Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 119231 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #45 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:02:02 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: The question that could be asked here is how could Hawking and others get away without the need to justify such assertions that cannot be known? Well, the fact is that they didn’t/don’t have to prove or vindicate anything for most in Church and State, for they were/are no longer dealing with thinking man, Homo sapiens, who should require some validation before considering such opinions to be of some real worth in our understanding of knowledge. No, since Isaac Newton such people write for Koestler’s ‘new species,’ Homo consensus, programmed man, those that follow the philosophical tantra that now reigns supreme.

[Has not now the neo-Catholic Tradman become strictly Homo consensus?]

For centuries now, man has been indoctrinated, infused as if by magic, with a whole new creed, a materialist cosmology, using the intellectual elite, the ‘experts,’ the scholars and authors, and even popes, who tell us that ‘science’ tells us this and ‘science’ tells us that, and even to challenge these theories as facts would be to proclaim one’s ignorance. The truth of course is another thing, and an honest summation of this pretence is rare to find:

Every so often, you have to unlearn what you thought you knew, and replace it by something more subtle. This process is what science is all about, and it never stops. It means that you shouldn’t take everything we say as gospel, either, for we belong to another equally honourable profession: liar-to-readers. (Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen: The Science of Discworld, Ebury Press, Random House, 1999, p.39.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:06:41 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: This brings us to another historic and scientific falsehood with profound consequences that has been upheld for centuries within the Catholic Church and throughout the whole wide world:

More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered. For their part, Galileo’s adversaries, neither before or after him, have discovered anything that could be considered a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy. - - - Cardinal Poupard, Galileo Commission, 1981-1992.

Of all the false claims throughout history, claiming proof for the earth’s movement through space and for the rejection of the 1616 decree, this one has to be the most devious of them all. Ignoring the scientific status of their assertion based on the failure of scientific experiment to detect absolute movement or rest, or the simple fact that Copernican astronomy has planets orbiting in circles, herein a papal commission continues the sham in the name of the Catholic Church.

To deviate from the consensus, they know would be to invite ridicule from secular academia, a price too high for the churchmen of today.

“Where in a universe is the cosmologist conceiving that universe? Consider a painter who paints a picture of a studio. The painter stands within the studio and yet does not ordinarily include himself within the picture in the act of painting the picture. An attempt to portray the act of painting leads to the absurdity of an infinite regression of pictures. The picture would contain the painter painting a picture, which contains the painter painting a picture, and so on, indefinitely. A universe is a world picture and the cosmologist is in the same sort of situation as the painter. The cosmologist constructs a world picture that contains his physical body but not his mind that constructs the picture. If his mind is not excluded he also encounters the absurdity of an infinite regression. The universe would contain the cosmologist conceiving a universe, which contains the cosmologist conceiving a universe, and so on, indefinitely.

Where then is the cosmologist conceiving the universe? Can image making ever contain the image maker?” Clearly, reasoning on the immanent level of theory and verification we shall never be able to answer the question how and in what sense space knows place and movement rest, let alone solve the problem of how to grasp the meaning of all that is. The Copernican may have stood guard for a central Sun, the Tychonian may again defend a unique Earth, and the Einsteinian may declare it to be a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but where in the mortal man experienced heavens is the trustworthy guardian who has the wisdom to tell us which of the contenders has, so to speak, the right ear of the sow? Where is that cosmologist whom we shall recognise as empowered to pronounce the infallible verdict about rest and motion in a Universe that we experience as bounded by eternity and endlessness? (Walter van der Kamp, also quoting E.R. hαɾɾιson’s Cosmology. The Science of the Universe, Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, Aug. 1983, p.23. )

Where is that infallible cosmologist of all cosmologists indeed? Is God not that infallible cosmologist? Moreover, in the Bible we find some of His most profound teaching comes by way of questions. For example:

Shalt thou be able to join together the shining stars of the Pleiades, or canst thou stop the turning about of Arcturus? Canst thou bring forth the day star in its time, and make the evening star to rise upon the children of the earth? Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason thereof on the earth? - - - (Job. 38:31-33).

In the passages from the Book of Job above, we find the Lord querying that man about the order and mechanisms of the created cosmos. These questions, as understood by the Fathers, are intended to show mankind we know little and can do little compared to the omnipotence of God. It is a lesson in humility for mankind. The same question of course infers that He, unlike man, knows the exact movements of the individual cosmic bodies and by what means they are caused to go about their business every day, month, year, 19 or 600 years.

Accordingly, as the preface of Copernicus’s book states, it cannot be denied by Christians, be they of 1543, 1615, 1616, 1633, 1741, 1820, 1835, 1965, 1992 or the 21st century, that only God and the angels He created know the order and mechanism of the universe, and only if He, or they with His permission, reveal it to us could we ever know on earth what that order truly is. Thus when the Holy Scriptures, the same word of God as revealed to mankind, asserts and infers a moving sun and a fixed earth in many places, in a clear and unambiguous fashion, and this is the interpretation of all the Fathers, and is also defined as true by papal decree, it can be stated that yes, the earth was created at the centre of the physical world that turns around us, and that all who believe in Him and His Scriptures can take that as divinely revealed.

roscoe · « **Reply #47 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:07:48 PM »

Protestant :heretic:

cantatedomino · « **Reply #48 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:09:39 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Such faith however was abandoned in the Church for mere human reasoning in spite of the exegetical problems this left in its wake, as Bellarmine warned Foscarini in his letter of 1615:

For 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.

Let us now try to explain Job’s passages (38:31-33) heliocentrically, as churchmen since 1835 have Catholics doing. This exegesis has God asking Job trick questions. Had Job been a Vatican II churchman, he would have answered, Well, we now know the stars of Arcturus, as well as the sun and moon do not actually turn as you suggest Lord, no, it is the earth that is doing the turning. And yes, we do know the order of the heavens; it is Big Bang heliocentric, due to universal gravitation. In effect then, this cosmic lesson of humility in the Book of Job is rendered redundant by such Copernican exegesis. But is such a form of hermeneutics not close to blasphemy, even heresy?

Now as fickle men with our ever-changing ideas about the universe flit from one theory to the next as further discoveries lead on to more speculation, surely churchmen had no justification in accepting theories, assumptions, probabilities and affirmations of consequents promulgated by astronomers, physicists, philosophers and theologians as exact knowledge, and certainly not as a truth contrary to that defined and declared by the Church’s 1616 decree. But they did.

Indeed, until men like Copernicus and Galileo appeared and were listened to, harmony did prevail. Conflict began only when false science, which cannot accord with truth, reared its ugly head from the abyss. After Alchemy – specifically characterized in Hermetic tradition as “the operation of the sun,” [Latin - De Labore Solis?] - dissolved into the larger Baconian revolution and came out as modern science, it began postulating its own dogmas apart from God’s testimony about His own works.

Succuмbing like Eve to the Serpent’s primordial invitation to “be as gods,” philosophers [and then churchmen] began throwing theological guidelines to the winds, inevitably abandoning the real world for one of their own imaging. Their course led ever further from the visible and observable to the hypothetical and purely mathematical….

Yet with no sense of irony or contradiction, the new Gnostics opted [to abandon] the “practical,” deductive reasoning, which by its nature tends to certifiable conclusions, in favour of inductive reasoning, which yields only probabilities, resting as it does on constantly accuмulated data. Perpetually shifting its premises, such “science” is not concerned with truth at all, but only with what works for the moment.( Solange Hertz: Beyond Politics, Veritas Press, 1992-5, p.62. )

Now whereas modern science has no problem moving from one ‘paradigm’ to the next as new discoveries, ideas, theories, assumptions and conjecture cause changes to its thinking, seemingly with little negative consequences to its reputation or principles, the same cannot be said of the Catholic Faith. It has its dogmatic truths that cannot change.

Alas, here in the Copernican revolution we find a transfer of creation - from the metaphysical thing that it is, created from nothing by God who holds it in its active existence by His will, a creation illustrated by a universe beyond the ability of man to comprehend fully - to a universe that works independent of Him, using laws contrived by man to work through natural causes alone.

Accordingly, this loss of faith; never recognised in the Church as such, only as an error in exegesis and science, had serious consequences and repercussions that no error in hermeneutics and science alone could bring about. Here is how Andrew White records it.

Within two centuries…the world was led into a new realm of thought in which an evolution theory of the visible universe was sure to be rapidly developed. For there came, one after the other, five of the greatest men our race has produced, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton, and when their work was done the old theological conception of the universe was gone. “The spacious firmament on high”…the Almighty enthroned upon “the circle of the heavens,” and with His own hands, or with angels as His agents, keeping sun, moon, and planets in motion for the benefit of the earth, … all this had disappeared. These five men had given a new divine revelation to the world; and through the last, Newton, had come a vast new conception, destined to be fatal to the old theory of creation, for he had shown throughout the universe, in place of almighty caprice, all-pervading law…By the middle of the nineteenth century the whole theological theory of creation – though still preached everywhere as a matter of form – was clearly seen by all thinking men to be hopelessly lost. (Andrew. D. White: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1896, p.15.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #49 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:16:51 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Is this not what the heretic Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) set out to do with his Hermetic philosophy; ‘as above, so below?’ Once churchmen abandoned the Fathers’ interpretation and tradition, this virus eventually ate into every area of Catholic faith and belief, especially scholastic theology and philosophy. Moreover, once the Scriptures could no longer be read as the Fathers read them, with their interpretations and meanings subjected to the dictates of ever-changing science, this heresy, as it did with the Book of Job, rendered much biblical revelation redundant. Rome however, as we know, adopted this deviation from 1741, causing doctrinal chaos, leading the Church into Modernism:

Modernism, at that time, represented a tendency, a method or process of contemporary thought. As such, it is not confined to religion alone. The name Modernism bears the same relation to what is modern that liberalism bears to what is liberal, or militarism to what is military, or capitalism to capital, and appropriately enough describes the spirit which exalts the modern at the expense of antiquity, which extols the new because it is new, and depreciates the old because it is old, and which so far, is a revolt of the present against the past. Even when its scope is thus restricted, Modernism is an elusive thing to deal with. For Modernists differ so much among themselves that it is difficult to pin them down to one coherent set of opinions. But the general drift of Modernism in its bearing upon Catholicity is unmistakable. Its object is quite clear, open and avowed. That object is not ostensibly to set up a brand-new form of Catholicity, but to construct it on new lines. Its object, as Modernists are fond of saying, is to readjust Catholicity to the mentality of the age, to reinterpret Catholicity in terms of modern thought. (Fr. Brampton, SJ: Modernism and Modern Thought, Sands & Co, St Louis, 1913, p.11.)

Throughout the ‘U-turn’ into Modernism, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man or woman thereafter saw the defined biblical interpretation of a fixed sun or moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their Catholic belief. This is because the Copernican heresy undermined the basis of the Catholic faith like dry rot in a cathedral, unnoticed and invisible by those worshipping in the pews, thanks to the suppression of the truth by the hierarchy in Rome and to the fiction writers serving up one edition of the Galileo case after another, all the while effecting changes that eventually threatened the very sources of grace themselves.

What is beyond question or contradiction is that this mutation of doctrine, this surrender of the hierarchical sacred doctrine of the world, and all that it supported and destroyed, including the profound effect it had on the very understanding of the Bible as history and the scholastic method whereby all knowledge is guided by theology, reached to the top, the papacy itself. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is such that wherever a pope goes the vast majority of the Catholic world follows.

Vatican I reiterated that the Catholic Church has a divine mandate to guard the flock from false reasoning so that the truth can be used as a subordinate means to salvation. Faith in the doctrine of a geocentric creation without doubt had salvatory merit, whereas heliocentrism, unlike geocentrism, has no direct link to God in its conception, as history attests to. Add to this, when any pontiff, who, even implicitly, repudiates the doctrinal definitions of his predecessors, risks eroding the Petrine authority and consequently his own. Accordingly, from the moment popes appeared to give belief to heliocentrism in place of geocentrism, in whatever way, the teaching Church was compromised, its tradition, its doctrine and its authority. In this case it led to scientific agnosticism and evolutionism compromising Church teaching, the core principle of Modernism, i.e., the precedent to question any Catholic teaching that did not comply with ‘science’ and consequently the new philosophies that came along with the Renaissance and Enlightenment, including that godless scientific reasoning as directed by Bacon, Descartes and Kant to mention a few.

Once it was perceived that the Church’s interpretation of the Bible could no longer guarantee full truth or literal certainty as the holy Fathers read it, it was clear the final assault on the stability of the Lord’s footstool had reached its climax.