Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 103017 times)

cassini · « **Reply #540 on:** November 27, 2014, 02:28:09 PM »

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

cassini · « **Reply #541 on:** November 27, 2014, 02:35:53 PM »

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.

roscoe · « **Reply #542 on:** December 05, 2014, 12:27:44 AM »

:smoke-pot:

cassini · « **Reply #543 on:** December 05, 2014, 10:57:43 AM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #544 on:** December 05, 2014, 11:04:57 AM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #545 on:** December 07, 2014, 02:23:28 PM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #546 on:** December 07, 2014, 02:27:35 PM »

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.” ’

cassini · « **Reply #547 on:** December 07, 2014, 02:56:08 PM »

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..

glaston · « **Reply #548 on:** December 08, 2014, 05:19:27 AM »

Galileo Galilei

GAGA

Mason's
Great Architect (of the Universe)
G.A.O.T.U

cassini · « **Reply #549 on:** December 13, 2014, 01:59:05 PM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #550 on:** December 13, 2014, 02:06:38 PM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #551 on:** December 13, 2014, 02:24:39 PM »

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.

cassini · « **Reply #552 on:** December 25, 2014, 12:34:13 PM »

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.

Cantarella · « **Reply #553 on:** December 25, 2014, 02:58:02 PM »

These are fascinating reads, Casini. Thanks for posting.

glaston · « **Reply #554 on:** December 26, 2014, 06:30:10 AM »

One for you boffins to suss the truth in this!

Einstein - faux-jew plagiarist extraordinaire?

Quote

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.