Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 119300 times)

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.