Author Topic: Copernicus (Read 5356 times)

roscoe · « **Reply #16 on:** May 18, 2017, 12:15:53 PM »

Quote from: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 11:43:52 AM

Quote Cassini-- 'This dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes...'

You have just proved that the alleged 'dogma' is only in your mind.

MO is that Catholics should recognise the authority of the popes b4 Cassini.. :baby:

There is no such thing as a pope( much less popes) who 'ignores a dogma'.... ;D

I wonder if Cassini believes that E revs around the moon. Or is it that the cow jumped over it :-\

cassini · « **Reply #17 on:** May 18, 2017, 01:29:07 PM »

Quote from: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 11:43:52 AM

Quote Cassini-- 'This dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes...'

You have just proved that the alleged 'dogma' is only in your mind.

MO is that Catholics should recognise the authority of the popes b4 Cassini.. :baby:

But I do recognise the authority of popes Roscoe. In 1616 Pope Paul V defined and decreed that the Scriptures reveal geocentrism and that to deny this is formal heresy. Now something that is formal heresy is a contradiction of a dogma. Now that is not in my mind but can be found in Church docuмents. No pope has the authority to ignore a previous papal decree. Vatican I said:

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)

Recent records from the archives record the Holy Office of 1820 confirm its dogmatic status:

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

Now there is the scam, stating the unrevisable papal decree was heliocentrism 'with a devastating motion,' but that the heliocentrism of 1820 had no devastating motion. This way they had their infallible goose, saving infallibility, and their non-infallible gander.

To say the condemned heliocentrism of Galileo had 'violent motion' and the 1820 one did not is absolute nonsense. The 1820 heliocentrism was the same as condemned, the sun was fixed in both with the earth orbiting it. The words violent motion wasn't mentioned. This scam allowed the dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes who had the final say, and here it is below, scam included.

In 1822 the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII issued another decree, actually applying penalties for not allowing the publication of books presenting the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science (and presumably therefore as the correct reading of Scripture):

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary. ---Cited from the Holy Office records by A. Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.

roscoe · « **Reply #18 on:** May 18, 2017, 04:49:14 PM »

My apologies for not recognising your heresy.

First-- you have not cited the specific docuмent of Paul V( is it a Bull or Encyclical?)

Be that as it may, any Pope after Paul V has a right to alter or even abrogate any previous policy if it is his decision to do so. In the ensuing years after Paul V, actual scientific discoveries( notably Bradley & Newton) confirm the motion of E. This is why action is taken in 1735 & 1820( yrs may not be exact) to remove from the index any work claiming motion of E.

It is not that future popes ignored Paul V-- it was determined that Paul V's policy needed to be corrected & it is their job to do so-- not Cassini's.

Another example is Benedict XIII when he cancels the prev Bulls of Urban and 2 later Popes that ex-communicated Catholics who used tobacco. It was decided that this is not Church policy any longer.

There is then a legitimate reason why Popes after Paul V didn't follow his decision-- they decided to change it. :baby:

cassini · « **Reply #19 on:** May 19, 2017, 05:34:49 AM »

Quote from: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 04:49:14 PM

My apologies for not recognising your heresy.

First-- you have not cited the specific docuмent of Paul V( is it a Bull or Encyclical?)

Be that as it may, any Pope after Paul V has a right to alter or even abrogate any previous policy if it is his decision to do so. In the ensuing years after Paul V, actual scientific discoveries( notably Bradley & Newton) confirm the motion of E. This is why action is taken in 1735 & 1820( yrs may not be exact) to remove from the index any work claiming motion of E.

It is not that future popes ignored Paul V-- it was determined that Paul V's policy needed to be corrected & it is their job to do so-- not Cassini's.

Another example is Benedict XIII when he cancels the prev Bulls of Urban and 2 later Popes that ex-communicated Catholics who used tobacco. It was decided that this is not Church policy any longer.

There is then a legitimate reason why Popes after Paul V didn't follow his decision-- they decided to change it. :baby:

Please Roscoe, do not think heliocentrism is proven, that the 1616 decree was proven wrong. The world was conned into thinking it was proven wrong. Ever hear of Einstein? He was called in to rescue heliocentrism after the M&M test that showed the earth is not orbiting. From then on science said it was 50-50, H or G. Scientific proof does not exist. Only FAITH PROOF EXIST, that is, IF GOD TELLS US SOMETHING. HE DOESN'T TELL FIBS OR GET THINGS WRONG.

The First was a decree, confirmed in 1633 and 1820 as irreversible:

The Vatican minutes record that on Wednesday, February 24^th 1616, in virtue of the Pope’s order, the Index reported the outcome in the following manner:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” --- First publicly recorded by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644.

In Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, it cites twenty-one decrees of the Holy Office, the first being in 1602. But search as you may for that 1616 decree, probably the only Holy Office decree ever to define formal heresy, and you will not find it. Where did it go? Well I know where it went, into the 'embarrassment' basket.

Then there was the book ban:
On 28 February 1619, the Congregation of the Index, after acquiring and reading Kepler’s book Epitome of Copernican Astronomy published in 1618, rebuked and banned it. Added to this were condemnations and bans on Copernicus’s De revolutionibus and books by Diego de Zúñiga, and Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, including proscriptions on ‘all books that teach the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun.’ Following this, in 1620, a monitum was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index laying out certain ‘corrections’ that were required in Copernicus’s De revolutionibus before it could receive an imprimatur.

A papal decree defining formal heresy because it contradicts Scripture and all the Fathers reading of it is a little different than a ban on tobacco you will probably agree.

There was never any abrogation of the 1616 decree. All they did was remove the book bans from 1741 to 1835. Pope Paul Vi removed the whole book-ban Index in 1960 but every heresy in them remains heresy. Well it does for me.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered. For their part, Galileo’s adversaries, neither before nor after him, have discovered anything that could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy [Bullshit]. The facts were unavoidably clear and soon showed the relative character of the sentence passed in 1633. This sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-175) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Conclusion of Pope John Paul II Papal Commission, 1992.

See the con here roscoe, 'optical proofs.' THERE WERE NO OPTICAL PROOFS. But now see how their 'proofs' were used to IGNORE THE 1616 DECREE without even mentioning it. LOOK AT WHAT THEY SAY "THIS SENTENCE WAS NOT IRREFORMABLE. The SENTENCE PASSED IN 1633 was of course REFORMABLE, that is whether Galileo was guilty or not of disobeying a Holy Office directive. But they make it LOOK LIKE the 1616 decree was reformable.
I tell you Roscoe, as Catholics we should all be shocked at such a SCAM, not DEFENDING it as you are.

The heresy in them was ignored as I said.

roscoe · « **Reply #20 on:** May 19, 2017, 11:33:53 AM »

Thanks for reply but you are still not getting it.

I have no problem with the Bull of Paul V because at the time there was no actual evidence that Earth is in motion.

However as this evidence Is discovered( Bradley, Newton, Focault), the Popes after Paul V repeal this policy and remove books from the index that treat of E in motion.

If you deny that a Pope has the Authority to repeal a prev Bull then you are wrong..... Sorry

Enjoy the rest of your day...

roscoe · « **Reply #21 on:** May 19, 2017, 11:55:58 AM »

It is not true that the 1616 decree of Paul V is as you put it 'irreversible'-- sorry

And who cares what the heretic judaix Einstone thinks...

In case you have forgotten, this is a Catholic Forum...

cassini · « **Reply #22 on:** May 19, 2017, 12:43:21 PM »

Quote from: roscoe on May 19, 2017, 11:33:53 AM

Thanks for reply but you are still not getting it.

I have no problem with the Bull of Paul V because at the time there was no actual evidence that Earth is in motion.

However as this evidence Is discovered( Bradley, Newton, Focault), the Popes after Paul V repeal this policy and remove books from the index that treat of E in motion.

If you deny that a Pope has the Authority to repeal a prev Bull then you are wrong..... Sorry

Enjoy the rest of your day...

It was not a Bull roscoe, it was a decree of the Holy Office, 21 of their decrees can be found in Denzingers SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA.

So, what was the Holy Office of 1616 and 1633? Well in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.

The Congregation of the Index, otherwise known as the Index, was finally established in 1572. It was the section placed by Supreme Sacred Congregation in charge of heretical and offensive book censorship, a practice that had been ongoing since the Council of Trent. Made up of ten cardinals, its decrees were normally signed only by its chief officers.

Later, in 1588; Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave the Holy Office even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority. Finally, in 1620, Pope Paul V placed all departments of the Church in Rome under the Supreme Sacred Congregation.

Here also is PROOF that Pope Paul V was behind the decree:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus… is contrary to Scripture. 26th day of May 1616.

Il medesimo di sopra,

ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’

Go on all you like about proofs Roscoe, but you are only kidding yourself, not others. Even the 'heretic Einstein' knew there was no proof.

Here is more proof there was IGNORING of the 1616 decree>

‘On December 1st, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, Garofalo and Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the docuмentary trail is lost, but not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five [banned] books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. (Pierre Noel Mayaud: La Condamnation… Rome, 1997, pp.271-72.) Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ --- Retrying Galileo, p.198.

See, Even Pope Gregory XVI had to IGNORE the infallible decree, because you cannot change infallible decrees.
If this were a forum with just the two of us Roscoe, I really wouldn't bother detailing the truth. But for others I do it. Hopefully we can leave it at that for now. There is enough RED INK above even for you to get the finer points.
But knowing you you will get in one last rejection of faith, dogma, history and science.

roscoe · « **Reply #23 on:** May 19, 2017, 01:17:03 PM »

All i know is that future Popes removed from the Index any works treating of the Earth in motion and their authority is higher than yours.....

Nadir · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2017, 03:52:34 AM »

Quote from: cassini on May 19, 2017, 12:43:21 PM

If this were a forum with just the two of us Roscoe, I really wouldn't bother detailing the truth. But for others I do it.

Hopefully we can leave it at that for now...

Thank you, Cassini. I'm sure there must be others out there who appreciate your scholarly and patient approach. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

Nadir · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2017, 03:54:53 AM »

Quote from: roscoe on May 19, 2017, 01:17:03 PM

All i know is that future Popes removed from the Index any works treating of the Earth in motion and their authority is higher than yours.....

.
There are no such things as a future Popes!

roscoe · « **Reply #26 on:** May 20, 2017, 05:30:10 AM »

Should read Popes after Paul V....

Fix earthers are nothing but flat earthers in the modern era... just plain stupid....

roscoe · « **Reply #27 on:** May 20, 2017, 05:37:42 AM »

In addition to being Sola Scriptura.... :ready-to-eat:

cassini · « **Reply #28 on:** May 20, 2017, 05:47:53 AM »

Quote from: Nadir on May 20, 2017, 03:52:34 AM

Thank you, Cassini. I'm sure there must be others out there who appreciate your scholarly and patient approach. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

And thank you Nadir. Since I was a boy I could not accept the Church I was reared in since the 1940s could get something so wrong that could haunt it for 400 years. When I retired from my life as a farmer I began to read about it. Book after book repeated the same old story, and pope after pope, confirmed churchmen erred and galileo was vindicated. When Gaudium et Spes in Vatican II called the churchmen, popes, a saint, and cardinals of 1616 and 1633, troublemakers who caused 400 years of conflict, I couldn't believe it. Then, one day I heard of Paul Ellwanger (RIP) and corresponded with him on the subject. Paul, at his own expense, sent me a press full of information. Once I knew the earth was not proven to be orbiting the sun, that all such proofs were only one interpretation of two possibilities, I began to research the doctrinal story of the Galileo case.

In my case, out of the blue, in response to a letter I wrote to a local newspaper, a man got in touch who had done incredible research into the scientific aspect of astronomy. He was a Catholic with an intellect I still find it hard to cope with, such is its excellence. His research took him to libraries all over Europe and he introduced me to Domenico Cassini, 'God's astronomer' as he called him. There lay the true science of the earth's relationship to the sun, moon and planets.

To my advantage was the fact that the doctrinal records never before released from the Secret Archives became known in MY time. For some reason or another, mainly to try to vindicate the Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 after their humiliation by the Modernists at Vatican II, I was able to read history with a certainty that the 1616 decree was not wrong, could not be wrong as then the gates of Hell would have suceeded in showing false infallibility. Interestingly, through debate on forums, the picture became clearer and clearer as I had to find a Catholic answer to every accusation from the majority that the 1616 decree was proven wrong and that popes from 1741 could not have condoned formal heresy if heliocentrism was formal heresy.

Alas, it seems the truth looks more harmful to Catholicism than that capitulation to Galileoism. Traditional Catholics especially cannot believe their traditional popes could side with fallible human reason and ignore Catholic faith in papal definitions. That is why I was banned from two such Catholic forums. It reminds me of the child abuse scandals in the Church. I have no doubt they were hidden by the hierarchy to protect the good name of the Church, allowing the abuse to continue. In the same way, to protect the good name of all the popes who allowed the SUBJECT MATTER of the heresy to be believed, the likes of myself are to be censored.
Finally I have one more post for Roscoe but that next.

cassini · « **Reply #29 on:** May 20, 2017, 05:49:27 AM »

Quote from: roscoe on May 20, 2017, 05:37:42 AM

In addition to being Sola Scriptura.... :ready-to-eat:

For hundreds of years now, regarding the matter of biblical interpretation, Catholics have subjected the Scriptures to Galileo’s personal exegesis, ignoring the elucidation of all the Fathers and the decrees of popes in 1616 and 1633. In this they are little better than Protestants who since the 16th century have condoned a private interpretation of the Bible. In response to the latter the Catholic Church warned all who did this risked eternal damnation.

‘If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is an insult to God. Doubting His word, or believing with doubt and hesitation, is an insult to God, because it doubts His sacred Word. We must therefore believe without doubting, without hesitating…. On what does [the Protestant] believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgement. And what is that? A human opinion – human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say “I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text.” Therefore he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgement, and nothing else, and therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God. [Catholicism] has divine faith, and why? Because it says “I believe in such and such a thing.” Why? “Because the Catholic Church teaches this.” And why do you believe the Catholic Church? “Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church, and we are taught by St Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophesy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.” That is strong language my dear people, but that is the language of St Peter, the head of the Apostles. But my dearly beloved Protestant friends do not be offended at me for saying that.”[1]

[1] Fr Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815-1890), The One True Church.

Author Topic: Copernicus (Read 5356 times)

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

cassini

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

cassini

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

cassini

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

Nadir

Re: Copernicus

Nadir

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

roscoe

Re: Copernicus

cassini

Re: Copernicus

cassini

Re: Copernicus