thoughts on Angelic Movers coincide with Pagan thoughts on "divine" movers of planets and stars.

However, recall that Paganisms are composed of three strands.

• Remains of the original revelation, partially distorted but not completely destroyed.
• True history often wrongly understood (Hercules was a real strong man, in Mycenaean Greece, before the decentralisation beginning before the gates of Troy, not God and also not "a god" or son of one).
• Errors influenced by the Devil, the World and the Own Flesh.

I would say that visible stars being moved by spirits within a firmament moved Westward by God or moving Westward following the orders of God, is part of original revelation, as it is not a story it is not told straightforward in Genesis 1 to 11, but it is alluded to.

When the morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody?
[Job 38:7]

As we know that "sons of God" is among other things a name of "angels" (this one alludes to a time before Satan fell), this makes it look like stars or at least morning stars are a subclass of angels. This would be true if the visible stars were their natural bodies (and fathers of nephelim were condemned for shapeshifting to humanoid, in order to seduce daughters of men), and this would also be true if "sun" and "moon" were titles of angelic movers, respectively of Sun and Moon as we see them in the sky.

Job was probably written by the man himself and transmitted to Moses through his Father in law, Jethro.

With this in mind, look at the creation account:

And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars
[Genesis 1:16]

"Rule" sounds personal, as if it was a task and dignity consciously taken on by someone. Though not the highest one:

Who commandeth the sun and it riseth not: and shutteth up the stars as it were under a seal:
[Job 9:7]

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
[Josue (Joshua) 10:12]

And King David also considers the Sun as personal, or close to:

He hath made the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
[Psalms 103:19]

Praise ye him, O sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars and light.
[Psalms 148:3]

So perhaps does Our Lord?

That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.
[Matthew 5:45]

I e, those engaged in Apostolic labour (not my case*) must be tolerant of evils and continue to do good to them. Because God demands that angelic patience from the angel moving the Sun. Hence probably the terms of the saying.

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke of "intelligence" not just of receiving informations by means of visions, auditions or other things we consider as revelationS. The cosmology of St. Thomas Aquinas, that God moves the Universe (or the part below the Empyrean Heaven) around Earth each day and angels move heavenly bodies, is a cosmology he shared with Aristotle. In other words, it can be rationally and philosophically defended. In that arena, as opposed to media (including schools, universities, priests like Settele, one reception, but not the only possible one, of Providentissimus Deus, articles, philosophers, secularists putting pressure on the Church), the world view has not been defeated except for concentric spheres being transparent actual solids. This was disproven by Tycho observing a comet.

There are two possible ways of proving possible, either one makes an assumption. Here:

1. as long as not proven, God and angels should not be believed to exist or used as explanations, and without God and angels, Geocentrism is impossible, therefore we chose Heliocentrism and say that what meets our eyes directly is an optical illusion, like when we see trees moving when in a moving train;
2. as long as not disproven (ultimately by other sense impressions or by logical contradictions), we trust our senses, and therefore conclude from what we see that God turns the world around us, and angels move celestial bodies.

I put them in the order of chronology in which a Westerner is likely to have heard of them in his own life. The second is here second because it's less familiar to people. These days. It is certainly in secularly recorded history the older one, and I dare say it goes back to Adam and Eve.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Mary Magdalene
22.VII.2024

Apud Massiliam, in Gallia, natalis sanctae Mariae Magdalenae, de qua Dominus ejecit septem daemonia, et quae ipsum Salvatorem a mortuis resurgentem prima videre meruit.

*I'm a colleague of Chesterton, essayist, not of Lefebvre, bishop. I do apologetics on occasion, not overall preaching to any section of the Church.