Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book (Read 14570 times)

Stanley N · « **Reply #60 on:** November 25, 2018, 08:13:19 PM »

Quote from: cassini on November 19, 2018, 02:09:49 PM

Pera may be an atheist but he hit the nail on the head here above. The Big Bang is atheism's ROCK. Pius XII, tried to make an atheist rock Catholic dogma. Big Bang is the mother of all evolution therories. For me evolution is nonsense. To match God with nonsense when we have direct creation by God as revealed in Genesis is a betrayal of tradition, no matter who says it is not.

Pera is making atheist arguments. These arguments are typically made in regard to what is called the "cosmological argument", which is a broad term for arguments for the existence of God using the principles of causality or contingency. I'm assuming the parts in [ ] were your insertions - if so, he may not be talking about cosmology in the sense of galaxies or the Big Bang.

cassini · « **Reply #61 on:** November 26, 2018, 01:39:05 PM »

Quote from: Stanley N on November 25, 2018, 08:13:19 PM

Pera is making atheist arguments. These arguments are typically made in regard to what is called the "cosmological argument", which is a broad term for arguments for the existence of God using the principles of causality or contingency. I'm assuming the parts in [ ] were your insertions - if so, he may not be talking about cosmology in the sense of galaxies or the Big Bang.

The quote I used is out of the book The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998. It is in in his chapter The God of theologians and the god of astronomers. An Apology of Bellarmine.

In it he quotes Pope Pius XII and John Paul II and lots more.

That said Stanley, isn't it about time you set out your beliefs? Are you a Big Bang evolution heliocentrist, or just like to ask question?

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #62 on:** November 26, 2018, 03:18:35 PM »

It looks as if Sungenis is becoming the go to guy for all questions on creation and geocentrism. House theologian and scientist.

Can we say that geocentrism has become a generalized belief in SSPX and its many offshoots?

King Wenceslas · « **Reply #63 on:** November 26, 2018, 03:40:19 PM »

In order to understand these 17th-century events, it is worthwhile to take a step back and understand the state of cosmology at that time. The Church and much of Europe, since at least the 13th century, had adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. The works of Aristotle had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and were eventually integrated into Church teaching.

Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was the source of the geocentric (earth-centered) view of the universe. The earth was immobile. The center of the earth is where all matter was drawn, to where things naturally moved. The sun, moon, planets, and stars all revolved around the earth on celestial spheres. The moon and beyond was a realm of eternal, changeless perfection, while the domain of matter was subject to change and decay. Aristotle’s view of the cosmos was integrated into Christian theology finding concord with such passages that indicate the earth is stationary (Psalm 75:3; 93:1; 96:10; 119:90; 1Chronicles 16:30) and that the sun moves (Joshua 10). In the second century, Ptolemy developed a model of the geocentric cosmos that would explain the observed motions of planets. The combination of an explanatory model for astronomical observations and the imprimatur of the Church made the geocentric view the only rational and acceptable view of the universe for over 300 years.

Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging events in the past through the lens of the knowledge and sensibilities of the present. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the evidence available, and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the Aristotle's geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery we should avoid is condemning the Church for how it exercised its authority. The following observation can be stated about that period:

“The early seventeenth century was a time of growing absolutism in Europe, in both religious and political terms. The freedom to express dangerous ideas was as unlikely to be defended in Protestant Geneva as in Catholic Rome. The idea that a stable society could be built on general principles of free speech was defended by nobody at the time, and police and judicial constraints were therefore inevitable realities.” The church in the 17th century was an absolutist institution defending its complete power over the interpretation of scripture in faith, morals, and the physical universe. Who would expect it not to? Do we see the church today defending its rights over nuclear science? Or relativity? Or the physical measurement of the speed of light?

The modern scientific world was coming into being in the 17th century and human beings, being what they are, have a very hard time in accepting change (as shown here with many minds still in the 17th century).

klasG4e · « **Reply #64 on:** November 26, 2018, 07:33:09 PM »

Quote from: King Wenceslas on November 26, 2018, 03:18:35 PM

Can we say that geocentrism has become a generalized belief in SSPX and its many offshoots?

Not with the leadership. Their official policy (according to Fr. Beck who oversaw the SSPX schools in the U.S.) has been to teach heliocentrism and not geocentrism. A few years ago the SSPX had a cover story in the Angelus magazine endorsing geocentrism. And now the SSPX is going bonkers promoting and selling Fr. Paul Robinson's book The Realist Guide to Religion and Science. This book if you haven't noticed has been covered a lot in recent days on CathInfo. The book is chock full of modernism and pushes Big Bang and heliocentrism to the max. If that's what the King likes well no one is stopping you. That's certainly what nearly all Conciliar Catholics have bought into.

Please consider this linked article though before you throw in your lot with the atheistic establishment and the Conciliar Church which loves Big Bang, heliocentrism, the frog to prince fairy tale, and only a selective inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/

klasG4e · « **Reply #65 on:** November 26, 2018, 07:45:08 PM »

Quote from: King Wenceslas on November 26, 2018, 03:40:19 PM

The modern scientific world was coming into being in the 17th century and human beings, being what they are, have a very hard time in accepting change (as shown here with many minds still in the 17th century).

Modern science especially in the area of cosmology is a chaotic mess. Even the top scientists admit as much. They admit also admit that the geocentric model is just as viable as the heliocentric one, but they -- and they admit this -- absolutely refuse to consider accepting the notion of geocentrism because of their a priori philosophical dispositions, not because the actual science prevents them from doing so.

cassini · « **Reply #66 on:** November 27, 2018, 08:20:28 AM »

Quote from: King Wenceslas on November 26, 2018, 03:40:19 PM

In order to understand these 17th-century events, it is worthwhile to take a step back and understand the state of cosmology at that time. The Church and much of Europe, since at least the 13th century, had adopted an Aristotelian cosmology. The works of Aristotle had been reintroduced into Europe, in Latin, and were eventually integrated into Church teaching.

Finally, let us consider what lessons can be drawn from the Galileo affair. When studying history, one must always be careful not to fall into the trap of anachronism, judging events in the past through the lens of the knowledge and sensibilities of the present. When considering the heliocentric debate in context, the evidence available, and the consensus of the time, it was reasonable to support the Aristotle's geocentric view. Another form of temporal snobbery we should avoid is condemning the Church for how it exercised its authority. The following observation can be stated about that period:

The modern scientific world was coming into being in the 17th century and human beings, being what they are, have a very hard time in accepting change (as shown here with many minds still in the 17th century).

This of course is the standard summary of the Galileo affair found in thousands of books, articles, plays and millions of websites. If, King W, as you say, the Church was defending Aristotle's view of the world in 1616, why was Copernicus not put on trial in 1543? Why wasn't De Revolutionibus banned in 1543?

The Galileo affair occurred when Galileo said the Bible should be read heliocentrically, that the Fathers and churchmen up to his time interpreted it wrongly, including the Council of Trent.
That is the Catholic Church's business, guarding what the Bible says. This time however, the Father of Lies used a wooden horse to attack the word of God, a physical phenomena, an area that was outside the Church's expertise.

That is the first understanding a Catholic must understand about the Galileo affair. If Catholicism is based on Tradition and the teachings of Scripture, and all of the Fathers and popes of the last 1616 years held that the Bible reveals a moving sun in many places, then of course they had to defend that position in the face of any attack on it. That is what they did.

But Satan had done his homework. He knew if he could use natural philosophy to cause doubt with regard to understanding the Bible, then he could begin a biblical reformation within Catholicism, just as he did with the Protestant reformation.

It was them Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ really began to assert heliocentrism as a fact of nature. It was Isaac Newton who began the road to 'proving' the Earth moves. He did this by inventing a cause that would get the Earth to fly around the sun with the other planerts. The Freemasons of The Royal Society of London, dedicated to destroy the Catholic Church, asserted Newton's theory was the 'Law' that proved the Earth goes around the sun. Every other theory for gravity was put under the pillow and Newton was declared the god of science. Then came the find of Stellar Aberration, claimed as another proof. Philosophers throughout the world jumped on the bandwagon, all wanted to be part of this scientific advancement as you describe above King.

Throughout the Church we also had those who wanted on the intellectual advancement. However they had a problem, the 1616 decree that defined a fixed-sun reading of Scripture formal heresy. Moreover in 1633 Pope urban VIII had put Galileo on trial for that heresy and by way of the Holy Office and Index, declared the 1616 decree was absolute and irreversible throughout Christendom.
Yes, early papal infallibility was involved and the Church cannot back down on such decrees. Thinking that heliocentrism was proven, the Holy Office had a dilemma never before faced by the Church. But the head man of the Holy Office thought up a way to have his infallible decree and his new 'proven' heliocentric reading of the Scriptures. He said the irreversible decree was about a violent orbiting Earth, that we all now know is not the fact. Today, he said, philosophers 'know' a non-violent heliocentrism is the truth, so the Church does not ban the heliocentrism of modern astronomers.

In other words, the 1616 decree was never abrogated or denied its irreversibility (its infallibility according to the ordinary magisterium).
Later of course, experiments showed science is not within a light-second of proving geocentrism wrong. Albert Einstein said it could nevber be proven wrong or right by science. So the order of the world has been found to be a metaphysical matter, just as Cardinal Bellarmine said in 1615. So the 1616 decree was biblical and metaphysical, within the parameters of Church infallibility.

klasG4e · « **Reply #67 on:** November 27, 2018, 10:16:38 AM »

Quote from: cassini on November 27, 2018, 08:20:28 AM

This of course is the standard summary of the Galileo affair found in thousands of books, articles, plays and millions of websites. If, King W, as you say, the Church was defending Aristotle's view of the world in 1616, why was Copernicus not put on trial in 1543? Why wasn't De Revolutionibus banned in 1543?

The Galileo affair occurred when Galileo said the Bible should be read heliocentrically, that the Fathers and churchmen up to his time interpreted it wrongly, including the Council of Trent.
That is the Catholic Church's business, guarding what the Bible says. This time however, the Father of Lies used a wooden horse to attack the word of God, a physical phenomena, an area that was outside the Church's expertise.

That is the first understanding a Catholic must understand about the Galileo affair. If Catholicism is based on Tradition and the teachings of Scripture, and all of the Fathers and popes of the last 1616 years held that the Bible reveals a moving sun in many places, then of course they had to defend that position in the face of any attack on it. That is what they did.

But Satan had done his homework. He knew if he could use natural philosophy to cause doubt with regard to understanding the Bible, then he could begin a biblical reformation within Catholicism, just as he did with the Protestant reformation.

It was them Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ really began to assert heliocentrism as a fact of nature. It was Isaac Newton who began the road to 'proving' the Earth moves. He did this by inventing a cause that would get the Earth to fly around the sun with the other planerts. The Freemasons of The Royal Society of London, dedicated to destroy the Catholic Church, asserted Newton's theory was the 'Law' that proved the Earth goes around the sun. Every other theory for gravity was put under the pillow and Newton was declared the god of science. Then came the find of Stellar Aberration, claimed as another proof. Philosophers throughout the world jumped on the bandwagon, all wanted to be part of this scientific advancement as you describe above King.

Throughout the Church we also had those who wanted on the intellectual advancement. However they had a problem, the 1616 decree that defined a fixed-sun reading of Scripture formal heresy. Moreover in 1633 Pope urban VIII had put Galileo on trial for that heresy and by way of the Holy Office and Index, declared the 1616 decree was absolute and irreversible throughout Christendom.
Yes, early papal infallibility was involved and the Church cannot back down on such decrees. Thinking that heliocentrism was proven, the Holy Office had a dilemma never before faced by the Church. But the head man of the Holy Office thought up a way to have his infallible decree and his new 'proven' heliocentric reading of the Scriptures. He said the irreversible decree was about a violent orbiting Earth, that we all now know is not the fact. Today, he said, philosophers 'know' a non-violent heliocentrism is the truth, so the Church does not ban the heliocentrism of modern astronomers.

In other words, the 1616 decree was never abrogated or denied its irreversibility (its infallibility according to the ordinary magisterium).
Later of course, experiments showed science is not within a light-second of proving geocentrism wrong. Albert Einstein said it could nevber be proven wrong or right by science. So the order of the world has been found to be a metaphysical matter, just as Cardinal Bellarmine said in 1615. So the 1616 decree was biblical and metaphysical, within the parameters of Church infallibility.

Very well said!

And lest anyone out there still have doubts about whether or not geocentrism is a matter of faith, the words of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine -- who oh my gosh lived way back in the 17th Century -- should wake them up from their slumber: "Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] has prohibited interpretation of Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the Holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence will read not only the Holy Fathers but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find that they all agree on the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and rotates around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the world. Ask yourself then how could the Church, in its prudence, support an interpretation of Scripture which is contrary to all the the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one reply that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith because even if it is not a mater of faith because of the subject matter [ex parte objecti], it is still a matter of faith because of the speaker [ex parte decentis]. thus anyone who wold say that Abraham did not have two sons and Jacob twelve would be just as much of a heretic as someone who would say that Christ was not born of a virgin, for the Holy Spirit has said both of these things through the mouth of the prophets and the Apostles."

Merry · « **Reply #68 on:** November 27, 2018, 10:42:28 AM »

Is what follows worth anything?

Geocentrism or Heliocentrism

Which is it?

What difference does it make?

The Heliocentric Hoax

Written by
James V. Forsee

Sept 1998

Truth forever on the scaffold.

Wrong forever on the throne.

James Russell Lowell

About four hundred years ago a great debate challenged the Catholic world and it has still not recovered from the crushing blow of heliocentrism. Aside from the intrigues of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Conspiracy, Nicholaus Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), and Albert Einstein (1879-1955) are three of the most prominent architects of this New Age hoax.

Copernicus, who taught the theory that the earth both rotates on its axis once a day and revolves around the sun once a year, rejuvenated this ancient Babylonian myth call heliocentrism. This re-hashing of the error of Aristarchus(1) was actually nurtured by astrology for generations, and most scholars acknowledge that those who embraced this deception after the death of Christ were Bible-hating pagans. During the Life of Copernicus this novelty was sustained via the network of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. This satanic craft, shrouded in symbolic sophistry, has as its main objective the destruction of Christ’s Church (Truth).

The renowned Catholic historian, William Thomas Walsh, in his bibliography, Philip II, examines an unfinished article from that period entitled The New Atlantis. This work, by the revolutionist Francis Bacon, was a veiled description of the Freemason machinery as it operated in Europe around the 1500’s and is claimed by modern Masons to be their own. Bacon’s piece acknowledges that subversive "members of the order control medicine, science, astrology . . ."(2) Even today, according to the revisionist historian Ralph Epperson, Masonry claims the sun as their symbol!

It was not, however, until Galileo that heliocentrism was used to subvert the Roman Catholic world view (geocentrism). Solange Hertz, a contemporary Catholic historian, reveals that Galileo, usually in need of money, "was easily inspired and financed by the group of revolutionary spirits who clustered about Cosimo de Medici II in Florence."(3) Perhaps because of their influence, Galileo lied to the Church and College of Cardinals and resumed teaching the theory as a fact. He, "the wrangler", had a tendency to mock his opponents and to overstate his case.(4) God’s Providence, it seems, arranged a Saint and Doctor of the Church, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, S.J., the Master of Controversial Questions, to refute the Galileo heresy. Despite Bellarmine’s impeccable refutation, the lack of viable proofs submitted by Galileo, and the failure of modern science to verify heliocentrism, Galileo has become the "light" and "Father of Modern Science", while the Church, our Mother, appears "dark" and defunct.

Modern science texts to this day, dominated by secular humanists, state that Galileo proved the Copernican sun-centered theory. The fact is, he proved nothing. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who sought to formulate the known facts about the universe into a uniform conception of nature in his Cosmos (5 Vols, 1845-1862), said quite candidly: "I have already known for a long time that we have no proof for the system of Copernicus . . .but I do not dare to be the first one to attack it."

Bernard Cohen in Birth of a New Physics, 1960, concurs: "There is no planetary observation by which we on earth can prove the earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."

Before previewing and/or summarizing some of the well-known scientific experiments and their conclusions regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism, one must be aware of the Catholic Church’s position concerning science. One, too, must understand the philosophical and psychological implications inherent in the dethronement of man from the center of the universe. And one must not be so naive as to think that such subtleties are not systematically employed by Satan and his agents in the ultimate plan to destroy the Catholic Church.

This Church teaches that there is no contradiction between science and religion, and that faith is higher than science, and in fact, that theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Nevertheless, because of the machinations of the Evil One, this cancerous heresy, heliocentrism, succeeded in displacing man from the center of the universe, where Jesus Christ came to redeem man. But more importantly, it appeared to have discredited Holy Scripture.

Indeed, the far-reaching consequences of this cannot be underestimated. A contemporary Catholic scholar, Paula Haigh, in a letter to The Remnant (May 12, 1989) speaks her observations most emphatically: "Galileo’s case was decisive in the course of history, and the Church, in her condemnation of the Copernican system, was guided by the Holy Spirit (in spite of all the politics involved) and spoke infallibly for our future guidance." Walter van der Kamp (1913-1998), founder and past director of the Tychonian Society, affirms: "For the Galileo affair and its aftermath, as all historians of whatever aspect of human action and thought, acknowledge that it has wrought a change in our attitude towards the world, not equaled by anything since Our Lord walked among us."(5) To an incalculable degree, man was spiritually wrenched from his Creator, God.

20^thcentury man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theocentric (God-centered). Before the "earth-movers" arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20^th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.

All bespoke unity. Man knew the importance of the Church and necessity of belonging to Her. He may have belonged to a certain manor, a certain town, a certain guild, and so on, but the chain of command was virtually unbroken. If he were a vassal, he would be answerable to his lord, and in turn the lord would be answerable to the king, the king answerable to the Pope (primarily in moral matters), and all of these answerable to God. In short, man knew where he stood. All was orderly, all was secure. Man believed and he belonged.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine, who knew the perilous consequences of Galileo’s heresy. The following letter of April 12, 1613 was written to an involved party, Fr. Paolo Foscarini, and it decisively and prophetically cautions the 16^th century world about the dangers of heliocentrism. Lest one might believe it is quoted out of context, and also to dispel any doubt, Bellarmine’s entire letter will be cited. The following should indicate why Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that "the Church of God had not his equal in learning."(6) Bellarmine to Foscarini:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc" were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverend and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Are not the words of this great Church doctor and saint eloquent, insightful, profound? Is there any Catholic among us who can find a flaw in it?

Since, as previously stated, theology is true science (God’s science), then only through theological sources can one be absolutely sure of answers. Also, scientifically speaking, how can anyone go outside the universe to observe what is actually happening? Since this is impossible, God has provided us with an unerring source of truth. The Holy Scriptures, certainly a primary source, are absolutely geocentric. There are a number of passages to support the earth-centered reality. Refer, for example, to Genesis and the Psalms. Note Psalms 18:5-6, 92:1, 95:10; also, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 and Josue’s long day (Josue 10). Believe the truth revealed in perpetuity, when you read Psalm 103, which anticipates Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein, and all the other innovators: the earth…"shall not be moved forever and ever". (emphasis added)

Many writers, scientists, and pseudo-theologians have spilt much ink trying to accommodate unverifiable, modern science (heliocentrism and evolution, in particular) with the Bible. Despite their mental gymnastics, their forced allegorical interpretations, their flaws in logic, and so on, not one has presented a viable argument. Belief in their reasoning not only requires blind faith, but leads one to conclude that God is a poor grammarian at best or a liar at worst. Some exegetes try to pass off all the inconsistencies by calling the language of the Scriptures poetic, figurative, or phenomenological; meaning that God in some cases did not really mean what He said. Aside from the inspired Word of God, we have the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and the Decrees(7), all geocentric. Today, after four hundred years, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is still geocentric: The earth is the center of the universe, and it has no motion.

Even secular authorities, though unknown to most, give the Church credence. For example, two hundred years ago, well after the Galileo affair, in a Nov 22, 1885 letter to St. George Mivart, the English scientist Thomas Huxley wrote: "I gave some attention to the case of Galileo when I was in Italy, and I arrived at the conclusion that the Pope and the College of Cardinals had rather the best of it."

Science’s sun-centered theory, on the other hand, did not fare as well. Ironically, the scientific experiments, observations, data, and proofs, to purportedly have verified heliocentrism and thus to have discredited the Holy Catholic Church and Scripture, regardless of these efforts have verified geocentrism as well. One wishing to explore man’s efforts to prove God wrong should investigate the following: the supposed revolution of the earth around the sun can be studied by Bradley'’ experiment, the parallax of stars, the annual loop of Pluto, the intensification of meteors after midnight, annual Doppler shifts of stars, and so on. The supposed rotation (spinning) can be studied by reviewing the earth’s oblateness, the wind patterns, the force of projectiles and spacecraft, force of air falling bodies, the direct observation from the moon, the Coriolis effect, and so on. The Foucault pendulum has been proven to be a fabrication which proves nothing.(8)

Is the earth actually moving or are the heavenly bodies doing the moving? Or to use the nebulous phrase of science: "Is there some unexplained phenomenon to consider?" Study them all. Cold reason should cause you to acknowledge that no conclusive proofs exist to prove Galileo’s theory. Even our most powerful instruments conclusively prove movement only --- but movement of what?

Perhaps the most notable experiments are "Airy’s failure" and the Michelson-Morley experiment. These two are a ‘must’ for any serious study of this intriguing subject. The Astronomer Royal of England, George Biddel Airy (1801-1892), in 1871 performed a star-gazing experiment which came to be known as "Airy’s failure". The simple solution to all the problems raised in this experiment was that the earth is at rest, immobile, in absolute space.(9) God and His agents, the angels, hold it there. But the crushing blow to heliocentrism was the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all those who tried to imitate or perfect it. Their classical experiment of 1887 was another effort designed to vindicate Galileo. But it also backfired. They bounced a beam of light off two mirrors in perpendicular directions and reflected the light back to their source. The lights returned simultaneously, regardless of location, season, elevation or orientation of instruments. The expected result was that the beam of light running parallel to the "supposed" path of the orbiting earth would return more quickly.

For those desiring detailed, scientific information on experiments that favor geocentrism, research the Fresnell drag experiments and Arago’s experiment (Livingston). Study the Trouton-Noble experiment, the induction effect (des Coudres), the test for rotation of polarized light (Strutt), the Ahranov-Bohm effect (Erlichson), and the phase shift of electrons in a superconductor (Jacklevic).

Satan, allied with the modern conspirators, needed a new strategy to snuff out the remnant of the Catholic world view, in order that their diabolical agenda take its place. In the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s experiments actually ran contrary to modern science, and the conspirators needed somehow to keep the earth moving. Enter Albert Einstein. Besides tirelessly and diligently working for the Communist cause and aiding the Soviets by supplying them with our atomic secrets, he had a most unique position in the Novus Ordo Seclorum (nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr). An apparent objective of all his intellectual efforts was to destroy, as completely as possible, all confidence that our human race might have in our accuмulated knowledge from prior generations about the physical nature of our universe. Indeed, how could the average layman refute Einstein’s abstractions? It is beyond the scope of this study to do so, but this champion of the cause was always suspiciously elusive when asked about the inconsistencies of his famous theories. "It is well known that Einstein at different times and occasions, for understandably different reasons, gave different answers to questions about the occurrences that had prompted him to his views on motion, rest and space-time."(10)

In De Labore Solis Walter van der Kamp exposes Einstein’s fallacies quite handily. For those wanting to explore this more thoroughly, you are referred to pp39-51 of that remarkable work. Einstein’s theories do not disprove geocentrism. At the end of a letter in the Bulletin of the Tychonian Society, No. 54, Charles Long, Ph.D. of Minnesota, cogently explains the lack of definitives:

. . .Einstein is the fellow who went on to compose the General Theory of Relativity. The basis of this theory is that all motion is relative! Einstein wrote his equations describing how the Universe works. If the Earth spins and the stars are at rest – the equations explain all observations. But if the Earth is at rest and stars whirl – the equations still explain all observations. They must, for the theory begins with the assumption that all motion is relative. You can’t say positively that anything is at rest. Take your choice – the equations of General Relativity come out the same. Einstein put Mach’s (Principle) into mathematical form and what emerged is surely one of the ultimate creations of the human mind.

Like Galileo, Newton the alchemist, and many others who support godless science, Einstein proved nothing. Even the atheistic philosopher, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), correctly asserts: "Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West, as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. That shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption which can never be proved or disproved by observation."(11) (emphasis added)

These occult-influenced scientists have trespassed into the sacred realm of metaphysics, that lofty philosophy which seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. And this crime, in the 16^th century, immediately set off alarms heard in the Church, especially by those scholastically sensitive and educated. Having no competence to function in a metaphysical consideration, science’s failure could be predicted from the start; its effort to prove geocentrism wrong failed.

But to continue . . .the very name ‘Einstein’ (savior of heliocentrism) is ‘sacred’ and synonymous with ‘genius’, thanks to the conspiratorial propaganda so thoroughly disseminated. And in addition to his fallacies as detailed in De Labore Solis, not to mention the common fallacy among writers who confuse Newton’s relativity with Einstein’s, the latter’s fantasy cannot be reconciled with the Sagnac effect. This experiment reveals that the speed of light is not the same in every direction, while the theory of relativity relates that it is the same in every direction.

More generally, Solange Hertz accurately acknowledges that science has moved from the "visible" and "observable" to the "hypothetical" and "purely mathematical".(12) As a result, this abstruseness makes it all the more difficult to analyze Einstein’s true purpose. Adding more light, Jєωιѕн Dr. Erich Fromm, a United Nations cohort, in his Beyond the Chains of Illusion, boasted that ". . .Freud, Einstein and Marx were architects of the modern age." Notice he avoids the more controversial phrase, "nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr". More specifically, it is known that Karl Marx is said to have stated that he was indebted to Copernicus for preparing the world for Marxism (nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr).(13) Most illuminating.

And there is the "quasar distribution problem." In 1976 a heliocentrist of sorts, Y. P. Varshni, analyzed the spectra of three hundred eighty-five quasars (the farthest known stars from earth). One hundred fifty-two of them fell into fifty-seven groupings, all of which had the same red-shift. This red-shift hypothesis is not debated among astronomers. To quote Varshni, who arrives at the paradoxical conclusions:

". . .the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.(14)

Exit, Einstein.

In short, modern textbooks lie when they claim proof for heliocentrism. After four hundred years it ‘appears’ that God is right. Have we not now ‘evolved’ full circle to the pre-16^th century world view? St. Robert Bellarmine saw no proof nor does Van der Kamp, who said: "Numerous experiments have confirmed its (geocentrism’s) stability; none have dislodged it."

Before concluding the scientific section of this study, consider for a moment the supposed antiquity of the earth, ranging into the billions of years, the evolution and descent of man from lower life forms, the abstract theory of relativity, the expanding universe, ‘black holes’, life on other planets --- the entire panoply of organized myth. Each of these theories, masquerading as truth, has its origin in the Father of Lies.

The supposed implied existence of life forms on far-away planets are a natural offshoot of heliocentrism. This myth, too, is heretical and dates to at least the time of St. Boniface in the 8^th century. These supposed beings (precursors of homo sapiens) in an expanding, vast (nay, limitless) universe, according to the contemporary view in astronomy (which is ‘acentric’ --- no center), would not be descendants of Adam and hence could not be ransomed by the suffering and death of Christ on the Cross. The entire incarnation is in jeopardy.

Suppressing the truth has been the primary means for the success of so many of Lucifer's deceptions.(15)

From the beginning this old serpent was rightly named Lucifer, ‘the Light-Bearer’, for he is the source of the ‘false light’ which the Blessed Virgin later told us at La Salette would soon "illuminate the world", causing "extraordinary wonders every place because the true faith will be extinguished." Furthermore, he and his agents have gone under various names: Gnostics, Cabbalists, Rosicrucians, Freemasons, Illuminati, Communists, New Age Movement, and other theosophical societies. More specifically, even the luciferian Albert Pike, Illustrious Grandmaster of American Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ during the cινιℓ ωαr period, said: "At the bottom of magic . . .was science.(16)

Notice that Pike uses past tense (was). Truth in general is reversed:

God signifies Satan and Satan – God. Good is evil. Virtue is vice and vice is virtue. Light is darkness and darkness, light. Revelation is obscurantism and obscurantism is revelation. Religion is superstition and superstition, religion.(17)

Similarly, modern pseudo-science, controlled by ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, mixes fact with fantasy, hypothesis with reality, and false proofs with exacting calculation. This magical sleight of hand can easily present itself harmful to those not firmly grounded in the Truth.

Incidentally, aviation, naval and NASA’s space navigational systems use geocentric calculations. This in itself is neither proof of geocentrism nor disproof of heliocentrism, since the mathematics of both systems are workable.

In conclusion, scientific, historic and theological proofs have been submitted. Our findings: geocentrism is the truth; we have God’s Word on it. But despite the truth, falsity has reigned supreme. Satan has convinced mankind that God was wrong. Because of this, our New Age world-view is one of religious skepticism, disorder, and moral decay. The malignancy of heliocentrism (developed from sun worship) is as vicious as it is insipid, for it seeks to destroy the truth and the faith. As a result, today’s Novus Ordo Seclorum is void, empty, expanding, relative, godless. St. Athanasius, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Robert Bellarmine have been replaced by 20^th century frauds. These subverters of the truth and faith are, in general, without values, without order, without absolutes. Consequently, many have been seduced from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church --- and from God, "Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived."

The Catholic monk, Copernicus, felt a gnawing, remorse for what he had done: "I do not ask for the grace granted to Paul, neither do I demand the forgiveness of Peter, but I incessantly pray for the forgiveness which Thou on the wood of the Cross has granted to the murderer." May we not rightly deduce from this that he realized the consequences of his pernicious theory?¹⁸

Has not this subtle attack and onslaught been to the detriment of many souls? In the final analysis, how can any truth-seeking person have faith in the modern truth-benders? Have not the Church and Holy Scripture been correct from the beginning? Have not the supposed antiquated Church and morality been far more perceptive than the human intellect?

Is science divine, or is God? Has not this been the Devil’s ruse? Has not the heliocentric heresy been a driving wedge in the attack on Christ’s Church?

It is time for the faithful to come to the defense of the Church and Truth, every particle of it. Does not true science, the Church, Holy Scripture, and the Holy Faith all hang in the balance?

Once to every man and nation

Comes the moment to decide

In the strife of truth with falsehood

For the good or evil side

James Russell Lowell

"The Present Crisis"

St. Robert Bellarmine, pray for us

Notes

1 Solange Hertz, The Sides of the North, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1981, p4.

2 William Thomas Walsh, Philip II. TAN Books, Inc, Rockford IL, 1987, xvi.

3 Solange Hertz, Recanting Galileo, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1983, p4

4 Anne W. Carroll, Christ the King: Lord of History, Trinity Communications, Manassas VA, 1986, p278

5 Walter van der Kamp, Tychonian Society of Canada, Bulletin, Dec 1981.

6 Sidney F. Smith, "Bellarmine, Robert", The Catholic Encylopedia, 2^nd ed, II, 411-413

7 Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them, Parker & Co., London, 1885.

8 Richard G. Elmendorf, A Critical Investigation of the Foucault Pendulum, Pittsburgh Creation Society, Bairford PA, USA, 1994

9 Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D., With Every Wind of Doctrine, Tychonian Society, Cleveland OH, 1984, p190.

10 Walter van der Kamp, De Labore Solis, Anchor Book & Printing Centre, BC Canada, 1988, p43.

11 D. W. Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, Doubleday, New York NY, 1961, p102.

12 Solange Hertz, Recanting Galileo, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1983, Part 2, p1.

13 Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D., With Every Wind of Doctrine, Tychonian Society, Cleveland OH, 1984, p236.

14 ibid, p252.

15 Ivor Benson, This Age of Conflict, Noontide Press, Costa Mesa CA, 1987, p35.

16 Solange Hertz, The Occult Franklin, Big Rock Papers, Leesburg VA, 1976, pp1-2.

17 Maurice Pinay, The Plot Against the Church, Christian Book Club, Palmdale CA, pp559-562

18 Walter van der Kamp, De Labore Solis, Anchor Book & Printing Centre, BC Canada, 1988, p103

V V V

cassini · « **Reply #69 on:** November 27, 2018, 12:19:16 PM »

Quote from: Merry on November 27, 2018, 10:42:28 AM

Is what follows worth anything?

Geocentrism or Heliocentrism

Which is it?

What difference does it make?

The Heliocentric Hoax
Written by
James V. Forsee
Sept 1998

Of course it is Merry, but it deals more the scientific end leaving a big gap in the doctrinal and as Pope John Paul II put it;

'By virtue of her own mission, the Church has the duty to be attentive to the pastoral consequences of her teaching. Before all else, let it be clear that this teaching must correspond to the truth.' Galileo commission speech 1992

There is no doubt the biblical Volte-face of churchmen since 1741 began the long road to Modernism. First we find an infallible decree was bypassed by other papal decrees allowing heliocentric books to be read and believed. By updating the Bible to Modern thought, the Galilean reformation began. First it was from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Then came the long ages theories, evolution and the Big Bang. Having been conned by Satan, the elect went along with it all, terrified that the Galileo case could be repeated where science would show Genesis wrong in its ages, global flood etc. Provintissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII gave licence to make changes and understandings in the Bible if science could show the traditional understanding was in error. Bit by bit, tradition was eroded and at Vatican II the Modeernists burst out as the new rulers of the Church. The 17th century popes who defended the traditional interpretation of Scripture were ridiculed in gaudium et Spes, called no better than troublemakers. Today, who believes in anything Biblical? Everything has been challenged as mere metaphor like 'sun rise.' Catholicism is declining on Earth, soon it will be 'two or three gathered in my name,' as Christ put it.

What a deceit, when even Traditionalists attack the Church of 1616 and 1633 with their irreversible decrees, the story of Satan's Modernism will remain his secret.

claudel · « **Reply #70 on:** November 27, 2018, 02:09:37 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on November 27, 2018, 10:16:38 AM

… lest anyone out there still have doubts about whether or not geocentrism is a matter of faith, the words of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine … should wake them up from their slumber. …

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for writing such rubbish. You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim.

Bellarmine was writing a private letter to a priest, Father Paolo Foscarini, in response to the priest's letter asking for the cardinal's opinion of his book. Only a fool or a knave would claim that a saintly prelate would try to preempt the Holy See's reserved authority by making infallible declarations of universal applicability in such a profane context, especially one where the prelate author's repeated resort to hypotheticals and conscious use of contrary-to-fact constructions would give any prudent man pause.

The true bottom line is this: Holy Mother Church is rightfully jealous of its prerogative to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals. It has ever taken great pains to ensure that that prerogative is not toyed with or otherwise abused by the enemies of the Faith or, a fortiori, its soi-disant friends. The saddest and truest mark of the crisis reified by the Council is the near-complete disappearance of orthodox catechesis, in whose presence the pontificating delusions and outright falsehoods propagated by cassini and enthusiastically seconded by you and others would have been definitively silenced.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #71 on:** November 27, 2018, 04:28:29 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on November 21, 2018, 06:25:39 PM

The below quote by Fr. Rusak is one of the rotating TESTIMONIALS found at the bottom of this linked page: https://gwwdvd.com/blog/
The good Padre has been a staunch defender of geocentrism and the work of Robert Sungenis.
.

Quote
Quote
This serious presentation of the cosmology of the universe is totally in line with the Holy Scriptures inspired by God. In addition, it proposes what seems to be the best cosmological model to fit today's most recent scientific evidence. Unbiased persons viewing this DVD set will certainly be impressed and encouraged on to further study. Believers will be strengthened in their Faith, while doubters will seek, as always, other explanations for what appears to be evident.
Fr. Gerard Rusak

.
I wasn't able to read the quote from Fr. Rusak, above, until I changed its color.
.
I recommend that when you post a pale toned font like that, for you to highlight the text then click on the "remove formatting" option in the toolbar -- it looks like a capital A with a red circle at the bottom right containing a minus sign.

klasG4e · « **Reply #72 on:** November 27, 2018, 09:39:23 PM »

Quote from: claudel on November 27, 2018, 02:09:37 PM

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for writing such rubbish. You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim.

Bellarmine was writing a private letter to a priest, Father Paolo Foscarini, in response to the priest's letter asking for the cardinal's opinion of his book. Only a fool or a knave would claim that a saintly prelate would try to preempt the Holy See's reserved authority by making infallible declarations of universal applicability in such a profane context, especially one where the prelate author's repeated resort to hypotheticals and conscious use of contrary-to-fact constructions would give any prudent man pause.

The true bottom line is this: Holy Mother Church is rightfully jealous of its prerogative to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals. It has ever taken great pains to ensure that that prerogative is not toyed with or otherwise abused by the enemies of the Faith or, a fortiori, its soi-disant friends. The saddest and truest mark of the crisis reified by the Council is the near-complete disappearance of orthodox catechesis, in whose presence the pontificating delusions and outright falsehoods propagated by cassini and enthusiastically seconded by you and others would have been definitively silenced.

Claudel, I was taken aback by your stinging response and admittedly left a bit baffled. You say, I "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish." I am a geocentrist. Perhaps, you are not. In any event, I am not following your logic in saying that I, "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish." With all due respect, I would ask you (or anyone else following this thread) to elaborate more on why you say this.

Whatever you may think, I was not trying to deceive anyone in anyway. I merely quoted directly (without leaving any words out or adding any words) something that Bellarmine wrote which I totally agree with as it is seen there.

Is what Bellarmine wrote there as seen in my quote of him true or is it not true? If it is not true please be so kind as to state exactly what in your opinion is not true about it.

Are you in any way implying that Bellarmine did not believe what he wrote as it is seen in my quote?

Are you implying that the answer (as I quoted of Bellarmine) would be any different today than it was when he gave it to Father Foscarini on April 12, 1615? If so how would it be different and on what basis do you make such claim(s)?

Are you implying that what Bellarmine said in my quote of him contrary to any official Church teaching? If so, how so?

You tell me, "You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim." Frankly, I don't know what that paragraph is that you are referring to. What I quoted was exactly what I saw from the source that I quoted it from. I did not add anything or subtract anything from what I saw. I ask you to please put down in a response what exactly that next paragraph was that you say makes nonsense of the assertion I made which was based on the words I quoted from Bellarmine.

I believe the true bottom line rests on whether what Bellarmine said as I quoted him is a true statement or whether it is not. I believe it to be true and I I don't know of any official Church docuмent that unequivocally contradicts it. Nevertheless, I welcome whatever you wish to put forth in an effort to show me to be wrong in my belief.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #73 on:** November 27, 2018, 11:06:35 PM »

Quote from: klasG4e on November 27, 2018, 09:39:23 PM

Claudel, I was taken aback by your stinging response and admittedly left a bit baffled. You say, I "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish." I am a geocentrist. Perhaps, you are not. In any event, I am not following your logic in saying that I, "ought to be ashamed for writing such rubbish." With all due respect, I would ask you (or anyone else following this thread) to elaborate more on why you say this.

Whatever you may think, I was not trying to deceive anyone in anyway. I merely quoted directly (without leaving any words out or adding any words) something that Bellarmine wrote which I totally agree with as it is seen there.

Is what Bellarmine wrote there as seen in my quote of him true or is it not true? If it is not true please be so kind as to state exactly what in your opinion is not true about it.

Are you in any way implying that Bellarmine did not believe what he wrote as it is seen in my quote?

Are you implying that the answer (as I quoted of Bellarmine) would be any different today than it was when he gave it to Father Foscarini on April 12, 1615? If so how would it be different and on what basis do you make such claim(s)?

Are you implying that what Bellarmine said in my quote of him contrary to any official Church teaching? If so, how so?

You tell me, "You either know or ought to know that the very next paragraph after your edited, deceptively highlighted, and cherry-picked one makes nonsense of your claim." Frankly, I don't know what that paragraph is that you are referring to. What I quoted was exactly what I saw from the source that I quoted it from. I did not add anything or subtract anything from what I saw. I ask you to please put down in a response what exactly that next paragraph was that you say makes nonsense of the assertion I made which was based on the words I quoted from Bellarmine.

I believe the true bottom line rests on whether what Bellarmine said as I quoted him is a true statement or whether it is not. I believe it to be true and I I don't know of any official Church docuмent that unequivocally contradicts it. Nevertheless, I welcome whatever you wish to put forth in an effort to show me to be wrong in my belief.

.
In his typically smug subjective misery, claudel bemoans the paragraph you quoted from the Letter which Merry's post above (#68 ) quotes in full (in blue). If he's got his panties in a bunch over the "next paragraph," well, then here it is (following the blue one):
.
.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

The foremost human authority on this issue is, of course, St. Robert Bellarmine, who knew the perilous consequences of Galileo’s heresy. The following letter of April 12, 1613, was written to an involved party, Fr. Paolo Foscarini, and it decisively and prophetically cautions the 16^th century world about the dangers of heliocentrism. Lest one might believe it is quoted out of context, and also to dispel any doubt, Bellarmine’s entire letter will be cited. The following should indicate why Pope Clement VIII rejoiced that "the Church of God had not his equal in learning."(6) Bellarmine to Foscarini:

I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing.

First. I say that it seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (turns upon its axis) without travelling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scripture false. For Your Reverence has demonstrated many ways of explaining Holy Scripture, but you have not applied them in particular, and without a doubt you would have found it most difficult if you had attempted to explain all the passages which you yourself have cited.

Second. I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scripture contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers. I add that the words "the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc" were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move. And that is enough for the present.

I salute Your Reverend and ask God to grant you every happiness.

Are not the words of this great Church doctor and saint eloquent, insightful, profound? Is there any Catholic among us who can find a flaw in it?

Since, as previously stated, theology is true science (God’s science), then only through theological sources can one be absolutely sure of answers. Also, scientifically speaking, how can anyone go outside the universe to observe what is actually happening? Since this is impossible, God has provided us with an unerring source of truth. The Holy Scriptures, certainly a primary source, are absolutely geocentric. There are a number of passages to support the earth-centered reality. Refer, for example, to Genesis and the Psalms. Note Psalms 18:5-6, 92:1, 95:10; also, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 and Josue’s long day (Josue 10). Believe the truth revealed in perpetuity, when you read Psalm 103, which anticipates Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein, and all the other innovators: the earth…"shall not be moved forever and ever".

Many writers, scientists, and pseudo-theologians have spilt much ink trying to accommodate unverifiable, modern science (heliocentrism and evolution, in particular) with the Bible. Despite their mental gymnastics, their forced allegorical interpretations, their flaws in logic, and so on, not one has presented a viable argument. Belief in their reasoning not only requires blind faith, but leads one to conclude that God is a poor grammarian at best or a liar at worst. Some exegetes try to pass off all the inconsistencies by calling the language of the Scriptures poetic, figurative, or phenomenological; meaning that God in some cases did not really mean what He said. Aside from the inspired Word of God, we have the Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and the Decrees(7), all geocentric. Today, after four hundred years, the official teaching of the Catholic Church is still geocentric: The earth is the center of the universe, and it has no motion.
.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #74 on:** November 27, 2018, 11:12:30 PM »

.
It's pathetic to see claudel making baseless insults at other good members which he thinks will offend them, which is his only motive.
All it accomplishes is making himself look like a puerile wimp. Substantiated by the fact that when he's called out on it, he runs away and hides for 6 months to a year, licking his wounded pride, like he's done in the past.

Author Topic: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book (Read 14570 times)

Stanley N

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

King Wenceslas

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

King Wenceslas

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Merry

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

cassini

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

claudel

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

klasG4e

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book

Neil Obstat

Re: SSPX Priest Publicly Smashes Fr. Paul Robinson's (SSPX) Book