Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 119389 times)

cassini · « **Reply #545 on:** December 07, 2014, 02:23:28 PM »

The history of the Galileo case as presented by churchmen since the 1741-1835 U-turn seems to have given rise to a new pragmatic canon law; if a papal definition of formal heresy is apparently falsified by science, then, by self-delusion, not by abrogation or retrial, it can be held as mutable, leaving no doctrinal or canonical problems in its wake. Indeed, judging by the way the 1616 decree was treated; such decrees can even be made disappear as though they were never issued in the first place. In Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, it cites a decree of the Holy Office dated June 20, 1602. On the next page, as a reference to The Aids or Efficacy of Grace it records:

‘Furthermore Paul V (decree of Dec. 1611) prohibited the publication of books on the subject of aids, even under the pretext of commenting on St. Thomas, or in any other way, without first having been proposed to the Holy Inquisitor. Urban VIII reinforced this (through the decrees of the Holy Inquisition on the days of May 22, 1625 and Aug. 1, 1642)….’ Denz. 1090.

Thereafter Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma cites twenty-one further decrees of the Holy Office. But search as you may for that 1616 decree that defined a fixed sun formal heresy and a moving earth erroneous in Catholic faith, probably the only Holy Office decree ever to define heresy, and you will not find it. Where did it go? Well we know why it is not there; because it was removed, not by abrogation, but by necessity, removed from the records after that ‘no comment’ Index of 1835 was published. Finally, given the most famous and well know decree of the Holy Office in history is now presented as if it was always ‘of no consequence,’ can it be taken that none of the other decrees are binding on Catholics by way of the ordinary magisterium of the Church? Such is how the U-turn damaged Catholic authority and teaching, rendering it possible for the Modernists to do the same with other directives that did not comply with their modern thinking.

‘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 implicitly in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, the non-literal, ‘figurative’ exegesis of a fixed earth and moving sun became a fixed sun moving earth interpretation.
Finally Pope John Paul II then tries to bring further closure on the matter by offering the report up 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 notorious U-turn against the papal decree of 1616. The world’s media of course responded as one could predict, making jokes about the once geocentric churchmen and printing all sorts of cartoons of 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 correct traditional interpretation of all the Fathers.

cassini · « **Reply #546 on:** December 07, 2014, 02:27:35 PM »

Equilibrium

But now let us see an example of this false Copernican equilibrium in action. It came in Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech of the Galileo commission’s findings. Before that, let us recall a matter known only to a few. Having read the text of a speech given on May 9, 1983 by the Pope about the Galileo study’s brief, Walter van der Kamp (1913-98) of the Tychonian Society in America wrote to him and advised him that Galileo’s heliocentric theory cannot be proven or even verified by science because of the problem of relative movement in space. In his letter van der Kamp implored the Pope to be considerate of this prevailing fact that allows the Church of the seventeenth century to be defended in that we now know science has never falsified the Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture. Rome acknowledged receiving the letter on Nov 23, 1983 – and we have a copy of this - and assured him that its contents had been ‘noted.’ Alas, in spite of this advice, in the Pope’s speech below, the equilibrium is spun once again:

‘(5) A twofold question is at the heart of the debate of which Galileo was the centre. The first is of the epistemological order and concerns biblical hermeneutics. In the first place, like most of his adversaries, Galileo made no distinction between the scientific approach to natural phenomena and a reflection on nature, of the philosophical order, which that approach calls for. That is why he rejected the suggestion made to him to present the Copernican system as a hypothesis, inasmuch as it had not been confirmed by irrefutable proof. Such therefore, was an exigency of the experimental method of which he was the inspired founder.
(9) Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine when he wrote: “If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly.”
(11) In Galileo's time, to depict the world as lacking an absolute physical reference point was, so to speak, inconceivable. And since the cosmos, as it was then known, was contained within the solar system alone, this reference point could only be situated in the earth or the sun. Today, after Einstein and within the perspective of contemporary cosmology neither of these two reference points have the importance they once had. This observation, it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate; it is only meant to show that often, beyond two partial and contrasting perceptions, there exists a wider perception which includes them and goes beyond both of them…
(13) What is important in a scientific or philosophic theory is above all that it should be true or, at least, seriously and solidly grounded. And the purpose of your Academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it. In this way unnecessary conflicts can be avoided.’ --- Pope John Paul II.

In November 1979, at a meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Science reported in L’Osservatore Romano, Pope John Paul II called for a ‘deep harmony that unites the truths of science with the truths of faith.’ But in his 1992 speech the truth of ‘faith’ is not found once, not mentioned once, no faith in the omnipotence of God even capable of creating a geocentric and geostatic universe, no faith in this revelation of Scripture, no faith in the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, no faith in the Church’s divine protection when it defines the word of Scripture, no faith in the decree of his 17th century predecessor Pope Paul V nor faith in the judgement of Pope Urban VIII in 1633. None at all, for adherence to mere human reasoning took total precedence in determining the truth as far as this pope was concerned.
In paragraph five, Pope John Paul II emphasises Galileo had no ‘irrefutable proof,’ an absolute necessity of the experimental method. In paragraph nine he quotes Saint Augustine regarding ‘clear and certain reasoning.’ But then look at what he offers in paragraph thirteen; ‘a scientific or philosophic theory that is at least, seriously and solidly grounded,’ or one ‘regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it.’ Now a scientific theory is not ‘clear and certain reasoning,’ not even if a pope thinks so. Nor does the Church change its teachings based on ‘probabilities,’ no it does not, the Church bases its teachings on certainties.
In paragraph eleven we see Pope John Paul II was well aware of Einstein’s rehabilitation of the pervading relativity of the universe that van der Kamp reminded Rome of, a relativity that does not allow for science to prove or show anything about the true order of the universe. Following this came yet another contradiction to bring about the false equilibrium John Paul II desired: ‘this observation [one being that there is no proof], it goes without saying, is not directed against the validity of Galileo's position in the debate.’ Galileo’s position we all know was an absolute belief in a fixed sun and moving earth, a position condemned as heresy. Convenient reasoning, not faith then is where the truth of it is to be ultimately found as far as this pope was concerned.
This then is how the Copernican equilibrium works, and the illusion wins every time, no matter the multiple contradictions in such thinking and the absence of any divine input into the matter. Instructed by the magic of Hermetic ‘science’ since a child, as we all were, and puffed up with pride in such ‘knowledge’ that was unknown to Job, the Pope, even aware of the divine choices open to him, could not break from its hold on the mind.
Again we say, while the ‘truths of science’ can rest on the shifting ideas and theories of the day among scientists, on a choice between Tweedledum or Tweedledee, the truths of faith, those held by all the Fathers and decreed by the Church itself, cannot be made to comply or rest on scientific or philosophical restraints, no matter who says so, no matter how ‘valid’ or ‘seriously and solidly grounded’ they are, nor made conform to ‘acquired truths’ or those found ‘unreasonable to reject.’ No they cannot. And that is why no Church teaching can be altered to suit ‘modern science.’ So, given two opposing ‘truths,’ which of them should a reigning pope uphold, that defined and declared by the Magisterium of the Church or that based on fallible human reasoning? Alas, since 1741 popes have chosen Copernicanism when called.

Six years later, in 2003, the Pontifical Academy of Science struck a medal to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Lincean Academy. The medal shows Pope John Paul II in conversation with Galileo. Next to Galileo is depicted their six-planet - one being the earth - solar system, the one condemned as false according to Scripture in 1616. On the other side of the medal they portray God creating light and the passage of Genesis referring to this act. Added to this are the words ‘fiedi rationisque’ which sums up where faith and reason rest in the Church of today. The symbolism of John Paul II, Galileo and the Pythagorean solar system was poignant indeed, for it completed the compromise of Catholic theology with what they call science, contrary to tradition, illustrated many years ago by Roger Bacon (1214-1294):

‘I wish to show...that there is one wisdom which is perfect and that this is contained in the Scriptures. From the roots of this wisdom all truth has sprung. I say, therefore, that one science is the mistress of the others, namely, theology, to which the remaining sciences are vitally necessary, and without which it cannot reach its end. The excellence of these sciences theology claims for her own law, whose nod and authority the rest of the sciences obey. Or better, there is only one perfect wisdom, which is contained wholly in the Scriptures, and is to be un-folded by canon law and philosophy.’--- Roger Bacon, Opus Majus.

Alas, it was the reverse that won out in modernist Catholicism.

‘It is necessary to repeat here what I said above. It is a duty for theologians to keep themselves regularly informed of scientific advances in order to examine if such be necessary, whether or not there are reasons for taking them into account in their reflection or for introducing changes in their teaching.’ --- Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano, 4 Nov, 1992.

Another necessary aberration was/is to try to make Catholic the contradictory idea that the Bible is not intended to teach us the ways of nature, only the way to eternal salvation, while at the same time teach its every word is pledged true. By crediting even this aberration to a cardinal, it could be made look like it was always standard Catholic teaching, allowing the 1616 decree and the 1633 judgement to be ignored as a revealed truth.

‘Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius [Cardinal Baroneous (1538-1607)] “In fact, the Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning.”’ ---Pope John Paul II: speech 1992, par.12.

In truth however, this pro-Copernican exegesis quip was in fact invented by a Protestant, Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574):

‘Before he left Varmia in 1541 [when Baroneous was 3-years-old] Rheticus had composed his own small tract to demonstrate the absence of conflict between heliocentrism and the Bible….He went on to make a distinction that is still part of the faith-science dialogue: In the Bible the Holy Spirit’s intention, declared Rheticus, is not to teach science but to impart spiritual truths “necessary for Salvation.” Moreover, whatever descriptions of nature that do appear in the Scriptures, they are “accommodated to the popular understanding.” ’

cassini · « **Reply #547 on:** December 07, 2014, 02:56:08 PM »

1998 Fides et Ratio

Following on this victory for Galileo, six years later 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 who 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, this time in an encyclical, we read God was not with them in this case but was with the suspected heretic instead.

Pope Benedict XVI

Ten years later, on Jan. 17th 2008, the Galileo case returned to haunt Pope Benedict XVI. 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 stating ‘In the time of Galileo, the Church was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The trial of Galileo was reasonable and just.’ In fact Pope Benedict XVI was quoting the philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend who pointed out that science had long known proof for heliocentrism was never achieved. It seems like Pope John Paul II; Pope Benedict XVI also knew the Church of 1616 and 1633 had never been falsified.
This incident, which became headline news throughout the media around the world, and on the Internet, caused the Pope to cancel his visit to the University, shows the influence the Galileo case can still generate today. Within days, Vatican officials were insisting the Pope held no such view, that he only quoted the Feyerabend’s opinion on the Galileo case but did not support it himself. The following Sunday, 200,000 pilgrims 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 last 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.

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 our story correcting the Copernican revolution as presented to the world for centuries now, let us give an example of what has resulted and 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

What an interesting summary. First we see Hans Kung rejecting the only infallible dogma Pope John Paul II decreed - that women cannot be ordained priests – based on the 1616 decree being ‘infallibly wrong.’ Then we have the truth from Hoskin based on the truth from Professor Beretta – that the 1616 decree was an infallible act – being demoted by the Copernican apologist Dr Carrol to an error of discipline. That is what Galileo did for Catholicism..

glaston · « **Reply #548 on:** December 08, 2014, 05:19:27 AM »

Galileo Galilei

GAGA

Mason's
Great Architect (of the Universe)
G.A.O.T.U

cassini · « **Reply #549 on:** December 13, 2014, 01:59:05 PM »

The Cosmic Microwave Radiation

The cosmic microwave background is the thermal radiation assumed to be left over from the “Big Bang” of cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) or “relic radiation.” The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination. With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. However, a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. --- Wikipedia.

The first person to ‘hear’ the CMB was a Grote Reber. Wikipedia tells us

‘In the summer of 1937 Reber decided to build his own radio telescope in his back yard in Wheaton and uncovered a mystery that was not explained until the 1950s.’ Reber was not a believer of the big bang theory; he believed that red shift was due to repeated absorption and re-emission or interaction of light and other electromagnetic radiations by low density dark matter, over intergalactic distances, and he published an article called “Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe,” which outlined his theory.’ --- Wikipedia

In 1965, two American radio astronomers, Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, listening on their microwave horn antenna, an instrument built for satellite communication, heard a continual hissing sound. At first, Wilson and Penzias, who had been working on their project since the 1940s, thought the sizzling noise they heard was caused by pigeon faeces dropped on the antenna. In fact, they tell us, what the boys heard was the Cosmic Microwave Background supposedly left behind by the Big Bang theory. Wilson and Penzias received the Nobel Prize for their find. It seems Reber did not get the million dollar prize because he was not playing their game. Instead they gave it to the pair who first thought their pigeon-dirt, sorry CMB noise, proved Hubble’s Big Bang theory true.

‘The Big Bang theory is not only fascinating, astounding hypothesis, it also has been demonstrated by observation – scientists who study the wavelength radiation emitted by the galaxies, the stars and so on – have discovered that the cosmos is not silent, that it has a background noise that is believed to have begun when the explosion first took place.’ --- G. Minelli: Evolution of Life, Facts On File Publications, New york, 1987.

In 1989 a spacecraft called COBE was launched with a more complicated mechanism to measure more radiation out there. It proved very successful and measured many different wavelengths. Moreover, we read, the instruments could actually measure the difference in temperature between two points. The results, write McEvoy and Zarate, ‘proved without a doubt that the detectors were looking at the remnant of the hot, dense state of the early universe which we call the Big Bang.’

‘This was George Smoot’s project – to look for evidence of ripples in the space-time of the 300,000,000-year old Universe. In April 1992, after more than two years of data collecting and analysis, Smoot and his team made a dramatic announcement. The COBE satellite had detected tiny temperature variations of the order of about one-hundred-thousandth of a degree in the background radiation. According to computer generated plots of the entire sky, the temperature was minutely higher in the direction of the large galactic clusters and slightly lower in the great cosmic voids. The report was greeted with an enthusiastic media response all over the world. Newspapers on every street corner on earth showered headlines like: “How the Universe Began.” “Has Man Mastered the Universe?” “Scientific Community Filled with Excitement.” “A Discovery has Scientists excited:” “Science and religion in a close encounter.’ --- J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: Introducing Stephen Hawking, Icon Books UK, 1998, p.170-171

In his book Wrinkles in Time, George Smoot wrote the following:

‘Day by day, week-by-week it matched. The only variation we saw was caused by the motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun, confirming Galileo was right.’ --- George Smoot: Wrinkles in Time, Little, Brown & Co., 1993, p.276.

Einstein’s theory states that absolute motion and absolute rest could not be detected by any experiment. Yet here above, in his book Smoot is contradicting Einstein’s relativity, the basis for all their cosmology since and nobody noticed.