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

Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS  (Read 108907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mathieu

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Reputation: +156/-0
  • Gender: Male
THE EARTHMOVERS
« Reply #300 on: May 06, 2014, 07:11:08 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew

    I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.


    Actually, that the Earth orbits the Sun is not a well-proven truth.  It actually has never been proven.  There is much information out there to show that - scientific information.

    Here is a link to a page that has some video talks concerning the upcoming movie, The Principle - a movie that deals with all of this, and especially the lies that have been promulgated concerning the Copernican Principle.  

    Please watch them if you have the time - I do no think you will come away thinking you have wasted your time, but perhaps grateful that you understand more about it now.

    Talks on the Principle Movie

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3823
    • Reputation: +2866/-274
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #301 on: May 06, 2014, 12:38:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.

    I assure you, you can have a person believe in the literal Genesis account of Creation, and still believe that the planets revolve around their sun. There is no intrinsic link between Heliocentrism and Evolution.

    And unless you can prove that they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, not just "compatible", "commonly believed together", etc., then your whole thesis is worthless. Along with your charge of material heresy leveled at the past XX true Popes of the Catholic Church.


    Time now to address the above Matthew. I was educated as an evolutionist and a Copernican. I felt intellectually superior for knowing this. My wife was a creationist and laughed at the idea of sponges evolving into elephants and that we do not see the sun move across the heavens because we are spinning and orbiting the sun. I tried to explain to her how science had proven everything and the Bible was a sort of religious way of explaining origins.
    One day, when I was 50 years old, an American gave me a book on creation pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I was taken for an idiot. I got very angry that I could be treated so in a Catholic education. For two years I read every book on creation I could find so as to be able to defend creationism. Then I heard Pope John Paul II tell us all evolution was no longer a 'hypothesis.' I then read cardinal Ratzinger's IN THE BEGINNING. Good God I learned, they are both evolutionists to the core, Ratzinger even reinterpreting the meaning of Original Sin to fit into his scientific beliefs. With that pair of 'intellectual popes' telling all evolution is a fact, what chance have Catholics writing books on creation got to convince anyone it is a load of garbage. Then I found out Pope Pius XII was also an evolutionist and when I read his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about the Big Bang giving rise to the sun, moon and stars and they in turn forming a solar-system by way of Newton's gravity I dispared. Imagine, I thought, a traditionalist pope an evolutionist. So it didn't all start with the Modernists of the 60s.

    Then I heard from a few Creationists that evolution could never have been accepted were it not for the fact that popes in 1741 and 1820 chose heliocentrism over geocentrism. Immediately I wanted to know more. My experience as an evolutionist and then a creationist showed me man can swallow anything as long as 'science' says its true. I then learned that science is 'atheistic,' it excludes anything preternatural. 'Then science has to exclude Creation by God, something out of nothing' I concluded, 'so that is why atheists use science to discredit religion.' That is why more people have abandoned religion than for any other reason.

    I then began to study the Copernican revolution in both Church and State. I found the very same thing, science proving we live on a planet in a solar system, not on something especially created by God. I heard of and read up on the doctrine of geocentrism. I read of the Church's defence of geocentrism and how it came to a head with the Galileo case. I read up on Isaac Newton, an alchemist and antichrist,, and how he invented a theory of gravity that has since been accepted as the basis for heliocentrism and then for Pope Pius XII's gathering of stardust after the Big Bang to form a solar system. I searched for the science that confirmed Newton's theory as a law and found nothing but a mind-game. "Mass,' that is the trick, for who could ever test the 'mass' of a cosmic sphere. Here above Matthew you have fallen hook, line and sinker for this mind-trick, as billions of others have, right up to popes from 1741. The earth HAS to orbit because of its smaller 'mass'. Newton's theory was chosen by Freemasons and every other theory for gravity was ABANDONED. Yes, they found their MAGIC WAND - MASS, and they got matter to move itself without any input from God.

    So, the Mother of all evolution theories the BIG BANG came directly from the heliocentric theory. Both supposedly formed the Solar system of heliocentrism and on the earth evolved everything.

    The idea that a person can believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, and argue against the literal geocentrism of Genesis has always baffled me since I began to think and chose theology over science.

    I remember once a man telling me how to show the literal of Genesis has to be geocentric. God first created the Earth, hung in space (Gen 1:1). then God made two lights for the earth, the sun and moon and hung them in the heavens to bring day and night and seasons. Gen !:17 'God set them in the firmament of heaven.' From earth, man sees the sun in the heavens. If however, the sun is in the centre and the earth orbits it, then the earth is in the heavens. Now why didn't Genesis get it right?




    Offline jake1

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 74
    • Reputation: +49/-1
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #302 on: May 09, 2014, 11:46:34 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I can't wait for the next installment!  I had first started reading on IA but got overwhelmed with the length.   But now I've read up to this end point and am extremely glad that I did.  It really ties a lot of loose ends in my understanding of the gradual success by Satan, from the time of the early Renaissance to Vatican II, in undermining the doctrines of the Church.  

    Thank you Cantatedomino!

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32713
    • Reputation: +29001/-582
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #303 on: May 09, 2014, 12:10:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What, pray tell is

    VRSNSMVSMQLIVB

    (That used to be the sub-title of this thread -- I removed it because it looks like a keyboard malfunction, or perhaps someone with a pet dog left the room for a couple minutes before submitting a post)
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32713
    • Reputation: +29001/-582
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #304 on: May 09, 2014, 12:25:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: cassini
    Quote from: Matthew
    I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.

    I assure you, you can have a person believe in the literal Genesis account of Creation, and still believe that the planets revolve around their sun. There is no intrinsic link between Heliocentrism and Evolution.

    And unless you can prove that they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, not just "compatible", "commonly believed together", etc., then your whole thesis is worthless. Along with your charge of material heresy leveled at the past XX true Popes of the Catholic Church.


    Time now to address the above Matthew. I was educated as an evolutionist and a Copernican. I felt intellectually superior for knowing this. My wife was a creationist and laughed at the idea of sponges evolving into elephants and that we do not see the sun move across the heavens because we are spinning and orbiting the sun. I tried to explain to her how science had proven everything and the Bible was a sort of religious way of explaining origins.
    One day, when I was 50 years old, an American gave me a book on creation pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I was taken for an idiot. I got very angry that I could be treated so in a Catholic education. For two years I read every book on creation I could find so as to be able to defend creationism. Then I heard Pope John Paul II tell us all evolution was no longer a 'hypothesis.' I then read cardinal Ratzinger's IN THE BEGINNING. Good God I learned, they are both evolutionists to the core, Ratzinger even reinterpreting the meaning of Original Sin to fit into his scientific beliefs. With that pair of 'intellectual popes' telling all evolution is a fact, what chance have Catholics writing books on creation got to convince anyone it is a load of garbage. Then I found out Pope Pius XII was also an evolutionist and when I read his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about the Big Bang giving rise to the sun, moon and stars and they in turn forming a solar-system by way of Newton's gravity I dispared. Imagine, I thought, a traditionalist pope an evolutionist. So it didn't all start with the Modernists of the 60s.

    Then I heard from a few Creationists that evolution could never have been accepted were it not for the fact that popes in 1741 and 1820 chose heliocentrism over geocentrism. Immediately I wanted to know more. My experience as an evolutionist and then a creationist showed me man can swallow anything as long as 'science' says its true. I then learned that science is 'atheistic,' it excludes anything preternatural. 'Then science has to exclude Creation by God, something out of nothing' I concluded, 'so that is why atheists use science to discredit religion.' That is why more people have abandoned religion than for any other reason.

    I then began to study the Copernican revolution in both Church and State. I found the very same thing, science proving we live on a planet in a solar system, not on something especially created by God. I heard of and read up on the doctrine of geocentrism. I read of the Church's defence of geocentrism and how it came to a head with the Galileo case. I read up on Isaac Newton, an alchemist and antichrist,, and how he invented a theory of gravity that has since been accepted as the basis for heliocentrism and then for Pope Pius XII's gathering of stardust after the Big Bang to form a solar system. I searched for the science that confirmed Newton's theory as a law and found nothing but a mind-game. "Mass,' that is the trick, for who could ever test the 'mass' of a cosmic sphere. Here above Matthew you have fallen hook, line and sinker for this mind-trick, as billions of others have, right up to popes from 1741. The earth HAS to orbit because of its smaller 'mass'. Newton's theory was chosen by Freemasons and every other theory for gravity was ABANDONED. Yes, they found their MAGIC WAND - MASS, and they got matter to move itself without any input from God.

    So, the Mother of all evolution theories the BIG BANG came directly from the heliocentric theory. Both supposedly formed the Solar system of heliocentrism and on the earth evolved everything.

    The idea that a person can believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, and argue against the literal geocentrism of Genesis has always baffled me since I began to think and chose theology over science.


    First of all, you can relax because I'm inclined towards Geocentrism now (thanks to those videos by DeLano and Sungenis)

    But in the interests of accuracy, I'd like to point out a couple things.

    First, I'd like to point out that I never believed in evolution (nor did I feel superior), even though I believed the earth rotated around the sun since I was a kid. I've always chosen Theology over science. So apparently believing the earth moves isn't immediately destructive. Maybe it is over time.

    So your whole "backward look" is going to be tainted. It's going to affect how you present the case for Geocentrism. I'm here to tell you that most of your argument was unconvincing to someone like me, because I never believed in evolution (as incredible as that may seem, even though I believed THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN! *gasp*)

    Quote
    "My experience as an evolutionist and then a creationist showed me man can swallow anything as long as 'science' says its true."


    No, I (for one) am not that much of a sheeple. Just read my other posts here on CathInfo. I don't believe in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, the Moon Landing, vaccinations, the Green Revolution or agri-business (monoculture), the official story on 9/11, the two-party American political system, public school, and I don't trust Big Pharma and their drugs, the Federal Reserve, the U.N., etc.

    I do believe that the Jews/Illuminati/Freemasons have infiltrated the Church and I was taught this when I was a child.

    That's not an exclusive list of how I am counter-culture. I could go on for paragraphs :)

    I believed that the earth revolved around the sun because it was logical and made sense. The moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter, so that seemed to be the way God created things. It didn't take any scam of Newton to convince me of this; I believed that the orbits of all the bodies (including Earth) were established by God at Creation.

    I never for a minute believed that the spin/orbit of the celestial bodies came about because of any primordial spinning disk/big bang.

    Just like when I believed in Santa Claus when I was 5, my parents didn't push things too far by trying to make me believe in elves that make toys. Even at 5 years old, I wouldn't have fallen for that. My toy drill had a battery compartment, for crying out loud! My mom told me that Santa got his toys at Sears, and I believed that. (My toy drill didn't work and needed to be returned; that's why this conversation came up). She also told me that Santa came in through the front door, since we didn't have a chimney.

    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.


    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 32713
    • Reputation: +29001/-582
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #305 on: May 09, 2014, 01:02:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I recommend everyone watch these videos:

    [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/U49_IzLeEo4[/youtube]

    [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EMr8lb2tYvo[/youtube]


    http://wallsandwood.com/info/principle_talks.html
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline B from A

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1244
    • Reputation: +823/-135
    • Gender: Female
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #306 on: May 09, 2014, 01:14:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Matthew
    My mom told me that Santa got his toys at Sears, and I believed that.


    I rarely ever even click on this thread; way too long.  But I clicked now & wanted to thank you for a good laugh!    :laugh2:

    [Although I shouldn't laugh, because I don't believe in teaching children the Santa myth.  But still it made me chuckle to read that story.]




    Quote from: Matthew
    What, pray tell is

    VRSNSMVSMQLIVB


    I think she said it's from the back of the St. Benedict medal:
    Quote

    Around the margin of the back of the medal, the letters V R S N S M V - S M Q L I V B are the initial letters, as mentioned above, of a Latin prayer of exorcism against Satan: Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas! (Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!)



    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #307 on: May 10, 2014, 01:57:55 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: jake1
    I can't wait for the next installment!  I had first started reading on IA but got overwhelmed with the length.   But now I've read up to this end point and am extremely glad that I did.  It really ties a lot of loose ends in my understanding of the gradual success by Satan, from the time of the early Renaissance to Vatican II, in undermining the doctrines of the Church.  

    Thank you Cantatedomino!


    Awesome!!!!

    Here we go!


    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #308 on: May 10, 2014, 01:59:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS: Continually repeating the arguments conjured up originally by Rheticus, Bruno and Kepler, Galileo quotes St. Augustine stating that one cannot interpret the Bible against clear and certain reason; hoping his scientific illusion of certainty would fool the theologians. He agreed that there could be no conflict between science and Scripture, for yes, God is Author of both. The last paragraph of Galileo’s above however, shows us he was the ultimate bluffer. No doubt he had his planetary phases in mind for his ‘sensory experiences,’ but he seems to have forgotten the overall cosmic sensory experience is 100% geocentric, with the sun, moon and stars doing their sensory rotations around the earth. As for necessary demonstrations - he had none - nor have any ever been shown since.
         
    Next Galileo used his trump card, noting the fact that whereas the Scriptures cannot contain any untruth or error, exegetes can be mistaken when interpreting words and passages of Scripture. Biblical hermeneutics, in such cases, he asserted, should always be enlightened by natural science and its findings:

    Since it is plain that two truths cannot contradict each other, it is the duty of wise interpreters to take the pains to find out the real meaning of the sacred texts, in accordance with those conclusions of natural science which the clear evidence of the senses, or apodictic [certain] demonstrations, have put beyond dispute. - - -  Galileo: Letter to Castelli.

    Here then was Galileo’s offence, practically accusing the Church, past and present, of interpreting the Scriptures erroneously while mouthing about evidence and proof for heliocentricism. It is obvious to us that Galileo, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, was never concerned for the interests of Scripture, but with eliminating it as an impediment to his own vainglory. Most commentators propound that Galileo was too good an empiricist to actually believe he had proof for the earth’s supposed motion, but we think this has to be said to prevent anyone thinking their hero was too stupid to see he had no real proof. If however, we go along with the apologists, we are presented with a clear scenario that shows us Galileo in his true colours. Had Galileo really believed there could be no conflict between the Scriptures and science, and that he was too good an empiricist to believe there was any real proof, then why didn’t he hold to the accepted traditional meaning of Scripture even until that expected real proof for a fixed sun emerged? But no, he did not, for Galileo had long abandoned the Catholic position, the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers (a sign of infallible elucidation) and all the exegetes in the Church at the time, from the moment he decided for himself - many years before his discoveries it must be said - that Copernicanism was the truth of it. [By 'Copernicanism' is signified a belief in heliocentrism as a physical truth and that the Scriptures can now be interpreted ‘heliocentrically.’]

    Galileo wanted this ‘unearthing’ badly and the world to credit him with the most astonishing discovery of all time, and he was not going to allow the Bible to deny him such a place in history:

    In his great polemical work The Assayer, directed against the Jesuit Orazio Grassi who had published a book on comets under the pseudonym of Lothario Sarsi, Galileo wrote: “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress.” (Fr. J. Brodrick: The Life and Work of Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, SJ., Newman, 1961, p.363.)

    Meanwhile, the German astronomer Marius for one was mapping more clearly one of those things that Galileo was claiming for himself. A year later (1614), on the Fourth Sunday of Advent, traditionally a day to give a homily on the Scriptures, a Dominican, Fr. Tommaso Caccini, taking his cue from the canons of Trent, preached his historic sermon at Santa Maria Novella in Florence condemning Galileo and his heliocentricism and those propagating it as being compatible with Scripture. The address however, did not go down too well on either side of the row. It went too far, some said. The severity of this attack brought negative reactions from all quarters, even one from his brother Fr. Matteo Caccini. Nevertheless, complaints against Galileo and his group of Copernicans piled up until February 1615, when a Dominican, Fr. Niccolo Lorini, who had originally reproduced and distributed Galileo’s letter, sent a copy with all relevant accusations to Cardinal Sfondrato, Prefect of the Congregation of the Index, an arm of the Inquisition, for his assessment.

    The cardinal replied that while granting certain tones in the letter were challenging, overall the sentiments could be interpreted in an orthodox manner and thus warranted no further action by the Holy Office at this time. Nevertheless, the opponents of this new philosophy continued to call on the Church to ban the assertion on the basis that it contradicted the literal interpretation of the Bible as held by all the Fathers and contemporary theologians.

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #309 on: May 10, 2014, 02:17:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS: Galileo, aware of this favourable comment, decided to send a copy of the letter to Monsignor Piero Dini, theologian and apostolic referendary, a friend of his in Rome, in order that he in turn might give it to the senior authority within the Roman Inquisition, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Galileo’s plan was working: his Letter to Castelli was getting that wider circulation he wanted, especially to those in the Roman theological and ecclesiastical circles possibly sympathetic to such a change of interpretation in keeping with the opinions of natural philosophers.
         
    Galileo’s next move was to complete and expand on his Letter to Castelli, addressing it this time to the Grand Duchess Christina, fully aware that she had no time for his hermeneutics and exegesis. In his Letter to Christina he first offered his own discoveries as evidence for a fixed sun and moving earth. He then attempted to ridicule his critics by inferring they were intellectual retards, trying to defend the geocentric position with the Bible alone. Eventually he moved on to biblical exegesis and hermeneutics:

    Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything unadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favour to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either Old or the New Testament . . . I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.

    My, what a hypocrite Galileo was. Surely what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. In this same letter he states, "I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the centre of the revolution of the celestial orbs, while the earth revolves around the sun." How then can he say "we ought not to believe anything unadvisedly on a dubious point?" Did he really hold that he had proof, or, as his admirers say, "he was too good a scientist to believe he really had definitive proof?" If this is true, and he knew he did not have proof, why didn’t he take his own advice and remain neutral?
         
    The second paragraph again shows us Galileo’s inability to understand the science of relative movement as pertaining to the sun and earth. Had he been able to do so he would have accepted his own teaching on the Bible, and that its geocentrism was one of those teachings surpassing all human reasoning.

    Next Galileo uttered the ubiquitous Copernican quote first used by the Protestant Rheticus: "The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes." He then quoted St Augustine, a biblical geocentrist, as all good Copernicans do:

    If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken, for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.

    Of course, correct, that goes without question, but as Bellarmine said, there was no clear and manifest reasoning then, no proof for a fixed sun at all. Indeed he went further, stating that because Solomon described a moving sun in Scripture, he doubted any such clear and manifest proof for a fixed sun and moving earth would ever be found. He based this doubt on Catholic faith alone. But Galileo had no such faith; he rejected all of Bellarmine’s metaphysics simply because he was a scientist first and foremost. Thus he warned against dogmatising the Fathers’ geocentric interpretation based on human reasoning alone:  

    Hence I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary.

    This Letter to Christina, then, went on even to challenge the wisdom of St Thomas who had written the following with regard to Christian theology, considered by the Church as ‘Queen of all the sciences:

    The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through Divine Revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false. - - - (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).  

    But Galileo had his own ideas as regards faith and science:

    In explanation and support of this opinion they say that since theology is queen of all the sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teaching of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her; these others must rather be referred to her as their supreme empress, changing and altering their conclusions according to her statutes and decrees. Now the physical conclusions in which they say we ought to be satisfied by Scripture without glossing or expounding it in senses different from the literal, are those concerning which the Bible always speak in the same manner and which the holy Fathers all receive and expound in the same way . . . First I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing to specify the virtues that entitle sacred theology to the title “Queen.”

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #310 on: May 10, 2014, 02:22:17 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS: Meanwhile a Carmelite priest, Fr. Paolo Foscarini (1565-1616) published his Lettera sopra L’opinione dei Pitagorici e del Copernico. This synthesis also attempted to concord the heliocentric theory with Holy Scripture. The affair, we see, had advanced somewhat, given that members of the priesthood were now promoting books reinterpreting Scripture contrary to the canons of Trent. Confident in his ability to defend a scriptural heliocentrism, Foscarini came to Rome to argue the matter with Church theologians.

    Slowly but surely the matter was coming to the door of Pope Paul V. First though, as with all such conflicts of the time, it had to pass through the office of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Master of Controversial Questions and Consulter of the Holy Office (Roman Inquisition).
       
    So, who or what was the Holy Office? In the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the Apostolic Faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. This power included the censorship of books etc.

    Later, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority. Finally, in 1620, Pope St. Pius V placed all departments in Rome under the Supreme Sacred Congregation.    

    We see then the difference between the Holy Office of 1616 and the image of the various ‘Inquisitions’ of various countries as portrayed today.


    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #311 on: May 10, 2014, 02:43:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS:

    Chapter Sixteen: 1615: Cardinal Robert
    Bellarmine





    St Robert Bellarmine

    Among that sinister, red-robed group, one often stands out in the books more sinister than the rest. Even Catholic writers have emphasised what they considered to be his unhappy notoriety. “If one theologian were more prominent than another in his opposition to Galileo it was Bellarmine.” (Fr J. Brodrick S.J., The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J., 1928, republished by Newman, 1961, p.326.)

    This then is how the centuries of apologists present the name of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and his part in the condemnation of the Copernican heresy. Believing themselves safe in their opinions because historians and scientists have assured us that it was Galileo, and not Bellarmine, who emerged the test of time vindicated on all counts, they now feel justified in castigating the cardinal for his total opposition to Galileo’s innovative exegesis. Such smears are to be found wherever the infamous Galileo case is written about.

    One of the most important witnesses . . . is Cardinal Bellarmine, who was a very jealous anti-Copernican and had probably a great share (perhaps the principle share) in bringing about the practical condemnation of Galileo’s opinions in 1616. (F.R. Wegg-Prosser: Galileo and his Judges, London, 1889, p.35.)

    As for non-Catholic writers, the venom is often a little harsher:

    The heresy which takes its name from Copernicus owes its existence almost entirely to the judgment of the theologian of Montepulciano.

    Bellarmine represents for more than twenty years the very personification of the war against science. His principle seems to have been the abdication of reason…
    (As quoted by Fr. J. Brodrick from two Protestant sources, op cit., p.327.)

    Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII, who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found anywhere else in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England. Bellarmine’s catechism, translated into forty languages, spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the then Christian world.

    Robert Bellarmine had many interests, one being an affinity for science. At the University of Louvain he was qualified enough to lecture on astronomy and in 1611 had viewed the sky through a telescope and had seen ‘some very marvellous things.’ Thus we can see that he was qualified to judge and comment on all aspects of the Galileo case. But Bellarmine had higher priorities, and the following story warrants repetition:

    In the house where Bellarmine lived at this time, there was a sun-dial set in one of the outer walls. The gnome or pin of the dial was twisted out of position, but that fact had not worried Blessed Robert until Galileo came to stimulate his scientific interests. If one is to study the movements of the sun with accuracy, one must have a reliable instrument with which to measure them, so the Cardinal decided to have his sun-dial mended, and asked Fr. Grienberger and a young Jesuit student named Horatio Grassi to come to see whether they could do something with it. They told him that it would be possible to put it right at a cost of two 'giulii.' When he heard this, his face fell and he remained silent for a little time. Then he said to the two men, “I have not the heart to spend so much on my own convenience, for those two 'giulii' are enough to support some poor wretch for two days.” And so Grienberger and Grassi went home, the sun-dial, in Bartoli’s words, continued to be the 'bugiardo' that never spoke the truth, and some poor wretch had two 'giulii' in his pocket. (Story and references given by Fr. James Broderick S.J., op. cit., p.346)

    Aware that Galileo had found moons orbiting the planet Jupiter, Bellarmine had the greatest admiration for the man, and Galileo, always courting favours wherever he thought they would be useful, sent the cardinal a copy of his book Discourse on Floating Bodies. Let us also note that at this time Cardinal Bellarmine was writing his own book entitled De Ascensione Mentis in Deum, The Mind’s Ascent to God (by the Ladder of Created Things). In this book, published in 1614, Cardinal Bellarmine devotes seven of his fifteen steps to "The Consideration of the Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars:"

    The mind’s assent belongs to a close knit genre, the “Ladder of Assent” tradition. Asian religions often picture release of the burdens of life as a ladder. One can think of the ziggurat towers of the Babylonians (no doubt the kind of edifice that Jacob saw in his vision recorded in Gen. 28:10-22). The Bible describes steps towards God such as in Psalms of Ascent, depicting the way people climbed the steps up into the Temple (Ezek. 40:26, 31). In fact Bellarmine states in the introduction of this book that the reason for his fifteen stages up the ladder is Solomon’s precedent. From these ancient times to the history of the Church, the genre developed, occasionally giving us classics of western spirituality.
         
    Step one is “The Consideration of Man,” step two, “The Consideration of the Microcosm.” Step three, “The Consideration of the Earth,” and so on. With nine steps he moves to discuss the angels, and then from steps ten to fifteen, God Himself is discussed . . . Step twelve invites the reader to consider the wisdom of God in relation to His omnipotence, particularly focusing on His knowledge of our life. The theme of the ladder is used throughout. We are reminded “You number my steps” says Job (14:16). God only knows our ways, but has mercy on our sins and insufficiencies. Step thirteen moves us into God’s practical wisdom, defending His choices made as the Creator of all things.
    (William Edgar: Christian Apologetics, Crossway, 2011. )

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #312 on: May 10, 2014, 02:55:27 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS:

    Here in Bellarmine’s book, is a path to heaven. For example:  
         
    STEP SEVEN: The Consideration of the Heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Stars.

    Let us begin with the first time. The Holy Spirit by the mouth of David praises in song four features of the sun which we see during the day, the first that it is the tabernacle of God, the second that it is very beautiful, the third that it is always running tirelessly and extremely fast, and the fourth that mainly shows its power in illuminating and warming. For all these reasons Ecclesiasticus writes that it is “an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High, great is the Lord that made him.” (Ecc. 43:2, 5) . . .

    To show from things we know the outstanding beauty of the sun, David compared it to a groom leaving the bridal chamber. Men never dress themselves up more and never desire more to show off their beauty and handsomeness than when they marry. They want beyond measure to please the eyes of the bride whom they love intensely. If we could fix our gaze on the sun and if we were closer to it and if we could see it in all its size and splendour, we would not need the analogy of the bridegroom to grasp its incredible beauty. The whole beauty of colours depends on light, and the whole beauty of colours vanishes if light disappears. Nothing is more beautiful than light, and God himself, Who is beauty itself, wanted to be called Light. Saint John says, “God is light, and in Him is no darkness (I John 1:5) . . .

    CHAPTER TWO: The Sun’s Course Shows God’s Greatness:/B]

    Later the same Prophet celebrates the truly marvellous course of the sun. “He has rejoiced as a giant to run the way” (Ps 19:5). He is certainly a powerful giant, if he stretches his stride to match the size of his body and runs with a speed to match the strength of his forces, for he covers an absolutely immense space in a short time. The Prophet . . . later compared the sun to a giant man so that he could explain as well as possible the sun’s speedy course by using the same analogy. Even if he had compared the sun to flying birds, arrows, winds, and lightening bolts instead of to men, however large and strong, he would still have fallen far short of the truth . . .

    CHAPTER FOUR: The Moon is Subject to the Sun; the Sun Attains True Glory When United With God:

    The moon has two properties which can help us to ascend to and attain our God. The first is that, the more the moon draws near the sun, the more it is illuminated in its higher part, which looks toward heaven, and the more it falls into shadow on its lower part, which looks towards earth. And when it is wholly beneath the sun and is wholly in conjunction with it, then it is totally bright toward heaven and darkened toward earth.

    Conversely, when the moon is opposite the sun, people living on the earth see it as completely bright, but it has no light on its upper part, which is seen by heaven’s inhabitants. This property of the moon can be seen as a fine illustration or example for moral men so they can understand how careful they should be about their closeness, subordination, and union to God, the true Father of light. The moon stands for man, the sun stands for God; when the moon is opposite the sun, then the light borrowed from the sun looks only at the earth and in a way turns its back on heaven. Hence it appears very beautiful to earth’s inhabitants but very ugly to heaven’s inhabitants. In exactly the same way mortal men, when they wander far from God, are like the prodigal son who left his father and went to a distant country. They misuse the light of reason, which they received from the Father of lights; examining only the earth they forgot God, think only about the earth and have only the earth [as a planet?] and devote themselves wholly to acquiring earthly goods . . .

    This is why St Augustine notes in his Letter to Januarius, the Passover of the Lord in both the Old and New Law cannot be celebrated properly except after a full moon, that is, when the moon, which is opposite the sun at full moon, begins to turn and to come back into conjunction with the sun. God wanted to show by this heavenly sign how it happens through the passion and resurrection of the Lord that a man who is opposed to God by his sinfulness begins to turn towards God and through the merits of Jesus Christ to hasten to grace and union with Him . . .

    CHAPTER SIX: The Order and Harmony of the Stars Mirror the Hierarchy of Heaven:

    What is utterly wonderful in the stars is how, even though they move with extreme speed and never stop from their rapid course, some moving in slower and others in faster orbits, still they always keep their measure and proportion with the others so that they give rise to a sweet and melodious harmony. God speaks of this harmony in the Book of Job when He says, “Who can declare the order of the heavens, or who can put the harmony of the heavens to sleep?” (Job 38:37). This is not the harmony of voices and sounds that our bodily ears hear but the harmony of the proportions in the stars’ movements that the ear of the heart recognises. For the stars of the firmament all race together through the whole circle of the sky at the same speed during twenty-four hours, for those stars which are called planets or wandering stars are hurled with differing movements, some faster, some slower, so that the stars of the firmament seem to represent the bass notes (to use the common expression) and the planets play a sort of eternal and sweet counterpoint.

    But the stars are above us and that harmony is hearable only to those who live in heaven and grasp the order of their movement. Since the stars keep their proper distances and never tire in turning in their orbit, they seem to behave like a joyous chorus of noble virgins who are ever dancing skilfully through the sky . . .
    (See Bellarmine’s Spiritual Writings, Paulist Press; New York: Mahwah, 1989.)

    I am compelled to note here just how beautiful truth makes a man's mind.[/b]    
    [/size]

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #313 on: May 10, 2014, 07:11:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS: In early 1615, Fr. Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Cardinal Bellarmine seeking his opinion on it. Bellarmine’s reply, dated April 12, 1615, constitutes the showpiece docuмent of the whole Galileo affair, for it reflects the Church’s doctrinal and canonical position at the time, which was quickly gathering momentum, crying for a resolution one way or another. Now it must be noted that by then the Cardinal, Chief Consulter of the Holy Office, had already concluded that Copernicanism was certainly heretical. Some weeks earlier Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:

    With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever ('senza dubbio aleuno') contrary to Scripture. (Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131)

    Bellarmine’s Letter to Fr. Foscarini:

    I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the Latin treatise which your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.    
         
    First: I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the centre of the heavens and only revolves around itself without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. Your reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, the Word of God, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.    
         
    Second: I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.
         
    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. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers.

    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. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach.

    But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the sun, moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present. I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness.

    From my house, April 12, 1615,
    Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,
    Cardinal Robert Bellarmine.
    [Emphasis added]

    (Letter to Foscarini, published by Prof. Dom. Berti in his work Copernico… Rome, 1876. Translation from Galileo, Science and the Church by Jerome Langford, New York, Desclee, 1966, pp.60-63.)

    Offline cantatedomino

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1019
    • Reputation: +0/-2
    • Gender: Male
    THE EARTHMOVERS
    « Reply #314 on: May 10, 2014, 07:32:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • THE EARTHMOVERS: Perhaps no other docuмent in existence summarises better the Church’s position immediately prior to its official definition and condemnation of Pythagoreanism/Copernicanism as heresy in 1616. Based on faith in revelation alone, Bellarmine forecast a truth hidden from men for 300 years when he said ‘it is not too likely that Solomon would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.’

    To be fair, if there is a flaw in this correspondence it arises when the Cardinal leaves his area of expertise, theology and biblical hermeneutics, and ventures into the fallible area of scientific analysis or human reasoning. This occurs when he attempts to demonstrate geocentric relativism by using the analogy of an immobile beach and a moving boat with an immobile earth and a moving sun. Now whereas we do know a boat moves away from a fixed shore, we do not ‘know’ - in similar manner - that the sun moves relative to a fixed earth.
         
    In December 1615, Galileo went to Rome believing his considerable powers of persuasion would convince others that biblical exegesis would benefit from the use of (his) natural reasoning. He had read Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini very shortly after it was written and is on record as having rejected it outright. (Stillman Drake: Galileo, pp.168-170.) It was then Cardinal Boniface Gaetani wrote to the Dominican Friar Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) – who was in a Spanish prison at the time - asking for his views on the dispute.

    Campanella responded by writing an eloquent plea for scientific freedom entitled Apologia pro Galileo (published in 1622); and although the book had merit, it failed because in this case it pitted human reasoning against the revelations of the Bible. Campanella was another churchman of the time whose life and works were entwined with Bruno and Galileo. He was a genius who at the age of 14 entered the same order as Bruno, the Dominicans, with whom he remained for the rest of his life. By the age of nineteen Campanella, an avid reader of everything he could get his hands on, was soon a convinced Hermeticist with its wide range of ideas about everything. One of these was that an understanding of nature and reality could be known through reason alone. He insisted that natural philosophy (science) should be founded on facts not on theology or opinion, a view he expressed even before Francis Bacon.

    In 1592 he published Philosophy Demonstrated by the Senses. Rumours of his being initiated in occultism followed. In May of that year, he was arrested, judged by the Holy Office and temporarily imprisoned for heresy, eventually being ordered to abandon his ideas and return to Calabria in southern Italy. Campanella enrolled at the University of Padua instead, where he confided with other Hermetists there and, some say, met with Galileo. In 1594 he was again arrested and sent to Rome for trial where he was condemned and confined to a convent. On his release in 1597 he was accused of being involved in a conspiracy to overthrow Spanish rule in his hometown of Stilo. As a result, he was sent to prison in Naples for life. It was during this imprisonment when he wrote most of his books including City of the Sun (1623). As the name suggests, in this tome Campanella set out his heliocentric vision of an ideal utopian society ordered on Hermetic principles, one he believed would begin in 1600 triggering in a new age.

    Campanella was one of Galileo’s staunchest supporters during Galileo’s conflict with the Inquisition. Frances Yates notes: "Both in the apology and in letters to Galileo, Campanella speaks of heliocentricity as a return to ancient truth and as portending a new age, using language strongly reminiscent of Bruno’s Ash Wednesday Supper, wherein he declared that establishing heliocentricity would free the human spirit. Elsewhere he assures Galileo that he is constructing a new theo¬logy which will vindicate him."

    Campanella was finally released from prison in 1626 through Pope Urban VIII, who personally interceded on his behalf with Philip IV of Spain. From Naples he returned to Rome on probation under the Holy Office where he became Pope Urban VIII’s advisor in astrological matters. Urban VIII, it seems, was haunted by astrology and teamed up with Campanella to try to avert predictions of his death by the Spanish.

    Facts like these demonstrate that Cassini's observations and comments about the ever weakening papacy are spot on.

    Eventually Pope Urban VIII came to his Catholic senses and condemned astrology altogether. In 1629 he granted Campanella full liberty, but the man came under investigation by the Spanish for the second time in 1634. Campanella fled once again to France where he was greeted by King Louis VIII. He died on May 21, 1639.