Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 101524 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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #50 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:19:01 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Sigmund Freud believed science (including psychoanalysis) to have inflicted three severe blows to man’s perception of himself. In the sixteenth century Copernicus inflicted a cosmological blow by demonstrating that the earth moved around the sun, and was not the centre of the universe. In the nineteenth century Darwin inflicted a biological blow by showing man’s evolutionary continuity with the animals, and in the twentieth, his own emphasis on the unconscious determination of human behaviour dealt a drastic blow to man’s sense of psychological freedom. (Stephen Wilson: The B. Book of the Mind, Bloomsbury, 2003, p.312.)

There they are, in proper order, the three deceitful ‘scientific’ systems believed by most outside and inside the Catholic Church for many years now; Copernicus supposedly ‘demonstrating’ the earth moves, Darwin supposedly ‘showing’ we evolved from inorganic matter over ‘millions of years,’ and Freud ‘emphasising’ his psychology built upon the two earlier hoaxes. Nevertheless, this concoction is now the worldview, demonstrating modern man is now the rationalist model personified; and surrounded as he is with new technology and scientific advances, is now far too clever to believe he can be deceived by any such intellectual stealth.

Yet society was and society still is. Just look at the institutions that have been asserting these theories as absolutes for centuries, the academies, universities, colleges and institutions of every kind. Once the professors and teachers began to coach their students to regurgitate what the Royal Society of London insisted on since 1687 to achieve honours in their exams, true education stopped and indoctrination began. There was no escape from the fraud that told the world science proved this and that and the other. Truly there could be no greater deceit in the history of the world. And it will go on.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #51 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:20:54 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: This revolution was also applied to Catholic theology under the guise of neo-scholasticism to make it look Catholic. As a direct consequence of accepting the heliocentric and evolutionary worldview, a new synthesis with doctrine and dogma was thought necessary, for having perverted, abandoned and deprived the Church of its scholastic exegeses and theologically based philosophy by conceding to the new ‘sciences,’ the Copernicans thereby created a vacuum, inviting a novel theology to fill it.

A version of this new Hermetic theology - the dream of Giordano Bruno and Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) of the 16th and 17th century, the ‘development of doctrine’ as they called it - was begun in the main by John Henry Newman (1801-1890), Cardinal Mercier (1851-1926), Canon Henry de Dorlodot (1865-1929), the Jesuit Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Joseph Ratzinger (1927- ) and many other modernist reformers of the 20th century, a system of thought taken to bizarre heights by the new age advocate Fr Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), a Jesuit priest who taught a Luciferian mindset; that Catholicism is not the only way to God.

The modernist takeover was completed at Vatican II, when one after the other the post-Vatican II popes elected were modernist.

When pragmatic churchmen, consciously or in ignorance, tried to marry heliocentric ‘certainty’ with the truth of Revelation, that is, tried to have the best of both worlds, trying to mix the teaching of the Church with the scientific ideas and fancies of the intellectual Hermetic, neo-Gnostic Earthmovers and sun fixers and their progeny, the long-age evolutionists and relativists, they plunged most Catholic teaching institutions into the camp of the modernists and Modernism, putting the faith of Catholics at risk, including the very credibility of Catholicism among the Church’s enemies and even within the flock itself.

Today, two hundred and fifty years after capitulating to Copernicanism, and sixty years after the Fathers of Vatican II consciously and deliberately condemned their predecessors who adhered to the 1616 decree as troublemakers, the Church’s reputation is now in shreds, its influence on world affairs is zero, its traditional teachings and doctrines rejected, perverted and ignored, its miracles and sainthood diminished, its sacraments devalued, its liturgy in chaos, forever undergoing revision, what is left of its priesthood and religious decimated and damaged by scandals, few seminaries and convents remain because of the dearth of vocations, many of its chapels and churches are shut up or near-empty, cleared of their sacramentals, tabernacles removed from the centre of the altars as the earth was removed from the centre of the world, others refurbished like shopping-centres, denuded of the sacred, the Vatican is now in the news more for its secular comment and ecuмenism than traditional teaching, and popes are now writing more books than church docuмents as well as having acquired the status of travelling pop-star celebrities. In effect, much of the institutional Church today is little more than an empty shell of its past, with salvation for all now preached in its churches, baptised or not in the name of Jesus Christ, in effect rendering the mission of the Church redundant.

Finally, Vatican II’s failure on all fronts has resulted in endless calls for renewal by clergy who don’t know where the Church is coming from or going to.

In 1965 that public was reading 'The Great Heresy' by the eminent Belgian philosopher Marcel De Corte, in which he defined the new orientations as “a spiritual degradation more profound than anything the Church has experienced in history, a cancerous sickness in which the cells multiply fast in order to destroy what is healthy in the Catholic Church;" he called them "an attempt to transform the kingdom of God into the kingdom of Man, to substitute for the Church consecrated to the worship of God, a Church dedicated to the cult of humanity. This is the most dreadful, the most terrible of heresies.” (The Angelus Online: December 1978.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #52 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:23:17 PM »

Another destabilization strategy, one that has yet to reach its zenith of revolutionary efficacy, is the harnessing of electromagnetism. In the post-electricity world, day is night and night is day. Gone are the natural rhythms in the daily lives of men. Gone is sowing in the Spring and reaping in the Fall - electricity allows us to eat fruits forbidden by nature's seasons and freighted in from far away lands. Gone are the natural animal rhythms of sleep and waking - electricity allows man to see and work by night. Indeed the evil consequences of this terrible destabilization of human life are seen in the massive overmedication of people who cannot sleep, cannot rest, cannot stay awake, cannot work, cannot relax, cannot love.Another destabilization strategy, one that has yet to reach its zenith of revolutionary efficacy, is the harnessing of electromagnetism. In the post-electricity world, day is night and night is day. Gone are the natural rhythms in the daily lives of men. Gone is sowing in the Spring and reaping in the Fall - electricity allows us to eat fruits forbidden by nature's seasons and freighted in from far away lands. Gone are the natural animal rhythms of sleep and waking - electricity allows man to see and work by night. Indeed the evil consequences of this terrible destabilization of human life are seen in the massive overmedication of people who cannot sleep, cannot rest, cannot stay awake, cannot work, cannot relax, cannot love.

The electromagnetic plantation grid is now so dominant and oppressive, that physical, mental, and moral illness are pandemic.

Interestingly, as I mentioned before, in spite of all this frenzied destabilizing activity, nature always reasserts itself in the days, nights, months, years, and seasons that are perpetually and incorruptibly regulated by the celestial bodies. But what does Our Blessed Lord say about the times to come upon us shortly?

And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be moved. There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves; Men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world. For the powers of heaven shall be moved.

This makes me believe that there is to come a time when even nature and its predictable cycles will abandon us to our evils. Wherefore let us make the most out of the natural order that remains to us for the time being, using it to help us restore in our lives whatever semblance of stability is possible.

The electromagnetic plantation grid is now so dominant and oppressive, that physical, mental, and moral illness are pandemic.

Interestingly, as I mentioned before, in spite of all this frenzied destabilizing activity, nature always reasserts itself in the days, nights, months, years, and seasons that are perpetually and incorruptibly regulated by the celestial bodies. But what does Our Blessed Lord say about the times to come upon us shortly?

And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be moved. There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, by reason of the confusion of the roaring of the sea and of the waves; Men withering away for fear, and expectation of what shall come upon the whole world. For the powers of heaven shall be moved.

This makes me believe that there is to come a time when even nature and its predictable cycles will abandon us to our evils.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #53 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:25:30 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Were we to re-read our prologue once again; knowing with certainty that no science has falsified the geocentric revelation, we would witness how the Devil brought about a shocking loss of faith by popes, cardinals, bishops, priests and laity, since that U-turn began in 1741. No wonder then that the demise of the Catholic faith as an influence over the peoples of the earth accelerated as the doctrine of the Earthmovers advanced, diluting not only the words of the Bible but removing a crucial link to Almighty God that He had placed in His Creation as certain visible evidence of His existence.

Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. He distinguished between normal science when research goes on using an accepted theory, or paradigm, and the times of crisis when there is a switch to a new and incommensurable paradigm….

These ideas have also been applied to theology, and the Second Vatican Council has been given as an example. (Peter Hodgson: Catholic Herald, 4th February, 2000.)

Here then is the truth of it; the Church of the 17th century was never proven or shown to be in error, not in its interpretation of Scripture, not in its metaphysics or philosophy, be it theological or natural, not in its 1616 papal decree, not in its judgement at Galileo’s trial, nor in its 1870 dogma of infallibility, as Fr Roberts argued in 1887. The true order of the cosmos was then and remains a matter beyond the reach of man’s empirical method, created thus by God no doubt. Unlike natural philosophy or modern science that has divorced itself from any preternatural or divine cause responsible for the creation or workings of natural things, and can dismiss the unattainable for what it believes has been proven enough, the Church is bound by its dogmas, doctrines and its own guarantees of divine protection from error when ruling on matters pertaining to the Catholic faith.

This being so, 400 years of the history of Church and science can also be seen for what it is - untrue. A million books, articles, lectures, plays, and TV programmes alluding to the Copernican revolution, all taking Newton’s theories as scientific facts, are now actually redundant as a real history of the human race, and yet, not one will acknowledge this fact. The illusion is far too entrenched for any truth to emerge.

So, it could be asked, why was there no Church recognition of the 1616 decree in 1905 when the world was awash with news of Albert Einstein’s acknowledgement of relative movement? Why didn’t Catholic physicists thereafter, such as the Abbé Georges Lemaître (1894-1966), friend of Einstein - or the ‘Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes’ - spot the problem this relativity posed for the 1741-1835 heliocentric U-turn? And then remember there was Fr Gemelli, President of the Pontifical Academy of Science at Milan University telling all late in 1942 that there was never any such proof:

Galileo did not provide a decisive demonstration of Copernicanism, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault. - - - Fr. Agostino Gemelli, Milan 1942.

Well it is now clear why they refused to see what the astronomer Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) and many philosophers like Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) knew before and after the 1741-1835 U-turn; a fact confirmed by Fr Gemelli of the PAS in 1942; that science proved nothing, never falsified the geocentric revelations of the Bible. Indeed, the question that could be asked now is did churchmen ever really believe there was real proof for Copernicanism or did they too ignore the 1616 decree on probabilities and choose pragmatism over faith in order to cease the ridicule from academia, philosophers, astronomers, scholars, writers etc., criticism the Church was subjected to at the time?

Yes, the victory of this Hermetic heliocentric fraud over the intellectual world was so complete that had churchmen even considered retention of faith at any time after Newton and Newman they would have been laughed out of it by the so-called intelligentsia. What churchmen, under such circuмstances, would put faith before science then or now, and risk the inevitable mockery from academics of every kind and the media publicity that would result from it? Just picture it, headlines beaming: ‘Rome reverts to biblical myth, the earth no longer moves.’ Martyrdom would have been a more preferable choice than such intellectual derision, and that is why they ignored and will continue to ignore the truth for the preferred ‘scientific’ view then and even now, no matter the truth.

Had they done the right thing in 1905, the internal damage might have been contained somewhat, for it could be shown that the popes of the U-turn, who uttered no personal criticism of their predecessors, were supplied with spurious information and were practically coerced into dropping the ban on books advocating Copernicanism while granting imprimaturs to others. Given Christian faith in so many scientifically non-provable things, a return to the interpretation of the Fathers would simply have added one more dogma to Catholic belief based on the literal interpretation of the Bible. As Cardinal Bellarmine said, ‘it would have been just as heretical to deny the Virgin Birth.’

cantatedomino · « **Reply #54 on:** January 25, 2014, 12:27:37 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Exeunt Copernicus, Galileo and Newton as trustworthy prophets of the way the heavens really go. The only trouble is that theologians in particular and Christians in general are still blind to the tragedy behind this momentous turnabout after A.D. 1905. For the consequences of the choice between the above-mentioned alternatives have been, and are, far-reaching. The geocentric position virtually compels a man at least to believe in a metaphysical Designer, especially interested in mankind and our dwelling place in the heavens. It engenders worldviews of the Genesis type. The ruling model today, gradually and unavoidably developed as a result of the Copernican revolution, suggests that we are no more than a freak accident out of many, evolved somewhere in the universe about which we can say nothing with any measure of certitude or probability. (Walter van der Kamp: Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, p.22.)

The facts then conclude that the real order of the world rests beyond the reach of the empirical method, but not beyond revelation. Thus the 1616 decree was always one of faith to judge. The irony of it all is that had Galileo a real Catholic faith, he would have seen the truth.

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. - - - Letter to Christina, 1615.

Justice therefore demands the truth of it be restored within an institution that represents truth itself. It requires the history of the Galileo case be revisited again, not in an attempt to twist, turn and re-write the Church’s part in it as heretofore, but to tell it as it was, as it was recorded by the Church. To exonerate the Church from the mistakes from 1741, it requires a separation of official Church acts from the un-official personal opinions, actions and mistakes of U-turn churchmen, for the two are not the same and must be separated.

Accordingly, justice insists on an apology to all the ‘theologians’ who defended the Church’s 1616 decree right up to 1835 for what was said and thought of them, especially at Vatican II, by the 1981-1992 papal commission, by Pope John Paul II and other popes. Finally, let there be an end to the pseudo-canonisation of Galileo by modern churchmen, and let him be reinstated as the suspect of heresy that he was found guilty of in 1633.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #55 on:** January 25, 2014, 03:49:13 PM »

.

Post

Quote from: Columba

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

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

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

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

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

Is that so?

And the reason that it would take 7 questions and 32 posts before that data emerges from the ashes is............. what, exactly?

How is anyone supposed to know what the history of a "serialized book" is when the author wishes to remain anonymous?

And why is the Preface in a different font, and found on page 40? Is that normal?

Why is the font style and font size changing like the phases of the moon?

.

Domitilla · « **Reply #56 on:** January 25, 2014, 04:01:38 PM »

What's the matter, Neil? Didn't you receive enough academic accolades or enough "A+s" from your teachers?

Instead of your incessant complaining about picayune details, why don't you actually take the time and read this most interesting information? You might learn something, friend ...

Earthmovers was a great favorite among IA members. Some of us are very, very pleased to see it continued here.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #57 on:** January 25, 2014, 04:04:56 PM »

.

In fact, if the whole thing was in this font size (times size 3 / Medium) the installments would be much more readable.

Now, for someone to change it, they'd have to change each of over 60 pages, and counting. Sound like fun?

(Quoted panels, like this one below, are sized down one half-step, so it looks better on the original page. Different platforms work in different ways, but CI works like this. The first 60 posts, except for the Preface on page 40, are fairly useless in the font size they're in, so they'll likely have to be re-posted if anyone is going to read them.)

Quote from: cantatedomino

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Preface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #58 on:** January 25, 2014, 04:10:41 PM »

Quote from: Domitilla

What's the matter, Neil? Didn't you receive enough academic accolades or enough "A+s" from your teachers?

Instead of your incessant complaining about picayune details, why don't you actually take the time and read this most interesting information? You might learn something, friend ...

IT IS NOT LEGIBLE

Quote

Earthmovers was a great favorite among IA members. Some of us are very, very pleased to see it continued here.

Dear Domitilla,

This thread is not readable the way it is. DUUUUH.

If I didn't care I wouldn't be posting this. I DO want to read it but I'm going to have to re-size each page to do so. Is that too difficult to understand?

Where are the page numbers? How can I be sure that what I'm reading isn't mixed up and out of order? What is the Preface doing on page 40? How many other pages ore in the wrong order? Why get interested in reading something that is from THE VERY START done in a haphazard way so as to likely become nonsense some time along the way when you've started to be interested in it?

Okay?

.

Columba · « **Reply #59 on:** January 25, 2014, 04:10:48 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

How is anyone supposed to know what the history of a "serialized book" is when the author wishes to remain anonymous?

It seems likely that the author is a high-placed individual. He might well suffer persecution for revealing this information if his identity became known.

Press Ctrl-+ to increase the font size in your browser.