Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: roscoe on April 29, 2022, 11:27:40 PM
-
Has anyone read my article The Real Galileo on firstjesuits.wordpress.com ? :popcorn:
-
I have not. I do not plan to do so. Somehow, I think the same may be said of most, if not all, of the members on CI.
You asked if "anyone" (anywhere?) had read it. Perhaps someone has, but not I.
Cheers. Smoke em if ya got em.
-
Has anyone read my article The Real Galileo on firstjesuits.wordpress.com ? :popcorn:
No, can you tell me how to find it roscoe.
-
https://firstjesuits.wordpress.com/
-
https://firstjesuits.wordpress.com/ - My article says roscoe
Quote roscoe;
It is Newton’s theory of Gravity along with James Bradley in 1725 that proves Earth around Sun.
Comment:
‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’ (Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18.)
‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73.)
'Nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion' says Einstein. And that is why he invented his Special Theory of Relativity, to try to save a 'relative solar system.'
Quote Roscoe:
'The later experiment of Focault’s Pendulum proves that Earth rotates on an axis.'
Comment.
Now read up about the Foucault pendulum fake.
https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/is-foucaults-fraudulent-pendulum-a-religious-tool/
When the basis of an essay on Galileo is written under the illusion that heliocentrism is proven, then the essay is biased in many ways.
-
Has anyone read my article The Real Galileo on firstjesuits.wordpress.com ? :popcorn:
from article:
It is Newton’s theory of Gravity along with James Bradley in 1725 that proves Earth around Sun.
So, how does a theory "prove" something?
(https://www.liveabout.com/thmb/czr1q152QTiqFJR5QGbaSzNIm9k=/512x640/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/weed-math-56cc88b35f9b5879cc59143b.jpg)
-
Galileo challenged true Christianity with Pythagorean doctrine, bringing about revolution that is destroying the Catholic faith to this day. This book, seems to be written in similar fashion to Dickson White's book on science and the Church is written from the other side of the argument, but has many quotes from saints about how the Church fought this demonic theory.
https://smile.amazon.com//dp/B09X3DQKXN?
For more than a thousand years, Christians denounced the Pythagoreans. They complained that Pythagoras did "ten thousand kinds of sorcery": healing the sick, predicting events, and stopping storms over rivers and seas so that his disciples might sail across them, like Jesus Christ. Some pagans said that Pythagoras was the son of the god Apollo and a human mother. Whereas Jesus died and resurrected only once, Pythagoras survived death multiple times as his soul was repeatedly reborn in other bodies. Whereas Jesus was dead for less than three days before his resurrection, Pythagoras allegedly spent two centuries in Hell, yet he returned to life. And similarly to the apostles of Jesus, some of the disciples of Pythagoras allegedly exorcised demons and resurrected the dead. But unlike the apostles, some of the Pythagoreans returned to life after death. Saint Hippolytus of Rome criticized this "alliance between heresy and the Pythagorean philosophy," and he denounced the "disciples not of Christ but of Pythagoras." The Pythagorean cosmology also troubled the Christians. The Pythagoreans said that that the infernal regions begin with the Milky Way, souls fall from it to Earth, and that animals’ souls come from the stars. They said the Earth moves, and that stars and planets were other worlds. They said that souls live in those countless worlds, and that there were demons living on the Moon. They said that Pythagoras came from Jupiter and had lived on the Moon as a demon.
For centuries, the Christians rejected such “poisonous doctrines” and “devilish lies” of the Pythagoreans. The present book traces the development of Pythagorean beliefs about religion and astronomy, explaining how Church Fathers condemned such beliefs, and how that conflict reappeared in the Renaissance. This book is related to Burned Alive: Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and the Inquisition (Reaktion, 2018). While that book focused on Bruno, Galileo, and the Inquisition, this new book focuses on the religious conflicts between Christians and Pythagoreans. Historians know that the Pythagoreans were a secretive religious group, yet there was no historical account of how the early Christians criticized their evolving pagan beliefs and how such heresies resurfaced in the Copernican Revolution. How did the ancient Pythagorean religion relate to astronomy? How did it clash with Christianity?
Alberto A. Martinez is a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of several books, including Burned Alive (2018), The Cult of Pythagoras: Math and Myths (Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 2012), Science Secrets (Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 2011), Kinematics: the Lost Origins of Einstein's Relativity (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), and Negative Math (Princeton University Press, 2005).
-
Never spotted Martinez's new book. Thanks Tradman.
Martinez is an Earthmover. I spoke to him and corresponded with him about his first book and his second book Burned Alive, Reaktion Books, London, 2018
In fact this book, Burned Alive and I am sure the new one, gives a history of the Church's fight against Pythagoreanism over the first 3 centuries after Christ that I never saw before. His book is the first ever to give the real reasons why the Church took the Bruno case and the Galileo case so seriously. Pope Urban VIII said Galileoism was a greater threat to Christianity than Luther's reformation. That this truth should come out of a heliocentrist like Prof. Martinez is God working in strange ways..
-
I have never heard the term Galileoism. Pope Urban is( as we should expect) correct but it is not the astronomical theories of Galileo he is referring to-- it is the latter's conception of Nuclear Physics. This is why another dangerous soul( Einstien0 ) refers to Galileo as " The father of Nuclear Physics"-- NOT Astronomy... :popcorn:
-
Never spotted Martinez's new book. Thanks Tradman.
Martinez is an Earthmover. I spoke to him and corresponded with him about his first book and his second book Burned Alive, Reaktion Books, London, 2018
In fact this book, Burned Alive and I am sure the new one, gives a history of the Church's fight against Pythagoreanism over the first 3 centuries after Christ that I never saw before. His book is the first ever to give the real reasons why the Church took the Bruno case and the Galileo case so seriously. Pope Urban VIII said Galileoism was a greater threat to Christianity than Luther's reformation. That this truth should come out of a heliocentrist like Prof. Martinez is God working in strange ways..
Yea, I'm considering this book for the historical quotes. Should be interesting.
-
I have never heard the term Galileoism. Pope Urban is( as we should expect) correct but it is not the astronomical theories of Galileo he is referring to-- it is the latter's conception of Nuclear Physics. This is why another dangerous soul( Einstien0 ) refers to Galileo as " The father of Nuclear Physics"-- NOT Astronomy... :popcorn:
Galileoism means belief that the Biblical moving sun can be read as a fixed sun.
‘In past evil times, the faithful were able to avoid the snares of Satan by solicitously seeking truth through observation of objective reality and arriving at a Catholic solution within a Catholic cosmology. But this has been greatly reduced due to a systematic attack destroying people’s ability to trust their senses, something necessary for living in the real world. It is necessary for man to trust his senses in comprehending objective reality before he is able to discern spiritual reality… Replacing what we see with the new “reality” of his fanciful ideas logically culminates in utopian idealism which is unattached to his sensory experience…..But Galileoism is much more serious than a denial of objective reality. Words which were used to express eternal truths have been emptied of their metaphysical meaning that relates creation to the Holy Trinity. These are spiritual realities. People are unable to comprehend or understand the effects that trace all creatures back to their Cause which is God. Their minds have been cut from the moorings in truth and set adrift, wandering aimlessly on an illusionary journey of psychological voyeurism.’ (John R. Fohne’s essay: Galileoism, a Cosmology for Culture of Death.)
-
Pope Urban is (as we should expect) correct but it is not the astronomical theories of Galileo he is referring to-- it is the latter's conception of Nuclear Physics. This is why another dangerous soul (Einstien) refers to Galileo as " The father of Nuclear Physics"-- NOT Astronomy... :popcorn:
‘[St] Thomas also denied the claim that there are multiple worlds. Like Hippolytus, he attributed this false claim to those who did not acknowledge the ordering wisdom of God. St Thomas declared: “Those who posit many worlds do not believe in any ordaining wisdom, but in chance, as Democritus, who said that this world and infinitely many others came from a concourse of atoms.”’ ---Martinez, Burned Alive.
‘I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the Earth, with Garden of Eden on each one. In all these gardens of Eden, half the [alien] Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, but half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions.’ --- As quoted by Martinez in his book Burned Alive.
Long forgotten now are all the other Pythagorean heresies condemned by the Fathers over the first three centuries of the Catholic Church; an era recalled and described in a new book written by Professor Alberto. A. Martinez. In this scholarly book, Martinez tells us ‘Saint Hippolytus [170-235AD, a martyred Christian theologian] ridiculed the doctrine of infinitely many suns, moons and worlds, some inhabited.’ The Professor tells us: ‘around 260CE Pope Dionysus of Alexandria wrote a tract against the Epicureans mainly to criticize their theory that all things were composed of atoms without divine Providence.’ Martinez explains that this tract was directed against the theory that atoms clash and combine by chance ‘and thus gradually form this world and all objects in it; and more, that they construct infinite worlds.’ The study also identifies many Church Fathers who condemned the claim that there are many worlds like ours. Martinez records ‘in 384CE’ Philaster, Bishop of Brescia condemned the ‘heresy that says worlds are infinite and innumerable…whereas Scripture teaches us that it is one.’ In 402 St Jerome complained that one of the most heretical claims of all was that ‘worlds are innumerable.’ St. Augustine even composed a list of 88 such heresies; the 77th was innumerable worlds.’
‘Other theologians too cited this heresy for centuries. They explained the problem: “we cannot assert that there exist two or many worlds, since neither do we assert two or many Christs [the only begotten son]”’ --- Prof. A. A. Martinez.
Catholicism today;
‘Father Funes described the discovery as ‘great news.’ Writing in the Vatican’s daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, he said: ‘Our galaxy contains more than a hundred billion stars. ‘Considering the number of exoplanets discovered, it seems that the vast majority of stars in our galaxy, at least potentially, can have planets where life could develop.’ He said that if there is intelligent life found on another planet, he does not see it as a contradiction to the Christian faith. He said: ‘The Bible is not a scientific book. If we look for scientific responses to our questions in the Bible, we are making a mistake. It is just over 380 years since the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for arguing that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. But it seems the Vatican has relaxed its view of mankind’s place in the cosmos and even believes there may be intelligent alien life out there. Astronomers at the Vatican Observatory, which has been studying the heavens since 1582, have said discoveries of new Earth-like planets have strengthened their belief that there could be life on other planets.’ ---Mailonline, 8th Feb, 2018.
-
Pope Urban is (as we should expect) correct but it is not the astronomical theories of Galileo he is referring to-- it is the latter's conception of Nuclear Physics. This is why another dangerous soul (Einstien0 ) refers to Galileo as " The father of Nuclear Physics"-- NOT Astronomy...
The historian Pietro Redondi, who in his research came upon a commission docuмent denouncing the atomism in Galileo’s 1623 book The Assayer. Redondi proposed that Galileo’s crime was the threat ‘atomism’ presented to the dogma of transubstantiation, but that Pope Urban VIII covered it up with Galileo’s doctrine of heliocentrism.
The Church records show no direct accusation of ‘atomism’ against Galileo. The only heresy Galileo was found to be asserting was to deny the Bible's literal revelation of a moving sun (as in geocentrism) in his book Dialogue. However, as Martinez confirmed in his book, the Inquisition was aware of all the ideas and heresies that Galileo’s moving Earth could resurrect and atomism was certainly one of them. And how right Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII were when they said that accepting heliocentrism would bring about many of the other heresies of the past. were when heliocentrism was adopted as true, there followed many of the condemned heresies of the Pythagoreans and Epicureans, the Nebular theory, an evolved solar-system by way of atoms as held by most scientists today as well as the evolution of other worlds, intelligent aliens and even now Hawking’s matter from nothing.
-
Pope Urban is (as we should expect) correct but it is not the astronomical theories of Galileo he is referring to-- it is the latter's conception of Nuclear Physics. This is why another dangerous soul (Einstien0) refers to Galileo as " The father of Nuclear Physics"-- NOT Astronomy... :popcorn:
I have wondered why roscoe you should start up this subject on Galileo given you reply to most comments on Galileo with "E revs around S." Now I get it. You want to dismiss the heresy Galileo committeed was biblical astronomy and replace it with creation by way of Newton's gravitation of atoms.
This way you can claim the Church did not err with Galileo's condemnation. And here I thought you had converted to Catholic geocentrism.
Between 1755 and 1796, Immanuel Kant and Simon de Laplace conjured up the Nebular Theory, a conjecture under the guise of a scientific hypothesis that asserted Galileo’s solar system evolved naturally from atoms and dust with the universe itself, another old Epicurean belief condemned by the Church as heresy. So, Galileo’s heliocentrism now led all to include another of Bruno’s heresies as Pope Urban VIII predicted it would. The battle between a divine supernatural Creation and a ‘natural’ evolution had advanced. In time came the final concession to this evolved solar-system within the Catholic Church itself: In otherr words, when Pope Pius VII conceded to a heliocentric solar system, he in fact conceded to its evolution from atoms. Sure its no wonder naturalism, atheism and Moderrnism took over the world from then.
-
The above post MAKES ABSOLUTLY NO SENSE TO MOI. I have never been a 'geo-centrist" & have always trashed Galileo's helio-centrism.MO is that E & S are both in motion. :popcorn:
-
MO is that E & S are both in motion. :popcorn:
Only thing in motion on the earth is the room spinning around you as you inhale deeply.
-
Only thing in motion on the earth is the room spinning around you as you inhale deeply.
(http://<a href=)(https://i.ibb.co/vszGrrw/1464762241027-1.gif)
-
The above post MAKES ABSOLUTLY NO SENSE TO MOI. I have never been a 'geo-centrist" & have always trashed Galileo's helio-centrism.MO is that E & S are both in motion. :popcorn:
Yes roscoe, I know that, And that is why your essay tries to reinvent the Galileo case, to try to convince readers that your Church, the Catholic Church, really didn't do, say, and bind all to Galileo's heresy of a fixed-sun.
Your Real Galileo says: "As for Galileo, it is the purpose of this work to shatter the mistaken conception most have of his relationship with The Catholic Church."
Before I go on you also write: "Einstien refers to Galileo as the father of modern physics." Yet you ignore Einstein when he had to fall in with the facts of physics, "‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73.)
Next you write: "…In breaking these conceptions, the actions of the Church will be shown to be above reproach. Galileo runs afoul of INQ on two seperate occaisions–1616 and 1633. He is censored both times in astronomical terms but this will be shown to be only symbolic in 1633."
Here above your essay switches the 1633 trial from Galileo's hertetical fixed sun, orbiting Earth solar system to
"Galileo’s quantum, atomist theories amount to an attack on the Doctrine Of The Real Presence in the Eucharist. …From Fr Parsons Some Lies And Errors Of History pg 86” To such a Tribunal a denunciation was made that Galileo or his deciples had asserted God is an accident and not a substance– a personal being; that miracles are not miracles at all. Then the Pontiff declared that for the termination of the scandal, Galileo should be cited and admonished by the Sacred Congregation.”…An attack on the Eucharist using atomist physical theories is nothing new as this was used by Wycliff, Luther, Calvin etc. This is what the ‘Reformation’ was all about. The Real Galileo has been found."
So, according to your essay the above is what happened in 1633. Well now roscoe, let us record what really did happen in 1633 as recorded from the Inquisition docuмents themselves.
The Inquisition’s Sentence:
‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Sacred Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” ‘Thus the declaration of the Index - for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed - was identified with the condemnatory judgment made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough but note what followed. “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But in what sense Papal? In a sense according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with declarations and definitions the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. It was papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.’
The sentence continued: “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you. And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you recite the seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.”’
Galileo’s Abjuration:
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. But because, after this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which holds that the sun is in the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre, and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend, or teach in any manner, the said false doctrine; and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I wrote and caused to be printed a book, wherein I treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments with great efficacy in favour of it, without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be. Moreover, I swear, and promise, to fulfil, and observe entirely, all the penances that have been or shall be imposed on me by this Holy Office. And if -which God forbid- I act against any of these said promises, protestations, and oaths, I subject myself to all the penalties and punishments which the sacred canons, and other constitutions, general and particular, have enacted, and promulgated against such delinquents. So help me God, and His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands. “I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; in token whereof I have signed with my own hand this formula of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word.” Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Pope Sixtus V, “the strongest bulwark of the Catholic religion to which it is accustomed to preside over it, on account of the sum of the gravity of the Roman Pontiff, ” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration, as an expression of the mind of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that the Holy See regarded the opinion condemned thereby as nothing less than heresy.’
Where then roscoe is the atomism you claim the 1633 trial was all about? Were the records lying to the world when they make it clear the heresy was the heliocentrism you hold and defend on CIF.
For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest,
nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)
-
"... that heliocentrism, or acentrism, and flat Earthism all run into the irrational problems of infinite regress. Space and whatever motion or energy is in it cannot be properly explained by an infinite regress, which error is woven inti the sense of heliocentrism, or acentrism, and flat Earthism".
PLuto Administrations Bk VII Ch 5 Sec 2 3451a -72 Vol. III
-
in some editions page 720 others 719 or 712.
-
Yes roscoe, I know that, And that is why your essay tries to reinvent the Galileo case, to try to convince readers that your Church, the Catholic Church, really didn't do, say, and bind all to Galileo's heresy of a fixed-sun.
Your Real Galileo says: "As for Galileo, it is the purpose of this work to shatter the mistaken conception most have of his relationship with The Catholic Church."
Before I go on you also write: "Einstien refers to Galileo as the father of modern physics." Yet you ignore Einstein when he had to fall in with the facts of physics, "‘All modern cosmology stands or falls with this concept [the Copernican Principle] being correct, even though, to quote a text approved by Einstein: “We cannot feel our motion through space, nor has any experiment proved the Earth in motion.”’ (Lincoln Barnett: The universe and Dr. Einstein, Dover Publications, 1948, p.73.)
Next you write: "…In breaking these conceptions, the actions of the Church will be shown to be above reproach. Galileo runs afoul of INQ on two seperate occaisions–1616 and 1633. He is censored both times in astronomical terms but this will be shown to be only symbolic in 1633."
Here above your essay switches the 1633 trial from Galileo's hertetical fixed sun, orbiting Earth solar system to
"Galileo’s quantum, atomist theories amount to an attack on the Doctrine Of The Real Presence in the Eucharist. …From Fr Parsons Some Lies And Errors Of History pg 86” To such a Tribunal a denunciation was made that Galileo or his deciples had asserted God is an accident and not a substance– a personal being; that miracles are not miracles at all. Then the Pontiff declared that for the termination of the scandal, Galileo should be cited and admonished by the Sacred Congregation.”…An attack on the Eucharist using atomist physical theories is nothing new as this was used by Wycliff, Luther, Calvin etc. This is what the ‘Reformation’ was all about. The Real Galileo has been found."
So, according to your essay the above is what happened in 1633. Well now roscoe, let us record what really did happen in 1633 as recorded from the Inquisition docuмents themselves.
The Inquisition’s Sentence:
‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Sacred Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” ‘Thus the declaration of the Index - for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed - was identified with the condemnatory judgment made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough but note what followed. “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But in what sense Papal? In a sense according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with declarations and definitions the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. It was papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.’
The sentence continued: “Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you. And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you recite the seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.”’
Galileo’s Abjuration:
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. But because, after this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which holds that the sun is in the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre, and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend, or teach in any manner, the said false doctrine; and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I wrote and caused to be printed a book, wherein I treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments with great efficacy in favour of it, without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be. Moreover, I swear, and promise, to fulfil, and observe entirely, all the penances that have been or shall be imposed on me by this Holy Office. And if -which God forbid- I act against any of these said promises, protestations, and oaths, I subject myself to all the penalties and punishments which the sacred canons, and other constitutions, general and particular, have enacted, and promulgated against such delinquents. So help me God, and His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands. “I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; in token whereof I have signed with my own hand this formula of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word.” Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Pope Sixtus V, “the strongest bulwark of the Catholic religion to which it is accustomed to preside over it, on account of the sum of the gravity of the Roman Pontiff, ” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration, as an expression of the mind of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that the Holy See regarded the opinion condemned thereby as nothing less than heresy.’
Where then roscoe is the atomism you claim the 1633 trial was all about? Were the records lying to the world when they make it clear the heresy was the heliocentrism you hold and defend on CIF.
For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest,
nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)
Pls provide evidence from any post I have ever made where helio-centrim is defended... :confused:
Anyone who ACTUALLY READS Galileo Heretic will see that i am being truthfull re:Galleo's atomism.
Why else would the famous idiot Einstien refer to him as FATHER OF MODERN PHYSICS??
I will expect an apology when no evidence of my supporting Helio- centrsm is produced...
-
And BTW-- there are numerous copies of Redondi's Galileo Heretic on Addall used for a very meager price... :popcorn:
-
Pls provide evidence from any post I have ever made where helio-centrim is defended... :confused:
Anyone who ACTUALLY READS Galileo Heretic will see that i am being truthfull re:Galleo's atomism.
Why else would the famous idiot Einstien refer to him as FATHER OF MODERN PHYSICS??
I will expect an apology when no evidence of my supporting Helio- centrsm is produced...
You have posted "E revs around s." or suchlike many times roscoe. Now to me 'E revs around S' is what a geocentrist denier would say. Go ask others who read the same post from you any time the subject comes up. Your "MO is that E & S are both in motion" just an updated anti-Catholic faith invention as it denies the decree of Pope Paul V below.
(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Galileo was never tried or convicted with regard to atomism. Yes it was another Pythagorean heresy that the Inquisition were aware of that could have come from Galileo's heliocentrism, just as other worlds and aliens could have if the Inquisition didn't stop Galileo's Bible changing was allowed. Once heliocentrism was given the thumbs up by popes in 1820-35, then as the Inquisition feared, all the other heresies did come back and are believed by most Catholics today.
-
E rev around S. Also-- E & S ARE BOTH IN MOTION :popcorn:
How Atomism could possibly come from Helio-centrism is way beyond my comprehension...
-
E rev around S. Also-- E & S ARE BOTH IN MOTION :popcorn:
How Atomism could possibly come from Helio-centrism is way beyond my comprehension...
So, your universe is a John Henry Newman one roscoe?
‘In recalling it at this day there stand out from its later phases two efforts at compromise especially instructive, as showing the embarrassment of militant theology in the nineteenth century. The first of these was made by John Henry Newman in the days when he was hovering between the Anglican and Roman Churches. In one of his sermons before the University of Oxford he spoke as follows: “Scripture says that the sun moves and the Earth is stationary, and science that the Earth moves and the sun is comparatively at rest. How can we determine which of these opposite statements is the very truth till we know what motion is? If our idea of motion is but an accidental result of our present senses, neither proposition is true and both are true: neither true philosophically; both true for certain practical purposes in the system in which they are respectively found.” In all anti-theological literature there is no utterance more hopelessly sceptical. And for what were the youth of Oxford led into such bottomless depths of disbelief as to any real existence of truth or real foundation for it? Simply to save an outworn system of interpretation into which the gifted preacher happened to be born.’ (Andrew D. White: A History, p.166.)
Newton said mass attracts. Mass is made up of atoms. It was only when heliocentrism became the norm that the nebular theory of combining atoms was invented to explain a 'natural' heliocentric solar system. The first version of the nebular hypothesis was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace.’ So when churchmen accepted heliocentrism in 1820 it was an evolved one by way of the Pythagorean heresy of combining atoms.
-
And BTW-- Acc to Chateubriand( Genius Of Christianity), Atomism is the concept of a Phoenician by the name of Moschus... in about 3rd Century BC
i don't know alot about Newman but i do know that St Pius X had no problem w/ him. :popcorn:
-
And BTW-- Acc to Chateubriand( Genius Of Christianity), Atomism is the concept of a Phoenician by the name of Moschus... in about 3rd Century BC
i don't know alot about Newman but i do know that St Pius X had no problem w/ him. :popcorn:
When it came to Galileoism, it fooled 'even the elect' like Pope St Pius X.
Newman thought he was competent to resolve the Galileo case. In trying to do so this man raised the retreat from Biblical geocentrism to a new level of sophistry.
‘As the Copernican system first made progress... it was generally received... as a truth of Revelation, that the Earth was stationary, and that the sun, fixed in a solid firmament, whirled round the Earth. After a little time, however, and on full consideration, it was found that the Church had decided next to nothing on questions such as these... it surely is a very remarkable feat, considering how widely and how long one certain interpretation of these physical statements in Scripture had been received by Catholics, that the Church should not have formally acknowledged it... Nor was this escape a mere accident, but rather the result of providential superintendence.’ – Henry Newman: The Idea of a University, 1852, p.468.
Here we see Henry Newman needed no abrogation to dismiss the 1616 papal ruling as deciding ‘next to nothing.’ Nor did it occur to him that if providential superintendence was present at all during the Galileo case, would he as a Catholic convert not think it more prudent of God to side with His Church, with the interpretation of the Fathers and prevent His popes of 1616 and 1633 when defining and declaring Galileoism formal heresy in the first place? Of course it would. Of all the manoeuvres used by the Earthmovers to try to save the Church from its own supposedly ‘erroneous’ decrees, as they saw it, this has to be the most reckless; asserting it was God Himself who made sure the anti-heliocentric decrees and judgements were meaningless.
-
Henry Newman’s Galileo, Revelation, and the Educated Man. (1861)
‘One of the characteristics of the day is the renewal of that collision between men of science and believers in Revelation, and of that uneasiness in the public mind as to its results, which are found in the history of the 17th century. Then, Galileo raised the jealousy of Catholics in Italy; but now in England the religious portion of the community, be they Catholic or not, is startled at the discoveries or speculations of geologists, natural historians and linguists. Of course I am speaking, as regards both dates, of the educated classes, of those whose minds have been sufficiently opened to understand the nature of proof, who have a right to ask questions and to weigh the answers given to them. It was of such, we must reasonably suppose, that Father Commissary was tender in 1637 [1633], and to such he allied in his conversation with Galileo, as he took him in his carriage to the Holy Office. “As we went along,” says Galileo, “he put many questions to me, and showed an earnestness that I should repair the scandal, which I had given to the whole of Italy, by maintaining the opinion of the motion of the Earth; and for all the solid and mathematical reasons which I presented to him, he did but reply to me: “Terra autem in aeternum stabit,’ because ‘Terra autem in aeternum stat,’ as Scripture says.” There could not be a greater shock to religious minds of that day than Galileo’s doctrine, whether they at once rejected it as contrary to the faith, or listened to the arguments by which he enforced it. The feeling was strong enough to effect Galileo’s compulsory recantation, though a pope was then on the throne who was personally friendly to him. Two Sacred Congregations represented the popular voice and passed decrees against the philosopher, which were in force down to the years 1822 and 1837 [1820-35]. Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the Earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of purgatory and hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion; no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noah. For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the Earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us. And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences…. One great lesson surely, if no other, is taught by the history of theological controversy since the 16th century: moderation to the assailant, equanimity to the assailed, and that as regards geological and ethnological conclusions as well as astronomical. But there is more than this to give us confidence in this matter. Consider then the case before us: Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the Earth moved [no, that the sun did not move around the Earth]; but the course of human thought, of observation, investigation and induction, could not be stayed; it went on and had its way. It penetrated and ran through the Catholic world as well as through the nations external to it. And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn. But of course the investigation has gone further, and done, or is now even doing, some positive service to the cause which it was accused of opposing. It is on the way to restore to the Earth that prerogative and pre-eminence in the creation which it was thought to compromise. Thus investigation which Catholics would have suppressed as dangerous, when, in spite of them, it has had its course, results in conclusions favourable to their cause. How little then need we fear the free exercise of reason! How injurious is the suspicion entertained of it by religious men. How true it is that nature and revelation are but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth. Nor is this all. Much has been said of late years of the dangerous tendency of geological speculations or researches. Well, what harm have they done to the Christian cause, others must say who are more qualified than I am to determine; but on one point, that is the point before us, I observe it is acting on the side of Christian belief. In answer to the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants, considering that our globe has such, geology teaches us that, in fact, whatever our religion may accidentally teach us to hope or fear about other worlds, in this world at least, long ages past, we had either no inhabitants at all, or none but those rude and vast brutal forms [hominoids], which could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator. Thus one order of spiritual researches bears upon another, and that in the interest or service of Christianity; and supposing, as some persons seem to believe in their hearts, that these researches are all in the hands of the enemy of God, we have the observable phenomenon of Satan casting out Satan and restoring the balance of physical arguments in favour of Revelation. Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 1637 [1633] had succeeded in repressing any free investigation on the question of the motion of the Earth. The mind of the educated class would have not the less felt that it was a question, and would have been haunted, and would have been poisoned, by the misgiving that there was some real danger to Revelation in the investigation; for otherwise the ecclesiastical authorities would not have forbidden it. There would have been in the Catholic community a mass of irritated, ill-tempered, feverish and festering suspicion, engendering general scepticism and hatred of the priesthood, and relieving itself in a sort of tacit Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of which secret societies are the development, and then in sudden outbreaks perhaps of violence and blasphemy. Protestantism is a dismal evil; but in this respect Providence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity. I think, then, I must say distinctly that I have no sympathy at all in that policy, which will not look difficulties or apparent difficulties in the face, and puts off the evil day of considering them as long as it can. It is the way of politicians who live from hand to mouth, only careful that the existing state of things should last their time. If I find that scientific inquiries are running counter against certain theological opinions, it is not expedient to refuse to examine whether these opinions are well founded, merely because those inquiries have not yet reached their issue or attained a triumphant success. The history of Galileo is the proof of it. Are we not at a disadvantage as regards that history? Why, except because our theologians [popes and all the Fathers of the Church], instead of cautiously examining what Scripture, that is, the Written Word of God, really said, thought it better to put down with a high hand the astronomical views which were opposed to its popular interpretation? The contrary course was pursued in our own day; but what is not against the faith now, was not against the faith three centuries ago; yet Galileo was forced to pronounce his opinions a heresy. It might not indeed have been prudent to have done in 1637 [1633] what was done in 1822 [1820]; but, though in the former date it might have been unjustifiable to allow the free publication of his treatises with the sanction of the Church, that does not show that it was justifiable to pronounce that they were against the faith and to enforce the abjuration. I am not certain that I might not go further and advocate the full liberty to teach the motion of the Earth, as a philosophical truth, not only now, but even three centuries ago. The Father Commissary said it was a scandal to the whole of Italy; that is, I suppose, an offence, a shock, a perplexity. This might be, but there was a class, whose claims to consideration are too little regarded now, and were passed over then. I mean the educated class; to them the prohibition would be a real scandal in the true meaning of the word, an occasion of their falling. Men who have sharpened their intellects by exercise and study anticipate the conclusions of the many by some centuries. If the tone of public opinion in 1822 [1820] called for a withdrawal of the prohibition at Trent of the Earth’s movement, the condition of the able and educated called for it in Galileo’s age; and it is as clear to me that their spiritual state ought to be consulted for, as it is difficult to say why in fact it is so often is not. They are tenderly to be regarded for their own sake; they are to be respected and conciliated for the sake of their influence upon other classes. I cannot help feeling that, in high circles, the Church is sometimes looked upon as made up of the hierarchy and the poor, and that the educated portion, men and women, are viewed as a difficulty, an encuмbrance, as the seat and source of heresy, as almost aliens to the Catholic body, whom it would be a great gain, if possible, to annihilate. For all these reasons, I cannot agree with those who would have us stand by what is probably or possibly erroneous, as if it were dogma, till it is acknowledged on all hands, by the force of demonstrations to be actually such. If she affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. And, as her word is to be believed, so her command is to be obeyed. I am as willing then to be silenced on doctrinal matters which are not of faith as to be taught in matters which are. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin..’--John Henry Newman (As found in James Collins, Philosophical Readings on Cardinal John Henry Newman (Chicago: H. Regnery Press, 1961), pp.284-291. (http://inters.org/Newman-Galileo-Revelation)
Notre Dame University’s Church Life Journal called Newman ‘the patron saint of evolution.’
If one were to search all the comments on the Galileo case and how it led to the introduction of uniformitarianism and evolution into Biblical interpretation and belief that became the modernism condemned by Pope St Pius X as the ‘heresy of all heresies,’ one could not find a better example as to how this modernism crept ‘into the womb of the Catholic Church.' Feeling protected by his belief in heliocentrism and Darwin’s evolution of all ‘creation,’ we see his pride in the ‘science’ they believed in had shown Genesis was ‘unscientific’ whatever that means. Newman, who was even aware ‘of the prohibition at Trent of the Earth’s movement,’ confirms how the Galilean U-turn placed Biblical exegesis under the auspices of ‘scientific probabilities,’ even the existence of monkey to man evolution on Earth, and a similar heretical evolution possible on ‘other worlds’ when he wrote ‘the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants,’ shows how those other Pythagorean heresies literally came back into play as Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII anticipated if the Galilean reformation took hold.
-
There is nothing in the article re: Galileo's Atomism. Apparently Pope St Pius X did not agree w/ Notre Dame Journal... :popcorn:
-
:confused: