Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 104727 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #270 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:22:49 AM »

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.]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #271 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:24:28 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #272 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:28:57 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #273 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:59:20 AM »

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.

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.

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?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #274 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:01:57 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #275 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:05:24 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #276 on:** April 26, 2014, 10:59:30 AM »

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]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #277 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:09:39 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #278 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:14:49 AM »

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #279 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:23:55 AM »

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]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #280 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:32:35 AM »

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.

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.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #281 on:** April 26, 2014, 11:51:14 AM »

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]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #282 on:** April 29, 2014, 07:57:32 PM »

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

cantatedomino · « **Reply #283 on:** April 29, 2014, 08:06:01 PM »

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?

cantatedomino · « **Reply #284 on:** April 29, 2014, 08:12:13 PM »

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?