These are fascinating reads, Casini. Thanks for posting.

You are very welcome Cantarella. The whole synthesis is undergoing a final edit and may eventually be published. As you know, the Galileo affair is a never ending subject and a year hardly goes by without another pro-Copernican author publishing something else about the affair. But more and more information becomes available as time goes by and of course we now have the internet research engine. For example, I recently got a book on Fr Athanasius Kircher Jesuit, (1602-1680) the polymath.by Joscelyn Godwin. This genius, who investigated all origins, was a tychonian geocentrist. Yet not one word about him is to be found in the Galileo affaqir. Indeed I googled in to see what they say about him and two authors suggested he was a silent-Copernican, too afraid to tell anyone at the time. You see how history is re-written by the Copernicans, both inside the Church and outside of it.

God bless and happy new year. If any have any questions just ask.

1945: Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei

Two years later, in 1945, Fr Paschini finished his book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei. Pio Paschini was a seminary professor of the highest integrity, well used to researching docuмents in the various Vatican libraries. Working through the war years 1942 to 1944 he completed his thesis and submitted his book to the Vatican authorities for their attention prior to its publication. The first hurdle to achieving this was the Vatican Secretariat of State where Deputy Secretary Giovanni Battista Montini (the future Pope Paul VI) was in favour of publication. He in turn however had to put the matter in the hands of the Holy Office which would make the final decision whether the book could be published or not. Pope Pius XII, who it seems was also in favour of publication at first, sought the collective opinion of the Holy Office. The assessor of the time was Monsignor Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979), and it was he who decided the book was ‘unsuitable for publication.’ In 1979, a group of Italian scholars researching the history of this book in Paschini’s extensive correspondence on the matter, uncovered the reason why Rome censored the thesis. It turned out that while all agreed the book was factual, it was not considered ‘politically correct’ as far as the now Copernican Rome was concerned. Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen accepted Galileo was proven correct in faith and science, the Church just could not come out of recorded history in any way other than ‘guilty as charged.’ The last thing Rome wanted then was a book confirming and reminding a Copernican world of exactly what occurred in 1616 and the Church’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. Paschini was asked to tone down certain aspects of his book. He was willing to do so in certain unimportant places but not with regard to its details as he read them from the archives. A year later, in 1946, the Holy Office told him his book was not going to be published and offered him money as compensation. Paschini was rightly devastated. He immediately shelved his book and returned to his career as before. Fr Pio Paschini died in 1962 never having edited his book.

From here:

Quote from: cassini

Fr Pio Paschini (1878-1962), president of the Lateran University at the time.

Finocchiaro's book, Retrying Galileo: 1633-1992 (pp. 318-319), says Pope St. Pius X

Quote from: Galileo scholar Maurice Finocchiaro

personally chose Paschini [for the Roman Seminary], whom he admired for his integrity, scholarship, teaching ability, and orthodoxy; with regard to the latter, by that time Paschini had been able to convince his superiors that he was no modernist.

This "Paschini Affair" reminds me of this quote from Fr. Stanley Jaki, “The Physicist and the Metaphysician,” 195 fn. 33. (my translation of the Italian):

the “letters” of the most Rev. Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange...constitute a special archive which is still under the pontifical care and secret, since the correspondence of Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange treats and involves a very important and decisive period of the modern Church and, in particular, of the Holy See. Thus, some time will have to pass before this “material” can be placed at the disposition of scholars.

See the paper "The Two Uses of Reason" for a translation of Fr. G.-L.'s now-"declassified" letters.

Bravo! Thank you! :applause:

I found this old thread that discusses the effect of hermeticism and occultism on new scientific thought. I hadn't realized before that hermeticism in particular has had an influence such as this. Though the author of the thread is a supporter of geocentrism, rather than the flat earth, there might be some good info here.

Why do you say that it was geocentrism and not flat earth ism?  Geocentrism included a flat stationary earth.  Heliocentrism has always included moving planets (stars). The first sentence gives a clue "planet-earth" , tying it in with the occult. 
THE EARTHMOVERS: The cult of the sun as master of ‘planet-earth’ originated in the main from the occult convictions of the post Noachian-flood Egyptians (2,941BC).

It is a lie to say that the Church supported round earth geocentrism.

When you take into account that the Church Fathers supported flat earth, and then that the wider population historically accepted the flat earth, it is the more reasonable deduction that the round earth only started to make serious intellectual strides in the middle ages, and only then in limited doses. There is no evidence to show that the wider population in the middle ages accepted the round earth.

The forms of geocentrism that dominated Christendom and the West did not include a flat earth.  The two most influential thinkers who promoted geocentrism were Aristotle and Ptolemy who both taught the earth is a sphere.  This is not obscure or controversial information. I have shown this with quotes from various sources, but you ignore/reject them all.  Don't you have some sort of reference work on history that you accept?  You could look this up for yourself.

But even if you reject this historical fact, you are responding to Meg's statement that the author of the thread is a supporter of geocentrism rather than flat-earthism.  The "author of the thread" may refer to the poster cantatedomino who started the thread or author of THE EARTHMOVERS which is being quoted here.  I am not sure which she meant, but both supported geocentrism with a spherical earth so it does not matter.  This is clear to anyone who reads the first page of the thread.

You said:
The forms of geocentrism that dominated Christendom and the West did not include a flat earth.  
Excuse me?  And you know this how?  Your proof? You have no proof.  In fact, the next sentence explains plenty. " The two most influential thinkers who promoted geocentrism were Aristotle and Ptolemy who both taught the earth is a sphere." Aristotle and Ptolemy had nothing to do with Christendom and their sphere theory reflects that. Further, as Wiki points out:  "Ptolemy wrote in Greek and can be shown to have utilized Babylonian astronomical data."
Ahem. Ptolemy was just another pagan occultist.
Also, Wiki goes on to say: "The maps look distorted when compared to modern maps, because Ptolemy's data were inaccurate."  As well as, "Ptolemy has been referred to as “a pro-astrological authority of the highest magnitude” and "Ptolemy's astrological outlook was quite practical: he thought that astrology was like medicine,..."
So, not only was Ptolemy a demonic pagan, his data was inaccurate.  With inaccurate data, what good was he?  Anyone who believed him was duped.  Ptolemy used false math and astrology to turn the stationary earth into a globe so the next pagan could spin it.  None of this proves geocentric models prior to Ptolemy taught earth was a globe.  

There was never an official Church teaching about round earth geocentrism, but this is what was taught at the universities.  Since these were medieval Catholic institutions, it is reasonable to refer to that as Church support.  

There was no consensus among the Church Fathers on the shape of the earth.  Some believed it to be flat and some round.

If by "wider population" you mean the uneducated people, it is difficult to determine what they believed.  They did not leave records about what they thought of the shape of the earth or if they thought about it at all. While I agree there is no evidence to show that they accepted the round earth, neither is there evidence they believed it to be flat.

Again, you say stuff without proof.  As if the popular notions of any era made theory into fact.  There is no reason to believe the Church supported pagan astrology.  In fact, it is well proven that the Church was silenced by historical revisionism.  Look who people like yourself turn to for cosmological information these days: Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein...100% of which were astrological heliocentric spherical pagan air bags.  Further proof: Everyone thought Galileo was right.  Turns out all modern belief of the Affair is erroneous and the result of revisionism.      

I said geocentrism and not flat earthism because the person who started the thread does not appear to support the flat earth (yet). I thought I made that clear in my previous post, that you quoted.

Maybe it wasn't a good idea to bring back this old thread, but there appears to be some occult support for new scientific thought. If you would like to speak further to that, it may help to clear things up. That's the reason I posted what I did, regarding this thread. I don't support geocentric globe earthism. Sorry for the confusion.

Maybe you can say more about the quote you mentioned above....."The Earthmovers: the cult of the sun as master of 'planet-earth' originated in the main from the occult convictions of the post-Noachian flood Egyptians."

No worries Meg, you're doing a wonderful job.   In some ways, that quote says it all.  This whole argument is based in the war between the Church and the occult.  I think its stunning when someone who has no knowledge of flat earth like Fr. Ripperger comes out and says something as poignant as this:
"People's denial of the knowledge of God, or that you can come to a knowledge of God, is rooted in certain metaphysical problems in relationship to reality. The common teaching among philosophers is, What your cosmology is, how you view the physical world, the world around you, will determine what your understand of what actually God is.  Due to modern philosophers, People's understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."