-
God is Good.
Through the mediation of our Clare, the esteemed Patricius of Ignis Ardens has graciously emailed me the Earthmovers thread from IA.
I am now in a position to repost it online, and, along with its author, have determined that CI is the very best place to plug back into the blogosphere.
Dear Matthew and Mater, I respectfully request your permission to keep this thread in the Resistance section of this forum because every post that I put in this thread stands for the proposition that the true Catholic Resistance has nothing to do with the SSPX and everything to do with Doctrine - the full and entire Deposit of the Faith. If this section limits itself to discussion of the SSPX and the various combatants in its fratricidal cινιℓ ωαr, then it commits an abortion of Truth.
I have another request - a very special one, which I understand you might be unable to grant. Is it possible to scrub this thread on a continuous basis of anti-Catholic, anti-geocentric posts, so that this thread can be reserved as a place where souls might encounter the positive teaching, sans graffiti?
Nothing would stop anyone from slinging mud at what is posted here by starting new threads. I do not wish to stifle discussion. I merely wish to keep this thread as clean and unified as possible.
Why is this important? Because in the entire history of the Church, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Doctrine have suffered from no greater blow than that which came from the copernican-darwinian revolutions. The Church is still reeling, and will continue to spiral downward until we fight back with Faith, Fortitude, Charity, and Truth.
We are at a decisive moment in Church history. We are on the cusp of great events which will usher in the Age of Mary - which Age will have for its distinctive mark the total annihilation of all heresies, including and especially these two diaboli.
The true Catholic Counter-revolution will not succeed until the remnant of Tradition puts its entire weight behind the rehabilitation of the Sacred Magisterium and puts an end, once and for all, to the lie about the Galileo affair.
I pray you both - please allow me to keep this thread in the Resistance section, and please allow me to request that you scrub certain posts as we go along.
Thank you so much, and God bless you.
P.S. We would welcome any posts in support of the movie The Principle.
-
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us
St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us
St. Basil the Great, pray for us
All ye Fathers and Doctors, pray for us
St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, defend us, protect us, lend us thine assistance and aid.
All ye Nine Choirs of Angels, defend us, protect us, lend us thine assistance and aid.
-
All items in blue are my personal notes and comments.
THE EARTHMOVERS: There was a time on this earth when all mankind held our globe of life to be the unique, immovable, material and spiritual centre of the universe, with the sun, moon and stars deferring directly or indirectly to it in different ways every day, every month and every year. This is what they saw, experienced and dwelt on; what we still see and experience, what is sense-reality to all.
In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, certain men embarked on a mission that would change how all people - of both Church and State - perceived the universe and man’s place in it. Their intent was to implement the Hermetic principle of ‘as above, so below,’ that is, a heliocentric heaven that would precipitate enlightenment on earth. Thus the temple built by the Holy Ghost in the name of the Spiritual Son of David, introduced in the opening line of the New Testament, would be replaced by a rival temple being built in the name of David’s natural son Solomon.
Definition of Hermetic: a) of or relating to the mystical and alchemical writings or teachings arising in the first three centuries a.d. and attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; b)relating to or characterized by occultism or abstruseness. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hermetic)
What emerged was a revolution in belief, so subtle in its methods, so devious and widespread in its application, so universal in its success, so thorough in its continuity, that it can only be classed as the most brilliant intellectual, doctrinal, and metaphysical deception in the whole of history.
Described by C. S. Lewis as the ‘Discarded Image,’ we can today, without scientific contradictions, re-introduce the Sacred Doctrine of Geocentrism, traditionally fixed on that unique footstool facilitating the Lord's resting on His Melchisedech Dais. Our intention is to reclaim that Supernatural Sacred and Sovereign Seat of Certainty wrenched from Him by the Earthmovers, both outside and inside the Catholic Church.
See Psalm 109: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand: Until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of Thy power out of Sion: rule Thou in the midst of Thy enemies. With Thee is the principality in the day of Thy strength: in the brightness of the Saints: from the womb before the day star I begot Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and He will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.
See Isaias 66: Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is My throne, and the earth My footstool: what is this house that you will build to Me? and what is this place of my rest?
Much of the enclosed is intended to convey the deliberation and intelligence by which long established occult powers conform ideas and beliefs in both Church and State to that ancient all-pervasive mythical dogma of ma’at-equilibrium, exemplified herein by the Earthmovers in their action of enthroning celestial Newtonian mechanics as their equilibrium crown jewel; being then in reaction forced to elevate 'uncertainty' itself into their primal naturalistic dogma now associated with the name of Heisenberg.
This then is our story of the Earthmovers’ and their deception; who they were; why they needed to move the earth and fix the sun; and how they did it in both faith and science.
Dedicated to Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825)
Master of the Sacred Palace, Rome.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Much of the enclosed is intended to convey the deliberation and intelligence by which long established occult powers conform ideas and beliefs in both Church and State to that ancient all-pervasive mythical dogma of ma’at-equilibrium, exemplified herein by the Earthmovers in their action of enthroning celestial Newtonian mechanics as their equilibrium crown jewel; being then in reaction forced to elevate 'uncertainty' itself into their primal naturalistic dogma now associated with the name of Heisenberg.
Elsewhere I have written about the problem of artificially imposed paradigmatic doubt, which is an essential quality of the intellectual corruption caused by the ongoing revolution against the Lord and against His Christ. Men began to tell lies about the Sacred Scriptures. Then Popes began to allow these lies to be widely disseminated throughout the Church and the Catholic kingdoms. Ultimately, a fundamental paradigm shift occurred. The world went from the credulous certitude that is the fruit of common sense elevated by supernatural faith, to the enshrined and institutionalized doubt of Descartes and his manifold followers.
This intellectual corruption is planned.
Doubt in matters of certitude is the enemy of both Faith and Reason.
Paradigmatic doubt cripples the intellect and makes it flaccid.
The primary philosophy of the earthmovers is the philosophy of doubt, which is, of course, an exercise in futility.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
PROLOGUE
Prologue
As early as 1530, in his book De Revolutionibus, the Polish astronomer Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543) had proved that the Sun was the centre of the universe . . . A century later, the Pisan astronomer and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) using his new refractor telescope, once again showed that the Earth revolved around the Sun. He published his proofs several times . . . - - - The New Rights of Man. (J.E. Lewis: The New Rights of Man, Robinson, 2003, p.233.)
They call it the Copernican revolution, the ‘scientific’ advancement that changed the world. While by no means the innovator, it is named after the Polish canon Nicolaus Copernicus, who in the sixteenth century broached the old heliocentric principle that the sun, not the earth, occupies the centre of our cosmos. For this to be, the earth had to be moved. Until then, mankind had been loyal to the senses, the witness of the eyes that show us the stars, sun, moon and planets turning about us on earth once a day, with the sun also moving mid-north and mid-south and back again once a year.
For centuries now, in the wake of the 'proofs' attributed to Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Bradley, Foucault, etc., mankind has abandoned the geocentric view of the universe around us and transferred all to a mind-view of a spinning earth, orbiting the sun like a planet, the idea taught to us at schools, colleges and universities from the age of five onwards. This upheaval, in turn, brought about a change in human reasoning, with both Church and State abandoning the old concept, adopting instead a new way of thinking about the heavens, God, the Bible, the earth, mankind and everything else. All this, and much more, was brought about by the Earthmovers.
With the victory of the Copernican revolution now absolute in the minds of nearly all today, be they popes, astronomers, philosophers, theologians, historians, etc., we have no choice but to acknowledge that no upheaval in the history of the world affected mankind like the Earthmovers’ revolution. History books abound with expressions of this, one of the greatest shifts in human reasoning ever known, the effects of which have moulded how mankind thinks, believes and indoctrinates.
The German poet, Johann von Goethe (1749-1832), said of it: Among all the discoveries and convictions, probably not a single fact has had a deeper influence on the human spirit than the teaching of Copernicus ... Humanity has probably never been asked to do more; for consider all that went up in smoke as a result of realising this change: a second paradise, a world of innocence, poetry and piety, the witness of the senses, the conviction of a poetic and religious faith; small wonder that one did not want to give this up, that people in every possible way resisted such a doctrine, which those who accepted it justified and summoned to a so far unknown, yet unthought of freedom of thinking and greatness of vision. (J. von Goethe: Geschichte der Farbenlehre, Chicago, University Press, p.67.)
More recently, Arthur Koestler describes the transition like so: Their cosmic quest destroyed the medieval vision of an immutable social order in a walled-in Universe, with its fixed hierarchy of moral values, and transformed the European landscape, society, culture, habits and general outlook as thoroughly as if a new species had arisen on this planet. (Arthur Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, Grosset & Dunlop, New York, 1963, p.13.)
To which we can add language, wherein ‘this planet’ has long replaced the ‘earth’ for most now, as the above quote illustrates. The Copernican revolution then, was undoubtedly more profound and ‘earth-moving’ than any of the great shifts of belief recorded throughout history. It moved men’s thinking far more than the Greek philosophers did, far more than the astrologers of China, India, Arabia and so on. It had a greater effect than any of the spiritual, population, cultural, and ethnic shifts recorded by historians or discovered by archaeologists and anthropologists. It surpassed the effects of religious and ideological wars of humanity in both East and West. It far outdid the influence of Europe’s colonial occupations and retreats, even the Communist uprising and domination throughout many countries in the twentieth century and the materialism that followed it into the twenty-first. The reason, of course, is because unlike any other revolution in history recorded and studied by man, the whole world, nearly every last man, woman and child, became Copernican.
The Copernican revolution, while promulgated as an advance in the discoveries of astronomy, cosmology and knowledge itself, was, of course, first and foremost a revolution against the long secure comprehension of God, the earth, the universe and mankind - a bond of reasoning between the four that also manifested itself fully in the Catholic Church, in its Sacred Scriptures, in tradition and society, in scholastic theology, philosophy and metaphysics. Soon we will read exactly how this doctrine was understood and how it used to form the thinking of mankind up to the eighteenth century.
The reason for this teleological distinction is because when studying the universe, man’s natural reasoning can discern in the order and harmony of the movements of the celestial bodies a divine intelligence and especially as observed, that is, earth-centred, geocentric and geostatic. An analogy of this could be made in that if, shipwrecked on an island, we came upon a beautiful farm at its centre, with its own water source and cattle, sheep and fowl feeding in its fields, plus rows of grain, vegetables and fruit trees, with its seasons of growth and harvests, we would deduce the existence of an intelligent designer around and seek him or her out. Consider then how men comprehended things when they viewed the universe as geocentric, with the earth and its countless life and man at its centre. Once this realism was shattered, as we can imagine, the very essence of metaphysics was flung into chaos. [The field of philosophy concerning first principles, which includes the study of being (ontology), the study of the origin and structure of the universe (cosmology), and concerns itself with the science of knowledge (epistemology)].
-
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 arises within the religion of Phallicism, the bond that unites all forms of idolatry into one great system. It stems directly from sun worship, heliolatry or light worship, e.g., Mithraism. It is evident that the learned of the heliolaters viewed the sun as the life source to all terrestrial creatures, the cause of all life and therefore divine.
Accordingly, this paganism literally strove to regulate all places (a heliocentric order,) politics and religion in the image of their sun-deity. This priest-led cult included alchemy and magic, that is, a gnosis, an esoteric knowledge, a mode of indoctrination designed to overcome man’s fallen state and restore knowledge of all things enjoyed by Adam before the fall so that we can become like gods.
A little later, under the auspices of astronomy and astrology, the heliocentric belief surfaced again. In the 6th century BC, the Egyptian-trained Pythagoras reintroduced the sun-centred world and followers such as Philolaus, the teacher of Plato, and Plato himself, according to Aristotle, accepted a solar system. After him, in the 4th century BC, it was Heracleides who promoted the idea that the earth moves around a central fire. A century later, Aristarchus of Samos (240BC) also advocated a heliocentric world. He was accused of impiety so gained few converts.
Throughout all the centuries after Christ, the reality of the senses remained and geocentrism prevailed. Nevertheless, the pagan cult of a sun-centred world with its ‘illuminated priests’ never died; the seeds of the belief system, this gnosis, having been inserted into the occult writings of men, now best known as the Hermetic, Gnostic and cabbalistic texts. Thus, in the second century AD, there came into existence a ‘Holy Grail,’ protected over the centuries by many organisations and secret societies, for they knew there would come a time and generations more favourable to their cause. And so it was that with the re-emergence of the Hermetic books in the fifteenth century in Florence, the heliocentric doctrine began to attract and fascinate new recruits. This magic then spread like wildfire, becoming an integral part of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: We could say the development of the doctrine of geocentrism had its origins with the well-known Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322BC). It was he who built a mode of thinking he called metaphysics wherein the earth’s apparent immobile centrality in the universe was chosen as the core around which many other branches of knowledge should defer. Thus astronomy, cosmology, mathematics, physics, geography, botany, zoology, psychology, music, the arts etc., found their deferential point.
In the religious or sacred world, both Scripture and Tradition adhered literally to a geocentric world. Throughout the Bible are many references to a moving sun and fixed earth, but not one to a fixed sun and moving earth in any way. Of all biblical references linking heaven and a fixed earth, none is more significant than the reference to the Lord’s footstool:
Thus saith the Lord: Heaven is My throne and the earth My footstool: what is this house that you will build M? And what is this place of My rest? My hand made all these things, and all these things were made, saith the Lord. (Isaiah 66:1-2.)
But I say to you not to swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool. (Matthew 5:34.)
[The term footstool, far from being considered as incidental to the Holy Throne, is best considered as a key component of the DAIS of the Melchisedech Holy Throne, fashioned for One who is seated (in contradistinction to movement). 'In the Prophets and Apostles' visions of God, the Father is always found seated on His throne. This is important. God is always at rest. There is nothing that disturbs Him. Even in the Book of Revelation, where violent events taking place on earth are foretold, you'll find God seated on His throne.’ - - - Love’sArk.net.]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: As time went by, this geocentric doctrine was developed further to satisfy the insatiable curiosity of man and the infinite theology of God, a synthesis of thought found in the reasoning refined and articulated in a Christian way over the centuries by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, especially Dionysius the Areopagite (1st century AD); St Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) - who established that the altar in the Jєωιѕн tabernacle was ‘a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe;’ Peter Lombard (12th century); and then St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). ‘With great power and clearness,’ wrote Andrew White, ‘Saint Thomas Aquinas, the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relation to God and man,’ a composite of theology, philosophy and metaphysics that resulted in ‘a sacred system of cosmology, one of the great treasures of the universal Church.’ (Andrew D. White: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, New York, Appleton, 1870 and updated 1896, p.116.)
St Thomas brought about a universal change in emphasis. Up to his time philosophy had been the centre of knowledge since the Greek thinkers, but with the application of Christian Revelation and infused wisdom, theology found its place in the intellectual world, with all the other disciplines, including metaphysics, ethics, logic, politics, economics etc., subservient to it. Thomism then, became the vehicle for a system of learning and education. Hence with the scholastics, the primacy of a teleological explanation for the existence of man, his nature, place, purpose and destiny was established more fully. Finally, but not least, there was the geocentrism of St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) in his 1614 book De Ascensione Mentis in Deum - The Mind’s Ascent to God by the Ladder of Created Things.
Having reconciled Aristotle’s geocentric metaphysics with Christianity, it was then time to cleanse other alien ideas of the Greek scholar’s in the light of Christian Revelation and teaching of the Catholic Church, arising from the dogma that everything presupposes the Creation by God. This occurred in 1277AD, when Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris banned 219 propositions of Aristotle’s from the University at Sorbonne, the leading school of learning at the time. For example, the Greek, thinking ‘it is impossible to make something out of nothing,’ reasoned that the universe must always have existed. The Old Testament however, reveals that the world had a beginning in time when God created it out of nothing. Here then, in 1277, the theology of the Church began to assert itself over the rational ideas of man.
Other metaphysical beliefs shared by all the major pagan cultures including the Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, as well as the Greeks, were then eliminated from the Sorbonne, myths like Animism (that all matter moves itself); Pantheism (that the world and God are the same thing); Astrology (that the movements of the stars influence happenings and people on the earth), and Cyclic History (that all events in history repeat themselves exactly in time).
Nearly three centuries later, on December 13, 1545, the Church convened the Council of Trent. This was done to counter the Protestant rebellion that could be dated from 1517.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Of importance to the historic 1616-1633 censure of earthmoving and sun-fixing by the Church as formal heresy, are the methods prescribed for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture decreed on April 8, 1546:
Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by Holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law. -- (Denz - 786)
Around the same time as the Protestant rebellion, Pythagoras’s heliocentrism began to resurface. For example, Cardinal Nicholaus of Cusa (1301-1464) in his philosophical writings proposed ‘the earth is a star like other stars, is not the centre of the universe, is not at rest, nor are its poles fixed. The celestial bodies are not strictly spherical, nor are their orbits circular. The difference between theory and appearance is explained by relative motion.’ (Catholic Encyclopaedia 1913).
A century later, in 1543, the long held heliocentrism of the Polish Catholic canon Nicolaus Copernicus was finally made public. Influenced somewhat by the rediscovered Hermetic books that advocated heliolatry, Copernicus had responded by giving the fixed sun-moving earth scheme a geometric and mathematical structure as presented in his book De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The heliocentrism inherent in Copernicus’s work however, over three hundred pages of drawings, geometry, calculations, longitudes, latitudes and endless data, was not considered a threat to the Catholic Church’s reading of Scripture because in its opening preface - To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work - it states:
And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up many – nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth, but only in order that they may provide a correct basis for calculation. … Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.
It is clear from this preface – no matter who wrote it - that while its heliocentrism is called a ‘hypothesis,’ it was presented as a tool for calculation, and not as a truth or a potential truth awaiting science to prove it true. That said, the book did facilitate the idea that the immobile earth of the senses, the Lord’s footstool as the Bible calls it, just might not be the stable rest for God’s Holy Throne after all, nor the abode of hell and its demons, but could be instead, a planet in motion through space in homage, we could say, to the pagan god of wisdom, Sol-Om-On; a grouping of the Latin, Indian and Egyptian names for the sun.
A century later emerged Galileo Galilei. Few have achieved equal fame to this writer, philosopher, physicist and astronomer of Pisa, not those who Christianised nations, conquered peoples or discovered new lands. And for what is Galileo now remembered and celebrated? Why isn’t he the one, they tell us, who, using his telescope, showed the planets do move around the sun in the circles advocated by Copernicus and that this showed the earth must also orbit the sun while rotating daily? They add that Galileo’s Copernicanism did not meet with the approval of the Roman Catholic Church at the time because it threatened to expose the revered geocentrism of the Church as ill founded and false, a doctrine held as truly confirmed in the Scriptures by all the Fathers of the Church.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: We could say the clash between Galileo and the Church began in 1613 when the Lincean Academy published his book Letters on Sunspots. In an appendix, for the first time, Galileo stated Copernicus’s heliocentrism was a reality. This contradicted the prevailing geocentrism held by natural philosophers and of course the Scriptures read literally. Unable to fault Galileo’s discoveries and interpretations using the scientific method, the Aristotelians tried to dismiss his heliocentrism on biblical grounds, generating discussion, argument, and anger between both sides. In time the problem came to the attention of Cardinal Bellarmine, Master of Controversial Questions and Consulter of the Holy Office. Bellarmine agreed in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini that if Galileo had proof for a fixed sun or moving earth, then of course the Scriptures would have to be interpreted accordingly. But, he said correctly, Galileo had no such proof, nor had anyone else, and indeed he doubted anyone would ever find proof, so no change in the Fathers interpretation, understanding or belief was warranted or permitted. Rejecting Bellarmine’s cautions, Galileo defended his heliocentric system in his 1613 Letter to Christina later expanded to his Letter to Christina in 1615. Obviously Galileo was afraid that the Bible would rob him of the scientific glory he felt was due to him as the one who discovered enough to claim a heliocentric order for the cosmos was true.
In late 1615, Galileo asked Cosimo permission to come to Rome to defend himself and his beliefs. The Grand Duke approved this and even provided lodgings for Galileo. Once in Rome, Galileo used his astronomical findings to demolish the Aristotelians’ Ptolemaic system; but not the geocentric cosmology of Tycho de Brahe (1546-1601). The theologians however, were unimpressed. Then, in 1616, Galileo produced his ‘theory of the tides,’ his ‘definitive proof for heliocentrism. That, he thought, should shake the theologians out of their dogmatic stance. He even managed to get Cardinal Orsini to approach Pope Paul V with his tidal ‘proof,’ hoping the Pope would concede to it. But the Pope had heard enough of Galileo’s crusade. He consulted with Cardinal Bellarmine, and with both agreeing that Galileo’s opinions were heretical, followed proper procedure and instructed the Holy Office to consider and confirm the status of heliocentrism in regard to Sacred Scripture and teaching of the Fathers.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: On February 24th 1616, the two propositions submitted were qualified in virtue of Pope Paul V’s order:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, that is, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Galileo left Rome, cautioned, silenced and frustrated. In 1621 Cardinal Bellarmine and Pope Paul V died. In the meantime Galileo returned to his experiments on motion (inertia). Three year later, in 1624, Galileo met with Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644) in Rome, an old friend, to see if he could open the question for debate once again, promising the Pope he would simply compare the merits of the geocentric and heliocentric systems in the science of astronomical investigation.
In 1632 Galileo’s long awaited book Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems was published. Upon reading it, Pope Urban VIII saw it depicted the heliocentric system as more than a mathematical ‘hypothesis,’ indeed more than a theory, but as the true order of the world. He immediately ordered all copies possible to be seized and commanded Galileo to come to Rome to answer the charge of heresy, heterodoxy he said, that ‘puts the Catholic faith in danger.’ The Pope knew of course that if the Church’s authority, exegesis and hermeneutics were ignored or tampered with in this particular case, then no Catholic doctrine was safe thereafter.
Galileo was then ordered by the Pope to come to Rome to face a charge of heresy. Months later, after delays on health grounds, pleading of innocence and a long journey undertaken, Galileo arrived at the Holy Office in Rome where he denied that he meant his presentation of heliocentrism as a truth in his Dialogue and certainly did not hold that belief himself since the 1616 decree was made known to him.
Nevertheless, the evidence showed the opposite and the Pope ordered that Galileo be found guilty accordingly. As a result of Pope Urban VIII’s judgement, made through the Holy Office, Galileo was sentenced to house-detention at the behest of the Inquisition and was ordered never to hold, speak or write about the heresy again under threat of being condemned as a relapsed heretic, a very serious offence in those days. His Dialogue was banned altogether. On the 2nd July 1633, the definition and condemnation were made universal, not just confined to Galileo alone as some apologists would argue. Copies of the sentence and abjuration were sent to all vicar nuncios and inquisitors who were told to make them known to professors of philosophy and theology throughout the Catholic world. On 10th August 1634, the Dialogue was put on the Index of forbidden books.
Needless to say the reaction to all the above events was twofold; some were delighted that the Church made a stand to protect the Bible from personal interpretations, while others, on various grounds, were not happy with the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism or Galileo’s conviction. These reactions, from clerics and laity, both in private and in public, by way of oral disseminations, letters, newspapers and dozens of books, carried inaccuracies of all sorts, mostly because few had access to the original records and thus relied on varying accounts of the story second or third hand. Such factual errors have prevailed to this very day.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: For the rest of his life Galileo was not held in prison, fasting on bread and water as Voltaire (1694-1778) insinuated in 1770, or having his eyes gouged out to blind him as another wrote, but was allowed live in relative comfort in his own home and elsewhere at times, corresponding with and meeting friends, including his son, daughters and sympathetic admirers, studying physics with others while writing up his findings that culminated in the book Two New Sciences.
Apart from some references in private letters, the record shows Galileo adhered to his ban on discussing heliocentrism. That said, up until his death at Arcetri on 8 January 1642, many influential people, both clerics and laity, tried without success to get him pardoned or released from house arrest. But, as we have seen, Galileo’s condemnation was absolute, not provisional or reversible. This resolve persisted in that Galileo was buried in an obscure grave in some backroom at the church of Santa Croce in Florence, a proposed monument to his honour having been refused by the Inquisition of the day.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: As regards the universal ban on books etc., treating heliocentrism as a truth or potential truth, while it was a Church edict and could be imposed in those places where the Church ruled, in other states where the Church had no such power, it needed the consent of the secular rulers for its [implementation]. In many such states the ban was refused or ignored. Indeed, even in some Catholic areas the ban was not met with enthusiasm given its subject matter had a connection with ongoing science and astronomy. As regards the fixed-sun, moving-earth belief being defined and declared as heretical, well while it remained as decreed, there slowly began an attack on its authority because of its effect on those involved in science.
But ere long it was seen that this triumph of the Church was in reality a prodigious defeat. From all sides came proofs that Copernicus and Galileo were right… (Andrew D. White: A History, p.153.)
With the Renaissance there came a huge shift in philosophical thought, described as a rational study of all or some of the problems arising from our attempts to explain the universal order of things by their causes or principles, a move away from the traditional metaphysics of St Thomas towards secular thinking alone. These new philosophies started with the French Catholic Rene Descartes (1596-1650), one of those 17th century philosophers known as the Rationalists who followed the thinking of Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626). By relying exclusively on human reasoning, and wherever this led, they endeavoured to free philosophy from ‘the straightjacket of scholastic thought’ as Bacon had put it.
Next came the Empiricists, founded by John Locke (1632-1704), they [were] influenced by Isaac Newton. Empiricism was then taken to extremes by the Scotsman David Hume (1711-1776), who held nothing exists but sensations. Next were the German philosophers Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Georg Hegel (1770-1831). Kant said reason could only know those things experienced by the senses. Hegel held matter is only an illusion, the only reality being ‘Absolute Spirit,’ which expresses its nature in an historical process of struggle and conflict that results in a perfect society, a philosophy of evolutionism adopted later by Darwin and Marx.
And so it was when Sir Isaac Newton’s famous Principia was published in the year 1687. Even before its release, this ‘masterpiece’ was hailed and applauded by the Royal Society of London for its ‘Law of Gravitation,’ the maths and physics that supposedly showed our earth – because of its smaller size (mass) - has to be moving around a fixed sun as a planet in a solar system.
After that, in 1726, came the discovery of stellar aberration by James Bradley (1693-1762), claimed as the first observable proof that the earth orbits the sun. Supporting these were two more proofs accepted by churchmen at the time, those of two little-known Italian astronomers Giovanni Guglielmini and Giuseppe Calandrelli. These claims quickly brought cries that Galileo had been right in his science and exegetics all along.
As a result, there were many in the Church who now believed that the anti-Pythagorean decree and bans were a disastrous mistake. In 1741, under Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), there began an unprecedented ‘U-turn’ on the 1616 decree banning all books etc., with churchmen now accepting heliocentrism as a truth and compatible with the Scriptures.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In 1741, in the face of optical proof [stellar aberration] of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Benedict XIV had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo. - - - Papal Study Commission, 1992.
In 1798, the freemasonic-led French army again invaded the Papal States and occupied Rome. In 1810, Napoleon (1769-1821) deported Pope Pius VII to France and ordered all docuмents pertaining to the papal government of Rome be transported to Paris. Most of these were carted off in bulk but there were exceptions that Napoleon directed to be detached and guarded in their journey. One of these was the Galileo compilation, put together in Rome after the 1741 capitulation to science. It seems the intent of the freemasons was to publish them in Paris so that the world could read what actually happened in 1616 and 1633. It was 33 years later, in 1843, before the Galileo files were returned to Rome. Nevertheless, even in their absence, the U-turn continued:
In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to treat heliocentrism as a thesis] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) . . . in 1822 a favourable decision was given. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)] with the publication of a new and updated index. - - - Papal Study Commission, 1992.
Never in the history of the Church was or is there a case like it. The Church, as Trent confirmed, has always held that when the whole Church, and all the Fathers agreed on a matter of faith, and the correct reading of Scripture is such, no matter the subject involved, then it was considered a truth and immutable in virtue of the fact that this understanding has been constantly preserved and held by tradition since the Apostles. Add to this the fact that the Church also holds and teaches that when a pope defines and condemns a belief as formal heresy, as Pope Paul V did in 1616, it too is supposedly guaranteed true. How in God’s name then could the Church confirm a false reading of Scripture, and condemn Galileo as suspect of heresy if its claims of divine protection and guidance are true? Nevertheless, in this instant, the first real test of Catholic faith that many believed could have been confirmed or falsified by science, nearly everyone agreed science falsified Catholic faith in geocentrism.
Who then could deny that what was needed was an official Church clarification in 1741, 1820 or 1835 by way of abrogation as to how the 1616 papal decree, the doctrine of geocentrism, the Lord God’s footstool, could have been discarded like an unwanted family heirloom? Seventeen centuries of that bond between heaven and earth, God and mankind, abandoned as having been nothing more than an illusion.
But Rome remained silent and there was no official abrogation forthcoming, no explanation, nothing but an Index emptied of those books that were once condemned for asserting formal heresy. [Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should say why this is being done.]
This is exactly the technique employed at the Second Vatican Council, which had for its effect the nearly absolute suppression of the True Mass and the True Theology of the Mass, concomitant with the nearly universal loss, on the part of Catholics, of supernatural Faith in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Sacred Species.
The True Mass was never abrogated. This was weakly admitted by Benedict XVI in 2007, with qualification upon qualification. But the effect of the conciliar legerdemain was to abrogate Catholicism, in the temporal order, in the minds and hearts of men, de facto. The same applies to the Church's indispensable teaching on the Cosmology. The inherent and necessary geocentrism of the Roman Catholic Faith has never been juridically abrogated, yet this is almost irrelevant, due to its de facto abrogation, resulting in a pandemic and universal intellectual deception, otherwise known as the operation of error, the belief in lying.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Given the situation in 1835, with no abrogation or even ‘comment’ from the Church, leaving everyone ignorant of the facts, if ever there was just cause to question the claims of divine protection this was one of them. The Church’s enemies were here handed a powerful contradiction to use to destroy the credibility of the Church among thinking people. ‘Crush the infamous thing’ once cried Voltaire, ‘where the “thing” to be crushed was everything that was “irrational,” and primarily the stand of the Catholic Church.’ With Rome silenced by the acceptance of the scientific proofs offered, the enemy could crush with impunity, all the facts and truth seemingly on their side.
As an example of the type of things said against the Church after their U-turn, we give one passage from an article that appeared in the Journal des Savants written in 1841 by Guglielimo Libri, a man who also wrote a version of the Galileo case that was widely circulated in French, Italian and German:
Scholastic philosophy was unable to ever recover from the blows Galileo gave to it, and the Church, which unfortunately became the instrument of the Peripatetics’ [Aristotelians] hatred, shared their defeat. In fact, how can one dare claim infallibility after declaring “false, absurd, heretical, and contrary to Scripture” a fundamental truth of natural philosophy, a fact that is incontestable and now admitted by all scholars? The persecution of Galileo was odious and cruel, more odious and cruel than if the victim had been made to perish during torture…. This ill-fated vengeance, which Galileo had to endure for such a long time, had the aim of silencing him; it frightened his successors and retarded the progress of philosophy, it deprived humanity of the new truths which his sublime mind might have discovered. To restrain genius; to frighten thinkers; to hinder the progress of philosophy, that is what Galileo’s persecutors tried to do. It is a stain which they will never wash away. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.226.)
Thus began the never ending assertions that the Church hated science, was afraid of science, was falsified by science etc. As a result of such attacks on the Church, Catholics - both lay and clerics - began a propaganda exercise second to none in the history of religion to portray the impression of orthodoxy for that heliocentric U-turn so that the Catholic faith and science could be reconciled. Numerous theologians, scholars, historians, authors, and even a Church commission (1981-92), Copernicans all, tried hard to expurgate the Church from the responsibility and consequences of having defined, and declared belief in a fixed sun/moving earth as formal heresy and for condemning Galileo accordingly.
For many years now, in answer to those who claim the proofs for the movement of the earth did compromise the teaching authority of the Church and its decisions, there has been a desperate attempt by Catholic apologists to try to present the condemnations in the Galileo case as the mistaken waffling of ignorant theologians, declarations carrying no real authority at all, rulings that could be ignored as non-events and forgotten in time. That then is why the Galileo case was elevated into one of the most discussed and written about episodes in the intellectual and cultural history of the western world. Literally thousands of books were written about the case from 1633 and continue to be written, each offering a different synthesis on the subject as accepted, that is, addressing what is perceived as disastrous mistakes by the Catholic Church. Similarly, every book on the history of the Church, theology, philosophy and the empirical sciences has to address this victory of Galileo over scholastic tradition.
The philosophical, metaphysical and religious consequences of the demise of geocentrism have never been measured by the Church or anyone else. Once scientific heliocentrism became the new belief system, the geocentric unification of God, man, the earth and universe was lost. This massive elimination of the doctrine of geocentrism and all it meant to Catholicism was thereafter ignored, as though it never existed within the Catholic faith. Nowhere will one find a word of regret uttered by any post-1741 pope, theologian nor Catholic philosopher, as though such physical and metaphysical beliefs can be jettisoned at will without doctrinal consequences.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: We come then to 1846, when the Galileo files were returned by the French to Rome. Rumour had it that the new pope, Pius IX (1846-1878), promised to publish the docuмents as a condition of their return. It is said he agreed to this and gave the task to Monsignor Marino Marini, Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives. Four years later, in 1850, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith published a book called Galileo and the Inquisition; not the docuмents themselves. Marini it seems, for obvious reasons, decided obscurantism would serve the Church better.
By suppressing a docuмent here, and interpolating a statement there, Marini managed to give plausible standing-ground for nearly every important sophistry ever broached to save the infallibility of the Church and destroy the reputation of Galileo. (Andrew D. White: A History, p.162.)
Given the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith was the publisher of Marini’s book, this brought the Church into the sophist camp in a semi-official way. The army of Copernican apologists now gathered could make reference to Marini’s Church-backed book in their footnotes while trying to vindicate the U-turn as in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. As long as the records of the Holy Office during the years of 1741-1835 were under lock and key, nobody would be the wiser.
The first effect of Monsignor Marini’s book seemed useful in covering the retreat of the Church apologists. Aided by him, such vigorous writers as Ward were able to throw up temporary entrenchments between the Roman authorities and the indignation of the world. (Andrew D. White: A History, pp.162-3.)
One such apologist was John Henry Newman (1801-1890), who converted to the Catholic faith in 1845 and was ordained a priest in 1847. After that he became rector of the proposed new Catholic University in Ireland. In his lectures in Dublin, and in many subsequent writings, Newman explored the relation between theology and natural science. In another book, Towards a Grammar of Assent, Hodgson says, ‘Newman explored the ways we’ve come to believe, and found instructive similarities between theology and science, and indeed everyday beliefs as well. We rarely believe because of a logical demonstration, but much more frequently by the convergence of probabilities. This is the case in our everyday affairs, and also in science and religion.’ Arising from all these ‘probabilities,’ Newman thought he was competent to resolve the matter. In doing so, this man raised the retreat from geocentricism to a new level of sophistry:
Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 1633 had succeeded in repressing any free investigation on the question of the motion of the earth. The mind of the educated class would have not the less felt that it was a question, and would have been haunted, and would have been poisoned, by the misgiving that there was some real danger to Revelation in the investigation; for otherwise the ecclesiastical authorities would not have forbidden it. There would have been in the Catholic community a mass of irritated ill-tempered, feverish and festering suspicion, engender¬ing general scepticism and hatred of the priesthood, and relieving itself in a sort of tacit Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of which secret societies are the development, and then in sudden outbreaks perhaps of violence and blasphemy. Protestantism is a dismal evil, but in this respect Provid¬ence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics themselves so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity . . . If the tone of public opinion in 1822 called for a withdrawal of the prohibition at Trent of the earth’s movement, the condition of the able and educated called for it in Galileo’s age; and it is as clear to me that their spiritual state ought to be consulted . . . I am not certain that I might not go further and advocate the full liberty to teach the motion of the earth as a philosophical truth, not only now, but even three centuries ago. (Newman’s 1861 paper as quoted in Catholic Dossier, July-August, 1995.)
In 1870, the First Vatican Council defined the dogma of ‘the infallible “magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff,’ that is, its guaranteed freedom from error and binding for all time. This resurrected the question of the status of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree. Up to then there were different opinions as to the decree’s ‘infallibility,’ with theologians saying it was and others saying it was not. But after the U-turn, Copernican apologists claimed the decree was always ‘reformable,’ which suggested, of course, it was never infallible, which in turn asserts it had no divine guarantee of ultimate truth and not forever binding. Once the popes agreed that the 1616 papal decree was proven wrong by science, theologians had no choice but to deny any trace of infallibility was involved, whether it was infallibly decreed or not. Indeed, such a denial was unprecedented, and was it not for the offered and accepted proofs for a fixed sun/moving earth solar system, surely no denial or challenge to the immutability and infallibility of the 1616 papal decree would ever have arisen.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: As it turned out, one by one the council’s [Vatican I] teachings seemed to confirm the authority of the Church of 1616 and 1633 to judge the case as it did. For example, under ‘Faith and Reason,’ it anathematised the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, an important aspect of the Galileo case. Then the Council reinforced the Church’s right and obligation to condemn false philosophy as well as false theology and interpretations contrary to any decreed or differing from the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers. In the Council’s teaching on Faith, we find the following:
Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Denz. 1792)
The next stage in the Galileo affair could be said to have occurred in 1893, when Pope Leo XIII presented his all-encompassing encyclical on the study of Holy Scripture, Providentissimus Deus. This docuмent was written to address the rationalists and their use of science and the new philosophies to dismiss the Bible as a credible authority. These included the new sciences of uniformitarianism and evolutionism that were by then being used by modernists to attack further traditional dogmas and their understanding.
[Uniformitarianism: The belief that interprets the geology of the earth as proving it is billions of years old, rather than the 6,000 years as revealed in the literal words of Genesis.]
[Evolutionism: This is the belief that everything evolved naturally, and that life (a single cell) was activated from inanimate matter somehow and later evolved to account for life on earth as it is today, including plants, and animals, and finally, into intelligent man.]
The encyclical began by setting out all the history of biblical studies, the traditional rules, advice and warnings as to how the Holy Scriptures should and should not be read and understood. It clearly reaffirmed that the Bible cannot err in any of its parts etc. However, under the heading ‘Natural Science,’ the Pope again quotes St Augustine setting out other ground rules to faith and science:
Hence knowledge of the natural sciences will be of great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture, by which he can more easily discover and refute fallacious arguments of this kind drawn up against the sacred books . . . Indeed there should be no disagreement between the theologian and the physicist, provided each confines himself within his own territory, watching out for this, according to St Augustine’s warning, “not to make rash assertions, and to declare the unknown as known.” But, if they should disagree, a summary rule as to how a theologian should conduct himself is offered by the same author. “Whatsoever,” he says, “they can demonstrate by genuine proofs regarding the nature of things, let us show that it is not contrary in our Scripture, but whatever they set forth in their volumes contrary to our Scriptures; that is to Catholic faith, let us show by some means, or let us believe without any hesitation to be most false (De Gen. Ad Litt., i, 21, 41) . . .
To understand how just is the rule here formulated, we must remember that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Spirit Who spoke by them, did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms that were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are daily used at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers - as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – ‘went by what sensibly appeared,’ or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
The unshrinking defence of Holy Scripture does not require we should uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it, for it may be that in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for “in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are,” according to the opinion of St Thomas.
Now who could read this passage above and deny it describes the Galileo exegesis to a tee? It repeats nearly word for word Galileo’s hermeneutics written up in his Letter to Castelli of 1613 when trying to change the geocentric interpretation upheld by the Church at the time to a heliocentric one. Indeed, it could be asked, what other ‘secret of nature’ of any importance to the Catholic faith could the encyclical be alluding to?
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Confirming the fact that Pope Leo’s encyclical was read as pertaining to the Galileo case, is to be found everywhere, including Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech when presenting the findings of the 1981-1992 Galileo commission to the world. Finocchiaro refers to it as "the implicit theological vindication of Galileo’s hermeneutics in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893)." (Retrying Galileo, p.2.)
That was enough; from then on it was open season on the literal interpretation of Scripture wherever it was said to be ‘shown incorrect’ by the advance of science, and indeed on those churchmen who defended a geocentric interpretation in 1616 and 1633, irrespective of the fact that such an interpretation was the unanimous interpretation of all the Fathers. The encyclical, said to have been written to prevent attacks on the credibility of the Bible, in fact gave licence to challenge other literal interpretations and beliefs where ‘physical matters’ are touched on that might have been interpreted or understood incorrectly.
Never again did the Church dare defend any literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
Thus the emerging scientific theories of the time, received an unexpected ‘imprimatur’ in the sphere of biblical interpretation, throwing doubt on a mass of history and theology derived from a literal interpretation of Genesis. Once one admits the language of Scriptures can no longer guarantee literal truth in one area, it is difficult to close those open gates on other matters. And this is why, in 1920, a mere twenty-seven years after Providentissimus Deus, a successor, Pope Benedict XV, had to bring out Spiritus Paraclitus, a second encyclical on biblical exegesis and hermeneutics to try to redress the imbalance caused by the Galileo fiasco.
Copernicanism, and its de facto adoption by Catholic Church authorities, is the first principle of the disgusting historical criticism that gutted out Catholic Doctrine on the Real Resurrection of the Body of the Lord; the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, in the Sacred Species; the Real Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Real Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary; the Real Original Sin of the Real Adam and Eve; the Real Miracles of Jesus Christ, His Apostles, and the Saints; the Reality of Grace and the Mystical Gifts; the Reality of the Indwelling Presence of God in souls; the Reality of the Last Judgement; the Reality of Heaven and Hell. Traditional Catholics decry many of these errors, but fail to apprehend that they all stem from the arch-heresy of copernicanism. It is not enough to decry some errors. We are obliged by God, by our calling, to decry them all, to defend the Faith, in its entirety, whether in season or out of season.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The next episode associated with the Galileo case occurred in 1936 when Pope Pius XI restructured the Lincean Academy, calling it the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS). Founded originally in 1603 in Rome by a Dutch prince and several Italians, they named it the ‘Lynceorum philosophorum Ordo seu Congressus seu Academia.’ The Linceans had as their motto Sagacius isia. The standard reason given for their choosing a lynx in their title was that their keen interest in the study of nature was well represented by the cat. In fact the real reason why they choose the lynx was because, like the Gnostics of old, they fancied they could see in the dark what others could not. It was the Lynxes that elected Galileo as their sixth member, assisting him in his heliocentric quest in any way they could, especially by publishing his book Letters on Sunspots in 1613, a work in which Galileo first portrayed heliocentrism as a scientific truth, one that led to the Church’s worst nightmare as many would see it.
1936 was a time, Rome thought, to show Catholicism was not opposed to science by re-introducing a scientific academy of its very own. In fact this was the second time after the U-turn that Rome sought some refuge in this scientific academy. The first time was in 1847, when Pope Pius IX revived the Accademia dei Lincei, calling it the ‘Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes,’ if you don’t mind. Given there was no association between this secular academy founded in 1603 and the Church of Rome, apart from its strategic election of Francesco Barberini, the twenty-six-year-old nephew of Pope Urban VIII, to their ranks in 1623, why would Rome affiliate itself with this long redundant secular Lincean Academy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries? We have no doubt it was because of its direct association with Galileo and his assertions that they now believed had the truth of it. By adopting this academy as their own then, the converted Copernicans in the Church believed it would send out the right message, no more mistakes in faith and science as we are now working hand in hand with modern scientists to prove it. Nothing of any note came of the first revival and it simply faded away.
The second coming of the new Lynxes happened on the 30th November 1941 at the inaugural meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for the academic year 1941-42, a meeting attended by Pope Pius XII. By then of course, nearly all scientific institutions worldwide were Copernicans, evolutionists and relativists, and it was only such men who were called on to fill the seats of invited scientists at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome. Getting down to the real business for which the PAS was formed, it was not long before they revisited the Galileo case, giving the reason that 1942 was the tercentennial of Galileo’s death - as Copernicans know this day ought to be celebrated. At this meeting, the president – Fr Agostino Gemelli, also president of the Catholic University of Milan, – gave a speech reminding the audience that the PAS is a ‘direct heir and legitimate continuation’ of the Lincean Academy founded by Prince Frederico Cesi in Rome in 1603, one devoted to the advance of scientific truth, as well as ‘living righteously and piously.’[In fact the Lyncean Academy was steadfastly opposed by Cesi's father and other Roman aristocrats. It was investigated by the Holy Office and supported Galileo after he was silenced by Pope Paul V. Its members were accused of black magic, opposition to Church doctrine, and living scandalous lives. --- The Galileo Project.]
Fr Gemelli announced a new book on the Galileo case had been commissioned by the PAS to be written by the scholar Fr Pio Paschini, president of the Lateran University at the time. He then went on to give the audience a modernist view of the Galileo case, presenting him as a kind of saint whose only motive was to save the Catholic Church’s hermeneutics and exegesis from the ignorance pertaining at the time. He proposed Galileo’s agreement to abjure in 1633 was not based on fear of being burned at the stake, but on his total loyalty to his faith and obedience to the Catholic Church. Galilean revisionism it seems has no limits. In his book, Finocchiaro relates a lesser-known speech on the matter given by the same Fr Gemelli at Milan University later in 1942:
So, Gemelli had no hesitation in admitting that the condemnation of Galileo was a theological error…. However Gemelli was also claiming that Galileo’s tragedy embodied a great positive lesson; that faith and religion are harmonious with reason and science. He went on to argue that although Galileo did not provide a decisive demonstration of Copernicanism, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault; on the other hand, Galileo did provide “the convergence of probabilities that were increasingly more and more numerous in favour of the Copernican system; and in any case, the Ptolemaic arguments were weaker. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.278.)
The significance of this argument by the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1942 is crucial to the Galileo case, yet it passed away unnoticed even by Maurice Finocchiaro, who comments on nearly everything in his book. Later we will return to this speech and explain its significance. As regards the ‘positive lesson’ that the Galileo case showed the harmony between faith and science, well that was nothing but U-turn spin. The acceptance by most of scientific heliocentrism over the Scripture’s geocentrism had set the agenda. Theistic-heliocentrism, theistic-uniformitarianism, and theistic-evolutionism became the next accepted compromises. With them, of course, came problems for theology, best illustrated by the following:
As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter . . . In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation of the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modeled on the other . . . Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind. - - - Teilhard de Chardin. (Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Two encyclicals up to then [1942] tried to convince all that the faith and the natural sciences are compatible, but failed miserably. And that is why in 1943 Rome had to issue a third encyclical on scriptural exegeses, Pope Pius XII’s Divino afflante Spiritu. Alas, if 333 encyclicals were written the damage could not be avoided. In a final attempt to bring harmony to faith and modern science in this letter, we again find the hermeneutics set out by Galileo in 1613, how geocentric wording in the Scriptures could be used to describe heliocentrism:
The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order "went by what sensibly appeared" as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either "in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science." - - - Divino afflante Spiritu
One can see how desperate the three popes were to try to account for the disaster in biblical hermeneutics and exegesis that they had inherited from the Galileo case. Be aware that Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII had already rejected such hermeneutics and exegesis for those passages that describe a moving sun and fixed earth, an exegesis held by all the Fathers and the Council of Trent.
Two years later, in 1945, Fr Paschini finished his book Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, the history of which is found in chapter 16 of Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo. The PAS got the manuscript and sought permission to publish it. 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, and it was he who decided the book was ‘unsuitable for publication.’ Paschini it seems; simply wrote down the Galileo case as it happened. The problem then was that once churchmen agreed 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 the Holy Office wanted was a Rome-associated book confirming and reminding all of exactly what happened in 1616 and what they did to 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.
All the above happened in the reign of Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), a pope who also involved himself headlong in the faith and science issue. Here is how Wikipedia describes this pope’s involvement:
To Pius XII, science and religion were heavenly sisters, different manifestations of divine exactness, who could not possibly contradict each other over the long term. Regarding their relation, his advisor Professor Robert Leiber wrote: “Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo.” Preceding similar praises from Pope John Paul II in 1992, Pope Pius XII listed, in 1939, Galileo in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences to be among “most audacious heroes of research…not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments. (Discourse of His Holiness Pope Pius XII given on 3rd December 1939 at the Solemn Audience granted to the Plenary Session of the Academy)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a high point on Nov. 22, 1951 when the same pope once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an endorsement of a litany of every scientific theory on offer at the time, theories that conflicted with the literal order of creation, that is, denied the geocentric order of the universe held by the Church until 1741; denied the biblical age of 6.000 years for the universe; denied the global flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today. Here then is the Pope making God’s creation concur with the dictates of science:
44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty "Fiat" pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial "Fiat lux" uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.
But let us now return to Fr. Pio Paschini who died in 1962, never having edited his book as requested. According to Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, he left his work to an assistant, Michele Maccarrone, who in 1963 tried to have it published once again, but this time agreeing to its being edited. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who wanted to publish it back in 1945 in memory of Galileo’s death in 1642, were interested, but this time to use the book to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of Galileo’s birth due in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with Pope Paul VI who again approved its publication as he had with the original back in 1945 when he was Deputy Secretary in Rome. On October 2 1964, the manuscript was finally published under the name Pius Paschini with not a mention that it had been edited, or rather altered, to the extent that it was.
Eleven years later the pastoral council Vatican II (1962-1965) began. It too wanted to make the Church comply with modern times, modern thinking and of course modern science, to take it ‘out of the dark ages into the real world.’ Of huge importance to the Earthmovers’ story is what appeared in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et spes, 7 Dec. 1965.
. . . The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science. - - - Gaudium et spes, # 36.
Now who, according to Vatican II, were/are led by the hand of God and who were/are the troublemakers? Well Gaudium et spes, # 36 has a footnote reference to Pius Paschini, Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, 2 vol., Vatican Press, 1964, so they were obviously alluding to the Galileo case. Accordingly, Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo and Newton, among others, must have been led by the hand of God, and the troublemakers must have been Pope Paul V, St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII and the many senior theologians involved in the censure of Copernicanism. Yes, Vatican II was here openly criticising the old Church itself, the same authority upheld in its Dei verbum as speaking in the name of Christ.
It seems one theme that constantly surfaced at Vatican II was that it was not enough for the 1960s Catholic Church to declare its regard for modern culture; it must also prove this by deeds. As a sure way to prove their ‘intentions decisively,’ Monsignor Elchinger, auxiliary bishop of Strasbourg and other cardinals and bishops suggested that there should be a full rehabilitation of Galileo. A petition from many European intellectuals and scientists was sent to Pope Paul VI asking for a solemn rehabilitation of Galileo. He in turn asked the Holy Office if they approved. They replied that by approving the publication of the book they had already signified their current position. At another session on 4 November 1964, Bishop Elchinger expressed the following opinion:
The rehabilitation of Galileo on the part of the Church would be an eloquent act, accomplished humbly but correctly. Such a decision, if enacted by the supreme Authority of the Church, could not fail to redound to the Church’s own credit, since with such an action it would reclaim the trust of the contemporary world and would perform a great service to the cause of human culture.
As it happened, no official retrial took place. Instead it was decided to merely acknowledge a mistake was made. Three months later, a draft of what would be inserted into the docuмents of Vatican II was discussed.
Finally, a compromise was worked out: the explicit mention of Galileo in the text would be dropped, but a footnote reference to Paschini’s book would be added. The minutes of that meeting contain the following abbreviated notes that reveal the rationale underlying the compromise: “Galilei. – Inopportune to speak of this in the docuмent – Let us not force the Church to say: I made a mistake. The matter should be judged in the context of time. In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.329)
‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light.’ This of course is the book referenced by Gaudium et spes #36. But in truth this was an altered version of Fr Pio Paschini’s Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two books, one scholar described the book referenced in the docuмents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’(Richard Blackwell: Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, P.364.) Such is the level of deceit widespread in the Catholic Church for many years in the aftermath of the infamous U-turn.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: At Vatican II the strategy of the modernists and their revisionism of the Galileo case had become clear. What was a matter of faith for the 1616 and 1633 Church, was now made to look like a matter of science. That is why they allowed outsiders to deny the authority of this papal decree and sanctioned the humiliation of the popes and theologians who defended the geocentric reading of Scripture in the 17th century. That is why they permitted all to assert that there was no Divine Providence involved, that it was a mere disciplinary decree, valid until proof for an opposite interpretation was found.
That achieved, the next step was to make sure the Church came out on the winning truth side, on the side of the Earthmovers. How could this ‘mistaken heresy’ be made to look Catholic? To do this Galileo had to be ‘canonised’ as the victimised Catholic defender of the Church’s proper exegesis and hermeneutics, and the ‘theologians’ of 1616 depicted as little more than troublemakers interfering in the harmony between faith and science with their insistence on a literal reading of the Creation.
On their shoulders Vatican II placed the centuries of ‘conflict and controversy’ that followed. Thus the rehabilitation of Galileo from heretic to ‘man of deep Christian faith’ was absolutely crucial. The more he is presented as a saint, as the one God was with as he protected the true interpretation of Scripture, then the more Catholic the once Copernican heresy becomes, and the more Catholic Galileo’s hermeneutics and exegesis becomes also.
Another ploy was to try to make Catholic the idea that the Bible is not intended to teach us the ways of nature, only the way to eternal salvation. 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)] "Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur.” 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 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 are “accommodated to the popular understanding.” (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, Walker & Co., 2006, p.108.)
Then the Copernicans had to retrieve that loss of reputation for their beloved Catholic Church? How could they now defend it as a Copernican-compliant Church? Admitting errors by ignorant churchmen is one thing, but how could they get rid of the stigma? Well, resurrecting Galileo’s scientific academy as the Church’s very own Pontifical Academy of Sciences secured that. And as for the supposed conflict between faith and science, well that can be fixed too, simply where necessary, make all Catholic belief either conform to the assertions of science as they did with Copernicanism, or state that Catholic belief did not necessarily reject any of the accepted theories of modern science, without actually explaining theologically how this can be done. This way of course, all conflict between faith and science could be avoided and the truism that there can be no conflict between faith and science is thus preserved.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Shortly after the Council, at a Mass in Galileo’s hometown of Pisa in June 1965, Pope Paul VI continued the charade by paying a ‘striking tribute’ to Galileo’s faith as well as his science. There was however, no such accolade for the faith of the members of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of his time: Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII, and all those cardinals and theologians who placed their faith in a biblical revelation of a fixed earth and moving sun. That is real faith; that was faith, pure and absolute.
Now it is one thing proclaiming faith in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or whatever, as even the Copernicans do; that is normal faith for Catholics, and while impossible in science, has never been doubted or abandoned because of it. But what about faith in something that most thought could be tested, even proven or falsified by science? Now that is something different, perhaps the ultimate test of faith in revelation ever undergone by Catholics - faith in the Fathers' interpretation of the Bible, faith in a papal decree, faith in the Church’s Divine guidance. That kind of Catholic faith Galileo did not have. Nor did very many have such a faith when Newton, Bradley, Bessel and Foucault claimed their proofs for a fixed sun and moving earth. After them, science was considered a greater vehicle of truth than blind Catholic faith. The rest is history.
The Words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the subject of the faith of Christians:
Which Jesus hearing, marveled: and turning about to the multitude that followed him, he said: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith, not even in Israel.
Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?
Be of good heart, thy faith hath made thee whole.
According to your faith, be it done unto you.
O thou of little faith, why didst thou doubt? He said this to St. Peter.
But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.
O woman, great is thy faith!
Amen, I say to you, if you shall have faith, and stagger not, not only this of the fig tree shall you do, but also if you shall say to this mountain, Take up and cast thyself into the sea, it shall be done. Perhaps Our Lord was here alluding to the great faith in the entire deposit of Revelation needed to move the mountain of sin and heresy that sits atop and oppresses and smothers the Catholic Religion.
Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet?
Have the faith of God.
Whose faith when He saw, He said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.
And He said to them: Where is your faith?
And the Apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith.
But yet the Son of man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth?
[/i]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Next emerged the existentialist mystic, phenomenologist, modernist, ecuмenist and apologist supreme Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), ‘the Copernican Cannon’ as he used to describe himself when Bishop of Krakow, (J. Reston Jnr.: Galileo A Life, New York: Harper Collins 1994.) and the pope named ‘De Labore Solis’ (About the Work of the Sun) by St Malachy to Pope Innocent II in 1139.
As a contributor to Gaudium et spes in 1965, this pope decided he would further champion the cause of Galileo’s rehabilitation as one of his acts of apology for the ‘sins’ of the Church in the past. This began on the 10th Nov. 1979, when the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held a meeting to commemorate the centennial of Albert Einstein’s (1879-1955) birth. At this gathering the Pope gave a talk, later published under the title ‘Deep Harmony Which Unites the Truths of Science with the Truths of Faith.’ The Pope began by saying: ‘The Apostolic See wishes to pay to Einstein the tribute due to him for the eminent contribution he made to the progress of science, that is, to knowledge of the truth present in the mystery of the universe.’
Einstein, by the way, is the Pantheist who once said that ‘great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.’(Albert Einstein; quoted in New York Times, March 19, 1940.) No doubt, topmost on his list would have been the popes and theologians of the seventeenth century who opposed the biblical heresy of a fixed sun.
What Einsteinian ‘truths of science [that] could be harmonised with the truths of faith’ the Pope didn’t say, but one ignored was the one re-established by Einstein in 1905, a truth we will get back to later. The Pope went on:
On the occasion of this solemn commemoration of Einstein, I would like to confirm again the declarations of the Council on the autonomy of science in its function of research on the truth inscribed by the finger of God. The Church, filled with admiration for the genius of the great scientist in whom the imprint of the creative Spirit is revealed, without intervening in any way with a judgment which it does not fall upon her to pass on the doctrine concerning the great systems of the universe, proposes the latter, however, to the reflection of theologians to discover the harmony existing between scientific truth and revealed truth. - - - Einstein Centennial Speech, 1979.
‘The Church, filled with admiration for the genius of Einstein?’ Well maybe himself and members of the Pontifical Academy of Science, but surely not the ‘Church.’ With Einstein’s ‘dirty old man’ character and his Pantheism in the public domain at the time, we cannot see the ‘Church’ going public in admiration of this man. As for his ‘truths of science,’ well science is a long way off being a provider of ‘truths.’ All this of course was leading up to the Galileo case. Galileo, he said, ‘had to suffer a great deal at the hands of men and organisms of the Church.’
The pope was admitting that Galileo had been treated unjustly and that an injustice had been committed. To be sure, the pope was making the usual and important distinction between the Church as such on the one hand and ecclesiastical persons and institutions on the other; and of course, he was attributing the injustice not to the former but the latter.
Given popes were directly involved in the 1616 decree and 1633 Church judgement, the above assessment is puzzling. Perhaps a better example of this ‘important distinction’ of an official Church act and one that is not, is when a pope gives a personal opinion to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, as Pope John Paul II was doing then, and popes issuing decrees defining formal heresy through the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Church to be obeyed by all Catholics in 1616 and 1633. Surely the latter is the Church, the former the ecclesiastical person.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The pope’s statement was more than an admission of error, and seemed to be an admission of wrongdoing. Even an admission of error would have been significant since it was completely unprecedented for a pope to make such a statement. Although error had been admitted by many churchmen before; but the admission of wrongdoing signalled a new open-mindedness and sensitivity. To speak of Galileo’s “suffering” as the pope did implies that his treatment was undeserved or illegitimate. Moreover, the pope implicitly called his treatment an instance of unwarranted interference. And John Paul was implicitly “deploring” Galileo’s treatment by recalling that the Second Vatican Council had “deplored” such interferences. Indeed such expressions - 'suffering,' 'unwarranted' and 'deploring' - suggested that the pope was not merely admitting some unpalatable fact but also condemning it. In fact the condemnation of Galileo was itself being condemned. The reference to the Second Vatican council was in part an appeal to authority to help John Paul justify what he was saying and doing about Galileo. On the other hand, for this appeal to have the desired probative function, the pope had also to interpret the previous action of that council in the desired manner. (M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.340.)
But all this was not enough, Pope John Paul II wanted ‘to go beyond this stand taken by the Council’ and expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth study of the Galileo case to ‘right the wrongs, from whatever side they come’ as he put it. Most important of all of course was that the Pope wanted this investigation to confirm [that] all the sophistry amassed since 1741 was solidly founded, [and] that it all ended happily for Catholic hermeneutics in that, as it turned out, there was really no conflict between faith and science after all. As a result, a study commission of scholars for this purpose was set up in 1981, a thorough examination that was to take as long as it took to find the truth.
With regard to the objectivity of this commission, a glimpse into the mind of one of its ‘experts,’ Fr William Wallace O.P., a former electrical engineer and physicist, should suffice. Lecturing in March 1982 at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, he made the following comment:
The total content of revelation was not available for authoritative definition with the death of the last Apostle. Only through slow and painstaking scientific investigation were the literary genres of the Bible uncovered and the rules for its interpretation ascertained. The example is simple, but illustrates well the true complementarily of science and religion, of reason and belief. Were such rules known to Rome in 1615 and 1633, Galileo would have been spared the indignity. Had he not been motivated by that passionate desire for truth that brought it about, scriptural studies would never have achieved the status they enjoy today. (As quoted by Solange Hertz in her Beyond Politics, Veritas Press, 1992, p.67.)
In other words, before ‘science’ established the ‘facts,’ not even a reigning pope could interpret the Holy Scriptures correctly. With modernist ideas like this in the mind of one of the chief ‘experts’ on the commission, and the prior criticisms of the 1616 and 1633 ‘theologians’ at Vatican II, and then Pope John Paul II's references to Galileo in his many speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences - plus the selected alterations in Paschini’s edited book - the chance of an unbiased investigation into the Galileo affair by this papal commission was zero.
On October 31 1992, eleven years after it began in 1981, Cardinal Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, presented the findings of the commission to Pope John Paul II in the Sala Regia of the Apostolic Palace. Present also were members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, high-ranking officials of the Roman curia and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
The Vatican newspaper L’osservatore Romano, on 4th Nov. 1992, published a summary of the commission’s findings given by Cardinal Poupard. It was followed by Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech. Under the wishful headline ‘Galileo case is resolved,’ the world was subjected to yet another rendition of the affair that tried to make the history of the Galileo case and the 1741-1835 U-turn comply with Catholic norms and make a heliocentric reading of Sacred Scripture look orthodox. First, some authority had to be found to confirm that the 1616 decree ‘decided next to nothing’ as Henry Newman phrased it. This was done by selecting and misrepresenting the words of that private correspondence from Cardinal Bellarmine to Foscarini in 1615. In this letter, which we will present in full later, Bellarmine states:
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.
In 1615, when the above paragraph was written, Galileo was touting the idea that he had proof for a fixed sun and orbiting earth. Bellarmine was here responding to this suggestion, rejecting it outright, ending the claim in the present tense. But here now is the version of the same letter conjured up after the U-turn by the apologists and re-used by this commission to make it appear Bellarmine was of a view that the matter was one to be left as an open question.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, in a letter of 12 April 1615 [said], If the orbiting of the earth were ever demonstrated to be certain, then theologians, according to him, would have to review their interpretations of the biblical passages apparently opposed to the new Copernican theories, so as to avoid asserting the error of opinions which had proved to be true: In fact Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the double motion of the earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered.
In the above wording, Bellarmine’s comment is presented as referring to the future tense rather than the present tense. So, by misrepresenting the Cardinal, the 1616 papal decree could be presented as provisional, not absolute. Thus the way was cleared to justify a U-turn.
-
.
Are you having fun, cantatedomino?
Do you really think anyone is going to read all these posts you've made today?
They complain when someone makes ONE such post, and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.
And the copy is wanting. (not suitable for publication)
.
-
Neil,
and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.
An astounding effort I would say, and all to bring some serious ideas to the forum.
-
.
Are you having fun, cantatedomino?
Do you really think anyone is going to read all these posts you've made today?
They complain when someone makes ONE such post, and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.
And the copy is wanting. (not suitable for publication) .
She is serializing a book--one of the most fascinating I've ever read.
-
.
Are you having fun, cantatedomino?
Do you really think anyone is going to read all these posts you've made today?
They complain when someone makes ONE such post, and here you are making 25 of them, all in 2 hours and 13 minutes.
And the copy is wanting. (not suitable for publication)
.
Don't be a meanie .... CD is one of the best ..... then perhaps I am biased!
The subject-matter gives us an opportunity to move away from resisting the worldly ambitions of a Swiss book-keeper to understainding the undermining of mankind and our special place in the affairs of the Almighty.
-
.
The first thing that hit me is there is no publication data, no source noted, and no author.
So where does this come from? Is that too much to ask? Is that "mean?" I have no idea what this "book" is. Who wrote it? Isn't that something that you ALWAYS include from the very start? No? Maybe I thought I was on planet earth or something.
.
-
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?
.
-
.
What does this mean?
VRSNSMVSMQLIVB
Vade retro satana non suade mihi vana sunt malo quae libas ipse venea bibas?
Or, is that cantatedomino's password to unlock her computer?
.
-
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.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Searching for some real meat in the commission’s findings as summarised by Cardinal Poupard, one expected to find an official or even semi-official explanation as to how a defined heresy could become an orthodox teaching within the parameters of Catholic understanding. But the above referred to the 1633 sentence on Galileo only, not the 1616 decree. Such a lengthy study commission would surely explain how the Church could define a matter formal heresy; charge Galileo with this heresy, find him guilty of suspicion of the heresy, affirm this heresy was unreformable in 1633 and 1820, and then ignore such judgments since 1741?
What investigation into the Galileo affair could overlook that contradiction? These were some of the important aspects of the case that needed to be clarified by this Galileo papal study commission, questions that cried to heaven for answers for centuries. What emerged however was yet another pathetic exercise in ‘giving plausible standing-grounds for nearly every important sophistry ever broached’ - as Andrew White put it a century earlier: to justify the U-turn and the hermetic, heliocentric-based hermeneutics adopted thereafter and confirmed at Vatican II.
Following Cardinal Poupard, Pope John Paul II gave his address to a packed and attentive assembly. He thanked the commission and immediately summarised the case like so:
Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so. Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. “If Scripture cannot err,” he wrote to Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways.” We also know his letter to Christine (1615) which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics. - - - Pope John Paul II.
So, once again, who were the incompetent ‘theologians’ alluded to above? Why none other than the popes, cardinals, and theologians of 1616 and 1633, all of whom were at the time magnificently engaging in face-to-face combat with the Protestant rebellion, with reform theology and reform exegesis and hermeneutics in the seventeenth century. Yes, these are the ‘theologians’ here accused above of ignorance when it came to interpreting the Bible.
But here is the hypocrisy of their apologetics. Having twisted Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter from the present tense to the future tense, Pope John Paul II then uses the Cardinal to support their Copernicanism.
In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate, personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proof that the earth orbited round the sun, one should “interpret with great circuмspection” every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile… Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the Divine Word guided St Augustine… A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical 'Providentissimus Deus.'
Indeed, but so wrapped up were they in their attempts to justify that U-turn, they had to ignore the fact that the same Robert Bellarmine, whom they quote to get all to ignore the 1616 papal decree, was the one directly responsible for advising Pope Paul V to define and declare a fixed sun/moving earth formal heresy in 1616, and this one year after the letter to Foscarini they quote from above was written by the Cardinal. Of all the theologians responsible for having Copernicanism condemned as formal heresy, Bellarmine stood out above the others. Accordingly, as chief theologian to the Church at the time, he has to be placed top of Vatican II and Pope John Paul II’s list of incompetent wrongdoers, a theologian who supposedly didn’t know the difference between faith and science.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Why then did they make him a Doctor of the Church in 1931? His allotted feast day is May 13th, and it has a collect in the Mass that reads as follows:
O God, who didst fill blessed Robert, Thy Bishop and doctor, with wondrous learning and virtue that he might break the snares of errors and defend the Apostolic See; grant us by his merits and intercession, that we may grow in the love of truth and that the hearts of those in error may return to the unity of The Church. Through our Lord . . . Alleluia, alleluia. They that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament.
That is the way Saint Robert Bellarmine should be remembered by all and not as portrayed in Gaudium et spes, by the Galileo commission and personally by Pope John Paul II, ultimately as a troublemaker and interpreter who could have taken lessons in learning from a first-year Vatican II seminarian. This is the level the Vatican II apologists went to in order to bring Catholicism into the modern world as they saw it.
It is propaganda like this, propaganda that goes unnoticed by the vast majority of trusting Catholics worldwide, propaganda that few would question for the simple reason that such a query would look like one doubted a pope going about Church business. Thankfully it is not, and reading from a speech prepared for him by his Galileo Commission carries no guarantee that it is an official Church teaching or clarification, and it is canonically legal to scrutinise it critically to establish where the real truth lies.
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 The 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 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 known 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 really binding on Catholics either? Such is how the U-turn damaged Catholic teaching, rendering it possible for the modernists to do the same with other directives that did not comply with their modern thinking.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: 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 Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, the non-literal, ‘figurative’ exegesis of a fixed earth and moving sun that became a fixed sun moving earth interpretation, was ‘canonised’ at Vatican II. Finally the Pope tries to bring further closure on the matter by offering the report 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 illegal, non-abrogated U-turn against the papal decree of 1616.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The world’s media of course responded as one could predict, making jokes and depicting cartoons at 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 traditional interpretation of all the Fathers.
Following on this victory for Galileo, in 1998, 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 whom 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 in an encyclical we read God was not with them in this case but was with the suspected heretic instead.
Ten years later, Jan. 17th 2008, in spite of his historical accusation of error by Pope John Paul II and the castigation of those involved in bringing Galileo to trial, the matter returned to haunt Pope Benedict XVI in turn. 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 agreeing with a philosopher he quoted in a 1991 essay, saying the 1633 Galileo trial was ‘reasonable and fair.’ This incident, which became headline news throughout the media around the world, and on the Internet, [and which] caused the Pope to cancel his visit to the University, shows the influence the Galileo case can still generate today. Within days, Vatican cardinals were insisting the Pope held no such view, that he only quoted the philosopher’s opinion on the Galileo case but did not support it himself. This of course suggested that the Holy Father agreed with the 67 professors in La Sapienza University, that the Church trial and condemnation of Galileo was unreasonable and unfair.
Nevertheless, the following Sunday, 200,000 sympathisers 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 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.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: 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 the story of the Earthmovers as presented to the world for centuries now, let us see what 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)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: That then is our brief summation of the Galileo affair as it happened and as it affected the Catholic Church. It is a version of the Galileo case rarely if ever presented. Included are added the arguments offered by the apologists and some rarely seen rebuttals of their claims. Finally we have shown the current position of post Vatican II churchmen, one they hoped would bring ‘closure’ to the case; an error by theologians, one we can all ignore as null and void, harmless and of no consequence to the Catholic faith.
Their account gives credibility to centuries of ridicule and scorn poured on the Church by its enemies and by its own throughout the years. It asserts that the anti-Pythagorean decree defining and declaring formal heresy was inextricably interwoven with and dependent on an ignorant science put together from a literal reading of Scripture, a ‘mistake’ hinted at in papal encyclicals and condemned in the docuмents of an non-dogmatic ecuмenical council of the Catholic Church.
Truly, if ever anyone was found guilty and subjected to derision by both the enemies of the Church and those who inherited its leadership and authority, it was the ‘men and organisms’ of the Church of the 17th century who defended the traditional geocentric reading of the Holy Scriptures and who condemned Galileo accordingly.
Objective scholars however, intent on trying to come to terms with what they conclude to be a disastrous episode in Church history, even if it is the only one of its kind, admit ‘the wish to solve the riddle plays against the consciousness that it may be insoluble.’ (Rivka Feldhay: Galileo and the Church, University Press, 1995, p. vii.)
The reason for this is of course because the teaching of the Church precludes such a happening as the Galileo affair in which a Church decree defining and declaring formal heresy based on the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers can be demonstrably wrong. The Holy Ghost, we are ever assured, in matters of defining faith and morals - and the true interpretation of the Scriptures is of faith - assists the Pope, the Church, in its government. Such is the true nature of the ‘riddle’ and is the reason why so many thousand scholars, in spite of their close examination of the case, know in their heart that they have failed to resolve things to their ultimate satisfaction.
The pathetic delusion and denial by churchmen since the infamous U-turn of 1741-1835 desperately tries to avoid the fact that the Catholic Church, according to its own teaching, does not indulge in pert, frivolous, or erroneous decrees when deciding on matters of faith or morals; yet one could well believe it did such a thing were one to believe the stories put out these past centuries.
What is at stake here is the Church’s divine guidance and traditional mode of hermeneutics, the very instrument that had over the centuries been used to identify and classify dogmas and doctrines to be believed by all Christians. If this form of hermeneutics were proven to be in error, one could ask what other interpretations and classifications could have been misinterpreted throughout the ages? Similarly, if a heresy defined so by a pope were proven to be false, how many other heresies or dogmas they were based on, could also have been false? Moreover, if the Church falsely condemned Galileo as suspect of heresy, how many others were accused in the wrong or condemned on false premises? Perhaps now we can see again why in 1632 Pope Urban VIII said this heresy puts the Catholic faith in danger.
So, what is the truth of it, what is the answer to the riddle that is the Galileo case? Given the name Galileo and his conflict with the Church is a never-ending item, isn’t it about time all the facts of the case were revisited with solving this riddle in mind, just as others have tried before. For over a century now this enigma has been unwinding, piece-by-piece, but few even noticed.
The most recent and successful attempt to re-establish the geocentrism of Scripture and faith was begun in 1967 by the Dutch-Canadian schoolmaster Walter van der Kamp, succeeded by Gerardus Bouw, Marshall Hall and R.G. Elmendorf among others. On the Catholic side we find Solange Hertz, Martin Gwynne and more recently Robert Sungenis and friends. Add to these the Thomist scholar Paula Haigh who in her writings emphasises the necessity for Thomistic metaphysics for Catholic theology. Each of the above has contributed to solving the puzzle in different ways. In this thesis we include areas not examined before and the result, we hope, will allow a synthesis many more will understand and accept.
-
The Introduction is complete, and I am about the begin the Preface. And so I figure this is a good place to mention that I wasn't sure whether or not to put in the predicatory remarks from the Iggy thread introducing the book. I misjudged, thinking that people reading here at CI would be familiar with the fact this is an unpublished manuscript which the thus-far anonymous author has given permission to serialize - in part.
Here are some of those predicatory statements taken verbatim from the original thread:
"Dear Forum Members,
A very dear friend of mine has been writing a book about the copernican revolution for what seems to me to be decades. He has never published, but I have read his work, and I can say that it has informed my thinking in a profound way.
I have asked him if we could publish at least parts of it here, and he has agreed.
Without further ado, I give you the Introduction to this work, entitled The Earthmovers."
Now, I will relate what the author said to me after I commenced this thread on CI:
The entire book will not be serialized on the internet forum. This is because the author wishes to reserve something extra to offer, if the book gets published in hard copy.
The author would have his internet readers know that he is constantly editing and updating the book, and has added material to it since its serialization on Iggy. He prefers that we use the Iggy thread archive and post verbatim from that publication. He stated that the added material yet makes no difference to the story. It simply gives to the published hard copy some distinguishing features which will make obtaining and disseminating copies an attractive idea.
Once we get to the end of what was previously published on Iggy, the editing process will recommence and we will add material not previously published. We were very far from finished with our online serialization when Iggy went down.
-
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.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The problem for the ‘proof that the earth revolves round the sun’ came to a head in the wake of the famous Mitchelson & Morley experiment of 1887. This series of trials, which we will examine in detail later, produced results signifying that there is no movement of the earth through space as it supposedly orbits the sun.
For eighteen years after the 1887 M&M experiment, physicists searched for something that could explain away this unwelcome geostatic result. Finally, in 1905, Einstein offered what he called his Special Theory of Relativity to reinstate heliocentrism. The theory had to admit the fact that there is no experiment known to man that could detect absolute motion or absolute rest for us in the cosmos. Yes, science finally conceded that there is no empirical way of knowing the true order of the universe - and therefore its laws - for the simple reason that man cannot confirm for certain that ‘one firm point’ in space from which to determine any absolute movement between the earth, sun and stars.
In other words, even with modern scientific technology, we have never been able to resolve whether the sun and stars rotate around a fixed earth or if the earth turns about a fixed sun within a fixed stars cosmos. This now intractable problem for science is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look inwards at it, would it be possible for us to see which body or bodies are really fixed, if any is or are fixed, and thus know the true order and harmony of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place in space and are never likely to get beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, man’s scientific knowledge of the true order of the universe has and will always be little more than conjecture.
[This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself. McGrath writes: ‘Gödel famously proved that however many rules of inference we formulate, there will still be some valid inferences that are not covered by them. In other words there are some statements that are true that we may not be able to show to be true. The philosophical implications of this are considerable.]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation. (Bertrand Russell: quoted in D.D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, p.18.)
The atheist Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was but one on a long list, including Bishop Nicole Oresme (d.1382), Copernicus, and even Isaac Newton, who knew science never proved absolute motion or absolute rest. They recognised that the stumbling block of relative motion had to be overcome before the true order of the universe could be known for sure and Galileo ignored this fact when asserting his ‘proofs.’
Four hundred years later, science has reached deadlock, allowing for at least two main possibilities for us on earth, an orbiting earth around the sun in a fixed star cosmos, or the sun, planets and stars moving around the earth. Thus all cosmic observations from earth have a heliocentric or geocentric explanation, a fact most will not or are unable to accept and thus grasp, even when it is pointed out explicitly to them.
As regards the ‘scientific’ centre of the universe, well, according to Einstein’s finite curved universe in which anywhere can be the centre we now have countless choices for that centre; none, the sun, moon, a planet, a star, and, dare we say it, even the earth. Now while the above is standard physics for first year science students, nearly everyone else has been indoctrinated from primary school into believing that the earth has to orbit the sun, just as the planets do. Thus we are led to believe in a cosmic order that denies any possibility of the movements we witness with our own eyes every day, every year and multiple years.
Yes, even within the Catholic Church today, we have all been trained to think as Hermetic sun-dwellers. But note what Bertrand Russell recognised and confirmed after 400 years of scientific study and experiment; that the question as to whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is true is not one belonging to science, but one belonging to metaphysics, or to put it more bluntly, a matter of faith. This being so, what the Scriptures reveal about the order of the universe is a question for faith to decide, not for science to assert.
Cardinal Bellarmine alluded to this in his 1615 Letter to Foscarini, quoted at the beginning of this preface. The Galileo case now comes down to one of faith, human faith against divine faith. Recognition of this fact changes history, a story that needs correcting. Needless to say the ramifications of this rectification are also extremely serious for the Catholic Church.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The Copernican revolution, while classed as a scientific revolution, was in fact a religious revolution. It is impossible to separate cosmology from theology and the divine, as both are well connected in the Scriptures. Add to this the utterances of many bygone astronomers and contemporary writers on this theme. Carl Sagan, in his introduction to Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time states:
This is also a book about God… or perhaps the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he states, to understand the mind of God. (Stephen. Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.)
There is however, something further we should know:
HAWKING AND THE MIND OF GOD. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God…his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest. (Peter Coles: Hawking, Postmodern Encounters, Icon Books, 2000, p.47.)
For hundreds of years now, so certain are we that the earth spins and orbits the sun like a planet, nobody needs or wants proof or verification for it anymore. Even now, any suggestion that the universe could be geocentric and geostatic always generates curious incredulity followed by derision and laughter. Even being asked to entertain the idea is a challenge to one’s intellectual ego, like being asked to believe the earth is flat. Thus, like a magic spell, the Hermetic cosmology has a grip on the human mind in the same manner as addictive illusionary substances have on the drug-addict.
Yes, this belief system, long implanted into the minds of mankind, is now virtually impossible to break free from, as most of you readers are no doubt already experiencing. To demonstrate this hold, we again refer to Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, the book released on ‘April fools day’ 1988, the one 26 million bought:
We may have no idea what Professor Hawking does – but everyone knows it is damned clever stuff. So dauntingly clever that I suspect a hefty percentage of the 25 million copies of his book 'A Brief History of Time', still remain unopened since it came out. But the sales prove we are, in theory anyway, hungry to learn about his heroic search for the so-called Theory of Everything that will explain once and for all the universe and its purpose. (R. Gore-Langton: Daily Express, Friday 1st Sept 2000.)
The above review of the play God and Stephen Hawking illustrates the heliocentric magic to perfection. As with Satan’s inducement to Adam that he could know all things like God, Hawking, a professed atheist, invited onto the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in 1986 by the way, is now promoted as the guru to follow. With no idea what he ‘does,’ and without understanding what he writes, Hawking and his ilk are held in awe by the Press, the public, even popes in Rome, for their ‘truths.’ ‘Cleverness’ is now classed as ‘stuff’ that cannot be understood, which, from a convincing propaganda and financially rewarding point of view, is indeed very ‘clever.’
-
+WILLIAMSON: In the 18th century, the 17th-century Catholicism soured with Jansenism. Jansenism was a form of Protestant Catholicism, and Jansenism led to Liberalism. Jansenism is very strict, on the right, and then the pendulum swings. It’s unbalanced, it’s too far out, and the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, and you get somebody who’s very strict suddenly becoming very liberal, and so Jansenists turn into liberals. The same thing happened in England. The Puritans turned into Whigs about the same time, towards the end of the 17th century.
This idea presupposes another. For if a thing be able to swing and drift from one polarity or tendency to another, then we must presuppose an inherent instability in the mechanism. Inherent instability is potency for movement. But there is no movement in God and His Truth is immutable. By definition, true Catholics are the most stable beings in the changeable universe because they participate, by grace, in Essential Immutability. Thus if the Catholics of 18th and 19th centuries were so moveable, then what caused the instability in the first place? I say that it was scientist earth-moving confirmed in its revolutionism by ecclesiastical pretension.
When they moved the Earth they unmoored and unhinged the basic intelligibility of reality. When they moved the Earth off its bases, they made the entire universe (Man being its microcosm) unstable.
All manner of instability - physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, and temporal - has insistently and implacably followed in its wake.
When Our Lady Triumphs, stability will return to the Universe.
On this topic I recently gave consideration to some ideas related to the holiday rush. The pathological commercialism in which we are awash, is a prime example of the artificially injected instability that is the favorite soft-kill weapon of the revolutionary establishment.
In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Then, over the course of Six Days, He filled and adorned both. He placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament, for the regulation of days, nights, years, months, and seasons. The circuit of the sun makes both the diurnal cycle and the procession of the seasons. The profound stability and predictability of this unshakeable natural order operates as a mighty regulatory principle in the affairs of men, even unto their interior state of happiness and tranquillity. It silently and unobtrusively regulates everything - the activities of the individual person, family life, community life, the affairs of State, and the great cycles and seasons of the life of the Church.
The happiness and tranquillity of all levels of the social order depends in great part upon the order, harmony, predictability, and regularity of the cosmological processions.
Thus if an enemy were to come with the intention of injecting disorder into the ecclesiastical, political, and social fabric, he would do well to interfere with the regularity of Divine, natural, and human cycles.
The first wave of invasion begins with copernicanism, which violently dislodges the Earth from its place in the cosmos. The intellectual effect on mankind is that Earth, in reality stable, immoveable, unshakeable, at rest, and centrally located, is now erroneously believed to hurtle through random space at truly obscene speeds. Man now believes in the operation of error. His intellect is deformed, and consequently, so too are his appetites, for the will is moved by the intellect.
Disorder, irregularity, unpredictability, uncertainty, and ignorance follow in the wake of this first invasion.
But that is not enough because nature always reasserts itself almost as violently as its aggressors tear away at it. Thus a natural conservatism keeps replenishing stability wherever and whenever it can. Yes the Earth is alleged to move, but the seasons still change, the day is still 24 hours, the sun still rises, and the moon maintains its phases. Holidays, festivities, and daily activities may thus continue on their course.
But this is unacceptable to the revolution establishment, as this is a constant threat to their dominion and control, which is based upon mass intellectual delusion. They must constantly fight against implacable nature - the report of the senses, including common sense - reasserting itself, the way weeds implacably reassert themselves in a landscape.
Hence we see ever increasing varieties of destabilizing strategies, aimed at keeping populations in a state of reactionism, confusion, disequilibrium, disorder, and, ultimately infantile dependency with blind obedience. [I submit the diabolical novelty called Black Friday as an example of the latest trend in destabilization strategy. Black Friday is their anti-First Sunday of Advent, ushering in their satanic, pagan "holiday" season. It is a satanic rite of greed, hatred of neighbor, chaos, disorder, agitation, belligerence, and murderous designs. How many of us participated in it?]
Another destabilization strategy is the changing of the traditional calendars, as at the French Revolution and Vatican II. Vatican II goes so far as to interfere with the Church's liturgical seasons, so beautifully aligned with the rhythms of nature, that they supernaturalize and adorn the natural order in a way that could almost make Earth the end of our existence, did we not know better.
The revolution establishment, responsible for the wreckage of the liturgical calendar, aids and abets the crimes of the pseudo-churchmen, in the commercial sphere. Calendar-tinkering was really bad twenty years ago, but it is all out mayhem in 2012. We now see Christmas decorations go up in stores on October 1st, competing with the lurid filth peddled in the Halloween market.
And the thing of it is: What about Catholics? This is the season of Advent. There should be no lights, no tree, no decorations, no parties, until December 25th. Yet how many of us fell for it and put the stuff up in our homes right after Thanksgiving, thereby allowing ourselves to be further destabilized by enemy forces?
Yet another very insidious destabilization strategy is what I call the "war on thinking." The emotions and passions reside in the matter of the body. They are extremely moveable, even volatile. They are difficult to control, even when put under the influence of grace. If not kept under strict control, they will destabilize thinking, judging, and acting. Whereas the intellect, which is a spiritual faculty, is much more stable and immoveable, as it is made in the image and likeness of the Immutable God. The war on thinking targets the passions and emotions, seeking to stir them up, while simultaneously feeding the intellect pabulum and low-grade garbage. This greatly destabilizes the individual, who, in turn, destabilizes the social, political, and spiritual cells in which he participates.
What kind of environment do we live in, if not one that is dumbed down and hyper-sensitized, hyper-sentimentalized in the extreme?
Thus we see that copernicanism is an arch-system of destabilization of nature, human activity, and grace, resulting in a breakup of order, harmony, tranquillity, predictability, and hence happiness.
We must fight all instability by the restoration of stability. And we do this, first, by traveling back to the place where it all broke down - the Cosmology. If we get that right, we get a fighting chance to rebuild Christendom.
Viva Christo Rey!
[/color]
-
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.)
-
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.
-
Protestant :heretic:
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.’
-
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.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=30#p2)
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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=40#p0)? Is that normal?
Why is the font style and font size changing like the phases of the moon?
.
-
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.
-
.
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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=40#p0). 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.)
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.
-
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
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?
.
-
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.
-
The font looks huge on my computer. Is it teeney tiny so that people cannot read comfortably?
Columba is correct - it's east to enlarge the font to read. Maybe that's why it looks so big to me. My screen is way enlarged always.
Columba, what font size should I use in Times New Roman?
-
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.
Perhaps the FONT and SIZE tags cause differences in different browsers and operating systems. Here is what it looks like without the FONT and SIZE tags.
-
I am thrilled to see this thread back up. Thank you, Cantate, Patricius and Clare. May Our Lady of Good Success guide it.
:pray:
-
The font looks huge on my computer. Is it teeney tiny so that people cannot read comfortably?
Columba is correct - it's east to enlarge the font to read. Maybe that's why it looks so big to me. My screen is way enlarged always.
Columba, what font size should I use in Times New Roman?
At this point, I suppose sticking to the same format would be best, just for the sake of consistency.
The Times font is easier to read than Arial, IMHO. So that's a good choice.
I guess I'm going to be shifting up when I read these, and then shifting down when I go to another thread. Whatever.
It would be nice to have a 28" screen like some people I know.
After all that, why is there no Contents?
And why is the Preface on page 40?
.
-
.
Is this repetition of paragraphs going to happen a lot?
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.
>>>from here<<<
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.
>>>to here<<<
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. [/b]
The repeated part is this:
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...
.
-
.
How long is this Preface? Is each post one page? If so there have been about 14 pages in the Preface so far, and there is no mention of how much farther the Preface will last.
What came before the Preface? "EARTHMOVERS:" is all any of the pages show, on top.
What usually comes before a Preface in a book? An Introduction? Is there an Introduction in this "book?" -- a "book" without page numbers?
How are we to refer to anything for discussion without page numbers?
There is a BLUE SEGMENT a few "pages" (posts, actually) back that begins with "+WILLIAMSON:" Is the blue part alone a quote of some kind of letter or article written by Bishop Williamson? If so, when was it written? The date of "2012" is contained therein. Was it written in 2012? If so, was that before October or after October? Why is October 2012 relevant for "+Williamson?" (Answer: that's when he was so-called expelled.) If this BLUE portion (with no ID or source or footnote -- oh, there can't be footnotes because there are no footers, nor headers, nor chapters nor ends nor page numbers nor... whatevers) was written before October, did this BLUE portion have some EFFECT on the fact of what happened in October to him (H.E.'s so-called expulsion)?
Why do I get the feeling that nobody has any answers to these questions, nor does anyone care? I'm beginning to get the impression that the readers here, if there really are any, are like one oddball member who keeps posting clips of a famous book for "discussion" but does not have any discussion to offer, nor is he capable of carrying on any discussion that indicates any comprehension of what he keeps pasting up on the wall like graffiti.
There cannot be any discussion of this "book" (is it a book?) if we can't refer to page numbers or chapter numbers or any kind of numbers, except for date and time of the post -- oh, but that won't work either because depending on which time zone you're in, the time will be different. Did you ever consider that?
No? Why not? Because I wasn't "rude" enough to ask a pertinent question until here we are on post number 65 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=65#p0)?
How do I know this is "post number 65 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=65#p0)?"
Well, it is, but I doubt any member on CI, nor even the moderators, can tell me how I know this is post number 65 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=65#p0). Who cares?
Well, if nobody can identify post numbers, then how can anyone identify which post it is in this "book" (is it a book?) that they're referring to?
Why would someone want to refer to a part of this?
FOR DISCUSSION, that's why.
Do you want a discussion, or do you want to just post and post and post and post.........................?
.
-
.
Example:
Here is a quote, and I'd like to ask, who is speaking in this quote, and to what does the quote refer? That is, someone else is being referred to, saying something important: who is saying something important, and what is it that was said that was important?
"Of all the false claims throughout history, claiming proof for the earth’s movement through space and [claiming proof] 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."
,
,
,
,
,
Who wrote the bracketed words "[claiming proof]" in the quote above?
Can you click here to find out?
Where can this quoted statement be found in the previous "pages?"
Do you know what this post number is to which I refer?
Do you have to go somewhere else (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=45#p1) before you can answer that?
Is there some other way of answering here without having to click on something?
Does anyone care?
If these questions cannot be answered, there will be no intelligent discussion on this thread about this material. It will be impossible. Don't think so?
If you think any substantive discussion can take place without any way to reference paragraphs or posts by number, when most everyone's time zone renders a different ID for each post if you only go by the time of the post, then how can anyone refer to a particular part of the "book" without page numbers? Are you going to rely on the SEARCH feature every time you want to find something?
That should be a great encouragement for discussion .................. NOT.
.
-
.
This is post number 67, presuming one of the mods does not delete any of the posts in this thread before this one, that is. How can you determine that's true?
.
-
I am thrilled to see this thread back up. Thank you, Cantate, Patricius and Clare. May Our Lady of Good Success guide it.
:pray:
Magdalena is the person who suggested to me to contact Clare to get in touch with Patricius. I just figured it was blown to the four winds and unrecoverable.
She is to be thanked most wholeheartedly.
So: Thank you Magdalena, Clare, and Patricius!
-
Dear Neil Obstat,
It's been quite a long time since I've made this offer to anyone, but the time is right again:
Relax.
Forgive the human foibles.
Accept the electronic/haphazard formatting.
Use appropriate buttons to make the words bigger.
Have yourself a Double Peeptini:
(http://www.caplanmiller.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/peep-tini.jpg)
And enjoy the read.
[/b][/size]
-
I like the fact that you put the Benedictine exorcism prayer into the thread description.
CSSML NDSMD! :pray:
-
Megadittos, Cantatedomino!!! Please do enjoy the read .... and .... Peeptinis all the way around ...
-
This topic is brand new in my formerly Stella-centric universe, and I am finding it fascinating.
A couple of drive-by comments.
- I was struck by the excerpt comparing the moving of the Tabernacle from the center of the altar, to the "moving" of the Earth from the center of the universe. The disorientation caused by the former is incalculable.
- In some monasteries, when the words, "And the Word was made flesh," is recited during the Angelus, the monks or nuns kiss the floor. The reason is to emphasize the reality of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, having set His feet on this earth, has made all the Earth hallowed ground. Seems logical that that ground also would be the center of the universe.
Carry on.
:popcorn:
-
.
What the heck is a Peeptini (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=65#p4)? Sounds like tinitis.
And how many more pages -- or should I say "posts" -- are there in the "Preface?"
.
-
This topic is brand new in my formerly Stella-centric universe, and I am finding it fascinating.
A couple of drive-by comments.
- I was struck by the excerpt comparing the moving of the Tabernacle from the center of the altar, to the "moving" of the Earth from the center of the universe. The disorientation caused by the former is incalculable.
- In some monasteries, when the words, "And the Word was made flesh," is recited during the Angelus, the monks or nuns kiss the floor. The reason is to emphasize the reality of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, having set His feet on this earth, has made all the Earth hallowed ground. Seems logical that that ground also would be the center of the universe.
Carry on.
:popcorn:
That's very interesting. Where did you read that? What was the page number? Which chapter was it in? What was the context?
.
-
The excerpt is on page 11, 2nd installment, 5th paragraph, which begins with, "Today, two hundred and fifty years..."
God bless.
-
Protestant :fryingpan:
-
This topic is brand new in my formerly Stella-centric universe, and I am finding it fascinating.
A couple of drive-by comments.
- I was struck by the excerpt comparing the moving of the Tabernacle from the center of the altar, to the "moving" of the Earth from the center of the universe. The disorientation caused by the former is incalculable.
- In some monasteries, when the words, "And the Word was made flesh," is recited during the Angelus, the monks or nuns kiss the floor. The reason is to emphasize the reality of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, having set His feet on this earth, has made all the Earth hallowed ground. Seems logical that that ground also would be the center of the universe.
Carry on.
:popcorn:
That's very interesting. Where did you read that? What was the page number? Which chapter was it in? What was the context?
The excerpt is on page 11, 2nd installment, 5th paragraph, which begins with, "Today, two hundred and fifty years..."
God bless.
Thank you, Stella!
That would be CURRENTLY, post number 51 (with no page number).
When you say "page number 11," Stella, that could change, as it did about a year ago when Matthew downgraded the page display from 10 to 5. He could do it again to something like 4, in which case that would then be page number 13 to which you refer; or to 3, in which case it would change to page number 17 to which you refer; or to 2, in which case it would change to page number 26 to which you refer, for examples.
He could downgrade the default to one post per page. Hopefully though, he won't ever set it to zero posts per page.
Of course, I say "currently" because, we are presuming no posts before it in this thread get deleted or added, (after which all the subsequent post numbers would then change accordingly):
Post #51 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=50#p1)
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.)
That should actually say, "baptized or not in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," instead of, "...in the name of Jesus Christ," because anyone baptized in "the name of Jesus Christ" is not baptized at all.
.
-
This is excellent, cantatedomino. I especially apppreciate how the author has linked heliocentrism/Copernicanism with Hermeticism/Occultism. This is a very important point to make: to insist on their being a link between they spiritual and the physical. Many Modernists want us to believe that Religion and Science are separate and that what is taught as Science has no relation to what is taught in Religion, which is an absurd notion. Heliocentrism/Copernicanism has had a drastic influence on our civilization; it was in large part the intellectual fuel for the satanic French Revolution. How you picture the Universe has a great impact on how you interpret everything, which includes both religion and morality. I'm convinced that what keeps a lot of people from even considering the Catholic Faith today is that the Copernican view of the Universe and the Darwinian view of the origins of life has such sway over their minds. The very idea of "God" is criticized by modern secularists as being "solipsistic", because for them the Universe is essentially desolate and meaningless and the fate of humanity is governed largely by chance; they cannot imagine that human beings have an important place in the Universe, to them the idea is offensive. It's no wonder that godlessness and immorality have spread when people believe themselves to be a small step above monkeys in a world that is completely indifferent to them. It's no wonder that our art and architecture has become so vulgar and nihilistic.
The importance of this issue cannot be stressed enough.
-
.
The very idea of "God" is criticized by modern secularists as being "solipsistic", because for them the Universe is essentially desolate and meaningless and the fate of humanity is governed largely by chance;
McFiggly, where did you see solipsism mentioned in The Earthmovers, sofar?
I don't recall seeing it.
.
-
The very idea of "God" is criticized by modern secularists as being "solipsistic", because for them the Universe is essentially desolate and meaningless and the fate of humanity is governed largely by chance;
McFiggly, where did you see solipsism mentioned in The Earthmovers, sofar?
I don't recall seeing it.
It's a comment that I've heard the atheist Christopher Hitchens make a number of times, and considering the following and influence that the man has I presume that many agree with what he says.
Here's an image that summarizes their argument:
You see, in the Copernican picture of the Universe shown here, it does seem, at first glance and to those who have not been taught the rudiments of theology, ridiculous that God would take interest in the actions of an insignificant race of supermonkeys that have gathered upon an insiginificant pebble. For many people, that's the nihilism and apathy that is inherent to the Copernican view of the Universe.
-
.
Uhh... I think we're supposed to stick to THE EARTHMOVERS in this thread, McFiggly.
.
-
This topic is brand new in my formerly Stella-centric universe, and I am finding it fascinating.
A couple of drive-by comments.
- I was struck by the excerpt comparing the moving of the Tabernacle from the center of the altar, to the "moving" of the Earth from the center of the universe. The disorientation caused by the former is incalculable.
- In some monasteries, when the words, "And the Word was made flesh," is recited during the Angelus, the monks or nuns kiss the floor. The reason is to emphasize the reality of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, having set His feet on this earth, has made all the Earth hallowed ground. Seems logical that that ground also would be the center of the universe.
Carry on.
:popcorn:
So happy to hear you are benefiting from reading this material.
And now, I carry on . . .
:pc:
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Introduction
Put on the armour of God that you may be able to stand up to the wiles of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the Principalities and Powers, against the spiritual forces of wickedness on high.- - - St Paul (Eph, ch.6, 10-12.)
No illusion as momentous as the Earthmovers’ revolution in both faith and science happens by chance. Such things are made to happen. Anyone who believes human history in any sphere is a series of spontaneous happenings lives in a fantasy world. According to the same Catholic Church that is caught up in the Copernican revolution there is a conflict of Principalities and Powers ongoing, and this is at the root of everything of importance that happens in our world in both Church and State.
In such a contest, long-term plans are crucial, and ‘conspiracy’ is often the modus operandi. When world domination of humanity, of our minds, souls and allegiances, with eternal consequences is the ‘game,’ then there are no simple happenings in such a struggle. This conflict began with Adam and Eve in the beginning of the world and will continue to its end. With this in mind, it is time to set out the theme of our thesis, our assessment as to why; who and how this heresy led even the elect astray. (Matthew 24:24: For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.)
Up to the present, the history of the Galileo case has never been told in the context of a cosmic order beyond the realm of science to know for sure. As we showed in our preface, Galileo and his belief have never been proven true. But now we do just that, adding some ‘meat’ that demonstrates how things function on the Melchisedech plane of combat, facilitating the martial decree of Genesis 3:15.
First we ask why? The heavens and earth, the Christian faith tells us, were created for the honour and glory of God. And God, it further says, can be known from reasoning on the order and beauty of His material universe. This order was once simple. The earth was the pivot around which the universe, with its majestic movements of sun, moon, planets and stars, wheeled. Seen accordingly, man’s spiritual nature saw that this unique place in the universe for us confirms a divine rather than a natural cause for such uniqueness.
Once belief in God was established by reason, then mankind would be more favourable to the revelation, prophesy and history He prepared and delivered for our redemption.
As one reads on in the first few verses of Genesis, the astonishing multiplication and diversity of beings are depicted…Thus is constituted the great liturgical hymn of the created universe, this vast glittering chandelier of existence praised by Chesterton, which is a community of beings diverse and unequal, each manifesting in some manner certain divine perfections, whether in brilliant luminosity or muted tones. As St Thomas remarks, the astonishing contrasts and curiosities that populate God’s splendid art are one with his purpose, which is to communicate His perfections to creatures in the greatest possible measure. (Dr. M. Berton: The Angelus, May 1994.)
To believers in Genesis then, no image, no order, was ever more beautiful or thoughtful. This order of the world, Revelation tells us, was like every other order created by God, hierarchic, with the earth as the first and central creation of the visible, material universe. Only then were created celestial bodies subservient to it, the moon, the sun, and the stars. The purpose of this order was to accommodate the greatest act of God’s love, the creation and sustenance of human beings, made in His image, with our immortal spiritual and intellectual souls. After the Fall of Adam and Eve, it is fitting that His divine plan for our redemption - the Incarnation and death on the Cross of God become man Jesus Christ - should be enacted at the centre of His Creation, on His footstool as the Scriptures describe the earth.
Is it any wonder then that the sacred doctrine of geocentrism with its inherent anthropocentrism [Man-centred world, universe or cosmos] was developed from the dawn of our existence? From the very beginning, man gazed into the vast sight that is open in the sky above and pondered on the glittering configurations we see there. Therein the human race found the signs of God. In the same way, was it not fitting that a star in the heavens be used to lead the three Kings to Christ, the Second Person of the Triune God, born as man in a stable at Bethlehem? Finally, is it not prophesised that the final sign for all mankind shall come from these same heavens, when an instant visible desolation of the stars, sun and moon will signal the end of the world and the second coming of Christ?
According to Flavius Josephus’s 'Jєωιѕн Antiquities,' the descendants of Adam’s son Seth, unlike the wicked progeny of Cain who revelled in depravity and brigandage, were virtuous men who lived in peace and prosperity, and discovered the “knowledge of the heavens and their ordered arrangement.”…A few pages later, after telling the story of the Deluge, Josephus returns to the Patriarchs, the generations from Adam to Noah, remarking that their great ages should not seem unbelievable just because no one lives that long today. There were good reasons. First because they were beloved of God and were creatures of God Himself, and then because they had a diet [climate and environment] conducive to longevity. Finally, on account of their virtue and for the sake of the usefulness of their knowledge of astronomy and geometry, God gave them a long life, for they could have foretold nothing with certainty unless they lived for 600 years, the period of the completion of a “great year.” …He also accepts Josephus’s claim that it was through the study of the stars [planets], indeed of the irregularity of their motions, that Abraham was led to knowledge of the true God, for their irregularity shows that they move, not by their own will, but for our benefit in service to a commanding power. (N. M. Swerdlow: ‘Astronomical Chronology and prophecy: Jean-Dominique Cassini’s discovery of Josephus’s great lunisolar period of the Patriarchs,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 53, 1990, pp.1-3.)
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/288388j.jpg)
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.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Next we come to the tricky question, who instigated the philosophical and scientific war against man’s true place in the universe? Who was/is the leader of the rationalists and their long successful illusion over the combined intelligence of mankind?
To know and believe in this master conspirator and liar better, we remain with Christian Revelation, even though such a means of knowledge some accept, while others, even within Christianity itself now, cannot, do not, or will not. Nevertheless, we talk of Lucifer, known also as Satan or the Devil, (Lucifer or Satan, the alter-light, called the ‘Father of Lies,’ the Serpent or the Devil, who, because of pride, led one third of the angels in the first apostasy against God. This is recorded in the ‘Apocalypse,’ the last book of the Bible) an angel of the order of Cherubim, (interpreted by St Thomas Aquinas as ‘fullness of knowledge’) one chosen and placed above all the other angels, a spiritual creature of unimaginable intelligence, created by God in the beginning, but who choose not to serve, and more so when it was revealed to him this would include assisting in the well-being of the only creatures created of matter and spirit (immortal soul) – humanity, especially Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, God become man.
All this was more than Lucifer could accept, for doing God’s bidding and serving matter in any form was repugnant to his enormous pride. Now if there is a devil such as Satan, intent on usurping the influence of a personal triune Creator within the minds and hearts of all rational, free-willed intellectual creatures, we must concede that the geocentric experience, that visible relationship and understanding between God, the universe, earth, and mankind, could not expect to be left intact by this demon hell-bent on tearing this union apart. From the very beginning, Satan knew that to attack the unique immobile footstool of Creation and Revelation was to begin an assault on the Holy Throne, God Himself.
Under the guise of ‘science,’ this master conspirator saw a wooden horse that could be used to damage the faith from within.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: So, how did Lucifer with his worldly help deceive even the elect of an entity infinitely more powerful than he? A study of Hermetic gnosis has shown us the kind of deceit involved:
[The kind that] cannot be taught by speech, nor learnt by hearing. Knowledge differing greatly from sense perception…. Knowledge is incorporeal; the organ which it uses is the mind itself; and the mind is contrary to the body. (G. Hancock and R. Bauval: Talisman, Michael Joseph, 2004, p.181.)
‘Differing greatly from sense perception?’ It is here we recall the words of St Paul: For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. [Rom. 1:20]
This dogma, that God can be known from human reason, surely relies on the senses, with first and foremost eyesight, the things that can be clearly seen. All, except the poor blind, are blessed with eyesight. All saw and continue to see a geocentric world. Without doubt, the geocentric world that can be clearly seen has to top St Paul’s list of things that point to a Creator. It did so for thousands of years until men deliberately set out to blind us all. How then can this geocentric world be taken from us? By way of the mind of course, and once inserted, it becomes the reality, as it has today, in spite of its disagreement to the senses and science properly so-called.
And how did this mind-bending work? Well it was a matter of dividing and balancing, creating a psychological equilibrium and consensus, irresistible to the human mind. They first neutralised the obvious, that is, presented an alternative, in this case heliocentrism, just as Copernicus and Galileo did, putting our globe of life on par with the lifeless planets. Then, as it says in Francis Bacon’s Shakespeare: When two things weigh equally, a feather will tilt the balance. (Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. Act IV, sc. 2. The Ma’at ostrich feather of truth?) The ‘feathers’ of course, are those of the Illuminati, the occult societies, those who implement the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. Freemasons rising through the ranks are taught the art of creating a false equilibrium, made possible by removing absolutes and certainty, replacing them with mental illusions. Their equilibrium is a dichotomous concept, ‘the philosopher’s favourite task, the apparent reconciliation of the irreconcilable,’ implying opposites which are somehow to be reconciled or balanced, resulting in acceptable contradiction and paradox gaining parity with truth.
As I have said elsewhere, the first doctrinal principle of the religion of copernicanism-darwinism-satanism is intellectual contradiction.
In his opus, Morals and Dogma of 1871, Albert Pike (1809-1891), the Grand Master of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, spelled out clearly how the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr equilibrium was achieved:
Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succuмbs to reasoning. For the two Columns of the Temple… must remain separated and be parallel to each other…. Harmony is the result of an alternating preponderance of forces. - - - Morals and Dogma, p.306.
Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succuмbs to reasoning. And how was this achieved? Well, knowing they were unable to fix the sun or move the earth from the centre of the cosmos with their telescopes and observations, the Earthmovers conspired instead to achieve their aims by means of intellectual stealth. First were founded scientific academies and institutions like the Accademia dei Lincei of Rome in 1603 and the Royal Society of London for the Promotion of Natural Knowledge in 1660, to pursue, solidify and craft a consensus-edifice that could be upheld by their own primal dogma of equilibrium manifesting and packaged as an alternating preponderance of opposing forces or contrasting perceptions.
Their intent was to provide ‘science’ with a ruling authority, answerable to nobody but themselves of course, just as Catholicism has its supreme authority in Rome. It was these same astronomers, physicists, scientists and especially philosophers - mainly Rosicrucians and Freemasons in the beginning - who decided what was scientifically acceptable as true and what was not. In their docuмents and utterances we will show their hatred for the philosophical theology of the Church based on Revelation that married both faith and reason to achieve the ultimate truth. This is why they declared for heliocentrism as it emerged without any proof at all and vowed to establish it as a truth for all to believe. That is not science, but a doctrine under the guise of natural philosophy. Thereafter they propagated where they could the idea of a fixed sun and moving earth, and when published in 1687, endorsed Newton’s Principia, his ‘physics of the mind,’ or his ‘theoretical proof’ as some rightly call his theory of universal gravity, as a ‘law’ that cannot be challenged.
Then, by means of mathematical formulae on paper and some ‘consequent’ trickery, Foucault’s Pendulum being one such example, the Illuminati declared their ‘metaphysical doctrine’ a proven fact and most in Church and State believed them, and still do in spite of the fraud having been exposed since at least 1905.
Today even the Church now has its Pontifical Academy of Sciences, filled of course with Copernican, uniformitarian and evolutionary atheists, agnostics and scientists of every faith, all continuing the work described by Albert Pike long ago.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The consequences for the Catholic faith as a result of the Copernican revolution were/are devastating. In his book, B. J. Gibbins quotes William Shea, arguing that; ‘The Scientific Revolution consecrated a new method that was slowly to transform a civilisation organised around Christianity into one centred on science.’ Mr Gibbins adds:
We might assume that this occurred by a simple process in which the scientific world-view grew by rejecting the religious one. This is the model of change posited by William Huffmann when he says “a new paradigm replaces the old by a process of total negation.” Marx’s representation of the historical change, however, would seem to be more realistic: the new order grows in the womb of the old and the conditions of one epoch actively develop those of the next. The modern, secularised world-view was nurtured by the religious consciousness of modern Europe. Robert Merton, for example, argued that Puritanism and Pietism played a role in modern science. With Pietism however, we are coming close to the occult philosophy and it is possible that early modern esotericism was of special importance in preparing the way for the Scientific Revolution. Frances Yates has argued that Renaissance Hermeticism is one of the contexts in which we can place the origins of modern science. (B. J. Gibbons: Spirituality and the Occult, Routledge, 2001, p.40.)
Again we recall the prophetic words of Pope Urban VIII when he warned that acceptance of the Copernican heresy would put the Catholic faith in danger. We see above historians agreeing that a scientific world-view has now replaced a religious one. Soon we will show how freemasonic Hermetism and indeed Protestantism laid down the foundation for this scientific revolution. The most poignant observation above however, is the analogy of the womb. When churchmen placed the Galilean heresy into the womb of the Church from 1741-1835, a new epoch began.
Among the sciences, the mathematical ones are those which have taken the more false and disastrous direction. They were the first to be included in the assault of the philosophers against Christianity; they have become deadly weapons in the hands of impiety and pride; they have broken every restraint; they have unchained all the passions; they have eroded the foundations of society and order. (Giacchino Ventura (1824): quoted by Massimo Mazzotti in his article The Geometers of God, ISIS review, vol. 89, 1998; p.674.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Next we come to Pike’s ‘Faith succuмbs to reason.’ The faith in this case of course is belief in the revelations of the Scriptures (theology). The faith is the acceptance of the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. The faith is adherence to the papal decree of 1616 that defined a fixed sun belief as formal heresy. The faith includes a belief in the ability and intention of an omnipotent God to create a geocentric world. When science claimed proof for heliocentrism, all the above faith succuмbed to manipulated reasoning.
In 1905 however, relative movement in space was accepted, forcing science to give up the pretence that it could prove the order of the heavens. Moreover, it was admitted that science had never vindicated Galileo. This of course confirmed the 1616 decree was one of Catholic faith, ‘a secret of nature,’ for Catholic faith believes in non-provable things; otherwise the evidence would compel belief anyway. Nevertheless, faith in reason became far more credible than Catholic faith and evolutionary heliocentrism remained the belief of science.
Given we do know the planets turn around the sun; the probability that the earth could be included with the planets was too ‘reasonable’ for even popes to doubt or reject. And that is how Catholic faith in the literal interpretation of a fixed earth and moving sun, upheld by the Fathers and that papal decree, succuмbed to human reasoning, just as Pike stated.
But now let us see an example of this false equilibrium in action in the Church. It came in Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech of the Galileo commission’s findings in Rome 1992. 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 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. Had it been any other pope prior to the Vatican II embrace of the modern world, the truth might have won out. But with this pope, De Labore Solis, we are talking about a man obsessed with modernist philosophies, theologies and ideas. Hereunder then is the heliocentric equilibrium of Pope John Paul II with regard to Galileo:
(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 it remains inconceivable to me.] 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, 1992.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: 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 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 as such 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 on ‘probabilities,’ no it does not, the Church bases its teachings on certainties.
In paragraph eleven we see 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, 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.
Reason, 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 Hermetism 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 how ‘valid’ or ‘seriously and solidly grounded’ they are, nor on ‘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.’
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Posted by: Columba Dec 21 2012, 11:06 PM
Here is a . . . much larger version of that picture:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2m32v06.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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?
.
-
.
Are we still in the Preface to The Earthmovers?
Post #94 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=90#p4) is pretty interesting:
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????.......................
.
-
There are four wheel nuts on my four tyres .... oh I forgot the spare!
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter 1: Faith and Reason
(http://i59.tinypic.com/nczdx1.jpg)
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.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Since Adam first named the animals, science exists. Its realm stretched from charting the sky to the latest medical research to alleviate human ailments; from discovering electricity to creating an atomic bomb; from inventing paper to the latest mobile telephones.
But then emerged the Earthmovers; offering assumptions as ‘science.’
The seventeenth century saw the replacement of Aristotelian physics by the classic physics of Newton. The Aristotelian view of the universe was that of unaided common sense: a stationary earth with the sun, the stars and the planets revolving around it . . . 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. (See T. Kuhn, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 1970.)
So, what is a theory, one that leads to a paradigm as described above?
A theory or hypothesis is a supposition; a proposition assumed for the sake of argument, to be proved or disproved by reference to facts.
Q. And when does a theory become a scientific fact?
A. Scientific theory, according to most philosophers from Aristotle to Popper, in addition to being [self]-explanatory and self-consistent (non-contradictory), must also be testable or falsifiable. It must be vulnerable to observation and we must, in principle, be able to envision a set of observations that would render the theory false.
A scientific theory that does not contain these requisites is but pseudo-science, and has no right to be classed as science. Only when a theory has [been] proven consistent and cannot be falsified will it become regarded as a fact.
Q. Now, what is an assumption when used in science?
A. When I can’t get the facts to comply with the conclusions I want, I make one up and put it forward as a fact, but it is really an assumption. An assumption is a made-up fact. Any conclusion based on such an invention is a belief, not true science but pseudo-science. When the first assumption enters any scientific quest, science ceases, true-science that is, for now you have a belief in an idea, natural faith, a mind-conviction, nothing more.
Q. Now we ask, what is a Law?
A. Law is not a theory, a hypothesis, an assumption or a cause. It is a proven statement or formula expressing the constant order of a certain fact of nature. Now watch this one, it’s important, for there will come men in our story who postulate theories and mathematical formulae sometimes not even consistent with the observations (constant order), cleverly calling them ‘laws,’ and others who will come after them claiming these ‘laws’ are proven causes thus facts of nature. Newton’s ‘universal gravity’ is one such example.
For anyone trying to get to grips with the fraudulent ‘proofs’ offered by science, the following advice is crucial:
To begin with: any line of argument, any syllogism, which proceeds to a conclusion that we cannot deny to be true, has to satisfy two conditions. Firstly, its major premise must be truly self-evident, that is, not contradictable or at least proven beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, affirmations of the consequent must be avoided at all costs. This syllogism, the so-called modus ponendo ponens, at best offers only plausibility. (W. van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, p.10.)
For example, we know that when there is a total eclipse of the sun the streets are dark, yes? Can we thus assume the consequent and say that dark streets tell us there is a total eclipse of the sun? Of course we can’t.
Such stringent demands as to what true science is, we know, may well cause many a professor of astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical-physics, molecular and quantum physics etc., to have a seizure, for to them the maybe(s), must be(s) if(s), but(s), could(s), might(s), etc., hold their very belief-systems of science together. But we are not interested in their standards, are we, only those as laid down by true science and adhered to by Church law; conditions demanded by St Augustine and reflected by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615, to determine if something is truly a fact, potentially a fact or not a fact; conditions absolutely necessary for proper Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics.
That said; the empirical method has without doubt determined some irrefutable facts regarding the order of the heavens. We cannot deny the moon goes around the earth once a month. We cannot deny the planets go around the sun in different times. We cannot deny the planets also have moons going around them as seen with telescopes. But as we have said, there is no way science can prove whether the sun goes around the earth as we see it do, or whether we witness a relative movement as the earth spins every 24 hours while going around the sun in a year.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: This brings us to level (3). Philosophy (Philo/love; Sophia/wisdom) is a love for knowledge or a love for truth. Today however, the term philosophy has come to possess a much narrower significance than it once had. One can now find it described as a rational study of all or some of the problems arising from our attempts to explain the universal order of things by their causes or principles. The scholastic system or system of the School is the system that dominated up to the 17th century. Much of scholastic philosophy was built upon the reasoning and insights of the Greek Aristotle (384-322BC). The greatest exponent of scholastic philosophy was St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), and arising from him is named Thomism, a form of scholastic wisdom that received the special approbation of popes and councils of the Church.
To Saint Thomas, Aristotle was ‘the philosopher.’ To Dante, Aristotle was il maestro di color che sanno, the master of those that know; but he held St Thomas as fiamma benedetta, a flame of heavenly wisdom, wiser even than Aristotle. As a young man St Thomas entered the new Order of the Dominicans, was taught by Albert the Great, went to the University of Paris, the intellectual centre of the world at the time, and captured it with the freshness and wisdom of the views he taught. He went on to lecture at Naples and Cologne, and repeatedly refused high honours.
The Thirteenth century of St Thomas was a time when Christianity was beginning to remake a world ravaged by the barbarian invasions. A new culture was coming into being; its inspiration was Christian and many universities received their permanent charters and statutes as common law and jurisprudence took shape throughout Europe. The period was one that asked for an architectural master who could co-ordinate the multitudinous ideas, ancient and new, which were stirring man’s minds. St Thomas became that architect, giving to Christianity and the world a philosophy and theology upon which a whole educational system was built, one embraced throughout all Christendom.
The Greek Aristotle, and Plato to a lesser extent, laid the permanent foundation of this philosophy. St Thomas Aquinas, as it were, baptised it, making it Christian, purging all minor imperfections from their thinking, giving it mature expression. What in fact the Angelic Doctor did was to place the jewel of revelation (theology) into Aristotle’s work, taking his philosophy to new heights, making Thomism as worthy a philosophy for the Church as Latin was as the language of the Church, clear and unchanging. For over seven hundred years this philosophy did not undergo any significant intensive growth or change.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The Pythagorean/Copernican postulation challenged Thomism in the following way: Scholasticism sought causes in the first place through the evidence of the senses concerning appearances. Our perception of a thing depends on how we see, hear, feel, smell or taste it. Without the exercise of the appropriate senses we cannot acquire first-hand knowledge of the existence or properties of any object.
It was this, St Thomas said, which led the intellect to recognise essences, which are the qualities that make any object what it is. Once this outer distinctive nature of something is recognised by the intellect as the basis of a phenomenon, it then seeks to infer cause from effect deductively, that is, when we have attained all the information that the senses provide, a further quest presents itself: what is the ‘unobservable’ reality underlying these qualities or appearances. It is here both theology and philosophy are used to attain perfect wisdom.
Aristotle’s theory of science postulates, as we have seen, every science to have a deductive structure, to start from principles accepted as self-evident, and have an empirical foundation. (Evert Beth: The Foundations of Mathematics – A Study in the Philosophy of Science, p.38.)
Pythagoreanism, according to both Aristotle and St Thomas, does not seek causes and principles to explain phenomena, but establishes ideas, a product of the mind that have no existence in reality, and then tries to support these ideas by means of phenomena. This conflict of philosophies can be illustrated so:
(1) ARISTOTELIANISM: SCHOLASTICISM: REALISM: --The way it is to us (for example - geocentric) is how I must think about it.
(2) PYTHAGOREANISM: COPERNICANISM: IDEALISM: etc. -- The way I think about it (for example - heliocentric) is the way it is. [Aristotle continually attacked Pythagoreanism thus: ‘They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and cause but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived ideas and attempt to reconstruct the universe.']
This is the archprinciple of the NWO - Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law.
The fact that Aristotle at times did not put into practice what he preached, and was shown to be incorrect in some of his physics, does not detract from his philosophy - quite the opposite, it illustrates how correct he was. [For example, Aristotle held that a ball tossed by a man moving on a horse would fall behind as it came down. Had he tested this belief he would have found the ball takes up the forward momentum of the horse and rider and falls back into the man’s arms.]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Because scientific research is practically endless in extent it cannot be exhausted. Indeed, the history of investigation merely demonstrates that the more we know the more we know how little we know. Legitimate freedom is consequently needed for scientific progress as well as for any human development. There are however, limitations within the sphere of legitimate freedom in science, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1903 states. All things in this world may be considered from a triple point of view: from the logical, the physical, and the ethical. Applied to science we discover limitations in all three.
(A) Logically science is limited by truth, which belongs to its very essence. Knowledge of things cannot be known from their causes unless the knowledge is true. False knowledge cannot be derived from the causes of things; it has its origin in some spurious source such as a false philosophy or ideology. Should science ever have to choose between truth and freedom it must under all circuмstances decide for truth under penalty of sham or self-annihilation.
Every scientist must accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. Whatever science is chosen it must be built upon natural or philosophical presuppositions on which the life of man rests. As we record the story of the Earthmovers, we find philosophers and scientists from the sixteenth century onwards calling for unlimited freedom in natural philosophy, ‘science without presuppositions.’ Such a proposition is absurd. Every scientist should accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. The fact is that all positive science borrows from philosophy a number of essential principles, presuppositions or axioms.
(B) The physical limitations of science are found in its technical and material means. Advances in technology often determine the pace at which a science progresses, - astronomy for example, as telescopes were improved and magnified. The sciences also need places for research, teaching and learning, such as observatories, laboratories and universities. However, depending on the ethos of these institutions and establishments from theist to atheist, from Christian to anti-Christian, philosophical limitations will be applied even here.
C) The ethical limitations of science come from within two spiritual faculties - understanding and will. It must be said here that ethics is more important for mankind than science. History reveals this fact for all to see, whether Christian or rationalist. The happiness of peoples rests in moral rectitude not in scientific progress. [The truth of this is seen all around us in our medication-crazed, techno-addicted world. Moral evil causes deep psychological and spiritual trauma. The world of this darkness offers no relief from all-pervasive moral evil in family homes and community workplaces. Thus the people, en masse, are psychologically and spiritually sick, even unto death.]
We should conclude from this that if ever there should be a conflict between science and ethics the latter should prevail.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Anti-Christian science has surrounded itself with a number of boundary stakes driven into scientific ground, and has thus limited its own freedom of progress and growth. The ‘science without presupposition’ is entangled in its own axiom, and for no other reason than its aversion to Christianity. On the other hand, the scientist who accepts the teaching of Christ need not fall back on a single arbitrary postulate. If he/she is a philosopher, one starts from the premises dictated by reason.
In the world around us we recognise the natural revelation of a Creator, and by logical deductions concluded from the contingency of things created to the Being Uncreated. The same reasoning gives us an understanding of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. From both results combined we concluded further to moral obligations and the existence of the natural law. Thus prepared one can start into any scientific research without the necessity of erecting boundary stakes for the purpose of justifying any prejudices.
If one wants to go further and put our faith upon a scientific basis, we may take the books called the Sacred Scriptures as a starting point, apply methodical criticism to their authenticity, and find them just as reliable as any other historical record. Their contents, prophecies, and miracles convince us of the Divinity of Christ, and from the testimony of Jesus Christ we accept the entire supernatural revelation. We have constructed the science of our faith without any other than scientific premises. Thus the science of the Christian is the only one that gives freedom of research and progress; its boundaries are none but the pale of truth.
Anti-Christian science, on the contrary, is the slave of its own preconceived ethics, and from such prejudiced axioms and suppositions are derived the heliocentric system and much of the cosmological and evolutionary ‘sciences’ propagated today.
The demand for unlimited freedom in science is unreasonable and unjust, because it always leads to licence and rebellion. There is no unlimited freedom in the world, and liberty overstepping its boundaries inevitably leads to evil. Freedom is not the greatest boon or the final end of man; it is given to us as a means to reach our end. Within our own mind, man feels bound to truth. As we see nature around us bound to certain laws, we know we too must remain within certain laws. But these judgments are the best that are formed in accordance with the rules of logic. Opinions are free only where certainty cannot be reached. Scientific theories are free as long as they rest on probabilities. It is ironic that the freest of all in their thinking are the ignorant. The more freedom of opinion, the less science we have.
The long held cry for anti-Christian or unlimited freedom in science is for licence. Whenever science steps outside of the constraints of the logical, the physical, and the ethical, it falls into error, into misfortune, into licence. This may be summed up by saying that unlimited freedom in science is a rebellion against both supernatural and natural revelation. If God pleases to reveal Himself in any way whatever, man is obliged to accept the revelation, and no arbitrary axiom will dispense him from this duty. When anti-Christian science repudiates the claim of Jesus Christ as Son of God, it necessarily repudiates the Father Who sent Him, and the Holy Ghost Who proceeds from both. Anti-Christian science, we find, leads to atheism. There is no such thing as ‘natural’ atheism, for all people are born with an inherent yearning towards God. Atheism is an acquired state, and one has to work hard to sustain it. Atheism, in the main, is one of the more diabolical products of the Copernican revolution.
In the face of the natural law, however, which binds man to know and serve our Creator, pleading ignorance of the triune God is as much a rebellion against Him as shutting Him out of the world. Once God is excluded then there is need of an idol; the necessity lies in human nature. The idol created by anti-Christian science - the emancipation of the mind and will from God, from idealism to subjectivism - is the human ego.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Science that is changed then is not developed but abandoned. Similarly faith changed is faith abandoned. True development is shown in the parable of the mustard seed that grows into a tree without destroying the organic connection between the root and the smallest branches.
It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates.
None of these qualifications is found in faith. In the faith there is the highest logical truth (infinite wisdom), the highest ontological truth (the infinite being), and the highest moral truth (infinite veracity). Bowing to such authority, infinitely beyond human science, is so much in harmony with sound reason. The dignity of science is indeed overshadowed by the dignity of faith, yet by no means degraded.
As far as scientific facts are concerned, we can be assured that so far, none of them has ever been in contradiction with any official teaching of the Church. In case of an apparent difference between faith and science, as St Augustine said, we may take the following position; when a religious view is contradicted by a properly established scientific fact, then there has to be a re-examination of the source for this view. Until the matter is clarified the point remains an open question. But when a clearly defined dogma contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be abandoned or revised whereupon it will surely be found to be premature in its claims.
Suffice to say that the final objection of the sceptics to the above will be to assert that such a view of faith and science is discredited by history. There have been many fables invented for this purpose, but when examined they prove to be untrue. In reply, the Galileo affair - a case in which it can be said that the Church did condemn heliocentricism outright as heretical and false philosophy - is often portrayed as an undeniable exception, docuмented in thousands of books touching on the subject of faith and science, one that even popes, historians, theologians, scientists, scholars, teachers etc., have admitted for nearly three centuries, albeit saying it is the only case of its kind in the history of the Church. But we say that even one such error would falsify the divine protection afforded the Church by the Holy Ghost.
Thus we must repeat: when a clearly defined doctrine contradicts a scientific assertion, the latter has to be re-examined and it will be found to be a false statement, without any real verification or proof. Had those Churchmen done this in 1741, 1820-22 or even 1981-92, in the light of faith and [with] confidence in its Catholic truth, as was their duty, it would have been found that in 1616 Mother Church did properly define that the Bible does assert a moving, orbiting sun around the earth of life that occupies the centre of the universe, and the Church did properly defend its teaching of this in 1633, and because there cannot be conflict between the Bible, truth and science, Copernicanism should again have been found to be what it is and will always be, a heresy and false scientific claim without any real or possible verification or proof.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Before we begin to trace the history of the ‘Discarded Image,’ let us first prepare ourselves with a little reading that helps us see Catholic faith in an Omnipotent Creator as He is and why a geocentric world concords with all the perfections of his creation. Our choice of reading comes from the private revelations of God to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). Sister Mary began recording these secret insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun and moving earth was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
[Not only is this no coincidence, but also, the revelations of Our Lady of Good success to Mother Marianna of Quito occurred at this time. Consider the fact that Sister Mary of Agreda was mystically transported to South America to prepare certain Indians for the coming of the Gospel. Consider further that South America was the seat of the diabolical, cannibalistic, human-sacrificing, sun-worshipping cult of the serpent idol. Consider the mind-boggling number of conversions of sun-worshipping natives caused by the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which culminated in the great Cristero war, in which so many faithful Catholics were slaughtered at the hands of sun-worshiping freemasons and through the ignorance and permissiveness of an impotent, copernicanized pope, whose church of St. Peter at the Vatican sports an Egyptian obelisk smack dab in the centre of its piazza - a disgusting symbol of the most perverse of all helio-occultic ideas. Lastly consider that the public miracle of Fatima was the heavenly revelation, to both Church and State, of the natural, real, and divinely determined motility of the sun.]
[Mary of Agreda's] three volume work is entitled; ‘The Mystical City of God’ or ‘The Divine History and Life of the Virgin Mother of God.’ These insights of Mary of Agreda, whose body lies incorrupt in the Agreda Franciscan Monastery in Spain, have received approbations from many popes throughout history as a mode of greater understanding of Catholic faith completely in line with the teaching of the Church:
-
FROM THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD
I learnt also to understand the quality of these perfections of the highest Lord: that He is beautiful without a blemish, great without quantity, good without need of qualification, eternal without the duration of time, strong without any weakness, living without touch of decay, true without deceit, present in all places, filling them without occupying them, existing in all things without occupying any space. There is no contradiction in His kindness, nor any defect in His wisdom. In His wisdom He is inscrutable, in His decrees He is terrible, in His judgments just, in His thoughts most hidden, in His words most true, in His works holy, in His riches affluent. To Him no space is too wide, no narrowness causes restraint, His will does not vary, the sorrowful does not cause Him pain, the past has not passed for Him, nor does the future happen in regard to Him. O eternal Immensity . . .
Although, this divine knowledge is one, most simple and indivisible, nevertheless since the things which I see are many, and since there is a certain order, by which some are first and some come after, it is necessary to divide the knowledge of God’s intelligence and the knowledge of his will into many instants, or into many different acts, according as they correspond to the diverse orders of created things. For as some of the creatures hold their existence because of others, there is a dependence of one upon the other. Accordingly we say that God intended and decreed this before that, the one on account of the other; and that if He had not desired or included in the science of vision the one, He would not have desired the other. But by this way of speaking, we must not try to convey the meaning that God placed many acts of intelligence, or of the will; rather we must intend merely to indicate, that the creatures are dependent on each other and that they succeed one another. In order to be able to comprehend the manner of creation more easily, we apply the order of things as we see them objectively, to the acts of the divine intelligence and will in creating them . . .
-
FROM THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD:
I understood that this order comprises the following instants. The first instant is: God recognizing his infinite attributes and perfections together with the propensity and the ineffable inclination to communicate Himself outwardly . . .
The second instant was to confirm and determine the object and intention of this communication of the Divinity ad extra, namely . . . to set in motion his Omnipotence in order that He might be known, praised and glorified . . .
The third instant consisted in selecting and determining the order and arrangement, or the mode of this communication, so as to realize in an adequate manner the most exalted ends . . .
The fourth instant was to determine the gifts and graces, which were to be conferred upon the humanity of Christ, our Lord, in union with the Divinity . . .
In this fifth decree the creation of the angelic nature which is more excellent and more like unto the spiritual being of the Divinity was determined upon, and at the same time the division or arrangement of the angelic hosts into nine choirs and three hierarchies was provided and decreed . . .
To this instant belongs also the predestination of the good, and the reprobation of the bad angels. God saw in it, by means of His infinite science, all the works of the former and of the latter and the propriety of predestinating by His free will and by His merciful liberality, those that would obey and give honour, and of reprobating by His justice those who would rise up against His Majesty in pride and disobedience on account of their disordered self love. In the same instant also was decreed the creation of the empyrean heaven, for the manifestation of His glory and the reward of the good; also the earth and the heavenly bodies for the other creatures; moreover also in the centre or depth of the earth, hell, for the punishment of the bad angels . . .
In the sixth instant was decreed the creation of a people and the congregation of men for Christ, who was already formed in the divine mind and will, and according to His image and likeness man was to be made, in order, that the incarnate Word might find brethren, similar but inferior to Himself and a people of His own nature, of whom He might be the Head. In this instant was determined the order of creation of the whole human race, which was to begin from one man and woman and propagate itself, until the Virgin and her Son should be born in the predestined order . . .
In the same instant, and as it were in the third and last place, God determined to create a locality and an abode, where the incarnate Word and his Mother should converse and dwell. For them primarily did He create the heaven and earth with its stars and elements and all that is contained in them. Secondarily the intention and decree included the creation of the members, of which Jesus was to be the Head, and of whom He would be the King; in order that with kingly providence, all the necessary and befitting arrangements might be made beforehand . . .
Of the first day Moses says that "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." And before creating intellectual and rational creatures, desiring also the order of executing these works to be most perfect, He created heaven for angels and men; and the earth as a place of pilgrimage for mortals. These places are so adapted to their end and so perfect that as David says of them, the heavens publish the glory of the Lord, the firmament and the earth announce the glory of the work of his hands (Ps.18, 2). The heavens in their beauty manifest His magnificence and glory, because in them is deposited the predestined reward of the just. And the earthly firmament announced that there would be creatures and man to inhabit the earth and that man should journey upon it to their Creator.
Of the earth Moses says that it was void, which he does not say of the heavens, for God had created the angels at the instant indicated by the word of Moses: “God said: Let there be light, and light was made.” He speaks here not only of material light, but also of the intellectual or angelic lights . . .
God created the earth co-jointly with the heavens in order to call into existence hell in its centre; for, at the instant of its creation, there were left in the interior of that globe, spacious and wide cavities, suitable for hell, purgatory and limbo. And in hell was created at the same time material fire and other requisites, which now serve for the punishment of the damned. The Lord was presently to divide the light from the darkness and to call the light day and the darkness night. And this did happen not only in regard to the natural night and day, but in regard to the good and bad angels; for to the good, He gave the eternal light of his vision and called it day, the eternal day, and to the bad, the night of sin, casting them into the eternal darkness of hell.
The angels were created in the empyrean heavens and in the state of grace, by which they might be first to merit the reward of glory. For although they were in the midst of glory, the Divinity itself was not to be made manifest to them face to face and unveiled, until they should have merited such a favour by obeying the divine will. The holy angels, as well as the bad ones, remained only a very short time in the state of probation; for their creation and probation with its result were three distinct instants or moments, separated by short intermissions.
In the first instant they were all created and endowed with graces and gifts, coming into existence as most beautiful and perfect creatures. Then followed a short pause, during which the will of the Creator was propounded and intimated, and the law and command was given to them, to acknowledge Him as their Maker and supreme Lord, and to fulfil the end for which they have been created. During this pause, instant or interval, Saint Michael and his angels fought that great battle with the dragon and his followers, which is described by the apostle Saint John in the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse. The good angels, persevering in grace, merited eternal happiness. The disobedient angels, rebelling against God, merited the punishment, which they now suffer . . .
During the whole first week of the creation of the world and its contents Lucifer and the demons were occupied in machinations and projects of wickedness against the Word, who was to become incarnate, and against the Woman [who was to crush his head (Gen. 3, 15)] of Whom He was to be born and made man. On the first day, which corresponds to Sunday, were created the angels. Laws and precepts were given to them, for the guidance of their actions. The bad ones disobeyed and transgressed the mandates of the Lord. By divine providence and disposition then succeeded all the other events, which have been recorded above, up to the morning of the second day, corresponding to Monday, on which Lucifer and his hosts were driven and hurdled into hell. The duration of these days corresponds in the small periods, or delays, which intervened between their creation, activity, conquest, and fall or glorification . . .
-
FROM THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD:
The most High looked upon His Son, and upon His most holy Mother as models, produced in the culmination of His wisdom and power, in order that They serve as prototypes according to which He was to copy the whole human race. He created also the necessary material beings required for human life, but with such wisdom that some of them act as symbols, to represent, in a certain way these two Beings. On this account He made the luminaries of heaven, the sun and the moon (Gen. 1,16) so that in dividing the day and the night, they might symbolise the Sun of Justice, Christ, and His holy mother, who is beautiful as the moon (Cant. 6, 9) for these two divide the day of grace and the night of sin. The sun illuminates the moon; and both, together with the stars of the firmament, illume all other creatures within the confines of the universe . . .
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2ugcfio.jpg)
He created the rest of the beings and added to their perfection, because they were to be submissive to Christ and the most holy Mary and through Them to the rest of men. Before the universe proceeded from its nothingness, He set it as a banquet abundant and unfailing, for he was to create man for his delight and to draw him to the enjoyment of his knowledge and love. Like a most courteous and bounteous Lord He did not wish that the invited guests should wait, but that both the creation and the invitation to the banquet and love be one and the same act. Man was not to lose any time in that which concerned him so much; namely, to know and to praise his almighty Maker . . .
On the sixth day He formed and created Adam, as it were of the age of thirty-three years. This was the age in which Christ was to suffer death and Adam with regard to his body was so like unto Christ, that scarcely any difference existed. Also according to the soul, Adam was similar to Christ. From Adam God formed Eve so similar to the Blessed Virgin that she was like unto Her in personal appearance and in figure. God looked upon these two images of the great Originals with the highest pleasure and benevolence, and on account of the Originals He heaped many blessings upon them, as if He wanted to entertain Himself with them and their descendants until the time should arrive for forming Christ and Mary.
But the happy state in which God had created the parents of the human race lasted only a very short while. The envy of the serpent was immediately aroused against them, for Satan was patiently awaiting their creation, and no sooner were they created, than his hatred became active against them. However, he was not permitted to witness the formation of Adam and Eve, as he had witnessed the creation of all other things: for the Lord did not choose to manifest to him the creation of man, nor the formation of Eve from a rib; all these things were concealed from him for a space of time until both of them were joined.
But when the demon saw the admirable composition of the human nature, perfect beyond that of any creature, the beauty of the souls and also of the bodies of Adam and Eve; when he saw the paternal love with which the Lord regarded them, and how He made them the lords of all creation, and that He gave them hope of eternal life: the wrath of the dragon was lashed to fury, and no tongue can describe the rage with which that beast was filled, nor how great was his envy and his desire to take the life of these two beings. Like an enraged lion he certainly would have done so, if he had not known that a superior force would prevent him. Nevertheless he studied and plotted out some means, which would suffice to deprive them of the grace of the Most High and make them God’s enemies . . .
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2u8kqv6.png)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church; and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.
-
.
Thank you, cantatedomino for selecting a larger font. It looks great!
Now, I might be wrong, but you can click that font size button once, and now all the readers don't have to adjust their display every time they come to this thread, if I'm not mistaken. I know it's that way for me. But I guess I could be alone on this.
And again, am I alone, or does nobody else know who it is who wrote this blue font paragraph a few posts back? Is this the Earthmovers' author (hardly likely!), or cantatedomino, or someone else speaking? I mean this:
THE EARTHMOVERS: Before we begin to trace the history of the ‘Discarded Image,’ let us first prepare ourselves with a little reading that helps us see Catholic faith in an Omnipotent Creator as He is and why a geocentric world concords with all the perfections of his creation. Our choice of reading comes from the private revelations of God to Sister Mary of Jesus, better known as Mary of Agreda (1602-1665). Sister Mary began recording these secret insights, dictated to her, she said, by the Virgin Mary herself in 1637, a mere four years after Galileo’s trial wherein the formal heresy of a fixed sun and moving earth was condemned by popes of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
[Not only is this no coincidence, but also, the revelations of Our Lady of Good success to Mother Marianna of Quito occurred at this time. Consider the fact that Sister Mary of Agreda was mystically transported to South America to prepare certain Indians for the coming of the Gospel. Consider further that South America was the seat of the diabolical, cannibalistic, human-sacrificing, sun-worshipping cult of the serpent idol. Consider the mind-boggling number of conversions of sun-worshipping natives caused by the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which culminated in the great Cristero war, in which so many faithful Catholics were slaughtered at the hands of sun-worshiping freemasons and through the ignorance and permissiveness of an impotent, copernicanized pope, whose church of St. Peter at the Vatican sports an Egyptian obelisk smack dab in the centre of its piazza - a disgusting symbol of the most perverse of all helio-occultic ideas. Lastly consider that the public miracle of Fatima was the heavenly revelation, to both Church and State, of the natural, real, and divinely determined motility of the sun.]
I'm asking because it seems like the page breaks character here. I'm glad the font is in blue because then my suspicion is verified. If it were not in blue, my question here might not be so meek, if you know what I mean! HAHAHA
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=100#p1)
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?
.
So, without answering me, here is Chapter 1 following my post, above, so I guess that means we were still in the Preface, after a few quick detours to emails?
Warning: the following material is OFF TOPIC:
There are four wheel nuts on my four tyres .... oh I forgot the spare!
Wessex, you shouldn't be worrying about tightening lug nuts on the spare, until you go to mount it on the car! It's not secured by 4 bolts in the boot, is it?
FYI: you can still use the spirograph flower for your lug nuts! Remember which nut you start on, and just snug it, then the next one to snug is diametrical; followed by the two adjacent, snugged one at a time; then for the second pass, return to the one you started on, and tighten halfway to the torque spec, repeating the pattern above, then finally on the third pass, torque the first one all the way, then the second, etc. This is the pattern that the 5-pointed flower approximates when applied to the 4-bolt / square pattern.
More simply stated, if you number the bolts 1, 2, 3, 4, going around the axle, then you would tighten them as either 1, 3, 4, 2, or 1, 3, 2, 4; it makes no difference which of these two. Just be sure to return to 1 for the second pass and the final pass.
It's interesting that on older race cars, when they change tires in pit stops, they didn't usually bother with all that fuss to save time, but then remember, sometimes wheels fell off of race cars. The newer ones just have one lug nut in the center. And yes, the left side has left handed threads, like the old Chryslers used to have.
.
-
.
Syntax and grammar problems:
The following appears as a compound sentence, one separated by a semicolon, however, neither the part that comes before the divide is a sentence, nor is the part that follows it:
THE EARTHMOVERS: Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church; and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.
This is not a sentence:
Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church
Nor is this a sentence:
and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science
So what are we to make of it? Are we supposed to start presuming that we know what the subject and the predicate are? Are we supposed to supply the missing verb? Here are some possibilities:
Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church arises before us and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.
Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church becomes manifest to us and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science.
Thus an insight into the ex nihilo Divine Act of Creation, as taught by the Catholic Church is reaffirmed, and the demon, the one who has worked throughout the ages to diminish this dogma to a fable in the supposed light of science, is put in his place.
This topic is difficult enough, without the added obfuscation of inept diction.
Is there something that can be done about this?
.
-
.
Here's another problem paragraph.
What is the meaning of this "sentence?"
Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science.
Reading just this 'sentence' (it isn't a sentence at all), by the time one arrives at the end of it, the period is a complete surprise, because more words are required for it to be a sentence. E.g., "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science, because of the diligent and nefarious efforts of those who would undermine the authority of the Church, was perceived by many." Or, "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science erupted." -- But that's not what's on the page, is it? No, it's not. So what happens then? Then the reader has to go back and read it again to see if some word was missed. But upon finding no skipped words, the following questions come to the fore:
What is the subject? What is the predicate? What is the verb?
As an adverb, hence could be used here to mean: 3. from this source or origin.
..but if so, as an adverb, it is not the Subject of the "sentence," but would be used to join the Subject to the predicate, therefore, the Subject is missing, and so is the verb, because "another supposed conflict between faith and science" is just a prepositional phrase (based on "between") that would be ATTACHED to the sentence (if it were a sentence).
Example: We found another supposed conflict between faith and science. -- the subject is "We," and the verb is "found," and the rest is the prepositional phrase belonging to the predicate, "found another supposed conflict between faith and science." An analytical contraction would be "We found it."
Is this word, "hence" being used in an archaic sense? And if so, is that some roundabout appeal to awaken an archaic sensibility in the reader?
From dictionary.com:
Archaic: ...2 (of 3 such). from this world or from the living: After a long, hard life they were taken hence.
If not, then is there a verb at all? Is "hence" hiding the verb -- in which case the subject is missing? I.e., From hence is another supposed conflict between faith and science.
The reader has to return to the beginning of the paragraph and presume that some inadequacy of diction is present, and now this shortcoming and defect of syntax and/or grammar must be anticipated so as to discern what might possibly have been in the mind of the writer who just forgot to put all the words in that should be there, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE.
The paragraph is found in post #110 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=110#p0), and it appears as follows:
It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates.
Please know that I'm not trying to make trouble here. I believe that the content of this "book" (without page numbers!!) is important, and it can do a lot of good, but the sentence structure leaves A LOT to be desired. If I made mention of every instance when I've had to stop and re-read a paragraph two or three times as I did the one above, it would be at least one for every post. Why make it so difficult? Why not just use proper English? Or, is it the author's hope that as few people read it as possible?
A sentence is a complete thought, and a non-sentence can be anything at all, or it could even be MEANINGLESS. But it is always confusing.
If I didn't think this was important, I would not bother to comment. But there are a LOT of non-sentences like this here, which leave enormous ambiguities in the signification of what is being said here. A lot of readers are going to be turned off by the challenge, and they could well blame the style and grammar problems for why they had no interest in the material, even though the material itself may have been the real reason.
.
-
.
Here's another problem paragraph.
What is the meaning of this "sentence?"
Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science.
Reading just this 'sentence' (it isn't a sentence at all), by the time one arrives at the end of it, the period is a complete surprise, because more words are required for it to be a sentence. E.g., "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science, because of the diligent and nefarious efforts of those who would undermine the authority of the Church, was perceived by many." Or, "Hence, another supposed conflict between faith and science erupted." -- But that's not what's on the page, is it? No, it's not. So what happens then? Then the reader has to go back and read it again to see if some word was missed. But upon finding no skipped words, the following questions come to the fore:
What is the subject? What is the predicate? What is the verb?
As an adverb, hence could be used here to mean: 3. from this source or origin.
..but if so, as an adverb, it is not the Subject of the "sentence," but would be used to join the Subject to the predicate, therefore, the Subject is missing, and so is the verb, because "another supposed conflict between faith and science" is just a prepositional phrase (based on "between") that would be ATTACHED to the sentence (if it were a sentence).
Example: We found another supposed conflict between faith and science. -- the subject is "We," and the verb is "found," and the rest is the prepositional phrase belonging to the predicate, "found another supposed conflict between faith and science." An analytical contraction would be "We found it."
Is this word, "hence" being used in an archaic sense? And if so, is that some roundabout appeal to awaken an archaic sensibility in the reader?
From dictionary.com:
Archaic: ...2 (of 3 such). from this world or from the living: After a long, hard life they were taken hence.
If not, then is there a verb at all? Is "hence" hiding the verb -- in which case the subject is missing? I.e., From hence is another supposed conflict between faith and science.
The reader has to return to the beginning of the paragraph and presume that some inadequacy of diction is present, and now this shortcoming and defect of syntax and/or grammar must be anticipated so as to discern what might possibly have been in the mind of the writer who just forgot to put all the words in that should be there, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE.
The paragraph is found in post #110 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=110#p0), and it appears as follows:
It is true that the believer is less free in his knowledge but only because he knows more. The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science. Hence another supposed conflict between faith and science. The answer to this accusation is that it is what injures the dignity of science that constitutes the conflict, things such as the endorsement of errors, sham theories and arbitrary postulates.
Please know that I'm not trying to make trouble here. I believe that the content of this "book" (without page numbers!!) is important, and it can do a lot of good, but the sentence structure leaves A LOT to be desired. If I made mention of every instance when I've had to stop and re-read a paragraph two or three times as I did the one above, it would be at least one for every post. Why make it so difficult? Why not just use proper English? Or, is it the author's hope that as few people read it as possible?
A sentence is a complete thought, and a non-sentence can be anything at all, or it could even be MEANINGLESS. But it is always confusing.
If I didn't think this was important, I would not bother to comment. But there are a LOT of non-sentences like this here, which leave enormous ambiguities in the signification of what is being said here. A lot of readers are going to be turned off by the challenge, and they could well blame the style and grammar problems for why they had no interest in the material, even though the material itself may have been the real reason.
.
Why don't you eliminate 'Hence' and simply place a comma there. Both mean the same thing. Let us not make a song and dance out of two ways to say something.
'The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science, another supposed conflict between faith and science.'
As I understand it Neil, the author decided to begin his book with a Prologue, the story as it has been offered for centuries, a Preface to show no proof exists for heliocentrism and that that is how the new paradign will be wrtten up, and finally an Introduction to the book as to what will be discussed.
As I understand it also, the passages in blue are the posters own comments.
-
A fascinating topic. I would like to see the film The Principle. This thread and the film is something to support. As many people as possible should support that film.
-
Why don't you eliminate 'Hence' and simply place a comma there. Both mean the same thing. Let us not make a song and dance out of two ways to say something.
'The unbeliever has only one source of knowledge; the believer has two. Logic will indicate both should be used to establish the infallible truth. Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science, another supposed conflict between faith and science.'
As I understand it Neil, the author decided to begin his book with a Prologue, the story as it has been offered for centuries, a Preface to show no proof exists for heliocentrism and that that is how the new paradign will be written up, and finally an Introduction to the book as to what will be discussed.
As I understand it also, the passages in blue are the poster's own comments.
Thank you, cassini. Your reply is helpful. I think the author must be Irish, and therefore, your familiarity with this style makes your insight more natural to you. For me, it's getting close to needing a translation! I wouldn't replace "hence" with a comma, because at first glance that doesn't make it any more appealing! IOW, I wouldn't have even gone down that road! It looked like another dead end! But now that you mention it, it does improve the intelligibility a LITTLE BIT.
Is this the same message as having, "...Blind acceptance of dogmas and submission to non-scientific authority is said to be contrary to the dignity of science, another supposed conflict between faith and reason?"
My difficulty is, that faith is a thing that is intimately inherent in the mind of man, whereas science is a thing outside his mind, so to compare the two as in "a conflict between" them, runs into difficulties. It's like a conflict between your car engine's timing and the color of the interior's upholstery. Or a conflict between civil rights activism and the police department's vacation schedule.
If the passages in blue will always be words of cantatedomino (or someone else?!?), I do wish that could be pronounced clearly. There is far too much room for misunderstanding in this subject. We don't need any more where it can easily be avoided!
And therefore, John Grace probably reads this just as though it's his own dialect!
A fascinating topic. I would like to see the film The Principle. This thread and the film is something to support. As many people as possible should support that film.
Between you two, maybe I have a chance for clearing things up!
.
-
.
As I understand it Neil, the author decided to begin his book with a Prologue, the story as it has been offered for centuries, a Preface to show no proof exists for heliocentrism and that that is how the new paradign will be written up, and finally an Introduction to the book as to what will be discussed.
This is a big help, cassini. I only noticed a Preface title. I have not seen any Prologue or Introduction mentioned, until your post, here.
And the absence of a Table of Contents as well as the conspicuous absence of page numbers, makes for disoriented reading -- I know from previous experience that the time will certainly come when I want to refer back to something I had read previously, and I won't be able to find it, because of no page numbers, no Index, and no Table of Contents.
All there is here are posts that all begin with "THE EARTHMOVERS:" and perhaps the relevant post number (found in the URL), but the reliability of the latter is dependent upon no posts being deleted in the thread, and sometimes that does happen.
If this were not important to me I wouldn't be mentioning it. I'm saying it because I care about this topic.
.
-
.
The author's style reminds me of Deirdre Manifold, whose books were definitely interesting, but such a chore to plough through because of the sentence structure. There were times I had to put it down for a few days to recover from the confusion, and go back to read it again. It seems to me she would have had a wider audience if the objective intelligibility of her sentences could have been improved.
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Two: The Wonders and Mysteries of Space
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2014/01/earth-sun.jpg)
There are of course compelling reasons why the whole human race once accepted that the earth is fixed at the centre of the cosmos and that it is the universe that rotates around us. The first of course is because we live on the earth and therefore it is the centre of the universe for mankind, it being the natural or philosophical presupposition on which the life of man rests.
This is confirmed by our senses as we witness the sun and stars rotate around us every 24 hours. The earth feels fixed, giving no indication of a body that moves in any way. This central reality, moreover, totally fulfilled and answered all the needs and questions that could be thought up by man as regards our place in the universe, be they religious or philosophical.
The sun-fixing and earthmoving revolution began with Copernicus, took hold after astronomical discoveries, and moved on to theoretical physics, cosmological and evolutionary theories, before entering the bizarre world of relativity and quantum mechanics. To deal with this subject properly, we must first familiarise ourselves with some of the wonders of space and learn something about the science of astronomy. Unless one knows the limits to such knowledge, then one might not grasp the subtle deception that was/is the Copernican revolution.
Any mention of an earth-centred or geocentric universe or reality today is usually associated with what moderns deem a sister ignorance or naivety, belief in a flat earth. This is the standard rebuttal used by those long indoctrinated into heliocentric certainty, those led to believe they are more intelligent and knowledgeable in these things than those Bible-thumping churchmen of the seventeenth century.
It seems some individuals before then did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid. But the truth is that the only flat-earth to be found among the churchmen that condemned Galileo and his fixed-sun heresy exist in the sceptics’ prejudices. That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew that the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would hardly be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south, also the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon, demonstrated to them the curved nature of the earth.
Geocentrism and flat-earth belief then do not go hand in hand, as many propagandists would have you believe.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
The Sun
(http://www.outerspaceuniverse.org/media/sun-from-space.jpg)
The sun, an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High . . . breathing out fiery vapours, and shining with his beams, he blindeth the eyes. Great is the Lord that made him, and at his words he hath hastened his course. (Ecc. 43:2-4).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Giant_prominence_on_the_sun_erupted.jpg)
It was not until the twentieth century that man confirmed that the sun does indeed ‘breath out fiery vapours’; described today as fantastic jets of gas that appear to spring from its surface: the prominences. Some of these, known as quiescent prominences, are said to occasionally measure several hundreds of thousands of miles across at their base, though their height does not normally exceed some 15,000 to 30,000 miles. Then there are the eruptive prominences. Narrow at the base, resembling jagged flames, they are ejected from the chromospheres, often with velocities of 50-250 mps, commonly attaining heights of 50,000 to 250,000 miles, sometimes up to 500,000 miles. Interestingly, their composition is often described today as chromospheric ‘vapours.’
Besides the day, night, and seasons, there are smaller, if not any less spectacular signs in the heavens for us to wonder at. First there are the eclipses of the sun. This comes about when, visible to some point on earth, the moon blots out the sun for a few moments. If the idea of this happening by ‘chance’ is ludicrous, then consider it the Will of God, the moon created to orbit the earth at a point where its apparent diameter fits perfectly or almost into the apparent diameter of the sun. This occurs only if the relative dimensions and separation of the three bodies involved, the sun, moon and earth are in complete harmony. Chance indeed!
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Eclipse-annular-solar-geometry.jpg)
Principle of annular eclipse of the sun
Such is the wonder of a total eclipse that the prospects of seeing one can attract people from all over the earth to witness the marvel with their own eyes. For some time after the show, the newspapers, TV, and journals are filled with reports of the happening, a demonstration that no other spectacle on earth or in the sky can match. Often they tell of a ‘spiritual’ dimension to this awesome coordination of cosmic bodies, leaving men, women and children drained with emotion.
No words or photograph can really convey the breath-taking beauty and ‘atmosphere’ of this moment [of totality] which seems to affect the whole of nature, and it is indeed a pity that so few people have the opportunity of seeing a total eclipse of the Sun. It is something never to be missed.( Larousse Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Librairie Larousse, 1959, p.167.)
An eclipse of the earth’s moon, while less spectacular than a solar eclipse, is nevertheless another wondrous sign. A lunar eclipse happens when the sun passes behind the earth causing the shadow of the earth to cover the moon. Now whereas a solar eclipse lasts only minutes, the maximum duration of a lunar eclipse is 2 hours for passing through the umbra, and 4 hours through both the umbra and the penumbra. What occurs is not the appearance of a blackening like a solar eclipse, but a variable and unpredictable change of colours, from bright light to a coppery or blood-red colour, occasionally even a bright orange-yellow to dull red, depending on the atmospheric conditions of the time.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Moreover, in keeping with other things in God’s creation, He further demonstrates His omnipotent and infinite majesty by ensuring that no two lunar eclipses are exactly alike.
Words cannot convey the beauty of a total eclipse of the Moon, nor the impression produced by the sight of a dull red disc apparently bathed in the glow of some great celestial inferno, set in a sky filled with stars which the normal brilliance of the full moon would prevent our seeing. (Larousse Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, pp.159-60.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/2mcg01u.png)
Total Eclipse of the Sun
(http://i60.tinypic.com/6zxysj.png)
Eclipse of the Moon
Then there are the conjunctions of the moon and planets (visible to us as stars), when from earth we see two or three of them come together in many ways for different periods of time. Seen in fast motion it looks as if they come together from time to time to give us a celestial dance,
Stunning and beautiful beyond measure too are the nebulae, comets, asteroids, planets, moons etc., not to mention the array and colour of spectacular galaxies and celestial gas formations that modern telescopes have discovered and shown us. Such marvels however - thanks to the Copernican revolution - are always presented as though they are a product and witness of natural evolution when in fact they were intended as a manifestation of God’s omnipotent creative power.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: There are many other wonders to be seen in the sky of course. One of the strangest of all however is recorded in Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 3, Act 2, Scene I, where we find the following:
EDWARD. Dazzle mine eyes, or do I see three suns?
RICHARD. Three glorious suns, each one a perfect sun; Not separated with the racking clouds, But sever’s in a pale clear shining sky. See, see! They join, embrace, and seem to kiss, As if they vow’d some league inviolable; Now they are but one lamp, one light, one sun. In this the heaven figures some event.
(http://i57.tinypic.com/25s1s1z.png)
This amazing phenomenon, now called the ‘sun dog’ (parhelia), was first described in 1533 and officially recorded as seen on 22nd May, 1677, by Domenico Cassini in the well known Paris based French periodical Journal de Savants. Just a few degrees above the horizon the sun was observed taking on this incredible corona with solar images. As the sun rises, the three merge beautifully into one, described by some as a divine type of the three persons that are of the one God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Fargo_Sundogs_2_18_09.jpg)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Three: The Sky And Religion
(http://www.wallsave.com/wallpapers/1366x768/constellations/242848/constellations-night-sky-taurus-constellation-space-on-line-242848.jpg)
(http://starryskies.com/The_sky/constellations/winter.gif)
Nothing is more beautiful than light; and God Himself, who is beauty itself, wanted to be called Light. Saint John says: “God is light, and in Him is no darkness” (1 Jn.1:5). Furthermore, there is no bodily object more luminous than the sun and, therefore, nothing is more beautiful than the sun. Besides that, the beauty of lower creatures and especially human beauty fade quickly, but the sun’s beauty is never extinguished, never lessened, and always gives joy to all things with equal splendour . . . (St Robert Bellarmine: The Mind’s Assent to God (1614), republished by Paulist Press, Muhwah, New Jersey, USA, 1989.)
To try to understand the visible universe as an influence on mankind, we must go back to Adam and Eve and the lesson of the Fall.
To try to understand the visible universe as an influence on mankind, we must go back to Adam and Eve and the lesson of the Fall. Our first parents understood their mistake; sought forgiveness and accepted their punishment. We see then that the immediate inhabitants of the human race were theists who understood God as person. Adam and Eve had many children. In order for the human race to multiply, it was necessary this command had to begin by way of brother and sister and then cousins until the numbers separated lost track of this family connection. As we know from Genesis, Satan continued his mission and soon separated many from the religion of the first parents. Most, the Bible says, became ‘evil.’
This resulted in further chastisement of mankind by way of a global flood wherein all perished save Noah and his wife, his three sons Sem, Cham, Japheth, and their three wives, all of whom found salvation in the Arc he built on advice from God (Gen. 6-9).
Thus began a second start for humanity on earth. Alas, once again Satan led men to believe they could recover the gifts lost by Adam and Eve and be as gods. They believed if men did this or that, the dominion over nature lost by Adam could be retrieved. In Genesis 10:3 we read Cham, the cursed son of Noah, begot Chus, Mesraim, Phut and Chanaan (Gen. 10:3). It was Mesraim who founded Egypt, and Chus became Hermēs, Lucifer’s own philosopher, high priest and king, original prophet of idolatry, author of satanic religious rites and interpreter of the gods, founder of the MYSTERIES, and propagator of chaos in post-deluge times. It is the rebellious Cham-line coming from the righteous God-fearing Noah that is generally referred to as hermetic.
[/size]
-
What a beautiful consideration - the universe as an influence on mankind. Is it possible that any other idea about Nature could be truer? The earthmovers understand the power of the Universe to influence man. And this knowledge of theirs, become esoteric as a result of their suppression strategies, is utilized to [de]form modern man according to the image and likeness of the fallen Angel, Lucifer. Not only copernican darwinism, but the filth of einsteinian relativity that flooded the earth in its wake, influence men away from God and Creation and towards idolatrous rituo-materialism. But consider also the electromagnetic plantation grid, which obscures the night sky so that millions and millions of moderns have never in their entire lives seen what God hath made, nay, what He hath made specifically with them seeing it in His mind! He made it so that men would come to know Him in the most majestic of His creatures! I've only seen the real night sky once in my fifty one years. It took my breath away when I gazed upon it. It was actually shocking. I had no idea that this was the reality. Immediately upon seeing it, my mind went to God, even my sick, degenerate, unbelieving mind of that time. The night sky that God made is full of revelation of truth, in pictographic form - see the Mazzaroth.
But the earthmovers don't want anyone looking at it.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been the founder of Babylon . . . If Ninus was Nimrod, then who was the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for “Cush begat Nimrod” (Gen. X.8), and Cush is generally represented as having been the ringleader in the great apostasy. But again, Cush, as the son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the “son of Ham.”
Now, Hermes was the great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans as the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods . . . Mercury then, or Hermes, or Cush, “the son of Ham,” was the “DIVIDER of the speeches of men.” He, it would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme for building the great city and tower of Babel; and, as the well-known title of Hermes [Hermēs Trismegistus - the interpreter of the gods] would indicate, had encouraged them, in the name of God, to proceed in their presumptuous enterprise, and so had caused the language of men to be divided, and themselves to be scattered abroad on the face of the earth . . .
That Cush was known to pagan antiquity under the very character of Bel “The Confounder,” a statement of Ovid very clearly proves. The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus “the god of gods,” from whom all the other gods had their origin, is made to say of himself “the ancients . . . called me Chaos.” Now, first this decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of confusion, but also as the “god of Confusion.” But secondly, who that is at all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one of the established forms of the name of Chūs or Cush? (Rev. Alex Hislop: The Two Babylons, Loizeau Bros, Roma, 1862. pp. 25-27.)
The MYSTERIES founded by Hermēs were Cham-line cults that arose throughout the populated world after the Deluge. They may be regarded as the church of the ancient pagan gentile nations. In them all there is found a peculiar though common conception of the divine nature as a type of pantheism that constitutes their common bond of unity. These institutions, not exactly uniform in their various rites, were widely distributed and flourished in Egypt, Chaldea, India, China, Japan, Canaan, Africa, Greece, Rome, Mexico, and in the isles of the sea. Their mode of religious instruction was esoteric. This was not taught in a dogmatic way but by rite and symbol of religious conception communicated to the initiated only.
The Mysteries were known and transmitted by priests. The sages and philosophers taught in these institutions what they hardly dared to teach in public, and the disciples were bound to secrecy concerning the things heard and learned. It was contended by some of the priests that if the secrets therein taught were divulged, the universe would fall.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Since the beginning of time, different formations of stars, known as constellations, were recognised and identified by man. In the beginning these clusters of stars were divided into twelve slices of a circle like so:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2a8q2vs.png)
(http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/05/ancient_zodiac.gif)
The story which the Zodiac unfolds in the course of the year lies in the meanings of these names given by God to each of the stars in its forty-eight constellations when He set them in order in the beginning, making of them, as the Psalmist says: “faithful witnesses in heaven” (Ps. 88:38) of His plan for the world . . . Put in proper order, beginning not with Aries as now deployed, but with Virgo, and ending with Leo rather than with Pisces, the Zodiac foretold in the stars the story of the Incarnation, the Redemption and the world to come long before the Bible was written. Virgo is of course the Blessed Virgin and Leo is Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah, universal Lord of Creation. (This incidentally, provides the answer to the mystery of the Sphinx which, having the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion is therefore simply a representation in stone of the ancient Zodiac). (Solange Hertz: The Sixth Trumpet, Remnant Press, Minnesota, 2002, p.11.)
It comes as no surprise then – in the context of that great battle of principalities and powers resulting from that martial decree of Genesis 3:15 - to find occult interference with the Zodiac of Holy Scripture. This new astrology asserted that earthly spirits, ghosts, and other agents joined the heavenly angels, and all began to influence planetary formations in a manner that, they said, had a direct effect on human behaviour and our destiny, depending on where these cosmic bodies are within the zodiac belt.
This way the astrology ‘signs’ became the object of fraud, superstition and the occult, with men and women claiming to read prophesies and messages from the ‘gods’ in them. So, just as the signs in the stars were hijacked for diabolical purposes, an astrology that became a useless occult belief system for vast numbers of people throughout the last few thousand years even to this day, so too would God’s astronomy be hijacked and replaced by one that would also be used to serve the occult forces on earth.
The Catholic Church, of course, absolutely rejects the idea that the sun, moon or planets could actually influence or predict one’s present or future behaviour. The Church teaches that men have free will and that God alone knows the future. Such a notion as the position of stars or planets being able to determine the destiny or behaviour of men is anti-Christian.
Let us now trace the history of this occult use of God’s named Zodiac. For [most of] the tempted ones in the second history of mankind, forgot the worship of the true God, as happened in pre-diluvian times, and they began to adore and personify as gods the sun, moon and stars. In the beliefs of the ancient sun worshippers the sun is God, the giver of life.
We believe this cult was assisted by Satan to reflect two of his greatest inabilities by proxy; (1) to mimic the light of the Trinity for himself, and (2) to compensate for his most abject failing, his inability to generate. Read now how God’s symbols were transformed to Pagan gods.
The sun thus deified and personified was made the theme of allegorical history, emblematic of his yearly passage through the twelve constellations. The zodiac is the apparent path of the sun among the stars. It was divided by the ancients into twelve different parts, composed of the clusters of stars named after “living creatures,” typical of the twelve months . . .
The sun, as he pursued his wan among these “living creatures” of the zodiac, was said, in allegorical language, either to assume the nature of or to triumph over the sign he entered. The sun thus became a bull in Taurus, and was worshipped as such by the Egyptians under the name of Apis, and by the Assyrians as Bel, Baal, or Bul. In Leo the sun became a lion-slayer, Hercules, and an archer in Sagittarius. In Pisces, the fishes – he was a fish – Dagon, or Vishnu, the fish-god of the Philistines and Hindoos. When the sun enters Capricornus he reaches his lowest southern declination; afterwards as he emerges from that sign the days become longer, and the sun grows rapidly in light and heat; hence we are told in the mythology that the sun, or Jupiter, was suckled by a goat . . .
The beautiful virgin of the Zodiac, Virgo, together with the Moon, under a score of different names, furnishes the female element in these mythological stories, the wonderful adventures of the gods. These fables are most of them absurd enough if understood as real histories, but the allegorical key being given, many of them are found to contain profound and sublime astronomical truths. This key was religiously kept secret by the priests and philosophers, and was only imparted to those initiated into the MYSTERIES. The profane and vulgar crowd were kept in darkness, and believed in and worshipped a real Hercules or Jupiter, whom they thought actually lived and performed all the exploits and underwent all the transformations of the mythology. By these means the Priests of Egypt ruled the people with a despotic power. (Robert Hewitt Brown: Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, p.7.)
Robert Brown here reflects on ‘sublime astronomical truths.’ To be able to trace the movement of the sun, moon and stars (planets) against a background of the constellations was no doubt a wonderful ability. But we now know that one of their ‘astronomical truths’ was their belief in a solar system with the earth, not the sun, doing the moving. Sir Isaac Newton discovered this and in freemasonic writings they acknowledge this as an accepted truth.
-
What a beautiful consideration - the universe as an influence on mankind. Is it possible that any other idea about Nature could be truer? The earthmovers understand the power of the Universe to influence man. And this knowledge of theirs, become esoteric as a result of their suppression strategies, is utilized to [de]form modern man according to the image and likeness of the fallen Angel, Lucifer. Not only copernican darwinism, but the filth of einsteinian relativity that flooded the earth in its wake, influence men away from God and Creation and towards idolatrous rituo-materialism. But consider also the electromagnetic plantation grid, which obscures the night sky so that millions and millions of moderns have never in their entire lives seen what God hath made, nay, what He hath made specifically with them seeing it in His mind! He made it so that men would come to know Him in the most majestic of His creatures! I've only seen the real night sky once in my fifty one years. It took my breath away when I gazed upon it. It was actually shocking. I had no idea that this was the reality. Immediately upon seeing it, my mind went to God, even my sick, degenerate, unbelieving mind of that time. The night sky that God made is full of revelation of truth, in pictographic form - see the Mazzaroth.
But the earthmovers don't want anyone looking at it.
Who wrote this? Was it cantatedomino? It was posted just 4 minutes after the previous post of "THE EARTHMOVERS:" so it wasn't first typed out during those 4 minutes; it had to have already been composed and prepared to post, but perhaps not with the bold or blue font codes, which could have been added within the 4 minutes. Who is the author, if not the author of "THE EARTHMOVERS:"?
What is "the Mazzaroth?"
Anyone reading this should know, that if you go to a remote place, about 50 miles from the nearest modern city of 20,000 or more and 100+ miles away from any large modern city of 1 million or more, the night sky is very impressive; but if you'd like to experience having your socks knocked off, grab a pair of 7x35 binoculars (a very commonly available size) and have a look through those at the night sky.
.
-
The sun, an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High . . . breathing out fiery vapours, and shining with his beams, he blindeth the eyes. Great is the Lord that made him, and at his words he hath hastened his course.
(Ecc. 43:2-4).'and at his words he hath hastened his course'
Wow, as Cardinal Bellarmine said, the Copernicans would have a hard time trying to convince anybody the likes of the above quote from Scripture was not literal. Yet they did, and got pop[es to believe them.
-
The sun, an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High . . . breathing out fiery vapours, and shining with his beams, he blindeth the eyes. Great is the Lord that made him, and at his words he hath hastened his course.
(Ecc. 43:2-4). 'and at his words he hath hastened his course'
Wow, as Cardinal Bellarmine said, the Copernicans would have a hard time trying to convince anybody the likes of the above quote from Scripture was not literal. Yet they did, and got popes to believe them.
We do well to realize that the words "...breathing out firey vapours..." were written at a time when the popular notion of the sun was that it was an "immutable orb" of utter purity and without change in its aspect and substance -- even though it did, ironically, move across the sky. This topic is explored briefly in The Principle.
These first two propositions are couched amidst others that are commonly recognized even today as indisputable:
The sun,
breathing out firey vapours
at his words he hath hastened his course
an admirable instrument
the work of the Most High
shining with his beams
he blindeth the eyes
great is the Lord that made him
But it's the first two, "...breathing out firey vapours, at his words he hath hastened his course...," that are the ones, the full impact of which we might overlook.
It wouldn't be until 400 years AFTER Cardinal Bellarmine wrote his letter, that modern astronomers would find out just how true Scripture is with the sun 'breathing out firey vapours', at the same time that modern scientists would ignore the second proposition, "...at his words he hath hastened his course."
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Since the beginning of time, different formations of stars, known as constellations, were recognised and identified by man. In the beginning these clusters of stars were divided into twelve slices of a circle like so:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2a8q2vs.png)
(http://www.dailygalaxy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/05/ancient_zodiac.gif)
The story which the Zodiac unfolds in the course of the year lies in the meanings of these names given by God to each of the stars in its forty-eight constellations when He set them in order in the beginning, making of them, as the Psalmist says: “faithful witnesses in heaven” (Ps. 88:38) of His plan for the world . . . Put in proper order, beginning not with Aries as now deployed, but with Virgo, and ending with Leo rather than with Pisces, the Zodiac foretold in the stars the story of the Incarnation, the Redemption and the world to come long before the Bible was written. Virgo is of course the Blessed Virgin and Leo is Jesus Christ, the Lion of Judah, universal Lord of Creation. (This incidentally, provides the answer to the mystery of the Sphinx which, having the head of a woman and the body and tail of a lion is therefore simply a representation in stone of the ancient Zodiac). (Solange Hertz: The Sixth Trumpet, Remnant Press, Minnesota, 2002, p.11.)
It comes as no surprise then – in the context of that great battle of principalities and powers resulting from that martial decree of Genesis 3:15 - to find occult interference with the Zodiac of Holy Scripture. This new astrology asserted that earthly spirits, ghosts, and other agents joined the heavenly angels, and all began to influence planetary formations in a manner that, they said, had a direct effect on human behaviour and our destiny, depending on where these cosmic bodies are within the zodiac belt.
This way the astrology ‘signs’ became the object of fraud, superstition and the occult, with men and women claiming to read prophesies and messages from the ‘gods’ in them. So, just as the signs in the stars were hijacked for diabolical purposes, an astrology that became a useless occult belief system for vast numbers of people throughout the last few thousand years even to this day, so too would God’s astronomy be hijacked and replaced by one that would also be used to serve the occult forces on earth.
The Catholic Church, of course, absolutely rejects the idea that the sun, moon or planets could actually influence or predict one’s present or future behaviour. The Church teaches that men have free will and that God alone knows the future. Such a notion as the position of stars or planets being able to determine the destiny or behaviour of men is anti-Christian.
Let us now trace the history of this occult use of God’s named Zodiac. For [most of] the tempted ones in the second history of mankind, forgot the worship of the true God, as happened in pre-diluvian times, and they began to adore and personify as gods the sun, moon and stars. In the beliefs of the ancient sun worshippers the sun is God, the giver of life.
We believe this cult was assisted by Satan to reflect two of his greatest inabilities by proxy; (1) to mimic the light of the Trinity for himself, and (2) to compensate for his most abject failing, his inability to generate. Read now how God’s symbols were transformed to Pagan gods.
The sun thus deified and personified was made the theme of allegorical history, emblematic of his yearly passage through the twelve constellations. The zodiac is the apparent path of the sun among the stars. It was divided by the ancients into twelve different parts, composed of the clusters of stars named after “living creatures,” typical of the twelve months . . .
The sun, as he pursued his wan among these “living creatures” of the zodiac, was said, in allegorical language, either to assume the nature of or to triumph over the sign he entered. The sun thus became a bull in Taurus, and was worshipped as such by the Egyptians under the name of Apis, and by the Assyrians as Bel, Baal, or Bul. In Leo the sun became a lion-slayer, Hercules, and an archer in Sagittarius. In Pisces, the fishes – he was a fish – Dagon, or Vishnu, the fish-god of the Philistines and Hindoos. When the sun enters Capricornus he reaches his lowest southern declination; afterwards as he emerges from that sign the days become longer, and the sun grows rapidly in light and heat; hence we are told in the mythology that the sun, or Jupiter, was suckled by a goat . . .
The beautiful virgin of the Zodiac, Virgo, together with the Moon, under a score of different names, furnishes the female element in these mythological stories, the wonderful adventures of the gods. These fables are most of them absurd enough if understood as real histories, but the allegorical key being given, many of them are found to contain profound and sublime astronomical truths. This key was religiously kept secret by the priests and philosophers, and was only imparted to those initiated into the MYSTERIES. The profane and vulgar crowd were kept in darkness, and believed in and worshipped a real Hercules or Jupiter, whom they thought actually lived and performed all the exploits and underwent all the transformations of the mythology. By these means the Priests of Egypt ruled the people with a despotic power. (Robert Hewitt Brown: Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, p.7.)
Robert Brown here reflects on ‘sublime astronomical truths.’ To be able to trace the movement of the sun, moon and stars (planets) against a background of the constellations was no doubt a wonderful ability. But we now know that one of their ‘astronomical truths’ was their belief in a solar system with the earth, not the sun, doing the moving. Sir Isaac Newton discovered this and in freemasonic writings they acknowledge this as an accepted truth.
The two images in the above post are the framework for astronomical clocks, which were in common use up to the time of Galileo, and then after him, gradually became more rare, until now -- when it is rather common for even obscure trivia buffs to have no knowledge of them.
It seems to me there is a reason that people today don't care to know about astronomical clocks, and that reason is, they would then have to confront a fact that they don't want to confront, and that is, that people less informed than they are, who lived only 500 years ago, knew something these moderns don't know.
There is another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=27308&min=55#p2) where I have made a few posts on this topic of astronomical clocks.
This astronomical clock, in Prague, dates from the 14th century:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Astronomical_clock_in_Prague.JPG)
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Now given there is no astronomy that can demonstrate this ‘truth,’ we are of the opinion it was divulged to them by Satan, so as to deceive the world from the very beginning.
The people worshiped the sun, moon, and stars as gods, and a knowledge of their true nature would have at once put an end to the influence of the priests, who were believed by the ignorant and superstitious crowd to be able to withhold or dispense, by prayers, invocations, and sacrifices, the divine favor. The priest of a pretended god, when once his god is exposed, stands before the world a convicted impostor. To deny the divinity of the sun, moon, and stars, or, what was the same thing, to permit science to disclose their true nature to the masses of the people was consequently held by the priesthood of Egypt as the highest of crimes. By knowledge of astronomy the priests were able to calculate and to predict eclipses of the sun and moon, events beheld with superstitious awe and fear by the multitude. Seeing how certainly these pre-dictions, when thus made, were fulfilled, the priests were credited with the power to foretell other events, and to look into the future generally. So they cast horoscopes and assumed to be prophets. (Robert Hewitt Brown: Stellar Theology and Masonic Astronomy, p.9.)
The word Helios for sun comes from Helios the sun god, thus heliocentrism and heliolatry. He is the son of Hyperion and Theia. In the Scriptures (3 Kings 16:31-33) we are told of Baal, the sun god of the Phoenicians, characterised by the most scandalously impure rites. Then there were the sun gods of the Canaanites and Mithraists of Persia. Sun worshipping is condemned in the Scriptures (4 Kings 23:5-11; Wisdom, 13:2), the latter lesson repeated by St Paul in Romans 1:20, wherein he says the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon were created as witness to their Creator and not to be the gods that rule the world.
[4 Kings 23:5-11: And he destroyed the soothsayers, whom the kings of Juda had appointed to sacrifice in the high places in the cities of Juda, and round about Jerusalem: them also that burnt incense to Baal, and to the sun, and to the moon, and to the twelve signs, and to all the host of heaven. The king stood upon the step: And he caused the grove to be carried out from the house of the Lord without Jerusalem to the valley of Cedron, and he burnt it there, and reduced it to dust, and cast the dust upon the graves of the common people. He destroyed also the pavilions of the effeminate, which were in the house of the Lord, for which the women wove as it were little dwellings for the grove.
[Note the connection between idolatrous sun-worshipping and the sins of Sodom, from the beginning right down to the men of the Second Vatican Council.]
And he gathered together all the priests out of the cities of Juda: and he defiled the high places, where the priests offered sacrifice, from Gabaa to Bersabee: and he broke down the altars of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Josue governor of tile city, which was on the left hand of the gate of the city. However the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem: but only ate of the unleavened bread among their brethren. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Ennom: that no man should consecrate there his son or his daughter through fire to Moloch. And he took away the horses which the kings of Juda had given to the sun, at the entering in of the temple of the Lord, near the chamber of Nathanmelech the eunuch, who was in Pharurim: and he burnt the chariots of the sun with fire.
Wisdom 13:1-5: But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby.]
The mysteries then spread east to Egypt where they reached their peak.
The direction of religious activities fell into the hands of a Priestly Class. In time, what scientific knowledge this Priestly Class discovered it treated as secret knowledge to be concealed from the public.
[There is nothing new under the sun. The priests of the scientism establishment, freemasons for the most part, continue to manage information expertly, with an eye to deceiving the public and concealing from them necessary knowledge. The suppression of Thomism and Scholastic Metaphysics in seminaries and universities around the world is a prime example of this stratagem. The suppression of the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, in the Mass, in the rituals of all Seven Sacraments, and in the Divine Office, is another example. Finally we have the full-spectrum, wholesale dumbing down of the masses at the hands of fraudulent anti-education in public schools.]
The Priests then used their secret knowledge, by the fostering of superstitions, and by the performance of "miracles, to control the civil governments and the daily lives of the people. (Dr. Stuart R. Crane: The Other Religion, 1976.)
[Modern examples of this include the superstition that the sun causes cancer, so we must stay out of it; the superstition that cholesterol is causing the obesity and diabetes epidemics; the superstition that vaccines prevent disease; the "miracle" of the lunar landing.][/color]
In their religious panoply the Sun was considered as the symbol of the male principle, the regenerator of the Earth, and as the highest symbol of the un-seen God Principle. (The radiant all-seeing eye) This is the reason for the Sun-worship which has been practiced in every part of the world to the present day. This priestly craft took up the study of astronomy, to the degree that such was possible without the aid of telescopes, and by ingenuity and by careful measurements and record keeping, they achieved great understanding of the motions of the moon and planets, and deduced, accurately, the size and shape of the Earth. The Ziggurats of Babylon and the Pyramids of Egypt were not simply religious shrines, but were primarily astronomical observatories manned by this Priestly class. The knowledge which was thus gained was, however, never shared with the people but was kept as a closely guarded secret. The people were kept in ignorance so that the Priestly Orders should always remain dominant.[/i] (Ibid.)
Also, when you think about it, the false Egyptian religion, which affirmed that the body was needed to go to the next life, and thus required mummification, was not a religion for the masses. Only the upper classes received the burial rites. Is this correct? If it is, the the Love of the Sacred Heart for all men, especially the obscure and downtrodden, is revealed in even greater majesty and magnificence. Consider that in Christianity, kings and strangers, Saints and sinners, all get the same Sacraments and funereal rites. [/font]
-
On December 23, 2012, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer gave a beautiful sermon on demonic evolution. It fits here perfectly.
Listen here:
http://www.inthissignyoushallconquer.com/father-joseph-pfeiffer
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The history of the Egyptian cult consists of facts, mysteries and myths, some revealed like this.
Semiramis was very highly honoured in Egypt where, by her intrigues and diabolical arts, she greatly contributed to the spread of idolatry. I saw her in Memphis, where human sacrifices are common, plotting and practicing magic and astrology. It was Semiramis who here planned the first pyramid; it was built on the eastern bank of the Nile. The whole nation had to assist in its construction . . . This building was the centre of Egyptian idolatry, astrology, witchcraft, abominable impurity. Astrologers and necromancers calling up spirits of the dead dwelt in the pyramid and there conjured up diabolical visions . . . But I saw that, even at the coming of Semiramis to Memphis, these people, in their pride had designedly confused the calendar. Their ambition was to take precedence of all other nations in point of time. With this end in view, they drew up a number of complicated calendars and royal genealogical tables. By this means and frequent changes in their computations, order and true chronology were lost. That this confusion might be firmly established, they perpetuated every error by inscriptions and the erection of great buildings. For a long time they reckoned the ages of father and son, as if the date of the former’s demise were that of the latter’s birth.
The kings, who waged constant war with the priests on the subject of chronology, inserted among their forefathers the names of persons that never existed. Thus the four kings of the same name who reigned simultaneously in Thebes, Heliopolis, Memphis and Sais were in accordance with the design, reckoned one after the other. I saw too that once they reckoned nine hundred and seventy days to a year, and again, years were computed as months. I saw a pagan priest drawing up a chronological table in which for every five hundred years, eleven hundred were set down.
The evolution establishment has perpetrated the exact same scam in our own day.
I saw these false computations of the pagan priests at the same time as I beheld Jesus Christ teaching on the Sabbath at Aruma. Jesus, speaking before the Pharisees of the Call of Abraham and his sojourn in Egypt, exposed the errors of the Egyptian calendar. He told them that the world had now existed 4028 years. When I heard Jesus say this, He was Himself thirty-one years old. (Katarina Emmerick (1774-1823), the Augustinian nun who bore the stigmata, received many visions of past events including the above. From her writings Mel Gibson acquired details used in his film The Passion of the Christ.)
(In the Scriptures one finds Katarina’s age for Christ accurate: Adam 5 days, Noah and the flood 1056 years (2941 BC), Abraham 1950 after creation, Exodus 2540, birth of Jesus 3997, death of Jesus 4030, fall of Jerusalem 4070, the year 2000AD 5997 years old and so on.)
The Egyptians were led by a pharaoh. His function was to maintain the order of the universe, established at creation and embracing not only the social and political structure of Egypt, but also the laws of nature, the movement of the heavenly bodies, the rotation of the seasons and the flood control of the River Nile. One most prominent god was Re, the sun god. Cities such as Anu ‘the City of the Sun,’ known as Heliopolis to the Greeks, were built in his image. These cities regularly contained temples, most noted of all the magnificent Sun Temples ‘that once formed the sacred heart [b]sacred heart???!!! [/b]of ancient Egyptian spirituality.’ The architecture of these temples more often than not communicated a heliocentric system of six planets situated around a central fire to symbolise the sun.
Then there were the pyramids, built as a stairway to the gods of the sky. Finally the phallic obelisks, consecrated to the sun-god, which, according to the historian Pliny, is the meaning of the word in Egyptian.
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: It is known that the Greek philosophers Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato had visited Egypt to learn first hand the wisdom of the Egyptians. A study of the numerous writings of Plato’s that survived show that their course outline was to produce a small core of selected philosophers, expert in mathematics, harmonics, astronomy, dialectics, natural science and political theory, who would not seek power themselves but ‘advise’ those who ruled. This philosophy further influenced Gnostic teachers who were accused by Catholic apologists of being disciples of Plato and of following the platonic system in making ‘arithmetical science the fundamental principle of their doctrine.’ Rome’s long disapproval of Platonic philosophy resulted in the closing down in 529AD of the Academy Plato founded in Athens in 380BC.
The Egyptians, we know, had a slightly different version of history to that of the global Flood brought about by God’s anger with mankind, as revealed in Genesis chapters 6-9. They taught that local deluges had at times flooded and destroyed peoples and places off the face of the earth. The gods however supposedly saved Egypt and her ancient buildings, temples and sanctuaries. Perhaps here we see good reason why the Egyptians falsified the ages of their buildings as recorded by Katarina Emmerick. Contained in these ancient temples and sanctuaries, they claimed, was preserved knowledge of the origin of the world when man had fraternised with the gods. Classical writers, we find, were besotted with this. And so, we find, were Renaissance Catholics:
[They] extolled the immensely old wisdom of the Egyptian priests, and especially their revered knowledge of the heavens and the motion of the stars. Many deemed Egypt a sacred land, a land in which the gods had once dwelt and taught men the divine and sacred science and where secrets of immortality had been revealed to those who were worthy. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p.154.)
We can posit that this same phenomenon - devils teaching men certain secrets of the natural order and the composition of material bodies - is responsible for the modern techno-monstrosity in which we all now languish. If one looks into the history of chemistry, one will discover that many, if not most of the "elements" on the periodic table were "discovered" in the 1700's and 1800's; and that these "discoveries" were the result of violent experimentation on natural bodies. For example, in the lab, water is split into hydrogen and oxygen when it is electrocuted. In plant photosynthesis, where water is alleged to undergo dissolution into its constituent parts, it is not unreasonable to surmise that natural electromagnetism, powered by the sun, is the agent of motion.
For interesting meditation fodder, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_chemical_elements_discoveries
The Egyptian sect aspired to gain the favours of the pure gods and goddesses of ‘spiritual’ heaven and sky - gods such as Isis and Osiris, gods of light, Re or Ra, and Atum, deity of the solar disc and of the sun itself - so that they could be protected from harm on earth and gain paradise in the hereafter. Followers of this sun-based occultism believed they could achieve salvation and immortality with their gods through magic or heka, a divine and sacred science, a gnosis, knowledge of the true nature of things, a compilation of ancient wisdom.
Spurred on by their sun-deities, the Egyptians sought to build a spiritual and temporal ‘heaven on earth,’ a world imitating the domain of the sky. To this end they built cities reflecting this devotion, and throughout their land they erected many temples to the sun, pyramids according to cosmic measurements, obelisks and other monuments, those pillars reaching up to the gods in the sky.
Magic powers were gained by restoring the magician to the prelapsarian status of man as the complete image of his creator, thereby enabling him “to participate in God’s creative work.” Magic is part of the redemptive process; through its use, man can redeem the creation from its bondage. Magi, according to Paracelsus, were “natural saints,” “holy men in God who serve the forces in nature.” (B.J. Gibbons: Spirituality and the Occult, p.39.)
-
I do believe that the Good God says that men who serve the "forces in nature" are idolaters:
Romans: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified Him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen . . . [These] did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Four
The Sacred Doctrine Of Geocentrism
(http://i62.tinypic.com/155329w.png)
No thesis on the Earthmovers could ignore the book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, authored in 1896 by Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918). Andrew White, the son of a self-made wealthy merchant who opened his own bank, was baptised in the Calvary Episcopal Church in 1835. He went to Yale University where he became a member of the ‘Skull and Bones’ fraternity, a secret society of selected students. There he read history, and excelled in his studies and writings. After receiving his BA at the age of twenty-one he spent a further year of study in Europe. When he returned he rejoined Yale University to achieve an MA in history. Then, in the mid-1860s, after a spell as professor of history at the University of Michigan, he served in the New York Senate where he met senator Ezra Cornell, a Quaker farmer from Ithaca, New York, who made a fortune in the telegraph industry.
When money became available for higher education, and even more offered by Cornell, the two decided to use it to fund a new university. In 1868 the new University of Cornell duly opened its doors in Ithaca with White serving as the university’s first president until 1885. Throughout his career, Andrew White amassed a huge library of books (30,000). In particular, he built up a collection on the Reformation, witchcraft, and the masonic French Revolution, a set he left to the University of Cornell after he died.
At the time of Cornell's founding, White announced that it would be "an asylum for Science—where truth shall be sought for truth's sake, not stretched or cut exactly to fit Revealed Religion." [Lindberg and Numbers, 1986]. Up to that time, America's private universities were exclusively religious institutions, and generally focused on the liberal arts and religious training (though they were not explicitly antagonistic to science). In 1869 White gave a lecture on "The Battle-Fields of Science," arguing that history showed the negative outcomes resulting from any attempt on the part of religion to interfere with the progress of science. Over the next 30 years he refined his analysis, expanding his case studies to include nearly every field of science over the entire history of Christianity, but also narrowing his target from "religion" through "ecclesiasticism" to "dogmatic theology." The final result was the two-volume, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. - - - Wikipedia.
Andrew White was without doubt a most brilliant scholar, linguist and researcher. He was acquainted with all the best libraries in Europe as well as America, and had a capacity to absorb the scholarly works of the learned authors of most nationalities. With regard to the subject matter under examination, in the preface of this book, he tells the reader:
I propose to present an outline of the great, sacred struggle for the liberty of science – a struggle which has lasted for so many centuries, and which yet continues. A hard contest it has been; a war waged longer, with battles fiercer, with sieges more persistent, with strategy more shrewd than in any of the comparatively transient warfare of Caesar or Napoleon or Moltke. (Andrew D. White: A History, New York, Appleton, 1896.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: An informed reading of this lengthy book shows ‘White’s work is utterly worthless as history,’ in that many scholars have found numerous inaccuracies and prejudice when describing the conflicts he conjured up from one clash to another. Moreover, what White accepted as ‘science’ would not have qualified as such were it not for the assumptions of the Copernican revolution that set the standard for what is called modern science. Much of what he included as proof or verification for heliocentrism against geocentrism, for uniformitarianism against catastrophism (that the geography, topography and fossils of the earth were shaped, formed and buried by a gigantic worldwide Flood of Noah, as recorded in the Bible), for evolutionism against creationism, is based on prejudiced and wishful thinking, not true science.
But White, like so many other anti-Catholics writing on the same subjects, was in the propaganda business, and the extent of his success was astounding. ‘It was,’ he said, the ‘theological spirit that had a tendency to dogmatism which has shown itself in all ages to be the deadly foe not only of scientific inquiry, but of the higher religious spirit itself.’ What White found unacceptable was that in theology we find infallible truths that rightly oppose the ‘scientific’ inventions of godless minds and therein lay the clashing of faith and false reasoning, the two totally incompatible, and warfare was inevitable.
White’s History has a most varied and comprehensive bibliography. Its footnotes take up a considerable space, and his source material was found in many different languages. The book has enjoyed numerous editions, has been translated into many languages, has been read by millions, and is still in print. [Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Buffalo, New York, 1993.]
Is it any wonder then it is often quoted in textbooks and elsewhere as an authoritative source on the history of faith and science? As one would expect, at times White takes licence. For example, he ties the Church to the Ptolemaic theory that it never defended, nor any other model; simply a fixed earth at the centre of the universe (not necessarily the mathematical centre) and a moving sun.
All the above apart, White’s account of the metaphysical geocentric world cannot be faulted and is worth reproducing. So vast is his bibliography and footnotes that it would be impossible to reproduce them in this work so we shall not include them. On geocentrism, White wrote:
This doctrine was of the highest respectability: it had been developed at a very early period, and had been elaborated until it accounted well for the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies; its final name, ‘Ptolemaic theory,’ carried weight; and, having thus come from antiquity into the Christian world, St Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that the altar in the Jєωιѕн Tabernacle was ‘‘a symbol of the earth placed in the middle of the universe:’’ nothing more was needed; the geocentric theory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree with the letter and spirit of Scripture. Wrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed in the Middle Ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early theories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of astronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal Church – the last word of revelation.
Three great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who gave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. It was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St Paul’s Athenian convert, and therefore virtually of St Paul himself. Though now known to be spurious, they were then considered a treasure of inspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the West as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely circulated in Western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought especially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of astronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed and named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred Scriptures.
The next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, Professor at the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century, he gave forth his collection of Sentences, or statements by the Fathers, and this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual of theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of man’s relation to the universe. The author tells the world: ‘‘Just as man is made for the sake of God – that is, that he may serve Him - so the universe is made for the sake of man, that is, that it may serve him; therefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe, that he may both serve and be served.’’ The vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real astronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo.
The great triad of thinkers culminated in St Thomas Aquinas – the sainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the ‘Angelic Doctor,’ the most marvellous intellect between Aristotle and Newton; he to whom it was believed that an image of the Crucified had spoken words praising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just – even more than just – to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the thirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica. In this he carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast system, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.
Thus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval thought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into European belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part of the world’s life. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric heavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen by all; the God Triune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as the Pope seated in the chair of St Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding the Pope; the three great order of angels in heaven, as real as the three great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the whole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and all moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the feudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.
Let us look into this vast creation – the highest achievement of theology – somewhat more closely. Its first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas. The earth is no longer a flat plain enclosed by four walls and solidly vaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it, under the inspiration of Cosmas; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with sun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral sculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the universe. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated by angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly bodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next, Mercury; the next, Venus; the next, the sun; the next three, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was the primum mobile, and enclosing all was the tenth heaven, the Empyrean. This was immovable, a boundary between creation and the great outer void; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat enthroned, the ‘music of the spheres’ rising to Him as they moved. Thus was the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.
In attendance upon the Divine Majesty, thus enthroned, are vast hosts of angels, who are divided into three hierarchies, one serving in the empyrean, one in the heavens between the empyrean and the earth, and one on the earth. Each of these hierarchies is divided into three choirs, or orders; the first, into the orders of Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; and the main occupation of these is to chant incessantly – to ‘‘continually cry’’ the divine praises. The order of Thrones conveys God’s will to the second hierarchy, which serves in the movable heavens. This second hierarchy is also made up of three orders. The first of these, the order of Dominions, receives the divine commands; the second, the order of Powers, moves the heavens, sun, moon, planets, and stars, opens and shuts the ‘‘windows of heaven,’’ and brings to pass all other celestial phenomena; the third, the order of Empire [rather Powers or Authorities], guards the others [warrior angels].
The third and lowest hierarchy is also made up of three orders. First of these are the Principalities, the guardian spirits of nations and kingdoms. Next come Archangels; these protect religion, and bear the prayers of the saints to the foot of God’s throne. Finally come Angels; these care for earthly affairs in general, one being appointed to each mortal, and others taking charge of the qualities of plants, metals, stones and the like. Throughout the whole system, from the great Triune God to the lowest group of angels, we see at work the mystic power attached to the triangle and sacred number three – the same which gave the triune deities in Egypt, and which transmitted this theological gift to the Christian world, especially through the Egyptian Athanasius.
Below the earth is hell. This is tenanted by the angels who rebelled under the lead of Lucifer, prince of the seraphim –the former favourite of the Trinity; but, of these rebellious angels, some still rove among the planetary spheres, and give trouble to the good angels; others pervade the atmosphere about the earth, carrying lightning, storm, drought, and hail; others infest earthly society, tempting men to sin; but Peter Lombard and St Thomas Aquinas take pains to show that the work of these devils is, after all, but to discipline man or to mete out deserved punishment.
All this vast scheme had been so riveted into the Ptolemaic view by the use of biblical texts and theological reasoning that the resultant system of the universe was considered impregnable and final. To attack it was blasphemy. It stood for centuries. Great theological men of science like Vincent of Beauvais and Cardinal d’Ailly, devoted themselves to showing not only that it was supported by Scripture, but also that it supported Scripture. Thus was the geocentric theory embedded in the beliefs and aspirations, in the hopes and fears of Christendom down to the middle of the sixteenth century. (A. D. White, A History, pp.116-120.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Aristotle’s World
Aristotle’s geocentric universe was conceived as operating from the outside looking inward, focusing on the earth. The geocentric universe - while not regarded as large as we are led to believe it is today - was unambiguously finite. Aristotle reasoned that the universe, because it rotated around every day, had to be finite, a reasoning that could not be disputed. This proved to be theologically sound also within Catholicism, for only God is infinite. Cosmic infinity invites Pantheism. Indeed, this aspect of the geocentric universe is extremely important in concentrating the spiritual intellect of man, visual proof that keeps us aware that we are creatures separate from God and not part of a pantheistic scenario.
Aristotle distinguished between that which he believed could be directly investigated (the earth regions) and that which could not (the celestial region). The lower region of change and irregularity he called Nature and the upper unchanging region he called Sky. That all-important frontier, where one transgressed into the other, was the moon’s path or sphere of the moon. The philosopher here introduced a religious or spiritual element in that outside of this boundary, the mysterious heavens, he believed to be the sole domain of deities, incorruptible but adhering to law and order.
In the Aristotelian world there were four grades of terrestrial reality: mere existence (as in clay or rock), existence with growth (as in trees), existence and growth with sensation (as in beasts), and all these with reason (as in man). The properties in matter were then only four, called the Four Contraries: hot, cold, moist and dry, and the four elements: fire, air, water and earth. In the sublunary world – nature in the strict sense – the four elements had all sorted themselves out into their ‘kindly stede.’ Earth, the heaviest, had gathered itself at the centre. On the earth sits the lighter water. Above that is the still lighter air. Fire, the lightest of all, whenever it is free, flies-up to the circuмference of nature and forms a sphere just below the trajectory of the moon. Above the moon, in the sky, forming the celestial spheres there was thought to be a Fifth Element or Quintessence, the aether. Alas, because it existed out of reach, we mortals would have had no experience of it.
The ancient perception of the cosmos was that it was the sun that illuminated the whole universe. The stars, they believed, had no light generating powers, merely reflecting that of the sun just as we now know those ‘wandering stars,’ the planets, do. Aristotle then tells us ‘Outside the heaven, beyond the Primum Mobile, there is neither place nor void nor time. Hence whatever is there does not occupy space, nor does time affect it.’ Compliant with Christianity, the doctrine speaks loud and jubilant. What better place for Heaven, caelum ipsum, full of God, ‘pure light, intellectual light, full of Love’ as Dante saw it.
To account for the specific movements of the sun, moon, stars, and planets, Aristotle proposed that the heavens were literally composed of 55 concentric, crystalline spheres to which the celestial objects were attached with the Earth at the centre. The whole system, he thought, was kept in motion by fifty-five, unmoved movers (Metaphysics 12:8). Such reasoning was again pagan, but interestingly, seems to have anticipated the work of the angels of Christian Revelation. The knowledge of God’s use of angels as His primary instruments arises from theology.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: St Thomas Aquinas said that ‘‘every visible thing is put under the charge of an angel.’’ There is a near unanimity of the Fathers, both east and west, that angels, under God and by His order, govern the movements of the heavenly bodies. St Thomas explains the reason for this. The angels are part of the universe; we are situated between the angels and the animals in the hierarchy of being and have more in common with the angels above us than the animals below us by reason of our intelligence and free will. That the angels should govern the movements of the heavens in a way analogous to the appointed governance of man over the earth, is eminently reasonable and in complete harmony with the Scriptures and the many aspects of angelic activity revealed to us therein. (Paula Haigh: Was It Infallible. Nazareth, KY. USA, 1992.)
But also important for this subject is the nature of the Angels. They are pure spirits of tremendous intellect and will, far greater in power and purity than men in their rational nature. Franciscan theologian Fr Valentine Long, in his book, says that all of them are “instant theologians.” (Fr Valentine Long: The Angels in Religion and Art, 1970, p.48.) Not only that but as soon as there existed a Universe to contemplate, angels were also: “…instant astronomers. Our telescopes, probing its vast reaches, can only pick out the less remote stars; so that what we have learned of the cosmos remains infinitesimal compared to the magnitude of our ignorance. But we must not ascribe to the Angels our limitations. At a glance they comprehended it all.” And if “instant astronomers” then also “instant” physicists, “instant” biologists, and scientists generally, seeing into the very constitution of natural creatures and understanding nature’s laws in a manner inaccessible to the human mind. In fact, this can be docuмented. (Miss Paula Haigh: Fairy-Land is Hell, Magic is Demon Power, 2004, p.15.)
It is true that all the stars and heavenly bodies by the natural direction given them by God pursue their several courses but these great worlds are material and, therefore, as the Angelic Doctor points out, are liable to decay and deterioration. To prevent therefore, disorder and confusion in the thousands of heavenly bodies which are whirling through space with inexpressible speed, God gives each one, in His all-wise Providence, an Angel to keep it in its course and avert the dire calamities that would result were it to stray from its allotted orbit . . . Few people think on all this when on beautiful star-lit nights they gaze on the Heavens and the myriads of stars. How fitting it would be to salute the countless Angels who guard these stars: “Oh glorious Angels of the stars, we love you, we thank you. Please bless us and shower on us your protection. (E.D.M.: All About Angels, Catholic Printing Press, Portugal, 1945, pp.31-2.)
And if the angels have total comprehension of the universe, which they have, then Lucifer and his fallen demons, with permission from God, are capable of passing on such knowledge to just about anyone that they care to inform, always though, to serve their purpose.
The demons are prevented by their state of mortal sin, from that knowledge which renders the good Angels supremely happy: the knowledge whereby they see God and all things in Him. For this reason, the demons expend all of their intellectual power and energy (which is tremendous) in probing the secrets of nature and revealing to mankind those things which are most likely to attack his Faith and bring him down to Hell by playing on his evil passions, especially the lust for power and money. (Miss Paula Haigh, Fairy-Land is Hell, Magic is Demon Power, p.42-3.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Coming closer to earth, in the vast aetherial region, many of Aristotle’s intelligences lose that pureness and goodness and were thus known as ‘daemons.’ Again we find an easy analogy with the Christian concept, as depicted in the Apocalypse, that of the fallen angels who were cast ‘down’ from heaven. Between the moon and the earth they gather until God casts them into their final place in Hell.
And that great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray the whole world; and he was cast down to the Earth and with him his angels were cast down. - - - (Apoc. 16:9).
‘Hell,’ a place as well as a state, according to mediaeval tradition, created by God for Satan and those who reject Him for whatever reason, from hatred to apathy, lies in the very centre of the earth, the furthest place from heaven. Earlier, in her insights, we read of that pit in Mary of Agreda’s ‘Mystical City of God.’ Elsewhere, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote:
The last is natural reason. There is no doubt that it is indeed reasonable that the place of devils and wicked damned men should be as far as possible from the place where God, angels and blessed saints will be forever, the abode of the blessed (as our adversaries agree) in heaven, and no place further removed from heaven than the centre of the earth. (Quoted by Karen Armstrong: A History of God, Vintage, p.334.)
-
In the Name of Jesus let every knee bow of those that are in heaven
(Angels) on earth (man) and under the earth (devils). (Phil. 2:10)
In Genesis, the Bible states that God created the stars, sun and moon to shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. The Copernican or heliocentric proposal violates this concept by reversing this order. If the sun is the centre of our universe then it is the earth that resides in the heaven and not the other way around, as the same Cardinal Bellarmine made clear in his Letter to Foscarini in 1615.
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 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 world.
With the advent of heliocentrism, Hell also became redundant. Once ‘science’ supposedly demonstrated that the earth (with its hellish interior) was in fact flying around the sun, then the theological Hell taught by the mediaeval Catholic Church began to lose its credibility. And with Hell went Satan for many, for the two are intrinsically linked, discredit one and you consign the other to the same myth. Indeed such a notion of Hell in the bowels of the earth is but an embarrassment to modern Catholics, and not even the fact that science speculates the interior of the earth is one huge burning flaming mass has helped restore the traditional place of Hell. To those who cringe at the idea of a moving sun, a fixed earth, Heaven, Hell and Purgatory as taught by the Church, they think now as fallen mankind.
At the final judgement however, traditional theologians teach, all from ‘middle earth’ shall share in the knowledge of God’s infinite justice and mercy. This will include a fusion in us of all that God created for His Own Glory that, we believe, must include a comprehension of His geocentric cosmos. The Scriptures foretell that immediately thereafter, no matter where one deserves to go for all eternity, all shall sing the praises of God’s perfect judgement. (The Catholic Church: Burns & Oates, London, 1948, 1956, pp.1101-1140.)
In addition to the bliss of Heaven, which springs from the immediate Vision of God, there is also an accidental blessedness, which proceeds from the natural knowledge and love of created things. (Sent. Communis.) (Lugwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 1963, p.478.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The first and most manifest philosophical proof of God, apart from the proof inherent in design, of course, is the conclusion from motion.
Now whatever is in motion is put into motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality . . . It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore what is in motion must be put in motion by another.
If that by which is put in motion, be itself put in motion, then this also must need be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover . . . Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. . . . (ST, Q.2. Art. 3)
It is irrefutably reasonable then, according to St Thomas, because we see and experience movement, God, as First Mover, exists. It follows surely, there cannot be motion without His causality. The scholastic view was that such a Prime Mover is found in the wholly transcendent and spiritual God who ‘occupies no place and all places and is not affected by time.’ Thus how He moves things cannot be attributed to some kind of motion [in] Him, but as Aristotle says: ‘He moves as beloved.’
The cosmos, the Primum Mobile, is moved by its love for God as an object of desire moves those who desire it. Once moved, it communicates motion to the rest of the universe.
Motion is a process that necessitates causality and specifically,
the primary causality of God acting in all things.
The removal of God from the act of motion was in fact begun by Galileo and completed by Isaac Newton. Galileo determined that marbles would roll down slopes and balls would fall from towers in a consistent manner on their own, ignoring any assistance from God. Newton took this inertia out into space, claiming the cause as an attraction of matter itself, and that these movements would continue forever unless something directly effected a change of direction. That, and not so much the claim for heliocentrism resulting from Newton’s claim of particle attraction, flushed God and His angels from any cause or say in how the universe moves.
In her essay Galileo’s Empiricism, from which we base the next few chapters, Paula Haigh explains that the scholastic dictum on faith and science was to distinguish but not to separate. The Aristotelian philosophy on motion as found especially in Aristotle’s Physics and in St Thomas’s Summa Contra Gentiles, defines motion as the passage from potency to act. Motion, they reason, is a property of all created beings for, by the very fact of their ‘creaturehood,’ they are composed of these two principles, potency and act. Potency determines and limits what a specific motion is capable of arriving at in actuality. The limits are determined by the nature of the created being, and act is always the realisation of some specific potentiality that flows from the nature of the being that changes.
Miss Haigh continues stating there is no such thing as absolute motion or absolute change because there is no such thing as motion or change apart from the being that moves and changes. The scholastics argued the absolute necessity, both physical and metaphysical, for God’s primary agency in all things. The primary agency of God is absolutely necessary in order that the being of any and all individuals be sustained in existence and empowered to act through their forms, for God alone is Pure Actuality, all Existence, Pure Act, with no trace of becoming, of change, or of potency, which latter is always a sign of the imperfection of need.
Thus these philosophers attribute all motion, of whatever kind, from the tiniest caused by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the motions of the universe - as an effect, both [of] God and [of] the natural agent or secondary cause, though in different ways. In all discussions on motion a distinction must be made between the primary cause, who is God, and the secondary cause, to which He imparts the actuality necessary to bring any potentiality into motion.
All motion then, of whatever kind, is due, as an effect, both to God and to the natural agent or secondary cause, though in different ways.
[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]
Christian theology shows the love God has for us His creatures and our love for Him in recognition of this. We see also God’s love sustains the inanimate universe that necessarily ensures the existence of man. Thus we are totally dependent on Him for everything, within ourselves and without. We call this divine concursus; that act by which God’s energy flows into all the operations of creatures. The motions of the universe are presided over by God’s mediate concursus, signifying the remote divine activity that gives and preserves created power of action.
It follows then that God must have left His mark in the heavens. Aristotelian thinking, combining the motions of the universe with the love of God, always – mistakenly though - saw circular movements as reflecting, as close as possible, the divine and omnipresent Mover. Each sphere attains it in a less degree than the sphere above it. Residing in each and every sphere we find a conscious and intellectual being, moved by ‘intellectual love’ of God.
“The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its circuмference. But as one centre may have many circuмferences, so, though there be but one earth, there may be many heavens.” St. Thomas (I, Q 68,a 4, ad l) here establishes two principles: (1) Earth is the centre of creation, and (2) there may be many heavenly bodies revolving along many pathways, thus producing many circuмferences around the Earth, and these may be referred to as “heavens.” Thus the Moon revolves around Earth in a lunar heaven; the sun in a fiery heaven, and so for the planets and stars. Likewise, the divisions or layers of Earth’s atmosphere are “heavens” of a corporeal nature. And all of these relate most necessarily and intrinsically to the Earth as to their centre and raison d’être. In sum, Heaven is the Throne of God and the Earth is His footstool (Matt. 5:34-35); Isaiah 66:1 and Psalms). [Acts 7:49: ‘Heaven is my throne and the earth a footstool for my feet. What house will you build Me, says the Lord; or what shall be the place of My rest?] This indicates a necessary relationship of Earth to God, the Creator, and of Man the servant-creature to God the Creator. Our Lord’s coming elevated this unique relationship to the supernatural order but did not change its intimacy or necessity, rather increased it while elevating it. (Miss Paula Haigh, From the Beginning)
-
Sola Scriptura Protestant Morman(Moroni) Bibliolatry :reporter:
-
.
Who is the author of this paragraph in brackets?
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&f=19&min=145#p3)
[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]
.
-
.
Who is the author of text in blue font?
Who is the author of text in brackets?
Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?
.
-
delete
-
I am the blue font bracket author/perpetrator.
-
.
Who is the author of this paragraph in brackets?
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&f=19&min=145#p3)
[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]
.
This was in black, so it is the author's footnote.
-
.
Some readers may be unaware that the following quote (it seems to be a quote, anyway, since it's in italics, even though cantatedomino has not bothered to mention whether portions of posts in italics are going to be, or are, or have been quotes from the source following in parentheses or brackets or non-italic font, or whatever) is from a Catholic priest, who wrote the book, All About Angels, as noted parenthetically:
E.D.M.[/url]]
It is true that all the stars and heavenly bodies by the natural direction given them by God pursue their several courses but these great worlds are material and, therefore, as the Angelic Doctor points out, are liable to decay and deterioration. To prevent therefore, disorder and confusion in the thousands of heavenly bodies which are whirling through space with inexpressible speed, God gives each one, in His all-wise Providence, an Angel to keep it in its course and avert the dire calamities that would result were it to stray from its allotted orbit . . . Few people think on all this when on beautiful star-lit nights they gaze on the Heavens and the myriads of stars. How fitting it would be to salute the countless Angels who guard these stars: “Oh glorious Angels of the stars, we love you, we thank you. Please bless us and shower on us your protection.
(E.D.M.: All About Angels, Catholic Printing Press, Portugal, 1945, pp.31-32.)
Father Paul O'Sullivan went by the initials "E.D.M." and he was the author of the book, which see.
Furthermore, not to pay any attention to inane drivel by one mentally challenged member currently on the loose, notice that E.D.M. does not refer to Scripture in this paragraph, and rightly so, because there is nothing in Scripture that addresses this topic, objectively. However, this is rather an insight into what makes Scripture what it is, because this is in perfect HARMONY with Scripture even though this is not literally found in Scripture. The reference is instead to the works of the Angelic Doctor, to whom protestants and other non-Catholics are wont to look at askance, for fear of not knowing whether it is to be believed or not (curiously, all the while they argue against the infallibility of the pope, while they rely on the infallibility of the Bible, which is, after all, only known to be infallible BECAUSE its infallibility was defined by the pope). They like to quote St. Thomas, but do so with great reserve, for the things they would LIKE to say they can't say, because it cannot be referenced literally in the Bible. Of course, our resident heckler won't understand this and will no doubt continue his inanities apace. Furthermore, as I recall, E.D.M. touches on this aspect of the Angelic Doctor's discourse, but it's not mentioned so far in THE EARTHMOVERS: -- for whatever reason. Perhaps the mysterious and/or unknown author of this non-book (thanks to the deficiencies of its production here on CI, apparently) is not aware of it, or if he IS aware of it, then he does not comprehend the implications of it, or if he DOES comprehend the implications of it, he has chosen not to mention it because of something -- perhaps that readers like r___ for example, might think he's being a practical protestant (which sounds a little bit like "practical sedevacantist," don't-cha-know, like the Menzingen-ddenizens are wont to say). But the missing teaching is as follows: Each angel is as different from every other angel not in the same way that people are different from one another. We are prone to think of angels like male or female, or cousin or neighbor, or Asian or Arian, or Black or White, or rich or poor, or adult or child, or classical or modern, but angels are much more different from each other than that. Angels, say the Angelic Doctor, are as different from each other as are the various species different from one another. That is to say, that Angel A is as different from Angel B as is a whale is different from a toad, or a giraffe is from a flea, or a soaring eagle is from a crawling snake, or a trilobite is from a desert tortoise, or a queen bee is from a male mountain lion, or a Mississippi hummingbird is from an Arabian horse. IN FACT, we could think of it this way: Since animals are part of THIS WORLD, and are not part of the NEXT WORLD (I'm sorry, animal lovers, but you are simply WRONG, there are none of your favorite pets or endangered species to be found in heaven!) we could think of the animals we know and love as simply God's way of preparing us for our eternity -- in one way or the other. EITHER we will glorify God in eternity enjoying the multiplicity of angels all around us as different from each other as are all the animal species in our temporal world, OR, we will grudgingly glorify God in hell, tortured forever by the multiplicity of demonic fallen angels, each of whom is as different from each other as are the various species in our temporal world. But all will glorify God, in any case. Every knee shall bend, whether on the earth or under the earth.
When we think of angels in this way, we then can apply this principle to the concept of angels guarding and guiding the motions of planets, or the sun, or the stars. In fact, it is not outside the realm of possibility that ONE angel may be capable of guiding TWO stars, or TWENTY or a THOUSAND. Why not? If angels are as different as a Tyrannosaurus Rex is from a virus microbe, then why would some particular angels be incapable of taking care of more than just one star in the sky?
In this way, we can expand our craniums to a little better appreciation for the providence of God, and how eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it entered into the heart of man, what God has prepared for those that love Him.
.
-
.
Thank you for your reply, cantatedomino! Please be aware that I am not trying to "upset" you (if you are a woman, you will very likely be prone to getting upset like this), but I am merely attempting to UNDERSTAND the posts I am reading. As I read these installments, I have been bewildered from time to time as to who it is that wrote the words I am reading. It makes a HUGE difference for comprehension whether person A or person B wrote the words.
BTW in the Bible it is sometimes difficult to understand what is written for this very reason. Some books of Scripture are authored perhaps by two or more people, and this is a vulnerability, because Modernists have taken that weakness to imply that therefore ALL of Scripture is not to be believed because it was ALL written by committees of ne'er-do-wells who had NOTHING BUT TROUBLE in mind when they got together to write stuff, etc. NOTE: I am not saying this is the case with your posts, here - DON'T GET ME WRONG.
I really appreciate this thread and I hope to get a lot out of it, that is, a lot MORE than I already have! Tell the author that I hope some day he will make himself known to the world so we can stand in line to get our copies autographed and stuff. You know, like a book signing. HAHAHAHA
.
Who is the author of text in blue font?
Who is the author of text in brackets?
Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?
.
I am the blue font bracket author/perpetrator.
Am I wrong to presume this was an attempt to answer 3 questions with one sentence? If not, am I wrong to expect the answer to the first question, "Who is the author of text in blue font?" to be: "I am the blue font author." (?)
And am I wrong to presume the answer to the second question, "Who is the author of text in brackets?" is that, "If I feel like it at the moment, which might change without notice at any time, perhaps I would be the author/perpetrator of the text in brackets." (?)
And, the answer to the third question, "Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?" is simply too much, question overload, and "I'm, sorry, I only have PATIENCE to answer in one sentence and I can't DEAL with so many questions in one sentence!!!" (?)
.
Who is the author of this paragraph in brackets?
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&f=19&min=145#p3)
[NOTE: The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay (change) observable in nature. For example, the 2nd law is responsible for changing a new building – without maintenance - into ruins over time, and for a machine rusting into dust.]
.
This was in black, so it is the author's footnote.
This, then would corroborate my expectations for the second question, above, "Who is the author of text in brackets?" (since my second question was not specifically answered previously). For now, when one's fancy strikes the moment, suddenly brackets no longer constitute words written by the posting member but are instead indicate the texts is actually a footnote of the original author.
Okay.
Notice, no answer forthcoming in regards to both blue font AND brackets. Correct?
.
-
.
The ink dried, again.
There is an omission in my post, whereby I presume that your answer, "I am the blue font bracket author/perpetrator," only addresses the first two of my questions but not the third question.
The omission is as follows:
Perhaps what you meant to communicate, cantatedomino, is that you were not answering the second question at all with that reply, but only the first and the third questions, as follows:
Who is the author of text in blue font?
Who is the author of text in brackets?
Who is the author of blue font text in brackets?
I had considered this, but discarded it immediately, because, IF you had intended to answer from the start of this reply that ALL bracketed text would construe words of the original author as found in a footnote, THEN there would be no reason for such words to ever appear as part of your commentary or clarification or contribution or whatever-it-is you're doing with the bold blue font.
At the risk of being obvious, I'll go ahead and be obvious:
This is to say, that IF you were only answering questions 1 and 3 in your first post and had planned to address question 2 in your second post alone, THEN your answers would make no sense in regards to the third question, BECAUSE having both brackets AND bold blue font together would be as if to say, "I wrote this in bold blue font BUT the original author wrote it TOO, since this part is in brackets meaning it is a footnote in the original text; BUT since it's also in bold blue font, I must have written it, but now I'm confused and I don't know what I mean anymore, :cry: and can't you just ENJOY what's posted like Mable or whoever said 53 posts back?" Etc., &c.
The point is, I would REALLY appreciate CONSISTENCY.
Like in any publication, ever, that is, any CREDIBLE publication, editorial standards demand that a particular book is CONSISTENT in the way it depicts things. If bold blue font is going to be editor comments / notes / contributions, then fine, JUST SAY SO from the very beginning (INSTEAD of waiting until post number 153 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=150#p3), after having been asked 4 times, already).
If original author footnotes are to be in black -- not in italics, not in bold, but YES, in brackets -- then fine. Just say so!
Why is some quoted text in italics and other quoted text is not in italics? Is all italics your own decision, or is it in the original? Usually, credible editors note, "Emphasis added," when they insert italics and/or bold and/or underline and/or ALL CAPS into a quoted segment. I have yet to see those words (Emphasis added) in a single 'THE EARTHMOVERS:' post, yet.
.
-
.
There are a LOT of things I would like to mention about the actual content of this material, but these editorial inconsistencies are actually MORE IMPORTANT because they keep happening here and this will affect the entire rest of the posts, however more there are.
Are you halfway done, or is this still chapter 1 of a 15 chapter 'book'?
I really appreciate this whole effort, cantatedomino, and I do enjoy now all these posts in the larger font which you made after my repeated requests.
I don't want to ask too much, but it appears you are adding things such as formatting and comments, so if you could just be CONSISTENT with how that is handled, it would be a big help.
In case you might be familiar with the Living Rosary Association of St. Philomena, there is a newsletter / booklet that a nice lady prints out and mails to members, and it absolutely drives me up the wall how she changes font size, style, italics, bold, and stuff almost every page or two. It's like she can't make up her mind. It reminds me of certain women's magazines that I can't even recall because I've successfully put them out of my mind, all the font styles and emphasis thrown around like it's fun to throw it around or whatever.
I know priests who cannot read the works of Fr. Paul Trinchard because he uses too much italics and bold font text and large type and ALL CAPS. They say, "It seems like when I read something important, someone is SHOUTING at me."
Perhaps bowler needs to think about this. HAHAHAHAHAHA
.
-
.
To exemplify my concern and question, below find a post that contains a bracketed portion (which would seem to be a footnote from the original author, since it's in brackets) in bold blue font.
So, is the author of this bold blue font text in bold blue font brackets, the original author? Is rather the author cantatedomino, instead? Or is it some other person?
It's in post number 108* (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=105#p3):
THE EARTHMOVERS: Because scientific research is practically endless in extent it cannot be exhausted. Indeed, the history of investigation merely demonstrates that the more we know the more we know how little we know. Legitimate freedom is consequently needed for scientific progress as well as for any human development. There are however, limitations within the sphere of legitimate freedom in science, as the Catholic Encyclopaedia of 1903 states. All things in this world may be considered from a triple point of view: from the logical, the physical, and the ethical. Applied to science we discover limitations in all three.
(A) Logically science is limited by truth, which belongs to its very essence. Knowledge of things cannot be known from their causes unless the knowledge is true. False knowledge cannot be derived from the causes of things; it has its origin in some spurious source such as a false philosophy or ideology. Should science ever have to choose between truth and freedom it must under all circuмstances decide for truth under penalty of sham or self-annihilation.
Every scientist must accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. Whatever science is chosen it must be built upon natural or philosophical presuppositions on which the life of man rests. As we record the story of the Earthmovers, we find philosophers and scientists from the sixteenth century onwards calling for unlimited freedom in natural philosophy, ‘science without presuppositions.’ Such a proposition is absurd. Every scientist should accept certain truths dictated by sound reason. The fact is that all positive science borrows from philosophy a number of essential principles, presuppositions or axioms.
(B) The physical limitations of science are found in its technical and material means. Advances in technology often determine the pace at which a science progresses, - astronomy for example, as telescopes were improved and magnified. The sciences also need places for research, teaching and learning, such as observatories, laboratories and universities. However, depending on the ethos of these institutions and establishments from theist to atheist, from Christian to anti-Christian, philosophical limitations will be applied even here.
C) The ethical limitations of science come from within two spiritual faculties - understanding and will. It must be said here that ethics is more important for mankind than science. History reveals this fact for all to see, whether Christian or rationalist. The happiness of peoples rests in moral rectitude not in scientific progress. [The truth of this is seen all around us in our medication-crazed, techno-addicted world. Moral evil causes deep psychological and spiritual trauma. The world of this darkness offers no relief from all-pervasive moral evil in family homes and community workplaces. Thus the people, en masse, are psychologically and spiritually sick, even unto death.]
We should conclude from this that if ever there should be a conflict between science and ethics the latter should prevail.
*How did I know it was post #108? What chapter was it in? What is the page number? Is it in the Introduction? Or the Preface? How do you know?
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Were it possible to determine every cause of motion in the universe and extrapolate backwards, we would have to arrive at a first thing or things moved directly by God. Alas, we do not know what is moved by His will alone or as a result of secondary causes that flow from the First Cause. It could be God keeps the universe alive and moving using His will alone, consigning an angel to direct every body in it according to His will. If we try to reason out this primary movement by God that prevails in a geocentric universe, one possibility is that it is the firmament or space itself that God rotates. This first movement causes within it effects that act upon the matter contained within the bubble of revolving space, just as a gyroscope radiates dynamic angular momentum and direction such as is found in electromagnetism. Such a proposal, we know, cannot be proven or falsified scientifically, but is as theologically and philosophically credible as any presented by modern science.
[NOTE: The tilting of the planetary planes about the sun-earth plane of the ecliptic is something that you would expect a gyroscope to do, especially when the star canopy is whirling at a mind boggling one revolution per 24 hours.]
-
APPENDIX ON TIME
Time is defined, after Aristotle, as ‘the numbering of motion according to the before and after.’ Time then is the duration of motion or change in which all things happen. This must also apply to matter. All matter is in a process in its existence (the law of entropy-decay, otherwise known as the Second law of Thermodynamics). Everything is undergoing energy breakdown, from the stars to the earth and all things on it.
Now a process in motion is something changing, and change needs time to run its course. The very existence of ‘time’ shows there was a beginning, and not so long ago, because, as the law of burn-out dictates, if everything was here forever, all would be burned down to zero energy matter by now, which is not the case.
Measuring time is, of course, not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Thus the first object of astronomy was measuring time, begun, as Domenico Cassini recorded, by the first people to inhabit the earth. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year.
Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone, in heaven and on earth. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying, we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists, that is, who think the cosmos is made up of different time-zones, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be.
Dogmas held by the Catholic Church must surely need true time and space forming an absolute framework within which the material and spiritual events of heaven and earth run their course in imperturbable order. Such at least is demanded by the Christian intellect and is reflected in the Scriptures and in scholastic philosophy and theology.
The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. (Ps 2:7) and (Heb 5:5-6) [NOTE: When the Royal Priesthood of Melchisedech was made manifest, King David records: ‘The Lord hath said to me: thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’ Thus, heaven, earth, priest and king are wedded into a time template.]
This created God time of the world has to be the same for every observer, the same time in every era and every place. Accordingly, for a true Christian understanding of the Creation and time, the whole universe, from the earth to the furthest star, has to be incorporated together as a unit, that is, to serve its purpose in the order of things.
-
APPENDIX ON TIME cont.
How then does the universe, including ourselves, comply with what we shall call Genesis-time? What is the one and only order of the universe that serves both revelation [A 6-day creation, 6,000+ years of existence to the present] and mankind?
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)
Firstly there had to be an immediate creation, all instantaneously together, in brief intervals, or in that literal six-day creation of Genesis, and in particular the sun, moon and stars, visible to man on the sixth day. It must also be that God achieved the measurement of time by incorporating the whole cosmos (everything and everyone) within a finite revolving geocentric universal timepiece. The sun, planets and stars, as we observe, participating together in this cosmic clock, no matter how many of them there are or how far away they are, no matter whether they can be seen by the naked eye or not, no matter their distances, every star in the heavens rotates together with the sun.
A ‘day’ then, is actually a universal day everywhere, and a year is a universal year, everywhere. As to the credibility of such things, well they are what we observe, what we actually see and measure every day and year of our lives; what is, and is philosophically and theologically as plausible as God being able to create the universe in the first place.
But as we know, beginning with the Pythagorean heresy, Genesis time entered the mad-house of relative space-time. Once the speed of light was found to be limited, not infinite, this fact was applied to the supposed (heliocentric-measured) distances of stars. Stars measured by the unproven heliocentric system at millions and billions of light years away from the earth were then said to be seen as they were millions or billions of years ago. In such a scenario, Genesis 1:14 is rendered false and meaningless. If however, the lights from all the stars, those that we can see with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on earth to Adam on the sixth day of creation as revealed, then no such delayed space-time exists, making all lights of the universe in the here and now with man, thus complying with Gen 1:14.
Moreover:
And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations bewildered by the roaring of the sea and waves . . . for the powers of heaven will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming upon a cloud with great power and majesty. But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption is at hand. (Luke: 21:25)
So, does this prophesy not presume Genesis-time, the now for all in the universe? Try harmonising this future sign with relativity’s space-time.
Were God to move the stars then, according to science's light-year timing, mankind would have to wait billions of years to see them move.
-
APPENDIX ON TIME cont
Eternity and Aeviternity
On the other hand we have that state without time, eternity, the ‘duration of what is altogether unchangeable,’ i.e., that which subsists by its essence and has no kind of succession, without beginning or end, and without the possibility of either.
I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, Who is, and Who was, and Who is to come, the Almighty. (Apoc.1:8)
Christian theology teaches us that God created the universe we live in now from eternity. Thus time and no time exist together. This gives rise to the state of aeviternity, what the scholastics call periodic or irregular intervals of change, a mean between the changeless duration of eternity and the constant change of time. (Dictionary of Scholastic Philosophy, Bruce, 1956.) Such a happening would apply to an image, a spirit, or a person permitted by God to go out of time to eternity, and from eternity into time.
The sacred doctrine of geocentrism, we must now see, was more than just an astronomical theory, for it embraced many aspects of the Catholic faith and human reason as it applies to God, mankind, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo, even time itself; structures and images of hierarchy, unity, truth and beauty as well as the eternal fire intimately connected. Through the analogy and inherent reality of a geocentric creation of the universe, mankind comprehended the divine plan for their lives and ultimate salvation. God as three persons with divine nature reigned in His geocentric universe. But the forces of darkness knew that to topple one was to topple the other. Move, or rather remove, God’s footstool, the earth, and you not only unseat God from His Heavenly Throne but deprive Him of that direct union with man in the temporal world, stealing from man that reward that lies in store for those who do believe and adore God through this creation.
And if the promise of extra bliss in heaven is to be man’s reward through recognising and glorifying God in this sensual structure of the world, then it required the Church for the good of its members and glory of God to defend this revelation, both in the material sense and in its scriptural sense, so that man living on earth might know and confirm God’s existence better in this life even before the bliss of heaven for all eternity.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter 5: Astronomy
(http://i58.tinypic.com/3482gt0.png)
Astronomy is basically a visual science conducted from an earthly premise. It has three functions: watching the movements of the heavenly bodies, charting them, and finally trying to figure out their relative movements. The first exercise is known as saving the appearance. The old adage really expresses a mode of knowledge whereby a person reaches conclusions from using his or her senses. A more precise understanding of the idiom goes something like this: from earth we see the sun, moon, planets and stars move in relation to us and in the case of the planets, in relation to us and the sun. Based on these movements, and using any instrumental help we have available, we ‘save’ on a chart what we see or what ‘appears’ in our vision.
This means plotting the daily, monthly and yearly tracks of celestial bodies as they ‘appear.’ Once all the motions are accounted for and ‘saved,’ then one can try to create an overall working model that tries to explain these recorded movements. The only differences between the ages are the methods and instruments used, and finally the amount of visual magnification available, that is, from the naked eye to the telescope and, of course, time in which man can record and compile data on the relative movements in the three-dimensional universe.
A look up to the stars on a clear night will show us this was no simple task, as the true history of astronomy shows us - a history that is quite fascinating. Domenico Cassini, for example, using the means afforded him by King Louis XIV (1638-1715), sought this history up to his time thorough research of the world’s oldest and rarest books on the subject, which he acquired from all around the earth.
There is no room for doubt that Astronomy was invented at the beginning of the World. As there is nothing more noteworthy than the regularity of movement among these great luminous bodies that turn unceasingly around the Earth, it is natural to think that one of the first interests of men was to consider their course and observe their periods. But mere curiosity alone was not solely responsible for leading men to set themselves astronomical speculations, for it can be maintained that necessity as well obliged them. For should one not observe the seasons that vary by the movement of the Sun, it would be impossible to make a success of agriculture; were one to fail to note the suitable times for travel, one could establish no Business; should one not have determined once for all the length of the month and the year, there could be neither order established between civil affairs, nor could days be marked out for religious purposes: hence as agricultural farming, commerce, politics and even religion cannot do without Astronomy, it is obvious that men must have been obliged to study this science right from the World’s beginning.
Both sacred and secular history confirms this truth. What the Holy Scriptures have to say about the years that the ancient Patriarchs lived up to, is proof positive that the first men studied the movements of the stars. For had they not taken account of the exact number of days that last the varying phases of the Moon which serve to conceal the months; and of the number of months during which the Sun little by little approaches the Zenith and afterwards distances itself from it, making the changing by increase and diminution of the days, which allow one to establish the length of the year, they could not have noted the number of years each Patriarch had lived, nor the times of their birth and death, as precisely as Moses records it in Genesis.
And there certainly was need in this first age of the world to observe the stars with a great deal of care, for by the circuмstances of the history of the Flood, which are also reported in Genesis, one can see that the year from the time of the Flood was regulated following the movements of the Sun and Moon: which supposes an infinite number of observations.
It is yet to be understood how all the application imaginable by the first men studying the sky could have gained them so much knowledge of the movements of the stars, unless their lives were longer than ours. [The] living of such long lives gained for them great advances in astronomy. Josephus was of the opinion that so necessary was this science that one of the reasons why God granted the first men such a long lasting life, was to facilitate for them the knowledge of the movements of the stars.
Nothing better helps to know the antiquity of astronomy, than what Ptolemy (120AD) says of the observations of the skies by which Hipparchus (140BC) reformed this science two thousand years ago. Ptolemy reports that those who were already called astronomers in the days of Hipparchus had observed that the Moon not only moves unequally both by longitude as well as be latitude, but also that the extent of its inequality, since known as Apogee and Perigee, successively passes through all the degrees of the Zodiac, and that its greatest latitude as well in the north regions as in the regions of the south is transported by the flight of time, by all the degrees of this same circle, in such manner that at each revolution the Moon cuts across the Ecliptic in different degrees.
That these astronomers, in order to discover the rules governing these inequalities, compared together many lunar eclipses by which means they sought to find the longest periods of time which being equal among themselves, each contained the same number of unequal months, that Hipparchus, to connect these long periods once found, had chosen from a great number of ancient observations those (4) proper to his purposes; and that having compared them amongst themselves, he noticed that the Sun and the Moon, starting from that same point in the sky, would meet 4267 times in 126007 days and one hour after the moon had made 4612 revolutions by the Zodiac with regard to the fixed stars, less seven degrees and one half, and that it made 4573 returns to the point of its apogee. That nevertheless after this period of 4573 revolutions, the eclipses do not come back to the original size, but only after 5458 months.
This witness by Ptolemy shows of course that some of these observations of the skies used by Hipparchus were very old. For a very long interval of time is required and a great number of observations as well to be able to conclude that these very long periods observed together by Hipparchus were uniform; it is not difficult to see the need for many observations to control this uniformity when one thinks that, [of] all the eclipses occurring from 2500 years ago to the present moment, there are not two that would be out of conformity with the spaces of these long periods.
An objection that could render subject the antiquity of these observations used by Hipparchus is that about-2200 years from the time this astronomer lived up to the Flood, which would appear to have buried all monuments of arts and sciences. But one must not be surprised that the memory of the astronomic observations made during the first age of the world could have lasted even after the Flood, since Josephus recalls that the descendants of Seth, to preserve for posterity the memory of the observations of the skies that had been made, sculpted the main ones on two columns, one of stone, the other of brick; that that of stone survived the Deluge, and that in his time one could see traces of it in Syria.
It is therefore established that right from the first age of the world, men had already made great progress in the science of the movement of the stars. One could even say that they were more versed in this lore than they have been since the Flood, if it is true that the year used as a yardstick by the ancient Patriarchs was of the greatness of those composed by the great period of 600 years, as mentioned in the Antiquities of the Jews, written by Josephus.
We cannot find in the remaining monuments of all the other nations any vestige of this period of 600 years, one of the finest yet to be invented. For supposing the lunar month of 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes and 3 seconds, one finds that 219146 days and a half make 7421 lunar months; and this same number of 219146 days and a half gives 600 solar years each consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes and 36 seconds. If this is the year in use before the Flood, as there appears to be every chance of being so, it must be admitted that the ancient Patriarchs knew already with great precision the movement of the stars; for this lunar month accords, for one second out, with that which has been determined by modern astronomers; and the solar year is more exact than that of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, who assigned the year 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds. [The tropical year is now calculated to be 365 days 5 hours 48 min 51.6 seconds.]
After the Deluge, mankind, having been dispersed throughout the world, the Kings of each people took great care to cultivate astronomy, as the historians of all nations attest. Uranus, King of the peoples that first inhabited the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, was considered to be of the race of the gods because he had a special knowledge of the skies. Zoroaster, King of the Bactrian, is only so well known because he excelled in astronomy. The first Kings of China acquired for themselves an immortal glory, for having made 4000 years ago, that is, shortly after the Flood, many astronomical observations that the Chinese have conserved to this day. Finally, Pomethus, King of Scythia, son of ‘Japer,’ that many famous authors hold to have been the same as ‘Japeth,’ one of the sons of Noe, taught his ignorant and stupid people the science of the stars; which gave rise among the poets to the saying that he had stolen fire from Heaven, and had brought statues to life.
The peoples had such great veneration for these great men that studied astronomy that they rendered them divine honours and dedicated to them temples and alters. But whatever one may make of all these stories whose chronology is perhaps not always very exact, it is certain that soon after the Flood, the Chaldeans observed the skies with much care. Philo attests that Thare, who was born in Chaldea over a hundred years before the death of Noe, was very much given up to astronomy and that he taught it to his son Abraham. Josephus adds that Abraham came to the knowledge of the true God in contemplating the stars; and that having passed from Chaldea into Egypt; he brought the science of astronomy there. This science was held in such esteem at this time that only Kings or Priests made profession of it. Perhaps this is why Virgil, speaking of Dido and Eneus, introduces Lopas, who sings what Atlas, King of Mauritania had taught of the eclipses of the Sun and of the Moon, and of the situation and movements of the stars.
Astronomy being held in such esteem in Egypt, it is not surprising that it was taught to Moses who was raised as a Prince Royal of the care of the daughter of Pharaoh. Clement of Alexandria says that Moses made great progress in this science, and that he later taught it to the Jews. Thus astronomy having come from Chaldea into Egypt, passed from Egypt into Judea, and was in a short time carried into Phoenicia and into all the neighbouring countries. (J.D. Cassini: The Progress of Astronomy and its Use for Geography and in Navigation, Paris, 1693, now available in English from Churchtown Books)
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Astronomy then, became the science of Emperors and Kings; the first and most important developed natural science for mankind before and after the global flood. Cassini goes on to tell us how astronomy allowed and assisted man to venture over the great landmasses from Spain to China, while at the same time enabling them to voyage throughout the seas and great oceans of the earth. He shows how maps of the world were created with astronomical help, and how this same art of measuring led Alexander and his army deep into territories ‘that nature seems to have hidden away.’
But these discoveries were only the prelude to those of the New World. Christopher Columbus, for example, on the basis of the knowledge he had of astronomy and the measurements determined by the astronomers of Almamon, and what he had learned in the books of Ptolemy, went straight west, taking care always to observe the position of the sun by day and of the fixed stars by night. This precaution kept him from straying, for those who have written his biography say that the observations of the sky made him see with his telescope a variant that was unknown to him, and also helped him to realign himself unto the night course throughout the year. Once trade and commerce resulted, nations gained great wealth and development. Astronomy, it seems, was power, and no wonder the men that excelled in it were revered and sometimes treated as gods.
Of interest is Cassini’s short account of the Gregorian Calendar:
While Tyco was observing in Denmark, many famous astronomers gathered in Rome under the aegis of Pope Gregory VIII, worked with great success at correcting the errors that had crept in insensibly in the old calendar by the precession of Equinoxes and through anticipation of new Moons. These errors later would have completely overturned the order established by the Councils for the celebrations of moveable feasts had the calendar not been revised according to modern observations of the movements of the Sun and of the Moon compared with the old times. It was Aloysius Lilius (1510-1576) who invented the new form of the Gregorian year, but after his death Christoph Clavius (1537–1612) perfected it, gave its explanation, and its defence.
If one reads some accounts of history written by those who would like to portray Copernicus as the main influence in the updating of the Julian calendar, it seems he had little to do with its reform:
Among Catholics, Christoph Clavius was the leading astronomer in the sixteenth century. A Jesuit himself, he incorporated astronomy into the Jesuit curriculum and was the principal scholar behind the creation of the Gregorian calendar. Like the Wittenberg astronomers, Clavius adopted Copernican mathematical models when he felt them superior, but he believed that Ptolemy's cosmology, both his ordering of the planets and his use of the equant, was correct. - - - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
But there was yet a higher purpose to astronomy.
To what we have said on the usefulness of astronomy, one can add the advantages that have been drawn and continue to be drawn every day for the propagation of the Faith, because it is by the use and protection afforded by this science, that those dedicated to preaching the Gospel to the Infidel, penetrate the furthest countries and live there not only in safety but even with full freedom to preach the truths of the faith, that they draw the admiration of peoples, and they work their way into familiarity with the powers that be, and they even win the favour of Sovereigns. Thus this science has opened up to missionaries the vast Empire of China, whose entry was forbidden by the laws of the land and for reasons of State to all foreigners, and it was used to obtain permission to build churches there and publicly to practice the true faith.
This is why the King [Louis XIV] wanted the missionaries who go to preach the Gospel to China, in the Kingdom of Siam, and in the other states of the East Indies, to be instructed in the ways the Academy makes astronomical observations, and that they take from the Academy very ample memories of what they have to do and remember in their travels. The observations that these missionaries have already made in conjunction with the Academy and which they have sent back to it, compared with those made at the same time at the observatory, have already communicated great lights; and it is not to be doubted that progress will continue to be made in these far-off countries, greatly to contribute to the progress of astronomy; and if the persons who work at this science in foreign lands set up correspondence with the Academy and send it their observations, as the Academy offers likewise to share with them its own; there is reason to hope that in a short while not only astronomy, but also geography and the art of navigation will be raised to their highest perfection. (J.D. Cassini, The Progress of Astronomy, pp.51-52.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Six: The Progress Of Astronomy
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2dmghly.png)
Ptolemy
To determine the known history of accurate measurement in modern astronomy we go to Alexandria, a city at the mouth of the Nile built by Alexander the Great. Greek scholars gathered there, and the Museum or University of Alexandria grew into a great centre of learning. Around 330BC, a famous school of astronomers was founded on this campus, and here the Greeks, with their craving for knowledge and the precision of it, began to observe the sky, constantly improving instruments for measuring and gathering data on the heavens. This school flourished for centuries.
The first and most obvious astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/15dukav.png)
The second recurring motion noted was that of the moon. As well as turning around the earth every day, it also shifted position in the sky for 29.33 days before returning to its original position. This was interpreted as a full rotation of the moon around the earth every month.
The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period was called a year.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/1442w52.png)
Alas, this tropical year as it is called, does not divide evenly into twelve months, so adjustments in the number of days allocated to each of the twelve months had to be made. If the civil year (365 days) were to hold to the tropical year (365.242264 days), as the ancient Egyptians did, the dates would regress through all the various seasons of the year performing a complete revolution in 1508 years. Julius Caesar tried to solve this problem by the intercalation every fourth year of a leap year consisting of 366 days. But this too, because it made each year 365.25 days, now progressed the year by 11 minutes 12 seconds doing a complete cycle in 47,213 years.
As it happened, Caesar’s 27.85 seconds a day aberration meant that by the early 1600s the Spring Equinox was 10 days out. To resolve this, in Oct. 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, after great consultation, removed 10 days off the new ‘Gregorian Calendar,’ which, because it was out by a mere second, means our successors will have to make further adjustments in 4,000 years.
As a matter of interest it was Dionysius who in the 6th century proposed the year of the Incarnation of Christ as the year zero or nought, when the sun was in the constellation of Pisces, the sign of the fish, the beginning of the age of Pisces.
Then there is the astronomer Hipparchus who worked out that there is another ‘day,’ the period in which the stars do a complete daily revolution around the earth. [Hipparchus (died 125BC) was born in Nicaea in north-western Asia Minor. Little else is known about his personal life and fortune. Most of what we do know of his astronomy is due to the references made by the equally famous Ptolemy (died 187AD.) in his Almagest because, with one small exception, his works have been lost.]
This star measured day is called a sidereal day. But this presented another problem because an astronomical day - measured by the sun’s meridian passage - exceeds the sidereal day, measured by the meridian passage of any fixed star, by nearly four minutes every day. This in turn of course resulted in a star measured year, a sidereal year, and some 20 min 20 seconds shorter than the tropical year. This disparity is responsible for the phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes, a retrograde motion of the equinoxes that will complete a full revolution in the plane of the ecliptic every 25,869 years.
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Let us try to understand this precession. Were it possible to determine every cause of motion in the universe and extrapolate backwards, we would have to arrive at a first thing or things moved either directly by God or by the Angels as commanded by Him. Alas, we do not know what is moved by His will alone or as a result of secondary causes that flow from the First Cause. In His geocentric world revealed in Scripture, it could be God keeps the universe alive and moving using His will alone or by consigning an angel to direct every body in it according to His will.
If we try to reason out this primary movement by God that prevails in a geocentric universe, one possibility is that it is the firmament or space itself that God rotates, another that all the stars rotate within the universe. Earlier we saw how Cardinal Bellarmine in one of his lectures in 1571 considered a similar situation: Does the universe with the stars fixed into it itself turn or do the stars move in unison? This first movement causes within it effects that act upon the matter contained within the bubble of revolving space, just as a gyroscope radiates dynamic angular momentum and direction such as is found in electromagnetism. Such a proposal, we know, cannot be proven or falsified scientifically, but is as theologically and philosophically credible as any ever presented.
(http://www.shiftoftheage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/precession-image.gif)
(http://www.shiftoftheage.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/precession-earth-spintop.jpg)
‘As with any spinning-top such as an animated gyroscope, the spin-axis is visibly seen to precess in a repeating fixed period. In other words over a fixed period the precessional axis would seem to behave as a closed-curve completing a full circle. The periodicity of the precessional phenomenon is often given as 25920 years which is 2 x 216 x 60 or twice 6-cubed by sixty. In the heliocentric explanation for precession the earth alone spins taking on the movement of a spinning top. Now we ask and answer an important question.
‘Q. Under relative movement wherein anywhere can be the centre of the universe, can we say anywhere will also have the axis of a revolving universe through it?’
A. We can certainly say that but would anyone believe it? Giordano Bruno spoke of an infinite universe, its ‘centre everywhere.’ These three words are difficult for the mind to grasp let alone associated with one or more spin-axes? Leaving aside the fact that even today there is no general analytical solution for the three-body problem (see chapter on Sir Isaac Newton); consider how many things need to happen with multiple bodies at SPECIFIC times for the relativity version of precession to be believable.’
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Then there are the stars. A more careful look (before telescopes) at them showed that while all rotate about the earth every day, five of them shifted around the sky with independent movements of their own. These stars, known then as the ‘wandering stars,’ were not as brilliant or sparkling like the others and in time were identified as sun-reflecting planets called Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.
With the planets now identified as such, and they seemingly turning about the earth every day, the first depicted model of the universe was simple. It showed the stars, sun, all the known planets at the time, moving in concentric circles, the one simple circle outside of which is another circle, outside of which is another circle etc. This is known as the Concentric System.
(http://www.holisticstudies.org/Public_Dialogue_Forum/Ptolemaic-System-bevel2-opt.jpg)
(http://www.astarmathsandphysics.com/ib-physics-notes/history-and-development-of-physics/ib-physics-notes-the-ancient-view-of-ptolemy-html-76f419ab.gif)[/font]
-
.
This is very interesting. Thank you.
.
-
.
Dear cantatedomino,
When you are going to use different sizes of letters in the same post with the Times font, you have to repeat the "font=times" and "/font" within each pair of "size" commands, or else your letters will show up smaller than usual.
It doesn't seem that would make any difference, but it does, here on CI. I have repeated your earlier post, below, with that one thing changed: see how the words are slightly larger here. I'm just mentioning that in case it helps in future posts. You can click on "QUOTE" -- the blue button in the top right corner, and see how these codes in my post here are arranged.
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Six: The Progress Of Astronomy
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2dmghly.png)
Ptolemy
To determine the known history of accurate measurement in modern astronomy we go to Alexandria, a city at the mouth of the Nile built by Alexander the Great. Greek scholars gathered there, and the Museum or University of Alexandria grew into a great centre of learning. Around 330BC, a famous school of astronomers was founded on this campus, and here the Greeks, with their craving for knowledge and the precision of it, began to observe the sky, constantly improving instruments for measuring and gathering data on the heavens. This school flourished for centuries.
The first and most obvious astronomical understanding was the relationship between the sun and the earth. From earth we see the sun rise in the east, pass overhead and disappear westward under the horizon until it appears again in the east to continue its movement. This time period, divided into 24 hours, was classed as one astronomical day. This ‘day’ was also divided into two periods, one from sunrise to sunset, called daytime, and sunset to sunrise, called night-time.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/15dukav.png)
The second recurring motion noted was that of the moon. As well as turning around the earth every day, it also shifted position in the sky for 29.33 days before returning to its original position. This was interpreted as a full rotation of the moon around the earth every month.
The third time period was based on a different movement of the sun. From all points on earth, the daily motion of the sun shifts north and south and back again completing this movement over around 365 days. Careful measuring showed this path, if begun at the centre line around the earth (the Equator), goes 23.5 degrees north (called the Tropic of Cancer) and back down again to a point 23.5 degrees south of the Equator (called the Tropic of Capricorn) when it begins the cycle again. Like a precision instrument, the sun thus continues to deliver spring, summer, autumn and winter to both hemispheres in turn. This period was called a year.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/1442w52.png)
Alas, this tropical year as it is called, does not divide evenly into twelve months, so adjustments in the number of days allocated to each of the twelve months had to be made. If the civil year (365 days) were to hold to the tropical year (365.242264 days), as the ancient Egyptians did, the dates would regress through all the various seasons of the year performing a complete revolution in 1508 years. Julius Caesar tried to solve this problem by the intercalation every fourth year of a leap year consisting of 366 days. But this too, because it made each year 365.25 days, now progressed the year by 11 minutes 12 seconds doing a complete cycle in 47,213 years.
As it happened, Caesar’s 27.85 seconds a day aberration meant that by the early 1600s the Spring Equinox was 10 days out. To resolve this, in Oct. 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, after great consultation, removed 10 days off the new ‘Gregorian Calendar,’ which, because it was out by a mere second, means our successors will have to make further adjustments in 4,000 years.
As a matter of interest it was Dionysius who in the 6th century proposed the year of the Incarnation of Christ as the year zero or nought, when the sun was in the constellation of Pisces, the sign of the fish, the beginning of the age of Pisces.
Then there is the astronomer Hipparchus who worked out that there is another ‘day,’ the period in which the stars do a complete daily revolution around the earth. [Hipparchus (died 125BC) was born in Nicaea in north-western Asia Minor. Little else is known about his personal life and fortune. Most of what we do know of his astronomy is due to the references made by the equally famous Ptolemy (died 187AD.) in his Almagest because, with one small exception, his works have been lost.]
This star measured day is called a sidereal day. But this presented another problem because an astronomical day - measured by the sun’s meridian passage - exceeds the sidereal day, measured by the meridian passage of any fixed star, by nearly four minutes every day. This in turn of course resulted in a star measured year, a sidereal year, and some 20 min 20 seconds shorter than the tropical year. This disparity is responsible for the phenomenon called the precession of the equinoxes, a retrograde motion of the equinoxes that will complete a full revolution in the plane of the ecliptic every 25,869 years.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: As astronomy progressed, more accurate means of calculating and predicting the movements of the sun and moon were sought. For example, if the sun moved in a perfect circle around the earth, and at a constant speed, then they should retain the same apparent size and apparent speed at all times as viewed from earth. But the fact is, as careful and accurate measuring showed, the sun does not retain the same apparent size and speed, it appearing bigger or smaller and appearing to travel faster or slower at different times. The ancients at that time, however, were committed to all celestial turns following a divine law of perfect circles and constant speeds. How then did the Greeks overcome this problem while keeping intact their belief in perfect circles?
Simple, the earth (E) was placed slightly off a mathematical centre of the sun’s circle rotation (C).
(http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/images/Eccentric%20scheme%20for%20the%20Sun.jpg)
Eccentric-sun (or moon)
Now while this was a compromise on symmetry, it accommodated all the mathematical and philosophical needs of the time, the same circle accounting for the sun and moon seemingly getting bigger and smaller and seemingly moving faster and slower throughout time.
[I wonder if this eccentricity has something to do with the fall of Creation suffered at the time of the sin of our first parents.]
The next problem was that of the seasons. If the sun moves in a perfect circle with the earth as the centre of that circle, and at a constant speed, then the seasons we experience should be similar and of equal length. But again, from careful measuring they discovered this is not the case, for the solstices and equinoxes are not a quarter of 365.25 days apart, (91.31 days) but vary in the following way:
Winter – winter solstice to spring equinox = 90.125 days.
Spring – spring equinox to summer solstice = 94.5 days.
Summer – summer solstice to autumn equinox = 92.5 days.
Autumn – autumn equinox to winter solstice = 88.125 days.
So, how did the Greeks, in particular Hipparchus, account for these differences? Simply and ingeniously: the earth is displaced from the centre so that the corresponding 90º arcs taken from the earth accommodates the observed arcs of time as they occur. His calculations (see illustration) showed that the eccentricity needed to be 1/24th of the radius of the circle, and that the line from earth to centre had to make an angle of 65½º with the spring equinox hitherto not-defined.
(http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/projects/heilbron/images/Hippar45.jpg)
-
I made some kind of a boo boo. Have to re-post the above.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: As astronomy progressed, more accurate means of calculating and predicting the movements of the sun and moon were sought. For example, if the sun moved in a perfect circle around the earth, and at a constant speed, then they should retain the same apparent size and apparent speed at all times as viewed from earth. But the fact is, as careful and accurate measurement shows, the sun does not retain the same apparent size and speed; it appears bigger or smaller and appears to travel faster or slower at different times.
The ancients however, were committed to all celestial turns following a divine law of perfect circles and constant speed. How then did the Greeks overcome this problem? Simple, the earth (E) is placed slightly off a mathematical centre of the sun’s circle rotation (C). This construction is the Eccentric.
(http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/images/Eccentric%20scheme%20for%20the%20Sun.jpg)
Now while this was a compromise on symmetry (the earth not the centre), it accommodated all the mathematical and philosophical needs of the time - the same circle accounting for the sun and moon seemingly getting bigger and smaller and seemingly moving faster and slower throughout time.
The planets however, do not behave like the sun and moon; they appear in the sky to perform loop-the-loops in their journeys. Earlier we showed the movements of four of the planets as we see them from earth. We now know that it is the angle at which we see (from the earth) the planets move around the sun that gives the illusion they move in loops etc. To account for such retrograde motions of planets they invented another calculator; the epicycle.
Using a deferent circle, another circle is drawn around a point on its circuмference and both move at a constant speed proper to themselves. Then by selecting the sizes of the radii and speeds, a reasonably accurate description of the motion of planets could be imitated.
(http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/img127.gif)
Epicycle
(http://www.myastrologybook.com/epicycle.gif)
How the system combines to imitate the visible path of a planet as seen from earth over time.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Ptolemy inherited the astronomy of Hipparchus with its cycles and epicycles. These, it was known, produced retrograde arcs equal in length and uniformly spaced apart, but they lacked the precision necessary for exact calculation. To find this accuracy, Ptolemy introduced what astronomers and geometricians of all ages acknowledge as a ‘masterstroke’ - the Equant.
(http://www.mi.sanu.ac.rs/vismath/liao/images/retrograde%20motion.jpg)
An old eccentric calculator
(http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/e1.gif)
Eccentric with the addition of Ptolemy’s equant.
In a moment of sheer inspiration he hit on a way to track the planets more accurately, a standard (it being a complimentary symmetrical point to the earth about the centre lying on the same diameter shared by the earth and the centre of the circle) that led the way to some unbelievably accurate astronomical data. Simply put, Ptolemy introduced a second focus (F) as far away on the other side of the centre (C) as the earth was this side of the centre on a straight line.
For centuries Plato’s dream of a coherent and calculable cosmos looked impossible with the methods devised by the early astronomers. But Ptolemy, in this book, presented a new system, a tool rather, that further advanced the accuracy of saving appearances and the paths of the sun, moon, and planets as they moved at a constant speed in their different orbits through the sky. In the Almagest, Ptolemy described a detailed scheme for each planet and gave tables from which the motion of each heavenly body could be read off.
Here was a gorgeously complicated system of main circles and sub-circles, with different radii, speeds, tilts, and different amounts and directions of eccentricity. The system worked: like a set of mechanical gears, it ground out accurate predictions of planetary positions for year after year into the future, or back into the past. And, like a good set of gears, it was based on essentially simple principles: circles with constant radii, rotations with constant speeds, symmetry of equant (EC=CF{Q}), constant tilts of circles, and the Earth fixed in a constant position. (E.M. Rogers: Physics for the Enquiring Mind, Princeton University Press, 1960, p.240.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Ptolemy’s device sufficed for astronomers and navigators in Europe for fourteen hundred years. It was so accurate that it could pinpoint all the major happenings in the cosmos. In time Ptolemy’s tool, as shown below, became accepted by most as a depiction of the true order of the universe. And who could blame them, for it did save all the appearances, those of the senses and those sought through astronomy and mathematics, as well as its agreement with the moving sun and immobile earth as revealed in the Scriptures.
(http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/ptol2.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/rroxaa.png)
A more complete Ptolemaic system, showing co-ordinates for the sun (s), and two planets: (P) and (P¹), a geocentric tool for charting cosmic movements, past, present and future.
(http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.13/images/science/Ptolemaic%20system.jpg)
(http://www2.honolulu.hawaii.edu/instruct/natsci/science/brill/sci122/Programs/p8/8.1.8%20Hellenistic.sg2.gif)
The next problem was that of the seasons. If the sun moves in a perfect circle with the earth as the centre of that circle, and at a constant speed, then the seasons we experience should be similar and of equal length. But again, from careful measuring they discovered this is not the case, for the solstices and equinoxes are not a quarter of 365.25 days apart, (91.31 days) but vary in the following way:
Winter – winter solstice to spring equinox = 90.125 days.
Spring – spring equinox to summer solstice = 94.5 days.
Summer – summer solstice to autumn equinox = 92.5 days.
Autumn – autumn equinox to winter solstice = 88.125 days.
So, how did the Greeks, in particular Hipparchus, account for these differences? Simply and ingeniously, the earth is displaced from the centre so that the corresponding 90º arcs taken from the earth accommodates the observed arcs of time as they occur (see illustration above). His calculations showed that the eccentricity needed to be 1/24th of the radius of the circle, and that the line from earth to centre had to make an angle of 65½º with the spring equinox hitherto not-defined.
(http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/projects/heilbron/images/Hippar45.jpg)
A geometrical and mathematical illustration of the seasons
-
.
This is all very helpful for those who want to understand the pre-Copernican models. There is a lot more detail here than what is offered in The Principle (movie), which I was most privileged to view yesterday. I highly recommend to readers to study this book, THE EARTHMOVERS, before watching The Principle, as you would do yourself the favor of having a most beneficial background going into the film.
This 'book' is a marvelous INTRODUCTION to the topic, for the movie is fast-paced and most intense. You will find that having read this 'book' beforehand will greatly increase your enjoyment of the film, because without the material in this 'book' your ignorance of these details and concepts will result in some degree of bewilderment watching the movie.
I don't want to get off topic here, but wanted to encourage readers that your time spent reading this 'book' will go far toward your viewing the movie in a more relaxed and informed position.
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Seven: 1460: The Seeds of Copernicanism
In 1460 . . . a Tuscan monk rode unobtrusively into Florence on a donkey. Attached to his side was a bundle of cloth in which a small collection of books had been packed. Leonardo da Pistoia, who had traveled a long way, took his precious cargo directly to the Doge of Florence, Cosimo de’ Medici. An intellectual nuclear bomb was about to explode. (Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval: Talisman, Sacred Cities, Sacred Faith, Michael Joseph/Penguin Books, 2004, p.143. )
On May 29, 1453, the ancient Egyptian city of Byzantium fell to the Ottoman Turks. Libraries were raided and ancient books became available for the first time in 1000 years. From these stores came the manuscripts purchased by Leonardo for the enormously wealthy and influential Cosimo de’ Medici. The docuмents were said to contain divine wisdom, knowledge and teachings that came directly from Thoth, the wisdom god of the post-diluvian Egyptians, otherwise known to the Greeks as Hermēs Trismegistus (Hermēs Thrice Great), supposedly the greatest philosopher, priest and king who ever lived.
Scholars now accept that these books - containing a synthesis of ancient hermetical magical, esoteric and philosophical systems - were in fact physically compiled in Alexandria in the first three centuries AD. (In her book, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, 1964, Frances Yates informs us Isaac Casaubon showed that the hermetic corpus was more 2nd century than ancient.) This would explain similarities to be found in other composites of teachings known to have been written up at that time, those of the Christian heretics, the Gnostics, and those of Jєωιѕн rabbis who read hidden meanings into the Bible, the Cabbala or Kabbalah.
These interpretations taught ‘a secret traditional lore, theological, metaphysical and magical.’ We see then that in the first centuries after Christ and the completion of the Sacred Scriptures, there was amassed a potpourri of pagan, Jєωιѕн and Christian gnosis with the sole intent to pervert the true interpretation and teaching of the Old and New Testaments in order to confuse and undermine Christianity.
It is important to note here that copernicanism, a heresy against divinely revealed faith, overturns the supernatural order, primarily. The target of this erroneous teaching is dissolution of belief in the inerrancy of the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. It divides the minds of men from the Truths needed for Happiness. Truth is the formal object of the intellect. Heresy privates and corrupts the mind. Wherefore copernicanism is intellectual poison, resulting in all manner of grievous effects.
History records that the Church reacted by condemning and suppressing all such books, and, it could be said, over-reacted at times with the treatment meted out to the heretics themselves.
A section of the [hermetic] text which Lactantius called "Sermo Perfectus" (the Perfect Word), treats the sun as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second God . . . "the Sun, or Light - for it is through the intermediary of the solar circle that light is spread to all - the Sun illuminates the other stars not so much by the power of his light as by his divinity and sanctity. He must be held as a second god. The world is living and all things in it are alive and it is the sun which governs all living things." (Jennifer Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics, Rutledge, London, 1991, p.37.)
And it was this sun-centred magical plan contained in the Hermetic texts, this gnosis, that arrived on the back of a donkey, into intellectual Europe. The timing was perfect, for the world was now ready for it; the Protestant and humanist revolt against Catholicism was in the air and all it needed was for someone to introduce this world-order revolution under the guise of science to give it credibility.
The sun was not only on its way to becoming the dominant globe of a solar system that included the beautiful life-laden earth as a simple planet, but for many, even within the Catholic Church, [was becoming] the source of all life on earth, as is reflected in modern cosmology and the evolutionary sciences. By placing the earth, the first created matter, into a solar system, Lucifer again shines and fecundates all by proxy, as he did with the ancient pagans. The Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that the very existence of the universe and man depends totally on God. Moreover, because of Adam’s sin, it teaches all humans are weak, prone to disobey or deny the will of God of all kinds and only with the help of Christ now can we be saved. The Hermetic books however, insist men, and women, have unlimited potential, capable even of becoming god-like; and they suggest ways of achieving these heights.
With a little twisting, turning and baptising, we can see how the magic formula of Hermeticism could also be presented as a way to salvation. But more than that, for if a solar-system could be established as a reality, how much more credible would Hermeticism be.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The early Christian heretics, the Gnostics, had lots in common with hermetic thought. Gnosticism flourished especially towards the close of the first century and during the whole of the second century after Christ. Gnostic dualism manifested itself, on the one hand, in their belief in the existence, of a ‘Pleroma of Light, Life and Spirit,’ a realm of light, just like the Egyptian sky, which was pure and presided over by a loving god.
Accordingly they worshipped the sun, moon and stars, just like the old Egyptians. Then, on the other hand, perverting the teachings of the Fall of angels and man, they saw the sphere of matter, the earth, as affected by an evil god, offering only hardship, suffering, pain and finally death. To the Gnostics, Christ was not a human person, not made of evil matter, but merely a spirit of the heavenly god.
It is clear from St. Irenaeus and other Church Fathers that the main doctrinal point of hostility between Roman Christianity and Gnosticism was the divinely revealed account of creation ex nihilo as found in Genesis One, and the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.
This is of the utmost importance to our fight for Tradition in 2013. The errors of modernity, from copernicanism to liberalism, are not modern, not new. Secondly they have for their object the destruction of the Theology of Creation. The revolution is essential anti-creationism. Paula Haigh likes to say that everything presupposes creation. Likewise, everything revolutionary denies creation. Big bang, copernican darwinism denies creation ex nihilo, in toto. It exists precisely in order to deny the Genesis account of Creation.
All Catholic counter-revolution must begin with a cogent, clear, and complete Theology of Creation. This is what is lacking in Lefebvrism. Lefebvrism starts with the consequential effects of the destruction of the theology of Creation. It does not go far back enough to locate the arch-principles of revolution. It does not lay the axe to the root. The SSPX does not upbuild and restate of the Theology of Creation. It limits itself to defending against the errors of liberalism, mostly in the political sphere.
The theology of the SSPX has always been reactionary, for which cause it has fallen. It built on sand, understandably, as it came to be during a crescendo of chaos and disorder in the universal Church. But we are now in the post-SSPX era, which means that our form and brand of counter-revolution needs to be reorganized and cohered around the arch-principle of Truth - the Genesis account of Creation.
Apostles of Creation are the pressing need of the Church in this time.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, God bless him, has begun in earnest to blaze the trail. In his December 23rd sermon on demonic evolution, he coined a term, theology of the devil or demonic theology, referring to evolution. He rightly called evolution the worst heresy of them all. Some of what he preached really must be transcribed because it is that good.
Demonic "theology," or shall we say the demonic worldview, is not liberal or modernist in its essence. It is anti-creation in its essence. Catholics must, then, if they are going to rebuild the City of God, become essentially creationist, If we do not believe like, think like, sound like, work like, and live like the Fathers of the Church, then we are cut off from our Catholic essence.
The Church of Rome accepted a literal interpretation [of Scripture] whereas the Gnostics preferred a metaphorical or allegorical understanding. Today, after the Copernican revolution, Rome now holds to a similar hermeneutics, one they claim has been shown by science. The Gnostics also professed to have a ‘secret knowledge’ of the origin, control and destiny of the universe, claiming to have ‘magic formulae’ for salvation, which were only for the select few who were then bound by solemn oaths not to reveal the cult’s secret rites to others.
This recalls the elitist "religion" of ancient Egypt that provided for an "afterlife" for a select few.
Herein then we find the proto anti-Catholic Illuminati, the first of many to come throughout the ages, such as high-degree Freemasons who also take oaths, and pass on secret knowledge and magic from one generation to another, and administer penalties to those who betray them. Here then, in 1460, for the first time in over a thousand years, Hermēs’s and other ancient gnosis could again wield its magic.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Immediately Cosimo had the Greek texts translated into Latin by his adopted son Marsilio Ficino, a man obsessed with secret knowledge. The fourteen books or Hermetica took Ficino a year to complete.
Ficino was ordained a priest and eventually became a high official of the Cathedral in Florence . . . But what is less appreciated is the huge, indeed revolutionary, effects that Ficino’s translations of the Hermetica was also to have on western culture and on the Catholic Church itself. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p,156.)
Given that the printing press had just been invented, the texts were further translated into other languages and vast numbers of copies, often edited by others, were published, distributed and read throughout all Europe. But these were ‘Inquisition’ times also; times when heresy was abounding, times when the Churchmen of the Roman Catholic Church wielded huge temporal power. If it was seen that the newfound hermetic knowledge threatened tradition, theology or the philosophy of the Church, which it did, lives could be at risk.
Now when one considers some of the proposals the pagan-based books contained, this threat was very real. For example, a shared hermetic-Gnostic text called the Asclepius actually describes how, by the use of magic talismans, one could transmit the spirits and influence of the sky into statues and various artefacts. In other words, as in witchcraft, devils could be called to possess things and do wonders.
In his December 23rd sermon on demonic evolution, Fr. Pfeiffer makes excellent commentary on the reality of witchcraft, calling its formal object the same as the formal object of all luciferianism - the destruction of all order.
To abate accusations that some were actually trying to replace the teachings of Moses with the writings of Hermēs Trismegistus, followers were careful to place the genealogy of Hermēs after Moses in time. They did this by appealing to the opinion of St Augustine (354-430) who, before his conversion, held that Hermēs did succeed Moses in the history of the world. Another who held this position is the often quoted Cardinal Cesare Baronius, chief Church historian of the Counter Reformation. Baronius claimed Hermēs Trismegistus was one of the pagan prophets heralding the birth of Christ. (Baronius is often quoted to support a heliocentric reading of Scripture. For example: ‘Let us recall the celebrated saying attributed to Baronius, Spiritui Sancto mentem fuisse nos docere quomodo ad coelum eatur, non quomodo coelum gradiatur. Pope John Paul II, 1992.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: With the path thus cleared, the influence of the Hermetica spread throughout Europe with a speed and intensity that beggared belief. A couple of examples should suffice to show this. In their book Talisman, the authors tell us that the Bishop of Aire, François Foix de Candalle, dedicated his publication of the Hermetica to the Holy Roman Emperor Maximillian II (who reigned from 1564 to 1576) with the popular view that the knowledge of Hermēs complemented that revealed to the Hebrews and the Apostles.
Then there was the Italian, Francesco Patrizzi. His collection of the Hermetica, presented to Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, hailed Hermēs as the ‘source of all wisdom’ and he pleaded with the Pope to urge Catholics to use the thoughts of Hermēs to bring about Jєωιѕн conversions into the Catholic Church.
We have arrived at ground zero. What is the source of all the evils of modernity, if not the influx of poison - occult, esoteric, luciferian poison - into the very heart, bowels, and veins of the Church, through the conduit of members of the hierarchy!!!!! Nothing happens in the universal Church, for better or for worse, that does not start with the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
This vile betrayal of Jesus Christ, the Church Fathers and Doctors, and the Magisterium, is not new. Infidelity to God has been with Man from the beginning. Just as in the Paradise of Pleasure, we arrive, in the 1500's, after a "State of Grace" known as the Patristic Age through the Medieval Edifice, at the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and the serpent is there, waiting impatiently for us.
With the wide dissemination of ungodliness in the form of the hermetic texts, we revisit the age-old temptation to believe in the false promise of the first fallen Angel to men: Ye shall be as gods . . .
The only thing new in all of this is the unspeakable malice and ingratitude involved in this collective sin. For our Redeemer has come and has shed His Blood for us. It is Him, personally and explicitly, that we haughtily and stupidly reject.
St. Paul aptly describes this Fall in Romans and Hebrews: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.
With regard to the Catholic churchmen of the 16th Century, this manifestation is not the manifestation of the existence of the Creator by the revelation of the Creature, a truth of Reason. Rather, this manifestation is the manifestation of the Redeemer through His own words and works: God, Who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed Heir of all things, by Whom also He made the world.
The study of the evils of modernity, which every Catholic is obliged to make in order to bring his soul safely to Heaven, must begin with the secretive dissemination of pagan, idolatrous, occult texts among Catholics, in the late 1500's. It is not enough to begin with the great encyclicals of the 18th and 19th centuries. We have to go back to the source. For let's face it, what is the essence of the Renaissance, the 'rebirth,' if not that the Catholic world fell head over heels in love with the newest trend - neo-paganism. What a slap in the Holy Face of Jesus Christ to entertain, even for a second, the possibility that this drivel could contain a useful wisdom that had been capriciously hidden from man by his Creator and Redeemer.
We returned to our vomit 500 years ago, for what does this "rebirth" signify but the reassertion into the world of the diabolical spirit of pride, of Cainish deviltry, of Babelish arrogance?
Even after 1500 years of Catholic glory, men is still apt to believe demonic revelation.
-
I have a mental image of the Renaissance. I think of it as akin to the Hollywood of the roaring twenties, and then of the 1960's onward. A subculture, demonic and esoteric, plots to poison the whole paste, by the clever dissemination of evil through whatever conduits are available. Inside the esoteric circle, there is a potent brew of deeply distilled filth - they drink their own poison (vade retro satana / numquam suade mihi vana / sunt mala quae libas / ipse venena bibas).
I have the image of Hollywood parties and orgies where drugs are over consumed and all manner of filth is engaged in, while the public image of the participants retains its sensible integrity. From this corruption of the Christian and natural forms comes forth a depraved anti-culture, of which these "stars" are the exemplar and the efficient, material cause.
As holy Moses writes: The people rose up to play.
I think that if we look closely enough, we can see what took place in secret in the public works of many of the men of the Renaissance. And we can also see why these unfaithful Catholics are painted by the modern esoteric subculture as brilliant lights destined to shine upon the darkness of "medievalism" and destined also to be persecuted by the Tridentine "darkness" that perennially opposes them.
Even now, men of the Renaissance are considered cool.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
According to Francis Yates, “the marrying together of Hermetism and Cabalism” was the invention of Pico Della Miranda [Mirandola] (1463-94), who also “united Hermetic and Cabbalistic types of magic” to create a powerful intellectual brew loosely termed the Christian Hermetic-Cabala, which was to have far-reaching consequences among Renaissance theologians, reaching even as far as the Vatican itself. And although magic, in the medieval sense, was abhorred and virtually outlawed by the Church . . . what he was advocating, he explained, was something quite other – the beautiful ancient and innocent magia naturalis, i.e., the natural magic of the wise Egyptian sage Hermes Trismegistus. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p,162.)
The importance of this passage cannot be overstated. What is described herein is the essential quality of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which is a synthesis or blend of the principles, rites, and tenets of many religions, including the True Religion. It's not a stretch to say that the religion of Vatican II is essential hermetic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. It is diabolical. We cannot unite with it under any pretence and still remain faithful to God.
Pico Della Miranda was one of those who began to promote the idea that within the books of Hermēs one could find clearer insights into Catholic theology than anywhere else, and presumably the interpretations of the Christian Bible and tradition. As one could expect, the Inquisition of Pope Innocent VIII condemned Pico for suspected heresy. Pico fled to France where King Charles VIII gave him safe haven. He only returned to Florence when promised protection by the Medici ruler Lorenzo. Then, in 1493, Innocent VIII died. He was succeeded by a Borgia pope, Alexander VI, ‘who, unlike his predecessor, was rather open, indeed even sympathetic towards magic, Cabala and Hermetism.’ The Pope absolved Pico, removed the charges and even called him a ‘faithful son of the Church. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p,163.)
Suddenly and, for a brief moment, there was a crack in the doors of the Vatican. Sound familiar? Through it, quietly but surely like a thief in the night, the wisdom and magic of the ‘Egyptian sage,’ Hermēs Trismegistus, slipped quickly inside. - - - Talisman, p.163.
What can one say in the face of this? There is a direct, real relation between this occurrence and Vatican II. The key to understanding Vatican II is understanding what happened during the Renaissance - and it does not begin with protestantism.
When we see the ceaseless labor expended by the popes of the 18th and 19th centuries, in order to defend against an onslaught of error in Church and State, we have to realize that they were fighting hard to stem the tidal wave of filth that finally broke out in fury at the Council.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us now recap the history of what Catholics must see as Satan’s plan to reinstate those pagan belief as truths in our time and on until the end of the world. Today, pagan heliocentrism is regarded as a truth, (just as Noah’s deluge is regarded as a local flood) so much so that anyone who does not conform to this system is automatically branded ignorant and uneducated; someone who deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. Similarly evolutionism; the absurdity of life evolving from inanimate matter and that ‘life’ evolved to perfection by way of mutation, adding and changing more from less, an indisputable scientific impossibility. To get intelligent men and women to believe such nonsense is no less than demonic magic, power over the human mind.
In the succeeding centuries the rise of the Christian revolution swept away the surface observance of the old Mystery-religions in the Western world, and the Priest-Cults everywhere were forced to retire in disorder and to, in fact, go underground. But though the operations of the Ancient Religion have been overshadowed, in our minds, by the rise of Christianity, this religion did not die out. It continued to operate and to function and has remained the dominant religion in those lands and among those peoples who did not accept Christ. The Priestly Classes of this religion reformed its ranks and modified its tactics to respond to the Christian challenge. They adopted as their mode of operation the use of secrecy, deception, and the technique of infiltration, as methods in this struggle which they viewed as a Holy War against Christianity.
The sɛҳuąƖ and fertility elements of the religions of Baal and of Isis and Osirus, were continued but were concealed from the profane public under the doctrines of the worship of Platonic ideals such as the "Nobility of Mankind, "and "Humanity," and of "The Brotherhood of Man." Can we say "Bohemian Grove?" "Human Reason" and the "Mechanism of Blind Nature" were put forth as the ultimate forces now operating in the universe. Secret societies of the "Learned" or "Wise Men" were formed and scientific inquiry was continued in the form of medieval Astronomy, Alchemy, and Sorcery. But, again, this was scientific inquiry, not for the altruistic purpose of the development of pure learning, but a search for the secrets of nature which the Priestly Class could still employ as "magic;" secrets with which they could control the rest of humanity. This priesthood of diabolical scientism is behind the modern techno-grid that enslaves all men.
The names and titles of the adepts and leaders of this Religion are familiar to us still though we, recently, have not taken them very seriously. They were called "The All Wise Ones" or "Wizards" or "Magicians" or "Scientists," and those who dealt with the spirit world were, and still are, called "Witches," "Warlocks," and "Sorcerers."
Being a secret religious order, they adopted an elaborate symbology to be used as signs of recognition and communication between those who understood the secrets of the religion; they employed signs such as the sign of the Pyramid, Triangles, the Radiant Circle as the symbol of the Sun and of their god; Five pointed and six pointed stars, the sprig of the Acacia tree as a symbol of Life, and the Obelisk, and many other symbols plus secret signs and grips. They spoke of the god of this Religion as being the "Original Life Force," or as the "Divine Fire," or as the "Prime Mover," or as "The Great Architect of the Universe."
But finally, though these are the outward trappings of their god shown to the followers at the lower and middle levels, the leaders could not avoid the necessity of coming to conclusions when dealing with matters of the Deity. The more extreme leaders now adopted, if they had not originally done so, as the god of their worship, the Prince of this World, Satan and his Angels as their ultimate Lord and aid in this Holy War against Christ and His message. This organized group, whose ultimate god is Satan, existed in Ancient times, it existed in the Middle Ages, and it exists today. (Dr. Stuart R. Crane, lecturer supreme: The Other Religion, 1976.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Eight: 1473-1543: Nicolaus Copernicus
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1717260.ece/ALTERNATES/s2197/Nicolaus%20Copernicus-1717260.jpg)
New advances came from studying the sun and planets and stars. In this field the mighty discoverer was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish scholar who used all his powers of measuring and observing as well as that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe. - - - A Very Short History of the World. (Geoffrey Blainey: A Very Short History of the World, Penguin Books, 2004, p.279.)
Mikolaj Kopernik was born in Torun in Polish Prussia. Reared by his uncle who was a bishop and ruler of his district, it was natural for the young Nicolaus to be educated for the Church. In 1491 his uncle first sent him to the University of Krakow to study mathematics, the classics and the new humanistic studies. Thereafter he went to Bologna in Italy where he learned some Greek, studied Church law, spent two years reading medicine and even managed to get in instruction on astronomy under the influential Pythagorean-minded Domenico Maria de Novara. In 1512, unable to make a living from his studies, his uncle placed him in the cathedral of Frauenburg where his duties were as steward of Church properties and as justice of the peace. There he spent the rest of his life, gaining respect as an administrator, a capable doctor, an economist, and as we now know, quietly devoting as much spare time as he had to astronomical matters.
Copernicus marked a milestone in human history when his book, De revolutionibus – On the revolutions of heavenly spheres, was published in 1543. The reason why this moment is remembered and recorded in such vivid detail is because this is the work – centuries of propagandists would have us believe – that demonstrated our world is not geocentric as man heretofore believed, but heliocentric, with the earth spinning on its axis and orbiting round the sun. In fact, this newly published book, shown to Copernicus as he lay dying from a stroke, was not new, but an updated and more detailed version of an ignored docuмent he had circulated over 20 years earlier, his mathematical presentation of a heliocentric system that included the earth as a planet.
Copernicus’s heliocentricism first emerged in 1524 when he privately distributed an unsigned and untitled manuscript later called Commentariolus or Little Commentary. These proposals were intended to see what reaction heliocentrism would have among natural philosophers. The Commentary argued that a sun-centered planetary system, one of these being the earth, could better explain the mechanics of cosmic movements and indeed gravity, understood then as ‘heaviness.’ As it turned out, his thesis failed to make any impact or receive any serious response leaving Copernicus disappointed and disheartened.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2ry87.png)
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us now ask just how much time did Copernicus spend studying the sun, moon, planets and stars in order to gather the data necessary to work out his system of calculation if he also had to work as a canonist, an economist and a part-time doctor?
Copernicus hardly bothered with stargazing, relying on the observations of Hipparchus and Ptolemy. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus’s Catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy’s Tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served [the needs of the time]. (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.73.)
Nevertheless, historically, the appearance of this work is as surprising as a mountain suddenly rising from a calm sea. (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, Oxford Uni. Press, 1986, p.81.)
And what did Copernicus find in his stargazing or in the astronomical data of Hipparchus and Ptolemy that led him to propose such a radical change of astronomical comprehension was necessary, that is, to move from a geocentric order to a heliocentric one? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. Yet most books on astronomy and popular history, such as in the opening quote of this chapter, asserts Copernicus ‘made new advances from studying the sun and planets and stars.’ They insist Copernicus differed from Hipparchus and Ptolemy in that unlike them, he used ‘that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe.’ They exaggerate; Copernicus never figured out any proof for his solar system.
So then, from where did Copernicus get his inspiration for his ‘new advance’ in science if it was not by way of something found through astronomical observation and study? Perhaps the following passage from his book can give us a clue.
In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls it a “visible god;” Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around. - - - Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.
Could anything be clearer? He got his inspiration for heliocentrism from the pagan cosmology of Hermēs Trismegistus. In fact all Copernicus’s ideas were long written up in the Hermetic books. One treatise explicitly states that ‘the sun is situated at the centre of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown’ and ‘around the sun are the six spheres that depend from it: the sphere of the fixed stars, the six of the planets, and the one that surrounds the earth.’ It is well known that Copernicus copied the ancient hermetic texts because it, and it alone, reflected a ‘harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs.
[Lest anyone think Copernicus advanced knowledge of the ‘magnitude of the orbs,’ he didn’t. Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation, that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth – now said to be 11,500 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.]
Copernicus considered Ptolemy’s geocentric system, with its artificial equant, ‘lacked elegance,’ and was therefore too clumsy to be God’s design. He compared Ptolemy’s model to the hands, feet, head and other limbs of a man put together to make a monster rather than a thing of beauty. Yet what he was proposing in his heliocentric model, as can be seen in the dozens of drawings and hundreds of geometric proposals depicted through page after page in the six books of On the revolutions, was a solar system consisting of just as many, if not more, heads, ears, arms, hands, legs, knees, feet, toes and other appendages. Copernicus then, was first and foremost an out and out Hermeticist, smitten by the magic of Hermēs.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In The Revolutions one of Copernicus’s deepest motivations for developing his sun-centred model was his belief that earlier interpreters of nature had produced a “translation” that was incoherent and aesthetically unappealing – one that did not do justice to the skill of the original Author Creator. (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, p.53.)
Here then, for any who wish to see, is another who had fallen hook, line and sinker for the magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. This church-keeper, never a priest though, more than other men, was likely to be well aware that the Scriptures depict geocentrism, an interpretation held by all the Fathers of the Catholic Church and that the Council of Trent had forbidden any change for this interpretation. Nevertheless, driven by the influence of Hermēs Trismegistus, he still introduced his prepared equilibrium into astronomy, philosophy, theology and metaphysics – heliocentrism. In De revolutionibus - the most famous book on the cosmos ever written, a book that was read by many throughout Europe, by those who shaped world history, astronomy and science - Hermēs himself is named as an inspiration. Copernicus places the central religious and mystical role of the sun as the Sermo Perfectus dictates, as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second god, placing it on that already occupied Holy Throne. Hints to this effect can be found in any proper study of Copernicus’s life and work.
Copernicus’s published works gave unmistakable, if indirect, indications of his reasons for devoting himself to astronomy. Judging by these, his intellectual and religious interests were dominant. He valued his theory of planetary motion, not because it improved navigational procedures, but because it revealed the true harmony, symmetry, and design in the divine workshop. It was wonderful and overpowering evidence of God’s presence. Writing of his achievements, which was thirty years in the making, Copernicus could not restrain his gratification: “We find, therefore, under this orderly arrangement a wonderful symmetry in the universe, and a definite relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs, of a kind not possible to obtain in any other way." (M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, p.70. )
The history of modern astronomy was a slow but progressive study of the heavens by constant observation and data keeping. Ptolemy’s system, built upon all that went before him, sufficed adequately for reasonably accurate astronomical predictions and for journeying over land and sea. For 1400 years it prevailed intact, with little or no improvement in sight. Then, in 1543, out of the blue, like the Phoenix of mythology, the one that embalms the ashes of its old self in an egg made of myrrh and deposits it in the Egyptian sun-city of Heliopolis; we find the myth coming to life once again. The Phoenix's ability to be reborn from its own ashes implies that it is immortal. So, like the Phoenix, the heliocentrism of Heliopolis came to life once again in Copernicus’s book, but this time described as we have seen as ‘thinking,’ as an advance in natural philosophy and astronomy.
By 1543, the same year Copernicus’s famous Revolutions of the heavenly spheres was first published in Nuremberg, there were over fifty separate editions of the Hermetica circulating in Europe! (Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval: Talisman, Sacred Cities, Sacred Faith, p.156.)
The nature of the universe, we know, is one that can be interpreted as heliocentric as well as geocentric. Copernicus’s contribution to science was to devise a system - described as a simpler system - that could calculate the relative movements of the universe in a heliocentric scenario. It was Copernicus’s failure to prove heliocentrism as a physical fact however that led to his first manuscript being ignored. Indeed, such was his disappointment at this disinterest in his system that he shelved his work and lost hope it would ever be published if further elaborated. So, what changed all that?
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
No Rheticus, No De Revolutionibus
The overarching characteristic of Renaissance humanism was the value it placed on ancient learning as a fund of new knowledge – or, more correctly, of old knowledge that could be newly discovered. This enthusiasm specifically shaped the career of Rheticus, and on a larger scale it formed the main connection between the Renaissance and the Reformation. Both of these movements were based on the recovery and reinterpretation of ancient texts. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p 52.)
Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) was a student, and later Math professor at Martin Luther’s University of Wittenberg. Andrew White, in his book A History, mentions the ‘astronomer Rheticus’ but tells us little about him. A brilliant new book however by Professor Dennis Danielson reveals to us that were it not for Rheticus, Copernicus’s De revolutionibus most probably would never have seen the light of day. Accordingly, his relationship with Copernicus is vital to the story of the Copernican revolution.
The very idea of Reformation was infectious, and Rheticus embraced it. Lutheran fervor mixed with humanist scholarship – the translation and reinterpretation of ancient texts – not only produced monuments such as the Luther Bible but also nurtured a keen sense of discovery through reading. Given the longstanding analogy between the book of God’s words (the Bible) and the book of God’s works (the creation), there was also a natural analogy between the sets of tools used to interpret these two books: literacy and linguistic knowledge on the one hand and mathematics applied to careful observations on the other. Not until 1623 would Galileo so clearly proclaim that “this grand book, the universe… is written in the language of mathematics.” But some of the roots of this idea go back to what Luther was doing in the 1520s and 1530s. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, pp.20-21.)
Danielson goes on to say this was Martin Luther’s best-known doctrine:
If someone equipped with the tools of reading could reinterpret the text of either the Bible or the Book of Nature – independent of intervening layers of authority – whole new possibilities of understanding could emerge in the natural sciences as well as in theology. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.21.)
As it turned out, Luther knew exactly what he was doing. The rebel was also very fond of music, ‘proclaiming it second only to the Word of God.’ He considered congregational singing akin to a divine dance.
The vision of music would prove cosmically relevant to Copernicanism, for it offered an image of order and beauty within a system set in exuberant motion. In the new cosmology, one could celebrate the role of earth as a moving planet rather than a fixed point, for it meant that the earth was participating in the music of the universe, the “divine dance.” (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.23.)
Of interest to our story is the fact that in 1539 the Bishop John Dantiscus of Varmia published an expulsion order against all dissidents from Roman Catholicism. As a canon under Bishop Dantiscus, Copernicus was given a personal warning ‘not to be led astray by those under suspicion of the main heresy that he had in mind: Lutheranism.’ Two months later, the Lutheran Rheticus arrived at Frauenburg to meet Copernicus to offer him ‘assistance’ in developing his ‘new conception of the heavens.’ As his quest was ‘astronomical and not theological,’ this Lutheran was not considered a threat in any way, not even to Bishop Dantiscus, who heard of their get-together.
For two years they worked together to get their book written. During a break in their work Copernicus introduced Rheticus to his good friend Bishop Tiedemann Giese, who had given them his Episcopal residence to holiday in. Danielson tells us Rheticus and the Catholic Bishop Giese got on very well together, for both shared a passion for ‘cultivating knowledge.’
Rheticus’s specialties were in arithmetic and geometry, similar to Copernicus’s expertise. Within a year of their meeting and deliberations, Rheticus, published his own thesis on heliocentrism called First Account, a book meant to pave the way for his master’s De revolutionibus when it was put into the public arena. Rheticus’s First Account however, did what Copernicus’s earlier Commentariolus failed to do; it generated curiosity among important people. He was careful to present the new cosmology to look as though it was ‘in imitation of Ptolemy,’ with one edition calling Ptolemy ‘the father of astronomy’ and ‘divine.’ This of course was inserted to ward off the anger and rejection expected of contemporary Aristotelian philosophers, making the new cosmology look as though it was following on from Ptolemy’s work; a ploy that Isaac Newton would also use later with his ‘on the shoulders of giants’ quip.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In 1541, the script of De revolutionibus was completed. Copernicus handed it over to Rheticus, who in turn had arranged with a Nuremberg publisher Johannes Petreius to print it. In 1525, we learned, the German town of Nuremberg accepted the Protestant reformation and soon thereafter no Catholic was permitted to become a citizen there. With 21 printing presses in the town, it became the media capital of the Reformation, producing books, pamphlets and broadsheets written by the likes of Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, and King Henry VIII, ensuring the ideas of the Reformation became known throughout Europe. Nuremberg also had a reputation for publishing scientific books, so one can see why De revolutionibus was so appealing to them, containing as it did ‘a new understanding of the natural sciences and theology.’ Copernicus’s book then, was in fact a product of the Protestant Reformation.
It is important to note here that a consistent theme in Bishop Williamson's teaching is an historico-philosophic timeline that posits protestantism as the beginning of modernity. Indeed it is. And what is so important about the study conducted by the author of The Earthmovers is how it seamlessly ties together occultism (hermeticism), scientism, and protestantism, proving this triumvirate to be a synthesis of heresy, and therefore the germ of the "new theology" of 20th century neo-modernism. E. Michael Jones, in his book entitled The Jєωιѕн Revolutionary Spirit, ties into this uber-revolution its other characteristic quality, that of sanhedrinism. He shows definitively that the protestant revolution is "of the Jews." Thus we see back five centuries ago what we see even in our own midst - the mark, the stamp, the calling card of ʝʊdɛօ-masonry.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In April 1543, the first edition of De Revolutionibus arrived from Nuremberg. Copernicus, who had suffered a stroke two years earlier, had his copy placed on his bed. He died some hours later without comment. Rheticus however, opened it up only to find a preface, not written up by Copernicus or himself entitled, To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work, otherwise known as the Ad lectorem introduction.
And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation . . . Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.
Rheticus was furious at this introduction, placing a large X across it on every copy he could get his hands on. He must have known Copernicus, like himself, really did believe heliocentrism was a reality and would have wanted it presented as such. Angry too was the Catholic Bishop Giese, personal friend of Copernicus, who described the preface as a deception, ‘letting someone else diminish faith in the treaties.’ It was learned much later, the preface that saved De revolutionibus from the index in 1543 was not written and included by the publisher Petreius, but by a friend of Rheticus and Copernicus, Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), a one time priest who ‘became Nuremberg’s first Protestant minister,’ a man who ‘cultivated a considerable international network that included the soon-to-be Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer. (D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.106.)
Osiander knew that to present heliocentrism as a reality would cause unnecessary trouble with natural philosophers and theologians. We read that Osiander once wrote to Copernicus advising him that like others before him, he was only saving appearances, and not to present his work as any more than a working hypothesis. He then sent Rheticus a suitable preface, imploring him to include it in the book to avoid trouble and to give De revolutionibus time to spread its influence. Rheticus was aware of these problems and that the traditional interpretation of the Bible was geocentric. Like Galileo after him however, he believed he could argue his way out of the dilemma. This was after all, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and new interpretations of the Scriptures were necessary for them. Rheticus simply argued that the Bible was not a science book, not a book that teaches us how the heavens behave, but a book that teaches us spiritual things, how to get to heaven. We see then that the heliocentric hermeneutics and exegetics introduced, even into the Catholic Church, had their origins in Luther’s Protestant doctrine.
As it turned out, due to a set of circuмstances, Osiander was given the task to supervise the final stage for the printing of De revolutionibus. Obviously he saw no such precautionary preface had been included so he wrote one up and inserted it before printing began. Whether he did so sincerely or as a ploy to ensure the books safe passage through the theologians, only he and God knows.
Historians now agree that Osiander did write the first part of the preface of Copernicus’s book, a ‘hypothesis’ he knew the Church would permit in the interest of science. Kepler, in his Opera Omnia held Osiander entirely responsible. History however, was not kind to Osiander for his strategy. Andrew White for instance, in his book A History, poured ridicule on Osiander’s tactics:
He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus for his novel ideas, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth’s movement not as a fact but as a hypothesis . . . Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific truths – a truth no less ennobling to religion than to science - forced, in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl. (Andrew White: A History, p.123.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Karl von Gebler in his book called Osiander’s foreword ‘an unprincipled introduction - Osiander’s sacrilegious act.’ (Karl von Gebler: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, 1878, p.15.) But Osiander knew what he was doing. As far as he was concerned had he not written such a foreword the Copernican Revolution would have had a different history.
In De revolutionibus, immediately after Osiander’s crucial disclaimer came Copernicus’s own ‘Preface and dedication to Pope Paul III.’ This dedication to the Pope was Copernicus’s way to try to prevent his book being condemned by theologians. It includes the following:
I can reckon easily enough, Holy Father, that as soon as certain people learn that in these books of mine, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the world I attribute certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will immediately shout to have me and my opinion hooted off the stage.
But more interesting is that in it Copernicus tells of the encouragement he got from a list of his ‘friends’ like so:
[friends who] changed my course in spite of my long-continued hesitation and even resistance. First was Nicholas Schonberg, Cardinal of Capua; next to him was my devoted friend Tiedman Giese, Bishop of Culm. Not a few other learned and distinguished men demanded the same thing of me. Accordingly I was led by such persuasion and by that hope finally to permit my friends to undertake the publication of this work.
Notice not one of his Lutheran friends is named, only the two Catholic bishops. Nor does Copernicus name the Protestant publishers who, at the time, were also about the business of distributing other anti-Catholic ideas throughout Europe. Moreover, given the part Rheticus had in persuading Copernicus to complete his shelved manuscript; one would have expected to find his efforts being acknowledged also. But Rheticus, whose own books had all been placed on the Roman Index within five years, is not mentioned. Copernicus it seems wanted to keep his Lutheran helpers a big secret.
With Osiander’s preface, Copernicus’s dedication to Pope Paul III, and no mention of the Protestant input to De revolutionibus, it is no wonder the book was accepted in Rome on face value, its contents read as no more than a mathematical ‘hypothesis,’ a mechanism to work out the movements of the sky and no more than that.
Now compare the input of Protestants into Copernicus’s success, with the denial of it throughout history. Today Protestantism is presented as having been every bit opposed to Copernicanism at the time as Catholics were. Luther, Melanchthon, and, according to Andrew White, Calvin, ‘condemned’ Copernicanism. Luther, quotes White, went on to call Copernicus ‘an upstart astrologer, who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.’ Melanchthon, in his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six years later, said: ‘The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eight sphere nor the sun revolves…Now it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious….’
The retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult. A little skilful warping of Scripture, a little skilful use of that time-honoured phrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible is given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but how men go to heaven, and a free use of the explosive rhetoric against the pursuing army of scientists, sufficed. (A.D. White: A History, p.158. A similar retreat was offered by Pope John Paul II in 1992.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: As for De revolutionibus itself, it is divided into six books. Such is its complexity and volume of writing and data that it is doubtful anyone ever read it all, let alone tried and tested its data and mechanisms. Truly it is a book compiled by dedicated mathematicians, containing thousands and thousands of words, opinions, numbers, equations and geometrical illustrations. But now let us take a glimpse inside it in order to see how well Copernicus knew the real problems in discerning the true universe:
5. Does the earth have a circular movement?
. . . Although there are so many authorities for saying that the Earth rests in the centre of the world that people think the contrary supposition inopinable and even ridiculous: if however we consider the thing attentively, we will see that the question has not yet been decided and accordingly is by no means to be scorned. For every apparent change in place occurs on account of the movement either of the thing seen or of the spectator, or on account of the necessarily unequal movement of both. For no movement is perceptible relatively to things moved equally in the same direction – I mean relatively to the thing seen and the spectator. Now it is from the earth that the celestial circuit is beheld and presented to our sight. Therefore, if some movement should belong to the Earth it will appear, in the parts of the universe that are outside, as the same movement but in the opposite direction, as though the thing outside were passing over. And the daily revolution in especial is such a movement. For the daily revolution appears to carry the whole universe along, with the exception of the Earth and the things around it. And if you admit the heavens possess none of this movement but that the earth turns from west to east, you will find – if you make a serious examination – that as regards the apparent rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars the case is so. And since it is the heavens that contain and embrace all things as the place common to the universe, it will not be clear at once why movement should not be assigned to the contained rather that to the container, to the thing placed rather than to the thing providing the place.
As a matter of fact the Pythagorean Herakleides and Ekphantus were of this opinion and so was Hicetas the Syracusan Cicero; they made the Earth to revolve at the centre of the world . . .
And so [also] it would not be very surprising if someone attributed some other movement to the earth in addition to the daily revolution. As a matter of fact, Philolaus the Pythagorian is supposed to have held that the Earth moved in a circle and wandered in some other movements and was one of the planets. - - - On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 5.
Thus we see Copernicus was well aware of relative movement that prevails throughout the universe and that this same relativity allowed for the possibility of a heliocentric universe rather than a geocentric one. Next he addresses the old argument that if the earth moves and revolves this would mean that objects on it would be thrown into violent motion:
But if someone opines that the earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy [and Aristotle] had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered. - - - On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
There immediately follows a most interesting and thought-provoking paragraph in which Copernicus asked some fascinating questions.
But why didn’t Ptolemy feel anxiety about the world instead; whose movements must necessarily be of greater velocity, the greater the heavens are than the Earth? Or have the heavens become so immense, because an unspeakably vehement motion has pulled them away from the centre, and because the heavens would fall if they came to rest anywhere else. But they say beyond the heavens there isn’t any body or place or void or anything at all; and accordingly it is not possible for the heavens to move outwards; in that case it is rather surprising that something can be held together by nothing. But if the heavens were infinite and were finite only with respect to a hollow space inside, then it will be said with more truth that there is nothing outside the heavens, since anything that occupied any space would be in them; but the heavens will remain immobile. For movement is the most powerful reason wherewith they try to conclude that the universe is finite. - - - On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
Correct, if the universe spins, as it does in the geocentric order, it cannot be infinite because an infinite universe cannot rotate every day. Moreover, if the heavens spin, Copernicus reasoned, they should be in a state of perpetual expansion. And what does modern cosmology accept: that the universe is expanding.
To Copernicus then, not Hubble or Lemaître, should go the credit for the first expanding universe theory, but ironically a geocentric one, one that eliminates the problem for modern cosmology, the necessity for ‘missing’ dark matter and dark energy to prevent internal implosion and explain cosmic expansion in keeping with Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of universal gravity.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Given that Copernicus advanced astronomy, not one star or one moon, and nothing in his book, went anywhere near advancing the case for a fixed sun and moving earth reality, how did his model take hold in science as a truth, as the true scientific order of the world we live in?
(http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~joel/g110_w08/lecture_notes/sun_angle/agburt02_12.jpg)
Heliocentric Action: A 24-hour spinning earth orbiting the sun every 356.25 days or so.
The Earthmovers used a little psychology; they hijacked Occam’s razor [William of Occam (1288-1347), Franciscan friar, scholastic and geocentricist] for their purpose: ["Occam's Razor" states] the principal that entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity, or in other words, all things being equal, the simpler idea tends to be the truer one. To illustrate this, a couple of quotes will suffice.
The Copernican hypothesis of a stationary sun considerably simplified astronomical theory and calculations, but otherwise it was not impressively accurate . . . He had found a simpler mathematical account of the motions of the heavens and hence one that must be preferred; for Copernicus, like all scientists of the Renaissance, was convinced that “Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.” (M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, p.72.)
Copernicus’s work . . . put the sun, not the earth, at the centre of the solar system. In one stroke Copernicus replaced the extremely complex, earth-cantered system with one of elegant simplicity. (Jehovah’s Witnesses Watchtower, April 2005, numbers published 26,439,000.)
So, like most Copernicans before them, the Jehovah’s Witnesses also see God using the simplest way to operate the movements of His universe, as though any system could be simpler or more difficult to God. But besides this crucial point, we could ask what do the Copernicans mean when they say this sun-centred system was/is ‘simpler’ than the ‘extremely complex’ earth-centred idea, theory or system? Here then are the two systems:
(http://sciencewithtom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/copernicus_solar_system.gif)
Copernican System
(http://sciencewithtom.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/tychonic.png)
Tycho's Geocentric System
In the images above, the picture on the top is Copernicus's heliocentris. The bottom is Tycho's geocentric. We are talking SIMPLICITY. Man does not see a heliocentric system. Man sees a geocentric one. The heliocentric picture is a mind illustration. The illustration on the right is what we see.
So, which system is really the ‘simplest, and simplest in what way?’ Well there are many answers to this, for we have now entered the mind-game that we call magic in this book. Is the heliocentric order simplest to our eyes, our vision of the sky throughout time? Certainly not, for the system on the left works like that only if man lived on the sun.
[The ‘simplicity’ of Copernicus’s scheme is usually presented in the following way: Of course the motion of a planet around the sun is not strictly circular, and so Copernicus added epicycles to his [circles]. Nevertheless, he was able to reduce the number of circles required from seventy-seven to thirty-four to “explain the whole dance of the planets.” (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge, p.71). Koestler however, shows that there is always something fishy about the supposed simplicity of Copernicus’s model. In his Commentariolus, written before De revolutionibus, Copernicus had indeed stated his system required only thirty-four circles compared with Ptolemy’s eighty. But a proper count, according to Koestler, shows Copernicus needed forty-eight epicycles to Ptolemy’s forty. Elsewhere we read Copernicus needed ‘46 circles to explain the ballet of the planets compared to 27 for Ptolemy.’ Was Copernicus’s model ‘simpler’ then? Of course not, and to prove this I suggest you do the counting yourself.]
By ["simpler functional system"] we mean its usefulness for the astronomical needs of man as opposed to its employment for ideological purposes. Koestler, in his Sleepwalkers, shows us that Copernicus’s model was anything but simple. One of the reasons for this is that, because Copernicus used circular orbits, he had to use deferents, epicycles and eccentrics to plot movements, just like Ptolemy. As for accuracy, well his method is admitted by all to have been inaccurate, falling short by as much as 10 degrees (the moon takes up one-half a degree in the sky) in predicting angular positions of planets. So here again we find the assertion of simplicity for the Copernican system as he proposed it to be a fraudulent claim.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Let us now move on to Copernicus’s system as a simpler way to predict eclipses, conjunctions or whatever. Most folk fully accept without investigating that the heliocentric system is the one used for all astronomical predictions and calculations. Well most folk are wrong then. When it comes to working out eclipses etc., according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is the geocentric reality mathematics that are used. But watch how they again play mind-games when admitting this:
For this purpose [making calculations] it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre . . . - - - Encyclopaedia Britannica (Eclipse, p.869).
"But what about modern space flight," we hear some ask. "These days, don’t the newspapers and journals show us drawings of rockets blasting off from an earth supposedly rotating and orbiting the sun, so the maths must be heliocentric?" In fact heliocentric or geocentric mathematics can be used to achieve the same purpose, depending on which allows the more convenient calculations. The heliocentric mathematics is only used sparingly if at all. A full use of heliocentric maths is many times more complicated than if calculated from a fixed earth. In a heliocentric circus one would have to take account of the earth moving at 67,000mps (faster than the speed of a bullet) relative to the target planet itself moving at thousands of miles per second.
Let us now read what a letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979 had to say about which system is simpler:
Royal Air Force College
Cranwell, Linclonshire, England
Sir . . . One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival [and success] depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.
Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.
Martin Gwynne completes our education:
Not the least interesting thing in the passage just quoted is the officer’s use of the term “confused dogma,” when speaking of modern astronomy. For the sake of completeness, I shall now fill in any gaps he left that might interest readers by giving the following summary of the principles of celestial navigation.
(1) Celestial navigation is based on the premise of two concentric spheres – one (celestial) larger than the other – sharing a common pole, with the smaller and inner sphere remaining stationary, while the outer revolves about it.
(2) Calculations are based on the laws of spherical trigonometry. The measurements used to translate the computations into a position or “fix” on the earth are done in nautical miles (even in these days of almost universal metrication). Each of these 360 degrees of the circle is divided into 60 minutes. The nautical mile is defined as the length of one minute of longitude on the equator, or 6,080 feet.
(3) The tables used to reduce or compute the resultant observations are based on 360 degrees.
(4) All the navigators of the world use the same basic system, their calculations and charts being based on a fixed earth and the basic unit of the nautical mile. (N. M. Gwynne, Galileo Versus The Geocentric Theory of the Universe, Britons Library, 1985, p.70.)
Now let us bring things up to date. The heliocentric proposal on offer now is the Copernican/Newtonian/Einsteinian model whereas the geocentric system is the Tychonic/Cassinian model. Were we to point out the complexities of the updated heliocentric model here, something we will describe later in our chapters on Newton, Cassini, and Einstein, the idea that their heliocentric tool is ‘simpler’ than the geocentric reality would be quickly seen for what it is; unmitigated nonsense.
-
"For ever, O Lord, thy word standeth firm in heaven.
Thy truth unto all generations: thou hast founded the earth, and it continueth.
By thy ordinance the day goeth on: for all things serve thee."
-
edit
-
"For ever, O Lord, thy word standeth firm in heaven.
Thy truth unto all generations: thou hast founded the earth, and it continueth.
By thy ordinance the day goeth on: for all things serve thee."
It says word----- not world!!!! :reporter:
-
Hi J. Paul!!!
I miss you!!!
-
Hi J. Paul!!!
I miss you!!!
I share the feeling. Carry on with your wonderful educational effort.
God Bless you dear Lady
-
:roll-laugh2:
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Nine: (1546-1601) Tycho de Brahe
(http://badassoftheweek.com/images/953840117351/brahe1.jpg)
Tycho de Brahe
Tycho de Brahe, a Dane, was one of the greatest astronomers that ever lived, a genius in the development of astronomy. Tycho did not rely on tables already established, as Copernicus and Rheticus did, but observed, measured, timed, corrected and produced his own data and tables for all the movements in the sky. Tycho de Brahe, a Lutheran, was the eldest son of a noble Danish family. When a youngster, he was adopted by his uncle who then gave him the best education money could buy. At thirteen years-old his family sent him to university to study philosophy and law. It was here Tycho witnessed an eclipse of the sun - a 'sign’ from heaven, and his interest was turned towards learning astronomy.
When he was seventeen, Tycho observed yet another wondrous sign, a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn. While not exactly eclipsing, they appeared very close to each other. Now while all such unions were predictable in advance, Tycho found the existing tables out by a month in one case and several days in another. Thereafter, he decided to devote his life’s work to achieving better tables for more accurate predictions.
[Two planets are in ‘conjunction’ when they cross the same celestial longitude together. There was a superstition that they brought good or bad luck. Tycho, not immune from the influences of astrology, believed it foretold, and was responsible for, the great plague that afterwards swept across Europe.]
Thereafter he spent his spare cash buying astronomic tables and even a copy of Ptolemy’s Almagest for serious study. In time Tycho found some of the planetary positions inaccurate according to a standard he believed possible. Comparing all the astronomic tables of the time, he found they differed from the facts he measured. Here then, as a mere boy, he realised that a long series of precise observations and recorded data is crucial to establish any useful astronomical science. Random and selected observations, he realised, could never decide the true nature of the heavens. Tycho de Brahe was and still is considered one of the most skilled observers that ever graced the noble science of astronomy. Using his famous instruments, there being no telescope invented in his time, he could measure with incredible accuracy.
Tycho spent four years in Germany observing the sky, much to the annoyance of his family who wanted a lawyer not an amateur astronomer. It was then Tycho lost his nose in a fight over mathematics of all things, requiring him to make a false one that he stuck on when in company. Gradually however, his fame as an astronomer grew and he returned to Denmark.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: After Tycho’s father died, his uncle gave him a house as a laboratory for alchemy and astrology. Soon his expertise as an astronomer of great genius and skill became well known among the aristocracy and academics. King Frederik II of Denmark, knowing that Tycho’s work could bring fame to his country, offered him an island observatory; estates to provide for him; a pension; as well as a huge grant to buy or build an observatory. Tycho grabbed all offered to him with both hands and built himself an astronomical fairyland, one that has endured in folklore throughout time.
Tycho called his observatory Uraniborg, the ‘Castle of the Heavens,’ built on a hill on the island of Hveen. He had everything - magnificent living quarters, a laboratory, library, and four large observatories with attic quarters for students and guests. Included were workshops for making and perfecting instruments, a printing press, paper mill, and even a prison for misbehaving servants. Tycho’s instruments and useful ornaments however, were the showpiece of his creation.
(http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/tools/images-tools/nakedeyes-mural-quadrant.jpg)
Tycho’s mural quadrant
(https://pictures.royalsociety.org/assets/object_images/3/63/2363/v0_web.jpg)
Tycho’s great brass globe
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Tycho_instrument_sextant_16.jpg)
Tycho’s sextant
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Tycho de Brahe spent 21 years at Uraniborg, correcting almost every astronomical quantity that was on record in his time. Students, including a man called Johannes Kepler, came from far and wide to study and assist the work in every way. Tycho was the complete astronomer, a scientist who based his model of the universe on the evidence available, not under the influence of the heliocentric magic like most others.
That said, Tycho also took religion seriously and would remain loyal to its revelations on geocentrism unless proven false by science. Nor could he find any stellar parallax, a movement of stars said to be necessary for a heliocentric universe. The Tychonic system therefore, came about as a result of the principle that it can only be true if it concurs with accurate recorded data. Already he had figured out correctly that all the known planets do rotate around the sun. Thus came about his system, geocentric in principle, one that also saved all the appearances, that is, met all the astronomical observations, old and new. Thus, around the end of the sixteenth century, in the reign of Pope Sixtus V, the world had yet another model to consider in the clash to come.
(http://www.geocentricity.com/shop/tycho_model.jpg)
(http://home.honolulu.hawaii.edu/~pine/images/5_6_9pt.gif)
The Tychonic Model that first appeared in Tycho’s De Mundi Aetherei Recentioribus Phaenomenis (1588)
The Tychonic system places the earth, moon, sun and stars in the same place as Ptolemy did, that is; it places the earth as the truly immobile centre of the universe with the moon, sun and stars circling it every day. But Tycho then places the planets, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury into straight turns around the sun in circles as Copernicus did, taking the standard time to complete their circles, i.e., Mercury 88 earth-days, Venus 224.7 days, Mars 687 days, Jupiter 11.86 earth-years, and Saturn 30 earth-years.
Always though, the earth remains the non-rotating, immobile centre of the universe. The sun, with its cortege of planets, turns around the earth daily, as well as moving north and south as always. The sphere of fixed stars continues to perform its daily movements, as in the Ptolemaic model.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Tycho de Brahe became the foremost astronomer in Europe. Kings, statesmen, philosophers and men of science came to see him and his work. Alas, for all he was and stood for, and for all his splendour, he was arrogant, vain and superstitious and at times showed a temper. Tycho kept a half-witted dwarf in his household, and often subjected his guests to the unfortunate’s ramblings, even putting his servants into dungeons at times. Such behaviour, one can believe, was bound to result in Tycho becoming unpopular; giving ammunition to those envious of his genius and position and who wanted him removed.
Things change, and King Frederik died. The new king, Christian IV, influenced by nobles not favourable to Tycho, not least that Tycho often treated his peasant-tenants unjustly, began to take back some of the properties given to him for his expenses. The writing was on the wall and when more and more lands were seized, Tycho could no longer afford the upkeep of Uraniborg, forcing him to leave his island sanctuary and go to the mainland. There he felt uncomfortable and decided to leave Denmark altogether. Taking some small instruments with him he found a new sponsor in Emperor Rudolph of Bohemia.
Ensconced in a new castle, the red-haired, false-nosed Tycho took up where he left off in both work and play. He honoured the Emperor by calling his tables the ‘Rudolphine Tables.’ For three years he worked on improving and updating them, but something was missing - he yearned for his homeland. In 1601, at the age of 55, he came down with a ‘mysterious’ disease, now thought to have been mercury poisoning. Before he died, and so that his work could carry on, he entrusted one of his students with his records, one Johannes Kepler.
The great instruments were preserved for a time but as with so much in the history of man, they were eventually destroyed in warfare. Only Tycho’s magnificent celestial globe now remains. The island observatory that was once one of the wonders of the world fell into ruin and little of it remains. As to which of the great astronomic models of the time would continue to suffice, well that remained to be seen. Future discoveries would necessitate a modification of de Brahe’s model, a correction we will see in due course, for technically the updated model does not belong to sixteenth century astronomy.
With the victory of the Earthmovers, Tycho de Brahe’s name and contribution to the knowledge of the heavens were demoted to the role of a curiosity. If his theory is ever mentioned it is as a half-way-house to the establishment of that heliocentric order deemed by all today as the true one, the Copernican-Keplerian-Newtonian-Einsteinian concoction.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Ten: The Council Of Trent (1545-1563)
(http://www.thomryng.com/amateurmonk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Council_of_Trent_1562.jpg)
The Church’s official scope is not to be found in the development of mere human knowledge but in the preservation of divine knowledge. The Church’s duty then is to keep man mindful of the object or end of our existence and this last end is not science but eternal salvation. Knowledge of nature is intended by God as a subordinate means to this end, and for this very reason there can never be a conflict between true science, the Bible, Catholic faith, and our final destiny. The Church then does not teach natural science, but, as happened in the Galileo case, she is obliged to make their principles tributary to wisdom, first by warning and protecting the flock against error and by pointing to the ultimate cause of all things.
The Council of Trent was convoked in 1545 in response to the Protestant reform and rebellion against various Catholic tenets, dogmas and doctrines. Its twenty five sessions lasted eighteen years and were presided over by three popes, Pope Paul III (1534-1549), Pope Julius III (1550-1555) and finally under Pope Pius IV (1559-1565). Of crucial importance to the Galileo case is session IV of April 8, 1546.
The Vulgate Edition of the Bible is Accepted and the Method is Prescribed for the Interpretation of (Sacred) Scripture, etc. [All biblical quotes in this book are taken from the Catholic Latin Vulgate translation.]
The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent - - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein - - keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand;
(the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament - - seeing that one God is the author of both - - as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema . . .
Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law. [/i]- - (Denz - 786)
The Council of Trent was a doctrinal council, thus an infallible council. Nothing emerging from its cannons and decrees can be questioned, doubted or overruled in any way. Note above then that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers is here dogmatised as without error.
[/font]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In the wake of the Council of Trent came The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, issued by order of Pope Pius V. Of interest to this synthesis is the teaching on the Creed that begins so:
I Believe in God, Almighty Father, Creator of Heaven and Earth:
He followed no external form or model; but contemplating, and as it were imitating, the universal model contained in the divine intelligence, the supreme Architect, with infinite wisdom and power – attributes peculiar to the Divinity – created all things in the beginning. He spoke and they were made; He commanded and they were created. The words heaven and earth include all things that the heavens and the earth contain; for besides the heavens, which the Prophet has called the works of his fingers, He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they may be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety . . .
The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundations [Ps. 103:5: You fixed the earth upon its foundations, not to be moved forever], and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place that He had founded for them . . .
He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plants and flowers, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of creatures . . .
Not only does God protect and govern all things by His Providence, but He also by an internal power impels to motion and action whatever moves and acts, and this in such a manner that, although He excludes not, He yet precedes the agency of secondary causes. (Catechism of the Council of Trent: Marian Publications, 1976, pp.28, 29, 30.)
Herein it clearly states that God ex nihilo created the earth geocentric and geostatic, on which He created all flora and fauna complete according to their kinds, and that there is no motion or action without God’s input.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The Catholic Bible then, the Church teaches, is without error, whether religious or mundane. Where there might appear to be anomalies, generation anomalies in Genesis for example, one always defers to the New Testament as the Church’s public word on the matter.
[For example, not to be confused with Cainan, the 3rd after Adam, St Luke (3:36) alone inserts a second Cainan as being the third after Noah, i.e., a son of Noah’s grandson Arphaxad. In short, Luke 3 contains a name – Cainan – that is not recorded in Genesis 10 or 11, or in First Paralipomenon/First Chronicles 1.
In the Book of Genesis we find a record of the origin, purpose and destiny of everything. Written some three thousand four hundred years ago, this account depicts God immediately creating the whole interdependent world in six days, the heavens and earth, the sun, moon, stars, and all living things according to their nature, placing man as the sole benefactor of the whole creation. These truths are supported throughout the Old and the New Testaments that followed and had sufficed for millions of men and women throughout time.]
Assertions that revealed mysteries such as ex nihilo creation of complete creatures, geocentricism and a universal flood do not qualify as science, are untrue. Firstly, their credibility can be investigated scientifically; they can be analysed and compared with other scientific laws, structures and norms wherein they yield scientific consequences not otherwise accessible. If this objection had any real force, it would apply similarly to mysteries improperly so-called, i.e., to natural truths that we shall never know in this life. Every science is full of such examples and that is why the wisest of scientists consider themselves the most ignorant.
Again we anticipate what many might say - ‘Surely you cannot ask us to accept Genesis as a literal, historical and accurate account of the beginning of everything. Isn’t it true that science has shown it to be a collection of myths, metaphors and poetry, and don’t most Churchmen and statesmen accept this now? So, how can one defend the scientific accuracy and credibility of Scripture, especially Genesis, against the findings of science?’ To answer this question we must first ask if one rejects the Bible as an ideological no-no or simply because one has been convinced by the propaganda against it and never gave the question any deep study. If we belong to the former, then that’s it, I suppose; but if we belong to the latter group and have a little time to reflect, then let us move on.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Ever since the Earthmovers convinced the whole world that the earth has been proven to move around the sun, the Bible has been labelled ‘unscientific,’ supposedly reflecting the illusions of men in a pre-scientific age. Moreover, begun by the Protestant Rheticus and invoked by the heretic Bruno, they also try to tell us the Bible is not a science book, so is not intended to teach us natural philosophy. They say this to throw doubt on the correctness of a geocentric interpretation, and for no other reason.
To our knowledge, and in spite of all that is propagated to the contrary, no science, no anthropology, archaeology or anything has ever proven the Bible, or to be more precise, the Fathers’ interpretation of it, to be untrustworthy in any sphere, whether in its age for the world, its geocentric basis, its shape for the earth (Is.40:22), its flood-caused geology, its sketch of the water cycle (Eccles.1:7), its fixity of kinds, diversity of species and methods of generation, its sanitation laws (Deut. 23:12-14), even its rules for quarantining (Lev.13:1-5) and so on.
As regards human society, here again the Bible cannot be found wanting. Genesis tells us created man was monotheistic, intelligent and civilised from the very beginning. After the Fall and again after the Flood, many did lapse into primitive ways, seeking out any environment that could sustain them, whether village, jungle, desert, cave or mud-hut, such as can be found even today. Nevertheless, because man is an ordered, intellectual and social creature, records were prone to be kept, both oral and written. It is reasonable to say then that if the Bible records a real 6,000-year history, surely this past should be evident in the traditions of all peoples, whether primitive or sophisticated. As it happens, this is the case. There is not a single culture discovered that had/has not a perfect language and a history of the world that begins with the biblical account, an original couple, and a flood.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: For an example or two, let us consider the following studies:
(1) An investigation into Chinese palaeography, God’s Promise To The Chinese. (E. Nelson, R. Broadberry and G. Chock: God’s Promise To The Chinese, Read Books, HCR 65 Box 580, Dunlap, TN 37327, USA, 1997.)
In a summary of this book, the reviewer states:
The three joint-authors have clearly demonstrated, to this reviewer’s satisfaction at least, that the inventor of the original Chinese characters, which were inscribed on tortoise shells and bones, knew and believed in an identical account of creation and earth’s beginnings to that found in Moses’ Book of Genesis . . .
The Chinese have always revered their writing system. Calligraphy ranks supreme in their artistic scale of values . . . Just 142 of the earliest hieroglyphic pictograms contain, in a highly condensed (and therefore mentally portable and ineradicable form) key components of the Book of Genesis.
Since the truth or otherwise of the Flood has profound implications for the study of geology, in the Book of Docuмents (Sha Ching), written 3,000 years ago, we read: “The flood waters were everywhere, destroying everything as they rose above the hills and swelled up to Heaven.” (Tim Williams, Christian Order, November 2001, pp.629-631.)
The authors go on to show how the earliest Chinese were monotheists who worshiped Shang Di or the ‘God Above.’ For more than 4,000 years they sacrificed to Him in the imperial city of Beijing, in what was called the ‘Border Sacrifice’. Confucius (551-479BC) thought the Border Sacrifice so important that he compared an understanding of this sacrifice to the efficient ruling of the Chinese empire. The Border Sacrifice ended only when the Manchu Ch’ing dynasty ended in 1911.
(2) In the book, After The Flood - a 25-year study into Middle Eastern/European palaeography - Bill Cooper traces the early post-flood history of the Middle East and Europe. (Bill Cooper: After The Flood, New Wine Press, 22 Arun Business Park, Bognor Regis, West Sussex, PO22 9SX, England, 1995.)
His task was to see if the ‘Table of Nations’ (Genesis Chapter 10 and 11) could be verified in the history of nations prior to Christianity. If he could find a lineage from the Japhetic line in these histories, it would confirm the Bible also recorded true history.
Cooper found ample evidence in eastern and western archives to confirm Middle East and European lines are both descended from the Japhetic tree. In Britain, Wales and Ireland he found the records of the early settlers went back 2,000 years, with the same genealogy to European differing only in language. What amazed Cooper was that the records of this history were so easy to find and so evident that he concluded its absence from textbooks, schools and universities had to be a deliberate conspiracy by both Churchmen and statesmen to uphold the Modernists’ version of things without challenge.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Likewise, no bones, buildings, artefacts, cloths etc., should be found older than the dates given in Genesis if the Bible is to be authentic. The usual method of dating such short-life (10,000 years maximum) things is Carbon-14 dating. [To obtain ‘millions-of-years’ dating, different radioactive materials are used.]
This dating method however, relies on many assumptions to be accurate and produces some erroneous dating. [Radio-carbon dating relies on two major assumptions to be viable: a 32,000-year cycle that may never have been if we do live in a 6,000-year world: and that no other carbon entered the system in its cycle.]
[In one case for example, a living turtle was dated at 1000+ years old.]
THE EARTHMOVERS: Even so, try as they did with it, no trace of any civilisation could be dated with certainty as being more than 5,000 years old. Dr Walter Libby, who won a Nobel Prize for his discovery of the Carbon-14 dating method, and who thought his discovery would reveal ‘prehistoric’ times, never found any human artefact older than 5,000 years.
“You read statements in books that such or such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old,” he [Libby] commented, “but we learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is about the first dynasty of Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.” (A. J. White, Radio-Carbon Dating, Cardiff, Wales, 1955, p.10.)
We could go on, but that should be enough to show that, whatever about propaganda, the Bible cannot be falsified when true science is applied to any question of its contents.
-
EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Eleven: Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)
(http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/images/giordanobruno.jpg)
Copernicus’s theory, by correctly [sic] placing the sun rather than the earth at the centre of our own planetary system, was understood by Bruno as evidence of divine harmony and universal unity, in which all the planets were governed by a central authority. Seen through the complex and symbolically inclined mind of Bruno, the heliocentric system, brought down to earth by the power of astral magic, provided the model for the ideal society. Such a society would of course be ruled by a great ‘solar monarch,’ advised by philosopher-priests, whose reign would usher in the magical Hermetic religion around which all the nations of the world would unite. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p.230.)
The spirit of Assisi.
No mention of the name Giordano Bruno can be made today without acknowledging Dame Francis Yates’s Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Sourced and quoted extensively in all modern scholarship on Bruno, her grasp of this man and his quest is far more revealing than she or those who used her work ever meant to convey.
Then there is Father Stanley L. Jaki’s (1924-2009) introduction to an English translation of Bruno’s book The Ash Wednesday Supper. Fr Jaki was a Benedictine priest and distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, since 1975, writing books and teaching his students modern heliocentric cosmology and evolution no doubt. For his work in synthesising Catholic faith with modern science Fr Jaki was awarded The Templeton Prize in 1987, ‘for furthering understanding of science and religion’ they say; a prize now valued at £1,000,000 per annum, winnable only by one who asserts heliocentrism and evolutionism is a fact, of course.
Apart from translating Bruno’s book into English, Fr. Jaki provides a 30-page introduction that is fascinating and revealing, especially in the light of the fraud that [claims that ] heliocentrism has been proven a fact by science. Here is how Fr. Jaki described how Dame Francis Yates came to understand the real Giordano Bruno.
Yates also disclosed that her own view of Bruno had undergone, over the span of several decades of intensive study, a change which has all the characteristics of a Copernican turn. It was prompted, interestingly enough, by her delving into the contents of the Cena. Its author originally loomed large on her mental horizon as the embodiment of an enlightened and heroic stand in defence of a reason unfettered by traditionalist obscurantism. As she gained an increasingly deeper grasp of the message of the work, the man usually celebrated as the hero of reason began to appear a grave puzzle.
From one side there beckoned almost irresistibly the popular image of Bruno, the bold challenger of Aristotle and of his medieval admirers, the fearless champion of the truth of science in general and of Copernicanism in particular, and, last but not least, the man ready to suffer martyrdom on behalf of the rational world view. From the other side there emerged a formidable array of evidence suggesting a mental physiognomy of Bruno wholly at variance with the accepted one. According to that evidence, Bruno was an out-and-out magician, an “Egyptian” and Hermeticist of the deepest dye, for whom the Copernican heliocentricity heralded the return of magical religion . . . who defended earth-movement with Hermetic arguments concerning the magical life in all nature, whose aim was to achieve Hermetic gnosis, to reflect the world in the mens by magical means, including the stamping of magic images of the stars on memory, and so become a great Magnus and miracle-working religious leader. (Fr Stanley Jaki: introduction to his book by Bruno, quoting Francis A. Yates: Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1964, p.ix.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Felipe Bruno was born in 1548 in Nola, a town near Naples Italy, a place from which he coined his nickname ‘the Nolan.’ In 1565, at the age of sixteen, taking the name Giordano, he entered the Dominicans in Naples, a very strict and orthodox order, some of whom then served on the panel of papal Inquisitors. During this time Bruno started to study Marsilio Ficino’s translated works of Hermēs, devouring the gnosis within, all the while becoming profoundly influenced by it. It was only a matter of time then before Bruno’s Hermetic philosophy became noticeable and for which he came under suspicion within his order. During this time Bruno acquired the art of mnemotechnics, the ars memoriae, the ability to remember things, for which he was to become famous. Indeed in 1571, the year before he was ordained, Pope Pius V called him to Rome to teach him how to improve his memory.
At the same time, Bruno has acquired a copy of De revolutionibus, not for the astronomical calculations mind you, for Bruno had little interest in mathematics and geometry, but because of the secret religion it again offered the world in the form of science.
This statement is of the utmost importance. When we speak of copernicanism cuм darwinism cuм neo-newtonian relativity, WE DO NOT SPEAK OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, PROPERLY SO CALLED. By metaphysical necessity, by the impulsion of true knowledge, by definition, we must call it a false religion, a false worldview, a false origins narrative, absolutely malicious, absolutely vicious, absolutely diabolical. The scientism establishment is an occult priesthood, which has for its raison d'etre the contradiction of Truth, both natural and revealed. Copernicanism cuм darwinism cuм neo-newtonian relativity is a religion that is not only anti-Christian but anti-natural, because its first principle is contradiction. It is a religion that shreds the intellect and renders it inoperable, by causing it to disregard the first principles of natural knowledge, which are themselves the Preambles and bulwark of Faith.
COPERNICANISM IS A RELIGION.
COPERNICANISM IS NOT MATERIAL, SCIENTIFIC FACT.
EVOLUTION IS A RELIGION.
EVOLUTION IS NOT A MATERIAL, SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Thereafter, needless to say, he became one of Copernicus’s most ardent admirers. Giordano’s cosmic vision however, went much further than a single solar system among a universe of stars. To Bruno, the universe was infinite in size with endless numbers of stars, each a sun with its own solar system, its own planets and earths, also supporting life, even intelligent life.
Here, Hancock and Bauval cannot resist in adding:
And thus Bruno, through his remarkable intuition, can be said to have anticipated by nearly four centuries our modern ideas of the cosmos. - - - Talisman, p.230
Indeed this very belief endures in the modern scientism canon.
But Bruno didn't ‘anticipate’ our modern ideas of the cosmos; he resurrected them from the grave of Egyptian religion. The same false religion we may call the wellspring of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Essential to this mission of course was for the secret societies to first install Copernicanism into the minds of man as a fact and then Hermes’s philosophical, ideological and theological ideas would follow as a consequent.
Bruno believed that Hermeticism repre¬sented the true religion, the wisdom of ancient Egypt that had been corrupted, first by the Jews and then the Christians. But the Hermetic books themselves prophesied that the world’s ‘true religion’ would be restored one day, and Bruno believed this applied to his own time. This would, he firmly believed, entail at least a radical reform of the Catholic Church – if not its total replacement. (L. Picknett & C. Prince: Google’s Galileo and the secrets of Hermeticism, July, 2011.)
In the meanwhile, Bruno was also getting quite a reputation for his extraordinary memory. This ability, which Bruno was to use to fascinate and gain influence in high places, was no natural talent but an acquired one, one similar to that known to be used in ancient Egypt. We learn that in the Hermetic texts of Asclepius and Picatrix there are depicted all the symbols of astral magic and it is these stars, planets and zodiac positions that are used as talismans which assisted the magus’s ability to memorise and recall things seen, read and heard.
In time, Bruno’s heretical leanings became known for certain, heresies such as his belief in a kind of transmigration of souls and animistic pantheism, which ‘he wanted to live as a form of gnosis with the intensity of a mystic.’ Pantheism is the belief that there is no other eternal being but the universe. This cult was quite common among ancient pagans from Greece to the Far East. Given it denies a personal God, it was seen by Christians as a serious heresy. Once Christianity became established as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, like the Hermetic books, pantheism went underground in that few professed it openly. But here it re-appears alongside the re-emergence of other Hermetic influences.
Pantheism relies on nature to explain all the great questions asked by man. For credibility then, it needs the backing of what was called natural philosophy, the precursor to science. Copernicus’s De revolutionibus was crucial to Bruno’s pantheism. Establishing a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr above - heliocentrism, he knew, would create a nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr below (as above, so below). How right he was. Such was this movement, that even without any empirical proof for a fixed sun or moving earth, the magic of it convinced most in Church and State that there is a natural history to the universe by way of a Big Bang, then many billions of nebular-made solar-systems, and finally the evolution of all life on earth. History records a long line of pantheists emerged with the Copernican revolution, from Bruno to Spinoza, from Goethe to Hegel, From Einstein to Hawking.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: It is no wonder then that Bruno came under investigation by the local Inquisition who eventually preferred 130 charges of heresy against him. In response, after defrocking himself in public in 1576, the complete heretic fled to other towns in Italy, continually avoiding the Inquisitors while promoting the full teaching of Hermēs for the next two years.
History records that Bruno and the man Galileo to come were two of a kind with connections to Padua. Both were very intelligent but full of themselves, conceited, arrogant, obstinate, argumentative and insulting to those who differed in their belief or opinion to them. Both poured scorn on Aristotle’s thinking at every opportunity. Accordingly, wherever Bruno went, as soon as the public knew his ideas, he was hounded out of the place. This is why, in 1578, he fled to Geneva, a refuge, he thought, that would be safe for dissenters and heretics. Once there however, some Calvinists were equally offended by his pantheistic beliefs and only an abjuration saved him from a Protestant burning.
In 1581, after a spell in Toulouse, Bruno travelled to Paris where he resumed lecturing on ‘thirty divine attributes.’ Again his ability for recollection was observed, but this time it was King Henri III of France who wanted to learn the art of memory, and any other magic Bruno might be able to show him. Henri III, it seems, suspected Bruno’s art was associated with some magical knowledge. Encouraged by this request, Bruno wrote two books, On the Shadows of Ideas, and The Circaean Song, supposedly on mnemotechnics, but really on magic.
In fact they were thinly disguised proclamations of a salvation to be gained through Hermetic magic. Giordano Bruno was not, of course the first to couple mnemotechnics and magical knowledge. From the time of Ficino, it had been customary to present mnemotechnics as the logical way of imprinting on the mind a world picture expressed in this or that kind of symbolism. Though the symbols could be Christian, secular or simply pagan, the procedure itself smacked of Platonic apriorism and often enough of an effort to achieve identification with a deity no different from the cosmos itself. In the case of Briuno, the symbolism came, and in exceedingly heavy doses, from the pseudo-Egyptian lore of Hermes trismegistus, a third century Neoplatonic corpus of mystical vagaries presented as divine revelations given to Hermes, the three-times-great priest of ancient Egypt. (Fr Stanley Jaki: The Ash Wednesday Supper, New York, 1975, p.12.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: For over a year Bruno served this royal acquaintance, a relationship that was to put him in good stead as he headed off to England, the land destined to play a vital role in achieving his mission.
To Bruno’s way of thinking the French, or perhaps even the English in the person of their illustrious Queen Elizabeth I, might prove to be the source of such a benign and charismatic ruler. - - - Talisman, p.230.
In England, the works of Hermes had a profound affect on Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of King Henry VIII, and those who surrounded her; Sir Phillip Sidney, Sir Walter Raleigh, John Donne, Sir Frances Bacon (aka William Shakespeare), Christopher Marlowe, George Chapmen, John Dee and Sir Edward Kelly, all of whom studied the Hermetica. Protestant England, free from Roman rule and influence, to where many religious and political refugees had fled, proved fruitful ground for Bruno. It was here he wrote most of his books. Above all however, was Bruno’s quest to spread the Hermetic thinking throughout academia in England by promoting Copernicus’s book De Revolutionibus. By mixing the two, Bruno met with both success and failure.
Bruno was among the very first to speak openly at Oxford on the heliocentric theory of Copernicus. But with a major difference. Unlike other scholars, the Nolan insisted on placing the theory within “the context of the astral magic and sun-worship” that was evident in the Hermetic texts. - - - Talisman, p.231.
In 1583 Bruno visited Oxford, where George Abbot, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury, described him thus: “He undertook among very many other matters to set on foot the opinion of Copernicus that the earth did go round, and the heavens stand still; whereas in truth it was his own head which rather did run round, and his brains did not stand still.” (Francis A. Yates: Giordano Bruno, pp.39-40.)
Bruno, who could give as good as he got, saw such ‘Aristotelians’ as ignorant men with no intellectual depth to them, having no love for truth as he saw it and so more to be pitied than scorned. But Bruno would not be deterred. In 1584 he published La Cena, a tome devoted entirely to a defence of Copernicus’s heliocentricism followed soon thereafter by the book De I’nfinito universe e mondi.
Most of these traits appear in the Cena, which is also the most expressive docuмent of the curious ways in which Copernicus’ doctrine began to prevail . . . a stepping stone towards the cosmos of Hermēs Trismegistus, a mystical sun-kingdom of infinite extension, with a cyclic process of birth, growth, decay and rebirth throbbing through it for eternity . . .
Bruno’s next work On the Infinite Universe and Worlds was a work presented by Bruno’s modern admirers as the bold, programmatic proclamation of the infinity of the universe and the anticipation of the world view on which Newton’s physics and astronomy put the hallowed seal. (Stanley Jaki: Introduction to The Ash Wednesday Supper, Mouton, Paris, 1975, p.14.)
An infinite universe posed serious theological problems . . . If the universe was infinite, God must be by definition be part of it, since it includes everything. Where could order, harmony and purpose reside in an infinite, and therefore formless, universe? The entire Aristotelian-Thomist cosmology that had served Christianity well since its birth would collapse, and with it the thousand-year-old hierarchy of interdependent existence that linked in an unbroken chain the inanimate to plant and animal life, to man, to angels, to God. And if that happened, what would become of the painstakingly crafted systems of morals and values built on those assumptions. (Wade Rowland: The Myth of Galileo, published in Burstein’s Secrets.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Present at the Oxford debate was an acquaintance of Bruno’s, Sir Philip Sidney, nephew of the Earl of Leicester, ‘once Queen Elizabeth’s favourite and, according to some, even her secret lover,’ a relationship, according to others, that produced a son known later as Lord Francis Bacon. Sir Philip Sidney would of course have been well acquainted with the infamous occult black magician John Dee (1527-1608), a brilliant mathematician, scientist, secret agent and astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I. [Like most occultists, Dee believed all things subject themselves to numbers. He wrote that: ‘Everything is veiled in numbers. By number a way is had to the searching and understanding of everything able to be known.’ His own number was, interestingly, 007. Again, there is little new under the sun.]
Such was Bruno’s friendship with Sidney that he dedicated his new book Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante (The expulsion of the Triumphant Beast) to him.
By the beast he meant the power of any and all kinds of error, which were to be overcome by the only true religion, the one revealed through Hermes Trismegistus. The pages of the Spaccio are filled with lengthy portrayals of the age-old Egyptian religion, of which Judaism, Platonism and Christianity were but degenerate distillations; so at least Bruno contended. (Fr Stanley Jaki: Introduction to The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.16)
Bruno said the figurative name for the book had two meanings, the driving out of human vices to create the pure Hermetic soul, and the second allegory, the removal of papal supremacy along with every remnant of Christianity on earth. And how was this to be done?
In Bruno’s eyes, “the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present darkness was the Copernican sun.” Accordingly he looked on the Copernican diagram on the concentric orbits of the planets encircling the sun as a sort of hieroglyph or talisman. It functioned as a magical Hermetic seal that he, Bruno, thought he understood at its deepest level. He became in consequence acutely aware of the huge ‘revolution’ which it was about to unleash and of its potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church. Bruno’s strategy, simple really, was to integrate this inevitable Copernican truth that was about to revolutionize science and religion into his own Hermetic revolution. He believed that Copernicus had vindicated the sun-centred system of the ancient Egyptians, and that it was up to the Nolan to revive and restore that loss of faith in order to reform the world. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p.233-4.)
We see then that Bruno and friends ‘became acutely aware of the huge ‘revolution’ that Copernicanism was about to unleash and of its potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church.’ To those sceptics who raised their eyebrows when in the preface of this book they read of a deliberate mission to impose the new heliocentric Hermetic order on the world at the expense of Catholicism, we ask that they note this is now the observation of many other scholars, most totally unaware that the heliocentric theory they take for granted has no claim to truth or reality because it has never had any verification or proof in science.
This really needs to be unpacked. First, "the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present darkness" perfectly qualifies Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's self-identification. If, in a parody of the question the Good Jesus posed to His Disciples when they came back from their apostolic journeys, Lucifer asked the men of organized Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: Who do you say that I am? They would respond: Thou art the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present [Catholic] darkness; thou art the Copernican sun.
Secondly, the idea of the "copernican diagram of the concentric orbits of the planets encircling the sun as a sort of hieroglyph or talisman, and functioning as a magical Hermetic seal" is a motion directed to the suppression of the report of the senses and the rational apprehension of the celestial spheres as revolving around the Earth. God formed the Earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18) and He created the Heavens for contemplation of Him (Psalm 18). We are supposed to gaze upon the night sky and think of God, in His Creation, His Revelation, and His Redemption.
In its nascence, copernicanism was spread throughout the Earth as an alternate or anti-Gospel message, supposedly stored up for us in the heavens, and awaiting only the deciphering of adepts. This contradicts the truth of the primary deposit given to Adam and his descendants, which they read correctly in the sky. Man has always known that his Redeemer lives and that in the last day he shall rise out of the earth, and shall be clothed again with his skin, and in his flesh he will see his God, Whom he himself shall see, and his eyes shall behold, and not another. This is man's hope, laid up in his bosom. (Job 19)
Adam was given the primordial Deposit of Faith before he was banished from the Paradise of Pleasure - at the very beginning: I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and Her Seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for Her Heel.
Mankind has never been left wanting with respect to the knowledge necessary for salvation. God never left Man in total darkness, but rather: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. The true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world, was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His Name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
God never left Man in total darkness, but rather: Error and darkness are created with sinners. (Eccl. 11:16)
God never left Man in darkness, but rather: The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light: to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light is risen. (Isaiah 9:2)
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: Darkness shall cover the earth, and a mist the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. (Isaiah 60:2)
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: Yet a little while, the light is among you. Walk whilst you have the light, that the darkness overtake you not.
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness.
God never left man in total darkness. Therefore esotericism in any of its forms, but especially in this age in the form of scientism, cannot bring light into the world. It can only bring darkness.
Thirdly, we must take note of the fact that copernicanism is qualified by its adherents as a "huge revolution" that "unleashes" its "potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church." They know right well what it is. WHY DON'T CATHOLICS KNOW WHAT IT IS?
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The Fourth dialogue [of the Cena] opens the next day with a straightforward reference to the Scriptures, the “true cause” of opposition to the Copernican doctrine. Bruno’s answer, as reported by Theophil, is that the biblical revelation aims at improving peoples’ morals and not at giving them philosophical demonstrations. Furthermore, since the instruction of people had to be tailored to their commonsense perception. Moses had to speak of two big and many small luminaries in the sky. (Fr. S. L. Jaki: Introduction to The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.30.)
First we had Rheticus the Protestant’s hermeneutics of the geocentric passages, then Bruno the heretic’s hermeneutics, and from 1741 the exegesis and hermeneutics of the Catholic Church.
Bruno left England in 1585 and returned to France. But things had changed there too and war between Catholics and Protestants had broken out. In spite of the dangers, Bruno continued with his mission until his beliefs caught up with him again and he was chased out of the country. In 1586 Bruno went to Germany, making contact with fellow Hermeticists, all conspiring together to re-establish their idea of a utopian Egyptian religion long passed away. Nascence of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, methinks.
It was in the 1580s, Francis Yates tells us, that Bruno founded the Giordanisti, a secret society that would continue his mission for religious reforms in Europe, a sect especially appealing to German Lutherans. He himself however, decided it was time to flee again.
Bruno had to depart [for fear of the Calvinists] in early 1588, but, before doing so, he delivered a celebrated address at the university on wisdom and light in an infinite universe of an infinite number of worlds. Pre-dating Einstein and Sagan by centuries, which proves that they teach religion (or anti-religion) rather than new discoveries of physical science. His syncretistic associations of Christian and pagan notions of wisdom were as expressive as was his list and panegyrics of Germans who played a notable part in building the temple of universal, that is, Hermetic wisdom. (Fr S. L. Jaki: Introduction to The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.18.)
From Wittenburg, Bruno went to Prague, the capital of Bohemia at the time, a refuge for Aristotelian philosophers, Jєωιѕн Kaballists, Hermetic intellectuals and scientists from every nation. This was due to the benevolent attitude of Rudolph II, who ‘surrounded himself with a plethora of alchemists and astrologers,’ all seeking ‘the Philosophers Stone’ of course. Again Bruno published more books, among them De Monade numero et figura, ‘permeated among other things by necromancy and by the art of conjuring demons.’
On hearing that Pope Clement VIII had received a book dedicated to the Pontiff by Francisco Patrizi containing translations of parts of the Hermetic corpus, Bruno thought it opportune for him to return to Italy. Patrizi, who was renowned for his belief that the Hermetic doctrine should be taught in Church institutions, ‘even in the Jesuit schools,’ had been called to Rome where a chair of philosophy was assigned to him.
Bruno’s first stop was Padua in the Republic of Venice, the only completely independent state in Italy, one free from Roman rule. Padua was considered a safe haven for Protestants and other dissidents, just the place for Bruno to meet and discuss his ideas with others. Here he contacted an old friend, Gian Vincenzo Pinelli, a scholar who was to be Galileo’s advisor. Then there was the Padua University, a place that enjoyed a freedom not found anywhere else in Italy at the time. Bruno even applied for its chair of mathematics during his three month stay in Padua. However, after a predictable dispute with his host, a Venetian nobleman, Bruno was exposed and handed over to the Venetian Inquisition. The charges made here against Bruno mainly concerned his heretical opinions on the Trinity, Christ, and the human soul.
At first Bruno seemed to want to repent and abjure his heresies but instead choose to return to Rome to face the Roman Inquisition. On Feb. 27, 1593, he was put on trial (that lasted 7 years) while detained in prison. In the meanwhile, the successful applicant for that chair in mathematics at Padua University was none other than Galileo Galilei.
Unfortunately for history, the ‘Processus,’ the docuмents recording the full charges, interrogations and cross-examinations of Bruno in Rome, including the important sentence, were lost. In 1940 however, a summary of the trial was found, showing Cardinal Bellarmine was involved in finding him guilty of heresy, but with no mention of heliocentrism, as is often claimed. ‘He kept to the end his hope that the Catholic Church, as the most universal body, might one day be gained over to his Hermetic dispensation.’ Unrepentant to the end, Bruno was handed over to the secular authorities who burned him at the stake at Campo de’ Fiori on Ash Wednesday, after his last supper, 17th Feb, 1600. In 1603 all of Bruno’s books were put on the Index.
Fr Stanley Jaki ends his account with the following summary:
Bruno’s efforts were doomed to failure from the start . . . He was tragically mistaken about science. For him science was the wave of the future only inasmuch as it served the cause of Hermeticism, a synthesis of occultism, magic, cabbala, necromancy and weird mysticism. (Fr. S. L. Jaki: The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.24.)
Incorrect, for Bruno was not mistaken about ‘science,’ as this synthesis will demonstrate, and his dream did come true. The false science that claimed proof for heliocentrism did become the wave of the future inasmuch as it did serve the cause of Hermeticism. At the end their chapter on Bruno in Talisman, Hancock and Bauval conclude with the following.
Bruno’s dream of a great universal Hermetic reform or revival – whether within the Christian framework or outside it – nosedived and burrowed deep underground . . . Not surprisingly, perhaps, it was after the death of Bruno that Europe was to see the resurgence of secret societies and fraternities. It was as if from the ashes of Bruno’s funeral pyre arose an invisible phoenix that flew out to nurture universal reform elsewhere in Europe. Frances Yates buries in her excellent book on Bruno and the Hermetic tradition a devastating hint as to the identity of this invisible, nurturing and revolutionary ‘phoenix’: “Where is there such a combination of this religious toleration, emotional linkage with its medieval past, emphasis on good works for others, and imaginative attachment to the religion and symbolism of the Egyptians? The only answer to this question that I can think of is – in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, with its mythical link with the medieval Masons, its toleration, its philanthropy, and its Egyptian symbolisms.” - - - Talisman, pp.238-9
-
Here is, I think, a nice place to segueway over to the doxology of the copernicans, chanted by the high priest of teleliturgy, Carl Sagan:
The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be . . .
Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us. There is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as of a distant memory of falling from a great height . . .
We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries . . .
The size and the age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity, is our tiny planetary home, the earth . . .
Lost somewhere is the earth . . .
Kumbayah . . .
Intro to Cosmos series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7n71pm0K04
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Present at the Oxford debate was an acquaintance of Bruno’s, Sir Philip Sidney, nephew of the Earl of Leicester, ‘once Queen Elizabeth’s favourite and, according to some, even her secret lover,’ a relationship, according to others, that produced a son known later as Lord Francis Bacon. Sir Philip Sidney would of course have been well acquainted with the infamous occult black magician John Dee (1527-1608), a brilliant mathematician, scientist, secret agent and astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I. [Like most occultists, Dee believed all things subject themselves to numbers. He wrote that: ‘Everything is veiled in numbers. By number a way is had to the searching and understanding of everything able to be known.’ His own number was, interestingly, 007. Again, there is little new under the sun.]
Such was Bruno’s friendship with Sidney that he dedicated his new book Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante (The expulsion of the Triumphant Beast) to him.
By the beast he meant the power of any and all kinds of error, which were to be overcome by the only true religion, the one revealed through Hermes Trismegistus. The pages of the Spaccio are filled with lengthy portrayals of the age-old Egyptian religion, of which Judaism, Platonism and Christianity were but degenerate distillations; so at least Bruno contended. (Fr Stanley Jaki: Introduction to The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.16)
Bruno said the figurative name for the book had two meanings, the driving out of human vices to create the pure Hermetic soul, and the second allegory, the removal of papal supremacy along with every remnant of Christianity on earth. And how was this to be done?
In Bruno’s eyes, “the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present darkness was the Copernican sun.” Accordingly he looked on the Copernican diagram on the concentric orbits of the planets encircling the sun as a sort of hieroglyph or talisman. It functioned as a magical Hermetic seal that he, Bruno, thought he understood at its deepest level. He became in consequence acutely aware of the huge ‘revolution’ which it was about to unleash and of its potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church. Bruno’s strategy, simple really, was to integrate this inevitable Copernican truth that was about to revolutionize science and religion into his own Hermetic revolution. He believed that Copernicus had vindicated the sun-centred system of the ancient Egyptians, and that it was up to the Nolan to revive and restore that loss of faith in order to reform the world. (Hancock & Bauval: Talisman, p.233-4.)
We see then that Bruno and friends ‘became acutely aware of the huge ‘revolution’ that Copernicanism was about to unleash and of its potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church.’ To those sceptics who raised their eyebrows when in the preface of this book they read of a deliberate mission to impose the new heliocentric Hermetic order on the world at the expense of Catholicism, we ask that they note this is now the observation of many other scholars, most totally unaware that the heliocentric theory they take for granted has no claim to truth or reality because it has never had any verification or proof in science.
This really needs to be unpacked. First, "the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present darkness" perfectly qualifies Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's self-identification. If, in a parody of the question the Good Jesus posed to His Disciples when they came back from their apostolic journeys, Lucifer asked the men of organized Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: Who do you say that I am? They would respond: Thou art the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present [Catholic] darkness; thou art the Copernican sun.
Secondly, the idea of the "copernican diagram of the concentric orbits of the planets encircling the sun as a sort of hieroglyph or talisman, and functioning as a magical Hermetic seal" is a motion directed to the suppression of the report of the senses and the rational apprehension of the celestial spheres as revolving around the Earth. God formed the Earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18) and He created the Heavens for contemplation of Him (Psalm 18). We are supposed to gaze upon the night sky and think of God, in His Creation, His Revelation, and His Redemption.)
In its nascence, copernicanism was spread throughout the Earth as an alternate or anti-Gospel message, supposedly stored up for us in the heavens, and awaiting only the deciphering of adepts. This contradicts the truth of the primary deposit given to Adam and his descendants, which they read correctly in the sky. Man has always known that his Redeemer lives and that in the last day he shall rise out of the earth, and shall be clothed again with his skin, and in his flesh he will see his God, Whom he himself shall see, and his eyes shall behold, and not another. This is man's hope, laid up in his bosom. (Job 19)
Adam was given the primordial Deposit of Faith before he was banished from the Paradise of Pleasure - at the very beginning: I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and Her Seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for Her Heel.
Mankind has never been left wanting with respect to the knowledge necessary for salvation. God never left Man in total darkness, but rather: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. The true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world, was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received Him, He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His Name. Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
God never left Man in total darkness, but rather: Error and darkness are created with sinners. (Eccl. 11:16)
God never left Man in darkness, but rather: The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light: to them that dwelt in the region of the shadow of death, light is risen. (Isaiah 9:2)
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: Darkness shall cover the earth, and a mist the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. (Isaiah 60:2)
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: The light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: I am the light of the world: he that followeth Me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: Yet a little while, the light is among you. Walk whilst you have the light, that the darkness overtake you not.
God never left man in total darkness, but rather: God is light, and in Him there is no darkness.
God never left man in total darkness. Therefore esotericism in any of its forms, but especially in this age in the form of scientism, cannot bring light into the world. It can only bring darkness.
Thirdly, we must take note of the fact that copernicanism is qualified by its adherents as a "huge revolution" that "unleashes" its "potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church." They know right well what it is. WHY DON'T CATHOLICS KNOW WHAT IT IS?
Some years ago, a group of us visited a Freemasonic hall in the centre of Dublin city, not a stone’s throw from Ireland’s seat of parliament. Two rooms inside fascinated us; a room resembling a Catholic chapel, complete with altar but minus any crucifix of course, and another that contained all the paraphernalia, artefacts and symbols of ancient Egypt. We recall being absolutely baffled by these rooms, as we’re sure most visitors are. That was then, but not now.
-
Here is, I think, a nice place to segueway over to the doxology of the copernicans, chanted by the high priest of teleliturgy, Carl Sagan:
The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be . . .
Our contemplations of the Cosmos stir us. There is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as of a distant memory of falling from a great height . . .
We know we are approaching the grandest of mysteries . . .
The size and the age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity, is our tiny planetary home, the earth . . .
Lost somewhere is the earth . . .
Kumbayah . . .
Intro to Cosmos series:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7n71pm0K04
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Twelve: Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ And Victorious Heliocentrism
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vrUSIJb7VA0/TQ4z6Q9WsQI/AAAAAAAAAAM/ybFetF3D4s8/s1600/11321.gif)
Mason’s G for God: Square and Compass
On January 3rd, 1997, the following report appeared in The Catholic Herald, an English weekly church newspaper:
The Grand Orient of Italy decided to award the Pontiff 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, in recognition for his promotion of universal Masonic values of fraternity, respect for the dignity of man, and the spirit of tolerance . . . Our intention is to pay homage to a man who, unlike his predecessors, showed himself to be extremely open-minded, rehabilitating Galileo, promoting a critical analysis of the Inquisition [etc.].
Let us here recall the ‘Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita. [The secret papers of the Alta Vendita (written in the early 1800s), highest lodge of the Italian secret society, the Carbonari, acquired by Pope Gregory XVI, and, on the orders of Pope Pius IX otherwise known as the ‘Alta Vendita Plan’ discovered in 1820, speak of working for a generation that will rejoice in having a pope ‘according to our wants’ and of a clergy who will ‘march under our banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys.’]
Now consider the above report, wherein we see the masters of Italian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ - whose ultimate aim is to see in the victory of Antichrist - honour Pope John Paul II with an award named after Galileo. Coming as it does in a Catholic newspaper, openly and without inhibition, probably illustrates the influence Galileo has had, within and without the Church, better than anything we could say.
The Alta Vendita plan tells of an era of infiltration into the Catholic Church by the Carbonari, who had links with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, so that they could introduce into the Church their liberal and progressive ideals and principles, a revolution ‘outed’ at that pastoral council Vatican II.
Martin Wagner, in one of the most revealing books on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ ever written, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation (1912), summarises this well known society thus:
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, in its chief and essential features, is a religious institution, and as such has marks and elements that are peculiar to itself but which also differentiate it from Christianity.’
“Masonry is a religion. If it is not why should it have temples, altars, official rituals, with hymns, odes, prayers, consecrations, and benedictions? Why have high priests, chaplains, written and authorised forms for opening and closing its meetings, for corner stone laying, and dedications, for installations, for the burial of its dead and what not? Why the grotesque imitations and caricatures of the Church’s forms, even to its sacraments?” (Professor G. H. Gerberding, D.D., quoted by Martin L, Wagner, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QSjva2WgCrI/Uhlg8Zn8F5I/AAAAAAAABgw/DnWUdN7vBHc/s1600/two+johns+1.jpg)
(http://www.freemasons-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.com/saints_john.jpg)
(http://www.freemasons-Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.com/pwc01.jpg)
(http://tehtable.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pointwithinacircle.png)
Here above [are] Masonic symbols of the two St Johns shown as parallel figures. On the Masonic Traveller website, they describe the Saints thus:
The Saint’s Johns appear to Freemasons in several places in our catechisms. Their proximity and use in our rituals have been questioned for many years as to their use and placement. Looked at together, Saint John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist serve to represent the balance in Masonry between zeal for the fraternity and learned equilibrium. The Saints John stand in perfect parallel harmony representing that balance.
Manley Palmer Hall 33º, in his book The Lost Keys of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, states that Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has no meaning or real purpose outside its ‘Melchisedech context,’ that is, its part in the great conflict predicted in Genesis 3:15, the war of priests and kings, that war involving Christ the High Priest and His priests and kings of Christendom against the combined army of the Antichrist.
Genesis 3:15: I will put enmities between thee and the Woman, and thy seed and Her seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for Her Heel.
Now, whereas the great battle of the Melchisedech kingships is temporarily lost, all Catholic kings in the world having been exterminated, including the Kingship of Christ by orders at Vatican II wherein Rome asked that the Church be removed from its special place in any remaining constitutions of the world, the battle against the Melchisedech priesthood is still ongoing, with fewer and fewer vocations to a modernist Roman Church that no longer cares about tradition. Currently, it is the scientist-as-priest and not the priest-as-saint, whom men and women look to for wisdom today.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4442/kevo.jpg)
Masonic depiction of the war on King and Priesthood
Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ then is a church of the Antichrist, just as was the heliocentric paganism of ancient Egypt it imitates in many ways. No wonder then that the heliocentric heretic Galileo is honoured by them. It has taken the form of pseudo-Christianity with its good works, thus luring into its ranks some Catholic as well as anti-Catholic supporters.
The institution is esoteric and ‘the symbolism is the very soul of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ’ (Albert Pike). ‘It least does mean what it most does say and show.’ ‘Its peculiar religious ideas and doctrines have survived from the periods of remotest antiquity until the present time, and continue with a persistence that is marvellous. It has diffused over the whole habitable earth. Like the mysterious force or energy in nature upon which it is based, [Electromagnetism?]the essence or data has been constant, but the forms in which it has found expression have varied in different ages and among different people. The marvel lies in its persistence. So long as there is unregenerate human nature, so long will the root of Masonry find a congenial soil and keep alive the organization in some form. (M. L. Wagner: Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.)
-
WOW ! This is fabulous, CD ... thank you.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Having recalled the ancient Hermetic religion fostered by Bruno and Campanella, surely one can see it resembles very much Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as described here below?
These vital and essential elements in this religion are not spiritual facts and spiritual mysteries, but carnal and psychical, the facts of life, and the mysteries involved in the generation and reproduction of life, and from their nature appeal most powerfully to man . . . On its theological side, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a sort of pantheism, the deity being the generative principle, the reproductive power that pervades all animated nature . . . It is a sex-cult, and like its prototypes and predecessors, will always have a large and influential following.
The ancient ethnic religions were sex-cults, and more or less secret. So long as public sentiment frowns upon indecencies, excesses, and sɛҳuąƖ uncleanness, such cults cannot exist except under esoteric terms . . . The most dangerous antagonists of Christianity in its earliest days were the worshipers of Isis, under various modifications as Demeter, Cybele, Diana, or as the power of fertility, and the Mithraism, the worship of the generative power under the aspect of light. The enemies of Christianity clothed these ideas in the language of the New Testament and of the Church. By skilfully veiling their pagan ideas under the terminology of Christian doctrines many who thought themselves serving the Lord Jesus Christ were led unconsciously into the pagan cults. And this is the method of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. (M. L Wagner: Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.)
Now let us return to the symbols of the two St Johns:
(http://tehtable.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pointwithinacircle.png)
The point and the circle carry a sɛҳuąƖ connotation. How can this be, you might ask? If you have to ask that question, you do not have the mind and heart of a pagan. One Masonic author states that this symbol is used in Sun Worship, and then says: "The female principle, symbolized by the moon, assumed the form of a lunette [small circular opening], or crescent, while the male principle, symbolized by the sun, assumed the form of the lingam [Phallus] and placed himself erect in the center of the lunette, like the mast of a ship." (Point Within A Circle", Short Talk Bulletin , August, 1931, Masonic Bulletin designed to read within the Lodges, p. 4)
It is no coincidence that the two Johns had a major role in setting up the greatest mystery of them all, the Church of Christ, and this is why Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the masters of imitation and symbols, chose them as patrons when building their own temple to the natural son - and why the instigator of their ultimate victory against the Church, the spiritually unprotected pastoral council called Vatican II, had to be a Pope John, and a false prophet to boot. For why else would any elect choose the name of an anti-pope of the past - Pope John XXIII?
[Pope John XXIII prophesied a ‘renewal.’ What we had was the destruction of the visible Church. Jesus told us to beware of false prophets, for they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. (Mat.7:15).]
Recall also many facts already touched on. First we made reference to Lucifer’s inability to generate and his intent to usurp this power to himself by proxy while at the same time seeking to undermine this gift from God in man by tempting us with abominable impurities. What we endeavour to show is the continuous link between all ages of heliolaters.
-
WOW ! This is fabulous, CD ... thank you.
:dancing: :rahrah: :pc: :rahrah: :dancing:
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
The name Illuminati appears to have been introduced only around 1775 by the secret society which was founded by Weishaupt, and developed, it is said, by Baron Knigge. But . . . it must have existed from the great antiquity. And actually the mystic affiliations under the Pyramids of Egypt, the esoteric sect of Pythagoras, the astrologers or mathematicians of Rome in the time of Domitian, the House of wisdom of Cairo, the Ismailis or Assassins, Companions of the Old Man of the Mountains, the Templars, the Rose-Croix . . . appear to form but an uninterrupted chain of these superior affiliations . . . under the name Illuminés. (Written under the heading ‘Reciprocal Influences between the Visible and Invisible World’ from the book L’Apodictique Messianique, compiled by a learned initiate and encyclopaedist Hoëné Wronski.)
Thus the ancient Illuminati alluded to in this synthesis and indeed in Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons, are the same members of secret societies that sought to bring about the Copernican revolution and with it a new religion, and who assisted Catholic churchmen in adopting what amounted to a Cabalistic exegesis and hermeneutics, from 1741 to 1835.
Briefly, Wonks states that the aim of Mystic associations is “Participation in Creation” and the physical end is “Direction of the Destinies of the Earth.” This mysticism “consists of the mystic limitations of the absolute reality (universal Life-force or energy), forming in general the neutralisation of this negative and positive energy,” a form of magnetic polarisation, creating the etheric link; for this reason these secret societies cultivate supernatural sentiments and arts such as . . . “Hermetic Philosophy, Alchemy, the Great Work or Stone of the Philosophers, the Panacea, Magnetic-healing, Regeneration, etc., and certain mysteries of physical generation, etc.” Being unable to discover scientifically, by reason, the destinies of the earth, they profess to foresee it by a “Cabalistic interpretation of the traditions of the Holy Scriptures”; then they seek to direct these destinies by means of special missions given to chosen men in all ranks of society. (Light-bearers of Darkness, Christian Book Club of America, California, 1930, republished 1963, 1983, p.2.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In 1738, a mere twenty-one years after the Masonic Order first went semi-public in London (1717), the then Pope Clement XII, in his encyclical letter In Eminenti described Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as ‘Satan’s ѕуηαgσgυє’ with ipso facto excommunication for any Catholic who joined or associated with it, reserving absolution to the Holy See alone. This excommunication was extended by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolicae Sedis of October 12, 1869 to include the Carbonari and other secret societies also active in the republican revolution in Italy at the time.
In all, the Church has issued twenty bulls warning the faithful against Masonry; for while the organisation gives the outer appearance of being Christian, their inner core of initiates are ultimately about the work of the Devil.
[The best known of these in 1751, 1814, 1821, 1826, 1829, 1832, 1846, 1865, 1869, 1873 and Pope Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus in 1884. ]
This was further emphasised in Pope Pius IX’s Scite Profecto of July 1873, wherein he personally attributed Masonry to Satan, for he says it can only be the Devil, the eternal adversary of God, who is responsible for it; founded it, and contrived its development. The most comprehensive of all these epistles however, was Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus (1884). Subsequently, in 1890, the vernacular encyclical Dall’ Alto, addressed to the clergy and people of Italy, was published. The Pope here described Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as pervaded with the spirit of Satan.
Another warning appeared in the same pope’s Custodi of 1892. Addressing the Italian bishops, the Holy Father asserted that ‘the diabolical spirit of all former sects is revived in Masonry that attacks everything sacred, while the public, lulled in false security, does not recognise the danger, for Christianity itself is at stake.’
Pope Leo XIII ended his 1884 Encyclical Humanum genus by specifying certain actions that could be performed by the faithful in exposing and resisting the aims of Masonry. This prompted a deluge of books and newspaper articles developing the theme of Satan in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. The Masons however, forever advancing a public constitution of promoting tolerance, benevolence and good-fellowship, vehemently denied any connection with Satan or that they indulge in sorcery, witchcraft, magic and such occultism.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
The Origin of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ
As has been demonstrated to me, antichristian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ began with Faustus Socinus, about the time of the Protestant Reformation,. Faustus Socinus pushed the Reformation to its ultimate consequences . . . Socinus kept up communication with his Italian countrymen, who took his directions in occultism. Before his death he designated as his successor Professor Caesar Cremonini, 50 years old then. He was a professor of philosophy at Ferrars, went to Padua in 1590 and taught philosophy and medicine there. Cremonini supported the teaching of the Averrohes, saying to the pupils “it’s a good doctrine, because it is condemned by Pope Leo X.”
[Averroists have generally been credited with a 'theory of double truth', according to which there is an irreconcilable clash between truths of faith and truths arrived at by means of reason.]
Its motto was a rule of conduct for the members of the Rose Cross and ran thus: Intus ut libet, foris ut moris est, which is nothing more than hypocrisy erected into a principle. “Do as you please privately, publicly do as others do. Let us deceive our acquaintances by pretending to agree with the prevailing ideas of the time, but privately let us think and act as we like.” This is the role of all impious sects.
Caesar Cremonini is the name of the Triangle of Viarreggio, founded in the lodge Felice Orsini. Cremonini was a magician no doubt, but it is not generally known that he was an Emperor Master of the Rosicrucian Socinians...
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/9zqb5y.png)
GRAND MASTERS OF THE ROSICRUCIANS
As our story unfolds, key players in the Copernican fraud that lies ahead begin to emerge, some of these names highlighted here in our text, some who were founding members of the Royal Society of London. The first of importance is Professor Cesare Cremonini, a close associate and benefactor of Galileo’s in Padua University, as we shall see.
In the year 1617 the dismemberment of the Rosicrucians took place; so also did the first Protestant Jubilee, in Germany, as, in 1517, Luther began his revolution by publicly attacking the papal Bull, granting indulgences to all the faithful who would contribute to the expenses of the building of St Peter’s Church in Rome.
It was also in 1617 that James VI of Scotland, and First of England, the unworthy son of Mary Stuart the Catholic, protestant king and magician expeller of the Jesuits, tried to found the Anglican religion in Scotland, and made Francis Lord Bacon Chancellor. [Bacon was] a philosopher and occultist, whose book, Novum Organum, made Findel say that “he must have had an intuition of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ” in his Novae Atlantis, whose work should have had a sixth part, for a finish, but God did not permit him to write it, namely: “Second Philosophy, or active science,” and whose conclusions may be guessed by anyone who read the others, of which he was the author . . .
1517 is, then, the date of the Reformation of Luther. The enrolment of the Socinians, and the first Protestant jubilee, were in 1617, and in 1717 was the first manifestation of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the antichristian sect, a manifestation and not a creation . . .
[Could there be a connection between these dates and apparitions at Fatima in 1917?]
Now who were these who officially started the sect of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as it is known today? They are the London Rosicrucians: Desaguiers, Anderson, George, Payne, King, Calvert, Lundem, Madden, Elliott, Jas, and others, members of four lodges that still exist there.
After the death of Sir Christopher Wren, the last chief of the guilds of the operative Masons, these guilds dwindled away to almost nothing, and the Rosicrucians entered them, took their titles and rules, and used them as a cloak to propagate their Socinian doctrines. This is how Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ as we know it, was started . . .
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: At this time Thomas Vaughan joined Elias Ashmole (in 1641, Elias Ashmole was initiated in the society of the Rosicrucians), to compose the degrees of Apprentice, Companion, and Master, that is, to introduce the impious symbols into the international brotherhood of the Freemasons. We find in 1646 that Philalethes said to Ashmole, ”the building masons have their ceremonies of apprentice, craftsman and master, to which we accepted Masons go to witness, as spectators only, but they are no use to us…”
Since Masonry appeared officially in 1717, there arose men like puffers at an auction, who for intrigue, or to become notorious, invented new rites and new degrees. Brother Ragon (Paris) relates that up to 1860, there were created by him 193 rites, or orders, and 1400 degrees . . .
At that time [1630] Amos Komenski was at London, where he published his Prodomus Pansophiae Universae. In that book, as my father used to point out to me with pride, and as Findel also points out, occurs for the first time the expression, “The Great Architect of the Universe,” applied to the divinity, who certainly is not the God of the Catholics but a vague badly defined god, whom my father described thus: The god whom the sects differing from Catholics adore even without understanding him well? It is a god who does not like any superstition in his worship, a god that loves all men as his children, and views with pain, benighted Catholics adoring his eternal enemy, Adonai the bad god.”
In the same sense, Komenski’s book inspired the Moravian and Rosicrucian who say “The power of the pope must be destroyed at any cost,” and foretells a destruction that will soon be accomplished “by a vast international association of illustrious men, upright, and enemies of priestly fanaticism, who will build a Temple of wisdom, according to the plan of the Great Architect of the Universe himself.” - - - Diana Vaughan – 1895.
Lady Queenborough (Edith Starr Millar) in her Occult Theocracy quotes the infamous Albert Pike - founder and Grand Master of the New and Reformed Palladian Rite (Ancient Scottish Rite) and Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Masonry whose headquarters was in Charleston, USA – illustrating from a different source the deity and purpose of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Lady Queenburough tells us that: The theological dogma of Albert Pike is explained in the “instructions” issued by him on July 14 1889, to the 23 Supreme Councils of the world; and these have been recorded by A. C. De La Rive in the book La Femme et l’Enfant dans La Franc-Maconnerie Universelle from which we translate:
“That which we must say to the crowd is – We worship a god, but it is the god that one adores without superstition.
“To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the luciferian doctrine.
"If Lucifer were not god, would Adonai (the God of the Christians) whose deeds prove His cruelty, perfidy, and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonai and His priests, calumniate him?
“Yes, Lucifer is god, and unfortunately Adonai is also God . . . Thus the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophic religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonai; but Lucifer, god of light and god of good, is struggling for humanity against Adonai, the God of darkness and evil.” (Lady Queenburough: Occult Theocracy. Book Club of America, pp. 200-201.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Now if it was known that the Masters of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ accepted Lucifer as the true god, and Adonai or Christ as the evil one, they might not attract the numbers necessary for a viable army behind whom they could operate. Instead therefore, they offer the world, their new recruits and first levels of membership, the more seductive idea of God, Komenski’s Great (Grand) Architect of the Universe, and the god of forces under the guise of God as Person.
“God is, basically, whatever we perceive Him to be: our idea or concept of God becomes our God. Usually referred to with the vague and general term, ‘Deity,’ the god of Masonry can be the one of our choosing, spoken of generally as ‘The Great Architect’. . . However, those who pursue the higher studies in Masonry learn that god is the force of nature, specifically the Sun with its life-giving powers. And so we are right back at the pagan pantheon with its array of sun-gods, for example, Re-Atun in Egypt, Shamash in Babylon (cf. Hebrew common noun SheMeSH), Phoebus Apollo in Greece, Sol in Rome. (Albert Mackey: The Masonic Ritualist, quoted by Rita Joseph in her article Satanic Ideology, Christian Order, April 2003, P. 268.)
It is only when chosen to attain the 18th of the possible 33 degrees of the ancient Scottish rite that the high adept is introduced to the concept of equilibrium. Known as the Rose Croix, this degree states the following:
. . . it is certain that in all nature harmony and movement are the result of the equilibrium of opposing or contrary forces . . . Harmony is the result of an alternating preponderances of forces. (Albert Pike: Morals and Dogma, p.306.)
This is why they veritably worship electromagnetism.
By the 30th or ‘Knight Kadosh' degree, the Freemasons are predicting the following:
All that will become the heritage of the Temple: the World will soon come to us for its Sovereigns and Pontiffs. We shall constitute the equilibrium of the Universe, and be rulers over the Masters of the World. (Albert Pike: Morals and Dogma, p.817.)
This is happening before our eyes.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Once Pike gets to the 32nd degree termed ‘Prince of the Royal secret,’ the methods are further illustrated for those that recognise them:
Tradition also gives these Magi the title of “Kings,” because initiation into Magism constitutes a genuine royalty; and because the grand art of the Magi is styled by all adepts “The Royal Art” . . . The star which guided them is the same Blazing Star, the image whereof we find in all initiations. To the Alchemists it is the sign of Quintessence; to the Magist, the Grand Arcanum; to the Kabalists, the Sacred Pentagram . . . Magic unites in one and the same science, whatsoever Philosophy can possess that is most certain, and in Religion the Infallible and the Eternal. It perfectly and incontestably reconciles these two terms that at first blush seem so opposed to each other; faith and reason, science and creed, authority and liberty. It supplies the human mind with an instrument of philosophical and religious certainty, exact as the mathematics, and accounting for the infallibility of the mathematics themselves. Thus there is an Absolute, in the matters of the Intelligence and of Faith. The Supreme Reason has not left the gleams of the human understanding to vacillate the hazard. There is an incontestable verity, there is an infallible method of knowing this verity, and by the knowledge of it, those who accept it as a rule may give their sovereign power that will make them the Masters of all inferior things and of all errant spirits; that is to say, will make them the Arbiters and Kings of the World . . .
And what is the mother of all such mathematical illusions, and where did it come from? Pike answers these questions below.
It is not in the books of the philosophers, but in the religious symbolisms of the Ancients, that we must look for the footprints of Science, and rediscover the Mysteries of Knowledge. The priests of Egypt knew, better than we do the laws of movement and of life. They knew how to temper or intensify action by reaction; Hegelianism? and readily foresaw the realization of these effects. The causes of which they had determined. The Columns of Seth, Enoch, Solomon, and Hercules have symbolized in the Magian traditions this universal law of the Equilibrium; and the science of Equilibrium or balancing of forces had led the Initiates to that of the universal gravitation around the centres of Life, Heat, and Light. Thales and Pythagoras learned in the Sanctuaries of Egypt that the Earth revolved around the Sun; but they did not attempt to make this generally known because to do so it would have been necessary to reveal one of the great Secrets of the Temple, that double law of attraction and radiation or of sympathy and antipathy, of fixedness and movement, which is the principle of creation, and the perpetual cause of life. This truth was ridiculed by the Christian Lactantius, as it was long after sought to be proven a falsehood by persecution, by Papal Rome. (Albert Pike: Morals and Dogma, pp.842-4)
Could anything be clearer? Consider the balancing of centripetal and centrifugal forces that formed the core dynamics of Isaac Newton’s solar system, accepted and offered by the Freemasons of The Royal Society almost 200 years earlier to secure the illusion of a heliocentric world, and we must see how the very concept is based on their forced dogma of equilibrium and not on empirical science.
The secret of the Occult Sciences is that of Nature itself, the secret of the generation of the Angels and Worlds, that of the Omnipotence of God. “Ye shall be like the Elohim knowing good and evil,” the serpent of Genesis said, and the Tree of Knowledge became the Tree of Death. For six thousand years the Martyrs of Knowledge toil and die at the foot of this tree, that it may again become the tree of Life.
[Note that Pike - while Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ had at that time begun to promulgate the supposed billions and millions of years of existence for homo consensus - addresses his peers using the 6,000 years as revealed by Scripture.]
The Absolute sought for unsuccessfully by the insensate and found by the Sages, is the TRUTH, the REALITY, and the REASON of the universal equilibrium! Equilibrium is the Harmony that results from the analogy of Contraries . . . The violation of the law of Identity and Contradiction is their first principle.
Light is the equilibrium of Shadow and Lucidity. Movement is the equilibrium of Inertia and Activity. Authority is the equilibrium of Liberty and Power. Wisdom is equilibrium in the Thoughts, which are the scintillations and rays of the Intellect.
Virtue is equilibrium in the Affections: Beauty is harmonious proposition in Forms. The beautiful lives are the accurate ones, and the magnificences of Nature are an algebra of graces and splendours. Everything just is beautiful; everything beautiful ought to be just.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The highest degree of Scottish Rite Masonry is the 33rd degree. It is an administrative degree. Once promoted to the penultimate degree of the ‘Prince of the Royal Secret,’ selected initiates are shown that the deepest royal secret in the ongoing war is that of equilibrium.
The Royal secret, of which you are Prince, if you are a true Adept, if knowledge seems to you advisable, and philosophy is for you radiant with a divine beauty, is that which the Sohar "The Mystery of the Balance" [a book of the Cabbalah], [calls] the secret of the Universal Equilibrium:
Of that equilibrium in the Deity . . . Of that equilibrium also, between the Infinite Divine Justice and the Infinite Divine Mercy . . . Of that equilibrium between Necessity and Liberty . . . Of that equilibrium between Good and Evil . . . Of that equilibrium between Authority and Individual Action . . . (Albert. Pike: Morals and Dogma, pp.858-860.)
If we find ourselves overwhelmed and unable to fully comprehend the depth and scope of this esoteric doctrine or Hermetic ‘magic’ if you like - the magic that was used successfully to bring about the Copernican revolution - it is because this is deception almost at a preternatural level and complete comprehension is by invitation only. Christianity has never been taught at an esoteric level so Lucifer takes advantage of this when trying to destroy the Church as an institution. As we have pointed out earlier, it is a dichotomous concept, implying opposites which are somehow to be reconciled. What we can discern is that to achieve their equilibrium, we see it is a matter of halving the potencies of any entity, and in turn causing these equal potencies to directly engage each other in an ongoing dynamic equilibrium. The trick or deceit is to conform all reality, all knowledge, including Christian theology, even history itself, to equilibrium type axioms and consequently to the degree that reality is reconstructed in terms or axioms of equilibria, i.e., the degree to which the Baconian-Shakespearian ‘feathers’ can control our concept of truth.
Finally, Lady Queenborough quotes Pike in 1871 as saying this equilibrium had already been achieved on earth:
“In analogical and universal dynamics one can only lean on that which will resist. Thus the universe is balanced by two forces that maintain its equilibrium: the forces of attraction and that of repulsion. These two forces exist in physics, philosophy and religion. And the scientific reality of the divine dualism is demonstrated by the phenomena of polarity and by the universal law of sympathies and antipathies. That is why the intelligent disciples of Zoroaster, as well as, after them, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Templars have admitted, as the only logical metaphysical conception, the system of the two divine principles fighting eternally, and one cannot believe the one inferior in power to the other.” (Lady Queenborough: Occult Theocrasy, p.221.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Again we repeat; by equilibrium the Masters mean that there can and must be no truth or certainty in any sphere, physical or metaphysical. This way they lure man away from Christ Who is the Truth, the Way, and the Life.
If any upper echelon of the hermetically-minded groups in any country were ripe for a favourable embrace of anti-biblical equilibrium of sun fixing and earthmoving in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was England. Its breakaway from Rome and its persecution of Catholicism, as well as its acquisition of new territories, made it the perfect place to launch their ‘reformation of the world.’
Rosicrucian recruits were by then joining up in great numbers, mainly among those with influence and power. And so we come to a key Englishman who embraced it all, Francis Bacon, Rosicrucian and proto-Freemason, ‘philosopher and occultist,’ a man who drew out a path for others to follow, a road down which humanity eventually followed. No history of the Earthmovers would be complete without a look at the influence of this extraordinary man.
-
cantatedomino, a question I'd like to ask is this: scientists often say that stars are billions of years old and that when we look at a star we are seeing what it looked like so many millions of years ago; so how do they arrive at these false conclusions? Is it that the speed of light is a lot faster than they think it is? Is it that the stars are closer than they think they are? What calculations are they using to arrive at these fanciful conclusions and what is the truth about the stars in the night sky (do we seem them as they are currently)?
Thank you for this thread, I'm enjoying it a lot. God bless you.
-
cantatedomino, a question I'd like to ask is this: scientists often say that stars are billions of years old and that when we look at a star we are seeing what it looked like so many millions of years ago; so how do they arrive at these false conclusions? Is it that the speed of light is a lot faster than they think it is? Is it that the stars are closer than they think they are? What calculations are they using to arrive at these fanciful conclusions and what is the truth about the stars in the night sky (do we seem them as they are currently)?
Thank you for this thread, I'm enjoying it a lot. God bless you.
The age of everything in the universe that modern scientists are so dogmatic about is a thing that changes with their whims. Lately, their principle criterion has been the false foundation of the demigods Charlie upon which they rely. The demigods Charlie asserted, beginning about 165 years ago, that the layering and strata that we see in sedimentary and metamorphic rocks all over the earth, as well as the strata and layers in compacted snow drifts and fields, are 'lines' that were made by vast amounts of time, and that these various lines represent seasons, years, hundreds of years, thousands of years, or even millions of years, etc. All of these large numbers have been shown to be erroneous. However, the extremely reluctant-to-change scientific community, which effectively worships the demigods Charlie as their collective deities, tends to ignore the facts that expose their fallacies.
In their quest to deny religion they consequently erect their own religion of denial.
The demigods Charlie (Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin) have for so long been the cornerstones of widely accepted 'scientific doctrine' that many modern scientists and amateur followers of same are unable to recognize truth when it stares them in the face.
For example, the ice cores drilled in arctic snowpacks, firn, and glacier ice, which have been religiously stored in freezer warehouses for scientists to marvel at, have many layers and lines of demarcation which have been interpreted to mean that 4 seasons per year are indicated by each set of 4 lines. But it's not quite that simple. These cores are believed to have been taken in ice fields where the snow fell so long ago, before there were any human beings present to observe the fact and take note of anything. Numerous instances have lines merging into one, or one line splitting up into two or more other lines. Also, the thickness of material between lines varies greatly. Some places it's not clear whether a line is singular or plural, or whether groups of lines form a pattern or only seem to be a pattern but upon closer inspection the pattern is not a pattern at all.
The thing that blows away their 'theory' (it's actually a bad hypothesis) is that observable ice and snow pack that has been deposited over KNOWN periods of time exhibit these same lines and layers, but each line is not representative of winter, spring, summer or autumn, but rather the blowing of wind, temperature changes due to changing cloud cover, and other environmental anomalies. For example, a man who left his car outside over the winter in Canada comes out to clear the accuмulated snow off the roof of his car before the snow melts, to find numerous layers in the piled-up snow on his car. The car had been parked there for only 3 months, but he finds 400 layers on the roof. Are those 400 seasons? No they are only one season: winter. They were caused by wind blowing dust over the car, or sunshine melting the surface between snowfalls, or temperature changes that occur as many as 20 or 30 times a day.
For example, a fleet of bomber airplanes were abandoned in Greenland during WWII, at a known location. Some 40 or so years later, a wealthy man decided to form an expedition to salvage the planes. The crew went to the place and dug a well-like hole in the snowfield above where the planes were known to be, about 6 feet wide and some 200 feet deep. There had been some 200 feet of snow that had piled up, on top of the planes during the intervening 40 or so years. The exact numbers are known, but I'm using approximations here. All down the walls of this well-tunnel, was observed the same lines and layers that the revered ice cores in freezer storage show. Every few inches is another line, and the deeper they went into the snowpack, the closer the lines became, until when they finally got down to where the planes were located, these lines in the walls of their tunnel were indistinguishable from the lines in the ice cores in cold storage, with several lines per inch. These are the lines that scientists had presumed meant 4 lines per year, due to the 4 seasons, but here is living proof that 40 (or so) years had generated snowpack that had not 160 (or so) lines, but rather had many thousands of lines. The obvious conclusion from this is that the scientists who are 'seeing' millions of years in ice cores are blind to the truth, that the ice cores are only showing a few hundred years of duration, or perhaps one or two thousand. But certainly not tens of thousands or "millions." However, since this news is in contradiction to the doctrine handed down to them from their demigods Charlie, they refuse to recognize it.
Besides, there are a lot of bas-relief brass plaques in museums all over the world that would be depicting one falsehood after another on them, all of which plaques would have to be replaced! How embarrassing that would be!
You might be wondering how the age of ice cores has anything to do with the age of stars. The principles of placing numbers on ice packs and rocks here on planet earth are applied to everything in the universe by the same scientists. When they look at moon rocks or meteorites, they think "billions of years" as a matter of fiat, because that's what they're used to thinking. They presume that the planets of our solar system came from a giant ball of gas that condensed magically into our sun with planets orbiting around it. Of course, they cannot explain why some planets revolve on their axis in the opposite direction, or at 90 degrees to their orbits around the sun. Don't even GO there. Their inconsistencies extend beyond the solar system, too. They presume that their calculated and/or measured speed of light they observe here on earth necessarily applies 100 light-years away from earth in a place "no one has gone before." They presume that the light from distant stars that we see today has been traveling through outer space at the same speed and that therefore, since the source of light is measured at a billion light-years, that the light must have been traveling for a billion years. Simple, no?
Remember the ice cores and the scientific presumptions of their ages?
In order to arrive at the true age of something that began its existence before any human being was present to witness it, there has to be some axioms, or ground-rules set in place. In recent history, those rules were pronounced by the demigods Charlie, and it has only been in the past 30 or so years that the ground-rules of the demigods Charlie are being seriously questioned.
.
-
cantatedomino, a question I'd like to ask is this: scientists often say that stars are billions of years old and that when we look at a star we are seeing what it looked like so many millions of years ago; so how do they arrive at these false conclusions? Is it that the speed of light is a lot faster than they think it is? Is it that the stars are closer than they think they are? What calculations are they using to arrive at these fanciful conclusions and what is the truth about the stars in the night sky (do we seem them as they are currently)?
Thank you for this thread, I'm enjoying it a lot. God bless you.
Science ASSUMES that because a star is a billion light-years away (based on the assumption heliocentric parallax is true), it took a billion light-years to reach us, so it must be a billion years old. That is not a 'false conclusion' it is a true one if their assumptions are correct. All we biblical geocentrists need to do, is give our version of time and space.
Here, taken from THE EARTHMOVERS and edited:
'Measuring time is of course not time itself. We measure time according to God’s plan, the ordained movement of the cosmos, but specifically the daily and yearly cycle of the sun, stars and seasons. Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone, in heaven and on earth. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying, we must all have the same understanding of it. Fortunately, for most of us, apart from the space-time relativists that is, who think the cosmos is made up of different time-zones, this is how it is, has always been, and always will be. Dogmas held by the Catholic Church must surely need true time and space forming an absolute framework within which the material and spiritual events of heaven and earth run their course in imperturbable order. Such at least is demanded by the Christian intellect and is reflected in the Scriptures and in scholastic philosophy and theology.
This created God time of the world has to be the same for every observer, the same time in every era and every place. Accordingly, for a true Christian understanding of the Creation and time, the whole universe, from the earth to the furthest star, has to be incorporated together as a unit, that is, to serve its purpose in the order of things. But how then does the universe provide and comply with the time that serves both revelation and mankind?
And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of the heaven,
to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs,
and for seasons, and for days and years. (Gen. 1:14)
Firstly there had to be an immediate creation, all instantaneously together, in brief intervals, or in that literal six day creation of Genesis, and in particular the sun, moon and stars, made visible to man on the sixth day. It must also be that God achieved the measurement of time by incorporating the whole cosmos (everything and everyone) within a finite revolving geocentric universal timepiece. The sun, planets and stars, as we observe, participating together in this cosmic clock, no matter how many of them there are or how far away they are, no matter whether they can be seen by the naked eye or not, no matter their distances, every star in the heavens rotates together with the sun. A ‘day’ then, is actually a universal day everywhere, and a year is a universal year, everywhere. As to the credibility of such things, well they are what we observe, what we actually see and measure every day and year of our lives; what is, and is philosophically and theologically as plausible as God being able to create the universe in the first place.
How can this be?
If the lights from all the stars, those that we can see with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on earth to Adam on the sixth day of creation as revealed, then no such delayed space-time exists for mankind, making all lights of the universe in the here and now as we see them, thus complying with Gen 1:14.'
-
.
Every measurement - from the watch on your hand to the calendar on your wall - is but a division of the cosmic day and the cosmic year. Of crucial importance in any sane and rational concept of time is that it has to be universal, that is, all time must be the same for everyone, in heaven and on earth. When we relate to the past, present and future, it should go without saying, we must all have the same understanding of it.
Universal time today consists in the division of the earth's 'rotation' into 24 hours, and each of those hours into 60 minutes, and each of those minutes into 60 seconds. Therefore, the duration of a second would seem to be dependent upon the duration of the earth's 'rotation' -- correct?
It's not that simple.
Cesium clocks count seconds with a defined unit of time as an axiom. The quartz crystal vibrates with a particular number (32,768) of oscillations per second. These things would not seem to change when the earth's 'rotation' speeds up (hardly ever) or slows down (which it does almost constantly). I say they would not seem to change, because it would appear that the operation of quartz crystals and cesium atoms ought to be independent of the cosmic motion of the stars and planets, correct?
That might be a question that is not possible to answer with absolute certitude.
For example, how can we confidently answer that question, when we do not really know for certain WHY quartz crystals oscillate or WHY cesium atoms change polarity. All we really know is that they DO SO. And we know that they APPEAR to be extremely consistent in the duration of these molecular changes, even if we don't really know WHY they're so cotton-pickin' consistent!
In the news recently, has been the announcement that the length of one day has been adjusted due to the observed slowing of the earth's rotation. This is deemed necessary because scientists have decreed by common consent that the duration of one second (and consequently a minute and therefore an hour, etc.) must be a fixed entity, if scientific calibrations are to be possible in very sensitive instruments.
It's all about science -- or, you gotta do what you gotta do.
Quartz crystals vibrate exactly 32,768 times each second! (http://www.nawcc.org/index.php/just-for-kids/about-time/how-does-it-work)
The quartz watch on your wrist is designed to count up to 32,768 and then without missing a beat, instantly it starts over, counting that again, and it does this repeatedly every second, 24/7/365.2422451...
The number of days in the year is not a constant, either. How long it takes the earth to 'rotate' on its 'axis' and how long it takes the earth to 'revolve around the sun' changes almost constantly, but not by much. But as far as we can tell, quartz crystals vibrate at the same rate and cesium clocks count the movements of atoms that occur at the same speed.
As far as we know.................
.
-
.
How can this be?
If the lights from all the stars, those that we can see with the naked eye and through telescopes, were made visible on earth to Adam on the sixth day of creation as revealed, then no such delayed space-time exists for mankind, making all lights of the universe in the here and now as we see them, thus complying with Gen 1:14.
One possibility could be (I'm not saying this is absolutely true) that God may have created all the stars in the cosmos, along with their respective trails of light in all directions, all at the same time. Atheists have argued against this proposal on the grounds that doing so would be 'dishonest' of God (whose existence they ironically deny).
But it seems to me that it would not have been dishonest at all. I look upon this proposal as one way that God could be testing our willingness to believe His word, in all simplicity. If God can create light, and God can create stars that emit light, why would God not be capable of creating the light that is emitted by the stars?
I defer to the Biblical description of the creation of Adam and Eve. It does not have them as tiny babies, and growing into adulthood. It has first Adam created as a mature man, and his rib removed, then Eve created from that rib, as a mature woman; no babies are mentioned. Is that "dishonest" of God, too?
If God can do that with man, and God apparently also did that with trees and animals alike (Scripture doesn't describe saplings growing into trees and baby antelope growing into mature antelope), all of which must have had light trails existent from them at the moment of their existence, then why could God not have also done that with the stars, along with their respective light trails through space, such that Adam and Eve could immediately appreciate them, instead of having to wait thousands of years before seeing them?
It seems to come down to the teleology of creation: God created the universe with the purpose of MAN and his eternal salvation in mind. The universe exists not for protons or gravity or plankton or whales or orangutans or electron microscopes or neutron bombs or the Internet or the banking system, but for man and his salvation.
Atheists have a lot of trouble with that principle.
.
-
cantatedomino, a question I'd like to ask is this: scientists often say that stars are billions of years old and that when we look at a star we are seeing what it looked like so many millions of years ago; so how do they arrive at these false conclusions? Is it that the speed of light is a lot faster than they think it is? Is it that the stars are closer than they think they are? What calculations are they using to arrive at these fanciful conclusions and what is the truth about the stars in the night sky (do we seem them as they are currently)?
Thank you for this thread, I'm enjoying it a lot. God bless you.
Hello Good McFiggly,
I think the answer lies in this: They begin with anti-christian, dogmatic presuppositions (first principles) into which they pour all their data. In fact we might say that these anti-dogmas are applied to the beginning, the middle, and the end of all of their self-proclaimed objective, unbiased, and empirical endeavors.
We can use the prayer for St. Thomas as a comparison. He prays to the Almighty and Omnipotent God, before he begins any intellectual endeavor:
Ingréssum ínstruas, progréssum dírigas, egréssum cómpleas: Order the beginning, direct the progress, and perfect the achievement of my work.
ORDER THE BEGINNING: The beginning of any true scientific work is that it be ordered to perfectly accord with the certain truths of both the natural and supernatural orders - the Orders of Nature and Grace. To order the beginning is to make oneself subject to Truth, Who is a Person, the Incarnate Word of the Eternal Father, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, hypostatically united to the human nature of Jesus Christ.
It is to make oneself subject to Divine Revelation, as interpreted by Holy Mother Church in Her ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium, in Her Deposit of Faith, which includes most especially the Patristic Deposit of authentic, Catholic scriptural exegesis given during the very beginning Ages of the Church.
It is to make oneself subject to the certain truths of the natural order - the Order of Reason - the first principles of knowledge, and the Metaphysics/Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, in effect canonized by the Council of Trent, and subsequent papal encyclicals. (See Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith - Vatican Council I; Aeterni Patris - Leo XIII; and Doctoris Angelici - St. Pius X)
Now to begin one's work in subjection to Truth - both natural and divinely revealed - is not to destroy the objectivity of observational and experimental research. Rather it is to protect it from the ravages of the caprices of the fallen and limited powers of human intellection.
What shall we say, then, of men who call themselves unbiased scientists, and who yet begin their work, not only by refusing to place themselves in subjection to Truth, but also by intentionally subjecting themselves to false ontological, philosophical, cosmogonical, cosmological, and theological principles?
What will the middle and the end - the ultimate conclusions of such men - look like, even if they possess good observational data? For the middle is nothing more than the application of the dogmatic presuppositions to the available observational facts. Start out with erroneous principles and you necessarily end with erroneous conclusions.
Case in point: The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, which will be dealt with in upcoming chapters of the Earthmovers.
I hope this suffices by way of answer.
So glad you are enjoying the thread, BTW. I was vacillating on whether or not to stop posting in Lent, but I have come to the conclusion that publishing this information is a good work, so why stop?
God bless you!
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
On the 22nd Jan. 1561, there was born in London the world’s greatest genius – born not for an age but for all time. He is known to history as Francis Bacon. He is the Supreme Enigma of the human race. Mystery surrounds his birth, his life, and his death. He is the unsolved Riddle of the Schoolmen. He is the Sphinx of the Elizabethan Age, the Age which links the modern world to Medievalism. He crouches still beneath the Pyramid of Knowledge that he created. His eyes still look questioningly at the generations of men who pass to the Eternities along the road of dusty death; and around his lips there still hovers a strange smile which mockingly seems to challenge each passer-by. (Alfred Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, Rider & Co., 1949, p.23.)
Bacon, even though ‘a colossus, the greatest genius ever born to the human race,’ remains a fascinating enigma. Martin Gwynne, writing in Baconiana says there is evidence that he was the son of Queen Elizabeth, ‘The Virgin Queen,’ and the Earl of Leicester, Sir Robert Dudley. Bacon was thus a grandson of King Henry VIII. Gwynne makes the point that this would make him the product of an ancestry which was one of the most brilliant, influential and effective promoters of all time of revolution against true religion and ordered society. (Martin Gwynne: Baconiana; The Francis Bacon Society Inc., December 1992.)
As a boy Bacon was known as ‘Baby Solomon,’ an apt name for those familiar with the allegorical and esoteric meaning of the term. ‘At twelve his industry was above the capacity and his mind beyond the reach of his contemporaries. At fifteen he came to the conclusion that the scholastic school or method and the seminaries were stagnant pools; they were opposed to the advancement of knowledge; a degree therefore meant to him a label, identifying him with a system he despised. Later he said of them: ‘‘in the universities they learn nothing but to believe.’’ He saw ‘‘a world plunged in gross darkness as regards first principles, a darkness that could only be dispersed by the light of knowledge, an informed method of study that would ultimately bring about a universal reformation in art, science, philosophy and religion.’’
His works demonstrate that he consecrated himself to the task in the most devout frame of mind. Later on he was to avow that he regarded himself ‘‘as a servant to posterity,’’ as a channel for the outflow of the divine mind. From boyhood he held to this idea that his work was impressed with divine seal.’ Dodd then elaborates extensively on the fact that Francis Bacon:
(1) Sought to be an educational and an ethical teacher with a secret school of disciples after the manner of Pythagoras and other teachers of ancient wisdom whose precepts were handed down the ages orally by a succession of sons.
(2) Was the man of mystery, who had laid in secret the foundation stones of the modern world in science, ethics, literature and philosophy, and sought the universal reformation of the whole wide world.
(3) Created the thirty-three rituals of modern Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the many rituals of the Rosicrucian College and founded the secret orders and fraternities that arose in the Elizabethan era.
(4) Gave rise to a natural system of religion open to all ‘‘good men irrespective of creed.’’
(5) Saw to it that the right seeds were sown, and devoted husbandmen secretly enlisted to carry on the good work down the ages by a succession of hands, so that plans and schemes for the cure of men’s bodies and souls might be established in secret, and which later, could be prepared as temples of learning and love before the eyes of men, when humanity had become more liberal minded.
(6) Went about the spreading of knowledge and the inauguration of ethics couched in allegory and illustrated by symbol. The word constantly on his lips was ‘‘light . . . more light.’’ (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.14.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: But whose light? To answer this question we must turn to Bacon’s ‘epoch-making’ book, the Advancement of Learning, written in 1605. This book reeks with Rosicrucian nuances and refers to God as ‘the Father of Light,’ a metaphor of St James’s but twisted to comply with Hermetic, Gnostic and cabalistic tradition.
It was out of the Hermetic tradition that Bacon emerged, out of the Magic and Cabala of the Renaissance as it had reached him via the natural magicians . . . Bacon’s science is still, in part, occult science. (Francis Yates: The Rosecrucian Enlightenment, p.119.)
Dodd then reveals that Bacon was without doubt the real father of English literature, not only with his own writings but including those he compiled under the name of Shakespeare, containing as they do a multitude of styles ‘depending on whether he was addressing a king, a great nobleman, a philosopher or a friend, composing a state paper, extolling truth or discussing studies.’ A point well worth pondering on is here alluded to by Dodd, the fact that there was never a Shakespeare in the making.
For did not Shakes-Speare spring into being fully armed at all points as a play write in the world arena, as though he had never served a laborious apprenticeship to the craft of the quill? (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.433.)
(http://img.tfd.com/WEAL/weal_01_img0150.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rnP1NSYJ8nc/S8XozOj0ffI/AAAAAAAABMk/yPhd_WtS0_8/s320/shakespeare.jpg)
Lookalikes: Bacon and Shakespeare
It was Francis Bacon, who in 1611 edited the Bible of the Protestant King James I (an initiated Freemason) whom he knew personally:
That he did revise the manuscript before publication is certain . . . He returned the manuscripts for printing twelve months later (1610) steeped throughout in that ineffable beauty of style which neither king nor divines could have created – only the hand of Shakes-Speare, the supreme master of English prose. (p.433).
Thereafter Dodd explains the reason for Bacon’s anonymous authorship of both Shakespeare’s works and the James I Bible:
The Reformation did nothing to aid free thought . . . Puritans and Romanists alike were united in their persecution of philosophy and their hatred of secular knowledge for the common people . . .
Ever since Italy had been darkened by the shadow of the Inquisition, men had begun to devise means to communicate with each other, and with their public, in a style which should be intelligible to themselves without giving offence to Rome. Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters . . . to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether. (Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.)
Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder: and let us cast away their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage.
But I am appointed king by him over Sion his holy mountain, preaching his commandment. The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
And now, O ye kings, understand: receive instruction, you that judge the earth. Serve ye the Lord with fear: and rejoice unto him with trembling. Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him. (Psalm 2)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
[With regard to the works of Shakespeare]
[There is] the surface meaning and also a hidden one. A Masonic phrase which shows that he was saturated in the Masonic Ritual. This may well pass by the uninitiated but will be noted with interest by the Craft. This use of double phraseology has hitherto passed apparently unnoticed. The reader therefore is enjoined to note, to weigh, and consider the underlying interpretation . . . (A. Dodd: author’s note.)
William Shaksper of Stratford, Dodd reveals, was an illiterate groom who went to London to seek his fortune. There he set up a trade in holding the horses for the gentry as they attended the Globe Playhouse. Bacon, who had contacts with the theatre’s owner, and who often attended plays held there, met and made it his business to know Bill Shaksper, for his name appealed to the esoterically minded Bacon. With a little adjustment he saw that this name could be tailored into the title for an author who would ‘shake the sphere (world)’ or the ‘spear-shaker,’ a reference to the tradition of the woman depicted with the helmet in a martial stance and shaking the spear of wisdom at the serpent of ignorance.
This same woman was known to the Greeks as Pallas Athene and to the Romans as Minerva, a statue of which can be found even in the Vatican itself. This is the Gnostic Freemasonic profaning of Genesis 3:15, the ‘woman’ of Genesis, that divine promise revealed to man in the Scriptures in the wake of the fall and which became manifested as the Virgin Mary standing on the earth with her foot on the serpent’s head. This reversion to restrained paganism and anti-Catholic ethos in contemporary writings, Gwynne concludes, is to be found widespread throughout the works of Shakespeare. (M. Gwynne: Baconiana; The Francis Bacon Society Inc., December 1992.)
The hard fact is that there is no evidence at all to show that the peasant born William Shaksper that is now accredited with the works named after him is in fact their author. If one believes that commoner Shaksper alone, without any inspiration from high or low, was capable of such a feat as depicted in the all-embracing worlds of Shakespeare, then one will believe anything. Of all the supposed writers of Shakespeare, only Bacon fits this mould, for he was of royal blood, had the intellect, the esoteric Hermetic background, the understanding, the education and experience, the talent, the wealth, the occupation and authority to access the information, travelled a lot, and above all, had the motive and means to pen the vast and ingenious works of Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s (Bacon’s) knowledge of Hermetic, neo-Platonic and cabbalistic teaching appears by way of certain Rosicrucian themes found in As You Like It; Love’s Labour Lost; Venus and Adonis; and the Sonnets.
In Bacon’s New Atlantis we have a vision of a science ruled by sages of Solomon’s House (Magi) and the Father of Solomon’s house rides in a chariot surmounted by a golden sun. It is possible that the character of Berowne in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour Lost is based on Bruno perhaps also the two pedants, Don Armado and Holofernes, who are the foils of the lovers. Some of the rituals connected with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ may be derived from the Hermetic writings, and Mozart’s Magic Flute, which is concerned with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, has a temple of Osiris and Egyptian priests. (J. Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics: Routledge, 1991, p.40.)
Shakespeare is also awash in Freemasonic propaganda, symbols, allegory, coded messages and innuendos. In the Comedy of Errors:
DUKE: One of these men is Genius to the other;
And so of these: which is the natural man,
And which is the spirit? Who deciphers them? (Act V, sc,I)
The ‘genius’ is, of course, Bacon himself, and he teases the world by asking who is the natural son and who is the spiritual Son, profaning Jesus when He asked the Pharisees: What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is He? (Matt.22:42)
Jesus was trying to draw out of them a recognition of that Spiritual Sonship by which He is introduced in the opening sentence of the New Testament, where in the Melchisedech sense of Psalm 109 He is termed a Son of David, in contra-distinction to David’s natural son and successor Solomon in whose name the rival ‘Allegorical Temple’ was/is being built - a distinction of such grave import that the very reality of the two Kinds of sonship forms the martial backdrop to the allegory key that the former Pharisee-Adept Saul would later as Paul give to the Galatians (4:24).
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: This affront is repeated in the inscription on the Shakespeare Monument at Stratford that anyone can go and see today:
Why goest thou by so fast? Read, if thou canst, WHOM envious Death hath plast within this Monument.
In other words, “WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I AM?” (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story p.23.)
Now why the need for a riddle if Shaksper from Stratford is indeed the great author? No, for what we are dealing with here is a man who would even mimic Christ all the while remaining invisible so as to be able to operate unhindered by criticism or impediment, thus demonstrating his occult loyalty to the esotericism of Hermetic Socinianism and Rosicrucianism.
Recall: Masonry must be felt everywhere, but must be found nowhere.
Since it was first disclosed by Dodd and others that Francis Bacon was that wholly accomplished writer Shakespeare, many ‘experts’ have dismissed the notion as nonsense, and no doubt, will continue to do so. Such critiques may well succeed on the mundane level where it makes no difference who really wrote the Shakespearian works. On an esoteric level however, the level at which the earthmoving heresy was/is being enacted, Dodd wrote with understanding and authority, that which is reflected only in the higher initiates.
From our own studies we believe Shakespeare himself gives the game away when he acts totally out of character by his vicious attack on the integrity of (St) Joan of Arc in his play Henry VI, treating the English as having ‘God as our fortress’ and the French as being one with the ‘witches and the help of hell.’ (Pt.I, Act.II, Sc.1). The likes of Bacon would be very well aware that Joan la Pucelle was used by God in this war of Principalities and Powers.
Consequently, whereas he was a man able to engage and parry as equal with anyone from King to the most lowly wretch, all of whom are manifested in the writings of Shakespeare, he could not contain himself when making reference to a superior on the Melchisedech field of combat, Joan of Arc, now a saint, whom Diana Vaughan was pleased to invoke in her war against her former colleagues in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
In the first part of Henry the Sixth Jeanne d’Arc addresses the Duke of Burgundy in a speech of thirty-three lines. This speech is an absolutely faithful version of a letter in France written by the Maid of Orleans to the then Duke of Burgundy and dated July 17th, 1429. There is no historical authority for this letter which never saw the light of print till discovered by the Historian of the house of Burgundy in 1780. Bacon in his travels might easily have seen this letter: in fact the author of this play must have done so. Shakespeare [Bill Shaksper] was never within miles of it. (Walter Ellis’s The Shakespeare Myth)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Bacon’s Shakespeare and the ‘Holy Grail’
To be, or not to be, that is the question - - - Hamlet Act III, Sc. I.
Thus goes the most quoted allegory in the history of literature, written of course by the Hermetic occult philosopher and proto-Mason Francis Bacon under his pseudonym of Shakespeare. Esoterically, it asks the simplest but most important question about God that can occur to man: To be (is He) distinct from the cosmos or not to be (or not) distinct from the cosmos? Is God a person or a principle? That is the question.
Shakespeare, or rather Francis Bacon, is spelling out the battle on hand, the ‘Holy Grail’ of all secret societies, the secret behind heliocentrism - to destroy belief in God as distinct from the universe, replacing Him with a ‘god as force,’ with Pantheism, a concept of a god indistinct from the universe and all that is in it.
Perhaps the greatest exponents of these two mutually exclusive worldviews of the Melchisedech order, God as distinct and God as not distinct, are St Thomas Aquinas and Francis Bacon respectively. As God raises great intellectual saints to combat heresies in the world, so too must Lucifer recruit and illuminate men of exceptional but prideful intelligence to do his work for him. Now it matters not one iota to him whether his work is done by willing men or unwitting men, by men conscious of what they do or men deceived into doing what they do. The net result will be the same - the advancement of Naturalism at the expense of Catholicism.
Satan, we repeat, as Jesus told us, was a liar from the beginning, but men cannot perceive just how good a liar Satan is. Accordingly, the human intellect had better know how to retain a proper grace-assisted discernment as to how one’s intellectual asset is to be deployed and developed - either as the Creator intended, or as finding oneself entrenched in Satan’s lies.
Now whereas the battle for human minds, and thus our eternal souls, began in the Garden of Eden, this quest accelerated during the Renaissance, or more specifically, with the resurgence of Hermetic Rosicrucian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. To influence and control society, apart from a complete monopoly of the world’s monetary and commercial institutions, one must also dominate human knowledge on earth. The information industry must be commandeered and then regulated to serve their ends. Thus universities, academies, colleges, are seen as places of influence, as well as newspapers, television, publishing houses, the distribution business etc. - all these are targeted by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
As to how successful the proto-mason Bacon has been, note it is the works of Shakespeare, not the Bible, that are on the curriculum of every student learning literature in the world today. [On 20th March, 2006, Time Magazine featured Shakespeare on its cover and ran an article on what it describes as the most successful literature in history.]
Amid claims by Catholics that Shakespeare writings are most Catholic, we see that Shakespeare has become more popular than the Bible, and is certainly quoted more often these days. The works of Shakespeare have precluded any Catholic author or work from attaining such a status in English literature. If Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ set out to dominate all the instruments of knowledge, this cannot be better demonstrated than through the genius of the words supposedly written by that uneducated illiterate groom from sixteenth century England.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Scholars have shown us that Francis Bacon was also one of the first naturalists, rationalists, socialists, liberals, communists, call them whatever you like. This would pit him in opposition to hierarchy, the Melchisedech government in the Christian world. We mention this only to confirm Francis Bacon was the complete ‘secret antichrist,’ opposed to Christian philosophy, priests and kings.
When Bacon was a youth of fifteen or so, he conceived the idea of The Universal Reformation of the Whole Wide World. His ultimate goal was to totally eliminate the dominance of scholastic theology [through] the scientific method. He sought to purge the human mind of what he called ‘idols’ or ‘tendencies to error.’ He too wanted to give the world a new complete vision, laying out his Hermetic ideas for the restoration of man’s mastery over nature.
It became the passion of his life. He laboured for it openly and secretly. It was a consuming flame. His plans did not concern England alone but took in all the countries of the then civilised world. Through all his multifarious activities he sought “to lay deep basis for eternity” in ways he dared not do openly. While he lamented in his writings, over and over again, “the ignorance, incapacity and miseries of the age” in which he lived, he also believed with [his] Hamlet that he “was born to set it right.” ["There is something rotten in the state . . . Oh, cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right."]
He said of himself, “I AM A SERVANT TO POSTERITY.” (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.34.)
Within six years of his being knighted in 1603 by ‘proto-Mason’ James I of England, Bacon was appointed Solicitor General. Very quickly he advanced to the position of Attorney General, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and was made Lord Chancellor in 1618 taking the title Baron Verulam. Dodd then gives ample evidence of his occult connections and shows he also helped found the Rosicrucians in England and the 18th degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ whose purpose is to exercise occult control and direction over worldwide Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
Bacon also authored the King James I charter that granted the Virginia Company almost absolute power in the newly colonised North American lands of Virginia. He played a part in the founding of modern America, overthrowing the substantial Catholic influence there, while sowing elements that would lead to the USA being run on Masonic lines. Not once is God mentioned in the constitution of the United States of America. It is a totally secular constitution, evidence of the seeds sown by the likes of Francis Bacon.
The same man also ensured that English, a language he built up into 20,000 words, all of which he incorporated into his Shakespeare, became the official language of the United States and world business, while at the same time eliminating Latin, the language of the Catholic Church, as the main language, written and oral, of communication globally.
That took a little longer, having to wait until after Vatican II, when the Latin Mass was jettisoned for the ‘New Order’ using the vernacular, and all the re-interpretations that go with such a change.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In Novum Organum, Bacon wrote that the earth’s proposed movement could not be ‘conceded.’ But as a Rosicrucian, he had rules to keep. [Their] motto was a rule of conduct for the members of the Rose Cross and ran thus . . . “Do as you please privately, but publicly do as others do. Let us deceive our acquaintances by pretending to agree with the prevailing ideas of the time, but privately let us think and act as we like.”
We could ask, is such a man likely to reject the heliocentism of his hermetic beliefs? We know Bacon was a transformist evolutionist, one of the first to suggest the unscientific and absurd idea that kinds transmuted into other kinds [sponges to elephants] as a result of an accuмulation of variations. (See Fr J. A. Zahm: Evolution and Dogma, McBride & Co., 1896.)
In his Novum Organon, he declares that the "corruption of philosophy from superstition and theology introduced the greatest amount of evil both into whole systems of philosophy and into their parts." He denounces those who have "endeavoured to find a natural philosophy on the books of Genesis and Job and other sacred Scriptures," as ‘seeking the living among the dead.’
When the Fathers at Vatican II (1965) belittled the Church of 1616 and 1633, Bacon must have laughed in his grave. When Pope John Paul II in 1992 quoted Cardinal Baronius uttering the same sentiments, Bacon had a second snigger in his grave.
Bacon then speaks of scholasticism as ‘an unwholesome mixture of things human and divine: not merely fantastic philosophy, but heretical religion.’ So, was Francis Bacon really a geocentrist as recorded by historians, and if not, where did he hide his pagan heliocentrism? In his secret Shakespearean poetry of course, in the double meaning writings used in serious literature, the only method of free expression open to men of letters to avoid the wrath of the ‘Puritans and Romanists.’
There is abundance of evidence that Bacon was a great poet. He says himself that poetry is the safe and efficacious method for conveying and concealing all kinds of wisdom, according as the true philosopher wishes to illuminate the minds of men without enraging them, or to hand on new truths for which men in general are not yet sufficiently prepared. He says that his special method cannot be revealed to his own age, but that he appeals to future ages, and has adopted the best plan for communicating his wisdom to the world, wisdom whose special object is to free men’s minds from “idols” or false principles of all kinds, and to plant in them the seeds and products of all truth . . .
It is very common to suppose that Bacon as a philosopher concerned himself altogether with physical science, and this supposition is one of the chief impediments to the acceptance of the Shakespearean dramas being the crown and completion of the Insauratio Magna . . .
Then it must be shown that Bacon’s idea of poetry involved as an essential feature that its chief and most important function was to convey the lessons of history and philosophy into men’s minds, darkened and corrupted with false principles and notions of every kind, in a manner the most penetrating and efficacious, without provoking and encouraging opposition and contradiction, as avowed reformers do, when they come forward openly as leaders in a campaign against ignorance, folly and vice. (Rev Fr William Sutton S.J: Bacon’s Great Secret; The New Ireland Review, August, 1903, pp.347-356.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Surely it can be no surprise then to find that in Shakespeare’s allegories the heliocentrism of Hermēs Trismegistus is tucked safely away:
The order of the universe, previously known only to God, came within men’s grasp. In London’s Globe theatre, the audience heard that order displayed in Shakespeare’s wondrous verse in Troilus and Cressida (1602):
“ULYSSES: The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre. Observe degree, priority and place, insisture [fixedness], course, proportion, season, form, office, and custom, on all line of order.”
Now they would be told that this order was not imposed by the mysterious hand of the Devine, but by laws intelligible to the human mind. (A. Coleman: MM Millennium, Transworld Publishing, London, 1999, p.175.)
Scholars also believe there could be an allegory on the New Astronomy - or should it be the ancient Hermetic astronomy - as a sub-text in Hamlet.
This novel interpretation establishes the relationship of the entire play to the scientific advances of the sixteenth century. Using multiple and previously unexplained conceits, Shakespeare describes properties of the sun, moon, planets and stars that he could not have known without telescopic aid. Yet the date of the writing of Hamlet in about 1601 predates the normally accepted date of the first known astronomical telescopic observations by at least nine years. (James Usher: Shakespeare and the Dawn of Modern Science, p. xxi. )
For further revelations about the supposed ‘geocentrism’ of Francis Bacon we go to The Hiram Key by C. Knight & R. Lomas:
It is highly likely that Brother Bacon was the driving force behind the styling of the new second degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ introduced by his close colleague William Schaw. No one in the King’s group of Freemasons had more passion than Bacon for the advancement of science and the opening up of thinking about nature . . . The Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ gives very little knowledge to the candidate but it does introduce the idea of ‘‘hidden mysteries of nature and science’’ and makes a clear reference to what is called the ‘‘Galilean Heresy.” Whilst we are certain that the central subject of this degree is as ancient as any in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, it nonetheless is evidently of much more recent construction due largely to Francis Bacon. (Bacon’s Essays and Historical Works, Bohn’s Standard Library, quoted in C. Knight & R. Lomas: The Hiram Key, Century, 1996.)
What then was the ritual for Bacon’s Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Among other things there is a required session of prepared questions and answers:
Q. “Where were you made a Mason?”
A. “In the body of a Lodge, just perfect and regular.”
Q. “And when?”
A. “When the sun was at its meridian.”
Q. “As in this country Freemasons’ Lodges are usually held and candidates initiated at night, how do you reconcile that which at first sight appears a paradox?”
A. “The sun being a fixed body and the earth continually revolving about the same on its own axis, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ being a universal science, diffused throughout the whole of the inhabited globe, it necessarily follows that the sun must always be at its meridian with respect to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.”
Q. What is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?
A. A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, illustrated by symbols.
This reference is unlikely to have been inserted before 1610, the date when Galileo publicly announced his conviction that Copernicus was indeed correct in thinking that the earth revolved around the sun. Francis Bacon, we believe, immediately set about incorporating this new truth of nature into his recently created Second Degree. (Knight & Lomas: The Hiram Key, P.332.)
And here is another comment on the Second Degree:
Although the Copernican Solar principle in lodge ritual may initially have appeared obsolete, it now seems that its inclusion is indeed significant. Far from denoting a limited extent of scientific knowledge, it is symbolic of the fact that, in the early days of the Invisible College, embryonic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ supported the science of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) when it was deemed outrageous and heretical, it was introduced as a statement of principle – a stance against nonsensical dogma – and this could remain the same today. (Laurence Gardner: The Shadow of Solomon, p.250.)
In 1584, under the name of Robert Greene, Francis Bacon published a serious treatise on astronomy called Planetomachia that gave this second degree the appearance of advancing science and opening up thinking about nature. (Parker Woodward: Sir Francis Bacon, London, 1920.)
-
.
I just posted the following on another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30084&min=70#p4):
.
Forgive me for not keeping up, cantatedomino, but I just realized that you stopped posting installments to THE EARTHMOVERS and then jumped over here to this thread on March 9th. Since then, you have made no more EARTHMOVERS posts.
How much more material (posts) would there be, left to go in THE EARTHMOVERS?
I'll post this question on the other thread, as well.
.
-
.
Yesterday there was a total eclipse of the moon at about 3:45 am EDT. I made a few posts in its regard as it was going on, here (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31124&min=0&num=5).
There have been no replies.
The running commentary was streamed live from the Griffith Park Observatory, which had some 200 visitors mulling about in the middle of the night. It is within a half-hour's drive for me to get there and so I could have been physically present at the site instead of being online here, but I thought that maybe some CI members would like to know what's happening. So I stayed home.
Anyway, after reading a lot of your posts, cantatedomino, I have a much better understanding of what's been going on since Galileo and these intervening centuries. In light of all that, hearing the megamouths jabbering away at the Observatory is most entertaining, because they seem to be in a constant state of making war against something, using the same mockery and would-be wisecrack style that Galileo employed. I have to wonder if perhaps they are not possessed.
Anyway, thanks for your many posts.
.
-
Thank you so much for your continued patronage of this thread.
I stopped posting during Lent and will resume after Easter.
May God grant you many blessings during Holy Week and many graces for Easter.
-
.
I just posted the following on another thread (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30084&min=70#p4):
.
Forgive me for not keeping up, cantatedomino, but I just realized that you stopped posting installments to THE EARTHMOVERS and then jumped over here to this thread on March 9th. Since then, you have made no more EARTHMOVERS posts.
How much more material (posts) would there be, left to go in THE EARTHMOVERS?
I'll post this question on the other thread, as well.
.
There's plenty, plenty more Earthmovers in store for you, Neil.
-
.
There's plenty, plenty more Earthmovers in store for you, Neil.
:rahrah: :rahrah:
YAAAAAAYYY!!!
:rahrah: :rahrah:
May God grant you many blessings during Holy Week and many graces for Easter.
U 2 !
.
-
Just a few more days, old chap!
-
HERE[/url] cantatedomino]THE EARTHMOVERS: But whose light? To answer this question we must turn to Bacon’s ‘epoch-making’ book, the Advancement of Learning, written in 1605. This book reeks with Rosicrucian nuances and refers to God as ‘the Father of Light,’ a metaphor of St James’s but twisted to comply with Hermetic, Gnostic and cabalistic tradition.
It was out of the Hermetic tradition that Bacon emerged, out of the Magic and Cabala of the Renaissance as it had reached him via the natural magicians . . . Bacon’s science is still, in part, occult science. (Francis Yates: The Rosecrucian Enlightenment, p.119.)
Dodd then reveals that Bacon was without doubt the real father of English literature, not only with his own writings but including those he compiled under the name of Shakespeare, containing as they do a multitude of styles ‘depending on whether he was addressing a king, a great nobleman, a philosopher or a friend, composing a state paper, extolling truth or discussing studies.’ A point well worth pondering on is here alluded to by Dodd, the fact that there was never a Shakespeare in the making.
This same technique is used by +Fellay and his cronies, to tailor their words to suit the ears of their audience -- in order to create in their mind some desired effect more than any normal communication going on from one mind to another. As TheRecusant has said recently (Issue #11, p. 2):
Bishop Fellay is pro- or anti-modernist Rome, rather that he is capable of being both or either, of changing his position without hesitation and with never so much as a blush, according to whatever his own short-sighted goals require. Take heed. Once again, as if it were needed, he has provided us with startling evidence of how his own words are as good as useless in indicating what he will do or say next. When he talks, he does so in order to create an impression in the mind of the listener, not to communicate something objective from one mind to another, much less to lay out or establish anything for which he will feel bound to give an account in the future should someone remind him of his own words. His dictum that nobody can criticise the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration because they don’t necessarily understand what he himself meant by it, and his complaint that we “are not in [his] head!” ought to be truly frightening to anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy. It amounts in practice to a denial that words have any objective meaning or that statements or sentences can be understood by a third party without reference to their author. If that is not the very last word in modernist thinking, then I don’t know what is.
Consider the implications for one moment: if that were true, then nobody could ever know the teaching of the Church. There could be no Catholic teaching, since any writing from the more recent Popes down to the Church Fathers and even Scripture itself would depend upon “being inside the head” of the author. If, on the other hand, words do have objective meaning, a meaning which stands alone and is not dependent on any intellectual caprice of their author, then what Bishop Fellay wrote and offered to bind himself to last year cannot be defended by any Traditional Catholic worthy of the name.
A further drop in the bucket is found in the scandalous words of Fr. Themann (who certain members here cringe at the thought that he might be neo-Modernist!) when he said, wrote, decreed and pronounced that "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."
I leave the import of the implications to settle in where you can think it over, if you dare.
As for the following, yes, it is a matter of historical record that the so-called William Shakespeare 'miraculously' emerged out of nowhere, with no schooling, no history, no pedigree, no past --- hey, sounds a lot like Barack Obama, don't it!?!?
{Yes, it's "playwright" not "play write." Likewise, millwright · plowwright · ploughwright · shipwright · wainwright · wheelwright, &c.-wright.}
For did not Shakes-Speare spring into being fully armed at all points as a [playwright] in the world arena, as though he had never served a laborious apprenticeship to the craft of the quill? (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.433.)
(http://img.tfd.com/WEAL/weal_01_img0150.jpg)
Come on! This is child's play! Leaving the nose intact, the forehead, the eyes, the ears, the cheekbones, the fatty drag lines above the mouth, and the skin, but iron this guy's hair out straight, add in a receding hairline, pluck his eyebrows and eyelids, shave most of his goatee off, change the get-up to another outfit, and flip the photo left to right a.k.a. mirror image, and you get the following portrait, no question*:
{Note: in those days, the painter could have been given the instructions to set up a MIRROR into which he would look at the original painting, and THAT would be what he paints; see every detail in the bags under the eyes and the expression in the smirk. Francis Bacon SMIRKS at us, from 400 years ago!!}
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rnP1NSYJ8nc/S8XozOj0ffI/AAAAAAAABMk/yPhd_WtS0_8/s320/shakespeare.jpg)
Lookalikes: Bacon and Shakespeare
It was Francis Bacon, who in 1611 edited the Bible of the Protestant King James I (an initiated Freemason) whom he knew personally:
That he did revise the manuscript before publication is certain . . . He returned the manuscripts for printing twelve months later (1610) steeped throughout in that ineffable beauty of style which neither king nor divines could have created – only the hand of Shakes-Speare, the supreme master of English prose. (p.433).
Thereafter Dodd explains the reason for Bacon’s anonymous authorship of both Shakespeare’s works and the James I Bible:
The Reformation did nothing to aid free thought . . . Puritans and Romanists alike were united in their persecution of philosophy and their hatred of secular knowledge for the common people . . .
Ever since Italy had been darkened by the shadow of the [great] Inquisition, men had begun to devise means to communicate with each other, and with their public, in a style which should be intelligible to themselves without giving offence to Rome. Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters . . . to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether. (Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.)
It seems to me that a serious use of double writing is going on in the halls of the Menzingen-denizens as we speak. Only those who show themselves both able and willing to undertake this task, clandestinely, are allowed to advance within the ranks of the Society, and those who perhaps had reached a degree of seniority before the Revolution took full control in 1994 with +F's election, such as +W, obviously, are sidelined (Bishop Tissier), transferred (Fr. Scott), marginalized (Fr. Girouard, Fr. Pfeiffer), sanctioned (Fr. Chazal, Fr. Altamira), muzzled (Fr. Arizaga, Fr. Cardozo), suspended (Fr. Pivert) and ultimately expelled (&c., &c.).
We ought to be glad (so far!) that they haven't been killed. Although, in the case of some, the Leaders simply wait for them to die off, such as Fr. Hector Bolduc and Fr. John Peek, God rest their souls.
Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder: and let us cast away their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage.
But I am appointed king by him over Sion his holy mountain, preaching his commandment. The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
And now, O ye kings, understand: receive instruction, you that judge the earth. Serve ye the Lord with fear: and rejoice unto him with trembling. Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him. (Psalm 2)
*Where are the critics? Bring 'em on!
.
-
.
No critics? Okay, then we shall proceed apace with the program...........
There is a subtle twist to the plan which the Menzingen-denizens are using on the faithful of today, even while it is based on the deception that Francis Bacon used on the authorities of his day.
The "serious use of double writing" to which I referred,
being practiced by +Fellay and his henchmen
does not use the same devices that the earlier version did.
It is not so much a free expression open to men of letters[/b]..
[/size](like the earlier version was)
..such that the authorities might assume
their doctrines to be orthodox (when they're not)
while the public for whom these doctrines were designed
might readily perceive their real (unorthodox) drift ..
-----
.. as it rather is a clandestine expression of these
secretive deceivers (the current leaders of the Society)
such that the public might be persuaded to assume
these doctrines to be orthodox (when they're not),
while the authorities for whom they were designed
may perceive their real (unorthodox) drift. [/size]
The reason for this twist is simple. In the days of Francis Bacon, the authorities whom he was wont to deceive were prone to orthodoxy, however, the authorities of today to whom +Fellay appeals are prone to heterodoxy; likewise, the public whom Francis Bacon hoped to rouse up against the authorities were those who were prone to corruption, while the public whom +Fellay hopes to deceive are the SSPX Faithful who are prone to orthodoxy.
Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters . . . to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether. (Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.)
It seems to me that a serious use of double writing is going on in the halls of the Menzingen-denizens as we speak. Only those who show themselves both able and willing to undertake this task, clandestinely, are allowed to advance within the ranks of the Society, and those who perhaps had reached a degree of seniority before the Revolution took full control in 1994 with +F's election, such as +W, obviously, are sidelined (Bishop Tissier), transferred (Fr. Scott), marginalized (Fr. Girouard, Fr. Pfeiffer), sanctioned (Fr. Chazal, Fr. Altamira), muzzled...
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Thirteen: 1571-1630: Johannes Kepler
(http://www.justthinking.us/sites/default/files/image/Photos/Johannes_Kepler.jpg)
Johannes Kepler
Johannes Kepler’s obsession with a cosmos built around the Pythagorean solids and musical harmonies . . . was in keeping with the traditional Neoplatonism, with the revival of Pythagoreanism, with the teaching of the Paracelsians, Rosicrucians, astrologers, alchemists, cabbalists and Hermeticists who were still conspicuously in evidence in the early seventeenth century . . .The Keplerian cosmos is the crowning achievement of a type of cosmic architecture which began with the Babylonians and ends with Kepler himself. (Arthur Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.262.)
Johannes Kepler was born in southwest Germany in 1571 into a Lutheran family. He was the eldest son of an army officer and a mother who was charged repeatedly with practicing witchcraft. He was a sickly child, getting smallpox at the age of four that left him prone to nearly every disease and blemish, including myopia and multiple-vision; hardly the credentials you would think helpful to the astronomer and calculator who is now revered as the first to determine accurately the mathematical orbits of planets. Throughout his life, poor Johannes would also suffer with things like the runs, piles, boils, dermatitis, mange and worms. ??!!!!!!!
Although he came from a poverty-stricken and troublesome family, his mother encouraged his intellectual interests, especially his obsession with cosmological geometry. In 1584 he entered the Protestant seminary at Adelberg but fell out with certain tenets of the new reforms. Refusing to convert to Catholicism, Kepler remained in religious ‘Limbo’ thereafter. In 1589 he won a scholarship to the University of Tübingen, where he studied philosophy and religion. It was here he came under the influence of Michael Maestlin (1550-1631), one of the earliest astronomers to have picked up the baton of heliocentrism passed down by Pythagoras, Copernicus, Rheticus and other Protestant contacts.
[Michael Maestlin, in his own copy of Copernicus’s The Revolutions, added a note saying he had heard Osiander was the one who had written its first preface.]
The link between Rheticus and Kepler as bold pioneers of Copernicanism was their shared commitment to geometry. The editor of Kepler’s complete works suggests it was Rheticus’s Copernican vision of the “celestial harmony” of spheres “geometrically defined” that ignited the program of research to which Kepler devoted his life. In the First Account, Rheticus had approvingly cited the pseudo-Platonic maxim “God ever geometrizes.” And in 1596 Michael Maestlin, Keplers’s teacher in Tübingen who arranged for the co-publication of that work with the Cosmographical Mystery, added a marginal note asking; “What would Rheticus have done had he noticed the geometry of God as regards the five regular solids that Kepler discusses?” (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, p.204.)
When a position as a lecturer of mathematics - that included astronomy - and morals became vacant at the University of Graz in Styria, Austria, Kepler applied for it and got it. This appointment also called upon Kepler to provide astrological predictions, something that suited Kepler just fine. It was only then that Kepler began to study the subjects of astronomy and astrology in earnest, even making predictions as to his own future. Yes, Kepler was into the family mysticism in a big way.
[Kepler], with strongly cabbalistic, mystical and metaphysical inclinations, was the only notable figure of seventeenth-century science who keenly reacted, and for theological reasons, to Bruno’s cosmological speculations. (Fr. S. J. Jaki: The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.33.)
In his 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicuм (Mystery of the Cosmos), Kepler expressly states that his conviction of the heliocentric position was based on faith, on ‘metaphysical’ grounds. Moreover, the overtones of animism and the importance of the sun in Kepler’s metaphysics indicate the pervasive influence of Hermetic philosophy.
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Hence the sun is a certain body in which resides the faculty, which we call light, of communicating itself to all things. For this reason alone, its rightful place in the middle point and centre of the whole world, so that it may defuse itself perpetually and uniformly throughout the universe. All other beings that share in light imitate the sun. (J. Kepler, quoted by J. Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics, pp. 47-8.)
Arthur Koestler writes:
The gist of them [Kepler’s beliefs] is that the sun must be the centre of the world because it is the symbol of God the Father, the source of light and heat, the generator of the force which drives the planets in their orbits, and because a sun-centred universe is geometrically simpler and satisfactory. (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.263.)
Kepler, we find, was an out and out Pythagorean, having a fascination for numbers and their meaning. He was convinced, with just cause, that God created the world in accordance with the principles of perfect numbers. Consequently, he believed there was an underlying mathematical harmony in the cosmos that was reflected in the movements of the planets. (See: Sir W. Damplier: History of Science, Cambridge University Press, 1949.)
Starting at the beginning, he asked himself why were there only six planets, and what, if any, are the connections between them. This question also led Kepler on a wild-goose chase. Tycho de Brahe had submitted the relative radii of the orbits of the planets at about 8, 15, 20, 30, 115 and 195. This totally irregular sequence fascinated Kepler who spent years trying to find some magical order in them without success.
At first this mixture of astronomy and the occult led Kepler to believe in the theory of ‘five regular solids:’
In this theory - which Kepler believed provided a link between the past and the present [a precursor to Einstein’s space-time?] - the cosmos consists of the five Pythagorean solids (the five kinds of three dimensional solids of which all the faces are identical; the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, the dodecahedron and the icosahedron) into which the orbits of the planets fit perfectly - which they don’t, and more so now that there are more planets to account for. By using the five solids to make separating spaces between six spherical bowls of various thicknesses, the bowls would define the six orbits.
(http://www.korncirkler.dk/universe/keplers3.jpg)
(http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/images-ideas/start-21-lg.jpg)
(http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/solids5.jpg)
The scheme of regular solids
As further data showed this scheme to be unsustainable, no matter how much he thickened the shells to fit the facts, Kepler, to his credit, admitted he was wrong. In his book on heliocentricity, he says:
For it is my opinion, that the occasions by which men have acquired knowledge of celestial phenomena are not less admirable than the discoveries themselves . . . If Columbus, if Magellan, if the Portuguese when they narrate their wanderings, are not only excused, but if we do not wish these passages omitted, and should lose much pleasure if they were, let no one blame me for doing the same. - - - Mysterium Cosmographicuм.
In 1598 Kepler decided to leave Gratz for fear of being confronted by the new authorities there. For two years he journeyed through Germany to Prague, the city where Tycho de Brahe was then working. Anxious to pursue his obsession with astronomy and astrology he asked Tycho to employ him. Like all the Copernicans before him, Kepler wanted access to the most accurate astronomical data to be had, and, as is usual, this data was to be found only in the work of the ‘sensible’ astronomers, the geocentricists. Tycho sent Kepler a wonderful letter, writing: ‘Come not as a stranger but as a friend; come and share in my observations with such instruments as I have with me.’
Kepler obviously took the Danish astronomer literally and joined him at the observatory at Benatek Castle in 1600. Tycho was busy at the time observing the planet Mars, ‘the difficult planet,’ as they called it, because no matter how hard they tried no circular orbit could be plotted that fitted the observations. Kepler, assigned to a mere servant’s job, assisting in compiling the vast amount of data recorded - all of which had to be hand-written - soon began to doubt Tycho’s invitation to share all his secrets.
Tycho was aware of Kepler’s ideas, for Kepler had sent him a copy of his Mystery of the Cosmos. Who knows, but perhaps at the time the one-eyed de Brahe knew Kepler was a sleepwalker, more interested in creating fantasies rather than building proper astronomical knowledge, and recalled what Aristotle used to say of such ideologically minded Pythagoreans:
They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and causes but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived notions and try to reconstruct the universe. (Hector McPherson: The cosmological ideas among the Greeks, Popular astronomy, 1916. p.362.)
In a fit of rage Kepler accused Tycho in a letter of treating him like a servant, hiding important data from him. Tycho, perhaps seeing in Kepler some promise, was patient with him. Kepler, realising his only hope of fame and glory lay with the Tycho's data, repented and wrote the following in an apologetic letter:
Most Noble Tycho; How [do] I enumerate or rightly estimate your benefits conferred on me? For two months you have liberally and gratuitously maintained my whole family and I . . . You have done me every possible kindness; you have communicated to me everything you hold most dear . . . I cannot reflect without consternation that I should have been so given up by God to my own intemperance as to shut my eyes on all these benefits; that, instead of modest and respectful gratitude, I should indulge for three weeks in continual moroseness towards all your family, in headlong passion and the utmost insolence towards yourself . . . Whatever I have said or written . . . against your excellency . . . I declare and confess to be groundless, false, and incapable of proof.
Nevertheless, Kepler left the castle, returning to Germany. Here he fell into hard times, suffering from sickness and poverty. On hearing of his plight, Tycho again extended a hand of kindness, inviting him to return to the observatory and continue his work.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In 1601, soon after Kepler’s arrival, Tycho fell ill with a ‘mysterious’ malady and died. At last Kepler had it all, all of de Brahe’s life’s work. It was then he got the job as Imperial Mathematician to Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia. The Emperor, though, considered Kepler more as an astrologer than astronomer, and accordingly the Sleepwalker was kept busy providing horoscopes for the whole royal court.
By Kepler’s time, in the two models of the cosmos remaining, it was accepted that Mars orbited the sun and did not have a direct one-on-one orbit with the earth. This alone made the orbit of Mars difficult to plot.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Tychonian_system.svg)
(http://people.physics.carleton.ca/~watson/Physics/Gifs/Astro_intro/solarsystem.gif)
The geocentric and heliocentric models of the seventeenth century
with the planets orbiting the sun in circles in both systems.
For ten years, Kepler, true Pythagorean that he was, worked away trying to reconcile Tycho’s data with his own ideas. It was during these years that Kepler deducted the ‘discoveries’ that are now accredited to his name. It began when Kepler despaired of ever finding any worthwhile circular orbit for Mars. The reasons for this were many. Another problem for Kepler was that the true distances of the planets from the sun and earth were unknown at the time, and the angles of view lacked consistency due to their ‘looping’ appearances as seen from the earth as they orbit the sun. Kepler figured, quite logically, that the first orbit that must be determined properly was that involving the earth and the sun. Only then can one begin to plot the path of other bodies.
Fortunately, with the earth and sun, what you see is what you have, no apparent loop-the-loops, just a simple one-on-one geocentric orbit. Only when this orbit is determined can the orbits of the planets be measured with precision and accuracy.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Kepler_Mars_retrograde.jpg)
Diagram of the geocentric trajectory of Mars through several periods of apparent retrograde motion. Astronomia nova, Chapter 1, (1609).
Examining the sun/earth/Mars/star system of lines and angles known and recorded by Tycho’s naked-eye observations, Kepler traced out an orbit for the sun/earth. This orbit, Kepler found, could be taken as an eccentric circle, slightly oval. By inverting the angles he then plotted an orbit for Mars (Kepler used forty laboriously computed points). What he found of course was that Mars’s orbit about the sun also deviated slightly from a circle. The next step for Kepler was to describe this oval curve or orbit mathematically. He confesses that this task nearly drove him mad. Obviously he was desperate to find something tangible and coherent to fit his metaphysical beliefs.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In 1609, Kepler, in his Astronomica Nova (New Astronomy), said he had finally figured out that the planets move around the sun in ellipses, in which the sun is located at one of two foci. [Ellipses are flattened circles whose geometric properties were first explained by the Greek mathematician Apollonius in the First Century BC.]
In his Book on Mars appeared the ‘Triumphant Diagram,’ the ‘sketch of “Victorious Astronomy” to show his delight and to emphasise the importance of the proof.
(http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2003/hum399/kmars.gif)
“Victorious Astronomy”
Finally Kepler found the true orbit sandwiched between an eccentric circle that was too wide and an inscribed ellipse that was too narrow. Both disagreed with observation, the circle by +8´ at some places, the inner ellipse by -8´. He suddenly saw how to compromise half way between the two, and found that gave him an orbit that is an ellipse with the Sun in one focus. He was so delighted with his final proof that this would work that he decorated his diagram with a sketch of Victorious Astronomy. At last he knew the true orbit of Mars. A similar rule holds for the Earth and other planets. This is his first law. (E.M. Rogers: Physics…, p.267.)
Arthur Koestler believed Kepler’s ellipse came to him in a dream, and we have no reason to doubt it, and knowing the Sleepwalker’s occult tendencies, as to who or what prompted that dream, we could make a good guess at. What is not widely known however is that Kepler did not find an elliptical orbit with precision, but settled on a compromise that concurred with his fantasy, with his dream.
(http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/ellipse.gif)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/sdeico.png)
Traditionally the basis for ancient geometry was calculating in terms of conserved area (product). With Johannes Kepler’s ‘First Law’ however, we find a radical departure from the classical, for it switched to conserving length, not area, the combined length of the focal arms (AC + BC in our illustration above) is always the same.
So, it seems then that Kepler’s ellipse was actually no more than an unproven hypothesis, a theory awaiting proper verification, but what’s new in the great ‘proven’ heliocentric fraud? After Newton however, the makeshift curve was elevated to an established fact, supposedly discovered by Johannes Kepler’s ‘brilliant observational ability.’
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Kepler’s ‘Second Law’ appeared alongside his ‘First Law.’ It states:
That a spoke from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times (necessitating varying speeds during this orbit).
Kepler knew that the sun rotates on its axis and this led him to suggest it was this constant rotation with a force (gravity) that somehow pushed the planets (and earth) in elliptical orbits around it, traversing equal areas in equal periods of time. To achieve this equal space-time ratio, he said the planets would have to travel faster around the sun when nearer the sun and slower when further from the sun.
(https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mdyar/ast223/orbits/kepler2.gif)
Kepler’s 2nd law as depicted in any textbook
The earth, Kepler said, moves along the boundaries of equal areas in equal times, that is, it moves from A to B in the same time as C to D and that consequently, both shaded areas shown are equal in area (see fig above). Morris Kline writes:
Kepler was overjoyed to find that there was a simple way to state the mathematical law of planetary velocities. Apparently God preferred constant area to constant speed. (M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, pp 77-78.)
But again Kepler lacked verification for his area law, there being no maths devised to measure curved space in his time. So, are Kepler's 1st and 2nd Laws true laws? According to every book on the subject the answer is yes, of course, absolutely, proven numerous times. The truth, however, is almost beyond belief, for it is no, not at all, for they have never gone past approximations. Soon there will be born the brilliant astronomer Domenico Cassini who will test Kepler’s Laws and show us something very different.
For the next ten years Kepler worked under the patronage of Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia, skipping from astronomy to astrology and back again. During this time he published Tycho’s observations in table form, naming them the Rudolphine Tables in appreciation of the Emperor’s patronage to him. Now one might be led to believe that anyone who made the discoveries Kepler is supposed to have made would have been famous and wealthy. The facts are that in his time, Kepler’s two ‘laws,’ while very interesting, merely attempted to quantify the appearance a little more accurately so there was no great reward in that for Kepler. Throughout, fame and fortune eluded him, often because of his ‘heretical’ beliefs to both Protestant and Catholic theology. It was then that his wife and a son died.
Moreover, in 1610, as if Kepler hadn’t enough troubles, the Emperor himself fell into difficult times financially and could not afford to pay the small salary for Kepler’s services. Made redundant, it was time for him to look for yet another job or starve.
For two years Kepler sought work without success. Things began to improve however when he attained the position of provincial mathematician at Linz in 1612. Here he married again, had more children only for misfortune to visit him once more when he lost two of his sons from this marriage. But more than that, for it was here in Linz that his mother was accused of being a witch and put on trial. Kepler, probably because of lack of funds, defended her himself and successfully saved her from a burning at the stake.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Kepler’s Third Law
It seems that Kepler too never considered his ‘laws’ to be that important. In a sense this is true, for they were after all only attempts at measurements, and only approximate ones, and not causes that might confirm the true order of the universe. And that is why he placed his third [set of] planetary calculations in his book Harmony of the World (1619), intermingled between the metaphysical and physical, a law Kepler had always suspected existed.
This idea lay in his total belief that the entire universe and everything in it, from metaphysics, epistemology, politics, distance and movements, corresponded to musical intervals only audible to the soul situated in the centre of the sun. All movements within the cosmos contributed to a harmonic relationship, the ‘music of the spheres’ as he called it. The paths of the planets, he believed, went up and down like the scales of a music sheet. Now whatever about the music, Kepler did discover there was harmony, a real harmony, if the figures he dug out of de Brahe’s observations were/are correct. They suggested that:
The squares of the periods of revolution of any two planets are as the cubes of their mean distance from the sun, or in simpler terms, the relationship between the planets’ sidereal (the time it takes them to orbit the sun), and their distance from the sun.
This observation of Kepler’s was without doubt a great find. In essence, he revealed that there is, irrespective of their size and distance, a harmony, a relationship, a wedding, between periodicity and distance - or if you like between time and space - in the movements of the irregular celestial spheres. The Third law is wonderful in a quantitative sense in that it establishes an equivalency between entities raised to different powers.
Here then are figures as presented in a typical textbook today, but included is the assumption, never demonstrated, that the earth shares this orbital harmony with the sun and not the sun with the earth:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/16aa0zd.png)
It was Kepler then, who, albeit using Tycho de Brahe’s work, found a real ‘secret’ or truth of the universe at last. Note however, this find does not confirm the planets’ heliocentric elliptical orbits are laws, as one might be led to think, only that there is order and harmony of a kind ruling the movements of the universe, whatever they may be.
In 1618 the Thirty Years War began in Europe with destruction and death everywhere as Catholics and Protestants battled with each other. When Linz fell to the Catholic Duke Maximilian of Bavaria in 1620, things got even worse for Kepler. For the last ten years of his life his health deteriorated. Nevertheless, by 1627 he had completed a list of all Tycho’s tables and presented them to the world at the Frankfurt Book Fair, if you bought a copy that is. His final days were spent trying to get more books published, and he ate well only when he managed to get paid for something or other. Johannes Kepler, a tragic figure, died in 1630.
Today, although falsified by Domenico Cassini as we will see, Kepler’s first two theories are still offered as true laws.
Now this [Kepler’s first two ‘laws’], as Kepler put it, was “the sort of thing nature does.” With this ellipse, the orbit made physical sense, supporting his conviction that a force residing in the sun moves the planets. What was more, if the area rule was correct, this model agreed “to the nail” with the long-trusted heliocentric longitudes of his vicarious hypothesis. This one shape of orbit, and only this shape, got the planets to the right place at the right time. The man who had said of himself ‘There was nothing I could state that I could not also contradict,’ had discovered a piece of incontrovertible truth. (Kitty Ferguson: The Nobleman and his Household – Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler – The strange friendship that revolutionised science, Review, 2002, p.320)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
The science shelves of modern bookstores are packed with this easy sell: ‘This one shape of orbit, and only this shape, got the planets to the right place at the right time.’ Sounds great when one has the floor and is trying to put an exciting book together, but remember; chances are that the Fergusons of this world, like most of us, never actually recorded the paths of planets; that is, checked out the data for accuracy. Had they done this, as the brilliant astronomer Domenico Cassini and the Paris Observatory did later that century, they too would have found something far different. The hard fact is that Kepler’s First Law was based on an approximation, one long falsified by true science.
Try to find the planets accurately with Kepler’s First Law and you will find at times empty space, with the sun and planets somewhere else. This is why Newton, when using Kepler’s ellipse had to invent the ‘PERTURBATION’ theory, a supposed attractive action that tries to explain why the sun and planets deviate from their supposed elliptical orbits we have been led to believe by the Earthmovers is the ‘incontrovertible truth.’
Try to find the planets and sun with Kepler’s and Newton’s formulae and all you will achieve are approximations. But this suits the Masters fine, for this way they could avoid having to present accurate data, figures that could be checked as true or false by the empirical method. What they claim is but another greased pig of equilibrium used to attain their goal, ensuring they could never be pinned down by precision, thereby avoiding having to abandon their so called proofs. Arthur Koestler suspected this as we see from his comments:
His laws are not of the type which appear self-evident, even in retrospect; the elliptic orbits and the equations governing planetary velocities strike us as “constructions” rather than “discoveries.” In fact, they make sense only in the light of Newtonian Mechanics. From Kepler’s point of view, they did not make much sense; he saw no logical reason why the orbit should be an ellipse instead of an egg. (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.334.)
This is a brilliant observation, and it endorses our own findings. Koestler then remarks: "Not the least achievement of Newton was to spot the three laws in Kepler’s writings, hidden away as they were like forget-me-nots in a tropical flowerbed." (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.40.)
Could Koestler be hinting at how neo-Gnostic-Hermetic, cabbalistic-Rosicrucian-Luciferian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ works, and how their ‘secrets’ are handed down by symbols, allegories, codes, mind-controlling formulae, secret knowledge and by word of mouth throughout the ages? In fact it was not Newton who implemented the ellipse as the basis for his theory of gravitation as we will see, but the well-established Freemasons within the Royal Society of London. They, being initiated, would have no trouble ‘getting the message’ and seeing its worth.’
-
QUOTE (Binx @ Feb 17 2013, 07:54 PM): A few years down the timeline from Fr. Arminjon, C. S. Lewis makes a similar observation in his February 26, 1943 lecture, "The Abolition of Man." I've placed an excerpt below, and
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition3.htm
is a link to the entire lecture.
I have described as a 'magician's bargain' that process whereby man surrenders object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power. And I meant what I said. The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can discern the impulse of which I speak.
There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious—such as digging up and mutilating the dead.
... The true object is to extend Man's power to the performance of all things possible. He rejects magic because it does not work; but his goal is that of the magician. In Paracelsus the characters of magician and scientist are combined. No doubt those who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth exceeded their love of power; in every mixed movement the efficacy comes from the good elements not from the bad. But the presence of the bad elements is not irrelevant to the direction the efficacy takes. It might be going too far to say that the modern scientific movement was tainted from its birth: but I think it would be true to say that it was born in an unhealthy neighbourhood and at an inauspicious hour. Its triumphs may have-been too rapid and purchased at too high a price: reconsideration, and something like repentance, may be required.
-
Posted by: cantatedomino Mar 2 2013, 11:22 AM:
It is time to put the microscope on Galileo. To begin I repost the sermons of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer on the Heresies of Science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLV7WubXbFM&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliYFww5v64&feature=youtu.be
-
Posted by: cantatedomino Mar 2 2013, 11:22 AM:
It is time to put the microscope on Galileo. To begin I repost the sermons of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer on the Heresies of Science.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/MLV7WubXbFM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/BliYFww5v64[/youtube]
...like that?
(P.S. This "Mar 2 2013, 11:22 AM" was not a post on CI - unless it was deleted.)
.
-
Looks nice, Neil.
-
The Earthmovers author asked me to add some updated material to this section of the serialization:
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In the same year, 1610, Kepler received a letter from Galileo seeking his approval (and praise) for discovering four moons about Jupiter portrayed in his Starry Messenger. Kepler replied with a short published reply, Conversation with the Starry Messenger. He confirmed Galileo’s findings but then went on to ‘do a Bruno.’
Bruno, recall, was one of the first to see that a heliocentric worldview opened cosmology up to conjecture that can only be described as science fiction. Kepler deduced that, given the moon was created to shine for man on earth, the four moons of Jupiter had to be put there for ‘aliens’ on Jupiter.
But this was only the beginning of Kepler’s thoughts. Around 1611, he distributed a work entitled Sominum (The Dream), that was published after his death. In it he attempts to take a trip to the moon by way of occult fantasy. Under the guise of an Icelandic boy called Duracotus, whose mother Fiolxhilde is a witch, Kepler studies astronomy, visits Tycho Brahe, and returns home to his mother, a competent cosmologist. She then tells him she too has knowledge of the heavens, given to her by daemons she herself can summon, and who can transport her anywhere on earth. She proves this to her son by calling on a daemon to speak with them. He tells them of fellow daemons who live on the dark side of the moon who can transport humans to and fro by way the dark funnel created by an eclipse.
(http://mail.colonial.net/~hkaiter/Aaa_web_images2012/earth%20moon%20sun.jpg)
(http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/venus-transit/solar-eclipse-cartoon-lrg.en.jpg)
Getting humans to Levania, ‘fifty thousand miles’ through the aether, however, was no easy job. They had to protect them from the forces necessary to push them up to the heavens, from the cold out there, and from lack of air. Then there was the heat of the sun, deadly to the daemons, and they avoided this by living in the darkness, travelling to earth only when the shadow of an eclipse allowed. The daemon explains to Duracotus and Fiolxhilde how the earth and stars looks from the moon. Duracotus then asks to be transported to the moon where he confirms the earth does indeed orbit the sun.
We see then that Kepler, no matter how he expressed his beliefs, was, like Bruno, one of the fathers of modern cosmic belief. The heliocentric system, unlike the geocentric reality, opened up the belief that, because there are billions of stars (suns), there has to be other worlds, other earths filled with life, even intelligent life, thus demoting man to the first evolving grain of stardust.
Meanwhile Kepler sought work without success. Things began to improve however when he attained the position of provincial mathematician at Linz in 1612. Here he married again and had more children, only for misfortune to visit him once more when he lost two of his sons from this marriage.
Another unfortunate consequence for Kepler was that, having included in his book The Dream the character of a 'mother' who conjures up daemons to convey Kepler's own theories of space flight and how things might look from the moon, his own mother was accused of being a witch. Kepler, probably because of lack of funds, defended her himself, and in court he explained it was all a work of fiction he had used to demonstrate how he envisaged the earth, sun and stars from the moon. He successfully saved her from a burning at the stake as they eventually accepted this and freed his mother. This narrative was put into book form and published in 1634 by Kepler's son, Ludwig Kepler.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Fourteen: 1564-1613: Galileo’s Heliocentrism
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Galileo_Galilei_4.jpg)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
In 1609, Galileo looked through a telescope at the moon. It was a moment of such significance for the world that it has been compared to the birth of Christ, for, as at Bethlehem, it was a moment when the impossible entered human affairs. - - - Brian Appleyard, Understanding the Present, Doubleday, 1992.
What a statement! It is worth meditating on!
He has changed our view of the world and our place within it. But in the end, Galileo, a believer in God to the end of his days, also changed the Catholic Church itself. In 1992, the Vatican admitted those who had judged Galileo were wrong to assert the literal truth of the Scriptures. - - - Channel 4 TV’s Galileo’s Daughter, Dec. 2003.
To emerge from history with a reputation that can, in any way, be compared to the birth of our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, must show you the impact this man named Galileo Galilei has had on human perception. If we study the many sources purporting to record the true advancement of human knowledge and understanding of both the sacred and profane sciences throughout these last 350 years, we will find it was Galileo’s inspiration leading the way rather than the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.
Is it any wonder then that whereas in 1633, in a world that was absorbed in scholastic Christianity, it was Galileo on his knees abjuring the Copernican heresy; in 1992 we find the man occupying the Chair of Peter, in effect, on his knees, apologising to the heretic instead. Why should this be?
Well, whereas Christ, by His Incarnation, birth, life, priesthood, death and Resurrection, redeemed man from the effects of his own fallen nature by opening up the way again to all truth, Galileo was the instrument which set in motion the means whereby that Christian faith and philosophy would finally succuмb to heresy and deceit.
This in turn has led the world into an era of intellectual redundancy, degraded paganism, secular materialism, conciliar humanism, Church anarchy, and the Christian apostasy in which we find ourselves today.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Galileo Galilei was born in Pisa Italy on 15th February 1564. He was the eldest of seven children of musician Vincenzio Galilei and Guilia Ammananti. The family, poor in those days, remained in Pisa until he was about ten years old when they moved to Florence. It was here, at the Monastery school at Vallombrosa, that he spent a time as a novice. In 1581, Galileo entered the University of Pisa to study medicine, spent a lot of his time contradicting the professors there and, not surprisingly, failed to win one of the forty scholarships for poor students.
It was only after he left university in 1585, that Galileo began studying mathematics and physics privately under a man named Ostilio Ricci. By 1586 he was capable of writing a treatise on hydrostatic balance and later a work on gravity in solids. Arising from this, Galileo was invited to speak at the Florentine Academy on the dimensions of hell as depicted in Dante’s Inferno. From then until 1589 Galileo grew in academic stature, especially with the Marquis del Monte. For this he was given a three-year contract as mathematics teacher at the University of Pisa that carried a small salary of 60 florins a year. Once there he lectured on an assortment of subjects, all the time gaining a reputation as an argumentative person.
Meanwhile he attended lectures given by other professors of the college and built up a substantial notebook on the subject of philosophy. Once Galileo’s contract ran out in 1592, on the strength of his physics at Pisa and his influence among certain patrons who advanced his career, Galileo was offered the chair as professor of mathematics at the University of Padua that would have gone to Bruno had he not been arrested in Rome and put on trial. For this, Galileo was paid 120 florins a year. In all, Galileo spent 18 years in Padua.
It is said that Galileo’s public career as an astronomer began in 1604 when he gave a lecture on a supernova that appeared at that time. We know however, from a letter written to Kepler in 1597 by Galileo (who was 33 years old at the time), that he was a convinced Copernican for ‘many years,’ even then.
In this same correspondence he wrote: ‘I indeed congratulate myself in having an associate in the study of truth who is a friend of truth.’ Exactly why Galileo, in his twenties then, placed his belief in a ‘truth’ that the earth orbits the sun, few have speculated. What we do know is that Galileo landed in Padua in 1592 where he would have been well introduced to heliocentrism by the Hermeticists residing there. Here below we record the Padua of Galileo’s time, described in Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew as ‘fair Padua, nursery of arts.’ (Act I, sc. I).’
The role of Padua in the scientific revolution was clearly a crucial one. In the 16th century Copernicus, Harvey, [Bruno and his friend Gian Vincenzo Pinelli (1535–1601)], Vesallus and Galileo, were all connected with it, the former two as students, and the latter as teachers. (Derek Gjertsen: Classics of Science, L. Barber press, Inc. N.Y. 1884, p.144.)
In October 1592, Campanella came to Padua, six months after Bruno had left it. He stayed there for a year or two and met Galileo there . . . The two magician-philosophers, universal reformers, and heretical Dominicans just missed one another. Yet may not Bruno have left behind him in Padua an atmosphere, or a circle, or a reputation, which affected Campanella? (Frances Yates: Gordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, p.363. )
On December 7th 1592, Galileo [gave] his inaugural lecture in front of his robed peers . . . He initially stayed at Pinelli’s house where he met the leading intellectuals of the university, who questioned everything in the established truths of the time. He met rebels such as himself, and what happened to them did not go unnoticed by Galileo. One was Tomasso Campanella who wrote Philosophy demonstrated by the Senses , in 1592 . . . Another person Galileo may have met at that time was Giordano Bruno, who later influenced Galileo’s thinking considerably. Bruno was the first who since the triumph of Christianity preached a return to the independence of Greek thinkers. (David Whitehouse: Renaissance Genius: Galileo & His Legacy to Modern Science, Sterling Publishing Inc. 2009, p.40.)
Another professor awaiting Galileo at Padua was none other than Cesare Cremonini (1550–1631). Aristotelian Philosophy was Cremonini’s game and they paid him 2,000 florins a year for it. But Cremonini was also Emperor Master of the Rosicrucian Socinians from 1604 to 1617 when he retired as the Superior Guardian of these proto-Freemasons whose ideas and methods we have seen earlier. It was Cremonini who taught his pupils that if Rome condemned it, that was enough to pursue it:
One was Cesare Cremonini, professor of philosophy at Padua and a good friend of Galileo who in 1608 had arranged for Galileo to receive a large personal loan from the university. Cremonini was no servile traditionalist; indeed, he was the kind of critical and independent Aristotelian the Church felt distinctively uncomfortable with. In 1611 he was investigated by Cardinal Bellarmine and the Holy Office but released ominously. It was on this occasion that Rome began to take an interest in Galileo. Their first step was to see if there were any link between Cremonini and Galileo. (D. Gjertsen: Classics of Science, p.155. )
It was also in Padua that Galileo acquired himself a mistress, Marina Gamba, who bore him two daughters, Virginia and Livia, and a son he named Vincenzo. Galileo, lauded today as a ‘good Catholic,’ scandalised many with this relationship. Galileo’s small salary meant he was very short of money in Padua. Cremonini however, arranged some financing for him. Thus Galileo became beholden to the Rosicrucians whether he knew it or not.
It's the same old story, age after age: Find a Catholic man who is argumentative and arrogant, and then take him down to hell through debt-sharking and free sex. Obstinate, reckless, pertinacious, jihadist rebellion and heresy is always the result.
The two girls, because they were born out of wedlock, were not considered by their then father to be eligible for marriage. Instead he put them into a convent at a young age where they spent their lives in abject poverty and neglect while he lived the high-life, mixing with the hob-knobs of society and even royalty.
As fate would have it, whereas Galileo’s son did not figure in his life, and his daughter Livia eventually became a recluse, Virginia - who took the name Sister Maria Celeste - would later provide her disgraced father with that kindness and spiritual comfort that came from her life as a nun, a saint by all accounts.
[In 1928 James Brodrick S.J. wrote ‘His correspondence with his – be it said, illegitimate – daughter, the loving and lovable nun, Sister Maria Celeste, would be enough to make anybody sympathetic towards Galileo. This, the sweetest and most attractive chapter in his stormy career, is narrated in full by his great modern devotee, Professor Antonio Favaro, in Galileo Galilei e Suor Maria Celeste, Florence, 1891. Dava Sobel in her Galileo’s Daughter (Fourth Estate, 1999) republished these letters and presents Galileo as the much maligned and loving father with every truth on his side being comforted by the daughter who encouraged him, did his laundry, and worried endlessly about his health.]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Absolute hypocrite that he always was, for the next 16 years Galileo ‘not only taught, in his lectures, the old astronomy according to Ptolemy, but expressly repudiated Copernicus.’(A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.361.)
This is the quintessential trait of all infiltrators, including modernists. They could never carry away the loyalty and affections of the public if they revealed who and what they are openly.
In other words, Galileo adhered to a rule of conduct practiced by Cremonini’s Rose Cross that ran thus: Intus ut libet, foris ut moris est; ‘Do as you please privately, but publicly do as others do. Let us deceive our acquaintances by pretending to agree with the prevailing ideas of the time, but privately let us think and act as we like.’
What can one say about a man who professes to be ‘a friend of Truth’ (heliocentrism), yet upholds and teaches what he perceived as the ‘error’ (geocentrism) for years?
Hypocrisy, something Our Lord violently detests, is the number one reason, I surmise, why there must be a Last Judgment at the End of the World.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Meanwhile Galileo worked and wrote away on the physics of motion and mechanics, dropping balls in order to confirm that all objects fall at the same rate, whatever their mass, as others had shown before him. It was around this time that he hit upon a novel idea for a mechanical explanation for the world’s tides. The tides, he believed, required a motion of the earth. For the time being however, he decided to keep his ‘proof’ under his hat.
In October 1604 there occurred a new star visible in the sky, probably a supernova. Some years earlier the astronomer Tycho Brahe calculated that, like comets, such new stars were not situated between the moon and earth but beyond it in space. This ran counter to Aristotle’s fundamental principle that the heavens were perfect, without change and without possible alteration. When this new phenomenon appeared, Galileo took the opportunity to give public lectures on it, adding, quite correctly of course, that the ancient cosmology - Aristotle’s incorruptible heavens – could no longer be sustained.
As can be imagined, the Aristotelians were mortified that mere astronomers, mere mathematicians, could demonstrate the great philosopher got it so utterly wrong, and even then there was one willing to deny the facts when found in this particular field of natural philosophy.
As the ranking professor of philosophy at Padua, Cesare Cremonini sprang to the defence of Aristotle . . . Cremonini and Galileo were good personal friends and had doubtless debated philosophy and science on many occasions, but this was no friendly discussion; it was a public feud. (Stillman Drake: Galileo, Pastmasters, 1980, p.38.)
My but what a pair Cremonini and Galileo are made out to be in history, the Rosicrucian Cremonini defending geocentricism and thus the Church theologians while the ‘devout’ Catholic Galileo delighted in trying to show Aristotle and the Church theologians had it wrong. If one were to read such a scenario in Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons one would say even his fiction went too far.
Then, in 1609, the story goes, on a visit to Venice, Galileo heard of the telescope, a Dutch invention. Dig a little deeper however, and even this ‘chance’ happening has ‘Illuminati’ stamped all over it.
Prince Christian of Anhalt [was] a keen student of esoteric and mystical topics, particularly alchemy, cabala and the occult . . . It was under Anhalt’s influence that the Hidelberg court came to be frequented by well-known Rosicrucian sympathisers – among them the English Hermetic philosopher Robert Fludd, a pupil of John Dee and the German alchemist Michael Maier [who succeeded Cremonini as Grand Master of the Rosicrucian 1617-1622]. Interestingly, Anhalt is known to have been in close contact with the great Italian reformer Paolo Sarpi, the latter a Venetian theologian and statesman, who, other than [being known for] his intensely anti-Catholic sentiment, also wanted to turn Venice into a Protestant republic. Sarpi was in turn a close friend of Galileo and is often credited with having been the first to introduce to this great astronomer the primitive long-distance sighting devices – telescopes – that were then being developed in Holland. (Hancock and Bauval: Talisman, p.270.)
Comprehending the technology immediately, he being a maker of fine instruments, Galileo was able to construct a telescope that gave him a far better magnification than had been achieved heretofore, and, as one of the favoured ones, history has allowed him to claim many things discovered by the telescope.
They say Galileo was the first to look at the moon through one - a highly unlikely tale given the number of such instruments already manufactured – showing him that the moon was not made of any mysterious spiritual substance; was not made of gas; nor was it smooth, uncorrupted by anything. No, the moon’s surface consisted of valleys, craters, and even ‘hills,’ leading men to realise the moon was probably solid, just like an earthly landmass. It seems to us that anyone looking at the moon with the naked eye will see clearly that it has dark markings on its surface indicating an ‘imperfect’ surface.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Arthur Koestler’s Sleepwalkers tells us that in 1609 Thomas Harriot made systematic telescopic observations of the moon at the same time or maybe before Galileo. Koestler also claims that Emperor Rudolph of Prague viewed the moon through a telescope before he even heard of Galileo. Be this as it may, the Earthmovers give all such lunar discoveries to Galileo, and only his 1610 book, The Starry Messenger merits a mention for these observations.
(http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/figures/telfull.gif)
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0708/MoretusCurtius_higgins720.jpg)
Galileo’s telescope then showed him the phases of Venus that proved Venus turns around the sun, a fact, it must be said, accepted many years earlier by Tycho de Brahe and others even without verification. His most important sighting was of course the four starry-moons of the planet Jupiter. On the night of January 7th, 1610, he observed three small stars in a line near Jupiter. Thinking they were merely fixed stars in the background he thought nothing about them. The next night, looking at Jupiter once again he noticed two of the stars had moved to the west and one to the right.
[It is also known that Marius, a contemporary astronomer, observed the moons of Jupiter on 8th Jan. 1610, just one day after Galileo, and when he published his findings, they were more accurate than Galileo’s.]
For a week Galileo observed these movements and on January 15th 1610 the three stars had become four and they all in line east to the planet. It was obvious that Jupiter itself could not be shifting left and right relative to the stars, but that these four small stars were doing the moving. Soon it became clear to Galileo that what he was looking at were four moons turning around Jupiter at a very fast rate.
(http://fobblog.com/Images/Jupiter%20and%20moons.JPG)
Jupiter and its four moons
Galileo depicted them linearly:
O x x x x
This last discovery is significant in that heretofore Aristotelians argued that the earth was the centre of everything and that if the earth moved about the sun it would leave its moon behind. But Galileo’s find established that here we have Jupiter with four satellite moons that do not directly circle the earth, and a known planet with four moons moving without leaving its moons behind.
With this find, we have to admit again, the Aristotelians had their beliefs totally and absolutely falsified. It is here that history gives us that incident we mentioned earlier, the one involving the Emperor Master of the Rosicrucian Socinians, i.e., Cesare Cremonini, and his refusal that would leave Aristotelian philosophers looking foolish.
Galileo says he did an excellent job of convincing the entire University of Padua of their existence [Jupiter’s moons] at public lectures – although the noted Aristotelian Cesare Cremonini refused even to look through a telescope [at them]. (N.M. Swerdlow: Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope and their evidence for the Copernican theory, The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, p.253.)
Yes, you read correctly, while supposedly denying the possibility of there being any moons to Jupiter because Aristotle said there could not be any such moons, Cremonini actually refused to look at them through a telescope, thus assuring Aristotelian thinking would go out looking foolish rather than just incorrect. Recall again the principle of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: ‘It least does mean what it most does say and show.’
But then Galileo took licence, hinting that here we see in Jupiter, with its four moons, a sort of analogy of the sun with its satellites, including the earth of course, turning around it. How well Galileo saw only what he wanted to see. Why could he not see in a sun-circling Jupiter with its moons an analogy of the earth-circling sun with its ‘moons’ moving about an immovable earth, the system proposed by Tycho de Brahe?
(http://authorstream.s3.amazonaws.com/content/1314404_634631186706045000.jpg)
(http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/images-ideas/kepler-17.gif)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Today’s cynics enjoy recalling this ‘hammer blow’ to the old Aristotelian science and, they believe, to scholastic thought. But the veracity of the Scriptures remained untouched as regards natural philosophy. The pagan world of Aristotle – who believed the universe had no beginning and would have no end – did not have knowledge that the Creation, according to revelation, was made relatively perfect by God, but had also been affected by the Original Sin. Saint Paul tells us that all creation groans and travails in pain until now. (Rom. 8:22)
In theology, the stars, sun, planets and moon, for example, were created perfect in an incorruptible sky in the sense that there may well have been no burning out, no exploding stars or debris flying around space that could wreak damage to any of the celestial bodies. After the fall of Adam all this changed and such celestial damage prevailed. Christians could describe this curse as the removal of God’s preservation to the extent that after the fall of Adam, God allowed the Second Law of Thermodynamics, as science calls it, to prevail so as to match the corruption of the material order in line with Original Sin’s corruption of the spiritual order.
Thus we find this decay in the heavens, supernovae and cosmic debris, including planets and moons corrupted by comets, meteors and other bodies, themselves, the product of this same corruption. For example, 6,000 years of this bombardment has produced the moon as we find it today.
The next astronomical confirmation by the telescope was that the numbers of stars far outnumber those that can be seen by the naked eye. This finding is also attributed to Galileo’s stargazing. Take for example the following ‘dialogue’ between Peter Ustinov and Galileo, simulated in the 1993 television series Inside the Vatican:
U. Well you started very well with this [telescope]. You wrote about it in your Messages from the Stars. In 1610 wasn’t it?
G. Exactly.
U. You said you had multiplied a hundred-fold, even a thousand times the vision of the universe considering that wise men before you thought they had reached the limit.
G. An enlarged universe, no matter how many times. It was not however, a cause for rejoicing among most of the citizens of the world I lived in.
U. You also wrote that men’s minds would have to be broadened in order to get full benefit out of this new vision of a universe full of question marks.
Perhaps if Galileo had faith in the Scriptures rather than trying to re-interpret them, he would have known that there is nothing new under the sun. In Genesis 22:17, the Scriptures compare the number of stars in the sky with the numbers of grains of sand by the seashore. Now who would like to venture a guess at the number of grains of sand in a teacup let alone by the seashore? In his book City of God, St Augustine, twelve hundred years before Galileo’s sightings, addresses this very question:
But as for their numbers, who sees not that the sands do far exceed the stars? Herein you may say they are not comparable in that they are both innumerable. For we cannot think that one can see all the stars, but the more earnestly he beholds them the more he sees: so that we may well suppose that there are some that deceive the sharpest eyes, besides those that arise in other horizons out of sight. - - - Vol. 1, Ch.XXIII.
In 1611, Fr Christopher Clavius S.J., Jesuit director of the Church’s ‘scientific-quarters’ at the Collegio Romano, confirmed all of Galileo’s discoveries with the telescope as accurate and true. This confirmation boosted Galileo’s reputation enormously, but more importantly, showed the Church never had a ‘repulsion for science,’ as often suggested, but had its own astronomers and was aware and up to date in its own investigations, acknowledging the observations as they were being discovered.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Among Galileo’s bents was his shrewd political opportunism. To obtain the goodwill of the ruling family of the state, he named his four moons of Jupiter the Medician stars after the Medici family. Not surprisingly then, when Prince Cosimo succeeded the Grand Duke Ferdinand I of Tuscany, the new Grand Duke appointed Galileo as chief philosopher and mathematician in the Florentine court of the Medici. Things were looking up in Galileo’s world.
That then is an accurate appraisal of all Galileo’s important celestial work and discoveries up to the time of his confrontation with the Catholic Church. Time after time however, we read in popular books and articles of Galileo ‘establishing proof’ that the sun is fixed and earth moves around it just like the planets do. We began our Prologue with one such assertion, and here is another example as a reminder:
[Galileo’s] astronomical observations enabled him to demonstrate empirically that Copernicus’s theory had been correct – that the earth and other planets of the solar system did indeed revolve around the sun and that the earth, therefore, was not the centre of the universe. - - - Michael Baegent & Richard Leigh: The Inquisition, Penguin Books, 2000, pp.141-142
Galileo contributed absolutely nothing to the quest for proof of a fixed sun and moving earth. Finding that the planets do turn about the sun as Tycho de Brahe had deducted years earlier; that the moon is a solid body; that there are lots of stars; that Jupiter has four satellites; that different sized balls or whatnots seem to fall at the same rate; that things on moving things take up the motion of the moving things they are on; that birds in the sky will not necessarily be blown off the earth if it moves (Birds will not be blown off the earth if it does not move, so that proves nothing either.); advances the earthly movement of the Earthmovers not one empirical kilometre.
Nevertheless, there are those today who actually believe and assert that Galileo proved the earth orbits around a stationary sun.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Fifteen: 1613-15: The Infamous Galileo Case
Another reason [why this conflict is held in special fascination over the centuries] is the sheer dramatic power of the events involved, which cannot [but] continue to attract the attention of the scholar, the novelist, and the playwright. Images easily multiply of the flawed tragic hero, of the struggle for intellectual freedom, of the unprotected individual pitted against a powerful institution committed to its self preservation, and of plots and subplots and counterplots, worthy of the best mystery writer. (Richard Blackwell: Contribution no. 9, The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.348)
It was a pupil of Galileo’s, Vincenzio Viviani, who wrote the first attempted biography of Galileo Galilei with his Life of Galileo in 1654. Since then there have been an endless succession of books on Galileo, most written by convinced and loyal Copernicans. "Someone once estimated," wrote Ernan McMullin, "that more than two thousand books and long articles had been written about Galileo before 1900. Since then, that number has perhaps doubled." (See: Galileo and his Biographers: The Furrow, Dec. 1960)
[In fact it was Favaro and Carli’s Bibliographia Galileiana, published in Rome in 1896, that lists 2,108 such works dealing with Galileo.]
For the most dishonourable piece of obscurantism in the history of the Galileo charade, it would be hard to beat that provided by Rome itself in 1992, some of which we have alluded to in our prologue. Later, when we have examined the case for ourselves, we will return to this grand whitewash and see it for what it really is.
In the 1998 book Cambridge Companion to Galileo (Cambridge University Press, New York, Melbourne, 1998.), the selected bibliography includes nearly 200 books written by over 100 authors - all Copernicans who believe science proved heliocentrism. In 1999, sympathy towards Galileo Galilei was extended by way of Dava Sobel’s book Galileo’s Daughter, once again taking its main theme from the ubiquitous, erroneous, and fictitious stance that Galileo was a great astronomer, a wonderful father, a righteous hero, a faithful Catholic, and subsequently vindicated by science, of course.
Since then, in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s commission report vindicating Galileo and admonishing all who held to a geocentric interpretation of Scripture, more books on the Galileo affair have been published; the most accurately detailed of which is without doubt Maurice Finocchiaro’s 2007 work Retrying Galileo. Then again we have the Internet, another source that offers literally thousands of sites accounting for nearly every day of Galileo’s active life, all the time of course under the paradigm that he had the truth and the Inquisition the error.
Then there was Dan Brown:
Although his data were incontrovertible, the astronomer was severely punished for implying that God had placed mankind somewhere other than the centre of His universe. ( Dan Brown: Angels and Demons, Pocket Books, 2000.)
In 2000, Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons shot the Galileo case into an item of interest for many millions of ordinary folk who would not normally have had a specialist interest in the complicated affair.
As they say, God writes straight with crooked lines. And also, where sin abounded, grace did more abound. And this: We know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints. Wherefore we may say that Dan Brown, in working to fix the attention of the world on the Galileo case, has enabled the formation of a collective disposition suitable to receive the crucial and paradigm-shifting information presented here and in the works of Robert Sungenis, et. al., especially the soon to be released movie, The Principle.
I have been actively listening of late to the fiery and prophetic sermons of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, who is most certainly making an apt study of all reality. In these sermons he conveys a very strong conviction that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is very close at hand. Indeed, we who are now living may indeed see this Triumph of God and His Church with our own bodily eyes, as the holy priest Simeon did once see and hold the Incarnate Word in ulnas suas.
It is indisputable that the Restoration of All Things in Christ includes, of necessity, the re-installment of the Catholic Cosmology and Doctrine on Creation. When Our Lady crushes the head of the beast and destroys all heresies (as is reserved to Her and Her alone), the errors of copernicanism and darwinism will be solemnly defined by the Church as formal heresies, along with all the other false doctrines of modernism-conciliarism.
I therefore see in these marvelous external works of the great Catholic Creationists of our time, a sign which corroborates the prayers, predictions, and interior vision of Fr. Pfeiffer. What a time to be born! For we live to see the beginning of a great Catholic counter-assault upon the two arch errors of copernicanism and darwinism - led by a few obscure and low-ranking priests alongside a group of hard-working laymen - which sets a course straight into the belly of the beast, boldly going where no modern Catholic has gone before, in order to fight with sword and shield, at the side of the Mother, Queen, and General of our Company.
As Fr. Joe teaches, there is no natural solution to this unprecedented emergency in the Church and the world. The solution is wholly supernatural. Nevertheless, there must be a true Legion of Mary, which works because the Father and the Son work, to bring about the Divine Intervention and Victory. We are now seeing, and will continue to see, this Legion of Mary in ever increasing activity, as it co-operates with God to bring about the fall of the copernican, darwinian, antichrist regime wracking the Earth and shaking it to its very foundations.[/b]
[/font]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Brown’s book predictably follows the yardstick consensus, stating quite clearly that Galileo proved the earth moves and the sun does not, and that ignorant Churchmen prevented the world from accepting this fact to protect their illusionary sacred doctrine of geocentricism, the Catholic creation cosmology of the scholastics. Well now, we have all seen what Dan Brown calls ‘incontrovertible proof’ that Galileo supposedly had and it amounted to zilch.
Angels and Demons depicts an underground battle between scientists and the Church, one that remains active to this day. The irony of it is that in this case, unlike his blasphemous fiction in The Da Vinci Code, the background to his story of the Illuminati plotting to impose a scientific cosmology to replace the reigning religious cosmology happens to be true.
Simply put, Dan Brown placed the ‘Holy Grail’ in the wrong book. This is KEY!!!!!![/b] Nevertheless, Brown’s story stirred the hornets’ nest and questions began to be asked worldwide in articles, at lectures, and on the Internet. Now if you have been reading this synthesis carefully up to now, you should know that having perpetrated the greatest deception of all time on the Church and State for centuries, the earthmoving intelligentsia have no intention of allowing Dan Brown’s novel to lead anyone into believing there could ever have been a conspiracy of philosophers and scientists active against the Church. No sir, the only conspiracy moderns are allowed to believe in today is that supposedly perpetrated by the Church against the philosophers, scientists and science.
Accordingly, in no time at all, authors Dan Burstein and Arne de Keijzer asked nearly fifty ‘experts’ on the Galileo case, ‘specialists’ on the Church, astronomy, physics, science, history, theology, secret societies etc., to write articles rejecting any cօռspιʀαcιҽs involved in the Galileo case for their book Secrets of Angels and Demons.
Irony: Real cօռspιʀαcιҽs are hotly contested by real conspirators.[/b]
Anyone taking time to investigate the real Galileo case will be amazed by the vast amount of docuмents detailing the man, his life, his work, his letters, his books, and the trials, that survived the vagaries of time. It is as though they were destined, for whatever reason, to be preserved reasonably intact throughout the centuries. When the Freemason Napoleon of revolutionary France sacked Rome in 1810 and stole the docuмents of the Secret Archives to be taken to Paris, he personally ordered that the Galileo codex be isolated and protected by special courier lest anything happen to it during the long and dangerous journey. [As it happened many other docuмents and files were lost on the trip to France while others ended up in a pulping factory in Paris.]
The preservation of the trial docuмents, those of the Decreta containing trial records and judgements, and the Processus - the docuмents containing details and notes taken during interrogations, cross examinations of both the prosecution and defence, including the important sentence and abjuration - were thus secured for posterity. The French returned the archives in 1846, seemingly on condition that Rome publish full details of Galileo’s trial. Pope Pius IX placed the docuмents in the care of Monsignor Marino Marini, Prefect of the Vatican Archives at the time, and it was he who published the first account of the Galileo case based on these records in his Galileo e L’Inquisizione of 1850.
Then, in 1867, the French scholar Henri de L’Epinois gained access to many of the docuмents and published several of the most important ones in his Revue des Questions Historiques and later in his Les Piéces du Procés de Galilée. It was however, not until Pope Leo XIII finally opened the secret (private) Vatican’s archives and those of the Holy Office that the most comprehensive transcriptions of the affair were made, the first of these was by Antonio Favaro in his Works of Galileo Galilei (national edition 1890-1909 and 1929-1939).
Further books edited by Domenico Berti (1876), the Protestant Karl von Gebler (1879), and others, all amounted to a vast compilation of facts pertaining to Galileo’s clash with the Church. Since then other docuмents pertaining to the Galileo case were unearthed adding to the facts as they happened. The actual events of the Galileo case then, as distinct from their interpretation, the legends and the myths, are well established now, and consequently we shall refrain from docuмenting every event as we come to them, for the same original source material was used by hundreds of authors during the twentieth century.
-
God is very, very good.
When we first launched this thread on Iggy in 2012-2013, the website crashed before we could publish the chapters on the Galileo affair.
By the will of Almighty God, that is where we were forced to leave off, through no intention of our own.
Now look and see how the timing goes.
I believe that now is the time that God would have this information made public - specifically to coincide with the release of the movie and explain things from a historical perspective.
As Neil mentioned somewhere else, this book will help make the movie that much more intelligible.
I know that God wants this information to come out right now.
I just know it.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
So, let us open our examination of the confrontation from the beginning.
The first scientific society of lasting significance had been founded in Rome in 1603 by four young men headed by Frederico Cesi, who named it the Lincean Academy [now the Pontifical Academy of Sciences]. Cesi gave a banquet for Galileo at which the word ‘telescope’ was coined and the guests observed the new discoveries in the heavens. (Stillman Drake: Galileo, p.49.)
In April 1611, Galileo went to Rome to spread the good-news of his new discoveries to all and sundry who would listen to him. Once there, he renewed an old acquaintance with the Jesuit astronomer Fr. Clavius, where he was treated as an honoured guest by the Jesuits; and Pope Paul V (1605-1621) even granted him a long audience. It was at this time that Galileo was elected the sixth honorary member of the Academia dei Lincei, the first of many scientific societies devoted to philosophical and scientific studies prone to exclude Revelation.
Influenced greatly by the anti-Catholic philosopher and occultist Francis Bacon, the Italian aristocrat Federico Cesi (1585-1630), who was only 18 at the time, gathered four like-minded men in his house under the title of the Lincean Academy. They called themselves ‘Lynxes’ because they believed, like the lynx that could see in the dark, the learned of their academy could see what others could not - like a fixed sun and moving earth.
This operation of error, by which men believe lying, is the quintessence of what is signified by their term enlightenment. Interestingly the reality is antithetical: they go deeper into darkness by forsaking the true light of Holy Writ.[/b]
This odd title, for those with a sense of esotericism, is Gnostic, with its doctrine of secret knowledge, privy only to the select few. Cesi’s father, however, fully aware of the goings on, including alchemy, did not approve. [For a full account of alchemy see our chapter on Isaac Newton.]
The Lyncean Academy was steadfastly opposed by Cesi's father and other Roman aristocrats. Its members were accused of black magic, opposition to Church doctrine, and living a scandalous life. --- The Galileo Project
Behind the scenes however, with an intelligence system that reached to parish ground level, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s Inquisition got wind of that other relationship between Cremonini and Galileo:
There was as yet no sign of theological opposition to Galileo or his discoveries, though Bellarmine wrote to the Inquisition at Venice to know whether he had been involved in proceedings against Cremonini. Probably this was because Galileo broached to Bellarmine the Copernican implications of his work. Cremonini had nothing to do with that, but he was always in hot water with the Inquisition because he refused to note in books that certain doctrines of Aristotle had been pronounced heretical, such as the mortality of the soul and the eternity of the universe. (Stillman. Drake: Galileo, p.49.)
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Galileo, confident that he had won support for himself, his discoveries and postulations, left Rome and returned to Florence. In 1613, the Lincean Academy published his book Letters on Sunspots.
(http://www.astro.umontreal.ca/~paulchar/grps/histoire/newsite/images/letters_sunspots.gif)
This volume - recording his telescopic viewings and their interpretations - came in the wake of a furious row between Galileo and the Jesuits as to the nature of the newly found ‘sunspots.’ The German Fr. Scheiner’s explanation of them was published posthumously, and he claimed the sunspots were planets crossing the face of the sun. Not so, countered Galileo in his reply, insisting they are on the sun itself and thus show us the sun is turning on its axis. Galileo read it correctly on this occasion but came to a false conclusion about this phenomenon:
The 2nd proof [offered by Galileo] for heliocentrism drawn from these sunspots, is such that modern astronomers are inclined to think that Galileo was not serious about it; for it is either absolutely unintelligible or, if taken as it stands, palpably wrong. Moreover, the facts adduced can be equally well explained by the old [geocentric] or by the new theory [heliocentrism]. (Fr. Ernest Hull, SJ: Galileo and His Condemnation, London Catholic Truth Society, 1913, p 88.)
There are two reasons why Galileo’s Letters on Sunspots is of historic importance. In an appendix, Galileo unequivocally asserts heliocentrism to be the true order of the world and it recorded his first announcement of the principle of inertia, that is, the redefining of the scholastic description of motion that always included God’s primary agency and its natural necessity for all natural processes. It did this by changing man’s ideas and ways of looking at motion:
Thus a ship, for instance, having once received some impetus through the tranquil sea, would move continually around our globe without ever stopping; and placed at rest it would perpetually remain at rest, if in the first case all extrinsic impediments could be removed and in the second case no external cause of motion were added. --- Letters on Sunspots.
Ignoring an object at rest in its simple logic, we cannot say the same for Galileo’s idea of perpetual motion. The fact that there has never been a ship known to be in perpetual motion, places Galileo’s physics into a different realm than the empirical method. More importantly however, is that herein we find no mention of the need for God’s input into this mind-physics of ‘perpetual motion.’ Thus we see Galileo begin a science that would operate in absolute ‘natural’ freedom and perpetuity, needing no causes other than hypothetical ‘forces.’
In his Dialogo of 1632 and his Discorsi of 1638 he further formulated this inertial principle. Second only to his astronomical discoveries, Galileo prided himself on his work on motion and just as he claimed the credit that came from his ‘proofs’ for heliocentrism, so too did he want to be recognised for his work on motion. In a letter to Belisario Vanta, Duke Cosimo’s secretary, Galileo again sings his own praises:
The works which I must bring to conclusion are these. Two books on the system and constitution of the universe an immense conception full of philosophy, astronomy, and geometry. Three books on local motion an entirely new science in which no one else, ancient or modern, has discovered any of the most remarkable laws which I demonstrate to exist in both natural and violent movement; hence I may call this a new science and one discovered by me from its very foundations. Three books on mechanics, two relating to demonstrations of its principles, and one concerning its problems; and though other men have written on this subject, what has been done is not one quarter of what I write, either in quantity or otherwise. (Stillman Drake: Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Anchor Books, New York, 1957, p.113.)
Galileo was now a publicly confessed Earthmover. What his books most certainly did not contain was one iota of verification or proof for this belief. Remember, with all he had, and no matter how many objections to an orbiting earth he had removed, and no matter how many hypothetical inertial forces he conjured up, none of them went anywhere near providing real evidence or proof; neither for a supposed motion of the earth nor for a supposed immobility of the sun as the centre of a solar system that included an orbiting earth.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In this same year of 1613, the Benedictine abbot Dom Benedetto Castelli, the former and adoring pupil of Galileo’s, was given the coveted chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa on Galileo’s recommendation. Castelli would surely insert the new ‘science’ into the educational system so as to begin the indoctrination of the young and impressionable, and who themselves would become the professors and teachers of the future, a policy that dominates all politics and one also highly recommended and promoted by Francis Bacon’s Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ at the time.
This policy is currently being milked for all it is worth by the SSPXBrand in its seminaries. I comment on this intellectual reductionism, a form of authoritarianism [scientism is essentially authoritarianist], at length here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/OPEN-LETTER-TO-THE-PRIESTS-OF-THE-SPPX [/b]
On Dec. 13th, 1613, Castelli was invited to a court breakfast at which were gathered members of the ruling Medici family. These included Cosimo II himself, his wife, his mother the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, an Austrian Archduchess, Don Antonio de’ Medici, and Don Paolo, a member of the powerful Orsini family. Also present as one of the learned guests was Cosimo Boscaglia, a professor of philosophy. As was likely to happen, the conversation turned to astronomy and in particular the four moons of Jupiter that Galileo had named after the Medici family. They then discussed Galileo’s assertion that the world is heliocentric. Boscaglia argued that Galileo was in error for the simple reason that the Scriptures confirm the world is geocentric. As Castelli was a monk, well acquainted with both theology and Galileo’s astronomy, Christina detained him later to address this paradox and to explain to her how the sun of the heavens could be stopped as told in the miracle of Joshua’s long day (Josh. 10:12-13) if it is immobile in the centre of the world.
Castelli began by defending Galileo’s position and insisted that science should decide celestial matters and not the Scriptures. Thereafter he tried to explain how such passages in the Bible were interpreted erroneously. With this suggestion the debate entered a new public dimension, scriptural exegesis. The dye was now cast; the first shots had been fired. Finally the Earthmovers true mission had emerged, the hermetic reformation of Catholic scriptural hermeneutics and exegesis.
Castelli immediately sent a report of the debate to Galileo in Florence in a letter that contained the following words:
I began to play the theologian with such assurance and dignity that it would have done you good to hear me. Don Antonio assisted me . . . and I carried the discussion off like a paladin. I won over the Grand Duke and his Archduchess completely and Don Paolo contributed to my help a very apt quotation from the Scriptures. Only Madam Christine remained against me, and as for Professor Boscaglia, he never opened his mouth.
Galileo sent Castelli a hasty reply. This was the famous Letter to Castelli of December 21 1613 (ironically, Solstice day). Such lengthy letters were used to air views that may not have been given an imprimatur had they appeared as a printed book. Galileo knew copies of his letters would be made and circulated widely. The real purpose of this docuмent was, of course, to meet the theological objections to Copernicanism, for Galileo knew that the Bible and its church interpreters had locked the earth to the centre of the universe thus preventing him from ever being credited with the most astounding ‘scientific’ discovery of all time, supposed confirmation that the earth spins and moves around a relatively fixed sun.
In this letter, Galileo congratulated Castelli and then aired his disgust at philosophers using the Bible to dismiss his scientific evidence. He said he had examined the question of using the Bible in disputes involving physical matters and had come to the following conclusions.
The Holy Scriptures can never lie or err, and its declarations are absolutely and inviolably true. Though the Scriptures cannot err, nevertheless some of its interpreters and expositors can sometimes err in various ways. One of these would be very serious and very frequent, namely to want to limit oneself always to the literal meaning of the words . . .
It seems to me in disputes about natural phenomena, the Bible should be reserved to the last place . . . In order to adopt itself to the understanding of all people, it was appropriate for the Scripture to say many things that are different from absolute truth.
Given this, and moreover it being obvious that two truths can never contradict each other, the task of wise interpreters is to strive to find the true meanings of Scriptural passages agreeing with those physical conclusions of which we are already certain and sure from clear sensory experience or from necessary demonstrations. - - - Galileo: Letter to Castelli.
Blasphemy. Sacrilege. Arrogance. Ignorance. Stupidity. Cupidity. Heresy. Schism.
It comes down to this. Either we believe the Bible in its four senses or we are not Catholic.
It is not protestant fundamentalism to believe the literal sense of Scared Scripture. And any Catholic who thinks this way is fundamentally ignorant of his professed religion. [/b]
-
I want to interject here some lines I came across on the ALF forum. Cassini, an awesome apologist for the true Catholic Cosmology, has been discussing geocentrism with other members. His comments are so good that they belong in this thread as well.
NOTE: I have done some very minor editing for a smoother read.
CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.
Usually those discussing the Copernican issue take their arguments from the latest essay on the Galileo case and dismiss the theological consequences as easily as they can get away with dismissing geocentrism in the 'science' dominated world we live in today. In your case you leave the condemnation of Copernicanism intact but [affirm] that popes after 1635 had 'better things to do than reiterate the condemnation.'
Note in my initial post I said . . . I am now of the opinion that all popes since at least 1835 were plunged into Modernism. I did not say all popes since then were modernists. This means they inherited Copernicanism (that the earth moves around a fixed sun, and that the earth is not the centre of the universe and that the Bible can be read accordingly, that is metaphorically) as a done deal and probably never gave it another thought.'
Given there was never an abrogation of the heresy, and the last five books on it were taken off the Index in 1835 by Pope Gregory XVI who is recorded as doing so 'without explicit comment,' Copernicanism remained condemned in law but that law was left dormant . . .
Between Napoleon and Garibaldi, popes did indeed have problems with temporal things, like hanging on to the Papal States. But the pope's duty is first to protect the Faith . . . the damage done to Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics by the 1741-1835 adoption of a heliocentric world by all was not even recognised by these post-1835 popes. Yes they tried to stop the effects of the new exegesis but it was too late.
They then began to compromise. Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus ended up doing more harm than stopping the rot, giving license to change more interpretations of the Bible if science showed this was necessary. Within 50 years we got 3 encyclicals trying to undo the damage science did to scriptural interpretation.
You mention evolution as an ongoing problem in the 19th century that supposedly kept the popes busy. Well in truth, after they conceded to Copernicanism they did not know how to combat evolutionism.
This is key!!!!
Here is a quote from Fr. Barry O'Toole's book entitled The Case Against Evolution, written in the 1920's. It appears in his introduction and perfectly demonstrates the point Cassini is making:
O'TOOLE: Thus all resistance to the theory of evolution is deprecated by Father Wasmann and Canon Dorlodot on the assumption that the ultimate triumph of this theory is inevitable, and that failure to make provision for this eventuality will lead to just such another blunder as theologians of the sixteenth century made in connection with the Copernican theory. Recollection of the Galileo incident is, doubtless, salutary, in so far as it suggests the wisdom of caution and the imperative necessity of close contact with ascertained facts, but a consideration of this sort is no warrant whatever for an uncritical acceptance of what still remains unverified. History testifies that verification followed close upon the heels of the initial proposal of the heliocentric theory, but the whole trend of scientific discovery has been to destroy, rather than to confirm, all definite formulations of the evolutional theory, in spite of the immense erudition expended in revising them.[/b]
http://archive.org/stream/caseagainstevolu00otoo/caseagainstevolu00otoo_djvu.txt
[/size]
-
CASSINI: You mention evolution as an ongoing problem in the 19th century that supposedly kept the popes busy. Well in truth, after they conceded to Copernicanism they did not know how to combat evolutionism. Long ages, no Flood, and Darwinism spread like wildfire and the popes did nothing about them, could do nothing about them, all with the Galileo 'mistake' in mind. After Pope Leo came Pope Pius X. In his time came the demise of 'day' as a day. Per the determinations of his Pontifical Biblical Commission.[/b]
Soon the Genesis 'day' became billions of years and the theology of the biblical 'day' was lost to most. This loss is immense!!!! This loss has veritably knocked the Earth and the Church off their stable, immutable foundations and sent them hurtling through a vacuum![/b] Pius XI was writing in his Dante letter that the earth 'may not' be the centre of the world in spite of the Church of 1616 saying it was.
Then came the Big Bang, credited to a Catholic physicist, and soon after Pope Pius XII was telling all in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang was the creation fiat. Yes, faith and science had to be reconciled. If some day they laugh at the idea of a Big Bang, will God's act of creation go down with their science?
Then came permission from Pius XII for Catholics to debate the truth or not of sponges to elephants, a theory fit only for idiots.
By then the evolutionism 'tolerated' by popes trying to avoid 'another Galileo case,' had entered theology, as was inevitable. Ratzinger the evolutionist was writing in his book In The Beginning that original sin was collective, not that old literal tale. Once that reached the popes, traditionalists were asking 'how did that happen?' Most of them were Copernicans, so would not have had a clue. Quite the opposite. They were all defending that 1741-1835 biblical reformation because that would mean they had to defend the geocentrism defined and declared formal heresy in 1616. Pope Urban VIII had said in 1633 that if Copernicanism entered the Church it would 'put the faith in danger.'
Finally Gaudium et spes of Vatican II. It called all involved in condemning Copernicanism 'troublemakers.'
Didn't they also call the Lord Jesus a troublemaker?
-
CASSINI: First of all you seem to accuse me of 'intellectual dishonesty' because I used the expression 'plunged into Modernism.' The fact is that they inherited a Catholicism that considered a defined and decreed formal heresy not a heresy and they inherited a biblical exegesis and hermeneutics that interpreted the Bible metaphorically heliocentrist. Whether they themselves believed the heresy or not we do not know. Now what is dishonest with such a distinction?
As regards placing the problem of possibly losing the Papal States over those preserving faith and morals; well I do not consider that true for a second. Pope Pius IX inherited the papacy from Pope Gregory XVI, who was responsible for eliminating the last of the heretical books from the Index. He was also very much influenced by Pope Pius VII, who presided over the scam that was to overturn the ban on heliocentric books. Pius IX was a political liberal, applauded at first by Garibaldi. At the conclave of 1846 he was proposed by the liberals and elected. (Google in ^ Pougeous I, 215 for Pius XI's life and politics).
Of interest, of course, was Pius IX's Syllabus. Most famous of all was the ERROR 12: The decrees of the Apostolic see and the Roman Congregations hinder the free progress of science. This is referenced to the Letter Tuas libenter, 1863:
Tuas Libenter Dec. 21, 1863: Letter to Archbishop Scherr of Munich: [The members of the Congress of German Catholic theologians at Munich] recognized and asserted that all Catholics in their scholarly writings are obliged in conscience to obey the dogmatic decrees of the infallible Catholic Church.
Now here we have Pope Pius IX setting out the rules. But had his predecessors not broken these very same rules with regard to the definition on a fixed sun and the earth at the centre of the universe, the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers? Does every history of the Galileo case since 1741 at least not state that science was retarded by the 1616 decree? To clarify this blatant contradiction in order to give his Syllabus credibility (rejected by Ratzinger in 1965 by the way) surely an abrogation of the 1616 decree would have been necessary?
-
CASSINI: As for Pope Pius XII, well here is an example of his thinking:
The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a high point on Nov. 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an endorsement of a litany of every scientific theory on offer at the time, theories that conflicted with the literal order of creation, that is, denied the geocentric order of the universe held by the Church until 1835; denied the biblical age of 6,000 years for the universe; denied the global flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today.
Here is what Pius XII said;
44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy.
This is a crystalline example of the modernism of Pius XII. Here is a perfect distillation byte: a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge. Modern 'scientific knowledge,' which amounts to science falsely so called, contradicts the truths of the Faith, the Patristic Deposit, and the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. How can it 'enlighten' the mind? Only a modernist - a subjectivist who is not interested in the objective knowledge of all Reality that comes to man through two sources - Reason and Faith - would affirm as much.[/b]
PIUS XII cont.: In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’
48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: "These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus."
Can we then, say that Pope Pius XII was indeed a Copernican? Does this mean he was a heretic? If so, what kind of heretic? Perhaps a 'material heretic,' one who believed it was true because he believed science had proven the Church wrong.
[/size]
-
CASSINI: In an essay The God of Theologians and Astronomers (The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 1998) Marcella Pera, Professor of philosophy at the University of PISA, said of this kind of utterance:
Let us suppose that we can refer to the initial singularity (the Big Bang) as an act of creation. What conclusion can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creator cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists."
Pera goes on to say this is to "commit a category fallacy."
He then says "because, being a God proved by cosmology, he would be at the mercy of cosmology . . . cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as SCIENCE?"
Finally, here is how the scientific world described Pope Pius XII's attempt to make God the creator by way of a Big bang. In the book INTRODUCING HAWKING, on page 148 they say, "The Vatican has since [1616/1633] adopted a more subtle approach to scientists who attempt to answer the ultimate questions of the universe. It now seems happy to court the cosmologist [the Atheist] Stephen Hawking."
The Church was quick to accept the idea. On 22 November 1951, Pope Pius XII accepted . . . Consequently any scientist supporting the big bang would certainly be a friend of Rome.
They then show a cartoon of Pope Pius XII walking on a moving earth with little eggs shining all over him saying "Because Rome is pleased with the Big Bang model. It troubled Signor Fred Hoyle and even il Professore Einstein, but it appeals to us as a creation event!"
Beside it was a cartoon pic of Einstein saying "After all, was not the concept [of the shining egg - the Big bang] first proposed in 1927 by a Belgian Catholic priest, Abbe Lemaitre?"
Next page the Pope is made say: "Our friend il docttore Stephen Hawking proved in 1970 that Einstein's relativity demands all matter and energy in the universe must at one time have been combined in a single point - the singularity, PERFECTO!" That's as close as science will get to identifying the hand of God. So it is only right that the Pontifical Academy should award excellent Hawking [the Atheist] with its Pope Pius XI medal, no?
It records Hawking as saying he was of two minds whether to accept the medal or not, but that when he got to Rome he made them show him the Galileo trial docuмents, a lesson to the world no doubt.
Then, just as Professor Pera said, by then Hawking was on his next fantasy trip, to show the Big Bang could have arisen naturally from NOTHING. The book said: "He [Hawking] was already beginning to think like a HERETIC." That is, like Pius XII [who] made the Big Bang a dogma of creation.
In a recent program on BBC, Hawking spends one hour showing that modern science can explain how SCIENCE'S big bang can be shown to have come from nothing.
His last words were: 'THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED FOR A GOD.'
-
CASSINI: You say that the theories [I am ] proposing about the Popes are not tenable for any Traditional Catholic. I am not proposing any theories. I am pointing out facts. I too am a traditional Catholic living at a time when the Catholic Church stands for nothing in this world of ours. I live in a country that is supposedly 85% Catholic and a local council refuses to hang a cross in any of the council's buildings and not a whimper out of our bishops or Catholics. I sought to find out how such a situation came about. I identified a pope's prophesy come true.
Pope Urban VIII said if ever the Copernican heresy is tolerated it will destroy the Catholic faith. The facts of Church history are not made up but record that is exactly what happened. The Copernican heresy was the only heresy ever to enter into the Church by the order of popes. I now know the details of how it happened and it would make any traditional Catholic gasp with disbelief. The only saving grace was that it was done not by abrogation, not by a second Galileo trial, but by eliminating the ban on books 'WITHOUT EXPLICIT COMMENT' as Pope Gregory XVI said. In other words, Copernicanism is still a formal heresy but now a hidden one, remaining hidden by all those Catholics who fight tooth and nail to make sure nobody goes WHISTLEBLOWING.
That way we can all remain traditional Catholics and the heresy gets worse and worse.
-
CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.
So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?
Ludicrous.
I think that person's credibility is shot right there. Hello, McFly!? Pope St. Pius X was a saint. How could he be a heretic and a saint?
-
CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.
So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?
Ludicrous.
I think that person's credibility is shot right there. Hello, McFly!? Pope St. Pius X was a saint. How could he be a heretic and a saint?
This is the rotten fruit and logic that forms once Catholics begin to distrust the true Popes and elevate their own private judgment. It is a fast track to schism and heresy.
In the last few years also, I have heard of Catholics devaluing that Pope Pius XII fell from his office, others say that we haven't had a Pope since the 19th century, and there are so many variations it's hard to keep up.
Archbishop Lefebvre knew the answer, and that was what was before the Council was Catholic, what followed after was not.
We are now witnessing the next stage of the gradual breakdown among Catholics, where they are beginning to find alleged faults with the true Popes of the Catholic Church, and have taken the spotlight off the Conciliar church and it's "Popes."
Btw, this is not a fruit of "sedevacantism, I have heard many on this forum who state that they are not sedevacantists, attack pre-Conciliar Papal teaching on matters of Faith and morals, along with universal laws of the Church and established customs and practices. This lack of trust in the Church, the Popes, and Her theologians, makes for fertile ground for schism and heresy.
-
CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.
So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?
Ludicrous.
I think that person's credibility is shot right there. Hello, McFly!? Pope St. Pius X was a saint. How could he be a heretic and a saint?
Cassini is a member of this forum, so I will not answer for him. He is well able to answer for himself. I will say that I know for certain he is not SV. He is a member of an SSPX chapel. He is not even a member of the resistance, so-called.
It seems to me that he speaks very clearly and in such a way that does not preclude the drawing of relevant distinctions, so as not to arrive at the inferences with which you make a conclusion. These inferences are not necessary logical subsequents of the affirmations contained in his statement, but only possible ones, wholly dependent on additional supporting evidence.
Conclusions based on unsupported inferences, themselves unnecessary, are in the same family as all strawman arguments. For they incorrectly restate a position, usually to prop up an agenda.
Cassini is attempting to alert Catholics to some very unsettling facts: namely that the weakening, the wavering, the corruption of the acts of the popes - not as inaccurately defining but as eclipsing, suppressing, and confusing doctrinal truths - and including reprehensible violations of morality - does not begin with Vatican II.
How is it that we have arrived at the scandalous debacle of the ceremony of two popes canonizing two heretics?
This corruption of the popes had to start somewhere. It did not materialize overnight.
Cassini is pointing his finger in the direction of where we are supposed to look.
What stops us from looking where we are supposed to look is that we have made organizations and organizational positions our own first principles. Thus we react when someone affirms something that appears to coincide with an organizational position not our own, or that appears to cast a shadow on our organization's sacred cow.
We are supposed to follow Christ and His Truth wherever they lead.
We are supposed to face the Truth, no matter the cost.
If a man knows and understands that Galileo was wrong and that the Church was right, then he will want to understand how the copernican revolution is directly responsible for Vatican II, as its principle. The evidence is abundant, but the belly for it is mostly lacking.
The SSPX is dying the death for a reason.
I serialize this book to put forth that reason.
Cassini says what he says to put forth that reason.
The problem with the SSPX predates +ABL.
[/color]
[/b]
-
CASSINI: Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching.
So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?
Ludicrous.
I think that person's credibility is shot right there. Hello, McFly!? Pope St. Pius X was a saint. How could he be a heretic and a saint?
Interesting to see Matthew how you interpreted my "Every Pope since 1835 allowed Copernicanism, a defined and declared heresy based on its contradiction to the biblical interpretation of all the Fathers - a dogma of Trent. Copernicanism was the first Modernist attack on Church teaching."
You presumed this meant: "So this Cassini person thinks that every Pope since 1835 has been a heretic and/or an anti-pope?"
I never say this pope or that pope is a heretic in the history of the Copernican reformation, because one cannot know what was in any of these popes hearts.
Interesting though that you would conclude that any pope who accommodated a heresy must have been a heretic. That is why you assumed I think all popes since 1835 were heretics.
Given you find your own conclusion 'ludicrous' it shows me how this heresy, defined and declared by Pope Paul V, a heresy confirmed as a heresy by another pope explicitly in 1633, and again as a heresy by the Holy Office in 1820, could be dismissed out of hand when they thought heliocentrism was proven by science, how it could be hidden away so easy after 1835 without an abrogation or questioning for near on two centuries of Catholicism. Yes, the idea for Catholics is ludicrous. In a century from now Catholics will be saying that the idea that a church council could contradict previous Church teachings is ludicrous, or that a pope could canonise two disasterous popes was ludicrous, and thereby prevent the necessary truth every coming out in an institution that supposedly represents truth itself. Meanwhile all those ludicrous truths will sink Catholicism further and further into error.
But the time for dismissal by way of calling it 'ludicrous' is now over, for Catholics today are questioning the circuмstances of this reformation. One now has to show why the accommodation of a heresy by popes without themselves being suspect of heresy (as Galileo was found) is ludicrous. The 'secret archives' have been opened up and translated, no longer keeping the world ignorant as to what they were up to.
There are of course certain options open to us. We can divide the popes involved up into two groups. Those who were conscious of the heresy and dismissed it as an error, and those who never gave it a thought because the U-turn was a done-deal (Pius X would fall into this category). To save sedevacantists from having heart attacks we can employ the following logic:
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.
The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness--free choice--is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material.
-
I don't have time for 59 pages. I just recently clicked on this thread for the first time.
It was (is) one of those topics that just doesn't interest me.
Right now, it interests me only insofar as it involves a charge of material heresy leveled at every Pope since 1835.
The lofty, almost hard to understand, tone of most of the posts in this thread reeks of intellectualism as opposed to down-to-earth common sense. How is that for ironic!
I'm not one of those science fanatics, even one of the Catholic variety, who gives credence to everything that comes out of the scientific establishment.
Nevertheless, I fail to see how claiming that the Earth revolves around the Sun is heretical, much less how that one paradigm shift necessarily leads to belief in evolution, or any other evils.
I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.
I assure you, you can have a person believe in the literal Genesis account of Creation, and still believe that the planets revolve around their sun. There is no intrinsic link between Heliocentrism and Evolution.
And unless you can prove that they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, not just "compatible", "commonly believed together", etc., then your whole thesis is worthless. Along with your charge of material heresy leveled at the past XX true Popes of the Catholic Church.
The origins of the stars and planets is another matter. This is where most mainstream scientists get off the Truth Train. I believe God created them all in an instant. The passage of "billions of years" is unnecessary, and seems to be a palliative to help convince Modern Man (wandering without faith and unconsciously seeking for a new religion) that something could come from nothing. Basically, they believe that "Throw enough eons at it, and a team of monkeys could type up The Illiad." Common sense says that is ridiculous.
I remember an episode of Star Trek: TNG wherein several alien races (including humans) learned that ancient aliens seeded several planets with life billions of years ago. The script writers want you to understand THAT's why all the "humanoid" aliens in the series follow the same basic architectural plan.
That episode would have passed for "deep", as long as one is grossly ignorant.
The whole idea sounds great until you ask: who seeded the SEEDER'S planet? How did life evolve there? Hmmm? "Well, someone must have seeded that planet as well?" Yes, but eventually you're back to square one -- how did life spontaneously organize itself and create itself out of nothing? That's metaphysically impossible.
Scientists can be so smart and yet be so stupid the minute they put on a philosopher's hat. They should stick to experimental science and refrain from making "guesses" that encroach upon the realm of philosophy.
-
I see where you are coming from now Matthew, you think it is all about whether the sun goes around the earth or whether the earth goes around the sun. To admit you have not read 59 pages and to call its consequences 'ludicrous' amazes me coming from a person with such a record of forum discussion.
To cut 59 pages short, what we are discussing here is not what body goes here or there which I agree would bore the legs off a donkey, but whether the Fathers interpreted the Scriptures properly or whether they made errors when all agreed on a particular interpretation.
The significance of this, I believe, should be of supreme importance to any Catholic who thinks our religion is divine.
Our Catholic faith is made up from two areas of divine revelation, the Scriptures and Tradition. Undermine one of these areas of revelation and one 'puts the Catholic faith in danger' as Pope Urban VIII said in 1632.
Now based on that stupid question, whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun and stars go around the earth, the revelation of Scripture was TESTED.
Trent, and the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 all agreed that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers HAS TO BE THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE, that the earth is fixed and the sun moves around the earth..
So, based on a stupid, boring matter of science, the Scriptural revelations that make up our Catholic faith was put to the test. To try to protect the Scriptures from false interpretations - that have huge consequences for the Catholic faith - heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy.
History records Isaac Newton's word was taken over that of the Fathers and the Church of 1616 and 1633. The Scriptures were now subjected to scientific assumptions and theology was discarded. Thus the very basis of the origin of our Catholic faith the Scriptures, was deemed to have been erroneously interpreted, and as you all know, if wrong ONCE, that rules out divine protection. And that is where the Modernists undermined the true faith thereafter.
I could go on, but here instead is a list of facts that are of a consequence of that same stupid question of science. And if any Catholic thinks the matter of whether the popes who adopted the heresy their predecessors condemned is a problem, here Matthew is another set of problems for you to call 'ludicrous' and thus ensure no one has to take them seriously. They were presented by a Catholic priest in 1879, just after Vatican I said no Peter can change what a previous Peter had condemned as contrary to the Catholic faith.
‘I will now sum up the conclusions this case seems to me to teach in direct opposition to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be, not only Scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, deci¬sions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that the opinion is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has confirmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the earth moves?
-
Or you're just missing something.
I don't think the Pope ever infallibly defined that the Sun goes around the Earth. He would never be allowed to define something that erroneous. And why would he? It's outside his area of competence.
If I recall correctly, one of the conditions for infallibility is "on a matter of Faith and Morals". Matters of science such as which bodies orbit which bodies is CERTAINLY not in the realm of faith and morals.
From what I heard about the Galileo case, it wasn't his proposition that was condemned "in a vacuum", but rather how Galileo was handling it.
Science has since proven that the planets go around the Sun. That case is pretty open-and-shut. Talk about needing to acknowledge the truth!
Now I can tell you why evolution (which is an error) doesn't work, etc. but you can't give me reasons why Geocentrism is heretical or erroneous. You just erroneously believe that unless you believe Heliocentrism, the Church is somehow broken.
I disagree.
Why not just leave Theology to the Theologians, Science to the Scientists, and use your armchair for something other than Theology -- maybe some books about family life, raising children or something more relevant to your state in life?
And yes, I'm assuming you are neither a theologian nor a scientist. If I assumed wrong, the fault is yours for not giving your credentials at the beginning of this thread.
I'm a non-theologian, non-scientist myself, but I haven't written (or promoted as a personal crusade) a magnum opus for the world to read and follow, suggesting that every pope since 1835 was in material heresy (minimum). Therefore you've placed yourself above your competence, whereas I (meanwhile) have not.
-
heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy.
I don't believe it.
Instead of giving me your personal summary, how about you cut to the chase with some actual Papal docuмents?
-
There seems to be a bit of complexity to the Galileo case:
The Galileo Controversy
It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.
The Galileo case, for many anti-Catholics, is thought to prove that the Church abhors science, refuses to abandon outdated teachings, and is not infallible. For Catholics, the episode is often an embarrassment. It shouldn’t be.
This tract provides a brief explanation of what really happened to Galileo.
Anti-scientific?
The Church is not anti-scientific. It has supported scientific endeavors for centuries. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. In addition, many notable scientists received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding.
Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his most famous work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, in which he gave an excellent account of heliocentricity, to Pope Paul III. Copernicus entrusted this work to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend.
Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler
published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements.
Clinging to Tradition?
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.
Centuries earlier, Aristotle had refuted heliocentricity, and by Galileo’s time, nearly every major thinker subscribed to a geocentric view. Copernicus refrained from publishing his heliocentric theory for some time, not out of fear of censure from the Church, but out of fear of ridicule from his colleagues.
Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to docuмent the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.
Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other docuмents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.
Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.
Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.
The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense.
During this period, personal interpretation of Scripture was a sensitive subject. In the early 1600s, the Church had just been through the Reformation experience, and one of the chief quarrels with Protestants was over individual interpretation of the Bible.
Theologians were not prepared to entertain the heliocentric theory based on a layman’s interpretation. Yet Galileo insisted on moving the debate into a theological realm. There is little question that if Galileo had kept the discussion within the accepted boundaries of astronomy (i.e., predicting planetary motions) and had not claimed physical truth for the heliocentric theory, the issue would not have escalated to the point it did. After all, he had not proved the new theory beyond reasonable doubt.
Galileo "Confronts" Rome
Galileo came to Rome to see Pope Paul V (1605-1621). The pope, weary of controversy, turned the matter over to the Holy Office, which issued a condemnation of Galileo’s theory in 1616. Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.
Tortured for His Beliefs?
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
Galileo’s friend Nicolini, Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican, sent regular reports to the court regarding affairs in Rome. Many of his letters dealt with the ongoing controversy surrounding Galileo.
Nicolini revealed the circuмstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "in regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).
Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.
The records demonstrate that Galileo could not be tortured because of regulations laid down in The Directory for Inquisitors (Nicholas Eymeric, 1595). This was the official guide of the Holy Office, the Church office charged with dealing with such matters, and was followed to the letter.
As noted scientist and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead remarked, in an age that saw a large number of "witches" subjected to torture and execution by Protestants in New England, "the worst that happened to the men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof." Even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that Galileo’s condemnation was wrong. The Vatican has even issued two stamps of Galileo as an expression of regret for his mistreatment.
Infallibility
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.
The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecuмenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
-
Here is a compilation of the teachings of the Fathers of the Church as well as Magisterial statements on the movement of the Earth:
http://scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html
-
heliocentrism was defined and declared as formal heresy.
I don't believe it.
Instead of giving me your personal summary, how about you cut to the chase with some actual Papal docuмents?
Right then Matthew, first Cardinal Robert Bellarmine on whether it is a matter for science or for theology;
"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.: --- Letter to Foscarini 1615.--- 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.
Pope Paul V agreed. Now by all means Matthew you can put yourself forward and tell your fellow Catholics the popes and Bellarmine were wrong.
Now there was another like yourself who stated it was not heresy, his name was Galileo. So he was put on trial FOR HERESY and according to the Holy Office records here is how he was put right on the matter. The following by the way was dictated by Pope urban VIII:
The Inquisition’s Sentence - dictated by Pope urban VIII
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you. And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.”’
Galileo’s Abjuration
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. ...
Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above named errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be."
---- Both above from the work of Giorgius Polaccus entitled “Anticopernicus Catholicus seu de terræ statione et de solis motu, contra systema Copernicanum Catholicæ assertionis” (Venice, 1644). The Italian texts of these docuмents are almost certainly the original. See Sousa, Aphor. Inqui. lib. ii. c. xl. p. 379; Sacra Arsenale, pp. 353-4, xlix.; Carena, Dc Off. S. Inq. pars iii. lit. xii. 31.
Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., “tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet,” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration.
The heresy was then promulgated among Catholic nations like so:
“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.”’ --- From Gebler’s Galileo Galilei, London, 1879.
This was accomplished, and in many cases the professors of mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial docuмents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Copernicanism to be a serious heresy.
-
There seems to be a bit of complexity to the Galileo case:
The Galileo Controversy
Infallibility
Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.
The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.
No ecuмenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.
Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
Here above Matthew, is you posted account of the Galileo case written by a professed Copernican giving a Copernican version of the Galileo case. Given they all believed Isaac Newton and disbelieved the Fathers, popes and theologians of 1616, of course they have to butter up their version of the case to suit their Copernican Catholicism.
Take for example the necessity to deny INFALLIBILITY. Given Copernicanism was adopted by popes from 1741 to 1835 based on the assertion that the geocentric reading of the Bible was proven wrong, what Catholic would not deny its infallibility?
He then tries to show us why it is not infallible. (1) he agrees it was papal so one up for infallibility. (2) he then tries a Matthew, denies it was of faith making all the popes and theologians of 1616 look like they did not know faith from science in their deliberations. But did you see his hypocracy. First he praises Bellarmine
"Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day" when it suits him, and then ignores him when the important theologian explains it is of faith. So (2) is of faith, making it (2) up for infallibility. but then comes the three card trick of infallibility, it must be "solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful."
What is 'solemnly defined?" Pope Paul V, as Prefect of the Holy Office, approved the decree and ordered it be made known through the Index. what our friends want us to believe is that it should have been ex cathedra 'solemnly defined.' The facts are that ex cathedra 'solemnly' is used only to define NEW DOGMAS, not previous ones. the Pythagorean heresy was an old one, updated and defined again in 1616 as an act of the ordinary magisterium. So there, we now have (3) yeses for this guy's conditions for infallibility.
Interestingly this guy's need to make infallibility disappear. They have denied infallibility since they thought Newton proved Pope Paul V wrong. But here, after denying infallibility he admits Pope Paul V was never proven wrong. So why would anyone deny the infallibility of it?
Well once they conceded to the heresy from 1741 it all went wrong for them, and now they don't know whether they are coming or going. What a way to run a Church.
-
I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.
Actually, that the Earth orbits the Sun is not a well-proven truth. It actually has never been proven. There is much information out there to show that - scientific information.
Here is a link to a page that has some video talks concerning the upcoming movie, The Principle - a movie that deals with all of this, and especially the lies that have been promulgated concerning the Copernican Principle.
Please watch them if you have the time - I do no think you will come away thinking you have wasted your time, but perhaps grateful that you understand more about it now.
Talks on the Principle Movie (http://wallsandwood.com/info/principle_talks.html)
-
I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.
I assure you, you can have a person believe in the literal Genesis account of Creation, and still believe that the planets revolve around their sun. There is no intrinsic link between Heliocentrism and Evolution.
And unless you can prove that they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, not just "compatible", "commonly believed together", etc., then your whole thesis is worthless. Along with your charge of material heresy leveled at the past XX true Popes of the Catholic Church.
Time now to address the above Matthew. I was educated as an evolutionist and a Copernican. I felt intellectually superior for knowing this. My wife was a creationist and laughed at the idea of sponges evolving into elephants and that we do not see the sun move across the heavens because we are spinning and orbiting the sun. I tried to explain to her how science had proven everything and the Bible was a sort of religious way of explaining origins.
One day, when I was 50 years old, an American gave me a book on creation pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I was taken for an idiot. I got very angry that I could be treated so in a Catholic education. For two years I read every book on creation I could find so as to be able to defend creationism. Then I heard Pope John Paul II tell us all evolution was no longer a 'hypothesis.' I then read cardinal Ratzinger's IN THE BEGINNING. Good God I learned, they are both evolutionists to the core, Ratzinger even reinterpreting the meaning of Original Sin to fit into his scientific beliefs. With that pair of 'intellectual popes' telling all evolution is a fact, what chance have Catholics writing books on creation got to convince anyone it is a load of garbage. Then I found out Pope Pius XII was also an evolutionist and when I read his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about the Big Bang giving rise to the sun, moon and stars and they in turn forming a solar-system by way of Newton's gravity I dispared. Imagine, I thought, a traditionalist pope an evolutionist. So it didn't all start with the Modernists of the 60s.
Then I heard from a few Creationists that evolution could never have been accepted were it not for the fact that popes in 1741 and 1820 chose heliocentrism over geocentrism. Immediately I wanted to know more. My experience as an evolutionist and then a creationist showed me man can swallow anything as long as 'science' says its true. I then learned that science is 'atheistic,' it excludes anything preternatural. 'Then science has to exclude Creation by God, something out of nothing' I concluded, 'so that is why atheists use science to discredit religion.' That is why more people have abandoned religion than for any other reason.
I then began to study the Copernican revolution in both Church and State. I found the very same thing, science proving we live on a planet in a solar system, not on something especially created by God. I heard of and read up on the doctrine of geocentrism. I read of the Church's defence of geocentrism and how it came to a head with the Galileo case. I read up on Isaac Newton, an alchemist and antichrist,, and how he invented a theory of gravity that has since been accepted as the basis for heliocentrism and then for Pope Pius XII's gathering of stardust after the Big Bang to form a solar system. I searched for the science that confirmed Newton's theory as a law and found nothing but a mind-game. "Mass,' that is the trick, for who could ever test the 'mass' of a cosmic sphere. Here above Matthew you have fallen hook, line and sinker for this mind-trick, as billions of others have, right up to popes from 1741. The earth HAS to orbit because of its smaller 'mass'. Newton's theory was chosen by Freemasons and every other theory for gravity was ABANDONED. Yes, they found their MAGIC WAND - MASS, and they got matter to move itself without any input from God.
So, the Mother of all evolution theories the BIG BANG came directly from the heliocentric theory. Both supposedly formed the Solar system of heliocentrism and on the earth evolved everything.
The idea that a person can believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, and argue against the literal geocentrism of Genesis has always baffled me since I began to think and chose theology over science.
I remember once a man telling me how to show the literal of Genesis has to be geocentric. God first created the Earth, hung in space (Gen 1:1). then God made two lights for the earth, the sun and moon and hung them in the heavens to bring day and night and seasons. Gen !:17 'God set them in the firmament of heaven.' From earth, man sees the sun in the heavens. If however, the sun is in the centre and the earth orbits it, then the earth is in the heavens. Now why didn't Genesis get it right?
-
I can't wait for the next installment! I had first started reading on IA but got overwhelmed with the length. But now I've read up to this end point and am extremely glad that I did. It really ties a lot of loose ends in my understanding of the gradual success by Satan, from the time of the early Renaissance to Vatican II, in undermining the doctrines of the Church.
Thank you Cantatedomino!
-
What, pray tell is
VRSNSMVSMQLIVB
(That used to be the sub-title of this thread -- I removed it because it looks like a keyboard malfunction, or perhaps someone with a pet dog left the room for a couple minutes before submitting a post)
-
I believe in Creation, including a literal interpretation of Genesis. But I also believe the well-proven truth that the planets all revolve around the sun due to the sun's great gravitational force. Likewise, many planets have several moons orbiting them because of gravity. I don't see how this can be denied. Their positions can be calculated, etc. and it's well-proven.
I assure you, you can have a person believe in the literal Genesis account of Creation, and still believe that the planets revolve around their sun. There is no intrinsic link between Heliocentrism and Evolution.
And unless you can prove that they are INTRINSICALLY CONNECTED, not just "compatible", "commonly believed together", etc., then your whole thesis is worthless. Along with your charge of material heresy leveled at the past XX true Popes of the Catholic Church.
Time now to address the above Matthew. I was educated as an evolutionist and a Copernican. I felt intellectually superior for knowing this. My wife was a creationist and laughed at the idea of sponges evolving into elephants and that we do not see the sun move across the heavens because we are spinning and orbiting the sun. I tried to explain to her how science had proven everything and the Bible was a sort of religious way of explaining origins.
One day, when I was 50 years old, an American gave me a book on creation pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I was taken for an idiot. I got very angry that I could be treated so in a Catholic education. For two years I read every book on creation I could find so as to be able to defend creationism. Then I heard Pope John Paul II tell us all evolution was no longer a 'hypothesis.' I then read cardinal Ratzinger's IN THE BEGINNING. Good God I learned, they are both evolutionists to the core, Ratzinger even reinterpreting the meaning of Original Sin to fit into his scientific beliefs. With that pair of 'intellectual popes' telling all evolution is a fact, what chance have Catholics writing books on creation got to convince anyone it is a load of garbage. Then I found out Pope Pius XII was also an evolutionist and when I read his speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences about the Big Bang giving rise to the sun, moon and stars and they in turn forming a solar-system by way of Newton's gravity I dispared. Imagine, I thought, a traditionalist pope an evolutionist. So it didn't all start with the Modernists of the 60s.
Then I heard from a few Creationists that evolution could never have been accepted were it not for the fact that popes in 1741 and 1820 chose heliocentrism over geocentrism. Immediately I wanted to know more. My experience as an evolutionist and then a creationist showed me man can swallow anything as long as 'science' says its true. I then learned that science is 'atheistic,' it excludes anything preternatural. 'Then science has to exclude Creation by God, something out of nothing' I concluded, 'so that is why atheists use science to discredit religion.' That is why more people have abandoned religion than for any other reason.
I then began to study the Copernican revolution in both Church and State. I found the very same thing, science proving we live on a planet in a solar system, not on something especially created by God. I heard of and read up on the doctrine of geocentrism. I read of the Church's defence of geocentrism and how it came to a head with the Galileo case. I read up on Isaac Newton, an alchemist and antichrist,, and how he invented a theory of gravity that has since been accepted as the basis for heliocentrism and then for Pope Pius XII's gathering of stardust after the Big Bang to form a solar system. I searched for the science that confirmed Newton's theory as a law and found nothing but a mind-game. "Mass,' that is the trick, for who could ever test the 'mass' of a cosmic sphere. Here above Matthew you have fallen hook, line and sinker for this mind-trick, as billions of others have, right up to popes from 1741. The earth HAS to orbit because of its smaller 'mass'. Newton's theory was chosen by Freemasons and every other theory for gravity was ABANDONED. Yes, they found their MAGIC WAND - MASS, and they got matter to move itself without any input from God.
So, the Mother of all evolution theories the BIG BANG came directly from the heliocentric theory. Both supposedly formed the Solar system of heliocentrism and on the earth evolved everything.
The idea that a person can believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, and argue against the literal geocentrism of Genesis has always baffled me since I began to think and chose theology over science.
First of all, you can relax because I'm inclined towards Geocentrism now (thanks to those videos by DeLano and Sungenis)
But in the interests of accuracy, I'd like to point out a couple things.
First, I'd like to point out that I never believed in evolution (nor did I feel superior), even though I believed the earth rotated around the sun since I was a kid. I've always chosen Theology over science. So apparently believing the earth moves isn't immediately destructive. Maybe it is over time.
So your whole "backward look" is going to be tainted. It's going to affect how you present the case for Geocentrism. I'm here to tell you that most of your argument was unconvincing to someone like me, because I never believed in evolution (as incredible as that may seem, even though I believed THE EARTH REVOLVES AROUND THE SUN! *gasp*)
"My experience as an evolutionist and then a creationist showed me man can swallow anything as long as 'science' says its true."
No, I (for one) am not that much of a sheeple. Just read my other posts here on CathInfo. I don't believe in the h0Ɩ0cαųst, the Moon Landing, vaccinations, the Green Revolution or agri-business (monoculture), the official story on 9/11, the two-party American political system, public school, and I don't trust Big Pharma and their drugs, the Federal Reserve, the U.N., etc.
I do believe that the Jews/Illuminati/Freemasons have infiltrated the Church and I was taught this when I was a child.
That's not an exclusive list of how I am counter-culture. I could go on for paragraphs :)
I believed that the earth revolved around the sun because it was logical and made sense. The moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter, so that seemed to be the way God created things. It didn't take any scam of Newton to convince me of this; I believed that the orbits of all the bodies (including Earth) were established by God at Creation.
I never for a minute believed that the spin/orbit of the celestial bodies came about because of any primordial spinning disk/big bang.
Just like when I believed in Santa Claus when I was 5, my parents didn't push things too far by trying to make me believe in elves that make toys. Even at 5 years old, I wouldn't have fallen for that. My toy drill had a battery compartment, for crying out loud! My mom told me that Santa got his toys at Sears, and I believed that. (My toy drill didn't work and needed to be returned; that's why this conversation came up). She also told me that Santa came in through the front door, since we didn't have a chimney.
-
I recommend everyone watch these videos:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/U49_IzLeEo4[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/EMr8lb2tYvo[/youtube]
http://wallsandwood.com/info/principle_talks.html
-
My mom told me that Santa got his toys at Sears, and I believed that.
I rarely ever even click on this thread; way too long. But I clicked now & wanted to thank you for a good laugh! :laugh2:
[Although I shouldn't laugh, because I don't believe in teaching children the Santa myth. But still it made me chuckle to read that story.]
What, pray tell is
VRSNSMVSMQLIVB
I think she said it's from the back of the St. Benedict medal:
Around the margin of the back of the medal, the letters V R S N S M V - S M Q L I V B are the initial letters, as mentioned above, of a Latin prayer of exorcism against Satan: Vade retro Satana! Nunquam suade mihi vana! Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas! (Begone Satan! Never tempt me with your vanities! What you offer me is evil. Drink the poison yourself!)
(http://www.olrl.org/sacramental/pics/medal_back_sketch.gif)
-
I can't wait for the next installment! I had first started reading on IA but got overwhelmed with the length. But now I've read up to this end point and am extremely glad that I did. It really ties a lot of loose ends in my understanding of the gradual success by Satan, from the time of the early Renaissance to Vatican II, in undermining the doctrines of the Church.
Thank you Cantatedomino!
Awesome!!!!
Here we go!
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Continually repeating the arguments conjured up originally by Rheticus, Bruno and Kepler, Galileo quotes St. Augustine stating that one cannot interpret the Bible against clear and certain reason; hoping his scientific illusion of certainty would fool the theologians. He agreed that there could be no conflict between science and Scripture, for yes, God is Author of both. The last paragraph of Galileo’s above however, shows us he was the ultimate bluffer. No doubt he had his planetary phases in mind for his ‘sensory experiences,’ but he seems to have forgotten the overall cosmic sensory experience is 100% geocentric, with the sun, moon and stars doing their sensory rotations around the earth. As for necessary demonstrations - he had none - nor have any ever been shown since.
Next Galileo used his trump card, noting the fact that whereas the Scriptures cannot contain any untruth or error, exegetes can be mistaken when interpreting words and passages of Scripture. Biblical hermeneutics, in such cases, he asserted, should always be enlightened by natural science and its findings:
Since it is plain that two truths cannot contradict each other, it is the duty of wise interpreters to take the pains to find out the real meaning of the sacred texts, in accordance with those conclusions of natural science which the clear evidence of the senses, or apodictic [certain] demonstrations, have put beyond dispute. - - - Galileo: Letter to Castelli.
Here then was Galileo’s offence, practically accusing the Church, past and present, of interpreting the Scriptures erroneously while mouthing about evidence and proof for heliocentricism. It is obvious to us that Galileo, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, was never concerned for the interests of Scripture, but with eliminating it as an impediment to his own vainglory. Most commentators propound that Galileo was too good an empiricist to actually believe he had proof for the earth’s supposed motion, but we think this has to be said to prevent anyone thinking their hero was too stupid to see he had no real proof. If however, we go along with the apologists, we are presented with a clear scenario that shows us Galileo in his true colours. Had Galileo really believed there could be no conflict between the Scriptures and science, and that he was too good an empiricist to believe there was any real proof, then why didn’t he hold to the accepted traditional meaning of Scripture even until that expected real proof for a fixed sun emerged? But no, he did not, for Galileo had long abandoned the Catholic position, the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers (a sign of infallible elucidation) and all the exegetes in the Church at the time, from the moment he decided for himself - many years before his discoveries it must be said - that Copernicanism was the truth of it. [By 'Copernicanism' is signified a belief in heliocentrism as a physical truth and that the Scriptures can now be interpreted ‘heliocentrically.’]
Galileo wanted this ‘unearthing’ badly and the world to credit him with the most astonishing discovery of all time, and he was not going to allow the Bible to deny him such a place in history:
In his great polemical work The Assayer, directed against the Jesuit Orazio Grassi who had published a book on comets under the pseudonym of Lothario Sarsi, Galileo wrote: “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress.” (Fr. J. Brodrick: The Life and Work of Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, SJ., Newman, 1961, p.363.)
Meanwhile, the German astronomer Marius for one was mapping more clearly one of those things that Galileo was claiming for himself. A year later (1614), on the Fourth Sunday of Advent, traditionally a day to give a homily on the Scriptures, a Dominican, Fr. Tommaso Caccini, taking his cue from the canons of Trent, preached his historic sermon at Santa Maria Novella in Florence condemning Galileo and his heliocentricism and those propagating it as being compatible with Scripture. The address however, did not go down too well on either side of the row. It went too far, some said. The severity of this attack brought negative reactions from all quarters, even one from his brother Fr. Matteo Caccini. Nevertheless, complaints against Galileo and his group of Copernicans piled up until February 1615, when a Dominican, Fr. Niccolo Lorini, who had originally reproduced and distributed Galileo’s letter, sent a copy with all relevant accusations to Cardinal Sfondrato, Prefect of the Congregation of the Index, an arm of the Inquisition, for his assessment.
The cardinal replied that while granting certain tones in the letter were challenging, overall the sentiments could be interpreted in an orthodox manner and thus warranted no further action by the Holy Office at this time. Nevertheless, the opponents of this new philosophy continued to call on the Church to ban the assertion on the basis that it contradicted the literal interpretation of the Bible as held by all the Fathers and contemporary theologians.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Galileo, aware of this favourable comment, decided to send a copy of the letter to Monsignor Piero Dini, theologian and apostolic referendary, a friend of his in Rome, in order that he in turn might give it to the senior authority within the Roman Inquisition, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Galileo’s plan was working: his Letter to Castelli was getting that wider circulation he wanted, especially to those in the Roman theological and ecclesiastical circles possibly sympathetic to such a change of interpretation in keeping with the opinions of natural philosophers.
Galileo’s next move was to complete and expand on his Letter to Castelli, addressing it this time to the Grand Duchess Christina, fully aware that she had no time for his hermeneutics and exegesis. In his Letter to Christina he first offered his own discoveries as evidence for a fixed sun and moving earth. He then attempted to ridicule his critics by inferring they were intellectual retards, trying to defend the geocentric position with the Bible alone. Eventually he moved on to biblical exegesis and hermeneutics:
Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything unadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favour to our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of either Old or the New Testament . . . 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.
My, what a hypocrite Galileo was. Surely what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. In this same letter he states, "I hold the sun to be situated motionless in the centre of the revolution of the celestial orbs, while the earth revolves around the sun." How then can he say "we ought not to believe anything unadvisedly on a dubious point?" Did he really hold that he had proof, or, as his admirers say, "he was too good a scientist to believe he really had definitive proof?" If this is true, and he knew he did not have proof, why didn’t he take his own advice and remain neutral?
The second paragraph again shows us Galileo’s inability to understand the science of relative movement as pertaining to the sun and earth. Had he been able to do so he would have accepted his own teaching on the Bible, and that its geocentrism was one of those teachings surpassing all human reasoning.
Next Galileo uttered the ubiquitous Copernican quote first used by the Protestant Rheticus: "The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes." He then quoted St Augustine, a biblical geocentrist, as all good Copernicans do:
If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken, for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.
Of course, correct, that goes without question, but as Bellarmine said, there was no clear and manifest reasoning then, no proof for a fixed sun at all. Indeed he went further, stating that because Solomon described a moving sun in Scripture, he doubted any such clear and manifest proof for a fixed sun and moving earth would ever be found. He based this doubt on Catholic faith alone. But Galileo had no such faith; he rejected all of Bellarmine’s metaphysics simply because he was a scientist first and foremost. Thus he warned against dogmatising the Fathers’ geocentric interpretation based on human reasoning alone:
Hence I should think it would be the part of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or necessary reasons may show the contrary.
This Letter to Christina, then, went on even to challenge the wisdom of St Thomas who had written the following with regard to Christian theology, considered by the Church as ‘Queen of all the sciences:
The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through Divine Revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false. - - - (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).
But Galileo had his own ideas as regards faith and science:
In explanation and support of this opinion they say that since theology is queen of all the sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teaching of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her; these others must rather be referred to her as their supreme empress, changing and altering their conclusions according to her statutes and decrees. Now the physical conclusions in which they say we ought to be satisfied by Scripture without glossing or expounding it in senses different from the literal, are those concerning which the Bible always speak in the same manner and which the holy Fathers all receive and expound in the same way . . . First I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing to specify the virtues that entitle sacred theology to the title “Queen.”
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Meanwhile a Carmelite priest, Fr. Paolo Foscarini (1565-1616) published his Lettera sopra L’opinione dei Pitagorici e del Copernico. This synthesis also attempted to concord the heliocentric theory with Holy Scripture. The affair, we see, had advanced somewhat, given that members of the priesthood were now promoting books reinterpreting Scripture contrary to the canons of Trent. Confident in his ability to defend a scriptural heliocentrism, Foscarini came to Rome to argue the matter with Church theologians.
Slowly but surely the matter was coming to the door of Pope Paul V. First though, as with all such conflicts of the time, it had to pass through the office of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Master of Controversial Questions and Consulter of the Holy Office (Roman Inquisition).
So, who or what was the Holy Office? In the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the Apostolic Faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. This power included the censorship of books etc.
Later, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority. Finally, in 1620, Pope St. Pius V placed all departments in Rome under the Supreme Sacred Congregation.
We see then the difference between the Holy Office of 1616 and the image of the various ‘Inquisitions’ of various countries as portrayed today.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Sixteen: 1615: Cardinal Robert
Bellarmine
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_1v9ii-eN74/Uo24udaB_NI/AAAAAAAAEZk/puzWKudbI4A/s1600/St-RobertBellarmine1.png)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8169/7995062870_f219dc3f87_z.jpg)
St Robert Bellarmine
Among that sinister, red-robed group, one often stands out in the books more sinister than the rest. Even Catholic writers have emphasised what they considered to be his unhappy notoriety. “If one theologian were more prominent than another in his opposition to Galileo it was Bellarmine.” (Fr J. Brodrick S.J., The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J., 1928, republished by Newman, 1961, p.326.)
This then is how the centuries of apologists present the name of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and his part in the condemnation of the Copernican heresy. Believing themselves safe in their opinions because historians and scientists have assured us that it was Galileo, and not Bellarmine, who emerged the test of time vindicated on all counts, they now feel justified in castigating the cardinal for his total opposition to Galileo’s innovative exegesis. Such smears are to be found wherever the infamous Galileo case is written about.
One of the most important witnesses . . . is Cardinal Bellarmine, who was a very jealous anti-Copernican and had probably a great share (perhaps the principle share) in bringing about the practical condemnation of Galileo’s opinions in 1616. (F.R. Wegg-Prosser: Galileo and his Judges, London, 1889, p.35.)
As for non-Catholic writers, the venom is often a little harsher:
The heresy which takes its name from Copernicus owes its existence almost entirely to the judgment of the theologian of Montepulciano.
Bellarmine represents for more than twenty years the very personification of the war against science. His principle seems to have been the abdication of reason… (As quoted by Fr. J. Brodrick from two Protestant sources, op cit., p.327.)
Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII, who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found anywhere else in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, especially those of the Freemason King James I of England. Bellarmine’s catechism, translated into forty languages, spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the then Christian world.
Robert Bellarmine had many interests, one being an affinity for science. At the University of Louvain he was qualified enough to lecture on astronomy and in 1611 had viewed the sky through a telescope and had seen ‘some very marvellous things.’ Thus we can see that he was qualified to judge and comment on all aspects of the Galileo case. But Bellarmine had higher priorities, and the following story warrants repetition:
In the house where Bellarmine lived at this time, there was a sun-dial set in one of the outer walls. The gnome or pin of the dial was twisted out of position, but that fact had not worried Blessed Robert until Galileo came to stimulate his scientific interests. If one is to study the movements of the sun with accuracy, one must have a reliable instrument with which to measure them, so the Cardinal decided to have his sun-dial mended, and asked Fr. Grienberger and a young Jesuit student named Horatio Grassi to come to see whether they could do something with it. They told him that it would be possible to put it right at a cost of two 'giulii.' When he heard this, his face fell and he remained silent for a little time. Then he said to the two men, “I have not the heart to spend so much on my own convenience, for those two 'giulii' are enough to support some poor wretch for two days.” And so Grienberger and Grassi went home, the sun-dial, in Bartoli’s words, continued to be the 'bugiardo' that never spoke the truth, and some poor wretch had two 'giulii' in his pocket. (Story and references given by Fr. James Broderick S.J., op. cit., p.346)
Aware that Galileo had found moons orbiting the planet Jupiter, Bellarmine had the greatest admiration for the man, and Galileo, always courting favours wherever he thought they would be useful, sent the cardinal a copy of his book Discourse on Floating Bodies. Let us also note that at this time Cardinal Bellarmine was writing his own book entitled De Ascensione Mentis in Deum, The Mind’s Ascent to God (by the Ladder of Created Things). In this book, published in 1614, Cardinal Bellarmine devotes seven of his fifteen steps to "The Consideration of the Heavens, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars:"
The mind’s assent belongs to a close knit genre, the “Ladder of Assent” tradition. Asian religions often picture release of the burdens of life as a ladder. One can think of the ziggurat towers of the Babylonians (no doubt the kind of edifice that Jacob saw in his vision recorded in Gen. 28:10-22). The Bible describes steps towards God such as in Psalms of Ascent, depicting the way people climbed the steps up into the Temple (Ezek. 40:26, 31). In fact Bellarmine states in the introduction of this book that the reason for his fifteen stages up the ladder is Solomon’s precedent. From these ancient times to the history of the Church, the genre developed, occasionally giving us classics of western spirituality.
Step one is “The Consideration of Man,” step two, “The Consideration of the Microcosm.” Step three, “The Consideration of the Earth,” and so on. With nine steps he moves to discuss the angels, and then from steps ten to fifteen, God Himself is discussed . . . Step twelve invites the reader to consider the wisdom of God in relation to His omnipotence, particularly focusing on His knowledge of our life. The theme of the ladder is used throughout. We are reminded “You number my steps” says Job (14:16). God only knows our ways, but has mercy on our sins and insufficiencies. Step thirteen moves us into God’s practical wisdom, defending His choices made as the Creator of all things. (William Edgar: Christian Apologetics, Crossway, 2011. )
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Here in Bellarmine’s book, is a path to heaven. For example:
STEP SEVEN: The Consideration of the Heavens, the Sun, Moon, and Stars.
Let us begin with the first time. The Holy Spirit by the mouth of David praises in song four features of the sun which we see during the day, the first that it is the tabernacle of God, the second that it is very beautiful, the third that it is always running tirelessly and extremely fast, and the fourth that mainly shows its power in illuminating and warming. For all these reasons Ecclesiasticus writes that it is “an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High, great is the Lord that made him.” (Ecc. 43:2, 5) . . .
To show from things we know the outstanding beauty of the sun, David compared it to a groom leaving the bridal chamber. Men never dress themselves up more and never desire more to show off their beauty and handsomeness than when they marry. They want beyond measure to please the eyes of the bride whom they love intensely. If we could fix our gaze on the sun and if we were closer to it and if we could see it in all its size and splendour, we would not need the analogy of the bridegroom to grasp its incredible beauty. The whole beauty of colours depends on light, and the whole beauty of colours vanishes if light disappears. Nothing is more beautiful than light, and God himself, Who is beauty itself, wanted to be called Light. Saint John says, “God is light, and in Him is no darkness (I John 1:5) . . .
CHAPTER TWO: The Sun’s Course Shows God’s Greatness:/B]
Later the same Prophet celebrates the truly marvellous course of the sun. “He has rejoiced as a giant to run the way” (Ps 19:5). He is certainly a powerful giant, if he stretches his stride to match the size of his body and runs with a speed to match the strength of his forces, for he covers an absolutely immense space in a short time. The Prophet . . . later compared the sun to a giant man so that he could explain as well as possible the sun’s speedy course by using the same analogy. Even if he had compared the sun to flying birds, arrows, winds, and lightening bolts instead of to men, however large and strong, he would still have fallen far short of the truth . . .
CHAPTER FOUR: The Moon is Subject to the Sun; the Sun Attains True Glory When United With God:
The moon has two properties which can help us to ascend to and attain our God. The first is that, the more the moon draws near the sun, the more it is illuminated in its higher part, which looks toward heaven, and the more it falls into shadow on its lower part, which looks towards earth. And when it is wholly beneath the sun and is wholly in conjunction with it, then it is totally bright toward heaven and darkened toward earth.
Conversely, when the moon is opposite the sun, people living on the earth see it as completely bright, but it has no light on its upper part, which is seen by heaven’s inhabitants. This property of the moon can be seen as a fine illustration or example for moral men so they can understand how careful they should be about their closeness, subordination, and union to God, the true Father of light. The moon stands for man, the sun stands for God; when the moon is opposite the sun, then the light borrowed from the sun looks only at the earth and in a way turns its back on heaven. Hence it appears very beautiful to earth’s inhabitants but very ugly to heaven’s inhabitants. In exactly the same way mortal men, when they wander far from God, are like the prodigal son who left his father and went to a distant country. They misuse the light of reason, which they received from the Father of lights; examining only the earth they forgot God, think only about the earth and have only the earth [as a planet?] and devote themselves wholly to acquiring earthly goods . . .
This is why St Augustine notes in his Letter to Januarius, the Passover of the Lord in both the Old and New Law cannot be celebrated properly except after a full moon, that is, when the moon, which is opposite the sun at full moon, begins to turn and to come back into conjunction with the sun. God wanted to show by this heavenly sign how it happens through the passion and resurrection of the Lord that a man who is opposed to God by his sinfulness begins to turn towards God and through the merits of Jesus Christ to hasten to grace and union with Him . . .
CHAPTER SIX: The Order and Harmony of the Stars Mirror the Hierarchy of Heaven:
What is utterly wonderful in the stars is how, even though they move with extreme speed and never stop from their rapid course, some moving in slower and others in faster orbits, still they always keep their measure and proportion with the others so that they give rise to a sweet and melodious harmony. God speaks of this harmony in the Book of Job when He says, “Who can declare the order of the heavens, or who can put the harmony of the heavens to sleep?” (Job 38:37). This is not the harmony of voices and sounds that our bodily ears hear but the harmony of the proportions in the stars’ movements that the ear of the heart recognises. For the stars of the firmament all race together through the whole circle of the sky at the same speed during twenty-four hours, for those stars which are called planets or wandering stars are hurled with differing movements, some faster, some slower, so that the stars of the firmament seem to represent the bass notes (to use the common expression) and the planets play a sort of eternal and sweet counterpoint.
But the stars are above us and that harmony is hearable only to those who live in heaven and grasp the order of their movement. Since the stars keep their proper distances and never tire in turning in their orbit, they seem to behave like a joyous chorus of noble virgins who are ever dancing skilfully through the sky . . . (See Bellarmine’s Spiritual Writings, Paulist Press; New York: Mahwah, 1989.)
I am compelled to note here just how beautiful truth makes a man's mind.[/b]
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: In early 1615, Fr. Foscarini sent a copy of his book to Cardinal Bellarmine seeking his opinion on it. Bellarmine’s reply, dated April 12, 1615, constitutes the showpiece docuмent of the whole Galileo affair, for it reflects the Church’s doctrinal and canonical position at the time, which was quickly gathering momentum, crying for a resolution one way or another. Now it must be noted that by then the Cardinal, Chief Consulter of the Holy Office, had already concluded that Copernicanism was certainly heretical. Some weeks earlier Bellarmine’s personal opinion was reported to Galileo by Prince Ceisi (of the Academy of the Lynxes) in the following unmistakable terms:
With regard to the opinion of Copernicus, Cardinal Bellarmine, who heads the Congregations that deal with such matters, told me himself that he holds it to be heretical, and that the doctrine of the earth’s motion is beyond all doubt whatever ('senza dubbio aleuno') contrary to Scripture. (Letter from Prince Cesi to Galileo on January 12, 1615, Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Antonio Favaro, vol. X11, pp.129-131)
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. 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. 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 sun, 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.[Emphasis added]
(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.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Perhaps no other docuмent in existence summarises better the Church’s position immediately prior to its official definition and condemnation of Pythagoreanism/Copernicanism as heresy in 1616. Based on faith in revelation alone, Bellarmine forecast a truth hidden from men for 300 years when he said ‘it is not too likely that Solomon would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.’
To be fair, if there is a flaw in this correspondence it arises when the Cardinal leaves his area of expertise, theology and biblical hermeneutics, and ventures into the fallible area of scientific analysis or human reasoning. This occurs when he attempts to demonstrate geocentric relativism by using the analogy of an immobile beach and a moving boat with an immobile earth and a moving sun. Now whereas we do know a boat moves away from a fixed shore, we do not ‘know’ - in similar manner - that the sun moves relative to a fixed earth.
In December 1615, Galileo went to Rome believing his considerable powers of persuasion would convince others that biblical exegesis would benefit from the use of (his) natural reasoning. He had read Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini very shortly after it was written and is on record as having rejected it outright. (Stillman Drake: Galileo, pp.168-170.) It was then Cardinal Boniface Gaetani wrote to the Dominican Friar Tommaso Campanella (1568–1639) – who was in a Spanish prison at the time - asking for his views on the dispute.
Campanella responded by writing an eloquent plea for scientific freedom entitled Apologia pro Galileo (published in 1622); and although the book had merit, it failed because in this case it pitted human reasoning against the revelations of the Bible. Campanella was another churchman of the time whose life and works were entwined with Bruno and Galileo. He was a genius who at the age of 14 entered the same order as Bruno, the Dominicans, with whom he remained for the rest of his life. By the age of nineteen Campanella, an avid reader of everything he could get his hands on, was soon a convinced Hermeticist with its wide range of ideas about everything. One of these was that an understanding of nature and reality could be known through reason alone. He insisted that natural philosophy (science) should be founded on facts not on theology or opinion, a view he expressed even before Francis Bacon.
In 1592 he published Philosophy Demonstrated by the Senses. Rumours of his being initiated in occultism followed. In May of that year, he was arrested, judged by the Holy Office and temporarily imprisoned for heresy, eventually being ordered to abandon his ideas and return to Calabria in southern Italy. Campanella enrolled at the University of Padua instead, where he confided with other Hermetists there and, some say, met with Galileo. In 1594 he was again arrested and sent to Rome for trial where he was condemned and confined to a convent. On his release in 1597 he was accused of being involved in a conspiracy to overthrow Spanish rule in his hometown of Stilo. As a result, he was sent to prison in Naples for life. It was during this imprisonment when he wrote most of his books including City of the Sun (1623). As the name suggests, in this tome Campanella set out his heliocentric vision of an ideal utopian society ordered on Hermetic principles, one he believed would begin in 1600 triggering in a new age.
Campanella was one of Galileo’s staunchest supporters during Galileo’s conflict with the Inquisition. Frances Yates notes: "Both in the apology and in letters to Galileo, Campanella speaks of heliocentricity as a return to ancient truth and as portending a new age, using language strongly reminiscent of Bruno’s Ash Wednesday Supper, wherein he declared that establishing heliocentricity would free the human spirit. Elsewhere he assures Galileo that he is constructing a new theo¬logy which will vindicate him."
Campanella was finally released from prison in 1626 through Pope Urban VIII, who personally interceded on his behalf with Philip IV of Spain. From Naples he returned to Rome on probation under the Holy Office where he became Pope Urban VIII’s advisor in astrological matters. Urban VIII, it seems, was haunted by astrology and teamed up with Campanella to try to avert predictions of his death by the Spanish.
Facts like these demonstrate that Cassini's observations and comments about the ever weakening papacy are spot on.
Eventually Pope Urban VIII came to his Catholic senses and condemned astrology altogether. In 1629 he granted Campanella full liberty, but the man came under investigation by the Spanish for the second time in 1634. Campanella fled once again to France where he was greeted by King Louis VIII. He died on May 21, 1639.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Back in 1615, Galileo’s arrogance had become bolder and bolder. He became an irritant, a dangerous irritant, and one that no authority like the Church could tolerate for too long. Reading the situation clearly, the Tuscan ambassador warned the Grand Duke to tell Galileo to avoid confrontation with Pope Paul V when next in Rome, as the Pope, it was known, was becoming weary of the controversy. But Galileo persisted, saying that he had another ‘proof’ to declare, his infamous theory of the tides. Experiments with water in a vase showed him that if a vase of water is moved, this causes the water to move backwards. So, the water on earth moves likewise:
Thus, for 12 hours, a point on the earth’s surface will move eastward, in opposition to the global westward movement of the earth, and for 12 hours it will move westward, in the same direction as the annual motion. The composition of these motions causes on one hand a slackening (due to a subtraction of two opposite motions) and on the other hand an acceleration (due to an addition of two motions in the same direction). (The Galileo Project,)
Galileo’s ideas of the tides were those observed on the Mediterranean Sea, nowhere else, which has very small movements of water.
The 3rd proof, Galileo’s argument from the tides, goes straight against the facts observed. Yet Galileo did not shrink from calling the reports of two daily tides at the Atlantic coast “fables” merely invented to weaken the force of the argument. (Fr. Ernest Hull, SJ: Galileo and His Condemnation, p 88.)
This theory, which purported to show that the tides are caused by the rotation of the earth, was given to Alessandro Cardinal Orsini. He in turn approached the Pope with it. The Pontiff’s reaction was one of severe annoyance. He told Orsini to tell Galileo he had enough and unless he called off his attack on the Church’s scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics immediately, the Inquisition would be called upon to put an end to it.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Seventeen: Defending Geocentrism
(http://www.artble.com/imgs/4/a/5/216597/portrait_of_pope_paul_v.jpg)
Pope Paul V
As with centuries of conflicts affecting the Catholic faith, there comes a time to resolve such matters once and for all to prevent any further detriment to teachings left in the protection of the Church. What happened next is clear from a letter written by the Ambassador Guicciardini:
In Consistory on Wednesday, Cardinal Orsino - it may be with a want of prudence and consideration - spoke to the Pope in favour of Galileo. His Eminence, the Pope said, would do well to persuade Galileo to give up his opinion; and then, somewhat nettled at the Cardinal’s reply, his Holiness put a stop to further remarks by saying that he had placed the matter in the hands of the Cardinals of the Holy Office. (Venturi: Memorie e Lettere, vol.1, p.267.)
On the nineteenth of February 1616, under orders of the Pope, eleven chosen theologian-qualifiers of the Supreme Inquisition were sent the following propositions for their consideration:
(1): That the sun is in the centre of the world, and is totally immovable as for locomotion.
(2): That the earth is neither in the centre of the world nor immovable, but moves as a whole and in daily motion.
Unfortunately there are no records or details as to how the qualifiers of the Inquisition reached their decisions. Let us speculate then and simulate what might have been said by the qualifiers at that meeting:
- First, let us look at some of the biblical references to a moving sun and fixed earth.
From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice . . . - Malachi 1:11
Be angry and do not sin: do not let the sun go down upon your anger. - Ephesians 4:26
- Now in these two examples, it can be said the authors may be writing in a figurative way, or in the common language of man, describing things in a manner which is obvious to the senses, or what God Himself, when addressing men, signalled in a human way according to their capacity as they describe it. There is a case in saying these passages do not carry a statement of a true physical movement of the sun. Now be this as it may, there is no reason to say that such figurative expressions could not also be literally true, none at all. This proposal of metaphor however, does not hold out against other passages, as Bellarmine pointed out.
Behold I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone down in the sun dial of Achaz with the sun, ten lines backwards. And the sun returned ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down. - Isaias 38:8
And Ezechias had said to Isaias: What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me and that I shall go up to the temple of the Lord the third day? And Isais said to him . . . Wilt thou that the shadow go forward ten lines or that it go back so many degrees? And Ezechias said: It is an easy matter for the shadow to go forward ten lines, and I do not desire that this be done, but let it return back ten degrees. And Isaias the prophet called upon the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backwards by the lines, by which it had already gone down in the dial of Achaz. - IV Kings 20:8-11
The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands . . . He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide from his heat. - Ps. 18:1, 6-7
Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still . . . Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel. - Josue 10:12-13
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again . . . Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. - Eccl. 1:4-7, 10
- The above passage is attributed to Solomon, who described himself like so.
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 Wisdom 7:15-21
- Recall Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion in his Letter to Foscarini (1615):
Thus it is not too likely that he [the above Solomon] would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. - Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
- In Josue 10:12-13, we find Josue indulging in human speech followed by comment interpreters must hold as a communication from God. The teaching of the Church has always been that God not only caused the human writers to conceive the truth of what they were writing, but that their language was infallibly chosen so as to express the divinely intended meaning. Now given tradition always adhered to a geocentric meaning for these same passages and theologians applied this to the hidden and wider analogies contained in them, how in God’s name it could be that that meaning was in error, and that the author of Scripture, the Holy Ghost Himself, really meant it as the halting of the earth’s supposed revolution and not as stated; the halting of the sun’s motion? If this were so, could the passage not have simply stated, "And the earth stopped its turning, so that the sun appeared to stand still.…?"
- The other passages indicate a similar precision. They show in the clearest terms the authors really did affirm the sun moves overhead east to west. But more than that, for in Josue the author describes the sun moving as the moon moves. Who could argue that this does not incorporate a physical comparison of both movements in the sky? Take also Ecclesiastes. Does not the writer compare the journey of the sun to that of the rotation of the water-cycle, i.e., sea-vapour-rain-sea, a very real and unmistakable cyclic movement created by God in His creation? Who can read the Scriptures and say that this is not what the Holy Ghost meant? Can the Lord deceive or be deceived?
When the Apostles listened to the Lord talk of the Father ‘making the sun to rise’ (Matt.5:45), did He lead them into an error of certitude by way of metaphor, allowing them to live out their lives in ignorance of both the Scriptures and the actual creation itself?
Science lacks the ability to interpret Scripture; if it were otherwise, we would end up denying revealed mysteries, all far beyond the empirical sciences to explain. To introduce scientific criticism in questions of Faith would be to reduce them to human stature, which is the same as denying them. Of course we cannot entertain such conjecture.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
- Very good. Let us now proceed to the second proposition, the idea that the earth moves and is consequently not at the centre of the world. Here then is a selection of some passages of Scripture for our consideration.
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. - Ecclesiastes 1:14
Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support (super stabilitatem suam); it shall not be moved for ever. - Ps. 103:5
He hath fixed the earth, which shall not be moved. - Ps. 92:1
He has made the world firm, not to be moved. - Ps. 95:10
- Our first consideration is that if the sun moves, the earth does not, for in this scenario, both cannot be doing the moving. These quotes, if language is to have any meaning at all, indicate the earth’s immobility. Take for example Ps. 103:5: Thou who didst found the earth on its stable support; it shall not be moved for ever. If we are to accept a heliocentric view then we should now have to interpret it so: Thou who didst place the earth in its orbit; it shall not cease from steadily revolving therein.’
We can of course apply the same logic with equal efficacy to every text we find. Now how in God’s name can we subject the Scriptures to such interpretation? This simply could not be done without totally departing from the meaning of words, which of course would render the Holy Scriptures totally redundant as a coherent source of revelation. Moreover it would mean that the Holy Ghost did not endow Solomon, the Apostles, the Fathers and those given the gift of knowledge and understanding with a full revelation of the Holy Books; for, according to the Copernicans, that would have to wait until the physical sciences revealed the true meaning of the Scriptures. Such a proposition is outrageous, a threat to our very understanding of the Holy Ghost and our Catholic faith. What passage of Scripture could the Church propound with certainty anymore? Where would it all end?
It is that, or entertain that the authors applied a false perception of immobility to the Scriptures, which then could only mean the Scriptures err in this matter. Neither of these options is open to us and therefore we have no choice but to read them in the same manner as all the Fathers.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In 1870, a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Reverend William W. Roberts wrote the following argument that the books of Scripture undoubtedly depict geocentrism; and if this is not true, God could not be their author.
How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an inter¬pretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact.
Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it un¬lawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations?
Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, there¬fore, God could not have been their author? (Rev. William W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of them, Parker and Company, London, 1870, revised 1885, p.20.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Returning now to our speculation concerning the deliberations of the consultors of the Holy See:
- Let us consultants now consider some seemingly contrary entries.
The earth shook and trembled. - Ps. 76:19
All the foundations of the earth shall be moved; - Ps. 81:5
At the presence of the Lord the earth was moved; - Ps. 113:7
- Now we qualifiers are all trained and learned theologians, well versed in Scriptural knowledge and in the interpretations and opinions of the Fathers, Doctors, and eminent exegetes of the Church that went before us. They knew instantly that particular texts of Scripture referring to the ‘earth’ differ from the others in that these and other similar ones are in these cases of a metaphorical movement of the earth, that is, by presenting the earth as representative of the men who live on it, and who either through fear or astonishment at some divine occurrences are moved in many different ways. In other cases sometimes such passages merely refer to earthquakes or movements of the earth confined to certain parts and places of the earth, but not the whole earth itself.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: Today, throughout the world, in both Church and State, the earth is incessantly referred to as a ‘planet.’ Where Scripture always uses the God-given name Earth, mankind now uses the terms ‘this planet,’ ‘on the planet,’ and ‘the planet earth.’ This is a huge shift in language and meaning. If it is true, why nowhere in the Scriptures is there a hint of this? Nowhere does the Bible refer to the earth as anything other than the stable earth.
As regards the planets, prior to their identification as planets they were known as ‘wandering stars.’ Now given the Church teaches that the writers of Scripture knew the truths of what they were writing, why is there not a hint that in fact the earth was one of those ‘wandering stars?’ Search the Bible as we did, there is only one reference to the planets or as they were called then, ‘wandering stars.’ In the Epistle of St Jude the Apostle, brother of St James, he warns against false teachers and heretics who will ‘deride what they do not know:’
These men . . . wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. - St Jude 1:13
Brother Lee puts it like this: "It seems that some Christians are stars, it seems that they are shining, but their shining is a deception. They are stars, but they are not the steadfast stars. If you follow them, you will be misled; eventually you will not know where to go. They themselves are wandering: they have no ground, they have no standing, and they have no certain way to go on with the Lord. Today they say this, and tomorrow they will say that; they are wandering. Be careful! You can never find Jesus by following a wandering star." (Website: Finding Christ by the Living Star.)
[But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things so ever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted. Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain: Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion; wandering stars, to whom the storm of darkness is reserved for ever. (Jude: 10-14). In Her post-U-turn (1835) message of La Salette (1846) Our Lady said: "They [the leaders of the people of God] have become wandering stars which the old devil will drag along with his tail to make them perish."]
Note the distinction made in the Bible between the stars and wandering stars. Is it credible that the biblical Earth was in fact ‘a wandering star?’ Nothing in the Scriptures is written that is not deliberate. Surely there is an analogy here with the Pythagorean doctrine that led men into heresy as defined by the Church in 1616. To hold anything else is simply not credible.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
On Wednesday, February 24, 1616, the same propositions were qualified in virtue of the Pope’s order:
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.” (First publicly recorded by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644. (Fr. W. Roberts.))
Proposal number two, the suggestion that the earth moves, was also found to be philosophically absurd. The idea that the earth is spinning at 1,065 mph while flying around the sun at speeds that have since been calculated at 67,000 mph, faster than a bullet fired from a gun, without a single effect felt or seen on earth – bar the theory of the tides that Galileo had up his sleeve and was working on at the time without telling anybody - was philosophically absurd to the theologians of the time. The idea that the earth came suddenly to a stop without any record of effects as it would have to have done to account for Isaias 38:6 would have been philosophically absurd for the theologians also. Other philosophical objections can be made today as we will see later.
This second proposition was not found formally heretical because it was based on certain scriptural inferences, not explicitly so according to the words of Scripture like a moving sun is. With regard to the definition of formal heresy, ‘erroneous to the faith’ and philosophically absurd, the Church remained within the parameters of its divine protection and guidance.
Moreover, and this is important, note what was condemned and what was not. At no time did the Church confirm any geometric system of the cosmos, neither the Ptolemaic or the Tychonian. No it did not, only that the sun moves in orbit and that the earth, at the centre of the universe (not necessarily the mathematical or geometric centre), does not move at all. These are principles, not models of the universe as a whole.
The following day, the February 25, 1616 - the day on which Pope Paul V actively presided at the Holy Office as its prefect - the censures were reported to him by Cardinal Mellinus after which the Pope gave his two well-known orders, one to Bellarmine, and one to the Commissary of the Holy Office, Fr. de Lauda.
The first order was that Galileo was to be summoned and told of the decision and advised to abandon the heresy. Cardinal Bellarmine was to call Galileo to the Vatican Palace where he was to be notified that he could no longer propose Copernicanism as a truth or a possible truth. There was also to be present Fr. de Lauda, who would, in the event of Galileo objecting, deliver a more severe warning to him under threat of imprisonment. [It seems that the second injunction was intended for one who they believed simply could not be trusted to keep the heliocentric model as a mathematical tool. And they were right.]
At the Palace, the usual residence of the afore-named Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, the said Galileo, having been summoned and standing before his Lordship, was, in presence of the very Reverend Father Michael Angelo Seghiti de Lauda, of the Order of Preachers, Commissary General of the Holy Office, admonished by the Cardinal of the error of the aforesaid opinion and that he should abandon it; and immediately thereafter, in presence of myself, other witnesses, and the Lord Cardinal, who was still in the room, the said Commissary did enjoin upon the said Galileo, there present, and did order him in the name of his Holiness the Pope, and the names of all the Cardinals of the Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion in question, namely that the sun is the centre of the universe and immovable and that the earth moves; nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend in any way, either orally or in writing. Otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in the Holy Office.
The said Galileo acquiesced in this ruling and promised to obey. Done in Rome, in the place aforementioned, in the presence of the Reverend Badino Nores from Nicosia in the Kingdom of Cyprus, and the Reverend Augustino Mongardo, of the diocese of Montepulciano, both witnesses belonging to the said Lord Cardinal’s household. (A. Favaro: Galileo e L’Inquisizione, 1902, p.62.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Now this docuмent, filed with others connected with the Galileo case, gave rise to an endless amount of controversy in the nineteenth century, and although the truth of it has been teased out by scholars familiar with the history of the affair, it continues to be bandied about as a deliberate forgery inserted into the file so as to trap Galileo during his trial in 1632.
Here is one such example:
Bellarmine issued Galileo with a certificate forbidding him to “hold or defend” the theory. But, unknown to Galileo and Bellarmine, another docuмent was placed in the files of the Holy Office which said that Galileo was forbidden even to discuss heliocentricity. At best this docuмent is just an unsigned preliminary note, but is more likely a forgery created by an unscrupulous official. Yet it played a pivotal role in the trial of Galileo in 1633 . . . The condemnation of Galileo was unjust and the trial was rigged against him . . . (Prof. W. Reville: Galileo, the man and the Myth, Irish Catholic, 14th July, 2005, p.9.)
Professor Favaro however, who could never be said to be sympathetic towards the Church’s position, given he held Galileo to be absolutely in the right, after studying the docuмents for twenty-five years confirmed the report was not planted in the files but had been placed there in 1616 and was a true account of what had actually taken place in Bellarmine’s house that day, with no sort of arriére-pensée in it.
Here is a summary of what Fr. Roberts believed happened: Two officers of arrest summoned Galileo on the morning of Feb. 26, 1616. Now whereas the exact words of the meeting were not put on the record, Fr. Roberts and others believe that Bellarmine, when he met Galileo at the door, would have told him that the commissary was inside, and that it would be wise to accept what he had to say without open resistance. It may be that Fr. de Lauda saw this or suspected what was said and decided to give his injunction to Galileo anyway.
Cardinal Bellarmine informed Galileo that Copernicanism had been declared heretical and thus he could no longer hold or defend the heliocentric position as a truth, a reality. It was then the commissary interjected with a prepared statement giving Galileo an absolute injunction, that is, not to hold, teach, or defend Copernicanism in any way, either verbally or in writing thereafter. Because this intervention lay outside Fr. de Lauda’s brief, given Galileo did not protest, Bellarmine may well have refused to sign the docuмent as witness to its having been read to Galileo. Had Cardinal Bellarmine signed, it would have given the impression that Galileo had resisted the Pope’s censure, which he did not.
On March 5, 1616, the Congregation of the Index published the condemnations, under orders from Pope Paul V:
Since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun - which Nicolas Copernicus in his work 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium,' and 'Didacus a Stunica' in his commentary on Job, teach, is being promulgated and accepted by many, as may be seen from a printed letter of a cer¬tain Carmelite father . . . therefore, lest an opinion of this kind insinuate itself further to the destruction of Catholic truth, this Congregation has decreed that the said books be suspended till they are corrected; but that the book of Father Paul Antony Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing; as the present decree respectively prohibits, condemns, and suspends all. (Transcribed from the Elenchus Librorum prohibitorum, published at Rome in 1640, under the editorship of Fr. Francis Capiferreus, who, be it observed, was secretary to the Index when the edict was issued.)
[Pythagoreanism as we saw, is the philosophy, the heresy, that accepts three fundamental assumptions about the world: 1) that the sun is fixed at the centre of a universe which is organized in the most simple and harmonious way possible; 2) that the planets, one being the earth, move in circular paths around the sun, the circle being a form of perfection; 3) that the truth of things is to be found in numbers, and therefore the truth of nature is revealed through the science of mathematics, geometry and numbers alone.]
As Andrew White commented, "the papacy committed itself as an infallible judge and teacher to the world by prefixing to the Index the usual Papal Bull giving its monitions the most solemn papal sanction. To teach or even read the works denounced or passages condemned was to risk persecution in this world and damnation in the next."
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any guilt, a disgrace he could not have lived down at the time. Bellarmine of course understood and obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:
We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus . . .
26th day of May 1616,
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO
It is here in this letter that we find evidence that Cardinal Bellarmine was not the tyrant some in history have made him out to be. We have evidence to show he attributed the decrees to the highest authority. He certainly did not regard it as a simple congregational judgement as the apologists would soon argue. On the contrary, in this certificate he ascribed it exclusively to the Pope himself as Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition and named the Congregation of the Index as the mere medium of its publication. The certificate also shows that Galileo did not defend the heresy when meeting with him and Fr. de Lauda. Had it been otherwise, or had de Lauda’s caution been signed by Bellarmine, the scrupulously just cardinal could not have issued the above letter.
Galileo finally returned to Florence where he remained in his hermitage near the city in silence, working and writing on a draft of a new book that would, in time, stir the pot once again. The following year, 1621, Pope Paul V and his faithful Cardinal Bellarmine died. Cardinal Bellarmine would be made a saint of the Church in the 20th century. They both fought the good fight and condemned a most dangerous heresy for what it is and always will be. Roma locuta est, causa finita, Rome had spoken; the matter was ended.
-
Tomorrow - May 13th - is the Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine (and also a Fatima Day).
Let us pray to him and to Our Lady to remain in the Truth until death.
-
Happy Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine!
-
To be fair, neither the Ptolemaic model nor the Tychonian model are biblical; the following is the cosmology presented in the Scriptures:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--8raeleXdi4/T58gdoWEi3I/AAAAAAAAASY/_WHctaDhIhA/s1600/Ancient%2BHebrew%2BCosmology%2B-%2BVersion%2B2.jpg)
As you can see it's very charming.
-
Collect for St Bellarmine's Mass;
O God, who didst fill blessed Robert, thy bishop and doctor, with wonderous learning and virtue that he might break the snares of errors and defend the Apostolic See; grant us by his merits and intercession, that we may grow in the love of truth and that the hearts of those in error may return to the unity of Thy Church. Throuhj the Lord.
Epistle.. same as for St Thomas Aquinas.
Alleluia, alleluia. They that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament.
Alleluia. They that instruct many to justice, as stars for all eternity.
Gradual. Ecclus xliv, 16
Behold a great priest, who in his days pleased god and was found just. There was not found the like to him who kept the Law of the Most High.
Communion: Matthew V, 15
You are the light of the world; let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let us see how Vatican II presented him to the world:
‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.
There you are, no better than a TROUBLEMAKER. If anybody wants evidence of Vatican II's 'wolf in sheep's clothing' there it is.
-
97 years ago, on this Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine, Our Lady appeared for the first time at Fatima. She came to warn her children and provide the remedy against the pernicious, soul-killing errors which would spread throughout Holy Mother Church and thus, the world: "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, return unto the Lord thy God." Our Lady's second appearance at Fatima occurred on the Feast of St. Anthony of Padua, known as the Hammer of Heretics. Her last appearance at Fatima, on October 13, (Feast of a King, St. Edward of England) culminated with the spinning, rotating sun. Those with eyes to see, let them see; those with ears to hear, let them hear!
-
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
-
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
I like this site because it gives a tremendous amount of information on the Saints.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/
-
Cassini, you beat me to the point!!!
I was also going to post the collect from St. Robert Bellarmine!
-
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
Hi Mc, I am very glad you asked this question, I have wanted to share it with other Catholics.
The source of the above prayers for this feast day comes from THE SAINT ANDREW DAILY MISSAL with Vespers for Sundays and Feasts and Kyriale by Dom Gaspar Lefebvre O.S.B of the Abbey of St Andre imprimatur 1945, republished in 1999 by St Bonaventure Publications Montana
I got my missal as a present about ten years ago. I thought I knew my faith reasonably well until I started reading the introductions to each Sunday and feast days. It is incredible and shows all the connections between the OT and the NT. We get the story of each saint plus any special prayers allotted to them. I highly recommend it as the greatest companion to bring to Mass whenever one goes.
-
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
I like this site because it gives a tremendous amount of information on the Saints.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/
What a wonderful website. As you say, a tremendous amount of information on the Saints and a wide variety of general Catholic knowledge presented in a very edifying manner. A great find! Thank you.
-
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
I like this site because it gives a tremendous amount of information on the Saints.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/
What a wonderful website. As you say, a tremendous amount of information on the Saints and a wide variety of general Catholic knowledge presented in a very edifying manner. A great find! Thank you.
I agree. Go to the last two paragraphs, wow what a lesson.
the service of an excellent prince, fell dangerously ill. His master, who loved him very much, visited him, and found him in great danger. There he lay, in his agony, just ready to breathe his last. Moved by this spectacle, the prince said to him: Can I do any thing for you? Ask freely whatever you wish, and do not fear that I shall refuse you any thing. My Lord! said the dying man, I know only one thing which, in my present condition, I would like to ask of you. Prolong my life for one quarter of an hour! Alas! said the prince, that is not in my power. Ask for something else; something that I can procure for you. See! said the dying man, for fifty years I have served this master of mine, and now he cannot prolong my life for one quarter of an hour. O! if I had only served my God as well, he would grant me not a quarter of an hour only, but a whole eternity of happiness! Very soon after that, he breathed his last.
Shall we not, by and by, have the same fate ? We wear and wear ourselves out in the service of the world; we even sacrifice ourselves for it, and when our last hour comes, what will the world do for us, and what will remain to us after all we have done for it, if we have neglected the service of God, and the salvation of our soul? Let us consider this, and more sincereiy and firmly than ever before, say: I am resolved to save my soul, and for this I will labor the remainder of my life! Hitherto I have neglected this too much! Have I not reason to look upon it as a great favor, that God still gives me the time and the grace to meditate seriously on these things?
-
97 years ago, on this Feast of St. Robert Bellarmine, Our Lady appeared for the first time at Fatima.
In 1917, this date was a Ferial Day. St. Robert was not canonized until 1930.
He died on 17 September. He was beatified on 13 May 1923.
-
Quote from: The famous scientist Edwin Hubble
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility.... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs....
Edwin Hubble, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology".
I took this from:
"Current Science Excludes Geocentrism Through Unproven Assumptions"
by Mark Wyatt
http://geocentrism.com/assumptions.htm
Here's the context...
"The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."
The famous scientist Stephen Hawking said:
Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption
(A Brief History of Time, p. 42)
-
During this interlude I will post this brief article that I have just read from The Flat Earth Society website:
Is Science Mysticism?
When we look at science, we hope to see a rigid yet dynamic system which we use to quantify our world. Supposedly it is designed from the outright to remove bias with its main tenets dictating a strict non-opinionated approach to understanding and quenching our thirst and curiosity. At least that is our hope. In examination, we will show that mysticism, hallucinations, dreams and madness in many cases drive our progress in understanding, or at least inspiration leading to understanding, not strictly rational endeavor. Our aim is not to discredit these advances but instead simply to reveal their sources for what they are - nonrational.
Popper would look upon such an endeavor as suspect and an issue of psychology, not the nature of science or knowledge. I firmly disagree on the basis of the potential use of such psychological provide a method of sorts. Can elegance really be said to be less psychological? We can’t make any sort of claim to this effect. What is elegant to the satellite is not elegant to the traveler on Earth. Since mysticism is a valid mechanic of discovery and analysis it thus should be placed among the methodologies taught for use in science - despite its dangerous nature.
What exactly do we mean when we say mysticism or when we talk of mystical experience? Perhaps it is best if we discovered this through the context itself, which is to say through examples. We do have hordes of them, after all. And they paint their own picture.
Let us first put our attention towards those cases where vast improvements in science, technology, or understanding came through relatively normal (if indeed any of these accounts could be said to be ‘normal’) visions or dreams. Surprisingly it has happened more often than we’d first guess. Perhaps it occurs much more often - as one might be hesitant to talk of such experiences due to social stigma.
The most famous of these visions is like Einstein’s. As a small child in school he had a vision of himself running alongside light. From this he said his work on relativity followed.
Another notable example is Nikola Tesla, known for his integral part in the design of modern alternating current. One day he was taking an ordinary walk as any of us might and a vision appeared to him of rotating burning wheels. From this came the invention of the Electric Motor in 1887.
Dreams as we can see are not an uncommon method of inspiration and enlightenment. Otto Loewi, the father of neuroscience, had a dream on Easter Sunday 1923. He woke up, grabbed a nearby pad and scribbled down an experiment to prove that the transmission of nerve impulses was chemical and not electrical. In the morning, struggle as he could he simply could not read his writing. Luckily for us he had the same dream the next day and this upon waking went straight to work, and won himself a Nobel Prize for it.
Ahh, but there are more! So much more that we must be dainty in our selection, for like Rowbotham we are overwhelmed by the truth in all directions. So much more we must question how blind those are who deny that science is irrational at its core!
August Keke discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule under the influence of a day dream. In 1855 he had a daydream of the ouroboros while on a horse-drawn omnibus in London. To him it appeared as dancing atoms and molecules that directly led to his discovery.
Paul Davies recalls another for us in The Mind of God
For other scientists the revelatory experience happens spontaneously, in the midst of the daily clamor. Fred Hoyle relates such an incident that occurred to him while he was driving through the North of England. “Rather as the revelation occurred to Paul on the Road to Damascus, mine occurred on the road over Bowes Moor.” …. One day, as they were struggling over a particularly complicated integral, Hoyle decided to take a vacation from Cambridge to join some colleagues hiking in the Scottish Highlands:
“As the miles slipped by I turned the quantum mechanical problem … over in my mind, in the hazy way I normally have in thinking mathematics in my head. Normally, I have to write things down on paper, and then fiddle with the equations and integrals as best I can. But somewhere on Bowes Moor my awareness of the mathematics clarified, not a little, not even a lot, but as if a huge brilliant light had suddenly been switched on. ….” [pgs 228-229]
Paul Dirac, known to some as The Mystic of the Atom, would frequently have small revelations that guided his work. Off taking a walk to get away from his work one day on the Cambridgeshire countryside when out of blue he gained slight visual insight into the problem at hand: the non-commuting quantities in Heisenberg's theory. This was pretty common for him. (126 The Strangest Man, Graham Farmelo)
So often do insights come from these non-mundane sources it is inevitable that some would try to reach such states to steal insight through non-natural methods. And this is exactly what folks do.
Thomas Crick, co-discoverer of the double Helix structure of DNA, tells the story of how his use of LSD lead to this amazing discovery. He reveals to us that he would regularly take LSD and that it helped him to understand the structure of DNA, and thus winning him the Nobel Prize.
Kary Mullis tells the BBC in their Psychedelic Scene docuмentary:
“What if I had not taken LSD ever, would I have still invented PCR? I don’t know. I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.”
The evidence is stacking. Hordes upon hordes of instances, such that we only need to show a few to expose the truth. And yet like the walking dead they shamble around us. Hungry to be heard.
Carl Sagan was often known to smoke cannabis which he claimed in Marihuana Reconsidered “helped him intellectually.” Richard Feynman set up deprivation tanks and experimented with pot to “explore human consciousness”. Edison fueled his life by Vin Mariani, a cocaine infused wine that allowed him to sleep only 4 hours a night. Steve Jobs recounts his LSD experience as the “single most important event of my life.” But enough about those who found their way artificially. Far more interesting are the tales of natural experiences of this sort. Those that touch us to believe there is another abstract Platonic realm.
As it happens accomplished Physicist and Mathematician Roger Penrose has spoken often of “breaking through to the Platonic Realm.” Godel as well talked of experience with a realm where he could perceive mathematical objects. Of course this theme is not new to mysticism.
Others tell of an almost sixth sense from which they receive revelation. Einstein would talk of the "old one" and his religious feelings quite often. Both David Bohm and Brian Josephson, another nobel prize winner, are known to meditate to gain mystical insights to guide their creation of theory.
David Peat talks of his experiences
A remarkable feeling of intensity that seems to flood the whole world around us with meaning … we sense that we are touching something universal and perhaps eternal so that the particular moment in time takes on a numinous character and seems to expand in time without limit. We sense that all boundaries between ourselves and the outer world vanish, for what we are experiencing lies beyond all categories and all attempts to be captured in logical thought.
Okay, I can see you’ve had enough. But alas, there is so much more!
Here we must mention those ideas that sprang from decidedly mystical origins. A prime example being Heliocentrism whose origins of course are from mystical traditions in both Ancient Greek and Ancient Egypt. Aside from heliocentrism, Copernicus’s view that god can be known through study of the universe is what put his famous work on the Church’s Restricted Book List - it had nothing to do with some war between science and religion. Likewise, Faraday’s passion was summed up by his statement: “unravelling the mysteries of nature was to discover the manifestations of god.” Johannes Kepler saw God as a geometer and was influenced strongly by numerology. Newton was a strong believer in astrology.
But what should we take of all this? As one should clearly see by now, even with our dainty sampling of experience, mysticism is essential to the scientific process. So ingrained is the non-mundane experience with the advance of science that we can never hope to untangle these sources as outliers and restore a purely rational narrative of scientific advance.
What can we hope to gain from nurturing this behavior?
It is likely we will see faster advancement. Hopefully we will find ourselves also in a more moral and civilized science. Through examination of more mutations, even if they come from a somewhat socially unpleasant grounding, we can only hope to see more angles of the situation.
J Davis, American Flat Earth Society President.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.net/mysticism.html
Note: taking of mind-altering substances like LSD and other psychotropic chemicals has, I think, always been associated with witchcraft.
-
Quote from: The famous scientist Edwin Hubble
…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth...This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility.... the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs....
Edwin Hubble, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology".
I took this from:
"Current Science Excludes Geocentrism Through Unproven Assumptions"
by Mark Wyatt
http://geocentrism.com/assumptions.htm
Here's the context...
"The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance."
The famous scientist Stephen Hawking said:
Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption
(A Brief History of Time, p. 42)
on the same subject, the first person to reject an expanding universe was Copernicus. It is based on the geocentric order he was trying to dismiss. Note also that another heresy - that of an infinite universe - is made false by way of a rotating universe. A heliocentric universe allows for this heresy, embraced by many today
‘But why didn’t Ptolemy feel anxiety about the world instead; whose movements must necessarily be of greater velocity, the greater the heavens are than the Earth? Or have the heavens become so immense, because an unspeakably vehement motion has pulled them away from the centre, and because the heavens would fall if they came to rest anywhere else. But they say beyond the heavens there isn’t any body or place or void or anything at all; and accordingly it is not possible for the heavens to move outwards; in that case it is rather surprising that something can be held together by nothing. But if the heavens were infinite and were finite only with respect to a hollow space inside, then it will be said with more truth that there is nothing outside the heavens, since anything that occupied any space would be in them; but the heavens will remain immobile. For movement is the most powerful reason wherewith they try to conclude that the universe is finite. ‘ --- On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
-
.
... ‘For movement is the most powerful reason wherewith they try to conclude that the universe is finite.’ --- On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
Fr. Nicolaus Copernicus ............ a Catholic priest ............
"...the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of heaven shall be moved" (Matt. xxiv. 29).
.
-
.
I couldn't understand this post until I recognized the single typo:
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
I like this site because it gives a tremendous amount of information on the Saints.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/
What a wonderful website. As you say, a tremendous amount of information on the Saints and a wide variety of general Catholic knowledge presented in a very edifying manner. A great find! Thank you.
I agree. Go to the last two paragraphs, wow what a lesson.
the service of an excellent prince fell dangerously ill. His master, who loved him very much, visited him, and found him in great danger. There he lay, in his agony, just ready to breathe his last. Moved by this spectacle, the prince said to him: Can I do any thing for you? Ask freely whatever you wish, and do not fear that I shall refuse you any thing. My Lord! said the dying man, I know only one thing which, in my present condition, I would like to ask of you. Prolong my life for one quarter of an hour! Alas! said the prince, that is not in my power. Ask for something else; something that I can procure for you. See! said the dying man, for fifty years I have served this master of mine, and now he cannot prolong my life for one quarter of an hour. O! if I had only served my God as well, he would grant me not a quarter of an hour only, but a whole eternity of happiness! Very soon after that, he breathed his last.
Shall we not, by and by, have the same fate ? We wear and wear ourselves out in the service of the world; we even sacrifice ourselves for it, and when our last hour comes, what will the world do for us, and what will remain to us after all we have done for it, if we have neglected the service of God, and the salvation of our soul? Let us consider this, and more sincereiy and firmly than ever before, say: I am resolved to save my soul, and for this I will labor the remainder of my life! Hitherto I have neglected this too much! Have I not reason to look upon it as a great favor, that God still gives me the time and the grace to meditate seriously on these things?
The "last two paragraphs" quote begins with "the service of an excellent prince..." but it should say "The servant of..."
See the difference:
The servant of an excellent prince fell dangerously ill. His master, who loved him very much, visited him and found him in great danger. There he lay in his agony, just ready to breathe his last. Moved by this spectacle, the prince said to him: "Can I do any thing for you? Ask freely whatever you wish, and do not fear that I shall refuse you any thing." "My Lord!" said the dying man, "I know only one thing which, in my present condition, I would like to ask of you. Prolong my life for one quarter of an hour!" "Alas!" said the prince, "that is not in my power. Ask for something else; something that I can procure for you."
"See!" said the dying man, "for fifty years I have served this master of mine, and now he cannot prolong my life for one quarter of an hour. O! if I had only served my God as well, he would grant me not a quarter of an hour only, but a whole eternity of happiness!" Very soon after that, he breathed his last.
.
-
.
... ‘For movement is the most powerful reason wherewith they try to conclude that the universe is finite.’ --- On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
Fr. Nicolaus Copernicus ............ a Catholic priest ............
"...the stars shall fall from heaven and the powers of heaven shall be moved" (Matt. xxiv. 29).
.
Neil, Copernicus never became a priest, he only had minor orders, deacon or something like that. He was a caretaker of a church and a doctor of sorts. His expertise was in geometry and maths. He rarely looked at the stars and drew his data from Hipparcus and Ptolemy.
-
What do you all think of the diagram I posted earlier of the ancient Babylonian cosmology, which is the one that the Hebrews used and the one depicted in the Bible? The fact is that if you are committed to a literal interpretation of Biblical cosmology then you are committed to a belief in a flat Earth. If I'm wrong in that assertion then by all means correct me. Einstein's theory was mind bending to heliocentrists / Copernicans, just as their theory was mind bending to geocentrists / Ptolemeans, just as their theory was to flat-earthers. St. Augustine, I believe, railed against the notion of a spherical Earth in his City of God, the same Saint who found a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis to be quite difficult, albeit St. Augustine did not have the same body of observational evidence to work with as we do today.
-
What do you all think of the diagram I posted earlier of the ancient Babylonian cosmology, which is the one that the Hebrews used and the one depicted in the Bible? The fact is that if you are committed to a literal interpretation of Biblical cosmology then you are committed to a belief in a flat Earth. If I'm wrong in that assertion then by all means correct me. Einstein's theory was mind bending to heliocentrists / Copernicans, just as their theory was mind bending to geocentrists / Ptolemeans, just as their theory was to flat-earthers. St. Augustine, I believe, railed against the notion of a spherical Earth in his City of God, the same Saint who found a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis to be quite difficult, albeit St. Augustine did not have the same body of observational evidence to work with as we do today.
The depiction of the universe you posted Mc is absolutely beautiful and depicts the faith by way of a picture, just as Michelangelo’s painting of Creation on the roof of the Sistine Chapel in Rome depicts the creation of man. As regards a flat earth, well TE explained this like so: It is addressed to those who laugh at the idea, not you Mc who ask a perfectly reasonable question.
'Any mention of an earth-centred or geocentric universe or reality today is usually associated with what moderns deem a sister ignorance or naivety, belief in a flat earth. This is the standard insulting rebuttal used by those long indoctrinated into heliocentric certainty, those led to believe they are more intelligent and knowledgeable in these things than those Bible-thumping churchmen of the seventeenth century. It seems some individuals before then did claim the Bible teaches the earth is flat, while others claimed it revealed the earth is a spheroid. But the truth is that the only ‘flat-earthers’ to be found among the churchmen who condemned Galileo and his fixed-sun heresy exist in the sceptics’ prejudices. That the earth is a globe was the conclusion of ancient reasoning. They knew the shape of the earth as seen on the moon during an eclipse is always a full sphere. That would hardly be the case if the earth were a flat disc. The shifting position of stars as man moved north or south also the fact that ships appear and disappear over the horizon demonstrated to them the curved nature of the earth. Geocentrism and flat-earth belief then do not go hand in hand, as many propagandists would have you believe.'
-
...The fact is that if you are committed to a literal interpretation of Biblical cosmology then you are committed to a belief in a flat Earth...
This is from Isaias 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
-
Thank you for the quote cassini, it confirms what I was aware of beforehand, viz. that Churchmen had abandoned the Flat Earth long before the Copernicus-Galileo fiasco. My dilemma here is that I thought we were meant to be rescuing a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and how can we be rescuing a literal interpretation of the Scriptures from Copernican contradiction when the spheroid Earth of Ptolemey/Tycho already contradicts the Scriptures! Though I appreciate that we are also trying to rescue the reputations of the Catholic Church and St. Robert Bellarmine, which are without doubt worth rescuing. It's just that it makes little sense to me that St. Robert Bellarmine would complain to Galileo that heliocentrism contradicts Scripture when St. Robert Bellarmine's own spheroid model already contradicts Scripture!
The scientific case for the Flat Earth Model seems hopeless. A geocentric model may be defensible however, it's just a question of whether or not it is in fact worth defending. I'm starting to get the feeling that all attempts to arrive at a complete geometric picture of the Universe is completely vain. From the Flat Earth to the Multiverse I feel as though we've been sinking deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of madness, and that we ought to go back to the Flat Earth model for its pleasant look, and just leave the mathematics to the mathematicians.
Mathieu, I've just checked and it seems that all translations other than the Douay-Rheims (which is the translation that I use) prefer the word "circle" or "disk" to "globe". It seems that the pious translator may have opted for "globe" to make the Scriptures conform to the cosmology that prevailed in his day, though I cannot be sure. However, if you investigate Biblical cosmology you will find that it is grounded in the Babylonian Flat Earth which I posted a diagram of earlier in the thread.
-
Yes, the Latin is: Qui sedet super gyrum terræ, which gyrum, taken on its own, would mean circle.
But how is it that you are sure the Hebrews take their view from the Babylonians? What sources, I mean, have you found this in? And if they did see it this way, I am still not sure why we are looking to them for answers.
My reasoning is this: are we to take the true interpretation of the Scriptures from the ancient Hebrews, for whom the texts would only have been shadows of things to come, or from the Church, who would always have the full and infallible understanding of the Sacred Scriptures?
-
Thank you for the quote cassini, it confirms what I was aware of beforehand, viz. that Churchmen had abandoned the Flat Earth long before the Copernicus-Galileo fiasco. My dilemma here is that I thought we were meant to be rescuing a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and how can we be rescuing a literal interpretation of the Scriptures from Copernican contradiction when the spheroid Earth of Ptolemey/Tycho already contradicts the Scriptures! Though I appreciate that we are also trying to rescue the reputations of the Catholic Church and St. Robert Bellarmine, which are without doubt worth rescuing. It's just that it makes little sense to me that St. Robert Bellarmine would complain to Galileo that heliocentrism contradicts Scripture when St. Robert Bellarmine's own spheroid model already contradicts Scripture!
The scientific case for the Flat Earth Model seems hopeless. A geocentric model may be defensible however, it's just a question of whether or not it is in fact worth defending. I'm starting to get the feeling that all attempts to arrive at a complete geometric picture of the Universe is completely vain. From the Flat Earth to the Multiverse I feel as though we've been sinking deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole of madness, and that we ought to go back to the Flat Earth model for its pleasant look, and just leave the mathematics to the mathematicians.
Mathieu, I've just checked and it seems that all translations other than the Douay-Rheims (which is the translation that I use) prefer the word "circle" or "disk" to "globe". It seems that the pious translator may have opted for "globe" to make the Scriptures conform to the cosmology that prevailed in his day, though I cannot be sure. However, if you investigate Biblical cosmology you will find that it is grounded in the Babylonian Flat Earth which I posted a diagram of earlier in the thread.
Terrific stuff Mcfiggy, it is a credit to you to discuss these things so that we can be clear as to what we are all talking about.
Here is how I see it. What we are defending is the Church's correctness in standing by the literal interpretation of two principles of geocentrism, that the sun moves and that the earth is at the centre of the universe. These are the ONLY TWO interpretations DOGMATISED as literal, the first as formal Heresy, the second as contrary to catholic faith. At no time did the Church bind anyone to any particular geocentric order of the universe.
Genesis, the theologians knew, is not all literal, so in fact they were not defending 'a literal interpretation' of Genesis, but marking out these two things in Genesis that are literal.
I agree with you on the 'globe' issue, it is a little ambigious so I did not quote it as such even though we know now it meant globe. One has to be careful as the Copernicans isolate such details in an effort to undermine the G case.
-
Yes, the Latin is: Qui sedet super gyrum terræ, which gyrum, taken on its own, would mean circle.
But how is it that you are sure the Hebrews take their view from the Babylonians? What sources, I mean, have you found this in? And if they did see it this way, I am still not sure why we are looking to them for answers.
My reasoning is this: are we to take the true interpretation of the Scriptures from the ancient Hebrews, for whom the texts would only have been shadows of things to come, or from the Church, who would always have the full and infallible understanding of the Sacred Scriptures?
I wouldn't state that the Hebrews took their cosmology from the Babylonians. For all I know it was the Hebrews that taught the Babylonians about cosmology. I suppose I have spoken misleadingly using a term like "Babylonian cosmology". What I ought to have said is something like, the cosmology represented in the Bible bears resemblance to the cosmology of the ancient Babylonians. The point is that they believed in a flat-earth model. All the talk in the Scriptures of the "firmament" refers to the solid dome that was believed to encapsulate the disk of the Earth and the lower heavens. The stars were underneath this solid dome. There were portals or windows in the solid dome through which heavenly objects and persons could pass.
Yes, cassini, you are right about that. The Church dogmatized a negative proposition; she did not say what the cosmology is, but only what it certainly could not be; so we know that the Copernican model is certainly false, which is reassuring, because the Copernican model of Earth hurtling through space at thousands of miles per hour in six directions is mindboggling.
-
Also, please do not think that just because the Biblical cosmology is similar to a cosmology that was present in ancient Babylon that I for that reason dismiss it as false. It is conceivable to me that the ancients got it right and that the moderns have been mislead by vain notions, as that has certainly happened in other spheres such as religion and politics. So to me the ancient cosmology has just as much credibility as any modern cosmology, if not more credibility seeing as it's the cosmology that the prophets used. However, it seems as though the Flat Earth model can no longer be upheld given what we know about the Earth. We have communications systems spread across the Earth; we have planes travelling around the Earth; we have satellites mapping the Earth from above. I went on to the Flat Earth Society website and while their claims are interesting the fact is that they rely too much on conspiracy to justify their theory. I'm not against conspiracy theory because I think that cօռspιʀαcιҽs definitely do happen, it's just that the modern Flat Earth has to take it to an uncomfortable extent. They deny space travel and satellites orbiting the Earth completely, for example, and claim that GPS is done from the ground. Now, I do not trust NASA at all but I still think this claim is extraordinary. I still hope that we have never reached the Moon (or Mars), for the old theologians used to speak of the Moon as inhabiting a certain sphere, beyond which the Universe was said to be perfect (i.e. you have the "sublunar" world which is touched by sin, and the "superlunar" world which has remained perfect). There's also the fact that Mary is depicted as standing upon the Moon, so I feel like taking a rocket ship to the Moon is a symbolic attack upon her. I do think that there's enough reason to suspect a hoax in regards to Moon & Mars exploration, but as for satellites I think it's a leap.
Here's how many of the Flat Earthers picture the geography of the Earth, with the "North Pole" in the centre and Antarctica being an "Ice Wall" that surrounds the Earth. They say that when people fly by plane from one continent to another they are actually taking a circular path.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png)
-
Happy Feast Day of St. Roberto Bellarmino to all of you!!!!
What a happy day, and how blessed to come across this sermon by Fr. Joseph:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/_sOLoiEbOmI[/youtube]
-
cassini, do you have an internet resource that would tell me the Feast Days of the Saints and special prayers to be said on those days, etc.? I think that would be a great addition to my prayers.
I like this site because it gives a tremendous amount of information on the Saints.
http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/
What a wonderful website. As you say, a tremendous amount of information on the Saints and a wide variety of general Catholic knowledge presented in a very edifying manner. A great find! Thank you.
Welcome!
-
Here is an audio book:
St. Robert Bellarmine: The Seven Words on the Cross
https://archive.org/details/7WordsBellarmine
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Eighteen: 1616-33: Galileo’s Dialogue And Trial
(http://wpcontent.answcdn.com/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Urban_VIII.jpg/200px-Urban_VIII.jpg)
Pope Urban VIII
The condemnation of Galileo in 1633 is one of the most embarrassing episodes of Catholic history. Galileo’s further proofs and calculations appeared to treat Copernicus’ findings with more credence than a mere hypothesis . . . The Galileo affair is still a stick for the Church’s critics to beat it with. The Church’s methods and conclusions were shameful. The whole affair remains a warning for those who put rigid dogmas before humility. (The Catholic Times review of Mario d’Addio’s book The Galileo Case, Gracewing, 2005.)
Illustrating first of all the standard propaganda of centuries, let us now continue the story in the light of the truth; that no empirical proof for a fixed sun has ever been produced. Indeed the empirical data found since shows the opposite.
"Galileo returned to Florence [in 1616] discouraged but not defeated," writes J.J. Langford in the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopaedia. Galileo, as usual, is attributed the persistence of a saint in the face of persecution, and the teaching Church is treated as though Galileo had a moral right to reject and defy its decrees. In Galileo the Earthmovers had a champion, a bulldog so proud and arrogant that he would never let go of his mission, not until he was dead, and even then he would do his work from the grave. From all over Europe Galileo began to get letters and visits of support, even from within the Church itself.
With the appearance of three comets around 1618, the astronomical debate moved over to their nature and place. One of the senior Jesuits of the Collegio Romano, Horatio Grassi, published an opinion similar to that of Tycho de Brahe, that comets were solid bodies independent of the sphere of earth, sun and planets. Inevitably, Galileo was asked to comment; and he went on to attack the deduction, insisting that comets come under the sphere between the moon and the earth. In return, but using the name Sarsi, Fr. Grassi responded by questioning Galileo’s ability to interpret cosmic appearances properly.
The following year, on 28 February 1619, the Congregation of the Index, after acquiring and reading Kepler’s Epitome of Copernican Astronomy published in 1618, condemned and prohibited it. Added to this were condemnations and bans on Copernicus’ De revolutionibus and books by Diego de Zúñiga, and Fr. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, including proscriptions on ‘all books that teach the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun.’
Following this, in 1620, a monitum was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index laying out the ‘corrections’ they wanted in Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus before it could receive an imprimatur.
Given the subject of comets had no doctrinal strings attached, Galileo felt safe in responding with a new book The Assayer, published in August 1623 by the Academia Lincei, a book that sold out immediately. The Academy, by placing the Pope’s coat-of-arms on the frontispiece of the book and by dedicating it to Urban VIII - a Florentine intellectual with a brilliant mind, and an old friend of Galileo’s - hoped to gain the Pope's goodwill and support.
The main purpose of The Assayer - a brilliant piece of prose, satire, and sarcasm by all accounts, enjoyed even by the Pope himself - was to try to undermine the expertise and cosmology of the Jesuit astronomers. What historians and authors fail to emphasise however, is that Galileo’s arrogance in this book was based upon his error that comets are near-earth phenomena caused by some sort of light refraction. It seems it was the Jesuits who got it correct this time - and Fr. Grassi was the one proven correct. Galileo we see - usually depicted these days as an infallible astronomer - did not always interpret the appearances correctly.
Meanwhile the Lincean Academy went about trying to improve its status. In September 1623, the Academy elected Francesco Barberini, the twenty-six-year-old nephew of Pope Urban VIII, to its ranks. A few days later he was made a cardinal and the Lynceans had themselves a cardinal member. Later, in April 1624, having arrived in Rome, Galileo got his long awaited audience with Pope Urban VIII. This was the first of six private audiences, and, while they were said to be amicable, we read that the Pope and Galileo did discuss the banned doctrine of heliocentrism among other things. Throughout their talks however, Urban VIII, in various ways, tried to convince Galileo that God, in His infinite power and wisdom, was not restricted by man’s known or contrived physics when it came to ordering the motions of the heavens. He may well, the Pope argued, move them by His Will alone, or, if He uses secondary causes, could have created the universe on the solid foundations of physics undreamed of in human minds, and set the sun, moon and stars in motion according to laws man might never discover. The Pope was telling Galileo (and for that matter all who would follow him from Newton to Hawking) that he (and they) had a long way to go to discover the mind of God.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Meetings between Galileo and Pope Urban VIII’s Lyncean cardinal-nephew, however, were far more encouraging, and such were the invitations to Galileo to discuss the matter with others that he was reminded of the good old days in 1611. Soon he had the opportunity of meeting other cardinals and always he broached the idea that he might speak again on the credibility of heliocentrism if objections could be removed.
Two months later, in June 1624, Galileo returned to Florence with gifts from the Pope and a promise of a pension for his son and daughter. The Pope had given a reluctant nod to a new publication provided Galileo kept his subject matter in the realm of a neutral polemic only, discussing the merits of each system in determining the changing appearances in the sky, as well as recording the advice give to him. The Pope then sent a note to Ferdinando II de Medici of Florence that described Galileo as the Pope’s ‘beloved son.’ Alas, Galileo had nothing but betrayal in his mind; for his intention was to resurrect heliocentrism as the real order of the sky and he was not going to allow the Bible, the Pope and the Holy Office stop him.
From 1624 to 1630, Galileo worked on and off this new book. He had decided to risk everything in the hope that if he produced acceptable ‘proof’ for a fixed sun and a moving earth, the 1616 decree and ban would be shown to be unsustainable. While working on his manuscript however, he still had to get imprimaturs for it. Having agreed to all the conditions the various churchmen proposed to attain such imprimaturs, he continuously submitted various parts for inspection to the relative authorities. The preface, of crucial importance to the book’s claim to be impartial, was read and reread by the censor Fr. Riccardi, Master of the Sacred Palace. Finally, in early 1632, the volume, now entitled Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican, was published, having received its final imprimaturs in Rome from Fr. Visconti and another in Florence from a Fr. Stefani.
That August 1632 however, Pope Urban VIII, after reading a copy of the Dialogue, condemned it for its bias towards heliocentricism. A brief insight into its contents showed this. It depicts three interlocutors indulging in conversations over four days. First there is Galileo’s own position represented by a man called Salviati, an intelligent, learned and educated person who argues for the Copernican theory. Then there is Segredo, supposedly neutral, included as the one to be convinced. Thirdly, there is Simplicio, the Aristotelian, a good-natured simpleton or fool who defends a geocentric and geostatic earth, quoting some of the arguments put forward to Gaileo by Pope Urban VIII when they discussed the project in 1624.
Salviati, representing Galileo, refers to Simplicio, who does not accept or fails to see his heliocentric arguments as proving it has to be the correct order, as little more than a dumb idiot. Here again we find Galileo in his true colours, holding everyone but himself with contempt born out of sinful pride (see Mat. 5:20-24). Fourthly, not satisfied with one pro-heliocentrist in the debate, Galileo occasionally introduces a second one, a ‘Lincean academician’ to try to tip the balance for a fixed sun and moving earth.
Day one of the book deals with the principles of motion and natural philosophy. Day two is crucial to the history of the Galileo case. It treats of the relativity that subsists in space and in the earth/sun relationship, that which prevents any true or proper motion relative to these two cosmic bodies being established for certain. Surely this showed Galileo - if he was as clever as the Earthmovers make him out to have been – must have figured out he could never find empirical proof for heliocentricism. Nevertheless, as we know, he wrote as if he believed he had established proof with his discoveries and theories. Indeed, if one needed evidence that Galileo was one of the biggest chancers in history then there it is.
Day three contains an argument for the supposed yearly motion of the earth around the sun based on the annual variation of sunspots. In this section Galileo tries to establish that just as the retrograde motions of planets are best accounted for with the Copernican system, the appearance of sunspots can be saved more simply using the Copernican model, while virtually impossible with the Ptolemaic system. But again Galileo was either ignorant or trying to avoid the truth, for the Tychonic system explains the appearance of sunspots equally well. Moreover, like Copernicus before him, he ignores the precession of the equinoxes relevant to both systems, which, if acknowledged, would show both models are equally complex to save the appearance. (See David Topper: ‘Galileo, Sunspots, and the Motions of the Earth,’ Isis review, 1999, p.757.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
On day four the book deals with Galileo’s supposed proof for a spinning earth by means of the ebb and flow of the tides, a hopeless theory, as we have seen, that shows he must have been desperate to support his cause.
In the fourth day Galileo dealt with the tides. Short of invoking miracles, he began; there is no way to explain great and recurring motions of large seas on an absolutely fixed earth. That is correct and it follows that any scientific explanation of the tides must involve motion of the earth. (S. Drake, Galileo, Oxford University Press, 1980, p.75.)
Is that a fact Mr. Drake? To use an analogy, that is like saying there is no way to explain trailing smoke from a ship that is not in motion. But as any science student would have to agree, there are two possible explanations for such a phenomenon. True, a moving ship will cause its smoke to trail, but a wind will also cause this smoke to trail even if the ship is absolutely fixed in anchor. In the case of the tides, if inertial forces do cause them, then it doesn’t matter whether the action or inertia is caused by a moving earth or by the rotation of the sun, moon or stars around a fixed earth.
At the end of the fourth day in his book, Galileo cannot restrain himself, and has Simplico repeating what Pope Urban VIII has said to him on April, 1624:
I admit that your thoughts seem to me more ingenious than many others I have heard. I do not [however] consider them true and conclusive; indeed, keeping always before my mind's eye a most solid doctrine that I once heard from a most eminent and learned person, and before which one must fall silent, I know that if asked whether God in His infinite power and wisdom could have conferred upon the watery element its observed reciprocating motion using some other means than moving its containing vessels, both of you would reply that He could have, and that He would have known how to do this in many ways which are unthinkable to our minds. From this I forthwith conclude that, this being so, it would be excessive boldness for anyone to limit and restrict the Divine power and wisdom to some particular fancy of his own.
To which Salviati (Galileo) answers:
An admirable and angelic doctrine, and well in accord with another one, also Divine, which, while it grants to us the right to argue about the constitution of the universe (perhaps in order that the working of the human mind shall not be curtailed or made lazy) adds that we cannot discover the work of His hands.
There can be no doubt Galileo’s Dialogue ends with what can only be described as a mockery of Urban VIII’s advice. We recall the Pope was patient and fair with Galileo. He treated him as a friend, a ‘son,’ his own favourite scientist. After the Dialogue however, Judas would have been a more fitting name for Galileo Galilei.
It had been late spring 1632 before the Dialogue reached the authorities in Rome. Pope Urban VIII now saw in Galileo a man who, although given warning not to postulate the Copernican heresy as a truth, was once again touting it to the world as a reality. As pope, his duty was of course to defend the Church’s teaching. Critics however, suggest the Pope sought revenge against Galileo; thus adding slander to Urban VIII’s character.
Towards the end of the summer, His Holiness ordered a special commission to examine the book and draw up a report of the circuмstances under which the imprimaturs were obtained. This body returned a corpus delicti of eight points. The immediate result of this was an injunction to stop the Dialogue and to sequestrate all accessible copies. Then, on the 23rd September, a letter was sent on the Pope’s command to the Inquisitor-General of Florence, bidding him serve Galileo with a summons to present himself before the Commissary of the Holy Office in Rome during the ensuing month to explain his unfaithfulness.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
On the first day of October 1632, Galileo acknowledged the execution of this order and promised obedience. At the same time he did not mean to go if he could avoid it. A week later he wrote to Cardinal Barberini expressing his surprise that his ‘enemies’ had been able to persuade the authorities in Rome his work should be suppressed and complained of the great hurt he felt at being summoned there as though he had committed some grave fault. In all his writings, he claimed, he had ever kept the interests of the Church steadily in view; and though he would rather die than disobey, he trusted that his great age, the state of his health, and what he must suffer in a journey to Rome might be considered sufficient reasons for the Congregation to grant him at least a reprieve.
Francesco Niccolini, the Florentine ambassador, not without misgivings and mainly in deference to Fr. Castelli's advice, presented the letter to the Cardinal. In writing back, the cardinal points out the necessity of absolute submission, and that Galileo must not think of defending his opinion, but must be prepared to make any retraction the Holy Office chose to demand.
In the meantime the ambassador left no stone unturned trying to get the order rescinded. It was however, all in vain. Cardinal Ginetti and Monsignor Boccabella, the Assessor of the Holy Office, listened to his representations but did nothing. He then tried to soften the Pope. ‘I went this morning,’ he writes in a dispatch dated the 13th of November, ‘into all the circuмstances of the case with his Holiness, and tried to stir up his compassion for the poor old man. I asked him if he had seen Galileo’s letter to Cardinal Barberini. The Pope said that he had, but could not dispense with his coming to Rome.’ Ambassador Niccolini hinted that he might die on the road. ‘He may come slowly,’ said the Pope, ‘in a litter, and have anything he pleases to lessen the discomforts of the journey; but he must be examined here in person; and God forgive him for having got into such a scrape after I had extricated him on a former occasion.’
On the 20th November 1632, the Inquisitor at Florence wrote to say that he had again met Galileo and that he had now expressed his willingness to obey, but pleaded his age, his bodily ailments, that he was then under medical treatment, and so forth. He had exacted from him a promise, in the presence of witnesses, to start at the end of the month, non so poi se L'eseguira. "If he does not," his Holiness replied, "he must be made to do so." But on the 18th of December the Inquisitor notified that his vicar, on visiting Galileo, had found him confined to his bed, declaring himself quite incapable of undertaking the journey to Rome in his then state of health.
A certificate was forwarded, signed by three of the most eminent medical men in Florence, to the effect that Galileo was suffering from hernia, and could not be moved without peril to his life. But his Holiness and the congregation were incredulous, and returned on the 30th December the famous letter with stringent orders that Galileo had better come to Rome. Galileo’s friends begged him to start at once. On the 2Oth January 1633, he managed to get well enough to begin the journey in one of the Grand Duke’s litters. On the 13th February he reached Rome; the next day he paid his visit to the Commissary of the Holy Office.
Throughout the proceedings Galileo had been treated with great consideration and courtesy. Against all precedent he was not confined to the dungeons of the Inquisition but allowed to stay as the Tuscan Ambassador’s guest at the villa Medici until after his first examination. Then he had to surrender formally to the Inquisition, but instead of being put into a cell, he was assigned a five-roomed flat in the Holy Office itself, overlooking St. Peter’s and the Vatican gardens, with his personal valet and Niccolini’s major domo to look after his food and wine.
Here he stayed from 12 April to the third examination on 10 May. Then, before his trial was concluded, he was allowed to return to the Tuscan Embassy, a procedure quite unheard of, not only in the annals of the Inquisition but of any judiciary. Contrary to legend, Galileo never spent a day of his life in a prison cell. (A. Koestler, op. cit., p.500.) [The facts also confirm that Pope Urban VIII was not after revenge on Galileo but brought him to trial to protect the faith and set an example.]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Fr. Roberts, in his 1870 book, writes: "It has been contended that the Pope was under an impression that Galileo meant to hold him up to ridicule in the Dialogue, and that mortified vanity prompted his conduct. But the evidence does not warrant this charge. What Pope Urban did fully agrees with what he said - that he was taking up the case on purely public grounds, from a conviction that the interests of religion and the faith were at stake; and sorry as he was to pain an old friend, and one standing so high in the favour of the Grand Duke, he could not do less than prohibit the Dialogue and its doctrine while making an example of the author.[/i] (Fr. W. W. Roberts The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them, Parker & Co., London, 1870 and second edition, 1885.)
Because of his position as ‘the Pope's official scientist,’ and his high standing within the state of Florence, Galileo was not like other men who came under the investigation of the sacred tribunal. Pope Urban VIII personally directed the affair at all times. Had all the copies of Dialogue been successfully seized, some compromise might have been possible, but by the time the authorities acted a thousand copies of the book had been distributed out of sight throughout Europe.
To handle such a sensitive case the Pope ordered his nephew, Cardinal Barberini, to set up a special commission to investigate the matter. "Such an extraordinary commission could be justified only in cases of exceptional gravity, but above all in cases of a difficult theological nature," wrote the historian Pietro Redondi. In his book, Redondi, failing to see the seriousness of the heliocentric heresy, but aware of the significance of a special commission, proposes a theory that Galileo's crime was the threat ‘atomism’ presented to the dogma of transubstantiation. (Pietro Redondi: Galileo Heretic, Penguin Books, 1983, p.245.)
The facts are however, that the subject under examination was that of the doctrine of the sun’s movement and the earth’s immobility - all historians agree to that.
Our commission, too, was motivated by very serious concerns of a theological nature, for the pope reveals its existence to the Florentine Ambassador Niccolini on Sept 4, 1632, he will justify his decision by saying that “it was a matter of the most perverse material that one could ever have in one's hands . . . doctrine perverse to an extreme degree.” (Pietro Redondi, Galileo Heretic, p.245.)
Why, I wonder, is it so difficult for the leaders of Tradition - priests and bishops - to understand the extreme perversity of copernicanism and, therefore, the absolute need for making total war on it? Why are they so blind? Why do they fiddle while Rome burns?[/b]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The special commission set up to investigate and examine the Galileo case was made up of three of the most eminent theologians of the time. The first was Pope Urban VIII’s personal theologian, Monsignor Agostino Oreggi, an ex-pupil of Cardinal Bellarmine and a consultant to the Holy Office. The second investigator was also chosen because he too was ‘the Pope’s man,’ Fr. Zaccaria Pasqualigo, known as a brilliant professor of theology. The third commissioner chosen was a Jesuit, Fr. Melchoir Inchofer S.J., Professor of Theology at the Spanish University at Messina. He was not only a theologian but had a fair knowledge of astronomy and mathematics, as a reading and understanding of the Dialogue demanded.
Ambassador Niccolini, who had been very active trying to save Galileo throughout the summer of 1632, requested an audience with the Pope. On Sept. 4th he was granted a meeting at which he presented a letter of protest against the makeup of the special commission. The Pope became very angry with this request saying that ‘Galileo had dared enter where he should not, into the most grave and dangerous subjects that one could possibly raise at this moment.’ He added that those theologians would examine ‘every word’ of the book.
Insisting Galileo was still his friend, the pope said there would be a trial ‘in the interests of faith and religion,’ because the matter was ‘troublesome and dangerous, far more serious than His Highness believes.’ Ordering the Ambassador to secrecy, the Pope told him to ‘try to be a bit alert, and I should immediately explain to His Highness that Signor Galileo, under cover of his school for young men, should not impress on them troublesome and dangerous opinions.’ (From Niccolini’s letter to Cioli, Sept. 18, 1633, Works, pp.383-5.)
Thereafter the Pope communicated with Ambassador Niccolini through his private secretary Pietro Benassi, telling him that it was impossible to avoid an official trial due to the damning evidence in the Dialogue. It was, the Pope said, a matter that ‘put Christianity in danger.’ The seriousness with which the Pope viewed the matter is evident. Later, during an audience on March 13, 1633, Urban VIII reiterated to Ambassador Niccolini that Galileo must be put on trial for these ‘dangerous doctrines.’ What the Pope made clear was that this was a case of serious heretical subversion, ‘which,’ he repeated once again, ‘put Christianity in danger.’
The special commission met in secret five times. Once it completed its investigation it submitted the findings directly to the Holy Office. Satisfied that the 1616 decree was true and safe, three points were made:
1) Galileo had transgressed orders in deviating from the permitted hypothetical standpoint by maintaining decidedly that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary;
2) He had erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides to the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which is not true;
3) He had been deceitfully silent about the command laid upon him in 1616, viz., to relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the earth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing.
There followed "it now remains to be considered what proceedings are to be taken against the person of the author, and against his printed book." The rest of the submission was taken up with an elaboration of the charges against Galileo and a fuller account of the negotiations for the imprimatur.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: On April 12, 1633, Galileo appeared before the Commissary-General of the Inquisition for the first time. Galileo’s trial had begun.[/size[
The Trial as told by the Rev. W. W. Roberts:
Every one admits that Galileo during his trial was treated with unusual indulgence; and his sentence was a much lighter one than he had reason to expect. Let us look at things from the standpoint of the court. It assumed, we must bear in mind, that the doctrinal question had been settled, and that the decision of 1616 was absolute. The issues before it were these two: Had Galileo wilfully transgressed the order he was under, not to treat of Copernicanism in any manner? Did he hold, and had he written advisedly in favour of that condemned opinion? If so, according to the ruling of the court, his crime was heresy.
Galileo’s answer on the first count was that he had completely forgotten the order contained the words “teach in any manner.” And to render this statement credible he produced Bellarmine’s record of the order without the words. He had taken, he said, that certificate as a complete account of the transaction it referred to. Nor had it occurred to him to tax his memory on the subject. Further, since it was obvious that the judgement notified to him was one and the same thing with the declaration of the Index, he had not supposed himself to be under any special restriction, and had not thought it necessary to mention the order when he applied for the imprimatur.
With regard to the second point he absolutely denied that he had meant the Dialogo to be a defence of Copernicanism. He granted that vainglory, and the desire men have to show off their cleverness in arguing even for propositions they allow to be false, had led him to give an appearance of strength to the Copernican side; but his real intent had been to show the inconclusiveness of the argument for the theory. And he begged the court to allow him to add a dialogue to the work, to make the thing quite unmistakable. But the evidence was dead against him. And we cannot wonder that the three consulters of the Holy Office, Oreggi, Inchofer and Pasqualigus protested against his defence, and declared their conviction that the accused had held, defended, and taught, the theory of the earth’s motion [and sun’s stability].
It remained for the Pope to determine what should be done. He must have been morally sure that Galileo had not spoken the truth and had it been his object to crush the man, he might, I take it, have condemned him for heresy on the data he had. Instead of doing this, he decreed as follows:
Galileo was to be questioned about his intention. He was to be threatened with the torture even though it was never intended due to the fact it was illegal to torture anybody of Galileo’s age. If he responded to the threat and admitted his guilt, he was to be condemned - after making the abjuration de vehementi in a full assembly of the Holy 0ffice - to imprisonment during the pleasure of the Sacred Congregation.
An injunction was to be laid on him never again to treat of the heliocentric theory, for and against, by word of mouth or in writing, under pain of being dealt with as a relapsed heretic. The Dialogo was to be prohibited. And that all might know those things, his Holiness commanded the Congregation to send copies of the sentence to all the nuncios Apostolic, to all the Inquisitors of heretical pravity and to the Inquisitor of Florence, who was to summon mathematical professors to hear it read publicly.
[Footnote p.88. In this part of the order the Pope not obscurely intimated his will that the Copernicanly-minded Catholics should be forced to yield assent to the decision of 1616. For the local tribunals of the Inquisition were to take their tone from the Supreme Court.]
Accordingly, on the 21st of June 1633, Galileo underwent a final examination with respect to his intention in writing the Dialogo. He was asked to say whether he held or had held, and since when, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that the earth is not the centre, but moves, and with a diurnal movement. He replied that before the determination of the Congregation of the Index, and until he received an order to the contrary, he had suspended his judgement on the matter, and had thought it an open question whether the truth lay with Ptolemy or Copernicus, there being no reason in the nature of things why either might not be right. But when his superiors decided the point, he ceased to doubt, and held, and continued to hold, the opinion of Ptolemy, that the earth is fixed, and that the sun moves.[/color]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Fr. Roberts, cont.:
The Congregation submitted that his having written the Dialogo was inconsistent with this statement, and urged him to speak the truth. He said that his object in writing the Dialogo was to exhibit the astronomical and physical arguments that might be advanced on both sides of the controversy; and to show that, as reason could not settle the question, recourse must be had to a higher teaching – alla determinatione di piu sublimi dettrine.
He concluded by again asserting that he did not hold the condemned opinion, and had not held it since its condemnation. He was then warned that the presumption was so strong against him, that if he did not confess, the court must have recourse to the remedies the law provided for such cases. He repeated his assertion that he had not held the opinion of Copernicus since he had been ordered to give it up: “I am in your hands, and you must do what you think fit.” He was then told, in plain terms, that if he did not speak the truth, he would be put to the torture. “I am here,” he said: “to obey. I have not held that opinion since the decision against it.” The Congregation, having so far carried out the Pope’s orders, dismissed him to his place. The next day he was summoned to the convent of the Minerva; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the sentence was pronounced:
The Inquisition’s Sentence:
"And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616], in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture [which is formal heresy].”
And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question.
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Thus the declaration of the Index, for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed, was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough, but mark what followed.
“And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine . . . procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, had been announced to you, the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held."
[Footnote p.72. The abjuration was a solemn profession of faith, accompanied with a renouncement of every opinion opposed to the Church’s teaching, exacted only from those attainted of some crime implying unsoundness of faith. Hence Galileo’s anxiety to return to Florence after the proceedings of 1616 with a testamur that he had not abjured, and therefore was not guilty of any breach contrary to the Catholic faith.]
“But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.”
Here the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But in what sense Papal? In a sense according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable; in a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with [one of] those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures - to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.
And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class.
[To be condemned as a heretic Galileo would have had to admit interior dissent to the prohibition of Copernicanism as a truth consonant with Scripture. Exterior assent such as that in his book was not enough to show what was in his heart. Without a confession, which Galileo denied, the Church cannot assume nor condemn something it cannot know with certainty. Thus Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of heresy based on the Dialogue alone.]
From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you. And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.”
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Fr. Roberts, cont.:
Galileo’s Abjuration
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. But because, after this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which holds that the sun is in the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend, or teach in any manner, the said false doctrine; and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I wrote and caused to be printed a book, wherein I treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments with great efficacy in favour of it, without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above named errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be. Moreover I swear, and promise, to fulfil, and observe entirely, all the penances that have been or shall be imposed on me by this Holy Office. And if - which God forbid - I act against any of these said promises, protestations, and oaths, I subject myself to all the penalties and punishments which the sacred canons, and other constitutions, general and particular, have enacted, and promulgated against such delinquents. So help me God, and His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
“I, Galileo Galilei above-named, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; in token whereof I have signed with my own hand this formula of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word.”
Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet, known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration:
“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same."[/color]
[Fr Roberts ends with quote from Gebler’s Galileo Galilei, London, 1879.]
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
This was accomplished; and in many cases the professors of mathematics, physics, and astronomy were assembled like their students at roll call and the trial docuмents read to them. Theologians and scholars were then urged to use their learning to show Copernicanism to be a serious heresy. Soon Europe was flooded with these critiques. Often, however, such publications ventured into the realm of science and foolish reasoning. It seems some missed the point and considered the objective was to defend the scientific integrity of geocentricity rather than its theological and metaphysical certainty.
Throughout Europe however, there were theologians who were relieved with the ban. Andrew White records that the Rector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo, wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels, "The professors of our university are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay this paradox has never been approved and never will be." (A. White op. cit., p.144.)
Having gained their victory over Galileo, living and dead, having used it to scare into submission the professors of astronomy throughout Europe, conscientious churchmen exulted. Loud was their rejoicing that the “heresy,” the “infidelity,” the “atheism” involved in believing that the earth revolves about its axis and moves around the sun had been crushed by the great tribunal of the Church, acting in strict obedience to the expressed will of one Pope and the written order of another. As we have seen, all books teaching this hated belief were put upon the Index of books forbidden to Christians, and that Index was prefaced by a bull enforcing this condemnation upon the consciences of the faithful throughout the world, and signed by the reigning Pope. - - - A. White.
Truly, if this is not a heresy, then the Catholic Church is not a Divine institution.[/color][/size]
Today the legend depicts Galileo in prison, defending his so-called proofs for a heliocentric world before a cruel, scientifically and theologically ignorant, unjust and heartless Inquisition. The truth however, shows no one ever had proof that the Church was wrong. It shows Galileo was guilty as charged. It shows he lied through his teeth as he perjured himself, and that had Pope Urban VIII and the Inquisition wanted to totally destroy him they could have done so. Instead they showed mercy and left his reputation intact.
After the trial and abjuration Galileo was eventually permitted to return home to his country estate at Arcetri and then on to his house near Florence, where he was confined under house arrest for the rest of his life. His penance, the recitation of the allotted Psalms, was transferred to his daughter Sister Marie Celeste, the Carmelite nun he had placed in a convent many years before, and who gladly took it upon herself to say her father’s penance, whether legally or not according to cannon law.
Galileo continued his study of dynamics, even being allowed to publish a new work Discourses Concerning Two New Sciences in 1636. In the second part of this book Galileo discusses his experiments trying to determine the paths of moving projectiles he had been working on since 1608. What he never postulated publicly again, only in private conversation and letter, was the forbidden heresy, Copernicanism.
Galileo was not the only one to suffer the consequences of their beliefs and actions in the wake of Pope Urban VIII’s purge of Copernicanism. Fr. Castelli, Galileo’s devotee, was banished. So too was Fr. Riccardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace, as well as Fr. Ciampoli, the papal secretary, for their failings in the affair. Redondi names others ‘displeasing to the regime’ who for one reason or another had their careers cut short and were removed from office. These included Fathers Grassi, Ridolfi, di Guevara, Pallavicino and others who had important positions at the time. Galileo also lived to see his Copernican ideas weeded out of most Catholic Colleges and universities in Europe. Here again is evidence that Pope Urban VIII was not singling out Galileo in revenge for the insulting way he wrote about him in the Dialogue. Alas, such a stand was only temporary, for within all such institutions were those who privately believed heliocentrism was the true order of our world, the secret Copernicans, biding their time for things to change.
Galileo’s punishment was to follow him into death and after it. He had wanted to be buried in his family tomb in Santa Croce, but this was denied to him. When he died in 1642, friends wanted to erect a monument over his grave, but Pope Urban VIII forbade this. In a letter to Ambassador Niccolini the Pope said "it would be an evil example for the world if such honours were rendered to a man who had been brought before the Roman Inquisition for an opinion so false and erroneous; who had communicated it to many others, and who had given so great a scandal to Christendom."
After Vatican Council II, one pope after another queued up to sing Galileo’s praises, his scientific correctness and his Catholicity. Galileo’s body was buried next to the chapel of Saints Comas and Damian apart from his family - without any notable ceremony and without any monument to his name.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Finally, Fr. Roberts produced one more rarely addressed papal declaration of the Copernican heresy that Providence provided:
Towards the end of his Pontificate, it occurred to Alexander VII that it was his duty, as guardian of the household of Israel, to compose and place before the faithful a new Index of prohibited books that should be complete up to his time, and be more conveniently arranged than former indices. Whereupon he set to work with a specially chosen number of Cardinals and in the March of 1664 there issued from the Vatican press a book entitled Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexandri VII. Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. It was prefaced by a Bull wherein the Pope describes this composition of his Index and gives reasons for putting it forth . . .
BULLARIUM ROMANUM 1664.
Super observatione Indicis librorum pro¬hibitorum noviter impressi.
Alexander Papa VII, ad perpetuam rei memoriam
“For this purpose,” pursues the Pontiff, “we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters might seem omitted . . . we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be added thereto, the following: the Quia ad notitiam of 1616; the monitum of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and to its true and Catholic interpretation,” the edict signed by Bellarmine prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epi¬tome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ, the edict of August 10th, 1634 prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo di Galileo Galilei; and under the head Libri, we find: Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis in decree 5 Martii, 1616.
These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear, there¬fore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all the faithful. Nay, more - and I call particular attention to this point - the Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though actually in it: quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus; and therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of truth.” - - - Fr. Roberts, op. cit., p.92-3.[/color]
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Much has been written about Galileo’s demeanour at the time of his death. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia points out that Pope Urban VIII sent his special blessing to the dying Galileo, who, while denied ‘monumental’ honours was interred not only in consecrated ground, but also within the church grounds of Santa Croce at Florence. Biographers and Catholic historians fall over backward telling us what a great Catholic Galileo was. Others, having dug up some of Galileo’s private correspondence after his 1633 abjuration, tell us much more than they mean to.
Galileo felt crushed by the verdict of “vehement suspicion of heresy” because it cut him off from the Church he loved; because he knew that no heresy had crossed his mind; because the verdict was a second error by an institution to which men looked for truth, and because his own life work stood condemned. He was not disheartened because he considered the Copernican astronomy or anything in science as he saw it, to be absolutely and completely true. This is evident from a letter he dictated to a friend in 1641, the last year of his life, with no hope of reward or any fear of further punishment. Galileo’s own conscience was clear both as a Catholic and as a scientist. On one occasion he wrote, almost in despair, that at times he felt like burning all his work in science; but never as much as thought of turning his back on his faith . . . The cause for which Galileo suffered in his own view, was clearly not Copernicanism but sound theology and Christian zeal . . . What grieved Galileo was the theologians’ error of 1616, as an indirect result of which he had been punished. Their error was in his eyes a misapplication of law established by the ancient Fathers who had wisely separated science from religion. (S. Drake: Galileo, Past Masters, p.91.)
Such pious nonsense can only belong to the legend of Galileo. Other dissidents throughout history also had a clear conscience, for that’s the way unmoved and unrepentant heretics are. Here Drake portrays Galileo - who never had a shred of empirical evidence to confirm his ‘truth’ in his life [remember Galileo admitted inconclusiveness of the theory to the commission] clinging to the condemned heresy he swore to God at his trial he had abandoned - as a Catholic who loved his Church. What kind of contradiction is that? Countless historians and authors, many intelligent and learned, plus the 1981-1992 papal commission, have rushed in to defend this preposterous illusion. It is enough that the world should have to suffer Galileo and his opinions without the likes of this compounding such ignorance for successive generations.
Exactly what constitutes a Catholic in the eyes of the Copernicans would be hard to define. But more than that, for you see the 1616 decree of the Church stood firm and unchanged well past the day Galileo died in 1642, and it required internal as well as external rejection of the heliocentric heresy in order to be free from ipso facto excommunication from the Catholic Church. Consider then Drake’s conviction that Galileo believed in the ‘absolute truth’ of Copernicanism to the day he died. If this is true, then Drake implies that Galileo was not only a liar and perjurer, but indeed remained a heretic, ipso facto excommunicated, even unto death. [This, of course, is not for man to judge. Only God knows a man’s heart at death.]
Yet, like others of his ilk, he tries to portray him as a faithful and maligned Catholic. Here the contention that he lied at his trial is surely confirmed and that the Church’s judgement that he was guilty of suspicion of heresy was just and legal, and that the critics in history never had a leg to stand on.
So it is that for years we find men walking hand in hand with Galileo, supporting him in every act of betrayal against God, the Scriptures and mankind, and all the time trying to make a martyr out of him. ‘Galileo’s conscience,’ if he had one, should have been informed, and God knows few men that ever lived were instructed better or given more chances. The only conclusion is that Galileo was a hypocrite, a coward and a liar beyond comparison in history.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In 1644 Pope Urban VIII died. It took nearly forty years before Pierrozzi was allowed to place an inscription over Galileo’s remains, and nearly a hundred before his remains were moved into the church of Santa Croce. In 1737, when the hermetic sun-centred doctrine was infiltrating into the minds of most and Galileo was perceived as having been correct all along, Pope Clement XII (1730-1740) finally authorised the erection of a monument to be built in his name. Even then this was subjected to correction in that nothing could be written on it that the Inquisition would disapprove of.
As a heretic he could not be given a proper church burial. But for years after his death, his followers in the circle of the grand dukes of Tuscany pushed to give him an honourable resting place. Nearly a century later, in 1737, members of Florence’s cultural and scientific elite unearthed the scientist’s remains in a peculiar Masonic rite. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was growing as a counterweight to Church power in those years and even today looms large in the Italian popular imagination as an anticlerical force. According to a notary who recorded the strange proceedings, the historian and naturalist Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti used a knife to slice off several fingers, a tooth and a vertebra from Galileo’s body as souvenirs but refrained, it appears, from taking his brain.
[Other sources have one of Galileo’s fingers removed by Anton Francesco Gori on 12 March 1737 and preserved - placed mounted upright, as though pointing at the stars in heaven - for posterity and propaganda purposes. It now resides in the Florence Institute and Museum of the History of Science. See also chapter 22: ‘St Peter’s Square.’]
The scientist was then reburied in a ceremony, “symmetrical to a beatification,” said Mr. Galluzzi. After taking their macabre souvenirs, the group placed Galileo’s remains in an elegant marble tomb in Florence’s Santa Croce church, a pointed statement from Tuscany’s powers that they were outside the Vatican’s control. The church has long been a shrine to humanism as much as to religion, and Galileo’s permanent neighbours include Michelangelo, Machiavelli and Rossini. - - - Rachel Donadio, New York Times website, 2010.
Our study of the Galileo case shows us that Galileo was no martyr. After a life of bragging and bullying, his true mettle came to the fore during his trial. Rather than defend his convictions as Bruno did, he chose to become the most public perjurer in history. But to his adoring followers his lying performance at the trial proved to be poor grounds upon which to build up their cause, so they invented the first fiction about him even before he got up off his knees. At the moment of abjuration they have him murmuring under his breath those infamous heretical words: Eppur si muove (Yet it moves.). Fr. Broderick writes:
The famous motto 'Eppur si muove,' also receives rough handling. Though Professor Favaro knew better than anybody that the saying was an invention of later times, he could not find it in his heart to throw it overboard altogether, and so made this delightful comment on it: “Against violence so contrary to human dignity and to the absolute claims of truth, the popular conscience protested in the following century, judging and condemning the theologians in their turn with that sublime motto 'Eppur si muove' (Galileo Galilei e Suor Maria Celeste, p.185). The popular conscience, we may remark, was a certain gossiping French Abbé named Irailh, who gave the story for the first time in his 'Querelles litteraires' (Paris, 1761), on the strength of a mocking ‘assure-t-on. (Fr. James Broderick, S.J., The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J. Burns Oates and Washbourne, Ltd, Publishers to the Holy see, 1928, p.373.)
Soon after his death, the Grand Dukes of Tuscany began to cultivate Galileo’s legend. When Duke Pietro Leopoldo opened the Museum of Physics and Natural Sciences in 1774, he dedicated a special exhibition that commemorated the principal discoveries of Galilean physics. In the 1830s, Galileo’s scientific memorabilia were gathered together and placed in a palace in Florence. This Tribuna di Galileo soon became a meeting place for Italian scientists, scholars and ‘experts’ on his life. The Museum of the History of Science soon became a shrine for admirers of Galileo.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Nineteen: Cassini: The Great Astronomer (1625-1712)
(http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/XB/XB359/XB359057.jpg)
Domenico Cassini
It would be a fundamental principle of Catholic theology that while we all have free will to believe whom or what we like, God never leaves us ignorant. Accordingly, at this point in our synthesis we should like to record the work of one that we would consider was God’s astronomer, the greatest observer of his or any era, Giovanni Domenico Cassini, a man who can be said to be the last of the truly great Catholic geocentrists.
Now while the name Cassini will ring a faint bell with astronomers, surveyors, a few historians and some NASA Saturn probe fans, the world at large will never have been told much of him. We must remember that even history belongs to the victors, and the Earthmovers are no exception. That then, is why he is not a household name like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler or Newton. No man, no matter how qualified, whose reputation and work challenges and falsifies that of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr establishment now ensconced in both Church and State, will be allowed his proper place and say in history.
Domenico Cassini was born of noble parents, Jacopo Cassini and Julia Crovesi in Piedmont, Italy, June 8, 1625. Raised by a maternal uncle, and after a proper home schooling, he was sent to a college of Jesuits at Genoa. As a young man Cassini read books on astronomy and developed a passion for it. Like most astronomers before him, Cassini was initially attracted to the astrological speculations of the movements of the sun, moon and planets. Intelligent scholar that he was, and after reading the views of Pico della Mirandola, Cassini soon saw the absurdity of the exercise and took no more interest in it. At college Cassini showed great intellectual curiosity in history, Latin, poetry, mathematics and, of course, astronomy. So swift was his progress in the science that by the age of 23 he was invited by the Marquis Cornelio Malvasia to come to work in his observatory at Panzano, near Bologna. There he had the use of some of the finest instruments available and learned much.
Cassini continued his education under the tutelage of two of the most prominent scientists of the time, the Bolognese Jesuits Giovan Battista Riccioli and Francesco Maria Grimaldi. Fr. Riccioli, we recall, declared that there were precisely forty-nine arguments for the Copernican theory and seventy-seven against it. Cassini then, was well acquainted with the great geocentric and heliocentric debate of the time. While at the university he also began reading engineering and quantity surveying, becoming every bit as proficient at these as he was at astronomy.
Cassini’s first love, however, was astronomy. His reputation very quickly grew in leaps and bounds, and in 1650 he was given the principal chair of astronomy at the University of Bologna. In 1652 a comet appeared in the sky that he observed with great accuracy and concluded that comets were not bodies accidentally generated in the atmosphere, as was previously supposed by some like Galileo, but are independent bodies orbiting the sun.
The same year he solved an astronomical problem that Kepler and the Catholic priest astronomer Ismaël Bullialdus had given up on as insolvable, i.e., to determine geometrically the apogee and eccentricity of a planet from its true and mean place.
This was a time of great speculation on the nature of the universe, and Cassini, like many investigating the wonders and mysteries of creation, was not always correct in his ideas. But the sign of a genuine scientist is, of course, to know when the evidence shows us our ideas have been falsified. Giovanni Domenico Cassini, a true empiricist, followed this principle of science to the letter.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Like Tycho de Brahe, Domenico Cassini knew the importance of precise and systematic observations and the necessity of an ongoing improvement in instruments and methods to achieve them. Crucial to the needs of astronomy then was a large sundial. Since many of the important requirements of astronomy are tied to the movement of the sun, the precision of the meridian (where the sun reaches its highest point at midday) will determine the accuracy of the data. Accordingly, the builders of such sundials used convenient high structures, often churches.
Cassini inherited one such sundial built on to the chapel of San Petronio in Bologna. Unfortunately, refurbishments to the Church resulted in his sundial being made redundant. In 1653 Cassini drew up plans for a new and even larger device to make it one of the best and most accurate of the time. Thereafter began his most important work. He put in many years of observation of the obliquity of the ecliptic; of the exact positions of the solstices and the equinoxes and of the apparent speed of the sun’s motion. More important were his observations of the variations of the sun’s apparent diameter throughout the year, the precise measurements necessary to plot out exact orbits. Cassini’s principal observations appeared in his book Specimen observationum Bononiensium of 1656, a work he dedicated to Queen Christina of Sweden, then in exile in Italy.
Cassini’s talent as a surveyor was also well known. In 1657 he was asked by none other than Pope Alexander VII to resolve a dispute regarding the flow of the River Reno between Bologna and Ferrara that was causing flooding. For the next six years Cassini was occupied with similar work around the Papal States, spending only a little of his time at astronomical studies.
After that, Cassini returned to astronomy full time. His friendship with the Roman lens makers Giuseppe Campani and Eustachio Divini resulted in his acquiring a new and even more powerful telescope. In 1665, when observing the surface of Jupiter he discovered the presence of the phenomenon called Jupiter’s Great Red Spot, now identified as a gigantic storm system familiar to all of us today. Cassini went on to publish a table of the eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter in 1666, which was utilised for the determination of the longitudes in the course of numerous worldwide expeditions undertaken by French astronomers. (Chalmers Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1969, CASSINI, p.383.)
Scholars acknowledge "Cassini’s superior interpretation of Jupiter’s moons over Galileo." (Hutton/Shaw’s Transactions of the Royal Society of London for 1676, p.326.)
Finally, Olaus Rōmer, in his famous 1675 declaration that light has a finite speed, actually used the tables published in Cassini’s Ephemerides Bononienses Mediceorem Siderum (1668). [For Cassini and the speed of light, see paragraph ‘Postscript.’]
Cassini’s reputation spread far and wide. At that time King Louis XIV of France had approved a new Académie Royale des Sciences at Paris. The King’s great Minister, Colbert, with the prestige of the Académie in mind, sought to attract to France several famous foreign scientists, such as Christiaan Huygens, to work at the Academy. In 1667, he asked Domenico Cassini to join them in building and running a great observatory. Cassini decided to go for a little while, but the Pope refused him permission for he was considered too valuable to Rome at the time. Pope Alexander VII died in late 1667 and the new pope, Clement IX, did let the loyal and Catholic Cassini go ‘on loan’ to the Frankish Sun King. [Francis Yates: Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition, University of Chicago Press, 1964, suggests that France’s King Louis XIV title ‘Le Roi Soleil’ (The Sun King) may have arisen from the influence of hermeticism.]
Cassini left for France on 25 February 1669. Delighted with the superb conditions and instruments at the Paris observatory, he was soon down to work. So dedicated was King Louis XIV to the pursuit of astronomy for its uses in knowledge, navigation, geography and missionary work, that Cassini was granted almost every facility necessary for the improvement of telescopes and clocks, two essential implements for accurate astronomy. Indeed, so impressed was Cassini with the ability to make discoveries heretofore impossible with the older, cruder instruments of virtually every astronomer past, that in 1673 he was finally persuaded by the King to become a naturalized Frenchman. Cassini remained in France to the end of his life, doing his duty for God and King as Providence determined.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
With great skill and accuracy, Cassini produced even more discoveries. He was, as Chalmer’s Concise Dictionary of Scientists 1989 says, "the one who worked out the rotational periods of Jupiter, Mars and Venus." He was also the first to discover and announce the incredible division between the rings of Saturn. [This is why NASA called their Saturn probe CASSINI. This probe went into orbit around Saturn in 2004 and in Nov 2006 newspapers published the most amazing pictures of the separated rings that surround the planet.]
He discovered the zodiacal light. It was he who also discovered the Saturnian satellites of Iapetus, Rhea, Tethys and Dione. To Domenico Cassini must also be given the credit for having discovered the laws governing the moon’s motions, which laws have since been used by the heliocentric Earthmovers to posit a sun-orbiting earth - something that had no place at all in the geocentricist astronomer’s understanding.
In the Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences, we read of Cassini’s Laws:
In 1693 Cassini published three laws describing his observations of lunar motion . . . All spin-locked satellites observed to date have obliquities corresponding to a stable Cassini state. (J. Shirley and R. Fairbridge: Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences, Chapman hall, 1997.)
By far the most surprising disclosure to be found tucked away in mathematical literature is the fact that in spite of all the publicity given to Isaac Newton and his formula for the gravitational field of earth, it is Cassini’s formula for this, called the international formula, which is more often used. Confirming this in another Encyclopedia we read under the heading Cassini: "This formula . . . is the basis of the international gravity formula.( Sneddon’s Encyclopedia Dictionary of Mathematics for Engineers and Applied Scientists, Pergamon Press Ltd., 1976, p.113.)
These are but some of the discoveries by Cassini that are acknowledged - albeit only in specialist publications – even by the Copernicans. Throughout all his years at astronomy, however, Cassini sought to measure the orbits of the sun and planets with increasing accuracy. It was this quest that was to lead to Cassini’s greatest discovery, a find that would place him in total opposition to the Earthmovers, who would go on to ensure that the significance of his astronomic work would never be known throughout the world.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In the years that followed, Cassini produced an astonishing number of observations, always improving the known data with better accuracy. As an example of Cassini’s genius, and how he revolutionised astronomy, let us read how he overcame the astronomical problem of refraction:
In order to establish the principles of astronomy in a solid manner, the Academy judged that before everything else it was necessary to distinguish false appearances from the true ones. The ancients had supposed that the rays of stars came in a straight line to our eye. It had been well noticed for about a century that this supposition does not tally with the observations, and it was recognised that the rays break up on passing through the ether in the air that surrounds the earth.
(https://chemicalparadigms.wikispaces.com/file/view/65018453.JPG/33790803/65018453.JPG)
This ‘refraction’ makes stars appear higher than they really are, and that near the horizon it raises the sun and the moon more than the size of their diameters. But the most famous modern astronomers were still mistaken in that, having remarked that the refractions become smaller to the measure as the heights get bigger, it was supposed that the refractions of the fixed stars become faded at the height of thirty degrees and those of the Sun at height of forty-five.
The academy discovered by making many very exact observations that the refractions both of the sun and of the fixed stars are still very perceptible at the height of forty-five degrees; that they are the same by day as by night; that they are not different for the Sun and for the stars; that they only become perceivable at the zenith; that it is therefore necessary to correct all the apparent heights of the stars, and even to lessen the heights of the Pole [star].
For even though the ancients had never made a distinction between the heights of the apparent Poles and the true ones, nevertheless it is a fact that the heights of the Poles appear in our climes to be bigger by a few minutes than they really are: whence it follows that up to now there has been error in all of the astronomic calculations based on the height of the Pole, and as there are few observations which do not suppose the height of the Pole, there are thus only a few (observations) that do not require correction. (J.D. Cassini: De L’origine et du progress de L’astronomie, et de son usage dans la géographie et dans la navigatio, Paris, 1693, pp.37-38.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Cassini was a loyal son of the Catholic Church. He had, we read, the charity and kindness of a saint and the respect for his contemporaries and their work. His modesty was reported to have reached ‘miraculous proportions;’ and his humility caused him to avoid adulation. He presented his findings with the little fuss. After he died, his friend said of him:
We are delighted and lucky to have you Monsieur [the Academy’s secretary Mr. de Fontenelle]. Who could have represented as you, Domenicio Cassini’s worth? He was truly what we must call a rare man. His astronomical discoveries were good enough to deserve him this name: but he attained it with many other proud achievements. However clever he may have been, he was very assiduous for reading. After having spent the night reading in the brilliant book of sky, he made use of his days to consult the imperfect mediations of other astronomers from every language and every country; he really knew more than what they could have said but he was looking for what had been said all the same. He sought not only to know the real system of the world, but to study and guess the system that the ancients or the Tartars could have imagined; to grasp past, present and even future, not by frivolous predictions about independent elements in stars, but, by infallible calculations of their movements, to fix up to the so-called loss of the comet, it’s what we’ve seen him do and that nobody has done before him.
But, in the middle of this so astounding knowledge, we’ve seen inside him an even more miraculous modesty. People all over have admired him; the idolatrous centuries would have built temples to him, yet he was the only one who seemed to ignore his merit. Who has ever been so simple in his manners, so reserved in his speeches, so shy in what he knew better, so sweet with those he knew the less? The rise in his genius gave in the goodness of his heart, more pleasant than admirable, and more humble than scientist. Very different from these Chinese blinds who don’t know other good except sky, he only saw in sky the invisible God of sky. Religious observer of the slightest duties, his consistency was obvious and was spreading in everything.
Friend of the easiest company, adorable father, academician sincerely liking all his colleagues, and universally loved by everyone, he had known how to hide his superiority with his sweetness, to skin the science of all its swelling, and to be indoctrinated only by religion. What a loss to lose such a great man, if he hadn’t left us a son and a nephew in whom we already see him come back to life. I won’t extend in their praise; their works will do this better than me. I will neither start yours, Monsieur, unless you want to lend me the talent to praise you with such a dignity as you praise others. (Note read by Fr. Bignon at the public meeting of the Paris Academy of Sciences, on the 16th November 1712, after having heard Cassini praised by the Academy’s secretary de Fontenelle.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Domenico Cassini, we can see, was a very extraordinary man. As is mentioned above, he had to know what the world of astronomers throughout all ages had discovered and speculated about the heavens, and from the four corners of the earth he sought such information. With help from King Louis XIV’s agents and contacts, he received many docuмents and books from all over the world. Cassini left a summary of it all in his book The Origin and Progress of Astronomy, published in 1693. In this book we read Cassini was convinced that astronomy was the first science practiced by man after the Creation:
[They had] a long life, for they could have foretold nothing with certainty unless they lived for 600 years, the period of the completion of a ‘great year.’ But why 600 years? A good reason could be that 600 years is an excellent lunisolar period, like the Metonic cycle of 19 years equal to 235 months. (N.M. Swerdlow: ‘Astronomical Chronology and prophecy: Jean-Dominique Cassini’s discovery of Josephus’s great lunisolar period of the Patriarchs.’)
Swerdlow goes on to say that Dominico Cassini took the astronomy of the Patriarchs ‘seriously.’ He tells us Cassini wrote ‘an ingenious, if curious, essay on the history of astronomy’ and comments:
Cassini was, to my knowledge, the first and only person to interpret Josephus’s 600 years as a lunisolar cycle, in his De L’origine [Paris 1693], and whether correct or not, his interpretation is certainly interesting . . .
Here then is how Cassini presented his deduction:
It is therefore established that right from the first age of the world, men had already made great progress in the science of the movement of the stars. One could even say that they were more versed in this lore than they have been since the Flood, if it is true that the year used as a yardstick by the ancient Patriarchs was of the greatness of those composed by the great period of 600 years, as mentioned in the Antiquities of the Jews written by Josephus. We cannot find in the remaining monuments of all the other nations any vestige of this period of 600 years, one of the finest yet to be invented. For supposing the lunar month of 29 days 12 hours 44 minutes and 3 seconds, one finds that 219146 days and a half make 7421 lunar months; and this same number of 219146 days and a half gives 600 solar years each consisting of 365 days, 5 hours, 51 minutes and 36 seconds. [The tropical year is now calculated to be 365 days 5 hours 48 min 51.6 seconds.]
If this is the year in use before the Flood, as there appears to be every chance of being so, it must be admitted that the ancient Patriarchs knew already with great precision the movement of the stars; for this lunar month accords, for one second out, with that which has been determined by modern astronomers; and the solar year is more exact than that of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, who assigned the year 365 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes and 12 seconds. (J.D. Cassini: The Origin and Progress…. 1693, p.5.)
In another book Cassini takes this thesis even further, providing more evidence of the 600-year cycle, the oldest ever discovered, producing a chronology that can determine the relationship between the seasons and the Incarnation of Our Lord according to ancient tradition of the Church reported by St Augustine and many other guides to the chronology of sacred history. (J.D. Cassini: Régles de L’astronomie indienne, pour calculer les mouvemens du soleil et de la lune. Paris, 1692.)
By command of his highness King Louis XIV (1643-1715) of France, a huge amount of discoveries by Domenico Cassini and the Paris Observatory were published in the official Journal Des Scavans. These journals can be inspected in the great libraries of Paris and copied by scholars and astronomers even today.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Later, in the year 1740, the world became the richer in knowledge when Cassini's son, Giacomo (Jacques) (1677-1756) published his book Elements d’Astronomie.
(http://www.cambiaste.com/photos/auctions/orig/101484.jpg)
In this book we find details of most of his father’s astronomical discoveries as well as a thorough examination of all the great geometrical theories of the universe, from those of the ancients to those of Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho de Brahe and Kepler.
What really matters in this investigation of ours is that while Director of the Paris Observatory, which is older than Greenwich in England, Cassini, like Kepler before him, busied himself studying the exact geometry of the sun’s orbit around the earth. Kepler figured, quite correctly, that the first accurate and useful measurement in astronomy would logically be that between the earth and the sun. Cassini, a realist who understood that it is the orbit of the sun (and not the earth) that is possible to measure, set out to calculate this circuit, recognizing that this measurement was a prerequisite for the working out of the orbits of the planets. For apart from the moon, all other orbits are extremely difficult to measure.
Now with regard to the earth and sun, what you see is what you have: no apparent loop-the-loops, but rather a simple one on one orbit. (See sub-chapter ‘Kepler’s Discoveries.’)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/markjwyatt/Precess.jpg)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/b5gv2w.png)
A simple one-on-one orbit
Yet in order to properly calculate, using geometry, the true circuit of the sun around the earth, a third body is required. In 1672 Cassini succeeded in solving this dilemma:
In 1672 Cassini took advantage of a good opposition of Mars to determine the distance between the Earth and that planet. He arranged for Jean Richer (1630-1696) to make measurements from his base in Cayenne, on the north eastern coast of South Africa, while Cassini made simultaneous measurements in Paris which permitted them to make a triangulation of Mars with a baseline of nearly 10,000 kilometres. This derived a good approximation for the distance between the Earth and Mars, from which Cassini was able to deduce many other astronomical distances. These included the Astronomical Unit [the distance of the sun from the earth] which Cassini found to be 138 million kilometres, only 11 million kilometres too little [that is, according to today’s proposed measurements]. (David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary of Scientists, Blonde Educational, 1984, p.35.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Now whereas one does not need the exact distances between cosmic bodies to determine the curve of their routes, consider the enormity of these first measurements upon which true tracks could be determined. No other astronomer, remember, had such data on distances, so helpful in determining most accurately the true movement of anything. Nor does it matter that Cassini, while incredibly accurate for this first measurement, was said to be out slightly in his calculations, for relatively speaking one can find the proper curve if one applies the one calculating tool (10% too much or too little) to all. With such data ready for use, Cassini then began to solve other problems impeding true measurements of courses. Here he spells out the way:
As the meridian heights of the sun compared with the heights of the Pole gave the declension of this star, and [as the] knowledge of its movement is principally based on that of its declension; one had a great advantage to establish the theory of the Sun when certain means were discovered to reduce the heights from their appearances to their reality. Firstly one attempted to establish the obliqueness of the ecliptic because it is necessary to know this obliquity to discover the true place of the sun in the Zodiac for each day of the year, and because on that depends the construction of all the tables of the prime mobile. The true meridian heights of the sun in the Solstices of Winter and Summer having been compared both between themselves and with the true height of the Pole, it was discovered that the obliqueness of the Ecliptic was smaller by two minutes and a half than had been claimed by the most renowned astronomers of this century who had neglected to distinguish the apparent heights of the Sun and of the Pole from the true ones.
It was not less important to determine the eccentricity of the Sun [amount of departure of the sun from a circular orbit]; concerning which there is a well-known disagreement between modern astronomers. Some hold with the ancients that the apparent unevenness of the Sun’s movement through the year must be entirely attributed to the variation of the distance between the Sun and the Earth. Kepler on the other hand holds that only the half of this unevenness of movement is optical and the other half is physical, and that in consequence the eccentricity of the Sun is less by a half than the ancients supposed.
To solve this famous question a comparison was made of the observation of the yearly variation of the apparent diameter of the Sun - which depends upon simple eccentricity - with observations of the apparent inequality of movement. (J. D. Cassini: The Origin and Progress, 1693, pp.37.)
Let us assess this with some logic. If the sun orbited the earth in a perfect circle, then the ‘size’ and ‘speed’ of the sun around us would appear the same all year round. But we now know that the angular diameter (its size as it appears to us) of the sun does not remain the same apparent size all year round but gets slightly bigger (and faster) and slightly smaller (and slower) in its annual journey; biggest when nearest the earth around 2nd/3rd January (its Perihelion), and smallest when furthest from the earth around 1st/2nd July (its Aphelion).
(http://i62.tinypic.com/am86co.png)
Measuring angles, distances and apparent width of the sun from Perihelion to Aphelion
Cassini, aware of the astronomical proposals of Kepler, also knew that to take the centre of a circle as a defining still-point for the footstool was not suitable. The appropriate template with a defining still-point for the footstool must not only lend itself to the matching of diameters and corresponding ecliptic longitudes, but also serve as a model that can for both sun and planets respectively wed periodicity to both positions and observable distances. The proof of such a special template - which the Lord wed: space (distance) and time (periodicity) - will be entirely contingent on having time-signatured recorded data for the discernible motions. Thus it was this ‘rare’ person, the most qualified astronomer and measurer in Europe, who verified by testing that data needed for the discernible motions for all points random and extreme on his Cassinian oval.
It was he who built true astronomical knowledge ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ - Hipparchus, Ptolemy and Tycho de Brahe in particular. It was Cassini who studied their methods, measurements, success and failures, learning all the time, and eventually - with the use of the telescope, which the others above didn’t have - built his own methods, tables and formulae to exact standards.
To work out a true curve for the sun’s orbit around the earth, Cassini had to measure the proper angle of the earth to sun; then find the correct daily distance of the sun from earth (the real anomaly), and finally gauge the angular diameter (apparent width) of the sun, noting especially these observations at Perihelion and Aphelion.
And, as Cassini knew, this could not have been done accurately without correcting all the errors of astronomers prior to the discoveries of Cassini, including those occurring on Tycho de Brahe’s tables, from which Kepler deduced his ‘flaws’ one and two.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
The first breakthrough in plotting curves was without doubt the eccentric, placing the constantly moving circular orbits not with the earth as the geometrical centre, but a point outside it. One single eccentric circle accounted for the apparent uneven speed and diameter (size) of the sun that occurred throughout the year.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/66c2n7.png)
Eccentric Measurement. A stationary earth (E) observing a moving sun (H) carried around a circular path by a radius (CH) that rotates at constant speed.
A giant leap forward in accuracy came when Ptolemy devised his equant; a second focus (F) placed at a distance equal to that between the earth (E) and the centre (C).
(http://i59.tinypic.com/1zc3hww.png)
Ptolemy’s equant template
Finally, Cassini developed the ultimate cosmic path-finding tool - "which the Lord wed: space (distance) and time (periodicity)" - the template capable of advancing astronomy with greater accuracy than any other system that went before.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2rc8y3a.png)
Calculating the mean (average) distance of the sun and earth at Perihelion (PE) and Aphelion (EA) as the diameter and major axis (PA), Cassini then used two focus points for his curve, the earth (E) and one (F) at an equal distance from the centre (C) of (PA) so that, PE=FA and EC=CF.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Domenico Cassini was sure of his curve by 1680 and the Cassinoid got its first public mention in Jacques Ozanam Dictionnaire Mathématique (1691) and by the Paris Observatory in 1693. His ‘Cassinian oval’ was further acknowledged in 1740 when his son Giacomo described it in his book Elements d’Astronomie:
By doing an exact observation of the sun’s visible diameters, my father has found a different curve to the ellipse, which is used to show exactly the real movement of the Sun and the several distances from the Earth. (Elements d’Astronomie, P.149)
According to the diagram by Cassini’s son in the Library of Congress, the following are the figures his father used to convert the new system to mathematics derived from calculated observation:
Major axis (PA) set at standard 2000000.
Radius is therefore 2000000/2=1000000.
Minimum distance from sun (PE) is 983150.
Maximum distance from sun (EA) is 1016850.
Distance between foci is 1016850-983150=33700.
Distance of each focus from centre is 33700/2=16850.
16850 divided by radius 1000000 = about 1/59.
Using the calculations and ratios worked out, we here reproduce the template used by Cassini. We repeat: the earth (E) is placed at the point where the average minimum distance (983150) from the sun meets the average maximum distance (1016850) from the sun. Thus the line (EH) is the distance cord. The second focus (F) is placed at an equal measurement from the centre as the earth is from the centre (EC=CF). This provides us with a time cord (FH) so that the angle (AFH in above) is growing in uniform times, or if you like, in equal increments. This may be compared with the minute hand of a clock. Where the two meet will always correspond to where the sun is in its annual orbit around the earth. This formula can be used to find the sun at any time in the present, past and future.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/o06vet.png)
The simplest of all pathfinders.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Now study the following detailed diagram of Figure 30 of Elements d’Astronomie constructed by us to show the reference-point of the constant angular increment of the sun as it orbits the earth. While the diagram is true to scale for the relative figures given by Cassini according to his astronomical measurements, equal angular increments about the rightmost focus are also shown to bring home the idea of the clock.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/11tszrb.png)
It might seem strange to say that the angular increments upward from the horizontal or major axis of the Cassinian oval are each 4.498983333 degrees, but this is only to facilitate the 12th such increment being spot-on with the particular sun-position referred to by the author, a sun-position that happens to be respective distances from the leftmost and rightmost foci of 1010000 and 989817.9 which upon multiplication gives the same answer as the multiplication of the extreme length chords 983150 and 1016850. The position of the sun depicted is aligned 53.9878 degrees from that reference point on the major axis that may well be referred to as the time or calendar-focus.
Now since angular and therefore daily increments about this rightmost focus is constant we can calculate that for 365.25 days roughly, an arc of 360 degrees must be orbited by the sun, which means 91.3125 days for each 90 degrees travelled about the rightmost focus which in turn means 4.564593507 days travelled for those successive points that describe the oval.
Cassini found his curve or Cassinoid deadly accurate, matching both position and angular diameter throughout the year with an accuracy to many decimal points. [As to how modern astronomers prepare their almanacs we cannot say. It suffices to know that they always give them as approximations, ensuring they cannot be shown to be using the wrong system. Indeed, who knows, but maybe they do use the Cassinian formula and then fudge the almanacs as Keplerian.]
And as the proportion of the Sun’s inequality was found to be double that of the apparent variation of its diameter, the conclusion was drawn that the Sun has in fact only half as much eccentricity as had to be presumed to be able to attribute all the inequality of its movement to simple appearances; whence it follows that half of this inequality is only apparent, but that the other half is real. It was further found that this true half is smaller by one-eighteenth part than the moderns had supposed, so that the Sun’s movement is slightly less unequal than they had believed. Thus it was discovered that the Spring Equinox comes three hours later, and the Autumn Equinox three hours earlier than the modern tables had marked down; but that both one and the other Solstices arrived at the times stipulated by these same tables. (J. D. Cassini, The Origin and Progress, 1693, pp.39-40.)
-
I'm terribly sorry that the above image is blurry. I cannot make is clearer with what I have to work with. I will let the author know that we need a clearer image and will see if he can help.
-
.
Lest newcomers somehow miss this key segment, I'm repeating it here, so if you want to read its context you can click the link and be taken back several pages from here and see the whole thing:
____________________________
Posted May 22, 2014, 5:12 pm (UTC -7, PDT)
Pasted from < http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=360#p2 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=360#p2) >
Having gained their victory over Galileo, living and dead, having used it to scare into submission the professors of astronomy throughout Europe, conscientious churchmen exulted. Loud was their rejoicing that the “heresy,” the “infidelity,” the “atheism” involved in believing that the earth revolves about its axis and moves around the sun had been crushed by the great tribunal of the Church, acting in strict obedience to the expressed will of one Pope and the written order of another. As we have seen, all books teaching this hated belief were put upon the Index of books forbidden to Christians, and that Index was prefaced by a bull enforcing this condemnation upon the consciences of the faithful throughout the world, and signed by the reigning Pope. - - - A. White.
Truly, if this is not a heresy, then
the Catholic Church is not a Divine institution.
Today, the 'legend' depicts Galileo in prison, defending his so-called proofs for a heliocentric world before a cruel, scientifically and theologically ignorant, unjust and heartless Inquisition.
The truth however, shows no one ever had proof that the Church was wrong. [The truth] shows Galileo was guilty as charged. [The truth] shows he lied through his teeth as he perjured himself, and that had Pope Urban VIII and the Inquisition wanted to totally destroy him they could have done so. Instead, they showed mercy and left his reputation intact.
_____________________________
Was this merciful permissiveness a mark of weakness or one of wisdom? What if the Church had been harsher on him? Would popular history have been any more cruel to the Church? Would 'the legend' have been any more calumnious toward Galileo's 'brutal treatment'? And consequently (ultimately?) would the snide, rude, biting attitude of the duped masses be any more so today against anyone who dares to raise the question of geocentrism in discussions public or private, than it already is? It's hard to imagine any more hateful rhetoric than what we see emerging on Internet fora these past few months in reaction to the coming release of The Principle (movie).
We are asked to consider the M.R.S. of John XXIII on the erstwhile Feast Day of the Divine Maternity (the feast that was subsequently abolished after which the "Mother of God" on Jan. 1st was installed to destroy the Circuмcision) in 1962 opening of the abominable Council Vat.II: this is the same "medicine of mercy" he invoked to replace condemnation of error, as it were, by fiat and act of principle. Could it be that it was a principle that had been tried-and-true 'seit 1616' (346 years)*, and therefore "safe for public consumption?"
*seit = German for "since"
Then, regarding his burial:
_____________________________
Galileo’s punishment was to follow him into death and after it. He had wanted to be buried in his family tomb in Santa Croce, but this was denied to him. When he died in 1642, friends wanted to erect a monument over his grave, but Pope Urban VIII forbade this. In a letter to Ambassador Niccolini the Pope said "it would be an evil example for the world if such honours were rendered to a man who had been brought before the Roman Inquisition for an opinion so false and erroneous; who had communicated it to many others, and who had given so great a scandal to Christendom."
After Vatican Council II, one pope after another queued up to sing Galileo’s praises, his scientific correctness and his Catholicity. Galileo’s body was buried next to the chapel of Saints Comas and Damian apart from his family - without any notable ceremony and without any monument to his name.
P.S. Anyone who wants to refer to this post can do so using this URL:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=375#p3
NOTE to cantatedomino:
The author made a spelling error that finds a lot of derision from hecklers who like to pick fault with anything that questions Newchurch:
His penance, the recitation of the allotted Psalms, was transferred to his daughter Sister Marie Celeste, the Carmelite nun he had placed in a convent many years before, and who gladly took it upon herself to say her father’s penance, whether legally or not according to canon law.
(the text in your post has "cannon law.")
.
-
.
The principle tried-and-true seit 1616 is now 396 years old.
Its 4th centennial arrives in 2 years: the Quattro-Centennial of Galileo's condemnation.
.
-
It's odd reading this thread now after spending time browsing the Flat Earth Forum (the discussion there is generally extremely poor, I don't recommend it), as all the criticisms that the good author rails against the Copernicans, many of the Christian flat-earthers rail against the "globuralists" or "round-earthers": contradicting scripture, distorting reality, undermining common sense, having a pagan origin, being involved in a conspiracy to obscure the facts, etc. Just as you would view the Copernicans as pesky modernisers compromising the faith with false science, they view "REs" as pesky modernisers compromising the faith with false science. I suppose the difference is that the Copernican revolution managed to embarrass the Church on a way that the "Globular revolution" never did, but I see how the FEs think that once you accept that the earth is a globe it's not that hard to go on accepting Copernicanism, as they both ostensibly contradict the Biblical cosmology with its four corners of the earth, its solid dome called the firmament in which the stars are inlayed, and its pillars of the earth holding up the earth. What is certain is that the flat earth cosmology is just as much more picturesque compared to the Ptolemaic/Tychonian cosmology as the latter is much more so than the Copernican cosmology. Sungenis is more or less an advocate of Newtonian physics but with an alternate application of its principles and methods, whereas the flat earthers generally scoff at that occultist Newton and his silly notion of "universal gravitation".
-
To be fair, neither the Ptolemaic model nor the Tychonian model are biblical; the following is the cosmology presented in the Scriptures:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/--8raeleXdi4/T58gdoWEi3I/AAAAAAAAASY/_WHctaDhIhA/s1600/Ancient%2BHebrew%2BCosmology%2B-%2BVersion%2B2.jpg)
As you can see it's very charming.
Can you explain from where this image comes and how we know it is an accurate representation of what they believed? I would like to see some proof. It is a nice image, but anyone can produce a drawing and make statements about it as if they were true.
The understanding of the Fathers *is* the correct understanding of the interpretation of the scriptures and it should also be safe to assume that the *correct* understanding of those in the true religion before Jesus came would have been the same.
If the Pharisees were the ones who held that the above image was a true understanding of the cosmos, then that is not a fair representation at all of proper ancient belief.
-
I agree, Mathieu. I cannot show you proof because I do not have any to show you.
St. Augustine dismisses the notion of antipodes, which is associated with a spherical earth, in his City of God, but he also says skeptically that "the sphericity of the earth is supposed to be scientifically demonstrated", which I think makes him a skeptic on this issue. Two notable flat earthers are Lactantius and Cosmas Indicopleustes, but I am not certain that either count as Church Fathers.
Wells, who has a PhD in theology, is ignorant of Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim Syrus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Diodorus of Tarsus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, and Severianus of Gabala. It is true that flat Earthism was never a majority or official position of the early church, and that it became practically nonexistent among the educated during and after the Middle Ages, but many of the early Fathers were flat Earthers (Schadewald, 1999).
The above is from an atheist source so it is by no means to be trusted without reservation, but one could check for each of the Fathers mentioned to verify the claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA662.html
All sources but the most rabid Church despisers agree that by the Middle Ages there had been a wide acceptance of the spherical earth, but the flat-earthers response to this is that the educated men of the time were deceived by the seeming authority of Hellenic science into accepting a "pagan invention", which as an argument we can't really dismiss because is it not our claim that the educated men of our day have been deceived by the seeming authority of modern science into accepting a "pagan invention"? Our arguments have the same form, it's just that they apply the argument to an earlier situation. If we agree that Churchmen can be deceived into accepting and even loosely advocating false science, then we can't dismiss on principle the flat-earthers contention that a deception of this kind occurred prior to the Galileo debacle. I do think it's somewhat strange that the Churchmen of a prior age, so we are told, accepted the globular earth benignly, but the Copernican's shifting of the earth from the centre of creation was resisted by Churchmen of the 17th century. Either there was more resistance to a spherical earth back in the day than we are aware of and that history has been somewhat obscured (perhaps to make the Church seem "scientifically literate"), or the Copernican novelty is simply more offensive to reason and to faith than the Sphere novelty (if I can call it that); what we cannot doubt however is that there has since been an effort in this century on behalf of misguided Churchmen to try and cover up just how much resistance there was on behalf of contemporary Churchmen to the Copernican novelty, and so it is plausible to me that there was greater advocacy of flat-earthism among the early Church than we hear about, because men would prefer to forget and not talk about such things.
Also, I read recently an article about how the Jews also struggled with reconciling their scripture with pagan science, and how a debate over the sphericity of the earth is recorded in the тαℓмυd.
Here is one source that affirms that the picture I posted earlier is true to "ancient Hebrew cosmology", the same portrayed in the Old Testament. If you do a search for "ancient Hebrew cosmology" you will find plenty of such sources, albeit you may well call their authenticity into question in that I suspect almost all of then are secular sources.
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm
I have not read all of this article yet but is seems to he a good summary of the cosmology of flat-earther Cosmas Indicopleustes, a man I mentioned earlier.
http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6127/2962
In summary, this is how the whole picture looks to me: if you want to be ultra-orthodox then you ought to commit to a belief in a flat-earth (which over the last few days I have learned not to scoff at), and if you want to be liberal on this issue you can take the point of view that science is separate from faith and that Copernican cosmology is no threat and that the Churchmen of the day were perhaps mistaken to put any reins on Galileo's inquiry; but I do think that there is a view in between these, a middle way which is more true to Catholic tradition, and that is that while scientific inquiry ought not to be completely constrained by any one interpretation of scripture, science certainly cannot contradict faith, which means that the Copernican cosmology is suspect as it was defined by the Church as at least erroneous in faith. So while I do not think that the Church binds us to any positive cosmology, I am in agreement with you all here and with the author if this book that try Church has bound us to a negative belief in that modern cosmology cannot be true. That said, as far as any positive cosmology goes I personally am leaning towards flat-earthism because I find it relaxing to my eyes; besides, if you contradict modern science in any way you make yourself a laughingstock so one might as well go all the way and become the dreaded "flat-earther" in happy defiance of modern pretension. Not that I think choosing to believe that the earth is flat because it looks nice that way is intellectually honest, it's more that I have become a complete skeptic on the matter and have developed a contempt for modern science to such a degree that I may as well believe in that which offends it most. My only reservation is that my backwards, uneducated, scientifically illiterate belief might offend those hardworking evangelicals and Catholic apologists like Sungenis who are struggling so heroically give their despised beliefs scientific credibility; however, I think that this grovelling before the idol of "Science" has become wholly pathetic today when science is so disgustingly corrupt, such that I'm almost tempted to embrace any belief that can be called unscientific by the conceited professors of science falsely so called. Indeed, I want almost to say that the evangelicals' and Sungenis' attempts to defend their views from the criticism of scientists is a waste of time because scientists are so debased that they are not even worth acknowledging, not that all of their work is a waste if time, far from it - pointing out how heathen theories like Evolution & Copernicanism are is necessary and valuable work, it's just that they shouldn't even notice when somebody derides them for being unscientific, and ought rather to glory in such a name. I mean, if these scientists and all the schoolteachers who parrot them can without any pang of conscience teach young boys & girls that they are soulless apes whose purpose is to breed and die, then I think that it's time we proudly and indignantly call ourselves "Dark Agers" and "backwards", while scowling at those who could teach such filth to children and rob them of every pure and decent look on life. I do not appreciate my sister saying "I don't believe in God, I believe in the Big Bang and Evolution", and I definitely do not appreciate the Freemasons (and don't doubt for a second that these are the originators and promoters of this materialism) who indoctrinating her. Yeah, do not doubt it, the public schools are Masonic schools - never forget. And, you know, I have heard the opinion, which seems highly likely to me, that modern science & technology has been taught to us by demons. You have Kepler, for example, stating that his heliocentrism was founded upon an experience where a friendly demon took him to the moon where he could see the earth moving. Here is an article on science & mysticism:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61094.0#.U4Hj4Hi9Kc0
-
.
Typo -- I had "396" but it should be 398:
.
The principle tried-and-true seit 1616 is now 398 years old.
Its 4th centennial arrives in 2 years: the Quattro-Centennial of Galileo's condemnation.
.
-
Neil,
Do you have the link for the May 28th Voris interview?
Haven't watched it yet.
Grazie!
-
http://new.livestream.com/churchmilitanttv/events/3016104
-
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/7junEP0Zz8s#t=179[/youtube]
-
Neil,
Do you have the link for the May 28th Voris interview?
Haven't watched it yet.
Grazie!
I see you've found it:
http://new.livestream.com/churchmilitanttv/events/3016104
The frame at the bottom is the opening of the Wednesday show, but the start is at 10 minutes 30 seconds, which is preceded by a holding pattern. Later, at about minute 42, you can hear the sound cut out, and then the next segment is picked up in the next frame up the page. This glitch I think is repaired in the frame at the top of the page, which is 1:04:50 duration.
They have a link somewhere that lets you watch the Mic'd Up session recorded in January that discusses the substance of the movie. This segment is about the controversy over the fact that a movie like this exists at all.
It's actually BETTER now than it was live on Wednesday, because they had a technical glitch whereby some 10 minutes or so in two segments were missing at first. You'd see the three men on the set talking and waving their arms but no sound.
All there was to do was read the running commentary in the sidebar, which was mildly entertaining.
So now you can watch it straight through without any glitches because they're fixed in the top panel (the bottom two panels have the glitch still there).
It's 1:04:50 in duration, but obviously, there is a lot left out. This is only going to grow over the summer, as scientists and astronomers run around circling the wagons.
What's funny is, no matter what man's activity in Earth's biosphere entails, and no matter what kind of probes he sends up into space, he cannot change the reality of what is in deep space. The objective reality in outer space goes on, regardless of the subjective reality in the minds of modern cosmologists. This is most upsetting to moderns whose fundamental principles of thought are founded on the fallacies of "I. Kant-think."
First came the slap-in-the-face of 1917, whereby God showed 70,000 eyewitnesses what He thinks of Copernicanism, and now comes the undeniable re-affirmation that the CMB map is pointing directly at good old Earth.
What more could possibly happen?
The Principle movie could have had a segment about the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, but that wouldn't have been "science." So, unfortunately, it's best not mentioning it, at least, for now. You have to let the know-it-all-know-nothings have a chance to get their wagons circled.
.
-
.
I found the January 8th, 2014 Mic'd Up segment with Voris, Sungenis and DeLano:
http://new.livestream.com/churchmilitanttv/events/2672345
Duration 1:08:21
This is all about the content of the Movie, which brings together all the challenges to lonstanding presumptions about how the universe works, and it's not based on Scriptural sources as the foundation of this argument.
It is not a Southern Baptist 'bible-thumper' preaching scene.
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Hipparchus, Cassini and the Seasons
Any worthwhile geocentric model of the sun’s orbit must, of course, be compatible with the mathematics of the seasons. Let us first recall how Hipparchus presented the seasons:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2s0y5o3.png)
Again, as with so much illustrated in astronomy, it is not to scale but well depicts how the diameter of the ‘constant-speed circle’ very closely resembles the true orbit of the sun with the earth off centre to the ‘left.’
Made up of the nearest and greatest distances of the sun from the earth annually, this diameter also serves as a calibration line. Of interest also is that both the solstice lines and the equinox-lines are at 90-degree angles to each other intersecting at the offset point that is the location of the earth. Additionally, the crosshairs making up these seasonal quadrants are themselves making an angle of 65½ degrees with the diameter.
Apart from the fact that the earth is off-centre on the diameter line it can be seen NOT to be at the centre of any of the pairs of lines joining the cardinal points, a fact that means that there are no similar quadrants, which help show that no two seasons are of equal length, leaving aside altogether the fact that the regular angular increments are about a point that is neither the earth nor the centre of this ‘circle.’
This next diagram is meant to show how the Cassinian oval depicts the seasons:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/21maozr.png)
Notice that the broken-line that serves Hipparchus’ diameters, the major axis AP in the Cassinian fig. 30. AP, is referred to by astronomers as the line of apsides.
Remember the centre of uniform-angular-daily motion is still about that point on the Cassinian major axis where the 20 ray-lines meet, i.e., at the second or inferior focus.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Cassini’s Oval v Kepler’s Ellipse
(J, Sivardiere, on page 62 of the 1994 V 15 no. 2 edition of the “European Journal of Physics” presented an article: ‘Kepler’s Ellipse or Cassinian oval?’)
Jacques Cassini, in his compilation, Elements d’Astronomie, compares the oval and ellipse in detail. Using the same major axis (PA) of 983150/1016850, a mean anomaly (FH [Focus-sun]) of 989817.90 at 53º 59’15” and a real anomaly (EH [Earth-sun]) of 1010000 at 52º26’28”.
L’Equation du Soleil qui répond à la même anomalie fuivant l’hypothese elliptique de Képler, eft 1º32’33”, plus petite feulement de 14 fecondes que celle que nous venons de determiner, ce qui eft peu fenfible dans les observations. (P.151)
We learn then from Domenico Cassini and his son Jacques that Kepler’s ellipse does not comply with the observations (the real anomaly and angular diameter, especially at the angles near perihelion and aphelion, which in this example is 14 seconds of arc out - a huge amount in astronomical terms). Occasionally modern texts make a passing reference to Kepler’s inaccuracies when recording Cassini’s figures:
Among the most notable of these were . . . a revised calculation of the obliquity of the ecliptic, making it 23º28’42” instead of 23.5ºas previously determined, and an amended figure of 0.0017 for the eccentricity of the earth’s [sun’s] orbit which, by Kepler, had been assumed at 0.018. (A. Wagenen: Beacon Lights of Science. P.119.)
Cassini’s Planetary Template
As for the other [known] planets, their apparent discs have been exactly observed, which according to their different situations in connection with the Sun have different phases like the Moon, but less visibly in the furthest planets. By these observations it has been recognised that each planet makes its own revolution around the Sun, as Copernicus and Tycho de Brahe had supposed, and that they all have with regard to this star about the same eccentricity as the ancients had assigned the Earth.[/i’
Cassini fully accepted Tycho’s model for his earth/sun/planet system. The only alteration to be found necessary at the time was to replace de Brahe’s circles with Cassinian ovals. Hereunder a sketch from his very own book:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/1e2l54.png)
The eccentricity of the Sun made an apparent inequality in the movement of these planets, and being found to be smaller than modern astronomers had supposed, as we have mentioned heretofore, the theory of these five planets, and mainly those closest to the Sun, required a considerable correction. To find these eccentricities proper to the planets, their apogees, and the periods of their average movements, a geometric method was discovered to compare among themselves all the observations that could be had, and from this comparison was drawn the determination of all these things.
Based on what had previously been recognised by many observations - that the real speed of the planets increases in proportion as they approach the Sun, and decrease progressively as they travel away from it - a line was invented to serve as the orbit of the planets. This line is a form of ellipse in which the rectangles made by the lines drawn from the planets to one and the other foci are always equal; whereas in ordinary ellipses they are the sums of the two distances from the foci that are always equal to each other, the periods of their movement have also been corrected together with their anomalies, especially as regards to Mercury. (J.D. Cassini: The Origin and Progress, pp. 43-44.)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2zque07.png)
[/size]
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Cassini’s technique for finding planets
Now that is interesting; a discernable orbit for Mercury? But recall what the Guinness Encyclopedia tells us:
But comprehensiveness remains an ideal of physics, because physicists recognise this inconsistency as a problem requiring a solution . . . Surprisingly a theory can be accepted as true even though it is known to make some false prediction . . . For example, it was well known in the 19th century that Newton’s laws could not be squared with the precise orbit of the planet Mercury. (‘The Scientific Method,’ Guinness Encyclopedia, p.58.)
Cassini and the Paris Observatory had an accurate orbit for planets as early as 1680 at least, including Mercury. Yet here above we see the Keplerian-Newtonian ellipse theory was chosen as the preferred ‘law’ by ‘science.’ This is not science; this is pseudo-science.
The Cassinian oval then is characterised by a constancy of geometric area, that is, conserved area (product). Cassini’s two focal chords E-Sun and F-Sun may be termed the distance chord (EH) and the time chord (FH). This combination allows for the simplest of all weddings between distance and time as the distance and time chords always yield a constancy of area/product (see above), an infinitely simpler distance-time wedding than that provided by Kepler with his equal length focal cords and curved area in equal times law, a highly complex and difficult method of calculation.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/rirsrc.png)
The Cassinian oval, in which the distance cord and the time cord
always yield a constancy of area
In 1672, both Isaac Newton and Domenico Cassini were made fellows of the Royal Society of London. No doubt this tribute was to bring Cassini into line with the Holy Grail of heliocentricism. But Cassini never ‘declared for heliocentricism,’ as Andrew White put it. The reason for this, of course, is that he had no reason at all to deny the world of his/our senses, nor the geocentric methodology of astronomy. It is as simple as that, and there was never one so qualified to make that judgement.
Domenico Cassini’s dynasty lived on another three generations. His son, grandson, and great-grandson also became directors of the Paris Observatory. Cassini’s son Jacques - also made a fellow of the Royal Society in 1698 - in his book Éléments D’Astronomie, did his father proud, recording and supporting the vast bulk of his important work of astronomy. Cassini II also made a name for himself as an astronomer, and it seems, remained a geocentricist like his father. Of note is the following:
Despite numerous calendarian reforms, it wasn’t until 1740 that a year 0 (zero) hesitantly made its appearance, when Jacques Cassini, the second of four generations of Italian astronomers in charge of the Observatory in Paris, published his ‘Tables Astronomiques’ with this rectification (he too must have had a sense of zero as the unmoved mover like his son and grandson). (Robert Kaplan: The Nothing That Is, Penguin, 1999.)
Domenico Cassini and his son Jacques, two of the most qualified astronomers in history, were true empiricists, having tried and tested every astronomical fact and table discovered and compiled by those giants that went before them. They compared them with their own, never denying the facts as they found them. Cassini II however, who saw everything he and his father had discovered being ignored by men with an ideology to implant on the world, alas abandoned the science he and his father had so loved.
Beginning in 1740, perhaps realizing the futility of his opposition to the triumphant Newtonianism, Jacques Cassini progressively abandoned his scientific activity, leaving to his son the task of pursuing the family work in a less outmoded perspective. (C.C. Gillispie, Chalmers Biographical Dictionary, p.105.)
In 1744, Giacomo Cassini (Cassini III) broke with his grandfather and father and adopted instead the consensus of his peers, the Newtonian worldview. Finally, Jean Dominique Cassini IV (1748-1845) ended the Cassini era when he resigned as Director of the Paris Observatory due to his repulsion of the French Revolution.
Although the final assessment on Domenico Cassini has not come in, modern recordings show us how a man’s reputation and work can be ignored, destroyed, nullified, minimised, and even stolen to promote that same ideology he spent his life rejecting and proving wrong. Given history is written by the victors, what else can we expect for a Catholic astronomer that exposed the flaws in Kepler’s ellipse - and consequently in many of Newton’s theories - as man-made concoctions to fool all into believing in Copernicanism?
Judgments on Cassini’s work vary greatly. While many historians, following Jean-Baptiste Delambre, accuse him of having found his best ideas in the writings of his predecessors and of having oriented French astronomy in an authoritarian and retrograde direction, others insist on the importance of his work as observer and organizer of the research at the Observatory. Although Cassini’s control did restrict the Observatory’s studies and although he did fight against most of the new theories, his behaviour does not seem as uniformly tyrannical and baleful as Delambre described it. He was not a theoretician; he was, however, a gifted observer and his indisputable discoveries are sufficient to win him a high position among the astronomers of the pre-Newtonian generation. (C.C. Gillispie, Chalmers Biographical Dictionary, p.104.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
In these selected quotes from prominent ‘experts’ in the field of astronomy, we see how Domenico Cassini, along with his discoveries and beliefs, are judged in line with the fraudulent claim that Kepler and Newton demonstrated the true structure of the universe. This fraud is to be found everywhere.
Cassini was renowned for his skills as an observational astronomer, which led him to many important discoveries. He was also extremely conservative in his approach to the more theoretical aspects of astronomy, and this conservatism led him frequently to propound the incorrect view. He refused to accept the Copernican cosmological model and rejected the concept of a finite speed of light (although its proof was demonstrated by Olaus Rōmer using Cassini’s own data; it is likely that Cassini considered the possibility even prior to Rōmer’s work). He also opposed a theory of universal gravitation and insisted (despite critical disagreement by Christian Huygens and Isaac Newton) that the earth was flattened at the equator rather than at the poles. Despite these errors in judgement Cassini earned a well-deserved reputation as one of the finest astronomers of his day. (David Abbot: Astronomers, The Biographical Dictionary Of Scientists, pp.34-35.)
Again, thanks for nothing. Note how the system works though. Because Cassini found nothing in his observations to support the Copernican view, Newton’s gravitation, nor a flattened earth, which we will examine later, and accordingly rejected the heliocentric consensus, they castigate him for propounding ‘the incorrect view’ and ‘errors in judgement.’
As to who really discovered that light has a finite speed, read the following words of Cassini:
The observations the Academy made of the satellites of Jupiter gave the opportunity to examine one of the finest problems in physics, which is to know whether the movement of light is successive, or instantaneous. A comparison was established with the time of two emersions near the first satellite in one of the quadratures of Jupiter, with the time of two proximate immersions of the same satellites in the opposite quadrature of this planet; and even though the light of a satellite at the end of its revolution in the first quadrature made less distance to come to earth with Jupiter approaching, than the end of the revolution in the second quadrature when Jupiter is going away from Earth; and that this difference goes up at least to more than sixty thousand leagues of path in more time than the other; nevertheless there was no appreciable difference between these two spaces of time; which gave reason for believing that the observation that can be made from the Earth’s surface, or even all the space included up to the Moon, is not sufficient to determine anything for sure on this problem. And that consequently the methods proposed by Galileo for this end in mechanics are useless. This is not to say that the Academy did not notice following these observations that the time of a considerable number of immersions of a same satellite is noticeably less than that of a similar number of emersions that can be explained by the hypothesis of successive movements of light: but that did not appear to it sufficient to convince that the movement of light is in fact successive, because one is not certain that this inequality of time is not the result of either the eccentricity of the satellite, or by the irregularity of its movement, or by some other cause yet unknown, which may come to light with time. (J.D. Cassini: The Origins and Progress, pp.46-47.)
In other words, although it was Cassini, and not Olaus Rōmer, who first procured the evidence to announce a measurable speed for light in his Ephemerides Bononienses Mediceorem Siderum (1668), he nevertheless wanted to be sure there were no other explanations for the phenomena before confirming the law. And who can but admire such a careful scientist? In spite of the facts, Olaus Rōmer was credited with the discovery and not Cassini.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Cassini is a thorn in the Copernicans’ side, wherefore they will never cease to undermine his observations and theories, his character, his work, and his loyalty as a Catholic:
For instance, there was the case of the Italian astronomer Giovanni Domenico Cassini. When Cassini was appointed lecturer in astronomy at the University of Bologna, in 1650, he found that he had to teach the Ptolemaic system, though by then it was also permissible to teach Copernicanism as a hypothesis. Not, of course, that Cassini had any doubts about the truth of the matter. He was an expert observer, and it was he who made the first reasonably accurate measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The fact that men such as Cassini could talk openly about the movement of the Earth – and in Italy, less than ten years after Galileo’s death – is an indication that the scientific influence of the Church was very much on the downgrade. (Patrick Moore: Watchers of the Stars, Michael Joseph Books, 1974, p.125.)
Not satisfied to ignore Cassini’s template and curve for the orbits of sun and planets, discoveries that should have led mankind down the road of true science, they twist and turn the facts so as to make Cassini appear to reject his own life’s work and be a staunch Earthmover to boot.
Giovanni Cassini was an astronomer of the 17th century. He found several new moons going around Saturn while working for his immovable pope. By combining the data from St Peter’s meridian with his own telescopic observations he was able to predict accurate orbits for Mars and Venus. He had used mathematical techniques that assumed the planets and the earth were moving in elliptical orbits about the sun. But he never dared to give an opinion on the earth’s immobility. Perhaps he didn’t want to have to make a public confession of his errors. (Robert Lomas: The Invisible College, Headline, 2002, p.19.)
Note Thomas has Cassini working for ‘his immovable pope,’ an interesting comment you must agree. Then he has Cassini ‘moving the earth with ‘elliptical orbits,’ if we don’t mind. And to show their constancy let us see another such aberration:
This [the opposition of 1672] made it possible [for Cassini] to work out the distance to Mars and, by combining this with Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, to calculate the distance from the earth (or any other planet in the Solar System) to the sun. (John Cribbin: Science, a History – 1543-2001, Allan Lane, 2002, p.573.)
For those who have a love for truth, the story of Cassini has now been told, and all the misinformation that would pervert the discoveries of this great Catholic geocentricist astronomer and his integrity can now be read for what its worth.
Copernicus and Kepler had one masterly retort. Each had achieved mathematical simplifications and an overwhelming harmonious and aesthetically superior theory. If mathematical relationships are the goal of scientific work, and if a better mathematical account is given, then this fact, reinforced by the belief that God had designed the world and would clearly have used the superior theory, was sufficient to outweigh all objections. Each believed and clearly stated that his work revealed the harmony, symmetry, and design of the divine workshop and overpowering evidence of God’s presence. (Morris Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1986, p.81.)
By their own logic then, the Earthmovers make as good a case for Cassini’s curve as any we could come up with. So why then was Kepler’s ellipse retained by science while the Cassinian oval, the perfect template for orbits, is never mentioned? The answer to that we will discover in our chapter on Newton.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Kepler:
- used data from de Brahe’s naked-eye observations;
and
- produced a curve that deals in approximations only;
- that confers no utility whatsoever on the second of his foci;
- that involves a mathematically complex area law;
- that has few if any natural properties or occurrences;
- that is the sole philosophical and mathematical basis for Newton’s heliocentric solar system;
and
- he says it came to him in a dream.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/2njipp1.png)
Kepler’s ellipse
Cassini:
- Europe’s foremost telescopic observer;
- discovered a curve that deals in precision;
- that involves the simplest of all area laws;
- that enables distances from one focus to be calculated from uniform angular motion about the other;
- that always produces the real anomaly matched with the sun’s apparent angular diameter;
- that is infinitely more accurate than Kepler’s elliptical link to a heliocentric solar system;
and
- this curve was later found to contain properties that have many natural occurrences.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/29pywz6.png)
Cassini’s oval
There is, however, far more to the orbital ovals of Cassini. What we do not know is just how aware Domenico Cassini was of the nature of his find. We suspect his interest lay only in finding the correct curves and how to calculate them and was unaware that the properties involved were intrinsically linked with God’s creation itself. These secrets and the new physics they opened up we shall look at in our next chapter.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Chapter Twenty: Exploring Cassini’s Oval
Thus God himself was too kind to remain idle, and began to play the game of signatures, signifying his likeness into the world: therefore I chance to think that all nature and the graceful sky are symbolised in the art of geometry. - - - J. Kepler: Mystery of the Cosmos.
The concept of a transitional state – the ontological equivalent of bridging a gap – is one that has many diverse applications, both ancient and modern. The search for God’s geometry, physics and architecture, that is, as far as we can comprehend them, is one such quest that has captivated the intellect and imagination of man since the very beginning of time itself. Throughout our story we have seen all the contributors to the Copernican revolution claim they had discovered the signs of God in their perception of the sky.
In earlier chapters we wrote of the ongoing battle as depicted in Gen. 3:15, the war of truth against the lie, the war of Principalities and Powers. We followed this line that led us to the two opposing orders in the heavens, the geocentric challenged by the heliocentric. The geocentric order of celestial movements is upheld by the oval of Domenico Cassini, representing the Triune God of the Church; while the heliocentric challenger is upheld by the ellipse of Kepler representing the triune god of Trismegatus. In this chapter we shall compare the two ‘seeds’ for any ‘signs’ left by the true God in the heavens that could show us which of the two is the Truth as created by God the Trinity, and which is the Lie of Satan and Hermes, the false trinity.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Let us begin with the Triune God Himself as represented by a perfect triangle of equal sides or units.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/20haqky.png)
We then converted this triangle into an instrument for tracing orbits by taking as the ends of the base line as the two focus points (F1&F2) and the two equal sides as the chords meeting at (M).
From this basis we then constructed a Cassinian curve and a Keplerian curve, and the following illustrates the difference.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2wfig4i.png)
Might the Christian believer expect that if such that is now called Kepler’s ‘Third law’ undergirds the whole of nature, then surely, had the Creator geometrically signed the canvas of His creation He would have done so with a curve that uniquely reflects His triune Essence?
Throughout time, natural philosophers, astronomers, theologians etc., have searched for the secrets in the creation. One such find is the well-known mathematical relationship called phi (the place on any length where the smaller section is to the bigger section as the bigger section is to the whole). This relationship, mathematically evident in Cassini’s oval, through the continuing motions of the sun and planets - is known as the Perfect or Divine Proportion.
Cassini's oval can be "interpreted" theologically, as it splendidly reflects the Unity of the Triune God, with its constant product of ONE, producing a major axis with a maximum of 1.618033988 and a minimum of .618033988, which also happens to be the ratio of Phi, the Perfect or Divine Proportion.
On the other hand, the hermetic Keplerian ellipse; with its constant sum of THREE (false gods) produces no Divine Proportions in its diameter line.
The eminent biologist Llya Prigogine once stated that all natural movement arises out of a state of imbalance, of 'non-equilibrium.' Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement and evolution in all its forms, and a state of equilibrium is therefore impossible in Nature . . . The actual proportion of five male spirals to eight female spirals [of a pine cone for example] or 5:8 forms part of the so-called Fibonacci series that progressively and with increasing accuracy, mathematically defines the proportion of the ‘Golden Section,' also known as 'Phi' or , which becomes almost constant in the ratio of 1:1.618033988. Together with 'Pi' (), the ‘transcendental number’ describing the circuмference of the circle, this is one of the so-called ‘Perfect’ or ‘Divine Proportions.’ (Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66.)
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Phi is now known to be frequently evident or expressed in many natural things. For example, by varying the angle between the adjacent radii (their relative lengths conforming to the Phi proportion) a number of natural spirals are produced such as found in snails, shellfish etc., as well as leaf-shapes.
(http://evgars.com/lug/fig%2525204_008.jpg)
(http://i57.tinypic.com/33z8sch.png)
(http://merc.tv/img/fig/spirals.gif)
(http://www.watercolorpainting.com/drawing/composition/Golden_Spiral.jpg)
(http://www.selfhealgo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fibonacci-spiral.gif)
(http://www.harveyline.com/articles/images/phi_Nautilus.jpg)
(http://www.ujakropolisz.hu/files/ua_images/_miben_rejlik_a_n__v__nyek_gy__gy__t___ereje.png)
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/dd/4d/c1/dd4dc1f29bb9cc83bfed0cc015c7557f.jpg)
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/83656ff762af664c143877be4ce90912/tumblr_mzpz9aBiSx1suhdw4o3_1280.jpg)
How fitting then that God should hide His mathematical trademark in the greatest display of mathematics visible to man, found only in Cassini’s oval. And then they discovered another mathematical relationship in red blood cells:
Cassini has proposed the fourth degree curve in an attempt to describe properly planetary motion. Another interesting geometrical application of the Cassinian oval is in the modelling of red blood cells (cf. e.g. Vayo and references therein). - - - Uniformization of the Cassinian Oval. M Mladenov. Bulgarian Academy of Science, 1998. Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
The Theological Circle
In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was void and empty . . . - - - Genesis 1-2.
The circle, we all know, is also the symbol of zero. The circle, traditionally associated with cosmic orbits, has fascinated man for a very long time and considerable works have been written on it throughout history. One such investigation at least, reveals an interesting history of the origin of the figure that connects the creation with the circle. (J.D. Barrow: The Book of Nothing, Vintage, 2001.)
Barrow tells us that zero, characterized by a circle, was first represented by the word sunya meaning void or emptiness, i.e., nothing, "derived from the Sanscrit name for the mark denoting emptiness or sunya-bindu, meaning an empty dot."
For many thousands of years, the orbits of the celestial bodies - be they sun, moon or planets - were perceived to be circles. The reason for this was, in the main, theological, backed up by appearances. They believed that God chose the circle, a perfect geometric figure, for the movements in His sky.
Kepler, we saw, was the first to posit that this was not so. He proposed that orbits are ellipses with no connection to circles. When Newton said these elliptical orbits could be determined by the sun’s gravity, distance and mass, the theology of the circle was cast into oblivion as a religious ‘myth.’ Study of the true orbits, however, reveals that the circle in God’s physics has not become redundant; for God, it seems used it in a manner that displays His omnipotence all over creation, as we have discovered.
Cassini’s oval bears a close affinity with the well-known circle-dependant Secant and Tangent Theorem, and is related to proposition 35 of Book 3 of Euclid’s Elements:
If in a circle two straight lines cut one another, the rectangle contained by the segments of the one is equal to the rectangle contained by the segments of the other.
But Cassini’s orbits, we know, are not circles, so what other geometric entity produces a similar constancy of product (area)? Our search led us into a fascinating mystery, the work of the mathematician and philosopher known as Perseus.
-
Marvelous!!
-
THE EARTHMOVERS:
Philosophical Properties
Chalmers Biographical Dictionary tells us that Perseus is known from two passages in Proclus. He is associated with the investigation of spiric curves, just as Apollonius of Perga is with conics, Nicomedes with conchoids, and Hippias of Elis with quadratics.
In the second passage, derived from Geminus, Proclus says that Perseus wrote an epigram upon his discovery, an axiom that has challenged philosophers and thinkers for centuries but has never been resolved satisfactorily, until now perhaps. Here it is:
Three lines upon five sections finding,
Perseus made offering to the gods thereafter. (Proclus, In primum Euclidis,)
In another place Proclus says that a spiric 3-dimensional surface is thought of as generated by the revolution of a circle standing upright and turning about a fixed point that is not its centre; wherefore it comes about that there are three kinds of spiric surfaces according as the fixed point is outside, on and inside the circuмference. The spiric surface is therefore what is known today as a “tore,” whereas in antiquity, Hero of Alexandria gave it the name “spiric” or “ring”… It is probable that the conic sections were well advanced before the spiric curves were tackled. Perseus therefore probably lived between Euclid and Geminus, say between 300 and 70 B.C., with a preference for the earlier date. (Chalmers Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1969, PERSEUS, p.529.)
Constructing Perseus’ Torus
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2s0lf9e.png)
To build a torus, we start with a two-dimensional circle standing upright and a line that is outside, on, or inside the circle, used as a co-planar axis.
The entire range of three-dimensional toroidal surfaces is then generated by causing the circle (called the generating circle) to revolve about the co-planner line or axis. If we do this we find three kinds of tori produced:
(1) The ‘Open’ Torus, generated by revolving a circle about a co-planar axis that is a distance from its centre (left). As can be seen there are an infinite number of such tori.
(2) The ‘Closed’ Torus, generated by revolving a circle about the co-planar that touches the circle (centre). As can be seen there is only one such torus.
(3) The ‘Interlaced’ Torus or as Hero called it the ‘self-crossing’ tore, generated by revolving a circle around the co-planar that now lies inside the circle (right). As can be seen there are a limited number of such tori.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2qwob9z.png)
(1) The ‘Open’ Torus. (2) The ‘Closed’ Torus. (3) The ‘Interlaced’ Torus
At the bottom of the illustration above we see the exercise has resulted in generating 3-dimentional shaped ‘surfaces’ or objects, tori that have many physical manifestations, such as a bicycle or car-tube, a doughnut etc.
(http://www.tony5m17h.net/torusflow.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Torus.png)
(http://www.lactamme.polytechnique.fr/images/PROJ.e1.16.D/image.jpg)
-
font=times] Chapter Twenty-One
1660-62:
The Royal
Society of London
‘One important question remains, how did the Gnostics achieve enlightenment in the medieval era of repression? For attain it they did, and in significant numbers if contemporaneous accounts of their influence are to be believed. The hidden heirs to the Knight’s Templar devised a method to pass on their sacred knowledge; a system that eventually developed into Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Rosicrucianism and the Invisible College, which later transmuted itself into the Royal Society in England.’ --- Steven Sora: The Last Colony of the Templars, Destiny Books, Vermont, 2004, p.126
‘What is actually passed on to successive generations, as an anti-tradition, is the false, self-appointed mission of the devil. Lucifer cannot “bear” the light - pun intended. He cannot remain in the presence of the True Light because it burns him as a worm that dieth not. He must flee the Light and seek the darkness. His abode is the pit, his power the power of darkness, which has no absolute being, but is only privation of Divine and Created Good. And his human ministers and agents are like him, consigned until death or repentance to populate the netherworld regions of infidelity, corruption, lying, and murder, the bowels of the world of this darkness.
‘The above quote also references a “method devised” by which to pass on unholy knowledge, which method will take the form, in these latter times, of science falsely so called, the scientism establishment. The cheerleader who wrote the quoted passage affirms that the luciferians came up with something new, but he is wrong. There is nothing new here, only the old evil, the ancient sex and murder cults of groves and high places, once radically stamped out by Christian Civilization, and now, in this fetid century of the uprising of a neo-classical, paganophile humanism which calls itself “renaissance,” is given a new life, which could spring only from the ruinous putrefaction of the once Catholic and now unfaithful City. Like all pestiferous vermin, the idolatrous cults are always with us in this veil of tears. They can be reduced in size and scope, but never fully terminated until the Last Day when Christ will subject all things under His Feet. The only thing “new” is the circuмstance, the changing of the tide, so to speak. This story of the Earthmovers chronicles the changing of the tide that qualifies the decline of the medieval Catholic Civilization and the rise of the masonic nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. But the pendulum is now due to swing back to Truth which a vengeance, as Our Lady has said.’ --- comment by cantatedomino .
The Copernican revolution is also known as the ‘scientific revolution.’ To give credence to their anti-Catholic beliefs and the philosophy that flowed from them, they first had to conjure up the existence of a professional body of men - made up of themselves and specially invited persons - all called scientists. By ‘professional’ we mean answerable to nobody but themselves and their founders for a majority assessment or value of evidence, theories, conclusions and the existence of ‘facts’ and 'laws.' Anyone probing the charter of their ‘science’ will in fact find an institution and not a method. First though, such establishments needed a constitution and a mentor. Such a ‘father’ was Francis Bacon whose profile we have noted in chapter twelve:
‘Bacon is also known as the ‘Father of Experimental Science,’ with a philosophy for humanity summed up in the idiom, Utility and Progress… He is the anonymous author of the ethical manifestoes like The Fama, The Confessio, etc., and the founder of secret fraternities that are functioning today all over the world “without departing from his precepts.”… He would have put a wonder-girdle of thought around the entire globe, adventuring in his ship, The Advancement of Learning, like Columbus, beyond the Pillars of Hercules, into realms new and strange and unknown to Englishmen; and to him the intellectual world in general, owes an incalculable and to a handful of disciples whom he infused with his own idealism and who handed down the torch of light and truth to each succeeding generation.’ --- Alfred Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.14.
‘For Bacon the relationship between science and spirituality was clear - Through science, man would be restored to the state of grace which he had enjoyed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, to the “sovereignty and power…”… which he had hid in his first state of creation. According to Bacon, not only would science restore man to his rightful dominion over the Earth, it would also create the perfect moral Christian society. Bacon outlined this vision in his treatise, The New Atlantis (1627). In this he describes an idealised land where all people live in harmony without crime or promiscuity, “free from all pollution and foulness.” Citizens of this “New Atlantis” have access to all manner of technologies, including flying machines, submarines, and a huge range of medicines for healing the sick, and prolonging life. These wonders are made possible through the work of a group of 36 “fathers” who form the core of a scientific institute cuм monastic colony known as Solomon's House. It was this fictional institution that inspired the founders of the Royal Society in 1660, an organization that continues to play an important role in the scientific community to this day.’ ---Katy Redmond: Science and Spirituality: Complimentary or Contradictory, a prize winning essay that appeared in Resurgence Magazine, Oct, 2003.
‘Francis Bacon was cited with admiration in the incorporation docuмents of the Royal Society of London whose founders regarded him as their inspiration.’ --- C. Grayling: Towards the Light, Bloomsbury, 2007, p.98.
‘The Church in Rome might arrest the body of Galilei, but his spirit went marching on. The formation of the scientific academies at that time was no mere accident; it was a significant expression of the spirit of the age. It was the spirit that prompted Francis Bacon to put on the title-page of his Novum Organum the picture of a ship in full sail boldly venturing to pass beyond the Pillars of Hercules, the limits of the old world. The spirit of man had been long fettered by tradition and authority…. Francis Bacon dreamed of such institutions in his New Atlantis. His successors, partly under the stimulus of his visions, saw his dreams come true. The scientific academies came into being in response to the new needs of the new age.’ --- Rene Taton: The Beginnings of Modern Science, 1450-1800, pp.54-55.
‘A key term employed as a mind control driver in the last passage, is “arrest.” Galileo was “arrested” by the Church. The word can denote a juridical arrest of a person, as Jesus was arrested by the Sanhedrin, or it can denote the abortion or cessation of an action or object in mid-term. The masonic spin-doctors create an allegorical fairy tale where Galileo, as metaphorical type, stands for light, and truth, and progress, and benevolence. The Church, in this fanciful myth, stands for abortion, murder, death, and tyranny. The Church is said to have killed Galileo’s body, but not his “spirit,” signifying that the Church destroys light, truth, progress, goodness, and benevolence - the “soul” of human life. Yet such an attempt is a blasphemous mockery of God Who said: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. The passage states that “the spirit of man had been long fettered by tradition and authority.” This is a lie coming from the father of lies. The devil makes men captives, while Christ sets them free. The devil is a tyrant and slave owner, whereas the yoke of Christ is easy and His burden light. But men prefer the chains of the devil to the sweet yoke of Christ, and God has given them exactly what they want. I believe with all my heart that they will soon suffer the consequences of their choice, first on earth, and then in hell.
The cheerleader goes on to affirm that “the formation of the scientific academies at that time was no mere accident; it was a significant expression of the spirit of the age.” Nay rather it was a fully intended and orchestrated plan based upon demonic inspiration and craft. The demons taught men the multi-generational plan from the political, philosophical, and religious standpoints, and also revealed to them certain truths of the physical world, in order that men and demons working together might raise up the hellfire-breathing, Babel/Babylon/Egypt techno-grid meant to enslave, kill, and damn the great majority of humanity. We are now in the endgame of this plan hatched some 500 years ago.
“The scientific academies came into being in response to the new needs of the new age.” Let me translate this. “New needs” signifies the pendulum swinging towards revolution. It manifests that the revolt against the Lord and against His Christ had reached critical mass. The underground conspiracy was in position to start swinging the wrecking ball. “New Age” is self-explanatory: novus ordo saeculorum - masonic utopia (a dichotomy in terms). “Scientific academies” denotes the new priesthood, cloaked in the vestments of techno-magic and esoteric math, of the now ascending pagan cult. This pseudo-religion, masked as advanced human knowledge (gnosis) is the greatest enemy the Church has ever faced.’ --- comment by cantatedomino .
[/font] [/size]
-
Ops, sorry, meant to post this first:
Dear Earthmover readers. I have been asked by cantatedomino to continue posting more chapters of THE EARTHMOVERS to which I have access. She apologises for her absence which is due to pressure of work. I will do my best.
-
The Earthmovers - Royal Society of London cont.
How then did the most important of these groups of ‘scientists’ emerge? In their best-selling book The Hiram Key, authors C. Knight and R. Lomas tell us the Rosicrucian Alias Ashmole left to Robert’s University a huge volume of records concerning freemasonic activity in the mid-seventeenth century. In these diaries they found ‘references to some very odd meetings which helped throw light onto the events which led to the formation of the Royal Society of London and the Restoration.’
‘Ashmole became the friend and acquaintance of astrologers, mathematicians, physicians and other individuals who were advancing their knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature and science, as Francis Bacon’s redefined Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ required them to. The word went out; there was an ‘invisible college,’ a society of scientists that could not be identified as a group, but whose presence was very evident.’ --- Knight & Lomas, op. cit., pp.343 and 346.
The ‘Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ,’ as we have seen was recognition of Galileo’s heliocentrism. But isn’t Bacon always portrayed as a geocentrist?
Reminder: What then was the ritual for Bacon’s Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Among other things there is a required session of prepared questions and answers:
‘Q. “Where were you made a Mason?”
A. “In the body of a Lodge, just perfect and regular.”
Q. “And when?”
A. “When the sun was at its meridian.”
Q. “As in this country Freemasons’ Lodges are usually held and candidates initiated at night, how do you reconcile that which at first sight appears a paradox?”
A. “The sun being a fixed body and the earth continually revolving about the same on its own axis, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ being a universal science, diffused throughout the whole of the inhabited globe, it necessarily follows that the sun must always be at its meridian with respect to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.”
Q. “What is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?”
A. A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, illustrated by symbols.
This reference is unlikely to have been inserted before 1610, the date when Galileo publicly announced his conviction that Copernicus was indeed correct in thinking that the earth revolved around the sun. Francis Bacon, we believe, immediately set about incorporating this new truth of nature into his recently created Second Degree.’ --- Knight & Lomas: The Hiram Key, P.332.
In 1660 the exiled dead king’s son Charles II was returned to the throne of England. Immediately meetings were held with members of the ‘invisibles’ with regard to setting up such a Baconian state-backed institution for the investigation and recording of ‘scientific' matters. Two years later, in 1662, the king granted a royal warrant or charter of incorporation to the ‘invisible college,’ thus creating the Royal Society, an assembly of invited scientists and engineers dedicated to understanding the wonders created by the ‘Great Architect of the Universe’ mind you, not the Trinity of Christian revelation.
‘Let it not be forgotten either that the driving force behind the Invisible College, the Academie... and the Royal Society were all Rosicrucians and Freemasons – Fludd, Boyle, Wren, Ashmole, Lake, Sir Thomas Moray, etc… When we consider that the real title of New Atlantis was The Land of the Rosicrucians, with it’s ethical symbolisms and it’s experimental marvels for the uplift of humanity by applied science, and that a masonic authority like Haughan declared that the New Atlantis seems to be, and probably is, the key to the modern rituals of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.... we can see how the ‘‘Advancement of Learning’’ was established not merely by writing a book in 1603… Although Francis Bacon knew it would ‘‘take many years for the ripening of the seeds’’ he had sown, yet he had made provision that the assault should continue through the generations until victory was assured, for he had left the keys of his particular knowledge to a ‘‘succession of hands’’ who would carry his truths forward to the eternities.’ --- Alfred Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.158.
Now the record shows that no other institution patronised and fostered the advancement of knowledge as the Catholic Church did. As St Thomas said, the world is orderly because it shares God’s rationality, not a necessary order, but one chosen by Him. There followed a development of Christian philosophy and metaphysics trying to understand the world, and this knowledge used to improve our conditions in life and give greater glory to God. Thus all of the more important universities owe their origins to the Bull of some pope. Nowadays of course, thanks to the so-called ‘proofs’ provided by science for heliocentrism and evolutionism, it is fashionable to depict the mediaeval and seventeenth century Church as obscurantist and repressive and the likes of the secular Royal Society as the progressives. Hidden is the fact that it was the Church that gave the world some of the greatest philosophers and experts on the natural sciences and arts the world has ever known. History shows the development of science advanced during the High Middle Ages, when the fundamental beliefs were those of Christian wisdom. The founders of the Royal Society however, were not concerned with the interests and integrity of true science, but first and foremost out to use such institutions to achieve their own ends in order to undermine the theology and metaphysics of Christianity, with its Genesis cosmology taken for granted, replacing them with the satanic paganism of the ancient sun-worshippers. The esoteric face of the Royal Society of London is therefore a lot different from that presented to the world. Everywhere, even in their own records, we find the ‘Holy Grail,’ their intent to establish the heliocentric system as the means for further attacks.
‘In 1640, John Wilkins, one of the most active figures in the foundation of the Royal Society, published a little book in support of the Copernican theory” - and to show what’s to come –: “Samuel Pepys’s himself, elected on 15 Feb. 1664 actually became president and put his imprimatur on Newton’s Principia, of which he could not understand a word.”’ --- E.N. Andrede: Anniversary booklet published by the Royal Society in 1962.
‘In 1657 Christopher Wren utilized a portion of his installation oration at Gresham College to defend the claims of the heliocentric theory.’ --- Christopher Wren; Parentalia, London, 1750, pp. 204 ff.
So it was that with the backing of the emerging British Empire, the Royal Society of London, while seeming to be dedicated to theism, would in effect undermine belief in God as personal Creator. The idea was for the Freemasons to build up the Royal Society as the most influential and prestigious body in the world to oversee the progress, or not, of scientific theories and those who propagate them. The Society was to be open to all worthy scientists giving it the look of an objective association but managed by men with an anti-Catholic mission. One could say it operated like the freemasonic societies themselves, most of its members unaware of its real purpose, to replace creationism with naturalism.
Throughout the world similar closely run societies would be formed with the intent to control scientific studies, discoveries and advancement on a global scale. Once established, there then existed legitimate institutions from which to undo scholastic philosophy. Science was to become a self-governing and self-justifying discipline that progressed irrespective of ethical considerations or real utility.
-
Chapter Twenty-Two
1667:
St Peter’s
Square
‘We shall digress briefly to tell a little of the story of a Vatican obelisk…since these matters have a bearing on our primary theme – namely the survival of secret traditions that have carried ancient Egyptian religious concepts and symbolisms through time and lodged them in western heartlands of orthodox Christian power.’ --- Talisman, p.303.
Because of Dan Brown’s book Angels and Demons, many more ordinary folk are aware of the talented Italian Baroque architect Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680), now famous for his legacy of beautiful sculptures and pieces of art that grace the eternal city of Rome. Brown however, took licence to insert Bernini into his book-scheme as the one whose works in Rome contain all the clues to understanding the murders that result from a conflict of faith and science between the Illuminati on the one hand and the powerful Catholic Church on the other. These clues, according to Brown’s story, are to be found in the hermetic and Rosicrucian symbols placed by Bernini in his various creations and structures.
Again we must emphasise that when Dan Brown conjured his story of Angels and Demons he could not possibly have imagined how close to the truth he got, nor how unlucky he was in missing out on one of the most intriguing and fascinating stories attached to any of Bernini’s commissions. We also said earlier that the only ‘Holy Grail’ with any real truth and mystery to it is to be found in the mission of the Illuminati throughout the centuries to replace the Genesis creation narrative, and thus the Genesis doctrines. This was begun with hermetic heliocentric cosmology and not the ‘grails’ referred to in his The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown, we said before and we say again, placed the ‘Unholy Grail’ in the wrong book.
For over two centuries at least (1460-1660), the influence of Hermēs Trismegistus penetrated European civilisation right up to and including Rome itself. Stories of this sway are numerous and sometimes surprising to say the least when popes were involved. One such story occurred during the reign of Pope Urban VIII of all popes. Two close acquaintances of the Pope’s were Galileo and Lorenzo Bernini. Then there was Bernini’s friend, Fr Athanasius Kircher; S.J. (1602-1680) described by Frances Yates as the ‘most notable descendant of the Hermetic-Cabalist tradition,’ a Jesuit who believed that true wisdom originated with the ancient Egyptians. A brilliant mathematician and linguist (he is reputed to having known 28 languages) Fr Kircher specialised in all things Egyptian and set up a museum for this purpose. Because of this he was invited to study and lecture at the Jesuit College in Rome in 1635, a mere two years after Galileo’s trial. Fr Kircher’s speciality, they say, was his ability to ‘read’ hieroglyphs; a skill supposedly not discovered until centuries later. Of profound importance to our story is that it was Fr Kircher who said the ‘writings’ on Egypt’s ancient obelisks referred to the Trinitarian God of Christians. Accordingly, he believed they were worthy of preservation and display. For this reason then Churchmen ‘embraced these prophetic obelisks.’ In fact these astronomic instruments were also symbols, and many had on them the hieroglyphs of Hermēs Trismegistus, the false Trinitarian.
As we pointed out in an earlier chapter, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is a continuation of the Mysteries, the religious institutions of the sun-worshipping pagans. Among other things, there is a common legend as the explanation for their rites and symbols. This bond, common in the hermetic, Gnostic and cabbala writings, is called Phallicism. In all of them, homage was paid either to the phallus as an object of adoration and worship, or as a symbol of the creative principle, or to the sun as the generative principle. It is the basis of sun worship, tree-worship, animal worship, serpent worship, and man worship.
‘Phallicism, fundamentally, is the deification and worship of the procreative or self-propagating power of the life of nature, that secret mysterious energy, endowment or power that animates all vegetable and animal creatures, and which perpetually dying, renews itself in new, similar yet different forms. Phallicists view this mysterious energy as the divine nature, and usually in the conception of the divine triad, the creator, the preserver and the destroyer of life, and worship and adore it as the deity. One of the most ancient as well as the most widespread forms of phallicism was sun worship, heliolatry, or light worship, Mithraism.
In view of the divine command “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen.1:28), the generation of human life became a most solemn privilege, a pure and holy function. The Mystery of it must have impressed most profoundly the first human pair, and doubtless the first religious act on the part of Adam and Eve was an appreciation to the Source and Author of life for the power to procreate it. In the course of time this Author and Source became associated with the organs and factors of its reproduction, and then supplanted by them as an object of veneration and worship. The mysterious rite of connubial love became perverted, the imagination of man’s senseless heart became corrupt; the power of procreating life became deified and worshipped under phallic emblems, which in turn became the deities. The perversion continued until it culminated in many places and in divers ages, in sacred prostitution. The phallic emblems became objects of adoration.’ --- M. L Wagner: Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation
Many chapters ago we suggested that Lucifer, enraged because he was created without the power to generate, tries to overcome this creative and natural deficiency by proxy. This manifested itself in Pagan belief and now in modern evolutionism wherein the sun is given the credit for life on earth. We see above how this came about, and below, that it continues today within Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and their rites and symbols.
‘The text goes on “To the ‘advanced enlightened ones,’ the adepts at the top, the nature worship is understood as the worship of the generative principles (i.e., the sex organs), particularly the phallus… the phallus, the male ‘generative principle’ has been worshipped as representing the Sun’s rays (see appendix B, ‘MASONIC SYMBOLISM’…)”…’ ‘We shall digress briefly to tell a little of the story of a Vatican obelisk…since these matters have a bearing on our primary theme – namely the survival of secret traditions that have carried ancient Egyptian religious concepts and symbolisms through time and lodged them in western heartlands of orthodox Christian power.’ --- Talisman, p.303.
Because of Dan Brown’s book Angels and Demons, many more ordinary folk are aware of the talented Italian Baroque architect Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680), now famous for his legacy of beautiful sculptures and pieces of art that grace the eternal city of Rome. Brown however, took licence to insert Bernini into his book-scheme as the one whose works in Rome contain all the clues to understanding the murders that result from a conflict of faith and science between the Illuminati on the one hand and the powerful Catholic Church on the other. These clues, according to Brown’s story, are to be found in the hermetic and Rosicrucian symbols placed by Bernini in his various creations and structures.
Again we must emphasise that when Dan Brown conjured his story of Angels and Demons he could not possibly have imagined how close to the truth he got, nor how unlucky he was in missing out on one of the most intriguing and fascinating stories attached to any of Bernini’s commissions. We also said earlier that the only ‘Holy Grail’ with any real truth and mystery to it is to be found in the mission of the Illuminati throughout the centuries to replace the Genesis creation narrative, and thus the Genesis doctrines. This was begun with hermetic heliocentric cosmology and not the ‘grails’ referred to in his The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown, we said before and we say again, placed the ‘Unholy Grail’ in the wrong book.
[/size]
-
St Peter's Square cont..
Following from the above, it takes little imagination to see that ancient and Egyptian obelisks, designed for astronomy, were the most explicit of all phallic symbols, and what is written on them adds to the mystery. (It is claimed the word obelisk literally means ‘Baal’s shaft’ or ‘Baal’s organ of Reproduction’ --- Dr Cathy Burns: Masonic and Occult Symbols, p.341.)
Rome’s Obelisks
‘In his Sunday blessing, Pope Benedict XVI noted that the Vatican itself has its own meridian — an obelisk in St. Peter's Square — and that astronomy had long been used to signal prayer times for the faithful.’ NCBnews.com 28/12/2008
As a sign of its power in the world, pagan Rome transported many Egyptian monuments and artefacts for display throughout their city. Obelisks were deemed ideal for this purpose. One such obelisk was the giant made out of solid granite, climbing 25 metres high and weighing in at over 320 tons and whose history showed it was made for ancient Egypt’s most sacred city Anu, known to the Greeks as Heliopolis, meaning ‘The City of the Sun,’ a city that had at its centre the glorious Sun Temple. This pillar however, was unusual in that no hieroglyphics were written on it. The story goes that in 37AD, the emperor Caligula (12-41AD) ordered this obelisk transported to Rome and placed in the Vatican circus, a site used for chariot racing. St Peter was martyred on this very spot thus giving the place eternal notoriety.
With the advent of Constantine the Great (272-337) and his concessions to Christianity throughout his empire and especially in the liberated city of Rome, the Emperor decided to allow this place to become the home of Catholicism, a special place to start its own spiritual empire. The great Basilica of St Peter rose up from the ground over the years and other marvellous buildings were created for the business of running the Church. As for the obelisk of Heliopolis, well, while still on the site, providentially, it became redundant and faded into obscurity on some waste ground.
In the 15th century however, Pope Nicolas V (1447-1455), ‘whose plans were of embellishing the city with new monuments worthy of the capital of the Christian world,’ decided to do something with this obelisk, not to destroy the pagan symbol or have it taken out of the holy city, but to move it in front of the Basilica itself. To ‘Christianise’ the object, if such a thing could ever be Christianised, the Pope thought of placing the four Evangelists in bronze at its base and Jesus with a golden cross on the top. Providence stepped in however, Pope Nicolaus V died in 1544 and the obelisk remained in the ditch where it belonged. Nearly fifty years later, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90), nicknamed ‘the last of the Renaissance Popes,’ was motivated to do what Pope Nicolaus V was prevented by death from doing, move the obelisk to the square in front of St Peter’s. His reasons for doing this were not Catholic either, but seem to have been based on human pride. His intention, we are told, was similar to that of the pagan Roman emperors who brought them to Rome in the first place – as a sign or display of the temporal power that the Vatican had in the world at the time. In this case, the Pope decided to place horses around its base rather than the intended four Evangelists that Pope Nicolas V wanted. Thankfully he omitted the Christ figure on top envisaged by his predecessor, leaving instead what were regarded as remnants of the true cross in the bronze sphere already at the top of the pedestal. To this he added a star over three mountains, his own personal family crest, and finally on top of both, a golden cross.
After the installation of the stone, (A horror story to be found in the footnotes of Talisman) Pope Sixtus V decided it best to exorcise it and this was done with great liturgical aplomb. But all the blessings Rome could give the obelisk could not undo its original symbolism. The irony of it all was that by placing a cross on the top of the pillar, they turned the thing into a more definitive representation of that same diabolical obelisk of the ‘City of the Sun,’ Anu-Heliopolis, the very place the phallic cut rock originally came from, for it too had a cross atop its obelisk. All that was missing to complete the picture was a circle around it with divisions of eight marked within it, ‘the standard hieroglyphic indicator of a city.’
‘The Pythagorean art of speech under a mathematical disguise is employed in Masonry. The ritual says: “Masonry and geometry were originally synonymous terms; that geometry is the basis on which the superstructure of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is erected.” ’ M. L. Wagner: Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.
In 1655, the then Pope Alexander VII (1655-1667) commissioned the now famous Bernini to redesign St Peter’s Square. This work was interrupted when King Louis XIV invited Bernini to Paris. On his return Bernini completed the work, marking out what looks like a circle with the obelisk at its centre point but is in fact it is an ellipse, with the diabolic phallic obelisk as its focus or generating point as mathematicians call it. Bernini's solution was to design a piazza in the form of an ellipse; the foci of the ellipse are indicated by marble and granite disks embedded within the pavement of the piazza. The elliptical shape also symbolizes the Church's embrace of all of mankind, “the motherly arms of the church,” as Bernini described his Colonnade. But more than that for Bernini then filled the space with a large eight-rayed sun wheel design - symbol of Ishtar. At the very centre of the larger wheel there was then created an inner four-pointed sun-wheel, the same symbol as found on the altar-stone in the temple of Baal.
‘Coincidence? Or could some secret group, capable of sustaining influence over the papacy over many decades, have understood ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs long before scholars learned to read them in the nineteenth century? Anu-Heliopolis was the archetypal ‘City of the Sun’ that Bruno and Campanella had determined to restore.’ --- Talisman, p.305.
-
St Peters Square cont:
So, here, in the most important and photographed place in Christendom, the Vatican City, and its pride of place St Peter’s Square, which more fittingly should contain a magnificent crucifix, is turned into a pagan representation of the ‘City of the Sun,’ complete with its ‘heretical’ Keplerian elliptical geometry (see superimposed pencil marking out ellipse with obelisk as generation focus point) about to be used by Isaac Newton to undermine the Biblical universe. Coincidence indeed, why not even in Dan Brown Angels and Demons could such a ‘chance happening’ be taken seriously.
‘Nearly a century later, in 1737, members of Florence’s cultural and scientific elite unearthed the scientist’s remains in a peculiar Masonic rite. Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ was growing as a counterweight to church power in those years and even today looms large in the Italian popular imagination as an anticlerical force. According to a notary who recorded the strange proceedings, the historian and naturalist Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti used a knife to slice off several fingers, a tooth and a vertebra from Galileo’s body as souvenirs but refrained, it appears, from taking his brain [as they did with Albert Einstein]. The scientist/astronomer was then reburied in a ceremony, “symmetrical to a beatification,” said Mr. Galluzzi….
After taking their macabre souvenirs, the group placed Galileo’s remains in an elegant marble tomb in Florence’s Santa Croce church, a pointed statement from Tuscany’s powers that they were outside the Vatican’s control. The church has long been a shrine to humanism as much as to religion, and Galileo’s permanent neighbours include Michelangelo, Machiavelli and Rossini.’ Rachel Donadio: New York Times website, 2010.
Nor is it a coincidence that Galileo’s grotesque finger is displayed in a phallic stance, in keeping with those things it symbolises.
‘Galileo’s vertebra wound up at the University of Padua, famous for its medical school, while his middle finger wound up in the collection that formed the basis for the Galileo Museum. But the thumb, index finger and tooth disappeared in 1905, only to re-emerge last October 2010 in an auction of reliquaries in Florence. Alberto Bruschi, a Florence collector, bought what turned out to be Galileo’s digits and tooth at the urging of his daughter Candida, who collects reliquaries. She also happened to be writing her senior thesis on Galileo’s tomb. After she observed that the figure on top of the reliquary resembled Galileo, the family called an expert who contacted Mr. Galluzzi, and the match was made. A spokeswoman for the Pandolfini auction house, which sold the reliquaries, said it could not reveal their provenance but said it had no idea they were Galileo’s.
Mr. Bruschi credits providence with the find. “More than by chance, things are also helped along a bit by the souls of the dead,” he said in a telephone interview. “I think they could not have wound up in better hands.”
(A dentist who examined the tooth for the museum said it showed signs of gastric reflux and indicated that Galileo ground his teeth in his sleep.) But although the relics may be the museum’s sexiest draw, they are a small part of the museum, which reopened last month after a high-tech renovation that transformed it into one of Italy’s best boutique collections, a veritable curiosity cabinet of beautifully wrought scientific instruments.
On a sunny recent morning, visitors seemed captivated by gems including telescopes, painted globes, clocks, and a nearly room-size model of the universe according to the Ptolemaic geocentric system that Galileo largely rejected for the Copernican one, commissioned by Ferdinando de Medici in 1588. Even today, centuries after Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the pope’s theological watchdog, had Galileo arrested for preaching Copernicanism, the church has never quite managed to acknowledge that his heliocentric theory is correct. For his part, Cardinal Bellarmine was made a saint in 1930.’ ---Rachel Donadio: New York Times website, 2010.
-
Cassini,
Thank you so much for picking up the slack. My schedule rendered me quite a dismal editor.
I can think of no one posting on the forums who knows more about this subject than you do; wherefore my replacement is quite an improvement.
I hope that you will augment the material here with your comments, which I always enjoy reading and which pack a tremendous amount of insightful material for the audience to consider.
May God be with you, and please pray for me as I pray for you!
-
1642-1727
Sir Isaac
Newton[/b]
‘It is now often said that incontrovertible evidence for the earth’s annual motion was not found until early in the nineteenth century, when high precision of astronomical instruments first permitted detection of parallax of certain fixed stars. Direct evidence of the earth’s daily rotation is similarly said to have awaited the Foucault pendulum in the mid-19th century. Such statements are titillating, but they misrepresent the grounds of scientific conviction. No scientist even then had lingering doubts he gave up at the time of those events. The issue of the earth’s motions had been effectively settled for scientists by Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which linked innumerable astronomical measurements and the occurrence of tides to the existence of the earth’s two motions.’ --- Stillman Drake: Galileo, Pastmasters, 1980, p55
Stillman Drake, author of at least five books on Galileo, is but one of many who alludes to the same thing, that Newton ‘proved’ the supposed double motion of the earth when in his Principia of 1687 he showed mathematical connections that established an ellipse-based solar system, an oblate earth shape, and a reason for the tides. Note however the language Drake uses to convey this great delusion of his; expressions like the ‘incontrovertible evidence’ and ‘direct evidence’ that stellar parallax and the Foucault pendulum are supposed to have shown when in fact neither of these phenomena are capable of establishing real scientific proof for anything as we will show soon. These terms are then followed by more expressions like ‘scientific conviction’ and ‘effectively settled for scientists.’ These merely show how scientific ‘facts’ are assessed by the Earthmovers, by consensus rather than actual empirical data. But more than that, Drake then alters history. The fact is that Newton’s theories were not that convincing to many contemporary philosophers.
‘Even at a date far within our own nineteenth century, the authorities of many universities in Catholic Europe, and especially those in Spain, excluded the Newtonian system. In 1771, the greatest of them all, the University of Salamanca, being urged to teach physical science, refused, making answer as follows: “Newton teaches nothing that would make a good logician or metaphysician; and Gassendi and Descartes do not agree so well with revealed truth as Aristotle does.” ‘ --- White, A History, p. 155.
We see then that the idea Newton’s ‘laws’ removed any ‘lingering doubts’ about the structure of the world is of course nonsense. Were it not for the fact that the Earthmovers of the Royal Society of London upheld their golem’s theory of gravitation as ‘proof’ for a fixed sun and a moving earth it would have remained just one of many theories as to what causes cosmic movement.
Understanding Gravity (From the Latin gravitás, meaning heavy.)
To say Newton solved the mystery of gravity is ignorant or a lie for no one other than God ‘understands’ gravity. We know the need for and effects of what we call gravity on earth, and indeed probably on the surface of every other cosmic body, but can mere human reason really comprehend the mystery of gravity? Given, for example, that if we view the earth in space - as man can do now – we find it simply hangs in nothing; its surface covered with ‘unattached’ things, half ‘upside-down’ relative to the other half. This being so, we can ask, how is it that on this same globe everybody on its surface has the sky above and the earth below. Is such a phenomenon not beyond human understanding? Let us put it this way. Here we are in the space shuttle, heading for global earth. Now, no matter where we head for, even if it is a place right on the bottom of the globe as we head towards it, somehow, by the time we land, we end up the same way, the sky is always overhead, and the earth is always below. When does the ‘head-under-heels twist’ happen, we ask? If a fly landed on the same place on a light bulb, it would find itself ‘upside down,’ yet the same does not occur when the bulbs are cosmic bodies. How does this happen? ‘It is all because of gravity’ we are told, and thank God for it we say, because without it we would all be in one terrible incoherent state of chaos.
There are, of course, many other known functions served by gravity. Experience has shown us that without gravity men could not/cannot survive for very long. The ability of our bodily parts to function properly, for example, is totally dependant on the earth’s gravity, and it is this dependency that will make long-term space travel for humans almost impossible, without even considering the effects of radiation. Forget all that hype and nonsense written about men ‘conquering space.’ The truth is that in apparently gravity-absent (weightless) space the human body will eventually break down. First muscle tissue would start to degenerate for want of proper gravity-resisting exercise. Then the bones weaken, start to lose calcium and become brittle. The heart, no longer having to pump blood against the effect of gravity, loses strength and vigour. In time other physical defects would begin to show, such as bodily fluids shifting around causing swelling in various parts of our anatomy. Thereafter physical and mental stress as well as exhaustion would set in. Back on earth no such problems exist, thanks to the earth’s gravity. All living creatures can exist on its surface where they belong with perfect health and mob¬ility, and the weight of a glass of wine and cigar just perfect.
As we look out at the sky from our immobile earth, we see that all celestial bodies have proper daily, monthly, annual and multi-yearly movement, that is, a daily rotation around the earth, a monthly orbit for the moon, an annual orbit for the sun, and a multi-year cycle for planets, comets and the precession of the stars. The earth’s motionless centrality was considered by Aristotle to be its gravitational ‘natural place.’ St Ambrose of Milan (†397), like other Fathers of the Church such as St Gregory Naxianzus (†390) and St Bazil the Great (†379), attributed the geocentricity of the earth to divine Providence alone.[/font]
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont.
‘On the nature and position of the earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7).
There are many, too, who have maintained that the earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted.
The earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the earth is immovable. “The earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).
In addition to the earth’s immobility, we could also ask, how are the movements of the cosmos caused and sustained? Aristotle proposed that the celestial bodies that have proper movement are maintained in motion by fifty-five ‘independent intelligences,’ immaterial substances or souls. St Thomas of course, taught that inanimate things have no soul, life or intelligence and thus no means of producing or sustaining movement by themselves. But God, using His will alone, or with the assistance of His angels, has the power to move celestial bodies. The fact that the sun, moon, planets and stars move with such regularity showed St Thomas a conscious and intellectual Being involved. How else could there be maintained a rhythm of perpetual motion and constant un-decaying order if not with the assistance of divine power or by His direct preservation of the laws of nature. Such metaphysical considerations however, came to an abrupt end with the Copernican revolution, when man was offered a natural or rational cause within a heliocentric system, a way of thinking accepted eventually by churchmen and laymen alike.
As to why the sun, moon and stars, which include the planets, do not fall to earth, Aristotle held that they must be made of something other than the matter of the earth, maybe of gas, thus remaining aloof in the sky. ( Today’s cosmologists tell us that Jupiter and Saturn are actually gas giants.)
Galileo for one looked through a telescope and saw that the moon had hills, valleys and craters; indicating the moon, at least, was indeed made of rock and not of ether or gas as Aristotle speculated. But it was Isaac Newton, they say, who provided the real breakthrough, the genius who determined that we do indeed live in a solar system and that it works by itself according to natural laws he figured out.
Isaac Newton was born to his widowed mother around Christmas 1642, the year Galileo died. When he was about four-years-old his mother tragically abandoned him, leaving him psychologically scarred for life. At school, Newton was a loner, often bullied, but a bright boy, excelling at Latin, the language of the learned, and maths, always an easy subject for the young Isaac. One of the first books that Newton read, we are told, was The Mysteries of Nature and Art by John Bate. This work inspired Newton to be a great natural philosopher. Curiously, Newton had a fascination for the sun from an early age. He would make and collect precision sundials and preferred their accuracy to the clocks of the day. When he was 18, Newton went to Trinity College Cambridge where he studied logic, ethics and rhetoric. These were Aristotelian at the time, and reflected the geocentric view of course. There he remained for the next twenty-eight years, first as a student, then as a lecturer. By the time he and the Royal Society of London were finished however, Trinity College had abandoned the geocentric order and adopted a heliocentric one instead. These days, if not for the last 300 years, Sir Isaac of the Royal Mint is nearly always portrayed as a learned theist, a staunch Christian philosopher, a Biblicist who devoted his life’s physics to God. What is not made clear however, is that Newton’s God was ‘the Great Architect of the Universe,’ the freemasonic god. Nevertheless, books and articles abound with pious utterances about him and many other such accolades gathered from his theosophical beliefs. The most famous of course it that given to him by the English poet Alexander Pope:
‘Nature and Nature’s Laws lay hid in Night. God said, “Let Newton be”; and all was Light.’--- Alexander Pope
Again ‘light,’ but whose ‘light?’ According to Newton, the sun is ‘our’ centre of gravity, the earth orbiting above with the sun below. The analogy of light is thus reversed with Newton’s light coming from below and not above, and we all know whose light it is that comes from below, don’t we?
Isaac Newton carefully researched those things of interest to him. He believed everything could be rationalised and reasoned out. For him it was simply a question of studying something very thoroughly before discerning where the truth of the particular subject lay for him. One of the subjects investigated by Newton was Christianity, even learning Hebrew so as to translate the Bible for himself like the good Protestant he pretended to be.
‘As can clearly be seen from voluminous manuscripts that survive, Newton had early in his life reached the conviction that a massive fraud beginning with the fourth and fifth centuries had perverted the legacy of the early Church, and that central to the fraud was the Scriptures, which he believed had been corrupted to support the doctrine of the Trinity.
“In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.” (R. Westfall, Never at Rest, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.314.) To this it can be added that he did not even have the courage to make his views public, as would surely have been incuмbent in any man of principle who saw his compatriots engaged in what he believed to be “the fundamental sin” of idolatry even if martyrdom had been the result. He not only refused to make his “important discovery” public, a phrase used by one of his friends who shared the same views - in order to preserve appearances and to avoid damage to his career and popularity, he even continued to commit the “fundamental sin” himself until just before he died. Westfall tells us: “No one considered Arians (Those who deny the divinity of Christ: first promulgated by the priest Arius.) a threat to the state. They were a threat rather to the moral foundations of society. Newton was well aware that the vast majority of his compatriots detested the views he held – more than detested, looked upon them with revulsion as an excretion that fouled the air breathed by decent persons….His heterodoxy allowed him every concealment… As long as he was willing occasionally to take the sacrament of the Church of England [while not the Real Presence, symbolises Christ’s divinity] the law required nothing of him at which he need balk. Only on his deathbed did he venture to refuse the sacrament.” ’ --- Richard. Westfall: op. cit., p.486.
--- N.M. Gwynne: Sir Isaac Newton & Modern Astronomy, pp.7-8.
Westfall shows that ‘Sir Isaac Newton hated and feared Popery.’ Koestler shows that he was: ‘A crank theologian… who held that the tenth horn of the fourth beast of the Apocalypse represented the Roman Catholic Church.’ ( A. Koestler, op. cit., p.536.) Newton’s exhaustive studies of the ancient religions led him to believe the old Vestal Cult as the original true religion.
‘Newton also proposed that the religion 'most ancient & most generally received by the nations in the first ages [i.e. after Noah] was that of the Prytanea or Vestal Temples.’ These temples, he explained, were circular structures with a burning flame at their centre that represented the Sun. In De Revolutionibus, of course, Copernicus had radically relocated the sun at the centre of the solar system, ‘this most beautiful of temples,’ whilst Vossius has considered the ancient cult of the Vestal fire as having represented the Sun. Newton believed these Vestal temples proved the ancients had originally understood the heliocentric universe as ‘rediscovered’ by Copernicus.’ ---David Boyd Haycock: The Long-Lost Truth. Chapter 6, The Newton Project.
This cult adored the god of nature (forces) and had a temple designed to imitate a heliocentric solar system, a burning fire with seven lamps circling it. Thus Newton’s belief in the hermetic legend of the City of the Sun re-enacted by the Freemasons, as befitted their origins in the ancient occult Mysteries.
‘Newton had a profound belief in prisca sapientia, an original wisdom given to the Ancients. He thought that in the earliest times God had imparted the secrets of natural philosophy and true religion to a select few [Gnosticism]. The knowledge was subsequently lost but traces could be still found hidden in myths where it would remain unnoticed by the vulgar. Many mysteries had been deliberately disguised to guard them from minds not fit to receive them. Newton turned to the most esoteric of Alchemical books where he believed the real secrets to be hidden.’ --- William Rankin: Newton and Classical Physics, Icon Books, UK, 2000, p.107.
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont..
Isaac Newton identified with Baconian and Cartesian philosophy and science. There was however, something missing, for these methods alone could not give him access to the invisible secrets of nature. Certainly Aristotle’s physics were found wanting, but so too some of Bacon’s and Descartes’s. What Newton needed was something more, a little extra help, and he knew where to find it.
‘There is no record of Newton himself having been a freemason. At the same time, however, he was a member of a semi-Masonic institution, the ‘Gentlemen’s Club of Spalding’ – which included such notables as Alexander Pope. Moreover, certain of his attitudes and works reflected interests shared by Masonic figures of the period… He believed that some of it [ancient wisdom] had filtered down to Pythagoras, whose ‘music of the spheres’ he regarded as a metaphor for the Law of Gravity… Such preoccupations on Newton’s part were something of a revelation to us. Certainly they do not concur with his image as it is promulgated in our own century – the image of a scientist who, once and for all, established the separation of natural philosophy from theology. In fact, however, Newton more than any other scientist of his age, was steeped in Hermetic texts and, his own attitudes, reflected Hermetic tradition.’ --- M Baigent, R Leighard and H Lincoin: The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail: Arrow Books, reprint 1996, pp.456-7.
In 1666, when Trinity College was closed because of the Black Death plague, Newton retreated to his house and there composed a chemical glossary that included some interesting information regarding himself that the scientific institutions and others would prefer was not commonly known. After all, he is the one who is credited with unlocking a truth that both Churchmen and State would come to embrace, so to maintain a proper character and integrity for Newton the scientist is of extreme importance.
What we know now is that by the time of his death in 1727, Newton had amassed over one million written words on alchemy. (John Maynard Keynes: Newton the Man, read by his brother in 1946.) The Royal Society, who published all his other works, prudently deemed Sir Isaac’s alchemical thoughts ‘not fit to be printed.’ But in 1936, the cat leapt out of the bag when a wealthy industrialist John Maynard Keynes purchased a case of Isaac Newton’s writings found hidden away. Expecting to find Newton’s scientific notes he found instead his writings on alchemy. After reading these papers, Keynes coined a new identity for Isaac in 1942, ‘the last of the magicians.’ Westfall, in one of the most interesting biographies of Newton, writes:
‘The order of development of Newton’s chemical notebook is significant. He did not stumble into alchemy, discover its absurdity, and make his way to sober, “rational”, chemistry. Rather he started with sober chemistry and gave it up rather quickly for what he took to be the greater profundity of alchemy.’
--- Richard Westfall: Never at Rest, Cambridge University Press, 1980
So this is the man destined to supposedly comprehend the true order of the universe and here he is abandoning the scientific method in order to pursue the secrets and magic of alchemy.
‘Solid evidence shows that however it began Newton’s alchemical activity included his personal introduction into the largely clandestine society of English alchemists. His reading in alchemy was not confined to the printed word. Among his manuscripts is a thick sheaf of alchemical treaties, most of them unpublished, written in at least four different hands. Since Newton copied out five treatises plus some recipes, the collection appears to have been loaned to him for study but then, for whatever reason, not returned.’ --- R. Westfall, op. cit., p.286
Newton preferred to remain alone in his room, isolated from his colleagues in Trinity College Cambridge. He discouraged correspondence from scholars and friends in London but apparently had an open door policy for fellow alchemists, from whom he received many manuscripts. Newton we see, sought answers in alchemy before presenting them as facts of science.
‘In 1696 an unnamed and shadowy figure…visited Newton in Cambridge to discuss on alchemy. They did not meet by chance; the man came to find him. Newton recorded the conversation in a memorandum.
Alchemy formed the initial subject of a correspondence with Robert Boyle [a founder of the Royal Society] that commenced in 1676. His friendship with John Locke and Fatio de Duiller involved alchemy, but both of them began only in the late 1680s. Otherwise nothing. One of the major passions of his life, as testified by a vast body of papers which stretched over thirty years, a pursuit which included contact with alchemical circles as attested by his copies of unpublished treaties, remain largely hidden from public view and remains so today.
The experience of another collector, Elias Ashmole helps in assessing Newton’s manuscripts. In the preface of Theatrum chemicuм brittannicuм, Ashmole declined to name the source of his treaties because they preferred not to see their names in print. His diary records a visit, not wholly unlike that which Newton received in 1696, when an unknown and mysterious man appeared at his door ready to reveal the art. Meanwhile, against the background of deliberate secrecy, we can at least speculate that otherwise unexplained events in his life were alchemically motivated.’ --- R. Westfall, op. cit., p.288.
Such visits, recall, were well illustrated by Diana Vaughan in our chapter twelve on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. It was this obsession too that led Isaac Newton to Isaac Barrow (1630-1677), Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, another alchemist and devotee of Francis Bacon’s philosophy. Then there was the hermetist Henry More who taught Newton how to find the hidden secrets within the texts of Hermēs Trismegistus, conceived as hovering between the divine and human world, the original ‘as above, so below.’ Nowadays, that phrase is used by writers and astrologers alike to explain why and how the world works. Today it is believed the visible stars in the sky are directly linked to life on earth. Indeed has not Jostein Gaarder in his Sophie's World given us the famous quote ‘We too are stardust?’
Of importance however are the links between this occultism and the Earthmovers of the Royal Society. Since then, and especially today after his notebooks were found and read, Newton’s mania for alchemy has come under microscopic study, literally, for even a strand of his hair has been examined only to find it contained enough mercury to kill a cat, and we all know what mercury was/is used for, don’t we? No, well then it is here we had better know what alchemy really is. First though, look up your sources and you will find alchemy described as mediaeval chemistry, forerunner to modern chemistry.
‘White (Michael White: Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, Addison Wesley) has little time for alchemy, regarding it as the providence of the unscrupulous and deluded. But alchemy has a long and honourable tradition, which persisted alongside the workaday chemistry of the dyers, tanners and brewers well beyond Newton until the late 18th century.’ --- The Sunday Times Bookshop, 28 Sept 1997.
White of course is absolutely correct. The true nature of alchemy involves the pursuit of the legendary ‘Philosopher’s Stone’ a ‘formula’ or agent used for the transmutation of base metal into gold or other precious metal or stone, a magic that modern chemists assure us is impossible. (Why gold? Because gold is more than a beautiful metal. It acquires power, and this power has been utilised for good as in the Ark of the Covenant (Num. 10:33) and for evil as used in the Golden Calf (Ex. 32). Moses burned the Golden Calf and ground it into powder. Satan, we will see next, uses powder in making gold. Gold, we know, also became the standard for money.) But this form of alchemy also has its esoteric side, the mission to transmute human nature into the divine by means of knowledge, philosophy and meditation. This quest had its origins in the Garden of Eden:
‘And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death….
‘And the serpent said to the woman: no, you shall not die the death, For God doth know in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ --- (Genesis 2:17/3:4-5)
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont..
Lord J.B. Cravan, in his book ‘The Life of Michael Mayer’ (1910), confirms that alchemy as practiced first by the Socinians and then the Freemason occultists was a veil for ‘the great work’ of turning - or rather trying to turn - human nature into divine nature. (In our chapter on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ remember, Michael Mayer was named by Diana Vaughan as Grand Master of the Rosicrucians from 1617 to 1622.) This knowledge, they believed, could be found in the writings of Hermēs Trismegistus, the Gnostics and in the Cabbala. Further development of the various themes then flowed from the occultists within the secret societies, the likes of those who met and supplied Newton with various occult theses. Indeed, didn’t Newton himself compile his own thinking in this field, those docuмents found by John Maynard Keynes.
Thus the two-faced alchemy indulged in by Sir Isaac Newton, a dual pursuit of mammon and esoteric knowledge, two favourite instruments used by the Devil himself. What is not commonly known however is how Lucifer uses the ‘Philosopher’s Stone’ to entrap new recruits. In Diana Vaughan’s account of 1895 she describes a typical initiation into the ranks of the alchemists identical to what occurred in the case of Newton and Ashmole.
‘The adepts that read this book will know easily, that it is written by a brother, and I humbly say that I am their equal. With regard to the others led astray by the sophisms of our adversaries, they have yet to receive the light that will bring them safely to the truth, and perhaps they will open their eyes to receive it, and I hope to illuminate many of them with my book. Every adept will see that I do not treat of fables, but real experiments, things I have seen, studied and practiced fundamentally. On this account it is enough to say, that no one ever wrote so clearly on our art as I do now, for the good of my neighbour. I often wanted to drop my pen, feeling myself tempted to reveal the truth, but that God whom I could not resist, who alone knows the hearts, and to whom alone glory is due, for ever, made me take it up again. I have no doubt then that in this last age of the world there are many capable of the happiness of possessing these secrets. There are many I know who possess these same secrets as well as I, and I am persuaded there will be many more every day, who will study my book in order to know them. Let the holy will of God do with me then what it likes. I acknowledge myself unworthy to be the instrument of such good things, even though I adore in them the holy will of God, to which all creation is bound to submit, as all intelligence has been created and preserved by him. Oh, good God.
At the beginning of that year, 1667, Helvetius, a doctor, was converted to occultism. This Luciferian conversion throws light on the pretended sceptics of the 18th century, some of whom pretended to be atheists. Helvetius was a disciple of Thomas Vaughan, but his real name was Johann Friedrich Schweitzer, who came from Switzerland to Holland, to practice medicine, hence called Helvetius. Being head doctor of the Prince of Orange, he was thought much about, and got to be head doctor of the General States. He was 42 when he joined Philalethes. Helvetius was a declared enemy of alchemy. In 1650 he criticised his brethren severely, who were looking for the philosopher’s stone, the elixir of life, and the universal solvent, and published a book against them called “De alchemiae opuscula comptura veterum philosoporum”. Later he wrote against Sir Digby, a Rosicrucian, and his powder of projection, of which he made great fun. He had to meet Philalethes before he changed round completely. This is what he says in his book “Vitulus aureus” in 1667.
“On the 27th of Dec. 1666, I had a visit from a stranger, dressed as a Dutchman of the middle-class who did not want to let me know who he was. He said he was induced by the noise created by his discussion with Sir Digby, to submit to me the proofs of the existence of the Philosopher’s Stone, and after a long conversation about the principles of Hermetism, he opened a small ivory box that contained a metallic powder of the colour of sulphur, saying he had there enough to make twenty tons of gold. I asked him to demonstrate by means of the fire the virtues of this powder, but he did not do so, only said he would return in three weeks. In examining the powder, I took care to fix some to it under my nail, and as soon as he left, I proceeded to test it myself, melted lead and made the projection with the powder. It was all dissipated in vapour and nothing remained in the crucible but lead and vitrified clay. In three weeks he returned, and refused to operate as before, but gave me a grain of the stone, about the size as a grain of wheat. I told him I did not believe in the efficacy of so small a quantity to do anything. Then he divided it in two, and said the half was enough to transform an ounce of lead into gold, but told me that at the time of projection, I should cover it with wax to preserve it from the fumes of the lead. Then he said he would call on the following day to see how it turned out. The day passed and the stranger did not turn up, so I began to work myself. This time the experiment turned out admirably. After a quarter of an hour the fused metal became golden coloured, and being strained, and cooled, its fineness was thought very high, by the goldsmiths at the Hague.”
So far Helvetius in his “Vitulus aureus.” Then being astonished at the result, he dedicated his time to find out the method of producing the philosopher’s stone, but without success, until he was initiated as a Rosicrucian, and was advanced to the 9th degree by Thomas Vaughan. You remark that he says nothing about the name of the mysterious stranger, and in none of his other works does he speak about the adventure of the year 1666-67, but all his contemporaries believe it was Thomas Vaughan, as they knew the intimate relations between the two men. Lenglet Dufresnoy gives this opinion as the one generally believed. So does Louis Figurier, who does not doubt its truth. The main fact is, that Helvetius became one of the Rosicrucian Society and was its Grand Master from 1693 until he died in 1709. The proofs of his initiation are seen in the notes of Philalethes, for the perfectly initiated, notes, which Figurier could not but know, as an occult Freemason. I will return to this point, and show from these notes, especially, where he gives advice to magicians only, how to get the philosopher’s stone, and how a Rosicrucian who arrives at the highest degree, can have as much gold as he likes….’
The path to the deification of man – the main purpose and aim of alchemy - Helvetius writes, is knowledge as obtained in the following chapters:
‘ “I. On the need of mercury of the Wise, for the work of the elixir.
II. The principles that compose the mercury of the Wise.
III. The steel of the Wise.
IV. The magnet of the Wise
V. The chaos of the Wise.
VI. The air of the Wise.
VII. The first operation for the preparation of the mercury of the philosophers, by the flying eagles.
VIII. The work and weariness caused by the first preparation.
IX. On the power of our mercury over all metals.
X. On the sulphur contained in philosophic mercury.
XI. The way in which perfect mastery was discovered.
XII. How to attain perfect mastery.
XIII. On the use of ripe mercury sulphur in the work of the elixir.
XIV. On the circuмstances that occur, and required for the work in general.
XV. On the accidental purification of mercury, & the proper weight of each.
XVI. On the amalgam of gold and mercury, and the proper weight of each.
XVII. On the crucible, its shape material and how to cover it.
XVIII. On Athnor, or the stove of a philosopher.
XIX. On the progress of the work for the first 40 days.
XX. On the form of blackness in the working of the sun and moon.
XXI. How to prevent the burning of the flowers.
XXII. On the government of Saturn, and why it is so called.
XXIII. On the different governments of the works.
XXIV. On the first rule of the working, that of mercury.
XXV. On the second rule, which is Saturn.
XXVI. On the third, which is of Jupiter.
XXVII. On the fourth of the moon.
XXVIII. Fifth, Venus.
XXIX. Sixth, Mars.
XXX. Seventh, SUN.
XXXI. On the fermentation of the philosopher’s stone.
XXXII. On the darkness of the stone.
XXXIII. On the multiplication of the stone.
XXXIV. How to make the projection.
XXXV. On the different uses of the stone, to convert into gold, silver, diamonds, and precious stones.”
‘Thomas Vaughan says in his preface, that it is necessary to have received the first initiation in order to understand this book. In reality he wrote it for those initiated in the golden cross degrees, and in order to attract the profane to alchemy, but even these initiated cannot understand it all. No one but a magnus can understand these words of chapter 13. “I have the philosopher’s stone that I stole from nobody. But received it from our only God.”… We will leave it there then, and I will only select a few notes, reserved for the Magicians, or perfectly initiated, which will explain at the same time, the conversion of Helvetius to Luciferianism, and will show for what crime of crimes, you can get as much gold as you like.’
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont..
And finally we come to the key symbolism inbuilt in alchemy.
[The Vitulus aureus continues] “How admirable your [Lucifer’s] works. You are the only one that produces this miracle, viz: the transmutation of metals. I give you thanks, oh Father of the Lord of heaven and earth, for having withheld such wonders from the wise and powerful, and manifested them to your little children.” ‘ --- Diana Vaughan: op. cit., pp 140-155.
And what is this secret ‘miracle.’ Well as you know the mainstay of Catholic faith on earth is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass wherein the Melchisedech priest performs the miracle of changing bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ Himself. This miracle is called transubstantiation. Inherent in alchemy however, is Lucifer’s attempt to mimic the miracle of transubstantiation with a transmutation of base metal into gold or whatever. Sulphur represents the bread, Mercury represents the wine and the addition of the Salt (the Philosopher’s Stone) represents the transmutation. As we see above, only when man accepted Lucifer’s ‘priesthood’ does he finally discover the real purpose of the exercise? Newton’s indulgence in alchemy, and let’s not beat about the bush, brought him into close contact with the occult world of Lucifer. Now when trying to turn base metal into gold or obtain preternatural knowledge of the cosmos, there are only two sources from which such things could be obtained, God or the Devil. And that is why the Catholic Church’s definitive work on demonology, The Malleus Maleficarum (1486), speaks of magicians and witches, telling us through whom they operate: ‘But the Magician, since he works through a pact entered into with the devil, is said to work by private contract for the works by means of the devil.’
Westfall records that Newton’s obsession with occult alchemy and related interests lasted at least twenty-five years. Such knowledge would dominate Newton’s life, receiving it and distributing it, leaving men ‘stupefied and confounded;’ knowledge that both Churchmen and State would accept as proof that the world is heliocentric. Newton’s cosmology, as with his studies on light, is infiltrated with an occult magic, leaving behind it a belief in invisible forces everywhere, another aspect of the god of forces as prophesised by Daniel:
‘But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.’ Daniel 11:38.
The Bible teaches that the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr would honour the god of forces. When churchmen from 1741 adopted Newton’s false god in the guise of science over the teachings of the Fathers and papal decrees, yet another victory for the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr was accomplished. And then there was the gold, all that gold, buckets of it. The trouble was that Lucifer’s gold was so pure that it could be spotted by any goldsmith in the High Street who might then tell the authorities who in turn would hunt such alchemists down. Now if one were to add one and one together, perhaps this gives us a clue to that bizarre career move of Newton’s, from his Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge University to Master of the Royal Mint. Could it be that Sir Isaac of the Royal Mint was also the first of the great ‘launderers?’ The building of an empire on Bacon’s ideals cost money, and who better to supply it, if you know what we mean?
Immediately after the publication of his Principia in 1687, Newton ‘leapt into prominence in politics in one of the turning points of English history, taking very much a revolutionary side.’
‘Indeed by the time Newton’s publisher had performed the act, obligatory in connexion with all new books, of presenting a copy of the Principia to the King [James II], Newton had, in the words of Richard Westfall, “placed himself irrevocably in the ranks of James II’s enemies.” ‘ --- N.M. Gwynne, op. cit., p.3.
According to Westfall there is no doubt that Newton secretly joined the leaders of opposition to James II and engaged in conspiracy to overthrow the King in favour of the Protestant William of Orange. (King James II was a Catholic King who was trying to reconvert England to the true faith without violence. As with any power wanting to establish itself, prominent and influential positions must be filled with those sympathetic to the cause. King James went about appointing Catholics to vacant fellowships in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. This was not to Newton’s liking.)
‘As soon as Newton was elected (to the convention Parliament in 1689) he set out for London and on the 17th January he dined with William of Orange.’ ---R. Westfall, op. cit., p.483.
For the sake of the bearing a man’s morality can have on the integrity of his work and motives involved in how he approaches and presents that work, and for no other reason, we subjoin what others have said of his guardianship. Francois Marie Arouet (Voltaire), one of the more famous antichrists in history, in his Dictionnaire Philosophique wrote the following after he visited England:
‘I thought in my youth that Newton made his fortune by his merit. I suppose that the court and the city of London named him Master of the Mint by acclamation. No such thing. Isaac Newton had a very charming niece, Madame Conduitt, who made a conquest of the minister Halifax. Fluxions and gravitation would have been of no use without a pretty niece.’ (Ms Conduitt was the daughter of Newton’s sister and initially his ward)
Voltaire at any rate, considered Newton’s promotion from Warden of the Royal Mint (1696) to Master of the Royal Mint in 1699 - after 31 years in Cambridge as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics - as a result of his niece’s affair of all things. Westfall spends considerable time and space on this speculation but fails to see the possibility that it was for services rendered by the Principia and his involvement in alchemy that warranted this position. We can deduct this from the fact that Charles Montague, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the man who gave Newton his new position at the Royal Mint, also happened to be onetime President of the Royal Society. Such a promotion is not a complete mystery as both Bank of England and the Royal Society would of course have been important institutions used by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
‘Newton’s role in history was intellectual not moral leadership… For me at least, the recognition of his complexity as a man helps in understanding the price his genius exacted. I find it hard to reconcile the Principia with a plaster saint.’ ---R. Westfall, op. cit., p.601.
In return we can add no more than give N.M. Gwynne’s reply:
‘This is the crux of the matter. It is the point at which it is vital to part company with Westfall. Probably in no century in the whole of history other than our own could a man have seriously suggested that leadership of any kind be separated from moral virtues…The point is that, even for strictly practical reasons alone, morals and intellect cannot be split neatly into two separate compartments with, as Westfall implies, the one having no connection with the other.
In the first place, once we know a man to be immoral and to be prepared to go to any lengths to better his own material position, we also know that there is at least as good a chance that he will be trying to lead us towards falsehood as towards truth… As we saw with Galileo, who used the demonstrably false argument that the phenomenon of the tides proved his theory of a heliocentric universe, an immoral man will be totally unscrupulous in his attempts to establish what he believes is true, and in this way he will not only deceive others but frequently also himself. Far from his moral character being irrelevant to his intellectual leadership, therefore, it is of the highest importance.’ ---N.M. Gwynne, op. cit., p.12.
We agree, so let us put it this way. If someone offered to sell you a car, telling you that it had a revolutionary engine (heliocentric) and worked like a dream (Principia), and you found out he was obsessed with alchemy; was a traitor to religion, king and country of birth, and was seen by some as one who took advantage of the charms of his niece, would you buy it from him on trust?
-
Can anyone quote a Biblical passage saying that S rev around E? :confused1:
-
Can anyone quote a Biblical passage saying that S rev around E? :confused1:
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again...Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
‘The above passage is attributed to Solomon, who described himself like so.
“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 Wisdom.7:15-21.)
‘Recall Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion in his Letter to Foscarini (1615):
“Thus it is not too likely that he [the above Solomon] would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.” --- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
Others can be found in Chapter 17 thread page 64.
-
edit
-
Can anyone quote a Biblical passage saying that S rev around E? :confused1:
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again...Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
‘The above passage is attributed to Solomon, who described himself like so.
“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 Wisdom.7:15-21.)
‘Recall Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion in his Letter to Foscarini (1615):
“Thus it is not too likely that he [the above Solomon] would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.” --- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
Others can be found in Chapter 17 thread page 64.
No where does the above post say that S rev around E. :baby:
-
Can anyone quote a Biblical passage saying that S rev around E? :confused1:
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again...Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
‘The above passage is attributed to Solomon, who described himself like so.
“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 Wisdom.7:15-21.)
‘Recall Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion in his Letter to Foscarini (1615):
“Thus it is not too likely that he [the above Solomon] would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.” --- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
Others can be found in Chapter 17 thread page 64.
No where does the above post say that S rev around E. :baby:
Roscoe, please quote a Biblical passage containing the word "Trinity".
-
Pls start another topic if u want to discuss the Trinity. :whistleblower:
-
Pls start another topic if u want to discuss the Trinity. :whistleblower:
My point in stating that was that simply because the exact words you are asking for are not in the Bible does not mean the doctrine is not contained there. It is the same for the Trinity - it is clearly taught in the Bible, although the term is not used.
The revolution of the sun around the Earth is taught in the Bible, because the Early Fathers of the Church said it was and the Holy Office said it was.
-
Can anyone quote a Biblical passage saying that S rev around E? :confused1:
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits. All the rivers run unto the sea, yet the sea doth not overflow; unto the place from whence the rivers come they return, to flow again...Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say; behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us.” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
‘The above passage is attributed to Solomon, who described himself like so.
“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 Wisdom.7:15-21.)
‘Recall Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion in his Letter to Foscarini (1615):
“Thus it is not too likely that he [the above Solomon] would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated.” --- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine
Others can be found in Chapter 17 thread page 64.
No where does the above post say that S rev around E. :baby:
The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits.
You see this above roscoe, in blue, well this describes the sun as seen from earth revolving around the earth in a beautiful way.
But then again maybe you don't see, a pity, you don't know what you are missing.
-
The Story of an Apple and the Moon
(http://s29.postimg.org/bw9o9c16v/newton_tree.jpg)
The unlikely story goes that in 1665, on a day that the moon orbited above, Newton sat in an orchard pondering. Seemingly Isaac Newton pondered a lot, for when asked how he came to his conclusions replied: ‘by always thinking unto them. I keep the subject constantly before me and wait till the first dawning opens slowly by little and little into a full and clear light.’ It is also most interesting that Newton’s heliocentrism should be associated with the falling of an apple, for was that not the very fruit God forbid Adam and Eve to take off the tree in the Garden of Eden? We think there could be a little occult esoteric symbolism going on here, but they wouldn’t do that, would they? Wouldn’t they! Anyway, pondering on the mysteries of gravity while looking at an apple falling to the ground, Newton said to himself: ‘according to my thinking that apple must have fallen to the ground because of a force pulling on it.’ Fine, Newton had a theory; he is allowed that, no harm done so far. And then it happened, eureka, that flash of genius that supposedly occurs in this field of science all the time.
‘What if,’ Newton continued asking himself, ‘that attractive force I believe pulls on the apple reached to the moon, wouldn’t it pull the moon to earth? So why doesn’t it?’ Trying to find an answer to this proposal he had invented, Newton continued his pondering. ‘What happens when I throw an apple to the bottom of the garden? How does it move? It would remain in the air until it lost its motion or speed and was pulled to the ground by gravity, just like Galileo found with his marbles. Now what if I threw it so hard that it never ran out of speed, what then? It would orbit the earth forever, wouldn’t it?’ Looking up at the moon, Newton continued with the questions: ‘what if the moon is just a big apple doing what my little imaginary apple with perpetual speed would do? Wouldn’t that explain the moon’s perpetual orbit around the earth?’ And that is how Newton concocted his theory of universal gravitation with perpetual motion - by talking to himself and by agreeing with himself. There are of course many problems herein. For example, apples fall within the earth’s demonstrable gravity while moons (and planets etc.) move through space where such gravity – if it exists there - is not demonstrable or measurable for moons. Moreover, planets are supposed to move fast and slow in elliptical orbits, thrown apples do not move fast and slow. What Newton had to do to give his theory some credibility was to resolve this dilemma; show that gravity is a universal agent continually acting across space reaching to the furthest stars. Alas, as we will see later, he never did, and search as much as you like and you will find Newton provided no such empirical link for his theory.
They say from this pondering on the apple came Newton’s three laws of motion. Newton’s First Law states:
Every body continues in its state of rest, or uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.
In his explanation of this law, Newton stops just short of attributing a natural motion in perpetuity when he says that the heavenly bodies ‘preserve their motions both progressive and circular for a longer time.’ Newton's Second Law is even more explicit in its reference to impetus or impressed force.
Force equals mass times acceleration.
Finally, Newton’s Third Law that states:
To every action force there is an equal and opposite reaction force.
No, not the fact that if a boxer punches another in a boxing ring he will punch back. Rather, if one hits something with a bat it will fly off in another direction, a fact even Adam was aware of. Great stuff these physical laws, yes?
-
And still the mortifying spectacle continues: eighty-five pages of screaming and table pounding, with no end in sight …
Nowhere does the above post say that S rev around E.
Hush, roscoe! All of this must be the gospel truth—and we are obliged to believe whatever the transcriber claims—because it's been reproduced in large type. Another resident genius, Neil Obstat, uses the selfsame tactic whenever reason, substance, and evidence in support of his assertions are at a premium.
It is of more than passing note that one of the means used to cast derision upon Newton is to associate him with a club that numbered Alexander Pope among its members. Pope was a Catholic, of course, in an age when being a Catholic was anything but a door-opener.
Would that someone could deride me with such an association!
-
Newton’s Optics
In 1667, when the worst of the Black Plague was over, Trinity College opened up its doors to students once again. On his return Newton was elected as a fellow of Trinity and given an income. Two years later Barrow left his post as Lucasian Professor, recommending it went to Newton of course. It was then that Isaac began to study optics. It seems the wonderful God created phenomenon of the rainbow regularly seen in the sky held no lessons for human knowledge until Newton discovered how to make his own little rainbow-colours by passing light through a prism. Once this was realised many secrets of the spectrum came to light, if you pardon the pun.
To his credit, Newton’s - like Galileo’s before him - knowledge of optics and his many experiments with lenses led him to invent and make the reflecting telescope. This allowed improvements in magnification within a small telescope. For all this, they say, in 1672 Newton was made a fellow of the Royal Society. He in turn enlightened them on the essentials of his discoveries only to be told by Robert Hooke (1635-1703) - Curator of Experiments in the Royal Society - that he had already figured out these things but had been too busy to publish his work. Five years later, Henry Oldenburg, Secretary of the Royal Society died. This position then went to Robert Hooke whose overriding ambition was, surprise, surprise, to vindicate the heliocentric theory ‘by proving the earth moves.’ (William Rankin: op. cit., p.111.) The time had come; the Masons were now ready to establish their solar system of the Mysteries as a ‘fact’ of science.
‘The new philosophy of these scientific pioneers, with their extraordinary insight, was indeed like the Phoenix rising from the ashes, and their era of amazing discovery was unique in western history. What especially intrigued the fraternity was that the Philosopher’s Stone was traditionally associated with the defiance of gravity, and this compelling subject was a primary focus of their study, leading to the famous gravity discoveries by Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton.’ --- Lawrence Gardner: Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark, Element, 2004, p.265.
It is obvious to us from reading between the lines that the big three in the Royal Society of London at the time, Edmond Halley (1656-1742), Robert Hooke, and Christopher Wren (1632-1723) had by then conjured up a theory of universal gravitation to suit their quest to establish heliocentricism as a truth and were feeding it to Newton bit-by-bit because they knew that he - engrossed as he was in both the esoteric and exoteric - was the most suitable person around at the time capable of giving their system the scientific ‘credibility’ it needed. As for the scientific integrity of the likes of Edmond Halley and that comet called after him:
‘One of Newton’s handlers was a notorious plagiarist named Edmund Halley, who believed the Earth was hollow. Halley had already gotten in a huge dispute with the Royal Astronomer, John Flamsteed (1646-1719), over the trajectory of a comet. Flamsteed demonstrated that the comet of 1682 was the same that had appeared in 1680, having travelled in an orbit around the Sun. Halley and his cronies didn’t believe him, but when Flamsteed intimated that it was the same comet that had been observed by Johannes Kepler in 1607, Halley publicly claimed the hypothesis for his own, and predicted a return of the comet in 1757.’ --- Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007.
The schemers, Halley, Hooke and Wren, who had done their homework, had a convincing plan. They had, they thought, three certain laws to use in their task, the three laws of Johannes Kepler, two of which of course are not laws as we saw earlier.
‘Two years later, according to an account by Abraham de Moivre (1667-1754), Halley met one night in 1684 at a London bar with two of his Royal Society cohorts, Robert Hooke and the President of the Royal Society, Christopher Wren, and told them he was searching for someone who could prove that a planetary elliptical orbit was created by an inverse square force. Both said they could, but neither would produce the proof. Later that year, Halley reportedly asked Newton if he could produce a proof. Newton said he could, and Halley pushed him to publish a book on it, to be promoted widely. Newton was reluctant to publish this, as his “discovery” had been made while in the heat of alchemy experiments.’ --- Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007
Sir Isaac, keeping in mind Hooke’s previous claim to be the original discoverer of Newton’s results on optics, light and colour, took the bait and determined not to be left behind by Hooke with this one, began work on the mathematical question immediately.
The next move by the Earthmovers came when Mr Hooke, Mr Wren and Mr Halley bet 40 shillings sterling (£2) that an inverse square law of universal gravity determined how the planets moved. Halley then waved the crucial question again, what curve (orbit) would result if a force of attraction by the sun were reciprocal to the square of its distance from the satellite? The question of course, begged for an answer that said ‘ellipse,’ the curve all believed had been shown by Kepler to be the correct one for orbits.
‘If we ask as Newton’s fellow scientists did, “Given inverse-square law attraction, what shape must a planet’s – or a comet’s – orbit have?” the mathematical machine replies, as it did in Newton’s hands, “The orbit will be a conic section with the sun in one focus.” Conic sections are curves got by taking plane slices of a solid circular cone. If the slice is slanted, the section is an ellipse. With a greater slant, just “parallel to the cone’s edge,” the slice is a parabola. With a still greater slant, the section is a hyperbola. These curves all belong to one geometric family.’ --- Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007
The Cone and Family[/font]
-
Halley then went to back to Newton in Cambridge. Sir Isaac told him that yes; such an orbit would be a true ellipse, reputedly showing Halley a nine-page docuмent full of mathematics and reasoning purporting to prove this. Absolutely delighted that the promptings had worked, Halley urged Newton to publish his calculations. Newton however refused at the time, indicating that it only touched on his work regarding the greater mystery of the universe waiting to be solved. Yes, we again see Newton was well and truly ‘hooked’ by the Masons of the Royal Society.
‘But historically Newton’s Law of Gravitation was deduced from Kepler’s laws of planetary motion. Halley, Wren and Hooke all used Kepler’s relation between the squares of the periods and the cubes of the diameter (taking the orbits as circles) to deduce an inverse square law of gravitation, and then Newton extended the argument to elliptical orbits. Today, of course, when you study mechanics you learn to deduce Kepler’s law of gravitation as Newton’s law of gravitation not the reverse.' --- John Cornwell: Explanations, Oxford Press, 2004, p.26.
‘Newton advanced the law of universal gravitation. According to this law, the gravity between two bodies (a planet and the Sun for example) is proportionate to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distances between them. One consequence of this, Newton proved with clever mathematical arguments, was that planetary orbits had to be elliptical, just as Kepler had previously asserted.’ --- Tom Standage: The Neptune File, Penguin Press, 2000, p.42.
Here we see the intellectual magic of the Earthmovers at its best, with Halley, Wren, Hooke and Newton using Kepler’s ‘Laws’ to create the illusion that their theory complies with the facts. In this case however, they made the wrong move. This arises from the fact that Kepler’s 1st and 2nd ‘laws’ are simply not true. All philosophers agree that with theories like Newton’s, proofs cannot be achieved. On the other hand, absolute certainty can be reached if one can falsify the same theory or hypothesis. This falsification can utilise empirical data, i.e., any certainty that measurements can show us. For example, if we measure a road to be one mile long, we can say with absolute certainty that any formula or theory that gives us an answer that is different to this distance is useless. Now earlier we showed how the astronomer Domenico Cassini of the Paris Observatory discovered the orbits of the sun and planets are toral ovals and not conic ellipses, a confirmed fact no one has ever disproved, only ignored. This orbital evidence then further discredits Newton’s universal gravitation and shows it up to be what it really is, mathematical juggling and illusions based on Kepler’s erroneous compromise.
‘Of course, the heliocentric theory seems now to be the correct one, but why should we accept it? Yet today we accept the heliocentric theory as factual… Why did mathematicians and astronomers make the drastic change to a heliocentric theory? As we shall see, the role of mathematics was decisive in this revolution.’ --- M. Kline, op. cit., p.68.
This then is what Newton busied himself with for the next three years (1684-1687), formulating Hook, Wren and Halley’s theory of gravitation to produce elliptical orbits. Traditionally the basis for ancient geometry was calculating in terms of conserved area (product). With Kepler’s 'First Law’ however, we found a radical departure from the classical, for it switched to conserving length, not area, the combined length of the focal arms is always the same. This change, as one can imagine, caused problems. The theory needed a new type of calculation to comprehend the mathematical needs to work out tangent-slopes of curved graphs, and to compute areas inside elliptical curves and indeed to try to calculate the maths of fast/slow motion of a body moving in an elliptical orbit. Accordingly, Newton is credited with inventing a novel mathematics, the calculus, described by Voltaire as: ‘the art of numbering and measuring exactly a thing whose existence cannot be conceived.’ But even this is challenged.
‘Isaac Newton did not discover the Calculus. Newton actually wrote very little on the Calculus. Leibniz wrote several letters to him, each more skeptical than the last, asking for more than just a mathematical derivation of Newton’s formulas, but only got two unsatisfactory answers in reply. The first public references to his “fluxions” were in a book by John Wallis (1616-1703), who printed the two letters Newton had sent to Leibniz, as an appendix to his own algebra textbook. Additionally, there is no evidence of any work done leading up to any discovery by Newton, previous to 1684, besides his extensive writings on alchemy and black magic. Either Newton did not know how he “made his discovery,” or he didn’t want to reveal the true story – that he was a raving priest of the occult!’ --- Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007.
As with many of the Earthmovers’ ideas, we find there was another claiming to be the true originator or inventor of calculus, G.W. Leibniz. As the row grew as to which of them got there first, Leibniz appealed to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute. Poor Leibniz must have thought the Royal Society was an impartial body with a purely scientific agenda. The Society responded by setting up a committee to investigate; but filling most of the committee with Newton’s friends of course. Not satisfied with that, he then wrote up the report of the committee’s findings himself and had the Royal Society publish it. As you might have guessed, the Committee’s official conclusion accused Leibniz of plagiarism. Remember, this is the society that promoted heliocentricism as the established order of ‘our solar system,’ an endorsement that was accepted in both Church and State eventually. Then in 1687 came The Principia.
‘Rumours of the coming masterpiece had flowed through Britain the first half of 1687,’ writes Westfall. ‘When the young Swiss mathematician, Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753), arrived in London in the spring, he found intellectual circles aflutter with expectations of the book, which would, he was assured, remodel natural philosophy… Almost from the moment of its publication, even those who refused to accept its central concept of instant action at a distance [Theory of Universal Gravitation] recognised the Principia as an epoch-making book.’ ---R. Westfall, op. cit., p.469.
‘Newton’s major work, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, was published in 1687 [surprise, surprise, Edmond Halley paid all the costs] and all the indications are that the publicity channels of that period were carefully orchestrated to ensure that it appeared with the maximum impact … This is remarkable in view of the fact that it is certain no one understood it at the time, and it is doubtful if anyone has ever understood it since. “Across the channel John Locke set himself to mastering this book.(The philosopher John Locke (1632-1714), Freemason and alchemist, a friend of Isaac Newton, said to have influenced the Masonic structure of America.) Since he was not a mathematician he found the demonstrations impenetrable.” It is far more likely that he found them so because they were impenetrable. “Not to be denied he asked Huygens [the Dutch mathematician] if he could trust the mathematical propositions. When Huygens assured him he could, he applied himself to the prose and digested the physics without the mathematics.” (R. Westfall, op. cit., p.470.) In other words Locke’s acceptance of Newtonian physics was not based on mathematical proof but blind trust. This was indeed a new and streamlined scientific method.’ ---N.M. Gwynne, op. cit., p.13.
Besides Huygens and Locke, other famous names voiced their inability to make neither head nor tail of the Principia. According to Westfall, Gilbert Clerke, a mathematician and philosopher who had published a number of minor works at the time, wrote to Newton saying he despaired of understanding the Principia. Professor Morris Kline, a modern writer on mathematics informs us: ‘the Principia is extremely difficult to read and is not at all clear to laymen, despite statements to the contrary. The greatest mathematicians worked for a century to elucidate fully the material of the book.’ (Morris Kline: Mathematics in Western Culture, Penguin Books, p.230) Many mathematicians in the wake of the Principia did their calculations that showed Newton’s maths were useless.
‘Elsewhere in Kästner’s Anfangsgründe, he launches a direct attack on Newtonian mechanics. In section 237, he says, “Kepler found from the observations that the planets go in ellipses around the sun, which lies at the focus of these ellipses. Regarding this, Newton showed that this would happen if the planet were driven or pulled around the sun by a force which varied inversely as the square of the distance. I consider his proof of this to be inadequate.” He proceeds to derive Newton’s “inverse square law” from the principle of elliptical motion. He then says, Newton had assumed a conic section, and derived his law from that (as Abraham Kästner (1719-1800) had just done), but he had not shown that an inverse square “force” would produce conic section motion.’ --- Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007
-
And still the mortifying spectacle continues: eighty-five pages of screaming and table pounding, with no end in sight …
Nowhere does the above post say that S rev around E.
Hush, roscoe! All of this must be the gospel truth—and we are obliged to believe whatever the transcriber claims—because it's been reproduced in large type. Another resident genius, Neil Obstat, uses the selfsame tactic whenever reason, substance, and evidence in support of his assertions are at a premium.
It is of more than passing note that one of the means used to cast derision upon Newton is to associate him with a club that numbered Alexander Pope among its members. Pope was a Catholic, of course, in an age when being a Catholic was anything but a door-opener.
Would that someone could deride me with such an association!
Question: "What does the Bible say about scoffers?"
Answer: The word translated "scoffer" in English can mean "one who mocks, ridicules, or scorns the belief of another." In Hebrew, the word translated "scoffer" or "mocker" can also mean "ambassador." So a scoffer is one who not only disagrees with an idea, but he also considers himself an ambassador for the opposing idea. He cannot rest until he has demonstrated the foolishness of any idea not his own. A scoffer voices his disagreement, ridicules all who stand against him, and actively recruits others to join his side. In the Bible, scoffers are those who choose to disbelieve God and His Word.
The Bible has a lot to say about scoffers (Proverbs 19:29; 29:8; Acts 13:41). Proverbs 3:34 says that God "scoffs at the scoffers, yet He gives grace to the afflicted." Psalm 1:1 gives us clear instruction about how to deal with scoffers: "How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stand in the path of sinners, nor sit in the seat of scoffers" (NASB). The progression of unbelief begins with listening to ungodly counsel and ends with joining the scoffers. The Bible warns us not to entertain the company of those who actively ridicule our faith, or we risk having that faith destroyed. Proverbs 13:20 says, "Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm" (ESV).
We cannot totally escape the presence of scoffers. They were active in Jesus' day, and we continue to hear from them today. Jesus told His disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you" (John 15:18–19). A Christian should "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks . . . to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). However, when we cease to be the influencers and start to become the influenced, it is time to "shake the dust off our feet" (Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 10:11).
Second Peter 3:3 warns us that "in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires" (cf. Jude 1:18). We know from Scripture that scoffing will only increase as we near the time for Jesus' return (2 Timothy 3:1-5). We already see it happening with the blanket acceptance of evolutionary theory that excludes a Creator, the rapid expansion of false religions that deny the deity of Christ, and the numeric explosion of those who identify themselves as agnostics and atheists.
Scoffers have always been and will always be present in the world. But there is coming a promised day when "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10–11). On that day there will no longer be any scoffers. They will at last accept the truth, and their scoffing will be forever silenced.
-
E rev around S :detective:
-
Pls start another topic if u want to discuss the Trinity. :whistleblower:
My point in stating that was that simply because the exact words you are asking for are not in the Bible does not mean the doctrine is not contained there. It is the same for the Trinity - it is clearly taught in the Bible, although the term is not used.
The revolution of the sun around the Earth is taught in the Bible, because the Early Fathers of the Church said it was and the Holy Office said it was.
I understand your point but don't buy it. It would be 'clearly' taught in the Bible, if it said 'clearly' that S rev around E but it does not.
S rev around E is Sola Scriptura, Prot, Novus Ordo, Bibliolatry. :fryingpan:.
-
Question: "What does the Bible say about scoffers?"
A pharisee calls me a scoffer. I shan't pretend I'm surprised.
But thanks for sparing me the large type, cassini.
-
Pls start another topic if u want to discuss the Trinity. :whistleblower:
My point in stating that was that simply because the exact words you are asking for are not in the Bible does not mean the doctrine is not contained there. It is the same for the Trinity - it is clearly taught in the Bible, although the term is not used.
The revolution of the sun around the Earth is taught in the Bible, because the Early Fathers of the Church said it was and the Holy Office said it was.
I understand your point but don't buy it. It would be 'clearly' taught in the Bible, if it said 'clearly' that S rev around E but it does not.
S rev around E is Sola Scriptura, Prot, Novus Ordo, Bibliolatry. :fryingpan:.
That this thread should be interrupted by such drivel is indeed a pity. That anyone should have to argue the matter with you pair is also a waste of time. But there are others reading this thread and no doubt they would like to see a rebuttal.
There are many ways of saying something. But you want to see it state 'the sun revolves around the earth' before anyone should believe the Scriptures clearly state that the sun revolves around the earth.
My authority is the Church, the infallible unanimous interpretation of all Fathers and doctors of the Church, and the ability to read and interpret language when written in its clearest simplicity
“The heavens show forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands….He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out of his bride chamber, Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the way. His going out is from the end of heaven, and his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide from his heat.” --- (Ps. 18:1, 6-7).
Now if anyone cannot read in the above passage that the Scriptures take it for granted the above sun's 'circut' means the sun's orbit or circle around the earth then I suggest one goes back to school and learn your language anew.
Finally, here is another, Cardinal Bellarmine, who knows what the Bible says.
‘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,’ --- (Letter to Foscarini - 1615.)
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont.
Had Kepler’s ellipse been the true orbit of planets, such problems might never have arisen. Interestingly, when scholars like Kästner, Boulliau, Ward, Streete etc., found fault with Newton’s universal gravitation maths, none of them questioned the truth of Kepler’s elliptical orbits in a heliocentric Solar System. Did none of them ever hear of Cassini’s findings with the Paris observatory?
So, here we have a scientific thesis that is hailed today by the world’s universities, academics, scientists and Churchmen as a turning point in the history of knowledge, as the novel physics that determined a new natural cosmology, yet nobody understood or comprehended it fully. Incredible, don’t you think? Well not really, for our generations grant the same privilege to Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Dawkins, Gould and others. Nevertheless, in spite of its impenetrability, success was assured, as we can see from history and from the quotes we have selected. The world was/is made believe Newton’s genius proved the sun is fixed and the earth orbits it. Meanwhile it is on record that a £500 reward offered to the first man who could explain the Principia to a member of the gentry went unclaimed. It seems no one could make sense of it, for love or money.
Newton’s Universal Gravitation
Truly this Newton was a god among men. Having contemplated on the theory of Hook, Wren and Halley, he confirmed that this was indeed a way by which the universe could be explained. But this scientific deity wasn’t finished at that, no, for in his Principia he had more incredible and fantastic insights to reveal to the world. Newton, who pondered a lot on a reason for gravity - once that it is God’s will alone - finally completed his Baconian mission and proposed a first cause for it; a mutual attraction between bodies of matter.
Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every
Other particle with a force that is proportional to the product of
their masses and inversely proportional to the squares of the
distance between their centres of mass.
In other words, matter controls itself. This incredible theory was indeed one of the most diabolical ‘ideas’ in history, for it offered man a way in which the cosmos might operate independently under its own natural power, supposedly explaining why apples fall to the ground, why the moon stays orbiting the earth and why cosmic bodies act as they do around the universe, providing an equilibrium with the omnipotence of God Himself.
‘The bitter opposition of theology to the first four of these men [Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Descartes] is well known; but the fact is not so widely known that Newton, in spite of his deeply religious spirit, was also strongly opposed. It was vigorously urged against him that by his statement of the law of gravitation he “took from God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to Him in Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism,” that he “substituted gravitation for Providence.” --- Andrew D. White: op cit., p.16.
‘The full extent and revolutionary character of the change that Newton was working in men's minds was not at first recognized even by himself, but it became apparent in the course of the eighteenth century. The essential revolutionary element was that Newton had conceived a working universe wholly independent of the spiritual order. This was the profoundest break that had yet been made with all for which the Middle Ages stood. With Newton there set in an age of scientific determinism.’ --- Charles Singer. A History of Scientific Ideas. New York: Dorset Press, 1959, p. 294. Originally published as A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900.
But surely scientists eventually confirmed Newton’s ‘law’ of gravitation - with that instant attraction inherent in every particle of matter and manifested in the movements of the solar system - to be correct? Well actually to begin with, even he could not come to terms with it, let alone the many universities in Catholic Europe as Andrew White showed us, Who then could take seriously a theory as a law that Isaac Newton himself knew had no possible empirical justification. Let us now see what he said in some letters on gravitation sent to the Rev. Richard Bentley soon after his Principia was published:
‘You sometimes speak on gravity as essential and inherent to matter. Pray do not ascribe that notion to me...’
‘It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and effect the matter without mutual contact… is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who, in philosophical matters, has a competent faculty of th¬inking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether the agent is material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.’ --- Newton’s Correspondence, Royal Society Edition, 1693.
‘When Newton was asked how he had discovered such a remarkable law, that things fall towards the Earth, he gave the story that an apple fell and hit him on the head while he was staying at home with his mum in Woolsthorpe in 1666. He might have been joking, but he could never explain how he made not only this discovery, but any of his discoveries. Many theories have been developed, even beliefs that the discovery came out of Newton’s occult beliefs. But, Newton would never speak publicly about it. It was as if Newton did not know how he’d made them. Perhaps it was he, himself, that had been dropped on his head.’ --- Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007.
If Newton couldn’t come to terms with his own paradox, how then could the Earthmovers say his ‘laws’ provided ample evidence in the search for proof of the earth’s supposed motion?
But this ‘law’ of Newton’s was very clever, how clever depends where you stand on such things and how well you have been indoctrinated to cope with its strange paradoxes. In the first place, the particle-attracting-particle postulation is nothing more than pure invention, probably inspired by his theory that light is made up of particles. In occult terms, inherent is all of Newton’s ‘scientific’ thinking, the god of forces must be invisible, must be associated with ‘light’, and like God Himself, must operate ‘at a distance’.
Newton had not one iota of evidence if ‘particles’ attract one another. The way they portray Newton ‘the scientific genius’ you would think he established this ‘law of attraction’ in a laboratory in Cambridge. Well we can all think again for this ‘law’ arrived out hermetic occultism, out of the minds of Halley, Wren and Hooke and nowhere else, well, maybe hell. In the real world, experience shows no such attraction exists, for if it did, all things would, given the chance, attract one another and become attached. Why even dust particles in the air, as can be seen in a sunlit room, do not attract, accuмulate nor cement together in any ‘gravitational’ way, but remain separate until they lie together on the ground.(In some cases, such as with particles of snow, there is attachment, but they are not caused by any ‘gravitational pull’ but by mechanisms designed by God to attach.) Nor do particles and things attract in space, as we see clearly from pictures of bits and pieces floating in every direction in space shuttles.
Nevertheless, not for nothing do we refer to Newton’s theory of gravity as the ‘crown jewel’ of rationalism’s equilibrium, for as well as becoming the premise upon which a heliocentric solar system was founded, it also acted as the basis for the supposed origin and history of the universe, the Big Bang particles, to stars, to more bangs, to suns, to planets, to moons, to a cell, to plants and animals, to man, the final imbecilic theory of evolution being taught as fact in every physics and biology class in schools, colleges and universities today. But, as any first-year science students should be able to figure out if they were allowed to think for themselves in today’s schools of implantation:
‘The problem is that fragments of an ordinary explosion don’t re-accuмulate. Then why would matter formed in the greatest of all possible explosions ever reunite to form stars? In this scenario [Big Bang], how did supernova remnants from throughout the vast reaches of interstellar space re-accuмulate to become the raw matter for the solar system? My [physics and] cosmology course never explained this any more than it explained how stars could develop from the Big Bang.’ --- Robert V. Gentry (DSc. Hon.): Creation’s Tiny Mystery, pp.13-14.
Finally, between Mars and Jupiter astronomers found what is known as the Asteroid Belt, 40,000 small asteroids. How come these have not attracted one to the other to form a new planet according to the universal ‘law’ over the supposed billions of years of their existence?
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont.
Gravity and Mass
Having postulated that particles of matter attract one another, Newton then added a second principle to his theory; that particles attract ‘with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the squares of the distance between them.’ i.e., the ‘distance-dilution inverse square law,’ (the pull would be a quarter as strong at twice the distance, and one hundredth at ten times the distance etc.). Using the principle found in magnetism, according to Newton, the earth pulls or attracts a falling apple, and, wait for it, the apple pulls or attracts the earth. You see the centre of gravity lies at the centre of the two masses. But then Newton went into mind-space where man now knows - having been out there floating around - there is no such gravity. The earth and moon, he said, with the mass of their entire particle-attracting properties, are pulling at each other through space. These ‘pulls,’ while, thankfully, not strong enough to drag the moon down to the earth’s surface, is just strong enough to hold the moon in an orbit around the earth rather than having it fly off into space in a straight line as its first movement should have it doing (First Law of Motion). In other words, the combination of the distant attractions of the two masses finds equilibrium and the moving moon accordingly orbits the earth there in natural perpetuity. Similarly, the same attraction between the sun and the planets results in the sun’s hold on the planets (which they say includes the earth) through millions of miles of space, keeping them in orbit around it. Given the gravitational force (its weight) of an object on earth can be measured, an apple for instance, they say the earth’s ‘mass’ can then be calculated using the radius of the Earth as a way to measure it. Following from this, and knowing the distances of the planets from the sun, all the masses of their solar system could be ‘calculated.’ As history shows, such theoretical mathematics were enough to see off geocentricism. But dig a little deeper however, and find Newton’s mass related law had big problems.
‘Mass is a tricky concept. No doubt about it. It is not only difficult to understand, but, until Einstein, it was horribly ambiguous.' --- J.P. McEvoy and Oscar Zarate: Introducing Hawking, Icon Books, 1997, p.26.
And, we can assure you dear reader, after Einstein, mass is an even trickier concept, even ‘more horribly ambiguous,’ a greased pig, deliberately designed to be so. The last thing the Earthmovers want is a yes or no physics. Problems arise when Newton’s universal law is taken to its natural conclusion. In isolation Newton’s theory of gravity looked simple enough to work, but when extended to every particle of the known and outer universe two questions demanded an answer. Why doesn’t the whole universe solidify through attraction to its centre? To solve this question Newton declared an infinite universe, another metaphysical idea that claims an infinity enjoyed only by god himself, an infinity (deity) shown to be false in a rotating geocentric universe. The next big difficulty for Newtonianism is that if the total mass of the cosmos results in gravitational equilibrium, then the centre of it all cannot be determined using human physics and mathematics. Thus geocentricism comes right back into the picture, for it suggests that the earth could be that centre. Under Einstein’s version of it in 1905 they had to concede to this, that is, anywhere, including the earth, could be the centre of the universe. With a bit of juggling and using Newton’s theory in line with a rotating universe, it can be made fit geocentrism. So in fact Newton’s theory of universal gravity could also be claimed as a theory for geocentricism - hilarious, yes?
Perhaps the biggest problem for Newton’s ‘Universal Law’ lay in the question ‘how does this attraction work through space?’ Here is a Newtonian asking this question:
‘If space is really empty how is it that the sun and moon exercise influence over the earth? “Technical action at a distance is impossible. A body can only act immediately on what it is in contact with; it must be by the action of contiguous particles – that is, practically, through a continuous medium, that force can be transmitted across space. Radiation is not the only thing the earth feels from the sun; there is in addition its gigantic gravitative pull, a force or tension more than what a million, million steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?' --- Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, p.59.
Aristotle dismissed the idea that heat or light could pass through an absolute vacuum. Descartes’s mechanical method suggested that any motion of matter had to be caused by direct contact. Both sides therefore believed there had to be some medium by which such contact or effects could be realised. This medium was taken to be the universal ether, also known as the all-encompassing aether. The existence of ether (whatever it might be) had been understood as essential to explain so many things in nature, and had been accepted as existing by nearly every philosopher prior to this time. Newton however, decided to run some tests with a pendulum to see if this necessary ether existed or not.
‘ETHER: Newton endeavours to account for [his] gravity by differences of pressure in ether. He did not publish it however, because he was not able from experiments and observations to give a satisfactory account of this medium, and the manner of its operation in producing the chief phenomena of nature.’ --- Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Koestler presented this inconsistency like so:
‘Newton’s concept of a ‘gravitational force’ has always lain as an undigested lump in the stomach of science... He in fact could only get around the “absurdity” of his own concept by invoking either ubiquitous ether (whose attributes are equally paradoxical) and/or God in person. The whole notion of a ‘force’ which acts instantly at a distance without an intermediary agent, which traverses the vastest distances in seconds, and pulls at immense stellar objects with ubiquitous ghost fingers - the whole idea is so mystical and unscientific that modern minds like Kepler, Galileo and Descar¬tes, who were fighting to break loose from Aristotelian animism, would instinctively reject it as a relapse into the past... What made Newton postulate nevertheless a modern law of nature, was his mathematical formulation of the mysterious entity to which it referred.’ --- Arthur Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.344.
Nevertheless, Newton persisted with his Law of Universal Gravitation and submitted it to the Royal Society who delivered heliocentrism to the world as QED, a ‘proof’ that looked simple, logical, believable and difficult to falsify. Sure it’s no wonder the idea caught on.
‘Under the garb of geometry it veils its peculiar ideas of the emanations of the generative principle. The term is much dwelt upon especially in the fellow-craft degree. There are lectures upon the “moral advantages of geometry”, and moral ideas and precepts are expressed in geometric figures and terms. The ritual says that “Masonry and geometry were originally synonymous terms; that geometry is the basis on which the superstructure of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is erected; and that by geometry we may curiously trace nature through various windings, etc.”
Pythagoras, who was a great philosopher, a mathematician, and in religion a phallicist, is frequently spoken of by Masons as one of the “prophets” of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. This statement is based on the fact that he expressed his idea of the emanations of the deity in geometric terms, and the nature of all things, in numbers, that it is under mathematical conceptions, and in this way made Masonry, that is phallicism and geometry synonymous terms… The Great Architect of the Universe being the generative principle, his activities are viewed as emanations and not as creative acts.’ --- M. L. Wagner: Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ: An Interpretation.
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont.
Any Other ‘Scientific’ Theories for ‘Universal Gravity’
‘Non-equilibrium is a pre-requisite for movement in all its forms, and therefore a state of equilibrium is impossible in Nature.’ --- Callum Coats: Living Energies, Gateway Books, UK, 1996, pp. 65-66.
Now if Newton's theory was/is the only theory that could account for the phenomenon of apples falling to the ground (or planets orbiting the sun), that would indeed have to elevate it into a ‘probable’ class. So, was the theory that said the apple is pulled to the ground the only theory that saved the appearance? Is the only way for an apple to fall to the ground if it is pulled down? We have put this simple question to many - even some at a university lecture that would like to believe they understand how Newton’s theory works - but rarely, if ever, did we receive the right answer. The hard fact is, of course, apples falling to the ground might well be pushed down. In other words gravity could well be a pushing effect not a pulling effect.
‘When Kepler tried to explain by mechanics how a planet moves in its orbit, he thought there must be some force constantly pushing the planet from behind.’ --- The World of Copernicus, p. 152.
And so we come to a pushing force for gravity instead of a pulling force. We introduce this section only as a means to further undermine the claim that Newton established true causes for a fixed sun moving earth system. The ideas we shall now consider are almost certainly as big a load of moonshine as Newton’s and are not offered as a true alternative or falsification but only to show that scientific theories can be invented at will.
By 1781, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. He proposed space is filled with countless infinitesimal particles termed ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ and these push planets in their orbits. These corpuscles, he posed, are in extremely rapid motion, analogous to molecules in a gas, and which tr¬averse in a criss-cross action in straight lines throughout the universe. The corpuscles move with tremendous speed in all directions, penetrating matter, but meeting some resistance in doing so. The consequences of this would mean the corpuscles are acting as a pushing force by colliding against all physical, material objects in the universe. The crucial factor in this theory is one of non-equilibrium, the positioning of cosmic bodies in the system relative to each other. If the pressure is the same on the surface of a sphere it goes nowhere. If however, something shields the pressure of the ‘ultra mundane Corpuscles’ on any part of that sphere it would move due to ‘non-equilibrium.’ Here then is another theory whose effect would be exactly the same as Newton’s pulling theory.
Then there was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ The supposed formulator of analytic geometry explained that planetary motion is the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun and the moons around the planets. Indeed Newton was at first very attracted to this theory to serve his purpose, he later dismissed the idea stating that: ‘Descartes’s vortex theory is in complete conflict with the astronomical observations, and instead of explaining celestial motions, merely confuses our ideas about them.’
So, what happened to these other theories? Well there are two answers to this question, one at the ‘scientific’ level, and the other is ideological. One eliminates a scientific theory by falsifying it. In Le Sage’s case, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), who, like many other eminent scientists, could find nothing wrong with the dynamics or the mathematics of Le Sage’s theory, postulated that the collisions between the hypothetical particles and solid matter would, over long periods of time, involve a heat transfer sufficient to melt plan¬etary objects. This was enough, and coming as it did from a Fellow and President of the Royal Society, the theory was treated as falsified. Later again however, as is prone to happen in theoretical physics, Le Sage’s theory, they decided, is not untenable according to modern physics. The science, and again we stress, for what it is worth, now holds that such particle collisions can be ‘elastic’ on contact and thus avoid any degradations of flux energy to heat. Le Sage’s theory, they now hold, would not melt planetary bodies. So why wasn’t it readmitted as a possible scientific theory for cosmic movement.
‘A rather wild theory was put forward by Le Sage…Professor de Sitter has tested the idea by examining whether there is any weakening in the Sun’s attraction on the Moon at a time when the Moon is in the Earth’s shadow. He does actually find some evidence of such a weakening, but it is too minute to be certain about. The fantastic nature of Le Sage’s theory is evidence of the extreme difficulty of the problem. It is curious to reflect that we are still as ignorant of the nature of the force that draws a stone to the Earth as men were in the dawn of history.’ ---Dr. A.C.D. Crommelin: Diamonds in the Sky, Collins, London, 1940, p.49.
And if we are still in ignorance of the cause of gravity we witness and can measure as it happens, then how can they tell us this same gravity operates a heliocentric solar system by way of attraction? Consult any textbook and we will find Newton’s universal gravitation theory affirming a fixed sun/moving earth system and that was accepted from the moment Newton’s Principia was published. The establishment had no need for any logic or ideas that could be used to deny the Earthmovers and Sun Fixers their victory, and the Royal Society made sure that anyone who might propose otherwise would not get too far with it. All theories except their own ‘laws’ were abandoned on ideological grounds and little else. Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the Earthmovers’ revolution.
‘This method, of which the germ was contained in the scientific revolution initiated at the turn of the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon and which has since been adopted by every branch of science and by countless pseudo-sciences such as politics, economics, the social sciences, and even art, religion, ethics and psychology, is as follows. Take a phenomenon that can be observed, produce a mathematical measurement for it that fits, concoct a hypothesis which, however far fetched, could possibly account for the phenomenon, and finally call the hypothesis and the mathematical formula that supports it a law and regardless of whether or not there is any theoretical justification for it whatever, apply it throughout the universe. And that is all that the famous Law of Gravitation consists of.’ ---N.M. Gwynne, op. cit., p.16.
How then did Kepler’s earth moving sun theory, and then Newton’s particle-attracting idea establish itself so easily among ordinary men of science and the general public at the time? Well the theory that the earth was a giant lodestone (magnet) must have contributed greatly to their concept of gravitational-pull of attraction as a reality. Dr William Gilbert (1540-1607), court physician to Queen Elizabeth I, had shown in his book On the Magnet in 1600 that the earth is a giant magnet with poles. ( See Stephen Pumfrey: Latitude – The Magnetic Centre, Icon Books, 2002.) So when Newton proposed his theory of gravitational pull in 1687, the properties of a magnet and how it can operate at a distance by attraction were already established. Newton’s idea of two steel marbles attracting one another simply does not work. But place a steel marble on a table and a magnetic marble near it, and they will move each other. The bigger or smaller the magnet then the stronger or weaker the attraction and this in turn diminishes proportional to the distance between the two. Magnetism, we understand, has been shown to work even in a ‘vacuum,’ indicating it could work through space. Here in nature, was a modus operandi, making Newton’s theories look credible.
‘Like Kepler who hit on the concept of gravity, then kicked it away… Descartes’ wide open mind boggled in horror at the idea of ghost arms clutching through the void – as unprejudiced intelligence was indeed bound to do, until “universal gravity” or “electro-magnetic field” became verbal fetishes which hypnotised it into quiescence, always disguising the facts that they are metaphysical concepts dressed in the mathematical language of physics.’ --- The Sleepwalkers, p.508.
Johannes Kepler, who once thought magnetism might account for the movements of celestial objects, decided against using the idea in his science. Newton however, while taking advantage of the idea, was unable to show any connection between his theory of gravitation and magnetic effects.
-
Sir Isaac Newton cont.
Finding Planets
Up to that time, besides the sun, earth and the moon, there were only five known planets. These were the five visible ‘wandering stars,' Mars, Venus, Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn. According to history, Newton’s ideas found two more, Neptune and Pluto, thus adding to the credibility of his ‘laws.’
‘After Newton’s death, his ideas and equations triumphantly swept the world. The human race saw the spheres of heaven rotating and revolving through the absolute, stationary framework of outer space, all perfectly obedient to Newtonian laws of motion. Neptune and Pluto, two unseen planets, were calculated to exist by Newtonian principles – and were duly discovered.’ --- Life Natural Library, The Universe, p.16
In our book however, we take nobody’s word for it and try to assess the facts for ourselves. Here above Newtonian ‘laws’ and mathematics are made look like a well-oiled finding machine. Again this is not true history but more of the Earthmovers’ heliocentric propaganda. The fact is that there was no ‘perfect obedience’ to Newtonian laws of motion as the following quote demonstrates.
‘The De Mundi Systemate, The System of the World, which forms Book III of the Principia, contains the full development of the theory of universal gravitation. In it the orbits of the planets and their satellites are specified… [but irregularities are found]. Subsequently, similar orbit irregularities [were] observed… Newton explains these phenomena as due to the “perturbative” effect of the sun.’ --- Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, P.211.
See the chickens coming home to roost here; ‘irregularities’ are found by Newton as Cassini discovered. Keplerian ellipses do not describe perfect orbits of the sun and planets so of course orbital ‘irregularities’ would have been found when astronomers tried to find planets along their supposed elliptical paths. But these guys needed their sun-centred elliptical orbits. So how did Newton worm his way past all these ‘irregularities’ and keep his ideas intact? Simple, with yet another stop-gap invention of course, another theory called:
‘Subtle gravitational influences (perturbations).’
--- Standage: The Neptune File.
-
Sir Isaac cont.
‘Perturbation theories: Of great interest in the further development of the subject is the celebrated three-body problem. Lagrange’s elegant solutions of the restricted problem, the n-body problem and a discussion of integrability. The groundwork is thus laid for the exposition of perturbation theories, which consist of two fundamental types: general perturbation theory and special perturbation theory.' --- Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences: Chapman Hall, p.89.
With a stroke of pragmatic genius, Newton accounted for these ‘small’ discrepancies in his Keplerian orbits by saying they must be caused by the (subtle) gravitational ‘pull’ of the other bodies within the solar system as they moved ‘near’ each other. But little did he know what he was letting himself in for. When he first fell for Hooke, Wren and Hally’s theory of gravitation, Newton began with simple one on one earth-moon relationship mathematics; one that presumed the moon orbited the earth in an elliptical curve. With his rescue theory the maths got harder, infinitely harder, for he then had to extend the maths to include a third influence, the sun, then a fourth, then a fifth, etc.
‘Here is the beginning of the famous “three-body problem.” Kepler’s ellipses are only valid when a planet moves around the sun, or a satellite orbits around a planet, without the presence of a third body nearby in the heavens.’ --- Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Maths”.
‘The so-called three-body problem of mechanics is extremely complex. Although equations expressing the relative motions can be written, no general solution was possible before the development of the high-speed digital computer.’ --- Encyclopaedia Britannica, book 19, p.46.
And Newton and his followers didn’t have a high-speed computer, did they? Newton’s theory had to be extended to all the other planets of their solar system, with each body pulling on every other body according to their masses and perpetual changing distances to each other. In other words, Newton’s solar system no longer consisted of six one-on-one combinations but had grown into a gigantic seven-body problem.
‘Newton also proposed that since any object that has mass is attracted to every other object that has mass, the orbits of each planet is influenced not only by the sun, but by all the other planets as well.’ --- T.R. Walters: Smithsonian Guides: Planets, 1995, p.24.
How then, one might ask, could Newton in 1687, or any one else after him until high-speed computers, calculate the interactions of six bodies - their moons and the sun - a multi-body solar system, each according to Newton, both attracting and attracted by every other globe in the system while continuously changing by the second as each planet or moon moves to a different place at different speeds relative to the others? Indeed, given that it takes each planet different times to complete an orbit, travelling at different speeds, fast and slow according to Kepler, there could never be two similar combinations, thus no possibility of consistency wherein any such a multi-variable multi-forces multi-speeds formula could be used to trace the positions of planets. They tell us Newton solved this problem by giving science 15,000 mathematical variables. This too has to be moonshine, for as we have pointed out above, even if we invented 15,000,000 variables we could not cover the number of variables that are present in the sky one hour to the next. It would be like figuring out the European Lotto winning numbers each time. This being so, just for a laugh, here again is what Jostein Gaarder said in his Sophie’s World on Newton’s Law of Gravitation:
‘ “Is it really as simple as that?” As simple as that;
and this very same simplicity was Newton’s whole point.’ (p.175)
Given that - using the simple one orbiting speed Cassinian oval mathematics of Cassini with precession of the equinoxes factored in – the stars, sun and any and every planet in the sky can be found on any day exactly where they are on his perfect curve, and their future positions and past positions pinpointed with absolute accuracy, why would anyone in their right mind believe and prefer Newton’s multi-body calculations constituted the simplest scientific or mathematical solution and consider Cassini’s procedure only fit for the Masonic wastepaper-basket? ‘But,’ you say, ‘they did find the planets Neptune and Pluto with Newton’s perturbation formula didn’t they?’
‘The problem of three bodies has proved as yet to be intractable, except in special instances. It was fortunate that the observations [de Brahe’s] that were available to Kepler were accurate enough for him to develop his laws of planetary motion but not accurate enough to show the perturbations that are caused by the attractions of the other planets. These perturbations can be considerable. One of the most notable triumphs of celestial mechanics occurred when the observed perturbations in the motion of the planet Uranus enabled the English astronomer John Couch Adams and the French astronomer Jean Leverrier, in 1845 and 1846, to predict the existence and calculate the position of Neptune.’ --- Encyclopaedia; Celestial Mechanics, p.126.
-
Sir Isaac cont.
In his book The Case Against Einstein, Dr Arthur Lynch includes an intriguing footnote. He tells the story that Jean Leverrier once showed Wilfred de Fonvielle his ‘cahiers’ (memoranda books) that supposedly contained the calculations that led to the discovery of Neptune. De Fonvielle examined them for a while and asked ‘What if all that was not mere humbug?’ Leverrier then burned the books but said he preserved the calculations – where he preserved them he did not say.
The second ‘planet’ supposedly pinpointed by Newtonian maths was Pluto. After the discovery of Neptune (and the discovery of Uranus by chance observation), they found more ‘unexplained perturbations’ in their elliptical orbits, as one might expect in the light of Cassini’s falsifying the orbital ellipse.
‘As time passed it was found neither Uranus nor Neptune followed their computed paths precisely indicating the possibility of a ninth planet further out.’ -----Duncan Steel: Target Earth, Time Life Books, 2,000, p.11.
The story goes that using the Newtonian principle of gravitational perturbations of Neptune, Professor Percival Lowell made some calculations and predicted yet another unknown planet must be out there. In 1930, after Lowell died, astronomers at the Lowell Observatory in Arizona found the tiny ‘planet’ (called Pluto) 4,000,000,000 miles away, a ‘planet’ that has an orbit ‘out on its own’ in that its orbital inclination is at a 17 degrees tilt to the other planets, a huge difference in direction. Can we even imagine the pen and paper Newtonian calculations that would have been necessary to pinpoint such a tiny ‘planet’ with its severe tilt four billion miles away using Newton’ formulae for elliptical orbits? Nevertheless, as far as the academic world was concerned it was QED Newton, until the truth came out that is. It seems that upon checking Lowell’s data it was found to be unintelligible, all now agree to that, but as Life’s The Universe says, it still ‘secured’ Newtonian mechanics once again.’
But now let us take this farce to its ultimate conclusion. Without a shadow of doubt, using the Keplerian/Newtonian elliptical path for Pluto, that rock in turn has to show MORE perturbations, thus indicating, according to their way of thinking of course, yet another planet (10th) even further out to explain these ‘anomalies.’ So, why didn’t they continue their quest using Newton’s formula for finding planets, the same one they claimed found Neptune and Pluto? In the 1990s two astronomers began a simple grid-by-grid search looking for some new planets. They simply reasoned that there could be more out there so started to look for them. Well, low and behold, in 2003 they found UB313, a body even bigger than Pluto. Then more huge asteroids were discovered until it was agreed, they all, including Pluto, belonged to what they now call the Kviper Belt, made up of hundreds of pieces of cosmic debris, another discovery that avoided evolving into a planet that Newton’s Law of gravity is supposed to have secured. As a result of all these discoveries Pluto was demoted from a planet to a ‘lesser planet’ or ‘Ice Rock’ as we’ve seen them called. Throughout no one mentioned Newton, nor his perturbation formula, the tool that supposedly found Pluto in the first place. We wonder why not?
Finally, we could ask, how did they really find Neptune and Pluto? Here below is an attempt to answer this question for some at least.
‘As is shown from time to time in this book, the writings of secret society initiates are normally not the innovations they appear to be but the reproduction, at what is deemed to be an opportune moment, of traditional occult lore which has been used in the past. Much so-called modern science is of this nature. ‘Nothing under the sun is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us’ (Eccles. 1:10). What is the solution? Ruling out pure coincidence there are four possibilities.
(1) The first and least likely is that despite its offensiveness to common sense, Newton’s theory is correct after all.
(2) The second is that an alternative theory to Newton’s e.g., le Sage’s), using very different forces but producing much the same mathematical effects, is correct, and that Newton’s theory therefore produced the right answer for the wrong reason.
(3) The third theory, which will be rejected by most readers but is in fact the most likely, is that the existence of Neptune has long been known, presumably discovered by an earlier civilisation which possessed advanced technology [e.g., the Antikythera Mechanism], had been preserved in occult tradition, and was released to support Newton’s theory just as missing link fossils have been concocted to support Darwin’s evolutionary theory.
(4) The fourth possibility is that the position of Neptune was revealed directly by Satan to his followers. This too is not improbable. Satan has his limitations – he does not know the future and he cannot read our minds (except what he can guess from external observation) – but he certainly knows where the planets are.
The circuмstantial evidence, both negative and positive, in favour of one or the other of the last two possibilities is in fact surprisingly good. On the negative side the mathematics involved in the calculations that Adams and Leverrier are supposed to have made are virtually impossible. Not only were they working backwards – in other words, instead of calculating the effects of a planet whose mass and path were (supposedly in the case of the mass) known, they had to deduce the mass and path from its effect on Uranus – but since they knew neither the mass nor the path of their hypothetical planet they were dealing with two unknowns. Under those circuмstances, let alone the impossibility of making really accurate calculations over the distance involved, it is not credible that they could make even a reasonably accurate prediction of time and place.
The positive evidence is that we know for certain that there are occasions when bodies in the solar system are known about well before they are discovered. Of this inside knowledge we give two examples: The first concerns the two satellites of Mars, Deimos and Phobos. In the year 1720 Jonathan Swift’s famous work of fiction Gulliver’s Travels was published. In it Swift gave a remarkable description of two moons belonging to Mars, one of which he said was three diameters of Mars away from the centre of Mars and had a period of revolution of ten hours, and the other five diameters away with a period revolution of twenty-one and a half hours. More than one hundred and fifty years later, in the year 1877, it was discovered that Mars, which was until then thought to be on its own, did indeed have two satellites, so small that they were not observed until long after those of other planets (even of Neptune) had been discovered. Their respective distances from Mars and orbiting periods were just over two diameters and seven and a half hours and four diameters and thirty and quarter hours. Swift’s figures are not quite correct but anyone who imagines that he plucked the number of moons, and their distances and orbiting times out of his imagination is living in a world of fantasy. It is worth adding that Kepler too predicted two moons for Mars in 1610, his ostensible reason being that since the earth had one moon and Jupiter, at that time, had four, it was clearly logical to him that Mars must have two. Although this provides an excellent example of a wrong theory producing the right answer – once again we can suspect that what was published was not the real basis for Kepler’s prediction.’ --- N Martin Gwynne: Galileo versus the Geocentric Theory of the Universe, Britons library, 1985, p.21 and 32.
There is however, one indisputable fact that facilitated the finding of Neptune and Pluto; the planets were out there awaiting to be found.
‘Formal logicians, I believe, would tell us that by their rules the heliocentric system of the solar system is not proved to a demonstr¬ation. Yet no one doubts that explanation anymore than anybody doubts the truth of gravitation, though physicists are still unable to show what causes the results which are described under the name.’ --- Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, p.48.
At the beginning of the eighteenth century then, as Sir Bertram Windle admits here, the fact is that there was no empirical nor ‘logical’ proof, ‘demonstration’ or verification of a moving earth or an immobile sun. But Windle, as we can read, tries to get us to believe heliocentricism is true because ‘the truth of gravitation’ is true. What he says is that because apples fall to the ground then we must accept heliocentricism is true? Can you believe the Earthmovers triumphed on earth on the basis of such a farce? But they did succeed in making believers of us all. Newton proved nothing, this we must understand. Deducing some maths that can measure some earthly gravitation and plot the speed of rockets going into orbit is a long way off showing that the earth supposedly orbits the sun. Both Catholics and Protestants then, who held out, even for a time, from this ‘demonstration,’ as Andrew White called it, were far more discerning of the scientific method than those who hailed Principia as the breakthrough the Freemasons of the Royal Society sought. But truth will out:
‘After Newton’s 1687 masterpiece, the Principia, Copernicanism seemed assured, and I admit; it is difficult not to be taken captive by the harmonious simplicity of a sun at rest with her attendant planets stately circling her. Yet a few level-headed people, like the philosopher George Berkely (1685-1753) and G.W. Leibniz, instinctively refused to consider the Solar System “proven” by setting it off against a background taken to be at rest.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, Private, 1993.
Now it is one thing for the Royal Society and its like-minded institutions pushing the supposed ‘evidence’ for heliocentricism as proven facts, another for Churchmen to accept them as the truth, the reality that the Scriptures must adjust to. We must see that? Now hopefully we have demonstrated that these ‘laws’ of Newton’s, which settled the matter for so many, never came within an ass’s roar as a threat to the Church’s definitive ruling of 1616 and 1633. If there are any lingering doubts we can again quote the words of the late Bertrand Russell, an atheist, lest anyone thinks our synthesis is only for theists:
‘Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the Heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same... and that shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an emp¬irical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation.’ --- Quoted by D.W. Sciama: The Unity of the Universe. Doubleday, 1961, pp.103.
-
Sir Isaac cont.
The Tides
‘Newton saw that not only the sun but every other object exerts gravity according to the amount of matter it contains (its mass). He saw that what makes terrestrial objects fall is the gravitational power of the earth’s mass. He was able to calculate the pull of the earth’s mass on the moon and so explain why the moon moves as fast and as far as it does. He explained that the mass of the moon, pulling in its turn, sucks up the earth’s surface fluids into the tides of the ocean. The masses of the planets, the shape of the earth (flattened at the poles), even the trajectories of cannon balls, all submitted peaceful to the mathematics engendered by Newton’s idea about gravity’ ---Life Nature Library: The Universe, Time Incorporate. USA, 1962, 64, 74. p.15
We see above, as with everything else, even the tides are subjected to Newton’s ‘law’ of universal gravitation. Now the simple fact is that if the tides are caused by some combination of a sun, earth and moon gravity, why should it be that heliocentric gravitation theory preferred by Isaac Newton? Could the tides not be an effect of a pushing form of gravity working in an opposite way to a pulling gravity? Could the tides not be influenced by the rotation of the universe, not the earth? Of course they could, but they need Newton’s theory implemented here too, after all poor old Galileo needed someone to retrieve his tidal theory from his heliocentric distbin.
‘It must be emphasised that the above account is very elementary and is designed only to explain the basic causes of tides. Their actual behaviour is much more complex…Careful observation of tidal behaviour at any particular place often leads to the conclusion that it’s at complete variance with the theory.’ ---Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, Prometheus Press, N.Y., 1959, p.172.
Yes, like have you ever seen the ‘attracting’ moon (and sun) directly above with the tide fully out? We have, often. Moreover, if the sun and moon suck oceans and seas up as they say they do why are there no tides as a result on the largest lakes in the world, those huge areas of water all over the globe?
And what about Newton’s gravitational measurements that supposedly show the earth is an oblate sphere? Well that too is a conjured illusion, but this story is so interesting that we will leave it to the next chapter.
-
Chapter Twenty-Four, The Shape Of the Earth
(http://s23.postimg.org/gpop7vya3/earth_sm.jpg)
a circle or Newtonian spheroid?
‘The period from Eratosthenes to Picard can be called the spherical era of geodesy. A new ellipsoidal era was begun by Sir Isaac Newton and Christiaan Huygens. In the Ptolemaic astronomy it had seemed natural to assume that the Earth was an exact sphere with a centre that, in turn, all too easily became regarded as the centre of the entire universe. But, with a growing conviction that the Copernican system is true – the Earth moves around the Sun and rotates around its own axis – and with the advance in mechanical knowledge due chiefly to Newton and Huygens, it seemed natural to conceive the Earth as an oblate spheroid.’ --- Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
(http://s28.postimg.org/j6u5oprp9/centralf.jpg)
The standard textbook figure on the left shows the ‘centrifugal force’ that Newton said should cause a bulge around the earth. The figure on the right is how they show the student this same bulge relative to a sphere or circle. See how they portray the earth with a huge bulge just like a rugby-ball.
‘The earth is a sphere flattened at the poles and with a bulge at the equator; this figure is called an ellipsoid of revolution. In order to account for its present shape, we must call upon what is known as ‘centrifugal force,’ and we must also make the hypothesis that in its earlier history the Earth was much nearer the fluid state than it is now.’ --- ---Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, published 1959, p.78
Newton’s theory, depending on the earth once being ‘fluid’ in composition, was evolutionary in nature, and if proven true, could also be claimed as the first scientific confirmation of cosmic evolution. And, we are assured in every book on the subject printed in the last 300 years; Isaac Newton’s prediction of a gravitational caused orange shaped or spinning-top earth was confirmed. This spin, in turn, he said, explained what causes the ‘precession of the equinoxes’ in a heliocentric solar system.
‘In Newton’s De Mundi Systemate, the System of the World, which forms Book III of the Principia, the “precession of the Equinoxes” is explained for the first time in scientific history.’ ---Kramer: The Nature and Growth of Modern Math, P.211.
Even before Hipparchus it was known that when the sun returns to one of the equinoxes annually, the background stars are not in line as they were the previous year. He reasoned the stars do not keep exact pace with the sun, its annual revolution appearing a little faster than the stars, or more accurately, the stars revolution a little slower than the sun’s. This gap gradually gets wider each equinox as the stars retreat in the opposite direction to their normal rotation. It would take 26,000 years for them to meet up again. With Newton’s claim for a bulging earth, a heliocentric theory for precession was invented:
‘This is because the gravitational force of the Sun and Moon are pulling on the slight bulge around the equator.’ -- Kingfisher Science Encyclopaedia, 1991, p.564
Newton claimed that the earth, because it is shaped like an orange, is caused by the sun and moon to spin slowly like a top, taking 26,000 years to complete each spin. Hereunder then are the two proposed causes for precession to be considered after Isaac Newton.
(http://s18.postimg.org/gnhx30b1l/precession.jpg)
And later when Jupiter and Saturn, two rapidly rotating planets (Jupiter in 10 hours, and Saturn in a little over that), were said to be elliptical rather than circular spheres, that is, bulging at their ‘equators,’ Newton’s theory and evolutionary cosmology were incontrovertibly proven; yes? No, for such affirmations prove nothing. The sun, a body rotating 8,500 miles an hour at its ‘equator’ – many times faster than they say the earth does - has no belly at all: why not? Moreover, Venus and Mercury, also spinning, have no bellies either, why not? But again Newton figured out a self-suiting story for these facts. The reason why some have it and others do not, he said, is because of the differences (to the earth) in the make-up (matter) of each cosmic body as well as the speed of rotation. The slower the rotation and the greater the inward pull, the lesser the outward bulge.
‘Experimental evidence supporting this idea [that the earth is shaped like an orange] came in 1672 as a result of a French expedition to Guiana. The explorer [Jean Richer (1630-96)] found that a pendulum clock that kept good time in Paris lost 2½ minutes a day at Cayenne near the Equator. At that time no one knew how to interpret the observation; but Newton’s theory that gravity must be larger at the poles (because of its closer proximity to the Earth’s centre) than the Equator was a logical explanation. It is possible to determine whether or not the earth is an oblate spheroid by measuring the length of an arc corresponding to a geodetic latitude differences at two places along the meridian (the ellipse passing through the Poles) at different latitudes, which means at different distances from the Equator.’ ---- Encyclopaedia Britannica, chapter: Earth, p.535.
(http://s24.postimg.org/615p70tc5/meridian_line.png)
A Meridian Line
Firstly, as we keep on saying, affirming a possible consequent does not prove a theory true. Something else could also cause the effect of a pendulum-clock slowing down. Secondly, measuring a piece of a meridian line does not, of course, suffice for the earth’s whole circuмference. Nevertheless, the Earthmovers were determined to have their way, and all are led by the nose to accept Newton’s theory is correct. Thus they keep repeating everywhere:
‘He [Newton] argued that the Earth at an early pastry stage would bulge out about this distance [14 miles]. This bulge had not yet been observed. A short time later, measurements of the earth confirmed the prediction.’ ---E. M. Rogers: Physics… p.325.
What you are not told is that there was one anti-bulge sceptic at least, the astronomer Domenico Cassini, ‘a determined opponent of the theory of universal gravitation,’ (( C.C. Gillispie: Dictionary of Scientific Biography, New York, C. Scribner & Sons, p.103)) perhaps the only man capable of refuting Newton and the geodesists hell-bent on imposing hermetic Copernicanism on the world. Cassini, who believed the measurements made by Jean Picard in 1672 were not accurate enough, as a true empiricist, decided to measure the curve of the earth as well as he could for himself.
King Louis XIV of France approved Cassini’s last great expedition. With the aid of his son Jacques Cassini and others, he measured the arc of meridian from Paris north to Dunkirk and south to the boundary of Spain, and, in addition, he conducted various associated geodesic and astronomical operations that were reported to the Academy. The Cassinis knew that it would be virtually impossible to measure every kilometre of meridian from Pole to Pole at the time. At best, a partial measurement would confirm a probable shape of the earth. Consequently they decided to measure where it was most convenient, restricting their efforts to Europe in the northern hemisphere.
(http://s29.postimg.org/vyk9uwrvb/cassinis.jpg)
The results showed the length of a meridian degree north of Paris was 111,017 meters or 265 metres shorter than one south of Paris (111,282 meters). This suggested that if this trend occurred in the southern hemisphere, the earth has to be a prolate spheroid, not flattened at the poles as Newton proposed, but the opposite, slightly pointed, with the equatorial axis shorter than the polar axis, that is, kind of egg-shaped. In 1720, the Cassinis published their findings.
This shape, of course, was completely at odds with Newton’s. Nevertheless, incredibly, or should it be, predictably, in spite of the Cassinian figures, and we are talking about two of the most respected surveyors and measuring astronomers in the world at the time, the British scientists, William Whiston, John Keill and John Theophilus Desaguliers continued to acclaim Newton’s theory as the true one. Then, in 1732, at the Paris Academy of Sciences, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis joined Newton’s supporters to be followed by the prominent scientist Clairout. Indeed, such was their quest for a bulging earth that they decided to try to falsify Cassini’s figures and thus clear the way for a triumphant Newtonianism. To this end they decided they would conduct a new survey that they believed would show the Cassinis’ measurements as flawed. This time though, they would measure two points on earth where the differences would be greatest if it were an orange shape, at the Equator and at the Poles. This they again claimed would confirm the Newtonian theory. In 1735, financed by King Louis XV, one group went to Peru under Pierre Bouguer and Charles Marie La Condamine and a year later another group went to Lapland under Maupertuis. The polar expedition - after the conditions nearly killed them - completed its mission by 1737. Measuring only one baseline, 14.3 kilometres (8.9 miles) long, they ‘found’ their bulge. On hearing this, Freemason Voltaire, that infamous Antichrist, dubbed Maupertuis:
‘ “Marques of the Arctic Circle,” “dear flattener of the world and of Cassini,” and “Sir Isaac Maupertuis,” for his vindication of Newton.’ ---T.L. Hankins: Science and the Enlightenment, Cambridge books, 1985, p.39.
Note Voltaire’s need to ‘flatten’ Cassini and perhaps we can grasp the conflict ongoing between the two forces in the real conflict, the Melchisedech battle of Principalities and Powers. As a reward Maupertuis was invited to Berlin by the King of Prussia, and appointed President of the Academy there. So, did that settle the matter? Well no, for if one reads the small print one finds:
‘This result… proved that the Earth was flattened at the Poles. Later, large errors were found in the measurements, but they were in the “right direction.” ‘ --Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535.
Errors ‘in the right direction,’ he says? See how there is a ‘right’ result and a ‘wrong’ result in modern science. If it can be made endorse Copernicanism, then it is ‘right,’ if not, it’s ‘wrong.’ Ten years later, after measuring two baselines, one 12.2 and 10.3 kilometres (7.6 and 6.4 miles), La Condamine and his group emerged from the Amazon with their mission accomplished, confirming Newton’s theory of course. But again, in the small print we read:
‘Bouguer and La Condamine could not agree on one common interpretation of the observations mainly because of the use of two baselines and lack of suitable computing techniques.’ --- Encyclopaedia Britannica, p.535
Nevertheless, as mentioned heretofore, such things mean nothing to the Copernicans for they still churn out their rights and wrong:
‘The source of these astronomical discoveries is, as we have emphasised, the Newtonian System of the World. Among the many consequences of universal gravitation treated in that part of the Principia is the fact that the earth must be flattened at the poles, that is, its shape is that of an oblate spheroid. In France Giovanni Domenico Cassini, director of the Paris Observatory, and his son Jacques, who succeeded him in the position, were misled by erroneous geodetic measurements…’ ---Kramer: op. cit., p.211.
-
In 1909 the geophysicist Hayford is said to have presented the world with ‘the most accurate’ measurements, since adopted internationally for use in all data concerning the form of the earth.’ He gave an oblateness of 1/297 based on figures of an equatorial radius of 6,378,388 metres (3,963 miles) and a polar radius of 6,356,912 metres (3,950 miles), giving an oblateness of 21,474 metres (13.42 miles). ‘So that settled it,’ you ask. Well not really:
‘Finally one more point must be noted. Although the above data refer to an ellipsoid of revolution, this may not be the actual shape of the Earth. Accordingly to Helmert, we could postulate an ellipsoid with three unequal axes, two situated equatorially and nearer to each other than to the polar axis. It will be the task of future geophysicists to decide whether this is so.’ -----Larousse Encyclopedia of Astronomy, p.79.
In 1991, we find Isaac Asimov, scientist and science-fictionist, reinstating Newton’s theory as a fact. But note now the ‘fact’ is getting smaller:
‘Newton proved to be right. Earth had an equatorial bulge, though not much of a one. The Earth’s equatorial diameter is 12,756 kilometres (7,926 miles), while its polar diameter is 13,713 kilometres (7,900 miles). The difference is 43 kilometres (26 miles). In other words, the Earth is almost a perfect sphere, but not quite.’ ---- Isaac Asimov: Guide to Earth and Space, Ballantine Books, 1993, p.78
So, a difference of 26 miles is supposed to be enough to have the earth spinning like a top to produce precession? Asimov then admits to a problem. He says that in 1959 another measurement for the earth was achieved, this time using a satellite called Vanguard. It found Newton’s ‘bulge’ was 25 feet (7.6 meters) - yes a mere 25 feet - higher south of the equator, and announced the earth was shaped like a pear, that is, it has a bulgier bulge in the southern hemisphere. Seeking a few more details of this curious revelation we find that according to this latest measurement the South Pole is flatter by 50 feet and the North Pole higher (pointed) by 50 feet, as their illustration shows here:
(http://s16.postimg.org/jzgzuui39/bulge.jpg)
We read that the pear-shape of the earth was found as a result of Vanguard’s ‘erratic’ orbit, indicating a change of gravitational strength – ‘which in turn, indicates an irregularity in the earth’s mass, for it is mass that determines gravity they claim. O’Keefe decided that Vanguard’s strange course indicated an odd-shaped earth – and from the satellite’s route he worked out the earths new look. It has since been confirmed by other satellites.’
So, we now have a modern form of geodesy that seems to have turned Newton’s orange into a pear shaped orange. Now if this is true, no matter how it was reasoned out, does it or does it not confirm the Cassini measurements of 1720 that found the northern hemisphere was narrower at the hips and higher at the Pole, a measurement that was rejected on principle? Given the history and importance of this measurement, wouldn’t you think the whole scientific world would have shaken with excitement and intrigue at what is undoubtedly a complete falsification of Newton’s prediction of a uniform bulge (and its resulting precession) with his theory of gravitation? Wouldn’t you think the scientific world would have recognised Cassini’s measurements were never falsified by their satellite findings? You would of course, but to these people such conclusions and recognitions are only a nuisance. Accordingly, as Asimov writes, with a sign of relief, by careful management:
‘Fortunately, the use of the expression [like a pear] quickly died.’ --- Isaac Asimov: op. cit., p.79.
So, does that settle it for once and for all then, getting down to a few feet, about the depth of a good refuse pit? Again, no it does not. Let us now read what the real experts said in 1988. In the Journal of Surveying Engineering, commenting on the current state of Astronomy and Space Geodesy, we find the following:
COORDINATE SYSTEMS USED IN GEODESY
BASIC DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
By Tomás Soler (Geodesist, National Geodetic Survey, Charting and Geodetic Services, USA.) and Larry D. Hothem, (Astronomy and Space Geodesy Section, National Geodetic Survey, USA.) Member, ASCE
‘INTRODUCTION: The principal problem of geodesy may be stated as follows (Hirvonen 1960): “Find the space coordinates at any point P at the physical surface S of the earth when a sufficient number of geodetic operations have been carried out along S.” Therefore, in order to know the position P, the definition of an appropriate frame to which these spatial coordinates refer is of primary importance. Due to the nature of the rotational motions of the earth and to other geodynamic phenomena, a rigorously defined, earth-fixing coordinates system at the degree of accuracy of our current observational capabilities is not presently available.’
This of course, means that in 1988, long after Newton’s bulge is confirmed as a heliocentric and precession ‘fact,’ here are geodesists attempting to convey meetings, colloquiums and workshops organised jointly by the International Association of Geodesy and the International astronomical Union attempting to coordinate the work of different groups in the international scientific community for the future definition and selection of reliable reference frames so that they can measure the combined shape of the earth? It seems with so much movement of cosmic bodies it is impossible to coordinate multiple reference frames necessary for an accurate measurement of the earth’s supposed bulge. In other words, here we have the modern experts in this field telling us that no accurate shape for the earth has ever been achieved. Maybe now we can see just how far the they will go to assure the world that Newton was correct, that his ‘laws’ prove the earth spins and orbits the sun in a heliocentric solar system and that it has an ellipsoid of revolution resulting in precession as we see it. But more than that, for in our next quote they use the fraud to say their bulge shows the earth was once an evolving molten mass.
‘The earth is nearly spherical, having a diameter of 7,928 miles (12,756 km) at the equator but only 7,902 miles (12,714 km) from pole to pole. The slight broadening at the equator is the result of centrifugal forces from the earth’s spin, and originally set in when the planet was molten.’ --- 1999. Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen, The Science of Discworld, op. cit., 1999, p.123.
With Newton’s bulge-theory of gravitation undermined it can again be proposed without scientific contradiction that precession is caused by an anti-clockwise movement of the stars along the precession circle as depicted earlier, one degree every 72 years; intended to complete a full revolution in 26,000 years. Indeed, if one wants to see how the heavens were created by God at the beginning, all one has to do is extrapolate backwards 6,035 or so years along the path of precession.
Egyptology
Egyptology, as we have seen earlier, is a most interesting subject with pagan gods, sun-cities, pyramids, monuments, mummies, hieroglyphics and grave robbers everywhere. The history of that country, that race, remains mysterious and incomplete with numerous Egyptologists now trying to explain the ruins, artefacts and hieroglyphics that remain. A simple study of the subject however, seems to show us they were a people who had knowledge far greater than we would expect such an ancient race to have (Ecc.1:10), if we are to believe a fraction of the ‘fingerprints of the gods’ stuff gleaned by those who spend their lives measuring and examining this land and its ancient stonework. How or from where the Egyptians attained this information is the real mystery; but a little help from their ‘gods’ cannot be ruled out. Of interest to us here is the claim that the pyramids are related to the shape of the earth on a scale of 1:43,200, a number ‘that is not a random number.’
‘On the contrary, it is one of a series of numbers, and multiples of those numbers, which relate to the phenomenon of precession of the equinoxes, and which have become embedded in archaic myths all around the world. As the reader can confirm by glancing back at Part V [of his book] the basic numerals of the Pyramids/Earth ratio crop up again and again in those myths, sometimes as 43,200 sometimes as 432, as 4,320, as 432,000, as 4,320,000, and so on.’
---Graham Hancock: Fingerprints of the Gods, Mandarian, p.461
‘The perimeter of the Great Pyramid’s base is 3,023.16 feet and its height is 481.3949 feet…’ Now consider these calculations:
(1)Perimeter of 3,023.16 feet ÷ 5280 (feet per mile) = 0.572568181 miles multiplied by 43,200 = 24734.94545 miles circuмference.
(2) Height of 481.3949 feet multiplied by 43,200 = 20796259.68 feet
÷ 5280 multiplied by 2 = 7877.7109 9 (Earth’s diameter) multiplied by (3.14) = 24748.55897 miles circuмference.
So, if we go by the Great Pyramid then, which the same author believes is ‘a representation of the northern hemisphere of the earth projected on flat surfaces,’ this part of the earth indicates it is a prolate - not an oblate - spheroid, not flattened at the poles but slightly elongated, with the equatorial circuмference 13 miles shorter than the polar circuмference, that is, slightly egg-shaped. Amazingly, this is exactly what the Cassinis measured in 1720. Remember we illustrated it so:
(http://s28.postimg.org/t5sy9wttp/earth2.jpg)
So, here we have these pyramid experts and scholars who keep emphasising the unbelievably accurate structures this super-race was capable of, giving us a fascinating theory based on some very impressive mathematical calculations related to 2pi. But now watch what they have to do, betray the very integrity of their own synthesis in order to comply with the dominant earthmoving ideology of Newtonianism. It seems even the accurate pyramid builders must be made subject to the earthmovers’ fraud.
‘The scaling-down, as it turns out, is not absolutely exact, but it is very near. Moreover, when we remember the bulge of the earth’s equator (our planet being an oblate spheroid rather than a perfect sphere) the results achieved by the pyramid builders seem even closer to 1:43,200…
Given the razor-sharp accuracy of the pyramid builders, however (who normally worked to even finer tolerances) the error is less likely to have resulted from mistakes in the construction of the giant monument than in an underestimation of our planet’s true circuмference by just 163 miles, probably caused in part by failure to take into account of the equatorial bulge.’ --- Graham Hancock: Fingerprints of the Gods, pp. 459-60
Can you believe that, Egyptology re-written to accommodate the greatest scam in scientific history: ‘probably caused in part by failure to take into account of the equatorial bulge.’ Now why didn’t the ancient Egyptians take Newton’s theory into account? Have you ever read such humbug in all your life?
-
E rev around S :detective:
-
E rev around S :detective:
Thank you. Would you be willing, then, to start another thread showing the scientific proof of your assertion? I look forward to seeing it.
-
The scientific proofs( Newton AND Bradley) have been cited numerous times in the past. :sleep:
-
The scientific proofs( Newton AND Bradley) have been cited numerous times in the past. :sleep:
Then in your kindness, you would please point out the thread or the proofs themselves...
-
Volume 25--- Ludwig von Pastor: Galileo & The Roman Inq.
This can be found at Wikipedia. Use caution as the author confuses the terms revolution & rotation in one place.
I would also suggest actually reading book one of Copernicus. The Easton Press edition is excellent although somewhat expensive($75). :reading:
-
The scientific proofs( Newton AND Bradley) have been cited numerous times in the past. :sleep:
I simply cannot believe that anyone, except a programmed robot, could post 'the scientific proofs (Newton AND Bradley)' on a thread that has just exposed Newton as an occultist and alchemist who got his 'PROOFS' from the sun-worshippers of ancient Egypt, and Kepler's false elliptical orbits.
:clown:
Surely only a Copernican robot could actually put 'scientific proofs' up on a forum read by so many intelligent people. Its a long, long time since that fraud has been exposed. Why not even Hawking will utter the term 'scientific proof.' Did you not read his 'Brief History of Time' roscoe?
As for Bradley's stellar aberration, well the next chapter of THE EARTHMOVERS deals with that so called proof for Copernicanism. Later it will be shown that Bradley's discovery can only be explained if all the stars in the heaven are in co-ordination with the sun as it orbits the earth. and that is geocentric evidence.
But thanks anyway for putting this thread on top of the heap every time you show an ignorance beyond belief, Newton's and Bradley's 'proof' indeed.
:clown:
-
E still rev around S :reporter:
-
Volume 25--- Ludwig von Pastor: Galileo & The Roman Inq.
This can be found at Wikipedia. Use caution as the author confuses the terms revolution & rotation in one place.
I would also suggest actually reading book one of Copernicus. The Easton Press edition is excellent although somewhat expensive($75). :reading:
THE HISTORY OF THE POPES. Translated from
the German of LUDWIG, FREIHERR VON PASTOR. 1837.
It was only in 1686 that mathematical astronomy chanced upon a real proof, when Newton demonstrated that according to [HIS] law of gravitation it was impossible for the mighty ball of the sun to revolve round the diminutive earth as its centre. A decisive proof based on astronomical observation was delayed until 1725, when Bradley showed that all the fixed stars described small ellipses within exactly the duration of a terrestrial year, that the ellipses described by the stars situate towards the celestial poles approach increasingly to the figure of a circle, whereas the stars situate in the neighbourhood of the celestial equator increasingly resolve into a simple straight line, and that this phenomenon is inexplicable except as an effect of the earth s orbit round the sun. Of these real proofs Galileo remained in complete ignorance all his life.
Here then, before we read the truth of it, is roscoe's 'scientific proofs upon which he continues to post his 'E still rev around S :reporter:'
-
Chapter Twenty-Five
1726:
Stellar Aberration
‘It was not until Copernicus had been some two hundred years in his grave that Bradley (in 1726) discovered the aberration of light, and converted, what had up to then been a more or less probable theory, into an incontrovertible fact.’ --- Sir Bertram Windle, M.A., M.D., Sc.D., I.L.D., Ph.D., F.R.S., K.S.G.: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, p.93.
So says Sir Bertram Windle, a Roman Catholic scholar who taught at the University of Tor¬onto, and who, in 1919, merited the Gunning Prize of the Royal Victoria Institute, London. No doubt the establishment considered the writer of this considerable treatise most suitable for an award, for its subtle propaganda, under the guise of science for the now Copernican Catholics, very convincingly confirms his readers in their Newtonian worldview, i.e., a universal gravitation theory that gave rise to the self formation of the universe, a solar system and its planets including an oblate earth of course. The author and his book cleverly gives the impression of objective thinking, points out all the pitfalls of accepting assumptions and theories as facts etc., and then blatantly indulges in a clatter of them himself. And now, to show Windle’s propaganda with aberration hasn’t changed much since then:
‘This discovery [stellar aberration] provided the first direct physical conformation of the Copernican theory.’ McGraw-Hill, Encyclopaedia of Science, p.175.
‘1728. English astronomer James Bradley (1693-1762) provides first evidence of the Earth’s motion through space on the aberration of starlight.’ --- Dava Sobel: Galileo’s Daughter, 1999, p.390.
OK. Here then, we see that stellar aberration has been and is, even today, offered by science and the storytellers as the first direct ‘physical confirmation,’ the ‘first evidence’ of the earth orbiting the sun. But, is it? By now we hope you are beginning to take all these ‘proofs’ with a grain of salt.
Some facts need to be known so that we can understand something about stellar aberrat¬ion and how it was found. As we have seen, since the fifteenth century, heliocentrism was put forward as the correct model for the order of the celestial bodies. Consequently the following thinking emerged:
‘There are remarkable features of this long trail to the dethronement of the earth’s position as the central feature of the universe. The necessity of measuring the distances of the stars was long rec¬ognized to be an important matter for astronomers. The possibility of doing so by a trigonometrical method, using as a baseline the diameter of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, and observing the parallactic displacement [Stellar Parallax] of a star against the background of very distant stars was also well understood.’ ---B. Lovell, op. cit., p.71.
This last quote is very important in showing us how subtly heliocentricism became a ‘fact’ over time. Lovell, like the rest of the scientific community, first assumes that heliocentricism has heretofore been proven scientifically, for he accepts a baseline, a diameter for the earth’s supposed orbit that, we must all admit, has not yet even been verified in the ‘dethronement of the earth.’ But relying on this massive presumption, he says stellar distances can be found by a trigonometric calcul¬ation with stellar parallax ‘against the faint background of very distant stars’; which is true, if the assumptions of a true baseline and angles for earth are true.
(http://s8.postimg.org/6cm5bpw7p/image.png)
‘However, even the nearest stars were so distant that this Parallactic displacement was too small to be measured by the in¬struments available in the eighteenth century... After many astronomers had attempted to measure stellar parallax [see right], James Bradley, third Astronomer Royal of England, thought he had succeeded in 1727, in measuring the distance of the star Draconis, passing nearly through the zenith at Greenwich.’ ---B. Lovell, op. cit., p.72.
OK, let us slow down a bit and examine this story. In December 1725, we find James Bradley and Samuel Molyneux fixing a telescope to the chimney pot of Molyneux’s house pointing it at the star Gamma Draconis directly above [known as the zenith]. What they were actually looking for was the then unfound stellar parallax , that is, if the earth [E] really does orbit the sun then a near star should move in a circular ‘orbit’ relative to more distant stars. We can demonstrate this phenomenon for ourselves by walking in a big circle while looking at any object. That object will change its position relative to a background point until we return to the starting place.
Observing Draconis over a prolonged period, they found they had to continuously tilt the telescope by turning a bolt to keep the light from the star passing directly through the centre of the telescope. Eventually, the two stargazers found that in the space of a year, the telescope had described a small circle relative to the chimney. This was later found to apply to every star.
‘Bradley, using a telescope 212 feet long, tried to measure [find] the small displacement [of parallax] of stars in the course of a year and actually detected such a displacement. What he found however, could not be [interpreted as] parallax, because the displacement [40 seconds of arc] (The sky is divided up into 360 degrees and each degree has a further division of 60 minutes, each of which are divided again into 60 seconds of arc. The size of parallax [star shift] expected would have measured less than one second of arc. Thus when a 40 second of arc was found it was obvious it could not have been the stellar parallax being sought. Accordingly, some other explanation had to be found for the phenomenon.) did not coincide with what would be expected if it were the result of the Earth’s changing position in its orbit.’ --- Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science, Grafton Books, 1990, p.188
(http://s28.postimg.org/yt422tq9p/bbb.png)
-
Dismissing a looked for parallax, they tried to understand this phenomenon.
‘Bradley looked for an alternative explanation and one occurred to him in 1728. The displacement arose because the telescope had to be tipped slightly to catch the light as the Earth moved. This is called adjusting to the aberration of light, just as an umbrella must be tipped when you are walking briskly through a rainstorm in which the drops are falling vertically. The amount by which the telescope must be tipped depends on the ratio [V/v] of the speed of the Earth in its orbit [V] to the speed of light [(v) arriving down the centre of the telescope]. What’s more, the existence of light aberration was just as strong a proof that the Earth was moving as the evidence of stellar parallax would have been.’ ---Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science, p.188.
Is that a fact now or another heliocentric presumption? Well first let us try to understand how Bradley interpreted his discovery. To do this we must use Asimov’s analogy and substitute the astronomer, his telescope, and the starlight, with an astronomer, an umbrella and rainfall. Now we know that in order to stay dry when the rain falls vertically down on a stationary man all he needs to do is put the umbrella up directly overhead at an angle to the ground of 90 degrees (left figure below). Likewise, a telescope pointed at a star at or near the zenith such as Draconis to Greenwich, should receive the light of that star right down the centre of the telescope. But, as we all know, if a man decides to move, in order to stay dry he must compensate for his horizontal speed (V) and the rain’s vertical velocity (v) by tilting the umbrella before him to stay dry. The angle of that tilt of course has to agree with that ratio V/v.
(http://s27.postimg.org/5qriom3w3/image.jpg)
What Bradley found was that to keep the light directly down the middle of his telescope he had to tilt the telescope. He then came to the conclusion that just as a man has to tilt an umbrella if he moves (to keep dry); his telescope has to be tilted because the earth moves like so.
(http://s12.postimg.org/g4hnb9sjx/image.jpg)
Then, calculating that the speed of light is about ten thousand times the supposed speed of the earth as it supposedly orbits the sun - by using the same analogy of a man with an umbrella running in the rain - we should find a telescope would have to be tilted at an angle of 20.5 seconds of arc in the direction of the earth’s supposed orbit around the sun to get the starlight to pass unhindered through the telescope.
Thus Bradley assumed the tilted telescope (the tilted umbrella in our illustration below) meant that the earth must be moving just as man with an umbrella would have to tilt it when moving.
(http://s29.postimg.org/yrcnsy85j/image.jpg)
Bradley’s conclusion: An angled telescope equals a man
running in the rain equals the earth moving in an annual orbit.
Here in stellar aberration we have a phenomenon that indicates, if Bradley’s interpretation is accurate, a movement of light, which they all say, confirms the earth moves. It does nothing of the sort. It merely depicts a relative aberration of light, between the earth and the stars. It does not determine whether it is the earth moving relative to immobile starlight, or, whether the starlight is moving relative to an immobile earth. That still had to be established experimentally. You see, even using the analogy of a man with an umbrella, if the cloud of rain were moving relative to a stationary man causing the rain to fall at an angle, he would also have to tilt his umbrella in order to remain dry. Likewise if the stars are moving relative to an immobile earth, a telescope would have to be tilted to get the beam right down the centre.
(http://s30.postimg.org/igealbvld/image.jpg)
Stellar aberration explained by an immobile earth
Bradley’s stellar aberration then proved nothing but that the phenomenon of stellar aberration exists, whatever causes it. Yet witness the ‘experts’ hail the discovery as the point of transition from Newton’s ‘probable theory into an incontrovertible fact.’ That then, is how they continually propagated their Copernicanism, by blatant intellectual fraud, esoteric magic, non-science, pseudo-science, making all phenomena fit an ideological heliocentrism.
‘Bradley failed to measure the distance of a star but his was the first practical observational proof that the earth moves.’ ---Sir Patrick Moore: Astronomers Stars, Rutledge, London, 1987, p.13.
In 1726/7 then, over a hundred years after the condemnation of Copernicanism, and the so-called scientific revolution had not only failed to show one iota of proof for their ideas, but had now resorted to a series of frauds, intellectual fraud, a sure sign that sinister powers are at work within the sciences. At this point it was becoming very clear, the installation of an anti-biblical heliocentric solar system had now become a diabolical necessity rather than a genuine scientific enquiry.
A Tie-Breaking Test
There was however, an experiment, a ‘tie-breaker’ by which the empirical method could determine wheth¬er aberration - if the relative movement of light causes it - is an effect resulting from the movement of the earth or the movement of the stars. The Jes¬uit scientist Ruggiero Guiseppe Boscovich (1711-1787) conceived this test. He must have known that Bradley’s stel¬lar aberration was not conclusive proof for a moving earth and that it had still to be verified. Bradley could have performed this trial, but there is no record of it, indeed there is no record of it being done for ninety years.
-
Chapter Twenty-Six
1633-1741:
Retrying
Copernicanism
‘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 nor after him, have discovered anything that could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy. The facts were unavoidably clear and soon showed the relative character of the sentence passed in 1633. This sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Conclusion of Papal Commission, 1992.
-
So said Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, at a reception in the Sala Regia of the Apostolic Palace in Rome in 1992. Present were some members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Diplomatic Corps and high-ranking officials of the Roman Curia who were also invited. He was reporting on the findings of the pontifical commission of scholars (1981-1992) that supposedly considered all the facts and ramifications of the Galileo case as ordered by Pope John Paul II. The Pope himself then endorsed these findings with yet another summary speech complementing that of the Cardinal on the Commission’s findings. There is no doubt this was a historic occasion, and the Press were up to the task, spreading the word to the four corners of the earth if you pardon the pun, so that all should know what the authorities in Rome had to say about the Galileo case. Given that this study commission delivered the first public Church account of the case since 1633, and presuming they had access to all the relevant docuмents available in the Vatican and elsewhere, we shall consider its findings in preference to all other versions of the Galileo affair wherever they are to be found.
In the light of the authority and decision of the Church from 1616 to 1664, and of our own very thorough examination of the details involved in the matter, including the so-called proofs offered by the Copernican Sun Fixers and Earthmovers, where does one begin to expose this diatribe of misinformation, denial and illusion coming from a papal commission given the responsibility to examine the Galileo case on behalf of the Catholic Church? First we see Cardinal Poupard makes it clear that both they and their predecessors in 1741 fully accepted Newtonian gravity and stellar aberration constituted ‘optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth.’ To support this belief, the Cardinal adds the most devious piece of propaganda since Galileo tried it in 1613 when he also sought to undermine the position of the anti-Copernican Church Inquisitors, by placing the obligation on them to defend their biblical stance by falsifying heliocentricism. Here how Galileo put it in 1613:
‘Who can set bounds to the mind of man? Who dares assert that he already knows all that in this universe is knowable? And on this account, beyond the articles concerning salvation and the stability of the faith, against the unchangeableness of which there is no danger of any valid and efficacious innovations being introduced, it would perhaps be best to counsel that none should be added unnecessarily; and if it be so, how much greater the disorder to add to these articles at the demand of persons, who, though they may be divinely inspired, yet we see clearly that, they are destitute of the intelligence necessary not merely to disprove, but to understand those demonstrations by which scientific conclusions are confirmed.’ ---Galileo’s Letter to Castelli (1613), as translated in S. Drake’s Galileo at Work, University of Chicago Press, 1978, p. 225.
The Church in 1616 read the relevant passages of the Bible according to its rules of interpretation, and providing scientific proofs or falsifications to support this teaching was simply not part of that process.
‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (St Thomas Aquinas: I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).
It followed for St Thomas that the word of God, as regards physical things written in Scripture, would be ‘scientifically’ true also. Thus the Church had no reason or cause to enter into the matter of proof or falsification. If however, any heretic wished to challenge the Church’s interpretation, as Galileo and others did, it was up to them, not the Church, to provide scientific falsification, if they could. The irony of it is, Galileo’s challenge above could be applied correctly to the 1741-1992 Churchmen, those ‘who, though they may be divinely inspired, [were] destitute of the intelligence necessary to understand those demonstrations by which scientific conclusions are confirmed.’
In 1992 then, we find in Cardinal Poupard’s words history repeating itself. Remember now, we have examined what the Cardinal calls ‘Copernican astronomy’ and it is nothing but another way to save appearances. It does not contain one shred of evidence for heliocentricism nor falsification for geocentrism. But Cardinal Poupard’s commission went further, for whereas in Galileo’s time certain tests on the validity of Newton’s elliptical heliocentric theory had not been done, this was not the case in 1992. For example, Domenico Cassini showed orbits are Cassinian ovals not circles or ellipses, and the Airy experiment of 1871 that we will show soon, clearly ‘refuted Copernican astronomy’ as used in the case of stellar aberration, one of the ‘proofs’ they said was accepted by Rome in 1741 and by the commission itself.
But things then got far more serious, the consequences of which reach to heaven for answers, for Cardinal Poupard then states quite clearly that it was these ‘proofs,’ which we have shown were ‘proofs’ for nothing, that motivated Pope Benedict XIV’s ‘reform’ of the 1633 sentence and all that that entailed. But more than that, for it was these so-called proofs that determined for them the authority of the anti-Copernican decrees: - ‘The facts were unavoidably clear and soon showed the relative character of the sentence passed in 1633. This sentence was not irreformable.’ Not mind you after an examination of the legitimacy, authority and spirit of the Church’s decree of 1616 (upon which the 1633 trial and sentence of Galileo was based as well as the original book-ban introduced by the Congregation of the Index), but on the word of astronomers and philosophers that they had proven the earth moves around a fixed sun.
But hadn’t the Church in 1633 already made it quite clear that the anti-Copernican decree of 1616 was ‘irreformable.’
‘Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo… have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures… and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been defined and declared to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Thus did Rome’s Supreme Pontifical Congregation, known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a reformable utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration.’--- Fr Roberts.
Let us now recall some details as to how this infamous U-turn in history began, what happened to the anti-Copernican decrees from 1741 to 1835. In our case we are happy to rely on one of the most comprehensive accounts ever written in the aftermath of the 1633 trial, Maurice A. Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, a treasure of facts and records of the history of the case. Although a Copernican himself, as nearly all are, one who occasionally proposes interpretations and comments based on his Copernicanism, Finocchiaro does present the history itself as it happened, recording the very words used throughout and recorded by those who spoke and were in charge within the Holy Office.
In a preview to Finocchiaro’s account of the 1741-1835 history of the U-turn by the Holy Office, the author gives a brief history of some of the thinking on the matter by various philosophers, theologians, mathematicians and others over the years prior to the papal approvals of a U-turn. Indeed these included many of the reasons for lifting of the decrees regurgitated within the meetings of the Holy Office in 1741, again in 1820 and finally in 1992.
First there was the opinion of the philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), included in letters to the French theologian and mathematician Martin Mersenne (1588-1648) in Paris in 1633, a staunch defender and assistant of Galileo. Descartes they say heralded the beginning of rationalist philosophy. He based his philosophy on doubt in both faith and science. For him and other like minded philosophers, Protestantism had cast doubts on the Catholic faith and the Copernican revolution had cast doubts on mediaeval science. If these two long held sources of truth were no longer true, then how could he trust any authority? So, like Isaac Newton after him, he decided to figure out truth by himself, relying on his own authority, considered superior even to the written word of God.
Descartes professed shock at the news of the ‘affair of Galileo’ and apologised to Mersenne for not sending him his book called The World, in which he said contained ‘infallible’ proofs, geometric proofs that the earth rotates and orbits the sun, as he promised promised because he ‘would not want for anything in the world to produce an essay containing the least word (or one number) that was disapproved by the Church.’ He contemplated ‘burning all my papers, or at least not to let anyone see them…. and I confess that if it is false, so are also all the foundations of my philosophy.’ Like Galileo and many others since him, Descartes professed loyalty to the Church, yet refused to accept its teaching on Copernicanism. Given it turns out his World did propose false proofs for heliocentrism, as we now know, we can confirm, according to his own words, the foundations of Descartes philosophy are false.
In another note Descartes questioned the status of the 1616 decree, obviously trying to undermine the fact that Pope Urban VIII in 1633 had judged it to be ‘immutable.’ The philosopher with the false foundations then entertained the idea that the 1616 decree, Galileo’s trial and the condemnations of heliocentric theses were nothing but a ‘Jesuit conspiracy,’ an accusation first mooted in his account of the affair by Giovan Francesco Buonamici (1639-1680), whose sister-in-law married Galileo’s son.
Descartes World was published one year after his death. In it he presented the earth as ‘both stationary and in motion,’ a classic illustration of ‘Ma’at-equilibrium.’ Of crucial importance however, is that Descartes invented a novel interpretation of the Church’s ‘hypothesis’ rule. After first shelving his World, Descartes began to write up his ideas on faith and science. One can get an idea of these thoughts of Descartes in that after his death his works too were condemned in 1633 and put on the Index by Pope Alexander VII in 1664.
-
Finocchiaro then gives his readers a list of powerful, influential and important individuals who sought a pardon for Galileo. The first was the astronomer Fabri de Peiresc, a nobleman of note. His plea went to Cardinal Francesco Barberini, the nephew of Pope Urban VIII.
‘The cardinal never did answer this second plea, and in fact nothing came of Peiresc’s valiant effort. However these letters are important both because of their content and because they give us a glimpse of the way enlightened Catholics felt about Galileo’s condemnation.’ ---- M.A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo p. 55.
Note the term ‘enlightened Catholics,’ a far cry from the Copernican heretics they were at the time. Another pardon pleader was Count de Noailles, French Ambassador to the Holy See from 1634 to 1636 who also got short shift from Rome. Then there was King Ladislaus IV of Poland; one more unsuccessful ‘valiant effort’ by another ‘enlightened Catholic’ no doubt.
In his next chapter ‘Polarisation,’ Finocchiaro shows that many European Kingdoms and states refused to implement the ban on Copernicanism ordered by the Index for one reason or another, and thus the controversy grew and grew as more and more books and opinions on the affair were published in these places in many languages. Every single aspect of the Galileo case came under scrutiny and an endless number of versions of them resulted.
Later, in 1661, a French Jesuit, Fr Honoré Fabri, published a booklet on astronomy under the name Divini. In this pamphlet Fr Fabri ran with the most devious of all ‘loop-holes’ to try to avoid the permanence of the 1616 decree, the reinterpretation of the ‘hypothesis’ rule begun by Descartes. This ruse was put together as something that could be exploited so as to pave the way for an eventual U-turn, the idea that the 1616 decree could be made look provisional.
The Copernican baton then went to the French astronomer Adrien Auzout who elaborated more on the ‘hypothesis’ manoeuvre in a book printed in Paris in 1665. Auzout then added another arrow to the bow of the Earthmovers, the idea that the theological censure of the 1616 decree came as a result of the ‘false and philosophically absurd’ reason given by the decree. Elected a member of the Royal Society of London in 1666, Auzout believed that if they could show heliocentricism was no longer ‘false and philosophically absurd’ then the ‘formally heretical’ part of the decree had to be null and void.
The next important character in Finocchiaro’s list of apologists and minimisers is the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz, the man who lost out to Isaac Newton as the original inventor of the calculus. From 1679 Leibniz entered the arena of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Like Galileo before him, he argued that natural reason was essential to determine the true interpretation of the Bible. He then dragged up the incident of the Antipodes and compared it with the anti-Copernican decrees. He said if there should be found an irrefutable proof of a moving earth, as the Antipodes were found on the far side of the earth, it would show the Church was wrong again. ‘Will not there be similar embarrassment if that happens?’ he wrote. Many pages of reasons-to-lift-the-ban later, all knew where Leibniz stood.
After Lebiniz came the French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal. In his Provincial Letters of 1657, he too said he was waiting for proof that the earth moved and when that happened he said ‘not all mankind together would prevent its turning, nor prevent their own turning with it.’ He too associated the Galileo affair with the rejection of the Antipodes, a confrontation between faith and science, and said these things are decided not by papal decrees but by proper scientific investigation.
( In 748, Pope Zachary authorized Boniface, Bishop of Meinz and primate of Germany, to ‘take counsel’ and excommunicate the abbot of St. Peter’s Monastery in Salzburg – an Irishman called Virgil. Boniface had accused Virgil of teaching that there could be men living on the far side of the earth. St Augustine was another who had also dismissed this possibility. Their reasoning of course was based on the belief that there could not be any man living on earth beyond the reach of the Gospels. There was however no decree by Pope Zachary as there was with heliocentrism, and no excommunication was enforced. Indeed the opposite happened, Virgil ended up being made a bishop. Later of course people were found to be living on the opposite side of the globe but they were not beyond the missionaries who eventually brought the Gospels to them. Such is the context this controversy must be seen in.)
Finally Pascal also laid the blame for it all on the conspiring Jesuits.
Another Frenchman to emerge as a Copernican champion was the Catholic theologian and philosopher Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694). In a 1691 work he stated that the Galileo condemnation was unjust. Arnauld had a good grasp of the affair though, and was fully aware that the problem for the apologists and minimisers was to overcome Pope Urban VIII’s position; that ‘one could [not] defend as probable an opinion that had been declared contrary to Scripture.’ He too also questioned the decree’s wording that said a fixed sun, moving earth was ‘philosophically false and absurd’ and argued that what was no more than a hypothesis in 1616-1633 had become ‘a certain truth…nowadays.’
‘Next Arnauld discusses the Scriptural question and with references to St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas he argued in favour of the “very judicious rule” that “in regard to natural things, whose truth can be known from convincing proofs or from manifest experiences, one must not rashly decide to give scripture meanings that could be contrary to things so well proved.” ’ --- Retrying Galileo, p.110-111.
Of course, but there was no proof for a heliocentric interpretation of Scripture, as Bellarmine said, nor likely to be proof, not in Copernicus’s time, Kepler’s time, Galileo’s time, Arnauld’s time, nor Pope John Paul II’s time.
The Roman U-turn Begins
On September 29, 1741, the Padua Inquisitor Paolo A. Ambrogi wrote to the Holy Office under Pope Benedict XIV in Rome on behalf of the Padua seminary looking for permission to publish the complete works of Galileo Galilei. This project was the brainchild of Giuseppe Toaldo, an Italian Catholic priest and physicist who went on to edit the works of Galileo in 1744, in which he wrote an appreciative preface and critical notes. First though let us see exactly where, when and what Copernican books were placed on the Index.
‘The edition of the Index [Speculatores (1664)] thus published under the sanction contained among the rest the decree of 1616 condemning the five books therein mentioned; also a decree dated 1618 condemning Kepler’s Epitome; a monitum dated 1620 permitting the reading of the works of Copernicus if published in a corrected edition; another of 1634 prohibiting Galileo’s Dialogue; and finally in 1640 a general prohibition of “all books, booklets, commentaries, epistles, glosses, sermons, tractates, etc., whether written or printed, which discoursed on the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun.”’ ---Fr E. R. Hull S.J., Galileo and His Condemnations, Bombay, 1913, p.85-86.
We see then originally there were two classifications of books banned in the aftermath of the 1616 anti-Copernican condemnation and put on the Index of forbidden books: (1) those that could be ‘corrected’ after which their ban could be lifted, where passages could be altered so as not to present heliocentricism as a truth, and (2), those written in a manner that presented the fixed sun-moving earth system in such a way that left little or no possibility of ever being corrected to read merely as a mathematical device to calculate distances and angles pertaining to the universe. Later, in 1640, came the ‘all-inclusive’ ban of books presenting heliocentrism in any manner. This ban was to ensure no book treating Copernicanism as a fact could slip through the net unnoticed, but could be appealed later if it was open to some manner of correction.
Ambrogi agreed and promised, in keeping with the decrees, to alter the Dialogo so that it could not be said to be promoting Copernicanism as a truth, but simply as a model for calculating the movement and distances of the sun, moon and stars. He promised that they would also include the full text of Galileo’s abjuration to further ensure the finished copy would receive the Holy Office’s approval. Within weeks the Holy Office granted this request for an imprimatur. According to any Catholic dictionary an imprimatur is the Latin for ‘let it be printed,’ that is, ‘a licence’ to publish a book. Under the title ‘Censorship of Books’ we find that such a licence indicates ‘nothing contrary to revealed and definite faith and morals and that it does not frivolously or inopportunely call into question the common teaching of Catholic theologians.’
Now it is one thing to say ‘until corrected’ another to actually do that. Consequently a second letter arrived from Ambrogi in February of the following year. It seems they now wanted to keep the Dialogo in its original form and to include Galileo’s Letter to Christina not altered in any way. It was to be suitably prefaced and to include a clear understanding of the Church’s condemnation of both in 1633. Now while this was a different approach to the conditions spelled out in the decrees, it was seen as keeping with the law against the book treating heliocentricism as a truth. Accordingly the Inquisition again granted an imprimatur to Ambrogi’s edition of the ‘complete works.’
-
On May 20, 1742, yet a third letter was received from Ambrogi in which they once again wanted to change the format of their publication. ‘If,’ Ambrogi asked, ‘we were to publish the Dialogo with complying ‘interpretations’ on the margins opposite the original text, would this be all right?’ As regards Galileo’s Letter to Christina, well he said, they no longer wanted to include it in their collection but would substitute it with an already published paper by the Benedictine Augustin Calmet that, they asserted, defended geocentricism based on Scripture. Before making their decision, the Holy Office wanted to clarify how the ‘hypothesis’ rule came about. To find out they commissioned Friar Luigi Giovasco who quickly compiled his report, the full text of which is in Finocchiaro’s book. In brief here is what Friar Luigi said:
‘So another decree appeared declaring that the system should be understood as condemned only when it was expounded as an absolute thesis, but not when it was expounded as a hypothesis to better know the revolutions of the heavenly spheres.’ ------ Friar Luigi Giovasco’s 1741 report, published by Pierre Mayaud (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Gregoriana), 1997.
Of special interest is Finocchiaro’s comment on the above wording, page 132:
‘More important, the report was explicitly drawing the thesis-hypothesis distinction implied by the 1620 decree and generally adopted by Catholics afterwards, and applying the distinction in order to claim that Copernicanism was prohibited and condemned if treated as a thesis but allowed as a hypothesis.. However the report did not distinguish between the instrumentalist notion of hypothesis and the probabilist conception, which, as we saw in chapter 1.4, was crucial for understanding, to say nothing of evaluating the Galileo affair.’ --- Retrying Galileo.
Now what kind of hypothesis is ambiguous in Friar Giovasco’s ‘but not when it was expounded as a hypothesis to better know the revolutions of the heavenly spheres?’ To better know the heavens is an instrumentalist hypothesis. What kind of hypothesis is ambiguous in the preface of Copernicus’s On the Revolutions that said; ‘And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up many – nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth, but only in order that they may provide a correct basis for calculation. … Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him’ if not an instrumentalist hypothesis? What kind of hypothesis is ambiguous in Cardinal Bellarmine’s Letter to Foscarini when he wrote; ‘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’ if not an instrumentalist hypothesis? Yes, what Finocchiaro failed to note, the consultant Friar Giovasco failed to note, everyone else mentioned in the history of the affair failed to note, and indeed no one in Finocchiaro’s book, was that this ‘hypothesis’ rule actually had its ‘official’ origin in 1543 with Andreas Osiander’s preface to Copernicus’s On the Revolutions. Bellarmine’s reference was to this same preface that presented heliocentrism as an instrumental hypothesis (‘as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke’). The word used to encapsulate this difference however was ‘hypothesis’ - which of course also means a theory to be proved or disproved - there being no more suitable word given to it in the preface of Copernicus’s book or in practice. Osiander’s kind of hypothesis then was the one the Church adhered to, that held by Cardinal Bellarmine, Master of Controversial Questions and Consulter of the Holy Office, the most senior churchman after the pope in judging Copernicanism as formal heresy in 1616. But, as we have recorded earlier, beginning with Descartes the hypothesis as a theory to be proven or not was bandied about to get people to think that was the ‘hypothesis’ held by the Church when the ban was introduced.
As one can see, the flexible nature of the Index’s decrees became apparent with Ambrogi’s three versions of Galileo’s works, all of which were deemed in line with the Church’s principles and thus deserving of an imprimatur. Rome decided the rules were again met in this third assembly and granted Ambrogi an imprimatur in June 1742, emphasising the authors keep in mind the law regarding the prohibitions of Copernicanism. The book, with Friar Calmet’s essay included, the one supposed to defend a geocentric interpretation of the Scriptures, was publish in 1744. Our reading of it showed us that this essay was just another version of the notorious Letter to Castelli and Christina wherein Galileo tried to confirm how the Bible could also be shown to be compatible with a fixed sun and moving earth. The difference was that whereas Galileo was condemned for his ideas in 1833, Friar Augustin Calmet was not in 1741.
Having successfully but deceitfully achieved an imprimatur for their edition of the Dialogue, the next quest was to try to get rid of the ban altogether. An opportunity to try this came in 1753 when Pope Benedict XIV issued the Bull Sollicita ac Provida, intended to draw up anew the rules regarding what went in his updated Index. This of course opened a chance for change and in January 1754 Agostino Ricchini, secretary to the Congregation of the Index, asked the Pope if they could lift the Index’s ban altogether on ‘certain books’ if they complied with the proper corrections and forewarnings. What he did not spell out was what he meant by ‘proper,’ but if the newly printed Dialogue and its supposed pro-Galilean forewarning was anything to go by, we can say the Copernicans were working towards a total lifting of the ban on heliocentric books, essays and lectures by stealth.
Of historical interest is that following this, in 1755, all the docuмents of the Galileo case were placed into one big file of its own, for ease of access.
In 1756 the Congregation began work on the new Index. To aid them they commissioned one of their consultants to make further recommendations, the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari, Professor of Church History at the Roman College. Finocchiaro records in detail Fr Lazzari’s consultant report presented in 1757 and his efforts were undoubtedly to try to convince the Congregation to remove the general prohibition altogether on the grounds that throughout Europe the scientific consensus of astronomers and philosophers favoured heliocentrism as more ‘evidence’ for it was being discovered. Here is a sample of this report:
‘Now then, I say first that the opinion of the earth’s motion is today a common one in the principal academies and among the most celebrated of philosophers and mathematicians. Soon after our decree or thereabouts, this opinion began to get established, mostly through the work of Kepler, as he himself tells us in the Epitome of Copernican Astronomy. [Francis] Bacon of Verulam also said, as we have seen, that in his time the opinion was beginning to spread and expand. In book one of Kosmotheoros, Christiaan Huygens asserted: “Nowadays all astronomers, except those who are of a retarded mind or whose beliefs are subject to the will of men, accept without doubt the motion of the earth and its location among the planets.” This is even truer today after the discoveries of Newton or those made with the benefit of his system. It is enough to read the proceedings and journals of academies, even Catholic ones, and the works of the most celebrated philosophers and mathematicians, or even dictionaries and similar books that report on the most widely accepted opinions. And indeed, in the article on Copernicus in the Encyclopedia, or Reasoned Dictionary of Sciences, the famous mathematician D’Alembert writes: “Nowadays this system is generally followed in France and England, especially after Descartes and Newton each tried to confirm it by means of physical explanations…. It would be desirable that a country as full of intelligence and learning as Italy recognize an error so harmful to scientific progress and that she think of this subject as we do in France! Such a change would be worthy of the enlightened pontiff who governs the Church nowadays….’ ---Maurice A. Finocchiaro, Retrying Galileo, p.142.
Now we see why it was first necessary to have examined Newton’ discoveries and the supposed findings of planets before considering the history of Rome’s infamous U-turn. Note also the labels already conjured up for those loyal to the Church’s teaching, ‘retards,’
Lazzari went on to the subject of motion, both absolute and relative, trying to show the pitfalls that await those who did not understand the difference. He emphasised the harm he perceived was being done to the Catholic faith and the reputation of the Church because of its rigid stance against Copernicanism. He then touched on the difference in this case between educated intellectuals and uneducated people. Finally he entered the domain of Scriptural interpretation with yet another version of Galileo’s Letter to Christina, like that thrown out by the Holy Office in 1616. He finishes by trying to convince all that there was no need to deny heliocentric ‘science’ because of some wrongful interpretation of Scriptures, qualifying this by saying the 1616 decree was actually justified at the time and maybe even in 1633 but that this was no longer the case.
-
Final page 'Retrying Copernicanism.'
‘When the Index was revised under Benedict XIV in 1758, largely through the influence of the Jesuit astronomer Boscovich… the phrase prohibiting all books teaching the immobility of the sun, and the mobility of the earth, was omitted from the decrees.’ ---Dorothy Stimson: ‘The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Universe’ (1917) Republished by Peter Smith, 1972, p. 59.
According to one Catholic Encyclopaedia, the Jesuit Fr Rodger Boscovich, a great admirer and supporter of Isaac Newton and his theory of universal gravitation, was at this time a respected priest-scientist advisor to Pope Benedict XIV. One of Boscovich’s published works was a book entitled The Various Effects of Gravity, all of which must have gone a long way to impress on Pope Benedict XIV that Newton’s theory really did establish that the earth moves around a fixed sun. In 1746, according to Andrew White, Fr Boscovich made the following statement:
‘As for me, full of respect for the Sacred Scriptures and the decree of the Holy Inquisition, I regard the earth as immovable; nevertheless, for simplicity in explanation I will argue as if the earth moves; for it is proved that of the two hypotheses the appearances favour this idea.’ --- A. White, A History, p. 155.
Fifteen years later, Boscovich was made a member of the Royal Society of London. Then, in 1785, heresy or not, he ‘outed’ as a converted Copernican and publicly endorsed Newton’s solar system and apologised abjectly to all for his earlier statements accepting geocentricism on canonical grounds. He stated categorically that he now declared for heliocentricism, and presumably biblical Copernicanism, lest history recorded him as being ‘unscientific’ in his beliefs. ( Indexed by White as in: Fondateurs de 1’ Astronic moderne, pp. 60-1.)
With Lazzari’s ‘retarded minds’ quip, we cannot even imagine what went through the minds of Pope Benedict XIV and those Churchmen involved in this 1741-58 challenge to the 1616 decree. How convincing his arguments were we do not know for sure, but some records, Finocchiaro tells us, indicate the Holy Office was ‘favourable’ to them. What we do know is that in 1758, a new Index was published and while it retained the ban on all the ‘uncorrected’ syntheses of Copernicus, Foscarini, Zúñiga, Kepler and Galileo, it omitted the collective sentence ‘all books teaching the Earth’s motion and the sun’s immobility’ etc. What is crucial to the history of this grand U-turn however is whether the Pope and Holy Office removed the all-inclusive ban because of Ricchini’s reasonably legitimate request to drop it on all books already corrected or prefaced with the doctrinal warning, or because of Lazzari’s arguments that it should be dropped because many philosophers and astronomers now believed heliocentricism to be the true order of the universe. The reason for the absence of clarity is pretty obvious now; the U-turn was to be done slowly, one step at a time, hoping no one would notice what was really going on. The most important point of all is of course that the decree of 1616 remained canonically protected amid the great loss of faith of the time. As we read it, dropping the sentence ‘all books teaching the Earth’s motion and the sun’s immobility’ from an index of banned books etc., for whatever reason, while retaining the ban on the five books of Copernicus, Zúñiga, Foscarini, Kepler and Galileo, may give the appearance of a canonical concession but the facts prove otherwise, no matter what the intentions were. Today of course, Copernican churchmen offer a different version.
‘It was not until 1757 that the Decree of 1616 condemning Copernicanism was at last omitted from the Index of Prohibited Books… All this was held to be justified, in the eyes of the Roman authorities, by the need to protect the ‘good name’ of the Congregation of the Holy Office and the Index, and indeed of the Church itself, and avoid the embarrassment of having to admit an error of judgement.’ --- Cardinal Cahal B. Daly: The Minding of Planet Earth, Veritas, Dublin, 2004, p.80, quoting also from Annibale Fantoli’s Galileo, for Copernicanism and the Church, Vatican Observatory Publications, 1996, p.512.
The intention of course, was to give the impression that the 1616 decree was officially ‘reformed’ in 1757. This is what one is asked to believe above, as well as in this chapter’s introductory quote by the papal commission in 1992. Cardinal Daly went on above to make reference to the part ‘intellectuals’ had in the move from biblical geocentrism to Copernicanism. Intelligence, that is, the extent or ability of one’s reasoning, while a great gift from God comes with a very high price tag, especially when engaging in matters challenging traditional Catholic theology and metaphysics. St Augustine had affirmed: ‘If there were no pride, there would be no heresy.’ We all want to be clever, and the cleverer the better, ‘vainglory in one’s own reasoning’ as Galileo put it. But such a talent has an internal, personal and social satisfaction that is irresistible to those that have it. It can bring honour, glory, respect, advantage, reward, and of course fame to some who excel in any given field of knowledge. Francis Bacon understood this well when he said ‘knowledge is power.’ Thus a consensus is compelling, catching, and essential in order to succeed among one’s peers. But the temptations involved here are enormous, for such intelligence can also be the source of pride. The great intellectual saints - such as Augustine, Aquinas and Bellarmine – knew this and refused accolades and honours, preferring instead to embrace humility and accept authority to human reasoning. They knew that here was an area that Satan has not neglected. What we are dealing with here was not only a test of reasoning but a crucial test of Catholic faith.
‘In 1757 the most enlightened perhaps in the whole line of popes, Benedict XIV, took up the matter, and the Congregation of the Index secretly allowed the idea of Copernicus to be tolerated.’ --- A. White: A History, p. 155.
Perhaps these insights into the character of Prospero Lorenzo Lambertini will give us a clue to his concessions.
‘One of the many casualties in recent times has been the study of history. The reasons for this are varied, but one is certainly the belief that somehow man has entered a New Age; man has grown up and thrown off the shackles of his past. Before the French Revolution this new creature was philosophical man, today it is technological man... The eighteenth century was a period in which the Church was under threat not merely from outside but from within. New thinking had ushered a new age. Benedict XIV came to the throne in 1740 and there is no doubt he was a kindly, good and intelligent man. He was not however, the man for the job. His compassion and tolerance made him indulgent; his liberalism persuaded him to make fatal concessions on points of doctrine. He never seemed to realize what threats the philosophic movement posed to everything he had been elected to de¬fend. So, as a pope he was disastrous; but when he died he was sincerely mourned and is remembered for his benevolence.’ --- Philip G. Lane: Catholic (newspaper), April 1992.
‘Benedict XIV is best known to history as a student and a scholar. Though by no means a genius, his enormous application coupled with more than ordinary cleverness of mind made him one of the most erudite men of his time and gave him the distinction of being perhaps the greatest scholar among the popes. His character was many-sided, and his range of interests large. His devotion to science and the serious investigation of historical problems did not interfere with his purely literary studies. “I have been reproached,” he once said, “because of my familiarity with Tasso and Dante and Ariosto, but they are a necessity to me in order to give energy to my thought and life to my style.” This devotion to the arts and sciences brought Lambertini throughout his whole life into close and friendly contact with the most famous authors and scholars of his time. Montfaucon, ( Dom Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) O.S.B. was a French Benedictine monk and a scholar who founded the science of palaeography, as well as being an editor of works of Fathers of the Church. He is also regarded as one of the founders of modern archaeology.) whom he knew in Rome, said of him, “Young as he is, he has two souls: one for science, the other for society.” ’ ---New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia.
‘In 1741, [Pope Benedict XIV] ordered the Holy Office to give its imprimatur to the first edition of the complete works of Galileo, but this “complete” collection excluded the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and the letter to Castelli, which attempted to interpret Scripture and redefine the role of theology. The Dialogo was included, but with a preface indicating its hypothetical character, so the decree of 1616 had not been abrogated. Nevertheless, Benedict’s act helped remove the stigma of Galileo’s 1633 condemnation, and completed the personal rehabilitation that was symbolized by his reburial at Santa Croce in 1737…. Although heliocentrism per se was no longer forbidden, in practice it could not be asserted as truth without running into theological problems.’ ---Daniel J, Castellano: Thesis for Masters of Art & History, Boston University, 2004.
-
:confused1:
-
Chapter Twenty-Seven
1820-35: Rome
Unleashes
Copernicanism
‘I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude… to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage.’ --- Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859). Alexander von Humboldt: Cosmos, Stuttgart Cotta, (5 Vols, 1845-1862),
POPE PIUS VII
-
‘We have no argument for the Copernican system,’ admits this leading philosopher of the 1800s. Like the Emperor with no cloths, heliocentrism had no empirical support, not then and not now. Unlike churchmen, Bradley’s ‘optical proof’ and Newton’s ‘mechanical proof’ were seen by the likes of von Humboldt for what they were, scientific proofs and falsifications for nothing. Accordingly, as befits immutable acts of the Church, the decrees against Copernicanism held firm in spite of the prevailing consensus and weakness in faith then affecting even the ‘elect’ of the Church; described more aptly by its Latin name timor mundanus – worldly fear arising from human respect, i.e., a reluctance to suffer the disapproval or scorn of men in academia rather than putting one’s faith in the simple word of God and His Church.
‘Yet in 1765 Joseph Lalande the great French astronomer, tried in vain at Rome to induce the authorities to remove Galileo’s works from the Index….’ --- Andrew White: A History…, p. 156.
What White refers to above is that in 1765, Joseph Lalande (1732-1897), the famous French astronomer, while on business in Rome at the time, approached the head of the Congregation of the Index - under Pope Clement XIII (1758-1769) - in the hope that they would remove Galileo’s Dialogo from the list of prohibited books. Given, he said, that they had removed the ban on other books on the subject of the Copernican Principle, then why not those remaining on the Index. He, like others at the time, interpreted the removal of the wider-ranging ban from the Index by Pope Benedict XIV in 1757 as a retreat from the 1616-1640 decrees. Here is Finocchiaro’s account of what happened:
‘But he was told by the head of the Congregation of the Index that Galileo’s case was different because it involved a trial, and so one would first have to revoke the sentence pronounced against him; he was also told that the just-deceased Pope Clement XIII had been inclined to move in that direction. Lanande did not have the opportunity to pursue the matter.’ --- Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.154.
A pope ‘inclined’ and a pope doing are two different things so no comment is necessary. Nevertheless, we also find here another defining clarification in the history of the Galileo U-turn. There are only two ways in which the law pronounced against Copernicanism can be ‘revoked.’ The Church can:
(A) Abrogate it; that is, abolish it completely. But for a law to be abrogated, new legislation must accompany it, stating this clearly, and in justice should state why this is being done.
(B) A judgment of a previous pope can be derog¬ated. This means that the legislation still remains in force but it has been modified in some way.
As no such abrogation, a possible derogation yes, had yet been enacted, as far as the ‘theological problem’ was concerned, Copernicanism (Again: by Copernicanism we mean belief in a fixed sun and that the Bible can be interpreted so) remained formal heresy incurring ipso facto excommunication for those who held it. On the other hand, the Index, employed in those days, but abandoned altogether after Vatican II, was merely an instrument used to examine books etc., for heresy and banning them if deviations from the faith were found. Taking books off the Index and even disposing of the Index altogether, does not of course mean that the heresies inherent in them have been abrogated and that they are no more.
Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries however, as more and more ‘intellectuals’ became convinced that heliocentrism was proven, they, just like Galileo, became bolder and bolder in their quest to overturn and dismiss the decrees, condemnations and bans. The way forward, they decided, was to continue the assault on the Index leaving aside an official retrial of Galileo or of the heresy itself by way of abrogation. They did this with skill and cunning, trying to sway the Church officials while avoiding the charge of heresy for themselves. As it was however, there was little chance of the latter for there is not one case where anybody of note after Galileo was put on trial or condemned for holding Copernicanism as a truth. Nevertheless, canonically, the charge of formal heresy still applied, self inflicted, not that anyone seemed to care about this for most believed if the mobility of the earth around a fixed sun was true then there was no heresy in the first place. We see then that human reasoning had become more of an authority in this matter than faith in the Fathers reading of Scripture, in Church definitions and condemnations. The credibility of the faith itself had now been affected; it was now a matter of personal opinion that decided what heresy is and what is not.
-
The eighteenth century was also a time when Agnosticism and modern Atheism evolved, and such people revelled in their belief that Church tradition had been proven wrong in the Galileo case. As a result Isaac Newton became the rock upon which to deny Catholicism as a divine religion. Voltaire was one of these antichrists, ‘an admirer of Newton,’ and as we showed in our chapter on the shape of the earth, a vile hater of Domenico Cassini, the Catholic surveyor and astronomer. Voltaire made his comment on the Galileo case in his Philosophical Letters of 1734. In 1751 he once more attacked the Church of 1616 and 1633 and again in 1753 and 1756. By 1770 he was writing as follows:
‘Miserable human beings, whether in green robes, turbans, black robes or surplices, cloaks and neckbands, never seek to use authority when it is a question only of reason; or consent to be scoffed at throughout the centuries as the most impertinent of all men, and to suffer public hatred as the most unjust. A hundred times has one spoken to you of the insolent absurdity with which you condemned Galileo, and I speak to you for the hundred and first, and I hope you will keep the anniversary of it for ever; I desire that there be graved on the door of your Holy Office:
“Here seven cardinals, assisted by minor brethren, had the master of thought in Italy thrown into prison at the age of seventy; made him fast on bread and water because he instructed the human race, and because they were ignorant.” ’ --- Selected and Translated by H.I. Woolf, New York: Knopf, 1924
During the years 1765 to 1810 the Galileo affair continued to dominate Church and science interest in Europe with numerous other books, essays and opinions on the case being written, now virtually all in favour of Copernicanism of course and many distorted opinions of the conflict were the result of this. Finocchiaro devotes a full chapter to some of these papers under the title: New Lies, Docuмents, Myths and Apologies; the heading being self-explanatory. But then something happened that had a connection with the Galileo records:
‘In 1798 a French army occupied Rome, abolished the papal government, and established a Roman Republic. Pope Pius VI was deported to Florence, and the Inquisition palace in Rome was “plundered to some extent by a French military rabble, and a part of the archives burned.” In 1800 a new pope, Pius VII (1800-1823), was elected in Venice, and in 1806 he was allowed to return to Rome with limited powers of government. But in 1807 Pius VII refused to cooperate with Napoleon’s plan for economic isolation of England. Thus in 1808, Napoleon decreed the separation of the pope’s spiritual and temporal powers and reclaimed for France the thousand-year-old territorial gifts by Charlemagne. In 1809, Napoleon again abolished papal government in Rome; the pope responded by excommunicating him. As a result, the pope was arrested and deported to France, and on 2nd February 1810 everything in Rome pertaining to papal government was ordered moved to France. This situation did not change until 1814, when Napoleon freed the pope, restored the papal state, and began returning Church records and archives to Rome.’ --- Maurice A Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo, pps175-176.
Among the docuмents stolen by the French between 1810 and 1814 were those in the Galileo file compiled together in 1755 by Pope Benedict XIV. This file was not returned to Rome until 1846. Some however were lost and others went missing while others were retrieved later.
The Settele Affair
‘The edition of the Index published in 1819 was as inexorable towards the works of Copernicus and Galileo as its predecessors had been. But in the year 1820 came a crisis. Canon Guiseppe Settele (1770-1841), Professor of Astronomy at Rome La Sapienza, had written an elementary book [Elements of Optics and Astronomy] in which the Copernican system was taken for granted. The Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825), a Dominican friar, as censor of the press in Rome, refused to allow the book to be printed unless Canon Settele revised his work and treated the Copernican theory as merely a hypothesis’ --- Andrew White: A History…., p. 156.
Fr Guiseppe Settele was a priest who was made to take a loyalty oath to the French government so he could become Professor of applied mathematics at the Università Imperiale in Rome, now known as La Sapienza. When Pope Pius VII returned to Rome in 1814, Settele had to retract this oath in order to remain as professor. In 1819, as White records, Settele’s book was published. But in January of 1820 the printer notified Settele that the press censor Fr Filippo Anfossi, with the assistance of a few colleagues, notably the Vatican majordomo Antonio Frosini, later made Cardinal - had revoked the imprimatur because it contained the assertion ‘since the earth moves around the sun.’ Anfossi, then Master of the Sacred Palace and chief book-censor for Rome, was noted for his own books against Jansenism and Gallicanism. But more than that, for during Pope Pius VII’s forced exile in Paris he stood by the priests who refused to take the oath of loyalty to the French Government.
‘As we can see from the writings he [Fr Filippo Anfossi] published, in order to “discharge his conscience” he tended to interpret any past decree in the most strict sense. He was probably suspicious of the many novelties [Modernism] introduced into Italy by the revolutionary armies and was fully intent on the restoration of the “pure doctrine.” For Anfossi it didn’t matter that the 1758 edition of the Index didn’t include the 1616 decree. The substance of what had been once there was always there valid. Anfossi insisted that the Copernican system had been difinitum, damnatum and declared formaliter haereticuм, thus pretending that all decrees issued by the Holy Office had the same significance as if the Pope himself had spoken ex cathedra. In this he was helped in the statement we see in the sentence against Galileo: “since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” ---Juan Casanovas commenting on Paolo Maffeo’s Giuseppe Settele, il suo diario e la questione Galileana, Foligno, 1987.
-
Settele immediately appealed Anfossi’s refusal to Pope Pius VII. Assisting him was Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri (1769-1845), a Dominican friar, Holy Office consultant and professor of Old Testament studies at La Sapienza University. To these on the pro-Settele side we can add the Dominican, Fabrizio Turiozzi, chief legal adviser, and Antonio Grandi, a Barnabite friar and consultant.
In March of 1820 the Pope responded by asking the Holy Office to look into the affair. As with any such investigation, the authorities would study the docuмents relating to the case so that they could examine the various decrees and acts that pertained to it. But, as we know, at this time the official records were in Paris, unavailable to Pope Pius VII and his Congregations. There was however a copy of the file pertaining to the changes made in the 1758 Index, the one that had dropped the all-embracing ban without making clear the canonical ‘excuses’ for doing so, the one Finocchiaro refers to as ‘the silent retraction of the anti-Copernican ban of 1616.’ We can see therefore, before progressing with this history, the 1758 Index record, whereas it had plenty of scientific propaganda to support a U-turn, had nothing in it that resembled just canonical cause for removing the ban of 1616. It comes as no surprise either to read that at this time the European newspapers and journals - instruments of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ by then - were doing their bit, successfully we might add, to pressurise Rome into accepting Copernicanism.
In May 1820, after deliberating the case and advising the Pope to uphold the granting of an imprimatur for Canon Settele’s book - which the Pope, they say, was willing to do by the way - the Holy Office’s chief legal adviser Turiozzi told Anfossi of their decision and that he would have to carry out their wishes and grant the Imprimatur. Master Anfossi responded by saying that whereas he respected the opinion of the Pope and Congregations he could not in conscience comply and grant a licence to a work that he considered already condemned. Anfossi then produced a work he had himself written and published in which the reasons for his refusal were recorded in what he called his Appendix. It seems Anfossi won this round because on June 3rd 1820, Church officials, including the chief prosecutor Fr Libert, a professed public Copernican, went back to Settele and asked him to again modify some wording of his book to satisfy Anfossi. Settele made a few changes to comply but Anfossi wanted more, far more.
In June of 1820 Olivieri was promoted from consultant to Commissary General of the Inquisition. In the meantime he in turn wrote up a substantial response to the objections compiled by Anfossi in May of that year and giving his reasons why Anfossi should grant Settele’s book an imprimatur. Such was the disapproval of Anfossi’s Appendex by then - a synthesis that defended the traditional view of this affair - he decided to withdraw it from circulation.
On August 1st 1820, assisted with docuмentation from Olivieri and Turiozzi and having complied with the request of the Holy Office to add an ‘insert’ to his book stating that the Copernicanism of 1616 was not the Copernicanism of modern astronomers, Settele handed in his second appeal to Pope Pius VII asking for a final verdict from the Holy Office. In it Settele included Anfossi’s Appendix and an opposing article of it from a journal called Italian Library. The Pope agreed to Settele’s new appeal and the process started over again.
The appeal was then handed over to a consultant by the name of Antonio Grandi who in turn said it was permitted to defend Copernicanism ‘in a way in which it was customarily defended by Catholic astronomers of the day.’ That was enough for them all; the Inquisition approved the move and the Pope ratified it too. However, Anfossi again refused Settele’s book an imprimatur, even with its ‘insert,’ and sent the Pope his ‘Motives;’ the reasons why he again refused the license. Meanwhile the Congregation’s legal adviser Turiozzi gave Anfossi the following order:
‘Their Eminences have decreed that, for the time being, now and in future, a license is not to be refused to the Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace for the printing and publication of works dealing with the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme Holy Office of 1820.’ ---Antonio Favaro, Galileo e l’Inquisizione, pp. 30-31.
Fr Filippo Anfossi let it be known that he would do as ordered and grant an imprimatur only if the Holy Office got two more assessments from different consultants. He was of course hoping that someone would show some faith in the Church’s 1616 decrees and support him. This was done but alas, they too, because of their belief in those ‘proofs, were of the opinion Settele’s book was no longer contrary to Catholic faith as they saw it. Anfossi however, rejected their opinions, renewed his disagreement with the thesis and withdrew his undertaking of a book imprimatur. He then appealed the Congregation’s ruling to the Pope himself. But Pope Pius VII was obviously swayed more by Olivieri and Settele and in reply offered Anfossi and the Inquisition another way out of the dilemma: Anfossi need not sign the imprimatur, but had to allow the ‘vicar apostolic’ (deputy Bishop of Rome) to sign it instead. Anfossi, shocked at such tactics, lost heart, stood aside and Settele’s book received its compromise imprimatur. Modernism had its first victory and the traditional champion of ‘pure doctrine’ Fr Anfossi made witness this fall.
There was however, one last attempt to stop the tide of heresy infiltrating the womb of the Catholic Church. In April 1822, Master Anfossi was handed yet another essay depicting heliocentricism as a truth due to be published in a Roman journal. He immediately refused it an imprimatur and once again set out his reasons in a booklet. But this time he published it anonymously. Yes, while the Copernican Settele had become famous, and even received a medal from the Emperor of Austria for his writings, Fr Anfossi, the defender of Tradition, was made feel like a dissident, supposedly disobeying pope and Roman authority and thus his need for anonymity.
Olivieri responded by producing another of his pro-Copernican replies to meet the objections of Anfossi. He ‘won’ hands down of course and on Sept. 25 1822, Pope Pius VII upheld the decision of the Holy Office to give a Catholic imprimatur to all works teaching the earth’s motion and a fixed sun as true and orthodox. But more than that, for when the journal was published Anfossi’s name was on the imprimatur. But let no man take it that this was anything but coercion. We certainly shall not, never. Finoccchiaro records the outcome of it all like so:
‘On December first, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, B. Garofalo and Bartolomeo Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the docuмentary trail is lost, but not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ --- Retrying Galileo, p.198.
-
‘Without explicit comment,’ now there is an interesting remark. It seems Pope Gregory XVI either could not explain how the 1616 ‘irreversible’ papal decree could be ignored, or did not want to say on what grounds he omitted the ban on the remaining books already condemned as heretical in their original form.
To vindicate our synthesis properly it is now necessary to look at the main points of altercation between the Copernicans in the 1820 Holy Office headed by the Commissary General of the Inquisition Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri and the few remaining ‘traditionalists’ led by the Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr Filippo Anfossi. As we know from history, this confrontation resulted in a bogus victory for Copernicanism over the anti-Copernican decrees.
Of such importance was the final battle between Fr Olivieri and Fr Anfossi and those who supported both sides that we decided it deserves a chapter of its own for now and indeed maybe a book in the future. Both arguments, Olivieri’s for publication of Settele’s book and Anfossi’s against granting it an imprimatur, were contained in Olivieri’s ‘summary’ essay of sixty-nine numbered chapters of at least 10,000 words, also recorded by Finocchiaro in his book Retrying Galileo.
-
Chapter Twenty-Eight
Olivieri’s Tricks
Anfossi’s Faith
‘In October and early November 1820 the inquisition’s commissary, Olivieri, wrote a summary of the events and issues of the Settele affair to be used by cardinal-inquisitors and other officials in reaching a final decision on the case.’ --- M.A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.198.
Of all the docuмents to survive the Copernican revolution in both State and Church, none are more important to us than the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari’s report of 1757 that preceded the first step in eliminating the Copernican heresy from view, and the Official Summary of 1820 by Fr Olivieri, Commissary General of the Inquisition, regurgitating all the same reasons, excuses and conjuring tricks that finished the job. These summaries records the reasons put forward by them and their fellow Church Copernicans to the Popes and Cardinals of the Supreme Sacred Congregation in their time that convinced them to clear the Church’s Index of all books promoting the defined and declared Copernicanism heresy; a U-turn unprecedented in history. What you are about to read shows again how Copernicanism had infiltrated the very institution set up to defend and protect Catholic truth itself.
Olivieri’s summary began with a description of the Settele affair, wherein, as we saw in our previous chapter, Fr Anfossi, as censor of the press in Rome, refused to grant an imprimatur to Settele’s book containing a heliocentric thesis named ‘Elements’ in spite of the Inquisition’s order to Anfossi to grant it an imprimatur. Olivieri continues:
‘From these four points there follows four presumably criminal charges against the Most Rev. Master Anfossi. These suggest the question whether it is appropriate to take disciplinary action against him, and if so, what it should be. Before discussing something that may aggravate his situation, one should take into account something that may justify him in his own eyes.’
Starting with the threat of criminal charges, Olivieri then accused Anfossi of thinking himself ‘independent of the Supreme Sacred Congregation.’ He went on to give the history of the Holy Office since 1542 to the edict of St Pope Pius V when he ordered ‘all tribunals to submit to the Supreme Congregation,’ and that included Anfossi’s position as Censor of the press in Rome. Based on this point Olivieri quoted Anfossi pledging himself to ‘ensure the execution’ of the 1616-20 Supreme Congregation’s anti-Copernican decrees. Why then, Olivieri asked, didn’t Anfossi ‘ensure the execution of the 1820 decrees, a complex case that the Congregation had just resolved?’ Hadn’t the same Congregation a right to ‘clarify its intentions and the import of its decrees’ he asked.
‘However, the Most Rev. Father perceives that the present judgements are infected with all the criminal errors he has expressed in his letters, “Appendix,” essay and booklet. Thus, he felt obliged to withdraw the imprimatur; to publish a booklet, despite the prohibition to do so, and to do it in the manner he did; and finally to present it to His Holiness and to wait for his decision. It is proper then, to listen to him and propose a second question; should the Congregation withdraw its decree as a result of what the Most Rev. Father writes to his holiness.’
Olivieri then mentioned that Anfossi had not attended two meetings where the consultants debated the matter until they ‘shared an admirable consensus and seemed animated by the most sincere religiousness.’
Olivieri: ‘He could not have remained in his contrary fixation that makes it hard for his pride to say; I went too far, I was wrong in many ways. No less uniform were the feelings of the Most Eminent Lord Cardinals [of the 1820 Holy Office]; thus the decision had all the signs of having been dictated by the Holy Spirit.’
The ‘feelings’ of the cardinals, surely this is another modernist first, opinions based on ‘feelings’ attributed to the ‘Holy Spirit,’ Given we now know their science based U-turn was spurious, proving nothing, falsifying nothing, to say the adoption of the condemned Copernican heresy was based on feelings ‘dictated by the Holy Spirit’ is presumption at its worst. The Church is not run by ‘feelings’ but by unchanging dogmas, doctrines and Canon law. Master Anfossi had placed his faith in the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V. He believed it was an unchangeable dogma that no man, not even a pope, could dismiss.
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”
Neither was there anything complex about the above anti-Copernican decrees needing to be ‘clarified’ as the 1633 Congregation had already done that. Thus Anfossi refused to compromise his faith in the anti-Copernican decrees no matter who ordered him to do so, or threat of criminal charges.
Olivieri writes: ‘He [Anfossi] claims that “he does not adjust his judgment with the help of the theories of philosophers and astronomers, which are subject to countless exceptions and errors, but with the doctrine of the Church, founded on the Scriptures, tradition, the Church Fathers, and the definitions of the Holy Apostolic See… The system as defended today is still the same.” ’Excellent idea! But still it is necessary to know what the theories of philosophers and astronomers are before saying that they have been condemned. Settele’s first appeal, which Anfossi wants to refute, is aimed to prove that what was condemned by the 1616 decree is not the doctrine of modern astronomers. What does the Most Rev. Father advance to tear down these proofs? Nothing. He merely repeats “The system as defended today is still the same.” This point alone destroys all his “Motives” and his Reasons. With much common sense the Monsignor Assessor [Fabrizio Turiozzi] had warned him about it.’
Anfossi was of course correct. The 1820 heliocentric ‘system’ was exactly the same, it still retained a fixed sun (formal heresy) and moving earth not at the centre of the world (erroneous in faith); the two previously condemned principles. Olivieri however introduces his new non-heretical heliocentrism, one that has ‘proofs.’ So, let us now have a look at all the ‘proofs’ Olivieri offers as confirming a non-heretical solar system.
-
‘However, the fact is, as I hear from those who are well informed, that although there is no universal consensus among the experts in the field about the annual parallax of fixed stars, the aberration of fixed stars and of the planets has been verified for at least a century and is regarded by all astronomers as a true physical demonstration of the earth’s motion.’
Well now, we have just finished our chapter on stellar aberration and we saw it is not a proof for an orbiting earth. Oivieri then made reference to two booklets By Guglielmini and Calandrelli and their imprimaturs granted by the Master of the S.A.P. and dedicated to the ruling pope. Elsewhere we find a description of these two ‘proofs.’
‘‘The new scientific proofs mentioned by Fr Olivieri in presenting his case to the pope are found in the works of two little-known Italian astronomers, Giovanni Battista Guglielmini and Giuseppe Calandrelli. The first was professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna and the second director of the observatory in Rome at the Collegio Romano. Olivieri pointed out that, in experiments performed at Bologna between 1789 and 1792, Guglielmini offered the first physical proof of the earth’s rota¬tion. Similarly, Calandrelli had measured the parallax of star Alpha in constellation Lyra and so presented what Olivieri called “an empirical demonstration” of the earth’s annual motion [orbit]. This he had done in a work published in 1806 and dedicated to Pope Pius VII.’
For our purposes Guglielmini’s demonstration is the more interesting, since it involved the Torre dei Asinelli in Bologna, the same tower the Jesuit Giambattista Riccioli had used in 1640 to experi¬mentally verify Galileo’s law of falling bodies. Guglielmini took inspiration from a passage in Galileo’s Dialogue where, on the Second Day, he is discussing the fall of an object from the orb of the moon to the earth’s surface. Rather than falling to a point directly beneath the point from which it is released, the object should “run ahead of the whirling of the earth” and land at a point farther to the east. This should come about because, at the time of its release, the object would have a greater horizontal component of its motion the more distant it would be from the earth. The effect would not be noticed with objects dropped from a ship’s mast or from a low tower, but it might be noticeable with those dropped from a high tower as the Torre dei Asinelli. Sir Isaac Newton was aware of this possible test, and so was Pierre Simon de Laplace, who suggested it to Joseph Jerome Lalande, director of the Paris observatory, who unfortunately never performed it. Thus it was left for Guglielmini to do so. He made a number of tests from the Torre at a height of 78.3 meters and measured, on an average, a deviation of 19 mm. to the east. Concerned about atmos¬pheric disturbances at the Torre, he also measured drops from a height of 29 meters in a spiral staircase inside the astronomical observatory at Bologna and found a deviation there of 4 mm. to the east. Guglielmini was in communication with a German astronomer, Johann Friedrich Benzenburg, who dropped objects from the campanile of a church in Hamburg in 1802, at a height of 76.3 meters, and again from within a mine shaft at Schelbusch in 1804, at a depth of 85.1 meters, and obtained comparable results. Rough confirmation was also obtained by Ferdinand Reich, who performed tests in a mineshaft at Freiberg in Saxony, at a depth of 158.5 meters in 1831. It turned out that longer falls were not necessarily more accurate indicators, because perturbing factors, both in the open air and within mind shafts, introduced effects much greater than that being measured. Edwin Herbert Hall finally made definitive tests in the U.S. in 1902, working at Harvard under very controlled conditions, at latitude close to that of Bologna. With a drop of 23 meters, Hall measured a deviation of 1.50 +1-0.05 mm. to the east, against a predicted value of 1.8.
When one considers problems encountered in demonstrations such as Guglielmini’s, and the length of time it took to solve them, one can appreciate the enormous difficulty faced by Galileo with his argu¬ment from the tides. Actually his insights were cor¬rect: there are mathematical effects in the tides’ motions that might be produced by the earth’s motion, but these are so minute as to be undetectable by physical measurements. It also turns out that there was nothing wrong with his logic - the demon¬strative regress was the proper technique to use in seeking a proof of this type. Galileo simply underes¬timated the difficulty of his undertaking. For this he surely deserves the greatest sympathy. And perhaps the theologians of 1633 deserve some sympathy also, unless we are to condemn them, as Reston wishes to do, for not being prescient enough to see hundreds of years into science’s future. Both have been sufficiently ‘rehabilitated’ through the work of the special Galileo Commission [1980-1992]. Now it only remains to be seen how well the lessons learned will play out in the centuries that lie ahead.’ --- Fr W. Wallace O.P., Catholic Dossier, p.12. Fr Wallace is a professor emeritus of philosophy and history at the Catholic University of America, Washington. He has published eight books on Galileo's science, including Galileo and His Sources (1984) and Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof (1992). He served as an origi¬nal member of the papal commission examining the famous trial from 1981 to 1992.
The consequent of a spinning earth, it was thought, would result in objects projecting forward due to the presumed turning of the earth. So when Guglielmini found things tend to fall eastwards off a high tower he naturally thought it confirmed what he was looking for and had therefore demonstrated the earth spins. Putting Guglielmini’s ‘proof’ to a man who knows practical physics, consultant engineer Richard Elmendorf, whose work on the Foucault pendulum we will examine in detail later, he replied to us by private letter in which he first questioned why Gugliemini’s and Calandrelli ‘proofs’ were never publicly presented as the first demonstrations of the earth’s movements, achievements that would have assured both a name in history such as those attained later by Gaspard de Coriolis and Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel for the very same discoveries.
‘I am quite sceptical as to whether various extraneous factors, such as breezes, etc., would make Gugliemini’s test a very reliable and repeatable instrument for ‘showing’ rotation of the earth or rather the inertial field. We can look at the ball and tower experiment from the viewpoint of angular inertia, meaning the same idea as linear inertia but trans¬lated to rotating objects. It’s the flywheel effect... It’s just a basic ‘lever’ phenomenon, and it is real...The ball dropped from a tower when the system is rotating (no matter the cause) at one revolution a day is straightforward. Just figure that it moves closer to the axis of the earth, and therefore will want to ‘speed up’ relative to the earth in order to maintain the constant angular inertia. Accordingly, the ball will theoretically land to the ‘east’ of the tower.’
In other words, if Guglielmini did get a true result, all he achieved was showing there is an angular inertial field around the surface of the earth. What causes this is another matter, and if one is adhering to a true scientific method, a rotating earth is but one possibility. Thus the detection of this inertia is not proof for a rotating earth no matter how many believe it to be so, and certainly not proof that the anti-Copernican decrees were erroneous necessitating some sort of reconsideration.
The Coriolis Effect
-
In 1835 a French mathematician by the name of Gaspard de Coriolis found and measured this inertial field around the earth, now called the ‘Coriolis Effect,’ that is, on the earth’s surface, bodies moving in the northern hemisphere tend to veer to the right (east), while bodies moving in the southern hemisphere tend to veer to their left (east). The extent of this deflection depends the distance from the Equator where the effect is almost zero. Knowledge of the Coriolis Effect has now become crucial in the sciences of meteorology, ballistics, satellite dynamics, geology and oceanography.
Now it is not our intention to dwell too much on the physics of angular and linear inertia but only enough to grasp the premise involved. As to what causes it there are three possibilities, (1) a rotating earth could cause it, (2) a rotating universe could also be the cause, and (3) something else might cause it. Now lest any reject a geocentric situation on ideological grounds, it must be said, for what it is worth, theoretical physicists like Einstein and Mach - to secure their own ideas – in their relativity theories fully accepted that the earth’s inertial field could be caused by a rotating universe around a stationary earth.
‘But in the end of 19th century, the famous physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1839-1916) came with the principle which states the equivalence of non-inertial frames. Using the famous “Newton’s bucket” argument, Mach argues that all so-called pseudo-forces (forces which result from accelerated motion of the reference frame) are in fact real forces originating from the accelerated motion of distant masses in the Universe, as observed by the observer in the non-inertial frame. Some go even further, stating that Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions 3 “every single physical property and behavioral aspect of isolated systems is determined by the whole Universe.” According to Mach’s principle, the Earth could be considered as the “pivot point” of the Universe: the fact that the Universe is orbiting around the Earth will create the exact same forces that we usually ascribe to the motion of the Earth…. The only question remains: are these forces by themselves enough to explain all translational motions that we observe from earth and can they reproduce the Tycho Brahe’s model? The discussion in this paper will show that the answer to this question is positive.’ --- Luka Popov: paper ‘Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions’ submitted to University of Zagreb, 2013.
So, Guglielmini, like Coriolis may have confirmed the presence of an inertial field around the earth but he did not establish proof that an earthly rotation causes it. Calandrelli may have detected stellar parallax but – as we will show in our next chapter - this is no proof for an orbiting earth either, given there is a geocentric explanation for it also. Anfossi then was absolutely correct claiming as he did in his defence of the 1616 decree ‘that “he does not adjust his judgment with the help of the theories of philosophers and astronomers, which are subject to countless exceptions and errors.’ Olivieri has yet another update:
Anfossi: ‘One must not allow Settele to teach as a thesis… the stability of the sun at the centre of the world.’
Olivieri: ‘Along with modern astronomers, Settele does not teach that the sun is at the centre of the world: for it is not the centre of the fixed stars; it is not the centre of heavenly bodies, which fall towards the centre of our world, namely the earth; nor is it the centre of the planetary system because it does not lie in the middle, or centre, but to one side at one of the foci of the elliptical orbits that all planets trace. Still less does he teach that the sun is motionless; on the contrary, it has a rotational motion around itself and also a transitional motion which it performs while carrying along the outfit of all its planets.’
As regards the term ‘centre,’ Settele and Olivieri had the Inquisition believe the ‘centre’ cited by the 1616 decree was a mathematical centre condemned and not the centre as a place in which man lives and can observe the universe as it turns around us, the centre understood by the Fathers and theologians. As for Olivieri’s claim that a Copernican sun is not at the centre:
Look at any diagram of the heliocentric system from 1543 and then try to tell us that the sun is not placed at the ‘centre’ of the universe where the earth used to be in the geocentric model, no matter that the orbits of its planets are not circles.
-
As regards the rotating and transitional motion (Newtonian ‘nutating’ motions) Settele gives the sun, well this does not get him off the heretical hook either. First of all Cassini showed there is no nutation in the sun or planets in their proper oval orbits. Moreover, if we read the condemnations again carefully we find the theologians - while rejecting a ‘whole’ (orbiting) movement and a ‘diurnal’ (daily/spinning) motion for the earth - only condemned the denial of a ‘local’ motion for the sun. Now the word ‘local’ means ‘pertaining to position in space’ so the heresy is to say it moves from one place to another and nothing else. We must also remember that Galileo confirmed the rotation of the sun in 1613, three years before the decree condemned it heresy to say the sun moved, so this solar rotational motion was never a point of contention for the Holy Office or the 1616 decree.
Next Olivieri moves on to the authority of the 1616 decree defended by Anfossi. He taunts Anfossi for saying he adheres to the doctrine of the Church founded on Scripture, that held by the Church Fathers and of course the original unchangeable definitions and declarations of the Holy Apostolic See. Having suggested Anfossi knows nothing of the science involved, he now accuses him of knowing little with regard to the Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics of the case. Olivieri asks what research Anfossi has done; which scriptural passages and their interpretations is he referring to, which Church Fathers is he talking about and what definition of the Holy See? Was Olivieri chancing his arm or was he not aware of the many passages that the Fathers unanimously read as geocentric revelations.
Olivieri: ‘[Anfossi insists] that the doctrine of the Earth’s motion around the sun has been condemned “as formally heretical or at least erroneous to the faith” with a censure and a condemnation that “could not be more authentic or more solemn… not only did [Pope Paul V] approve the censure of the evaluating, but also in a sense he sanctioned it by means of the prescribed penalty of prison.” ’
Olivieri answers this with the much used argument that the 1616 decree was not a proper papal decree, that it was the mere opinion of theologians that never became a dogmatic definition; He states ‘Not at all, for it happens frequently that such recommended censures are not approved or are only adopted in part by the Pope and Cardinals of the Holy Office, that ‘the censure adopted by the Sacred Congregation is merely that of ‘false and contrary to Sacred Scripture.’
Olivieri:‘The censure adopted by the sacred Congregation [was] merely that of ‘false and contrary to Sacred Scripture.’ As it is clear from the decrees and from the sentence against Galileo; in it he is attributed the crime of having defended, or at least having represented as probable an opinion “after it had been defined contrary to Sacred Scripture.” All the rest is folly.’
Who was Olivieri trying to kid? Believe it or not the same Congregation – but different personnel - who in 1633 charged Galileo with formal heresy based on ‘an opinion after it had been defined contrary to Sacred Scripture.’ This clarification was on orders of Pope Urban VIII in 1633, a pope who as Cardinal Maffeo Barberini was a friend of Galileo’s since 1610 and was intimately involved in the conflict of 1616. It was he who personally clarified the status of the heresy when ordering the following sentence of the Congregation in 1633, as we recorded earlier:
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures - to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.’
GALILEO’S ABJURATION: ‘therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the centre, and moves.’
A fixed sun, here above declared ‘false and contrary to Sacred Scripture’ was defined as formal heresy, and that is not mere ‘folly’ but a fact. Next Olivieri moved on to a ploy long invented, first by René Descartes, then by Fr Honoré Fabri, repeated by Adrien Auzout; the ‘hypothesis ploy.
Anfossi: ‘Does he [Canon Settele] want to be authorised to teach principles that are repugnant to Sacred Scripture and its true and Catholic interpretation, which is not to be tolerated at all in a Christian man and especially in a cannon, and to teach them not as a hypothesis (for which there would be no difficulty) but as a thesis?’
Olivieri: ‘Now this proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity… The Most Rev. Grandi [Holy Office consultant] has said it very well: “If this system had been judged erroneous or heretical, the Church would never have allowed it to be maintained even as a hypothesis; the reason is that otherwise those who studied it would be placed at risk of sinning against the faith, in case they judged the system to be manifestly demonstrated.” ’
Here Olivieri brings in another Holy office consultant to support his ignorance or his trickery. The only ‘hypothesis’ permitted by the Church, as we have also pointed out earlier, was in accordance with that outlined by Osiander in the preface of Copernicus’s book On the revolutions. Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to Foscarini in 1615 confirmed this. That is why the Church never banned this book when it was published in 1543, nor condemned Copernicus. The Church permitted heliocentricism to be used as a tool for calculation and nothing more so as not to impede scientific investigation. The Church never allowed it to be used as a theory waiting to be proven or falsified, never. Only after the 1616 definition did the Holy Office decide to remove any ambiguity in On the revolutions that seemed contrary to the type of hypothesis pledged in its preface. The Church’s understanding of Copernicus’s hypothesis was further clarified in Galileo’s trial judgement above when the Holy Office, on orders from Pope Urban VIII stated: ‘that an opinion [Copernicanism] cannot be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture’ thus confirming the Church did not allow sun-fixing and earth moving to be presented as a hypothesis understood in the way Grandi and Olivieri, would have all believe. Moreover, throughout his ‘summary’ Olivieri continually accuses Anfossi of not reading the 1741-1758 U-turn records properly, or of ignoring them. Well as we showed in the last chapter, the Holy Office of 1742 had already commissioned a research into the hypothesis question. Consultant Giovasco’s findings were explicit, in 1620 a decree was issued declaring ‘that the system should be understood as condemned only when it was expounded as an absolute thesis, but not when it was expounded as a hypothesis to better know the revolutions of the heavenly spheres.’ Accordingly, Olivieri should have been shown the door immediately for presenting a ploy clarified in 1742 by the Holy Office. But the opposite happened. Indeed, this hypothesis ploy worked so well it went on to be used by Churchmen throughout the centuries, including the 1981-1992 papal commission and then endorsed by Pope John Paul II himself. By then the Copernican apologists had even roped in Cardinal Bellarmine to support this gambit, suggesting that in the following part of his 1615 Letter to Foscarini he too held the condemnation as provisional when he wrote the following words:
‘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,’
Bellarmine however, was referring to Galileo’s so-called proofs on offer at the time (1615), writing in the present tense, for he continued: ‘But as for me, I do not believe there is any such demonstration….’ The apologists however, twist his words to make it look as though he meant it in the future tense, often misquoting him to say: ‘If there were ever a true demonstration …’ Moreover, the apologists never include that Bellarmine went on in the letter to say he doubted such a proof existed or could exist because it would falsify the wisdom of Solomon given to him by God as told in Holy Scripture. Neither do they address the fact that Bellarmine’s letter was written in 1615, one year before the papal decrees of 1616. Thus their version of his letter, even if it were correct - that he considered it a scriptural hypothesis awaiting science to confirm if it was true or not - became redundant one year later when the Holy Office declared that such a hypothesis, the kind Settele and Olivieri were now trying to sell, was formal heresy.
Finally, using the hypothesis ploy to make his version of the 1616 decree look provisional, not fixed, Olivieri continued with his trickery.
Olivieri: ‘From the fact that the hypothesis was allowed, I have demonstrated (I hope incontrovertibly): that the system had not been condemned as regards astronomical motions of terrestrial rotation and translation, that is, in its foundation and per se; but that it had been condemned as regards the terrestrial difficulties besetting the doctrine of its defenders. Thus now that the system is taught without such difficulties, it is no longer subject to the condemnation.’
Under the illusion that he had ‘incontrovertibly demonstrated’ the hypothesis rule did not condemn a fixed sun and moving earth heliocentrism per se, Olivieri proposes that what was condemned was a system plagued with the philosophical defects predicted by Aristotle and others if the earth orbited the sun. He went on to say the theologians were obsessed with the idea that if the earth sped through space ‘all atmospheric phenomena would be completely disturbed and intermingled.’
Anfossi: ‘The Holy See took no account of this. They considered it as theologians and declared it “formally heretical or at least erroneous in the faith” because it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures; and the Holy See condemned it. If in the judgment of the Holy See it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures in 1616, so it is still in 1820.’
Olivieri: ‘Let us try, if possible, to free the most Reverend Father from such a misconception… Tell me [Anfossi]: is it not true that doctrine declared “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith” was also “absurd and philosophically false?”… So tell me how you think they arrived at such a “contrariety to the Sacred Scriptures?” On what foundation did they establish it? What exactly were they basing it on? Why did the decree say “philosophically false and absurd” before “altogether contrary to Divine Scripture?” ’
Again another load of rabid pragmatism, first mooted by Adrien Auzout, the French astronomer in 1665 and then by the Jesuit Fr Pietro Lazzari in 1757. It was they who first proposed the Church’s theologians based their theological judgements on their reasons for calling the heliocentric system philosophically false and absurd. This is an insult to the memory of the popes and theologians of the time, including St Robert Bellarmine and the history of 1616 to 1640. Both, we agree with Fr Anfossi, were separate judgements and not based one on the other. Was the 1616 decree itself not explicit enough for Auzout, Lazzari, Olivieri and all the other Copernicans when it gave the reasons why they defined and declared Copernicanism as formal heresy; ‘inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.’
To be continued next Wednesday
-
‘Olivieri: Settele’s corresponding proposition “as the earth moves around the sun” and others like it can no longer be called “philosophically false and absurd” by anyone because it is most certain that philosophically and by natural reason they contain no “falsehoods or absurdities”… Therefore, the doctrine of modern astronomers is not the one judged “heretical or at least erroneous in the faith”… Please reflect that if philosophical absurdity is attributed to the words of Divine Scripture, it becomes an interpretation that ecclesiastical authority can very well define as “contrary to Sacred Scripture” and this is precisely our case. Such was the case of the devastating motion from which Copernicus and Galileo had been unable to free the motions of axial rotation and orbital revolution which they ascribed to the earth; such devastating motion was certainly contrary to Sacred Scripture.’
Is that a fact now? Had Olivieri read Copernicus’s book he would have found Copernicus said his model had no such devastating motion as he claimed.
‘But if someone opines that the earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered.’ --- On the Revolutions, Book 1, par 8.
There is no official record of the philosophical falsehoods and absurdities the 1616 decree had in mind. Now whatever they were, the idea that Olivieri’s heliocentrism contained no philosophical falsehoods and absurdities was as big a wish as Copernicus’s freedom from philosophical falsehoods and absurdities. In his summary Olivieri claimed Italian astronomer Guglielmini had proven the earth rotates. Guglielmini showed that effects – such as winds - around the earth are deflected eastwards due to the rotation of the earth. Now if Olivieri’s and Guglielmini’s rotation claimed this substantial eastward effect on the earth’s winds/gas, why is there no effect at all due to the same earth’s supposed 107,300 km/h or 67,062 mph as it supposedly orbits the sun? How did Olivieri miss this when convincing the cardinals and pope of the 1820 Inquisition that his heliocentrism ‘can no longer be called philosophically false and absurd?’ In 1850, a few years after Olivieri’s attempt to eliminate the philosophical problems for heliocentrism, a Doctor Schoepffer put forward the following:’
‘Currents of the ocean and of the atmosphere were also thought to be consequences of this centrifugal tendency. Indeed, it is difficult to comprehend how it is possible that air (this light body, moved by the most diverse currents, seeking expansion, and so loose and volatile) should not be affected by the rotation of the earth. After the greatest philosophers have postulated an influence of the rotation of the earth upon the solid mass of the body of the earth, surely I do not consider it too presumptuous if I assume that the rotation of the earth must of necessity influence the air! It is not possible, as I conceive; that the lighter air of the higher regions, especially, can follow the globe of the earth when it is rotating with considerable rapidity.
How do our philosophers explain the fact of our not noticing anything of the assumed rotation of the earth, or why, with this rotation, all things are not toppling over one another? … It is not myself however, who am the first to conceive the necessity of this current of the air westward. All philosophers of the present time have admitted the necessity, but have been unable to find any proofs of its existence.
We cannot perceive the rotation of the earth in any way. We cannot demonstrate it! There are no air-currents that we can justly regard as or even suppose to be consequences of this rotation. These facts ought to be proof enough against the existence of a rotation of the earth. Must it not appear almost absurd in us, preoccupied by what they have taught us in school, to accept a theory of the rotation of the earth which neither is, nor can be, proven? Must we not wonder at the readiness of the learned of nearly the entire world, from the time of Copernicus and Kepler, to accept the conception of the rotation of the earth and then search afterwards, now for nearly three and a half centuries, for arguments to maintain it, but of course without being able to?
I have proven this contrary mainly by means of the absence of a constant air-current from east to west. For the same reason, if the earth were to circle about the sun, the air-belt would stay back towards the side opposite to the course, and the air would thus follow the earth like a long tail, as is seen with comets. Let the tail of the comet consist of whatever it may, we have to look upon it as an atmosphere of those puzzling bodies; and their atmosphere must stay back, tail-like, as they move on through the universe.’ The Earth Stands Fast, Ludwig Printers, New York, 1900.
Olivieri next gave a written lecture on how the Scriptures should be understood and interpreted now that, according to him, the philosophical errors of the 1616 condemnations no longer applied. Olivieri merely regurgitated what Galileo proposed, telling all how to interpret Scriptures heliocentrically now that proofs for a fixed sun and moving earth had been discovered by him.
Olivieri: ‘Settele says in his ‘Insert’ that “subsequent discoveries provide us with equally enlightening proofs of the truth of the controversial system,” to which the Most Rev Fr Anfoissi remarked: “as if the correct understanding of Scriptures depended on these discoveries.” But what difficulty is there if by subsequent [scientific] discoveries men correct what they thought was contrary to the Sacred Scriptures? Or if those who are more knowledgeable in the sciences are in a better position to correctly understand what the Scriptures say about them? One should always remember that like the other sacred writers, “Moses describes what is obvious to sense, out of condescension to the ignorance of the people.” ’
Let us put the above reasoning in a different context. ‘What difficulty’ if science showed a pope of the Catholic Church who defined and declared an interpretation of Scripture formal heresy, and who put a man as famous as Galileo on trial for that same heresy, was in fact condemning a truth all the time? I think we can all imagine the difficulties arising from that. Again, could anyone take this man seriously? Later, in its proper time, we will list a number of ‘difficulties’ obvious to a Fr Roberts that are attached to a pope and his Sacred Congregation supposedly making such an unbelievable error.
Olivieri continued with the usual Earthmover’s lecture on biblical statements warning all not to take everything literally, like ‘the arm of God’ that was not meant to be taken literally, as though anybody ever did. Resembling Galileo, Olivieri implicitly questions the ability of the churchmen of the seventeenth century to distinguish between what should be taken literally and what should not. For example, in the following passage of Scripture, could anyone take seriously that the sun, hastening along its course as ordered by God, could be interpreted as a fixed sun in a solar system?
‘The sun, an admirable instrument, the work of the Most High…breathing out fiery vapours, and shining with his beams, he blindeth the eyes. Great is the Lord that made him, and at his words he hath hastened his course’ (Ecc. 43:2-4).
Olivieri, like the suspected heretic Galileo before him, then tried to get St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine on his side, as all Copernicans do; two of the Fathers upon whose interpretation the anti-Copernican 1616 decree was based, both being among those Fathers who unanimously interpreted the Bible geocentrically. Here again, as an example, is one of the apologists’ favourite Augustine quotes:
‘It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon. . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are” (St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Ch. 19).
Now who could disagree with St Augustine above; that contradicting a fact ‘known with the greatest certainty’ in the defence of a biblical interpretation or other Catholic docuмent could only bring embarrassment to all. But first that ‘greatest certainty’ must exist. Given St Augustine was a biblical geocentrist, and well aware of the biblical condemnations of heliolatry, would the above quote be more suited to describe those who promote biblical heliocentrism as proven? Of course it would. Olivieri however, arguing that ‘the aberration of fixed stars and of the planets has been verified for at least a century and is regarded by all philosophers as a true physical demonstration of the earth’s annual motion.,’ wanted to use St Augustine to support his stand.
‘Thus it is not surprising that the Most Rev. Fr. who had not had the patience of mastering these astronomical matters should appear to be incredulous, and that so does the Monsignor Majordomo, in his memorandum claims to be “convinced of the uncertainty and the great deceptiveness of astronomical science.”
And when you, dear reader, see the further deceptiveness in the Copernican interpretation of stellar aberration realised by Walter van der Kamp that we will see in a later chapter, you will see how the faith of Olivieri and Majordomo was vindicated.
Anfossi: ‘Will Canon Settele not show toward the assertions of Scripture the respect which [even] a heretic [the Protestant Tycho de Brahe] had for them.’
Olivieri: ‘Allow us to ask him in turn: in astronomy Protestants have abandoned Tycho, despite his extremely great merit, and they believe his system is a monstrous absurdity; instead they have turned to follow Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo (all great Catholic men) [Kepler a great Catholic man?], who are believed to hold the truth, the physical evidence, and the increasingly stronger observational confirmations; why then do you want to oblige a Catholic to follow a heretic who has been abandoned by his fellow heretics.’
-
The Status of the 1616 Decree
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all. Throughout his summary he never ceases to taunt Anfossi and his arguments in every way he can. Here is a sample of the language he used: ‘This proposition seems to me to be infected with intolerable absurdity.’ ‘This is the great misconception which the Most Rev. Father has in his head.’ ‘The fact is that you say nothing with any perspicacity or with distinct clarity.’ ‘You make so much noise against such a maxim.’ ‘The Rev Father must be joking when…’ ‘I find his internal incoherence stupefying.’ ‘He also dares to say.’ ‘Why, Most Rev Father, instead of talking off the top of your head… ’ ‘Finally I am ashamed for him of what he says.’ ‘I believe I have demonstrated that nothing that has been produced by the Most Rev. Father has any validity; on the contrary, he has produced many things that are wrong.’ ‘He has been seduced by unknown persons who are incompetent.’
But now it is time to tie down some loose ends. Having challenged Anfossi on every point concerning the authority and content of the 1616-1640 decrees, like any good Catholic, he then tries to save his Copernican Church and if this resulted in a theological absurdity, well what Copernican would notice.
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’
Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite in fact, he confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and could not be reversed. Finocchiaro, another Copernican, comments:
‘This reply is interesting. Insofar as it spoke of unrevisability rather than infallibility, it was dealing with a more manageable concept. Moreover, it seems to presuppose that there was a papal decree against the earth’s motion, and so Olivieri’s criterion for a papal decree seems less stringent than those prevailing today. He seems to regard a papal decree as one which the pope made while discharging his official functions, such as being president of the Congregation of the Holy Office; examples of such decrees would be Paul V’s decision that [a fixed sun was formally heretical] and that the earth’s motion was contrary to Scripture (endorsed at the Inquisition meeting of 25 February and 3 March 1616) and Pope Urban VIII’s decision that Galileo be condemned (reached at the Inquisition meeting of 16 June 1633). Although Olivieri’s criterion was probably historically correct, it is important to point out that the definition of a papal decree ex cathedra was undergoing some evolution…’
Yes, a modernist ‘evolution.’ In truth, the law of God does not ‘evolve,’ that is ‘change’ from one meaning to another. The Vatican Council of 1870 merely dogmatised what was already the law for papal decrees. What the Fathers of Vatican I did was clarify the conditions of a pope’s extraordinary infallibility but it also reiterated that the Church has an ordinary infallibility that extends for example to defined disclosures of revelation in the Scriptures.
So here in 1820 the Holy Office once again agrees the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible, just as it did in 1633. Now it seems to us that a papal decree that is irreversible must by inference be infallible in the least meaning of the word. In justice it must be so, for the Church could not claim divine assistance if an ‘immutable’ papal decree defining and declaring a truth revealed in Scripture and its contrary formal heresy, and charge Galileo with that same heresy, could later be considered erroneous and false, let alone proven to be so. Finally Oliviari got something correct, but in order to save his Church as a believing Copernican, he had to invent a way of having his Catholicism and eating it. Like his predecessor lazzari before him, Olivieri managed to convince the Inquisition and Pope that the Church’s 1616 decree and all that it entailed, was justified and necessary, but that Newton’s and Bradley’s heliocentrism was different in that it had been proven and cleansed of its absurdities since, and could now be held by all Catholics as both scientifically true and therefore the proper interpretation of Scripture.
‘Olivieri: In his [Anfossi’s] motives he raises objections based on the decorum of the Holy See, the Congregations, and the popes of the time. Let us repeat that this is also safe. I think of it this way. Imagine those popes coming back to life: Paul V, under whom the proceedings from 1615 to 1620 occurred; and Urban VIII, who ruled in 1633 when Galileo was condemned…. Imagine also coming back to life the cardinals and theologians who participated in these decisions. Would it not do an extremely great disservice to them to believe that they would want to persecute anyone for today’s Copernican system which is followed by all astronomers, as they did at that time when it was followed by few who appeared as innovators? That they would want to condemn the doctrine of the earth’s motion now that it has been rectified and freed from the absurdities envisaged then; now that it has been confirmed and indeed demonstrated as much as a celestial fact can be, based on new wonderful discoveries, as astronomers themselves assure us? Now that almost two centuries have elapsed; now that it roars through Christendom and has spread everywhere; now that the popes, by not giving any thought to stopping it, have in fact given it free rein? One shudders just to think of it. Thus, if one does not want to do them a disservice, one must do what they themselves would have done in our time.’
Wow, what a statement. Given we had philosophers like G.W. Leibniz (1646-1716), George Berkeley (1685-1753) and Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) who knew well no science had proven Olivieri’s Copernican system, throughout the years, would anybody think Cardinal Bellarmine would have thought any different to his stand in 1615?
In paragraph 58 Olivieri accuses Anfossi of ignoring the 1757 decree and its implementation in the 1758 Index. To Anfossi, the fact that there were still five books advocating the acceptance of Copernicanism still on the list of banned books was enough; belief in a fixed sun interpretation of Scripture was still a heresy even though the general ban on such book had been removed ‘for reasons known to them.’ Olivieri however, continues his farce; that the heresy was based on the ‘philosophically absurd’ censure also given to heliocentrism. His interpretation of the outcome of the 1741-1757 episodes is as follows:
Olivieri: ’There is a reason for leaving these books, for they belong to the age in which the earth’s motion had not been freed … of devastating mobility.’
This ploy, coming from the Commissary and Consultant of the Holy Office in 1820 is an absolute scandal. In Olivieri’s chapter 59 comes yet another rebuttal of Anfossi’s most Catholic position with what can only be classed as presumptive blackmail.
Olivieri: ‘Why did you not notice that by talking of “good reasons known to them” you make it sound as if the [1741] Sacred Congregation and the pope were guilty of dishonestly? For to begin with you claim that the [1616] condemnation was a solemn judgement; that it originated from the Pope himself and the Holy See; that it was an unrevisable judgement; that it declared a doctrine “heretical or at least erroneous in the Faith”; and that it targeted the doctrine of the earth’s motion as it is taught even today. Then you do not realise you are committed to the inexorable self-refuting argument that after 1634 popes have been deceptive because they have no longer spoken against this doctrine despite the fact that it was constantly acquiring more and more embellishments from supporters and was becoming universally held. Finally… you came along and tell us that “for reasons known to them” they have neglected to acknowledge the truth of faith. But Most Rev. Father, this smells a little of the doctrine that some truths are being obscured in the Church, especially on the part of the Holy Apostolic See, and this doctrine is indeed heretical and was condemned as such in the bull Auctorem Fidei, in the first proposition if I am not mistaken.’
And what is the first proposition condemned in Pope Pius VI’s bull, Auctorem fidei, of August 28, 1794?
‘1. The proposition, which asserts “that in these later times there has been spread a general obscuring of the more important truths pertaining to religion, which are the basis of faith and of the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.” --- Heretical.
Olivieri, we see, unlike most in the Catholic Church since, was fully aware of the situation that arose from the U-turn, the rejection of the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V and here uses Auctorem fidei to justify his position. We know today, without the slightest doubt, that the 1616 decree has never been falsified or abrogated. Accordingly, the heresy of Copernicanism was tolerated by popes since at least 1741. But to hold this fact, according to Olivieri, is itself heresy according to Pius VII’s. So, according to Olivieri, one is a heretic if you do, and one is also a heretic if you don’t. In our preface we wrote: ‘Under the guise of ‘science,’ this master conspirator [Satan] saw a wooden horse that could be used to damage the faith from within.’
Anfossi was defending the 1616 papal decree in its full Catholic authority, and in charity was not passing judgement on those popes who tolerated Copernicanism during their reigns. Did he not write they did so ‘for good reasons’ and ‘reasons known to them’ and ‘good reasons known to him (Benedict XIV),’ to which Olivieri accused him of ‘speaking jargon, wanting to say something without knowing what to say.’
The irony of it is that Pope Pius VI’s bull Auctorem fidei was written to condemn 85 propositions of the Synod of Pistoia, a local council held without the Pope’s presence in 1786 in Pistoia, Italy, a council full of novelties and ambiguous language. Pope St Pius X is the one given credit for his outing modernism at the time, but few are aware it was Pope Pius VI who first recognized modernism. Here is one paragraph of its introduction:
‘They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circuмstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.’ --- Taken from NovusOrdoWatch.org
Let us now place Copernicanism at the very top of modernist doctrines, the displacing of the never falsified 1616 -1640 decrees against the Copernican heresy, and then ask who Pope Pius VI’s bull was condemning, and there is your answer to Olivieri’s accusation.
‘On November 20, 1820, the Inquisition consultants met and approved the immediate publication of Settele’s book. On December 14, the Inquisition cardinals agreed that the vicar apostolic would give the imprimatur and the pope approved the decision.’ – Retrying Galileo p.197.
It is our opinion, having carefully studied the case for the U-turn on the 1616-1640 decrees and the Copernican ban resulting from them, that Lazzari’s 1741 and Olivieri’s 1820 arguments should go down in the history of the Church as the most scandalous of all time. The only explanation we can think of is that all these Churchmen were consensus Earthmovers actually looking for any excuse to abandon the decrees of their predecessors in the emerging world of their time. The fact is that God in his Providence allowed a pope to define and declare on the question of a fixed earth and moving sun as is revealed in the Bible and this guarantees its truth. Had Churchmen of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had faith and followed this simple Catholic logic, this farce of a rebuttal of the 1616 decree in 1741 and 1820 would never have occurred at all. What was totally absent from those accommodating the cause of Copernicanism was any semblance of faith. Why were there so few with the faith of Fr Anfossi? The only thing we can say on their behalf is that because they believed heliocentricism was proven true they did and said what they did to ‘save the Church.’
-
Chapter Twenty-Nine
1838:
Stellar Parallax
‘This [the 1820 U-turn] was not a moment too soon, for, as if the previous proofs had not been sufficient, each of the motions of the earth was now absolutely demonstrated anew, so as to be recognised by the ordinary observer. The parallax of fixed stars, shown by Bessel as well as other noted astronomers in 1838, clinched forever the doctrine of the revolution of the earth around the sun.’ --- A. White, A History…, pp.152-157.
From the era of the first astronomers it was known that if the stars are fixed bodies extended over vast distances throughout the universe, and if the earth truly orbits the sun, then parallax of near stars (see right) should be observable in the sky; i.e. if the earth does orbit the sun once a year then at different times the position of near stars - as seen from earth - would shift in relation to other stars more distant from them.
Discovering any proper or apparent movement of a near star relative to a far star eluded all the fathers of the astronomical science including those with access to the first telescopes like Galileo and Cassini. Sir Isaac Newton was also long dead before instruments were able to detect even the tiniest movements of a star relative to another star. As telescopes became more magnified however, and the tools of the trade were powerful and accurate enough to measure minute appearances, the first claims to have discovered stellar parallax were made. First to publish confirmation of this phenomenon as a fact - and thus secure a place in history - was Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (1784-1846), a German astronomer considered one of the greatest of his era in that, they say, he revolutionised the techniques of stellar observation.
-
The search for stellar parallax assumes astronomers can tell whether a star is a near star or a far star. Believe it or not, modern cosmologists decide such nearness and farness by using yet another assumption; that all near stars are brighter than far stars. The possibility that their brighter near-stars are actually far-stars that are intrinsically bigger and more brilliantly lit, and that their fainter far-stars are actually nearer stars that are intrinsically smaller or less illuminated seems not to have occurred to them. What, just for argument sake, if many visible stars reside at around the same distance from earth, bright ones and faint ones together, just like different wattage bulbs attached to the roof of a large dark theatre? There are many possibilities that could explain why some bright stars and faint stars are not near stars or far stars, but all are surprisingly ignored. We throw this fact in just to show how presumptuous this science is.
In 1838 then, assuming 61 Cygni is a near star; Bessel found it had shifted its position relative to dimmer stars, which he also assumed were more distant stars. As a consequence, Bessel claimed to have discovered a parallax. Later, other stars, 700+ of them actually, showing movement, were found throughout the heavens resulting in more claims of further discoveries of stellar parallax.
So, does parallax, if it can be said to be a true parallax, prove the earth orbits the sun? Already in this book we have seen how many assert without a doubt that it does. But does it? Well by now we hope you have learned something and that you are ahead of us in shouting a resounding ‘no, it does not’. Here again we have a case of confirming a consequent. Certainly if heliocentricism is true and the stars are spread throughout the universe and one could say with certainty that one was a near star and one was a far star, one would expect to find stellar parallax, and that is why, when star movement relative to another star was found, they said it was a parallax that proved the earth orbits the sun. What they conveniently failed to consider however, was that what is true for heliocentrism is also true for geocentrism. In regard to appearances, they are the same but reversed, as simple as that. Now if we go back and look at the Tychonic model, we find that to harmonise potential stellar parallax and geocentricity all one needed to do is to geometrically centre the stars on the sun rather than the earth in the following manner:
Amended Tychonic Model
If the sun and stars partake in the same annual rotation, then a number of nearer stars will show a parallax relative to further stars, i.e., because of their nearness they will appear to shift more relative to further stars.
Here we find that if the sun and stars are coordinated together, the stars will take the same annual movement as the sun. Thus we can produce a geocentric model that now satisfies the requirements for parallax that a relativist would impose on a legitimate geocentric frame of reference.
-
(http://s18.postimg.org/5k55cscux/tychonic_model.jpg)
If the sun and stars partake in the same annual rotation, then a number of nearer stars will show a parallax relative to further stars, i.e., because of their nearness they will appear to shift more relative to further stars.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS
Just a little note to tell all readers where we are at with the book THE EARTHMOVERS.
It began with a PROLOGUE, repeating the story of the Copernican revolution and the Galileo case as written up and found in over two hundred years of story-telling.
It then introduced a PREFACE wherein it exposed the scientific proofs for heliocentrism as a fraud.
This was followed by an INTRODUCTION wherein it introduced the consequences of the PREFACE, that is, introduced a book that will tell the story of the Copernican revolution in both Church and State but this time in the knowledge that science never falsified heliocentrism nor the Church's 1616 decree that defined a heliocentric interpretation of Scvripture formal heresy.
The book, still undergoing editing, is written in chronological order as it happened.
Finally, let us once again put up the back cover-page that tells it all.
There was a time on this earth when all mankind held our globe of life to be the unique, immovable, material and spiritual centre of the universe, with the sun, moon and stars deferring directly or indirectly to it in different ways every day, every month and every year. This is what they saw, experienced and dwelt on; what we still see and experience, what is sense-reality to all.
In the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, certain men embarked on a mission that would change how all people - of both Church and State - perceived the universe and man’s place in it. Their intent was to implement the Hermetic principle of ‘as above, so below,’ that is, a heliocentric heaven that would precipitate enlightenment on earth. Thus the temple built by the Holy Ghost in the name of the Spiritual Son of David, introduced in the opening lines of the New Testament, would be replaced by a rival temple being built in the name of David’s natural son Solomon.
What emerged was a revolution in belief, so subtle in its methods, so devious and widespread in its application, so universal in its success, so thorough in its continuity, that it can only be classed as the most brilliant intellectual, doctrinal, and metaphysical deception in the whole of history.
Described by C. S. Lewis as the ‘Discarded Image’ we can today, without scientific contradictions, re-introduce the Sacred Doctrine of Geocentrism, traditionally fixed in the first sentence of Scripture and on that unique footstool facilitating the Lord's resting on His Melchisedech Dais. Our intention is to reclaim that Supernatural Sacred and Sovereign Seat of Certainty wrenched from Him by the Earthmovers, both inside and outside the Catholic Church.
Much of the enclosed is intended to convey the deliberation and intelligence by which long established occult powers conform ideas and beliefs in both Church and State to that ancient all-pervasive mythical dogma of ma’at-equilibrium, exemplified herein by the Earthmovers in their action of enthroning Isaac Newton (I642-I727) and his celestial mechanics as their equilibrium crown jewel; being then in reaction forced to elevate 'uncertainty' itself into their primal naturalistic dogma now associated with the name of Werner Heisenberg.
This then is our story of the Earthmovers’ and their deception; who they were; why they needed to move the earth and fix the sun; and how they did it in both faith and science.
-
Chapter Thirty
1851:
Foucault’s
Pendulum
(http://s7.postimg.org/43octnjxn/foucault_pend.jpg)
Léon Foucault conducting his famous experiment in Rome
Léon Foucault (1819-1868), after having observed the working of a lathe, reasoned that a pendulum might operate in a similar manner to show rotation between the earth and the inertial field, and thus, in his view, demonstrate the rotation of the earth. He built a small apparatus in a basement in Paris to test this idea and pronounced his ‘successes’ at 2 am on Jan 8, 1851.
Following this he was invited to set up his wonder of wonders at the Paris Observatory which led to an invitation from none other than Napoleon III to build a very large exhibit in the Pantheon in Paris. Hanging from a dome 220 feet above, a huge bob swung across a 20-foot diameter ring containing wet sand leaving a grove as it passed through. As it swung in time, it continued to cut out new ridges until it formed a curve of cuts on the ground. Truly it looked as if it was accomplishing something very specific, and aided by the claims of Foucault that this was indeed a demonstration of the earth’s rotation, the ability of this display to convince even the most sceptical was instantaneous.
Like a demon on horseback, news of Foucault’s pendulum - and its success in supposedly showing the earth moves - spread far and wide. As the Devil would have it, the greater heights of cathedral roofs were deemed most suitable for hanging the wire and ball of the pendulum so operations were set up in churches in Reims, Amiens, St Jaques, Marseille, San Petrona, Sint Bavokerk in Haarlem, St. Peter and St. Paul's Church, Kraków, Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Saint Petersburg for example. Soon all sizes of pendulums began operations throughout Europe and beyond. So effective was the Foucault hoax that they placed them in many key locations to ensure most students in the world from then on would see for themselves the earth rotating. Wikipedia records the following places that exhibit working Foucault pendulums: Austria (1), Belarus (1), Belgium (4), Bulgaria (1), Czech Republic (3), Demark (3), Finland (4), France (3), Germany (16), Hungry (1), Iceland (1), Italy (7), Lithuania (1), Luxembourg (1), Moldova (1), Netherlands (2), Norway (3), Poland (6), Portugal (2), Romania (3), Russia (7), Serbia (1), Spain (9), Sweden (5), Switzerland (4), South Africa (5), United Kingdom (11), Tunisia (1), India (6), Iran (2), Israel (4), Japan (6), Pakistan (1), Thailand (1), Turkey (2), Canada (14), USA, (147), Central and South America (7), Australia (7), New Zealand (1) and Antarctica (1), over 300 in all. That is how important this propaganda exercise is held by modern man. Indeed in September 2013 Google put up as a first search page logo a picture of a Foucault pendulum.
In a recent book on Léon Foucault and his pendulum, the author Amir Aczel records that in 1902 the Academy of Sciences of France commemorated that first demonstration of the earth’s rotation by re-enacting the display once again at the Panthéon in Paris, presided over by Camille Flammarion and Alphonse Berget before a crowd of over 2000 people. Aczel then illustrates the part the Foucault pendulum has played in the heliocentric indoctrination in both Church and State over the past five centuries.
‘The most magnificent lesson in popular astronomy ever given to the public was surely the memorable experiment conducted at this very place almost half a century ago by Léon Foucault. It was a practical, evident and majestic demonstration of the movement of rotation of our globe and a grammatical affirmation of the title planet, or ‘wandering star’ to the world on which we live… The image of Galileo just passed before our eyes. The demonstration of the earth’s movement has changed philosophy as a whole…
It is the greatest moral and ethical revolution in the history of man. Foucault’s great triumph is a triumph of the human mind. It is a double victory of knowledge against ignorance.
Foucault’s definitive proof of the rotation of the earth helped vindicate Galileo, Copernicus and Giordano Bruno. After Foucault successfully demonstration of the earth’s rotation Church scholars themselves embraced the heliocentric Copernican view of the world and openly wrote about Foucault’s proof. In 1911, the Jesuit priest J.G. Hagen wrote a major study called “The Rotation of the Earth: The Earth’s Mechanical Proofs Ancient and New.” ’ ---- Amir D. Aczel: Pendulum: Léon Foucault and the Triumph of Science, Washington Press, 2003, p.234 and p.238.
Rotating stars or rotating earth?
-
We see then that Foucault’s pendulum is long portrayed as the instrument that supposedly demonstrates it is a rotating earth that causes the above appearance and not the rotation of the stars around the earth. Here are a couple more quotes to show how this assertion is held throughout both Church and State.
‘Ever since the time of Copernicus it had been taken for granted that the Earth is rotating on its axis. Nevertheless no one had actually demonstrated the fact. It seemed stationary, and no effect had been observed (other than the apparent spin of the sky) that could be attributed to the rotation. In 1851, however Jean Foucault suspended a large iron ball, about 2 feet in diameter and weighing 62 pounds, from a steel wire more than 200 feet long...The swinging pendulum would then remain in the same plane, but the earth, as it rotated, would change its orientation. If the pendulum had been at the North Pole, it would do a complete circle in 24 hours. At the latitude of Paris, the change would have taken 51 hours and 47 minutes. Thus the spectators were actually watching the Earth rotate under the pendulum.’ --- I. Asimov, Science and Discovery, Grafton Books, 1990, p.323.
‘Léon Foucault in Paris demonstrates the rotation of the Earth by means of a 200 foot pendulum.’ --- Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter, p.391.
Richard G Elmendorf’s Investigation
So much for the propaganda, now study the truth of it. This comes from the 20-year investigation of the Foucault pendulum by Richard G Elmendorf completed in 1994. Elmendorf is an engineer by profession and has now to be the world’s leading expert on the subject by far. We thank him for permission to use his work in our synthesis. Mr Elmendorf’s begins with the following:
‘The Foucault pendulum is one of the best-known experiments in the history of science. It created a sensation in its first public showing in Paris in 1851, and has fascinated scientists and laymen ever since. …
This article discusses the history, construction, operation, theory and meaning of the Foucault pendulum, presenting facts about it which are not generally known or understood by the millions of visitors who view these fascinating displays in science museums, schools, planetariums, observatories and other public buildings all around the world every year.
My findings about the Foucault pendulum may very well astonish you…The surprising truth is that all Foucault pendulums are fakes. Most of them are fakes because they are forced to do what they do, rather than doing what comes naturally, and all the rest of them are fakes insofar as they are used as proof of the earth’s [supposed] rotation. The only kind of Foucault pendulum which would not be a fake would be one that was free-swinging, operated properly, and either had no explanations, plaques or literature associated with it, or had such which plainly acknowledged that it cannot determine absolute rotation. I know of no such Foucault pendulum anywhere. The Foucault pendulum is a piece of scientific apparatus specifically designed and built to deceive and mislead. It is literally a “humbug” – a sham, a fake, a fraud, an artifice, a pretence, a hoax – and I believe it should be exposed as such. But the Foucault pendulum is more than a hoax. It is actually a religious propaganda tool. Foucault pendulum displays have something very serious and important to prove.' --- R.G. Elmendorf: A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, published by P.C.S., PO Box 267 Bairdford, PA 15006, USA, Introduction.
The first hint of occult association with the Foucault pendulum can be gleaned when we know that Napoleon III, then president of France, a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, an implacable foe of the Roman Catholic Church, a wannabe scientist, agreed with Foucault to install his grand exhibit of the Foucault pendulum in the Panthéon in Paris. The word ‘panthéon’ refers to a temple dedicated to ‘all the gods’. This building, constructed originally as the Church of St Genevieve and taken over by the smaller revolution of 1848, was just perfect to mock the geocentricism of common sense, Scripture and the Catholic Church’s declarations of 1616 and 1633.
Thereafter, President Napoleon III encouraged the use of other Churches as display sites for the contraption, exhibitions that must have generated howls of laughter in the pits of hell where the Copernican revolution was first dreamed up. For those of us still conscious of the great battle between the Christian faith and those that despise it, the war of Principalities and Powers, this was indeed a great victory for the occult forces of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.
‘A final irony of the intriguing connection between the Foucault pendulum and religion is that many of the early scientific reports on the pendulum presented to the London Philosophical Society in England were authored by “Reverend” so-and-so, reflecting the fact that science started out originally as “natural philosophy” taught in religious schools. The word “science” wasn’t even in common use until the middle of the nineteenth century – just when the Foucault pendulum appeared on the scene.’ ---Elmendorf, Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society, p.26.
In 1930, the occult masters in their ‘Communists of the Soviet Union’ guise, thought it worthwhile to construct and keep active the largest Foucault pendulum in the world at the time. They put it in St Isaac’s Cathedral in Leningrad (now St Petersburg). To facilitate it, a symbol of the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, was removed from the cathedral’s 250-foot dome. Mr Elmendorf adds: ‘In these surroundings, the Foucault pendulum does act as sort of a spiritual wrecking ball, and I wonder what kind of church would have allowed its facilities to be used for such a purpose.’
Where now the most significant instrument of occult brainwashing? Why in modern man’s new Tower of Babel of course, the United Nations Building in New York.
(http://s29.postimg.org/u0m2ds15j/un_new_york.jpg)
Spot the Foucault pendulum at the United Nations Building in New York
Slap in the entrance hall, where every diplomat (and pope these days) entering can see it, its gold-plated bob reminding the powers from all over the world that the earth they govern is a spinning one. When offering New York the pendulum in 1955, the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs commented that it served as a reminder of the “ability of the human mind to penetrate into the secrets of the universe.” (Footnote: From a descriptive sheet furnished by the United Nations.)
-
Elmendorf says:
‘That is occult talk (Footnote: Possibly Rosicrucian. It is certainly humanistic hubris). Umberto Eco’s novel Foucault pendulum is full of esoteric medieval plots and the abstruse meanings and symbolisms of secret societies, which climax dramatically in the Musee National des Techniques (Footnote: This museum is a branch of the Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers and was established in 1793 in the old monastery of St Martin des champs, which had been nationalised during the French Revolution). In Paris, where the original Foucault pendulum bob used in the 1851 Pantheon exhibit is displayed and the complete 1855 pendulum operates today…
The darkened, altar-like settings of many Foucault pendulum displays, and the procedures, traditions and trappings associated with them giving a strong impression of a religious aspect to the device. The bob, swinging slowly and eerily back and forth, incites thoughtful wonder if not reverential awe in anyone who sees a Foucault pendulum for the first time. You might expect the operator to come dressed in priestly robes and chanting incantations as he sets up the pins, adjusts the dials of the hidden mechanisms and burns the thread to start the pendulum swinging. Indeed, the Foucault pendulum does promulgate a religious message, as we have seen, and its purpose is to make a connection with a sort of “hidden force”, much as a new-age channeler would claim to do. Pendulums have figured in occult activities and ceremonies for thousands of years. Sometimes termed “radiesthesic tools”, they are used in various forms of divination. Pendulums claiming to be “antennas to a higher power” are sold through supermarket tabloids. Pendulums are inherently mesmerising devices, and are widely used in hypnotism. Hidden mechanisms are a staple of occult ceremonies. The use of fire is common.
It is a useful device in literature and drama. Edgar Allen Poe utilized a pendulum in his horrible tale of torture at the hands of the Inquisition, “The Pit and the Pendulum.” A swinging (and falling) chandelier is involved in the climax of “The phantom of the Opera”. Another sign of the occult of Foucault pendulums is the secrecy surrounding their actual operation, and the seeming reluctance of experimenters to give complete performance figures and lay their difficulties out on the table. I think there is more to this than technical pride, because it is characteristic of most reports published on the Foucault pendulums (Footnote: An article in The Physics Teache Sept 1981 describing a short Foucault pendulum for corridor display in a school made the following remarkable statement: “The complete pendulum unit can be seen inside the enclosure, but the wire suspension device and electromagnetic drive mechanism are intentionally hidden from the observer.”), starting with Foucault’s original experiments…There are a lot of strange things about the Foucault pendulum, and it does seem that there is some kind of an occult connection involved somewhere, even if I haven’t put my finger on it. The thing is loaded with philosophical and religious aspects in the guise of physics, and these are exploited to the greatest possible extent in all major displays.’ (pp.27-28)
Elmendorf believes Foucault - who incidentally showed that light travels slower when travelling through water - was sincere in his experiments with the pendulum and probably believed it did prove the earth rotates on its axis. What really matters is that Foucault provided the illusion of the millennium, and for that the earthmoving Masons gave him many honours and awards. It should be no surprise then that among the accolades were the Copley Medal of the British Royal Society. As recent as 1958, Foucault and his pendulum appeared on the fifteen-franc stamp.
How it is Supposed to Work
Once again then, a Foucault pendulum is constructed with its bob free to swing in any direction. Under the bob is placed a ‘base plate’, with precision markings like the face of a 24-hour clock. It begins its sway as any normal pendulum does, i.e., to and fro in a straight line. Soon however, the bob begins to turn, all the time cutting grooves in the clay at its base. Most textbooks, technical articles, plaques, and other accounts give an explanation of its operation similar to this one below.
‘For simplicity, let us consider such a pendulum swinging at one of the poles. At other latitudes it will have a more complicated motion, but the principle is the same. Since the pendulum is swinging from a universal joint, the plane of its motion will remain fixed in absolute space, while the earth rotates underneath.’ ---D.W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, doubleday, 1959, p.112.
In answer to this assertion Elmendorf replies:
‘The plane of a Foucault pendulum cannot possibly remain “fixed in space” as these texts say, at least not anywhere except at the poles and when swinging east-west at the equator. Think about it. If it did, the pendulum would soon be crashing through the wall of the museum, and if it kept on swinging, it would return to its starting position every 24 hours regardless of its location, neither of which actually occurs.’
But the fact is, according to Elmendorf’s thorough research, the Foucault pendulums seldom achieve turning rates closer than 15 percent to the theoretical. Compared to a sundial their daily movements are a joke, swinging in erratic directions proving that it is not an instrument controlled solely by the supposed steady rotation of the earth underneath it, but that the sensitive bob is moved by other unknown inertial influences.
Because of the enormous difficulties in actually getting a Foucault pendulum to work properly, nearly all of them are rigged to do what they are supposed to do naturally. The theory is there, the instrument is there, the earth is supposedly rotating, but the damn things just do not oblige as predicted. Instead they show mysterious perturbations and erratic motions that cause the turning rate to vary from those expected. 150 years of investigation still cannot explain why this should be so and perhaps never will.
The first short cut to a successful hoax was to use various ingenious ways to drive the pendulum arm to do the right thing and yet be able to disclaim it affects the turning rate of the pendulum. Elmendorf refutes this disclaimer in his study. The second operation that is essential to all sham Foucault pendulums is to damp them. In order to keep it in a straight line the motion of the pendulum is ‘damped’ at just the right point in the swing. On this rigging Elmendorf says:
‘Whenever damping is present, deliberate or not, sophisticated or not, hidden or not, the natural motion of the pendulum, including the Foucault turning itself, has been altered, and is no longer an honest Foucault pendulum.’
The third operation necessary to have any hope of even the pretence of proper functioning is tuning. The object of many little adjustments and manipulation of the controls is to achieve a ‘clear and convincing exhibit for your consumption.’ Again Elmendorf provides many technical details of such tuning adding ‘the proof of the pudding is in the turning, and the proof of the fudging is in the fooling with the settings and controls to get the right turning rate. Not too fast, not too slow, but just right, that’s the name of the game in the world of Foucault pendulums.’ However, so erratic are the things that soon another tuning is necessary; then another, the settings readjusted and the dials reset to demonstrate for all to see that the earth rotates. ‘And that’s what the Foucault pendulum is in most cases -a demonstrator and not a scientific instrument at all. The bottom line is that almost all Foucault pendulums are not what they pretend to be. They are faking it.’
Do Some Work?
Richard Elmendorf says ‘almost’ for there are ‘pure’, un-driven Foucault pendulums to be found which will exhibit a turning, although always erratic. One such pendulum is in the University of Colorado in Boulder Co. USA. During its daily stint it will turn approximately 90 degrees (25% of a rotation). Can it be claimed the students of Colorado experience proof for a partial rotation of the earth? The answer is a resounding no. First of all the very idea that the earth revolves under the pendulum is utter nonsense. You may as well try to say that if you jump in the air and hold yourself up with both shoelaces the earth would turn under you. That is a similar belief to that asked of us by the Earthmovers with their Foucault pendulums. But why and how then can a pure Foucault pendulum turn even 90 degrees as the Boulder one does? The answer is that there is an inertial field around the earth and it is this effect that causes the bob to change its position over time, the same effect that Guglielmini and Coriolis found some years earlier.
There seems to be only two possible reasons for the earth’s inertial field, a rotating earth or a rotating universe around the earth. In 1883, some years after Foucault’s demonstration and ‘proof’ for the earth’s rotation, Ernst Mach, a top-notch physicist of the time, for what it was worth, said one need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth where the earth is treated as being at rest. Other unknown factors then add to its movement leading not to a smooth synchronised turn but to an erratic series of partial turns. According to their own physics then, Mach’s Principle in effect negates all demonstrations in the earth’s inertial field as proof for anything but that the field exists.
‘Mach made the further suggestion that inertia is not an inherent property of matter but is the result of forces caused by the distant galaxies. According to this hypothesis, the inertial force on a given mass...is caused by the action of all the matter in the universe.’ (Moon and Spencer. ‘Mach’s Principle’ 1959.)
Support for Mach’s relativity theory would also come from Albert Einstein. He too concluded that a centrifugal force on an object in the earth’s rest frame is inadmissible as proof of a rotating earth, for in the earth’s frame that force could equally arise from ‘the average rotational effect of distant detectable masses.’ Such relativity would of course be better known under his General Theory of Relativity of 1915. After Einstein came a top Viennese scientist, Professor Hans Thirring who in 1918 agreed with Mach’s Principle, and said that the Coriolis effect can also be accounted for equally well in a geocentric reference frame when he stated ‘the required equivalence be guaranteed by the general co-variance of the field equations.’
‘For a rotating shell of matter...Thirring found the interesting result that the field in the interior of the shell, ...is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, thus leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.’ ----G. Moller: The Theory of Relativity,1952.
So it seems science has known since 1883 that the Coriolis Effect and the movement of the Foucault pendulum can be equally accommodated in a geocentric model of the universe. Since then many physicists have written papers confirming this conclusion.
So, does the earth spin? The late Sir Fred Hoyle, once accepted as one of the world’s leading astrophysicists, affirms the current position of science in regard to the long held claim that it does:
‘We can talk with precision of a body as spinning around relative to something or another, but there is no such thing as absolute spin: the Earth is not spinning to those of us who live on its surface and our point of view is as good as anyone else’s – but no better.’ ----F. Hoyle: Frontiers of Astronomy, New York, Harper & Row, 1966, p304.
-
Chapter Thirty-One
‘Dry Rot’
Underway
‘Protocol No. 2: For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the GOYIM ( Used as a disparaging term for one who is not a Jew, such as Gentile or Christian 0 will puff themselves up with their knowledge's and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our AGENTUR specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want…’ ---- Protocols (of the Illuminati)… published in 1905, pp.15-16.
Puffed up with the dictates of science, without any verification of a fixed sun and moving earth, the Goys Settele, Olivieri, Turiozzi, Grandi, Libert and others must now go down in history as the ones who, through intellectual pride, ignored the scriptural authority of the Fathers and Council of Trent, defied a papal decree, destroyed the doctrine of Faith and Reason, subjected the Catholic faith to the dictates of science, leading to the loss of numerous souls.
‘Olivieri: before stopping this modest writing of mine, I must not be silent about Msgr Majordomo’s assertion that “one can maintain as a thesis only what is true or what is believed to be incontrovertibly true.” The fact is that nowadays astronomers really seem to be so convinced of the earth’s motion that they “believe it to be incontrovertibly true.”… At any rate, in order to be able to assert something, which is to say to call it a “thesis,” probability is sufficient. In everyday life we are constantly affirming and denying based on probable data; and probability has an extremely large role in the disciplines… However, it is certain that nutation, annual aberration, and other data, provide a new irresistible argument [for heliocentrism].’
Pope Gregory XVI then, in 1835, completed this infamous U-turn ‘without explicit comment.’ He did this, we believe, because he had no real Catholic explanation to comment with. But if he thought that would be the end of it he was mistaken, for since then an industry of explicit comments has resulted trying to justify the Copernican U-turn from start to finish.
Six years later, in 1846, the long lost Galileo files were returned by the French government to Rome. Rumour had it that the new pope, Pius IX (1846-1878), promised to publish the records as a condition of their return. It is said he agreed to this and gave the task to Monsignor Marino Marini, Prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives. Marini however, decided not to publish the records themselves but to produce what Finocchiaro calls ‘the first semi-official apologia’ based on the recovered docuмents. This occurred in 1850 when the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith published a book called Galileo and the Inquisition. Here are two comments on this work.
‘By suppressing a docuмent here, and interpolating a statement there, Marini managed to give plausible standing-ground for nearly every important sophistry ever broached to save the infallibility of the church and destroy the reputation of Galileo.’ --- Andrew D. White: A History, p.162.
‘The book reached new heights of extremism. Marini ended his account of the trial by claiming to have shown that “to render due praise in the justice, wisdom, and moderation of the Inquisition, we must affirm that perhaps there has never been a judicial action as just and as wise as this one.”’ -- M. Finocchiaro: Galileo, p.230.
History we know was/is written by the victors. In this case Copernicans all. It is like the ‘kettle’ discussing the ‘pot’s’ blackness or vice versa. ‘On the physical doctrine (of the earth’s motion), Galileo was right and the Inquisition wrong,’ writes Finocchiaro of Marini’s account. That is enough, the Church cannot win. Monsignor Marini has to make the best of it under this burden. He, under the illusion heliocentrism had been scientifically proven defended the Church as best he could. He emphasised the Inquisition’s history and work in preventing heresy and that is what led to a ‘wrong decision.’ The churchmen of 1616 and 1633, he said, were simply not taking any chances in this case and therefore went too far, driven in the main by the quest and intolerable behaviour of Galileo. Dodging the canonical history of the Galileo case for obvious reasons, Marini stuck to the post-U-turn plan and insisted the whole affair was not a conflict involving Catholic theology and metaphysics, but a scientific or astronomical dispute between Aristotelian philosophers on the one side and professors favouring Galileo’s experimental method on the other. This claim has endured for ages. Here is another such example.
‘Conservatively minded scientists bitterly opposed and resented Copernicanism, and succeeded, alas, in panicking theological opinion and ecclesiastical authority into giving them a spurious and tyrannical support…’ --- Catholic Evidence: Sheed and Ward, 1955, p.43.
The history of the affair however, shows clearly that Catholic theologians in 1616 and 1633 took up the defence of the geocentric order, not out of panic or misapplied texts, but because it is truly confirmed in Scripture. In his book A History, Andrew White totally dismissed Marini’s false version of the facts:
‘This position [that the theologians were tricked into action] was attacked and carried by a very simple statement. If the divine guidance of the Church is such that it can be dragged into a professional squabble, and made the tool of a faction in bringing about a most disastrous condemnation of a proved truth, how did the Church at that time differ from any human organization sunk into decrepitude, managed by simpletons, but really by schemers? If that argument be true, the condition of the Church was even worse than its enemies have declared it; and amid the jeers of an unfeeling world the apologists sought new shelter.’ --- p.161.
Now we know from our chapters on the Galileo case that Galileo, as we read in his Letter to Christina, wanted the geocentric passages in Scripture to be read heliocentrically. Marini’s version of it however, was that Galileo wanted the Holy Office to uphold the Bible reveals a heliocentric world, and this is why they took Galileo to task. There is a difference. Marini then presented Galileo in his true colours, aggressive, irritating and mocking; nothing like the heroic Catholic victim the fiction had already portrayed him as in hundreds of write-ups by authors of both Church and State. Marini described the type of man the Sacred Congregation was dealing with; a man arrogant beyond belief, full of ridicule and rejection for all who differed in opinion to his. This paved the way for Marini to suggest Galileo was put on trial for simple disobedience of the 1616 Inquisition order not to teach or write about heliocentrism. In truth however, the records, when open to the public, showed that nowhere in the trial docuмents did it say that Galileo was punished for anything other than holding the heliocentric heresy. The same records show Galileo was always submissive to the pope and never demonstrated any sign of disobedience. The official records confirmed that Galileo was condemned on suspicion that he held the sun is fixed and the earth moves, not at rest in the centre of the universe.
The fact is that no Copernican - and there is not one notable churchman on record since 1835 who openly opposed Copernicanism - could give an accurate version of the Galileo case. This is because an honest account showed no U-turn was possibly Catholic. By this we mean that the Copernican apologists, under the illusion that Galileo was shown later to be correct, have to write up the whole trial with this in mind. Monsignor Marini was but trying to defend the faith as he knew it as best he could under the circuмstances and we acknowledge that fact here. But when it is known Galileo was never proven correct in the first place, his trial can now be evaluated on the basis that the Inquisition did not put Galileo on trial unjustly. Nor did they err when they defined and declared Galileo’s heliocentrism formal heresy, and as such its contrary, geocentrism, as a matter of faith, a revelation that, accordingly, will never be falsified (or proven) by human reasoning or scientific investigation.
Nevertheless, because the book did its best to defend the Holy Office in a then Copernican world, it had a mixed reaction. Here is what A. White said:
‘The first effect of Monsignor Marini’s book seemed useful in covering the retreat of the Church apologists. Aided by him, such vigorous writers as Ward were able to throw up temporary entrenchments between the Roman authorities and the indignation of the world.’ ---- Andrew D. White: A History, p.166.
Eighty years later they were writing:
‘But Marini’s book caused discontent. Men believed that the docuмents were returned by the French on condition that they were published. No one could say this condition was met by Marini’s book. Cries of bad faith were heard, of “dread of public opinion,” “hatred of truth.” Moreover, Marini’s book contained more than docuмents. The tone was defensive. It preferred the behaviour of the Inquisition to the behaviour of Galileo. Silvestro Ghererdi called it an insolent, clumsy little book. Certainly it represented the Inquisitors as morally defensible if they failed to condemn Galileo.’ --- Owen Chadwick: Catholicism and History: The Opening of the Vatican Archives, Cambridge University Press, 1979, p.29.
-
Dry rot continued:
John Henry Newman (1801-1890)
It is at this point we introduce John Henry Newman, often referred to as ‘a pioneer and prophet of Vatican Council II.’ We were introduced to Newman’s contribution to resolving the Galileo dilemma by Andrew White quoting from Newman’s 1843 The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine two years before he converted to Catholicism from the Protestant Church of England:
’40. …In recalling it at this day there stand out from its later phases two efforts at compromise especially instructive, as showing the embarrassment of militant theology in the nine¬teenth century. The first of these was made by John Henry Newman in the days when he was hovering between the Anglican and Roman Churches. In one of his sermons before the Univer¬sity of Oxford he spoke as follows: “Scripture says that the sun moves and the earth is sta¬tionary, and science that the earth moves and the sun is comparatively at rest. How can we determine which of these opposite statements is the very truth till we know what motion is? If our idea of motion is but an accidental result of our present senses, neither proposition is true and both are true: neither true philosophically; both true for certain practical purposes in the system in which they are respectively found.” In all anti-theological literature there is no utterance more hopelessly sceptical. And for what were the youth of Oxford led into such bottomless depths of disbelief as to any real existence of truth or real foundation for it? Simply to save an outworn system of interpretation into which the gifted preacher happened to be born.’ ---- Andrew D. White: A History, p.166.
If one senior churchman and renowned intellectual were to be singled out as a leading and influential Copernican apologist post U-turn it was this man. Time and time again, he would quote the Galileo case to support his ideas as to how Catholics should view the faith, similar to Hans Kung who these days uses the Galileo case in his argument for a rejection of the dogma of papal infallibility. The now Blessed John Henry Newman (Cardinal Newman was made Blessed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010), we are told in numerous books and articles on him, had a keen interest in science, and the contemporary debates on the relation between religion and science. At Oxford he read for honours in both classics and mathematics. For his final examination he studied Newton’s incomprehensible Principia, geometry and trigonometry, astronomy, geology and mineralogy. The Cardinal, we see, must have been very familiar with the ‘science’ that they claimed falsified the geocentric doctrine of the Church of the seventeenth century. When he stood for the Oriel Fellowship he confided to his father that: ‘Few have ever attained the facility and comprehension which I arrived at from the regularity and constancy of my reading and the laborious and nerve-bracing and fancy-repressing study of mathematics, which has been my principal subject.’ (Vincent Ferrer Belhl: Pilgrim’s Journey. John Henry Newman, Paulist Press, 2002, p.45.)
Henry Newman converted to the Catholic faith in 1845 and was ordained a priest in 1847. After that he was made rector of the proposed new Catholic University in Ireland where he gave a series of discourses on faith and science that resulted in his book The Idea of a University (1852). In his lectures in Dublin, Ireland, and in many subsequent writings, Newman explored the relation between theology and the natural sciences, as he saw it. In another book, Towards a Grammar of Assent (1870), Hodgson says ‘Newman explored the ways we’ve come to believe, and found instructive similarities between theology and science, and indeed everyday beliefs as well. We rarely believe because of a logical demonstration, but much more frequently by the convergence of probabilities. This is the case in our everyday affairs, and also in science and religion.’ Arising from all these ‘probabilities,’ Newman thought he was competent to resolve the Galileo case. In trying to do so this man raised the retreat from geocentricism to a new level of sophistry. Newman wrote:
‘As the Copernican system first made progress... it was generally received... as a truth of Revelation, that the earth was stationary, and that the sun, fixed in a solid firmament, whirled round the earth. After a little time, however, and on full consideration [as like Pope Gregory’s ‘no comment?’], it was found that the Church had decided next to nothing on questions such as these... it surely is a very remarkable feat, considering how widely and how long one certain interpretation of these physical statements in Scripture had been received by Catholics, that the Church should not have formally acknowledged it... Nor was this escape a mere accident, but rather the result of providential superintendence.’ ---- John Henry Newman: The Idea of a University, 1852.
Here we see Henry Newman needed no abrogation to dismiss the 1616 papal decree as deciding ‘next to nothing.’ Nor did it occur to him that if providential superintendence were present at all during the Galileo case, would he as a Copernican not think it more prudent of God to stay with His Church; with the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, and to prevent a pope from defining and declaring Copernicanism formal heresy in the first place (which science now shows He did). Of course it would, as no doubt every Copernican churchman since 1741 has wished. Of all the manoeuvres used by the Copernicans to try to save the Church from its own decrees, as they saw it, this has to be the most reckless; picking and choosing the most convenient place for God’s divine input. In a composition of May 24 1861, entitled ‘An Essay on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture’ he adduced the case of Galileo as one of the critical points towards maturing on the part of Catholic Scripture-scholars.
‘He quickly set to work and produced ‘An Essay on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture,’ which was left unpublished until 1953. Recent theologians, Newman observes, tend to perpetuate the error of the Galileo fiasco, by straining to reconcile Scripture and science. A better way out of the present mischief would be to manifest that the Bible could not collide with either science or history.
The Church has never declared de fide that the sacred writings were themselves inspired. The familiar phrase, ‘Deus est auctor utriusque Testamenti,’ means ‘The Mosaic covenant as well as the Christian has come from the one God,’ instead of ‘God wrote the entire Bible.’ Further, Apostles are called inspired by Trent, and traditions are said to be dictated by the Holy Spirit, yet neither statements are made of the books themselves. Though we may believe it so, the Church has never formally proclaimed the Scriptures to be inspired.’ --- James Tunstead Burtchaell: Catholic Theories of Biblical Inspiration Since 1810, Cambridge University Press, 1969, p.71.
Exactly what did this man mean by ‘the Church has never formally proclaimed the Scriptures to be inspired’? Are the Books of Scripture not the words of God? Were St Paul and the Council of Trent not convincing enough?
‘All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work.’ (II Tim. 3; 16-17)
Then there are the following: .”..Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:21). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” (Matt. 24:35). “The grass withered, and the flower has fallen, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Peter 1:24-25).
Newman’s GALILEO, REVELATION, AND THE EDUCATED MAN (1861).
‘One of the characteristics of the day is the renewal of that collision between men of science and believers in Revelation, and of that uneasiness in the public mind as to its results, which are found in the history of the 17th century. Then Galileo raised the jealousy of Catholics in Italy; and now in England the religious portion of the community, Catholic or not, is startled at the discoveries or speculations of geologists, natural historians and linguists. Of course I am speaking, as regards both dates, of the educated classes, of those whose minds have been sufficiently opened to understand the nature of proof, who have a right to ask questions and to weigh the answers given to them. It was of such, we must reasonably suppose, that Father Commissary was tender in 1637 [1632], and to such he allied in his conversation with Galileo, as he took him in his carriage to the Holy Office. “As we went along,” says Galileo, “he put many questions to me, and showed an earnestness that I should repair the scandal, which I had given to the whole of Italy, by maintaining the opinion of the motion of the earth; and for all the solid and mathematical reasons which I presented to him, he did but reply to me: ‘Terra autem in aeternum stabit,’ because ‘Terra autem in aeternum stat,’ as Scripture says.” [‘The earth will eternally stand still’ because ‘the earth stands still eternally,’] There could not be a greater shock to religious minds of that day than Galileo’s doctrine, whether they at once rejected it as contrary to the faith, or listened to the arguments by which he enforced it. The feeling was strong enough to effect Galileo’s compulsory recantation, though a Pope was then on the throne who was personally friendly to him. Two Sacred Congregations represented the popular voice and passed decrees against the philosopher, which were in force down to the years 1822 and 1837.
Such an alarm never can occur again, for the very reason that it has occurred once. At least, for myself, I can say that, had I been brought up in the belief of the immobility of the earth as though a dogma of Revelation, and had associated it in my mind with the incommunicable dignity of man among created things, with the destinies of the human race, with the locality of purgatory and hell, and other Christian doctrines, and then for the first time had heard Galileo’s thesis, and, moreover, the prospect held out to me that perhaps there were myriads of globes like our own all filled with rational creatures as worthy of the Creator’s regard as we are, I should have been at once indignant at its presumption and frightened at its speciousness, as I never can be at any parallel novelties in other human sciences bearing on religion; no, not though I found probable reasons for thinking the first chapters of Genesis were not of an economical character, that there was a pre-Adamite race of rational animals, or that we are now 20,000 years from Noe. For that past controversy and its issue have taught me beyond all mistake, that men of the greatest theological knowledge may firmly believe that scientific conclusions are contrary to the Word of God, when they are not so, and pronounce that to be heresy which is truth. It has taught me, that Scripture is not inspired to convey mere secular knowledge, whether about the heaven or the earth, or the race of man; and that I need not fear for Revelation whatever truths may be brought to light by means of observation and experience out of the world of phenomena which environ us. And I seem to myself here to be speaking under the protection and sanction of the Sacred Congregation of the Index itself, which has since the time of Galileo prescribed to itself a line of action, indication of its fearlessness of any results which may happen to religion from physical sciences. Many books have since that time been placed upon its prohibited catalogue, the worlds of (humanly speaking) distinguished men, the works of Morkof, Puffendorf, Brucker, Ranke, Hallam, Macauley and Mill; but I find no one of physical celebrity, unless such writers as Dr. Erasmus, Darwin, Bonucci, Klee and Burdach are so to be accounted. One great lesson surely, if no other, is taught by the history of theological controversy since the 16th century: moderation to the assailant, equanimity to the assailed, and that as regards geological and ethnological conclusions as well as astronomical.
But there is more than this to give us confidence in this matter. Consider then the case before us: Galileo on his knees abjured the heresy that the earth moved; but the course of human thought, of observation, investigation and induction, could not be stayed; it went on and had its way [by fraud]. It penetrated and ran through the Catholic world as well as through the nations external to it. And then at length, in our own day, the doctrine, which was the subject of it, was found to be so harmless in a religious point of view, that the books advocating it were taken off the Index, and the prohibition to print and publish the like was withdrawn.
But of course the investigation has gone further, and done, or is now even doing, some positive service to the cause which it was accused of opposing. It is in the way to restore to the earth that prerogative and pre-eminence in the creation which it was thought to compromise. Thus investigation, which Catholics would have suppressed as dangerous, when, in spite of them, it has had its course, results in conclusions favourable to their cause. How little then need we fear the free exercise of reason! How injurious is the suspicion entertained of it by religious men! How true it is that nature and revelation are nothing but two separate communications from the same infinite Truth!
Nor is this all. Much has been said of late years of the dangerous tendency of geological speculations or researches. Well, what harm have they done to the Christian cause, others must say who are more qualified than I am to determine; but on one point, that is the point before us, I observe it is acting on the side of Christian belief. In answer to the supposed improbability of their being planets with rational inhabitants, considering that our globe has such, geology teaches us that, in fact, whatever our religion may accidentally teach us to hope or fear about other worlds, in this world at least, long ages past, we had either no inhabitants at all, or none but those rude and vast brutal forms, which could perform no intelligent homage and service to their Creator. Thus one order of spiritual researches bears upon another, and that in the interest or service of Christianity; and supposing, as some persons seem to believe in their hearts, that these researches are all in the hands of the enemy of God, we have the observable phenomenon of Satan casting out Satan and restoring the balance of physical arguments in favour of Revelation.
Now let us suppose that the influences which were in the ascendant throughout Italy in 1637 had succeeded in repressing any free investigation on the question of the motion of the earth. The mind of the educated class would have not the less felt that it was a question, and would have been haunted, and would have been poisoned, by the misgiving that there was some real danger to Revelation in the investigation; for otherwise the ecclesiastical authorities would not have forbidden it. There would have been in the Catholic community a mass of irritated, ill-tempered, feverish and festering suspicion, engendering general skepticism and hatred of the priesthood, and relieving itself in a sort of tacit Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, of which secret societies are the development, and then in sudden outbreaks perhaps of violence and blasphemy. Protestantism is a dismal evil; but in this respect Providence has overruled it for the good. It has, by allowing free inquiry in science, destroyed a bugbear, and thereby saved Catholics themselves so far from the misery of hollow profession and secret infidelity.
I think, then, I must say distinctly that I have no sympathy at all in that policy, which will not look difficulties or apparent difficulties in the face, and puts off the evil day of considering them as long as it can. It is the way of politicians who live from hand to mouth, only careful that the existing state of things should last their time. If I find that scientific inquiries are running counter against certain theological opinions, it is not expedient to refuse to examine whether these opinions are well founded, merely because those inquiries have not yet reached their issue or attained a triumphant success. The history of Galileo is the proof of it. Are we not at a disadvantage as regards that history? Why, except because our theologians, instead of cautiously examining what Scripture, that is, the Written Word of God, really said, thought it better to put down with a high hand the astronomical views which were opposed to its popular interpretation? The contrary course was pursued in our own day; but what is not against the faith now, was not against the faith three centuries ago; yet Galileo was forced to pronounce his opinions a heresy. It might not indeed have been prudent to have done in 1637 what was done in 1822; but, though in the former date it might have been unjustifiable to allow the free publication of his treatises with the sanction of the Church, that does not show that it was justifiable to pronounce that they were against the faith and to enforce the abjuration.
I am not certain that I might not go further and advocate the full liberty to teach the motion of the earth, as a philosophical truth, not only now, but even three centuries ago. The Father Commissary said it was a scandal to the whole of Italy; that is, I suppose, an offence, a shock, a perplexity. This might be, but there was a class, whose claims to consideration are too little regarded now, and were passed over then. I mean the educated class; to them the prohibition would be a real scandal in the true meaning of the word, an occasion of their falling.
Men who have sharpened their intellects by exercise and study anticipate the conclusions of the many by some centuries. If the tone of public opinion in 1822 called for a withdrawal of the prohibition at Trent of the earth’s movement, the condition of the able and educated called for it in Galileo’s age; and it is as clear to me that their spiritual state ought to be consulted for, as it is difficult to say why in fact it is so often is not. They are tenderly to be regarded for their own sake; they are to be respected and conciliated for the sake of their influence upon other classes. I cannot help feeling that, in high circles, the Church is sometimes looked upon as made up of the hierarchy and the poor, and that the educated portion, men and women, are viewed as a difficulty, an encuмbrance, as the seat and source of heresy, as almost aliens to the Catholic body, whom it would be a great gain, if possible, to annihilate. For all these reasons, I cannot agree with those who would have us stand by what is probably or possibly erroneous, as if it were dogma, till it is acknowledged on all hands, by the force of demonstrations to be actually such. If she affirms, as I do not think she will affirm, that everything was made and finished in a moment though Scripture seems to say otherwise, and though science seems to prove otherwise, I affirm it too, and with an inward and sincere assent. And, as her word is to be believed, so her command is to be obeyed. I am as willing then to be silenced on doctrinal matters which are not of faith as to be taught in matters which are. It would be nothing else than a great gain to be rid of the anxiety which haunts a person circuмstanced as I am, lest, by keeping silence on points as that on which I have begun to speak, I should perchance be hiding my talent in a napkin. I should welcome the authority which by its decision allowed me to turn my mind to subjects more congenial to it. On the other hand, it is legitimate authority alone which I have any warrant to recognize; as to the ipse dixit of individual divines, I have long essayed to divest myself of what spiritual writers call “human respect.” I am indeed too old to be frightened and my past has set loose my future.’----- As found in James Collins, Philosophical Readings on Cardinal John Henry Newman (Chicago: H. Regnery Press, 1961), pp. 284-291.
‘The educated class;’ now where did we read that on before, oh yes, Galileo referred to them, Lazzari did and Olivieri after him. My how arrogant and proud that title looks in the light of the fact that not one scientific experiment ever supported their heliocentrism, and that all the evidence pointing to geocentrism seems to have been missed by the ‘educated class,’ those who supposedly ‘understand the nature of proof.’ Couple with that, an evolutionary interpretation of the stars, sun, planets, earth, strata, fossils interpreted as hominoids ‘prove’ nothing. So we see Newman sought to align the Catholic faith with scientific assumptions, and not certain proof as St Augustine advised. Newman here above also infers that the 1616 decree hindered the free progress of science, an opinion at that time already condemned by Pope Pius IX in his ‘Syllabus’ or ‘Collection of Modern Errors’ of 1846. As it turns out, the faith of Pius IX was correct and Newman wrong in his every utterance about the Galileo case and its consequences for biblical exegesis and hermeneutics spearheading the move into Modernism. At no time at all did the Church forbid any astronomer or scientist use of the Copernican method of calculation, or investigation as to how the planets move about the sun, or into any other cosmic phenomenon. That was simply an invention of the Copernicans.
Then it was back to Providence, making sure God was on Newman’s side, placing Him with the Protestant freemasons of the Royal Society this time as they plotted against the geocentric decree of the Catholic Church. One could think from the above Protestantism was not anti-Copernican, but as we saw in our profile on Copernicus nothing could be further from the truth. Henry Newman finishes by stating he might well have disregarded the 1616 decree itself had he been around at the time, a legacy unworthy of any man thought to be worthy of sainthood. It seems when he wrote this surrender of faith and reason to man invented ideas Newman had a little more converting from Protestant to Catholic to do.
-
Chapter ThirtyTwo
1869-70
Vatican Council I
Since the return of the Galileo files in 1843, Rome was put under pressure from historians and academics to allow them access to the actual trial proceedings of the Galileo case. This did not happen until the late 1860s under Pope Pius IX. Even then it was restricted in the main to four scholars. One of the first to study the details of the affair was the French scholar Henri L’Epinois. He published his book in 1867, but it was so full of inaccuracies that he had to publish again in 1877. L’Epinois was followed the German Karl von Gebler who also published in 1877. The next publication was by Italian Domenico Berti in 1876 with a more complete account in 1878. With the trial records now in the public domain, all the excuses written up and used by the apologists could be seen for what they were, attempts to avoid the facts in order to protect the Church from the contradictions presented by the 1616 decree, the 1633 trial and indeed the 1741-1835 U-turn, to put it mildly. Now they were up against the undeniable truth, that Pope Paul V as Prefect of the Holy Office did endorse the decision to declare Copernicanism to be heresy and that it was he as pope who ordered the judgment to be made public through the Congregation of the Index as Cardinal Bellarmine’s affidavit to Galileo of May 26th, 1616 confirmed. In a similar way, Pope Urban VIII personally dictated the wording used in the trial and judgment of Galileo in 1633; arbitration that confirmed the 1616 decree was immutable and thus final, forever non-reversible.
In the meanwhile on 8th December, 1869, during the reign of Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I was declared open. It was a dogmatic Council, infallible in all its teachings. Vatican I came in the wake of the 1820-35 removal of all books advocating Copernicanism under the realm of natural philosophy and theology. The final removal, as we saw, was done ‘without explicit comment,’ leaving the matter an open question if we are honest about it. This being so, it beholds us to see if Vatican I taught anything that could clarify the status of the 1616 decree that was never officially abrogated. For example, as dogmatised at the Council of Trent, under ‘Revelation’ we find Vatican I confirms that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers is a dogma of the Church, thus making the geocentric reading of Scripture a dogma under this ruling alone:
‘But since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning on the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, as must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of Sacred Scripture; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.’ (Denz. 1788)
But more, besides qualifying the doctrinal status of Copernicanism, the Church has always claimed the right to judge its philosophical standing. Under Faith, and Faith and Reason, Vatican Council I teaches:
‘Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition. And those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.’ (Denz. 1792)
‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ --- (Denzinger - 1795-98.)
Also under the heading of faith and reason, the same Council anathematised the idea that scientific assertions that oppose revealed doctrine (1616) can be held. It also condemned the idea that the meaning of dogmas can change with the progress of science, such as many of the apologists suggested, especially by members of the Holy Office in 1820, an important aspect of the Galileo case.
‘By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately revealed by God which has been proposed by the teaching authority of the Church to be believed as such. The Vatican Council I explains: ‘All these things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogmas.
(1) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular dogma, i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly or inclusively and therefore be contained in the sources of revelation.
(2) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the teaching authority of the Church. This implies not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation of the part of the faithful of believing the truth. The promulgation of the Church may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church.’ --- Ludwig Ott: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Mercier Press, Cork Ireland, 1954.
Do these conditions not cover the anti-Copernican decrees? Of course they do, as Pope Urban VIII judged in 1633. Following this, under ‘Arguments from the assent of the Church,’ we read:
‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)
Again we could ask, surely one such ‘other help’ was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office whose history we described earlier, created by popes to assist them in matters of serious heresy? In this ‘help’ it was the Pope as Prefect of this Holy Office who defined and condemned Copernicanism. Accordingly, no pope can formally reject a dogma already defined, such as biblical geocentrism, and introduce a new doctrine like Copernicanism; can he?
Finally the Council dogmatised ‘the infallible “magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff.’ It began by stating that this freedom from error has been ‘proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted and holy doctrine celebrated.’ One wonders if any of the Fathers of Vatican I considered the problem of the Galileo case when confirming this teaching? Was it not an exception when the clear teaching on a geocentric revelation of Scripture was supposedly ‘proven’ false as the Holy Office of 1820 said? Immediately after the Council, certain Catholics, for various reasons, objected to this dogma. One such cleric based his thesis against it based on the Galileo case. ‘In 1870,’ wrote Andrew White, ‘a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Reverend William W. Roberts, published a small book exhibiting detailed explicit evidence, he believed, that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth.’ Fr Roberts’s synthesis resurrected the question of the status of Pope Paul V’s 1616 decree. By then, the Copernican apologists, and let us not beat about the bush, this had to include nearly all Catholics from the top down for 50 years, had necessarily claimed the decree was ‘reformable’ or of ‘next to nothing’ as Henry Newman classed it, which, as we said before, suggested it was not infallible, which in turn asserts it had no divine guarantee of truth. Once they all agreed that the 1616 papal decree was proven wrong by science, the Earthmovers had no choice but to deny any trace of infallibility was involved, whether it was infallible or not. Had they not denied it the ‘gates of hell could be seen as having prevailed’ by way of proving the Pope’s infallibility was a false dogma. Indeed, such a denial was unprecedented, and was it not for the accepted alleged proofs produced by the Earthmovers human reasoning surely no denial or challenge to the immutability and infallibility of the 1616 papal decree would ever have arisen. Certainly not after Vatican I confirmed its status. Fr Roberts, a convinced Copernican of course, like most others at the time, was one of the first to have access to Henri de L’Epinois official records of the Galileo trial. He was so sure of the infallibility of the anti-Pythagorean decree based on the Vatican Galileo case records that he believed its falsification by science and acceptance by churchmen thereby falsified the dogma of infallibility itself as defined at Vatican I. Fr Roberts’s assessment could be said to be the most thorough ever written. His evaluation of the status of the 1616 decree is very comprehensive, the like of which is not to be found anywhere in the nineteenth century history of the Galileo case for its honesty. Here then are some extracts from Fr Roberts’s review:
-
'It is important to bear in mind that in the case before us the Index was called into action to give effect to the decision of the Congregation of the Holy Office, a Congregation that is in a very special way under Papal direction. The Pope as pope is its president. He is present at its meetings every Thursday. He has informed the Church that he reserves the presidency of this Congregation to himself, because of the intimate connection of its decisions with the preservation of the faith. But if the Pope when he acts as its president never intends to act in the capacity wherein he is divinely secured from making mistakes, how delusive is this assurance! What good does the Church get from his presidency? The Pope not divinely assisted is likely, nay, in a vast number of cases, far more likely, to decide erroneously than some of his Cardinals. And as to his superior authority, the more authoritative an erroneous decision is, the more harm it is likely to do. Either, then, the judgments in question are ex cathedrâ; or the Pope claims to decide doctrinal questions for all Catholics in a capacity in which he is liable to make mistakes, and so the Holy See may be a source of error to the Church Universal; or the Pope’s prerogative of inerrancy belongs to him even when he is not speaking ex cathedrâ.
‘Of course there was not, and there could not have been, the remotest intention of making geocentricism a matter of faith by the mere force of a definition; but the question the Copernican controversy raised was whether the doctrine of the sun’s diurnal movement was not already of faith in virtue of the plain statements of Holy Scripture. The Roman church, as John De Lugo (1583-1660) [a Spanish Jesuit and Cardinal, an eminent theologian of the Renaissance] says, propounds the whole of Holy Scripture, and every part of it, to be received as the Word of God, so that to contradict the express assertion of a sacred writer is not less heresy than to contradict the definition of a general council. To say that Abraham had not two sons is not less heresy, than to say that our Lord had not two wills. Unquestionably the sacred writers, in terms, ascribe diurnal movement to the sun; therefore, urged the anti-Copernican theologian, the theory that denies that movement is false and heretical. The conclusion is irresistible, if the language objected is so expressed as to forbid the supposition that not real, but only apparent movement may be meant. And that it is so expressed is what Rome in effect decided, when on the one hand she pronounced the heliocentric theses false, and altogether adverse to the divine Scriptures, and on the other condemned as destructive to Catholic truth the advocacy of an opposite opinion. After this, the thoroughly submissive Catholic had no alternative but to recognise the heretical character of the new system; yet the decision plainly proceeded on the assumption that the matter was not open to legitimate doubt before its issue; and therefore, however clearly ex cathedrâ, it would be a judgment of a very different kind from that by which the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined…
‘On turning to M. Bouix’s Tractatus de Curia Romana - a work Dr Ward [Copernican apologist] most warmly recommends to our notice - we learn that there are three kinds of Congregational decrees; 1. Those that the Pope puts forth in his own name after consulting a Congregation; 2. Those that a Congregation puts forth in its own name with the Pope’s confirmation, or express order to publish. 3. Those that a Congregation with the Pope’s sanction puts forth in its own name, but without the Pope’s confirmation or express order to publish. Decrees of the first and second class, we are told, are certainly ex cathedrâ, and to be received with unqualified assent under pain of mortal sin. According to Zaccaria - a very great authority - even decrees of the last class are not fallible, in the sense that they can ever condemn as erroneous a doctrine which is not so. To this M. Bouix demurs, and his reasons for so doing place his own position in the clearest possible light. As Dr Ward has misrepresented that position, and as M. Bouix himself tries to shuffle out of it when he comes to deal with the difficulty under discussion, I will quote what he says, at full length, and in his words.
‘[Dr Ward’s] argument comes to this: Scripture and tradition show that the gift of inerrancy attaches by divine promise to the Pope as a strictly personal prerogative. He cannot therefore delegate it to others. Hence a decision to be infallible must represent the Pope’s own judgment on the point at issue. The general order under which the Congregations act invests them, indeed, with authority to decide, but, containing no judgment on the point to be decided, cannot render the decree they publish in virtue of that order, Papal in the sense required to guarantee it from error. And as to Zaccaria’s appeal to the testimony of experience - that a Congregation has never yet put forth an erroneous decision - the fact, if it be a fact, may be accounted for by supposing that the Cardinals have always been wise enough to consult the Pope, before issuing a decree in a difficult case.
‘Beyond the shadow of a doubt, the only decisions covered by this reasoning are those that are not Papal judgments at all - those that cannot in any true sense be said to represent the Pope’s own mind on the question at issue. But it is admitted that the condemnation of Copernicanism was, and was known to be, a Papal judgment, and that the decree of 1616 was the result of Paul V’s having applied his own mind to the very point to be settled. “Paul V,” says Dr. Ward, “undoubtedly united with the Congregation of the Index in solemnly declaring that Copernicanism is contrary to Scripture.” Undoubtedly, then, that declaration is positively disqualified for being placed under the only class of utterances M. Bouix has any right to call confessedly fallible. It is satisfactory to obtain so frank an acknowledgment from my opponent that the terms of the condemna¬tion meant “heresy,” and nothing short of it; that Pope Paul V and the ecclesiastical authorities considered, and in effect said, that heliocentrism is a heresy. Now, I submit that, no matter who says it, whether a Pope speaking ex cathedrâ, or a mere layman, whoever says categorically that an opinion is “heresy,” ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith. To generate an obligation of faith, it is by no means necessary that the witness to the fact of Revelation should claim for his testimony infallible certainty, but only such certainty as will exclude all prudent fear, ne non locutus sit Deus. And to say that an opinion is “heresy” is to say more than that its contradictory is a matter of faith. There is an implicit reference to the infallible testimony of the Church. The assertion means that the contradictory is not only of faith, but also of Catholic faith. And De Lugo remarks that this holds good whenever an opinion can be properly called “heresy,” simply because of its repugnancy to Scripture.
‘If, then, the Pope said in effect that heliocentrism was a heresy, he said in effect that it was not only de fide, but de fide Catholicâ, that it was false; that it was not only de fide, but de fide Catholicâ, that its contradictory was true. In what capacity he spoke, and whether he meant what he said, are further questions, but it is a great point to have it conceded that he did in effect declare heliocentrism to be a “heresy.” But we also learn from the statement of a Pontifical Congregation [1633 and 1820] that the utterance was a definition, i.e. a final authoritative judgment. We are brought, therefore, to the conclusion that the Pope did in fact publish, through the Congregation of the Index, a definition of faith. Now, suppose for a moment that he did so ex cathedrâ, would it follow that the definition was of the same kind as that by which Pius IX decided the question of the Immaculate Conception? And ought it to have been promulgated with like emphasis and solemnity? Assuredly not. The Immaculate Conception definition of the Bull “Ineffabilis” was put forward to make that of Catholic faith which confessedly was not so before. Up to the 8th of December 1854 it was, by the force of Bulls that had not been formally revoked, excommunication to call the denial of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception heresy, or even, if I mistake not, to say that those who impugned it were guilty of grave sin. Since that date, according to the Bull, any one who ventures to think that the doctrine has not been revealed by God, ipso facto, makes shipwreck of his faith, and cuts himself off from the unity of the Church. Clearly the definition was of the nature of a new doctrinal law, and therefore needed a promulgation that would challenge the attention of all Christians. But not every Pontifical definition ex cathedrâ ascribing heresy or repugnancy to Scripture to dissentients is a definition of faith in this sense. By far the greater number are issued, not to generate any fresh obligation of faith, but to protect and vindicate one that already exists; and to this class obviously belong ex cathedrâ censures of books, and propositions, defined as heretical. The mode of publishing these judgments will vary of course with circuмstances, but from their nature there is no reason for their being put forward with any greater emphasis and solemnity than the evil to be met requires. Why, then, should they not occasionally be issued through one of the Congregations the Pope has erected to assist him in dis¬charging his functions as guardian of the faith? And why should such a mode of publication prejudice their infalli¬bility, if they are certainly Papal decisions, and are known to be such?’ ---- Rev. William W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of them, Parker and Company, London, 1870, revised 1885, p.22.
-
The Rev Roberts’s contention then was that whereas the 1616 decree was not an extraordinary definition of a pope defining a new dogma, such as Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it was an infallible act of the Ordinary magisterium defending what was always a matter of faith, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, one of those ‘never intended to be brought to light’ matters of faith as the Council of Trent categorised them. This was the position held by Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and of Cardinal Bellarmine when in 1640 the 1616 decree was introduced as condemning ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine.’ Here then is the abandoned Church position of the Galileo affair; an act of faith forgotten, hidden or denied once those so-called proofs for a fixed sun and double moving earth were accepted. Fr Roberts then considered the Bull of Pope Alexander VII, the Pope who issued ‘Speculatores’ in 1664 that in effect re-condemned Pythagoreanism as formal heresy.
‘Whatever authority a decision can be supposed to possess in virtue of a notice from the secretary of a Congregation that the Pope has ratified it, and ordered its publication, it must possess far more indisputably in virtue of an assurance to the same effect given by the Pope himself in a Bull addressed to the Universal Church. I say far more indisputably, for it might be urged, on the ground taken in the answer, that the clause is not a Papal Act, that it tells us only what the Pope did behind the scenes [1616 decree]; but the Bull “Speculatores” was itself a Papal Act of supreme authority; and by that Act the Pontiff publicly, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, declaring that the Index to which they had been attached by his order was to be accounted as inserted in the Bull itself. I conclude, then, that if all Catholics ought to have inferred, from the Pope’s confirmation by his supreme authority of the Günther decree, that it was infallibly certain that that philosopher’s prohibited opinions could not be sound; if the Louvain professors were bound in conscience to recognise in the decisions that condemned their tenets the judgment exclusively – unice - of the Holy See; à fortiori all Catholics ought to have concluded from the Bull “Speculatores” and the decrees of Paul V and Urban VIII, that it was infallibly certain that heliocentricism was false. And I submit that this conclusion remains untouched by any argument Dr. Ward, or any one else, has advanced. But to say this is not to say that Paul V or any other Pope “defined it to be a dogma of the faith that the sun moves round the earth, precisely as Pius IX defined it to be a dogma of the faith that Mary was immaculately conceived.”
‘Nor can the difficulty I suggest be got rid of by adopting Cardinal Franzelin’s modification of D. Bouix’s opinion. For although the Cardinal does not regard the judgments in question as ex cathedrâ, in the sense of being infallibly true, he is forced, considering the kind and degree of authority claimed for them by the Holy See, to maintain that they are infallibly safe - safe, meaning by the term not merely that those who yield them the assent demanded may do so without risk of being called to account for this act, but safe, in the sense that it is infallibly certain that the doctrine propounded may be embraced by all Catholics with full interior assent, without peril to the cause of the faith, or to the interests of religion.’
That said, the Rev. Roberts then described the situation as a Copernicam whose faith in human reasoning had blinded him into a second heresy:
‘But it is almost as easy [he says] to show that the condemnation of Copernicanism was not in this sense a safe judgment, as to show that it was not a true one, to prove that it was a mistake at all. For what was the doctrine of that judgment as it was authoritatively interpreted by Rome? This: That heliocentricism is false and altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures, meaning by the phrase, as the monitum of 1620 explained it, “repugnant to the true and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, according to the ruling of Urban VIII and the Pontifical Congregation of the Inquisition, the decision taught that heliocentricism is a heresy to be abjured, cursed, and detested with the other heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.
‘Now, it is as clear as daylight that if all Catholics had embraced this doctrine with unreserved assent, “plene, perfecte, et absolute,” all Catholics would have held it to be of faith that heliocentrism is false, and thus the whole Church would so far have been in error in its faith [he says]. But for the whole Church to be in error in any point it holds to be of faith is plainly irreconcilable with the passive infallibility claimed for it by theologians, or even with its claims to be infallible in its ordinary magisterium, for what it believes it will surely teach “credidi propter quod locutus sum.” And apart from this consideration, obviously it must be against the cause of the Christian faith for all Christians to be persuaded that its teachings conflict with, and demand the suppression and complete elimination from thought of, opinions that are on their way to be proved true [he says]…..’ --- Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.13-20.
Having argued that the 1616 anti-Pythagorean decree was infallible, Fr Roberts next addressed the chaotic exegesis that this U-turn left in its wake. Before going on to read this profound synthesis on biblical interpretation, remember when reading all this, we can thank God that we now KNOW the Church was never wrong in its anti-Copernican decrees, be it by way of the popes, the Holy Office, or theologians of the time. We also remind ourselves again that the Rev Roberts was a Copernican heliocentrist like the rest; the only difference was that he was no apologist or minimiser as he called them; he offered no excuses, merely spelled out the consequences if heliocentrism turned out to be correct as he and most others believed. No, Fr Roberts was not a sophist; he was brutally honest and unafraid to admit the 1616 decree was indeed an infallible papal decree and he based his soul on this fact.
Fr Roberts then addresses those apologists who tried to justify the U-turn. The first is the famous Ultramontane Copernican Dr W.G. Ward (1812-1882) - a Protestant convert and a disciple of John Henry Newman, whose summary of the Galileo case found its way into a 19th century Catholic Encyclopaedia. Like Newman, Ward, who also believed heliocentrism was proven, also defended the Copernican exegesis in journals and newspapers as though it were simply an advancement or development in Bible studies, as modernists call it.
Dr Ward: ‘We fully admit, then, that an unobvious interpretation of the apparently anti-Copernican texts is possible; and indeed is, as we now know, the true one. We admit that our Blessed Lord, when He looked up to heaven and when He spoke of ascending to the Father, did but accommodate Himself to existing physical beliefs. We admit that the Holy Ghost, for wise purposes—as, for instance, that He might not violently interfere with the healthy slow progress of physical science—permitted the sacred writers to express themselves in language which was literally true as understood by them, but was figurative in the highest degree as intended by Him. We only say, in accordance with our first proposition, that such an exposition of Scripture would be grossly irreverent, unchristian, and uncatholic, unless there were some overwhelming scientific probability to render it legitimate” (Galileo and the Pontifical Congregations, pp. 155-9).
Fr Roberts: ‘According to these statements the Copernican interpretation of Scripture, the true one, the one intended by God [he says] is intrinsically considered non-reasonable. It is inadmissible on its own merits, and by every sound canon of exegesis. It is so violently opposed to the general drift and implication of Scripture, and to the obvious meaning of particular texts, that nothing short of an express assurance from the Author of Scripture Himself that He really did mean it would render it legitimate. Such an assurance having been given in these latter days through the conclusions of science, the unobvious and forced character of the exposition is no longer any bar to its reception; on the principle that a man may interpret his own words as he pleases. “God,” remarked Dr. Ward, “surely has the right to interpret His own Word, for you would not deny this right to an ordinary mortal” (Authority of Doctrinal Decisions, p. 143).
‘But in Galileo’s time God had given no hint that He had meant anything so extremely improbable. Heliocentrism at that time was “a random scientific conjecture,” with “no leg to stand on.” The ecclesiastical authorities were, therefore, only doing their duty in declaring that it was altogether contrary to Scripture.
‘Desperate indeed must be the cause that stands in need of such monstrous doctrine. Disregarding for the present the grotesque misrepresentation of the scientific status of Copernicanism in Galileo’s time, I ask, who admits for a moment that an ordinary mortal may determine retrospectively the meaning of his words, and be quit of responsibility for their deceptive effect, on the strength of a subsequent declaration, that he meant the very reverse of what he said or wrote? So far as the Bible professes to teach, and contains assertions that demand belief, assuredly it cannot differ from all other books in this, that its meaning must not be held to depend on the, so to say, objective significance of its language, but on the reserved and unexpressed intention of its author.
‘How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an interpretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact.
‘Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it unlawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, therefore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspiration, for the Vatican Council has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. Cardinal Franzelin [1816-1886] has shown that this doctrine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of language, that they choose, and choose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning.
‘Very good. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves [he says] is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one, it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies.
‘The doctrine, therefore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Roman Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’ ---- Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.39-44.
-
Now if ever a book warranted a reply by the Holy Office this was one of them, after all, the function of one of their duties was to prevent heresy being spread through books and writings. It should either have been put on the Index itself for questioning the dogma of infallibility, or the contradictions addressed as the synthesis demanded to save others from the same road to further heresy. But, as far as we can find, the Holy Office dared not approach the subject so continued its ‘no comment’ stance allowing others to do the defending of orthodoxy for them, inventing more reasons and excuses as often as necessary, arguments demolished by Roberts, but repeated endlessly to this very day.
Fr Roberts’s paragraphs above on the geocentric/heliocentric interpretation as it applied to scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics should have generated considerable debate among Catholics thereafter. But it too was conveniently ignored by most as its truth did not suit the Copernicanism now embraced within the whole Catholic world. One writer however, did speak out:
‘This contention [that the decree of 1616 was reformable], then, was at last utterly given up by honest Catholics themselves. In I870 a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Rev. Mr Roberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth, published a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth. This Catholic clergyman showed from the original record that Pope Paul V, in 1616, had presided over the tribunal condemning the doctrine of the earth’s movement and ordering Galileo to give up the opinion [and that popes did not insert signed clauses in those days]. He showed that Pope Urban VIII, in 1633, pressed on, directed, and promulgated the final condemnation, making himself in all these ways responsible for it. And, finally, he showed that Pope Alexander VII, in 1664, by his bull Speculatores domus Isreal attached to the Index, condemning “all books which affirm the motion of the earth,” had absolutely pledged the papal infallibility against the earth’s movement. He also confessed that under the rules laid down by the highest authorities in the Church, and especially by Sixtus V and Pius IX, there was no escape from this conclusion.
Various theologians attempted to evade the force of the argument. Some, like Dr Ward and Bouix, took refuge in verbal niceties; some, like Dr Jeremiah Murphy, comforted themselves with disclamation. The only result was, that in 1885 came another edition of Fr Roberts’s work, even more cogent than the first… In spite, then, of all casuistry and special pleading, this sturdy honesty ended the controversy among Catholics themselves, so far as fair-minded men are concerned.’ --- White: A History…pp. 165-6.
Alas it did not end the controversy, and it was Dr Ward’s ‘verbal niceties’ of the affair that were chosen to appear in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia:
‘‘The sentence... clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the Pope’s signature [the clause]. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; but it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan [Protestant] in Budget of Paradoxes declares: “It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope -who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope - and not of the body which calls itself the Church.” ’ --- 1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia
In his booklet, revised in 1885, Fr Roberts had clearly shown ‘the clause’ was not used in 1616 but only came into use years later. This was conveniently ignored by the 1913 ‘Catholic Encyclopaedia.’ Nor was it known then that in 1820 the Holy Office accepted the 1616 decree was ‘unrevisable.’
At the end of his synthesis, the Rev W. W. Roberts summarises the situation that prevailed for all Copernican Catholics in the wake of that infamous 1741-1835 U-turn. He writes:
‘I will now sum up the conclusions which the history of Galileo’s case seems to me to teach in direct opposition to doctrine that has been authoritatively inculcated in Rome: —
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be, not only Scientifically false, but, theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, decisions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science.
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that the opinion is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has confirmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Are not all these propositions irreconcilable with Ultramontane principles? If so, can it be denied that those principles are as false as it is true that the earth moves? '
The following is a comment on the Rev. Roberts’s book sent to us:
‘As I [read] this section I felt very unhappy because the depth of the malice hit me in the gut. Think about it - these eight conclusions form the wallpaper of the mind of pretty much every human being on Earth. The only distinction is whether or not they are consciously assented to; and whether or not they cause conscious intellectual agitation. For the vast majority of self-nominated Catholics, these conclusions lurk in the deepest abyss of the intellect and poison all action. Because they are lodged so deep, they fail to make an active stir. They simply and invisibly seep into every ideation and discolour it, so that whatever the mind draws upon in determining appropriate action has an indelible stain which evidences systemic corruption.
‘I believe that even confirmed traditionalists harbour doubts in their minds, inarticulate doubts, like haunting phantoms, that paralyze zeal and radical Catholic action. They give the impulse and impetus to all manner of compromise with the devil, the flesh, and the world. It is no coincidence then that even the most [traditionalists] are explicitly both Copernican and compromising. Without a bedrock faith in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture, it is impossible to efficaciously fight any error.
‘Galileo, as poster boy of this uber-revolution pitting science falsely so called against the Church's teaching authority, is, objectively speaking, more evil than Luther and all the protestant destroyers combined. Their theological errors were fertilized in the soil of corruption of nature. The idea that the Scriptures do not accurately reveal material reality - an abhorrent blasphemy - yet took hold of men with an amazingly rapid and aggressive sweep (surely this manifests longstanding interior rot very much disposing the entire paste to receive a catalyst of corruption), and now has practically every human being in its iron grip. Every evil of modernity, from the protestant rebellion to Vatican II, can be traced back to the Copernican revolution as its first principle. Whereas in reality everything presupposes Creation, in the anti-universe of antichrist everything presupposes Copernicanism.
I think that we are obliged to meditate on these conclusions because they are like unto a mirror held up to the deepest recesses of our minds. In these terrible and blasphemous conclusions, we can discern the reasons for our own sloth, inaction, irresolve, and infidelity. These errors are not harmless because so far removed from our mundane affairs; nay rather they infect everything we think and do, and, even worse, everything we omit to think and do.’
-
Wow, the last chapter received a lot of reading, 1000 hits in all in a week.
I will now put up chapter thirty-three. It is short enough so I will post the next chapter up next wednesday.
-
Chapter Thirty-Three
1870-71
The Airy Test
‘The theoretical advances made in the field of electrodynamics by James Clark Maxwell gave occasion to this revival [of stellar aberration]. His equations made it necessary once and for all to get rid of the idea that they could be taken to suggest the earth at rest in absolute space.’ ---- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, published by the author, 1993, p16
Let us now revisit Bradley’s finding of stellar aberration wherein from earth we find all the stars doing a small similar sized circle every year. Bradley and the Earthmovers all said it was caused by the earth’s orbiting of the sun and that the starry circles were only apparent. It could of course be the other way around. In 1730 the eventual turncoat Fr Roger Boscovich suggested a simple, logical and conclusive trial that would, he expected, confirm it was the earth moving that caused stellar aberration, one that would put the heliocentric theory on a more certain footing. The experiment was very easy to conduct, needing only two similar telescopes on earth to perform.
To understand the experiment let us go back to the analogy of a man with an umbrella in the rain. In rain, we know that if a man moves and wants to keep dry he has to allow for his velocity and that of the rain by tilting his umbrella. See here, one man standing, one man moving: Similarly, if two men with umbrellas start to run a race, both have to tilt their umbrellas. But if one man runs faster than the other the faster man (V) will have to tilt his umbrella more than the slower running man (v). See below:
(http://s28.postimg.org/fupma6jfx/umbarella.jpg)
Let us again swap the man for the earth and a telescope for the umbrella. Unlike the one man tilted umbrella/telescope/cloud analogy, which can be interpreted either as a moving man/earth or moving cloud/stars, the above two-man, two speed different tilted umbrellas/telescopes illustration can only be interpreted as the earth doing the moving. The reason for this is because you cannot have the raincloud moving at two different speeds like you can have two men moving at two different speeds.
Fr Boscovich reasoned correctly that if one could conduct an experiment with two earths and two telescopes travelling at different speeds and one of them had to be tilted more than the other, this would, like the two different tilted umbrellas as shown above, prove it is the earth that moves and not the stars. So, how does one conduct an experiment that has two telescopes, one going faster than the other relative to the stars? Well easy, if you follow the logic. You can do it with two similar telescopes but fill one with water. This slows down the starlight passing through it (13% slower). The other air-filled telescope will allow the same starlight to pass through at normal light-speed. By slowing the light passing through one of two similar telescopes pointed at the same star and leaving the other as normal, you in effect set up the two-speed telescope scenario.
(http://s13.postimg.org/5zufki3l3/air_water.jpg)
The astonishing thing is that there is not one such attempt recorded until 150 years after Bradley’s discovery; yes, 150 years, when The Astronomer Royal, Sir George Airy (1802-1892) in 1871 decided science had now to confirm Bradley’s interpretation. Now why do you think it took so long? We hear so much about this great ‘scientific revolution,’ yet we are supposed to believe not one astronomer or scientist in the whole world engaged himself in what would have verified the ‘fact’ that the earth moved, a verification that would have assured any man, or woman, a place in the history books. Well the reason why they remained silent is because when Airy went public with his ‘tie-breaker’ test it showed the opposite of that result sought by the Earthmovers. (G. B. Airy: ‘On the supposed alteration of the amount of Astronomical Aberration of light, produced by the passage of light through a considerable thickness of Refracting Medium.’ Proceedings of the Royal Society, London, 1870, pp. 35-39.)
(http://s29.postimg.org/faj84j6rr/moving_earth.jpg)
The results showed the reason why all these ‘great’ pioneers in astronomy ignored the experiment for 100 years, for, we wager, it was conducted many times in private and the results hidden by the Earthmovers and the Royal Society to allow heliocentricism another hundred years to become entrenched into the psyche of man. Walter van der Kamp refers to ‘aborted trials’ by astronomers and physicists ‘Hoek and klinkerfusz’ (Martin Hoek (1834-1873) and Ernst Wilhelm Klinkerfues (1827-1884) before Airy’s test, whatever that means. They were aborted because of the result was not what the Royal society wanted we would guess. Here then was George Airy, in 1870-1, after a simple, logical and physically valid and decisive test that nobody can dispute, demonstrating that stellar aberration - rather than providing ‘proof’ for a moving earth, disproves a moving earth as a consequent of stellar aberration.
Such a logical interpretation of the Airy test was of course unacceptable to the ideological Copernicans. Objective scientific interpretation had ceased with the Copernican revolution. No matter what, geocentrism was never considered a possibility. Accordingly, every possible excuse – by way of ad hoc theories, as to why the Airy test gave a ‘negative’ result had to be proposed. One of these excuses was that of ‘ether-drag,’ a not impossible theory that moving bodies in space, in this case the earth, drag with them some invisible and static ether - if ether exists that is. Experiments done in 1818 by the French physicist Augustin Fresnel (1788-1827) suggested this might be so, but as often happens in this field of science, in 1887 an important experiment cast doubt on this possibility. This history we will record later in chronological order.
Nutation
In 1748 Bradley, discoverer of stellar aberration in 1728 announced he had found a nodding motion of the stars during precession that astronomy now calls nutation. As with every other discovery since Galileo, this was immediately interpreted in a heliocentric fashion. Precession they said was due to the earth’s shape, making it to spin like a top. When nutation was found they said it was caused by the pull of masses towards one another, Newtonian fashion. On a website called Curious About Astronomy we find the following Q & A:
‘Isaac Newton, and others since his day, have shown that the Earth's precession is caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun acting on the oblateness of the Earth. Since it can be calculated so accurately I have to believe it is true. The obliquity, or angle between the plane of the Earth's orbit and the axis, is about 23 degrees but varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees, in-phase with the precession circuit. Is this sometimes called nutation? Some say the obliquity change is caused by the Moon's orbit varying between 18 and 29 degrees to the plane of the equator with a period of 18.6 years. How could this change the obliquity with a period of 26,000 years? Who calculated it? Why should it be in phase with the precession? Is there any known connection between the precession and orbit cycles?
Answer: Thank you for your question. The motion of the Earth's axis of rotation is very complex and is affected by several perturbations. The most important, as you said, is the precession. Due to the action of the gravity of the Moon and the Sun acting on the oblateness of the Earth, the terrestrial spin axis describe circles of an average value of 23 degrees and 27 arcminutes around the normal of the ecliptical plane (the orbital plane of the Earth)…. On top of this motion, there are some irregularities. The plane of the orbit of the Moon is also precessing, with a period of 18.6 years. This causes the celestial poles to describe ellipses, with a semimajor axis of 18.42" and a semiminor axis of 13.72.” What that means is that the motion of the celestial poles around the normal to the ecliptic is not a perfect circle, but is a perturbed motion given by the sum of the precession motion plus the motion on the nutation ellipse.’
‘The motion of the Earth's axis of rotation is very complex and is affected by several perturbations.’ What they mean is that their version of nutation is too complex for anyone to work out but themselves. Given Cassini showed the earth is not a proven oblate, and that there are no perturbations in his oval orbits, the above has no scientific credibility, just two Newtonians speculating together. There is of course another explanation, and here is another by a friend of ours regarding this matter.
‘All Celestial motions - whether perceived as absolute or relative - would seem to be of FIXED periodicity. The marvel by which the Heavenly Canopy phases the periodicities of motional sub-planes tilting in sympathetic resonance with its daily spin, would indeed be difficult to visualise without the help of a spinning gyroscope. The axis of the Great Year Spinning Gyroscope will precess in a Fixed Period of (432 x 60) = 25920 years. While the gyroscopic axis of Spin is seen to precess, the gyroscope point of contact with a surface does not need to move at all, and so it seems fair for the geocentrist to claim that while the gyroscopic axis of spin through the earth will precess in the fixed period of 25920 years, no part of the earth itself needs to move.
The Heliocentrist can hardly claim anything without bringing the Newton-invented forces into their Sanctioned-Conspiracy-Theory. Aside altogether from the fact that Newton never explained what these forces were, his disciples championing the ‘action at a distance-conspiracy-theory’ have to account for billions of mass-distance-relationships that have to be cuмulatively factored-on-the-hoof into multiple-body-equations despite the 3-body-equation having yet to be solved in mathematics. How do these Newtonian conspiracy-theory-consensus-junkies account for the ever-changing billions of ‘action-at-a-distance’ accuмulation of ‘forces’ merging with various perturbation-mythologies and yet be able to yield to the simple elegance of FIXED Periodicity as in the case of nutation (18.6 Years) How often they must envy the geocentrist who does not have to abide by academically-correct conspiracy theories, and whose geocentrist model - far from having to account for Newtonian occult forces - anticipates an axis-orientated accuмulation of shivering in the precessional axis. The fact that the particular shivering of the precessional axis called nutation is of FIXED Periodicity, renders the geocentric model a lot easier to accept than the mythologies of irregularities, approximations and perturbations.’
-
The Rev Roberts’s contention then was that whereas the 1616 decree was not an extraordinary definition of a pope defining a new dogma, such as Pope Pius IX’s definition of the Immaculate Conception in 1854, it was an infallible act of the Ordinary magisterium defending what was always a matter of faith, the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, one of those ‘never intended to be brought to light’ matters of faith as the Council of Trent categorised them. This was the position held by Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and of Cardinal Bellarmine when in 1640 the 1616 decree was introduced as condemning ‘the false Pythagorean doctrine.’ Here then is the abandoned Church position of the Galileo affair; an act of faith forgotten, hidden or denied once those so-called proofs for a fixed sun and double moving earth were accepted. Fr Roberts then considered the Bull of Pope Alexander VII, the Pope who issued ‘Speculatores’ in 1664 that in effect re-condemned Pythagoreanism as formal heresy.
‘Whatever authority a decision can be supposed to possess in virtue of a notice from the secretary of a Congregation that the Pope has ratified it, and ordered its publication, it must possess far more indisputably in virtue of an assurance to the same effect given by the Pope himself in a Bull addressed to the Universal Church. I say far more indisputably, for it might be urged, on the ground taken in the answer, that the clause is not a Papal Act, that it tells us only what the Pope did behind the scenes [1616 decree]; but the Bull “Speculatores” was itself a Papal Act of supreme authority; and by that Act the Pontiff publicly, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, declaring that the Index to which they had been attached by his order was to be accounted as inserted in the Bull itself. I conclude, then, that if all Catholics ought to have inferred, from the Pope’s confirmation by his supreme authority of the Günther decree, that it was infallibly certain that that philosopher’s prohibited opinions could not be sound; if the Louvain professors were bound in conscience to recognise in the decisions that condemned their tenets the judgment exclusively – unice - of the Holy See; à fortiori all Catholics ought to have concluded from the Bull “Speculatores” and the decrees of Paul V and Urban VIII, that it was infallibly certain that heliocentricism was false. And I submit that this conclusion remains untouched by any argument Dr. Ward, or any one else, has advanced. But to say this is not to say that Paul V or any other Pope “defined it to be a dogma of the faith that the sun moves round the earth, precisely as Pius IX defined it to be a dogma of the faith that Mary was immaculately conceived.”
‘Nor can the difficulty I suggest be got rid of by adopting Cardinal Franzelin’s modification of D. Bouix’s opinion. For although the Cardinal does not regard the judgments in question as ex cathedrâ, in the sense of being infallibly true, he is forced, considering the kind and degree of authority claimed for them by the Holy See, to maintain that they are infallibly safe - safe, meaning by the term not merely that those who yield them the assent demanded may do so without risk of being called to account for this act, but safe, in the sense that it is infallibly certain that the doctrine propounded may be embraced by all Catholics with full interior assent, without peril to the cause of the faith, or to the interests of religion.’
That said, the Rev. Roberts then described the situation as a Copernicam whose faith in human reasoning had blinded him into a second heresy:
‘But it is almost as easy [he says] to show that the condemnation of Copernicanism was not in this sense a safe judgment, as to show that it was not a true one, to prove that it was a mistake at all. For what was the doctrine of that judgment as it was authoritatively interpreted by Rome? This: That heliocentricism is false and altogether contrary to the divine Scriptures, meaning by the phrase, as the monitum of 1620 explained it, “repugnant to the true and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.” In other words, according to the ruling of Urban VIII and the Pontifical Congregation of the Inquisition, the decision taught that heliocentricism is a heresy to be abjured, cursed, and detested with the other heresies opposed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.
‘Now, it is as clear as daylight that if all Catholics had embraced this doctrine with unreserved assent, “plene, perfecte, et absolute,” all Catholics would have held it to be of faith that heliocentrism is false, and thus the whole Church would so far have been in error in its faith [he says]. But for the whole Church to be in error in any point it holds to be of faith is plainly irreconcilable with the passive infallibility claimed for it by theologians, or even with its claims to be infallible in its ordinary magisterium, for what it believes it will surely teach “credidi propter quod locutus sum.” And apart from this consideration, obviously it must be against the cause of the Christian faith for all Christians to be persuaded that its teachings conflict with, and demand the suppression and complete elimination from thought of, opinions that are on their way to be proved true [he says]…..’ --- Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.13-20.
Having argued that the 1616 anti-Pythagorean decree was infallible, Fr Roberts next addressed the chaotic exegesis that this U-turn left in its wake. Before going on to read this profound synthesis on biblical interpretation, remember when reading all this, we can thank God that we now KNOW the Church was never wrong in its anti-Copernican decrees, be it by way of the popes, the Holy Office, or theologians of the time. We also remind ourselves again that the Rev Roberts was a Copernican heliocentrist like the rest; the only difference was that he was no apologist or minimiser as he called them; he offered no excuses, merely spelled out the consequences if heliocentrism turned out to be correct as he and most others believed. No, Fr Roberts was not a sophist; he was brutally honest and unafraid to admit the 1616 decree was indeed an infallible papal decree and he based his soul on this fact.
Fr Roberts then addresses those apologists who tried to justify the U-turn. The first is the famous Ultramontane Copernican Dr W.G. Ward (1812-1882) - a Protestant convert and a disciple of John Henry Newman, whose summary of the Galileo case found its way into a 19th century Catholic Encyclopaedia. Like Newman, Ward, who also believed heliocentrism was proven, also defended the Copernican exegesis in journals and newspapers as though it were simply an advancement or development in Bible studies, as modernists call it.
Dr Ward: ‘We fully admit, then, that an unobvious interpretation of the apparently anti-Copernican texts is possible; and indeed is, as we now know, the true one. We admit that our Blessed Lord, when He looked up to heaven and when He spoke of ascending to the Father, did but accommodate Himself to existing physical beliefs. We admit that the Holy Ghost, for wise purposes—as, for instance, that He might not violently interfere with the healthy slow progress of physical science—permitted the sacred writers to express themselves in language which was literally true as understood by them, but was figurative in the highest degree as intended by Him. We only say, in accordance with our first proposition, that such an exposition of Scripture would be grossly irreverent, unchristian, and uncatholic, unless there were some overwhelming scientific probability to render it legitimate” (Galileo and the Pontifical Congregations, pp. 155-9).
Fr Roberts: ‘According to these statements the Copernican interpretation of Scripture, the true one, the one intended by God [he says] is intrinsically considered non-reasonable. It is inadmissible on its own merits, and by every sound canon of exegesis. It is so violently opposed to the general drift and implication of Scripture, and to the obvious meaning of particular texts, that nothing short of an express assurance from the Author of Scripture Himself that He really did mean it would render it legitimate. Such an assurance having been given in these latter days through the conclusions of science, the unobvious and forced character of the exposition is no longer any bar to its reception; on the principle that a man may interpret his own words as he pleases. “God,” remarked Dr. Ward, “surely has the right to interpret His own Word, for you would not deny this right to an ordinary mortal” (Authority of Doctrinal Decisions, p. 143).
‘But in Galileo’s time God had given no hint that He had meant anything so extremely improbable. Heliocentrism at that time was “a random scientific conjecture,” with “no leg to stand on.” The ecclesiastical authorities were, therefore, only doing their duty in declaring that it was altogether contrary to Scripture.
‘Desperate indeed must be the cause that stands in need of such monstrous doctrine. Disregarding for the present the grotesque misrepresentation of the scientific status of Copernicanism in Galileo’s time, I ask, who admits for a moment that an ordinary mortal may determine retrospectively the meaning of his words, and be quit of responsibility for their deceptive effect, on the strength of a subsequent declaration, that he meant the very reverse of what he said or wrote? So far as the Bible professes to teach, and contains assertions that demand belief, assuredly it cannot differ from all other books in this, that its meaning must not be held to depend on the, so to say, objective significance of its language, but on the reserved and unexpressed intention of its author.
‘How in the name of common sense can what a book really signified in the past be altered, or its then truth be saved, if what it then signified was false, by an interpretation the legitimacy of which depends solely on the production of evidence that did not then exist? If for centuries, according to every known sound and received principle of exegesis, and all the cognisable data that could throw light on the matter, the language of Scripture was so expressed on the subject as to forbid its being understood otherwise than geocentrically, if nothing short of overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of heliocentrism would justify the opinion that Scripture does not contradict the theory, plainly geocentricism is what the written Word really signifies, and no astronomical discovery can alter the fact.
‘Is it reasonable to say that while a certain sense is not too much opposed to the letter for the author to mean it, its very opposition to the letter makes it unlawful for those he addresses to suppose him to mean it? Can we, simply by the laws of the language used, be bound to ascribe a meaning to a writer’s words he, by those laws under the circuмstances, is not bound to give them? Can we call a writer truthful and trustworthy whose words, by themselves, and according to their one legitimate interpretation, oblige us to believe what is false? Is it, then, less than blasphemy to say that God caused Scripture to be so worded as to bind men to error by the force of its terms? That He demanded faith in His Word, and spoke in what theologians call morally undiscoverable equivocations? Who can fail to see that estimate of the Copernican interpretation of Scripture is tantamount to a confession, that such an interpretation is a mere makeshift, that the dicta of the sacred writers, properly understood, are really at variance with what we now know to be the truth, and that, therefore, God could not have been their author? And thus it appears that Rome’s ill-judged attempt to save the authority of Holy Scripture was an implicit denial, of her own dogma on inspiration, and a virtual surrender of the whole position into the enemy’s hand. I say an implicit denial of her own dogma on inspiration, for the Vatican Council has defined it to be a matter of faith that God is the author of the whole of Scripture, and of every part of it—meaning by Scripture all the books enumerated by the Council of Trent as sacred and canonical. Cardinal Franzelin [1816-1886] has shown that this doctrine obliges us to hold that God not only caused the human writers of the books named to conceive, with a view to writing them down, those truths, and those truths only, that he meant them to communicate; but further, that God so controlled them in their use of language, that they choose, and choose infallibly, terms fit to express the divinely intended meaning.
‘Very good. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves [he says] is evidence that God was not the author of those passages. Thus, giving the judgment the very meaning apologists insist is the right one, it implicitly denies the intrinsic reasonableness of the only exposition that can bring certain assertions of Scripture into harmony with science, and in so doing, it implicitly denies.
‘The doctrine, therefore, of the decision is not only false, but opposed to what the Roman Church holds to be a dogma of the faith.’ ---- Rev. W. W. Roberts: The Pontifical Decrees, pp.39-44.
Cop-ernicus > KOP-ernik
Yiddish kop or Yiddisher kop (ייִדיש קאָפּ); lit. Jєωιѕн head, is an Yiddish expression. The latter is used when a person wants to indicate that Jews, of which mainly αѕнкenαzι Jews are meant, are smart (have a good head).
Only an Yiddish kop like Einstein can solve this.
Barbara Kopernik (Watzenrode)
Birthdate:
Death: Died 1495
Immediate Family:
Daughter of Lukas Watzenrode, Sr. and Katarzyna Watzenrode
Wife of Mikołaj Kopernik, Sr.
Mother of Andrzej Kopernik; Barbara Kopernik; Katrina/Katarzyna Gertner and Nicolaus Copernicus
Sister of Christina von Allen and Lukas Watzenrode, Jr.
Half sister of Jan (Hans) Peckaw; Baltazar Peckaw and Gertruda Jelin
Nicolaus Copernicus
Mathematician
Nicolaus Copernicus was a Renaissance mathematician and astronomer who formulated a model of the universe that placed the Sun rather than the Earth at its center.
Wikipedia
Born: February 19, 1473, Toruń, Poland
Died: May 24, 1543, Frombork, Poland
Buried: Archcathedral Basilica of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Andrew in Frombork
Education: University of Padua (1501–1503), more
Parents: Nicolaus Copernicus Sr., Barbara Watzenrode
'nuff said!
Lukas >>>
In UK we had a major car head-light manufacturer called "Lucas"
Caroline lucas is the deceptive, misleading 'lune-y' GREEN member of Parliament representing Bright-on, UK
-
Chapter Thirty-Four
1887:
The Michelson-
Morley Failure
The word ‘ether’ is not used much these days except when referring to the colourless volatile liquid known by that name. The concept of ether has been accepted since the time of Aristotle at least and was also acknowledged by the Fathers of the Church and indeed entered their discussion on the interpretation of the heavens and ‘firmament’ of Genesis. Ether or aether was considered omnipresent throughout all space (including the earth’s atmosphere), and that it even interpenetrated matter. It is however, difficult to rationalise with ether, for it has always remained outside known scientific certainty. It was considered a medium through which the light and heat from the sun could travel to earth, just like sound-vibrations or the energy that uses the medium of water such as can be experienced in a tsunami.
Our interest in ether goes back to Isaac Newton and his theory of gravitation. He proposed matter attracts and that this principle explains his theory of heliocentricism with the sun supposedly attracting all the planets (in which he included the earth) and them in turn moving about the sun in elliptical orbits. ‘Action at a distance’ Newton phrased it. ‘Ghost fingers’ and ‘invisible hands’ others called it, but no one could say how this ‘attraction’ worked across millions of miles of space. One theory was that Newton’s gravitational pull operated through the ether of space as it was named. Ironically, Newton conducted a test that he believed showed that there is no such thing as ether.
‘If space is really empty how is it that the sun and moon exercise influence over the earth? Technical action at a distance is impossible. A body can only act immediately on what it is in contact with; it must be by the action of contiguous particles – that is, through a continuous medium, that force can be transmitted across space. Radiation is not the only thing the earth feels from the sun; there is in addition its gigantic gravitational pull, a force or tension more than what a trillion steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?'
You tell us Sir Oliver, you’re the Newtonian with your ‘gigantic gravitational pull across space.’ The reasoning after Newton was that it had to be ether, a fixed agent in which the universe resides and through which moving celestial bodies and radiation can act. First though, the very existence and behaviour of ether in space had to be investigated. Thinking of the cosmos as a huge goldfish bowl, full of water in which the fish/celestial bodies move about, they asked what effect would a moving body have on the water (ether) or vice versa? Could that effect be investigated by empirical science? Does it remain everywhere stationary: is it a moving firmament as the geocentric Greeks believed: does it act like air or water as a body passes through it, or do these moving bodies drag some ether in their neighbourhood along with it as a body passing through glue would do? Such questions begged answers and science just had to try to find them. (http://s29.postimg.org/w8d6t8uef/universal_bowl.jpg)
-
The nineteenth century saw the beginning of many experiments trying to determine the presence and nature of ether on earth and in space. Assuming the earth moved around the sun at 67,000mph it was thought the ether – due to the aberration effect - would cause a split-starlight beam to move out of focus as the earth turned away from it during orbit. This result was looked for without any success. In 1818 the physicist Augustin Fresnel suggested a possible reason for this earthmoving failure. He then proposed the ether is thicker around matter and less dense away from it in space. Thus the instrument used in the test had dragged the ether along with it as it moved through space.
The next test was to see if ether could be detected in a fairly dense material that was itself moving. The physicist Armand Fizeau conducted such a trial in 1859. Pumping water through a tube that did a u-turn, he sent two beams of light, one with the flow, and the other against the flow, for an equal distance. The beams used did not return in phase indicating the ‘Fresnel drag coefficient’ might have some experimental support after all. Alas, many factors had to be assumed to reach such a conclusion and as we have said again and again, assumptions are not facts. ‘Ether drag’ was only a possibility if the ether exists and behaves, as they believed.
Other physicists then joined the quest. Thomas Young supposed the ether in the neighbourhood of the earth to be stationary while Sir George Stokes again said the earth dragged it. Planck showed that Stokes’s theory could be saved if extraordinary assumptions are made such as that ether is compressible like a gas and also subject to gravity. Lorentz worked out a theory whereby the earth imparted to the ether in its neighbourhood, not the whole of its velocity, but only a fraction of it. Hertz supposed that within matter the ether takes part in the motion of matter, and it is also moving in space free from matter, if you know what he meant. In 1871, when the Airy experiment using two telescopes showed that stellar aberration indicated the earth did not move, the ether drag theory was immediately re-proposed in order to get the earth moving again. But believing and proposing is not proving. Proof for the presence of ether eluded science. Scientists were left wondering what is the true nature of the medium that man presumed carries or propagates waves, particles and whatever?
Now recall that around 1600, when the earth was discovered to be a global magnet with an energy field reaching out into open space and returning uninterrupted, the reality of ether as envisaged became even more necessary. The need to establish some certain facts about ether also came about when Michael Faraday (1791-1867), James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) and Herman von Helmholtz (1821-1894) wrapped the entire electromagnetic phenomenon into four equations. It was known now that light, lightning, radio waves, ultra violet waves, infra red rays, etc., etc., are all part of a general group called electromagnetic waves, and that all travel at the same velocity of 186,200 miles per hour. Scientific progress now demanded investigation into the agency through which these electromagnetic waves (or pulses) were thought to propagate. This medium, all believed, had to be that known as ‘ether of space’ or ‘luminiferous (light-bearing) ether’ as Maxwell called it.
James Clark Maxwell, whose most important studies included his extension and mathematical formulation of theories of electricity and magnetic lines of force drawn up by Michael Faraday was born in Scotland. At the age of 14 he attended Edinburgh Academy where he showed he had a gift for mathematics.
‘Maxwell proposed that light travelled through an invisible medium, which he named ether. This medium filled all space “unbroken from star to star.” In 1873, he wrote: “There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty but occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform, body of which we have any knowledge.” Maxwell was not the first to propose that some invisible medium fills the vastness of the space. The genesis of the idea can be traced back to the ancient Greeks. For Maxwell there was an obvious need for proposing the idea of the ether. If light was a wave then it seemed obvious that it had to be wave travelling in some medium…. --- Vigian Prasar Science Portal website
‘James Clerk Maxwell converted Michael Faraday's nonmathematical work into the Maxwell Equations that satisfactorily describe virtually all of electromagnetism. These predict the properties and the speed of light, including in transparent materials. Maxwell showed that a few relatively simple mathematical equations could express the behaviour of electric and magnetic fields and their interrelation…. The four partial differential equations, now known as Maxwell's equations, first appeared in fully developed form in Electricity and Magnetism (1873).’ --- University of St Andrews website
‘The electromagnetic equations developed by Maxwell fitted in fact only with an Earth as a preferred frame of reference in absolute space.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Bradley – Airy-Einstein syndrome in astronomy, p.10.
-
In the late 1860s German born American physicist Albert A. Michelson (1852-1931) decided to re-enact an experiment performed by Martinus Hoek in 1868 to see if it was possible to detect the orbital movement of the earth using what the called an interferometer. Hoek failed to find any movement but Michelson believed he could do better. With the financial help of Alexander Bell, inventor of the telephone, they rebuilt their own machine that he believed would detect the ether as the earth moved through space.
(http://s4.postimg.org/88tel5e1p/infermometer.jpg)
Taking for granted that the earth flies through space at 67,000 mph (or 30 kilometres per second) as it supposedly orbits around the sun, Michelson reckoned he had all the ingredients to conduct his experiment: (1) the assumed speed and direction of the earth as it orbited the sun; (2) the speed of light, and the presumed existence of ether. With this data, he believed, a definitive and accurate test could be conducted that would demonstrate the existence of ether at least. Michelson first tried this experiment in 1881. His apparatus consisted of two equal arms at right angles to each other and a ray of light passed along each arm. Each arm was provided with a mirror placed at its far end, and thus each ray was reflected back to the junction of the two arms. The idea is simple. If an arm (F arm) is pointed in the direction of the earth’s supposed orbit and a light beam is sent down and back along it, the resistance caused by the ether should be greater than that that on the S arm sideways to the supposed orbital path (called the interference range), just like it would be harder swimming up and back a river than from bank to bank of that same river.
(http://s28.postimg.org/9cu9ju4m5/infermometersplit.jpg)
As an equation, if ether (E) is stationary, then the earth’s speed (v) in relation to the ether must be 30 kms/s, i.e., ten thousand times slower than the speed of light © in relation to the ether (E). Therefore, for an observer on earth (also at v in relation to the ether), the beam of light (a) travelling in the same direction as the earth would seem to move at the relative speed of c + v. Inversely, the beam (b) returning to the observer would seem to move at a speed of c - v. To find a way of measuring these different speeds, Michelson’s interferometer would split a beam, causing the (a) part-beam to ‘interfere’ with the (b) part-beam. By analysing the interference fringes, Michelson would be able to measure the difference between the two apparent speeds, i.e., (c + v) - (c – v). The maths involved indicated there should be the equivalent of a 30km/s. difference, i.e., (c + v) - (c – v) = 30km/s.
-
The Michelson and Morley Failure
Try hard as he did, Michelson failed again and again to find the 30kms/s. interference fringe he believed was inevitable. So sure was he that the earth really did move through the ether that he thought there must be some fault in the experiment. Michelson called in the help of a colleague, the American chemist Edward Williams Morley, so that both of them could conduct a definitive experiment. Nothing would be overlooked with both scientists carefully double checking every aspect of the test. Nor could the instrument be faulted, because whatever about the astronomic and physics theories of the day their technology was made to the highest standard of accuracy. In July of 1887, having improved the equipment as well as was technically possible, Michelson and Morley conducted a definitive test. It should have heralded the moment of truth, the finding of an interference fringe (a resistance to one of the ‘half-beams’ of light) that in turn detected the ether and the earth in orbit around the sun at 100,000kph. --- (Albert A Michelson and Edward W. Morley: On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, Third Series, Vol. XXX1V, No 302 – Nov. 1887, pp. 333-345.)
(All of these expectations were of course built up on the assumption that the earth moves at 67,000mph through space. Since then however, with the further theory that the universe is expanding at huge speed (1,000,000mph?), they would now have to add that to the 67,000mph so the required interference fringe would have to be updated somewhat. To my knowledge no one has ever noticed this new velocity should now be taken into account.)
‘At noon on 8, 9 and 10 July, and at around 6pm on 8, 9 and 12 July, Michelson walked round with the rotating apparatus calling out results while Morley recorded the observations. They were deeply disappointed, for no effect remotely resembling the expected speed of the aether was found. Once more the experiment produced a null result.’ ---Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.37.
Now what do you think they mean by a ‘null’ result? Do they mean ‘null and void’ in that it should have shown a moving earth but didn’t, or ‘null’ as ‘nil’? In fact, this costly and intricate interferometer discovered movement above five kilometres a second, far shorter than the required 30 kilometres per second predicted but some sort of movement nevertheless. Michelson believed this was a valid demonstration, and even with a margin of error due to human or mechanical shortfalls he believed the 5kms a second interference did show the existence of ether and that it was not altogether dragged along with the earth as Freshnel’s theory had claimed, but only some of it.
‘It appears… reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the Earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel’s explanation of aberration.’ --- Michelson and Morley, op. cit., p. 341
Thinking that maybe ether diminished in thickness the further away it is from earth, Michelson repeated the experiment at various heights above the earth’s surface looking for a point where this drag would diminish. Again he found nothing. Nevertheless, for some time, partial ether-drag was offered as the reason why the earth’s supposed 30kms/s motion could not be detected in full. [/font]
(http://s24.postimg.org/jey75vin9/ether_drag.jpg)
-
In 1892, Sir Oliver Lodge conducted a test with two rays of light passing round a space between two steel discs. His intention was to show that moving matter does drag the ether along with it.
‘The rays described their closed paths in opposite directions. He then made the discs rotate with great rapidity. If these rotating lumps of matter drag the ether along with them it is obvious that the velocities of the two rays should be affected. No influence whatever on the velocities of the rays could be discovered. We may therefore conclude, from this experiment, that moving matter does not drag the ether along with it.’ ---J.W. Sullivan: The Bases of Modern Science, Pelican Books, 1928, p. 155.
This experiment remember, was meant to prove the ether was dragged or partially dragged along by matter as Freshnel and Michelson theorised. But again they failed to produce the goods needed. Quite the opposite in fact, for according to Lodge’s test they could now no longer claim ether-drag as an excuse to dismiss the Airy and M/M experiments as verifying a fixed earth rather than a moving earth. Morley then called in Dayton Miller to help repeat the process in 1904 and in 1905. They built an even bigger interferometer, but they found no interference above three and a half kilometres per second.
An Irish Joke, a Relativist’s Ad Hoc ( The term ad hoc is used here to indicate the adding of assumptions to a model in order to account for the failure of any prediction.)
With the ether drag theory redundant, they had to invent yet another theory to get the earth moving again, another ad hoc. An ad hoc is a theory invented out of necessity. Because the Earthmovers - on philosophical and ideological grounds - could not, cannot, entertain the most applicable of all conclusions to the Airy and M/M experiment, -that the earth does not move, they were forced into inventing even more excuses no matter how ridiculous. So it was that in 1892, a ‘brilliant’ Irishman called George Fitzgerald (1851-1901) suggested that all matter experiences a contraction as the earth forces its way through the stationary ether, and it was this contraction that caused the F arm of the interferometer to shrink in ratio to the light-beam resistance, thus giving the result experienced.
‘Hold on a minute’ interrupts a first-year science student. ‘We can easily check this theory simply by measuring the F-arm and comparing it with the S-arm, yes, and if one is shorter than the other you have a viable theory, yes?’ ‘Sorry,’ answers Fitzgerald. ‘You see the ruler you measure with will also shrink exactly the same ratio as the F-arm. And because both will shrink the same relative to each other, you cannot measure the contraction or shrinkage.’ ‘What’ exclaims our student, ‘even if I use a ruler made out of diamonds? Surely such an inflexible ruler wouldn’t shrink like the interferometer’s arm?’ ‘Yes it would,’ says Fitzgerald with a straight face, ‘the mathematics say that if the ruler were made of the hardest material known and the interferometer arm made of sponge, the shrinkage would always be the same.’ ‘But that is plain nonsense,’ the student replies, ‘surely no one of sound mind would accept such reasoning? ‘Obviously my boy, you are not cut out to be a physicist, so I recommend you turn to some other profession.’ And that dear reader, are the lengths the Earthmovers went to in order to keep the earth moving.
Michelson’s Summary
In 1897, Michelson summarised the situation as follows:
‘In any case we are driven to extraordinary consequences and the choice lies between these three:
1) The Earth passes through the ether (or rather allows the ether to pass through its entire mass) without appreciable influence.
2) The length of all bodies is altered (equally) by their motion through ether.
3) The Earth in its motion drags with it the ether even at distances of many thousands of kilometres from its surface.’
Michelson, we see, was desperate. His first conclusion is a viable theory. His second option is of course Fitzgerald’s wacky ad hoc. For his third option he chooses the ether-drag theory that Sir Oliver Lodge seems to have falsified five years earlier in 1892. Incredibly however - for these men were after all the world’s leading scientists - Michelson omitted a fourth logical possibility based on the outcome of the experiment; that the earth does not move. Now unless all options are considered, the test-results are not being addressed according to the true scientific method. Others however, at least recognise the possibility, but see how they respond to it.
‘Thus failure to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the earth must be “at rest”… It was therefore the preferred frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the earth is not the centre of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?’ --- A, Baker: Modern Physics and Antiphysics, 1970.
And here is another example of the modern ‘scientific method’:
‘Now since the earth moves around the sun at about 18 miles per second, the speed of a beam of light travelling with the earth’s orbital motion should be greater than a beam travelling in the opposite direction. Yet Michelson’s experiment denied this assumption. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw – that the earth was at rest. This, of course, is preposterous.’ --- B. Jaffe: Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1980
Why indeed? And a final example of this ideology:
‘This is tantamount to assuming that the earth is the central body of the universe, an ancient idea that had been rejected centuries earlier by Copernicus and Galileo.’ D. Giancoli: Physics: Principles with Application, 1980
So, here we find all the magic of the Earthmovers and the path nineteenth and twentieth century faith and reason has taken. They ‘know’ since Copernicus and Galileo that the earth moves so there is no need to consider it as a scientific possibility, no matter what the experimental method might reveal.
Michelson’s hypothesis number two, the shrinking arms one, the one that came out of the same stable as Alice in Wonderland, was taken up in 1904 by a Dutch physicist, Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853-1928), and, although he could give no physical cause for it, he supposedly showed ‘mathematically’ that it was consistent with the governing equations - the electromagnetic equations. These figures had electromagnetic forces causing the moving particles of matter to bind together, even though there was no way of demonstrating his theory. Lorentz however, not being one to seek a reputation for nonsense, admitted later his equations had been extrapolated, i.e., if you know the answer first, then you can make up any mathematics that will give you that answer.
(Say the proof of the 5 we are looking for is 1+1+1+1+1. Does this mean that as long as I know the result 5, I can say 1+4 proves it, or 2+3 proves it, or 1+1+3 proves it, or 15 divided by 3 proves it, or 6-1 proves it, or anything I can make up that comes to 5 and claim it is ‘proven.’ But you must see these formulae, while ‘saving the appearance,’ are not necessarily true.)
Hypothesis number three, which ignored other falsifying tests like that of Sir Oliver Lodge, at least acknowledged the existence of ether.
And that, dear reader; is how the Airy and M/M test results drove physics into the realm of theoretical nonsense. The Fitzgerald/Lorentz contraction convinced few with any integrity left in the science of physics. But the Earthmovers were desperate. Newspapers, journals, articles etc., reflected the panic of the time, each calling for an answer to this appal¬ling vista. Then, slowly but surely, the occult illusionists of modern science began making inroads with their nonsense. The world was now gullible enough to accept anything so long as it came from the mouths of ‘scientists.’
As they saw it, the theoretical question that lay at the very heart of their problem was, ‘what laws do electromagnetic phenomena obey for bodies in motion?’ Maxwell’s equations gave the electromagnetic law for bodies at rest, that is, the earth at rest, but because they believed they had also tested the electromagnetic law (the speed of light) with a body they believed in motion (the earth) and found no difference (showing Maxwell was right), then, they speculated, maybe the two laws are the same. To adjust to this idea, new concepts of space and time were necessary. By this was meant that if the moving system is a rod moving at great speed in the direction of its length, we must attribute to it a somewhat shorter length than it has when at rest. Also, we must suppose that the time between two events on the moving rod is rather longer than when this rod is at rest, if you can follow their logic. In other words, if we want to keep the post-M&M experiment electromagnetic equations the same, we must alter the space/time measurements in the way postulated by Lorentz. Thus by giving this farcical excuse for failure to find the earth moving the grand title of ‘The Fitzgerald/Lorentz Contraction’ it made their ad hoc look scientific enough to go into university textbooks and scientific journals. So, did it end there? Of course it didn’t.
‘The Michelson - Morley experiment was still troublesome. The work of Fitzgerald and Lorentz got rid of the difficulty in a way, but the notion of decrease of distance and increase of mass seemed to hang in the air without an overall physical theory for support.’ --- Isaac Asimov, op. cit., p.338.
Chapter Summary
And that dear reader is where the Copernican revolution stood at the end of the nineteenth century. Two failures (Airy and M/M) to find the earth moving gave birth to a cosmology that is now dominated by ‘theoretical physics.’ What they needed then was ‘an overall physical theory’ to comply with the absurdities their heliocentric ideology had to conjure up to keep it alive while all the scientific tests were showing the earth does not move. And sure enough, that’s what we got, for soon it will be Albert Einstein to the rescue.
-
Chapter Thirty-Five
1893:
Providentissimus
Deus
‘In the nineteenth century, as man’s knowledge of antiquity increased, many strange voices began to attack the divine origin and truthfulness of the Bible. In the ensuing storm, the traditional voice of Christendom rose clear and calm in the person of Pope Leo XIII with his encyclical Providentissimus Deus, solemnly affirming that the entire Bible is God’s word, holy and true. He outlined a stricter scientific method for studying the Holy books, which was to bear great fruit in the following years.’ --- The Holy Bible, Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, 1950.
It was under these conditions then, in 1893, that Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) issued Providentissimus Deus, an encyclical on scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics, a papal guide for biblical scholars, theologians and others who interpret, read and teach Scripture. To put this letter in perspective however, we recall that in 1879 Pope Leo declared Thomism the official theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church. St Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, as we saw, ‘carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full development.’ This approval of Thomism cannot therefore be contradicted in the 1893 letter.
As any Catholic would expect, having first introduced the reader to a proper view of the Bible, its divine origin, its purpose and use by the Church, its inerrancy in all its parts etc., the Pope then laid out all the principles necessary for proper Catholic reading of the Bible. But now let us sketch out the state of ‘man’s knowledge’ referred to in the quote above. In the nineteenth century, man’s comprehension of some things did grow apace. Often this knowledge gave rise to many fine technological advances under the title of ‘scientific progress.’ As the adage ‘facts are facts’ was coined, and the fruits to be had from these valid scientific advances flourished, the term ‘science’ achieved a new status, respect and trust that bordered on the infallible. There were however, as we have shown, amid accurate and true findings, scientific institutions, with rational or rather irrational philosophies and ideologies, more likely atheistic and agnostic, who indulged more in systems, conjecture and assumptions than in empirical science; men who wished to separate faith and reason and thus pursue and push a totally ‘natural’ answer to the question of origins and functions of the world, all under the name of science of course.
‘Now we have to meet the rationalists, true children and inheritors of the older heretics, who, trusting in their own way of thinking, have rejected even the scraps and remnants of Christian belief which have been handed down to them….
These detestable errors, whereby they think they destroy the truth of the divine books, are obtruded on the world as the peremptory pronouncements of a certain newly-invented “free science,” a science, however, which is so far from final that they are perpetually modifying and supplementing it…
The efforts and arts of the enemy are chiefly directed against the more ignorant masses of the people. They diffuse their deadly poisons by means of books, pamphlets, and newspapers; they spread it by addresses and by conversation; they are found everywhere; and they are in possession of numerous schools, taken by violence from the Church, in which by ridicule and scurrilous jesting, they pervert the credulous and unformed minds of the young to the contempt of the Holy Scriptures. Should not these things Venerable Brethren, stir up and set on fire the heart of every pastor, so that to this “so-called knowledge” (II Tim. 6:20), may be opposed the ancient and true science which the Church, through the Apostles has received from Christ that the Holy Scriptures may find the champions that are needed in so momentous a battle.’ --- Par 10, Providentissimus Deus.
Every single one of these ‘rationalists’ were Copernicans, and in the wake of the Airy and M&M failures to find a moving earth, one might have thought any encyclical referring to ‘so-called knowledge’ would have taken note of the mother of all attacks on the Fathers interpretation of the Scriptures. Yes, the above describes the Earthmovers of Church and State to a tee.
Then there were the other far from final ‘scientific discoveries’ like uniformitarianism and evolutionism they asserted that demanded further reinterpretation of the Scriptures for them, especially Genesis, the origin and makeup of the world with its time-scales, revelations of direct Creation, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the historicity of the Noachian Deluge, the Table of Nations and the story of the dispersion from Babel and so on. The Encyclical then moves on to the dogmatic interpretations, those of the Fathers.
‘His teaching [St Irenaeus] and that of other holy Fathers, is taken up by the Synod of the Vatican, adopted the teaching of the Fathers, when, as it renewed the decree of Trent on the interpretations of the divine Word, it declared this to be its mind, that “in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which Mother Church has held and holds, whose prerogative it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and therefore, it is permitted to no one to interpret the Holy Scriptures against this sense, or even against the unanimous agreement of the Fathers. By this very wise law the Church by no means retards or blocks the investigations of Biblical science, but rather keeps it free of error, and aids it very much in true progress…. The professor of Holy Scripture, therefore, must be well acquainted with the whole circle of theology and deeply read in the commentaries of the holy Fathers and Doctors, and other interpreters of mark…
Now the authority of the Fathers, by whom after the apostles, the growing Church was disseminated, watered, built, protected, and nurtured, is the highest authority, as often as they all in one and the same way interpret a Biblical text, as pertaining to the doctrine of faith and morals, for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down from the Apostles as a matter of faith. The opinion of the Fathers is also of great weight when they treat of these matters in their capacity of Doctors unofficially, not only because they excel in their knowledge of revealed doctrine, and in their acquaintance with many things which are useful in understanding the apostolic books, but because they are men of eminent sanctity and of ardent zeal for the truth, on whom God has bestowed a more ample measure of his light. ’
Thus Pope Leo XIII confirms the hermeneutical authority of the 1616 decree, of that also there can be no doubt. For centuries the apologists and revisionists have hidden away this crucial link with the infallibility of a fixed-earth, moving-sun reading of Scripture, the books that contain no error at all; the declared fact that it was the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers.
‘That [a fixed-sun, moving-earth] was unanimously declared to be … formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages… [as] they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers…’ --- The Church’s 1633 judgement.
The Encyclical continues:
‘But [the interpreter] must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push enquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires, a rule to which it is more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate.’ Neither should those passages be neglected which the Fathers have understood in an allegorical or figurative sense.’
‘Beyond what the Fathers have done,’ now there is an interesting statement. Note it does not say ‘different’ to what the Fathers have done. For example, this allows us to speculate: based on the Biblical passages of course, how a geocentric universe works. Let me give you an example. Cardinal Bellarmine, in his 1571 lectures at Louvain University, came to the conclusion that the stars move individually through the space of the universe individually, as we see them, and that they were not inserted in a moving solid aether of the universe.
That said there is no doubt the wording is ambiguous enough for others to use them as a way out of the 1616 decrees ruling. Was it written so with the geocentric U-turn in mind? Surely not, for would that not be contradicting his earlier teaching on the absolute authority of all the Fathers and Aquinas? But then that is what happened from 1741 to 1835. Moreover, no Father took a geocentric wording as figurative or allegorical. Later in the Letter however, came another opportunity for the Apologists:
‘Knowledge of the natural sciences will be a great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture, by which he can more easily discover and refute fallacious arguments of the kind drawn up against the Scriptures. Indeed there should be no disagreement between the theologian and the physicist, provided that each confines himself within his own territory, watching out for this, according to St Augustine’s warning: “not to make rash assertions, and to declare the unknown as known.” If dissention should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St Augustine for the theologian: “Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.”
First we are told ‘knowledge of the natural sciences will be a great help to the teacher of Sacred Scripture.’ The trouble is, as we have shown again and again in this synthesis, long before the encyclical Providentissimus Deus ‘natural science’ or natural philosophy, had been institutionalised by Freemasonic societies such as the Royal Society of England wherein crucial scientific conclusions such as heliocentrism, the age of the earth and universe and evolutionism were arrived at by consensus rather than by scientific proof, with most data interpreted on ideological grounds. But again the encyclical hints at the Galileo case, for wasn’t it ‘knowledge of natural science,’ or rather what Churchmen thought was knowledge of natural science, that led to the U-turn on the 1616 decree. But in the Copernican world of 1893, we have no doubt that every man in the Church that read the words above believed that knowledge of natural science had proven heliocentrism, whatever about uniformitarianism and evolutionism where a few were still holding out. In other words, this encyclical’s advice, while perfectly sound as the Pope meant them, would have had the very opposite effect to that intended, the search for truth. So while the principle itself was absolutely correct, we now see how the words could be and were used to contradict the interpretations of the Fathers.
Given science has now admitted that no ‘real demonstration’ for a fixed-sun/moving-earth ever existed, nor is likely to be demonstrated, a position declared by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615 the above teaching by St Augustine can only be used to support a traditional geocentric interpretation. Furthermore, as St Augustine advises, given a heliocentric reading was already defined and declared by the Church as contrary to the Scriptures, this encyclical passage too can only be used to support a fixed-earth, moving-sun reading of the Scriptures. But was it, is it?
-
‘In short, on the one hand Leo was supporting the principle denying the scientific authority of Scripture by means of a quotation from Saint Augustine. On the other hand, the encyclical also contained a supporting argument: this principle provides the explanation of the fact that demonstrated physical truth is given priority over literal biblical assertions, and the fact that sacred authors wrote by accommodating their writings to common language, belief and observation; these facts are explained by the principle, which in turn justified by them. This structure of reasoning was the same as that advanced by Galileo.’--- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.266.
There lies the confusion and contradiction presented to Pope Leo XIII by the U-turn of 1741-1835. In short had he to accommodate the contradiction long enacted by the Copernican take-over of Scripture? And it was the ‘supporting argument’ of this encyclical that had to be seized by the apologists in order to try to justify that U-turn. But as we have shown above this could not be legally done by way of any ‘supporting arguments’ presented in this encyclical. Nor could this be done if 333 encyclicals were written trying to do the same.
Pope Leo XIII continued:
‘To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost “Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.” Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us – “went by what sensibly appeared,” or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to. The unshrinking defence of the Holy scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect’
Here again we find the confusion presented by the same Copernican U-turn. First of all the Encyclical begins with the following teaching: ‘[The Scriptures] being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.’ Cardinal Bellarmine taught ‘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.’ Recall Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII endorsed this teaching in their judgements of 1616 and 1633. Finally, Dogmatic Vatican Council I taught that ‘the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8).’
Now whatever the above passage in Providentissimus Deus refers to, it certainly cannot be made include the revelation of a geocentric world, a matter very much in keeping with the Church’s reason to proscribe false philosophy. The only reason to protect such knowledge – as the Church did in 1616 - is so that the truth can be used as a subordinate means to salvation.
Where the passage goes on to correctly state some (‘each’) of the Fathers may have interpreted the Scriptures differently ‘where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect;’ there is no doubt the Copernicans began to see the possibilities of using this paragraph as an endorsement of that U-turn on the geocentric interpretation. Surely the first vision of these words was applied to the terms ‘sunrise’ and ‘sunset’ in a heliocentric solar system. We cannot think of other example in the history of the conflict between faith and science and that could be applied here. And this is exactly what happened. Having literally conned their way out of the 1616 decree from 1741 to 1835, the Copernicans had no compunction in abusing this encyclical to support their previous misuses. Confirmation of this exploitation can be found anywhere and everywhere they spin their stories. Here are a few examples spread over the last century:
‘Similarly, “the sun stood still,” like our “the sun rises,” is a popular method of speaking, and involves the fact that in some way or another – and various ways have been suggested – God Almighty did prolong the hours of light in the case of Joshua; certainly does not necessarily involve inferences which churchmen of the time of Galileo unwisely read into the statement. They, as we have seen, were men of their own time and not in front of it, and they fell into the errors natural to what figured in those days of science. But we should be careful to make use of the better guidance which we have obtained in such utterances as the “Providentissimus Deus” and avoid the mistakes which we can see our predecessors have made and which, indeed, it would have been exceedingly difficult for them to have avoided.’ ----Sir Bertram Windle: The Church and Science, Catholic Truth Society, 1920, p.81.
‘Anyone who will compare this [Galileo’s] wonderful letter with the Encyclical Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII on the study of Holy Scripture, will see how near in many places Galileo came to the very words of the Holy Father.’--- James Brodrick, S.J: The life of Cardinal Bellarmine, Burns Oats, 1928, p.351
‘A sort of climax of the hermeneutical aspect of the Galileo affair occurred in 1893 with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus, for this docuмent put forth a view of the relationship between biblical interpretation and scientific investigation that corresponded to the one advanced by Galileo in his letters to Castelli and Christina.’ ---M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.264.
‘But Bellarmine erred in its application, for the theological principles with which Galileo supported his system were merely those afterwards officially adopted and taught us by Pope Leo XIII in his Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus.’ --- E.C Messenger: Evolution and Theology, Burns, Oats and Washbourne, 1931
‘On the other hand Galileo was right about heliocentricism. Moreover, some of his theological wanderings eventually found themselves mirrored in several papal encyclicals of the last two centuries. Providentissimus Deus by Leo XIII and Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII, for instance, both have pieces that could have been extracted from Galileo’s Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina… Galileo seems to have won out both on theological as well as scientific grounds…’ --- J.T. Winschel: Galileo, Victim or Villain, The Angelus, Oct. 2003, p.38.
‘To excite Catholic students to rival non-Catholics in the study of the Scriptures, and at the same time to guide their studies, Pope Leo XIII in 1893 published “Providentissimus Deus,” which won the admiration even of Protestants.’ ---Newadvent Catholic Encyclopedia: Largest Catholic website in the world, 2013.
‘Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893), which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal Baronius’s quip that the Bible “is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy.’ ----Catholics United for the Faith - Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded to help the faithful learn what the Catholic Church teaches.
Now you can argue all the Rheticus and Baronius ‘quips’ one can invent, but the fact remains that the Fathers, Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII did confirm the geocentric reading by way of an ‘unrevisable’ decree.
‘When Pope Leo XIII wrote on the importance of science and reason, he essentially embraced the philosophical principles put forth by Galileo, and many statements by Popes and the Church over the years have expressed admiration for Galileo. For example, Galileo was specifically singled out for praise by Pope Pius XII in his address to the International Astronomical Union in 1952.’---- Vatican Observatory website 2013.
Finally we come to the most poignant misuse of them all, a reference in Pope John Paul II’s 1992 speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences when the conclusions of the pontifical commission on the Galileo case were announced.
‘A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: “Truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself.’ --- Pope John Paul II.
‘Actually, almost 100 years before Pope John Paul’s apology, an earlier Pope (Leo XIII) effectively reinstated Galileo in an encyclical dealing with how Catholics should study the Bible. Although Pope Leo XIII does not mention Galileo by name in the encyclical, nevertheless, “In 1893, Pope Leo XIII made honorable amends to Galileo’s memory by basing his encyclical Providentissimus Deus on the principles of exegesis that Galileo had expounded.”’ ----A. Crombie: ‘From Augustine to Galileo,’ Vol. 2, p. 225).
We see then how the first papal encyclical of scriptural interpretation was hijacked by the Earthmovers. The purpose of the encyclical was mainly to protect Scripture from attempts ‘to vilify its contents’ by the misuse of physical science, an impossible task given the 1741-1835 denial of the unanimous geocentric interpretation of the Fathers. With a brand new commandment of the Church confirmed; ‘the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes,’ this letter had no chance to stem the tide of scriptural modernism in the Catholic Church. The 1890s were times when the Galileo case was being milked for all it was worth by the evolutionists who necessarily embraced the long ages of the uniformitarians. In his book Retrying Galileo, Finocchiaro recalls a dispute between Britain’s St. George Jackson Mivart, a convert to Catholicism who was suggesting science showed the evolution of humans. An Irish priest, Fr Murphy, was outraged at this ‘heresy’ saying the special creation of the human species was an article of Catholic faith. Mivart gave the standard reply in 1885, arguing ‘that Galileo’s trial showed that the Church was fallible in scientific matters, and so modern Catholics had complete freedom in scientific inquiry; but he argued that the Church’s error on Copernicanism was a providential one, and so took his conclusion to be a positive lesson rather than a criticism of the Church.’ Echoes of John Henry Newman here above, yes? Mivart was later excommunicated whereas Newman made a cardinal by Pope Leo XIII.
As a fascinating postscript to Providentissimus Deus is the story of the finding of the long lost trial docuмents of Giordano Bruno in the year 1886. Having earlier granted access to the Galileo archives, Pope Leo XIII refused scholars access to the Bruno docuмents. The Pope also strenuously opposed the building of a statue to Bruno in Rome proposed by the Italian government and an international committee of scholars. In the meantime, in 1887, a marble column to Galileo was built and erected on Rome near the Villa Medici. This was followed in 1889 when the statue of Bruno was erected in the Campo dei Fiori, a square in Rome where the unrepentant heretic Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600. Never remembered for his many heresies but only for his heliocentrism and ‘foresight’ into modern cosmology, Bruno joined Galileo in the sacred city of Rome as a permanent reminder to the world of the supposed and accepted injustice, ignorance and errors of Catholicism.
-
For Bacon the relationship between science and spirituality was clear - Through science, man would be restored to the state of grace which he had enjoyed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, to the “sovereignty and power” . . . which he had hid in his first state of creation. According to Bacon, not only would science restore man to his rightful dominion over the Earth, it would also create the perfect moral Christian society. - - - Katy Redmond: Science and Spirituality: Complimentary or Contradictory, a prize winning essay that appeared in Resurgence Magazine, Oct, 2003.
Ashmole became the friend and acquaintance of astrologers, mathematicians, physicians and other individuals who were advancing their knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature and science, as Francis Bacon’s redefined Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ required them to. - - - Knight & Lomas, the Hiram Key, pp.343 and 346.
Antichrist proposes that the correct understanding of the relationship between material science and spirituality - this science understood to be the advance of knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature - has the agency power to restore man to the state of grace he had before the Fall.
Consider that the stated objective - ostensibly spiritual - is to return to the paradise of pleasure, and not the grace of Redemption; and that the means for attaining it is no more than natural knowledge of the properties of crass matter. As with all satanic inversions, and especially the inversion called evolution, matter is invoked to act upon, vivify, and even create spirit.
Nay rather, the real objective is to absolutely annihilate Christ; while the real mechanism is the dog returning to its vomit and the pig returning to its wallowing in the mire - aka the Apostasy of the Gentiles.
[/font][/size]
-
The ‘Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ,’ as we have seen was recognition of Galileo’s heliocentrism. But isn’t Bacon always portrayed as a geocentrist?
Reminder: What then was the ritual for Bacon’s Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Among other things there is a required session of prepared questions and answers:
Q. “Where were you made a Mason?”
A. “In the body of a Lodge, just perfect and regular.”
Q. “And when?”
A. “When the sun was at its meridian.”
Q. “As in this country Freemasons’ Lodges are usually held and candidates initiated at night, how do you reconcile that which at first sight appears a paradox?”
A. “The sun being a fixed body and the earth continually revolving about the same on its own axis, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ being a universal science, diffused throughout the whole of the inhabited globe, it necessarily follows that the sun must always be at its meridian with respect to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.”
Q. “What is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?”
A. A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, illustrated by symbols.
A few days ago a friend sent me this article from Chiesa Viva:
http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Pallio_1_e_2__BXVI__en.pdf
The article goes into excruciating detail in explaining the satanic symbolism in BXVI's pallium, coat of arms, and two of his mitres. I am posting the article here in order to bolster the proposition that heliocentrism has nothing to do with experimental material science, but is, rather, a tenet of satanism.
The true essence of the heresy of heliocentrism is, I think, perfectly demonstrated by the descriptions and explanations provided in this article. As the hellish ritual above shows, this heresy acts as the first principle of a belief system veiled (hidden; occult; secret; esoteric) in allegory (ambiguity; delusion; deceit) and presented in symbols.
Heliocentric satanism is a cult of unreality or anti-reality, that raises quantitative extension (an accidental form) above all created substances. The worm and the cockroach - individuals belonging to two classes of substance or kind and actuated by their respective substantial forms - are higher in being, in nobility, and in perfection than quantity as such, which can never subsist in itself.
Though heliocentrism purports to be a fact of material, observable reality, it is nothing more than a highly ritualized, highly symbolized algorithm belonging entirely to the realm of abstract cogitation.
The novus ordo sect fanatically propagates and defends heliocentrism and its choirboy, Galileo, not because it is defending a true scientific discovery, but precisely because it is a rabid modernist/satanist/pythagorianist cult.
-
The movie The Principle premiers in just a few more days: October 24th: Marcus Theatre, Addison Illinois: 7:00 showing.
Sungenis gave a most excellent interview explaining in very understandable terms the scientific data that will be presented in the film:
http://www.isoc.ws/
In this interview, he remarks that production on the film had come to a close and a release date was chosen; however the data from the returning Planck probe became available, which data absolutely had to be included in the film, which caused them to have to go back into production.
Now Who, shall we suppose, arranged for such an auspicious circuмstance?
Almighty God timed things so that the energetic work of His bitterest enemies could be utilized to make this film even better.
Laudate Dominum omnes gentes; laudate eum omnes populi. Quoniam confirmata est super nos misericordia eius. Et veritas Domini manet in aeternum.
-
History shows the development of science advanced during the High Middle Ages, when the fundamental beliefs were those of Christian wisdom.
-
For Bacon the relationship between science and spirituality was clear - Through science, man would be restored to the state of grace which he had enjoyed in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, to the “sovereignty and power” . . . which he had hid in his first state of creation. According to Bacon, not only would science restore man to his rightful dominion over the Earth, it would also create the perfect moral Christian society. - - - Katy Redmond: Science and Spirituality: Complimentary or Contradictory, a prize winning essay that appeared in Resurgence Magazine, Oct, 2003.
Ashmole became the friend and acquaintance of astrologers, mathematicians, physicians and other individuals who were advancing their knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature and science, as Francis Bacon’s redefined Second Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ required them to. - - - Knight & Lomas, the Hiram Key, pp.343 and 346.
Antichrist proposes that the correct understanding of the relationship between material science and spirituality - this science understood to be the advance of knowledge into the hidden mysteries of nature - has the agency power to restore man to the state of grace he had before the Fall.
Consider that the stated objective - ostensibly spiritual - is to return to the paradise of pleasure, and not the grace of Redemption; and that the means for attaining it is no more than natural knowledge of the properties of crass matter. As with all satanic inversions, and especially the inversion called evolution, matter is invoked to act upon, vivify, and even create spirit.
Nay rather, the real objective is to absolutely annihilate Christ; while the real mechanism is the dog returning to its vomit and the pig returning to its wallowing in the mire - aka the Apostasy of the Gentiles.
[/font][/size]
It is important to note that satanists would have their members uphold and assent to a radical contradiction, namely BOTH that a) they are in possession of true and deep 'supernatural' (not human) and 'spiritual' (otherworldly) mysteries; AND b) that natural knowledge of the secrets of nature (matter) is the transforming gnosis, the only true, real, and necessary knowledge for man.
This contradiction entirely violates the true definitions of both natural knowledge and mystery; for as the First Vatican Council teaches:
1. There is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils
Antichrist cannot have it both ways. It cannot claim to be a mystery cult that possesses knowledge revealed through a means other than human reason, and that simultaneously teaches that the highest state of perfection or actualization that man can reach is obtainable only through the use of human reason. No cult can rightly claim to possess knowledge of mysteries when it denies the existence of realities not penetrable by the reason.
Unless, of course, it leaves off with veils and deceptions and makes clear what is actually happening. The only source of extra-human revelation available to satanists is the demonic. And this body of information - wholly unreliable due to the malice of its source - is not supernatural. The demons possess what they know through their created nature, and they pass it on to man by natural means, and certainly not by means of supernatural grace:
Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.
The only realities correctly termed 'supernatural' have the Blessed Trinity for their Source.
One of the greatest distinctions between Christianity and paganism is that the divinely revealed and truly supernatural Mysteries of the Catholic Faith DO NOT violate Reason; whereas the false tenets of satanism, obtained through wholly natural means, corrupt and destroy the operation of the intellectual faculty by the systematic programming of innately violating contradictions, to which initiates are forcibly induced to give assent, to their great harm.
Wherefore what is antichrist but the false religion of enshrined, ritualized contradiction?
-
Chapter Thirty-Six
1905:
Albert to
The Rescue
(http://s3.postimg.org/l5innbqm7/ch10_1.jpg)
Albert Einstein
‘There had to be an explanation [for the Airy and M&M test results that could not find evidence for a 30kms/s movement]. Either the earth was motionless with respect to the ether, or the earth dragged the ether with it, or something. All possible explanations seemed highly unlikely, and for nearly a quarter of a century, the world of science was completely puzzled. It took a scientific revolution to explain the matter, so that the Michelson-Morley experiment is perhaps the most important “failure” in the history of science.’ ----Isaac Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.388.
-
O.K., here above Asimov shows us that the ‘progress’ of modern cosmology is ideologically based and not empirically founded. He does this by telling us they rejected perfectly valid interpretations of two empirical tests showing the earth does not orbit the sun, two readings that they could not falsify. He then admits it took a ‘scientific revolution’ to solve their problem for them. Such ‘revolutions,’ the Illuminati know, are best brought about by individuals in whom the public would be conditioned to accept as men of ‘great genius.’
'The enemies of society are bent on persuading us that mankind is evolving and progressing and that the intellectual capacities of the human being are steadily increasing. This deification of the modern man, and what is being attempted is no less than that, is greatly assisted if the last century or so is shown to have produced intellectuals of unprecedented capacity, capable of opening the eyes of the world to truths which had remained hidden in all previous centuries of his history. The second generality is that it is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory - however ludicrously opposed to common sense - is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. Now the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect, if it cannot be understood this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic that is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.’----N. Martin Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985, p.5. The structure of this chapter is based on Martin Gwynne’s essay.
An example of this we have already seen with Isaac Newton and his Principia, a collection of ideas and mathematics that were incomprehensible yet hailed by the Royal Society of London and others as providing laws and definitive proof for heliocentricism. But when their Copernican revolution failed the empirical tests with Airy and M&M, it was time to produce another such genius to get the earth moving again. In Albert Einstein they found their man with his Special Theory of Relativity (1905) and his General Theory of Relativity (1915)
‘Most great works in physics have come from those who combine miraculous physical intuition with sound mathematical skills. The former is far more important than the latter.’ --- McEvoy and Zarate: Introducing Steven Hawking, Icon Books, 1997, p.31.
Who then was the miracle worker called in to convince the world that the M&M experiment really didn’t provide evidence for a stationary earth? After much consideration the powers that be - those who decide how mankind should think about themselves and the universe they live in, those who throughout history have implemented their Egyptian, hermetic, Pythagorean, cabbalistic, Gnostic, and masonic cosmic worldview; settled on Albert Einstein (1879-1955), a school dropout who once worked in a patent office. Were it not for the need to get the earth moving again, it is probable the world would never have heard of Albert Einstein. Using this man they achieved their goal, for today Einstein’s reputation as a genius knows no bounds, his name now synonymous with the idea of genuine superior brainpower.
‘No modern book dealing in any generality with astronomy, physics or mathematics could omit his name; the splitting of the atom which in the middle of the twentieth century altered the whole concept of warfare is intimately associated with his name; no discussion of the forces and personalities most responsible for the shape of modern civilisation could fail to give him prominent mention; probably no day passes without his name appearing frequently in newspaper articles and in television programmes; statues have been erected to him in capital cities; he was the recipient of the Nobel Prize [1921] [ Not for his relativity theories, but for his work on the photoelectric effect]; in 1979 the centenary of his birth was commemorated all over the Western world [including the Vatican of course] with celebrations and exhibitions at which he was universally proclaimed as a man who had placed his stamp upon the science of the twentieth century and who would be considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time.’ --- W. C. Dampier: A History of Science, p.476, quoted by M. Gwynne
So, who was this man whose pickled smallish brain now languishes in a jar in Texas USA? Albert Einstein was born in 1879 to non-practising Jєωιѕн parents in Ulm, in southwest Germany. At the age of six he entered a Catholic primary school where he received a Catholic religious education. Meanwhile, Albert’s parents paid a relative to teach him the fundamentals of Judaism. According to Max Jammer, as a young boy, Albert Einstein extracted from Catholicism and Judaism elements common to both and that this excited in him a fervent religious sentiment including a desire to live a life pleasing to God. He spent several years living in what he later called a religious paradise. (Max Jammer; Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, 2000.
Einstein’s brief encounter with the old Jєωιѕн-Christian line of thought ended at the age of twelve when he was introduced to popular books on science, mathematics and geometry. One of these, we are told, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, had a profound affect on his thinking. As a programmed Copernican, uniformitarian and evolutionist, Einstein concluded that the Bible must be mythical, and like others around him at the time decided he too must get into this new cosmic-religion business. He then became a devoted fan of Benedict de Spinoza, the 17th century Jєωιѕн philosopher who advocated a ‘god’ of nature rather than a personal God. ‘Neither intellect nor will appertain to God’s nature,’ taught Spinoza, and that the appropriate object of religious devotion is the harmony of the universe. Thus emerged Einstein’s cosmic religiosity, and while he never propounded his beliefs up front, he was always delighted to respond to frequently asked questions by journalists etc., about his religious beliefs. While he declared that he believed in ‘the god of Spinoza,’ he never disputed the usefulness of conventional religion.
Because of innumerable books on Albert Einstein and his contribution to both faith and science, we are told many things about the man. One such publication, Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance (Denis Overbye: Einstein in Love, Bloomsbury, 2001.), inspired such headlines as ‘Einstein: genius and dirty old man’ because it exposes the many human failings of Einstein, calling him ‘a philanderer [adulterer], a draft dodger and a hustler whose long-suffering wife Mileva Maric (a Serbian physics student who co-authored some of his scientific theories but got no credit for them) mortgaged her happiness for his.’ ( Alan Wilks: Irish Independent, Sat. 26 May 2001.) According to Overbye; ‘by the time they divorced she was a paranoid wreck. To him, she began as one of his rechnenpferde (literally, “calculating horses” who did the mathematical proofs of his theories) and became “the employee I can’t fire.”’ Einstein’s use of people, we read, was not the thoughtless self-indulgence of a spoiled brat. His calculation was almost mathematical if you will pardon the pun. When he became engaged to Mileva he continued to send his laundry to an earlier girlfriend. An affair with his 42-year-old cousin – which prompted his divorce – turned into an infatuation with her 20-year-old daughter. By then, however, his attraction had deserted him and the girl turned him down. His personal habits, like his reluctance to bathe and telling dirty jokes accompanied by a “seal-like laugh” may have influenced her aomewhat. Wilkes however, in keeping with Einstein’s popularity in the world, puts aside morals as secondary and ends his review with praise: ‘Overbye, who is a scientist himself, also offers a beautiful exposition of the achievements of Einstein the scientist and thinker.’ It seems that no matter what, homo consensus will always be led to believe that Albert Einstein’s relativist theories contributed something useful to human knowledge, and it is for this that even a ‘dirty old man’ can be revered among the greats of history. Einstein has appeared on many world postage stamps, and more books about him continue to be published. His most poignant achievement however was posthumous, being named TIME magazine’s ‘Person of the Century.’ This distinction, we know, goes to the one that had the greatest influence on the 20th century, whether for good or evil. Now consider the impact Stalin or Hitler had on the last century and maybe you will see just how important the powers that be place on the art of earthmoving and sun fixing. Consider this view in the light of Einstein’s theories having been rubbished and falsified throughout the century, and you should be alarmed.
-
‘The obstinate truth about Einstein is that in mathematics he was no more than competent and that among the so-called discoveries presented to the world under his name one can search in vain for one that was original. Had Einstein not been selected, for reasons that had nothing to do with intellectual ability, to act out a role which was deemed necessary for the furtherance of the war against God and civilisation, his claim to immortal fame would have been that of a talented and not-undistinguished physicist… If we allow the very utmost in his favour it is demonstrable that he would have been less well-known still than Reimann, Minkowski, Thomson, Fitzgerald, Maxwell, Lorentz, Lamor, Planck Poincare, Hilbert, Ricci, Levi-Civita, Bohr, Schroedinger and Heisenberg, all of whom were approximate contemporaries of Einstein’s, all of whom were more competent and original in the areas of science which have made Einstein’s name immortal, and none of whom will be known even as names to most readers who do not have a specialist knowledge of mathematics and physics.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.5.
The fact is that Einstein, like Isaac Newton, never used a telescope in his life. His theories were not based on any direct observation of the universe but from ideas in his head about things others had presented. He discovered nothing empirical, and hadn’t an original ‘thought’ incorporated into the work he is acclaimed for. The thing is that the powers that be allowed him to capitalise on the theories and work of others, no matter their usefulness or uselessness.
So what is Einstein really, really famous for? Why E=mc² of course, the concept that matter is energy and energy is matter, the formula supposedly used to split atoms, make atomic bombs and run nuclear power-stations etc. Is this his brainchild? The answer is no, it is not. It was first created in 1881 by J.J. Thompson in the form: e=¾mc² in respect of a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. In 1900 Poincare suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density in relation to energy density, such that E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass.
‘According to Einstein (and to Poincare who originated the idea) E=mc² represents the energy of a particle at rest. Mass and energy, the theory goes, are mutually convertible. Every material object, including the piece of paper you are looking at now, contains dormant energy; and such dormant energy is equal to the mass of the object times the square of the speed of light. In a single ounce of coal or sand, for instance, there resides (according to the supposition) energy equivalent to that obtainable by burning approximately one hundred tons of coal. (See Sir E. T. Whittaker: A History of Aether and Electricity, Vol.2, p.51.) Einstein first reproduced this formula of Poincare’s (without acknowledgement) in 1905 in a paper separate to his paper on Special Theory published in the same year. In what he described as a ‘thought experiment’ (a term that was to become famous), he imagined an atom that decayed radioactivity by emitting radiation, gamma rays. Having achieved this feat of imagination he then argued in incomprehensible fashion that the atom that was left after the decay must be less massive than the original atom; and that the amount of mass (m) that was lost was just equal to the total energy (E) carried away by the radiation divided by the square of the velocity of light ©. Or, put in his own words: “If a body gives off energy E in the form of radiation its mass diminishes by E/c².”
This is in effect the statement that all energy of whatever sort (he had decided and decreed - as though he were omniscient God - that the fact that his calculations were only in respect of energy given off in the form of light “evidently makes no difference” )(The 1905 Einstein paper, published in Annalen der Physik.) had mass. Better was to come. Two years later, “led by aesthetic reasons” he came to the “stupendous realization” that the reverse must also hold (See B. Hoffman and H. Dukas: Einstein, p.81 and p.38 respectively.) – a piece of reasoning every bit as sound as a deduction that because all dogs are animals, then all animals are dogs. – And; that all mass of whatever sort must have (or be?) energy, and that E=mc² expressed their equivalence.
Let us try to keep calm, and let me say no more than that Einstein’s, or rather Poincare’s concoction is completely unverified. No, I shall go further, and say that there is no possible reason for saying that mass and energy are in any way equivalent or mutually transferable, nor that the speed of light (or for that matter, the square of the speed of light) can have any bearing on the matter. As I implied in the first section of this footnote, the equation is more like a magic spell than a mathematical formula. Also, while emphasising that I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist, I add that no one has ever demonstrated to me that it would have made the slightest practical difference if Poincare had said that E=mc or mc³ rather than mc².’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.38.
(http://s21.postimg.org/cwnx4fxtj/ch10_2.jpg)
One of many Einstein stamps
-
Now without going into a summary of the nuclear business, suffice to say that within nuclear power stations it is not about taking atoms from pieces of paper, grains of sand or lumps of coal and extracting energy from them in the form of electricity. Nuclear physics began in 1934, in Rome, when Enrico Fermi and Emilio Segre began experiments with a rare radioactive element called uranium. Without realising fully what they had done, they ‘shot neutrons into the uranium nucleus and split the atom.’ Now shooting neutrons into an atom of Einstein’s hat or his pipe would not, we assure you, have resulted in producing energy. The mystery lies in the already active material. In 1939 physicists Hahn and Strassmann discovered how to release larger amounts of energy by this process. Almost the only connection Einstein had with nuclear fission came after a series of meetings with the famous physicist Neils Bohr who suggested he send that famous letter to President Roosevelt in August 1939 advising him of the feasibility of the development of an atomic bomb before America’s enemies did it. With Einstein’s name before him Roosevelt acted on this advice. ‘In the fields of nuclear engineering and physics Einstein had no expertise at all.’
‘The greatest mathematician of Einstein’s day was David Hilbert, without any doubt; and after him Poincare, Minkowski, Ricci, and Levi-Civita. Einstein made no contribution whatever to mathematics as such unless one counts his summation convention for not writing some signs of summation – a notational convention without which we should know precisely as much but which does save a little chalk in lectures.’ --- Quote from a letter written to Gwynne by a doctor of mathematics at Reading University who preferred to remain anonymous, and as is reflected in an article in the Economist of Feb 5, 1977.
So, we may well ask, what exactly did Einstein initiate? ( Gwynne tells us it was J.H. Poincare and H.A. Lorentz who first (in 1899) proposed absolute motion was undetectable in principle. Later in 1916, when his General Theory of Relativity was announced (he even got the name Relativity from J.H. Poincare) a host of other scientists’ ideas appeared as his own. Indeed it was Poincare, not Einstein, who first asserted that no velocity could exceed that of the speed of light. The idea of ‘curved space,’ again credited to Einstein, was previously proposed by Friederick Riemann in 1854. It was Hermann Minkowaki who in 1907, eight years before Einstein's General Theory, introduced a fourth dimension into cosmology called space-time. Einstein then regurgitated the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction as his own. He then proposed clocks in motion run slower to other clocks in motion or not in motion at all. Sir Joseph Larmor first mooted this idea some time earlier. The idea of crinkles in space belonged to W.K. Clifford. This then is how the great man was ‘miraculously’ inspired with all his revolutionary ideas.)
‘He contributed to the theoretical work in quantum mechanics, photo-electricity and statistical mechanics.’ Given however, that such workings; like those of an atom, exist in an invisible world, nobody can say for certain if such theories are correct or not. Thus Einstein’s can hardly be credited with something real. No doubt in answer to these comments, ‘experts’ in these fields will assure you all of the above contribute to real scientific progress as we know it.
‘The truth is that Einstein was no more than a puppet. The theories of the mathematicians and physicists from whom he plagiarised may have been devoid of common sense, but at least they tended to be internally consistent and capable of standing up to mathematical scrutiny. Einstein’s theories did not even meet that test. His life’s work was a hotchpotch of plagiarisms that were in total not only defective in logic but also so full of interior error that, as Lynch, Dingle Essen and others showed, any mathematician brave enough to investigate them critically cannot fail to destroy them. And let me repeat that he plagiarised. His contributions to thought were not only childish; they were not even his.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.40.
Between 1904 and 1919, the so-called ‘Theory of Relativity’ was undoubtedly the theory of Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928). Einstein’s ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ was at that time merely an obscure form of Lorentz’s idea and known only to a few physicists. This anonymity was to change in 1919 however, four years after Albert published his General Theory of Relativity. That was the year that the Royal Society of London and the Royal Astronomical Society found and spent large sums of money sending some of their most distinguished members around the earth to conduct tests for Einstein’s recently published General Theory. With the Royal Earthmovers now aboard, such ‘proofs’ were now assured.
‘As though by magic, from the “Relativity Theory of Lorentz” (known to a mere handful of specialists) to “Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory” (known by name, though little else, to everyone).’ ---H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, 1972, p.176.
Professor Dingle, who was at the time a demonstrator and lecturer in physics at the Imperial College, witnessed this incredible sudden and undeserved transformation of titleholder.
‘No sooner did the news leak out that Einstein was coming to America than he was deluged with cabled invitations from presidents of academic institutions to lecture, and visit, and receive academic honours.’ --- B. Hoffmann and H. Dukas: Einstein, p144.
Now praise from fellow boffins is one thing, but with Einstein it went further:
‘On 2nd April 1921, as the boat was docking, reporters besieged him on shipboard. The mayor of New York City gave him an official welcome as if he were an American war hero. President Harding invited him to the White House…In October Einstein left for a visit to Japan. Where ever he went enthusiastic crowds gathered spontaneously to catch a glimpse of him. He was even received by the Emperor. The newspapers vied with one another to report his activities in both factual and fictional detail. He was showered with honours and gifts.’ --- B. Hoffmann and H. Dukas: Einstein, p.150.
To be continued:
-
In 1929 Einstein pronounced that he had solved the problems involved in writing down field equations for his simplified field theory, the long sought after theory of everything, trying to show a link between the theory of gravity and electromagnetism. On the day the third of a series of nine articles on the theory was published, the New York Times printed an English translation of the lot, and hailed it as ‘an outstanding advance in science.’ Soon however, this ‘outstanding scientific advance’ was found to be so full of errors and contradictions that even the Relativist revolutionists could not obscure its nonsense and Einstein had to abandon it.
Einstein’s 50th birthday was a universal event. In 1952, on the death of Chaim Weizmann, Einstein was asked to succeed him as President of the State of Israel. When Einstein died in 1955 the world mourned his passing. Through the sponsorship of the earthmoving Masters, the man had been elevated to the status of a god. Today, the world is never too far removed from Einstein. He is lauded by both Church and State who refer us to his opinions and make sure his memory appears in newspapers, journals, and on television on a regular basis. It would be hard to find a week go by without some reminder of him and his contribution to modern ‘knowledge.’ He was truly a man for our gullible times. Of particular interest to this synthesis is that on Sept 28, 1979, the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s birth the following happened.
‘[On this day] Pope John Paul II celebrated the anniversary of Einstein’s birth with a convocation of physicists, a congress addressed by an Agnostic, an expert in quantum physics, in the very room where Galileo was condemned. The Pope chose that room to have that activity there – to honour Einstein, to honour physics and even to honour science [and to announce the setting up of the commission to vindicate Galileo].’ --- Interview with Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, priest and physicist, Professor of Theology at St Joseph’s University, New York.
Most readers may well perceive that they might have to skip through this chapter on Einstein and his theories without being able to understand much of it. At least this is how most of our group felt when we first began our investigations (see ‘Proofs for Relativity’ later). To our utter astonishment however, as Martin Gwynne assures his readers, the basic premise of Einstein’s postulations are easily understood by anyone willing to give it a little concentration. Once we break through that psychological barrier we can then see the wider picture and will no longer be intimidated when the modern cosmologist tries to browbeat us intellectually by telling us it only appears simple because we mere mortals just do not appreciate how Einstein made the complex mathematics appear simple.
‘The third and most important reason [to study this chapter well] is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Relativity, whether Special Theory [STR] or General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people really can be such obvious nonsense.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.7.
To begin, let us return to an earth stopped in its tracks by the Airy and M&M experiments. At that time, we are told, we find a man named Albert Einstein brooding over all the ‘inconsistencies’ in the new physics of the time, thinking up, by ‘thought experiments,’ ways to get out of its numerous paradoxes.
‘Perhaps the strangest feature of all, and the most unfortunate to the development of science, is the use of the thought-experiment. The expression itself is a contradiction in terms, since such an experiment is a search for new knowledge that cannot be confirmed, although it might be predicted, by a process of logical thought. A thought-experiment on the other hand cannot provide new knowledge, and if it gives a result that is contrary to the theoretical knowledge and assumptions on which it is based then a mistake must have been made.’ ----From the Introduction to Dr. Louis Essen’s: The Special Theory of Relativity – A Critical Analysis, Oxford Press, 1971.
‘The German-born physicist Albert Einstein supplied that [an explanation for the M&M failure] in 1905 [STR or “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. He began with the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum would always be the same, regardless of the mot¬ion of the light source relative to the observer. This is what Michelson and Morley observed, but Einstein maintained that he was unaware of the M&M results when he worked out his theory.’ ----I. Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.389.
‘In later years he [Einstein] could not recall whether he was aware of the details of the Michelson and Morely experiment before he published his theory.’ --- Modern Physics, 3rd ed., Paul Tipler and Ralph Llewellyn. pp14
‘It is well known that Einstein at different times and occasions, for understandably different reasons, gave different answers to questions about the occurrences that had prompted him to his views on motion, rest, and space-time. “By his own account the experimental results that had influenced him were the observations on stellar aberration and Fizeau’s measurements on the speed of light in moving water. ‘They were enough,’ he is reported to have said in 1950.”’ --- Walter van der Kamp: De Labore Solis, Canada, 1988, p.43.
The phenomenon of aberration of starlight, we recall, was tested by the Airy experiment and showed its ‘ether’ result to be constant with a geocentric universe. Given the M&M experiment was directly related to the Airy test and interpretations, it was odd for Einstein to say he was ignorant of the M&M test and results when he compiled his special theory of relativity.
For yet another record of the history of Einstein’s revolution, Gwynne refers us to an article that appeared in 1977 in the London Economist. ‘Surprised though the reader may be to find the theories so comprehensible and even more surprised though he may be at the article’s frankness, all the most important elements are included’:
‘The famous Michelson/Morley experiment in 1887, though designed to establish the velocity of the earth with respect to the luminiferous ether, failed to find any velocity. Such problems were the concern of an outstanding band of physicists at the turn of the century. Poincare and Lorentz both postulated theories of relativity, but Einstein’s was the most revolutionary. Also, it was based on the minimum of both experimental evidence and mathematics.
Einstein began with two assumptions for his special theory. One was that absolute motion and absolute rest could not be detected by any experiment. The other was that light travelled in a vacuum at a constant velocity, regardless of the motion of its source. He then showed that the position and time of an event could only be established relative to an arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. Thus, from the earth, the moon appears to be moving and the earth at rest, but to the man on the moon it appears that the moon is static and the earth moving.
So far so innocuous. But Einstein drew some surprising conclusions. One is that, as the speed of an object increases, relative to the observer, its length decreases and it gains mass: if you propel a one-foot ruler and a one-pound weight at 163,000 miles a second, the ruler will measure six inches and the weight will have a mass of two pounds. If that sounds nutty, then wait for more. As the speed increases, time slows down. This so-called time dilation can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster. Furthermore, In Einstein’s relativist universe, space and time are interchangeable. The further an astronomer looks out into space, the further back he is looking at time. He is a Wellsian time-traveller, or, as T.S. Eliot put it, “All time is eternally present.”
The general theory of Relativity, which Einstein published in 1915, proved no less sensational. It is about the gravitational effect of the huge objects that make up the universe. According to Einstein, gravity curves space, which he says is finite but unbounded. The traveller heading off into space would describe a gigantic circle and eventually come back to where he started from.’ ---‘Einstein Challenged’: an article in The Economist, Feb.5, 1977.
‘And that, good reader,’ says Martin Gwynne, ‘is all you need to know. It is all Aristotle would have needed to know… Aristotle would have seen at a glance that the theories had no connection whatever with observation and, if possible, less connection with common sense; and no further time would have been wasted.’ [/size]
-
‘There is in fact no need to be shy. Whenever a new outrage to commonsense is rammed down the throats of the public as a beautiful new truth, the early stages of the indoctrination always seem to be accompanied by protests from men of intelligence, of sufficient qualifications to give their views authority, and of some residual integrity… It was so when Galileo tried to propagate Copernicanism; and has been so with Relativity, in connection with which the list of dissidents, though unpublished, is long and distinguished.’ ----N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.10.
The perception is that all his peers applauded Einstein’s theories, and that time has vindicated and proven them true. In fact, as Gwynne shows, there were many who openly opposed the theories. Outstanding among these was Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and author of many standard textbooks on astronomy. He remarked:
‘The Relativity theory strikes directly at our fundamental concepts as to the structure of the universe; its conclusions are startling and completely upsetting to our most common-sense way at looking at the universe. To have such a theory accepted, it would seem that the evidence in its favour must be overwhelming, that the experiments cited by its supporters must be clear-cut and admit no other solution. The burden of proof should be on the relativists, and it should be clearly shown in each case of experiment, cited by him, that the relativity theory is necessary and sufficient explanation; it should be established beyond no reasonable doubt, not only that the phenomena can be explained by the relativity theory, but that no other hypothesis or theory can equally well account for the observed facts.’ ---- Charles Lane Poor: Gravitation v Relativity, 1922, p.55.
Now that is a sound criterion for the scientific method. Let us, however, isolate a crucial point in Poor’s objection reproduced above. Note that, like the rest of them, Charles Lane Poor accepted that the earth moved; a theory peppered with one-sided interpretations. Is this not a classic example of double standards? Elsewhere, Herbert Dingle records that Lord Rutherford - who himself was proposing the theory that an atom, which is so small that one cannot be seen even to establish proof of their existence, was a miniature solar system – as saying ‘that any Anglo-Saxon would have the sense to see that the theory of relativity is nonsense,’ ignoring all Einstein had to say on the matter thereafter.
Dr Arthur Lynch, another distinguished mathematician, in his book, The Case Against Einstein (1932), quotes M. Bouasse, Professor of Physics at the University of Toulouse, as speaking of the ‘insanities of the Relativists.’
In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science.’ Einstein’s relativity however, postulated that there was nothing at ‘absolute rest’ against which ‘absolute motion’ can be measured. He, surely aware of the M&M experiment result and the need to avoid a geocentric conclusion, stated there is no stationary ether, or anything against which movement could be detected.
‘In previous editions of this work it was possible to write about ether as a matter on which there was a more than usual amount of general consent, but the writings of Einstein (the present writer is not one of the happy six persons who understand his theory) have upset a good deal of what was but a short time ago looked upon almost as an established fact.’ ---C.A. S. Windle: The Church and Science, p.54.
‘Six persons,’ surely Sir Bertram Windle exaggerates? Now when an achiever of a M.A., M.D., Sc.D., I.L.D., Ph.D., F.R.S., K.S.G., cannot understand where ether has gone, then we lay folk must ask why. To admit the existence of ether would of course, have made Einstein’s theories impossible. Ether might provide a standard at rest in space against which motion might be judged absolutely, and that is what Einstein’s relativity totally rejects.
EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
‘As we embark on our investigations, I emphasise most strongly, as is made necessary by the fact that our age has a greater ability to ignore common sense than that of Aristotle; that we must not be shy and we must not be hypnotised by the mystique which surrounds the subject. Although the theory of Relativity is generally believed to be so abstruse that only a select body of experts can understand it, the man who, as I shall now show, was in his day probably the greatest living expert on the subject – Professor Herbert Dingle – said that this was quite false. “The theory itself is quite simple, but has been unnecessarily enveloped in a cloak of metaphysical obscurity which has really nothing to do with it.” Herbert Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, p.16. ' N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.10.
With this in mind, let us see the main features of Einstein’s STR.
To be continued
-
EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
‘As we embark on our investigations, I emphasise most strongly, as is made necessary by the fact that our age has a greater ability to ignore common sense than that of Aristotle; that we must not be shy and we must not be hypnotised by the mystique which surrounds the subject. Although the theory of Relativity is generally believed to be so abstruse that only a select body of experts can understand it, the man who, as I shall now show, was in his day probably the greatest living expert on the subject – Professor Herbert Dingle – said that this was quite false. “The theory itself is quite simple, but has been unnecessarily enveloped in a cloak of metaphysical obscurity which has really nothing to do with it.” (Herbert Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, p.16.) ’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.10.
With this in mind, let us see the main features of Einstein’s STR.
(1) Motion and Rest
‘Einstein began with two assumptions for his STR. The first was that absolute motion and absolute rest could not be detected by any experiment.’ Now at that time (1905) there was already one experiment that challenged Einstein’s theory, the 1887 Michelson-Morley test. It, if we recall, although the expected 30kps was not found, did detect interference the equivalent of a motion of 3.5 to 5kps. So, why was this smaller interference ignored and how did Einstein’s Special Theory survive such a contradiction? The answers are very simple, one, to avoid the conclusion that the earth does not orbit the sun at 30kps, and two, because the Earthmovers needed the STR to distract attention away from a possible geocentric conclusion. Thus emerged what we call the null/nil fraud.
‘As a test of relativity, however, the slightest apparent shift in the fringe would be of great moment…The results [of the M&M test] were seen as a ‘cloud’ in the otherwise clear sky of physics. Numerous explanations were put forward in an attempt to show how the existence of aether was compatible with the null result…. As they [Michelson/Morley/Miller] completed this work, Einstein’s papers were becoming recognised for what they were and setting the scene for the reinterpretation of the ‘null’ result as one of the most significant findings of experimental physics.’ ---Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.38.
Collins and Pinch go on to confirm that a null interpreted as a nil was the foundation for Einstein’s papers. Einstein could then declare ether did not exist and postulate absolute motion and absolute rest cannot be detected by any experiment. Nearly a hundred years later the null/nil illusion is still bandied about here and there by revered physicists. Here is one version of the nil interpretation of null many millions will have read:
‘In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School for Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion with that at right angles to the earth’s motion. To their surprise, they found they were exactly the same!’ --- Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books, 1988, p.20.
In 1914, nine years after Einstein’s STR with its dependence on no ether came yet another empirical indication that ether may well exist.
‘M. G. Sagnac, a French scientist, mounted a light source, a set of mirrors and an interferometer on a spinning disc. He showed that the time for a light signal to traverse a closed path, in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the disc, differed according to whether the signal travelled with or against the direction of spin. W.M. Macek & D.T.M. Davis (1963) confirmed the Sagnac effect to great accuracy, by repeating the experiment using ring lasers.' ---A.G. Kelly: A New Theory on the Behaviour of Light, The Institution of engineers of Ireland, Feb. 1996, p.3.
Thanks to Einstein then, ether does not exist in modern science. According to his theories of relativity it does not exist. But according to the results of experiments ether probably does exist. Here we have what they call in modern physics a ‘paradox.’ In other words, there can be two truths, one necessary for Einstein’s theories of relativity and earthmoving, the other to keep modern physicists in their jobs. And as if this was not enough to send Einstein’s theories packing, Al Kelly tells us of another experimental falsification.
‘The A. Michelson & H.G. Gale test (1925) measured the effect of the rotation of the Earth on the behaviour of light. That test will be shown to conform with the Sagnac test, where the cross-section of the Earth, at the latitude of the tests, is considered to be a spinning disc. Recent ring-laser tests on a stationary circuit by H.R. Bilger et al, (1995), have also confirmed the M&G results with great accuracy.’ Kelly: A New Theory… p.4.
Here we have to disagree with Dr Kelly. We say such results do not necessarily confirm a rotation of the earth but only in the biased thinking of an entrenched Earthmover. The resistance found, could be caused by an inertial effect of a spinning universe turning around a static earth for example. But Kelly too had a theory of his own to sell, he wanted to keep his heliocentric cake and eat it.
‘In this paper, a theory is put forward that conforms to all of these tests. This theory states that light, generated upon the Earth, adopts to the orbital movement of the Earth, but not to the daily spin upon its axis.’ – Kelly: A New Theory… p.4.
Mr Kelly (RIP) - who simply could not entertain the possibility that the M&M experiment could be interpreted geocentrically with an inertial field moving east to west around the earth, offers us a relativity goose having thrown out the relativity gander. Now while certainly falsifying Einstein out of empirical sight, Kelly’s own theory was as speculative as the one he was falsifying.
‘As the interferometer experiments came to be seen as a test of relativity, rather than measures of the velocity of the earth, [things] appeared less than complete.’ ---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.39.
So, in the early 1920s Miller - now obsessed with the quest to resolve this problem - rebuilt the interferometer, and in September 1924 ‘found a persistent positive displacement’ and concluded, ‘the effects were shown to be real and systematic, beyond further question.’ Nevertheless, on and on went Miller, taking readings at different dates and various heights and at different venues. In 1925 Miller claimed that he had found an interference fringe of 10kps. This was still, of course, far short of the 30kps needed. Because of Miller’s credentials and prize-winning work, his ‘disproof’ of relativity again set the cat among the pigeons. Michelson - now a hero for ‘pre-demonstrating’ Einstein’s theory in 1887, years before Einstein proposed it - didn’t like the idea of Miller undermining his new found fame and so decided to show everyone once again that when he says null, he means nil. He went to the trouble of building an even bigger interferometer, ran a number of tests, one on top of Mount Wilson in 1930, and announced he still found a null/nil result. Miller’s reply came in 1933 when he published a paper insisting that the case for ether had been demonstrated. The Relativists denied Miller his proof and counter-claimed they had proof that no ether exists and thus the speed of light is constant. Miller, without doubt, had the better case for many reasons.
Next to try his hand was Auguste Piccard, a Swiss physicist. He found an interference fringe of one and a half kilometres per second. Shankland et al (1955) list thirteen tests up to 1930, all concurring with the original 1887 test. In 1964, using infrared masers, Charles Townes tested to an accurate .9 kilometres per second, the smallest fringe on record. In hindsight then, not one test designed to detect ether showed a nil result, and not one test showed the 30kms expected. This suggests ether exists but that the earth is not passing through it at 67,000mps as it supposedly orbits the sun. The small interference that is always detected could well be explained by the ether revolving around the earth each day.
As it turned out, it really didn’t matter what they found, for as we have said before, the integrity of science means nothing to these fraudsters. The Earthmovers needed Einstein to keep the earth moving and that’s how it was, and this is no secret.
‘The sheer momentum of the new way in which physics was done – the culture of life in the physics community – meant that [all the interferometer results] were irrelevant. We have travelled a long way from the notion that the M&M experiment proved the theory of relativity. We have reached the point where the theory of relativity had rendered the M&M experiment important as a sustaining myth, rather than a set of results… The null results passed from anomaly to ‘finding’ as the theory of relativity gained adherents… The meaning of an experimental result does not, then, depend only upon the care with which it is designed and carried out, it depends upon what people are ready to believe.’
--- H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.42.
As we said in the preface of this book:
‘They will do this [defend the Copernican fraud] with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like logic, records, facts, demonstrations etc., and, as you will see for yourself later, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them, as though such things never really mattered at all.’ --- THE EARTHMOVERS.
-
(2) Light as a Constant
Einstein made three assumptions about light in his Special theory of Relativity.
(1) That the speed of light taken over limited distances on earth is the same as those of vast distances in space. But, given, for example, that the atmosphere contains air and differing amounts of moisture (water), and that the ‘vacuum’ of space contains areas of gas etc., there are grounds to reject the idea.
(2) That there is no greater velocity than the speed of light through a vacuum. Here Einstein shows us the new ‘science-as-religion’ in vogue; that is, asking others to submit to an act of blind faith in what is probably impossible to know or verify.
(3) That the speed of light is a constant, independent of any speed that its source or recipient might have. That is to say, whether we approach or recede from a light source, no matter at what velocity, it will always measure at absolute © i.e., 186,000 mps. Asimov puts it saying the Special Theory contends that ‘the speed of light in a vacuum has an absolute speed limit.’ Now this means that the speed of light of 186,000mps can never be greater, even if it is placed on something we know to be travelling even up to the speed of light. So, to Einstein, the following equations of the speed of light are valid:
20mps + 186,000mps = 186,000mps and not 186,020mps.
Also, take any other figure, say 67,000mps, and we get:
67,000mps + 186,000mps = 186,000mps.
Such figures, any sane person must agree, without evidence, could more likely be found in a book like Alice in Wonderland. Nevertheless, by appealing to Einstein’s null/nil assessment of the M&M experiment, the theory lives.
(3) Length and Mass
The next ingredients of the special theory of relativity is that length and mass decrease and increase respectively at the speed of light. Recall the origin of this idea came from Fitzgerald’s and Lorentz’s ad hoc nonsense that also tried to account for the unwanted results of the M&M 1887 test results.
Now lest anyone think we exaggerate when calling the special theory of relativity tripe, or that we presented it in an exaggerated or inaccurate manner; let me now quote from Special Relativity, the University Mathematical Texts by W. Rindler. The contents of such books as these are not common knowledge so remain within the confines of various physics departments, well clear of the psychiatric department for obvious reasons, as anyone could see if they read it carefully. First the introduction:
‘The first edition of Professor Rindler’s book [1939] was welcomed as a clear and concise introduction to the ideas of special relativity… An important feature is the provision of many original exercises, with hints and answers.’
(http://s15.postimg.org/6p4wku34b/ch10_3.jpg)
Let us now take a look at one such STR question asked of students taken directly from this book:
(http://s3.postimg.org/8n6nkhj0j/ch10_4.jpg)
No, there is no misprint in this scan of the question as illustrated. Yes, the question poses that a man carrying a 20 ft. long pole runs into a room 10 ft. long and closes the door behind him. It then asks how it could be done in a room only 5 ft. long (Hint: can you spot absolute nonsense when you see it). Surely you can now see Einstein’s STR for what it really is, an illusion, and wonder at the power that these Earthmovers have wielded for so long, a power that can get university professors to put a man with a 20 ft. pole into a 10 ft. room and then ask their students to show them how the same man with a 20 ft. pole can get into a 5 ft. room and close the door behind him, without anybody laughing that is. But more than that, this power can present this nonsense as the premise for thousands of cosmologists and physicists to build up their belief system as to how the universe began and now operates. Answer this question, they tell their students, and find the mind of God.
-
(4) Time and Place
Now we move on to the standard place and time relativity of the STR, where, for example, the theory could, supposedly, be understood to send men back into the future, or is it forward into the past, theoretically of course:
‘Its [the STR] philosophical implications arise from its impact on our understanding of the nature of space and time. To an astronomer on earth, an event in his observatory may appear to be simultaneous with an event, observed through his telescope, on Jupiter. However, two consequences of special relativity are that the information cannot travel faster than the speed of light and the velocity of light is the same for all frames of reference. Therefore the event in the observatory must have occurred 35 minutes after the event on Jupiter (the time taken for light to travel the 630 million km from Jupiter). But to an observer on Jupiter, the event on Jupiter would have appeared to have occurred 35 minutes before the event on earth. The implications for all this for time order and causality has exercised both physicists and philosophers for the last 70 years.’ --- Encyclopaedia of Science.
In that case let us give our two-pence worth. First we must not confuse an image with an event; the two are not the same. In reality, as with two people on the phone far enough apart to cause a time-delay from one to the other; both exist in the same time-reality. Put a man on Jupiter and get him to set off an atomic bomb, all that results is that - if the speed of light through a vacuum is accurate – it takes 35 minutes for that light image, not light event, to reach the man on the earth. As with the two on the phone, the men on Earth and Jupiter share the same time-reality.
While we are at it there is another space-time invention that needs correcting in a geocentric framework. Using the unverified stellar parallax trigonometry to declare the distance of near stars up to 500 light-years away, they then measured far-stars by means of brightness according to their colour spectrum. It seems they have worked out a way to guess at the distances of far stars that is probably no more scientifically accurate as their assumed stellar-parallax distances. Anyway, they have, they say, brightness to put some stars at 5 billion light-years away. From this, they further say, that star is 5 billion years old. On this they base the age of the universe at 5 billion years old.
Well now, two can speculate where certainty cannot be attained by true science. According to Genesis, man was created on an earth where starlight was already visible. Given everything was created together, the age of the stars, the earth and mankind is the same. Now science has determined the speed of light is not infinite, and like the man on earth and Jupiter, there is a time delay from an event to receiving an image of that event. Now there are supernovae, star explosions that we see on earth. Given creation took place no more than 6-10,000 years ago, none of those stars exploded more than 6-10,000 years ago, so no star in the heavens is more than 6-10,000 light-years distance. Now go try to prove us wrong.
(5) Time Dilation Factor
The next intellectual excrement of the special theory of relativity is the so-called time dilation theory. As the speed increases, time slows down. ‘This can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster.’ Of all the falsifications of Einstein’s theories none make a better story than the uncovering of this absurdity. It began in 1972 with the publication of Professor Herbert Dingle’s new book ‘Science at the Crossroads.’ Now the thing is that this same professor was for many years one of Einstein’s most devout pupils. On page 105 of his Crossroads he writes: ‘To the best of my knowledge there is no one living who can give objective evidence that he is more competent in the subject than I am.’ Way back in 1922, three years after Einstein’s relativity theories, Dingle published the first book on the subject called Relativity for All. For fifty years he is associated with all the big-name relativist physicists of the era such as Einstein himself, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Born, Shroedinger and Bridgman. Dingle’s ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ became the standard textbook on the subject, and could be found in use in most universities of America and Europe. Indeed, it was he that provided one of the two articles on relativity in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But Dingle then saw his error.
‘Far from being too profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it, the point at issue is of the most extreme simplicity.’
The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on earth; it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.
‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.’ ---H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p.45.
Sir Arthur Eddington, who played an important part in promoting Einstein’s general theory of relativity, once wrote:
‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of [earthmoving] science.’ ---A.S. Eddington: Space, Time and Gravitation, ch.1, quoted by Gwynne, op. cit., p.15
For thirteen years Dingle challenged the Relativists to rebut his falsification of Einstein’s relativity. Knowing they were on a beating to nothing, the fellows of the Royal Society; the scientific journals in England and America, and even the popular press with the sole exception of The Listener (1969), “ignored, evaded, suppressed and indeed treated in every possible way except that of answering it by the whole scientific world.” (H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p15.) Dingle continues his story, recalling the words of the Rev. W.J. Platt, who, having read his story in The Listener sent the following to The Times, which, not surprisingly, they refused to publish:
‘Professor Dingle, who, is recognised as a leading authority on Einstein’s special relativity theory on which physicists acknowledge that they rely, has advanced what he claims to be a fatal criticism of that theory. On such a matter the layman is, of course, not qualified to speak. He is, however, entitled to an assurance that the scientific world remains true to its principle of answering or accepting informed criticism. This appears to be not only, as it has always been, a moral duty of scientists, but in these days, when the experiments perform are of such enormous potential danger, a necessity. According to the uncontradicted assertion in the Listener of October 30th last, however the President of the Royal Society failed to giver an assurance that scientific integrity is still preserved. If earlier statements in the correspondence are true, he could hardly, of course, do so.
May I give a few of these statements? (1) Some of the most eminent workers in modern physics have admitted privately that they either do not understand the theory or regard it as nonsensical: nevertheless, they continue to teach it to students and to use it in high energy experiments. (2) It is stated that the Royal Society has declared privately that Professor Dingle’s fallacy is ‘too elementary even to be instructive,’ but the Society has not stated what that fallacy is, and the journal Nature, which had previously published the criticism without eliciting a refutation of it, has refused to publish a letter from Professor Dingle, asking that the Royal Society shall state the fallacy.’ --- H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p.91.
Enough of this, for obviously the Rev. Platt did not know how ‘science’ has been orchestrated since Isaac Newton’s time. At that lecture at Trinity College in Dublin in 1996, and we were there, engineer Kelly read a paper that, while speculative itself, did show the STR had been empirically falsified many times. Nevertheless, within the audience there were professors who were employed by that same university to teach this nonsense to students. Within minutes of Kelly’s unassailable thesis, these same Relativists were up on their feet telling all and sundry that Kelly ‘really didn’t fully comprehend’ the theory he had just falsified. We have no doubt the next day Kelly’s debunking synthesis was history and the STR was being taught to a new batch of physics students in that same world-renowned university in whose lecture hall the Special Theory was seen for what it really is, patent intellectual nonsense, mathematical magic.
The Clock Fraud
To be continued
-
The Clock Fraud
‘Experiments carrying atomic clocks around the earth on jumbo jets have verified this scenario [relativity].’ --- Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen
‘The clock in the aircraft flying towards the west records more time than the twin travelling in the opposite direction.’ --- Stephen Hawking.
Now look up Paul Davies’s How to Build a Time Machine and one will find the same old story about the supposed verification of the Special Theory attained in 1971 when they placed clocks in aeroplanes and pitted them against each another. Elsewhere we find assertions that the Special Theory has been proven many times in a laboratory, but the truth is something else:
‘Tests that purported to confirm the requirement of Special relativity, that moving macroscopic clocks run slow, were carried out by Hefele & Keating by flying atomic clocks in opposite directions around the earth. These tests have been shown to be seriously flawed and to provide no such evidence (Kelly 1995). That paper relied on estimates derived from the graphs published in 1972 by Hafele and Keating. [ J.C. Hafele and R.E. Keating 1972, Science 177 166-170.
] The original test results, contained in an internal report (Hafele, 1971) have now been obtained direct from the United States Naval Observatory (USNO). These confirm that the conclusions in Kelly (1995) are correct. Hafele, in that report stated: “Most people (including myself) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of the clocks is indicative of anything” and “the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing.” A full analysis of the shortcomings of the tests is given in a separate paper. This shows that a test, with an accurate improvement of two orders of magnitude, would be required before any credence could be placed in the results of such a test… Further practical proof of the Sagnac effect is in the measurement of the relative time keeping of standard clock-stations around the earth. It is found that, when signals are sent from one station to another, allowance has to be made for the fact that the signals do not travel at the same speed Eastward and Westward around the globe (Saburi et al, 1976).’ A.G. Kelly: op. cit., pp.7-8.
For a complete review see N.M. Gwynne’s Einstein and Modern Physics
As regards other so-called ‘laboratory proofs’ for the STR; well space prevents us from entering this aspect of the debate in any real depth. Suffice to say that when you hear them say this you must know that they speak about supposed tests on the behaviour of high velocity particles of an atom. They talk about measuring velocity and mass of a particle that conform to the STR. But the truth is, as Professor Waldron of Ulster Polytechnic says in Dingle’s book, that such measurements have never been validated. Indeed, as Dingle himself says, the velocity, mass and lifetime of a hypothetical atomic-particle cannot be measured for the simple reason that their existence and properties have all to be inferred on theoretical grounds.
‘Its like claiming, as a proof that a man always speaks the truth, the fact that he says he does…Through long familiarity with the world, physicists have unconsciously come to believe that mass, time, distance, and such terms mean the same for hypothetical particles as for the senses. They have forgotten that their world is metaphorical, and interpret the language literally.’ ---H. Dingle: op. cit., p.233.
Hands up who saw Stephen Speilberg’s movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind? If you have, surely you remember when the alien spacecraft landed on earth after that impressive musical communication between the scientists and the aliens, and an exchange of people took place, some coming off the flying saucer and others volunteering to zoom off with it when it left? Remember also when, as each person disembarked, someone called out his/her name and date of ‘disappearance’? As it turned out most of them were fighter pilots of the Second World War that presumably had gone missing. As each walked back onto earth-soil once again, looking dazed and puzzled of course, but physically as they must have been 50 years earlier, young men, lean and fit, one of the many white coated observers and scientists present was scripted to say: ‘Einstein was right.’ Did you catch it? So, there we are, proof provided by the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ‘Einstein was right’ after all.
Next
EINSTEIN’S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY Tuesday.
-
We have now posted up a summary of Einstein's SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
Most laypeople would have assumed such 'physics' far beyond their ability to understand. Here, it is hoped, that illusion had been shattered and readers on CIF have as good a grasp of it as the layperson can have.
It would be interesting, before we move on to get some reaction. Does TE do the job it set out to do?
Cassini.
-
EINSTEIN’S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
In science, every theory has its consequences. When Einstein’s special theory of relativity was accepted to get the earth moving again after the M&M test result, Newton’s theory of gravitation suffered badly. Sir Isaac’s ‘immediate action at a distance’ theory, the ‘proof’ that convinced both Church and State in 1687 that the earth orbited the sun, could no longer be sustained for if nothing can go faster than the speed of light then Newton’s ‘instantaneous’ gravity was seen to be falsified. Now whereas this might sound like an embarrassing set-back, no one seemed to notice, for as we have said, such things do not matter when it comes to falsifying the Fathers of the Church and the 1616 Church decree. Quite the opposite, for it was then the Earthmovers grabbed the whole hog for themselves, the earth, the solar system, the Milky Way, the galaxies, the complete cosmos, even time itself. Having taken everyone in with their heliocentric lie, they were again determined to destroy all traces of true and proper metaphysics forever, that lofty philosophy that seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. Given Einstein’s STG was his baby and it was now the accepted cosmic physics, it followed that he, and he alone, was obliged to conjure up a new theory of gravity that could accommodate his STG while at the same time of course, rescue heliocentricism from the collapse of Newton’s idea of an ‘instantaneous’ working solar system. And so it was that Einstein got his thought process going once again, ‘recasting the laws of gravity out of his head’ as his admirers will tell us. On 25 Nov. 1915, Einstein presented his general theory of relativity to the Earthmovers of the Prussian Academy.
According to any standard textbook on science Einstein’s GTR of 1915 is an expansion of his STR of 1905 with further revelations.
‘By a series of remarkably creative and idiosyncratic steps, Einstein decided that space is not flat but curved, and the local curvature is produced by the pressure of mass in the universe. Consequently bodies moving through curved space did not travel in straight lines but rather follow the path of least resistance along the contours of curved space. These paths are called geodesics. If this were true there would be no need for a mysterious ‘force of gravity’ that is transmitted instantaneously. Nor would it be necessary to explain the odd coincidence that inertial and gravitational mass are exactly the same.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: Introducing S. Hawking, Icon Books UK, p.30.
To begin with, Einstein proposed the universe is a surface-sphere and consequently finite. On the latter we are in agreement with him. After that he suggested space is made up of a 4-dimentional fabric, so to speak, the vertical lines, the horizontal lines, the depth lines and space-time dimension. Introduce a large cosmic body in it and it creates ‘curves and warps’ in this fabric of space, just as a trampoline bends with the weight of a person. This ‘whirlpool’ will now suck in and hold smaller bodies that will orbit around it. In our part of the universe the sun is the big cosmic body causing the bowl and the planets we know whirl around the sides creating what is known as our solar system.
This idea, pure invention of course, something you, John Doe or anyone could have proposed, has, even we admit, an attractive appeal about it. Is it no wonder then that ‘many physicists believe this theory to be the most perfect and aesthetically beautiful creation in physics, perhaps in all science.’ (Jeremy Bernstein: Einstein, p.63.)
(http://s13.postimg.org/ifeirvbav/ch10_5.jpg)
Einstein’s curved space Solar System
‘Gravitation was not treated as a force but as an intrinsic curvature of space-time. Small bodies such as the planets moved in orbits round the sun not because the sun attracted them but because in the curved space-time around the sun there simply were no straight world lines.’ ---B. Hoffmann & H. Dukas: Einstein, p.150
Now it is one thing coming up with a concept, another with the approved mathematics to give the theory some semblance of credibility.
‘Combining these postulations, Einstein selected as his model for space-time a restricted type of non-Euclidean geometry invented by B. Riemann, 1826-66.’ ---S.F. Mason: A History of the Sciences, Henry Schuman, New- York, (1954).
‘The bad news is that the mathematics is extremely difficult. There are some 20 simultaneous equations with 10 unknown quantities. The equations are almost impossible to solve except in situations where symmetry or energy considerations reduce them to simple forms. If we ignore the cosmological constant lambada (which doesn’t belong there anyway) and consider free space where the mass is zero, the equations can be written simply.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.39.
Later it was disaster for Einstein’s GTR. It seems that when they did the mathematics in the 1980s or so, they found there wasn’t enough matter in the universe to accommodate Einstein’s gravitation theories. So, what did they do? Well, as Newton invented ‘perturbations,’ for Einstein’s universe they invented ‘dark matter’ to solve their problem. So, where is it? ‘Out there in space, stupid, but because we cannot see it, it must be invisible.’ And you know what, they spent the last 90 years looking for it, we kid you not. One of the latest is described on the Vanderbilt University website like so:‘Most of the matter in the universe may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole. In the article, titled “Anapole Dark Matter,” the physicists propose that dark matter, an invisible form of matter that makes up 85 percent of the all the matter in the universe, may be made out of a type of basic particle called the Majorana fermion. The particle’s existence was predicted in the 1930’s but has stubbornly resisted detection.[/i]’ 2013.
Einstein’s universe was established by three so-called proofs:
(1) The general theory of relativity’s ability to resolve the extraordinary ‘perturbation’ (perihelion) of Mercury.
(2) The ‘discovery’ that starlight is ‘bent’ as it passes the sun.
(3) The experimental confirmation of the GTR that the lines of a spectrum (The ‘rainbow’ of light) should be displaced when emitted in a strong gravitational field, causing the light, as it loses some of its energy when moving away from the field, to become redder.[/font]
-
(1) The Perihelion of Mercury
‘[The first proof] concerned the phenomenon discovered by the nineteenth century French astronomer Leverrier, known as the perihelion [point of closest approach to the sun] of the planet Mercury. Instead of performing a perfectly elliptical orbit, Mercury, in common with the other planets, slides away fractionally in its orbit, forming instead a slight spiral. The shift was just under 5,600 seconds of arc per hundred years, and most of it is accounted for by Newtonian physics, but a minute but definite residual increase of between forty and fifty seconds of arc per century remained unexplained. Einstein claimed that Relativity provided the answer, explaining that the shortest path in space time around a weighty particle of matter would be an ellipse that spiralled round the particle rather imitating the stationary ellipses indicated by Newton’s action-at-a-distance gravity. He produced a formula, made his calculations, and, perhaps understandably since he knew in advance the result at which he was aiming, came up with a thoroughly appropriate figure of 42.9 seconds of arc.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, pp.26-27
Orbits remember; were measured by Domenico Cassinian as ovals and not Keplerian compromise ellipses, a fact that Gwynne was not aware of when he wrote his paper. The problem with Mercury’s perihelion then, is that it is not real but based on a false mathematical elliptical orbit of Kepler. Nevertheless, to ‘solve’ this illusion Einstein used another newly invented incomprehensible mathematical system, the tensor calculus of the mathematicians Ricci and Levi-Civita. To say this exercise proved the GTR should now be seen for what it is; more wishful thinking.
But here is something else so obvious that we cannot pass this supposed proof for the GTR without pointing it out. If Einstein’s whirlpool theory is correct, and Mercury gets sucked in to a spiral causing problems with its supposed orbit, how come all the other planets seem to be immune from similar effects? Are they too not whirling around in this same spiral? Did all these planets come out squeaky-smooth in their ‘elliptical’ orbits when Einstein’s formula was used for the new astronomy?
(http://s3.postimg.org/bmdk7lshv/ch10_6.jpg)
Well in fact when they did apply Einstein’s formula to them it produced ‘inaccuracies that were embarrassing.’ ‘The motion of the perihelion of Venus is particularly embarrassing for the relativity theory,’ wrote Professor Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University in 1922. Of course it was embarrassing, said the pot as it called the kettle black.
The final insult in this tragic-comedy arises when we find that Einstein’s formula for ‘solving’ the perihelion of Mercury was identical to one derived by the German Physicist Paul Gerber (1854-1909) eighteen years previously to explain something different (As reported in The Listener, 5th Aug. 1971 by Dr. G. Burniston Brown, reader in Physics at University College London.), ‘a discovery which provided the unmistakable inference that instead of working out a formula which harmonized with his theory he stole from somebody else, a formula which he knew to fit the facts, an expedient presumably made necessary by the fact that he didn’t have the mathematical ability to concoct such a formula himself.’ (N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.27.) We could go on but surely enough is enough.
(2) The Bending of Starlight Sham
Isaac Newton once proposed light could be made of particles and thus be subject to gravity. In his theory Einstein postulated that in his universe, gravitational fields would influence the passage of light to a greater extent than Newton predicted. Thus starlight, as it passed by the sun, should be bent.
‘Four years later, the scientific world awaited the verdict of an experiment which Einstein himself had suggested, the bending of starlight during a solar eclipse. The theory predicted that starlight passing just at the edge of the Sun would be displaced by 1.7 seconds of arc from its true position. It was the first real test of the theory.’---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.42
On Sunday 29 May 1919, a total eclipse allowed the test to be performed. Einstein himself tells us. This is what they wanted to find:
(http://s11.postimg.org/ui16t3qlv/ch10_7.jpg)
‘Undaunted by the war and by difficulties aroused by the war, [The Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society] sent several of Britain’s most celebrated astronomers (Eddington, Cottingham, Crommelin, Davidson) to Sobral (Brazil) and to the island of Principe (West Africa) to obtain photographs of the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. The reason why we must wait for a total eclipse is that at every other time the atmosphere is so strongly illuminated by the light from the sun that the stars situated near the sun’s disc are invisible.’---Albert Einstein: Relativity: The special and General theory: Appendix III.
A camera was set up; steady as a rock. Photographs of the sky were taken just before the eclipse. Shortly afterwards the sun and moon converged, leaving all in darkness. A second series of photographs were taken. Then it was back to the laboratory for development and comparisons.
(http://s1.postimg.org/tkfnmhfhr/ch10_8.jpg)
There were 43 photographic plates in all; the Sobral team took 27 and the Principe team took 16. Fifteen of these, however, were discarded because they were clouded, no use for their purpose. First let us see the propaganda:
‘Eddington found that light rays which had left the surface of stars thousands of years ago and had been bent by the curved space near the Sun only eight minutes previously, passed through the lens and exposed the photograph plates just where Einstein said they would. One of the most remarkable experiments in scientific history had been completed. The results of the eclipse expedition were presented by the Astronomer Royal at a meeting of the Royal Society on 6th November 1919 [announcing the observers had confirmed Einstein’s theory], and Einstein became a national hero overnight. Headlines in the New York Times suggested that a new Universe had been discovered… and this time the newspaper hype was not exaggerated. A world weary from war embraced the quiet and eccentric scientist, sitting in his study in Berlin with a pencil and pad, who had figured out the great plan of the Almighty for the entire Universe.’---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., pp.43-44.
So says the book ‘Introducing Stephen Hawking,’ filling yet another generation full of bunk. Watching their tails however we find the following tucked into the corner of the next page (45): ‘Many critics said the results were inconclusive, that the possibility of error in the star measurements was too great, so the scepticism continued.’ But note ‘Einstein became a national hero’ anyway, and the New York Times did suggest ‘that a new Universe had been discovered.’
If the theory is true, then all the stars positioned near the sun should have been displaced towards the sun. They were not. The stars in fact were displaced in the photographs in every conceivable direction, this way, that way, and every which way, but a long way from showing Einstein’s GTR to be true.
‘To make the observations come out to support Einstein, Eddington and the others took the Sobral 4-inch results as the main findings and used the two Principe plates as supporting evidence while ignoring the 18 plates taken by the Sobral astrographic… On 6th Nov. 1919, Sir Joseph Thomson, the President of the Royal Society, chaired a meeting at which he said: “It is difficult for the audience to weigh fully the meaning of the figures that have been put before us, but the Astronomer Royal and Professor Eddington have studied the material carefully, and they regard the evidence as decisively in favour of the larger value for the displacement.” ’[/i] --- H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.51, and quoting J. Earman, and C. Glymour, ‘Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expedition of 1919 and their Predecessors,’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1), 49-85.
Ah yes, the Masonic founded Royal Society was in full flow then, doing what it was established to do, dictate what ‘science’ the world was to believe, and what it was to ignore. They approved Newton’s anti-biblical thought experiments and now Einstein’s. ‘The results of the measurements confirmed the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner,’ wrote Einstein in his paper already quoted. [/font]
Chapter finish tomorrow
-
Rejection and Rebuttals
Dr Arthur Lynch, the distinguished mathematician, let the cat out of the bag:
‘The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a “curve” from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory. Neither curve has any justification.’ --
Arthur Lynch: The Case Against Einstein, 1932, p.264
And if that is not enough to show a ‘scientific’ farce, Professor Charles Lane Poor really spilled the beans on the tricksters:
‘The table showing displacement of individual stars shows that on average the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differ by 19% from the calculated Einstein value. In the place of two stars the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect… in other cases however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [from the calculated Einstein value]. The diagrams show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the report… But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and the predicted displacements.’ ---C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226
Professor Poor then goes on to tell us that the Relativists tried to claim the differences between the predicted and observed shifts are no greater than should be expected. Consequently, ‘This very question was investigated by Dr Henry Davies Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of relativity theory.’ After ‘an exhaustive examination’ he found the differences are real, and are contradictory.
‘The results given in the Report for the observations are the means (average) of the radial components (direction towards or away from the sun) only, nothing whatever being given to the directions in which the actual displacements took place. The Einstein theory requires a deflection, not only of a certain definite component, but also in a certain observed direction. To discuss the amount of the observed deflection is to discuss only one-half of the whole question, and the less important half at that. The observed deflection might agree exactly with the predicted amount, but, if it were in the wrong direction, it would disprove, not prove, the Relativity theory. You cannot reach Washington from New York by travelling south, even if you do go the requisite number of miles.’ ---Gravitation V Relativity
But the Royal Society, as we have already seen, has long been taking homo consensus to Washington from New York travelling south, west and east.
‘Now the diagrams of the seven best plates, the seven taken at Sobral with the 4-inch camera, show clearly and definitely that the observed deflections are not in the directions required by the Einstein theory… The relativists either totally disregard these discordances, or invoke the heating effect of the sun to distort the vision by just the proper amount to explain them away.’-- Gravitation V Relativity
Find something that can be said to cause the problem by ‘just the proper amount’ and that explains it. Recall this ploy was used to explain the Airy and Michelson & Morley failures. But then Professor Poor offered another solution to ‘starlight-bending.’ one Cassini was well aware of back in 1650.
‘Further… there are other perfectly possible explanations of a deflection of a ray of light; explanations based on every-day, common-place grounds. Abnormal refraction in the earth’s atmosphere is one; refraction of the solar envelope is another… Such is the evidence, and are the observations, which according to Einstein, “confirm the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.’--- C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226.
(3) The Third ‘Proof’ for Relativity
The experimental confirmation of the GTR that the lines of a spectrum (The ‘rainbow’ of any light) should be displaced when emitted in a strong gravitational field, causing the light, as it loses some of its energy when moving away from the field, to become redder. Sir Arthur Eddington, having conned the world with his ‘bent’ interpretation of the starlight, then tried to do the same with their ‘red-shift’ as the third proof for relativity. To spare the reader from intellectual embarrassment at not being able to see this proof clearly, we will curtail this explanation to a sample amount only. Any that wish to study it in total may acquire Eddington’s book and read it for themselves:
‘Displacement of the Frauenhofer lines (The dark lines of the spectrum of sunlight). Consider a number of similar atoms vibrating at different points in the region. Let the atoms be momentarily at rest in our coordinate system (r, θ, Ø, t). The test of similarity of the atoms is that corresponding intervals shall be equal, and accordingly the interval of vibration of all the atoms will be the same. Since the atoms are at rest we set dr, dθ, dØ= 0 in (38.8) so that ds² = y di². Thus the times of vibrations of the differently placed atoms will be inversely proportional to y.’
Want more? OK, but first remember that no one has ever seen an atom or identified its makeup. Everything to do with atoms is theory only, not necessarily scientific fact. To keep our sanity though, let us skip some of this ‘stuff’ and try to get to the point:
‘Consequently the waves are received at the same time-periods as they are emitted. We are therefore able to compare the periods of the waves received from them, and can verify experimentally their dependence on the value of y at the place where they were emitted. Naturally, the most hopeful test is a comparison of the waves received from a solar and a terrestrial atom whose period should be in the ratio of 1.00000212:1. For the wavelength 4000 Aº, this amounts to a relative displacement of 0.0082 Aº of the respective spectral lines. The verdict of experiment is not yet such as to secure universal assent; but it is now distinctly more favourable to Einstein’s theory than when Space, Time and Gravitation was written.’
So, Einstein’s third proof, ‘is not yet such as to secure universal assent,’ which is another way of saying that the proof is no proof at all. Desperate to convince a few more, Eddington continued:
‘The quantity dt is merely an auxiliary quantity introduced through the equation 938.80 which defines it. The fact that it is carried to us unchanged by light-waves is not of any physical interest, since it was defined in such a way that this must happen. The absolute quantity, ds, the interval of vibration, is not carried to us unchanged, but becomes greatly modified as the waves take their course through the non-Euclidean space-time. It is in transmission through the solar system that the absolute difference is introduced into the waves, which the experiment hopes [hopes?] to detect. The argument refers to similar atoms. And the question remains whether, for example, the hydrogen atom on the sun is truly similar to the hydrogen atom on the earth. Strictly speaking it cannot be exactly similar, because it is in a different kind of space-time, in which it would be impossible to make a finite structure exactly similar to ours existing in the space-time near the earth. But if the interval of vibration of the hydrogen atom is modified by the kind of space-time in which it lies, the difference must depend on some invariant of the space-time.’ ---Sir Arthur Eddington: The Mathematical theory of Relativity, p.91
Impressed, we bet you are, but not Professor Arthur Lynch:
[i]‘“And that’s why your daughter is dumb” as the quack doctor of Moliere concluded, though his arguments seem to me a model of cohesion and clarity compared with this of Einstein. It may be my own deficiency, and if, dear reader, you have made good sense out of this, I admit that your intellect soars at a range inaccessible to me.’[/i] --- A. lynch: The Case Against Einstein, p.258.
For a more sober version of the earth-atom/sun-atom ‘proof’ and how it was established let us return to Collins and Pinch’s The Golem:
‘The derivations of the quantitative predictions were beset with even more difficulties than the calculations of the bending of light rays. The experimental observations conducted both before and after 1919, were more inconclusive. Yet after the interpretation of the eclipse observations had come firmly down on the side of Einstein, scientists suddenly began to see confirmation of the red-shift prediction where before they had seen only confusion… Once the seed crystal has been offered up, the crystallisation of the new scientific culture happens at breakneck speed. Doubt about the red-shift turned into certainty.’ ---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem pp.52-53.
Collins and Pinch end their story of the ‘proofs’ for the GTR with a quote from philosophers of science John Earman and Clark Glymour. Kicking into touch, they preferred to stick with relativity rather than reject it on the basis of their findings, to keep their jobs no doubt. Obviously they did not want to be exiled from the fee-paying institutions that control science.
‘Appropriately understood, we ourselves see no reason to disagree with this [as a truth] … This curious sequence of reasons might be cause enough for despair on the part of those who see in science a model for objectivity and rationality. That mood should be lightened by the reflection that the theory in which Eddington placed his faith because he thought it beautiful and profound, and possibly, because he thought that it would be best for the world if it were true, this theory, so far as we know, still holds the truth about space, time and gravity.’ (p.55 & 85.)
Another opinion on the credibility of Einstein’s relativity:
‘The general theory of relativity is a complicated business. It is said that even by 1919 there were only two people who fully understood it: Einstein and Eddington. (This, let us hasten to add, is based on a quip of Eddington’s.) Even to this day, theorists are not completely united about what follows from Einstein’s theory…’ ---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem p.43.[/font]
-
The Birth of Quantum Physics
In 1921 Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for physics. This award was for his work on the nature of light that he produced in 1905, the same year he offered his special theory of relativity. To put it in a nutshell, Einstein agreed with one of Isaac Newton’s ideas that light was not made up of smooth continuous waves but consisted of trillions of individual particles (now called photons). It seems the Nobel Prize people were bursting to give Einstein one of their awards but seemingly the rules were such that they could not give out funds for theories like his STR or GTR, no matter how much they needed them for their Holy Grail. Whether they bent the rules for Einstein like they bent starlight for him so that he got a Nobel Prize we do not know. What Einstein did do in this paper was to introduce to the world the subject of quantum physics, i.e., the physics of sub-atomic particles, proposing that they behave in an electromagnetic fashion, a not unreasonable proposition. Be aware however, that atoms, let alone their particles, are so small that man cannot actually see them even with the most powerful of microscopes. This makes quantum theory - the science that tries to comprehend the structure and workings of the atom extremely difficult to master and prove correct in any definitive way. As far as Einstein is concerned, this speculation is as far as he went in quantum physics and had no input thereafter except to regret introducing the idea in the first place as it progressed in weird speculation.
By 1927, a physicist named Werner Heisenberg had taken the lead in Einstein’s non-visible area of quantum or atomic physics. In Heisenberg’s quantum world however, nothing is predictable whereas in Einstein’s everything is predictable. Heisenberg said it was impossible to measure the speed and position of a particle (of an atom) for the simple reason that observing them interfered with their speed and place, thus nothing can be predicted with certainty. Leading ‘experts’ in quantum physics today will go before the cameras and tell us that in their quantum world the movements of atoms are always uncertain, the outcome based on probabilities with nothing absolutely predictable. One example of this shown on TV had a leading physicist tell us that anytime we cross the road there is a possibility that we could dissolve and reassemble on Mars or any other planet for that matter.
(The idea is that a man’s body could be rendered into particles, be transported somewhere else and reassemble alive again - just like they do when they ‘beam me up Danny’ on TV’s Startrek – presents a conflict in faith and science and reality. Catholic faith says the body cannot function without the soul. Disect the body and the soul leaves. According to quantum physicists the soul and the body are one and the same thing. This is just not true, for the soul - the life-giving agent - cannot be reassembled, and this shows a philosophical error has been introduced into this branch of science called quantum mechanics. The trouble with science fiction is that it can ignore the reality of ‘vitalism,’ that is, the actual life force of flora and fauna and get away with it, but surely not even theoretical science can be permitted such licence?)
In the 1920s then, we had two contrary ideas of the universe, Einstein’s predictable cosmos and the quantum cosmos of probabilities and chance. Out of the philosophical debate that ensued came Einstein’s famous quip ‘God does not play dice’ to which the other side answered ‘do not tell God what to do.’ Stephen Hawking however had the last quantum word with ‘God not only plays dice, but sometimes he throws them where they cannot be seen.’
Einstein was at his wits end with this paradox of quantum and who can blame him, but wasn’t it he who started it all. To resolve his dilemma and regain his crown as top physicist, Einstein decided to extend his general theory of relativity - his theory of universal gravitation - by attempting to combine it with the maths of electromagnetism, i.e., trying to mould fantasy with fact. He knew if he could produce the equations then he could claim the greatest breakthrough in the history of physics. This in turn would have made the quantum ideas he disagreed with redundant.
Einstein worked on his grand theory throughout the 1920s. Even when he fell ill he would do his maths on the sheets of his bed, or got the second wife to do them. In 1928 a rumour hit the newspapers that he was on the verge of the complete theory and was immediately lauded by journalists etc. Finally, on Jan. 30th, 1929 he published his five-page thesis. As we could imagine, such was his reputation that everyone first believed the man had done it; figured out how the cosmos operates. Upon study however, so blatant were the errors in his dissertation that they were unacceptable even to those who believed in his STR and GTR. His peers could see that this was no breakthrough, as the maths simply did not combine no matter how Einstein stretched them. Accordingly, a year later Einstein knew the game was up and withdrew the paper in humiliation. That was to be the last of his theories in the field of cosmology.
Albert Einstein died on 18th April 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey, USA. But again we could ask; how did Einstein get away with it?
‘Length shrinks, mass increases, time shrinks, straight lines form circles [GRT]. Constants, in fact, cease to be constants and nature is now seen not to act in accordance with nature. But how is all this done? Where is the fallacy in the equation that allows mathematics to prove the impossible? How is the conjuring trick achieved? It is done by simple hoax and elaborate fraud…No apology is needed for describing Einstein’s achievements as a conjuring trick [alchemic magic actually]. Conjuring tricks are accomplished by illusion, such as sleight-of-hand which, without the assistance of misdirection, would be exposed in an instant; yet hours can be spent staring at them without seeing wherein the fallacy lies. Let us confront ourselves with the problem facing the swindlers. How can we demonstrate to the geniuses in the scientific profession and to the gullible masses that three constants – length, mass and time – are in fact not constants but variables? The answer is simple and beautiful, even though it could never have served until our own lunatic century. Choose a fourth element, which clearly is a variable, such as the speed of light (The speed of light is a variable. It travels slower through water than air, and it travels faster through certain gases).; describe it – or rather “postulate” (Einstein’s term) it as a constant; and now crank out some mathematics. And, naturally, we shall find that if the variable is falsely inserted into the calculation as a constant, the mathematics cannot fail to demonstrate that the constants are variables.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, pp.18-19.
All you have read, dear reader, derived from the Earthmovers’ attempt to get the earth rotating and orbiting the sun after the Michelson & Morley scientific test showed the earth does not move. Consequently:
‘Almost all present models of the universe are based on
Einstein’s theories, one-way or another.’ ----TIME-LIFE Books: The Universe, USA, 1962, p. 171.
Chapter Summary
‘There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
----Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.
-
Chapter Thirty-Seven
Walter’s Falsification
Of Einstein’s Relativity
‘Actually neither this Galileo, nor his mentor Copernicus, had a shred of truly tangible and unequivocal evidence for their heliocentric belief – and well do historians, astronomers, and philosophers of science know it! As I recently found it succinctly expressed in a research paper “Since Galileo science has shed logical proofs in favour of plausibility.” [Chris Biebricher: ‘Evolutionary Research,’ in Vincent Brummer, Interpreting the Universe as Creation. Kampen Kok Pharos, 1991, p.93.] Indeed, by this “scientific method” of adding plausible explanations to plausible explanations astronomy has arrived at the present view of the cosmos. However, those who forget that “plausible” and “proven” are not synonyms inevitably will see their chickens come home to roost.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos Einstein and Truth (1993), p.28.
So, where stood science in the conflict between geocentrism and heliocentrism after Einstein? The problem - as we have seen over many chapters - is the nature of space and the inability of human science to prove whether the sun and stars move about the earth or whether the earth turns and moves around the sun. Copernicus and philosophers George Berkely and G.W. Leibniz were some of the first to admit there was no proof for a solar-system now taught as a truth everywhere on earth today. Sir Isaac Newton was next when he admitted ‘it may well be there is no body really at rest to which the places and motions of others may be referred.’ [Dorothy Michelson Livingston: The Master of Light, New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1973, p.253] When the Airy (1871) and M&M (1887) experiments indicated the earth does not move, Einstein’s ad hoc theories of relativity were used to save the plausibility of a heliocentric world for science.
‘Expressing the today by the philosophers of science again generally accepted position, Stephen W. Hawking affirms: you can disprove a theory by finding a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.’ ---Walter quoting Stephen Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, p.10
So, according to the media’s successor to Einstein, Stephen Hawking, if we find a single observation that disagrees with Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can disprove that theory and send heliocentric relativism back to where it came from, the pseudo-science bin it came out of after the Airy and the M&M tests showed no orbit for the earth.
Now let us pretend Einstein’s STR and GTR have never been falsified and start afresh with regard to the two theories under consideration, geocentrism and heliocentrism as applied to their very first so-called ‘proof’ for a moving earth in a fixed-star system, the phenomena of stellar aberration as found by James Bradley in 1725.
‘It was only in 1686 that mathematical astronomy chanced upon a real proof, when Newton demonstrated that according to the law of gravitation it was impossible for the mighty ball of the sun to revolve round the diminutive earth as its centre. A decisive proof based on astronomical observation was delayed until 1725, when Bradley showed that all the fixed stars described small ellipses within exactly the duration of a terrestrial year, that the ellipses described by the stars situate towards the celestial poles approach increasingly to the figure of a circle, whereas the stars situate in the neighbourhood of the celestial equator increasingly resolve into a simple straight line, and that this phenomenon is inexplicable except as an effect of the earth s orbit round the sun. Of these real proofs Galileo remained in complete ignorance all his life. The magnificent, yet exceedingly simple way, in which Copernicus accounted for the seemingly intricate motions of the planets, as well as his own observations, no doubt convinced Galileo personally of the truth of the new system, but the provocative manner with which he defended it against its opponents, and that without solid proofs of his own, was bound to lead to grave and disastrous collisions.’ ---Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes, 1837
(http://s1.postimg.org/3witj9267/11_1.jpg)
Bradley’s Stellar Aberration
-
Now let us view for ourselves, as best we can in two dimensions, both systems, the heliocentric one and the geocentric one, that supposedly have equal plausibility in the wake of Einstein’s relativity theory.
(http://s9.postimg.org/btk2eornz/11_2.jpg)
Depicted above is a heavenly view looking down at the earth, sun and stars as they exist on the ecliptic. Moving the earth (E) along the orbital path above with a pencil point, we on the earth see the sun (S) apparently move along through the background stars of the Zodiac (Zs) once a year. In this system, all the stars will have the same aberrations.
To get a view of the geocentric version of the above we hold the pencil point immobile above the earth at (EJAN.I) and move the page under the pencil point again in a counter-clockwise direction as above until the page comes back around to EJANI. Thus, as with the heliocentric system, we see the sun as it moves around with all the Zodiac stars (Zs) in the background. But then it all goes wrong for Einstein as Walter shows:
‘Now all the fixed stars describe actual orbits congruent and synchronous with the yearly orbit of the fixed star [they call] the sun. Hence the size of these orbits as observed by Earth-bound telescopes will be inversely proportional to their distance from us, with the farther away stars therefore showing no measurable movement at all. This is not what we observe…..’ --- Walter van der Kamp, p.27.
Unless of course that the orbit of each star is directly proportional to that star’s distance from our telescopes, which of course is not very plausible. But don’t Einstein’s theories demand an explanation that fits both systems?
'We know that the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric theory is one of motions only, and that such difference has no physical significance… Since the issue is one of relative motion only there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centres – in principle, any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter.' --- Sir Fred Hoyle: Copernicus, p.88.
But, as Walter says, whereas Einstein’s theory does a good job in preserving Newton’s solar-system, the problem for the Earthmovers is that the solar-system is not alone in either a heliocentric nor a geocentric universe, for both must include the stars. And that is why Bradley’s stellar aberration is so important; for it alone among all the tests and ‘proofs’ provided by science incorporates the stars with the solar-system and the earth. Now if Einstein’s theory of relativity is to deliver, as Dryer and Hoyle boast above that it does, we have to find a geocentric order that conforms to the stellar aberration that Bradley found. So, what geocentric arrangement must the universe have that will show us all the stars with an equal-size aberration? To do this we have to adopt the Tychonic model and geometrically centre the stars on the sun rather than the earth. Now, from earth, every star will be seen to rotate annually together with the sun’s orbit in the following two-dimensional illustration:
(http://s27.postimg.org/mv8qy5f9f/11_3.jpg)
Here above, in two dimensional illustrations, is the only physically possible order that will produce the same-sized annual orbits as found by Bradley in 1726. It is the Tychonic stellatum of old, but with every star in the heavens anchored on the sun, not on the earth. The latter remains at the centre of the world, with the sun, planets and attached stars orbiting every year.
‘The Tychonian system “is in reality absolutely identical with the system of Copernicus and all computations of the places are the same for the two systems.”’ ---J.L.E. Dreyer: A History of Astronomy, Thales to Kepler, Dover Publications, 1953, p.363
Sorry Mr Dryer, Walter has just illustrated the two are totally different.
‘Mediate for a few moments and the truth will dawn on you. Such a single observation, but one of momentous importance we have here. According to the ruling relativity it makes with regard to the cosmos that the astronomers observe no physical difference, pontificates Sir Fred Hoyle, whether we declare the universe centered on the sun or the earth. This profession, you will already have realized, is false. The two universes that this contention envisages could not physically be more different than they are. The earth-centered one basically requires a Stellatum like that of Antiquity and the Middle-Ages to account for what we “here below” diurnally and annually observe. The never proven, nor provable, gospel of Galileo has in the long run reduced us to little blobs of thinking jelly on a pellet of stardust corkscrewing from somewhere into the nowhere of nothingless. The Sun-centered hypothesis truly “saves the appearance,” but the Earth-centered view only will do this if we re-introduce the Stellatum of yore and arrange the stars in that celestial sphere. A simple observation, but the Einsteinian theories are thereby condemned irrefutably. Which in a manner of speaking puts us back to square one. That is in the cul-de-sac into which after 1887 classical science found itself….
And I have to stress the irrefutability of my conclusion. For here we have much more than a-by means of experimentation acquired “disproof” that can be overcome by suitable ad hocs. We have a logical and ontological impossibility. The structure of the universe that firsthand observations prompt us to extrapolate from an Earth at rest is totally different from that of a Sun at rest. Relativity maintains that there will be no physical differences between the two. Relativity is therefore wrong and Einstein thereby dethroned.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos… p.34-35.
Having put the final scientific nail in the coffin of Einstein’s relativity, Walter reminded all what Paul Davies had to say in his book The Mind of God, that Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus and Galileo. It was the theory of heliocentrism that gave rise to the ‘nebular hypothesis,’ completed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796. From this came the evolutionary theories of the earth, flora and fauna and finally man. The mother of all evolutionary theories arrived in the twentieth century, the Big Bang beginning. With the collapse of heliocentrism all evolutionary theories must now suffer the same fate. Once again the direct creation of all things complete by God must go hand-in-hand with the creation of the Earth around which God built His universe.
Nevertheless:
‘Almost all present models of the universe are based on
Einstein’s theories, one-way or another.’TIME-LIFE Books: The Universe, USA, 1962, p. 171.
-
Hereunder is an addition to the above chapter:
(http://s1.postimg.org/3witj9267/11_1.jpg)
Before Einstein, Bradley’s stellar aberration showing equal sized circlets was interpreted as the movement of light. The Earthmovers said this was caused by the orbit of the earth whereas it could of course be explained by the annual movement of the stars. But now, after Einstein’s relativity rescue effort, both must have a physical explanation. In other words the starry circlets of equal size are real. But how on earth could all those stars in the sky show equal sized movements? For this vision all the stars would have to be at the very same distance from earth, yes? Of course they would. And is this the case? No, it is not. Each star’s aberration would depend on its distance from earth, the further from earth they are the smaller the aberration. Walter concludes: ‘Yes, the difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric model of the Universe is therefore enormous, and the theory of relativity consequently disproven.’
-
Chapter Thirty-Eight [/u]
The Electric
Universe[/font]
(http://s29.postimg.org/nnhvy3zw7/38_1.jpg)
The blue globe ball representing the earth is suspended
in mid-air by an electronically controlled magnetic field.
‘For the electromagnetic equations developed by James Maxwell fitted in fact only with an earth as the preferred frame of reference in absolute space.’---Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos, Einstein and Truth, 1993.
There is one further aspect to the Cassinian oval that we shall now disclose. This discovery could have had profound ramifications for the progress of the cosmological sciences had Cassini’s orbital discoveries not conflicted with the Newtonianism of the Royal Society of Earthmovers. In other words, the true progress of astronomy, physics and cosmology has been fatally and universally compromised by the adoption of the Copernican principle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately the author is still working on this chapter but wanted all to know there is a 'simplified field theory, the long sought after theory of everything, trying to show a link between the theory of gravity and electromagnetism,' something Einstein and science has failed to do.
-
Chapter Thirty-Nine
20th Century
Faith and Science
‘The Rev. William F. Rigge, S. J., professor of physics and astronomy at Creighton University, has a long article running through the April and May [1913] numbers of Popular Astronomy on “Experimental Proofs of the Earth's Rotation.” It is an abridged and popular presentation of the book published by Father Hagen S.J., [1847-1930] director of the Vatican Observatory (Founded by Pope Gregory XIII in 1578 and formally re-established on 14 March 1891 by Pope Leo XIII who located it on a hillside behind the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica). It is divided into four parts. The first treats of bodies falling from a height, which on account of their being farther from the earth's axis of revolution when on the top of a tower, move eastward faster than the ground and must therefore fall east of the point directly below them. The second mentions various forms of pendulums, especially Foucault's, whose plane of vibration, while really fixed, appears to shift on account of the earth's rotation. The third part treats of gyroscopes, and shows how they are used to prove that our earth turns on an axis. The fourth part explains various other apparatus, including two machines of Father Hagen's own invention. “It looks like an amende honorable to the Galileo imbroglio,” says Fr. Rigge in the Creighton Chronicle (Vol. IV, No. 8), “that the Pope's own astronomer should come openly before the world with such a learned work and should even produce two new experiments to prove the fact of the earth's rotation. Not that we imply that Galileo was condemned for the sole reason that he upheld this doctrine of the earth's motion — for which however he had absolutely no proof whatever — but that we have now one argument more, and one that fully offsets any fault that may have been committed before.”’ --- The Fortnightly Review: Mission Press of the Society of the Divine Illinois, 1913.
Here we have Fr Rigge, Pope Pius X’s appointee, the pope remembered for his attempts to save the Catholic faith from modernist infiltration, giving us a rehash of the ‘proofs’ for the earth’s rotation and seasonal wobble, proofs that can also be attributed to a geocentric model if the Jesuits had a mind for them. ‘It looks like an amende honourable (AMENDE HONORABLE, English law. A penalty imposed upon a person by way of disgrace or infamy, as a punishment for any offence, or for the purpose of making reparation for any injury done to another, as the walking into church in a white sheet, with a rope about the neck, and a torch in the hand, and begging the pardon of God, or the king, or any private individual, for some delinquency.) to the Galileo imbroglio ,’ (An acutely painful or embarrassing misunderstanding) says Fr. Rigge. In other words, the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory in Pope Pius X’s time were very much aware of the Galileo case and actually trying to make amends to Galileo by providing - on behalf of the Church - the proofs that evaded Galileo. It seems then, the Galileo case was alive and well inside the Vatican observatory at least even a century after that infamous U-turn from 1741 to 1835. Our second quote shows another apology from 1913, one of the most read and quoted accounts of the Galileo case at that time.
‘THE MODERN SCIENTIFIC VIEW (1913)
At the present day no one in civilised life could, without being suspected of lunacy, maintain the geocentric system of astronomy that Galileo opposed, or entertain any serious doubt about the heliocentric system that Galileo maintained. Taking up any school textbook of today you will find this latter system outlined briefly as follows….. The theory thus briefly outlined displays of course an immense advancement on Galileo’s knowledge, but in essence it is the Copernican system for which Galileo fought and for which he was condemned. As for proof of its truth, we cannot say that it amounts to a demonstration of strict formal logic; but it is a theory which, first adopted as a hypothesis, has been found to work and to explain everything, and even to afford a reliable basis for anticipating future or unknown facts. And this verification has been carried on so long and so minutely as to destroy all psychological dispositions to doubt its truth.’ --- Fr E. R. Hull S.J.: Galileo and His Condemnations, Examiner Press, Bombay 1913, p.50.
First note Fr Hull’s logic. He began by saying only a lunatic would consider geocentrism as a truth or doubt heliocentrism was not true. He then has to admit that heliocentrism has never been empirically proven so has to be called a ‘theory.’ Now see the effect Newton had on the human psyche. What other theory would command belief to a degree that if one did not believe in it one would be labelled a lunatic? Thus faith and reason becomes ‘faith and theory.’ Now can you imagine making Vatican I’s teaching on faith and reason apply to faith and theory? But that is what they did and still do; base their doctrine of ‘faith and reason’ on theories. Pope Pius X (1903-14) was at this time spelling out the beliefs, tactics, and dangers of ‘updating’ Scripture and Faith by modernistic reasoning, the ‘heresy of all heresies’ as he called it. Yet even in his reign nobody dared question the modernism of Rome that overturned a papal decree confirming the Fathers’ reading of the Scriptures based on Fr Hull’s ‘theory.’ Think about it. Fr Hull then asserts ‘this verification has been carried on so long and so minutely as to destroy all psychological dispositions to doubt its truth.’ Given the game was up since the 1871 Airy and 1887 M&M tests, the only defence of that U-turn had was to continue the psychological programming shown in the above propaganda. Backed up with an imprimatur from Herman Jhuerens, S.J. Archbishop of Bombay and that licence implicit in Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus - as we note here below - being used in Fr Hull’s book, what else were Catholics of the day to believe.
‘When informed of this Galileo wrote a letter to Castelli maintaining the view expressed in recent years by Leo XIII, “that the Scripture, not having for its object to teach science, makes use of such expressions as would be intelligible to the vulgar without regard to the true structure of the heavens.” p51.
On reading more of this Jesuit’s book we find further apologies regurgitating all the excuses conjured up over the centuries, just like a worn out gramophone record. Were anyone to challenge the new order they would then and now be considered a ‘lunatic,’ a tactic that has more in common with Communism than Catholicism. Now not for one second do we say Fr Hull intentionally tried to deceive anyone, for he too was caught up in this occult magic. But by such means was the geocentric doctrine purged from the Catholic mind, and by such means did the heresy of Modernism spread throughout Christian thought.[/size]
-
1920: Spiritus Paraclitus
On the fifteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of St Jerome (347-420), the greatest Doctor in the exposition of the Scriptures, Pope Benedict XV issued this encyclical to celebrate the life and work of this great saint. St Jerome of course, like all the Fathers, read the Scriptures geocentrically: For example:
Jerome: In Exodus we read that the battle was fought against Amalek while Moses prayed, and the whole people fasted until the evening. Joshua, the son of Nun, bade sun and moon stand still, and the victorious army prolonged its fast for more than a day. --- Against Jovinianus, Bk 2.
Jerome: The moon may dispute over her eclipses and ceaseless toil, and ask why she must traverse every month the yearly orbit of the sun. The sun may complain and want to know what he has done that he travels more slowly than the moon. ---Against the Pelagians, Bk I, 19.
That noted, let us now see where this encyclical could be said to have an association with the geocentric interpretation rejected since 1741. Making reference to Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV writes:
‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican, Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”
And with this in mind have we not seen the above doctrine put into context earlier when the Rev Roberts wrote of a heliocentric reading of Scripture:
‘Very good. In Galileo’s time, when Copernicanism was condemned, the objected passages of Scripture either were, or were not, adapted to express a meaning not at variance with the [heliocentric] theory: if they were, the opinion that they were was reasonable and defensible, apart from any scientific evidence whatever that the earth moved; if they were not, the evidence we have that the earth moves is evidence that God was not the author of those passages.’ --- Fr Roberts, p.44
The words of Scripture are undoubtedly geocentric, so the evidence they claim they have that the earth moves is to say that God was not the author of those passages. And that is exactly what Catholics were prepared to do, and did, ignore the contradictions that the U-turn forced on Catholic exegesis and hermeneutics, even that God was not their Author. Benedict XV continues:
‘But although these words of our predecessor Pope Leo XIII leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church -- nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning -- who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church's teaching on this point….
With good reason too, for haven’t we seen first hand the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory demonstrate why such a false interpretation was necessary. Once churchmen, from the top down, rejected the 1616 decree for the dictates of modern science, biblical exegesis was blown open to multi-interpretations. Spiritus Paraclitus continues:
‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author's greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that [/size]the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture…..
‘Those, too, who hold that the historical portions of Scripture do not rest on the absolute truth of the facts but merely upon what they are pleased to term their relative truth, namely, what people then commonly thought, are -- no less than are the aforementioned critics -- out of harmony with the Church's teaching, which is endorsed by the testimony of Jerome and other Fathers. Yet they are not afraid to deduce such views from the words of Leo Xlll on the ground that he allowed that the principles he had laid down touching the things of nature could be applied to historical things as well. Hence they maintain that precisely as the sacred writers spoke of physical things according to appearance, so, too, while ignorant of the facts, they narrated them in accordance with general opinion or even on baseless evidence; neither do they tell us the sources whence they derived their knowledge, nor do they make other peoples’ narrative their own. Such views are clearly false, and constitute a calumny on our predecessor. After all, what analogy is there between physics and history? For whereas physics is concerned with “sensible appearances” and must consequently square with phenomena, history on the contrary, must square with the facts, since history is the written account of events as they actually occurred. If we were to accept such views, how could we maintain the truth insisted on throughout Leo Xlll's Encyclical -- viz. that the sacred narrative is absolutely free from error?’
Pope Benedict XV, we see, just like Pope Leo XIII, was trying to stop the rot in biblical reinterpretation, unaware of the Copernican virus that had infected biblical exegesis and hermeneutics.
To be continued[/size]:[/font]
-
Possibly for another thread but
"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service."
If Earth wobbles
- when you apply the three, "water spin direction down sink" tests, all year round, over years,
- why doesn't the neutralised, 'non' spin of water test, never move off the equator line (due to "variation of latitude")?
(re Newton's Coriolis effect)
-
Possibly for another thread but
"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service."
If Earth wobbles
- when you apply the three, "water spin direction down sink" tests, all year round, over years,
- why doesn't the neutralised, 'non' spin of water test, never move off the equator line (due to "variation of latitude")?
(re Newton's Coriolis effect)
Because the earth does not wobble in any way glaston, no perturbation wobble no precession wobble.
I for one am not familiar with the 'direction down sink' tests' so cannot comment.
-
Here is a chapter ommitted earlier:
From Heliocentrism
To Evolutionism
‘A model of star and planet formation in which a nebula contracts under the force of gravity, eventually flattening into a spinning disk with a central bulge. A protostar forms at the nebula's center. As matter condenses around the protostar in the bulge, planets are formed from the spinning matter in the disk. This theory is widely accepted to account for the formation of stars and planetary systems such as ours. The first version of the nebular hypothesis was proposed in 1755 by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and modified in 1796 by Pierre Laplace.’ ---The Free Dictionary webpage.
Pièrre Simon Laplace (1749-1827), a Catholic mathematician and astronomer, was fascinated by the remarkable order that existed in their heliocentrism. This interest led him to propose an origin for their solar system that has been accepted even to this day. But let us look at the truth of it now.
‘The Nebular Hypothesis first appearing in his book Exposition of a World System published in 1796. Despite the pious attitudes expressed in his early days, Laplace had by this time, reached the conclusion that the stability so obvious in the solar system, would best be accounted for by a process of evolutionary chaos. Laplace had now become one of France’s foremost Monday to Saturday atheists, in spite of his believing attendance at mass every Sunday. His theory is based largely on the observation that all then known planets revolved around the sun in the one direction. Laplace suggested that: The sun was originally a giant cloud of gas or nebulae that rotated evenly. The gas contracted due to cooling and gravity. This forced the gas to rotate faster, just as an ice skater rotates faster when his extended arms are drawn onto his chest. This faster rotation would throw off a rim of gas, which following cooling, would condense into a planet. This process would he repeated several times to produce all the planets. The asteroids between Mars and Jupiter were caused by rings which failed to condense properly. The remaining gas ball left in the center became the sun.
Laplace’s work has had many criticisms; the more serious are listed below.
1. It is now known that not all planets move in the same way. At the time of Laplace, Pluto and Neptune were unknown, and both of these planets rotate from E to W. All other planets rotate from W to E. This difference cannot be explained by a theory which produces all planets from a gas cloud rotating in one direction only.
2. Laplace assumed the original cloud existed and was spinning. He did not attempt to explain where it came from and how it got to be that way.
3. All known physics indicates that a cloud of gas in space will expand and not contract.
4. The Scottish physicist, Maxwell (1831-1879) demonstrated that even a fluid ring in space would not condense into space but form a ring, such as around Saturn, or a belt of planetoids as in the asteroid belt.
5. Studies on the ‘energy of movement’ of the sun and the planets show that 98% of this energy is involved in the movement of the planets. According to Laplace’s theory, most of the energy should still be in the sun. This should have resulted from the fact that as the ball of gas contracted, the energy of motion was tied up in a smaller volume. The ball spun faster, flinging rings of matter from the outside. These rings, however, were only small in mass compared to the gas ball, and therefore would have taken only small amounts of energy from the gas.
6. Laplace’s theory predicts that the sun should be spinning once every few hours, but it spins only once in approximately every 25 earth days.
7. All planets formed from Laplace’s gas cloud lie in the plane of the sun’s equator, however several planets lie at angles to the sun’s plane.
8. The major objection to this theory is best illustrated by a conversation Laplace had with Napoleon: Emperor Boneparte inquired of Laplace after reading his theory ‘Where does God fit into your system?’ Laplace replied: ‘Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis.’
The Nebular hypothesis represents the outworking of a man of great intellect who carefully studied and observed the evidence through eyes that were tied to a form of practical atheism. To Laplace, theology and science were independent forms of knowledge, and science was the better way of knowing. Laplace’s comments to Napoleon were not a conclusion that God was not necessary, nor do they represent a belief that God did not exist. They represented the starting point around which he built his theories: God was simply irrelevant to the everyday world of matter and energy.’ --- T. Parsons and J. Mackay: First Creation, 1980
Having accepted heliocentrism as a reality confirmed by the Bible early in the nineteenth century, churchmen were now unable to question the Nebular theory, the first evolutionary theory of the Enlightenment, the precursor to the Big Bang, the mother of all evolutionary theories, introduced in the 1920s by a Catholic priest no less, a Fr Lemaître in what he called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom,” a happening that supposedly occurred 15.5 billion years ago.
In between of course we had uniformitarianism (long ages) and Darwinism, the evolution of the same Nebular gas from inanimate matter to living forms of flora and fauna, from sponges to human beings.
-
Uniformitarianism (long-Ages)
Once they conjured a ‘natural’ explanation for the existence of an orbiting earth they then had to try to explain the topography of the earth, the physical structure of the surface of the earth as we find it today. History records it was Charles Lyell (1797-1875), Adam Sedgwick, Sir Roderick Murchison and many other like-minded men of The Geological Society of London, founded in 1807 that ‘solved’ this problem. He/they proposed that slow processes acting over long periods of time formed everything, including sedimentary rock, with each of its layers representing its own age of millions of years. In his book The Rise of the Evolution Fraud,(Malcolm Bowden: The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, California, 1982,) Malcolm Boden quotes a letter of 1830 from Lyell to one Poulette Scrope - who was about to review the first volume of Lyell’s The Principles of Geology, a thesis on uniformitarianism for rocks - saying ‘I am sure you may get into Quarterly Review what will free science from Moses.’ Boden goes further and presents a record of this geological revolution similar to the heliocentric fraud wherein assumptions and theories were upheld as empirical facts by powerful men who filled the important places in universities and teaching institutions and who in turn ensured the uniform method was placed in all textbooks since that time.
‘Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It has included the gradualistic concept that “the present is the key to the past” and is functioning at the same rates. Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism. Uniformitarianism was formulated by British naturalists in the late 18th century, starting with the work of the geologist James Hutton, which was refined by John Playfair and popularised by Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology in 1830. The term uniformitarianism was coined by William Whewell, who also coined the term catastrophism for the idea that Earth was shaped by a series of sudden, short-lived, violent events.’ ---Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Up until the Copernican revolution the world was aged according to the Holy Scriptures (6,000 to 10,000 years-old). Here is a more precise account.
‘The year from the creation of the world, when in the beginning God created heaven and earth, five thousand one hundred and ninety nine: From the Deluge, the year two thousand nine hundred and fifty seven: from the birth of Abraham, the year two thousand and fifteen…’ (The above composition belongs to Roman Martyrology first published in 1583 by Pope Gregory XIII, the pope who decreed the revision of the Julian calendar. At the office of the prime, in cathedral chapters and monasteries, the announcement of the following day’s feast [Christmas day] was made with unusual solemnity. The Lector, who frequently is one of the dignitaries of the choir, sung, to a magnificent chant, the above lesson from the martyrology. On that day alone, and on that single occasion, did the Church adopt the Septuagint chronology, according to which the birth of the Saviour took place five thousand years after the Creation; whereas the Vulgate version, and the Hebrew text, places only four thousand years between the two events.)
New Translation: ‘unknown ages from the time when God created the heavens and the earth and then formed man and woman in his own image.’ --- USCCB Translation (Committee on the Liturgy, 1994.)
Now let us see how uniformitarianism did away with the literal interpretation of Noah’s flood, once believed to have caused the topography of the earth, and indeed the Ark as a divine type of Christ, only in Whom can one be saved.
‘Down to a generation or two ago it was the general belief of Christians that the deluge of Noah covered the whole earth, and that it is so described in the most explicit terms in the Bible. Certain new considerations, mainly drawn from geology, led specialists to the contrary conclusion that the deluge was by no means universal, but was a comparatively local phenomenon; widespread enough to cover the area occupied by mankind at that time, but not much more. This view at first found considerable opposition in theological circles; partly because the restriction of the area of the flood was not as yet demonstrated beyond question, and partly because it ran counter to the literal text of the Scripture as universally understood by its interpreters. Fortunately, the view did not attain such sudden publicity as to cause a widespread sensation, and so no crisis arose. The partial-deluge-view gradually came to look more and more feasible, and the possibility of interpreting Scripture accordingly became more and more evident. The new view gradually filtered down from learned circles to the man in the street, so that nowadays the partiality of the deluge is a matter of commonplace knowledge among all educated Christians, and is even taught to the rising generation in elementary schools.’--- Fr Ernest R. Hull, S. J: Galileo and his Condemnation, p.71.
Witness how Noah’s Flood was placed by this Jesuit Fr Hull into the hands of ‘specialists’ in geology to ‘interpret.’ Today, one hundred years after Fr Hull, the Flood of Noah is depicted in a Catholic Bible like so:
‘Deluge. The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19). God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen. 6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole earth as we know it today; some even hold that it not necessarily destroys all the people on the earth.’
What then is all that in Genesis about Noah having to build a huge Ark, filling it up with animals of all sorts and having to spend a year afloat on a ‘lake’ while kept ignorant there was land outside his ‘region?’ Noah and his family could have gone on holiday with horse and cart and enjoyed himself with all those others outside the Ark - a divine type of Christ - as most churchmen insist on since 1835. If one does not see in this new ‘science’ led exegesis and hermeneutics the seeds of the modernists’ doctrine, that is, even those outside the Ark (Catholicism) can be saved, then one is wearing a blindfold.
-
Guy Berthault
As an anecdote to the above let us bring ourselves up to date on this subject of uniformitarianism (long-ages) based on the research by the French geologist-sedimentologist Guy Berthault. Experiments conducted by this man at the University of Colorado between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived ideas that sediments were laid down one layer on top of another throughout the ages. (Geological Society of France’s Journal, October 1993.)
In fact he found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, thus in fact the bottom strata in any one deposit, always considered the oldest according to Lyell, can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of deposit. This evidence, after confirmed and valid tests, means animal fossils in one stratum at or near the surface can well be buried longer than fossils in the lower strata, thus shattering the whole ‘fossil-column’ assertions of the evolutionists. In other words fossils found at the bottom of a ravine, may well be younger than a fossil found further up the cliff-face. And not only does this falsify Lyell’s postulation that ages of fossils can be classified according to their depth in the rock, but it shows that the radioactive dating used to confirm this false theory is itself manipulated to suit the evolutionists. Other discoveries, such as radioactive halos left behind by decaying radioactive elements in the ‘Precambrian granites’, and in coal, (R. V. Gentry, Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Sciences Association, Tennessee, 1986.)
and that two hundred year old lava rock has been dated at three million years old, provide empirical evidence that falsifies the theories from the Big Bang to the great uniformitarian hoax. Berthault’s work totally falsified Hutton’s and Lyell’s nineteenth century account of the earth’s sediments and the fossils in them that they claimed proved all were laid down and formed successively over millions of years. Berthault’s findings (Guy Berthault: Principles of geologic dating in question, Fusion, May-June, 2000 pp.32-39.)
- coupled with observations gleaned from the well docuмented volcanic eruption at Mt St Helens in Washington State during the 1980s where massive deposits of sediments (millions of years of them?) were laid down in a matter of hours - offered the world more empirical evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology used by Darwin for his evolution, from gas to human beings, is no longer feasible. The above findings were published in the French scientific review Fusion. Peter Wilders tells us how the scientific world reacted.
‘First was the classical and normally most effective tactic of silence. By not replying to the docuмentation sent to them, the Geological Society, in this case that of France, blocked all dialogue. The author of the experiments countered their tactics by sending a copy of the scientific journal to all the 1,200 or so active members of the society. In this way, everyone in the geological community in France was made aware of the experimental results. The society retaliated by attacking the experimenter from authority, i.e., they claimed that all the geologists for three centuries could not be wrong; therefore the experimental evidence could be safely ignored. The success of such a method depended upon the geologists being united. To a large extent they were, but a few responded independently of the society saying they were interested… Supportive geologists fearing for their credibility and, therefore livelihood, wait in the wings.’ ---P. Wilders, David and Goliath, Christian Order, May 2001, p.335.
Wilders goes on to say that the final rejection of Berthault’s evidence came from the Catholic hierarchy. Although out of their competence, they placed a letter in the Geological Society’s half-yearly newsletter and, giving no heed at all to the empirical evidence supplied by Berthault, they accused the scientist of ‘pseudo-science and creationism.’ ‘By attacking his personal credibility they knew that most geologists would not take his work seriously’ wrote Wilders. Where now their apostolic duty to proscribe false philosophy as a means to protect the wisdom that comes from a combination of true faith and reason?
The world, like Copernicanism, was sold uniformitarianism, and after that evolutionism, under false premises by those in both Church and State. Today, Guy Berthault’s advances in knowledge of sedimentary rock (and its fossils) and how it is laid down have made Lyell’s theories absolutely redundant.
Finally, the Mount St Helens volcano eruption in Washington State in 1980. In a matter of hours and days layer after layer of sedimentation formed before the very eyes of the scientists studying the explosion. This demonstrated that the supposed thousands, if not millions of years of uniformitarian sediment building, could be achieved in hours or days. In other words a catastrophic flood accompanied by volcanic eruption, which then receded, could well have formed very quickly most of the sedimentary and igneous deposits as well as the great canyons and other land formations found on earth today. Apply this evidence to the rule of faith, where all that is necessary to confirm the opinion of the Fathers of the Genesis flood is that it has never been proven untrue and that it remains probable, and rest assure yourself that so-called science never came close to empirically falsifying the literal account of the beginning of the world as recorded in Scripture. But the Catholic hierarchy had long committed themselves to Copernicanism, a faith determined by pseudo-science.
‘Yet these words (Genesis I: 1-10) give rise to a certain conflict. They are beautiful and familiar, but are they true? Everything seems to speak against it, for science has long since disposed of the concepts that we have just now heard – the idea of a world that is completely comprehensible in terms of space and time, and the idea that the creation was built up piece by piece over the course of seven days. Instead of this we now face measurements that transcend all comprehension. Today we hear of the Big Bang, which happened billions of years ago and with which the universe began its expansion – an expansion that continues to occur without interruption. And it was not in neat succession that the stars were hung and the green fields created; it was rather in complex ways and over vast periods of time that the earth and the universe were constructed as we now know them.’ --- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI): In the Beginning, 1986.
-
1859 Darwinism
‘All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance produced out of nothing by God.’ (De. Fide.)
Darwin’s theory came about through observation. He concluded certain species were formed by their environment or change in surroundings brought about by many different causes. For example, finches evolved certain shapes of bills to adjust to the food found in certain areas, and animals evolved white coats in the arctic to blend with the snow. The most famous evolutionary example of them all was the change in moths from white to dark during an era wherein the emissions from coal fires darkened the environment. The brighter the moth the more likely it was seen by predators and devoured. Accordingly the darker ones tended to survive and breed. Thus over time the species went from white to dark. Science has long confirmed the genetic make-up of any creature has the ability to allow micro-adjustments to survive changing situations.
‘Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact.' --- Wikipedia.
We see however, that Darwin and like-minded men went further, much further in their interpretation of evolution. They claimed if species can do this micro-evolution, why not a macro-evolution, mutate from one kind to another, a theory that grew from gas into a single cell ending up as a sponge, then a fish, a mammal, a monkey and finally a man. Now there is a very simple way of discerning the real value of the ‘scientific’ worldview on offer then and now, the evolution of the universe and all in it. It lies in the law on entropy or energy decay; especially that called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law can be observed in action by anyone, and examples are everywhere. We see it in a supernova, a star disintegrating, or seeing an old building fall to bits over time, or observing metal rust into dust. The whole universe, our senses, physicists and chemists assure us, is like a gigantic clock winding down, all order in a process of decay into disorder.
(The evolutionists respond by saying the introduction of solar power can thwart the second law of thermodynamics by providing the energy needed to build up the various order of things. The fact is however, that solar radiation will accelerate the second law unless there is present the ability for photosynthesis, that is, the ability to convert and utilise solar radiation to other forms of energy. The evolutionists’ problem, of course, is to explain how inanimate matter obtained this incomprehensible formula of photosynthesis that supposedly enabled solar energy to assist its theoretical evolution from chemicals into plants, animal-forms and intelligent man.)
If we move on into the next faculty in the Open University we find biologists, geologists and cosmologists telling us that all organised matter, including life, arose from a big bang in a state of chaos and evolved into the order of the whole universe, and is still evolving. In other words, they are telling us the universe is like a clock winding itself up. And how, we ask, do they know it has been evolving upwards for billions and millions of years? Because of the supposed evidence the decay rates reveals to them. Not, mind you, ‘generation rates’, as one might have expected, but decay rates. Now isn’t that a laugh? They measure the duration of upward evolution by the very means of entropy that falsifies it. Such a curriculum, teaching students to believe in the cosmos as a clock winding itself up while accepting at the same time the fact that it is a clock winding down, is an insult to human intelligence, but instead it is used to prepare each generation to go out into the world as psychologically prepared Copernicans and evolutionists.
‘If your pet theory is…found to be contradicted by observation – well these experimentalists do bungle at times. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.’ --- Sir Arthur Eddington: Nature of the Physical World, Dent, 1964, p.74.
Now you must also see that any theory of evolutionary transformation has to be contrary to Catholic faith as indicated by the dogma cited in our opening quote. One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe was once particles of atoms or if a man was once a monkey, a horse was once a fish or a fish once a mere single cell. The ‘substance’ is we know from classic philosophy, ‘what something is’ not what something can become. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind’, the sun as the sun, the earth as the earth, a fish as a fish, a mammal as a mammal, and finally a human as a human. So, who were the churchmen that first encouraged the flock to accept absurdity and natural nonsense as God’s creative act?
‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.’ --- Brian Martin, J.H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.
It was however, the proposed evolution of man from primate that challenged the very fundamentals of Catholic belief. The whole concept and nature of man would have to be abandoned or reviewed if such a theory were to be tolerated. In the first place we would have to accept man has a transient nature, that is, it must have a temporary state in the progress of evolution. True man, they say, did not exist in the beginning, neither in type or nature, and if their theory is taken in its entirety, neither will he exist, either in type or nature, at the end, which evolutionists tell us will occur when the sun burns out in a few billion years. According to Catholic dogma, man was created intelligent, speaking a full language from the beginning. Every civilisation, no matter how primitive, living or gone, was found to have a language, perfect and complete, as grammatical as Greek, as fluent as French. No human-type animal ever existed. Such creatures, depicted endlessly in ‘scientific’ journals, are pure fiction; evolutionary art forms, intended to programme the readers with such ideas.
Now there may be some that would accuse us of making connections where there are none; from Galileo to Darwin in the same breath: ‘Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus.’ (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, Grosset &Dunlop, 1963, p.192) If this is the case let us take you further to hear Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, author of many books pushing his theory of evolution by giant leaps (Punctuated Equilibria):
‘I am an unrepentant Galilean. I work in a tradition extending from the Master himself to Thomas Huxley [Darwin’s bulldog] in the last century. The eponymous hero of my literary bloodline is Galileo himself. But my essay talks about the power of the sun . . . But a man does not attain the status of Galileo because he was persecuted, he must also be right.’ ---S.J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Jonathan Cape, 1996.
‘Right’ for whom, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? The fruits of neo-Pythagorean evolutionism are now clear. It is a fact that the first line of communist indoctrination was not their kind of socialism as one might have expected, but in evolutionism. Rather than evolution giving more glory to God as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church claims, ‘scholars and researchers’ gave succour to atheistic propaganda. As to the potency of this poisonous fruit begun by the Copernican heresy, we need look no further than to Darwin himself, who, although having studied Protestant theology, lost all faith completely before he died. (N. Barlow, Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, 1958 edition)
Today, this supposed evolution of creatures is used extensively to blot out all recognition that it is God who is the supreme and only Creator of nature. No more can we exercise our inherent natural philosophy. If we look at a creature and wonder on its exquisite design, ability and purpose within the whole of nature, which should lead us to recognise an Intelligent Designer, we now fail to find Him because we are programmed to believe it was ‘evolution’ that bred, shaped, designed and found a niche for whatever is under our observation. Thus the new ‘science’ has prevented God getting the glory for His own creation, removing all philosophical thought on Him as our Creator also.
‘It has been said by someone that 9Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.[/size][/font]
-
Possibly for another thread but
"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service."
If Earth wobbles
- when you apply the three, "water spin direction down sink" tests, all year round, over years,
- why doesn't the neutralised, 'non' spin of water test, never move off the equator line (due to "variation of latitude")?
(re Newton's Coriolis effect)
Because the earth does not wobble in any way glaston, no perturbation wobble no precession wobble.
I for one am not familiar with the 'direction down sink' tests' so cannot comment.
I agree, I was confused, thought I had missed something but fast coming to same conclusion.
I enjoy watching eccentric stuff like this as I was pushed out of physics/chemistry learning by a wicked school.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb69HENUZs8
On his third water test/demo - the African would be constantly having to move his water basin every month to cope with any equator line/"earth wobble" adjustments to keep him on the null line
ie water goes straight down.
- this test proves visually, it's absolute lies we are being told & mislead with!
-
1859 Darwinism
‘All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance produced out of nothing by God.’ (De. Fide.)
Darwin’s theory came about through observation. He concluded certain species were formed by their environment or change in surroundings brought about by many different causes. For example, finches evolved certain shapes of bills to adjust to the food found in certain areas, and animals evolved white coats in the arctic to blend with the snow. The most famous evolutionary example of them all was the change in moths from white to dark during an era wherein the emissions from coal fires darkened the environment. The brighter the moth the more likely it was seen by predators and devoured. Accordingly the darker ones tended to survive and breed. Thus over time the species went from white to dark. Science has long confirmed the genetic make-up of any creature has the ability to allow micro-adjustments to survive changing situations.
‘Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public had accepted evolution as a fact.' --- Wikipedia.
We see however, that Darwin and like-minded men went further, much further in their interpretation of evolution. They claimed if species can do this micro-evolution, why not a macro-evolution, mutate from one kind to another, a theory that grew from gas into a single cell ending up as a sponge, then a fish, a mammal, a monkey and finally a man. Now there is a very simple way of discerning the real value of the ‘scientific’ worldview on offer then and now, the evolution of the universe and all in it. It lies in the law on entropy or energy decay; especially that called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law can be observed in action by anyone, and examples are everywhere. We see it in a supernova, a star disintegrating, or seeing an old building fall to bits over time, or observing metal rust into dust. The whole universe, our senses, physicists and chemists assure us, is like a gigantic clock winding down, all order in a process of decay into disorder.
(The evolutionists respond by saying the introduction of solar power can thwart the second law of thermodynamics by providing the energy needed to build up the various order of things. The fact is however, that solar radiation will accelerate the second law unless there is present the ability for photosynthesis, that is, the ability to convert and utilise solar radiation to other forms of energy. The evolutionists’ problem, of course, is to explain how inanimate matter obtained this incomprehensible formula of photosynthesis that supposedly enabled solar energy to assist its theoretical evolution from chemicals into plants, animal-forms and intelligent man.)
If we move on into the next faculty in the Open University we find biologists, geologists and cosmologists telling us that all organised matter, including life, arose from a big bang in a state of chaos and evolved into the order of the whole universe, and is still evolving. In other words, they are telling us the universe is like a clock winding itself up. And how, we ask, do they know it has been evolving upwards for billions and millions of years? Because of the supposed evidence the decay rates reveals to them. Not, mind you, ‘generation rates’, as one might have expected, but decay rates. Now isn’t that a laugh? They measure the duration of upward evolution by the very means of entropy that falsifies it. Such a curriculum, teaching students to believe in the cosmos as a clock winding itself up while accepting at the same time the fact that it is a clock winding down, is an insult to human intelligence, but instead it is used to prepare each generation to go out into the world as psychologically prepared Copernicans and evolutionists.
‘If your pet theory is…found to be contradicted by observation – well these experimentalists do bungle at times. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.’ --- Sir Arthur Eddington: Nature of the Physical World, Dent, 1964, p.74.
Now you must also see that any theory of evolutionary transformation has to be contrary to Catholic faith as indicated by the dogma cited in our opening quote. One cannot say that God created things ‘in their whole substance’ if the universe was once particles of atoms or if a man was once a monkey, a horse was once a fish or a fish once a mere single cell. The ‘substance’ is we know from classic philosophy, ‘what something is’ not what something can become. Theologically then, God had to create things according ‘to their kind’, the sun as the sun, the earth as the earth, a fish as a fish, a mammal as a mammal, and finally a human as a human. So, who were the churchmen that first encouraged the flock to accept absurdity and natural nonsense as God’s creative act?
‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.’ --- Brian Martin, J.H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.
It was however, the proposed evolution of man from primate that challenged the very fundamentals of Catholic belief. The whole concept and nature of man would have to be abandoned or reviewed if such a theory were to be tolerated. In the first place we would have to accept man has a transient nature, that is, it must have a temporary state in the progress of evolution. True man, they say, did not exist in the beginning, neither in type or nature, and if their theory is taken in its entirety, neither will he exist, either in type or nature, at the end, which evolutionists tell us will occur when the sun burns out in a few billion years. According to Catholic dogma, man was created intelligent, speaking a full language from the beginning. Every civilisation, no matter how primitive, living or gone, was found to have a language, perfect and complete, as grammatical as Greek, as fluent as French. No human-type animal ever existed. Such creatures, depicted endlessly in ‘scientific’ journals, are pure fiction; evolutionary art forms, intended to programme the readers with such ideas.
Now there may be some that would accuse us of making connections where there are none; from Galileo to Darwin in the same breath: ‘Darwin only completed the revolution begun by Copernicus.’ (Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, Grosset &Dunlop, 1963, p.192) If this is the case let us take you further to hear Stephen J. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard University, author of many books pushing his theory of evolution by giant leaps (Punctuated Equilibria):
‘I am an unrepentant Galilean. I work in a tradition extending from the Master himself to Thomas Huxley [Darwin’s bulldog] in the last century. The eponymous hero of my literary bloodline is Galileo himself. But my essay talks about the power of the sun . . . But a man does not attain the status of Galileo because he was persecuted, he must also be right.’ ---S.J. Gould, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Jonathan Cape, 1996.
‘Right’ for whom, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? The fruits of neo-Pythagorean evolutionism are now clear. It is a fact that the first line of communist indoctrination was not their kind of socialism as one might have expected, but in evolutionism. Rather than evolution giving more glory to God as the new Catechism of the Catholic Church claims, ‘scholars and researchers’ gave succour to atheistic propaganda. As to the potency of this poisonous fruit begun by the Copernican heresy, we need look no further than to Darwin himself, who, although having studied Protestant theology, lost all faith completely before he died. (N. Barlow, Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, 1958 edition)
Today, this supposed evolution of creatures is used extensively to blot out all recognition that it is God who is the supreme and only Creator of nature. No more can we exercise our inherent natural philosophy. If we look at a creature and wonder on its exquisite design, ability and purpose within the whole of nature, which should lead us to recognise an Intelligent Designer, we now fail to find Him because we are programmed to believe it was ‘evolution’ that bred, shaped, designed and found a niche for whatever is under our observation. Thus the new ‘science’ has prevented God getting the glory for His own creation, removing all philosophical thought on Him as our Creator also.
‘It has been said by someone that 9Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.[/size][/font]
I've checked out Dar-win myself
Hidden hebrew word "Dar" meaning
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
pearl
Apparently from the same as drowr; properly, a pearl (from its sheen as rapidly turned);
by analogy, pearl-stone, i.e. Mother-of-pearl or alabaster -- X white.
see HEBREW drowr
His Grandfather/Father were high up 'n'th degree Scottish Rite Satanists in Edinburgh.
Loads of words & names have hidden symbology meanings.
His ship (hull > cathedral) was the B-eagle (Bicepherous _ Eagle of double headed logo Scottish Rite)
Dog is God occultly reversed.
The Isles >>> Spanish galápago, meaning tortoise
Tortoise >>> tortoise etymology links to hades/hell
Etymology
tortoise (n.)
1550s, altered (perhaps by influence of porpoise) from Middle English tortuse (late 15c.), tortuce (mid-15c.), tortuge (late 14c.), from Medieval Latin tortuca (mid-13c.),
perhaps from Late Latin tartaruchus “of the underworld”
(Tortoise hide in burrows)
Tartarus (n.)
– in Homer and older Greek mythology, the sunless abyss below Hades, from Greek Tartaros, of uncertain origin; “prob. a word of imitative origin, suggestive of something ‘frightful'” [Klein].
Later in Greek almost synonymous with Hades. (HELL)
Belief in Darwin's theory is a one-way ticket to . . . . . .
Do your own research
-
1859 Darwinism
‘All that exists outside of God was, in its whole substance produced out of nothing by God.’ (De. Fide.)
‘When Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859, it came as no surprise to Henry Newman. His idea of history, with change and development implicit in it, enabled him to comprehend Darwin’s claims, which shocked so many well-educated men whose minds were dominated by a static view of history. They believed in a literal exposition of the Book of Genesis. Newman’s view of history was dynamic and he found no difficulty in reconciling his views to Darwin’s.’ --- Brian Martin, J.H. Newman, His Life and Work, Challo & Windus, London, 1982, p.76.
‘It has been said by someone that 9Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine.
It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.[/size][/font]
I've checked out Dar-win myself
Later in Greek almost synonymous with Hades. (HELL)
Belief in Darwin's theory is a one-way ticket to . . . . . .
Do your own research
Again glaston, very, very interesting.
Note Cardinal Henry Newman, was a champion as a leader in 'the evolutionary idea to religious dogma otherwise known by THE SYSTHESIS OF ALL HERESY (Pope St Pius X.)
Isn't he on the way to sainthood?
-
1921: In Praeclara Summorum
‘Beloved Children,
Among the many celebrated geniuses of whom the Catholic faith can boast who have left undying fruits in literature and art especially, besides other fields of learning, and to whom civilization and religion are ever in debt, highest stands the name of Dante Alighieri [1265-1321], the sixth centenary of whose death will soon be recorded. Never perhaps has his supreme position been recognized as it is today. Not only Italy, justly proud of having given him birth, but all the civil nations are preparing with special committees of learned men to celebrate his memory that the whole world may pay honour to that noble figure, pride and glory of humanity.’ ---Encyclical on Dante. To Professors, Students of Literature and Learning in the Catholic World
Few today are even aware that Pope Benedict XV, on April 30th, 1921, just one year after his teaching encyclical on how the Scriptures reveal all truth, wrote a different kind of encyclical letter, praising the Catholic writings of Dante. Dante, we remind ourselves, is known for his vision of the geocentric world:
My desire and will were moved already
- like a wheel revolving uniformly -
by the love that moves the sun and the other stars. (Dante, par. 33.143-45)
Having written in Spiritus Paraclitus of the dangers ‘physical science’ can cause in interpreting Scripture, watch now as the Pope himself applies an ‘if’ of science to Dante’s most famous work The Divine Comedy, sometimes called ‘the Summa in verse,’ described earlier in our chapter four on geocentrism. Caught up in the universal belief that science has proven its Copernican cosmology, and unwilling to degrade the Catholicity of Dante’s description of a geocentric Heaven, Hell and Purgatory, he feels he has to rescue the same Catholicity ‘if’ science is correct. The balance between the Pope’s faith and the pressure from ‘science,’ in this encyclical, given the fact that no pope ever officially denied the 1616 decree, is not committing this Letter to endorsing Copernicanism, only to the scenario ‘If the progress of science showed later.’
‘And first of all, inasmuch as the divine poet throughout his whole life professed in exemplary manner the Catholic religion, he would surely desire that this solemn commemoration should take place, as indeed will be the case, under the auspices of religion, and if it is carried out in San Francesco in Ravenna it should begin in San Giovanni in Florence to which his thoughts turned during the last years of his life with the desire of being crowned poet at the very font where he had received Baptism. Dante lived in an age which inherited the most glorious fruits of philosophical and theological teaching and thought, and handed them on to the succeeding ages with the imprint of the strict scholastic method. Amid the various currents of thought diffused then too among learned men Dante ranged himself as disciple of that Prince of the school so distinguished for angelic temper of intellect, Saint Thomas Aquinas. From him he gained nearly all his philosophical and theological knowledge, and while he did not neglect any branch of human learning, at the same time he drank deeply at the founts of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. Thus he learned almost all that could be known in his time, and nourished specially by Christian knowledge; it was on that field of religion he drew when he set himself to treat in verse of things so vast and deep. So that while we admire the greatness and keenness of his genius, we have to recognize, too, the measure in which he drew inspiration from the Divine Faith by means of which he could beautify his immortal poems with all the lights of revealed truths as well as with the splendours of art. Indeed, his Commedia, which deservedly earned the title of Divina, while it uses various symbolic images and records the lives of mortals on earth, has for its true aim the glorification of the justice and providence of God who rules the world through time and all eternity and punishes and rewards the actions of individuals and human society. It is thus that, according to the Divine Revelation, in this poem shines out the majesty of God One and Three, the Redemption of the human race operated by the Word of God made Man, the supreme loving-kindness and charity of Mary, Virgin and Mother, Queen of Heaven, and lastly the glory on high of Angels, Saints and men; then the terrible contrast to this, the pains of the impious in Hell; then the middle world, so to speak, between Heaven and Hell, Purgatory, the Ladder of souls destined after expiation to supreme beatitude. It is indeed marvellous how he was able to weave into all three poems these three dogmas with truly wrought design. If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Therefore the divine poet depicted the triple life of souls as he imagined it in such a way as to illuminate with the light of the true doctrine of the faith the condemnation of the impious, the purgation of the good spirits and the eternal happiness of the blessed before the final judgment.’
One of the many reasons alluded to by the Copernican apologists is to say that the 1616 decree was not a binding decree for all time because Pope Benedict XV in this encyclical did not uphold the anti-Copernican decree of a moving sun and fixed earth at the centre of the universe. In fact, the Pope takes a neutral stand on the matter while reflecting on the post-1905 position of science that holds there is no scientific proof for either geocentrism or heliocentrism, that is, Einstein’s relativity. The Pope says: ‘If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation,…’ followed by ‘this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought.’ We say let us be thankful the Pope wrote that the earth ‘may not’ be the centre of the universe rather than ‘is not the centre of the universe.’ The difference we can assure you is profound. Given the fact that in his time Copernicanism was still considered the truth of the two choices, one surely would have expected the Pope to say ‘is not the centre.’ Had he done so, he would have contradicted Pope Paul V's 1616 decree that had never been abrogated. One could equally say Pope Benedict XV did not accept the U-turn of 1741-1835. The words ‘may not be’ hardly endorse Copernicanism. Like all the popes since 1616, not one of then explicitly denied the 1616 decree officially, or abrogated the decree by way of the Magisterium.
A Catechism of the Bible.
More of an apology by Rev. John O'Brien, M.A., 1924.
4. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
5. How does that guidance manifest itself?
Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is turning around the Sun and not vice-versa.
-
The Michelson-Gale experiment
‘The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1925) is a modified version of the Michelson–Morley experiment and the Sagnac-Interferometer. It measured the Sagnac effect due to Earth's rotation, and thus tests the theories of special relativity and luminiferous ether along the rotating frame of Earth.’ Wikipedia.
‘The aim, as it was first proposed by Albert A. Michelson in 1904 and then executed in 1925, was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson-Gale experiment was a very large ring interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. Like the original Michelson-Morley experiment, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson version compared the light from a single source (carbon arc) after travelling in two directions. The major change was to replace the two “arms” of the original M&M version with two rectangles, one much larger than the other. Light was sent into the rectangles, reflecting off mirrors at the corners, and returned to the starting point. Light exiting the two rectangles was compared on a screen just as the light returning from the two arms would be in a standard M&M experiment.
Result: The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000. According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity.’ - Wikipedia.
‘This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morley experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.’ - Malcolm Bowden: The Basic Scientific Arguments for Geocentricity.
Of course it does, for you cannot have the heliocentric goose without the heliocentric gander. With geocentrism however, all you want is the gander without the goose. And that is what you get with the 1887 M&M test and the 1923 M&G test, the gander without the goose.
The Big Bang Theory Arrives
With the unholy grail of an earth included heliocentric solar-system then established in the collective minds of humanity, a holy grail in which it is possible for twins to be older and younger than each other, that 20-foot poles can fit into 10-foot square rooms provided matter shrinks at the speed of light, and that if cosmologists cross a road they could end up in Mars [quantum theory], who can deny that man had been programmed to accept anything so long as the ‘most scientists accept’ tag is attached to it. There is however one further addition to their ‘science’ that is of interest to us. In 1922, the Russian Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925) ‘made the simplifying assumption that the universe was uniformly filled with a thin soup of matter.’ He ‘found a mistake in Einstein’s 1917 paper on cosmology and established that general relativity predicted the universe is unstable and the slightest perturbation would cause it to expand or contract.’ Immediately others wanted in on the new cosmology, including the Jesuit priest Monsignor Abbé Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) who ‘was the first to use Friedmann-type solutions to formulate a model for the beginning of the universe that he called the Primordial Atom or Cosmic Egg.’ With the groundwork done all that was needed now was for someone to come up with evidence for such an exploding atom and expanding universe. Such a ‘proof’ would ensure immortality of name and achievement similar to all the Earthmovers that preceded them. And so it was when the American astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) in 1929, using a newly built 100-inch telescope, saw for the first time faraway galaxies. Examining the spectral-light emitted by these stars he found a lengthening of the red end with many of them. On the basis of this alone, Hubble held that the galaxies were flying out at enormous speed thus indicating an initial beginning from a central point, just as Lemaître had already speculated. Since then however many studies undertaken by other astronomers have produced conflicting versions of Hubble’s interpretation of red-shifts. ( See for example Robert V. Gentry’s Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004.)
Missed by all of course was the fact that a rotating universe would also produce the light colour shifts equally well.
If however it is true that the universe is expanding, hadn’t Copernicus pointed out in his De revolutionibus in 1543 no less, that it would be an effect of geocentric rotating universe? He wrote that if the universe was spinning as the biblical model necessitates, then this inertia - like an amusement park swing whose attached chairs move out when rotating - could result in cosmic bodies moving outwards. Nevertheless, this Big Bang tale of a ‘natural’ scientific origin for an expanding world is now embraced by most with intellectual relish.
So, where did their first magic atom come from? Where did the space of space come from? Unlike Almighty God, science cannot get something from nothing, can it? That’s the unchallengeable First Law of Thermodynamics isn’t it? It is of course, but when did that stop the Earthmovers? Even this problem can be overcome if the solution comes from a ‘genius’ groomed to produce those ‘eureka’ moments; a scientist able to work out the equations necessary, solutions that get the approval of the scientific establishment. And as they found Einstein, in Stephen Hawking they found another:
‘Then in the sixties [Hawking’s] work on “black holes” proved that, contrary to all received scientific wisdom, matter could go from something to nothing. But if matter could disappear, it was only a short step to theories that the opposite was true, and that the universe as we know it, in all its beauty and complexity, had emerged not from the mind of a Creator God, but from nothing.’ --- The Universe (Catholic newspaper), September 16, 2001.
On July 2004, at a conference in Dublin city, 600 cosmologists met to hear Hawking - under pressure from his peers – reject one of his own theories on ‘black holes as, yes, ‘unscientific,’ but only after making a fortune on his worthless book Black Holes of course. ‘Before an array of TV cameras and hundreds of colleagues at the ordinarily obscure International Conference of General Relativity and Gravitation, Hawking declared that he had solved what he called ‘a major problem in theoretical physics.’ Black holes, he said, do not forever annihilate all traces of what falls into them. In making that announcement, Hawking recanted a position he had held for nearly 30 years. He also pulled the rug out from under a generation of science-fiction fans, declaring dead a favourite plot device: ‘There is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes,’ he said, with evident regret.
Surely one sees we are now in the fairyland of modern cosmology in which anything can happen - if enough gullible people are willing to believe what all these ‘scientific geniuses’ tell us that is.
‘One point to note is that there is no problem in principle with creating matter from a vacuum. Matter is just another form of energy, and can be produced if the energy input is balanced by something else. For the universe that “something else” could be negative energy in the gravitational field. If this were the case creating the universe would be like digging a hole – you’d have a pile of dirt (visible matter) balanced by a hole (gravitational field). The progress is miraculous only if you ignore the hole and insist the matter appeared “from nothing.” ’--- R.M. Hazen & J. Trefil: Science Matters, Cassel, 1993, p.155.
On 15th December 2013, the Discovery TV channel gave us a demonstration of the above in their one hour programme, Stephen Hawking’s Grand Design. In this programme, Hawking actually tells us that not only did the Big Bang create matter, but it also created the space that is necessary to contain this matter.
-
The Cosmological Principle
Hubble’s ‘red shift’ theory that the universe is expanding in every direction as seen from earth led to the logical conclusion that the earth must be at the centre of the universe. But note how Hubble, no different to the rest of them, reacted to this geocentric view:
‘Such a position would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe… This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome… the unwelcome position of a favoured position of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs…such a favoured position is intolerable.’ ---Edwin Hubble: The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1937, pp,50, 51, and 58
Here is another version of the same story, but read it carefully:
‘For instance, if the universe were finite and had a centre, and if the Milky Way were not near that centre, then the total brightness of all the rest of the matter in the universe should be slightly greater on one side of the earth than the other. But the night sky beyond the Milky Way is not noticeably brighter in one direction than the other; therefore astronomers are forced to conclude that the universe extends indefinitely far in all directions. The only other possibility is that the earth is the centre of everything – one planet serving as a focal point for thousands and millions of galaxies and millions of millions of other probable planets. This alternative is so preposterous that cosmologists have ruled it out from the beginning. In fact, they have made it a fundamental tenet of their creed that the Milky Way’s position in the universe is not peculiar or untypical in any way. From this idea they derive a basic axiom known as the cosmological principle: namely, that the universe must be the same on average everywhere and in all directions.’ ---- ‘Space, Time and the Universe,’ The Universe, Time-Life Books, 1962, p.170.
A complete scientific method should consider all possible explanations for any evidence or phenomenon under consideration. Only if and when science empirically falsifies a logical possibility can that theory be eliminated as worthless. Note however that the whole ‘cosmological principle’ is built upon a philosophical or ideological consensus, not empirical, and that even their own ‘evidence’ indicating a geocentric earth cannot be considered because: ‘such a favoured position is intolerable’ and ‘this alternative is so preposterous that cosmologists have ruled it out from the beginning.’ Today of course, with the Cosmic Microwave Radiation indicators showing the earth is at the centre of the universe, it seems cosmologists will have to face the facts to be credible.
‘[We] assume that our observations give us information that applies to the whole universe, not just to our part of it. In other words, we must assume that the part of the universe that we actually observe is representative of the entire cosmos, and that we are not located in some very unusual place, fundamentally different from the rest of the universe.’ ----George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, p.651.
Walter van der Kamp brilliantly sums up the kind of thinking. He said it had about the same logical status as an Eskimo who believes all homes are made of ice: or an Indian in the Amazon jungle who concluded that, since he sees parrots in the palms, there must be parrots everywhere, or because an Arab can find no lakes in the Sahara then there are no lakes anywhere. These analogies, if we are honest about it, are not exaggerations. The idea that we can apply assumptions about the earth, sun, and planets to those pinpricks of light we call stars and to the depths of space we can never hope to observe or understand properly, is conjecture on a preposterous scale. Now we could go on with this endless farce that calls itself modern cosmology but enough is enough. (Such as that because there is life on earth in a solar system then there ‘must be’ life on other ‘earths’ in many other solar systems out there among the stars.)
Let us finish with the following prophesy by Chet Raymo, a well-known author and populariser who teaches physics and astronomy in Massachusetts. This extract was adopted from one of his ‘Science Musings’ that first appeared in the Boston Globe and then in the magazine Sky & Telescope of March 1993, eleven years before Hawking admitted his 30 year cosmology was impossible:
‘The Big-Bang theory is only a provisional way-stop in a continuing inquiry into origins. It is possible to imagine a universe that had no beginning in time, and Hawking has been instrumental in investigating just such a possibility placing the so-called moment of creation off-limits for rational inquiry suggests that the lesson of Galileo has not been learned. Modern biology and neuroscience are other areas of potential conflict between the church and science. Biologists of the next century will almost certainly create living organisms from inanimate materials. Computers of the next century may become fully conscious by any practical test of consciousness. Human consciousness and memory may also yield to scientific analysis. All these developments will present problems for a theology of the soul grounded in mind-body dualism.’
Note well the ubiquitous assertion that science will ‘almost certainly create living organisms from inanimate materials’ in the next century. This is absolute fantasy, and is based on his belief that it actually occurred in the past. There is trickery at work here. When Remo and his kind assert that such-and-such a thing will happen in the future, what they want is for us to admit the principle of life from inanimate matter as an established fact now because there isn’t an empirical chance in hell of their ever producing such life in the future. Raymo then tells us that ‘computers of the next century may become fully conscious by any practical test of consciousness.’ Note his reliance on ‘may,’ ‘the next century’ and ‘practical test.’ Another case of his wanting us to believe in the principle now, in our lifetime, even though we will never see it demonstrated. His next delusion, that the human soul will be fully understood by reason, is introduced in a similar way, for it too ‘may also yield to scientific analysis.’
These presumptions, we must see, are worthless rhetoric and nothing else. Nevertheless, this is how modern science works; how their ideology becomes the accepted ‘scientific’ paradigm, the consensus, accept now that ‘all these developments’ will occur in the future, after we are all dead and gone of course. This is Cabbalistic magic, a religion, a faith, not real science. Today, 400 years after Copernicus, there is not, nor ever has been, in the world of Church or State, a philosopher; physicist, astronomer, or logician of worth who has ever demonstrated within the limits of mechanical or physical science that the earth moves, that life evolved, or that there is life out there in space. And that dear reader is all that is necessary in order to trash the standard history of the Copernican revolution. And what now can we say of generations of Catholic ‘scientists,’ many Jesuit priests, who have gone along with the ‘Holy Grail’ accepting assumption after assumption, upholding endless consensus and perversions of interpretations with biased ‘science,’ bringing their profession down to the level of fiction writers and at times no less than fraudsters?
‘Yes, such men, venerated pillars of society that they are, are dangerous, bringing about the same result, but on a vastly more extensive scale, as the pushers of mind-destroying drugs. Perhaps we should not try to excuse them by saying, as is certainly true, that they are the tools of powerful conspirators whose control of the academic world is such that they can organise praise, preferment, accolades on the one hand, or as Professor Dingle’s experience showed, almost total exclusion from being able to publish, whether in national newspapers or specialized scientific journals, on the other hand. Every human being must take ultimate responsibilities for his own actions.’ ---- N. M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985, p.52.
-
Here is a better understanding of the Mitchelson and Gale test as described in T.E. above:
Of course it does, for you cannot have the heliocentric goose without the heliocentric gander (Orbital movement and rotational movement). With geocentrism however, all you want is the gander without the goose (no orbital movement, but universal rotational movement). And that is what you get with the 1887 M&M test and the 1923 M&G test, the gander without the goose.
-
Aliens MUST exist, says Stephen Hawking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-561252/Aliens-MUST-exist-says-Stephen-Hawking--probably-dumber-us.html
Say no more!
Dawkins (& his 'Pearls of wisdom' - Darwinisms)
25 April 2013 11:15 AM
Professor Dawkins and Aliens
One or two readers noticed that I asked Professor Richard Dawkins(on Twitter) where he stood on the subject of aliens. This is why I asked.
I am told ( and my source is here ) http://darwinianfundamentalism.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/transcript-of-interview-of-richard.html
that the Professor said the following : ‘Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.’
(Note that Professor Dawkins, in a passage around five minutes into the interview (during a rejection of belief in the existence of any deity) says the existence of the Biblical God would be a ‘very unpleasant prospect’ which seems to me to introduce the question of desire and wish into the question of belief, where I think it is always to be found)
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/04/professor-dawkins-and-aliens.html
A misleading Snake-oil salesman if I ever saw one! All cleverly 'KRAFTED' suppositions & probabilities neither of which have any basis (except in his warped mind!)
These are the false christs/misleaders warned about in BIBLE! Pretty easy for us to spot and suss them.
Check this video out (esp the last half hour) as some bits intertwine with stuff on this thread
http://davidickedebunked.com/
-
1936: The Pontifical Academy of Sciences
The next episode associated with the Galileo case occurred in 1936 when Pope Pius XI (1922-39) restructured the Lincean Academy, calling it the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS). The goals and the hopes of the Academy, within the context of the dialogue between faith and science, were aired by Pius XI in his Motu Proprio which brought about its re-foundation:
‘Amongst the many consolations with which divine Goodness has wished to make happy the years of our Pontificate, I am happy to place that of our having being able to see not a few of those who dedicate themselves to the studies of the sciences mature their attitude and their intellectual approach towards religion. Science, when it is real cognition, is never in contrast with the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, as is well known to those who study the history of science, it must be recognised on the one hand that the Roman Pontiffs and the Catholic Church have always fostered the research of the learned in the experimental field as well, and on the other hand that such research has opened up the way to the defence of the deposit of supernatural truths entrusted to the Church. [...] We promise again, and it is our strongly-held intention, that the “Pontifical Academicians,” through their work and our Institution, work ever more and ever more effectively for the progress of the sciences. Of them we do not ask anything else, since in this praiseworthy intent and this noble work is that service in favour of the truth that we expect of them.’ ---Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science.
Founded originally in 1603 in Rome by a Dutch prince and several Italians, they named it the ‘Lynceorum philosophorum Ordo seu Congressus seu Academia.’ The Linceans had as their motto Sagacius isia. The standard reason given for their choosing a lynx in their title was that their keen interest in the study of nature was well represented by the cat. In fact the real reason why they called themselves ‘Lynxes’ was because they believed, like the lynx that could see better in the dark, the learned of their academy could see what others could not (like a fixed sun and moving earth?). This peculiar title, for those with a sense of esotericism, is Gnostic, with its doctrine of secret knowledge, privy only to the select few of course. It was the Lynxes that elected Galileo as their sixth member, assisting him in his heliocentric quest in any way they could especially by publishing his book Letters on Sunspots in 1613, a work in which Galileo first portrayed heliocentrism as a scientific truth, one that led to the Church’s worst nightmare as many would see it.
In the wake of the 1820-35 U-turn to the prevailing ‘science’ of the day, Pope Pius VII wanted to resurrect the Academy as did Pope Leo XII (1823-29) and Gregory XVI, presumably thinking that if they had a group of scientists to advise the Church they would not make another terrible mistake they believed happened in regard to heliocentrism and Galileo in 1616 and 1633. It was not however until 1847, under Pope Pius IX, that they got their academy going again, calling it the ‘Pontifical Academy of the New Lynxes’ if you don’t mind, as recommended by Gregory XVI, the pope who finally emptied the Index of Copernican books ‘without explicit comment.’ In 1870 however, with the merging of the Papal States into the Kingdom of Italy, the academy split into two different groups and Rome lost its gathering of Copernican scientists.
Pope Pius XI’s 1936 reintroduction of the scientific academy had a lot more science to interest it. As we saw, cosmology had by then invented all sorts of theories including the Big Bang. Moreover, so important had this heliocentric universe become to the State that vast amounts of money were poured into promoting theoretical cosmology. The first assembly of the new Pontifical Academy of Sciences was inaugurated on June, 1st, 1937 by the then Cardinal Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII (1939-1958). On a plaque placed by him to commemorate his predecessor Pope Pius XI’s role in renewing the Academy, Cardinal Pacelli reminded all that Galileo was a leader of the original Accademia dei Lincei.
‘To Pius XII, science and religion were heavenly sisters, different manifestations of divine exactness that could not possibly contradict each other over the long term. Regarding their relation, his advisor Professor Robert Leiber wrote: “Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo.” Anticipating similar praises from Pope John Paul II in 1992, Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1939), included Galileo among the “most audacious heroes of research… not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments.”’ (Wikipedia)
Pope Pius XII was again present at the inaugural meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) for the academic year 1941-42, a meeting held on 30th November 1941. By then of course, all scientific institutions worldwide were made up of Copernicans, relativists and evolutionists, and therefore it was men with such beliefs who were called on to fill all the seats of academies and institutions such as the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Many were by then also atheists, for atheism depends on the three pseudo-sciences.
Getting down to the real business for which the PAS was formed, it was not long before they revisited the Galileo case, giving as the reason that 1942 was the tercentennial of Galileo’s death and that this day ought to be celebrated. At this meeting, the president, Father Agostino Gemelli (1878-1959), who was also president of the Catholic University of Milan, gave a speech reminding the audience that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a ‘direct heir and legitimate continuation’ of the Lincean Academy founded by Prince Frederico Cesi in Rome in 1603, one devoted to the advance of scientific truth, as well as ‘living righteously and piously.’ (In fact the Lyncean Academy was steadfastly opposed by Cesi's father and other Roman aristocrats who accused its members of black magic, opposition to Church doctrine, and living scandalous lives. (The Galileo Project) It was investigated by the Holy Office and continued to support Galileo after he was silenced by Pope Paul V.) Fr Gemelli announced a new book on the Galileo case had been commissioned by the PAS to be written by the scholar Fr Pio Paschini (1878-1962), president of the Lateran University at the time. He spoke of ‘a historical and scholarly study of the docuмents’ that would ‘be an effective proof that the Church did not persecute Galileo but helped him considerably in his studies.’ He then went on to give the audience a modernist view of the Galileo case, presenting him as a kind of saint whose only motive was to save the Catholic Church’s hermeneutics and exegesis from the ignorance pertaining in the hierarchy of the Church at the time. He proposed Galileo’s agreement to abjure in 1633 was not based on fear of being burned at the stake, but on his total loyalty to his faith and obedience to the Catholic Church. Galilean revisionism it seems has no limits. In his book, Finocchiaro relates a lesser-known speech on the matter given by the same Fr Gemelli at Milan University later in 1942.
‘So, Gemelli had no hesitation in admitting that the condemnation of Galileo was a theological error…. However Gemelli was also claiming that Galileo’s tragedy embodied a great positive lesson; that faith and religion are harmonious with reason and science. He went on to argue that although Galileo did not provide a decisive demonstration of Copernicanism, neither did Newton, Bradley or Foucault; on the other hand, Galileo did provide “the convergence of probabilities that were increasingly more and more numerous in favour of the Copernican system; and in any case, the Ptolemaic arguments were weaker.”’--- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.278.
The significance of this ‘argument’ by the president of the PAS in 1942 is fundamental to the 1741-1835 U-turn, yet it passed away unnoticed.
‘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.
It remains a mystery why nobody in Catholicism saw what the astronomer Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) and many philosophers like Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) knew before and after the U-turn; a fact confirmed by Fr Gemelli of the PAS here above; that science proved nothing, never falsified the geocentric revelations of the Bible. Indeed, the question that could be asked now is did churchmen of 1741-1835 ever really believe there was proof for Copernicanism or did they too ignore the 1616 anti-Copernican decree based on probabilities and choose pragmatism over faith in order to put an end to the ridicule from academia, philosophers, astronomers, teachers, writers etc., that 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 a geocentric faith at any time after Isaac Newton and Cardinal 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 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 embarrassment; and that is why churchmen ignored and, even if aware that the earth was never proven to move, 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, unlike their successors, 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 there is Christian faith in so many other scientifically impossible and non-provable things, a return to the interpretation of a stable earth would simply have been one more item of Catholic belief based on Revelation.
-
1943: Divino Afflante Spiritu
Insert: [‘Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis
VIII: In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?
Answer: In the affirmative.’ --- Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909
Prior to this there were only two interpretations of the Genesis six days of creation by the Fathers, an immediate creation of all and six literal days. In the wake of the Galileo U-turn however, churchmen of the Commission were not going to open up another Galileo case by defending such an interpretation at a time when ‘science’ was telling all the earth evolved over billions of years. So, given six literal days was not the unanimous reading of Genesis by the Fathers they could leave it an open question, open to the suggestion that maybe the Fathers got it wrong here too, just like their predecessors from 1741 accepted they got it wrong with their geocentric cosmology in Scripture. ]
‘This freeze [by the Biblical Commission] endured until in 1943 Pius XII’s great encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu reopened the door to the use of modern methods of biblical study and established scholarship in the scientific investigation of the scriptures. The Pontifical Biblical Commission was quick to follow this initiative with a letter to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris… taking this [encyclical] as an encouragement to revisit areas which had been blocked off by earlier decisions [of the Commission]… stressing that in the context of the times it would have been unwise to teach a particular doctrine, but not that a particular doctrine was untrue or incorrect. …No responsible biblical scholar would today agree with any of these [earlier] directives of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.’ ---- Henry Wanabrough OSB (current member of the PBC: The Centenary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Ampleforth Journal, autumn 2003.
Recall Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri when he argued the heliocentrism of 1820 was different to the heliocentrism of 1616. Here above the same modernist tactics are invoked. The Church’s Biblical Commission expected to change protected traditional readings of the Sacred Scriptures because of the new findings of science. The Earthmovers are now in control. Pope Paul V’s and Urban VIII’s worst nightmare for the Catholic faith had come to be.
In 1943, the fiftieth anniversary of Providentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII published this, the third encyclical on biblical studies. He described Pope Leo XIII’s docuмent as ‘the supreme guide of biblical studies.’ He noted how it had borne great fruit, so that ‘confidence in the authority and historical value of the Bible… today, among Catholics, is completely restored.’
That said let us now apply this praise to the greatest conflict in Scriptural exegesis and hermeneutics ever known in the history of the Catholic Church, that interpretation that acted as a catalyst for biblical studies thereafter, changing the literal geocentric reading of all the Fathers to a heliocentric one, an interpretation defined in 1616 as contrary to Scripture and thus heretical. Certainly, as we have seen, Providentissimus Deus restated the dogma that the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers could not be changed. But then it compromised this teaching by adding a rather confusing paragraph that was taken to allow such a change by way of new scientific findings, which we know were no more than modernistic interpretations and theories of origins. Proof of this was that thereafter all took it for granted Leo XIII meant a heliocentric reading of the geocentric passages was legal and permissible. Catholics now accepted that wherever a conflict between the traditional literal understandings of Scripture and science arose, it was legal to alter these understandings if science indicated a change was needed. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII so worded his encyclical that it also seemed to clash with the previous understanding of Cardinal Bellarmine and what constituted matters of faith:
‘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.’--- Letter to Foscarini 1615.
It seems to us here is Bellarmine teaching that everything in Scripture is to be believed as of faith, from the order of the cosmos to the fact that there was a donkey waiting for the lord on Palm Sunday. Given Providentissimus Deus led all to believe a heliocentric interpretation of Scripture was the correct way to read the Scriptures when in fact we now know it did no such thing, how could it be the supreme vehicle of clarity in biblical understanding? Such was this illusion that that is why the very first reference to Pope Leo XIII in Divino Afflante Spiritu had to be implicitly related to the Galileo interpretation:
‘The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order “went by what sensibly appeared” as the Angelic Doctor says, speaking either “in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.” For “the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately - the words are St. Augustine's - the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things - that is the essential nature of the things of the universe - things in no way profitable to salvation;” which principle “will apply to cognate sciences, and especially to history,” that is, by refuting, “in a somewhat similar way the fallacies of the adversaries and defending the historical truth of Sacred Scripture from their attacks.”’ --- Divino afflante Spiritu.
Given the above advice no doubt was written to cover the Galileo U-turn, and that U-turn we have shown was the blunder, what now is to be said of such advice? Again we ask; what ‘things of the physical order’ are all three popes talking about? Since the first Catholics began to interpret the Bible ‘heliocentrically’ they keep emphasising that the Bible only meant to teach us things that are necessary for our salvation. What then did Jesus mean when he said ‘If I have spoken earthly things to you, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I speak to you of heavenly things’ (John 3:12)? It seems to us that everything in the Scriptures is important as a secondary means to salvation. Take for example the star that the Bible tells us led the wise men to the birthplace of Jesus. Can we dismiss this star without harming the account and credibility of the most important time in the history of the world?
Apart from the Galileo case we can think of no erroneous interpretation of any importance related to the above. St Augustine also said ‘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 it does not understand it correctly?’ Well in 1943 it was known there was no clear and certain reasoning to dismiss the geocentric interpretation, let alone that it was the unanimous reading of the Fathers. So why was it necessary to continue the illusion in Letters of advice from popes to interpreters? The trouble is no pope since the U-turn seems to have been aware that no evidence ever existed that necessitated a heliocentric reading, a reading contrary to that of all the Fathers.
-
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.
-
1950: Humani Generis
‘It has been said by someone that [Cardinal Henry] Newman was not a man of action, was not in the ordinary sense an orator, but that when he took the pen into his hand, then he was a match for the whole world. The power with which he is thus credited is surely nowhere more strikingly shown than in the Essay on the Development of Doctrine. It meant the application – many years before Darwin published his Origins of Species – of the evolutionary idea to religious dogma. Henceforth dogma, instead of being regarded as static, as something motionless, inert, incapable of expansion, became a thing [in possession of] the principle of growth and development.’ --- J. Lewis May: Cardinal Newman, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, pp.71-72.
On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII issued his encyclical Humani Generis intended to address the false opinions distorting Catholic doctrine at the time. In fact it was an encyclical similar to Pope Leo XIII’s 1879 Aeterni Patris, ‘On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy’ and to Pope St Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane Exitu of 1907, both aimed at stemming the false philosophies of the Enlightenment that were spreading modernism throughout the Church. Pius XII’ wrote on the matter of faith and science.
‘23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.' --- Humani Generis.
Would that the same caution was shown in exegesis when popes accepted that heliocentric interpretation and dismissed a literal geocentric reading as metaphorical. Had they done so the attack from evolutionism would not have succeeded? But the precedent had been set, for having accepted scientific Copernicanism, scientific evolutionism had to be similarly tolerated.
‘35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.’
‘36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God…..
‘37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the docuмents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’ --- Humani Generis.
Note the crucial words ‘in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology.’ Well we have seen what happened in one such case when one places the literal reading of Scripture into the hands of human sciences.
‘Pope Pius XII, a deeply conservative man, directly addressed the issue of evolution in a 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis. The docuмent makes plain the pope’s fervent hope that evolution will prove to be a passing scientific fad, and it attacks those persons who “imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution … explains the origin of all things.” Nonetheless, Pius XII states that nothing in Catholic doctrine is contradicted by a theory that suggests one species might evolve into another—even if that species is man. The Pope declared: “The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experiences in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God. He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin— mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”—that has affected all subsequent generations. Pius XII cautioned, however, that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity. It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.”’ --- Doug Linder; Essay The Vatican's View of Evolution, 2004.
-
Evolutionism
At this point let us see the position Rome had had taken in the matter of Darwin’s theory of evolution since the turn of the twentieth century. In a review of the book Negotiating Darwin, the appraiser tells us:
‘Negotiating Darwin is, firstly, a series of case studies on how six Catholic apologists were able to exploit the disputes and uncertainties of these ‘eclipse of Darwinism’ years in attempts to reconcile, or, rather, to ‘harmonize’ evolution with Catholic theology. Secondly, but more importantly, it is a detailed account of the reaction of Vatican bureaucracy to these reconciliatory attempts…
They are able to produce this fine-grained study as a result of the opening up (on 22 January 1998) of the archives of the Congregations of the Holy Office and of the Index. For the first time, this allowed scholars free access to the docuмentation recording the actions taken by the Vatican with respect to the reconciliatory writings of these six [Catholic apologists] authors. The period covered is from 1877 to 1902, with all but two of the six cases taking place in the 1890s during the pontificate of Leo XIII. Of these six, two are Italian, two English, one American, and one Frenchman. All are clerics, save the English anatomist St. George Mivart, but all, without exception, are Catholics. It is important to note that the subtitle of this work is ‘the Vatican confronts evolution’ and not ‘the Vatican confronts Darwin’ for, unlike that other paradigmatic case of ‘Church versus Science,’ that of Galileo and Urban VIII, there was no clash of personalities here. The authors of Negotiating Darwin are, however, at pains to demonstrate how the ‘long shadow of Galileo’s condemnation’ had a moderating influence on the way the Vatican approached the perceived threat of evolutionary theory, and, indeed, the echoes of Galileo’s philosophy appear time and time again throughout the book. Of course, the two situations were very different but, taking an overview of these case studies, it is apparent that all six authors, while accepting, more or less, that evolution, sensu lato, had taken place, were unhappy about natural selection as being its sole driving force and about the fact that there was no obvious experimentum cruces to test it. At least the Copernican theory had been amenable to such a test, if only stellar parallax could have been measured with the requisite accuracy. This lack of evidence, and the fierce debates that it engendered within the scientific community itself, provided our apologists with the opportunity they needed to propose a series of non-materialistic alternatives to natural selection; alternatives which involved secondary, but law-abiding, causes and thereby retained Divine Providence which the Darwinian ‘Russian roulette’ was seen to threaten. Such strategies did less violence both to scriptural exegesis and the consensus fidelium of the Catholic Church. Conversely, this lack of proof also enabled the anti-evolutionists smugly to dismiss the whole idea as ‘unscientific.’ What irony that Karl Popper, some ninety years later, controversially came to the same conclusion because, he said, the theory of evolution was not falsifiable!...
The final chapter, ‘The Church and Evolution,’ puts the question, ‘Was there a policy?’ We will not spoil it for the reader by giving the authors’ answer, but, suffice it to say that, in the 1890s there were no inquisitorial witch hunts of yesteryear, no threats of torture, house arrest, or burnings at the stake. The word ‘heresy’ is hardly mentioned, in fact, nothing to laugh at at all.’ Instead, lack-luster admonitions such as ‘rash’, ‘unsafe’, or ‘erroneous in the Faith’ replaced the more muscular responses. However, it is clear that the Vatican still wished to restrain any loose cannon that might be directed at that sacred Leonine wall, the last physical bastion of the pope’s erstwhile secular domain. Evolution did, however, remain a problem for the Catholic Church for some time afterwards. For example La Civilta Cattolica devoted a series of articles by Jesuit Father Gaia to the question of ‘Evolution or the Stability of Species?’ in 1919 and 1920, which, after presenting scientific evidence both for and against, came out against evolution.’ --- Mariano Artigas, Thomas F. Glick, Rafael A. Martínez: Negotiating Darwin: Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006, by Dr John F. Pollard University of Cambridge
Evolutionism is the belief that today’s world, both its inanimate and animate content, evolved from stardust originating in a ‘Big Bang.’ This belief is upheld and promulgated as a truth by practically all Catholic ‘educational’ institutions on earth today. Thus the scene was set for the most ambitious and hopeless quest of them all for evolutionists, be they atheists or theistic-evolutionists, how to explain the existence of life on earth, flora and fauna.
The Greeks, even before Aristotle, were the first to propose that living things came into existence by ‘spontaneous generation,’ that is, ‘the formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms.’ They were convinced that living things like insects simply formed in mud, slime and vegetation. They believed maggots generated themselves from rotting meat and incredibly, thought that fish like pike generated from decomposing weeds. This theory was shown for what it is when in 1859 Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) demonstrated one can only get life from pre-existing life. But all theories of evolution depend on spontaneous generation, don’t they, and this is why the evolutionist and Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) of Jena University said in 1866 that spontaneous generation must be a fact otherwise it would necessitate an original Creator. According to Haeckel, spontaneous generation was ‘the start of evolution.’
‘In attempting a refutation of the evolutionary hypothesis, no more satisfactory or effective method presents itself than a critical examination of the writing of the highest representative authorities on the subject. Such authorities – acknowledged universally to stand pre-eminently foremost – are the three great scientists Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel – chosen for special review in this work. If their positions can be shown to be untenable, and their arguments fallacious and self-contradictory, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution as advocated by any other and all other writers must fall to the ground.’ ---A Willford Hall: The Problem of Human Life Here and Hereafter, 1880, p 351.
In his book Willford Hall showed that evolutionism lay outside science and could only be sustained by faith that spontaneous generation actually happened. As it turned out it was the advance in chemistry that gave the fraudsters another line to pursue in their propaganda. In the 19th century chemists, who had already discovered the chemical components of non-living matter, finally broke down organic elements to their component chemicals. Then they discovered that they could produce some biochemicals from simple laboratory chemicals. This led the naturalists to believe that they were on the right track to produce life; all they needed was the right ingredients and the right conditions to spontaneously create life. And so it was that they mixed, boiled, shocked, bombarded, radiated, heated, froze and whatever else one can do with biochemicals in order to try to generate the combination into life. For tens of years they tried, fools believing they were/are gods. After the initial failure they resorted to the usual ploy, getting the public to believe it will be done some day, when we are all in our graves of course. They then began to suggest that life came from outer space by way of a comet or suchlike, and they couldn’t wait to get to the Moon, Mars or even a comet, to find something, anything, they could use to indoctrinate the gullible public into believing life evolved from inanimate matter, beginning with a single cell.
Now if Darwin, Huxley and Haeckel had knowledge as to what constitutes a living cell this whole farce could never have appeared under the banner of science and would have remained in the realm of fiction just like the electrical generation of life in Frankenstein. Study the following make-up of a cell and then tell us if such a living mechanism could possibly be the result of a natural chance happening.
-
A Living Cell
First a NUCLEUS has to evolve in the ‘pre-bionic soup,’ that is the pot-puree of matter and chemicals. This is the control centre in the heart of the organism and operates the cell through complex molecules of NUCLEIC ACID (DNA) and the GENES that make up those molecules and act as the units of heredity. Each of these carries the code for some characteristic of its natural form. This code is spelled out by hundreds of smaller units called NUCLEOTIDES that are arranged in highly specific sequences within the gene. Now these genes are constructed in strings called CHROMOSOMES, and are strung in precise and specific sequences. In the human cell there are 46 chromosomes arranged in paired arms, twin arms. In the nucleus of any cell the chromosomes contain the coded blueprint for structuring the body. A MEMBRAIN encloses the cell, structured so as to allow certain chemicals only to pass through it. Inside this is a fluid called CYTOPLASM in which countless bodies carry on the life lasting business of the cell. An OUTER-MEMBRANE encloses and protects the cell; it in turn again allowing only certain materials to enter or leave by a method unknown to science. Inside the cell there is an ongoing production building new PROTEINS. Each type of protein is determined by a code in the gene. An ENZYME is triggered which examines the gene and builds an RNA-MOLECULE in the image of the blueprint, When this is completed it receives a signal to stop. This RNA brings this message into the CYTOPLASM where it is captured by one of thousands of RIBOSOMES, so complex as to defy understanding so far. These build up the protein by linking various AMINO ACIDS in the specific sequence of the blueprint. To do this, TRANSFER-RNA catches amino-acids, each using special enzymes. Each of the mechanisms of the cell would need a computer to regulate, and even the simplest cell contains several thousand kinds of proteins and many billions, yes billions, of each of those kinds. The information contained within any first cell at its emergence from the stew-pot would have to be equivalent to 1000 volumes of 500 pages, or the amount of information needed to monitor a city the size of New York.
Now it is one thing proposing such a unit as a cell evolved into existence from a mixture of biochemical matter, another to get it to operate itself, that is, acquire ‘vitalism’ or life. The source and cause of animation; be it of flora or fauna, lies outside the realm of human science. Try as they did, do and will, they will never breath life into anything for that ability belongs solely to God. As Pasteur showed, you can only get vitalism in something already living.
Now real science has long established that a cell does not have the ability to do more than it is designed to do. It cannot add to its function, becoming something more than itself. In other words, it cannot evolve into a more complicated cell structure as Darwinian evolution requires it to do. That is impossible. Nevertheless they proposed ‘mutation’ to achieve this ‘miracle’ and belief in evolution carried on. We are asked to believe a living cell evolved, multiplied itself at random and ended up as a functioning beautiful flower, insect, fish, animal, even a human being.
Now we can ask what stages of any creature evolved first? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the other? By this we ask which evolved first in the evolution of animals and man? Was it the body, the head, the legs, or what? Which system evolved first, the circulatory system, the digestive system, the endocrine system, the respiratory system, the nervous system, the immune system, the lymphatic system, the muscular system, the skeletal system, the urinary system, the reproductive system or the senses. Could any creature function with an evolving endocrine system, an evolving digestive system, evolving senses etc? The answer is no, it is all or nothing.
Now let us consider design. First let us start with the Big Bang. If evolution had a beginning with the Big Bang and that a human being ended up by chance, we now have to give ‘chance’ ability on par with the almighty thinking God. Take for example an animal’s eye or a human eye, the ability of anything that sees to see. What an amazing organ, structured to take in images, light and darkness, pass on such images to the brain whereupon the creature can ‘see it.’ Did an eye evolve by chance? Did eyesight evolve by chance or by design? If anybody believes the ability of a creature to see came about by chance then they believe in natural magic. And that is what debating the subject of natural evolution is; absolute nonsense, an insult to human intelligence and reasoning. Yet, thanks to Copernicanism, they have managed to convince the vast bulk of the human race to believe it is all true, that science has evidence that it is true, that all evolved naturally. Then there are the theistic-evolutionists. To them the ‘theory’ meets a theological and philosophical brick-wall. Suffice to say that evolution never ends, which means that God never finished His Creation. This of course contradicts the Scriptures that clearly state God finished His creation ‘on the sixth day and rested on the seventh.’
Darwin claimed the fossil records would show billions of these evolving bit-things and that his theory would fall or be proven in time as they were found or not. As it has happened, contrary to propaganda that thousands of fossils giving evidence for evolution have been found, the truth is that apart from a coffin full of fraudulent transient fossils of would-be evolving bits, the billions of missing-links necessary for evolution to be a scientific plausibility are simply not in the fossil record. Our favourite ‘missing link’ is the humanoid skull on show in a museum that was recognised by a biologist as an elephant’s knee-cap. It quickly disappeared when exposed for the fraud it was. All fossils found are of complete kinds, just as God said He made them.
That men, without a single piece of confirming data, and in this we include those shams purporting to have created ‘the building blocks of life,’ could even postulate such a living mechanism evolved naturally from an inanimate pre-bionic soup of chemicals is beyond comprehension. That any intelligent human being could fall for such absurd nonsense is equally unbelievable, and that a compromise could be devised wherein God is supposed to have endowed nature with the ability to naturally evolve such working complexities is also to beggar belief, like stating God can give nature the ability to evolve square circles. Alas, many thousands of otherwise intelligent school and university professors, researchers, scientists, scholars, and theologians did believe, do believe, and indoctrinate millions of others with their nonsense.
Is this then the evolutionism Humani Generis stated could be discussed and taken seriously as though it had credibility within the Catholic Church? Alas, even to consider that evolution theory of macro-evolutionism worthy of discussion was a mistake in the light of the Pope’s duty to protect the flock from false-philosophy, let alone from the imbecilic heights of absurdity. But ever since the Galileo case, popes were compromised when it came to addressing matters of faith and science, faith and reason. No matter how absurd the ‘science,’ Rome has learned the lesson that it now has the same authority as the faith and cannot be dismissed lest another Galileo case arises from that dismissal. Accordingly, it could be said; this encyclical left as much confusion as it tried to avoid. Can Church teaching seriously be compatible with the idea Adam’s body came from monkeys as evolutionism teaches, as this encyclical seemed to be willing to accept for as long as men believe it did? Was Adam’s body a live body or a dead body? What about the body of Eve which doctrinally is derived from the body of Adam if he is to be the first parent of all? Where did her body come from in an evolutionary scenario? Surely one can see the chaos and contradictions to the Teaching Authority of the Church that Copernicanism had caused, and how it had driven so many theologians such as Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Mercier, Canon Henry de Dorlodot, the Jesuit Karl Rahner, Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and of course the pantheist Teilhard de Chardin into evolutionary Modernism. Finally, what influence did Humani Generis have on the Modernists?
‘With the election of Karol Wojtyła as Pope John Paul II in 1978, there occurred an implicit re-evaluation of French Ressourcement Theology or the “new theology.” John Paul II, who had the highest esteem for Henri de Lubac, stopped during a major address in 1980 and acknowledged the presence of de Lubac, saying “I bow my head to Father Henri de Lubac.” When de Lubac became a cardinal in 1983, this elevation by itself rehabilitated his intellectual career, including, by implication, his spirited defense of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. In 1993, John Paul II issued an encyclical which “corrected” Aeterni Patris and Humani Generis. Though the thought of St. Thomas took precedence, the encyclical indicated that other avenues could be explored for the good of the Church. A genuine competition replaced the Leonine strategy of Aeterni Patris and, later, Humani Generis. Paragraph #29 of Splendor Veritatis stated: “Certainly the Church’s Magisterium does not intend to impose upon the faithful any particular theological system, still less a philosophical one.” --- Homiletic & Pastoral Review.
The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a high point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the Church until 1741 at least, (2) Suggested theories that denied the biblical age of 6.000 years for the universe; theories that denied the global flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope Pius XII’s speech:
‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’
48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”
50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’
Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of science. But there are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang theory.
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that [Big Bang] cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by [Big Bang] cosmology he should be at the mercy of [Big Bang] cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously” [Big Bang] cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’ ---Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
On the other hand, the above cannot be applied to revelation, the cosmology of God as revealed in Scripture, that is, the doctrine of geocentrism. It is not subjected to theories of any kind, simply upheld by the senses, so can never be falsified or refuted by true science. Try as they did, each time the experimental method failed to falsify a cosmology that could only have been created by God.
My, haven’t we come a long way since St Thomas Aquinas spelled out theology is the Queen of sciences:
‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’
On the PAS website today we find the following:
‘On occasion of numerous addresses and messages directed towards the Academy by five pontiffs, the Church has been able to re-propose the meaning of the relationship between faith and reason, between science and wisdom, and between love for truth and the search for God.’
By this they mean that with Copernicanism at the helm and the popes now subservient to the ‘science’ of U-turn since 1741 that has led to the Big Bang, uniformitarianism and evolutionism, it was a time of great readjustment of the truths of faith and reason. A favourite pope of the academy was Pope John Paul II. Like Pope Pius XII, he also sat in on as many meetings and seminars as possible; fascinated no doubt with the intellectual stimulation of it all. Following him was Pope Benedict XVI, who as a cardinal took a place in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2003. Another professed evolutionist (See for example Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s: In the Beginning, 1986, a book that presents the Catholic faith based on man-evolving-from-monkeys-scenario), he gave support to the 86 academicians of his day, 30 of who are Nobel Prize winners, most of them not even Catholics, and all of who are Copernicans, evolutionists and relativists. If ever there was an institution that the Catholic Church did not need it was this collection of ‘experts,’ advising the hierarchy of the Church what the flock should believe and what it should not believe.
‘By confusing the mathematical outlook with the physical it is possible to arrive at all sorts of conclusions. It is not easy for an untrained mind to distinguish what is rightly proved from what is little more than speculation. Some of these conclusions are startling, and appeal to the popular imagination. It requires only a further step to apply them to the most obtrusive and sacred matters of philosophy and religion... They are not satisfied with expounding the facts of science, but they write them up so as to appeal to those who have received no scientific or critical training, conclusions which tend to undermine the great beliefs on which human life is founded, this is almost criminal.’ ---Fr Gill S.J.: Fact and Fiction in Modern Science, pp.70-71.
‘It is rather the second-class scientist, or vulgarisateur, who has the most frequent entrée into newspaper columns [publishing houses and television] and uses his opportunity to try to revive materialism. This is the greatest danger the popular mind has to face from these scientific symposia.’ ---Fr Henry V. Gill, S.J., M.A (Cantab.), M. Sc. (N.U.I.): Fact and Fiction in Modern Science, Gill and Son, Dublin, 1943, p.160.
Associated with the PAS now is the Templeton Foundation which provides it with money for meetings, seminars etc. In 1973, Wall Street investor and philanthropist Sir John Templeton set up a fund to foster a ‘harmony and reconciliation between faith and science.’ This fund now provides financial assistance to both sides of the evolutionary debate that is ongoing mainly in America. This would be in keeping with the masonic equilibrium, ensuring that the truth never prevails, an endless debate that has to give credibility to Big Bang evolutionism as long as man lives on earth. It is famous especially for its huge prize of one million dollars given annually to the one ‘who has shown originality in advancing ideas and institutions that promote [an evolutionary] understanding of God’. One who has won the Templeton prize was the popular Benedictine monk, professor of astrophysics and prolific author, Stanley Jacki (1924-2009) who was awarded the money in 1987 for his books on theistic evolutionism.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн
When does your book come out?
-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн
When does your book come out?
The book is now under its final review and the author is hoping it will be published next year. It was his hobby for 20 years, and with a few friends they kept adding and adding to what was at first to be a book about Galileo. He was told very few would want to read such a book and even less would believe what is in it. It was only when Catholic forums came on stream that they found there are others out there who were biblical and scientific geocentrists. Of interest is why he really wanted to write it:
'Now 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 Catholic Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. In doing so we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal many people – especially post Vatican II Catholics - 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, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.'
-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн
When does your book come out?
The book is now under its final review and the author is hoping it will be published next year. It was his hobby for 20 years, and with a few friends they kept adding and adding to what was at first to be a book about Galileo. He was told very few would want to read such a book and even less would believe what is in it. It was only when Catholic forums came on stream that they found there are others out there who were biblical and scientific geocentrists. Of interest is why he really wanted to write it:
'Now 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 Catholic Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. In doing so we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal many people – especially post Vatican II Catholics - 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, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.'
Thanks Cassini - honourable Hobby
It's called "Darwin's Theory" - The clue is in the title!
We are brainwashed/programmed into thinking "The Theory" is Truth
I don't really give it a second thought.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/#q=Karol+Wojty%C5%82a+mother+was+Jєωιѕн
When does your book come out?
The book is now under its final review and the author is hoping it will be published next year. It was his hobby for 20 years, and with a few friends they kept adding and adding to what was at first to be a book about Galileo. He was told very few would want to read such a book and even less would believe what is in it. It was only when Catholic forums came on stream that they found there are others out there who were biblical and scientific geocentrists. Of interest is why he really wanted to write it:
'Now 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 Catholic Church and the churchmen of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries who upheld the geocentric interpretation of Scripture. In doing so we realise there is probably something herein to offend, disturb or appal many people – especially post Vatican II Catholics - 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, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.'
Thanks Cassini - honourable Hobby
It's called "Darwin's Theory" - The clue is in the title!
We are brainwashed/programmed into thinking "The Theory" is Truth
I don't really give it a second thought.
Yes Glaston, its like
Why do they call it the 'MISSING LINK?'
Answer: Because it is missing. If it was a true link it would be called a 'FOUND LINK.'
-
SPACE FLIGHT
‘But what about space flight’, we hear some ask. ‘These days, don’t the newspapers and journals show us diagrams of rockets blasting off from an earth rotating and orbiting the sun? How could they get probes, crafts and even men to land on the planets unless they know for certain where the earth is supposed to be at any time in its orbit relative to the other planets also in orbit? Surely all those astrophysicists and rocket-science whiz kids that fill the computer halls of NASA’s launch site have to keep ongoing calculations of this heliocentric circus of shifting bodies supposedly moving at 67,000mph, more than the speed of a bullet? And when aimed at a planet, then the planet too will have shifted some thousands of miles in one second. Now do not tell me, you say, they can do this if they do not KNOW the earth really spins and orbits the sun?’
The answer of course is that this concept too is fiction, as a letter to the New Scientist magazine of Aug. 16, 1979 confirmed:
Royal Air Force College, Cranwell, Linclonshire, England.
‘Sir, ...One can of course believe anything one likes as long as the consequences of the belief are trivial. But when survival depends on that belief, then it matters that belief corresponds to manifest reality. We therefore teach navigators that the stars are fixed to the Celestial sphere, which is centred on a fixed earth, and around which it rotates in accordance with laws clearly deducible from common-sense observation. The sun and moon move across the inner surface of this sphere, and hence perforce go around the earth. This means that students of navigation must unlearn a lot of confused dogma they learned in school. Most of them find this remarkably easy, because dogma is as may be, but the real world is as we perceive it to be. If Andrew Hill will look in the Journal of Navigation he will find that the Earth-centred Universe is alive and well, whatever his readings of the Spectator may suggest.' --- Yours, Darcy Reddyhoff.’
Martin Gwynne completes our education:
‘Not the least interesting thing in the passage just quoted is the officer’s use of the term “confused dogma” when speaking of modern astronomy. For the sake of completeness I shall now fill in any gaps he left that might interest readers by giving the following summary of the principles of celestial navigation. (1) Celestial navigation is based on the premise of two concentric spheres – one (celestial) larger than the other – sharing a common pole, with the smaller and inner sphere remaining stationary while the outer revolves about it. (2) Calculations are based on the laws of spherical trigonometry. The measurements used to translate the computations into a position or “fix” on the earth are done in nautical miles (even in these days of almost universal metrication). Each of these 360 degrees of the circle is divided into 60 minutes. The nautical mile is defined as the length of one minute of longitude on the equator, or 6,080 feet. (3) The tables used to reduce or compute the resultant observations are based on 360 degrees. (4) All the navigators of the world use the same basic system, their calculations and charts being based on a fixed earth and the basic unit of the nautical mile.’ ---N. M. Gwynne, Galileo Versus the Geocentric Theory of the Universe, Britons Library, 1985, p.70.
Yes, most of the time they use the old geocentric system of navigation and it works for them. If any doubt this, go to the Encyclopedia Britannica and you will find the following:
‘For this purpose it is convenient first to consider the earth as fixed and to suppose the observer looking out from its centre…’ --- (Eclipse, p.869)
Of course it is, very convenient indeed. Now remember how they laughed at Aristotle presuming that if the earth were moving at great speed then things would get left behind? Recall then how empirical science showed that anything on a moving object takes up the same speed of that movement. In other words if a man jumped off a train doing 100mph then that man would leave the train at 100mph plus any extra speed of his jump. Let us now move on a few years to space flight. According to real physics, if a rocket leaves the earth that is supposed to be moving at 67,000mph, shouldn’t it leave the earth at its launch speed of 25,000mph plus its earth speed of 67,000mph, that is, at a true speed of 92,000mph? Now we have not bothered to check this out, but we bet NASA does not take this 67,000mph extra speed at initial take off of any spaceflight.
Impossible speeds for the stars
Let us finish here with the idea that the stars would have to travel at impossible speeds to rotate around the earth to be true. This is a philosophical illusion, for they would only have to travel at the same rate that the earth is supposed to rotate to bring about a day. In a geocentric scenario the universe is like a revolving-door. Now all parts of a revolving-door travel at the same time, no matter how big it is, irrespective of size. Thus the starry heavens, and indeed the sun, planets and moon move in unison around the earth as does a revolving door. And we can assure you, revolving doors are not an illusion. Here below a diagram of the universe acting like a revolving door with the earth as its centre.
(http://s8.postimg.org/e6381o44l/revolving_door.png)
-
Chapter Forty
1962-65:
Vatican Council II
‘The revolution of modernity was primarily an intellectual revolution. As the English politician and philosopher Francis Bacon proclaimed at a very early stage, knowledge is power. And in fact science proved to be the first great power of rising modernity. What Bacon proclaimed, but still hardly provided any empirical or experimental basis for, was initiated methologically by Galileo, Descartes and Pascal who were followed by Spinoza, Leibniz, Newton, Huygens and Boyle… The new truly revolutionary world system which the Catholic cathedral deacon Nicolas Copernicus presented, purely theoretically, only as a hypothesis, seemed at first to pose a threat to the biblical world view when the Italian Galileo Galilei irrefutably confirmed it with experiments.’ --- Hans Kung: The Catholic Church, Phoenix Press, 2001, p.153.
In a departing speech to the parish priests and clergy of Rome by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) on the occasion of his resignation from the papacy in February of 2013, the retired pope said the following:
‘For me it is a particular gift of Providence that, before leaving the Petrine ministry, I can once more see my clergy, the clergy of Rome. It is always a great joy to see the living Church, to see how the Church in Rome is alive; there are shepherds here who guide the Lord’s flock in the spirit of the supreme Shepherd. It is a body of clergy that is truly Catholic, universal, in accordance with the essence of the Church of Rome… For today, given the conditions brought on by my age, I have not been able to prepare an extended discourse, as might have been expected; but rather what I have in mind are a few thoughts on the Second Vatican Council, as I saw it...
So the Cardinal [Frings] knew that he was on the right track and he invited me [Fr Joseph Ratzinger] to go with him to the Council, firstly as his personal advisor; and then, during the first session – I think it was in November 1962 – I was also named an official peritus of the Council. So off we went to the Council not just with joy but with enthusiasm. There was an incredible sense of expectation. We were hoping that all would be renewed, that there would truly be a new Pentecost, a new era of the Church, because the Church was still fairly robust at that time – Sunday Mass attendance was still good, vocations to the priesthood and to religious life were already slightly reduced, but still sufficient. However, there was a feeling that the Church was not moving forward, that it was declining, that it seemed more a thing of the past and not the herald of the future. And at that moment, we were hoping that this relation would be renewed, that it would change; that the Church might once again be a force for tomorrow and a force for today. And we knew that the relationship between the Church and the modern period, right from the outset, had been slightly fraught, beginning with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei; we were looking to correct this mistaken start and to rediscover the union between the Church and the best forces of the world, so as to open up humanity’s future, to open up true progress. Thus we were full of hope, full of enthusiasm, and also eager to play our own part in this process.’ ---L’Osservatore Romano, Feb 14, 2013, page 4, and Libreria Editrice Vaticana website.
It seems to Fr Ratzinger, from priest to Pope Benedict XVI, and others, the Church, although ‘still fairly robust at that time (1962),’ - which it was with churches all over the world brimming with informed Catholics attending Masses, devotions, retreats and confessions - needed renewal based on a ‘feeling.’ Now whereas ‘the Church in Rome’ in 2013 may have looked ‘alive and well,’ with all the pilgrims and visitors filling St Peter’s Square, the Church in Europe and America had collapsed as an influence in the lives of those countries and indeed as an influence on the flock still calling themselves Catholic. Knowledge of the Catholic faith has disappeared and adherence to the dogmas and doctrines of tradition is now considered optional with Catholics now even voting for liberal legislation such as contraception, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and even abortion in their respective countries.
Vatican II was to be used as a public Church confession, unloading all the ‘traditional’ sins of the past, followed by a promise of renewal, sins that supposedly began ‘with the Church’s error in the case of Galileo Galilei.’ The ‘progressives’ wanted to make the Church comply with modern times, modern thinking and of course modern science. They wanted to take it ‘out of the dark ages into the real world.’ Many of these Modernists are well known and included Joseph Ratzinger, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Yves Congar, Cardinals Suenens and Cardinal Frings.
Reading all this in the light that science never came within one of their ‘light-years’ to showing the Church wrong in the Galileo case, few would know they had all been duped, not even the elect. But such was the influence of the Copernican heresy throughout the centuries, now a Council was to be used to promulgate the illusion further among the flock. It seems one theme that constantly surfaced at Vatican II was that it was not enough for the 1960s Catholic Church to declare its regard for modern culture; it must also prove this by deeds. As a sure way to prove their ‘intentions decisively,’ Monsignor Elchinger, auxiliary bishop of Strasbourg and other cardinals and bishops suggested that there should be a full rehabilitation of Galileo. A petition from many European intellectuals and scientists was sent to Pope Paul VI asking for a solemn rehabilitation of Galileo. He in turn asked the Holy Office if they approved. They replied that by approving the publication of Paschini’s book on Galileo they had already signified their approval. At another session on the fourth of November 1964, Bishop Elchinger expressed the following opinion:
‘The rehabilitation of Galileo on the part of the Church would be an eloquent act, accomplished humbly but correctly. Such a decision, if enacted by the supreme Authority of the Church, could not fail to redound to the Church’s own credit, since with such an action it would reclaim the trust of the contemporary world and would perform a great service to the cause of human culture.’ -- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.329.
Providentially, no official retrial happened, the supreme authority of the Church does not contradict itself. Instead it was decided to merely acknowledge the belief that a mistake was made. Three months later, a draft of what would be inserted into the docuмents of Vatican II was discussed.
‘Finally, a compromise was worked out: the explicit mention of Galileo in the text would be dropped, but a footnote reference to Paschini’s book would be added. The minutes of that meeting contain the following abbreviated notes that reveal the rational underlying the compromise: “Galilei. – Inopportune to speak of this in the docuмent – Let us not force the Church to say: I made a mistake. The matter should be judged in the context of time. In Paschini’s work all is said in the true light.”’ --- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.329
-
This ‘occurred on the 7th December 1965 in their Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. The text reads like so:
‘… The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes (not unknown among Christians) deriving from a short-sighted view of the rightful autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science.’ --- Gaudium et spes, # 36.
The above, as agreed, is referenced with Fr Pio Paschini’s Vita e Opere di Galileo Galilei, a book Fr Paschini in 1945 refused to edit for the PAS right up to the time of his death in 1962. In his will he left his work to an assistant Fr Michele Maccarrone, a diocesan priest and medievalist who in 1963 tried to have it published once again, even agreeing to its being edited first. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who wanted to publish the book back in 1945 in conjunction with Galileo’s death in 1642, were still interested, but this time to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of Galileo’s birth due in 1964. The Jesuit Fr Edmond Lamalle was assigned to make the changes, even meeting with the then Pope Paul VI who again approved its publication as he had with the original unedited book back in 1945 when he was Deputy Secretary in Rome. On October 2 1964, the manuscript was finally published under the name of its original author Pio Paschini with not a mention that it had been edited, or rather altered, to the extent that it was. ‘In Paschini’s work everything is said in the true light’ they said. But in truth this was a distorted version of Paschini’s book. Indeed, after reading and comparing the two editions, one scholar described the book referenced in the docuмents of Vatican II as ‘intellectually dishonest if not simply a forgery.’ (Richard Blackwell: Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998, P.364.)
All this of course is nothing new merely in keeping with their behaviour after the infamous 1741-1835 Galileo U-turn. So who, according to Vatican II, were/are led by the hand of God and who were/are the troublemakers? Well Copernicus, Kepler. Galileo, Newton, Bradley and Foucault among others, must have been led by the hand of God; and the troublemakers must have been Pope Paul V, St Robert Bellarmine, Pope Urban VIII and the many senior theologians involved in the censure of a fixed sun as formal heresy because it contradicted the unanimous geocentric interpretation of the Bible held by all the Fathers. Yes, Vatican II was here openly criticising the authority of the Church itself, the same authority upheld in its Dei verbum as speaking in the name of Christ.
Shortly after the Council, at a Mass in Galileo’s hometown Pisa in June 1965, the then Pope Paul VI continued the charade by paying a ‘striking tribute’ to Galileo’s faith as well as his science. There was however, no such accolade for the members of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office of Galileo’s time who placed their faith in a biblical revelation of a fixed earth and moving sun. That is real faith; that was real faith, pure and absolute. Now it is one thing proclaiming faith in the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension or whatever, as even the Copernicans do; that is normal faith for Catholics, and while impossible in science, has never been doubted or abandoned by any of them because of it. But what about faith in something that most thought could be tested, even proven or falsified by science; now that is something different, perhaps the ultimate test of faith in revelation ever undergone by Catholics, faith in the Fathers interpretation of the Bible, faith in a papal decree, faith in the Church’s divine guidance? That kind of Catholic faith Galileo did not have. Nor did very many have such a faith when Newton and his followers claimed their gravitational falsifications for a moving sun and fixed earth. After them, science was considered a greater vehicle of truth in such matters than simple Catholic faith. Finally, when science falsified their heliocentric consequents in 1871 and 1887, not one of them bothered to see the consequences of this and reinstate the truth of the matter.
-
:smoke-pot:
-
Pope John Paul II (1978-2005)
Next emerged the existentialist mystic, phenomenologist, modernist, ecuмenist and apologist supreme, Karol Wojtyla, Pope John Paul II (1978-2005), ‘the Copernican Cannon’ as he used to describe himself when Bishop of Krakow, and the pope due to be named ‘De Labore Solis’ (About the Work of the Sun) according to St Malachy to Pope Innocent II in 1139. As a contributor to Gaudium et spes in 1965, this pope, when elected, decided he would further champion Galileo’s rehabilitation as one of his first acts of apology for the ‘sins’ of the Church in the past. This began on the 10th Nov. 1979, when the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held a meeting to commemorate the centennial of Albert Einstein’s (1879-1955) birth. At this gathering the Pope gave a talk, later published under the title ‘Deep Harmony Which Unites the Truths of Science with the Truths of Faith.’ The Pope began by saying: ‘The Apostolic See wishes to pay to Einstein the tribute due to him for the eminent contribution he made to the progress of science, that is, to knowledge of the truth present in the mystery of the universe.’ Einstein by the way is the Pantheist who once said that ‘great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds’ (Albert Einstein; quoted in New York Times, March 19, 1940)/ No doubt, topmost on his list of ‘mediocre minds’ would have been the popes and theologians of the seventeenth century who opposed the biblical heresy of a fixed sun. What Einsteinian ‘truths of science could be harmonised with the truths of faith’ the Pope didn’t say, but one truth ignored by him was the one re-established by Einstein himself in 1905, that science was never capable of determining the order of the universe and never would be. The Pope went on:
‘On the occasion of this solemn commemoration of Einstein, I would like to confirm again the declarations of the Council on the autonomy of science in its function of research on the truth inscribed by the finger of God. The Church, filled with admiration for the genius of the great scientist in whom the imprint of the creative Spirit is revealed, without intervening in any way with a judgment which it does not fall upon her to pass on the doctrine concerning the great systems of the universe, proposes the latter, however, to the reflection of theologians to discover the harmony existing between scientific truth and revealed truth.’
‘The Church, filled with admiration for the genius of Einstein?’ Well maybe himself and members of the Pontifical Academy of Science, but surely not the ‘Church.’ With Einstein’s ‘dirty old man’ character and his Pantheism in the public domain at the time, we cannot see the ‘Church’ going public in admiration of this man. As for his ‘truths of science,’ well science is a long way off being a provider of ‘truths?’ All this of course was leading up to the Galileo case. ‘Galileo,’ he said, ‘had to suffer a great deal at the hands of men and organisms of the Church.’
‘The pope was admitting that Galileo had been treated unjustly and that an injustice had been committed. To be sure, the pope was making the usual and important distinction between the Church as such on the one hand and ecclesiastical persons and institutions on the other; and of course, he was attributing the injustice not to the former but the latter.’
Given popes were directly involved in the 1616 decree and 1633 Church judgement, the above assessment is puzzling. Perhaps a better example of this ‘important distinction’ of an official Church act and one that is not, is when a pope gives a personal opinion to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as Pope John Paul II was doing then and popes issuing decrees defining formal heresy through the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Church to be obeyed by all Catholics in 1616 and 1633. Surely the latter is the Church, the former the mere prescribed opinions of an ecclesiastical person.
‘The pope’s statement was more than an admission of error, and seemed to be an admission of wrongdoing. Even an admission of error would have been significant since it was completely unprecedented for a pope to make such a statement. Although error had been admitted by many churchmen before; but the admission of wrongdoing signalled a new open-mindedness and sensitivity. To speak of Galileo’s “suffering” as the pope did implies that his treatment was undeserved or illegitimate. Moreover, the pope implicitly called his treatment an instance of unwarranted interference. And John Paul was implicitly “deploring” Galileo’s treatment by recalling that the Second Vatican Council had “deplored” such interferences. Indeed such expressions (suffering, unwarranted and deploring) suggested that the pope was not merely admitting some unpalatable fact but also condemning it. In fact the condemnation of Galileo was itself being condemned. The reference to the Second Vatican council was in part an appeal to authority to help John Paul II justify what he was saying and doing about Galileo. On the other hand, for this appeal to have the desired probative function, the pope had also to interpret the previous action of that council in the desired manner.’ --- M. A. Finocchiaro: Retrying Galileo, p.340.
But all this was not enough, Pope John Paul II wanted ‘to go beyond this stand taken by the Council’ and expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an in-depth study of the Galileo case to ‘right the wrongs, from whatever side they come’ as he put it. Most important of all of course was that the Pope wanted this investigation to confirm that all the apologetics and sophistry amassed since 1741 was solidly founded, and that it all ended happily for Catholic hermeneutics in that there was really no conflict between faith and science after all. As a result, a study commission of scholars for this purpose was set up in 1981, a thorough examination that was to take as long as it took to find the truth. With regard to the objectivity of this commission, a glimpse into the mind of one of its ‘experts,’ Fr William Wallace O.P., a former electrical engineer and physicist, should suffice. Lecturing in March 1982 at King’s College in Wilkes-Barre, he made the following comment.
‘The total content of revelation was not available for authoritative definition with the death of the last Apostle. Only through slow and painstaking scientific investigation were the literary genres of the Bible uncovered and the rules for its interpretation ascertained. The example is simple, but illustrates well the true complementarily of science and religion, of reason and belief. Were such rules known to Rome in 1615 and 1633, Galileo would have been spared the indignity, had he not been motivated by that passionate desire for truth that brought it about, scriptural studies would never have achieved the status they enjoy today.’ --- As quoted by Solange Hertz in her Beyond Politics, Veritas Press, 1992, p.67
In other words, before ‘science’ established the ‘facts,’ not even a reigning pope could interpret the Holy Scriptures correctly. With modernist ideas like this in the mind of one of the chief ‘experts’ on the commission and the prior criticisms of the 1616 and 1633 ‘theologians’ at Vatican II, and then Pope John Paul II references to Galileo in his many speeches to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; plus the selected alterations in Paschini’s edited book; the chance of an unbiased investigation into the Galileo affair by this commission was zero.
Over the course of the next ten years a small number of different papers on the subject resulted. Finally, considering he had given the commission enough time, the Pope ordered it to finish. On October 31 1992, eleven years after it began in 1981, Cardinal Poupard presented the findings of the commission to Pope John Paul II in the Sala Regia of the Apostolic Palace. Present also were members of the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, high-ranking officials of the Roman curia and members of The PAS.
-
The Vatican newspaper L’osservatore Romano, on 4th Nov. 1992, published a summary of the commission’s findings given by Cardinal Poupard. It was followed by Pope John Paul II’s acceptance speech. Under the wishful headline ‘Galileo case is resolved,’ the world was subjected to yet another rendition of the affair that tried to make the history of the Galileo case and the U-turn comply with Catholic norms and make the false heliocentric reading of Sacred Scripture look orthodox. First, some authority had to be found to confirm that the 1616 decree ‘decided next to nothing’ as Henry Newman phrased it. This was done by selecting and misrepresenting the words of that private correspondence from Bellarmine to Foscarini in 1615 that went thus:
‘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.’
In 1615, when the above paragraph was written, Galileo was touting the idea that he had proof for a fixed sun and orbiting earth. Bellarmine was here responding to this suggestion, rejecting it outright, ending the claim in the present tense. But here now is the version of the same letter conjured up after the U-turn by the apologists and re-used by this commission to make it appear Bellarmine was of a view that the matter was one to be left as an open question.
‘Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, in a letter of 12 April 1615 [said]: If the orbiting of the earth were ever demonstrated to be certain, then theologians, according to him, would have to review their interpretations of the biblical passages apparently opposed to the new Copernican theories, so as to avoid asserting the error of opinions which had proved to be true: In fact Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the double motion of the earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were found.’
Leaving aside the fact that earthmoving was never demonstrated for certain as the commission would have us believe, in the above wording, Bellarmine’s comment is presented as referring to the future tense rather than the present tense. So, by misrepresenting his words, the 1616 papal decree could be presented as provisional, not absolute, thus justifying the U-turn later.
Searching for some real meat in the commission’s findings as summarised by Cardinal Poupard, one expected to find an official or even semi-official explanation as to how a defined heresy could become an orthodox teaching within the parameters of Catholic understanding. But the above referred to the 1633 sentence on Galileo only, not the 1616 decree. Such a lengthy study commission would surely explain how the Church could define a matter formal heresy; charge Galileo with this heresy, find him guilty of suspicion of the heresy, affirm this heresy was unreformable in 1633 and 1820, and then ignore such judgments since 1741? What investigation into the Galileo affair by Rome with access to all the records could overlook that contradiction? These were some of the important aspects of the case that needed to be clarified by this Galileo papal study commission, questions that cried to heaven for answers for centuries. What emerged however was yet another pathetic exercise in ‘giving plausible standing-grounds for nearly every important sophistry ever broached’ as Andrew White put it a century earlier; to justify the U-turn and the hermetic heliocentric based hermeneutics adopted thereafter and confirmed at Vatican II.
Following Cardinal Poupard, Pope John Paul II gave his address to a packed and attentive assembly. He thanked the commission and said:
‘Thus the new science, with its methods and the freedom of research which they implied, obliged theologians to examine their own criteria of scriptural interpretation. Most of them did not know how to do so. Paradoxically, Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard than the theologians who opposed him. “If Scripture cannot err,” he wrote to Castelli, “certain of its interpreters and commentators can and do so in many ways.” We also know his letter to Christine which is like a short treatise on biblical hermeneutics.’
So, once again, who were the incompetent ‘theologians’ alluded to above? Why none other than the popes, cardinals, and theologians of 1616 and 1633, all of who were at the time magnificently engaging in face-to-face combat with the Protestant rebellion, with their reform theology and their reform exegesis and hermeneutics in the seventeenth century. Yes, these are the ‘theologians’ here accused above of ignorance when it came to interpreting the Bible.
But then came another demonstration of hypocrisy in their Copernican apologetics. Having taken licence to alter Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter from the present tense to the future tense, Pope John Paul II then uses the Cardinal to support their Copernicanism.
‘In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate, personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proof that the earth orbited round the sun, one should “interpret with great circuмspection” every biblical passage which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile… Before Bellarmine, this same wisdom and same respect for the divine Word guided St Augustine… A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus.’
Indeed, but so wrapped up were they in their attempts to justify that U-turn, they had to ignore the fact that the same Robert Bellarmine, whom they quote to get all to ignore the 1616 papal decree, was the one directly responsible for advising Pope Paul V to define and declare a fixed sun/moving earth formal heresy in 1616, and this one year after the 1615 letter to Foscarini they quote above as leaving it an open question. Of all the theologians responsible for having Copernicanism condemned as formal heresy, Bellarmine stood out above the others. Accordingly, as chief theologian to the Church at the time he has to be placed top of Pope John Paul II’s list of incompetent exegetes, a theologian who, in spite of having ‘seen what was truly at stake in the debate,’ supposedly didn’t know the difference between faith and science when stating it was formal heresy. Why then did the Church make him a Doctor of the Church in 1931? His allotted feast day is May 13th, and it has a collect in the Mass that reads as follows:
‘O God, who didst fill blessed Robert, Thy Bishop and doctor, with wondrous learning and virtue that he might break the snares of errors and defend the Apostolic See; grant us by his merits and intercession, that we may grow in the love of truth and that the hearts of those in error may return to the unity of The Church. Through our Lord. They that are learned shall shine as the brightness of the firmament’
That is the way Saint Robert Bellarmine should be remembered by all and not as portrayed in Gaudium et spes, by the Galileo commission and personally by Pope John Paul II, ultimately as a troublemaker and interpreter who could have taken lessons in learning from a first-year Vatican II seminarian. This is the level the Vatican II apologists went to in order to bring Catholicism into the modern world as they saw it. It is propaganda like this, propaganda that goes unnoticed by the vast majority of trusting Catholics worldwide, propaganda that few would question for the simple reason that such a query would look like one doubted or challenged a pope going about Church business. Thankfully it is not, and a speech prepared for him by his Galileo Commission carries no authority as an official Church teaching or clarification, and it is canonically and morally legal to scrutinise it critically to establish where the real truth lies.
-
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.
-
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.” ’
-
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..
-
Galileo Galilei
GAGA
Mason's
Great Architect (of the Universe)
G.A.O.T.U
-
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.
-
Later, in 2006, Smoot also won a Nobel Prize in physics for his CMB work. Proving the Big Bang has to be worth another million dollars:
‘This work helped further the Big Bang theory of the universe using the (COBE) satellite. According to the Nobel Prize committee, “the COBE project can also be regarded as the starting point for cosmology as a precision science.”’--- Wikipedia.
‘Both Hawking and Smoot made statements which together just about covered the two ends of the emotional spectrum. Smoot is a religious man and has accepted the big bang as a creation event. Hawking sees things differently. To him, the variations in the CMB seen by the COBE are simply evidence for the presence of quantum fluctuations in an inflationary Universe consistent with his No Boundary Proposal. Any wonder he’s smiling.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.172-3.
McEvoy and Zarate end their tale by showing us a picture of Hawking and Smoot with the following caption attached: Smoot saying ‘If you’re religious, it’s like seeing God,’ and Hawking saying: ‘It’s the greatest discovery of the century – if not of all time.’
‘The Universe is incredibly regular. The variation of the cosmos’ temperature across the entire sky is tiny: a few millionths of a degree, no matter which direction you look. Yet the same light from the very early cosmos that reveals the Universe’s evenness also tells astronomers a great deal about the conditions that gave rise to irregularities like stars, galaxies, and (incidentally) us.’ --- Arstecnica website.
Now you see why the CMB has to be the greatest of all discoveries for them, because it shows the Big Bang ‘gave rise’ to man. Now the detectors may well have found radiation, but that is a long way from proving it came from a metaphysical big bang as the following nuclear physicist argues. The CMB however, does not prove the Big Bang theory. Hubble found red-shifts in the light of distant galaxies. From this arose the Big Bang theory. As we said before, many different theories for the possible cause of these red-shifts have been put forward, some of which Robert Gentry records in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery. Copernicus also addressed the possibility of an expanding universe due to a rotating geocentric motion of the universe. To say the CMB proves one of them, the Big Bang theory, is scientific nonsense, no matter who or how many says it does.
‘In 1978 Penzias and Wilson received the Nobel Prize in physics for their discovery of the CMR in 1965. Since then it has been widely claimed that this pervasive radiation field is a relic of the time eons ago when radiation quanta decoupled from matter in the primeval fireball. ( J. Silk: The Big Bang, W.H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco, 1979.) …But if the radiation from this primeval fireball is assumed not to interact with matter after the time of decoupling, then how did this initially hot radiation [3000ºK] lose its energy, or temperature to later become the 3ºK CMR? The standard explanation is that the general relativistic analysis of the space-time expansion of the Big Bang predicts that the decoupling radiation quanta will lose energy just as a result of the expansion of the universe. There is however, nothing in modern experimental physics which suggests that radiation quanta change energy by moving through free space.’ ---R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates, 2004, pp. 284-5.
‘On the other hand, the question of whether the Big Bang model is a correct description of the origin and evolutionary development of the universe is entirely hinged on the ultimate validity of general relativity’s fundamental postulate, which in principle denies that privileged reference frame exists. Very germane to this discussion is the recent admission of an eminent physicist [V.F. Weisskopf (1908-2002) American Science, 71, no.5:473, 1983.] to the effect that the CMR presents undeniable experimental evidence for the existence of an absolute reference frame in the universe, a result which is consistent with Marinov’s evidence for absolute space-time [S. Marinov: Eppur Si Mouve, East Wall Pub., Graz, Austria, 1981.] and also with at least one of the earlier gravitational theories reviewed by North.’ [J.D. North: The Measure of the Universe, Clarendon Press, 1965]- ---R. Gentry: Creation’s Tiny Mystery; http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-17-i.htm
Study of the CMB continued with the United States government’s agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In June, 2001 a satellite WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) was launched from Cape Canaveral aboard a Delta rocket. Then there was the European Space Agency’s PlANCK mission launched in 2009 to map the cosmic microwave background in greater detail. By 2013 the cosmologists reckoned the temperature variations of the cosmos were now known and from these had conjured up a history of the universe since the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Throughout the world, in scientific institutions and universities, massive crowds turned out to hear of and see the ‘proofs’ the CMB had established for their Big Bang theory. One of these, they claim, was the first evolution of the stars from particles 200,000,000 years old. Hundreds of websites were created to show the world what their science had discovered.
‘Irrespective of how it originated, the most important fact about the CMR is that it represents unequivocal evidence of an absolute reference frame in the universe… I suggest [this] evidence which has received worldwide acclaim as confirmation of the Big Bang is really its death knell for, ironically, it is now clear that the existence of the CMR essentially falsifies the fundamental postulates of the theory of relativity [that there is no reference frame in the universe]…In simple terms, the theory of relativity has been falsified because a major prediction of the theory is now known to be contradicted by [another] unambiguous experimental result.’ ---- R. V. Gentry: op. cit., pp.284-292.
-
During this time of discovery two scholars, Robert Sungenis and Rock deLano also took an interest in the CMB’s findings. To them, one of these mysteries was no mystery at all. It seems the data shows the earth lies at the centre of the universe, confirming their belief that God created a geocentric world for all to see and witness so that mankind would know He exists and is Creator of all.
‘All in all, there are three basic [CMB] alignments of the Earth with the universe:
(1) The cosmic microwave radiation’s dipole is aligned with the Earth’s equator.
(2) The cosmic microwave radiation’s quadrupole and octupole are aligned with the Earth‐Sun ecliptic.
(3) The distant quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North Celestial Pole. Essentially, these three alignments provide the X, Y and Z coordinates to place Earth in the very center of the known universe.’ ----Robert Sungenis: website, Debunking David Palm, 2014
Such were the accolades from the scientific community for the CMR/CMB, with its two Nobel prizes, that Sungenis and deLano felt confident in the science involved. Accordingly they decided to make a movie out of it called THE PRINCIPLE. This ‘principle’ is that all cosmology and its theories are based on Copernicus’s heliocentric theory. The theories include the Nebular theory (how their solar-system was formed) to the Big Bang theory. Every single piece of information about the universe is interpreted according to the Copernican (heliocentric) principle. In fact had we made the movie we would have called it DEBUNKING THE PRINCIPLE, for that is exactly what it does.
Sungenis and deLano contracted a few prominent physicists including Lawrence Krauss, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, and mathematician George Ellisto to comment on the CMB’s findings in this docuмentary, including the fact that it shows the earth to be the centre of the CMB’s universe. In their movie, the trailer of which can be found on google, they acknowledged that the evidence does indeed point to a geocentric universe. Shortly however, when news came out that Robert and Rick were biblical creationists and had made the movie to show science demonstrating a geocentric cosmos, the above tried to wriggle out of their comments saying they were ‘tricked’ into making them.
This is of course in keeping with the Earthmovers ever since 1870 when Airy showed evidence that it was the stars that move causing stellar aberration. This happened again when Albert Michelson in 1897 found evidence the earth does not orbit in space. He too followed the Copernican principle and totally disregarded any geocentric findings in his tests. This in turn, as we saw, led to Einstein’s theories of relativity, the basis of the Copernican principle since 1905. Edwin Hubble, when he found evidence that all galaxies seem to be moving away from earth in 1929, also refused to consider his findings in a geocentric reference frame because as he said: ‘Such a position would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe… a favoured [geocentric] location must be avoided at all costs…such a favoured position is intolerable.’ [Edwin Hubble: The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1937, pp. 50, 51, and 58.]
The Copernican Ideology, we see, has censored empirical science for many years now and they do not intend to allow the CMB to change their shameful tactics. THE PRINCIPLE movie and its lesson must not be allowed to succeed, mankind must never be allowed even consider a geocentric creation any more, and any that do try to find the truth will continue to be labelled a ‘lunatic,’ as Fr Hull called them in 1913. Well, we will see.
-
Epilogue
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truths if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.” --- L. Tolstoy, (As quoted by physicist Joseph Ford in Chaotic Dynamics and Fractals (1985).)
Very true, a lesson Tolstoy himself could have learned from. One of these truths is that mankind has never proven the earth is spinning or moving around the sun. As far as science is concerned, both geocentrism and heliocentrism must be held as possible theories for the order of the universe. This fact we hope we have shown in this synthesis. Nevertheless, the idea that the earth spins and orbits the sun has been so ingrained into the human psyche that even when told how, why, and when they cheated its way into the ‘truths of science’ it doesn’t seem to matter, it is a truth as far as their minds are concerned.
If this problem were only one for science then it wouldn’t matter greatly. But this principle goes much, much further, for heliocentrism, since 1741 was also presented as ‘a truth of faith’ in spite of it having been defined and condemned as formal heresy in 1616. Thus, as far as this synthesis is concerned, this places the doctrinal U-turn in the Copernican/Galileo revolution as the most serious aspect of the affair, one that put the eternal salvation of souls at risk. Without a doubt it was the first stepping stone to modernism within the Catholic Church, a modernism that Pope Pius X would define in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi as ‘the synthesis of all heresies.’ So devious was/is this heresy that we doubt, without divine help, the Church can be cleansed of it. In the first place the fact that heliocentrism may not even be true would be unacceptable to most Catholics who received any sort of education. Second, the fact that modernism is rampant in the Church from parish to Rome itself means they don’t care about silly things like heresy. Updating the Bible and Church teaching is par for the course for them. To those who consider themselves ‘traditionalists’ the idea that popes were deceived into allowing heresy loose into the Church from 1741 is too much to cope with. Most would seek refuge in the litany of reasons invented to allow the U-turn and leave the blame for the controversy on the heads of those popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633.
‘Nevertheless, for those who still have a love for truth and knowledge let us give the facts, the truth, as others tried before and continue to try, and demonstrate their truth, and the reader can take it or leave it.’ --- Introduction to The Earthmovers.
-
These are fascinating reads, Casini. Thanks for posting.
-
One for you boffins to suss the truth in this!
Einstein - faux-jew plagiarist extraordinaire?
Other esoteric concepts were covered in some depth by the kabbalists. Many kabbalists were also alchemists and scientists. As a result, some kabalistic texts about the nature of emanations and the behavior of light (as a divine power) have a remarkable power even to this day.
For instance, one Latin kabalistic text from the Middle Ages discusses the properties of spirit and body in some detail. If you substitute "spirit" for "energy" and "matter" for "body", the text looks suspiciously like a sneak preview of Einstein's theory of relativity.
-
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.
-
:cheers:
-
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 (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38225&min=44&num=2#p0):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 Xpersonally 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 (http://scholastic.us.to/The%20Physicist%20and%20the%20Metaphysician%20(Jaki).pdf),” 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 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/xyutmgwmv61izg9/The%20Two%20Uses%20of%20Reason%20%28Aversa%29%20%28footnotes%2C%20single-spaced%29.pdf?dl=1)" for a translation of Fr. G.-L.'s now-"declassified" letters.
-
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 arises within the religion of Phallicism, the bond that unites all forms of idolatry into one great system. It stems directly from sun worship, heliolatry or light worship, e.g., Mithraism. It is evident that the learned of the heliolaters viewed the sun as the life source to all terrestrial creatures, the cause of all life and therefore divine.
Accordingly, this paganism literally strove to regulate all places (a heliocentric order,) politics and religion in the image of their sun-deity. This priest-led cult included alchemy and magic, that is, a gnosis, an esoteric knowledge, a mode of indoctrination designed to overcome man’s fallen state and restore knowledge of all things enjoyed by Adam before the fall so that we can become like gods.
A little later, under the auspices of astronomy and astrology, the heliocentric belief surfaced again. In the 6th century BC, the Egyptian-trained Pythagoras reintroduced the sun-centred world and followers such as Philolaus, the teacher of Plato, and Plato himself, according to Aristotle, accepted a solar system. After him, in the 4th century BC, it was Heracleides who promoted the idea that the earth moves around a central fire. A century later, Aristarchus of Samos (240BC) also advocated a heliocentric world. He was accused of impiety so gained few converts.
Throughout all the centuries after Christ, the reality of the senses remained and geocentrism prevailed. Nevertheless, the pagan cult of a sun-centred world with its ‘illuminated priests’ never died; the seeds of the belief system, this gnosis, having been inserted into the occult writings of men, now best known as the Hermetic, Gnostic and cabbalistic texts. Thus, in the second century AD, there came into existence a ‘Holy Grail,’ protected over the centuries by many organisations and secret societies, for they knew there would come a time and generations more favourable to their cause. And so it was that with the re-emergence of the Hermetic books in the fifteenth century in Florence, the heliocentric doctrine began to attract and fascinate new recruits. This magic then spread like wildfire, becoming an integral part of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
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.
-
Bravo! Thank you! :applause:
-
.
Yes, thank you so much!
Especially for this paragraph:
.
"For hundreds of years now, so certain are we that the earth spins and orbits the sun like a planet, nobody needs or wants proof or verification for it anymore. Even now, any suggestion that the universe could be geocentric and geostatic always generates curious incredulity followed by derision and laughter. Even being asked to entertain the idea is a challenge to one’s intellectual ego, like being asked to believe the earth is flat. Thus, like a magic spell, the Hermetic cosmology has a grip on the human mind in the same manner as addictive illusionary substances have on the drug-addict."
.
It's great to see an ex-flat-earther no longer wanting to be a drug-addict. :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).
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomical_diaries)."
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.
-
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).
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."
-
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.
-
.
Yes, thank you so much!
Especially for this paragraph:
.
"For hundreds of years now, so certain are we that the earth spins and orbits the sun like a planet, nobody needs or wants proof or verification for it anymore. Even now, any suggestion that the universe could be geocentric and geostatic always generates curious incredulity followed by derision and laughter. Even being asked to entertain the idea is a challenge to one’s intellectual ego, like being asked to believe the earth is flat. Thus, like a magic spell, the Hermetic cosmology has a grip on the human mind in the same manner as addictive illusionary substances have on the drug-addict."
.
It's great to see an ex-flat-earther no longer wanting to be a drug-addict. :applause:
.
That's nothing but an emotional rant. You should watch the movie The Principle to understand the true scientific status of geocentrism.
-
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."
-
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."
That's a very appropriate quote from Fr. Ripperger. Quote: "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(ing) of what God actually is."
Maybe Catholics won't be so adversely affected by the globe-earth cosmology, in that they still believe that God created the earth, but society at large doesn't really care about the fact of Creation, and that God created it.
Fr. Ripperger above also says..."Due to modern philosophers, Peoples understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."
The world today is permeated with occultism. I have family members who are occultists, unfortunately. I saw the new Star Wars movie yesterday with my husband, and that film is SO permeated with occultism (and Buddhism), and yet that's just considered a normal thing for most people today. They don't question it. Most trad Catholics won't see a film like Star Wars, but I think it's useful to see and know what the current Hollywood propaganda is doing to society today.
-
That's a very appropriate quote from Fr. Ripperger. Quote: "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(ing) of what God actually is."
Maybe Catholics won't be so adversely affected by the globe-earth cosmology, in that they still believe that God created the earth, but society at large doesn't really care about the fact of Creation, and that God created it.
Fr. Ripperger above also says..."Due to modern philosophers, Peoples understanding of the real world has degraded their ability to actually understand things about God by the natural light of reason."
The world today is permeated with occultism. I have family members who are occultists, unfortunately. I saw the new Star Wars movie yesterday with my husband, and that film is SO permeated with occultism (and Buddhism), and yet that's just considered a normal thing for most people today. They don't question it. Most trad Catholics won't see a film like Star Wars, but I think it's useful to see and know what the current Hollywood propaganda is doing to society today.
Yes! People in general don't question their associations with the occult because their ingrained scientific beliefs reflect it! People have become a product of social engineering via movies and scientific propaganda. This metaphysical problem, as the Fr. Ripperger quote shows, has made possible the Great Apostasy. When push comes to shove, Catholics have in essence abandoned their understanding of God in favor of paganism because their metaphysical roots are based in the science of the occult. And not only do they not know it, even when shown, they refuse to see it.
-
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomical_diaries)."
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.
It is very hard to figure out what you would accept as evidence, since you appear to throw out any that does not support you. There are countless sources to back up my claims about how Aristotle and Ptolemy were viewed in Christendom, but you have consistently rejected any that I have cited in the past. Presumably you will accept a source that you yourself use.
The very same article on Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) that you have been citing says of his work the Almagest:
Across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa in the Medieval period, it was the authoritative text on astronomy, with its author becoming an almost mythical figure, called Ptolemy, King of Alexandria.[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy#cite_note-24) The Almagest was preserved, like most of extant Classical Greek science, in Arabic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language) manuscripts (hence its familiar name). Because of its reputation, it was widely sought and was translated twice into Latin in the 12th century (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th_century), once in Sicily and again in Spain.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy#cite_note-25) Ptolemy's model, like those of his predecessors, was geocentric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric) and was almost universally accepted until the appearance of simpler heliocentric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric) models during the scientific revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution).
The Babylonian astronomical data contained "systematic records of astronomical observations." The use of these detailed observations is what gave the Ptolemaic model its impressive predictive power. This is not a "pagan occult" practice but how natural science works. One makes observations of physical phenomena, basing theories on them which one tests by their ability to predict results. The Ptolemaic model was one of the longest lasting theories in the history of science, accepted for over a thousand years because it worked so well.
Your quote about distorted maps based on inaccurate data are from a section of the article discussing Ptolemy's work on geography and have nothing to do with his astronomical model.
-
Yes! People in general don't question their associations with the occult because their ingrained scientific beliefs reflect it! People have become a product of social engineering via movies and scientific propaganda. This metaphysical problem, as the Fr. Ripperger quote shows, has made possible the Great Apostasy. When push comes to shove, Catholics have in essence abandoned their understanding of God in favor of paganism because their metaphysical roots are based in the science of the occult. And not only do they not know it, even when shown, they refuse to see it.
Yes, well said. If not for Enlightenment principles and the Reformation (actually a Deformation), there would not have been a Great Apostasy, IMO. I agree that many Catholics favor the occult-based pagan science, even though most aren't aware of it, and they have reconciled somehow, the idea of Creation with the pagan globe-earth. It seems to make sense to them. This supposed reconciliation or blending between God's Creation and Paganism could not have happened without a careful restructuring of scientific thought, which seems to have begun quite some time ago.
-
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.
There is no reason to believe that I claimed that the Church supported pagan astrology. Of course, she did not. For most of history there was a close association between astronomy (a natural science supported by the Church) and astrology (a superstition which is not). There was a similar relationship between the science of chemistry and the superstition of alchemy.
Aristotle and Plato were geocentrists who believed in a spherical earth. Where did you get the idea they were heliocentrists?
I am not sure you mean by saying that everyone thought Galileo was right. This was not true of his contemporaries. It is true that the current popular view is greatly distorted and could reasonably be called revisionism. This does not prove that your understanding is correct.
-
There is no reason to believe that I claimed that the Church supported pagan astrology. Of course, she did not. For most of history there was a close association between astronomy (a natural science supported by the Church) and astrology (a superstition which is not). There was a similar relationship between the science of chemistry and the superstition of alchemy.
Aristotle and Plato were geocentrists who believed in a spherical earth. Where did you get the idea they were heliocentrists?
I am not sure you mean by saying that everyone thought Galileo was right. This was not true of his contemporaries. It is true that the current popular view is greatly distorted and could reasonably be called revisionism. This does not prove that your understanding is correct.
From Wiki
The earliest reliably docuмented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_philosophy)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-dicks-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-2) but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Hellenic_world) established the spherical shape of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth) as a physical given.
The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth):
-
From Wiki
The earliest reliably docuмented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_philosophy)[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-dicks-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#cite_note-2) but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Hellenic_world) established the spherical shape of the Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth) as a physical given.
The concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth):
I do not understand why you posted this. Is it supposed to be an answer to the question in my post about why you think that Aristotle and Plato are heliocentrists?
Wikipedia on Geocentric model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model) :
... most educated Greeks from the 4th century BC on thought that the Earth was a sphere at the center of the universe.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#cite_note-Fraser2006-20)
In the 4th century BC, two influential Greek philosophers, Plato (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) and his student Aristotle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle), wrote works based on the geocentric model. According to Plato, the Earth was a sphere, stationary at the center of the universe.
There is no basis for using "geocentric" interchangeably with "flat-earth". They are two different, independent things. One refers to planetary motion and the other to the shape of the earth.
-
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.
It is not reasonable at all to refer to this as church support. Errors push themselves in slowly. It would have crept in by the excuse that it was the domain of science. There is no evidence to show the the magesterium teaching round earthism ever. There is a difference between what was taught in some universities by some professors, and what Rome was teaching.
The majority of Fathers believed the Earth to be flat.
It is important as to what most ordinary people thought. All the evidence shows they did not accept the globe. Here are two examples which stand out
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t145-hereford-cathedral-map-of-the-world
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t141-hieronymus-bosch-15th-century-painter-flat-earth-painting
The latter is from the 15th century.
If you are tempted to scoff, remember that on such an issue, these kind of things are regarded as important evidence to judge what the popular opinion was. Historians are like detectives and deal with whatever evidence they have, even if it is sparse.
On the science of the flat earth....
https://youtu.be/_xxHefIz8fk
-
It is very hard to figure out what you would accept as evidence, since you appear to throw out any that does not support you. There are countless sources to back up my claims about how Aristotle and Ptolemy were viewed in Christendom, but you have consistently rejected any that I have cited in the past. Presumably you will accept a source that you yourself use.
The very same article on Ptolemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy) that you have been citing says of his work the Almagest:The Babylonian astronomical data contained "systematic records of astronomical observations." The use of these detailed observations is what gave the Ptolemaic model its impressive predictive power. This is not a "pagan occult" practice but how natural science works. One makes observations of physical phenomena, basing theories on them which one tests by their ability to predict results. The Ptolemaic model was one of the longest lasting theories in the history of science, accepted for over a thousand years because it worked so well.
Your quote about distorted maps based on inaccurate data are from a section of the article discussing Ptolemy's work on geography and have nothing to do with his astronomical model.
Apparently you missed these two: "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,..."
-
I do not understand why you posted this. Is it supposed to be an answer to the question in my post about why you think that Aristotle and Plato are heliocentrists?
Wikipedia on Geocentric model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model) :
There is no basis for using "geocentric" interchangeably with "flat-earth". They are two different, independent things. One refers to planetary motion and the other to the shape of the earth.
Now this is what I'm talking about when you make statements but refuse to provide data to back it up. Flat earth and fixed earth are aspects of the same geocentric model. Round and moving earth are aspects of the heliocentric model. The two are mutually exclusive even if during the attempt to overthrow geocentrism the spherical earth was considered possible by some who at the same time, refused to believe the earth was moving. The fact is, both spherical earth (a pagan religious belief for the perfect deity) and moving earth around the sun (pagan heliocentric god) both originate from pagan occult science.
-
It is not reasonable at all to refer to this as church support. Errors push themselves in slowly. It would have crept in by the excuse that it was the domain of science. There is no evidence to show the the magesterium teaching round earthism ever. There is a difference between what was taught in some universities by some professors, and what Rome was teaching.
The majority of Fathers believed the Earth to be flat.
It is important as to what most ordinary people thought. All the evidence shows they did not accept the globe. Here are two examples which stand out
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t145-hereford-cathedral-map-of-the-world
http://flatearthtrads.forumga.net/t141-hieronymus-bosch-15th-century-painter-flat-earth-painting
The latter is from the 15th century.
If you are tempted to scoff, remember that on such an issue, these kind of things are regarded as important evidence to judge what the popular opinion was. Historians are like detectives and deal with whatever evidence they have, even if it is sparse.
The magisterium did not teach that the earth is a sphere (or flat). Church controlled universities taught that the earth is a sphere. Even if one does not call this support from the Church, there were no objections from the Church. It was within the power of the Church to stop the teaching of spherical earth at the universities and yet the Church allowed it.
The magisterium, however, has taught against the literalistic interpretations of Scripture that some flat-earthers use to support their belief.
You claim that flat earth was the majority view, but I have also seen claims that spherical earth was the majority view among the Fathers. It would take quite a bit of effort to actually figure out which one was the majority and it does not seem worth doing. Either way, it is clear that the Fathers were not unanimous, which means they were expressing personal opinions that we have no obligation to believe.
The Hereford Cathedral map is a T&O map. Here is a Wikipedia article on these maps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map)
The T and O map represents only the one half of the spherical Earth.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map#cite_note-livingston-3) It was presumably considered a convenient projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection) of known-inhabited parts, the northern temperate half of the globe. It was then believed that no one could cross the torrid equatorial clime and reach the unknown lands on the other half of the globe. These imagined lands were called antipodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodes).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map#cite_note-livingston-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map#cite_note-4)
Bosch's work on the inner panels of the triptych is clearly in a fantasy style with symbolic imagery rather than realism. There is no reason to think the outer panels are meant as a realistic portrayal. The tradition of making 3 dimensional representation of the earth goes back to at least the late 15th century since some survive from this time:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Behaims_Erdapfel.jpg)
-
Apparently you missed these two: "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,..."
Yes, Ptolemy wrote an important work about astrology and accepted it himself. He was a pagan. This astrological work was distinct from the Amalgest, the work on astronomy used in Catholic universities. Using pagan authorities about science while rejecting their non-Christian elements was the common practice by the time universities were established.
St. Thomas Aquinas accepted the pagan Aristotle as an authority on science and philosophy and quoted him extensively in the Summa Theologica, one of the most influential works in the history of the Church. It is not the Catholic practice to throw out everything that has any association with pagans.
-
The magisterium did not teach that the earth is a sphere (or flat). Church controlled universities taught that the earth is a sphere. Even if one does not call this support from the Church, there were no objections from the Church. It was within the power of the Church to stop the teaching of spherical earth at the universities and yet the Church allowed it.
The magisterium, however, has taught against the literalistic interpretations of Scripture that some flat-earthers use to support their belief.
You claim that flat earth was the majority view, but I have also seen claims that spherical earth was the majority view among the Fathers. It would take quite a bit of effort to actually figure out which one was the majority and it does not seem worth doing. Either way, it is clear that the Fathers were not unanimous, which means they were expressing personal opinions that we have no obligation to believe.
The Hereford Cathedral map is a T&O map. Here is a Wikipedia article on these maps. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_and_O_map)
Bosch's work on the inner panels of the triptych is clearly in a fantasy style with symbolic imagery rather than realism. There is no reason to think the outer panels are meant as a realistic portrayal. The tradition of making 3 dimensional representation of the earth goes back to at least the late 15th century since some survive from this time:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Behaims_Erdapfel.jpg)
on the universities question, I would only be repeating myself.
You may still be obliged to believe someday what the Fathers taught even if it was not unanimous.
For the literal interpretation of scripture refer back to St. Pius Xs biblical commission.
On the maps. Clearly wikipedia is an authority for you. Enough said....
Boschs work is both imaginative and yet how the world was fundamentally viewed. It is not meant to be realistic as a map, but realistic as to the foundations.
Here is the science that Jaynek ignores....
https://youtu.be/S4oT2EbDONs
-
Using pagan authorities about science while rejecting their non-Christian elements was the common practice by the time universities were established.
Which is precisely why your argument that " it was taught in universities..." so everyone thought it, is wrong.
-
Now this is what I'm talking about when you make statements but refuse to provide data to back it up. Flat earth and fixed earth are aspects of the same geocentric model. Round and moving earth are aspects of the heliocentric model. The two are mutually exclusive even if during the attempt to overthrow geocentrism the spherical earth was considered possible by some who at the same time, refused to believe the earth was moving. The fact is, both spherical earth (a pagan religious belief for the perfect deity) and moving earth around the sun (pagan heliocentric god) both originate from pagan occult science.
I have provided so many quotes that support my claims about this. I cannot understand what you mean by saying that I do not provide data to back it up. What exactly is it that you need to see? Do you need quotes directly from Ptolemy and Aristotle that show they believe the earth is a sphere and is also the center?
Virtually nobody has believed in a flat, fixed earth since the sixth century. The main geocentric model that competed with the heliocentrism of Copernicus, et al. was that of Ptolemy. (There was another model by Tycho Brahe in the mix, but it also had a spherical earth.) What you refer to as geocentrism - the Jєωιѕн/Babylonian cosmology - is not even included in the Wikipedia article on geocentrism. It has a separate entry under "Biblical cosmology.
There is overwhelming evidence that there are more than two mutually exclusive models. I cannot even understand how you can make such obviously wrong claims.
-
Which is precisely why your argument that " it was taught in universities..." so everyone thought it, is wrong.
I don't understand what you are saying. I do not see how that follows from "Using pagan authorities about science while rejecting their non-Christian elements was the common practice by the time universities were established."
What was commonly taught at universities shows what the educated people believed. There is little evidence about what the non-educated believed. It is quite possible the the beliefs of the educated "trickled down" to them.
-
I don't understand what you are saying. I do not see how that follows from "Using pagan authorities about science while rejecting their non-Christian elements was the common practice by the time universities were established."
What was commonly taught at universities shows what the educated people believed. There is little evidence about what the non-educated believed. It is quite possible the the beliefs of the educated "trickled down" to them.
The point is that the probably used ptolemy, not because it was globe earth but because the other aspects of the astronomy were good.
-
That's nothing but an emotional rant. You should watch the movie The Principle to understand the true scientific status of geocentrism.
.
Emotional rant? What I posted is a direct quote out of the thread. I didn't write it.
.
I already watched "The Principle," and the author I quoted is an advocate of "The Principle." And your point is....?
-
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.
.
Don't miss the fact that this thread lay dormant for 3 years before Meg dug it up, and in one day the flat-earthers have done their usual graffiti splatter all over it with no reference to the subject matter in context. Then recall the OP where Cantarella requested that this thread be protected from spamming and disruptive off-topic posts.
.
If justice would be served all the posts starting with Meg's ought to be moved to the Child forum because they're all off topic.
.
Dear Matthew and Mater, I respectfully request your permission to keep this thread in the Resistance section of this forum because every post that I put in this thread stands for the proposition that the true Catholic Resistance has nothing to do with the SSPX and everything to do with Doctrine - the full and entire Deposit of the Faith. If this section limits itself to discussion of the SSPX and the various combatants in its fratricidal cινιℓ ωαr, then it commits an abortion of Truth.
I have another request - a very special one, which I understand you might be unable to grant. Is it possible to scrub this thread on a continuous basis of anti-Catholic, anti-geocentric posts, so that this thread can be reserved as a place where souls might encounter the positive teaching, sans graffiti?
Nothing would stop anyone from slinging mud at what is posted here by starting new threads. I do not wish to stifle discussion. I merely wish to keep this thread as clean and unified as possible.
Why is this important? Because in the entire history of the Church, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Doctrine have suffered from no greater blow than that which came from the copernican-darwinian revolutions. The Church is still reeling, and will continue to spiral downward until we fight back with Faith, Fortitude, Charity, and Truth.
P.S. We would welcome any posts in support of the movie The Principle.
.
So it's longstanding residence in the Resistance forum is being torpedoed by the flat-earthers. Surprise, surprise (NOT).
.
-
THE EARTHMOVERS: The Copernican revolution, while classed as a scientific revolution, was in fact a religious revolution. It is impossible to separate cosmology from theology and the divine, as both are well connected in the Scriptures. Add to this the utterances of many bygone astronomers and contemporary writers on this theme. Carl Sagan, in his introduction to Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time states:
This is also a book about God… or perhaps the absence of God. The word God fills these pages. Hawking embarks on a quest to answer Einstein’s famous question about whether God had any choice in creating the universe. Hawking is attempting, as he states, to understand the mind of God. (Stephen. Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Press, 1988.)
There is however, something further we should know:
HAWKING AND THE MIND OF GOD. He does not believe in anything resembling the Christian God…his theory of everything has no place at all for a Creator…. By his playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity appeal directly to the popular allure of scientist as priest. (Peter Coles: Hawking, Postmodern Encounters, Icon Books, 2000, p.47.)
For hundreds of years now, so certain are we that the earth spins and orbits the sun like a planet, nobody needs or wants proof or verification for it anymore. Even now, any suggestion that the universe could be geocentric and geostatic always generates curious incredulity followed by derision and laughter. Even being asked to entertain the idea is a challenge to one’s intellectual ego, like being asked to believe the earth is flat. Thus, like a magic spell, the Hermetic cosmology has a grip on the human mind in the same manner as addictive illusionary substances have on the drug-addict.
Yes, this belief system, long implanted into the minds of mankind, is now virtually impossible to break free from, as most of you readers are no doubt already experiencing. To demonstrate this hold, we again refer to Stephen Hawking’s Brief History of Time, the book released on ‘April fools day’ 1988, the one 26 million bought:
We may have no idea what Professor Hawking does – but everyone knows it is damned clever stuff. So dauntingly clever that I suspect a hefty percentage of the 25 million copies of his book 'A Brief History of Time', still remain unopened since it came out. But the sales prove we are, in theory anyway, hungry to learn about his heroic search for the so-called Theory of Everything that will explain once and for all the universe and its purpose. (R. Gore-Langton: Daily Express, Friday 1st Sept 2000.)
The above review of the play God and Stephen Hawking illustrates the heliocentric magic to perfection. As with Satan’s inducement to Adam that he could know all things like God, Hawking, a professed atheist, invited onto the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome in 1986 by the way, is now promoted as the guru to follow. With no idea what he ‘does,’ and without understanding what he writes, Hawking and his ilk are held in awe by the Press, the public, even popes in Rome, for their ‘truths.’ ‘Cleverness’ is now classed as ‘stuff’ that cannot be understood, which, from a convincing propaganda and financially rewarding point of view, is indeed very ‘clever.’
.
The source for the paragraph I quoted.
.
-
The point is that the probably used ptolemy, not because it was globe earth but because the other aspects of the astronomy were good.
Thanks for explaining. I understand now.
-
The Earthmovers by James Redmond O'Hanlon is seen at https://www.kolbecenter.org/product/the-earthmovers/ (https://www.kolbecenter.org/product/the-earthmovers/)
(https://i.imgur.com/QZ8X0dq.png)
The Earthmovers (PDF)
$10.00
One of the greatest obstacles to the restoration of the Faith is the difficulty of identifying and eradicating the roots of the revolution against it. In his monumental work The Earthmovers, author James Redmond O’Hanlon exposes the roots of the revolution in the rejection of God’s Revelation regarding the position of the Earth in the universe and in the failure of the Church leadership to continue the courageous efforts of their predecessors to defend that Revelation, beginning as early as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In spite of the widespread belief that heliocentrism was eventually “proven” by advances in astronomy, O’Hanlon shows that the champions of the heliocentric hypothesis have never provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt for their model of the solar system and that the Neo-Tychonic geocentric-geostatic model of the universe continues to explain all of the experimental and observational evidence better than any of the competing models. The Earthmovers shows that the failure of the Church leadership to defend God’s Word in regard to the Earth’s position in the cosmos as it had been understood in the Church from the beginning paved the way for the modernist revolution against the traditional faith and practice of the Church by exalting fallible human science above divine science, an error which the Angelic Doctor identifies as “the source of all heresy.”
579 pages.