Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 101749 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #90 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:37:03 PM »

IN RESPONSE TO FABER:
Posted by: cantatedomino Dec 16 2012, 06:17 PM

Bellarmine’s Letter to Fr Foscarini

"I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the Latin treatise which your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians.

But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the centre of the heavens and only revolves around itself without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. 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.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. 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.

[And God hath given to me to speak as I would…because he is the guide of wisdom, and the director of the wise…For he hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are: to know the disposition of the whole world, and the virtue of the elements, the beginning and ending, and midst of the times, the alterations of their courses, and the changes of seasons, the revolutions of the year, and the dispositions of the stars, the natures of living creatures, and the rage of wild beasts, the force of winds, and reasonings of men, the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots, and all such as are hid and not foreseen, I have learned: for wisdom, which is the worker of all things, taught me. --- (Solomon’s Wis.7:15-21.)]

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. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverence and ask God to grant you every happiness. From my house, April 12, 1615,

Your very Reverend Paternity’s brother,

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine"

(Letter to Foscarini, published by Prof. Dom. Berti in his work Copernico… Rome, 1876. Translation from Galileo, Science and the Church by Jerome Langford, New York, Desclee, 1966, pp.60-63.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #91 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:38:19 PM »

The way I make the font size bigger is simply to hold down the CTRL key and then hit the + button as many times as is necessary for reading comfort.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #92 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:41:02 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: 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?

As a result of all this, and of course his pursuit of that Vatican II ‘new humanism’ of the French Revolution he believed in, it was reported on January 1997, even in Catholic newspapers, that the Grand Orient of Italy had decided to award Pope John Paul II with the Order of Galileo Galilei, the highest form of recognition able to be made by Italy’s freemasons to a non-member. Yes, freemasons felt they could openly award a pope for his achievements without causing great scandal within the Church. Given Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was formally acknowledged by the Church as an instrument of Satan, surely the fact that they choose Galileo as their champion should show Catholics his worth to the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Recall it was Napoleon, a freemason, who preserved the Galileo file from harm in 1810 by placing an armed guard to protect it in its way from Rome to Paris, and it was the freemasonic French government that insisted on the files being made public before handing them back to Rome in 1846. They knew how important this Trojan horse was in their efforts to destroy the credibility of the Catholic faith. The Vatican declined this honour of course, as one would expect.

Six years later however, in 2003, the Pontifical Academy of Science, an institution stuffed with non-Catholics, even atheists, 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 heretical 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 that 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, [de labore solis?] for it completed the compromise of Catholic theology with what they call science, contrary to tradition, illustrated many years ago even 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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #93 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:57:16 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us end our introduction with two Catholic quotes, one from a Copernican, and the other from one who puts her faith in the interpretation of the Fathers. The first is from the 2004 book The Minding of Planet Earth by the late Cardinal Cathal C. Daly, and printed by the Irish Catholic Church’s publishing body that makes it look like its contents have some kind of Church approval.

This book [Annibale Fantoli’s For Copernicanism and for the Church] is a very detailed and remarkably balanced study, putting the Galileo “affair” in its historical context and bringing its history right up to its latest phase in the Papacy of Pope John Paul II. Galileo emerges as a decisive figure, not simply in an historical conflict between science and religion, but also, and paradoxically, in the process towards greater mutual respect and understanding between the Church and science.

For Galileo it was never a question of choosing between Copernican science and the Christian and Catholic faith; he remained, to the end of his life, deeply committed to both. Indeed, Galileo, particularly by his reflections on the interpretations of Holy Scripture, hoped to bring about a reconciliation between faith and science. A man of unwavering faith in the truth of divine revelation, he also believed strongly in the unity of truth and was convinced that what was proved true by science could not conflict with the truth revealed in Holy Scripture correctly understood; and this, of course, is a profoundly Catholic position . . .

Echoing Leo XIII’s [Providentissimus Deus], the same [Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum] declared that: “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” The Constitution owes much of course, to the great work of Catholic scholars since the beginning of the [20th] century. If the theologians who advised the Inquisition and who opposed Galileo could have had the benefit of the Vatican Council II’s teaching, there might never have been a Galileo case.

Indeed, if they could have had the benefit of Cardinal Newman’s thinking, there might never have been a Galileo case. I have to add that if Galileo’s own principles of scriptural interpretation as set out in his Letter to Castelli and Letter to Christina had been followed by the theologians of the time, there might never have been a Galileo case…. The “Galileo Affair” remains, as Fantoli remarks in the concluding sentence of his book, “a severe lesson in humility to the Church and a warning, no less rigorous, to the Church, not to wish to repeat in the present or in the future the errors of the past, even the most recent past.”

That such words, and a book about Galileo so frank and honest as his, could be published by the Vatican Observatory and printed by the Vatican Press, is one further augury, promising a new era of constructive and mutually enriching dialogue between Church and science. (Cardinal Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas Publications, Ireland, pp.62, 87, 94.)

There you have it in a nutshell, the full bundle of sophistry offered to Catholics worldwide for centuries.

But now, with the truth out, and the assertion that heliocentrism was ‘proved true by science’ proven false, the time has come to reflect on this correction. Our second quote then does exactly that. It is taken off a Catholic discussion forum in 2012 and reads as follows:

Having studied the history of the 1741-1835 U-turn, I think we would all agree the current miasma does not constitute a formal teaching of Copernicanism by the Magisterium. Nonetheless, a very efficacious APPEARANCE of official backtracking (not to mention the appearance of a perceived admission by Rome of having made a grievous error on a matter involving interpretation of Divine Revelation) has been the principal cause of incalculable deleterious effects.

Quoting Pope Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris: “Who so turns his attention to the bitter strife of these days and seeks a reason for the troubles that vex public and private life must come to the conclusion that a fruitful cause of the evils which now afflict, as well as those which threaten, us lies in this: that false conclusions concerning divine and human things, which originated in the schools of philosophy, have now crept into all the orders of the State, and have been accepted by the common consent of the masses. For, since it is in the very nature of man to follow the guide of reason in his actions, if his intellect sins at all his will soon follows; and thus it happens that false opinions, whose seat is in the understanding, influence human actions and pervert them.”

We may say that Copernicanism with its manifold implications for both Faith and Reason constitutes the principle error by which the world is now fallen into so low a state. Therefore, while we should strongly affirm that the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Church, they have nevertheless prevailed upon countless poor souls who have been damned in no small part because they came to believe, through science falsely so called, that Divine Revelation was not merely irrelevant, but positively mythology, which is, by definition, worthy of no intellectual assent upon authority.

[Some] affirm that “the decisions to grant imprimaturs in the post 1741 era were based on incorrect information.” I would affirm something different, namely that the faith of the Churchmen grew cold as they began to doubt the motives for credibility of the Divine Revelation. Had they been men of unswerving faith, they would have gladly risen to the challenge presented by the emerging scientism establishment. From 1633 onwards, Jesus Christ threw down the gauntlet to His ministers. They had well within their power the means of combating the two super errors of Copernicanism and Darwinism.

As we can now agree – the science has never falsified the Revelation. What we see in the churchmen, therefore, is not ultimately a problem in the rational natural order. It is ultimately a problem in the supernatural order. They lost their faith through the art of temptation and deception. They were tempted to believe in another kind of revelation – that which comes through demons. In this they are no different than Adam and Eve. They began to believe the report of science on its own authority. They gave human science a higher decree of credibility than Divine Revelation. This is a sin against Faith.

Admittedly, faith builds upon nature. And we may conjecture that had not the churchmen first fallen into the errors of [Hermetic] naturalism and rationalism, which have for their express purpose the annihilation of the supernatural order, they would [not] have succuмbed to the metaphysical errors that propound absurdity as the truth. First went their faith, and then went their reason. We tear off the roof to get to the foundation.

[Some] affirm that “the granting of Imprimaturs [to Copernican books] is not an exercise of the teaching office, of the divinely protected office of the sacred magisterium.” I say Deo Gratias, but I also lament because the innumerable damned were not able to make such subtle distinctions.

[Some] say that the issue is now coming to a head. I think [they] are correct. I think the cat is out of the bag. I think the conspiracy of all cօռspιʀαcιҽs is shortly to become common knowledge. You say these falsifications will expose the Church to an earthquake of shocking proportions because it will force a full and honest examination of the process whereby the magisterium at Vatican II [and later Pope John Paul II] imposed upon the faithful an obligation of “religious submission” to teachings that were predicated upon an attempted harmonization of apostolic and Catholic metaphysics, with inherently contradictory Darwinian and relativistic metaphysics. Contrast this with the teaching found in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Vatican Council I. There is an extremely interesting defined doctrinal decree articulated in that beautiful docuмent:

“All faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.”

There is one error – the principal and primary error, the source of all the hellish lies and deceits swallowing up Church and State, and the first principle of its sterile offspring, evolutionism – that falls under this magisterial pronouncement; and it is the error of Copernicanism. By definition this error is science falsely so-called, is contrary to the Catholic Faith and has been formally condemned by the Catholic Church.

We know that Vatican Council I is an unfinished business. It was violently curtailed by the onset of the Franco-Prussian war. What it did accomplish, however, was magnificent. Most think of its importance in terms of its authoritative definition of papal infallibility. I see its import under another aspect. It firmly establishes the bedrock principles of the two highest sciences – Sacred Theology and Natural Philosophy, and in particular Metaphysics. These principles, in turn, are the weaponry of the true and efficacious counter offensive. These are principles upon which will rest the full restoration of the hierarchy of the sciences, which will, in its turn restore the proper orders of Faith and Reason. The principle errors are not merely doctrinal. They are philosophical and metaphysical. Metaphysical error causes doctrinal error. Faith builds upon nature. Philosophy is known as the Preamble or Disposition of the Faith. As Pope Leo XIII affirms: "If the intellect sins at all, the will follows. If the intellect is dark, then the soul is not disposed to receive the motives of credibility."

The purpose of the Church is twofold: Define and reaffirm the particular immutable principles necessary for the age, and then apply them by way of canons and condemnations. Vatican II failed on both accounts. It failed to restate and redefine the most important principles of both Faith and Reason necessary for this age, and it failed to make appropriate condemnations. Many believed that the fruit of the Second Vatican Council would be, in addition to the long-awaited definition of the Dogma of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, an official condemnation of communism. But this was impossible because within the ambiguities of the Council docuмents are found the poorly concealed, erroneous principles of Marxism, relativism, and evolutionism. Satan does not caste out Satan.

Vatican I is still on hold. It has not yet been consummated. The principles it reaffirmed are yet to be applied to particular errors. When we finally see the great healing Council, the great Flood Council, and the great Cadaver Synod as some call it, the great work of the Church that will wash away the filth of false science like a new Deluge (only by fire), we will see the principles of Vatican I explicitly applied to the two errors of Copernicus and Darwin.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #94 on:** January 28, 2014, 03:59:45 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Finally, how did the Earthmovers move the earth in both science and faith? Well, we shall see how they ‘moved’ the earth and how they gave us a brief history of time. But we shall take it one step at a time. It is our intention in this reply to address all stages in this long and complicated happening in the realm of faith and science throughout history.

Given that so much has been written on single aspects of the subject, we can gain an overall view only if we concentrate on the important issues and events involved, eliminating swathes of the endless metaphysical, philosophical, theological, astronomical, mathematical, social, cultural and personal debate; restricting our investigation only to that necessary to establish where the important truth of it lies.

Given the vast volume of works and opinions already published over the years, this account will necessarily contain considerable polemics with quotations from numerous authors and sources taken from a random selection of encyclopaedias, books, articles, websites etc., which could be multiplied a hundredfold. As a consequence, many of the things we mention in this book may be new even to those who think they are familiar with the Galileo affair, they having been conveniently hidden, overlooked, obscured or undisclosed over the centuries.

Accordingly, this rendering of the facts will conflict with the works and assertions of countless philosophers, astronomers, cosmologists, historians, and theologians, including alas, the personal opinion of popes, Vatican Council II and its numerous apologists.

In 1616, God in His Providence permitted His Church to make a definitive geocentric reading of Scripture, a fact now totally denied since 1835 if not before. Of profound importance then was to find the Church as the Church came through our investigation as the Spotless Spouse of Christ that it is. Not once did we find any pope officially deny or abrogate the 1616 decree, nor did any pope actually give Galileo a retrial at which, in Newtonian ignorance, he would more than likely have officially exonerated him. To witness the silence and steadfastness of the Church, as distinct from the utterances of churchmen in regards to the definition and declaration of 1616, surely provides irrefutable proof of the Church’s divine protection.

Nowhere did we find an official denial, that is, an abrogation of the 1616 decree’s immutability that could, in the light of there never being any proof, have been a genuine breach of papal infallibility. What a great joy it was to see such divine protection prevailing throughout centuries of human chaos.

Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Church of the seventeenth century was not scientifically or doctrinally mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of Rome and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for faith after three centuries of ridicule. Alas, that message has already been rejected by the vast majority of Catholics aware of it, both the shepherds and the sheep. For two hundred and sixty years they have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun and made to share in the embarrassment and shameful ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their Church once defended a biblical fixed earth and moving sun while condemning Galileo for not holding this belief.

This shame of course meant all Catholics had to support the magic, consensus and contradiction that went with that U-turn. It was to the Earthmovers in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining the regained image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived lost face after the infamous Galileo case. Not for them the traditional account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote when it suits them. Oh no, today Genesis must be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in their eyes too.

They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using that authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary blind obedience, the new wholesale ignorance and a propaganda machine second to none to have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ we hear, when it is they, not the Church, that need the obscurantism and consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Church in this matter more than the vanity of those whom Providence permitted to run it in the post-Copernican U-turn era. The hard and sad fact is that today there is none so deluded as the Copernican Catholics.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #95 on:** January 28, 2014, 04:01:59 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: As a consequent of the above, new readers will first endeavour to ignore this thesis, and that failing will dismiss or censor it out of hand according to their needs. The credibility of four hundred years of Copernicanism and its promulgators in Church and State will be defended on every ground. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like faith, facts, data, demonstrations, logic, records, etc., and, as you will see for yourself, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them because their belief in Copernicanism is ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically and empirically founded.

Accordingly they will resort to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ad hominem ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the author or subject of this book to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within. The entrenched Copernicans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the content of this thesis is outrageous, imbecilic according to science as well as an unwarranted criticism of the post-1741 Church authorities, of Vatican Council II and the opinions of Pope John Paul II the ‘Great.’

They will then claim the writer is this or that, not a trained scientist, historian or theologian like they are, so what could he know? It must be answered that if one were a coached professional in any such institution of Church or State around today, one could never have written this exposé in the first place, for, quite simply, one would have been fired for it, as many today are dismissed from their institutions because they place doubt on other sciences. It was of course freedom from such peer-pressure and peer-review that enabled this work to be written.

Finally, why was this book written? In the main it was written to retell the story of the Galileo case in the light of all we know today. It was written to vindicate and restore the good name of the Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture,

Finally, we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal most people [HA!!!!] so we can think of only a few that might welcome it. Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for truth and knowledge let us give the facts, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #96 on:** January 28, 2014, 04:06:35 PM »

Posted by: Columba Dec 21 2012, 11:06 PM

Here is a . . . much larger version of that picture:

Cassini’s illustrated tracking of the planets - what Abraham saw as a sign of God. On the left, as observed from the earth, we have the apparent movements of Saturn in twenty-nine years, Jupiter in twelve years and Mars in two years. On the right we have the apparent movements of Mercury over seven years.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #97 on:** January 28, 2014, 04:07:43 PM »

Posted by: Memento Dec 22 2012, 08:40 PM

The intersecting paths of the orbiting bodies create a five petaled flower around the earth which has 5 points like the wounds of Christ.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #98 on:** January 28, 2014, 04:13:03 PM »

Posted by: cantatedomino Dec 22 2012, 10:40 PM

CANTATE: A friend of mine is lurking on this thread and has been emailing me information. The following is one of her edited emails. I cannot vouch for the source material, as I have not yet looked at it, but I concur with her that it might be something worthwhile for faithful scholars.

MY LURKING FRIEND: This is an encyclopedia used in the Middle Ages, written by the Domincan, Vincent of Beauvais. It is part of the compendium entitled Speculum Maius (Mirror of the World").

As per Wikipedia: The vast tome of the Speculum Naturale, divided into 32 books and 3,718 chapters, is a summary of all the sciences and natural history known to Western Europe towards the middle of the 13th Century, a mosaic of quotations from Latin, Greek, Arabic and even Hebrew authors, with the sources given...... The Speculum Naturale deals with its subjects in the order that they were created: it is essentially a gigantic commentary on Genesis. Thus, Book I opens with an account of the Trinity and [Its] relation to Creation; then follows a similar series of chapters about angels...etc. Book II treats of the created world, of light, color, the four elements, Lucifer and his fallen angels and the work of the first day. Etc.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Speculum_naturale.html?id=v9yKk_tdhusC]null

Suzanne, if one has a Google account, the book is available for a free download. I was able to open it and of course, it is in Latin. Would any of your priest friends or Latin scholars be interested in working on a translation? It is apparent from the Wiki information that this part of the "Mirror of the World " is specifically an encyclopedia of natural knowledge whereas the book Speculum Doctrinale is a "summary of all the scholastic knowledge of the age and does not confine itself to natural history."

I bring up this subject based on our last exchange: maybe this book reveals more truth than the humanist science that came after it. After all, these are the medievalists who built the great Gothic Cathedrals based on their knowledge of the natural world through prayer, tradition and labor.

CANTATE: Gentlemen, have at it.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #99 on:** January 28, 2014, 04:14:52 PM »

Posted by: cantatedomino Dec 22 2012, 10:48 PM

CANTATE: My lurking friend thinks she cannot articulate things well. I disagree. Here is another edit of one of her emails. I like it very much and want to share it with others. I think her points are spot on. I have re-written her words so that they come out as propositions, all of which I ascribe to.

MY FRIEND: Robert Sungenis, Paula, Solange and N. Martin Gwynne, in one way or another, all speak about the occult origins of evolutionism and heliocentrism, whether it was in regards to the activities of Newton and Kepler et al., or the rearranged, resurfaced false cosmology of the ancients.

Heliocentrism is an evil-intentioned, planned hoax.

Paula [Haigh] has made it clear that evolution is Satan's usurpation of God's Creation and heliocentrism is Satan's false Cosmology, handed down through men who either deceive or are deceived.

Modernism is absolutely the culmination of occult thinking.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #100 on:** January 28, 2014, 04:27:28 PM »

A CANTICLE OF THE INCARNATION

Roráte, caeli, désuper et nubes pluant iustum;
Aperiátur terra, et gérminet Salvatórem.

Drop down dew, ye heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down the Just One; Let the earth be opened and bud forth a Savior.

Our author has consistently brought forth the proposition that the underpinning, sin qua non principle of Christian civilization is the profound, real, metaphysical connection between Heaven and Earth. This principle also happens to be the chief target of the earthmovers. The above Canticle of the Incarnation shows forth this principle in, to quote the Psalmist, splendoribus sanctorum.

Let the clouds rain down the Just One, signifies the Divine Nature of the Word.

Let the earth be opened and bud forth a Savior, signifies the human nature of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

In the Canticle of the Incarnation, up and down are literal, objective directions. The Word comes down to Earth from above. The earth opens up and buds forth a Savior - an upward motion.

Man was made in the image and likeness of God. We tend to think of this similitude according to its proper signification, in which man receives an endowment of incorruptibility by virtue of his ensoulment. But can we not also say that man is made in the image and likeness of God Incarnate? That man is not only made in the image and likeness of the God Who is Pure Act, but is also made in the image and likeness of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?

Man's body comes from the slime of the earth, just like the plants and animals: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done . . . Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done . . . And the Lord God . . . formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air . . .

And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul . . . And [God] said: Let Us make man to Our image and likeness . . And God created man to His own image: to the image of God He created him.

Man is a hypostatic union.

[Hypostasis: The substance, essence, or underlying reality; something that stands under and supports; foundation; the underlying or essential part of anything as distinguished from attributes; substance, essence, or essential principle.] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hypostatic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypostasis

For Thomists, the hypostasis of all material beings is hylomorphic - a composition of matter and form, with form being the principle of act and matter being the principle of potency. The substantial form of the individual being is the principle of its real existence, while its essence or nature is the principle of limitation for its participation in the act of to be. Thus the essence of lion limits the individual lion's act of to be, to the degree that it cannot fly or breathe in water.

All plants and animals are hylomorphic hypostases. They are composite material substances - matter/form composites. They are ensouled, but their souls are not spiritual. They came forth from the earth, and they return to the earth as dust. Once they corrupt they cease to be. Though, in the Order of Creation, their First Principle is Pure Act and Spirit, in the Order of Nature, their generative principle is entirely material.

Not so with man. Not so.

The hylomorphism of man is elevated above the hylomorphism of plants and animals; and we can readily see this distinction in the Creation account: The Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

God breathed into man's face the breath of life - He breathed into man's face an incorruptible spiritual soul that lives forever, even after the corruption of the body. This soul does not, can not have matter for its generative principle. It does not, can not bud forth from the earth. It comes out from God, created spirit from Uncreated Act, Itself a Pure Spirit. It drops down as dew from Heaven, activating the matter, first formed by God from the slime of the earth, and later generated by the procreative act of human parents.

Spirit does not by its nature combine with matter, for it is above matter. It is God Who makes the human composite real, Who keeps it in being, who co-operates with the procreative act, every single time, to infuse in all men their rational souls. And though the Order of Creation ceased when God rested on the Seventh Day, to give way to the order of Generation or Providence, in very truth the order of Creation does not cease in man, for every act of human procreation requires the creation and infusion of a brand new soul directly by God, ex nihilo. Every human being is not only a participant in both the material and spiritual orders, but comes to actuality through both the generative act of creatures and the creative act of God. Every man belongs to both the Order of Creation and the Order of Generation: Behold, I make all things new.

This is an image of the Incarnation of the Divine Word. The Godhead is the substantial form of Jesus Christ, a Divine Person. In Christ's humanity there is the hylomorphism of matter and form, body and soul. In the Incarnation of the Word, there is the hypostatic union of two irreconcilable natures. The very Incarnation Itself IS reconciliation.

If we meditate on the Incarnation of the Word and the metaphysical nature of man, we cannot escape the absolute primacy of the Earth in the center of the Universe. If we are Catholic, there is no Cosmology except the traditional one.

Through the Incarnation, there is a real union of God with Man. Through the Creation, there is a union of spirit with flesh. Likewise, through the Creation, there is a union of Heaven with Earth.

From the Alleluia for the third Mass of the Feast of Christmas:

For this day a great light hath descended upon the earth.

[/b][/font][/size]

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #101 on:** January 28, 2014, 06:57:56 PM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Posted by: Memento Dec 22 2012, 08:40 PM

The intersecting paths of the orbiting bodies create a five petaled flower around the earth which has 5 points like the wounds of Christ.

Not only that, but following the innermost path alone, you can apply the pattern to properly torque your wheel lug nuts when you're changing a tire on your car!

That being said, are we still in the Preface to The Earthmovers here?

Or is this thread now off to another topic, like what, your emails, cantatedomino?

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #102 on:** January 28, 2014, 07:36:47 PM »

.

Are we still in the Preface to The Earthmovers?

Post #94 is pretty interesting:

Quote from: cantatedomino

THE EARTHMOVERS: Finally, how did the Earthmovers move the earth in both science and faith? Well, we shall see how they ‘moved’ the earth and how they gave us a brief history of time. But we shall take it one step at a time. It is our intention in this reply to address all stages in this long and complicated happening in the realm of faith and science throughout history.

Given that so much has been written on single aspects of the subject, we can gain an overall view only if we concentrate on the important issues and events involved, eliminating swathes of the endless metaphysical, philosophical, theological, astronomical, mathematical, social, cultural and personal debate; restricting our investigation only to that necessary to establish where the important truth of it lies.

Given the vast volume of works and opinions already published over the years, this account will necessarily contain considerable polemics with quotations from numerous authors and sources taken from a random selection of encyclopaedias, books, articles, websites etc., which could be multiplied a hundredfold. As a consequence, many of the things we mention in this book may be new even to those who think they are familiar with the Galileo affair, they having been conveniently hidden, overlooked, obscured or undisclosed over the centuries.

Accordingly, this rendering of the facts will conflict with the works and assertions of countless philosophers, astronomers, cosmologists, historians, and theologians, including alas, the personal opinion of popes, Vatican Council II and its numerous apologists.

In 1616, God in His Providence permitted His Church to make a definitive geocentric reading of Scripture, a fact now totally denied since 1835 if not before. Of profound importance then was to find the Church as the Church came through our investigation as the Spotless Spouse of Christ that it is. Not once did we find any pope officially deny or abrogate the 1616 decree, nor did any pope actually give Galileo a retrial at which, in Newtonian ignorance, he would more than likely have officially exonerated him. To witness the silence and steadfastness of the Church, as distinct from the utterances of churchmen in regards to the definition and declaration of 1616, surely provides irrefutable proof of the Church’s divine protection.

Nowhere did we find an official denial, that is, an abrogation of the 1616 decree’s immutability that could, in the light of there never being any proof, have been a genuine breach of papal infallibility. What a great joy it was to see such divine protection prevailing throughout centuries of human chaos.

Now one would think that to establish the fact that the Church of the seventeenth century was not scientifically or doctrinally mistaken, would bring dancing on the streets of Rome and elsewhere. What a victory it would be for faith after three centuries of ridicule. Alas, that message has already been rejected by the vast majority of Catholics aware of it, both the shepherds and the sheep. For two hundred and sixty years they have been led to believe in a moving earth and a fixed sun and made to share in the embarrassment and shameful ‘guilt’ arising from the fact that their Church once defended a biblical fixed earth and moving sun while condemning Galileo for not holding this belief.

This shame of course meant all Catholics had to support the magic, consensus and contradiction that went with that U-turn. It was to the Earthmovers in the Church, and continues even now, first and foremost, a matter of intellectual pride, of preserving and retaining the regained image, trying to defend the new credibility and human respect built up in the wake of that perceived lost face after the infamous Galileo case. Not for them the traditional account of the Creation and all that was taught for centuries by the great Fathers they love to quote when it suits them. Oh no, today Genesis must be ‘scientifically correct,’ in line with ‘solidly grounded theories’ and ‘acquired truths’ before it has any credibility in their eyes too.

They achieve this ‘comfort zone’ by the most blatant abuse of the facts using that authority given to them, they can say, by God Himself, relying on the customary blind obedience, the new wholesale ignorance and a propaganda machine second to none to have their way. ‘It’s all for the good of the Church’ we hear, when it is they, not the Church, that need the obscurantism and consensus to remain credible. Such people do not really care about the Church in this matter more than the vanity of those whom Providence permitted to run it in the post-Copernican U-turn era. The hard and sad fact is that today there is none so deluded as the Copernican Catholics.

It seems to me impossible that someone along the line would not have TRIED to do just this, exonerate Galileo:

"...Not once did we find any pope officially deny
or abrogate the 1616 decree, nor did any pope actually
give Galileo a retrial at which, in Newtonian ignorance,
he would more than likely have officially exonerated him..."

Since it is almost a foregone conclusion that someone along the line must have TRIED to do so, especially since we currently have a head custodian of the Vatican Observatory, Brother Guy Consolmagno, S.J., who exonerates Galileo (unofficially) at every live mic op he can snag (to the patter of Zionist applause in the live audience), would it not be at least worth digging up any stories about how their efforts have been thwarted, just as would be the Church's not having made the U-turn quite official (yet)?

What do you suppose is in the works for AFTER the so-called canonization of the pope who did the (not quite official!) apologia pro Galileo? How about the Newcanonization of Copernicus!?

.
.
.

.....................but how did I know it was post #94????.......................

.

Wessex · « **Reply #103 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:06:06 AM »

There are four wheel nuts on my four tyres .... oh I forgot the spare!

cantatedomino · « **Reply #104 on:** January 29, 2014, 04:22:04 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Chapter 1: Faith and Reason

Take a look at the picture above; Michelangelo’s painting of Creation on the roof of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. It depicts the two kinds of faith, human faith, and divine faith. Everyone knows don’t they, that it was painted by Michelangelo in 1511. Everyone knows it depicts the story of creation by God in the beginning of the world. Given no one alive was there at the time, we believe this by word of mouth. Yes, we believe by way of human faith in what we are told.

As regards the meaning of the mural, that too is based on faith, but divine faith. We see then that the word faith is used in two very different senses. In the first, the term faith is applied to an act of the mind, an assent that we give for certain motives, that a man called Michelangelo painted it; and the other is faith in the body of truths or doctrine that a certain section of people believe, in this case the Christian or Catholic faith.

That is just what faith is, taking a thing on another’s word. Much of what we believe is based on human faith or divine faith. The whole history of the world is based on faith, whether one believes it is billions of years old or 6,000 years old. So, in order that we may understand the historic clash between geocentric belief and heliocentric belief, we must first consider the reliability of the sources of so much that we believe in.

There are four different ways we accuмulate knowledge (scientia). Beginning with the simplest source and rising to the highest level, these grades are, (1): knowledge of the building blocks of the world surmised through the senses, something even animals are capable of to an extent; (2): knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematised and brought under general principles. Called the scientific method, it is organised observation, the quest to find how things work, the search for information and laws, whether in its broad features or in its modern refinements; reserved, of course, to man. (3): knowledge acquired through philosophy, the search for causes by reason alone, and (4): comprehension from theology, our understanding of things from both reason and revelation of God, and how He relates to the universe and man.

Theology is held by the Church as the Queen of all sciences. If science is knowledge of things from their causes, theology is the highest grade of all thought since it traces its knowledge to the ultimate cause of all things. Theology is the study of God in the first place, and in a secondary manner the relationship of His creatures to Him. Theology is based on the revealed word (the Old and New Testaments), and the Church is its mouthpiece.

Let us now apply the four levels to geocentrism and heliocentrism.

(1): The senses display geocentrism.

(2): empirical science:

Science, as any other human endeavour, does not exist in a vacuum. It is not an isolated, independent system of thought and practice. What happens in other realms of human life affects how science is practised, perceived, and received. (Peter Machamer, introduction to The Cambridge Galileo, 1997, p.1.)

There we are now, and we all thought what they call ‘science’ is an independent discipline totally free of all bias and prejudice, didn’t we? So what is this discipline once known as natural philosophy but which now describes itself as ‘science’ or the empirical method?

The reason we write up this chapter is because everyone involved in and with the Copernican revolution claimed/claims it is based on ‘science.’ Secondly, by virtue of its proper meaning, science, truly so-called, is as near to the truth of it all as one can get. Moreover, as Galileo and the popes told/tell us, whatever it is, if it is true, the Bible will always agree with it, or is it the other way around?

Now we have at our disposal, volumes of well-reasoned concepts as to what exact empirical science is, and the more one reads or listens to the ‘experts’ the more confused one can get. So, without further ado, we will try to define what true-science is by quoting the best version of it we have come across.

Science is the field of study dealing entirely with facts.

This means we can see them, feel them, hear them, taste them, and smell them in nature. We can measure them, test them, dissect them, mix them, and do with them what we can to discover their form and processes. The establishment of facts is called the scientific method. For a proper definition of a fact, let us hear R.G. Elmendorf.

Something that is direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive – in other words not hearsay, popular opinion, “expert” testimony, majority view, personal conviction, organisational ruling, conventional usage, superficial analogy, appeal to “simplicity”, or other indirect means of persuasion. (R.G. Elmendorf: The Foucault Pendulum, PA, USA, 1994.)