Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 01:08:02 AM

Title: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 01:08:02 AM
Are there any CI members that have read DeRevolutionibus? :ready-to-eat:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 17, 2017, 06:14:49 AM
Are there any CI members that have read DeRevolutionibus? :ready-to-eat:

Yes, I have a copy of it in my files and I have read it very carefully. It has a most interesting Preface and Introduction followed by over four hundred pages of drawings, geometry, calculations, longitudes, latitudes and endless data that I would say nobody has ever used in history.

Anything about it or Copernicus you want to know Roscoe?
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 09:24:31 AM
....' endless data that nobody has ever used in history'...

Sorry but this is most inaccurate. Copernicus was a major player in the reorganisation of the Julian Calendar into the Gregorian. Clavio and Pope Gregory being the other 2 major figures.

I would suggest consulting von Pastor's chapter on Reorganisation Of The Calendar. I believe it is in vol 23



Unless I am mistaken, you are a dogmatic geo-centrist. Are you a flat earther as well? :confused:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 09:58:24 AM
Do you think we should still be using the Julian Calendar? :cheers:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 17, 2017, 12:15:34 PM
....' endless data that nobody has ever used in history'...

Sorry but this is most inaccurate. Copernicus was a major player in the reorganisation of the Julian Calendar into the Gregorian. Clavio and Pope Gregory being the other 2 major figures.

I would suggest consulting von Pastor's chapter on Reorganisation Of The Calendar. I believe it is in vol 23

Unless I am mistaken, you are a dogmatic geo-centrist. Are you a flat earther as well? :confused:

"While Tyco de Brahe [geocentrist] was observing the Sky in Denmark, many famous astronomers gathered in Rome under the aegis of Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585), worked with great success at correcting the errors that had crept in insensibly in the old calendar by the precession of Equinoxes and through anticipation of new Moons. These errors later would have completely overturned the order established by the Councils for the celebrations of movable feasts had the calendar not been revised according to modern observations of the movements of the Sun and of the Moon compared with the old times. It was Aloysius Lilius (1510-1576) who invented the new form of the Gregorian year but after his death Christoph Clavius (1537–1612) perfected it, gave its explanation, and its defence." --- J.D. Cassini: The Progress of Astronomy and its Use for Geography and in Navigation, Paris, 1693, 

If one reads some accounts of history written by those who would like to portray Copernicus’s heliocentrism as the main influence in the updating of the Julian calendar, it seems it had little to do with its reform:
 

‘Among Catholics, Christoph Clavius was the leading astronomer in the sixteenth century. A Jesuit himself, he incorporated astronomy into the Jesuit curriculum and was the principal scholar behind the creation of the Gregorian calendar.’ --- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


The calendar was a refinement in 1582 to the Julian calendar amounting to a 0.002% correction in the length of the year.
The Gregorian reform contained two parts: a reform of the Julian calendar as used prior to Pope Gregory XIII’s time and a reform of the lunar cycle used by the Catholic Church, with the Julian calendar, to calculate the date of Easter. The reform was a modification of a proposal made by Aloysius Lilius.
His proposal included reducing the number of leap years in four centuries from 100 to 97, by making 3 out of 4 centurial years common instead of leap years. Lilius also produced an original and practical scheme for adjusting the epacts of the moon when calculating the annual date of Easter, solving a long-standing obstacle to calendar reform.
The Gregorian reform modified the Julian calendar’s scheme of leap years as follows:
Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100, but these centurial years are leap years if they are exactly divisible by 400. For example, the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 are not leap years, but the year 2000 is.
In addition to the change in the mean length of the calendar year from 365.25 days (365 days 6 hours) to 365.2425 days (365 days 5 hours 49 minutes 12 seconds), a reduction of 10 minutes 48 seconds per year, the Gregorian calendar reform also dealt with the accuмulated difference between these lengths. ---Aplaintruth.info.

Try as I did I could not find Copernicus's book mentioned as assisting in the reform. Perhaps here is the reason why:

Lest anyone think Copernicus advanced knowledge of the ‘magnitude of the orbs,’ he didn’t. Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth - now said to be approximately 11,650 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters. 

No, I am not a flat-earther. 
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 12:47:59 PM
Reform of the calendar had been contemplated for some time by 1582. While Copernicus(d1543) was not the main force in the endeavor, his work does figure in the new calendar. BTW-- he was not a helio-centrist. He never reached any conclusion one way or the other. He was very careful as well he should have been as we now know that both E & S are in motion and there is no physical center of U. :cheers:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 17, 2017, 01:47:17 PM
Reform of the calendar had been contemplated for some time by 1582. While Copernicus(d1543) was not the main force in the endeavor, his work does figure in the new calendar. BTW-- he was not a helio-centrist. He never reached any conclusion one way or the other. He was very careful as well he should have been as we now know that both E & S are in motion and there is no physical center of U. :cheers:

Whatever you say Roscoe, but don't count me in with your 'we now know' cosmology.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 03:07:20 PM
I have noticed that dogmatic geo-centrists ascribe to Copernicus a belief in helio-centrism.

This is not accurate as he only spoke hypothetically when referring to the latter as hitherto there was no actual evidence.  This is why his work was left unpublished until after his death. He knew there was something wrong with it.

We should never the less give him credit for the truth in article one of his theory-- that E rev around S.

Because articles 2( S is fixed) and  3( Sun is center of U)of Copernicanism turn out to be incorrect, does not negate article one. :ready-to-eat:

Pls consult  von Pastor's chapters on Reformation of Calendar as well as Galileo & Roman INQ in vol 25. These can found at Wikipedia by searching Ludwig von Pastor.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 17, 2017, 04:05:57 PM
I have noticed that dogmatic geo-centrists ascribe to Copernicus a belief in helio-centrism.

This is not accurate as he only spoke hypothetically when referring to the latter as hitherto there was no actual evidence.  This is why his work was left unpublished until after his death. He knew there was something wrong with it.

We should never the less give him credit for the truth in article one of his theory-- that E rev around S.

Because articles 2( S is fixed) and  3( Sun is center of U)of Copernicanism turn out to be incorrect, does not negate article one. :ready-to-eat:

Pls consult  von Pastor's chapters on Reformation of Calendar as well as Galileo & Roman INQ in vol 25. These can found at Wikipedia by searching Ludwig von Pastor.

As a biblical geocentrist Roscoe, one sees history in its true light.
Copernicus was a heliocentrist. Of course he couldn't prove it, His book couldn't prove it, but like Galileo who couldn't prove it, he too was a heliocentrist.

How can E rev around S be true if it cannot be proven? Relativity prevails in science now. In other words science acknowledges that geocentrism could be true.

What you believe in is your choice, no more.



    
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 04:41:09 PM
It is true that Galileo could be described as a helio-centrist because he demands-- in 1616-- this be accepted as dogma with only scant evidence( discovery of the moons revolving around Jupiter). The word could is used because neither he or Copernicus ever uses the specific term as far as i can tell.

I don't refer to Copernicus in this way because he spoke hypothetically and never publishes his book.

Look at it this way Cassini-- while we disagree with the type of motion, we both agree that S IS in motion and that it is not the center of U.

What you believe is your choice as well because there is no dogma that requires Catholics to believe in geo-centrism. :cheers:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 17, 2017, 09:18:17 PM
I don't see the PM function anymore. Do you believe that the planets rotate on an axis? 8)
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Nadir on May 17, 2017, 10:05:47 PM
I don't see the PM function anymore.  8)
Click on the poster's name, and when that page opens, click on Action.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2017, 04:14:20 AM
It is true that Galileo could be described as a helio-centrist because he demands-- in 1616-- this be accepted as dogma with only scant evidence( discovery of the moons revolving around Jupiter). The word could is used because neither he or Copernicus ever uses the specific term as far as i can tell.

I don't refer to Copernicus in this way because he spoke hypothetically and never publishes his book.

Look at it this way Cassini-- while we disagree with the type of motion, we both agree that S IS in motion and that it is not the center of U.

What you believe is your choice as well because there is no dogma that requires Catholics to believe in geo-centrism. :cheers:

Copernicus’s heliocentrism in fact, first emerged in 1524 when he distributed an unsigned and untitled manuscript later named Commentariolus or ‘Little Commentary.’ These proposals were intended to see what reaction heliocentrism would have among philosophers of his time. The Commentary argued that a sun-centered planetary system, one of these being the earth, could better explain the mechanics of cosmic movements and indeed gravity, understood then as ‘heaviness.’ As it turned out, his thesis failed to make any impact or receive any serious response from astronomers and philosophers, leaving him disappointed and disheartened. This is why he never published de Rev.

‘In The Revolutions one of Copernicus’s deepest motivations for developing his sun-centred model was his belief that earlier interpreters of nature had produced a “translation” that was incoherent and aesthetically unappealing – one that did not do justice to the skill of the original Author Creator.’  --- Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, p.53.

Here then, for any who wish to see, is another who had fallen hook, line and sinker for the magic of Hermēs Trismegistus. This church-keeper was likely to be well aware that the Scriptures depict geocentrism, an interpretation held by all the Fathers and that the Council of Trent had forbidden contrary personal interpretations. Nevertheless, driven by the spreading influence of Hermēs he still introduced his prepared equilibrium into astronomy, philosophy, theology and metaphysics – heliocentrism. Here then, in De revolutionibus, the most famous book on the cosmos ever written, a book that was read by many throughout Europe, by those who shaped world history, astronomy and science, Hermēs himself is named as an inspiration. Copernicus places the central religious and mystical role of the sun as the Sermo Perfectus dictates, as an intermediary between the divine light and the world, indeed as a second god, placing it where that already occupied Holy Throne had stood firm. Hints to this effect can be found in any proper study of Copernicus’s life and work.
   
‘Copernicus’s published works gave unmistakable, if indirect, indications of his reasons for devoting himself to astronomy. Judging by these, his intellectual and religious interests were dominant. He valued his theory of planetary motion, not because it improved navigational procedures, but because it revealed the true harmony, symmetry, and design in the divine workshop. It was wonderful and overpowering evidence of God’s presence. Writing of his achievements, which was thirty years in the making, Copernicus could not restrain his gratification: “We find, therefore, under this orderly arrangement a wonderful symmetry in the universe, and a definite relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs, of a kind not possible to obtain in any other way.”’ --- M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, p.70.


Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) was a student and later mathematics professor at Martin Luther’s University of Wittenberg. An informing new book however by Professor Dennis Danielson reveals to us that were it not for Rheticus and others, Copernicus’s De revolutionibus most probably would never have seen the light of day. Accordingly, his relationship with Copernicus is vital to the story of the Copernican revolution.

Rheticus became Copernicus's right-hand man, and used the Protestant printing press to bring out de revolutionibus.
Danielson goes on to say this was Martin Luther’s best-known doctrine:

‘If someone equipped with the tools of reading could reinterpret the text of either the Bible or the Book of Nature – independent of intervening layers of authority – whole new possibilities of understanding could emerge in the natural sciences as well as in theology.’ --- D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.21.

And that is how the heliocentric heresy began the assault on Catholic biblical exegesis and hermeneutics, PROTESTANTISM.

Finally there is an irreversible papal decree that states the Scriptures reveal geocentrism and the secret archives at the Vatican reveal this was acknowledged as dogma twice by the Holy Office in 1633 and 1820. This dogma has been ignored, especially by popes, to accommodate everyone's belief that science proven the earth rotates and orbits the sun. The history of this SCAM at a time when 'tradition' ruled is worse than anything that came out of Vatican Ii when the heliocentric modernists had taken over.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: TKGS on May 18, 2017, 05:37:31 AM
I don't see the PM function anymore.
On the left side of the posts, under the misnamed "Gender" indicator is a symbol that looks like a cartoon dialogue bubble.  If you click it, you can send a PM to that forum member.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 11:43:52 AM
Quote Cassini-- 'This dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes...'

You have just proved that the alleged 'dogma' is only in your mind.

MO is that Catholics should recognise the authority of the popes b4 Cassini.. :baby:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 12:13:42 PM
edit
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 12:15:53 PM
Quote Cassini-- 'This dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes...'

You have just proved that the alleged 'dogma' is only in your mind.

MO is that Catholics should recognise the authority of the popes b4 Cassini.. :baby:
There is no such thing as a pope( much less popes) who 'ignores a dogma'.... ;D


I wonder if Cassini believes that E revs around the moon. Or is it that the cow jumped over it :-\
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 18, 2017, 01:29:07 PM
Quote Cassini-- 'This dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes...'

You have just proved that the alleged 'dogma' is only in your mind.

MO is that Catholics should recognise the authority of the popes b4 Cassini.. :baby:

But I do recognise the authority of popes Roscoe. In 1616 Pope Paul V defined and decreed that the Scriptures reveal geocentrism and that to deny this is formal heresy. Now something that is formal heresy is a contradiction of a dogma. Now that is not in my mind but can be found in Church docuмents. No pope has the authority to ignore a previous papal decree. Vatican I said:

‘The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according to the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecuмenical councils… sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition. For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might forcefully set it out…’ --- Vatican I (1869-1870) (Denz. 1836.)

Recent records from the archives record the Holy Office of 1820 confirm its dogmatic status:

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

Now there is the scam, stating the unrevisable papal decree was heliocentrism 'with a devastating motion,' but that the heliocentrism of 1820 had no devastating motion. This way they had their infallible goose, saving infallibility, and their non-infallible gander. 

To say the condemned heliocentrism of Galileo had 'violent motion' and the 1820 one did not is absolute nonsense. The 1820 heliocentrism was the same as condemned, the sun was fixed in both with the earth orbiting it. The words violent motion wasn't mentioned. This scam allowed the dogma has been ignored, especially by the popes who had the final say, and here it is below, scam included.

In 1822 the Holy Office of Pope Pius VII issued another decree, actually applying penalties for not allowing the publication of books presenting the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science (and presumably therefore as the correct reading of Scripture):
 
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary. ---Cited from the Holy Office records by A. Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475. 

Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 18, 2017, 04:49:14 PM
My apologies for not recognising your heresy.

First-- you have not cited the specific docuмent of Paul V( is it a Bull or Encyclical?)

Be that as it may, any Pope after Paul V has a right to alter or even abrogate any previous policy if it is his decision to do so. In the ensuing years after Paul V, actual scientific discoveries( notably Bradley & Newton) confirm the motion of E. This is why action is taken in 1735 & 1820( yrs may not be exact) to remove from the index any work claiming motion of E.

It is not that future popes ignored Paul V-- it was determined that Paul V's policy needed to be corrected & it is their job to do so-- not Cassini's.

Another example is Benedict XIII when he cancels the prev Bulls of Urban and 2 later Popes that ex-communicated Catholics who used tobacco. It was decided that this is not Church policy any longer.

There is then a legitimate reason why Popes after Paul V didn't follow his decision-- they decided to change it. :baby:

Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 19, 2017, 05:34:49 AM
My apologies for not recognising your heresy.

First-- you have not cited the specific docuмent of Paul V( is it a Bull or Encyclical?)

Be that as it may, any Pope after Paul V has a right to alter or even abrogate any previous policy if it is his decision to do so. In the ensuing years after Paul V, actual scientific discoveries( notably Bradley & Newton) confirm the motion of E. This is why action is taken in 1735 & 1820( yrs may not be exact) to remove from the index any work claiming motion of E.

It is not that future popes ignored Paul V-- it was determined that Paul V's policy needed to be corrected & it is their job to do so-- not Cassini's.

Another example is Benedict XIII when he cancels the prev Bulls of Urban and 2 later Popes that ex-communicated Catholics who used tobacco. It was decided that this is not Church policy any longer.

There is then a legitimate reason why Popes after Paul V didn't follow his decision-- they decided to change it. :baby:

Please Roscoe, do not think heliocentrism is proven, that the 1616 decree was proven wrong. The world was conned into thinking it was proven wrong. Ever hear of Einstein? He was called in to rescue heliocentrism after the M&M test that showed the earth is not orbiting. From then on science said it was 50-50, H or G. Scientific proof does not exist. Only FAITH PROOF EXIST, that is, IF GOD TELLS US SOMETHING. HE DOESN'T TELL FIBS OR GET THINGS WRONG.

The First was a decree, confirmed in 1633 and 1820 as irreversible:
The Vatican minutes record that on Wednesday, February 24th 1616, in virtue of the Pope’s order, the Index reported the outcome in the following manner:
 
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”  --- First publicly recorded by Giorgius Polaccus, Venice, 1644. 

In Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, it cites twenty-one decrees of the Holy Office, the first being in 1602. But search as you may for that 1616 decree, probably the only Holy Office decree ever to define formal heresy, and you will not find it. Where did it go? Well I know where it went, into the 'embarrassment' basket.

Then there was the book ban:
On 28 February 1619, the Congregation of the Index, after acquiring and reading Kepler’s book Epitome of Copernican Astronomy published in 1618, rebuked and banned it. Added to this were condemnations and bans on Copernicus’s De revolutionibus and books by Diego de Zúñiga, and Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, including proscriptions on ‘all books that teach the motion of the earth and the immobility of the sun.’ Following this, in 1620, a monitum was issued by the Holy Congregation of the Index laying out certain ‘corrections’ that were required in Copernicus’s De revolutionibus before it could receive an imprimatur

A papal decree defining formal heresy because it contradicts Scripture and all the Fathers reading of it is a little different than a ban on tobacco you will probably agree.

There was never any abrogation of the 1616 decree. All they did was remove the book bans from 1741 to 1835. Pope Paul Vi removed the whole book-ban Index in 1960 but every heresy in them remains heresy. Well it does for me.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the earth were discovered. For their part, Galileo’s adversaries, neither before nor after him, have discovered anything that could constitute a convincing refutation of Copernican astronomy [Bullshit]. The facts were unavoidably clear and soon showed the relative character of the sentence passed in 1633. This sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-175)  had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Conclusion of Pope John Paul II Papal Commission, 1992.

See the con here roscoe, 'optical proofs.' THERE WERE NO OPTICAL PROOFS. But now see how their 'proofs' were used to IGNORE THE 1616 DECREE without even mentioning it. LOOK AT WHAT THEY SAY "THIS SENTENCE WAS NOT IRREFORMABLE. The SENTENCE PASSED IN 1633 was of course REFORMABLE, that is whether Galileo was guilty or not of disobeying a Holy Office directive. But they make it LOOK LIKE the 1616 decree was reformable. 
I tell you Roscoe, as Catholics we should all be shocked at such a SCAM, not DEFENDING it as you are.

The heresy in them was ignored as I said. 

Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 19, 2017, 11:33:53 AM
Thanks for reply but you are still not getting it.

I have no problem with the Bull of Paul V because at the time there was no actual evidence that Earth is in motion.

However as this evidence Is discovered( Bradley, Newton, Focault), the Popes after Paul V repeal this policy and remove books from the index that treat of E in motion.

If you deny that a Pope has the Authority to repeal a prev Bull then you are wrong..... Sorry

Enjoy the rest of your day... :incense:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 19, 2017, 11:55:58 AM
It is not true that the 1616 decree of Paul V is as you put it 'irreversible'-- sorry :sleep:


And who cares what the heretic judaix Einstone thinks...


In case you have forgotten, this is a Catholic Forum...
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 19, 2017, 12:43:21 PM
Thanks for reply but you are still not getting it.

I have no problem with the Bull of Paul V because at the time there was no actual evidence that Earth is in motion.

However as this evidence Is discovered( Bradley, Newton, Focault), the Popes after Paul V repeal this policy and remove books from the index that treat of E in motion.

If you deny that a Pope has the Authority to repeal a prev Bull then you are wrong..... Sorry

Enjoy the rest of your day... :incense:

It was not a Bull roscoe, it was a decree of the Holy Office, 21 of their decrees can be found in Denzingers SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA.

So, what was the Holy Office of 1616 and 1633? Well in the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office, set up in 1542. The function of this body was specifically to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith, to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines by way of the censorship of books etc., but most of all to combat heresy at the highest level.
   
The Congregation of the Index, otherwise known as the Index, was finally established in 1572. It was the section placed by Supreme Sacred Congregation in charge of heretical and offensive book censorship, a practice that had been ongoing since the Council of Trent. Made up of ten cardinals, its decrees were normally signed only by its chief officers.

Later, in 1588; Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave the Holy Office even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority. Finally, in 1620, Pope Paul V placed all departments of the Church in Rome under the Supreme Sacred Congregation.

Here also is PROOF that Pope Paul V was behind the decree:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus… is contrary to Scripture. 26th day of May 1616.
         Il medesimo di sopra,
                                                ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’

Go on all you like about proofs Roscoe, but you are only kidding yourself, not others. Even the 'heretic Einstein' knew there was no proof.

Here is more proof there was IGNORING of the 1616 decree>
‘On December 1st, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, Garofalo and Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the docuмentary trail is lost, but not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five [banned] books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. (Pierre Noel Mayaud: La Condamnation… Rome, 1997, pp.271-72.) Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ --- Retrying Galileo, p.198.
 

See, Even Pope Gregory XVI had to IGNORE the infallible decree, because you cannot change infallible decrees.
If this were a forum with just the two of us Roscoe, I really wouldn't bother detailing the truth. But for others I do it. Hopefully we can leave it at that for now. There is enough RED INK above even for you to get the finer points.  
But knowing you you will get in one last rejection of faith, dogma, history and science.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 19, 2017, 01:17:03 PM
All i know is that future Popes removed from the Index any works treating of the Earth in motion and their authority is higher than yours..... :jester:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Nadir on May 20, 2017, 03:52:34 AM
If this were a forum with just the two of us Roscoe, I really wouldn't bother detailing the truth. But for others I do it.

Hopefully we can leave it at that for now...

Thank you, Cassini. I'm sure there must be others out there who appreciate your scholarly and patient approach. I have enjoyed reading your posts.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Nadir on May 20, 2017, 03:54:53 AM
All i know is that future Popes removed from the Index any works treating of the Earth in motion and their authority is higher than yours.....
.
There are no such things as a future Popes!  :fryingpan:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 20, 2017, 05:30:10 AM
Should read  Popes after Paul V.... ;)

Fix earthers are nothing but flat earthers in the modern era... just plain stupid.... :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 20, 2017, 05:37:42 AM
In addition to being Sola Scriptura.... :ready-to-eat:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 20, 2017, 05:47:53 AM
Thank you, Cassini. I'm sure there must be others out there who appreciate your scholarly and patient approach. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

And thank you Nadir. Since I was a boy I could not accept the Church I was reared in since the 1940s could get something so wrong that could haunt it for 400 years. When I retired from my life as a farmer I began to read about it. Book after book repeated the same old story, and pope after pope, confirmed churchmen erred and galileo was vindicated. When Gaudium et Spes in Vatican II called the churchmen, popes, a saint, and cardinals of 1616 and 1633, troublemakers who caused 400 years of conflict, I couldn't believe it. Then, one day I heard of Paul Ellwanger (RIP) and corresponded with him on the subject. Paul, at his own expense, sent me a press full of information. Once I knew the earth was not proven to be orbiting the sun, that all such proofs were only one interpretation of two possibilities, I began to research the doctrinal story of the Galileo case.
 
In my case, out of the blue, in response to a letter I wrote to a local newspaper, a man got in touch who had done incredible research into the scientific aspect of astronomy. He was a Catholic with an intellect I still find it hard to cope with, such is its excellence. His research took him to libraries all over Europe and he introduced me to Domenico Cassini, 'God's astronomer' as he called him. There lay the true science of the earth's relationship to the sun, moon and planets.

To my advantage was the fact that the doctrinal records never before released from the Secret Archives became known in MY time. For some reason or another, mainly to try to vindicate the Churchmen of 1616 and 1633 after their humiliation by the Modernists at Vatican II, I was able to read history with a certainty that the 1616 decree was not wrong, could not be wrong as then the gates of Hell would have suceeded in showing false infallibility. Interestingly, through debate on forums, the picture became clearer and clearer as I had to find a Catholic answer to every accusation from the majority that the 1616 decree was proven wrong and that popes from 1741 could not have condoned formal heresy if heliocentrism was formal heresy.

Alas, it seems the truth looks more harmful to Catholicism than that capitulation to Galileoism. Traditional Catholics especially cannot believe their traditional popes could side with fallible human reason and ignore Catholic faith in papal definitions. That is why I was banned from two such Catholic forums. It reminds me of the child abuse scandals in the Church. I have no doubt they were hidden by the hierarchy to protect the good name of the Church, allowing the abuse to continue. In the same way, to protect the good name of all the popes who allowed the SUBJECT MATTER of the heresy to be believed, the likes of myself are to be censored.
Finally I have one more post for Roscoe but that next.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 20, 2017, 05:49:27 AM
In addition to being Sola Scriptura.... :ready-to-eat:

For hundreds of years now, regarding the matter of biblical interpretation, Catholics have subjected the Scriptures to Galileo’s personal exegesis, ignoring the elucidation of all the Fathers and the decrees of popes in 1616 and 1633. In this they are little better than Protestants who since the 16th century have condoned a private interpretation of the Bible. In response to the latter the Catholic Church warned all who did this risked eternal damnation.

 ‘If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is an insult to God. Doubting His word, or believing with doubt and hesitation, is an insult to God, because it doubts His sacred Word. We must therefore believe without doubting, without hesitating…. On what does [the Protestant] believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgement. And what is that? A human opinion – human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say “I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text.” Therefore he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgement, and nothing else, and therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God. [Catholicism] has divine faith, and why? Because it says “I believe in such and such a thing.” Why? “Because the Catholic Church teaches this.” And why do you believe the Catholic Church? “Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church, and we are taught by St Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophesy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.” That is strong language my dear people, but that is the language of St Peter, the head of the Apostles. But my dearly beloved Protestant friends do not be offended at me for saying that.”[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)



[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1) Fr Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815-1890), The One True Church.


Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 20, 2017, 11:33:21 AM
My apologies to the Forum for not understanding the process( whether it be Papal Bull, Decree of the Holy Office or any other means) by which works treating of the motion of E are removed from the Index.

Von Pastor( v25 pg 300)(Imprimi potest-- Don M Etcheverry, Abbot General)

" only since 1835, when a new edition of the Index was published , the name of Copernicus NO LONGER FIGURES ON THAT LIST....

" Far more momentous than the measures taken against Galileo and the works of Copernicus was the general prohibition of all writings in support of the new system of the Universe( sic solar system).

This prohibition remained on the index UNTIL 1758...."

The von Pastor history can be read by anyone so inclined by going to Wikipedia and searching his name.

BTW( dispelling any idiocy claiming that Copernicus produced 'endless data that nobody has ever used in history') -- Pg 300 also says
'.... all the more so as in the correction of the Calendar under Gregory XIII use had been made of the so called Pruthenic( Prussian) Tables, the reckoning of which was based on the Copernican System...

I know there are foolish people on this forum( most here have swallowed the Kool-aid that the anti-pope Frank is somehow True Pope of RC Church--  which is Impossible) but I believe von pastor over cassini..... Sorry :fryingpan:

Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 20, 2017, 05:25:22 PM
Is it the opinion of cassini that the Gregorian Calendar is therefore heretical because it is based on the reckonings of Copernicus??

Should we be using the Julian or perhaps the Jєωιѕн, masonic, chinese or arabic calendar????
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 21, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
i hope cassini & nadir haven't committed ѕυιcιdє :chef:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on May 21, 2017, 11:00:18 AM
Given the thread is about Copernicus, for readers of CIF here is the story of De revolutionibus I have researched and written up:

Of interest to our story is the fact that in 1539 the Catholic Bishop John Dantiscus of Varmia published an expulsion order from there against all dissidents from Roman Catholicism. As a canon under Bishop Dantiscus, Copernicus was given a personal warning ‘not to be led astray by those under suspicion of the main heresy that he had in mind: Lutheranism.’ Two months later, the Lutheran Rheticus arrived at Frauenburg to meet Copernicus to offer him ‘assistance’ in developing his ‘new conception of the heavens.’ As his quest was supposedly ‘astronomical and not theological,’ this Lutheran was not considered a threat in any way, not even to Bishop Dantiscus who heard of their friendship. For the next two years the pair worked together to get De revolutionibus finished. During a break in their work Copernicus introduced Rheticus to his good friend Bishop Tiedemann Giese who had given them his Episcopal residence to holiday in. Danielson tells us Rheticus and the Catholic Bishop Giese got on very well together, both sharing a passion for ‘cultivating knowledge.’ Rheticus’s specialties were in arithmetic and geometry, similar to Copernicus’s expertise. Within a year of their meeting and deliberations, Rheticus actually published his own thesis on heliocentrism called First Account, a book meant to pave the way for Copernicus’s De revolutionibus when they were ready to put it into the public arena. This First Account did what Copernicus’s earlier Commentariolus failed to do; generate curiosity among important people. Rheticus however, was careful to present the new cosmology to look as though it was ‘in imitation of Ptolemy,’ with one edition calling Ptolemy ‘the father of astronomy’ and ‘divine.’ This ploy of course was inserted to ward off the anger and rejection expected of contemporary Aristotelian philosophers, making the new cosmology look as though it was following on from Ptolemy’s work, a ploy Isaac Newton would also use later with his famous ‘on the shoulders of giants’ quip.    
     In 1541, the script of De revolutionibus was completed. Copernicus handed it over to Rheticus who in turn had arranged with a Nuremberg publisher Johannes Petreius to publish and distribute it in book form. Earlier, in the year 1525, the German town of Nuremberg had accepted the Protestant reformation and soon thereafter no Catholic was permitted to become a citizen there. With 21 printing presses in the town, it became the media capital of the Reformation, producing books, pamphlets and broadsheets written by the likes of Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, and even England’s King Henry VIII, ensuring the ideas of the Reformation became publicly known throughout Europe. Nuremberg also had a reputation for publishing all kinds of scientific books, so one can see why De revolutionibus was so appealing to the reformers there, containing as it did ‘a new understanding of the natural sciences and theology.’ Copernicus’s book, we have to admit now, was in fact as much a product of the Protestant Reformation as it was the outcome of astronomical speculations by a Catholic.    
       In April 1543, the first edition of their De revolutionibus arrived from Nuremberg. Copernicus, who had suffered a stroke two years earlier, had his copy placed on his bed. He died some hours later without comment. Rheticus however, opened his copy only to find a preface, not written by Copernicus or himself, entitled ‘To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work,’ otherwise known as the ‘Ad lectorem’ introduction, that included the following:
 
‘And if [this book] constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only that they provide a correct basis for calculation… Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’ PREFACE to De revolutionibus.  
 
Rheticus was furious at this introduction, placing a large X across it on every copy he could get his hands on. He must have known that Copernicus, like himself, really did believe heliocentrism was a reality and would not have included such a disclaimer. Angry too was the Catholic Bishop Tiedemann Giese, personal friend of Copernicus, who described the preface as a deception, ‘letting someone else diminish faith in the treaties.’ It was learned much later, the preface that saved De revolutionibus from a ban in 1543 was written by a friend of both Rheticus and Copernicus named Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), a one-time Catholic priest who ‘became Nuremberg’s first Protestant minister,’ a man who ‘cultivated a considerable international network that included the soon-to-be Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)Osiander must have known that to present heliocentrism as a reality would have cause unnecessary trouble with theologians, both Protestant and Catholic. We read that Osiander once wrote to Copernicus advising him that like others before him, he was only saving appearances and not to present his work as any more than a working hypothesis. He then sent Rheticus a suitable preface, imploring him to include it in the book to avoid trouble and to give De revolutionibus time to spread its influence. Rheticus was well aware that the traditional interpretation of the Bible was geocentric and to depart from this was trouble. Like Galileo after him however, Rheticus believed he could argue his way out of the dilemma. This was after all, the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and some new interpretations of the Scriptures were necessary for them. Rheticus simply argued that the Bible was not a science book, not a book that teaches us how the heavens behave, but a book that teaches us spiritual things, how to get to heaven. We see then that the heliocentric hermeneutics and exegetics accepted by Catholic churchmen later had its origins in Luther’s Protestant doctrine. As it turned out, due to a set of circuмstances, Osiander was given the task to supervise the final stage for the printing of De revolutionibus. He saw no such precautionary preface had been included by Copernicus so inserted one of his own before printing began. Whether he did so as a ploy to ensure its safe passage through the biblical obstacles, only God knows. Historians now agree that Osiander did write that preface, a ‘hypothesis’ he knew the Catholic Church would permit in the interest of science. Kepler, in his Opera Omnia, held Osiander entirely responsible. History however, was not kind to Osiander for his strategy. White for instance, in his book A History, poured ridicule on it:
 
‘He wrote a grovelling preface, trying to excuse Copernicus for his novel ideas, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth’s movement not as a fact but as a hypothesis… Thus was the greatest and most ennobling perhaps, of scientific truths – a truth no less ennobling to religion than to science - forced, in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.’[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn2)
 
Karl von Gebler in his book Galileo Galilei called Osiander’s foreword ‘an unprincipled introduction - Osiander’s sacrilegious act.’[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn3)But Osiander knew what he was doing. He knew that had he not written such a foreword then the Copernican Revolution may well never have gotten off the ground.
     In De revolutionibus, immediately after Osiander’s crucial disclaimer, came Copernicus’s own ‘Preface and dedication to Pope Paul III.’ This dedication to the Pope was Copernicus’s way to try to prevent his book being condemned on theological grounds. It includes the following:
 
‘I can reckon easily enough, Holy Father, that as soon as certain people learn that in these books of mine, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the world I attribute certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will immediately shout to have me and my opinion hooted off the stage.’ --- De revolutionibus.
 
More interesting is that in his preface Copernicus tells of the encouragement he got from a list of his ‘friends’ like so:
 
‘[friends who] changed my course in spite of my long-continued hesitation and even resistance. First was Nicholas Schonberg, Cardinal of Capua; next to him was my devoted friend Tiedman Giese, Bishop of Culm. Not a few other learned and distinguished men demanded the same thing of me. Accordingly I was led by such persuasion and by that hope finally to permit my friends to undertake the publication of this work.’--- De revolutionibus.
 
Notice none of his Lutheran friends are named, only the two Copernican-minded Catholic bishops. Nor does he name the Protestant publishers who, at the time, were also about the business of distributing other anti-Catholic ideas throughout Europe. Moreover, given the help Rheticus gave Copernicus in reviving his shelved manuscript; one would have expected to find his efforts being acknowledged. But Rheticus, whose own books had all been placed on the Roman Index within five years, is not mentioned either. Copernicus it seems wanted to keep his Lutheran helpers a secret. With Osiander’s preface, Copernicus’s dedication to Pope Paul III, and no mention of the Protestant input to the book, it is no wonder the tome was accepted in Rome, its contents read solely as a mathematical help in calculating astronomical movements.
    


[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)D. Danielson: The First Copernican, p.106.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref2)Andrew White: A History, p.123.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref3)Karl von Gebler: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, 1878, p.15.
[4] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref4)A.D. White: A History, p.158. A similar retreat was offered by Pope John Paul II in 1992.
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Cassandar on May 24, 2017, 10:47:00 PM
The Galilean case is a fertile source of religious and scientific posturing. So far this thread has had a few scientific assertions made...w/o the associated evidence that the scientific method demands.   Sadly, one cannot argue from ignorance...either of faith or science.
 
What follows will use an epistemology based on Bacon’s Scientific Method and Scholastic Realism.  Without agreement on this ground rule, communication is impossible.
 
          Copernicus.... was very careful as well he should have been as we now know that both E & S are in motion and there is no physical center of U. 
1-    My room and building are at rest relative to me at my desk and to the ground outside. So the earth is not observed to be in motion from my viewpoint. So how is this motion of E uniquely detected..... without violating kinematic relativity?
2-    An observer is always at rest in his own (proper) reference frame... Observations made at rest on earth have no need for motion correction.
3-    Explain how to define and then measure the physical center of the U....as the SM requires.
 
          We should never the less give him credit for the truth in article one of his theory-- that E rev around S.
Copernicus proposed a geometrical heliocentric model; Tycho Brahe countered with a hierarchical geocentric model that produces the same observed cosmic motions as the former.  Please describe what tests support the Copernican and refute the Tychonian theory?
 
          I have no problem with the Bull of Paul V because at the time there was no actual evidence that Earth is in motion.....However as this evidence Is discovered( Bradley, Newton, Focault), the Popes after Paul V repeal this policy and remove books from the index that treat of E in motion. 
Bradley claimed stellar aberration was caused by the earth orbiting the Sun.  Airy’s water-filled telescope refuted this hypothesis.
Water slows light speed in the telescope which should change the aberration angle found in air....but it doesn't.  The starlight is bent(aberrated) before it reaches the telescope since the Earth is at rest.  The test is termed “Airy’s failure” because it proved Bradley’s model false.
 
Sir Isaac?   His center of mass method has the solar system barycenter wandering annually inside and outside the Sun ..as far as two radii from the center.  The Newtonian barycenter of the solar system is virtually never at its geometrical center.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGjgZS1ZvU5WJPxWEurvXl8JLJY7TcABUyYPhz0LslE5eqJExkJg)

Foucault’s pendulum :  Museum observers see the pendulum rotate, so it’s the pendulum that they see rotating, not the Earth!
Replace the pendulum bob with an observer and the museum/earth will be seen to rotate...in the opposite direction at the same angular speed.
This merely confirms the kinematic law of relative rotation – not absolute rotation of the earth.  Just mainstream misdirection.   
 
 
           MO is that Catholics should recognise the authority of the popes b4 Cassini.. 
          ......most here have swallowed the Kool-aid that the anti-pope Frank is somehow True Pope of RC Church--  which is Impossible) 
Not a breach of science but of logical consistency.   Remember the rules...Scholasticism.... 
 

AMDG,
 
Caz
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on May 26, 2017, 11:52:35 PM
Thanks for reply and I will respond as time permits. Pls read topic again as the moral of the story( this topic) seems to be evading your analysis.... :cheers:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Cassandar on June 02, 2017, 10:43:40 AM
Thanks for reply and I will respond as time permits. Pls read topic again as the moral of the story( this topic) seems to be evading your analysis.... :cheers:
The topic as re-read is still the same - a request for info about De Rev, primarily a scientific model of the universe, but with indirect implications re matters of faith.
...was not aware that the science of De Rev contained a morality tale, nor that any real analysis has yet been done, in the absence of your reply. 
Scientific premises were asserted and challenges then made for their support under the ground rules - to wit -

1  How is the Earth's motion uniquely detected..... without violating kinematic relativity?
2   Explain how to define and then measure the physical center of the Universe....as the Sci M requires. 
3  Please describe what tests support the Copernican HC and refute the Tychonian GC theory? 

Has not a week's time permitted a response, as promised? 

AMDG,

Caz
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 02, 2017, 01:43:57 PM
Yes, I have a copy of it in my files and I have read it very carefully. It has a most interesting Preface and Introduction followed by over four hundred pages of drawings, geometry, calculations, longitudes, latitudes and endless data that I would say nobody has ever used in history.

Anything about it or Copernicus you want to know Roscoe?
OK-- I guess it has to be spelled out for you.
As you can see, Cassini is claiming that De Rev contains 'endless data that i would say has nobody has ever used in history'....
Au contraire as it has been shown that (acc to von Pastor) the Prutenic tables( which are based upon the reckonings of Copernicus) have been used in the computation of the Gregorian Calendar.

And BTW, there is another source that can be used as well.
Pg 12 of the Easton Press edition of De Rev says in the intro by AM Duncan that

' In fact, the Gregorian Calendar..... is based on Copernicus' figures....'

IOW-- the moral of the story is that cassini is WRONG...

Sayonara :fryingpan:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 02, 2017, 01:54:07 PM
Have you actually read De Rev or at least book 1 where the general theory is described?? :confused:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Cassandar on June 03, 2017, 08:42:42 PM
OK-- I guess it has to be spelled out for you.
As you can see, Cassini is claiming that De Rev contains 'endless data that i would say has nobody has ever used in history'....
Au contraire as it has been shown that (acc to von Pastor) the Prutenic tables( which are based upon the reckonings of Copernicus) have been used in the computation of the Gregorian Calendar.

And BTW, there is another source that can be used as well.
Pg 12 of the Easton Press edition of De Rev says in the intro by AM Duncan that

' In fact, the Gregorian Calendar..... is based on Copernicus' figures....'

IOW-- the moral of the story is that cassini is WRONG...

Sayonara :fryingpan:
Cassini demolished all attempts to revise revealed geocentric tradition with his scholarly and thorough apologetics.......   and this is the nit-picking riposte?? 
 
Owen Gingerich agrees with Cassini; he wrote about De Rev in his review of it, “The Book Nobody Read”.
 
AMDG,
Caz
 
Btw: Congrats on approaching 6660 posts.....   the mark of the beast??  .......d(8^)
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 03, 2017, 08:51:11 PM
I hope the Forum takes notice that the prev poster has NOT ACTUALLY READ Copernicus and has none the less proceeded to inform us of his opinion.   re: same :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on June 04, 2017, 08:31:57 AM
I hope the Forum takes notice that the prev poster has NOT ACTUALLY READ Copernicus and has none the less proceeded to inform us of his opinion.   re: same :sleep:

OK Roscoe, let us first point out what you are at.

Because you reject scriptural geocentrism you are trying to find some trustworthiness in Copernicus's De revolutionibus.
What Copernicus did was to attempt to show that heliocentrism has mathematical plausibility. Nobody disputed this and the Church had no problem with his attempts to give correct figures of celestial movements.  

You try to present heliocentrism as a truth by attributing it to the Church's adjustment of the calendar. OK, then, let us see the history of this adjustment used to bring the Catholic Church's calendar from slipping throughout the year:

'It was Lilius who invented the new form of the Gregorian year but after his death Christopher Clavius perfected it, gave its explanation, and its defense.' Domenico Cassini's THE ORIGIN AND THE PROGRESS OF ASTRONOMY AND ITS USE IN GEOGRAPHY AND FOR NAVIGATION.  1693

‘Among Catholics, Christoph Clavius was the leading astronomer in the sixteenth century. A Jesuit himself, he incorporated astronomy into the Jesuit curriculum and was the principal scholar behind the creation of the Gregorian calendar. Like the Wittenberg astronomers, Clavius adopted Copernican mathematical models when he felt them superior, but he believed that Ptolemy’s cosmology, both his ordering of the planets and his use of the equant, was correct.’ --- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

WIKIPEDIA TODAY SAYS:
Christopher Clavius (25 March 1538 – 3 February 1612) was a German (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) Jesuit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit) mathematician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematician) and astronomer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomer) who modified the proposal of the modern Gregorian calendar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar) after the death of its primary author, Aloysius Lilius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Lilius). Clavius would later write defences and an explanation of the reformed calendar, including an emphatic acknowledgement of Lilio's work. In his last years he was probably the most respected astronomer in Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) and his textbooks were used for astronomical education for over fifty years in and even out of Europe.

Note WIKI confirms Cassini's 1693 history.

Now WIKI's Gregorian Calendar history with references.:

Ancient tables provided the sun's mean longitude.Christopher Clavius (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Clavius), the architect of the Gregorian calendar, noted that the tables agreed neither on the time when the sun passed through the vernal equinox nor on the length of the mean tropical year. Tycho Brahe also noticed discrepancies. The Gregorian leap year rule (97 leap years in 400 years) was put forward by Petrus Pitatus of Verona in 1560. He noted that it is consistent with the tropical year of the Alfonsine tables and with the mean tropical year of Copernicus (De revolutionibus) and Reinhold (Prutenic tables). The three mean tropical years in Babylonian sexagesimals as the excess over 365 days (the way they would have been extracted from the tables of mean longitude) were 14,33,9,57 (Alphonsine), 14,33,11,12 (Copernicus) and 14,33,9,24 (Reinhold). All values are the same to two places (14:33) and this is also the mean length of the Gregorian year. Thus Pitatus' solution would have commended itself to the astronomers.

We see then Copernicus's input was tiny, not the CAUSE as you would pretend roscoe.

Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on June 04, 2017, 08:42:41 AM

FINALLY, exposing the fraud:

‘New advances came from studying the sun and planets and stars. In this field the mighty discoverer was Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish scholar who used all his powers of measuring and observing as well as that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe.’ --- Geoffrey Blainey: A Very Short History of the World, Penguin Books, 2004, p.279.

More important is what did Copernicus find in his stargazing or in the data of other astronomers and mathematicians that led him to propose such a radical change of astronomical comprehension was necessary, that is, to move from belief in a geocentric order to a heliocentric one? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. Yet most books on astronomy and popular history, such as in the quote above, assert Copernicus ‘made new advances from studying the sun and planets and stars.’ They insist Copernicus differed from Ptolemy in that unlike them, he used ‘that uncommon activity known as ‘thinking’ to prove that the sun was at the center of the universe.’ Well with all his ‘thinking’ Copernicus never found anything in the sky to necessitate or prove it should be heliocentric rather than the geocentric order of the senses. So then, from where else apart from his tutor Domenico Maria de Novara did Copernicus get the ‘thinking’ for his ‘new advance’ in science if it was not by way of something found through scientific astronomical observation and study? Perhaps this passage from his book can give us a clue. 
 
‘In the centre of all rests the sun. For who would place this lamp of a very beautiful temple in another or better place than this whereupon it can illuminate everything at the same time. As a matter of fact, not unhappily do some call it the lantern, others the mind and still others, the pilot of the world. Trismegistus calls it a “visible god,” Sophocles’s Electra, “that which gazes upon all things.” And so the sun, as if resting on a kingly throne, governs the family of stars which wheel around.’ --- Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus, 1543.
 
Could anything be clearer, he got further inspiration for heliocentrism from the pagan cosmology of Hermēs Trismegistus. In fact all Copernicus’s ideas were long written up in the Hermetic books. One treatise explicitly states that ‘the sun is situated at the centre of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown’ and ‘around the sun are the six spheres that depend from it: the sphere of the fixed stars, the six of the planets, and the one that surrounds the earth.’ It is well known that Copernicus copied the ancient hermetic texts because it and it alone, reflected a ‘harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs.’ The cannon considered Ptolemy’s geocentric system, with its artificial equant, ‘lacked elegance,’ and was therefore too clumsy to be God’s design. He compared Ptolemy’s model to the hands, feet, head and other limbs of a man put together to make a monster rather than a thing of beauty. Yet what he was proposing in his heliocentric model, as can be seen in the dozens of drawings and hundreds of geometric proposals depicted through page after page in the six books of On the Revolutions, was a solar system of circular orbits consisting of just as many, if not more, heads, ears, arms, hands, legs, knees, feet, toes and other appendages as he called them. Copernicus then, was first and foremost an out and out Hermeticist, smitten by the heliocentric magic of Hermēs. [1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)



[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)Lest anyone think Copernicus advanced knowledge of the ‘magnitude of the orbs,’ he didn’t. Measuring the distance of the sun from the earth and other planets is near impossible without proper instrumentation that Copernicus did not have. Estimates based on earth-diameters were all the early astronomers could manage. Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 610 earth-diameters away. Copernicus ‘corrected’ this estimate to 571, which was even further from the actual distance than Ptolemy. The first astronomer to achieve the realistic magnitudes for the sun and planets was Domenico Cassini. He estimated the distance of the sun from the earth - now said to be approximately 11,650 earth-diameters – at 10,305 earth-diameters.  

But watch out now for the wrath of the flat-earthers who say the distance from earth to sun is around 2 or 3 earth-diameters
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 04, 2017, 10:27:37 AM
 :jester:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Cassandar on June 04, 2017, 01:39:09 PM
Have you actually read De Rev or at least book 1 where the general theory is described?? :confused:
 
Veni, Sancte Spiritus!
 
Hold on, Torquemada.  Who voted you Grand Inquisitor?    Before dealing with your diversions and deflections....there’s unfinished business on the table.
 
You have been called to account for your scientific HC assertions that were challenged with scientific counter-evidence and supported with three questions for your response.
 
 1  How is the Earth's motion uniquely detected..... without violating kinematic relativity?
 Explain how to define and then measure the physical center of the Universe....as the Sci Method requires. 
 3  Please describe what tests/observations support the Copernican HC and refute the Tychonian GC theory? 

 
In case it’s not abundantly clear.....It’s now your turn to defend your HC position...within the rules. ....not to ask more questions!
 ...........
 
Have you noticed, Roz,  how many CI members are rushing to your rescue?   It’s like crickets, man. 
 
They can’t answer the GC Challenge themselves, so they look to you, the hero member, to squelch the trad upstart.  After all,  if all the textbooks ...all the pop scientists.... all the atheist academics....  all the Internet forums ..all promote that HC is as certain as Climate Change.... it’s got to be true, right?
 
So come on, Roz, win one for the revisionist team!   
 
Some fraternal advice:   Try more ME  and less MO in your postings.
 
Awaiting your scientific defense of HC.....
 

Caz
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 04, 2017, 02:16:09 PM
edit
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 04, 2017, 02:36:27 PM

Veni, Sancte Spiritus!
 
Hold on, Torquemada.  Who voted you Grand Inquisitor?    Before dealing with your diversions and deflections....there’s unfinished business on the table.
 
You have been called to account for your scientific HC assertions that were challenged with scientific counter-evidence and supported with three questions for your response.
  
 1  How is the Earth's motion uniquely detected..... without violating kinematic relativity?
 2  Explain how to define and then measure the physical center of the Universe....as the Sci Method requires.
 3  Please describe what tests/observations support the Copernican HC and refute the Tychonian GC theory?

 
In case it’s not abundantly clear.....It’s now your turn to defend your HC position...within the rules. ....not to ask more questions!
...........
 
Have you noticed, Roz,  how many CI members are rushing to your rescue?   It’s like crickets, man.  
 
They can’t answer the GC Challenge themselves, so they look to you, the hero member, to squelch the trad upstart.  After all,  if all the textbooks ...all the pop scientists.... all the atheist academics....  all the Internet forums ..all promote that HC is as certain as Climate Change.... it’s got to be true, right?
 
So come on, Roz, win one for the revisionist team!  
 
Some fraternal advice:   Try more ME  and less MO in your postings.
 
Awaiting your scientific defense of HC.....
 

Caz
Sorry but i have already stated that I believe S to be in motion. Unless I am mistaken, helio-centrists) like Galileo demand that S is fixed. Nice try. Your alleged dogma that E is fixed is just as wrong as Galileo's.....
Copernicus spoke hypothetically and would not have been surprised if article 2( S being fixed) of his THEORY was shown incorrect.
Thank God for Fr Torquemada. I am not at all surprised to see you trashing this great man of the Church. :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 04, 2017, 03:02:49 PM
Survivals And New Arrivals-- H Belloc (pg32)

" But the Bible worshipers wee furious. On the authority of the Bible only( Sola Scriptura), they denounced the movement of E.
Luther's own university expelled it's prof of mathematics for teaching the 'evil' thing. Luther, Melanchthon and their followers roared against the 'blasphemy' of a moving E in scores of broadsides....."

Looks like you have some interesting companions with your fixed E nonsense. :heretic:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 04, 2017, 03:36:23 PM
Sorry but i have already stated that I believe S to be in motion. Unless I am mistaken, helio-centrists) like Galileo demand that S is fixed. Nice try. Your alleged dogma that E is fixed is just as wrong as Galileo's.....
Copernicus spoke hypothetically and would not have been surprised if article 2( S being fixed) of his THEORY was shown incorrect.
Thank God for Fr Torquemada. I am not at all surprised to see you trashing this great man of the Church. :sleep:
Sorry if I missed your 3 questions but they have already been answered. See von Pastor-- who I trust more than you. :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on June 05, 2017, 05:20:34 AM
Survivals And New Arrivals-- H Belloc (pg32)

" But the Bible worshipers wee furious. On the authority of the Bible only( Sola Scriptura), they denounced the movement of E.
Luther's own university expelled it's prof of mathematics for teaching the 'evil' thing. Luther, Melanchthon and their followers roared against the 'blasphemy' of a moving E in scores of broadsides....."

Looks like you have some interesting companions with your fixed E nonsense. :heretic:

Yes, the Protestants did accept biblical geocentrism, but it seems you are the one now with the Protestants:
White tells us what happened:
 
‘The retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult. A little skillful warping of Scripture, a little skillful use of that time-honoured phrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius [in fact that was the Protestant Rheticus’s expression], that the Bible is given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but how men go to heaven, and a free use of the explosive rhetoric against the pursuing army of scientists, sufficed.’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)


[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)A.D. White: A History, p.158. 

As Catholics Cassandar and I do have some very important geocerntrists STILL on our side - ALL THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH, the Council of Trent and the never abrogated 1616 decree.

The Council of Trent was convoked in 1545 in response to the Protestant reform and rebellion against various Catholic dogmas, doctrines and tenets. Its twenty five sessions lasted eighteen years and were presided over by three popes, Pope Paul III (1534-1549), Pope Julius III (1550-1555) and finally Pope Pius IV (1559-1565). Of crucial importance is session IV of April 8, 1546.
 
The Vulgate Editions of the Bible is Accepted and the Method Prescribed for the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, etc. 
     ‘The sacred and holy, ecuмenical, and general Synod of Trent, - lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,  - keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament - seeing that one God is the author of both - as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately condemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema…. Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons like your man on CIF roscoe, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ -- (Denz – 783/786)

Oh, and why don't you stop answering yourself or getting others to answer for you (like von pastor whatever he said, I never heard of him). There are a lot of people reading this thread and posting clowns is hardly impressing them, indeed quite the opposite. 
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 05, 2017, 10:06:17 AM
I am not at all surprised that you have never heard of von Pastor. I would also expect that you have never heard of Mann, Baronio, Parsons or St Dionysis :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Cassandar on June 05, 2017, 11:07:19 PM

Quote
Sorry but i have already stated that I believe S to be in motion. Unless I am mistaken, helio-centrists) like Galileo demand that S is fixed. Nice try. Your alleged dogma that E is fixed is just as wrong as Galileo's..... 

So...chaos...everything in motion?     A rotating universe with no center?     Logic 101 grade......  F   

Quote
Copernicus spoke hypothetically and would not have been surprised if article 2( S being fixed) of his THEORY was shown incorrect.
 
The spooky Roscoe can now read the minds of the dead....

Quote
Thank God for Fr Torquemada. I am not at all surprised to see you trashing this great man of the Church. 

Your prosecutorial responses were compared to the Grand Inquisitor ...if that’s trashing Fr. T.,  well, you said it, not I.. 

Quote
But the Bible worshipers wee furious. On the authority of the Bible only( Sola Scriptura), they denounced the movement of E.
Luther's own university expelled it's prof of mathematics for teaching the 'evil' thing. Luther, Melanchthon and their followers roared against the 'blasphemy' of a moving E in scores of broadsides.....

So the premise is that Prots are completely wrong in all their beliefs ...including being Christians?  
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Quote
Looks like you have some interesting companions with your fixed E nonsense. 

Yeah......St Bellarmino, Defender of the Faith, Popes Urban VIII,  Alexander VII, Leo XIII...... btw:are any of these your anti-popes? 

more comin'.

Caz 
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: Cassandar on June 07, 2017, 04:40:20 PM
Sorry if I missed your 3 questions but they have already been answered. See von Pastor-- who I trust more than you. :sleep:


Enough with the artful dodger, that Roscoe rascal...  The kerfuffle ends as it usually does - with a whimper of excuses and a fade back into oblivion. And – in this case – with smiley cartoons.   
The HC defense has been all fluff ...and no real stuff.  We can now all go back to our prior comfortable worldview ....
 
But hold on.... Polls show 20% of Americans believe in GC, 25% of Catholics and 30% of Protestants.... Most CI members are heliocentrists, in the closet or openly..   Like Roscoe, they have been indoctrinated in the educational system, both public and parochial,  to believe without question the modern Zeitgeist via the liberal media – in science, religion, politics, morality....   Goebbels would have marveled at the efficiency of the modernist brainwashing machine. 
 
The CI reader who doubts geocentrism or espouses HC – Kyrie, Eleison – is at a crossroads now, after seeing a scientific defense of geocentrism.  The deposit of faith – not the modernist Churchmen - clearly defines an immobile Earth. Yet the preachers of darkness in science – the mainstream mavens of academia- have promulgated the lie throughout the centuries that Galileo/Copernicus have overthrown the faith and established a new god of truth – modern science.  Even the young can parrot this modernist mantra..with no further knowledge of the Galileo affair.
 
Copernicus was the first physical challenge to the revealed worldview; three centuries later Darwin took up the deceit in biology, the science of life, by defying the doctrine of Special Creation.  Evilution repeats the errors of HC in the bio world..... Let them all be anathema!
 
Do you really think the mainstream manipulators of science are any different than the fake news media?
 
But how can today’s Catholic be fed the truth by instructors and churchmen who themselves have lost the faith of our Church Fathers? 
Perhaps by self-study and resort to those who have kept the traditional faith.The God-given path to the truth is well-known: Revelation and reason. The tools of truth-seeking are those of Francis Bacon and Aristotle/Aquinas....the scientific method and realism/scholasticism.
 
A primary GC apologetics can be found in the research and analysis of Cassini and that of Bob Sungenis...... 
Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church Was Right (https://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000)
A scientific defense of GC is also in GWW...but complete coverage of scientific issues is scarce...so...
 
If what was once said...or what you once read.... what you thought...or what you were taught ..
about science raised any doubts about GC veracity , contact me in this thread or by PM....
 
With the right tools and rules the truth is accessible...and the Truth will set you free.
 
Isn’t it strange that princes and kings
And clowns that caper in circus rings,
And common folk like you and me
Are builders for eternity?
 
To each is given a bag of tools
And a set of rules.....
And each must make, ere life has flown,
A building block or a stumbling stone. 
 
AMDG,
 
Caz
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 07, 2017, 07:19:25 PM
 :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: cassini on June 08, 2017, 04:13:18 AM
:sleep:

“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.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftn1)


[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/T.E.%20The%20Book.doc#_ftnref1)As quoted by physicist Joseph Ford in Chaotic Dynamics and Fractals (1985).
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 08, 2017, 09:46:28 AM
 :sleep:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 08, 2017, 10:46:22 AM
Motion of Sun....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWxcgJUCDxg

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Copernicus
Post by: roscoe on June 09, 2017, 11:20:56 AM

The tools of truth-seeking are those of Francis Bacon and Aristotle/Aquinas....the scientific method and realism/scholasticism.
 
 (https://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000)
AMDG,
 
Caz
Why would a Catholic revere the Freemason Bacon(KJV) along with The synthesis of Aristotle/ Aquinas? :confused:

BTW-- the prev poster needs to be reminded(again) that MO is that S is in motion. By definition, i cannot therefore be a 'heliocentrist...'