Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 91851 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:45:17 AM »

Quote from: Columba

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

How do you get to be fascinated by a book when you don't know who the author is?

Or when it was written? Or who the publisher is? Is that normal for you?

Are you fascinated with having to change the font sizes so you can see the words?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:53:46 AM »

.

What does this mean?

VRSNSMVSMQLIVB

Vade retro satana non suade mihi vana sunt malo quae libas ipse venea bibas?

Or, is that cantatedomino's password to unlock her computer?

.

Columba · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2014, 10:13:50 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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

How do you get to be fascinated by a book when you don't know who the author is?

Or when it was written? Or who the publisher is? Is that normal for you?

Are you fascinated with having to change the font sizes so you can see the words?

I read this book when CD serialized it on Ignis Ardens. Apparently the author wishes to remain anonymous and the book was never formally published but it is reasonably well-sourced.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #33 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:37:35 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Searching for some real meat in the commission’s findings as summarised by Cardinal Poupard, one expected to find an official or even semi-official explanation as to how a defined heresy could become an orthodox teaching within the parameters of Catholic understanding. But the above referred to the 1633 sentence on Galileo only, not the 1616 decree. Such a lengthy study commission would surely explain how the Church could define a matter formal heresy; charge Galileo with this heresy, find him guilty of suspicion of the heresy, affirm this heresy was unreformable in 1633 and 1820, and then ignore such judgments since 1741?

What investigation into the Galileo affair could overlook that contradiction? These were some of the important aspects of the case that needed to be clarified by this Galileo papal study commission, questions that cried to heaven for answers for centuries. What emerged however was yet another pathetic exercise in ‘giving plausible standing-grounds for nearly every important sophistry ever broached’ - as Andrew White put it a century earlier: to justify the U-turn and the hermetic, heliocentric-based hermeneutics adopted thereafter and confirmed at Vatican II.

Following Cardinal Poupard, Pope John Paul II gave his address to a packed and attentive assembly. He thanked the commission and immediately summarised the case like so:

Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so. Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. “If Scripture cannot err,” he wrote to Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways.” We also know his letter to Christine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics. - - - Pope John Paul II.

So, once again, who were the incompetent ‘theologians’ alluded to above? Why none other than the popes, cardinals, and theologians of 1616 and 1633, all of whom were at the time magnificently engaging in face-to-face combat with the Protestant rebellion, with reform theology and reform exegesis and hermeneutics in the seventeenth century. Yes, these are the ‘theologians’ here accused above of ignorance when it came to interpreting the Bible.

But here is the hypocrisy of their apologetics. Having twisted Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter from the present tense to the future tense, Pope John Paul II then uses the Cardinal to support their Copernicanism.

In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate, personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proof that the earth orbited round the sun, one should “interpret with great circuмspection” every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile… Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the Divine Word guided St Augustine… A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical 'Providentissimus Deus.'

Indeed, but so wrapped up were they in their attempts to justify that U-turn, they had to ignore the fact that the same Robert Bellarmine, whom they quote to get all to ignore the 1616 papal decree, was the one directly responsible for advising Pope Paul V to define and declare a fixed sun/moving earth formal heresy in 1616, and this one year after the letter to Foscarini they quote from above was written by the Cardinal. Of all the theologians responsible for having Copernicanism condemned as formal heresy, Bellarmine stood out above the others. Accordingly, as chief theologian to the Church at the time, he has to be placed top of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s list of incompetent wrongdoers, a theologian who supposedly didn’t know the difference between faith and science.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #34 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:41:13 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Why then did they make him a Doctor of the Church in 1931? His allotted feast day is May 13th, and it has a collect in the Mass that reads as follows:

O God, who didst fill blessed Robert, Thy Bishop and doctor, with wondrous learning and virtue that he might break the snares of errors and defend the Apostolic See; grant us by his merits and intercession, that we may grow in the love of truth and that the hearts of those in error may return to the unity of The Church. Through our Lord . . . Alleluia, alleluia. They that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament.

That is the way Saint Robert Bellarmine should be remembered by all and not as portrayed in Gaudium et spes, by the Galileo commission and personally by Pope John Paul II, ultimately as a troublemaker and interpreter who could have taken lessons in learning from a first-year Vatican II seminarian. This is the level the Vatican II apologists went to in order to bring Catholicism into the modern world as they saw it.

It is propaganda like this, propaganda that goes unnoticed by the vast majority of trusting Catholics worldwide, propaganda that few would question for the simple reason that such a query would look like one doubted a pope going about Church business. Thankfully it is not, and reading from a speech prepared for him by his Galileo Commission carries no guarantee that it is an official Church teaching or clarification, and it is canonically legal to scrutinise it critically to establish where the real truth lies.

The history of the Galileo case as presented by churchmen since the 1741-1835 U-turn seems to have given rise to a new pragmatic canon law: if a papal definition of formal heresy is apparently falsified by science, then, by self-delusion, not by abrogation or retrial, it can be held as mutable, leaving no doctrinal or canonical problems in its wake.

Indeed, judging by the way the 1616 decree was treated; such decrees can even be made disappear as though they were never issued in the first place. In Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, it cites a decree of the Holy Office dated June 20, 1602. On the next page, as a reference to The Aids or Efficacy of Grace it records:

Furthermore Paul V (decree of Dec. 1611) prohibited the publication of books on the subject of aids, even under the pretext of commenting on St. Thomas, or in any other way, without first having been proposed to the Holy Inquisitor. Urban VIII reinforced this (through the decrees of the Holy Inquisition on the days of May 22, 1625 and Aug. 1, 1642 - - - Denz. 1090.

Thereafter Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma cites twenty-one further decrees of the Holy Office. But search as you may for that 1616 decree that defined a fixed sun formal heresy and a moving earth erroneous in Catholic faith, probably the only Holy Office decree to define heresy, and you will not find it. Where did it go? Well we know why it is not there; because it was removed, not by abrogation, but by necessity, removed from the records after that ‘no comment’ Index of 1835 was published.

Finally, given the most famous and well known decree of the Holy Office in history is now presented as if it was always ‘of no consequence,’ can it be taken that none of the other decrees are really binding on Catholics either? Such is how the U-turn damaged Catholic teaching, rendering it possible for the modernists to do the same with other directives that did not comply with their modern thinking.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #35 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:43:35 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The upset caused by the Copernican system thus demanded epistemological reflection on the biblical sciences, an effort which later would produce abundant fruit in modern exegetical works and which has found sanction and a new stimulus in the Dogmatic Constitution 'Dei Verbum' of the second Vatican Council. - - - Papal address to PAS, 31 October 1992.

Here then is confirmation that the Galileo case, supposedly resolved by the Church from 1741 to 1835, produced the exegesis and hermeneutics of the 20th century. Beginning with Cardinal Newman and then Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, the non-literal, ‘figurative’ exegesis of a fixed earth and moving sun that became a fixed sun moving earth interpretation, was ‘canonised’ at Vatican II. Finally the Pope tries to bring further closure on the matter by offering the report as if its contents had some official Church guarantees, which of course it hadn’t.

(4) The work that has been carried out for more than 10 years responds to a guideline suggested by the Second Vatican Council and enables us to shed more light on several important aspects of the question. In the future, it will be impossible to ignore the Commission's conclusions ….

Indeed it will, for when the truth outs, as the truth always does, this report will be seen for what it really is, a white-washing of monumental proportions, another attempt in a long history to hide the authority and legitimacy of the anti-Copernican decree never abrogated, and much more. It will be remembered as yet another episode in the real Galileo scandal, the illegal, non-abrogated U-turn against the papal decree of 1616.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #36 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:45:46 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The world’s media of course responded as one could predict, making jokes and depicting cartoons at this admittance by Pope John Paul II that ‘theologians’ had made a gross error in both faith and science and that the Church now admits the earth does move after all. Yes that is what this papal commission produced, another vehicle to confirm and uphold the historic mocking of the Catholic Church and those popes and theologians who defended the traditional interpretation of all the Fathers.

Following on this victory for Galileo, in 1998, Pope John Paul II brought out his lengthy encyclical Fides et Ratio, 109 chapters giving his thinking and advice on the relationship between faith and reason, an encyclical that had to be shaped by the Galileo case and its history. In this encyclical we get a repeat answer to that important question pertaining to the Galileo case; ‘where was God during this clash between faith and science?’ Once again we find a direct reference to Galileo, not the Church, as one might expect; as the one in whom dwelt ‘the presence of the Creator Who, stirring in the depths of his spirit stimulated him, anticipating and assisting in his intuition.’

As if the ‘theologians’ of 1616-1633 had not been martyred enough, here again in an encyclical we read God was not with them in this case but was with the suspected heretic instead.

Ten years later, Jan. 17th 2008, in spite of his historical accusation of error by Pope John Paul II and the castigation of those involved in bringing Galileo to trial, the matter returned to haunt Pope Benedict XVI in turn. On that day 67 professors of physics – in their commitment to what they called ‘lay science’ - objected to him going to the University of La Sapienza in Rome to deliver a speech. They accused the Pope, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger; of agreeing with a philosopher he quoted in a 1991 essay, saying the 1633 Galileo trial was ‘reasonable and fair.’ This incident, which became headline news throughout the media around the world, and on the Internet, [and which] caused the Pope to cancel his visit to the University, shows the influence the Galileo case can still generate today. Within days, Vatican cardinals were insisting the Pope held no such view, that he only quoted the philosopher’s opinion on the Galileo case but did not support it himself. This of course suggested that the Holy Father agreed with the 67 professors in La Sapienza University, that the Church trial and condemnation of Galileo was unreasonable and unfair.

Nevertheless, the following Sunday, 200,000 sympathisers converged on St Peter’s Square in Rome to support their pope no matter what position he held, right or wrong.

Soon after this incident, news flashed around the world that an unnamed sponsor had commissioned a statue of Galileo and it was hoped to erect it in the Vatican in the Universal Year of Astronomy in 2009. News of this honour to Galileo was spread throughout the world, yet another step to show how things have changed since 1633 when the heretic was put on trial and found guilty of suspected heresy:

VATICAN CITY — Galileo Galilei is going from heretic to hero. Pope Benedict XVI paid tribute to the Italian astronomer and physicist Sunday, saying he and other scientists had helped the faithful better understand and "contemplate with gratitude the Lord's works." In May, several Vatican officials will participate in an international conference to re-examine the Galileo affair, and top Vatican officials are now saying Galileo should be named the "patron" of the dialogue between faith and reason…. At a Vatican conference last month entitled "Science 400 Years after Galileo Galilei." Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said Galileo was an astronomer, but one who "lovingly cultivated his faith and his profound religious conviction." "Galileo Galilei was a man of faith who saw nature as a book authored by God," Bertone said. - - - NCBnews.com., 23/12/2008.

Galileo Galilei, who had been condemned by the Catholic Church’s Holy Office, was a genius and a man of faith who deserves the appreciation and gratitude of the Church, the Vatican said. The 17th century astronomer was “a believer who tried, in the context of his time, to reconcile the results of his scientific research with the tenets of Christian faith,” said a written statement released by the Vatican. “Therefore, the Church wishes to honour the figure of Galileo – innovative genius and son of the Church.” - - - Catholic Times, Dec. 27th, 2008.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #37 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:13:57 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Providence however, again intervened and the idea of erecting a statue of Galileo in the Vatican was abandoned for some reason or another. On April 28, 2010 however, the communist Chinese government, ‘to advance cultural ties between the two countries,’ donated to the Italian state a six-metre tall bronze statue of Galileo they called ‘Galileo Galilei Divine Man,’ a title once reserved only for Jesus Christ. It seems the communists were determined to secure a place in Rome for Galileo. Curiously, whereas the right place for this image is in a secular science museum, they choose to place it in the grounds of the state-owned Basilica of St Mary of the Angels and Martyrs.

Before we end the story of the Earthmovers as presented to the world for centuries now, let us see what is being said about the affair from an extract taken out of Dr W. Carrol’s 2009 booklet Galileo, Science & Faith, issued by the Catholic Truth Society, publishers to the Holy See.

Current controversy within the Catholic Church concerning what kind of authority Rome has – or should exercise – on a range of topics provides evidence for the enduring influence of the legend of Galileo. Hans Kung, for example, has argued that Pope John Paul II’s “judgement on birth control and the ordination of women were as infallibly wrong as were those of his predecessors on astronomy and heliocentricity.

Writing in the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet, in March 2004, Michael Hoskin of Cambridge University reflected on what he called “The Real Lesson of Galileo.” He claimed that “the much heralded ‘rehabilitation’ of Galileo in 1992 was in part an attempt to gloss over the falsity of the doctrinal decrees issued – with papal endorsement – by the church organizations of Galileo’s day. If the Holy Office was mistaken in its doctrinal decree then its successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, may sometimes be mistaken now. But this is not a conclusion the Church has allowed.”

Note how important it is for Hoskin that what happened in the 17th Century be recognised as an error in doctrine – versus what I called an error of discipline… Hoskin’s interpretation is informed, in part, by the work of a Swiss Italian historian, Francesco Beretta [Professor of the history of Christianity of the German University of Freiburg], who has done ground-breaking work in the recently opened archives of the Inquisition. Beretta claims that a censure of heresy was formally applied to the heliocentric astronomy and since such a censure was pronounced by the pope, as supreme judge of the Faith, it acquired the value of an act of the magisterium of the Church.

He thinks that in 1633, Pope Urban VIII acted in his role as “supreme judge in matters of faith” and that already in 1616 Pope Paul V, in his formal capacity as head of Inquisition [Holy Office] declared Copernican astronomy to be “contrary to Scripture” and therefore cannot be defended or held… Any evaluation of Beretta’s thesis requires careful distinctions both of different senses of heresy and of the judicial and magisterial authority exercised by popes.’ (Dr William Carroll: Galileo, Science and Faith, C. T. S. London, 2009, pp.61-63)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #38 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:16:41 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: That then is our brief summation of the Galileo affair as it happened and as it affected the Catholic Church. It is a version of the Galileo case rarely if ever presented. Included are added the arguments offered by the apologists and some rarely seen rebuttals of their claims. Finally we have shown the current position of post Vatican II churchmen, one they hoped would bring ‘closure’ to the case; an error by theologians, one we can all ignore as null and void, harmless and of no consequence to the Catholic faith.

Their account gives credibility to centuries of ridicule and scorn poured on the Church by its enemies and by its own throughout the years. It asserts that the anti-Pythagorean decree defining and declaring formal heresy was inextricably interwoven with and dependent on an ignorant science put together from a literal reading of Scripture, a ‘mistake’ hinted at in papal encyclicals and condemned in the docuмents of an non-dogmatic ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church.

Truly, if ever anyone was found guilty and subjected to derision by both the enemies of the Church and those who inherited its leadership and authority, it was the ‘men and organisms’ of the Church of the 17th century who defended the traditional geocentric reading of the Holy Scriptures and who condemned Galileo accordingly.

Objective scholars however, intent on trying to come to terms with what they conclude to be a disastrous episode in Church history, even if it is the only one of its kind, admit ‘the wish to solve the riddle plays against the consciousness that it may be insoluble.’ (Rivka Feldhay: Galileo and the Church, University Press, 1995, p. vii.)

The reason for this is of course because the teaching of the Church precludes such a happening as the Galileo affair in which a Church decree defining and declaring formal heresy based on the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers can be demonstrably wrong. The Holy Ghost, we are ever assured, in matters of defining faith and morals - and the true interpretation of the Scriptures is of faith - assists the Pope, the Church, in its government. Such is the true nature of the ‘riddle’ and is the reason why so many thousand scholars, in spite of their close examination of the case, know in their heart that they have failed to resolve things to their ultimate satisfaction.

The pathetic delusion and denial by churchmen since the infamous U-turn of 1741-1835 desperately tries to avoid the fact that the Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals; yet one could well believe it did such a thing were one to believe the stories put out these past centuries.

What is at stake here is the Church’s divine guidance and traditional mode of hermeneutics, the very instrument that had over the centuries been used to identify and classify dogmas and doctrines to be believed by all Christians. If this form of hermeneutics were proven to be in error, one could ask what other interpretations and classifications could have been misinterpreted throughout the ages? Similarly, if a heresy defined so by a pope were proven to be false, how many other heresies or dogmas they were based on, could also have been false? Moreover, if the Church falsely condemned Galileo as suspect of heresy, how many others were accused in the wrong or condemned on false premises? Perhaps now we can see again why in 1632 Pope Urban VIII said this heresy puts the Catholic faith in danger.

So, what is the truth of it, what is the answer to the riddle that is the Galileo case? Given the name Galileo and his conflict with the Church is a never-ending item, isn’t it about time all the facts of the case were revisited with solving this riddle in mind, just as others have tried before. For over a century now this enigma has been unwinding, piece-by-piece, but few even noticed.

The most recent and successful attempt to re-establish the geocentrism of Scripture and faith was begun in 1967 by the Dutch-Canadian schoolmaster Walter van der Kamp, succeeded by Gerardus Bouw, Marshall Hall and R.G. Elmendorf among others. On the Catholic side we find Solange Hertz, Martin Gwynne and more recently Robert Sungenis and friends. Add to these the Thomist scholar Paula Haigh who in her writings emphasises the necessity for Thomistic metaphysics for Catholic theology. Each of the above has contributed to solving the puzzle in different ways. In this thesis we include areas not examined before and the result, we hope, will allow a synthesis many more will understand and accept.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #39 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:37:22 AM »

The Introduction is complete, and I am about the begin the Preface. And so I figure this is a good place to mention that I wasn't sure whether or not to put in the predicatory remarks from the Iggy thread introducing the book. I misjudged, thinking that people reading here at CI would be familiar with the fact this is an unpublished manuscript which the thus-far anonymous author has given permission to serialize - in part.

Here are some of those predicatory statements taken verbatim from the original thread:

"Dear Forum Members,

A very dear friend of mine has been writing a book about the copernican revolution for what seems to me to be decades. He has never published, but I have read his work, and I can say that it has informed my thinking in a profound way.

I have asked him if we could publish at least parts of it here, and he has agreed.
Without further ado, I give you the Introduction to this work, entitled The Earthmovers."

Now, I will relate what the author said to me after I commenced this thread on CI:

The entire book will not be serialized on the internet forum. This is because the author wishes to reserve something extra to offer, if the book gets published in hard copy.

The author would have his internet readers know that he is constantly editing and updating the book, and has added material to it since its serialization on Iggy. He prefers that we use the Iggy thread archive and post verbatim from that publication. He stated that the added material yet makes no difference to the story. It simply gives to the published hard copy some distinguishing features which will make obtaining and disseminating copies an attractive idea.

Once we get to the end of what was previously published on Iggy, the editing process will recommence and we will add material not previously published. We were very far from finished with our online serialization when Iggy went down.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #40 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:42:33 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Preface

I add that the words “the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.” were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. - - - Cardinal Bellarmine, Letter to Foscarini, 12 April, 1615.

'Give me but one firm point on which to stand, and I will move the earth’ wrote Archimedes of Syracuse (287-212BC); unwittingly coining for posterity the problem faced by man in their quest to move the earth. No doubt most believe modern science has, or will figure out, the nature of the universe, its origins and laws and how the many movements within it are dictated by Newton’s ‘universal gravity.’

In truth however, as we have learned, science isn’t within a light-year of understanding the nature of space by way of natural philosophy or the empirical method as it is called today. We see then it was Cardinal Bellarmine, as quoted above, who was vindicated, and not Galileo as asserted everywhere for centuries. Yes, Cardinal Bellarmine deducted by faith alone what it took science centuries to admit, that it will never be able to confirm the order of our cosmos. To understand this turnaround let us read the following:

Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. (Satoshi Kanazawa’s The Scientific Fundamentalist, published on Nov. 16, 2008.)

There are therefore many areas in which science, as we call it, cannot produce truths, and the order of our world is one of them. This being the case let us now remind ourselves what the papal commission on Galileo reported as the reason why the Catholic Church did its U-turn on Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree condemning Copernicanism as formal heresy:

In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.

Now it is one thing churchmen believing science proved heliocentrism true in 1741, but another saying it was so in 1992 when even the dogs in the street knew otherwise.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #41 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:44:35 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The problem for the ‘proof that the earth revolves round the sun’ came to a head in the wake of the famous Mitchelson & Morley experiment of 1887. This series of trials, which we will examine in detail later, produced results signifying that there is no movement of the earth through space as it supposedly orbits the sun.

For eighteen years after the 1887 M&M experiment, physicists searched for something that could explain away this unwelcome geostatic result. Finally, in 1905, Einstein offered what he called his Special Theory of Relativity to reinstate heliocentrism. The theory had to admit the fact that there is no experiment known to man that could detect absolute motion or absolute rest for us in the cosmos. Yes, science finally conceded that there is no empirical way of knowing the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot confirm for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine any absolute movement between the earth, sun and stars.

In other words, even with modern scientific technology, we have never been able to resolve whether the sun and stars rotate around a fixed earth or if the earth turns about a fixed sun within a fixed stars cosmos. This now intractable problem for science is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look inwards at it, would it be possible for us to see which body or bodies are really fixed, if any is or are fixed, and thus know the true order and harmony of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place in space and are never likely to get beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, man’s scientific knowledge of the true order of the universe has and will always be little more than conjecture.

[This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself. McGrath writes: ‘Gödel famously proved that however many rules of inference we formulate, there will still be some valid inferences that are not covered by them. In other words there are some statements that are true that we may not be able to show to be true. The philosophical implications of this are considerable.]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #42 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:47:04 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation. (Bertrand Russell: quoted in D.D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18.)

The atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was but one on a long list, including Bishop Nicole Oresme (d.1382), Copernicus, and even Isaac Newton, who knew science never proved absolute motion or absolute rest. They recognised that the stumbling block of relative motion had to be overcome before the true order of the universe could be known for sure and Galileo ignored this fact when asserting his ‘proofs.’

Four hundred years later, science has reached deadlock, allowing for at least two main possibilities for us on earth, an orbiting earth around the sun in a fixed star cosmos, or the sun, planets and stars moving around the earth. Thus all cosmic observations from earth have a heliocentric or geocentric explanation, a fact most will not or are unable to accept and thus grasp, even when it is pointed out explicitly to them.

As regards the ‘scientific’ centre of the universe, well, according to Einstein’s finite curved universe in which anywhere can be the centre we now have countless choices for that centre; none, the sun, moon, a planet, a star, and, dare we say it, even the earth. Now while the above is standard physics for first year science students, nearly everyone else has been indoctrinated from primary school into believing that the earth has to orbit the sun, just as the planets do. Thus we are led to believe in a cosmic order that denies any possibility of the movements we witness with our own eyes every day, every year and multiple years.

Yes, even within the Catholic Church today, we have all been trained to think as Hermetic sun-dwellers. But note what Bertrand Russell recognised and confirmed after 400 years of scientific study and experiment; that the question as to whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is true is not one belonging to science, but one belonging to metaphysics, or to put it more bluntly, a matter of faith. This being so, what the Scriptures reveal about the order of the universe is a question for faith to decide, not for science to assert.

Cardinal Bellarmine alluded to this in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini, quoted at the beginning of this preface. The Galileo case now comes down to one of faith, human faith against divine faith. Recognition of this fact changes history, a story that needs correcting. Needless to say the ramifications of this rectification are also extremely serious for the Catholic Church.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #43 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:49:32 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The Copernican revolution, while classed as a scientific revolution, was in fact a religious revolution. It is impossible to separate cosmology from theology and the divine, as both are well connected in the Scriptures. Add to this the utterances of many bygone astronomers and contemporary writers on this theme. Carl Sagan, in his introduction to Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time states:

This is also a book about God… or perhaps the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he states, to understand the mind of God. (Stephen. Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.)

There is however, something further we should know:

HAWKING AND THE MIND OF GOD. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God…his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest. (Peter Coles: Hawking, Postmodern Encounters, Icon Books, 2000, p.47.)

For hundreds of years now, so certain are we that the earth spins and orbits the sun like a planet, nobody needs or wants proof or verification for it anymore. Even now, any suggestion that the universe could be geocentric and geostatic always generates curious incredulity followed by derision and laughter. Even being asked to entertain the idea is a challenge to one’s intellectual ego, like being asked to believe the earth is flat. Thus, like a magic spell, the Hermetic cosmology has a grip on the human mind in the same manner as addictive illusionary substances have on the drug-addict.

Yes, this belief system, long implanted into the minds of mankind, is now virtually impossible to break free from, as most of you readers are no doubt already experiencing. To demonstrate this hold, we again refer to Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, the book released on ‘April fools day’ 1988, the one 26 million bought:

We may have no idea what Professor Hawking does – but everyone knows it is damned clever stuff. So dauntingly clever that I suspect a hefty percentage of the 25 million copies of his book 'A Brief History of Time', still remain unopened since it came out. But the sales prove we are, in theory anyway, hungry to learn about his heroic search for the so-called Theory of Everything that will explain once and for all the universe and its purpose. (R. Gore-Langton: Daily Express, Friday 1st Sept 2000.)

The above review of the play God and Stephen Hawking illustrates the heliocentric magic to perfection. As with Satan’s inducement to Adam that he could know all things like God, Hawking, a professed atheist, invited onto the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in 1986 by the way, is now promoted as the guru to follow. With no idea what he ‘does,’ and without understanding what he writes, Hawking and his ilk are held in awe by the Press, the public, even popes in Rome, for their ‘truths.’ ‘Cleverness’ is now classed as ‘stuff’ that cannot be understood, which, from a convincing propaganda and financially rewarding point of view, is indeed very ‘clever.’

cantatedomino · « **Reply #44 on:** January 25, 2014, 11:56:19 AM »

+WILLIAMSON: In the 18th century, the 17th-century Catholicism soured with Jansenism. Jansenism was a form of Protestant Catholicism, and Jansenism led to Liberalism. Jansenism is very strict, on the right, and then the pendulum swings. It’s unbalanced, it’s too far out, and the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, and you get somebody who’s very strict suddenly becoming very liberal, and so Jansenists turn into liberals. The same thing happened in England. The Puritans turned into Whigs about the same time, towards the end of the 17th century.

This idea presupposes another. For if a thing be able to swing and drift from one polarity or tendency to another, then we must presuppose an inherent instability in the mechanism. Inherent instability is potency for movement. But there is no movement in God and His Truth is immutable. By definition, true Catholics are the most stable beings in the changeable universe because they participate, by grace, in Essential Immutability. Thus if the Catholics of 18th and 19th centuries were so moveable, then what caused the instability in the first place? I say that it was scientist earth-moving confirmed in its revolutionism by ecclesiastical pretension.

When they moved the Earth they unmoored and unhinged the basic intelligibility of reality. When they moved the Earth off its bases, they made the entire universe (Man being its microcosm) unstable.

All manner of instability - physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, and temporal - has insistently and implacably followed in its wake.

When Our Lady Triumphs, stability will return to the Universe.

On this topic I recently gave consideration to some ideas related to the holiday rush. The pathological commercialism in which we are awash, is a prime example of the artificially injected instability that is the favorite soft-kill weapon of the revolutionary establishment.

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Then, over the course of Six Days, He filled and adorned both. He placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, for the regulation of days, nights, years, months, and seasons. The circuit of the sun makes both the diurnal cycle and the procession of the seasons. The profound stability and predictability of this unshakeable natural order operates as a mighty regulatory principle in the affairs of men, even unto their interior state of happiness and tranquillity. It silently and unobtrusively regulates everything - the activities of the individual person, family life, community life, the affairs of State, and the great cycles and seasons of the life of the Church.

The happiness and tranquillity of all levels of the social order depends in great part upon the order, harmony, predictability, and regularity of the cosmological processions.

Thus if an enemy were to come with the intention of injecting disorder into the ecclesiastical, political, and social fabric, he would do well to interfere with the regularity of Divine, natural, and human cycles.

The first wave of invasion begins with copernicanism, which violently dislodges the Earth from its place in the cosmos. The intellectual effect on mankind is that Earth, in reality stable, immoveable, unshakeable, at rest, and centrally located, is now erroneously believed to hurtle through random space at truly obscene speeds. Man now believes in the operation of error. His intellect is deformed, and consequently, so too are his appetites, for the will is moved by the intellect.

Disorder, irregularity, unpredictability, uncertainty, and ignorance follow in the wake of this first invasion.

But that is not enough because nature always reasserts itself almost as violently as its aggressors tear away at it. Thus a natural conservatism keeps replenishing stability wherever and whenever it can. Yes the Earth is alleged to move, but the seasons still change, the day is still 24 hours, the sun still rises, and the moon maintains its phases. Holidays, festivities, and daily activities may thus continue on their course.

But this is unacceptable to the revolution establishment, as this is a constant threat to their dominion and control, which is based upon mass intellectual delusion. They must constantly fight against implacable nature - the report of the senses, including common sense - reasserting itself, the way weeds implacably reassert themselves in a landscape.

Hence we see ever increasing varieties of destabilizing strategies, aimed at keeping populations in a state of reactionism, confusion, disequilibrium, disorder, and, ultimately infantile dependency with blind obedience. [I submit the diabolical novelty called Black Friday as an example of the latest trend in destabilization strategy. Black Friday is their anti-First Sunday of Advent, ushering in their satanic, pagan "holiday" season. It is a satanic rite of greed, hatred of neighbor, chaos, disorder, agitation, belligerence, and murderous designs. How many of us participated in it?]

Another destabilization strategy is the changing of the traditional calendars, as at the French Revolution and Vatican II. Vatican II goes so far as to interfere with the Church's liturgical seasons, so beautifully aligned with the rhythms of nature, that they supernaturalize and adorn the natural order in a way that could almost make Earth the end of our existence, did we not know better.

The revolution establishment, responsible for the wreckage of the liturgical calendar, aids and abets the crimes of the pseudo-churchmen, in the commercial sphere. Calendar-tinkering was really bad twenty years ago, but it is all out mayhem in 2012. We now see Christmas decorations go up in stores on October 1st, competing with the lurid filth peddled in the Halloween market.

And the thing of it is: What about Catholics? This is the season of Advent. There should be no lights, no tree, no decorations, no parties, until December 25th. Yet how many of us fell for it and put the stuff up in our homes right after Thanksgiving, thereby allowing ourselves to be further destabilized by enemy forces?

Yet another very insidious destabilization strategy is what I call the "war on thinking." The emotions and passions reside in the matter of the body. They are extremely moveable, even volatile. They are difficult to control, even when put under the influence of grace. If not kept under strict control, they will destabilize thinking, judging, and acting. Whereas the intellect, which is a spiritual faculty, is much more stable and immoveable, as it is made in the image and likeness of the Immutable God. The war on thinking targets the passions and emotions, seeking to stir them up, while simultaneously feeding the intellect pabulum and low-grade garbage. This greatly destabilizes the individual, who, in turn, destabilizes the social, political, and spiritual cells in which he participates.

What kind of environment do we live in, if not one that is dumbed down and hyper-sensitized, hyper-sentimentalized in the extreme?

Thus we see that copernicanism is an arch-system of destabilization of nature, human activity, and grace, resulting in a breakup of order, harmony, tranquillity, predictability, and hence happiness.

We must fight all instability by the restoration of stability. And we do this, first, by traveling back to the place where it all broke down - the Cosmology. If we get that right, we get a fighting chance to rebuild Christendom.

Viva Christo Rey!
[/color]