Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 119066 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #30 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:45:17 AM »

Quote from: Columba

She is serializing a book--one of the most fascinating I've ever read.

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

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

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

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #31 on:** January 24, 2014, 04:53:46 AM »

.

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?

.

Columba · « **Reply #32 on:** January 24, 2014, 10:13:50 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

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

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

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

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

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

cantatedomino · « **Reply #33 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:37:35 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #34 on:** January 25, 2014, 10:41:13 AM »

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.