Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 13481 times)

cassini · « **Reply #40 on:** April 19, 2018, 03:24:42 PM »

Quote from: TKonkel on April 11, 2018, 12:25:13 PM

So on this reading we go back approximately 10,000 years to creation week and God decided, not just to make the earth appear old, but to make it appear a specific age. He intentionally fashioned the earth to look 4.5 billion years old.
When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past. The nearest star other than the sun is 4 light years away. So it takes four years for that light to reach our eye and what we are seeing is the star as it was four years ago. The same goes for stars millions of light years away. Since, it seems, God wanted Adam to enjoy the starry night sky, He not only created the stars, but He also created the intervening protons at the same time. Further, every event witnessed at a distance (anything more than 10,000 light years away)by the Hubbell space telescope and other astronomical instruments are absolutely fictitious. This includes the disintegration of stars, the gravitational effects of black holes, etc. None of these things actually happened. They were all constructed, artificially in order to give the cosmos an appearance of old age. On this reading every astronomical event greater than 10,000 yrs old is a fiction. The Creator intentionally fashioned a bogus astronomical history extending as far back into space as our instruments can probe.
This sort of view is anything but Catholic and it finds its roots in some of the worst strains of Protestant thought. This sort of thinking has profound consequences for science as well as theology.

When using God to assist one in ‘proving’ the universe must be old, I think it prudent as a Catholic to first see what God told us about the creation of the stars.

Day 3: And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. And to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

O.K., So two days later God created Adam with the stars visible to him.

Today, as Professor Tkonkel says above, ‘When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past.’ Not according to Genesis, written by Moses under the inspiration of the same God who supposedly fooled the lot of us with His Genesis for the ‘uneducated’ of Moses time. In Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, he says:

‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican , Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”………

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture…..’

No error in one single word of Scripture, now I wonder what Pope Benedict XV meant by that? Surely he knew that Genesis is only metaphor and whereas all Christians up to modern times actually believed every word of the six days of creation, ‘we now know’ (the favourite con of modern Pythagoreans) that in fact God really meant even the opposite of what he inspired Moses to write (Genesis reveals a geocentric universe but now, according to churchmen Moses meant heliocentric and millions of years in the making, not six days). Gee, I wonder what else in the Bible is metaphor, ‘The virgin birth’ as Cardinal Bellarmine said? According to Moses Adam was created with the sun, moon and stars of the universe already visible to him. For Adam then, and me and a few others, the whole universe exists in our time. Every minute of the day on earth, no matter how far away a star is, it moves in time with us. God created it that way and Einstein can go to hell.

But then came the discovery of stellar parallax. Having convinced the world, both in Church and State, that it was proof for a rotating Earth, the geometry of this ‘proof’ could give us the distance of all those stars that show a similar rotation against the background of stars further away. So, by use of a fraudulent measuring triangle (not proven, could be moonshine) science had the tool to measure all stars.

Here is confirmation from a Stardate website

Astronomers have developed several techniques to indirectly measure the vast distances between Earth and the stars and galaxies. In many cases, these methods are mathematically complex and involve extensive computer modeling.

Parallax is the visual effect produced when, as an observer moves, nearby objects appear to shift position relative to more-distant objects. This common event is easily reproduced; hold your finger out at arm’s length, and look at your fingertip first with one eye closed, then the other. The "motion" of your fingertip as seen against background objects is caused by the change in your viewing position -- about three inches from one eye to the other. As Earth orbits the Sun, astronomers invoke this same principle to determine the distance to nearby stars. Just like your fingertip, stars that are closer to us shift positions relative to more-distant stars, which appear fixed. By carefully measuring the angle through which the stars appear to move over the course of the year, and knowing how far Earth has moved, astronomers are able to use basic high-school geometry to calculate the star’s distance. Parallax serves as the first "inch" on the yardstick with which astronomers measure distances to objects that are even farther. For example, they use a class of variable known as Cepheids [a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.], which pulsate in and out like beating hearts. There is a direct relationship between the length of a Cepheid's pulsation and its true brightness. Measuring a Cepheid's apparent brightness -- how bright it looks from Earth -- allows astronomers to calculate its true brightness, which in turn reveals its distance. For this technique to work correctly, though, astronomers must first use the parallax method to get the distances to some of the closer Cepheids. This allows them to calibrate a Cepheid's true brightness, which then can be used to calculate its distance. Cepheids are especially bright stars, so they are visible in galaxies that are tens of millions of light-years away. For more-distant galaxies, astronomers rely on the exploding stars known as supernovae. Like Cepheids, the rate at which a certain class of supernovae brighten and fade reveals their true brightness, which then can be used to calculate their distance. But this technique also requires good calibration using parallax and Cepheids. Without knowing the precise distances to a few supernovae, there is no way to determine their absolute brightness, so the technique would not work.'

We see then that measuring stars billions of supposed light-years away, both Chepeids and protons all depend as a fact of the assumption that the Earth orbits the sun, defined as heresy by the Church.
But then the Airy and M&M tests put a stop to their certainties, and Einstein, with his Theories of Gravity had to rescue their heretical heliocentrism as a possibility only, not a fact of science. Now

It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. If I have time I will try to explain the multi-time universe of Einstein and the Black holes of new-science and the invisible matter they need to make it all viable.

Given there is proof for nothing my preference is to follow Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIIII and Pope Benedict, stick with Genesis, reason upon its revelations, and I know I cannot go wrong because theology is the Queen of all the sciences.

But try and get a job today with such beliefs that no science can falsify and you will STARVE. And that is why our Professors and teachers in any college today, be they SSPX or atheist, must try to make heresy Catholic.

TKonkel · « **Reply #41 on:** April 19, 2018, 05:13:52 PM »

Quote from: cassini on April 19, 2018, 03:24:42 PM

When using God to assist one in ‘proving’ the universe must be old, I think it prudent as a Catholic to first see what God told us about the creation of the stars.

Day 3: And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.
Day 4: And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. And to rule the day and the night and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

O.K., So two days later God created Adam with the stars visible to him.

Today, as Professor Tkonkel says above, ‘When we look at stars millions of light years away we are looking into the past.’ Not according to Genesis, written by Moses under the inspiration of the same God who supposedly fooled the lot of us with His Genesis for the ‘uneducated’ of Moses time. In Pope Benedict XV’s Spiritus Paraclitus, he says:

‘Then, after giving the definitions of the Councils of Florence and Trent, confirmed by the Council of the Vatican , Pope Leo XIII continues: “Consequently it is not to the point to suggest that the Holy Spirit used men as His instruments for writing and that therefore, while no error is referable to the primary Author, it may well be due to the inspired authors themselves. For by supernatural power the Holy Spirit so stirred them and moved them to write, so assisted them as they wrote, that their minds could rightly conceive only those and all those things which He himself bade them conceive; only such things could they faithfully commit to writing and aptly express with unerring truth; else God would not be the Author of the entirety of Sacred Scripture.”………

Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase -- and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture -- yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration -- namely, absolute truth and immunity from error -- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest -- things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented -- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science. Some even maintain that these views do not conflict with what our predecessor laid down since -- so they claim -- he said that the sacred writers spoke in accordance with the external -- and thus deceptive -- appearance of things in nature. But the Pontiff's own words show that this is a rash and false deduction. For sound philosophy teaches that the senses can never be deceived as regards their own proper and immediate object. Therefore, from the merely external appearance of things -- of which, of course, we have always to take account as Leo XIII, following in the footsteps of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, most wisely remarks -- we can never conclude that there is any error in Sacred Scripture…..’

No error in one single word of Scripture, now I wonder what Pope Benedict XV meant by that? Surely he knew that Genesis is only metaphor and whereas all Christians up to modern times actually believed every word of the six days of creation, ‘we now know’ (the favourite con of modern Pythagoreans) that in fact God really meant even the opposite of what he inspired Moses to write (Genesis reveals a geocentric universe but now, according to churchmen Moses meant heliocentric and millions of years in the making, not six days). Gee, I wonder what else in the Bible is metaphor, ‘The virgin birth’ as Cardinal Bellarmine said? According to Moses Adam was created with the sun, moon and stars of the universe already visible to him. For Adam then, and me and a few others, the whole universe exists in our time. Every minute of the day on earth, no matter how far away a star is, it moves in time with us. God created it that way and Einstein can go to hell.

But then came the discovery of stellar parallax. Having convinced the world, both in Church and State, that it was proof for a rotating Earth, the geometry of this ‘proof’ could give us the distance of all those stars that show a similar rotation against the background of stars further away. So, by use of a fraudulent measuring triangle (not proven, could be moonshine) science had the tool to measure all stars.

Here is confirmation from a Stardate website

Astronomers have developed several techniques to indirectly measure the vast distances between Earth and the stars and galaxies. In many cases, these methods are mathematically complex and involve extensive computer modeling.

Parallax is the visual effect produced when, as an observer moves, nearby objects appear to shift position relative to more-distant objects. This common event is easily reproduced; hold your finger out at arm’s length, and look at your fingertip first with one eye closed, then the other. The "motion" of your fingertip as seen against background objects is caused by the change in your viewing position -- about three inches from one eye to the other. As Earth orbits the Sun, astronomers invoke this same principle to determine the distance to nearby stars. Just like your fingertip, stars that are closer to us shift positions relative to more-distant stars, which appear fixed. By carefully measuring the angle through which the stars appear to move over the course of the year, and knowing how far Earth has moved, astronomers are able to use basic high-school geometry to calculate the star’s distance. Parallax serves as the first "inch" on the yardstick with which astronomers measure distances to objects that are even farther. For example, they use a class of variable known as Cepheids [a variable star having a regular cycle of brightness with a frequency related to its luminosity, so allowing estimation of its distance from the earth.], which pulsate in and out like beating hearts. There is a direct relationship between the length of a Cepheid's pulsation and its true brightness. Measuring a Cepheid's apparent brightness -- how bright it looks from Earth -- allows astronomers to calculate its true brightness, which in turn reveals its distance. For this technique to work correctly, though, astronomers must first use the parallax method to get the distances to some of the closer Cepheids. This allows them to calibrate a Cepheid's true brightness, which then can be used to calculate its distance. Cepheids are especially bright stars, so they are visible in galaxies that are tens of millions of light-years away. For more-distant galaxies, astronomers rely on the exploding stars known as supernovae. Like Cepheids, the rate at which a certain class of supernovae brighten and fade reveals their true brightness, which then can be used to calculate their distance. But this technique also requires good calibration using parallax and Cepheids. Without knowing the precise distances to a few supernovae, there is no way to determine their absolute brightness, so the technique would not work.'

We see then that measuring stars billions of supposed light-years away, both Chepeids and protons all depend as a fact of the assumption that the Earth orbits the sun, defined as heresy by the Church.
But then the Airy and M&M tests put a stop to their certainties, and Einstein, with his Theories of Gravity had to rescue their heretical heliocentrism as a possibility only, not a fact of science. Now

It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. If I have time I will try to explain the multi-time universe of Einstein and the Black holes of new-science and the invisible matter they need to make it all viable.

Given there is proof for nothing my preference is to follow Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIIII and Pope Benedict, stick with Genesis, reason upon its revelations, and I know I cannot go wrong because theology is the Queen of all the sciences.

But try and get a job today with such beliefs that no science can falsify and you will STARVE. And that is why our Professors and teachers in any college today, be they SSPX or atheist, must try to make heresy Catholic.

I think you have your Genesis days mixed up. Those are both day 4

 Pope Pius VIII HERETIC! Decree 1820
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.
And Again- HERETIC!
The most excellent [cardinals] 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. 1822

Pope Benedict XV – HERETIC!

Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum April 20, 1921: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

"It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. "

So is it your position that light in fact does not travel? It is not a motion?
Out of curiosity, do you also hold one to be heretical if he denies that each of the creation days were distinct 24 hour periods of time?

Incredulous · « **Reply #42 on:** April 20, 2018, 06:59:16 AM »

REPLY TO T. Konkel (Concerning the Hierarchy of the Sciences)

CONSIDERATION ON THE HIERARCHY OF THE SCIENCES

Some time ago, in a reply to Mr. Konkel, I asked if he had anything to say about the hierarchy of the sciences. He did not respond, perhaps because he did not see my question.

Some additional thoughts on this subject have occurred to me; and I am posting them here as they relate to this discussion.
In any consideration of the sciences, it is of paramount importance to categorize them according to the source of the knowledge contained in their principles and demonstrations, and according to the degree of credibility they can properly claim.

The infallible teaching of Vatican Council I sheds a great deal of light in this area. Per the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith,

"There is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source,but also as regards its object.With regard to the source,we know at the one level by natural reason,at the other level by Divine Faith.With regard to the object,besides those things to which natural reason can attain,there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known."

Thus we have an infallible first principle which guides the inquiries of all branches of science, namely that both Divine Revelation and human reason cause true science, i.e. true knowledge of reality, to exist in the mind. The Church nowhere teaches that the certitudes of Faith are not by definition true science. The Church does not relegate the substance of her doctrine to the subjective order. Those revealed truths that are inaccessible to unaided reason, are nonetheless objective truths, the possession of which is identical to true science existing in the mind - the possession of which is identical to the conformity of the intellect with the objective reality.

The First Vatican Council infallibly taught other principles which lend themselves to a consideration of the hierarchy of the sciences. From the same Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith:

"Even though Faith is above Reason, there can never be any real disagreement between Faith and Reason, sinceit is the same God Who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and Who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
"The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of Faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

"Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened Faith is totally false. Furthermore the Church, which,together with its Apostolic Office of teaching,has received the charge of preserving the Deposit of Faith,has by divine appointment the right and dutyof condemningwhat wrongly passes for knowledge,lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit.

"Hence all faithful Christiansare forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of Faith, particularly[but not exclusively] if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

"Not only can Faith and Reason never be at odds with one another, but they mutually support each other. For on the one hand, right reasonestablished the foundations of the Faithand, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things. On the other hand, Faithdelivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.
"Hence, so far is the Church from hindering the development of human arts and studies, that in fact she assists and promotes them in many ways. For she is neither ignorant nor contemptuous of the advantages which derive from this source for human life, rather she acknowledges that those things flow from God, the Lord of sciences, and, if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of His grace.

"Nor does the Church forbid these studies to employ, each within its own area, its own proper principles and method. But while she admits this just freedom, she takes particular care that they do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or,by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to Faith and engender confusion.
"For the doctrine of the Faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,but as a Divine Deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.

"Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding."

The teaching is clear. Confusion enters in only because modernism now enjoys a veneer of authoritativeness, and because false science now enjoys a veneer of certitude.
We can sharpen the focus on the teaching of the First Vatican Council by highlighting certain points made in the above cited paragraphs, and thereby more clearly elucidate the reality of the hierarchy of the sciences. Note that the Church infallibly teaches that Almighty God is the "Lord of sciences."

That is a powerful attribution. Given the Church's teaching, no material science could ever legitimately claim to be independent of Catholic dogma. The truth is that all branches of science are absolutely subject to divinely revealed truth, and are capable of being guided and corrected by theologians. The flowering of true material science centuries ago under the auspices of the Church, is a direct demonstration of this principle in effect.

Consider what is revealed in the Book of Genesis. On the Second Day of Creation, God created a firmament "amidst the waters." He said "Let it divide the waters from the waters." And so this firmament, which God called "Heaven," divided the waters into two parts: the waters above, and the waters beneath.

What are the waters? The waters are the sciences. The waters above the firmament - above the divider - are Sacred Theology and her handmaiden, Scholastic Philosophy. St. Thomas teaches that Sacred Science is "knowledge revealed by God, besides philosophical science,[which is] built up by human reason." The waters below the firmament are the lower material sciences, such as Cosmology, Astronomy, Biology, Geometry, Medicine, etc.
The Church teaches infallibly that, while the lower branches of science "employ, each within its own area, their own proper principles and methods," nevertheless these same lower sciences are governed by the Church - are "held back" by the Church, by the Heaven, by the Firmament. The Heaven "takes particular care" that the waters beneath, the lower sciences, "do not become infected with errors by conflicting with divine teaching, or, by going beyond their proper limits, intrude upon what belongs to Faith, and engender confusion."

Indeed, we see this divine provision clearly revealed in Genesis, for God said: Let the waters that are under the heavenbe gathered together into one place; and let the dry land appear.

These waters that are beneath, are not to "go beyond their proper limits." As Psalm 103 affirms, "Above the mountains shall the waters stand.At Thy rebuke they shall flee; at the voice of Thy thunder they shall fear ... Thou hast set a bound which they shall not pass over. Neither shall they return to cover the earth."

The Church is the Heaven, the Firmament which sets the bound over which the lower sciences shall not pass. The Church stands amidst the waters: Sacred Theology and Scholastic Philosophy above her to guide her; and the lower sciences, the waters beneath her feet, subject to her guidance.

The First Vatican Council also taught that the lower material sciences, "if they are properly used, lead to God by the help of His grace." For all things are delivered to the Son by the Father. In the Book of Genesis, the Holy Ghost reveals that God "gathered together into one place" the waters that are beneath the firmament, in order that the "dry land appear." And God called the dry land "earth."

God gave commandment that the waters beneath the firmament shall not go beyond the bound He has set for them, nor shall they return to cover the earth. They shall not be permitted to obscure the earth.

What, then, is earth? Earth is truth. Earth is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The meaning of these Scriptures is clear: By the commandment of Almighty God, the lower material sciences may not go beyond their bounds to cover over and obscure the Truth - to cover over and obscure the Redeemer of the world and the doctrine of His Church.

In the Haydock Bible, Psalm 84 has a caption to illustrate its significance: "The coming of Christ, to bring peace and salvation to man. In this Psalm, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, "the dry land," appears in these beautiful verses: "Mercy and truth have met each other: justice and peace have kissed. Truth is sprung out of the earth, and justice hath looked down from heaven. For the Lord will give goodness: and our earth shall yield her fruit. Justice shall walk before Him, and shall set His steps in the way." Psalm 66 echoes the strain: "The earth hath yielded her fruit."

Our Lord taught us to measure everything by His yardstick - the fruits. Does modern evolutionary science bring forth good fruit? Does modern evolutionary science make Jesus Christ known, loved, and served among the nation?

cassini · « **Reply #43 on:** April 20, 2018, 08:15:52 AM »

Quote from: TKonkel on April 19, 2018, 05:13:52 PM

I think you have your Genesis days mixed up. Those are both day 4

Pope Pius VIII HERETIC! Decree 1820
The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Optics and Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Most Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation [of Copernicus], as it has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.
And Again- HERETIC!
The most excellent [cardinals] 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. 1822

Pope Benedict XV – HERETIC!

Pope Benedict XV, In Praeclara Summorum April 20, 1921: “If the progress of science showed later that the conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.”

"It was his Special theory that began the tale about looking back in time, the one the Professor repeats way above. "

So is it your position that light in fact does not travel? It is not a motion?
Out of curiosity, do you also hold one to be heretical if he denies that each of the creation days were distinct 24 hour periods of time?

Great to have you aboard TKonkel, yes you are correct, both belong to fourth day. Copied and pasted them from some source without noticing.

It is a pity your posts reproduce all that data that appears between your quotes. My problem is putting together a post that has the same size reading. Often it comes up small and huge.

Now I can only presume you posted Pope Pius VII's HERETIC decrees of 1820 and 1822, and Pope Benedict XV's HERETIC 1921 encyclical or rather papal Letter on Dante Aligheri in order to show us all that, like Claudel, my synthesis accuse these popes of being HERETICS. Sure it is no wonder I have been banned from two or was it three Catholic forums, and as Claudel said, I should be banned from Catholic Info Forum.

The above is of course is inference; because like Galileo at his trial, I do not know what was in these popes hearts so cannot judge them as heretics. I leave such accusations up to others. But thank you TKonkel for highlighting the most serious problem for Catholicism arising out of the Galileo case, a never-ending controversy on the subject of faith and science.

Thankfully, due to the opening up of the Secret Archives in Rome by popes, plus the finding of other records by scholars, anyone who studied them in detail will know the circuмstances that led to the 1741-1835 U-turn by popes (not the Church because none of these popes abrogated or denied the ‘irreversible’ 1616 decree of Pope Paul V defining a fixed-sun solar system formal heresy because it is contrary to Holy scripture and its interpretation by all the Fathers (a sign of infallibility as declared by the Council of Trent.)
As I said in a previous post, the key phrase in both the above decrees by Pope Pius VII HIGHLIGHTED BY YOU is

“His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors.” (1820).

“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,” (1822)

Now why do both decrees include the words that amount to “the manner in which it is affirmed today” and more explicitly “according to the common opinion of modern astronomers”?
Well I will tell you, but first a brief history of the infamous heretical U-turn. By that I mean the 1616 decree's heresy being U-turned into non heresy.In 1741 the first realisation by churchmen that heliocentrism was proven began an attempt to back track on the 1616 decree that was deemed a serious error and that the ban on heliocentric books had to be removed. Dozens of famous astronomers, philosophers and churchmen were highlighting the Church’s stand as absurd and ‘embarrassing.’ In 1757, Pope Benedict XIV, under advice of members of the Holy Office and Boscovich, dropped the ban on ‘all books’ leaving only the five banned after the 1616 decree. The U-turn had begun

Then in 1820, another attempt was made to get rid of the ban altogether, and the then Pope Pius VII asked the Holy Office to investigate. This led to a lengthy argument between Fr Filippo Anfossi, a Dominican friar, as censor of the press in Rome, and Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri who became to Commissary General of the Inquisition. Both compiled their reasons for continuing the ban, and getting rid of it. These docuмents are, no doubt, the most important records of the whole Galileo story. Now picture the situation in the Church at the time. To remove the ban, the 1616 decree had to be addressed, for the ban was directly related to the decree and its defining a fixed-sun formal heresy and a moving Earth erroneous in faith. Be aware that at that time, 1820, the records of the 1616, 1633 decrees had been removed from Rome by Napoleon, so all they had then were the records of the 1741 ban's removal.

So, how did they manage to ignore the 1616 decree and how did Pope Pius VII make the decrees above? Well Olivieri convinced the Pope and most of the Holy Office of the time, that the 1616 decree, which he confirmed to all as ‘irreversible,’ was that Galileo’s heresy was a ‘violent’ movement of the Earth, and that ‘modern astronomers’ no longer held that cosmology, but knew that the Earth orbits the sun with a ‘non-violent’ movement. This hoax convinced the Pope and in his ignorance issued the above decrees noting that the heliocentrism he allowed was the non-heretical one, the one according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.

Now let us expose the hoax that has you Professor TKonkel, Fr Robinson, and so many others of the Catholic faith defending as orthodox that 1741-1835 U-turn that showed the 1616 MUST HAVE HAD NO PAPAL AUTHORITY AT ALL. First of all, the ‘non-heretical’ heliocentrism of Fr Onfossi, Pope Pius VII, and God knows how many other popes since, still retains the formal heresy of the 1616 decree still held as ‘irreversible,’ that is the sun remains fixed (the Heresy condemned in 1616) relative to the Earth, whether it is ‘violent’ or 'non-violent’ Earth.
Moreover, even Olivieri’s conjuring trick of inventing Galileo’s ‘violent’ orbiting Earth, is not true. In Copernicus’s book ‘De revolutionibus’ he states quite clearly that his orbiting earth is NOT A VIOLENT ONE.

‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered.’ --- On the Revolutions, 1543, Book 1, par 8.

Moreover, if Olivieri had read Galileo’s Dialogue he would have found Salviati arguing that the movement of the Earth could be “circular” and “eternal, and therefore natural” in opposition to the “violent motion” argument.

Be thankful as a Catholic that no attempt was made to try to abrogate the 1616 decree by any pope, for it would have had to contain a reason for this abrogation, and if the reason was as Olivieri invented, what then? So in effect, as even Olivieri admitted to, the 1616 decree remains infallible teaching and the fact that the geocentrism in it has never been proven wrong, confirms no one can or needs to challenge its authority or its truth that is protected by God as promised by him.

I will address Pope Benedict XV’s Letter later in the above context, and you question about the motion of starlight. But enough for the present.

klasG4e · « **Reply #44 on:** April 20, 2018, 09:45:00 AM »

Quote from: cassini on April 20, 2018, 08:15:52 AM

Great to have you aboard TKonkel, yes you are correct, both belong to fourth day. Copied and pasted them from some source without noticing.

It is a pity your posts reproduce all that data that appears between your quotes. My problem is putting together a post that has the same size reading. Often it comes up small and huge.

Now I can only presume you posted Pope Pius VII's HERETIC decrees of 1820 and 1822, and Pope Benedict XV's HERETIC 1921 encyclical or rather papal Letter on Dante Aligheri in order to show us all that, like Claudel, my synthesis accuse these popes of being HERETICS. Sure it is no wonder I have been banned from two or was it three Catholic forums, and as Claudel said, I should be banned from Catholic Info Forum.

The above is of course is inference; because like Galileo at his trial, I do not know what was in these popes hearts so cannot judge them as heretics. I leave such accusations up to others. But thank you TKonkel for highlighting the most serious problem for Catholicism arising out of the Galileo case, a never-ending controversy on the subject of faith and science.

Thankfully, due to the opening up of the Secret Archives in Rome by popes, plus the finding of other records by scholars, anyone who studied them in detail will know the circuмstances that led to the 1741-1835 U-turn by popes (not the Church because none of these popes abrogated or denied the ‘irreversible’ 1616 decree of Pope Paul V defining a fixed-sun solar system formal heresy because it is contrary to Holy scripture and its interpretation by all the Fathers (a sign of infallibility as declared by the Council of Trent.)
As I said in a previous post, the key phrase in both the above decrees by Pope Pius VII HIGHLIGHTED BY YOU is

“His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors.” (1820).

“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,” (1822)

Now why do both decrees include the words that amount to “the manner in which it is affirmed today” and more explicitly “according to the common opinion of modern astronomers”?
Well I will tell you, but first a brief history of the infamous heretical U-turn. By that I mean the 1616 decree's heresy being U-turned into non heresy.In 1741 the first realisation by churchmen that heliocentrism was proven began an attempt to back track on the 1616 decree that was deemed a serious error and that the ban on heliocentric books had to be removed. Dozens of famous astronomers, philosophers and churchmen were highlighting the Church’s stand as absurd and ‘embarrassing.’ In 1757, Pope Benedict XIV, under advice of members of the Holy Office and Boscovich, dropped the ban on ‘all books’ leaving only the five banned after the 1616 decree. The U-turn had begun
Then in 1820, another attempt was made to get rid of the ban altogether, and the then Pope Pius VII asked the Holy Office to investigate. This led to a lengthy argument between Fr Filippo Anfossi, a Dominican friar, as censor of the press in Rome, and Maurizio Benedetto Olivieri who became to Commissary General of the Inquisition. Both compiled their reasons for continuing the ban, and getting rid of it. These docuмents are, no doubt, the most important records of the whole Galileo story. Now picture the situation in the Church at the time. To remove the ban, the 1616 decree had to be addressed, for the ban was directly related to the decree and its defining a fixed-sun formal heresy and a moving Earth erroneous in faith. Be aware that at that time, 1820, the records of the 1616, 1633 decrees had been removed from Rome by Napoleon, so all they had then were the records of the 1741 ban's removal.
So, how did they manage to ignore the 1616 decree and how did Pope Pius VII make the decrees above? Well Olivieri convinced the Pope and most of the Holy Office of the time, that the 1616 decree, which he confirmed to all as ‘irreversible,’ was that Galileo’s heresy was a ‘violent’ movement of the Earth, and that ‘modern astronomers’ no longer held that cosmology, but knew that the Earth orbits the sun with a ‘non-violent’ movement. This hoax convinced the Pope and in his ignorance issued the above decrees noting that the heliocentrism he allowed was the non-heretical one, the one according to the common opinion of modern astronomers.
Now let us expose the hoax that has you Professor TKonkel, Fr Robinson, and so many others of the Catholic faith defending as orthodox that 1741-1835 U-turn that showed the 1616 MUST HAVE HAD NO PAPAL AUTHORITY AT ALL. First of all, the ‘non-heretical’ heliocentrism of Fr Onfossi, Pope Pius VII, and God knows how many other popes since, still retains the formal heresy of the 1616 decree still held as ‘irreversible,’ that is the sun remains fixed (the Heresy condemned in 1616) relative to the Earth, whether it is ‘violent’ or 'non-violent’ Earth.
Moreover, even Olivieri’s conjuring trick of inventing Galileo’s ‘violent’ orbiting Earth, is not true. In Copernicus’s book ‘De revolutionibus’ he states quite clearly that his orbiting earth is NOT A VIOLENT ONE.
‘But if someone opines that the Earth revolves, he will also say that the movement is natural and not violent. Now things which are according to nature produce effects contrary to those that are violent… and are kept in their best organization. Therefore Ptolemy had no reason to fear that the Earth and all things on the Earth would be scattered.’ --- On the Revolutions, 1543, Book 1, par 8.

Moreover, if Olivieri had read Galileo’s Dialogue he would have found Salviati arguing that the movement of the Earth could be “circular” and “eternal, and therefore natural” in opposition to the “violent motion” argument.
Be thankful as a Catholic that no attempt was made to try to abrogate the 1616 decree by any pope, for it would have had to contain a reason for this abrogation, and if the reason was as Olivieri invented, what then? So in effect, as even Olivieri admitted to, the 1616 decree remains infallible teaching and the fact that the geocentrism in it has never been proven wrong, confirms no one can or needs to challenge its authority or its truth that is protected by God as promised by him.

I will address Pope Benedict XV’s Letter later in the above context, and you question about the motion of starlight. But enough for the present.

Robert Sungenis should be covering a lot of this material in his up coming film
The Church Versus Galileo ,but the film is apparently running into major delays. Has anyone heard about the present status of the film which is briefly described in one of Sungenis' websites at the below link.
https://gwwdvd.com/2016/07/28/the-church-versus-galileo-official-trailer/

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3) (Read 13481 times)

cassini

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

TKonkel

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

Incredulous

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

cassini

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)

klasG4e

Re: SSPX exhumes Fr. Jaki's rotting works, buried by Miss Paula Haigh (Part 3)