Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 123026 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:34:44 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: We come then to 1846, when the Galileo files were returned by the French to Rome. Rumour had it that the new pope, Pius IX (1846-1878), promised to publish the docuмents as a condition of their return. It is said he agreed to this and gave the task to Monsignor Marino Marini, Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives. Four years later, in 1850, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith published a book called Galileo and the Inquisition; not the docuмents themselves. Marini it seems, for obvious reasons, decided obscurantism would serve the Church better.

By suppressing a docuмent here, and interpolating a statement there, Marini managed to give plausible standing-ground for nearly every important sophistry ever broached to save the infallibility of the Church and destroy the reputation of Galileo. (Andrew D. White: A History, p.162.)

Given the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was the publisher of Marini’s book, this brought the Church into the sophist camp in a semi-official way. The army of Copernican apologists now gathered could make reference to Marini’s Church-backed book in their footnotes while trying to vindicate the U-turn as in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As long as the records of the Holy Office during the years of 1741-1835 were under lock and key, nobody would be the wiser.

The first effect of Monsignor Marini’s book seemed useful in covering the retreat of the Church apologists. Aided by him, such vigorous writers as Ward were able to throw up temporary entrenchments between the Roman authorities and the indignation of the world. (Andrew D. White: A History, pp.162-3.)

One such apologist was John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who converted to the Catholic faith in 1845 and was ordained a priest in 1847. After that he became rector of the proposed new Catholic University in Ireland. In his lectures in Dublin, and in many subsequent writings, Newman explored the relation between theology and natural science. In another book, Towards a Grammar of Assent, Hodgson says, ‘Newman explored the ways we’ve come to believe, and found instructive similarities between theology and science, and indeed everyday beliefs as well. We rarely believe because of a logical demonstration, but much more frequently by the convergence of probabilities. This is the case in our everyday affairs, and also in science and religion.’ Arising from all these ‘probabilities,’ Newman thought he was competent to resolve the matter. In doing so, this man raised the retreat from geocentricism to a new level of sophistry:

Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 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, engender¬ing 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 Provid¬ence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics themselves so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity . . . If the tone of public opinion in 1822 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 . . . 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. (Newman’s 1861 paper as quoted in Catholic Dossier, July-August, 1995.)

In 1870, the First Vatican Council defined the dogma of ‘the infallible “magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff,’ that is, its guaranteed freedom from error and binding for all time. This resurrected the question of the status of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree. Up to then there were different opinions as to the decree’s ‘infallibility,’ with theologians saying it was and others saying it was not. But after the U-turn, Copernican apologists claimed the decree was always ‘reformable,’ which suggested, of course, it was never infallible, which in turn asserts it had no divine guarantee of ultimate truth and not forever binding. Once the popes agreed that the 1616 papal decree was proven wrong by science, theologians had no choice but to deny any trace of infallibility was involved, whether it was infallibly decreed or not. Indeed, such a denial was unprecedented, and was it not for the offered and accepted proofs for a fixed sun/moving earth solar system, surely no denial or challenge to the immutability and infallibility of the 1616 papal decree would ever have arisen.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:38:18 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: As it turned out, one by one the council’s [Vatican I] teachings seemed to confirm the authority of the Church of 1616 and 1633 to judge the case as it did. For example, under ‘Faith and Reason,’ it anathematised the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, an important aspect of the Galileo case. Then the Council reinforced the Church’s right and obligation to condemn false philosophy as well as false theology and interpretations contrary to any decreed or differing from the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers. In the Council’s teaching on Faith, we find the following:

Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Denz. 1792)

The next stage in the Galileo affair could be said to have occurred in 1893, when Pope Leo XIII presented his all-encompassing encyclical on the study of Holy Scripture, Providentissimus Deus. This docuмent was written to address the rationalists and their use of science and the new philosophies to dismiss the Bible as a credible authority. These included the new sciences of uniformitarianism and evolutionism that were by then being used by modernists to attack further traditional dogmas and their understanding.

[Uniformitarianism: The belief that interprets the geology of the earth as proving it is billions of years old, rather than the 6,000 years as revealed in the literal words of Genesis.]

[Evolutionism: This is the belief that everything evolved naturally, and that life (a single cell) was activated from inanimate matter somehow and later evolved to account for life on earth as it is today, including plants, and animals, and finally, into intelligent man.]

The encyclical began by setting out all the history of biblical studies, the traditional rules, advice and warnings as to how the Holy Scriptures should and should not be read and understood. It clearly reaffirmed that the Bible cannot err in any of its parts etc. However, under the heading ‘Natural Science,’ the Pope again quotes St Augustine setting out other ground rules to faith and science:

Hence knowledge of the natural sciences will be of great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture, by which he can more easily discover and refute fallacious arguments of this kind drawn up against the sacred books . . . Indeed there should be no disagreement between the theologian and the physicist, provided each confines himself within his own territory, watching out for this, according to St Augustine’s warning, “not to make rash assertions, and to declare the unknown as known.” But, if they should disagree, a summary rule as to how a theologian should conduct himself is offered by the same author. “Whatsoever,” he says, “they can demonstrate by genuine proofs regarding the nature of things, let us show that it is not contrary in our Scripture, but whatever they set forth in their volumes contrary to our Scriptures; that is to Catholic faith, let us show by some means, or let us believe without any hesitation to be most false (De Gen. Ad Litt., i, 21, 41) . . .

To understand how just is the rule here formulated, we must remember that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Spirit Who spoke by them, did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms that were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are daily used at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – ‘went by what sensibly appeared,’ or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

The unshrinking defence of Holy Scripture does not require we should uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it, for it may be that in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for “in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,” according to the opinion of St Thomas.

Now who could read this passage above and deny it describes the Galileo exegesis to a tee? It repeats nearly word for word Galileo’s hermeneutics written up in his Letter to Castelli of 1613 when trying to change the geocentric interpretation upheld by the Church at the time to a heliocentric one. Indeed, it could be asked, what other ‘secret of nature’ of any importance to the Catholic faith could the encyclical be alluding to?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:41:58 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Confirming the fact that Pope Leo’s encyclical was read as pertaining to the Galileo case, is to be found everywhere, including Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo commission to the world. Finocchiaro refers to it as "the implicit theological vindication of Galileo’s hermeneutics in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893)." (Retrying Galileo, p.2.)

That was enough; from then on it was open season on the literal interpretation of Scripture wherever it was said to be ‘shown incorrect’ by the advance of science, and indeed on those churchmen who defended a geocentric interpretation in 1616 and 1633, irrespective of the fact that such an interpretation was the unanimous interpretation of all the Fathers. The encyclical, said to have been written to prevent attacks on the credibility of the Bible, in fact gave licence to challenge other literal interpretations and beliefs where ‘physical matters’ are touched on that might have been interpreted or understood incorrectly.

Never again did the Church dare defend any literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

Thus the emerging scientific theories of the time, received an unexpected ‘imprimatur’ in the sphere of biblical interpretation, throwing doubt on a mass of history and theology derived from a literal interpretation of Genesis. Once one admits the language of Scriptures can no longer guarantee literal truth in one area, it is difficult to close those open gates on other matters. And this is why, in 1920, a mere twenty-seven years after Providentissimus Deus, a successor, Pope Benedict XV, had to bring out Spiritus Paraclitus, a second encyclical on biblical exegesis and hermeneutics to try to redress the imbalance caused by the Galileo fiasco.

Copernicanism, and its de facto adoption by Catholic Church authorities, is the first principle of the disgusting historical criticism that gutted out Catholic Doctrine on the Real Resurrection of the Body of the Lord; the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Sacred Species; the Real Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Real Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Real Original Sin of the Real Adam and Eve; the Real Miracles of Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and the Saints; the Reality of Grace and the Mystical Gifts; the Reality of the Indwelling Presence of God in souls; the Reality of the Last Judgement; the Reality of Heaven and Hell. Traditional Catholics decry many of these errors, but fail to apprehend that they all stem from the arch-heresy of copernicanism. It is not enough to decry some errors. We are obliged by God, by our calling, to decry them all, to defend the Faith, in its entirety, whether in season or out of season.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:47:35 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The next episode associated with the Galileo case occurred in 1936 when Pope Pius XI restructured the Lincean Academy, calling it the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS). Founded originally in 1603 in Rome by a Dutch prince and several Italians, they named it the ‘Lynceorum philosophorum Ordo seu Congressus seu Academia.’ The Linceans had as their motto Sagacius isia. The standard reason given for their choosing a lynx in their title was that their keen interest in the study of nature was well represented by the cat. In fact the real reason why they choose the lynx was because, like the Gnostics of old, they fancied they could see in the dark what others could not. It was the Lynxes that elected Galileo as their sixth member, assisting him in his heliocentric quest in any way they could, especially by publishing his book Letters on Sunspots in 1613, a work in which Galileo first portrayed heliocentrism as a scientific truth, one that led to the Church’s worst nightmare as many would see it.

1936 was a time, Rome thought, to show Catholicism was not opposed to science by re-introducing a scientific academy of its very own. In fact this was the second time after the U-turn that Rome sought some refuge in this scientific academy. The first time was in 1847, when Pope Pius IX revived the Accademia dei Lincei, calling it the ‘Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes,’ if you don’t mind. Given there was no association between this secular academy founded in 1603 and the Church of Rome, apart from its strategic election of Francesco Barberini, the twenty-six-year-old nephew of Pope Urban VIII, to their ranks in 1623, why would Rome affiliate itself with this long redundant secular Lincean Academy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? We have no doubt it was because of its direct association with Galileo and his assertions that they now believed had the truth of it. By adopting this academy as their own then, the converted Copernicans in the Church believed it would send out the right message, no more mistakes in faith and science as we are now working hand in hand with modern scientists to prove it. Nothing of any note came of the first revival and it simply faded away.

The second coming of the new Lynxes happened on the 30th November 1941 at the inaugural meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for the academic year 1941-42, a meeting attended by Pope Pius XII. By then of course, nearly all scientific institutions worldwide were Copernicans, evolutionists and relativists, and it was only such men who were called on to fill the seats of invited scientists at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Getting down to the real business for which the PAS was formed, it was not long before they revisited the Galileo case, giving the reason that 1942 was the tercentennial of Galileo’s death - as Copernicans know this day ought to be celebrated. At this meeting, the president – Fr Agostino Gemelli, 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.’[In fact the Lyncean Academy was steadfastly opposed by Cesi's father and other Roman aristocrats. It was investigated by the Holy Office and supported Galileo after he was silenced by Pope Paul V. Its members were accused of black magic, opposition to Church doctrine, and living scandalous lives. --- The Galileo Project.]

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, president of the Lateran University at the time. 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 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:

So, Gemelli had no hesitation in admitting that the condemnation of Galileo was a theological error…. However Gemelli was also claiming that Galileo’s tragedy embodied a great positive lesson; that faith and religion are harmonious with reason and science. He went on to argue that although Galileo did not provide a decisive demonstration of Copernicanism, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault; on the other hand, Galileo did provide “the convergence of probabilities that were increasingly more and more numerous in favour of the Copernican system; and in any case, the Ptolemaic arguments were weaker. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.278.)

The significance of this argument by the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1942 is crucial to the Galileo case, yet it passed away unnoticed even by Maurice Finocchiaro, who comments on nearly everything in his book. Later we will return to this speech and explain its significance. As regards the ‘positive lesson’ that the Galileo case showed the harmony between faith and science, well that was nothing but U-turn spin. The acceptance by most of scientific heliocentrism over the Scripture’s geocentrism had set the agenda. Theistic-heliocentrism, theistic-uniformitarianism, and theistic-evolutionism became the next accepted compromises. With them, of course, came problems for theology, best illustrated by the following:

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 of the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modeled on the other . . . Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind. - - - Teilhard de Chardin. (Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:50:33 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Two encyclicals up to then [1942] tried to convince all that the faith and the natural sciences are compatible, but failed miserably. And that is why in 1943 Rome had to issue a third encyclical on scriptural exegeses, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu. Alas, if 333 encyclicals were written the damage could not be avoided. In a final attempt to bring harmony to faith and modern science in this letter, we again find the hermeneutics set out by Galileo in 1613, how geocentric wording in the Scriptures could be used to describe heliocentrism:

The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." - - - Divino afflante Spiritu

One can see how desperate the three popes were to try to account for the disaster in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis that they had inherited from the Galileo case. Be aware that Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII had already rejected such hermeneutics and exegesis for those passages that describe a moving sun and fixed earth, an exegesis held by all the Fathers and the Council of Trent.

Two years later, in 1945, Fr Paschini finished his book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, the history of which is found in chapter 16 of Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo. The PAS got the manuscript and sought permission to publish it. 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 which would make the final decision whether the book could be published or not. Pope Pius XII, who it seems, was also in favour of publication at first, sought the collective opinion of the Holy Office. The assessor of the time was Monsignor Alfredo Ottaviani, and it was he who decided the book was ‘unsuitable for publication.’ Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen agreed 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 the Holy Office wanted was a Rome-associated book confirming and reminding all of exactly what happened in 1616 and what they did to 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.

All the above happened in the reign of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), a pope who also involved himself headlong in the faith and science issue. Here is how Wikipedia describes this pope’s involvement:

To Pius XII, science and religion were heavenly sisters, different manifestations of divine exactness, who could not possibly contradict each other over the long term. Regarding their relation, his advisor Professor Robert Leiber wrote: “Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo.” Preceding similar praises from Pope John Paul II in 1992, Pope Pius XII listed, in 1939, Galileo in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to be among “most audacious heroes of research…not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments. (Discourse of His Holiness Pope Pius XII given on 3rd December 1939 at the Solemn Audience granted to the Plenary Session of the Academy)