Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 116414 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #315 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:34:39 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Back in 1615, Galileo’s arrogance had become bolder and bolder. He became an irritant, a dangerous irritant, and one that no authority like the Church could tolerate for too long. Reading the situation clearly, the Tuscan ambassador warned the Grand Duke to tell Galileo to avoid confrontation with Pope Paul V when next in Rome, as the Pope, it was known, was becoming weary of the controversy. But Galileo persisted, saying that he had another ‘proof’ to declare, his infamous theory of the tides. Experiments with water in a vase showed him that if a vase of water is moved, this causes the water to move backwards. So, the water on earth moves likewise:

Thus, for 12 hours, a point on the earth’s surface will move eastward, in opposition to the global westward movement of the earth, and for 12 hours it will move westward, in the same direction as the annual motion. The composition of these motions causes on one hand a slackening (due to a subtraction of two opposite motions) and on the other hand an acceleration (due to an addition of two motions in the same direction). (The Galileo Project,)

Galileo’s ideas of the tides were those observed on the Mediterranean Sea, nowhere else, which has very small movements of water.

The 3rd proof, Galileo’s argument from the tides, goes straight against the facts observed. Yet Galileo did not shrink from calling the reports of two daily tides at the Atlantic coast “fables” merely invented to weaken the force of the argument. (Fr. Ernest Hull, SJ: Galileo and His Condemnation, p 88.)

This theory, which purported to show that the tides are caused by the rotation of the earth, was given to Alessandro Cardinal Orsini. He in turn approached the Pope with it. The Pontiff’s reaction was one of severe annoyance. He told Orsini to tell Galileo he had enough and unless he called off his attack on the Church’s scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics immediately, the Inquisition would be called upon to put an end to it.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #316 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:13:41 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Chapter Seventeen: Defending Geocentrism

Pope Paul V

As with centuries of conflicts affecting the Catholic faith, there comes a time to resolve such matters once and for all to prevent any further detriment to teachings left in the protection of the Church. What happened next is clear from a letter written by the Ambassador Guicciardini:

In Consistory on Wednesday, Cardinal Orsino - it may be with a want of prudence and consideration - spoke to the Pope in favour of Galileo. His Eminence, the Pope said, would do well to persuade Galileo to give up his opinion; and then, somewhat nettled at the Cardinal’s reply, his Holiness put a stop to further remarks by saying that he had placed the matter in the hands of the Cardinals of the Holy Office. (Venturi: Memorie e Lettere, vol.1, p.267.)

On the nineteenth of February 1616, under orders of the Pope, eleven chosen theologian-qualifiers of the Supreme Inquisition were sent the following propositions for their consideration:

(1): That the sun is in the centre of the world, and is totally immovable as for locomotion.

(2): That the earth is neither in the centre of the world nor immovable, but moves as a whole and in daily motion.

Unfortunately there are no records or details as to how the qualifiers of the Inquisition reached their decisions. Let us speculate then and simulate what might have been said by the qualifiers at that meeting:

- First, let us look at some of the biblical references to a moving sun and fixed earth.

From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice . . . - Malachi 1:11

Be angry and do not sin: do not let the sun go down upon your anger. - Ephesians 4:26

- Now in these two examples, it can be said the authors may be writing in a figurative way, or in the common language of man, describing things in a manner which is obvious to the senses, or what God Himself, when addressing men, signalled in a human way according to their capacity as they describe it. There is a case in saying these passages do not carry a statement of a true physical movement of the sun. Now be this as it may, there is no reason to say that such figurative expressions could not also be literally true, none at all. This proposal of metaphor however, does not hold out against other passages, as Bellarmine pointed out.

Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backwards. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down. - Isaias 38:8

And Ezechias had said to Isaias: What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the temple of the Lord the third day? And Isais said to him . . . Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines or that it go back so many degrees? And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines, and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees. And Isaias the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines, by which it had already gone down in the dial of Achaz. - IV Kings 20:8-11

The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands . . . He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide from his heat. - Ps. 18:1, 6-7

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still . . . Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel. - Josue 10:12-13

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again . . . Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. - Eccl. 1:4-7, 10

- The above passage is attributed to Solomon, who described himself like so.

And God hath given to me to speak as I would . . . because He is the guide of wisdom, and the director of the wise . . . For He hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtue of the elements, the beginning and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the dispositions of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and the rage of wild beasts, the force of winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for Wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me. - Solomon's Wisdom 7:15-21

- Recall Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion in his Letter to Foscarini (1615):

Thus it is not too likely that he [the above Solomon] would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine

- In Josue 10:12-13, we find Josue indulging in human speech followed by comment interpreters must hold as a communication from God. The teaching of the Church has always been that God not only caused the human writers to conceive the truth of what they were writing, but that their language was infallibly chosen so as to express the divinely intended meaning. Now given tradition always adhered to a geocentric meaning for these same passages and theologians applied this to the hidden and wider analogies contained in them, how in God’s name it could be that that meaning was in error, and that the author of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, really meant it as the halting of the earth’s supposed revolution and not as stated; the halting of the sun’s motion? If this were so, could the passage not have simply stated, "And the earth stopped its turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still.…?"

- The other passages indicate a similar precision. They show in the clearest terms the authors really did affirm the sun moves overhead east to west. But more than that, for in Josue the author describes the sun moving as the moon moves. Who could argue that this does not incorporate a physical comparison of both movements in the sky? Take also Ecclesiastes. Does not the writer compare the journey of the sun to that of the rotation of the water-cycle, i.e., sea-vapour-rain-sea, a very real and unmistakable cyclic movement created by God in His creation? Who can read the Scriptures and say that this is not what the Holy Ghost meant? Can the Lord deceive or be deceived?

When the Apostles listened to the Lord talk of the Father ‘making the sun to rise’ (Matt.5:45), did He lead them into an error of certitude by way of metaphor, allowing them to live out their lives in ignorance of both the Scriptures and the actual creation itself?

Science lacks the ability to interpret Scripture; if it were otherwise, we would end up denying revealed mysteries, all far beyond the empirical sciences to explain. To introduce scientific criticism in questions of Faith would be to reduce them to human stature, which is the same as denying them. Of course we cannot entertain such conjecture.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #317 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:18:14 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

- Very good. Let us now proceed to the second proposition, the idea that the earth moves and is consequently not at the centre of the world. Here then is a selection of some passages of Scripture for our consideration.

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. - Ecclesiastes 1:14

Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support (super stabilitatem suam); it shall not be moved for ever. - Ps. 103:5

He hath fixed the earth, which shall not be moved. - Ps. 92:1

He has made the world firm, not to be moved. - Ps. 95:10

- Our first consideration is that if the sun moves, the earth does not, for in this scenario, both cannot be doing the moving. These quotes, if language is to have any meaning at all, indicate the earth’s immobility. Take for example Ps. 103:5: Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support; it shall not be moved for ever. If we are to accept a heliocentric view then we should now have to interpret it so: Thou who didst place the earth in its orbit; it shall not cease from steadily revolving therein.’

We can of course apply the same logic with equal efficacy to every text we find. Now how in God’s name can we subject the Scriptures to such interpretation? This simply could not be done without totally departing from the meaning of words, which of course would render the Holy Scriptures totally redundant as a coherent source of revelation. Moreover it would mean that the Holy Ghost did not endow Solomon, the Apostles, the Fathers and those given the gift of knowledge and understanding with a full revelation of the Holy Books; for, according to the Copernicans, that would have to wait until the physical sciences revealed the true meaning of the Scriptures. Such a proposition is outrageous, a threat to our very understanding of the Holy Ghost and our Catholic faith. What passage of Scripture could the Church propound with certainty anymore? Where would it all end?

It is that, or entertain that the authors applied a false perception of immobility to the Scriptures, which then could only mean the Scriptures err in this matter. Neither of these options is open to us and therefore we have no choice but to read them in the same manner as all the Fathers.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #318 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:21:31 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

In 1870, a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Reverend William W. Roberts wrote the following argument that the books of Scripture undoubtedly depict geocentrism; and if this is not true, God could not be their author.

How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an inter¬pretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact.

Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations?

Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, there¬fore, God could not have been their author? (Rev. William W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of them, Parker and Company, London, 1870, revised 1885, p.20.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #319 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:24:54 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Returning now to our speculation concerning the deliberations of the consultors of the Holy See:

- Let us consultants now consider some seemingly contrary entries.

The earth shook and trembled. - Ps. 76:19

All the foundations of the earth shall be moved; - Ps. 81:5

At the presence of the Lord the earth was moved; - Ps. 113:7

- Now we qualifiers are all trained and learned theologians, well versed in Scriptural knowledge and in the interpretations and opinions of the Fathers, Doctors, and eminent exegetes of the Church that went before us. They knew instantly that particular texts of Scripture referring to the ‘earth’ differ from the others in that these and other similar ones are in these cases of a metaphorical movement of the earth, that is, by presenting the earth as representative of the men who live on it, and who either through fear or astonishment at some divine occurrences are moved in many different ways. In other cases sometimes such passages merely refer to earthquakes or movements of the earth confined to certain parts and places of the earth, but not the whole earth itself.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #320 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:32:25 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Today, throughout the world, in both Church and State, the earth is incessantly referred to as a ‘planet.’ Where Scripture always uses the God-given name Earth, mankind now uses the terms ‘this planet,’ ‘on the planet,’ and ‘the planet earth.’ This is a huge shift in language and meaning. If it is true, why nowhere in the Scriptures is there a hint of this? Nowhere does the Bible refer to the earth as anything other than the stable earth.

As regards the planets, prior to their identification as planets they were known as ‘wandering stars.’ Now given the Church teaches that the writers of Scripture knew the truths of what they were writing, why is there not a hint that in fact the earth was one of those ‘wandering stars?’ Search the Bible as we did, there is only one reference to the planets or as they were called then, ‘wandering stars.’ In the Epistle of St Jude the Apostle, brother of St James, he warns against false teachers and heretics who will ‘deride what they do not know:’

These men . . . wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. - St Jude 1:13

Brother Lee puts it like this: "It seems that some Christians are stars, it seems that they are shining, but their shining is a deception. They are stars, but they are not the steadfast stars. If you follow them, you will be misled; eventually you will not know where to go. They themselves are wandering: they have no ground, they have no standing, and they have no certain way to go on with the Lord. Today they say this, and tomorrow they will say that; they are wandering. Be careful! You can never find Jesus by following a wandering star." (Website: Finding Christ by the Living Star.)

[But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things so ever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. (Jude: 10-14). In Her post-U-turn (1835) message of La Salette (1846) Our Lady said: "They [the leaders of the people of God] have become wandering stars which the old devil will drag along with his tail to make them perish."]

Note the distinction made in the Bible between the stars and wandering stars. Is it credible that the biblical Earth was in fact ‘a wandering star?’ Nothing in the Scriptures is written that is not deliberate. Surely there is an analogy here with the Pythagorean doctrine that led men into heresy as defined by the Church in 1616. To hold anything else is simply not credible.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #321 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:39:14 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

On Wednesday, February 24, 1616, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” (First publicly recorded by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644. (Fr. W. Roberts.))

Proposal number two, the suggestion that the earth moves, was also found to be philosophically absurd. The idea that the earth is spinning at 1,065 mph while flying around the sun at speeds that have since been calculated at 67,000 mph, faster than a bullet fired from a gun, without a single effect felt or seen on earth – bar the theory of the tides that Galileo had up his sleeve and was working on at the time without telling anybody - was philosophically absurd to the theologians of the time. The idea that the earth came suddenly to a stop without any record of effects as it would have to have done to account for Isaias 38:6 would have been philosophically absurd for the theologians also. Other philosophical objections can be made today as we will see later.

This second proposition was not found formally heretical because it was based on certain scriptural inferences, not explicitly so according to the words of Scripture like a moving sun is. With regard to the definition of formal heresy, ‘erroneous to the faith’ and philosophically absurd, the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.

Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, neither the Ptolemaic or the Tychonian. No it did not, only that the sun moves in orbit and that the earth, at the centre of the universe (not necessarily the mathematical or geometric centre), does not move at all. These are principles, not models of the universe as a whole.

The following day, the February 25, 1616 - the day on which Pope Paul V actively presided at the Holy Office as its prefect - the censures were reported to him by Cardinal Mellinus after which the Pope gave his two well-known orders, one to Bellarmine, and one to the Commissary of the Holy Office, Fr. de Lauda.

The first order was that Galileo was to be summoned and told of the decision and advised to abandon the heresy. Cardinal Bellarmine was to call Galileo to the Vatican Palace where he was to be notified that he could no longer propose Copernicanism as a truth or a possible truth. There was also to be present Fr. de Lauda, who would, in the event of Galileo objecting, deliver a more severe warning to him under threat of imprisonment. [It seems that the second injunction was intended for one who they believed simply could not be trusted to keep the heliocentric model as a mathematical tool. And they were right.]

At the Palace, the usual residence of the afore-named Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and standing before his Lordship, was, in presence of the very Reverend Father Michael Angelo Seghiti de Lauda, of the Order of Preachers, Commissary General of the Holy Office, admonished by the Cardinal of the error of the aforesaid opinion and that he should abandon it; and immediately thereafter, in presence of myself, other witnesses, and the Lord Cardinal, who was still in the room, the said Commissary did enjoin upon the said Galileo, there present, and did order him in the name of his Holiness the Pope, and the names of all the Cardinals of the Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion in question, namely that the sun is the centre of the universe and immovable and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend in any way, either orally or in writing. Otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in the Holy Office.

The said Galileo acquiesced in this ruling and promised to obey. Done in Rome, in the place aforementioned, in the presence of the Reverend Badino Nores from Nicosia in the Kingdom of Cyprus, and the Reverend Augustino Mongardo, of the diocese of Montepulciano, both witnesses belonging to the said Lord Cardinal’s household. (A. Favaro: Galileo e L’Inquisizione, 1902, p.62.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #322 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:47:21 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Now this docuмent, filed with others connected with the Galileo case, gave rise to an endless amount of controversy in the nineteenth century, and although the truth of it has been teased out by scholars familiar with the history of the affair, it continues to be bandied about as a deliberate forgery inserted into the file so as to trap Galileo during his trial in 1632.

Here is one such example:

Bellarmine issued Galileo with a certificate forbidding him to “hold or defend” the theory. But, unknown to Galileo and Bellarmine, another docuмent was placed in the files of the Holy Office which said that Galileo was forbidden even to discuss heliocentricity. At best this docuмent is just an unsigned preliminary note, but is more likely a forgery created by an unscrupulous official. Yet it played a pivotal role in the trial of Galileo in 1633 . . . The condemnation of Galileo was unjust and the trial was rigged against him . . . (Prof. W. Reville: Galileo, the man and the Myth, Irish Catholic, 14th July, 2005, p.9.)

Professor Favaro however, who could never be said to be sympathetic towards the Church’s position, given he held Galileo to be absolutely in the right, after studying the docuмents for twenty-five years confirmed the report was not planted in the files but had been placed there in 1616 and was a true account of what had actually taken place in Bellarmine’s house that day, with no sort of arriére-pensée in it.

Here is a summary of what Fr. Roberts believed happened: Two officers of arrest summoned Galileo on the morning of Feb. 26, 1616. Now whereas the exact words of the meeting were not put on the record, Fr. Roberts and others believe that Bellarmine, when he met Galileo at the door, would have told him that the commissary was inside, and that it would be wise to accept what he had to say without open resistance. It may be that Fr. de Lauda saw this or suspected what was said and decided to give his injunction to Galileo anyway.

Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that Copernicanism had been declared heretical and thus he could no longer hold or defend the heliocentric position as a truth, a reality. It was then the commissary interjected with a prepared statement giving Galileo an absolute injunction, that is, not to hold, teach, or defend Copernicanism in any way, either verbally or in writing thereafter. Because this intervention lay outside Fr. de Lauda’s brief, given Galileo did not protest, Bellarmine may well have refused to sign the docuмent as witness to its having been read to Galileo. Had Cardinal Bellarmine signed, it would have given the impression that Galileo had resisted the Pope’s censure, which he did not.

On March 5, 1616, the Congregation of the Index published the condemnations, under orders from Pope Paul V:

Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun - which Nicolas Copernicus in his work 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,' and 'Didacus a Stunica' in his commentary on Job, teach, is being promulgated and accepted by many, as may be seen from a printed letter of a cer¬tain Carmelite father . . . therefore, lest an opinion of this kind insinuate itself further to the destruction of Catholic truth, this Congregation has decreed that the said books be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all. (Transcribed from the Elenchus Librorum prohibitorum, published at Rome in 1640, under the editorship of Fr. Francis Capiferreus, who, be it observed, was secretary to the Index when the edict was issued.)

[Pythagoreanism as we saw, is the philosophy, the heresy, that accepts three fundamental assumptions about the world: 1) that the sun is fixed at the centre of a universe which is organized in the most simple and harmonious way possible; 2) that the planets, one being the earth, move in circular paths around the sun, the circle being a form of perfection; 3) that the truth of things is to be found in numbers, and therefore the truth of nature is revealed through the science of mathematics, geometry and numbers alone.]

As Andrew White commented, "the papacy committed itself as an infallible judge and teacher to the world by prefixing to the Index the usual Papal Bull giving its monitions the most solemn papal sanction. To teach or even read the works denounced or passages condemned was to risk persecution in this world and damnation in the next."

cantatedomino · « **Reply #323 on:** May 11, 2014, 09:55:23 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any guilt, a disgrace he could not have lived down at the time. Bellarmine of course understood and obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:

We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus . . .

26th day of May 1616,
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO

It is here in this letter that we find evidence that Cardinal Bellarmine was not the tyrant some in history have made him out to be. We have evidence to show he attributed the decrees to the highest authority. He certainly did not regard it as a simple congregational judgement as the apologists would soon argue. On the contrary, in this certificate he ascribed it exclusively to the Pope himself as Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition and named the Congregation of the Index as the mere medium of its publication. The certificate also shows that Galileo did not defend the heresy when meeting with him and Fr. de Lauda. Had it been otherwise, or had de Lauda’s caution been signed by Bellarmine, the scrupulously just cardinal could not have issued the above letter.

Galileo finally returned to Florence where he remained in his hermitage near the city in silence, working and writing on a draft of a new book that would, in time, stir the pot once again. The following year, 1621, Pope Paul V and his faithful Cardinal Bellarmine died. Cardinal Bellarmine would be made a saint of the Church in the 20th century. They both fought the good fight and condemned a most dangerous heresy for what it is and always will be. Roma locuta est, causa finita, Rome had spoken; the matter was ended.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #324 on:** May 12, 2014, 08:31:44 PM »

Tomorrow - May 13th - is the Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine (and also a Fatima Day).

Let us pray to him and to Our Lady to remain in the Truth until death.

Mathieu · « **Reply #325 on:** May 12, 2014, 08:44:48 PM »

Happy Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine!

McFiggly · « **Reply #326 on:** May 13, 2014, 06:17:15 AM »

To be fair, neither the Ptolemaic model nor the Tychonian model are biblical; the following is the cosmology presented in the Scriptures:

As you can see it's very charming.

cassini · « **Reply #327 on:** May 13, 2014, 06:38:14 AM »

Collect for St Bellarmine's Mass;
O God, who didst fill blessed Robert, thy bishop and doctor, with wonderous 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 Thy Church. Throuhj the Lord.

Epistle.. same as for St Thomas Aquinas.

Alleluia, alleluia. They that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament.
Alleluia. They that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.

Gradual. Ecclus xliv, 16
Behold a great priest, who in his days pleased god and was found just. There was not found the like to him who kept the Law of the Most High.

Communion: Matthew V, 15
You are the light of the world; let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let us see how Vatican II presented him to the world:

‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.

There you are, no better than a TROUBLEMAKER. If anybody wants evidence of Vatican II's 'wolf in sheep's clothing' there it is.

Domitilla · « **Reply #328 on:** May 13, 2014, 07:28:06 AM »

97 years ago, on this Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine, Our Lady appeared for the first time at Fatima. She came to warn her children and provide the remedy against the pernicious, soul-killing errors which would spread throughout Holy Mother Church and thus, the world: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, return unto the Lord thy God." Our Lady's second appearance at Fatima occurred on the Feast of St. Anthony of Padua, known as the Hammer of Heretics. Her last appearance at Fatima, on October 13, (Feast of a King, St. Edward of England) culminated with the spinning, rotating sun. Those with eyes to see, let them see; those with ears to hear, let them hear!

McFiggly · « **Reply #329 on:** May 13, 2014, 10:46:22 AM »

cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.