Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.  (Read 11206 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #40 on: October 07, 2015, 01:33:20 PM »
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Graham
However, even assuming that modern calculations are totally incorrect, to me it still seems reasonable to assume the distances involved are vast, and therefore so are the velocities. So I do not think the charge that a geocentric universe requires "break neck speeds" can be totally slipped. But that is only my supposition.

Why could not God make stars move fast? What if every star really does have an angel that guides it in its courses.


He could. And I've never said he couldn't! I'm only saying that we can't totally slip the point, as Neil, for instance, tried to do.

SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #41 on: October 07, 2015, 02:44:10 PM »
Quote from: Graham
Quote from: Matto
Quote from: Graham
However, even assuming that modern calculations are totally incorrect, to me it still seems reasonable to assume the distances involved are vast, and therefore so are the velocities. So I do not think the charge that a geocentric universe requires "break neck speeds" can be totally slipped. But that is only my supposition.

Why could not God make stars move fast? What if every star really does have an angel that guides it in its courses.


He could. And I've never said he couldn't! I'm only saying that we can't totally slip the point, as Neil, for instance, tried to do.


‘St Thomas Aquinas said that “every visible thing is put under the charge of an angel.” There is a near unanimity of the Fathers, both east and west, that angels, under God and by His order, govern the movements of the heavenly bodies. St Thomas explains the reason for this. The angels are part of the universe; we are situated between the angels and the animals in the hierarchy of being and have more in common with the angels above us than the animals below us by reason of our intelligence and free will. That the angels should govern the movements of the heavens in a way analogous to the appointed governance of man over the earth, is eminently reasonable and in complete harmony with the Scriptures and the many aspects of angelic activity revealed to us therein.’ ---Paula Haigh: Was It Infallible. Nazareth, KY. USA, 1992, 1999.

‘It is true that all the stars and heavenly bodies by the natural direction given them by God pursue their several courses but these great worlds are material and, therefore, as the Angelic Doctor points out, are liable to decay and deterioration. To prevent therefore, disorder and confusion in the thousands of heavenly bodies which are whirling through space with inexpressible speed, God gives each one, in His all-wise Providence, an Angel to keep it in its course and avert the dire calamities that would result were it to stray from its allotted orbit…. Few people think on all this when on beautiful star-lit nights they gaze on the Heavens and the myriads of stars. How fitting it would be to salute the countless Angels who guard these stars: “Oh glorious Angels of the stars we love you, we thank you. Please bless us and shower on us your protection.”’ --- E.D.M.: All about Angels, Catholic Printing Press, Portugal, 1945, pp.31-2.
 


SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2015, 03:19:39 PM »
The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).  

It is amazing how quickly a debate on a subject that challenges the very integrity and infallibility of the Catholic Church ends up with some stating the impossibility of the stars rotating around the earth because of the speeds necessary. The Copernican revolution began by way of human reasoning challenging Scripture and that has not ceased to this day.

Could men survive traveling through space at 550 MPH? They do, when traveling in an aeroplane.

There is nothing new under the sun. Cardinal Bellarmine in one of his lectures in 1571 considered a similar situation, does the universe with the stars fixed into it itself turn or do the stars move in unison?  
He went for the latter, by way of the angels I presume, so I will go with the former just for the sake of it.
This theory sees the universe as a ball or bubble of space, containing ether perhaps, into which the stars are inserted but allowing them limited local movement (as found in galaxies), just as the sun, moon and planets have.

Now this ball, rotating with the immobile earth at the centre, takes all the cosmic bodies, no matter the distance from earth, around the earth IN THE SAME TIME like a rotating door, or carnival swing-ride (which incidentally as Copernicus speculated would cause a geocentric EXPANDING UNIVERSE).

Applying speeds to a rotating stars universe under human physics would mean each having to go at different speeds (distances from earth) for them all to complete a rotation all in the same time.

So, which way did God chose to do it with, or is there another way? We will not know until we ask him if we get to heaven. Belief in that he does the moving in whatever way is enough for the present.


SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2015, 04:05:49 PM »
.

Post
Quote from: cassini

At Vatican II here is what they offered the world:

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

The reference given to this passage was Fr. Pio Paschini’s Life and Work of Galileo Galilei, a book on the Galileo case that had been subjected to ‘several hundred modifications’ after Fr. Paschini died, as we shall see later.

When do we get to see that?

Quote
Here God is supposedly directing the Galileans throughout the ages while the popes and theologians of 1616/1633 are depicted as little more than fundamentalists, who, ignorant of the progress of science,

And what else is new?  The vast majority of people today are likewise ignorant of same, and not a few include "scientists" themselves.

Quote
based their judgements on outmoded scholastic thinking and illusions.

We ought not lose sight of how traditional priests of today have been able to hang on to their faith and to continue to defend the Mass of Ages principally due to their study of this same solid scholastic foundation (here ridiculed as "outmoded thinking and illusions").

Quote
On their shoulders, the cardinals and bishops of Vatican II would try to place the centuries of ‘conflict and controversy’ that followed, describing them as no better than troublemakers. To suggest the hand of God was guiding the ‘humble’ Galileo, Kepler and Newton and their fellow heliocentric heretics and not His popes and saints of the time is an indication of the influence the Earthmovers have had on Catholic thinking.

Such a council accusation was outrageous, and to our knowledge not a single churchman disagreed with it, traditional or modernist.

Is that you speaking here, cassini, or to whom do you attribute this finding?

Quote
Indeed, few even noticed that a man convicted by the Church as being suspected of heresy could be referenced in a council docuмent as being led by the hand of God, and that this council’s conclusion could be based on a book that was no better than a forgery.  

These would be serious accusations, presuming Vat.II was a real Ecuмenical Council of the Church.  But now we have a new theory that would relieve us of that burden, for if Vat.II were NOT an Ecuмenical Council of the Church (evidence for this assertion to be found elsewhere on this forum), then a man convicted of being suspect of heresy could be quite easily so referenced therein, just as the same non-Council could reference a forgery as if it were reliable, and many other aberrations elsewhere mentioned.

Quote
Today, on Catholic, sorry, traditional Catholic forums, experts of all sorts continue to defend what Pope Paul V, NOT ME, defined and declared formal heresy.

Do not forget about the principle often overlooked by Modernists (who abhor anathemas because they're so powerful), that anything ONCE CONDEMNED by the Pope is condemned in eternity, due to the Power of the Keys.

Quote
They attack me personally for defending the truth, for defending the popes and theologians of 1616-1741 who held to the Church's teaching.

Now all the above is NOTHING compared to the consequences of our discovery. Who introduced what was defined formal heresy into the Church as a truth of faith and reason? Who it was is recorded in the records of history and even how they did it. But traditional Catholics do not want to hear that part of the story, and I have now been banned from two Catholic forums for recording history and applying the teachings of the Church to it.

And there is the dilemma. defend the Peter whose papal decree was never denied as infallible BY THE CHURCH - indeed quite the opposite, for in 1820 the Holy Office confirmed the 1616 was an unreformable decree - or defend the popes who allowed the heresy into the Church for all to believe, a concession that provided the ROCK upon which modernism was founded.

Well if it means being barred from every Catholic forum on earth I will stick with the unpalatable truth for 'traditionalists' and tell them they cannot have their cake and eat it [too,] as they have tried to do over the centuries, that is, conjure up all the tricks in the book to have two sets of popes doing the right Catholic thing, One set defining and declaring heliocentrism formal heresy and the other set allowing heliocentrism to be believed as a truth of revelation and human reasoning.


There is nothing new under the sun.  It should come as no surprise that Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity would be swallowed without complaint by hundreds of millions of Catholics, lay and clerical, all over the world, when what it proposes in principle is nothing new in practice.  To conjure up tricks to have two sets of popes, one defining and declaring heliocentrism formal heresy and the other allowing heliocentrism to be believed as if it were a truth of revelation and/or human reasoning, is merely par for the course.

That is how they got Vat.II pulled over our eyes, calling it "a Council" when it in fact stands in stark contrast to the previous 20 Councils of the Church and therefore constitutes not a continuation but an abrupt cutting off from Sacred Tradition, just like the "tried-and-true" mishandling of the Galileo controversy had been.

You see, as such, the Earthmovers' machinations can be viewed as a dress rehearsal for what later happened at Vatican II!!

.

SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism.
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2015, 04:12:10 PM »
Quote from: Neil Obstat
.

Post
Quote from: cassini

At Vatican II here is what they offered the world:

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

The reference given to this passage was Fr. Pio Paschini’s Life and Work of Galileo Galilei, a book on the Galileo case that had been subjected to ‘several hundred modifications’ after Fr. Paschini died, as we shall see later.

When do we get to see that? .


Pope Pius XII was again present at the inaugural meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held on the 30th November 1941 for the academic year 1941-42. By then of course, all scientific institutions worldwide were made up of Copernicans, relativists and evolutionists, and therefore it was men with such beliefs who were called on to fill all the seats of academies and institutions such as the PAS. Many were by then also atheists, for atheism and modern science are also sisters.
     Getting down to the real business for which the PAS was formed, it was not long before they revisited the Galileo case, giving as the reason that 1942 was the tercentennial of Galileo’s death and that this day ought to be celebrated. At this meeting, the president, Father Agostino Gemelli (1878-1959), who was also president of the Catholic University of Milan, gave a speech reminding the audience that the PAS is a ‘direct heir and legitimate continuation’ of the Lincean Academy founded by Prince Frederico Cesi in Rome in 1603, one devoted to the advance of scientific truth, as well as ‘living righteously and piously.’  Fr Gemelli announced a new book on the Galileo case had been commissioned by the PAS to be written by the scholar Fr Pio Paschini (1878-1962), president of the Lateran University at the time. He spoke of ‘a historical and scholarly study of the docuмents’ that would ‘be an effective proof that the Church did not persecute Galileo but helped him considerably in his studies.’ He then went on to give the audience a modernist view of the Galileo case, presenting him as a kind of saint whose only motive was to save the Catholic Church’s hermeneutics and exegesis from the ignorance pertaining in the hierarchy of the Church at the time. He proposed Galileo’s agreement to abjure in 1633 was not based on fear of being burned at the stake, but on his total loyalty to his faith and obedience to the Catholic Church. Galilean revisionism it seems has no limits. In his book, Finocchiaro relates a lesser-known speech on the matter given by the same Fr Gemelli at Milan University later in 1942.  

Galileo did not provide a decisive demonstration of Copernicanism, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault.’ --- Fr Agostino Gemelli, Milan 1942.

Two years later, in 1945, Fr Paschini finished his book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei. Pio Paschini was a seminary professor of the highest integrity, well used to researching docuмents in the various Vatican libraries. Working through the war years 1942 to 1944 he completed his thesis and submitted his book to the Vatican authorities for their attention prior to its publication. The first hurdle to achieving this was the Vatican Secretariat of State where Deputy Secretary Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) was in favour of publication. He in turn however had to put the matter in the hands of the Holy Office who were given the final decision whether a book could be published or not. Pope Pius XII, who it seems was also in favour of publishing at first, also sought the collective opinion of the Holy Office. The assessor of the time was one Monsignor Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979), and it was he who decided the book was ‘unsuitable for publication.’ In 1979, a group of Italian scholars researching the history of this book using the author Paschini’s extensive correspondence on the matter, uncovered the reason why Rome censored the thesis. It turned out that while all agreed the book was factual, it was not considered ‘politically correct’ as far as the now Copernican Rome was concerned. Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen accepted Galileo was proven correct in faith and science, the Church just could not come out of recorded history in any way other than ‘guilty as charged.’ The last thing Rome wanted then was a book confirming and reminding a Copernican world of exactly what occurred in 1616 and the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. Paschini was asked to tone down certain aspects of his book. He was willing to do so in certain unimportant places but not with regard to its details as he read them from the archives. A year later, in 1946, the Holy Office told him his book was not going to be published and offered him money as compensation. Paschini was rightly devastated. He immediately shelved his book and returned to his career as before. Fr Pio Paschini died in 1962 never having re-edited his book.

The above (Gaudium et Spes), as agreed, is referenced with Fr Pio Paschini’s Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, a book Fr Paschini, in 1945, refused to edit for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences right up to the time of his death in 1962. In his will he left his work to an assistant Fr Michele Maccarrone, a diocesan priest and medievalist who in 1963 tried to have it published once again, even agreeing to its being edited first. The PAS, who wanted to publish the book back in 1945 in conjunction with Galileo’s death in 1642, were still interested, but this time to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of Galileo’s birth due in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with the then Pope Paul VI who again approved its publication as he had with the original unedited book back in 1945 when he was Deputy Secretary in Rome. On October 2 1964, the manuscript was finally published under the name of its original author Pio Paschini with not a mention that it had been edited, or rather altered, to the extent that it was. ‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light’ they said. But in truth this was a distorted version of Paschini’s book. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two editions, one scholar described the book referenced in the docuмents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’ --- Richard Blackwell: Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, P.364.