Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 91845 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)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:56:39 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a high point on Nov. 22, 1951 when the same pope once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an endorsement of a litany of every scientific theory on offer at the time, theories that conflicted with the literal order of creation, that is, denied the geocentric order of the universe held by the Church until 1741; denied the biblical age of 6.000 years for the universe; denied the global flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today. Here then is the Pope making God’s creation concur with the dictates of science:

44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty "Fiat" pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial "Fiat lux" uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.

But let us now return to Fr. Pio Paschini who died in 1962, never having edited his book as requested. According to Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, he left his work to an assistant, Michele Maccarrone, who in 1963 tried to have it published once again, but this time agreeing to its being edited. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who wanted to publish it back in 1945 in memory of Galileo’s death in 1642, were interested, but this time to use the book 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 Pope Paul VI who again approved its publication as he had with the original back in 1945 when he was Deputy Secretary in Rome. On October 2 1964, the manuscript was finally published under the name Pius Paschini with not a mention that it had been edited, or rather altered, to the extent that it was.

Eleven years later the pastoral council Vatican II (1962-1965) began. It too wanted to make the Church comply with modern times, modern thinking and of course modern science, to take it ‘out of the dark ages into the real world.’ Of huge importance to the Earthmovers’ story is what appeared in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et spes, 7 Dec. 1965.

. . . 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.

Now who, according to Vatican II, were/are led by the hand of God and who were/are the troublemakers? Well Gaudium et spes, # 36 has a footnote reference to Pius Paschini, Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, 2 vol., Vatican Press, 1964, so they were obviously alluding to the Galileo case. Accordingly, Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton, among others, must have been led by the hand of God, and the troublemakers must have been Pope Paul V, St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII and the many senior theologians involved in the censure of Copernicanism. Yes, Vatican II was here openly criticising the old Church itself, the same authority upheld in its Dei verbum as speaking in the name of Christ.

It seems one theme that constantly surfaced at Vatican II was that it was not enough for the 1960s Catholic Church to declare its regard for modern culture; it must also prove this by deeds. As a sure way to prove their ‘intentions decisively,’ Monsignor Elchinger, auxiliary bishop of Strasbourg and other cardinals and bishops suggested that there should be a full rehabilitation of Galileo. A petition from many European intellectuals and scientists was sent to Pope Paul VI asking for a solemn rehabilitation of Galileo. He in turn asked the Holy Office if they approved. They replied that by approving the publication of the book they had already signified their current position. At another session on 4 November 1964, Bishop Elchinger expressed the following opinion:

The rehabilitation of Galileo on the part of the Church would be an eloquent act, accomplished humbly but correctly. Such a decision, if enacted by the supreme Authority of the Church, could not fail to redound to the Church’s own credit, since with such an action it would reclaim the trust of the contemporary world and would perform a great service to the cause of human culture.

As it happened, no official retrial took place. Instead it was decided to merely acknowledge a mistake was made. Three months later, a draft of what would be inserted into the docuмents of Vatican II was discussed.

Finally, a compromise was worked out: the explicit mention of Galileo in the text would be dropped, but a footnote reference to Paschini’s book would be added. The minutes of that meeting contain the following abbreviated notes that reveal the rationale underlying the compromise: “Galilei. – Inopportune to speak of this in the docuмent – Let us not force the Church to say: I made a mistake. The matter should be judged in the context of time. In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.329)

‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light.’ This of course is the book referenced by Gaudium et spes #36. But in truth this was an altered version of Fr Pio Paschini’s Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two books, 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 University Press, 1998, P.364.) Such is the level of deceit widespread in the Catholic Church for many years in the aftermath of the infamous U-turn.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:01:45 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: At Vatican II the strategy of the modernists and their revisionism of the Galileo case had become clear. What was a matter of faith for the 1616 and 1633 Church, was now made to look like a matter of science. That is why they allowed outsiders to deny the authority of this papal decree and sanctioned the humiliation of the popes and theologians who defended the geocentric reading of Scripture in the 17th century. That is why they permitted all to assert that there was no Divine Providence involved, that it was a mere disciplinary decree, valid until proof for an opposite interpretation was found.

That achieved, the next step was to make sure the Church came out on the winning truth side, on the side of the Earthmovers. How could this ‘mistaken heresy’ be made to look Catholic? To do this Galileo had to be ‘canonised’ as the victimised Catholic defender of the Church’s proper exegesis and hermeneutics, and the ‘theologians’ of 1616 depicted as little more than troublemakers interfering in the harmony between faith and science with their insistence on a literal reading of the Creation.

On their shoulders Vatican II placed the centuries of ‘conflict and controversy’ that followed. Thus the rehabilitation of Galileo from heretic to ‘man of deep Christian faith’ was absolutely crucial. The more he is presented as a saint, as the one God was with as he protected the true interpretation of Scripture, then the more Catholic the once Copernican heresy becomes, and the more Catholic Galileo’s hermeneutics and exegesis becomes also.

Another ploy was to try to make Catholic the idea that the Bible is not intended to teach us the ways of nature, only the way to eternal salvation. By crediting even this aberration to a cardinal, it could be made look like it was always standard Catholic teaching, allowing the 1616 decree and the 1633 judgement to be ignored as a revealed truth.

Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius [Cardinal Baroneous (1538-1607)] "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur.” In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. - - - Pope John Paul II: speech 1992, par.12.

In truth however, this pro-Copernican quip was in fact invented by a Protestant, Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574):

Before he left Varmia in 1541 [when Baroneous was 3 years-old] Rheticus had composed his own small tract to demonstrate the absence of conflict between heliocentrism and the Bible….He went on to make a distinction that is still part of the faith-science dialogue: In the Bible the Holy Spirit’s intention, declared Rheticus, is not to teach science but to impart spiritual truths “necessary for Salvation.” Moreover, whatever descriptions of nature that do appear in the Scriptures are “accommodated to the popular understanding.” (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, Walker & Co., 2006, p.108.)

Then the Copernicans had to retrieve that loss of reputation for their beloved Catholic Church? How could they now defend it as a Copernican-compliant Church? Admitting errors by ignorant churchmen is one thing, but how could they get rid of the stigma? Well, resurrecting Galileo’s scientific academy as the Church’s very own Pontifical Academy of Sciences secured that. And as for the supposed conflict between faith and science, well that can be fixed too, simply where necessary, make all Catholic belief either conform to the assertions of science as they did with Copernicanism, or state that Catholic belief did not necessarily reject any of the accepted theories of modern science, without actually explaining theologically how this can be done. This way of course, all conflict between faith and science could be avoided and the truism that there can be no conflict between faith and science is thus preserved.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:05:42 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Shortly after the Council, at a Mass in Galileo’s hometown of Pisa in June 1965, Pope Paul VI continued the charade by paying a ‘striking tribute’ to Galileo’s faith as well as his science. There was however, no such accolade for the faith of the members of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of his time: Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, and all those cardinals and theologians who placed their faith in a biblical revelation of a fixed earth and moving sun. That is real faith; that was faith, pure and absolute.

Now it is one thing proclaiming faith in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or whatever, as even the Copernicans do; that is normal faith for Catholics, and while impossible in science, has never been doubted or abandoned because of it. But what about faith in something that most thought could be tested, even proven or falsified by science? Now that is something different, perhaps the ultimate test of faith in revelation ever undergone by Catholics - faith in the Fathers' interpretation of the Bible, faith in a papal decree, faith in the Church’s Divine guidance. That kind of Catholic faith Galileo did not have. Nor did very many have such a faith when Newton, Bradley, Bessel and Foucault claimed their proofs for a fixed sun and moving earth. After them, science was considered a greater vehicle of truth than blind Catholic faith. The rest is history.

The Words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the subject of the faith of Christians:

Which Jesus hearing, marveled: and turning about to the multitude that followed him, he said: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel.

Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?

Be of good heart, thy faith hath made thee whole.

According to your faith, be it done unto you.

O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt? He said this to St. Peter.

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

O woman, great is thy faith!

Amen, I say to you, if you shall have faith, and stagger not, not only this of the fig tree shall you do, but also if you shall say to this mountain, Take up and cast thyself into the sea, it shall be done. Perhaps Our Lord was here alluding to the great faith in the entire deposit of Revelation needed to move the mountain of sin and heresy that sits atop and oppresses and smothers the Catholic Religion.

Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet?

Have the faith of God.

Whose faith when He saw, He said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

And He said to them: Where is your faith?

And the Apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith.

But yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?
[/i]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:11:40 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Next emerged the existentialist mystic, phenomenologist, modernist, ecuмenist and apologist supreme Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), ‘the Copernican Cannon’ as he used to describe himself when Bishop of Krakow, (J. Reston Jnr.: Galileo A Life, New York: Harper Collins 1994.) and the pope named ‘De Labore Solis’ (About the Work of the Sun) by St Malachy to Pope Innocent II in 1139.

As a contributor to Gaudium et spes in 1965, this pope decided he would further champion the cause of Galileo’s rehabilitation as one of his acts of apology for the ‘sins’ of the Church in the past. This began on the 10th Nov. 1979, when the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held a meeting to commemorate the centennial of Albert Einstein’s (1879-1955) birth. At this gathering the Pope gave a talk, later published under the title ‘Deep Harmony Which Unites the Truths of Science with the Truths of Faith.’ The Pope began by saying: ‘The Apostolic See wishes to pay to Einstein the tribute due to him for the eminent contribution he made to the progress of science, that is, to knowledge of the truth present in the mystery of the universe.’

Einstein, by the way, is the Pantheist who once said that ‘great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.’(Albert Einstein; quoted in New York Times, March 19, 1940.) No doubt, topmost on his list would have been the popes and theologians of the seventeenth century who opposed the biblical heresy of a fixed sun.

What Einsteinian ‘truths of science [that] could be harmonised with the truths of faith’ the Pope didn’t say, but one ignored was the one re-established by Einstein in 1905, a truth we will get back to later. The Pope went on:

On the occasion of this solemn commemoration of Einstein, I would like to confirm again the declarations of the Council on the autonomy of science in its function of research on the truth inscribed by the finger of God. The Church, filled with admiration for the genius of the great scientist in whom the imprint of the creative Spirit is revealed, without intervening in any way with a judgment which it does not fall upon her to pass on the doctrine concerning the great systems of the universe, proposes the latter, however, to the reflection of theologians to discover the harmony existing between scientific truth and revealed truth. - - - Einstein Centennial Speech, 1979.

‘The Church, filled with admiration for the genius of Einstein?’ Well maybe himself and members of the Pontifical Academy of Science, but surely not the ‘Church.’ With Einstein’s ‘dirty old man’ character and his Pantheism in the public domain at the time, we cannot see the ‘Church’ going public in admiration of this man. As for his ‘truths of science,’ well science is a long way off being a provider of ‘truths.’ All this of course was leading up to the Galileo case. Galileo, he said, ‘had to suffer a great deal at the hands of men and organisms of the Church.’

The pope was admitting that Galileo had been treated unjustly and that an injustice had been committed. To be sure, the pope was making the usual and important distinction between the Church as such on the one hand and ecclesiastical persons and institutions on the other; and of course, he was attributing the injustice not to the former but the latter.

Given popes were directly involved in the 1616 decree and 1633 Church judgement, the above assessment is puzzling. Perhaps a better example of this ‘important distinction’ of an official Church act and one that is not, is when a pope gives a personal opinion to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as Pope John Paul II was doing then, and popes issuing decrees defining formal heresy through the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Church to be obeyed by all Catholics in 1616 and 1633. Surely the latter is the Church, the former the ecclesiastical person.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:18:47 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The pope’s statement was more than an admission of error, and seemed to be an admission of wrongdoing. Even an admission of error would have been significant since it was completely unprecedented for a pope to make such a statement. Although error had been admitted by many churchmen before; but the admission of wrongdoing signalled a new open-mindedness and sensitivity. To speak of Galileo’s “suffering” as the pope did implies that his treatment was undeserved or illegitimate. Moreover, the pope implicitly called his treatment an instance of unwarranted interference. And John Paul was implicitly “deploring” Galileo’s treatment by recalling that the Second Vatican Council had “deplored” such interferences. Indeed such expressions - 'suffering,' 'unwarranted' and 'deploring' - suggested that the pope was not merely admitting some unpalatable fact but also condemning it. In fact the condemnation of Galileo was itself being condemned. The reference to the Second Vatican council was in part an appeal to authority to help John Paul justify what he was saying and doing about Galileo. On the other hand, for this appeal to have the desired probative function, the pope had also to interpret the previous action of that council in the desired manner. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.340.)

But all this was not enough, Pope John Paul II wanted ‘to go beyond this stand taken by the Council’ and expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth study of the Galileo case to ‘right the wrongs, from whatever side they come’ as he put it. Most important of all of course was that the Pope wanted this investigation to confirm [that] all the sophistry amassed since 1741 was solidly founded, [and] that it all ended happily for Catholic hermeneutics in that, as it turned out, there was really no conflict between faith and science after all. As a result, a study commission of scholars for this purpose was set up in 1981, a thorough examination that was to take as long as it took to find the truth.

With regard to the objectivity of this commission, a glimpse into the mind of one of its ‘experts,’ Fr William Wallace O.P., a former electrical engineer and physicist, should suffice. Lecturing in March 1982 at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, he made the following comment:

The total content of revelation was not available for authoritative definition with the death of the last Apostle. Only through slow and painstaking scientific investigation were the literary genres of the Bible uncovered and the rules for its interpretation ascertained. The example is simple, but illustrates well the true complementarily of science and religion, of reason and belief. Were such rules known to Rome in 1615 and 1633, Galileo would have been spared the indignity. Had he not been motivated by that passionate desire for truth that brought it about, scriptural studies would never have achieved the status they enjoy today. (As quoted by Solange Hertz in her Beyond Politics, Veritas Press, 1992, p.67.)

In other words, before ‘science’ established the ‘facts,’ not even a reigning pope could interpret the Holy Scriptures correctly. With modernist ideas like this in the mind of one of the chief ‘experts’ on the commission, and the prior criticisms of the 1616 and 1633 ‘theologians’ at Vatican II, and then Pope John Paul II's references to Galileo in his many speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences - plus the selected alterations in Paschini’s edited book - the chance of an unbiased investigation into the Galileo affair by this papal commission was zero.

On October 31 1992, eleven years after it began in 1981, Cardinal Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, presented the findings of the commission to Pope John Paul II in the Sala Regia of the Apostolic Palace. Present also were members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, high-ranking officials of the Roman curia and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

The Vatican newspaper L’osservatore Romano, on 4th Nov. 1992, published a summary of the commission’s findings given by Cardinal Poupard. It was followed by Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech. Under the wishful headline ‘Galileo case is resolved,’ the world was subjected to yet another rendition of the affair that tried to make the history of the Galileo case and the 1741-1835 U-turn comply with Catholic norms and make a heliocentric reading of Sacred Scripture look orthodox. First, some authority had to be found to confirm that the 1616 decree ‘decided next to nothing’ as Henry Newman phrased it. This was done by selecting and misrepresenting the words of that private correspondence from Cardinal Bellarmine to Foscarini in 1615. In this letter, which we will present in full later, Bellarmine states:

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me.

In 1615, when the above paragraph was written, Galileo was touting the idea that he had proof for a fixed sun and orbiting earth. Bellarmine was here responding to this suggestion, rejecting it outright, ending the claim in the present tense. But here now is the version of the same letter conjured up after the U-turn by the apologists and re-used by this commission to make it appear Bellarmine was of a view that the matter was one to be left as an open question.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, in a letter of 12 April 1615 [said], If the orbiting of the earth were ever demonstrated to be certain, then theologians, according to him, would have to review their interpretations of the biblical passages apparently opposed to the new Copernican theories, so as to avoid asserting the error of opinions which had proved to be true: In fact Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the double motion of the earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered.

In the above wording, Bellarmine’s comment is presented as referring to the future tense rather than the present tense. So, by misrepresenting the Cardinal, the 1616 papal decree could be presented as provisional, not absolute. Thus the way was cleared to justify a U-turn.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #25 on:** January 23, 2014, 08:20:04 PM »

.

Are you having fun, cantatedomino?

Do you really think anyone is going to read all these posts you've made today?

They complain when someone makes ONE such post, and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.

And the copy is wanting. (not suitable for publication)

.

JPaul · « **Reply #26 on:** January 23, 2014, 08:39:57 PM »

Neil,

Quote

Quote
and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.

An astounding effort I would say, and all to bring some serious ideas to the forum.

Columba · « **Reply #27 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:10:27 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Are you having fun, cantatedomino?

Do you really think anyone is going to read all these posts you've made today?

They complain when someone makes ONE such post, and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.

And the copy is wanting. (not suitable for publication) .

She is serializing a book--one of the most fascinating I've ever read.

Wessex · « **Reply #28 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:11:28 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Are you having fun, cantatedomino?

Do you really think anyone is going to read all these posts you've made today?

They complain when someone makes ONE such post, and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.

And the copy is wanting. (not suitable for publication)

.

Don't be a meanie .... CD is one of the best ..... then perhaps I am biased!

The subject-matter gives us an opportunity to move away from resisting the worldly ambitions of a Swiss book-keeper to understainding the undermining of mankind and our special place in the affairs of the Almighty.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #29 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:40:53 AM »

.

The first thing that hit me is there is no publication data, no source noted, and no author.

So where does this come from? Is that too much to ask? Is that "mean?" I have no idea what this "book" is. Who wrote it? Isn't that something that you ALWAYS include from the very start? No? Maybe I thought I was on planet earth or something.

.