What's so different about the "geocentrism affair," then?
The difference is cassini himself. He pushes geocentrism—which, pace Matthew and others, embodies far from persuasive explanations for celestial phenomena—as a dogmatic necessity for what he is so vain as to deem true Catholics.
Furthermore and far, far worse, despite frequent fraternal correction from many other commenters here at CI, cassini has time and again scandalously accused every subsequent pope and bishop and priest of heretically denying what he obstinately claims was a papal declaration by Paul V of geocentrism's infallibility. As any interested and sentient adult can quickly determine for himself, Paul V made no such declaration of infallibility. Therefore, anyone who, on his own authority, accuses 350 years' worth of orthodox prelates and clerics and laymen of damnable defection from the Faith and ipso facto declares the Church shorn of its indefectibility ought to be considered a danger to those whose Faith is insufficiently informed. Such accusations are precisely what cassini has made here for years.
As I know nothing of SD, I am in no position to quarrel with the general disrepute in which the site and its moderator are held hereabouts. Nor indeed do I wish to do so. Yet given cassini's conduct as described by Geremia, I find it impossible to see why that site's ban on him should be deplored.
If he ever made that position clear on here, he'd be in trouble.
I've made it clear many times that CathInfo is a place for TRADITIONAL Catholics -- those who left their parishes sometime AFTER Vatican II's changes were implemented, with the aim of keeping the Faith, and adhering to pre-Vatican 2 practices, liturgy, morality, customs, etc.
CathInfo is not a place for Old Catholics, protestants, Orthodox or any other malcontents, schismatics or heretics who HAPPEN to have a problem with the mainstream Conciliar Church but for a completely different reason!
Anyone who thinks the Church Crisis began at Trent or some such, is not welcome here. To such demonically proud walking tragedies I say: Take your cocky "I'm the last Catholic" home-alone ___ out of here, and I don't really care if the door hits you on the way out!
Just because a person is (for example) involved in a family (internal) dispute with his mother about an inheritance, money, etc. doesn't mean he'd make common ground with people who called his mother a whore. He wouldn't stand for it.
It's simple, really. We never left the church. The various heretics and schismatics, including the Old Catholics, *did leave*. No wonder we don't get along with them even today.
Let me take this post of Matthews to reply to Claudel's opinion above.
First Matthew. I am 73 years old, having served Mass since I was seven in 1949 on Sundays, during 1950s retreats, in local churches, convents and places of pilgrimages. I have heard the sermons of thousands of priests and bishops long before Vatican II. That is the faith I own and believe in.
This faith I grew up with could not believe what happened at Vatican II. Instead of reading about our faith, stories of the Apostles and saints, Catholics like me entered an era of trying to find out what happened to Catholicism. Only then did we discover Pius IX Syllabus and Pope Pius X Pascendi, discovering it was Modernism and that it was mainly based on the philosophy of evolutionism.
For me this led to a study of evolutionism in all its forms.
‘Modernism, at that time, represented a tendency, a method or process of contemporary thought. As such, it is not confined to religion alone. The name Modernism bears the same relation to what is modern that liberalism bears to what is liberal, or militarism to what is military, or capitalism to capital, and appropriately enough describes the spirit which exalts the modern at the expense of antiquity, which extols the new because it is new, and depreciates the old because it is old, and which so far, is a revolt of the present against the past. Even when its scope is thus restricted, Modernism is an elusive thing to deal with. For Modernists differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to pin them down to one coherent set of opinions. But the general drift of Modernism in its bearing upon Catholicity is unmistakable. Its object is quite clear, open and avowed. That object is not ostensibly to set up a brand-new form of Catholicity, but to construct it on new lines. Its object, as Modernists are fond of saying, is to readjust Catholicity to the mentality of the age, to reinterpret Catholicity in terms of modern thought.’
‘
In 1965 the public were reading The Great Heresy by the eminent Belgian philosopher Marcel De Corte in which he defined the new orientations as “a spiritual degradation more profound than anything the Church has experienced in history, a cancerous sickness in which the cells multiply fast in order to destroy what is healthy in the Catholic Church.” He called them “an attempt to transform the kingdom of God into the kingdom of Man, to substitute for the Church consecrated to the worship of God, a Church dedicated to the cult of humanity. This is the most dreadful, the most terrible of heresies.”’
Given such popes of the Catholic Church like Pius IX and Pius X blamed Modernism on the crisis I and others found ourselves in after that change of Mass, I found myself searching for the origins of Modernism in the Church.
All my life I had trouble with the Galileo case. We were all led to believe for hundreds of years the Church got it all wrong, in its definition, in its exegesis, in its hermeneutics, in its promise to protect the flock from false philosophy. I could never accept this and my faith told me not to worry, God could not have let His church down. Somehow, I believed, there is an orthodox answer to this riddle.
My study of evolution discovered the first modern theory of evolution was based on that solar-system of Galileo's called the Nebular theory. The first version of the nebular hypothesis was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, a mere 16 years after Rome first conceded to the probability of a Church mistake in interpretation of the Scriptures by all the Fathers, and modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace.
I never ever heard of a possible evolution of the Church's 1616 geocentric belief. I had found the ROCK upon which all evolutionary ideas had sprung from, the ROCK upon which so much disbelief in God was based on. A study of books on Atheism showed a surge of atheism and agnosticism emerged with the Copernican revolution.
This led me into a 20 year study of the Galileo case. Fortunately for me, I was able to read up on docuмents from the secret archives in Rome, released only recently, after about 2000 books on the Galileo case were written.
On the science investigation it became clear that the Church of 1616 were never wrong in their definition, in their faith in all the Fathers, in their condemnation of Galileo and in Pope Urban VIII's warning that if the heresy of heliocentrism is tolerated it would 'put the faith in danger.'
‘As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other… Today we know with certainty [he says] that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind.’ --- Teilhard de ChardinNow there is a man who knew what he was talking about, one of the Fathers of Modernism in the Church. And where does he place the blame,
'on the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept.'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. 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, based their judgements on outmoded scholastic thinking and illusions. 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. 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.
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. 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 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.
Oh, a quick ps for Claudel. as a Catholic I am very much aware of the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell shall not prevail on His Church.
In 1616 God in His Providence permitted His Church to make a definitive geocentric reading of Scripture, a fact now totally denied since 1741 if not before. Of profound importance then was to find the Church as it came through our investigation remained the Spotless Spouse of Christ that it is. Not once did we find any pope officially deny or abrogate the 1616 decree, nor did any pope actually give Galileo a retrial at which he would more than likely have officially exonerated him. To witness the silence and steadfastness of the Church, as distinct from the utterances and acts of churchmen in regards to the definition and declaration of 1616 and 1633, surely provides irrefutable proof of the Church’s divine protection of its truths. Again, nowhere did we find an official denial, that is, an abrogation of the 1616 decree’s immutability that could, in the light of there never being any proof, have been a genuine breach of papal infallibility. What a great joy it was to see such divine protection prevailing throughout centuries of Galilean chaos.
Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Church of the seventeenth century was not scientifically or doctrinally mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of Rome and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for Catholicism in so many spheres after three centuries of ridicule. Alas, that message has already been rejected by the vast majority of Catholics aware of it, both the shepherds and the sheep. For two hundred and sixty years they have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun and made share in the embarrassment and shameful ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their Church once defended a biblical fixed earth and moving sun while condemning Galileo for denying this definition. This shame of course meant all Catholics had to support the magic, consensus and contradiction that went with that U-turn and of course the popes involved. It was to the Earthmovers in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining the ‘scientific’ image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived lost face after the infamous Galileo case. Not for them the traditional account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote when it suits them. Oh no, today Genesis must be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in their eyes too. They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using that authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary obedience, the new wholesale ignorance and a propaganda machine second to none to have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ they say, when it is they, not the Church, that needs the obscurantism and consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Church in this matter more than the vanity of those whom Providence permitted to run it in the post U-turn era. The hard and sad fact is that there are none as deluded as the Galilean Catholics.
Topic: SuscipeDomine promotes dogmatic anti-geocentrism. (Read 9478 times)