1
The Three Holy Hierarchs and Geocentrism Fr. Dan Bădulescu th
The entire Orthodox Church brightly celebrates on January the 30 the Three great teachers and hierarchs of the entire world (oekumene!): Basil the Great, Gregory (of Nazianzus) Theologian and John Chrysostom. Because they were not only hierarchs but also great teachers of the entire world, they are honored especially in academic theological education. The Synaxaire says about them: "We celebrate today together These three Holy Fathers: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom, as the greatest teachers and Pastors of the Church, throughout the history of Christianity. Their holy life and teachings are normative for orthodoxy, worthy of all praise and trust. It is clear evidence that untrusting un trusting them leads to aberration." By "worthy of all praise and trust" it means what is called with the Greek term, axioms. And, as we Orthodox theologians and students do not doubt that these greatest teachers of all, and do not want to fall into the error of not believing in them, let us stop a moment on some fundamental aspects of their teachings related to the creation of the world. We do this is because we hear, even in our theological university environments where these great saints are honored with hierarchical liturgies and glory, opinions such as: "in matter of scientific knowledge the Holy Fathers were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they spoke in using the scientific knowledge of their time." Of course, this knowledge, the product of human mind, would be as any of this kind, subject for development, adjustment, can be
2 overcome, even contradicted by recent research, etc. It is clear that, if things would be indeed so, the premise above would be canceled, the axioms would fall, and we wouldn’t be in any danger of wandering if we doubt some of their teachings. Consider a clear example to clarify that assumption. We all know their reference works - Homilies - interpretations of the Saints related to Genesis: Hexaimeron of Saint Basil and Homilies at the Genesis of Saint John Chrysostom. The Saints themselves tell us about the spirit of these homilies: "Why these words? It is because we propose to study the world as a whole, and to consider the universe, not by the light of worldly wisdom, but by that with which God wills to enlighten His servant, when He speaks to him in person and without enigmas. It is because it is absolutely necessary that all lovers of great and grand shows should bring a mind well prepared to study them. Therefore necessarily be those who want to see these great things have exercised their minds to understand the teachings that we are facing." (Saint Basil the Great, Hexaimeron) Let's see what we are told in these works about earth and the sun, a problem that is counted today - as an axiom! – axiom! – as as being evident: the earth turns round with a triple rotation: one of a daytime around its axis, another yearly around the sun and a third one - like a torque -, that is the rotation of its axis in order to get the precession of the equinoxes. We see that The Holy Fathers Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, those so trustworthy, taught quite the contrary! In consensus with Scripture and with The Fathers, they believed and taught that the earth was made in the beginning, the first day of th creation, and it is unmoved and upright in the center of the universe, and the sun was made on the 4 day of creation and it is a shining planet that turns around the earth for 24 hours: 1
"There are inquirers into nature who with a great display of words give reasons for the immobility of the earth. Placed, they say, in the middle of the universe and not being able to incline more to one side than the other because its centre is everywhere the same distance from the surface, it necessarily rests upon itself; since a weight which is everywhere equal cannot lean to either side. It is not, they go on, without reason or by chance that the earth occupies the centre of the universe. It is its natural and necessary position. As the celestial body occupies the higher extremity of space all heavy bodies, they argue, that we may suppose to have fallen from these high regions, will be carried from all directions to the centre, and the point towards which the parts are tending will evidently be the one to which the whole mass will be thrust together. If stones, wood, all terrestrial bodies, fall from above downwards, this must be the proper and natural place of the whole earth. If, on the contrary, a light body is separated from the centre, it is evident that it will ascend towards the higher regions. Thus heavy bodies move from the top to the bottom, and following this reasoning, the bottom is none other than the centre of the world. Do not then be surprised that the world never falls: it occupies the centre of the universe, its natural place. By necessity it is obliged to remain in its place, unless a movement 2 contrary to nature should displace it. " "By the same reason which makes them attract the earth, heavier than water, from the extremities of the world to suspend it in the centre, they will grant us without doubt…" doubt…" 1
hoi physikoi was the name given to the Ionic and other philosophers who preceded Socrates. Lucian (Ner. 4) calls Thales physikotatos. 2 cf. De cf. De Coelo. Coelo. ii. 14, 4. ,'Eti d' he phora ton morion kai holes autes e kata physin epi to meson tou pantos estin, dia touto gar kai tynchanei keimene nun epi tou kentrou.
3 "…Since the birth of the sun, the light that it diffuses in the air, when shining on our hemisphere, is day; and the shadow produced by its disappearance is night. But at that time it was not after the movement of the sun, but following this primitive light spread abroad in the air or withdrawn in a measure determined by God, that day came and was followed by night. " "…or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. " "…If the sun, subject to corruption, is so beautiful, so grand, so rapid in its movement, so invariable in its course; if its grandeur is in such perfect harmony with and due proportion to the universe: if, by the beauty of its nature, it shines like a brilliant eye in the middle of o f creation…" creation…" "…to the time when the sun returns from the northern regions to the southern. It is thus that seasons, following the course of the sun, succeed each other to rule our life. " "…As to the solar year, it is the time that the sun, having started from a certain sign, takes to return to it in its normal progress." (Hexaimeron) In agreement with St. Basil a little later comes S t. John Chrysostom: "Better let the sun stop its journey than to stop reading the Psalter." ( Foreword ( Foreword to the power of psalms and What's Psalter ) "So the sun does not show anytime during the night, for that month with its abundant light it’s sufficient to illuminate the darkness of night… night… Each of stihii retains its way and does not exceed its own measure, obeyed his Lord and does her work... "We see the sun for ages going on it’s ordained path..." path..." (St. John Chrysostom Homilies on Genesis) Genesis) Compelled by the evidence of these passages, as to many passages of Scripture and other Holy Fathers, the modernist theologians fall into the impasse from which the y have two outputs: 1) they can presume the Fathers as sincere and good willed, but limited in knowledge and technology of the fourth century, the golden century of theology, but obviously underscored in terms of scientific progress and technical research; 2) they still have at hand the output of considering the scriptural passages and their interpretation to be "allegorical," "metaphorical," "symbolic", or eventually having a high spiritual meaning, and in no case literally, in the way considered by the Antiochian school, and nowadays, the neo-Protestant fundamentalists. We humbly think that both these paths lead to error and deception since:
4 - In case 1) those statements made above by the Holy Fathers were made "not by the light of worldly wisdom, but by that with which God wills to enlighten His servant, when He speaks to him in person and without enigmas." The Holy Fathers did not rely upon the worldly wisdom, or upon the science of this fallen world, which the same Saints and many others have fought a number of occasions. They would have never allowed themselves to interprete the Scriptures according to the secular profane science. - In case 2), let us not forget that the very St. John Chrysostom was the most glorious representative of the Antiochian school where he was formed and shined before being the Archbishop of Constantinople. Secondly, not only he, but also the two other great teachers and hierarchs have contended clearly and without equivocation that the passages in Genesis have to be interpreted exactly literally, at least in the first phase, and then eventually eventuall y get higher meanings. In his Treatise On the Priesthood, St. Gregory Nazianzen blames the so-called teachers of his time, who on behalf of high philosophy, didn’t accept the simple, literal understanding, as we today say "fundamentalist" of the Scriptural accounts. This being so, we wonder, as Orthodox theologians who honor, as it must, the greatest teachers of Orthodoxy: who should we believe in the matter of cosmology? Should we believe the Holy Fathers, or lots of "scholars" like Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, etc. who think and teach terribly hostile to Scripture and all Fathers, just on the basis of philosophy, science and the human mind of the world fallen under the prince of darkness? Dear colleagues, teacher fathers of all grades, Orthodox students! Is it so that we are afraid or ashamed to testify the teaching of Scripture and the Fathers against the scientists of today? Are we somewhat under some inferiority complex by the "superiority" of the secular science and by our quasi total ignorance in the field? Let us turn then another revered figure in the faculties of theology: Holy Great Martyr Catherine. For behold, we read about her in the synaxaire that: "Also, among other punishments, the Saint was forced by Maximian to confront a gathering of pagan philosophers, to prove to the people, the vanity of the gods. And she, ashaming them all with wisdom and good talk, persuaded those one hundred and fifty scholars to believe in Christ..." So, following the Saint, who we honor in our theological colleges, we should also be able by a deed not quite as great as that of her - the conversion of pagans or heretics to the true faith - but at least a right confession of cosmology. And if we should get to confront those scientists, let’s sing the Akathist Hymn of the Saint, saying with strong ho pe:
5 "Those over a hundred scholars of who stood by and listened to words that explained the Gospel of Christ, enlighted by the Holy Hol y Spirit were baptized..." We will explain by instance, Moses’ Moses’ "Genesis", with the hope that the Holy Spirit will enlighten also those scholars and teachers who don’t take the risk of being burned being burned at the stake as those of ancient an cient times, but only to be ridiculed and possibly lose their jobs, but also to be saved through the testimony of truth. Let us pray that God, The Holy Three Hierarchs and St. Catherine to help us to have the knowledge and the courage of confession, and to give them our honor not only with our lips, but also with our heart and mind. Amen.
