-
In an amazing act of strong and courageous public admonishment Fr. Gerard Rusak of the SSPX has leveled a blistering critique of the recently published book, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science by fellow SSPX Priest Fr. Paul Robinson. It was actually published this month as a review on the SSPX website wherein the book is being advertised. Here is the link: https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science) Once there simply click on Read 14 reviews (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#) to see the actual review which I have pasted below.
Failure to consider all the evidence
Father Gerard Rusak, FSSPX, Nov 2018
While Father Robinson excels on philosophical points in the first six chapters of his book (1 star), he accepts the unproven hypotheses of the Big Bang (with its long ages needed for evolution) and he rashly embraces heliocentrism. Meanwhile, he brushes aside those who do not agree with him using insufficient arguments (see below). His interpretation of the Bible is more in accord with a liberal interpretation of Vatican II's Dei Verbum #11 rather than with the traditional teaching of the Church on the inerrant nature of Holy Scripture. This allows him to pick and choose among facts related in the book of Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible. He also ignores the longstanding the decrees of the Church against Galileo and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church these same questions. On these last issues, his insufficient arguments have been completely refuted by a book by Robert Sungenis: "Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church" (564 pages).
I thank the Angelus Press in advance for posting this review and request them to add to their list of books the above book of Robert Sungenis so that both sides of the question may be heard. Or should they not wish to do so, to withdraw Father Robinson's book from sale from this their website.
I may add that I know other SSPX priests and faithful like myself who are shocked at the publication of this book for at least some if not all, of the above reasons.
-
:applause:
-
I hope Fr Rusak likes warm weather, its great this time of year in Nigeria.
-
I hope Fr Rusak likes warm weather, its great this time of year in Nigeria.
https://sspx.org/en/media/video/mission-nigeria-29898 where he would have to write on the blackboard 100 times a day until thoroughly memorized what is found here: http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus (http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus)
-
.
I hope Fr Rusak likes warm weather, it's great this time of year in Nigeria.
.
...you left out the part about having to go evangelize the baboons...
-
https://sspx.org/en/media/video/mission-nigeria-29898 where he would have to write on the blackboard 100 times a day until thoroughly memorized what is found here: http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus (http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus)
.
The first link contains this sentence: "The priests of the Society spare no effort to come to the relief of sous."
.
Is that French for something, "sous?"
.
Second link says (Platte City, MO is the seat of the District Superior of the USA, no?):
.
.
The SSPX on geocentrism: press release
What is the SSPX's position concerning the heliocentric and geocentric scientific theories of the solar system?
PLATTE CITY, MO (8-30-2011) A recent news report implied that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teaching based upon the Bible. The SSPX holds no such position.
The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. As a religious congregation of the Catholic Church, the SSPX holds to these principles and does not teach any solar scientific theory.
The SSPX and the solar system
As declared by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html), science cannot contradict the Faith:
There can never… be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as
each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, 'not to
make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.'"
Even today, many commonly-held tenets of natural science are merely theories, not certainties. This is not the case with the Catholic Faith, which is a certainty.
The Church’s magisterium authoritatively teaches on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. As Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflatu Spiritu (http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu.html):
The Holy Ghost, Who spoke by them [the sacred writers], did not intend to teach men these things—that
is the essential nature of the things of the universe... [which principle] will apply to cognate sciences…"
Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”). Such expressions are not scientific teachings about the cosmic world.
So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.
Further reading
- Galileo: victim or villain? (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/galileo-victim-or-villain-october-2013-angelus.pdf)
-
.
Found on the first link above:
.
https://vimeo.com/217462858
-
.
It seems to me that there is room in the world for a book authored by Fr. Gerard Rusak. What say you?
-
.
Further reading
- Galileo: victim or villain? (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/galileo-victim-or-villain-october-2013-angelus.pdf)
.
The linked article is authored by Jason Winschel, a parishioner of the SSPX chapel in Carnegie, PA.
He is not a scientist, but an academic with degrees in History and Poli Sci.
And that is precisely how the article reads.
.
.
From the note at the end of the article:
.
Jason T.J.J. Winschel and wife Tina are the parents of four boys. He holds degrees in History and Political Science from the University of Pittsburgh. He teaches History at the middle and high school levels in the North Allegheny School District. He and his family attend the Latin Mass at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church in Carnegie, PA.
-
.
Further reading
- Galileo: victim or villain? (http://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/galileo-victim-or-villain-october-2013-angelus.pdf)
.
The linked article is authored by Jason Winschel, a parishioner of the SSPX chapel in Carnegie, PA.
He is not a scientist, but an academic with degrees in History and Poli Sci.
And that is precisely how the article reads.
.
.
From the note at the end of the article:
.
Jason T.J.J. Winschel and wife Tina are the parents of four boys. He holds degrees in History and Political Science from the University of Pittsburgh. He teaches History at the middle and high school levels in the North Allegheny School District. He and his family attend the Latin Mass at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic Church in Carnegie, PA.
Robert Sungenis details his encounter with The Angelus concerning Winschel's Octobert 2003 cover story article in his book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. The shorter version of this sorry affair is found in footnote 149 on p. 99 of Sungenis' more recent book which Fr. Rusak refers to in his review -- Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church wherein it states: "On another occasion ....Jason Winschel, wrote an article for the SSPX magazine, The Angelus, titled, Galileo, Victim or Villain," for the October 2003 issue. A few months after the article was published, I approached the editor of The Angelus and asked if he would allow us to write a rebuttal for othe sake of fairness. He declined, even after an appeal."
Jason Winschel doing his thing as a public school teacher: https://www.northallegheny.org/Page/7300 (https://www.northallegheny.org/Page/7300)
| (https://www.northallegheny.org/cms/lib/PA01001119/Centricity/Domain/1198/DSC00459.jpg) | Name: Jason Winschel
Email: jwinschel@northallegheny.org (jwinschel@northallegheny.org)
Grade: 9
Room Number: 403
Subject(s): Honors European History, American History
|
Class(es)/Course(s): Honors European History, American History
District Activities I Sponsor/Coach: Middle School Cross Country, Track and Field; High School Table Tennis Club |
Biography: (1973-?)
|
-
About 7 years ago when he was the SSPX pastor at Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Winnipeg Fr. Rusak bravely hosted a presentation/talk on geocentrism by Robert Sungenis for the SSPX faithful. During Sungenis' visit Fr. Rusak also set up a debate on geocentrism at the U. of Manitoba with Sungenis who easily won -- by a count from the audience itself who by the way was fairly hostile to Sungenis at the beginning of the debate and throughout a good part of it.
-
I have no real interest in Fr. Robinson's book, or in Fr. Rusak's responses, although I think I would probably agree with Fr. Rusak. But of immense interest would be Fr. R's immediate future. Will he keep his present assignment, or will he be sent to some African country,... or worse, will he be driven from the Society altogether? We all know how the former regime treated dissident priests. Does the change in leadership signal a greater tolerance and a change of direction? Or will it simply be more of the same some kind of harsh treatment meted out to Fr. Rusak? We're all standing by.
-
I have no real interest in Fr. Robinson's book, or in Fr. Rusak's responses, although I think I would probably agree with Fr. Rusak. But of immense interest would be Fr. R's immediate future. Will he keep his present assignment, or will he be sent to some African country,... or worse, will he be driven from the Society altogether? We all know how the former regime treated dissident priests. Does the change in leadership signal a greater tolerance and a change of direction? Or will it simply be more of the same some kind of harsh treatment meted out to Fr. Rusak? We're all standing by.
Very good question. Let's keep track of Father Rusak.
-
.
Very good question. Let's keep track of Father Rusak.
.
If he were here, Fr. Rusak would most likely ask for our prayers. :pray:
-
About 7 years ago when he was the SSPX pastor at Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Winnipeg Fr. Rusak bravely hosted a presentation/talk on geocentrism by Robert Sungenis for the SSPX faithful. During Sungenis' visit, Fr. Rusak also set up a debate on geocentrism at the U. of Manitoba with Sungenis, who easily won -- by a count from the audience itself who, by the way, was fairly hostile to Sungenis at the beginning of the debate and throughout a good part of it.
.
The things you learn on CI -- where else would one find this explained? Certainly not the Angelus or sspx.org (http://www.sspx.org) .
.
So he has a record of going against the grain in the Society. Therefore, he is slated for consequences.
The iron fist of Menzingen cannot abide with dissidents; they've proved that much, if anything.
-
There is a possibility that this could just be an act of damage control. In other words the Superiors will do nothing to make believe that the conservative side of the SSPX is still tolerated. I heard from a friend on FB that he was upset at those who said he was a brave priest for publicly opposing Fr. Robinson's book and for the article from Tradidi.
-
I have no real interest in Fr. Robinson's book, or in Fr. Rusak's responses, although I think I would probably agree with Fr. Rusak. But of immense interest would be Fr. R's immediate future. Will he keep his present assignment, or will he be sent to some African country,... or worse, will he be driven from the Society altogether? We all know how the former regime treated dissident priests. Does the change in leadership signal a greater tolerance and a change of direction? Or will it simply be more of the same some kind of harsh treatment meted out to Fr. Rusak? We're all standing by.
The hardest thing for many -- perhaps, most -- people to wrap their head around is how in the world the entire universe could go around the Earth once every 24 hours. Actually, mainstream science itself allows for this as completely possible and not only once every 24 hours, but many, many, many times more than that. Many mainstream scientists who don't want to lose their jobs, funding, prestige, peer acceptance, etc., however disallow (at least openly) for the Earth being in the center of the universe and the universe going around it not for scientific reasons, but for purely philosophical reasons. The honest ones and some of the most famous ones have openly admitted this. If the Earth sits motionless at the center of the universe it means Someone with a capital S put it there! That is what doesn't sit well with them -- at all. Ultimately, it is that simple.
A key concept in coming to understand how the universe can travel around the Earth is aether. Space is NOT empty! The stars, planets, moons, asteroids, etc. are able to freely move around in the aether (which is incredibly dense while at the same time incredibly fluid), but at the same time are carried by it; carried by it around the Earth every 24 hours.
What will happen to the good Padre? I'm betting that he is likely the least one to give it much thought as long as he can serve God in trying to continue to save souls in whatever way the Good Lord allows him to.
The seeming enigma related to Fr. Rusak's review is that it was allowed to be posted on the website of the Angelus Press in the first place. This appears to be totally unprecedented and one may rightly wonder: 1) how it came about, and 2) whether it will be allowed to remain on the site. (On 2 separate occasions I submitted a somewhat similar review on the site, but neither has ever been posted, nor do I expect either ever will be. That is why I was utterly astounded when I saw Fr. Rusak's review go up.)
-
Now -- up, up, and away -- on youtube!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c&t=50s
-
Now -- up, up, and away -- on youtube!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c&t=50s
Starts in on geocentrism at 33:25. After all this time and total debunking of stellar parallex as proof of heliocentrism, Fr. Robinson still keeps clinging to it as his "gospel" truth for same! As they say, "Da nile ain't just a river in Egypt."
-
There is a possibility that this could just be an act of damage control. In other words the Superiors will do nothing to make believe that the conservative side of the SSPX is still tolerated.
So SSPX playing a game of "good cop bad cop".
-
https://sspx.org/en/media/video/mission-nigeria-29898 where he would have to write on the blackboard 100 times a day until thoroughly memorized what is found here: http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus (http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus)
Quoting SSPX on geocentrism:
'So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.'
It is perfectly clear to me that a society of priests claiming to be true to tradition, haven't a clue with regard to the historical Galileo affair. Their ignorance is shocking and should be confronted with a few facts about the religion the profess.
'Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium' they state, 'Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science.' Would that they tell us where the Church's 'magisterium' teaches us this. It is usually attributed to Cardinal Baroneous (1538 to 1607) to make it look Catholic, but in fact it was the Protestant Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) who coined this 'Church's magisterium' post-Galileo 'dogma.'
‘Before he left Varmia in 1541 [when Baronius was 3-years-old] Rheticus had composed his own small tract to demonstrate the absence of conflict between heliocentrism and the Bible…. He went on to make a distinction that is still part of the faith-science dialogue: In the Bible the Holy Spirit’s intention, declared Rheticus, is not to teach science but to impart spiritual truths “necessary for Salvation.” Moreover, whatever descriptions of nature that do appear in the Scriptures, they are “accommodated to the popular understanding.”’---Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, Walker & Co., 2006, p.108
Why even the Protestants used this new dogma long ago:
‘The retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult. A little skilful warping of Scripture, a little skilful use of that time-honoured phrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible is given to teach us, not how the heavens go, but how men go to heaven, and a free use of the explosive rhetoric against the pursuing army of scientists, sufficed.’ ----Andrew White, A History...
But now back to the main issue. The Galileo case was not about 'natural science' as the SSPX puts it, it was about the correct interpretation of Scripture. St Thomas has long stated the Church has no obligation to consider 'natural science' when interpreting Scripture. Its job is to interpret Scripture properly.
The only time the 'Church's magisterium' was used as regards the subject matter was when Pope Paul V in 1616 decreed the Scripture reveal an orbiting sun as the TRUE MEANING OF SCRIPTURE. This had NOTHING to do with the science of it. The Church does not DEFINE MATTERS OF NATURAL SCIENCE, only dogmas of the Catholic faith. It was defined BEFORE any scientific claim was proven as to whether the sun orbits the Earth or the other way around.
Once Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ fooled churchmen that the earth orbits the sun, there began IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE GALILEAN REFORMATION. ANYTHING said by popes after 1835 on the matter WAS INFLUENCED BY THEIR ERERONEOUS BELIEF THAT HELIOCENTRISM WAS PROVEN. Nothing after 1616 can be attributed to the 'Church's magisterium,' only to false utterences by popes that the SSPX now consider their 'Church's magisterium.'
Finally, read the SSPX statement again above. 'So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science.' NO BUT IT IS OK FOR CATHOLICS TO USE SCIENCE TO REINTERPRET THE SCRIPTURES. Human science is not infallible like Pope Paul V's interpretation of Scripture, it is VERY FALLIBLE. As it turned out scientific heliocentrism was found NEVER TO HAVE BEEN PROVEN. Did the SSPX never hear of Albert Einstein? In 1905 he told the world the true order of the universe is a METAPHYSICAL matter.
OH IF ONLY THE SSPX COULD SEE THE LIGHT. COPY THIS AND GIVE IT TO THEM.
I will address their references to biblical encyclicals tomorrow.
-
If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.
-
If things ever get rough for Fr. Rusak, he can always contact Bishop Zendejas. If he doesn't have the Bishop's contact info, he can always get in touch with me (matthew at cathinfo dot com) and I'll be glad to help.
-
If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.
The most useful suggestion one might make to Cassini is that he stop acting on the assumption that nonsensical and false statements acquire sense and truth when they are set in FULL CAPS or larger type.
Pope Paul V did not make the infallible statement on heliocentrism that the people who Cassini fronts for claim he (Paul V) did. A mere declaration by eleven cardinals—a declaration, moreover, that was pointedly not directed toward Galileo or toward anything Galileo wrote* and that partook of no active papal involvement—cannot wrap itself in the cloak of infallibility with the equivalent of a wink and a nod. Furthermore, Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.
___________________________
*Cf. the letter to that effect that Paul V directed Cardinal Bellarmine to give to Galileo.
-
If things ever get rough for Fr. Rusak, he can always contact Bishop Zendejas. If he doesn't have the Bishop's contact info, he can always get in touch with me (matthew at cathinfo dot com) and I'll be glad to help.
.
It would seem the question is more a matter of WHEN things get rough, not "if."
-
If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.
.
We ought to set up a pool for the number of minutes the Angelus Press site would allow cassini's review to remain online.
-
.
The seeming enigma related to Fr. Rusak's review is that it was allowed to be posted on the website of the Angelus Press in the first place. This appears to be totally unprecedented and one may rightly wonder: 1) how it came about, and 2) whether it will be allowed to remain on the site. (On 2 separate occasions I submitted a somewhat similar review on the site, but neither has ever been posted, nor do I expect either ever will be. That is why I was utterly astounded when I saw Fr. Rusak's review go up.)
.
Perhaps it was put up for the sole purpose of letting readers see that Fr. Rusak is rocking the boat, and that when he gets disciplined there won't be any backlash, much as there was so little reaction against +W's expulsion.
-
I wonder what take, if any, Fr. Robinson has on the Doctor of the Church St. Hildegard who wrote extensively and with profound insight on the nature of the geocentric universe. Possibly one of the very best books on this from a traditional Catholic perspective is The Geocentric Universe According to St. Hildegard by Robert Sungenis.
St. Hildegard, an eleventh century German mystic and Benedictine Abbess, was called the most gifted woman of the epoch and was gifted with insight into cosmology that far exceeds the theories of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein. (The fullest exposition of St. Hildegard's cosmological writngs is found in her Liber Divinorum Operum or Book of Divine Works.)
-
On pp 1-2 of Robert Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church -- A Critical Analysis of "The Realist Guide to "Religion and Science" we find this remarkable passage: "A good friend of mine who is a priest in the SSPX confided the following to me: 'Let me just note that being in the SSPX for over 35 years now, there have always been priests who did not accept 6-day Creation, and who would not even have considered geocentrism as an option , and who were open to certain forms of evolution. The SSPX has always been a mix of ideas of everything that was still considered orthodox in the 1960s. Those in authority have feared to accept new creationist and geocentric proofs which have come forth since the 60's, and have willed to keep a 60's - 70's mentality, despite new proofs, or have not been willing to consider as serious science anything which has come forth from geocentric or creationist arguments. I know, however, several priests open to geocentrism, etc., in the SSPX. You will also note that Father Robinson's book was curiously published by Gracewing Publishers and not an SSPX publisher such as the Angelus Press. Perhaps Father Robinson wanted a wider readership, at the same time Angelus Press might have realized that such a book would rock the boat among SSPX faithful."
-
The most useful suggestion one might make to Cassini is that he stop acting on the assumption that nonsensical and false statements acquire sense and truth when they are set in FULL CAPS or larger type.
Pope Paul V did not make the infallible statement on heliocentrism that the people who Cassini fronts for claim he (Paul V) did. A mere declaration by eleven cardinals—a declaration, moreover, that was pointedly not directed toward Galileo or toward anything Galileo wrote* and that partook of no active papal involvement—cannot wrap itself in the cloak of infallibility with the equivalent of a wink and a nod. Furthermore, Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.
___________________________
*Cf. the letter to that effect that Paul V directed Cardinal Bellarmine to give to Galileo.
OK Claudel, I take your point as regards capitals etc., but that is my style. I use capitals and other means to emphasise important facts, facts you obviously do not like to read.
I have asked the likes of yourself on many 'Catholic' forums where in the history of the Church has any pope or Holy Office DENIED Pope Paul V's 1616 decree WAS NOT IRREORMABLE? Usually I get banned because I reveal how popes and churchmen CONNED the Catholic Faith out of an infallible definition that made it a dogma that the BIBLE reveals an orbiting sun. Finally I find a forum in CIF that is Catholic and willing to discuss this matter for the sake of the faith. Thank God for CIF.
The 'mere declaration by eleven cardinals,' defined the Bible reveals an orbiting sun. The Pope as Prefect of the Holy Office examined their finding and approved it. That is how this Office that examined cases of serious heresy worked. On the 25th February, 1616, the day the Pope Paul V presided over the Holy Office as Prefect and approved the ruling by his office as pope, He told Cardinal Bellarmine to tell Galileo his heliocentriosm was formal heresy because it contradicted the Bible and the understanding of it by all the Fathers, another proof of its infallibility according to the Council of Trent. On 26th May, 1616, Cardinal Bellarmine, wrote a letter for Galileo, and used the words 'the declaration made by the Holy Father.' with regard to heretical heliocentrism.
Your claim above that the declaration was not directed towards Galileo or what he wrote shows me you are just another apologist inventing your own version of the case. The first declaration was made to Galileo in 1616 and the second above against Galileo and what he said in his book Dialogue.
In 1633 Pope Urban III confirmed the 1616 decree was irreformable (infallible) when in his judgement against Galileo's heliocentric argument in his book said no such opinion can be held or 'defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.'
There is also docuмented proof that in 1820, the Holy Office examined the authority of the 1616 decree and found it was papal and non reformable.
However, in 1820 churchmen believed heliocentrism was proven, this is also docuмented. So, faced with an 'irreformable' (infallible) decree, how did they con their way out of their dilemma that in effect proved an infallible papal decree WRONG? They certainly could not deny the infallibility of the 1616 decree because it was as it was. Well, Olivieri told them all that the infallible 1616 decree was against a violent heliocentrism, but that everyone 'now knows' the heliocentrism of 1820 'is not violent, so not heretical.
So desperate were those churchmen to save infallibility in the face of what they believed was proof that infallibility was proven wrong, they all went along with the joke that the 1616 decree was against a violent orbiting Earth. In fact, even then, many records showed that the 1616 decree was against the denial that the sun moved around the Earth. Yet not one person except Fr Anfossi and a few argued against the sham. Pope Pius VII however believed Olivieri and the 'non heretical heliocentrism' became the new interpretation of Scripture.
This farce of a non-heretical heliocentrism is the one now defended by you Claudel, all those other Catholic forums that banned me under the guise of:
'Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.'
There is no speculation or personal opinion in my synthesis Claudel. The messenger is being burned for researching the official Church docuмents held in secret over the centuries but now open to the public after study by many scholars.
The Galilean reformation in the Church is directly responsible for many attacks on the Bible, the ROCK upon which Modernism in the Church was built. Look at the state of the Church today and tell me it all started with the Vatican II popes. Well sorry to tell you that rot began in 1835 when science waas elected as the new interpreter of Scripture.
Now it is your turn
-
OK Claudel, I take your point as regards capitals etc., but that is my style. I use capitals and other means to emphasise important facts, facts you obviously do not like to read.
I have asked the likes of yourself on many 'Catholic' forums where in the history of the Church has any pope or Holy Office DENIED Pope Paul V's 1616 decree WAS NOT IRREORMABLE? Usually I get banned because I reveal how popes and churchmen CONNED the Catholic Faith out of an infallible definition that made it a dogma that the BIBLE reveals an orbiting sun. Finally I find a forum in CIF that is Catholic and willing to discuss this matter for the sake of the faith. Thank God for CIF.
The 'mere declaration by eleven cardinals,' defined the Bible reveals an orbiting sun. The Pope as Prefect of the Holy Office examined their finding and approved it. That is how this Office that examined cases of serious heresy worked. On the 25th February, 1616, the day the Pope Paul V presided over the Holy Office as Prefect and approved the ruling by his office as pope, He told Cardinal Bellarmine to tell Galileo his heliocentriosm was formal heresy because it contradicted the Bible and the understanding of it by all the Fathers, another proof of its infallibility according to the Council of Trent. On 26th May, 1616, Cardinal Bellarmine, wrote a letter for Galileo, and used the words 'the declaration made by the Holy Father.' with regard to heretical heliocentrism.
Your claim above that the declaration was not directed towards Galileo or what he wrote shows me you are just another apologist inventing your own version of the case. The first declaration was made to Galileo in 1616 and the second above against Galileo and what he said in his book Dialogue.
In 1633 Pope Urban III confirmed the 1616 decree was irreformable (infallible) when in his judgement against Galileo's heliocentric argument in his book said no such opinion can be held or 'defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.'
There is also docuмented proof that in 1820, the Holy Office examined the authority of the 1616 decree and found it was papal and non reformable.
However, in 1820 churchmen believed heliocentrism was proven, this is also docuмented. So, faced with an 'irreformable' (infallible) decree, how did they con their way out of their dilemma that in effect proved an infallible papal decree WRONG? They certainly could not deny the infallibility of the 1616 decree because it was as it was. Well, Olivieri told them all that the infallible 1616 decree was against a violent heliocentrism, but that everyone 'now knows' the heliocentrism of 1820 'is not violent, so not heretical.
So desperate were those churchmen to save infallibility in the face of what they believed was proof that infallibility was proven wrong, they all went along with the joke that the 1616 decree was against a violent orbiting Earth. In fact, even then, many records showed that the 1616 decree was against the denial that the sun moved around the Earth. Yet not one person except Fr Anfossi and a few argued against the sham. Pope Pius VII however believed Olivieri and the 'non heretical heliocentrism' became the new interpretation of Scripture.
This farce of a non-heretical heliocentrism is the one now defended by you Claudel, all those other Catholic forums that banned me under the guise of:
'Cassini's oft-repeated claim that all the subsequent popes either directly served or indirectly cooperated with Satanic Masonic forces pushing heliocentrism is nothing short of formal blasphemy.'
There is no speculation or personal opinion in my synthesis Claudel. The messenger is being burned for researching the official Church docuмents held in secret over the centuries but now open to the public after study by many scholars.
The Galilean reformation in the Church is directly responsible for many attacks on the Bible, the ROCK upon which Modernism in the Church was built. Look at the state of the Church today and tell me it all started with the Vatican II popes. Well sorry to tell you that rot began in 1835 when science waas elected as the new interpreter of Scripture.
Now it is your turn
Spot on! Very well said cassini! I thank the Good Lord that there are men like you who have taken the time and effort to study this subject so thoroughly and then to courageously disseminate the truth regarding same. May that the Good God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost allow you to continue on in this endeavor!
-
If I may make a suggestion here for Cassini, perhaps you should post a review of Fr Robinson's book on the Angelus Press site and support Fr Rusak in it.
Just submitted the following to Angelus Press website on Fr Robinson's book: Let us see if they publish it.
FAITH OR SCIENCE?
For 30 years now I have been studying 'faith and science' as it applies to the Catholic faith. Like most I was educated to believe heliocentrism and evolution were proven true by science. One day a friend gave me a book on evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I had been made a fool of. Human reasoning and the absence of any proof showed me this. I discovered the very first theory was the Nebular theory, how their heliocentric solar system evolved.
I then studied the Galileo case, its science and the Church's part in it. I found it too was based on assumption as absolute truth. I then found churchmen had accepted assumption as truth and sided with 'science.' To do so they had to 'disown' a papal decree of 1616 that it had ruled as irreversible.' Along came Einstein who showed there is no science that can prove geocentrism wrong.
1992 a papal commission told all heliocentrism was proven and it was the reason for the Church to change its biblical interpretation of Genesis. This is not true. Nevertheless, in 1965 Gaudium et spes of Vatican II ridiculed the churchmen of 1616 as 'fundamentalists' and troublemakers for interpreting the Bible geocentric.
Having read this book by Fr Robinson I find once again any Catholic who believes in the dogma of Ex nihilo creation, immediately 'in it whole substance' as Vatican I said, is accused of 'fundamentalism.' It contains a synthesis that infers some long condemned Pythagorean heresies are back again. How sad.
-
2 questions: 1) Do any of the priests of the SSPX take the Oath against Modernism, and 2) Is there any legitimate way in the world that Fr. Robinson's book could have stayed off the Index of Forbidden Books when the Index was in operation?
-
I believe that a probable future scenario in light of the fact that the SSPX leadership is apparently doubling down in the backing of Fr. Robinson's book, but also in light of the fact that the book is receiving severe and yet very reasoned and informed criticism from Catholics (most notably Robert Sungenis), and finally in light of the fact that this criticism will probably not only not cease, but will -- I certainly hope, anyway -- grow stronger the book will undergo a severe editing and then come out in revised form only. I think this may be the best damage control and partial face saving solution for the perspective of the beleaguered SSPX.
-
Just submitted the following to Angelus Press website on Fr Robinson's book: Let us see if they publish it.
FAITH OR SCIENCE?
For 30 years now I have been studying 'faith and science' as it applies to the Catholic faith. Like most I was educated to believe heliocentrism and evolution were proven true by science. One day a friend gave me a book on evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I had been made a fool of. Human reasoning and the absence of any proof showed me this. I discovered the very first theory was the Nebular theory, how their heliocentric solar system evolved.
I then studied the Galileo case, its science and the Church's part in it. I found it too was based on assumption as absolute truth. I then found churchmen had accepted assumption as truth and sided with 'science.' To do so they had to 'disown' a papal decree of 1616 that it had ruled as irreversible.' Along came Einstein who showed there is no science that can prove geocentrism wrong.
1992 a papal commission told all heliocentrism was proven and it was the reason for the Church to change its biblical interpretation of Genesis. This is not true. Nevertheless, in 1965 Gaudium et spes of Vatican II ridiculed the churchmen of 1616 as 'fundamentalists' and troublemakers for interpreting the Bible geocentric.
Having read this book by Fr Robinson I find once again any Catholic who believes in the dogma of Ex nihilo creation, immediately 'in it whole substance' as Vatican I said, is accused of 'fundamentalism.' It contains a synthesis that infers some long condemned Pythagorean heresies are back again. How sad.
Way to go! It's just been posted. See https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science. (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)
Hopefully, others on this forum and elsewhere -- my two previous submitted reviews were never posted -- will submit one star reviews as well.
-
2 questions: 1) Do any of the priests of the SSPX take the Oath against Modernism, and 2) Is there any legitimate way in the world that Fr. Robinson's book could have stayed off the Index of Forbidden Books when the Index was in operation?
I asked a SSPX priest that question today. He told me they take this oath every YEAR.
Before 1835 yes after 1835, no way.
By the way klasG4e, thanks for that kind post.
-
Way to go! It's just been posted. See https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science. (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)
Hopefully, others on this forum and elsewhere -- my two previous submitted reviews were never posted -- will submit one star reviews as well.
Fair play to them. Needless to say I had to keep comment in first gear. But here is an interesting point. You get 5 stars to mark. I of course marked none but the site said I had to make the book up for a valid. So I had to give it a one.
-
Fair play to them. Needless to say I had to keep comment in first gear. But here is an interesting point. You get 5 stars to mark. I of course marked none but the site said I had to make the book up for a valid. So I had to give it a one.
Same as Amazon where interestingly the number of reviews on the book is 15 -- the exact same # as on the Angelus Press site. The present breakdown of reviews on Amazon is 60% 5 stars and 40% one star with nothing in between.
-
The SSPX is lost.
When did the Truth cease to matter?
-
Ron Skriba who is said to be the world's preeminent promoter of flat earth is scheduled for a 2 hour debate this Thursday evening, November 15th with Robert Sungenis, author of the 700 plus page book Flat Earth / Flat Wrong: An Historical, Biblical, and Scientific Analysis. Robert will be facing a hostile audience for sure since it will be held during a huge flat Earth conference.
Query as to why Fr. Robinson has not responded to multiple inquiries (including my own) as to his willingness or lack thereof to debate Robert Sungenis on geocentrism. Sungenis has clearly expressed a desire to debate the good padre.
*************************************************************************************************************************
The debate will be in Denver on November 15h.
See "Recent News" at https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/)
News (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/news/)
Debate On Flat Earth With Robert Sungenis & Rob Skiba
November 3, 2018
Posted in News (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/category/news/)
No Comments (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/debate-on-flat-earth-with-robert-sungenis-rob-skiba/#respond)
Tags: Debate (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/tag/debate/), FEIC 2018 (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/tag/feic-2018/), flat earth (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/tag/flat-earth/), FLAT EARTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/tag/flat-earth-international-conference/), Rob Skiba (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/tag/rob-skiba/), Robert Sungenis (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/tag/robert-sungenis/)
x (https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Rob-Skiba_post-1024x536.png) (http://fe2018.com/)
Hey, Principle fans!
We want to inform you of a very interesting event that will occur on November 15, 2018.
Robert Sungenis, creator, executive producer and actor in The Principle movie, and now author of the new book, Flat Earth/Flat Wrong, will be having a public and formal debate against Rob Skiba, one of the most popular flat-earthers in the country.
The debate will take place at 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm at the Crown Plaza Airport Convention Center hotel in Denver, Colorado. You can still make reservations at the hotel if you want to come.
The debate is part of the International Flat Earth conference that will take place November 15 and 16. See www.fe2018.com (http://www.fe2018.com/) for more details.
Speakers include most of the heavyweights of the flat earth movement, such as: Patricia Steere (who appeared on CBS’s morning show October 14 defending the flat earth);Mark Sargent (the Enclosed World); Bob Knodel (Globebusters); Jeran Campanella (Jeranism); Robbie Davidson (Celebrate Truth); Zen Garcia (Sacred Word Publishing),
…and nineteen other speakers.
As most of you know, The Principle debuted October 2014 in Chicago at Regal movie theaters. A few months prior, the media got wind of The Principle and it became the third highest topic of discussion on the Internet, and was covered by over 150 new outlets around the world. By the time The Principle came to Los Angeles theaters, it became the fourth highest “per screen average” nationwide for that weekend, with American Sniper grabbing the top spot.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Chicago. Just a couple of months later the Flat-Earth movement took off in popularity like it had never seen before. Almost overnight the whole world was talking about whether the Earth was flat or round. Was that just a coincidence? The flat-earthers say no. They freely admit they were riding the coattails of The Principle. Why? Because they figured that since both of us believed the Earth is at the center of the universe and that modern science and the press have done their best to keep this knowledge from us, we had a lot in common. Perhaps we do. But as Clint Eastwood once told us in Dirty Harry, every man has his limitations!
So, Rob Skiba and Robert Sungenis will go at it to see what, if any, resolution can be made of these two popular movements. Robert is hoping his arguments don’t fall on flat ears
Questions will be invited from the audience, so come join us and offer your two cents!
as well as
http://fe2018.com/speakers/dr-robert-sungenis/# (http://fe2018.com/speakers/dr-robert-sungenis/)
(http://fe2018.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Robert-Sungenis-2-361x324.png)
Dr. Robert Sungenis
Robert is an international author, lecturer, debater, producer, and founder of Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., a non-profit corporation dedicated to teaching and defending the Catholic faith. He holds advanced degrees in Theology and Religious Studies, from George Washington University; Westminster Theological Seminary; and Calamus International University. He is also the chairman of Stellar Motion Pictures, LLC in West Hollywood, California, which produces movies for scientific and religious audiences. He is the executive producer of the movie, The Principle, which appeared in AMC and Regal Cinemas in October 2014. Robert is also the executive producer, writer, and director of the movie, Journey to the Center of the Universe, which was released on DVD in September 2015. Robert is presently working on a third movie, The Church versus Galileo: An Historical Docuмentary which will be released in late 2016. Most recently he has written the book “Flat Earth Flat Wrong” and will be defending his stance debating with Rob Skiba at the 2018 Flat Earth International Conference.
-
Just submitted the following to Angelus Press website on Fr Robinson's book: Let us see if they publish it.
FAITH OR SCIENCE?
For 30 years now I have been studying 'faith and science' as it applies to the Catholic faith. Like most I was educated to believe heliocentrism and evolution were proven true by science. One day a friend gave me a book on evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I had been made a fool of. Human reasoning and the absence of any proof showed me this. I discovered the very first theory was the Nebular theory, how their heliocentric solar system evolved.
I then studied the Galileo case, its science and the Church's part in it. I found it too was based on assumption as absolute truth. I then found churchmen had accepted assumption as truth and sided with 'science.' To do so they had to 'disown' a papal decree of 1616 that it had ruled as irreversible.' Along came Einstein who showed there is no science that can prove geocentrism wrong.
1992 a papal commission told all heliocentrism was proven and it was the reason for the Church to change its biblical interpretation of Genesis. This is not true. Nevertheless, in 1965 Gaudium et spes of Vatican II ridiculed the churchmen of 1616 as 'fundamentalists' and troublemakers for interpreting the Bible geocentric.
Having read this book by Fr Robinson I find once again any Catholic who believes in the dogma of Ex nihilo creation, immediately 'in it whole substance' as Vatican I said, is accused of 'fundamentalism.' It contains a synthesis that infers some long condemned Pythagorean heresies are back again. How sad.
The above comment HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM ANGELUS PRESS.
When one has to CENSOR comment rather than challenge the content of that comment, this places that lot as no better than any anti-Catholic group.
For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest,
nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)
-
The above comment HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM ANGELUS PRESS.
When one has to CENSOR comment rather than challenge the content of that comment, this places that lot as no better than any anti-Catholic group.
For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest,
nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. (Luke: 8:17)
What a disgrace! I just sent the following email to support@angeluspress.org
To whom it may concern:
Could you be so kind as to inform me why the following review seen between the asterisks below has been removed from your website? It was placed on the page advertising Fr. Robinson' book, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.
********************************************************************************************************************
FAITH OR SCIENCE?
For 30 years now I have been studying 'faith and science' as it applies to the Catholic faith. Like most I was educated to believe heliocentrism and evolution were proven true by science. One day a friend gave me a book on evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I had been made a fool of. Human reasoning and the absence of any proof showed me this. I discovered the very first theory was the Nebular theory, how their heliocentric solar system evolved.
I then studied the Galileo case, its science and the Church's part in it. I found it too was based on assumption as absolute truth. I then found churchmen had accepted assumption as truth and sided with 'science.' To do so they had to 'disown' a papal decree of 1616 that it had ruled as irreversible.' Along came Einstein who showed there is no science that can prove geocentrism wrong.
1992 a papal commission told all heliocentrism was proven and it was the reason for the Church to change its biblical interpretation of Genesis. This is not true. Nevertheless, in 1965 Gaudium et spes of Vatican II ridiculed the churchmen of 1616 as 'fundamentalists' and troublemakers for interpreting the Bible geocentric.
Having read this book by Fr Robinson I find once again any Catholic who believes in the dogma of Ex nihilo creation, immediately 'in it whole substance' as Vatican I said, is accused of 'fundamentalism.' It contains a synthesis that infers some long condemned Pythagorean heresies are back again. How sad.
*********************************************************************************************************************
Thank you for your anticipated response.
Respectfully,
---------------
-
The sspx has been corrupted by 'group think' and a cultish attitude for years now. It's getting progressively worse.
-
What a disgrace! I just sent the following email to support@angeluspress.org
To whom it may concern:
Could you be so kind as to inform me why the following review seen between the asterisks below has been removed from your website? It was placed on the page advertising Fr. Robinson' book, The Realist Guide to Religion and Science.
********************************************************************************************************************
FAITH OR SCIENCE?
For 30 years now I have been studying 'faith and science' as it applies to the Catholic faith. Like most I was educated to believe heliocentrism and evolution were proven true by science. One day a friend gave me a book on evolution. It took me ten minutes to see I had been made a fool of. Human reasoning and the absence of any proof showed me this. I discovered the very first theory was the Nebular theory, how their heliocentric solar system evolved.
I then studied the Galileo case, its science and the Church's part in it. I found it too was based on assumption as absolute truth. I then found churchmen had accepted assumption as truth and sided with 'science.' To do so they had to 'disown' a papal decree of 1616 that it had ruled as irreversible.' Along came Einstein who showed there is no science that can prove geocentrism wrong.
1992 a papal commission told all heliocentrism was proven and it was the reason for the Church to change its biblical interpretation of Genesis. This is not true. Nevertheless, in 1965 Gaudium et spes of Vatican II ridiculed the churchmen of 1616 as 'fundamentalists' and troublemakers for interpreting the Bible geocentric.
Having read this book by Fr Robinson I find once again any Catholic who believes in the dogma of Ex nihilo creation, immediately 'in it whole substance' as Vatican I said, is accused of 'fundamentalism.' It contains a synthesis that infers some long condemned Pythagorean heresies are back again. How sad.
*********************************************************************************************************************
Thank you for your anticipated response.
Respectfully,
---------------
Ask to speak to James Vogel, he is one who runs Angelus Press.
-
https://angeluspress.org/pages/contact (https://angeluspress.org/pages/contact)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1527/1691/t/4/assets/logo.png?7079981734242024078) (https://angeluspress.org)
(https://angeluspress.org/pages/contact#cart)
Contact Us
Toll-free U.S.: 800-966-7337
International: 816-753-3150
Fax: 816-753-3557
Email: support@angeluspress.org
For inquiries and orders:
Angelus Press
907 E Jesuit Ln
Saint Marys, KS 66536
-
Some interesting comments on the OP found here: https://forum.tradidi.com/t/sspx-priest-publicly-chastises-fr-robinson-and-angelus-press-for-modernist-book/195 (https://forum.tradidi.com/t/sspx-priest-publicly-chastises-fr-robinson-and-angelus-press-for-modernist-book/195)
-
I see Angelus Press have now discarded the comment by Fr Rusak. Let us see if he ends up in the African Jungle where he can do no harm to Big Bang SSPX.
They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This amounts to a hoax getting people to buy a Modernist book on the back of the SSPX. I wonder if there is an American law that covers such censorship of negative comments?
-
I see Angelus Press have now discarded the comment by Fr Rusak. Let us see if he ends up in the African Jungle where he can do no harm to Big Bang SSPX.
They ought to be ashamed of themselves. This amounts to a hoax getting people to buy a Modernist book on the back of the SSPX. I wonder if there is an American law that covers such censorship of negative comments?
And here is the latest review they have posted. I wonder how long it stays up!
This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.
-
And here is the latest review they have posted. I wonder how long it stays up!
This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.
Feel free to post the following on Angelus's website. Let us stop this Big Bang creation nonsense.
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists [or the SSPX's Fr Robinson]. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
-
Feel free to post the following on Angelus's website. Let us stop this Big Bang creation nonsense.
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists [or the SSPX's Fr Robinson]. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
They are now blocking submission by putting up "Not all the fields have been filled out correctly!" even though I filled out all the fields properly. Also, I noticed that they are now down to a total of 13 reviews. What a bunch of games they are playing!
-
They're clearly going to continue censoring any reviews on Angelus Press. So, the solution is to hit them where they CAN'T censor: Realist Guide Amazon Page (https://www.amazon.com/Realist-Guide-Religion-Science/dp/0852449224/)
I'm actually surprised that the amazon rating is as high as it is.
-
(1) ...To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy.
(2) .... Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. ’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.
Pera is an atheist, and the points in the passage you quote are standard atheist objections to the proofs for the existence of God. Why would you quote this (and paste it to other forums) in apparent approval?
The first (1) passage is saying that the proofs for the existence of God only get you to Deism. There are many answers to this, but one is scope - proofs of existence shouldn't be expected to do more than prove existence.
The second (2) passage is saying if God is known by reason, then God is not an object of faith. That is a more central issue. Catholics say that reason can know things, and specifically, it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that reason without revelation can know that God exists. The Church doesn't say that every human gets there, nor has the Church dogmatically defined that any specific proof is valid.
So in practice, God is an object of faith for people (most people) who do not fully grasp a proof for existence of God from reason. And even for those who do fully grasp a proof for existence, the proofs don't necessarily get at everything we know about God from revelation, which still remains an object of faith.
-
When one has to CENSOR comment rather than challenge the content of that comment, this places that lot as no better than any anti-Catholic group.
Interesting. You say censorship is anti-Catholic.
Does that also apply to putting "downvotes" on old posts that criticise the rotten arguments of geocentrists?
-
Interesting. You say censorship is anti-Catholic.
Does that also apply to putting "downvotes" on old posts that criticise the rotten arguments of geocentrists?
Maybe you can tell us what the "rotten arguments" were. By the way Stan, are there any good arguments for geocentrism and if so what are they?
-
Pera is an atheist, and the points in the passage you quote are standard atheist objections to the proofs for the existence of God. Why would you quote this (and paste it to other forums) in apparent approval?
The first (1) passage is saying that the proofs for the existence of God only get you to Deism. There are many answers to this, but one is scope - proofs of existence shouldn't be expected to do more than prove existence.
The second (2) passage is saying if God is known by reason, then God is not an object of faith. That is a more central issue. Catholics say that reason can know things, and specifically, it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that reason without revelation can know that God exists. The Church doesn't say that every human gets there, nor has the Church dogmatically defined that any specific proof is valid.
So in practice, God is an object of faith for people (most people) who do not fully grasp a proof for existence of God from reason. And even for those who do fully grasp a proof for existence, the proofs don't necessarily get at everything we know about God from revelation, which still remains an object of faith.
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.
-
Interesting. You say censorship is anti-Catholic.
Does that also apply to putting "downvotes" on old posts that criticise the rotten arguments of geocentrists?
I have written on this forum that I do not approve of 'downvotes.' I prefer to answer the rotten arguments against geocentrism as revealed in the Bible.
-
And here is the latest review they have posted. I wonder how long it stays up!
This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.
This one star review may have been up for less than 24 hours, In any event, it has now been disappeared down the Angelus Press memory hole, that place assigned for inconvenient reviews.
-
This one star review may have been up for less than 24 hours, In any event, it has now been disappeared down the Angelus Press memory hole, that place assigned for inconvenient reviews.
Now, the review has been put back up, but now Fr. Robisnon has posted a reply to it as seen below.
This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.
FROM FR. ROBINSON:
Dear Audrey,
I am a little uncertain as to whether you have read my book. The reason for my doubt is that, while it does deny geocentrism, it does not deny the Great Flood. Rather, it affirms that the Flood happened. Moreover, it puts forward the standard pre-Vatican II Catholic position that the Flood was ethnographically universal, while not being geographically universal. (see chapter 7 for this)
Secondly, you seem to imply that the Fathers held a belief in a literal creation, while I do not. On the contrary, I affirm a literal creation in the fullest way possible in chapter 2 of my book.
If, on the other hand, you are referring to the way in which the Fathers understood the word ‘day’ of Genesis 1, then there was certainly not unanimity on that question and so it is impossible to follow all of the Fathers. Those who want to follow the Syrian and Latin Fathers will hold that God created the world in six natural days of 24 hours each. Those who want to follow the Cappadocian Fathers will hold that the universe was created instantaneously and developed from there. Those, finally, who want to follow the Alexandrian Fathers will hold that ‘day’ is only to be understood figuratively and does not refer to any actual chronological time (by the way, St. Athanasius was of this opinion and it was one of the opinions of St. Augustine).
If you have not yet had a chance to read the book, I warmly invite you to do so. There are many important distinctions to be made in this discussion which are set out in the book. And you will find there essentially the same teaching—at least on Scriptural matters—that I received at the seminary and which is standard at SSPX seminaries.
God bless, Audrey.
Fr Robinson
-
Now, the review has been put back up, but now Fr. Robinson has posted a reply to it as seen below.
This book contradicts the Church Fathers
Audrey, Nov 2018
While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.
FROM FR. ROBINSON:
Dear Audrey,
I am a little uncertain as to whether you have read my book. The reason for my doubt is that, while it does deny geocentrism, it does not deny the Great Flood. Rather, it affirms that the Flood happened. Moreover, it puts forward the standard pre-Vatican II Catholic position that the Flood was ethnographically universal, while not being geographically universal. (see chapter 7 for this)
Secondly, you seem to imply that the Fathers held a belief in a literal creation, while I do not. On the contrary, I affirm a literal creation in the fullest way possible in chapter 2 of my book.
If, on the other hand, you are referring to the way in which the Fathers understood the word ‘day’ of Genesis 1, then there was certainly not unanimity on that question and so it is impossible to follow all of the Fathers. Those who want to follow the Syrian and Latin Fathers will hold that God created the world in six natural days of 24 hours each. Those who want to follow the Cappadocian Fathers will hold that the universe was created instantaneously and developed from there. Those, finally, who want to follow the Alexandrian Fathers will hold that ‘day’ is only to be understood figuratively and does not refer to any actual chronological time (by the way, St. Athanasius was of this opinion and it was one of the opinions of St. Augustine).
If you have not yet had a chance to read the book, I warmly invite you to do so. There are many important distinctions to be made in this discussion which are set out in the book. And you will find there essentially the same teaching—at least on Scriptural matters—that I received at the seminary and which is standard at SSPX seminaries.
God bless, Audrey.
Fr Robinson
Now we have a very interesting development. Robert Sungenis has pulled no punches in dealing a real solid hammer's blow to this response by Fr. Robinson. A traditional Catholic should applaud Sungenis' traditional Catholic critique of Fr. Robinson's SSPX sponsored and promoted writing. Fr. Robinson and the leadership of the SSPX must be held accountable for Fr. Robinson's remarkable departure from Catholic tradition.
Response to Fr. Robinson’s: “This book contradicts the Church Fathers”
Audrey, Nov 2018
“While I disagree with the book's denials of geocentrism and the Great Flood, I am most alarmed
that it promotes the big bang hypothesis. While the big bang is by no means settled science (in
fact it has gaping holes, which modern scientists have tried to fill with their inventions of "dark
matter" and "dark energy"), it is more importantly contradicted by the essentially unanimous
opinion of the Church Fathers. Sts. Basil, Ephraim, Ambrose, Athanasius, Bonaventure and
Augustine have all stated their belief in a literal creation. Ironically, Fr. Robinson calls believers
in new earth creationism "fundamentalist Protestants". Does he not know what the Church
Fathers taught? Do the SSPX superiors not know? This book is a scandal.”
FROM FR. ROBINSON:
Dear Audrey,
Fr. Robinson: I am a little uncertain as to whether you have read my book. The reason
for my doubt is that, while it does deny geocentrism, it does not deny the Great Flood.
Rather, it affirms that the Flood happened. Moreover, it puts forward the standard pre-
Vatican II Catholic position that the Flood was ethnographically universal, while not
being geographically universal. (see chapter 7 for this)
R. Sungenis: Unfortunately for Fr. Robinson, the Bible does not speak of an “ethnographically
universal” flood, but only of a geographical universal flood. It is precisely why Genesis 7:19
says: “The waters rose greatly on the Earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens
were covered.” Please notice that the only way to cover all the high mountains is to have the
water rise above the highest mountain on the Earth. Also notice that these are not just mountains
in Noah’s ethnographic vicinity, but mountains “under the entire heavens,” not just a small
section of the heavens.
The Bible is also clear that ALL of mankind was destroyed in the Flood and that only eight
people survived (1Pet 3:20), and hence the ethnicity of the human population or its ethnographic
dimension had nothing to do with it.
As for the label, “standard pre-Vatican II Catholic position,” this is little more than an
anachronism that makes it appear that because local flood theories (as opposed to a global flood)
existed among some Catholics prior to Vatican II, this somehow positions local flood theories as
if they sprung from the tradition of the Church. That is false. The modernist’s views of a local
Flood were already in vogue in the late 1800s among liberal Catholics, the same liberal Catholics
who were touting Evolution and that most of Genesis was myth. After Vatican II, their
unorthodox views just became more prominent. Prior to the liberals of the 1800s, the Catholic
Church, from the Fathers through the medievals, believed in a global flood.
Fr. Robinson: Secondly, you seem to imply that the Fathers held a belief in a literal
creation, while I do not. On the contrary, I affirm a literal creation in the fullest way
possible in chapter 2 of my book.
- R. Sungenis: Fr. Robinson is misdirecting. His book only affirms that God literally created the
world, period. He does not affirm the details or the chronological sequence stated in Genesis 1;
and, in fact, does everything he can to avoid them. That is because he believes in the Big Bang,
which states that the stars come before the Earth, whereas Genesis 1 says the Earth came before
the stars. He also believes that God created new species over millions of years after the Creation
period in Genesis 1, but the Bible knows of no such thing.
Fr. Robinson: If, on the other hand, you are referring to the way in which the Fathers
understood the word ‘day’ of Genesis 1, then there was certainly not unanimity on that
question and so it is impossible to follow all of the Fathers. Those who want to follow
the Syrian and Latin Fathers will hold that God created the world in six natural days of
24 hours each.
R. Sungenis: But you won’t find any of this in Fr. Robinson’s book, yet it is the Latin Fathers
who make up the bulk of the Church writing about these issues. Nor does he have anything in his
book showing that the Fathers believed in a global-geographic flood. There wasn’t one
dissenting voice.
Fr. Robinson: Those who want to follow the Cappadocian Fathers will hold that the
universe was created instantaneously and developed from there.
R. Sungenis: That is false. There were three Cappadocian Fathers: Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and
Gregory nαzιanzus. Of the three, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa were in agreement that the Days of
Genesis were 24-hours.
Basil: “Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a
night.…If it therefore says ‘one day,’ it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and
night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fills up the space of one
day – we mean of a day and of a night” (Hexameron 2, 8 ).
Gregory of Nyssa: Gregory confirms the views of Basil on the details of the Creation in the
following passage: “Before I begin, let me testify that there is nothing contradictory in what the
saintly Basil wrote about the creation of the world since no further explanation is needed”
(Hexaemeron, PG 44:68-69).
As for Gregory nαzιanzus, he does not address any specifics concerning the Days of Creation. If
Fr. Robinson has a quote from him that the universe was created instantaneously, I’d like to see
it. In any case, none of these Cappadocian Fathers believed in the long-age universe Fr.
Robinson believes in.
Also notice how Fr. Robinson makes no room for the eastern Fathers who believed in a six-day
creation, such as:
Chrysostom: “Acknowledging that God could have created the world ‘in a single day, nay in a
single moment,’ he chose ‘a sort of succession and established things by parts’...so that, - accurately interpreted by that blessed prophet Moses, we
- do not fall in with those who are guided by human reasonings” (PG, Homily 3, col 35);
- Cyril of Jerusalem: “In six days God made the world.…The sun, however resplendent with
bright beams, yet was made to give light to man, yea, all living creatures were formed to serve
us: herbs and trees were created for our enjoyment...The sun was formed by a mere command,
but man by God’s hands.” (Catechetical Lectures 12, 5); “...but the earth is from the waters: and
before the whole six days’ formation of the things that were made, the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the water. The water was the beginning of the world...” (Catechetical Lectures 3, 5);
Clement of Alexandria: “For the creations on the different days followed in a most important
succession” (Stromata, Book VI, Ch 16).
Fr. Robinson: Those, finally, who want to follow the Alexandrian Fathers will hold
that ‘day’ is only to be understood figuratively and does not refer to any actual
chronological time (by the way, St. Athanasius was of this opinion and it was one of the
opinions of St. Augustine).
R. Sungenis: St. Athanasius did not believe the Days of Genesis 1 were figurative. Those who
think he did simply misread his statement from Discourse Against the Arians, Discourse II, 48.
There Athanasius says:
“For as to the separate stars or the great lights, not this appeared first, and that second,
but in one day and by the same command, they were all called into being. And such was
the original formation of the quadrupeds, and of birds, and fishes, and cattle, and plants;
thus too has the race made after God’s Image come to be, namely men; for though
Adam was formed out of earth, yet in him was involved the succession of the whole
race.”
In other words, Athanasius is saying that when the stars and sun were made, they were not made
at different days or times but only during the Fourth Day; when the birds and fish were made,
they were also made in one day, the Fifth Day, and so on. He gives no hint in his other writings
that he believed in an instantaneously created universe.
As for the “Alexandrian Fathers,” no one entertained the idea that the Days of Creation were
more than 24 hours, so it is a misnomer to say, “those who want to follow the Alexandrian
Fathers,” as if there were many of them. The only Father to even entertain the Six Days were not
literal was Augustine, but he never abandoned the position that the Six Days were literal.
Unfortunately, Augustine entertained a non-literal view based on his misread of the biblical text
which came to him in various mistranslated Latin texts (e.g., Vetus Latina Biblia), and since
Augustine didn’t read Greek very well, he misconstrued the meaning of Sirach 18:1. Instead of
reading it properly as “God created all things without exception,” he read it erroneously as “God
created all things at once.”
Fr. Robinson: If you have not yet had a chance to read the book, I warmly invite you to
do so. There are many important distinctions to be made in this discussion which are set
out in the book. And you will find there essentially the same teaching—at least on
Scriptural matters—that I received at the seminary and which is standard at SSPX
seminaries. God bless, Audrey. Fr Robinson.
R. Sungenis: The SSPX gives us a mixed bag of information and conclusions, and that is
because it has never really hammered out the facts of either the science or the biblical exegesis. I
invited you to read my commentary on the SSPX’s position as it relates to the issues Fr.
Robinson has stated above, which can be found at https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/ (https://gwwdvd.com/2018/11/13/response-to-the-sspxs-2011-press-release-on-geocentrism/)
November 20, 2018
-
The below quote by Fr. Rusak is one of the rotating TESTIMONIALS found at the bottom of this linked page: https://gwwdvd.com/blog/ (https://gwwdvd.com/blog/)
The good Padre has been a staunch defender of geocentrism and the work of Robert Sungenis.
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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).
-
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/ (https://www.scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
20th century 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 20th 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 16th 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 16th 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-16th 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 8th 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 20th 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, 2nd 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
-
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.
-
… 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.
-
The below quote by Fr. Rusak is one of the rotating TESTIMONIALS found at the bottom of this linked page: https://gwwdvd.com/blog/ (https://gwwdvd.com/blog/)
The good Padre has been a staunch defender of geocentrism and the work of Robert Sungenis.
.
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.
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-priest-publicly-smashes-fr-paul-robinson's-(sspx)-book/msg635190/#msg635190) ) 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 16th 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.
.
-
.
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.
-
.
In his typically smug subjective misery, claudel bemoans the paragraph you quoted from the Letter which Merry's post above (#68 (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-priest-publicly-smashes-fr-paul-robinson's-(sspx)-book/msg635190/#msg635190) ) 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 16th 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.
.
Thanks much Neil. To be honest -- and slight embarrassment aside -- I had not even read Merry's post above and not for lack of interest, but for lack of time. Instead, I drew the exact quote which I put down, nothing more and nothing less from pp. 18-19 of Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church where that was the only part of the letter in question to be quoted and which I remembered well from previously having highlighted in my book.
-
Thanks much Neil. To be honest -- and slight embarrassment aside -- I had not even read Merry's post above and not for lack of interest, but for lack of time. Instead, I drew the exact quote which I put down, nothing more and nothing less from pp. 18-19 of Sungenis' book Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church where that was the only part of the letter in question to be quoted and which I remembered well from previously having highlighted in my book.
.
Understandable. It's a pretty long post, took me two sessions to get through it, but in the end, it's well worth it.
.
The author makes many good points, but it seemed to me used too-vague language which is vulnerable to misinterpretation.
I wish I could have asked him some pointed questions before he issued his final copy.
James Russell Lowell might have agreed to make a few judicious changes.
-
Quoting Klas: '
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.
My goodness, what a dreadful accusation Claudel makes above about Klas and I? I think he accuses Klas of stating Bellarmine’s letter was the same as a papal decree. Cardinal Bellarmine at the time was Master of Controversial Questions at the time he wrote his 1615 Letter to Foscarini. It was his job to clarify the status of questions directed to the Inquisition, called the Holy Office. It is PERFECTLY clear he ADVISED Foscarini it was heresy (‘it would be just as heretical’). If this is not clear Claudekl, I suggest you go back to English class and learn how to read. A year later, when Pope Paul V asken the Holy Office to examine the matter, Cardinal Bellarmine and other consultants agreed it was formal heresy. The Pope agreed and by way of the 1616 decree made it a papal decree of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is also Church history that in 1633 Pope Urban VIII declared in Galileo’s trial that the decree was absolute, irreformable, the word for infallible in those days. Recorded in the Secret Archives also is that the Holy Office in 1820 admitted the 1616 decree was papal and irreversible. But along came the Claudels of this world, under the illusion that the fixed-sun of 1616 was proven false taking it upon themselves to redefine the authority of a decree already clarified by the Church.
‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.…Cardinal Poupard says the 1633 sentence was not irreformable. In 1741, in the face of optical proof of the fact that the Earth revolves round the sun, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) had the Holy Office grant an imprimatur to the first edition of the Complete Works of Galileo.’ --- Pope John Paul II Commission report: L’Osservatore Romano, November 4th, 1992.
What Proofs, one could ask? Klas and I do nothing more but to defend the authority and teaching of our Church as decreed in 1616.
‘If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Not to believe is an insult to God. Doubting His word, or believing with doubt and hesitation, is an insult to God, because it doubts His sacred Word. We must therefore believe without doubting, without hesitating…. On what does [the Protestant] believe? On what authority? On his own opinion and judgement. And what is that? A human opinion – human testimony, and, therefore, a human faith. He cannot say “I am sure, positively sure, as sure as there is a God in heaven, that this is the meaning of the text.” Therefore he has no other authority but his own opinion and judgement, and nothing else, and therefore, only human faith. What is human faith? Believing a thing upon the testimony of man. Divine faith is believing a thing on the testimony of God. [Catholicism] has divine faith, and why? Because it says “I believe in such and such a thing.” Why? “Because the Catholic Church teaches this.” And why do you believe the Catholic Church? “Because God has commanded me to believe the teaching of the Church; and God threatened me with damnation if I do not believe the Church, and we are taught by St Peter, in his epistle, that there is no private prophesy or interpretation of the Scriptures, for the unlearned and unstable wrest the very Scriptures, the Bible, to their own damnation.” That is strong language my dear people, but that is the language of St Peter, the head of the Apostles. But my dearly beloved Protestant friends do not be offended at me for saying that.”--- Fr Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815-1890): The One True Church, available Online
But now back to your reference to cherry-picking from Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini: I know what you meant by ‘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.’ You refer of course to third paragraph that says:
‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.’
When most in the Church and State were convinced the 1616 decree was proven false, the Claudels of this world needed excuses to show the 1616 decree was only provisional. The Holy Office never tried this ploy because god wouldfn’t let them. But outsiders like the Claudels were allowed to make up any story they liked to get the Church off the ‘infallible hook.’ One of their ploys was to quote Bellarmine’s words above to make it look like it says ‘If ever there was proof for heliocentrism, then…’ Here is John Paul II’s Commission on Galileo using the ploy:
‘Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, in a letter of 12 April 1615 [wrote]: If the orbiting of the Earth were ever demonstrated to be certain, then theologians, according to him, would have to review their interpretations of the biblical passages apparently opposed to the new Copernican theories, so as to avoid asserting the error of opinions which had proved to be true: In fact Galileo had not succeeded in proving irrefutably the double motion of the Earth…. More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were found.’
But it doesn’t say that in context. He was addressing the claim that Galileo had proof in the PRESENT TENSE, and never used the term in the future tense. How do I know, well as Claudel advised, stop cherry-picking and carry on with what Bellarmine said:
‘But as for myself, I do not believe that THERE IS any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. …. 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 no proof was ever found. But try telling that to the Claudels.
-
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 [sic] 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.
Oh dear.
Your name, Neil, functions here much like a perpetually blinking Caution sign at a railroad crossing on a rural road. Few hereabouts still make the mistake of looking to you for any information beyond Look Both Ways Carefully before Proceeding to Your Destination. Once that sign's useful but decidedly limited purpose has been served, chat with it would be frivolous at best, and debate or discussion would be an indicator of mental imbalance. One might as well comment to his car's rearview mirror on the structural ingenuity of Beethoven's opus 133 and expect a reasoned response.
Even so, I confess that empty frivolity tempts me to wonder whether I am alone in being a tad unsure as to what especially notable qualities differentiate a "puerile wimp" from the generic sort in that steel-trap mind of yours. For the nonce and in the interests of good-wimpship, I set aside the most obvious, most likely explanation.
-
The Angelus Press website ( https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science) ) has added 2 more 5 star reviews of Father Robinson's book. One of them directly slanders/defames Robert Sungenis by name. The reviewer who goes by the name Jeanette Daher is apparently some sort of a proxy warrior for Fr. Robinson as can be seen on the following links:
1.) https://twitter.com/GuideRealist (https://twitter.com/GuideRealist)
2.) https://plus.google.com/109099222303871237875 (https://plus.google.com/109099222303871237875)
3.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7LjmhKs66c)
In addition to the above, Fr. Robinson has been allowed to promote his book in a seemingly unprecedented -- for any SSPX author -- manner as can be seen from the following links:
1.) His own website: https://therealistguide.com/ (https://therealistguide.com/)
2.) His own blogsite: https://therealistguide.com/blog (https://therealistguide.com/blog)
3.) His own facebook: https://www.facebook.com/realistguide (https://www.facebook.com/realistguide)
4.) His own goodreads account: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18237620.Paul_Athanasius_Robinson (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/18237620.Paul_Athanasius_Robinson)
5.) His own Quora account: https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410 (https://www.quora.com/profile/Paul-Robinson-410)
6.) Possible Vimeo Account -- https://vimeo.com/248750177 (https://vimeo.com/248750177)
A copy of the review by Daher is seen below.
************************************************************************************************************************
A brilliant book for ALL Catholics, providing a balanced view to Science and Religion.
Jeanette Daher , Nov 2018
"The Realist Guide to Religion and Science" is a fantastic read, both thoughtful in its approach and style. The book is contemporary, as it tackles issues from creationist theories to Darwinism. It analyses famous atheists such as Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. On the other side of the irrational spectrum, Fr Robinson tears apart self proclaimed apologist Robert Sungenis who misleads Catholics with his conspiracy theories and embarrasses the church, whereby belief is based on emotion. Robert attracts those individuals who do not think objectively, hence creating a "mob lynch" mentality. These idealists cannot take constructive criticism, they write reviews despite not reading the book and create havoc because their "leader" is questioned.
"Science was born of Christianity", the book shows how the church in the middle ages gave birth to modern science. He explains how St Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in this movement. The book shows that the realist mentality comes from a catholic perspective whereby both intellect and sense are used. He takes you on a fascinating journey through history to the present day, explaining the influences that shape our worldview.
Fr Robinson is a credible source, with the authority and expertise to inform us on what Catholics are bound to believe.
His blog has many articles explaining the position of the church. www.therealistguide.com
This book has deepened my faith and knowledge on what is catholic and what is not. !!
*************************************************************************************************************************
-
When most in the Church and State were convinced the 1616 decree was proven false, the Claudels of this world needed excuses to show the 1616 decree was only provisional. The Holy Office never tried this ploy because god wouldfn’t let them. But outsiders like the Claudels were allowed to make up any story they liked to get the Church off the ‘infallible hook.’ One of their ploys was to quote Bellarmine’s words above to make it look like it says ‘If ever there was proof for heliocentrism, then…’
Or, perhaps, the 1616 decree was just not infallible?
-
… A year later, when Pope Paul V asken [sic] the Holy Office to examine the matter, Cardinal Bellarmine and other consultants agreed it was formal heresy. The Pope agreed and by way of the 1616 decree made it a papal decree of the Ordinary Magisterium. It is also Church history that in 1633 Pope Urban VIII declared in Galileo’s trial that the decree was absolute, irreformable, the word for infallible in those days. …
Every claim in the quoted sentences written by cassini is false.
With his persistent attempts to persuade the inculpably ignorant that nonpapal, reformable docuмents can be magically transformed, on his and his sources' say-so alone, into ex cathedra pronouncements, he sinfully and scandalously distorts both history and doctrine. Were Annibale Bugnini still alive, he might well be envious of cassini's energy and perseverance in distortion.
-
Or, perhaps, the 1616 decree was just not infallible?
And who desides that Stanley, you. For me it is the Church and they said it was.
-
Every claim in the quoted sentences written by cassini is false.
With his persistent attempts to persuade the inculpably ignorant that nonpapal, reformable docuмents can be magically transformed, on his and his sources' say-so alone, into ex cathedra pronouncements, he sinfully and scandalously distorts both history and doctrine. Were Annibale Bugnini still alive, he might well be envious of cassini's energy and perseverance in distortion.
You do know Claudel that the Church has records of all the events of the Galileo case. Many scholars have researched them and brought them to the world's attention.
In 1867, the French scholar Henri de L’Epinois gained access to many of the docuмents and he published several of the most important ones in his Revue des Questions Historiques and again in his Les Piéces du Procés de Galilée. It was however, not until Pope Leo XIII finally opened the secret (private) Vatican’s archives and those of the Holy Office that the most comprehensive transcriptions of the affair were made. The first of these was by Antonio Favaro in his Works of Galileo Galilei (national edition 1890-1909 and 1929-1939). Further books edited by Domenico Berti (1876), the Protestant Karl von Gebler (1879), and others, all amounted to a vast compilation of facts pertaining to Galileo’s clash with the Church. Since then other docuмents pertaining to the Galileo case were unearthed, including records of the arguments made by the Holy Office when dropping the ban on heliocentric books from 1741 to 1835, details crucial to any accurate synthesis. The actual events of the Galileo case then, as distinct from their interpretation by many authors, and from the legends and myths, are now available to all.
It is from these I obtained the information you Claudel now class as distortions.
Perhaps you will be good enough to show us where you obtained your 'nonpapal and reformable' version of the 1616 decree is in these same records.
How in God's name can anyone accuse the popes and theologians of 1616 and 1633 of doing what they did on the basis of a 'reformable' decree? Here is what Fr Roberts said you and others propose;
1. Rome, i.e. a Pontifical Congregation acting under the Pope’s order, may put forth a decision that is neither true nor safe.
2. Decrees confirmed by, and virtually included in, a Bull addressed to the Universal Church, may be not only scientifically false, but theologically considered, dangerous, i.e. calculated to prejudice the cause of religion, and compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church’s keeping. In other words, the Pope, in and by a Bull addressed to the whole Church, may confirm and approve, with Apostolic authority, decisions that are false and perilous to the faith.
3. Decrees of the Apostolic See and of Pontifical Congregations may be calculated to impede the free progress of Science. [Condemned by Pius IX in his Syllabus]
4. The Pope’s infallibility is no guarantee that he may not use his supreme authority to indoctrinate the Church with erroneous opinions, through the medium of Congregations he has erected to assist him in protecting the Church from error.
5. The Pope, through the medium of a Pontifical Congregation, may require, under pain of excommunication, individual Catholics to yield an absolute assent to false, unsound, and dangerous propositions. In other words, the Pope, acting as Supreme Judge of the faithful, may, in dealing with individuals, make the rejection of what is in fact the truth, a condition of communion with the Holy See.
6. It does not follow, from the Church’s having been informed that the Pope has ordered a Catholic to abjure an opinion as a heresy, that it is not true and sound.
7. The true interpretation of our Lord’s promises to St. Peter permits us to say that a Pope may, even when acting officially, confirm his brethren the Cardinals, and through them the rest of the Church, in an error as to what is matter of faith.
8. It is not always for the good of the Church that Catholics should submit themselves fully, perfectly, and absolutely, i.e. should yield a full assent, to the decisions of Pontifical Congregations, even when the Pope has confirmed such decisions with his supreme authority, and ordered them published.
Here then Claudel is your opinion, rotten with accusations like above. Well the above is not the Catholicism I learned
-
And who desides that Stanley, you. For me it is the Church and they said it was.
You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.
-
Here is what Fr Roberts said you and others propose;
...
Here then Claudel is your opinion, rotten with accusations like above. Well the above is not the Catholicism I learned
My understanding is that you consider the 1616 decision infallible, and yet a decision in 1820/22 stated there were no obstacles for Catholics holding what you believe was infallibly defined as heresy.
So don't you hold much the same as that list?
In particular, your geocentrist view appears to agree with #1, #3, #4, #7 and #8, and a central part of #2, that a decree confirmed by the Pope may "compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church's keeping."
-
You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.
If Sungenis were to respond here he might well say what he said in his very measured yet at the same time devastating critique of Fr. Robinson's book on pp. 230-231 of his own book, Scientific Heresies and Their Effect on the Church: "Some [such as Stan? :)] try to get around the history by claiming the popes never signed the decrees, even though they may have signed the Vatican's dissemination of the decision to the rest of Europe, and therefore the decree is not infallible. But there are several problems with this attempted escape.
First, I am not aware of any stipulation in canonical law that a pope had to sign a decree. Although a signature surely made clear the pope's intention and directive, his verbal confirmation was never said to be without the same authority, especially since the rules of papal infallibility were not yet formulated; and even when they were formulated in 1870 at Vatican I, it did not say that the pope's signature was required.
Second, even if the geocentric doctrine was not given on the level of infallibility (and only the Church herself can determine whether it is, but has never done so), this does not make the doctrine an error, since many papal decrees were given on lower levels of canonical authority and, and according to Pius XII's decree and its confirmation at Vatican II in both Lumen Gentium and Humani Generis in 1950, we are to assent to them and hold them as doctrine.
Today, however, Catholics [including Stan? :)] who desire to believe in heliocentrism wish the geocentric doctrines were a mistake so they can then claim they don't need to follow the doctrine, such as Fr. Robinson. But they have no right to do so, even if they claim science proves the decrees against Galileo were a mistake, for only the Church can determine fit the science has reached the needed level of proof, and She has never done so."
OK, Stan go to it!
-
You have asserted this, but have not provided evidence.
I am tired showing the evidence that the Church ruled the 1616 decree irreformable so for the last time here they are again. The first record of this was at Galileo's trial.
The Inquisition’s 1633 Sentence:
‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1820, when Settele was looking for an imprimatur for his book, fr Anfossi refused to give it one based on the fact that the 1616 was not reformable. Here is what Fr Olivieri, head man in the Holy Office at the time, had to say as recorded from the Docuмents of 1820, recently released and reproduced in Maurice A Finocchiaro’s Retrying Galileo
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved:
Olivieri then, Commissary General of the Inquisition, does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving Earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite is the case in fact; given one of those decrees found heliocentrism formal heresy, he thereby confirms that the 1616 decree was without argument papal and ‘unrevisable.’ Now a papal decree that is unrevisable is an infallible decree.
-
My understanding is that you consider the 1616 decision infallible, and yet a decision in 1820/22 stated there were no obstacles for Catholics holding what you believe was infallibly defined as heresy.
So don't you hold much the same as that list?
In particular, your geocentrist view appears to agree with #1, #3, #4, #7 and #8, and a central part of #2, that a decree confirmed by the Pope may "compromise the safety of a portion of the deposit committed to the Church's keeping."
Yes Stanley, well spotted, you are perfectly correct about the seeming contradictions in Fr Roberts eight points. But upon study we find the 1820-35 decrees spoke not of any doctrinal contradiction but merely concerned the publication and reading of non heretical heliocentric books, something allowed in 1616 so as not to stop the measurements of astronomy..
In 1820 there were two papal decrees:
1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of 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 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, as it is 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.’
‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’
Note the heliocentrism allowed in the first decree was one that ' espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions and the second decree ' 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. Now to understand this you must know the circuмstances of the 1757 index concession and what Olivieri told the pope;
Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’
This advice to the pope about the irreformable 1616 decree was nonsense, invented by Olivieri as a way to have his irreversible decree and his 'now proven' heliocentrism. The two decrees above allowed such non-heretical books on astronomy to be published and read. Neither dared contradict or ignore the 1616 decree.
-
Stan, can you help us untangle/unpack/understand the following endorsement by Professor Jakub Taylor of Fr. Robinson's book given on Fr. Robinson's website? See https://therealistguide.com/endorsements. (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)
The endorsement -- don't you wish you had such a clear talking professor in college -- reads as follows:
Dr. Jakub Taylor
(https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/be041786-0638-4702-8262-80efb99dfec3/109ec96c-f6da-410a-bbc4-200b823eb0ce.jpg/:/rs=w:360,h:180,cg:true,m/cr=w:360,h:180)
It is not an easy task to write a short endorsement of Fr. Robinson’s book, even if - in itself – the book is not a long opus. The difficulty lies in fear which I experience together with many commentators of the works of St. Thomas: it lies in a justified anxiety that the comment will become much less comprehensible in relation to the scrutinized original. But if, despite the lack of skill, I am to fulfill my task, I should follow a simple pattern of judgment and try to respond to two fundamental questions: does the author recognize the importance of a problem he is dealing with, and does he presents an adequate remedy. In my opinion, the answers to both of these questions appear to be positive. Let me try to explain why.
Chesterton used to mock modern men by saying that “like other barbarians, they really believe the mirror”; and therefore break it, hurting themselves and others in the process. Men have not changed from the time of Chesterton, it seems that human condition reached the bottom of the gnoseological abyss: most of us do believe that the reflections of the ‘mirrors’ represent the essence of being.
Fr. Robinson would agree with this assessment, as he considers the idealistic epistemology the source of most (if not all) contemporary problems, both within the parallel and vertical dimension of human reality. A remedy he proposes is simple: return to the realist cognition and focusing upon causa finita argumentation. Pointing out these two factors proves that author possesses a good intuition and perceptive abilities, features not shared by many. Why is focusing upon modus quo rather than modus quod so important? The way we approach reality is quintessential, as it determines our every-day praxis.
This fact is nicely put into words by a Polish contemporary poet, J.M. Rymkiewicz. In 2011, he expressed his frustration about the ongoing events by assessing the problem of the destruction of human identity, a disregard towards tradition, and the accomplishments of the past, while at the same time exaggerated, beautified ‘non-reality’ was being imposed by ‘deceivers and villains’. “Nothing is true anymore” - he writes emotively – “we have fiduciary economy, irrelevant problems presented to us as relevant, fictitious state agencies administered by a fictitious government… Even unimportant details of this ‘non-reality’ are nothing but the shards of thoughts of the un-real authorities and un-real literati, who preach to us that this ‘non-reality’ is indeed the essence of what is”.
Polish poets are not philosophers or scholars when it comes to guarding their tongues, but from time to time they manage to name the problem more accurately than others. Rymkiewicz called this phenomenon a “Great [Cognitive] Darkening”, which is a term semantically close to what Gordon Wood called an ‘Epistemological Revolution’.
Fr. Robinson, following the great tradition of Christian Aristotelianism and thoughts of the erudite English-speaking apologists, managed to describe the very same problem taking the philosophical deductive approach. Comparing to either Rymkiewicz or Wood he did it in much more coherent and compact fashion. Not many thinkers today are capable of such a feat, as most of them shiver in fear at being considered ‘judgmental’ or they pursue the feeling of safety within the ontological realm of ‘concepts’, doing anything to avoid suspicion of being called ‘axiom-obsessed supporters of foundationalism’. Fr. Robinson knows that talking about the absoluteness of truth is not very pleasant to a modern scholar, especially when it challenges the established lie (often sugar-coated by the term ‘paradigm’), but it is – de facto – a very scholarly thing to do. In my opinion, the author of the “Guide” deserves praise for this attempt, as well as for his attachment to the aleithia-oriented philosophical tradition. The fact that he was capable to interweave his very specific (I dare even say ‘sarcastic’) sense of humor within the precise philosophical narration is even more praiseworthy and should be highly regarded by the readers.
If I were to point out the feature of the book that I regarded most highly it would be the following: within the Anglo-Saxon worldview, any epistemological discourse will often end up facing the alleged dichotomy between the realm of religion and the realm of science. It is an obvious categorical shift problem intrinsically affiliated with the Euler diagram. I was very happy to find this issue addressed in the book. I had an impression, that Fr. Robinson, unlike many of his contemporaries, was quite successful in explaining this issue.
Even if Fr. Robinson’s critique of contemporary scholarship might appear to be too harsh, one might at least hope that it will lead scientists to avoid advocacy research, and build their theorems upon the realistic basis or, at least, to encroach the realm of philosophy or theology only after an adequate theoretical preparation. It might be nothing but an expression of my enormous naivete, but I dare to assume that if this guide is to be followed by other works of this kind, there is a chance of effective propagation of realistic thinking not only among the amateur philosophers, but even among us, professional concept-making academicians. A daring think to hope indeed! And I thank Fr. Robinson for giving me this hope by writing his extraordinary book.
Jakub Taylor is a research professor in the Academy of East Asian Studies at Sungkyunkwan University, in Seoul, South Korea. [Would it be uncharitable to hope that he remain there?]
-
Yes Stanley, well spotted, you are perfectly correct about the seeming contradictions in Fr Roberts eight points. But upon study we find the 1820-35 decrees spoke not of any doctrinal contradiction but merely concerned the publication and reading of non heretical heliocentric books, something allowed in 1616 so as not to stop the measurements of astronomy..
1820 Decree states: ... 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. ...
That doesn't look like a statement only about non heretical heliocentric books, unless you are admitting that modern cosmology is not "heretical".
The text you quoted says the Pope decreed that "no obstacles exist to sustain" this.
-
Stan, can you help us untangle/unpack/understand the following endorsement by Professor Jakub Taylor of Fr. Robinson's book given on Fr. Robinson's website? See https://therealistguide.com/endorsements. (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)
The endorsement -- don't you wish you had such a clear talking professor in college -- reads as follows:
Dr. Jakub Taylor
(https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/be041786-0638-4702-8262-80efb99dfec3/109ec96c-f6da-410a-bbc4-200b823eb0ce.jpg/:/rs=w:360,h:180,cg:true,m/cr=w:360,h:180)
It is not an easy task to write a short endorsement of Fr. Robinson’s book, even if - in itself – the book is not a long opus. The difficulty lies in fear which I experience together with many commentators of the works of St. Thomas: it lies in a justified anxiety that the comment will become much less comprehensible in relation to the scrutinized original. But if, despite the lack of skill, I am to fulfill my task, I should follow a simple pattern of judgment and try to respond to two fundamental questions: does the author recognize the importance of a problem he is dealing with, and does he presents an adequate remedy. In my opinion, the answers to both of these questions appear to be positive. Let me try to explain why.
Chesterton used to mock modern men by saying that “like other barbarians, they really believe the mirror”; and therefore break it, hurting themselves and others in the process. Men have not changed from the time of Chesterton, it seems that human condition reached the bottom of the gnoseological abyss: most of us do believe that the reflections of the ‘mirrors’ represent the essence of being.
Fr. Robinson would agree with this assessment, as he considers the idealistic epistemology the source of most (if not all) contemporary problems, both within the parallel and vertical dimension of human reality. A remedy he proposes is simple: return to the realist cognition and focusing upon causa finita argumentation. Pointing out these two factors proves that author possesses a good intuition and perceptive abilities, features not shared by many. Why is focusing upon modus quo rather than modus quod so important? The way we approach reality is quintessential, as it determines our every-day praxis.
This fact is nicely put into words by a Polish contemporary poet, J.M. Rymkiewicz. In 2011, he expressed his frustration about the ongoing events by assessing the problem of the destruction of human identity, a disregard towards tradition, and the accomplishments of the past, while at the same time exaggerated, beautified ‘non-reality’ was being imposed by ‘deceivers and villains’. “Nothing is true anymore” - he writes emotively – “we have fiduciary economy, irrelevant problems presented to us as relevant, fictitious state agencies administered by a fictitious government… Even unimportant details of this ‘non-reality’ are nothing but the shards of thoughts of the un-real authorities and un-real literati, who preach to us that this ‘non-reality’ is indeed the essence of what is”.
Polish poets are not philosophers or scholars when it comes to guarding their tongues, but from time to time they manage to name the problem more accurately than others. Rymkiewicz called this phenomenon a “Great [Cognitive] Darkening”, which is a term semantically close to what Gordon Wood called an ‘Epistemological Revolution’.
Fr. Robinson, following the great tradition of Christian Aristotelianism and thoughts of the erudite English-speaking apologists, managed to describe the very same problem taking the philosophical deductive approach. Comparing to either Rymkiewicz or Wood he did it in much more coherent and compact fashion. Not many thinkers today are capable of such a feat, as most of them shiver in fear at being considered ‘judgmental’ or they pursue the feeling of safety within the ontological realm of ‘concepts’, doing anything to avoid suspicion of being called ‘axiom-obsessed supporters of foundationalism’. Fr. Robinson knows that talking about the absoluteness of truth is not very pleasant to a modern scholar, especially when it challenges the established lie (often sugar-coated by the term ‘paradigm’), but it is – de facto – a very scholarly thing to do. In my opinion, the author of the “Guide” deserves praise for this attempt, as well as for his attachment to the aleithia-oriented philosophical tradition. The fact that he was capable to interweave his very specific (I dare even say ‘sarcastic’) sense of humor within the precise philosophical narration is even more praiseworthy and should be highly regarded by the readers.
If I were to point out the feature of the book that I regarded most highly it would be the following: within the Anglo-Saxon worldview, any epistemological discourse will often end up facing the alleged dichotomy between the realm of religion and the realm of science. It is an obvious categorical shift problem intrinsically affiliated with the Euler diagram. I was very happy to find this issue addressed in the book. I had an impression, that Fr. Robinson, unlike many of his contemporaries, was quite successful in explaining this issue.
Even if Fr. Robinson’s critique of contemporary scholarship might appear to be too harsh, one might at least hope that it will lead scientists to avoid advocacy research, and build their theorems upon the realistic basis or, at least, to encroach the realm of philosophy or theology only after an adequate theoretical preparation. It might be nothing but an expression of my enormous naivete, but I dare to assume that if this guide is to be followed by other works of this kind, there is a chance of effective propagation of realistic thinking not only among the amateur philosophers, but even among us, professional concept-making academicians. A daring think to hope indeed! And I thank Fr. Robinson for giving me this hope by writing his extraordinary book.
Jakub Taylor is a research professor in the Academy of East Asian Studies at Sungkyunkwan University, in Seoul, South Korea. [Would it be uncharitable to hope that he remain there?]
Had enough of Taylor and his endorsement? Then you may wish to consider the other half of the terrible two's presented as endorsers of Fr. Robisnon's book on Fr. Robinson's endorsement page found at https://therealistguide.com/endorsements. (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)
The one and only priest (a Maronite) giving an open public endorsement (quite superficial though it may be) of Fr. Robinson's book on Fr. Robinson's website (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements)) has his own website which has some rather unusual stuff on it.
Fr. Joseph Azize
(https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/be041786-0638-4702-8262-80efb99dfec3/0ae9141c-f524-4d08-abc3-a161025044bb.jpg/:/rs=w:360,h:180,cg:true,m/cr=w:360,h:180)A sound philosopher, able to move with confidence from Plato to quantum, Fr Paul Robinson here explains, in clear terms, with illustrative examples to facilitate effective understanding, why and how it is that we can attain to knowledge, find truth, and grasp reality. With this volume, the student will be able to safely navigate through the busy halls of philosophy, seeing where and how errors arise, and how to vindicate the truth.
Fr. Joseph Azize, Ph.D (University of Sydney), Honorary Associate, Dept of Studies in Religion, University of Sydney; Adjunct Assoc. Prof. University of Notre Dame, Australia.
*****************************************************************************************************************
Fr. Joseph Azize's website: http://www.josephazize.com/ (http://www.josephazize.com/)
****************************************************************************************************************
Here is a photo and description of Fr. Azize found at https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Joseph-Azize_bymfg_54-0-1.html (https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/Joseph-Azize_bymfg_54-0-1.html)
Joseph Azize
(https://www.connorcourtpublishing.com.au/assets/images/joseph.jpg)
Joseph Azize (Fr Yuhanna Azize) is a Maronite Catholic priest serving at Our Lady of Lebanon Co-Cathedral, hαɾɾιs Park, and is research officer at the Chancery (the bishop’s office). He has authored or co-authored another eight books and many academic articles, especially on religious topics. He is an honorary associate in Studies in Religion at the University of Sydney, and an adjunct Associate Professor in Theology and Ancient History at Notre Dame University, Australia.
********************************************************************************************************************
The same Fr. Azize who Fr. Robinson has featured on his website is the author of a book about the deceased singer John Lennon. The following description of Fr. Azize can be seen on the Amazon webpage showing this book. Also included is the following description of the book.
John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain
by (Author)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41JRweyUyzL.jpg)
John Lennon: Harmony Out of Pain was written for people who both love enough of John Lennon's music to care about its maker, and also feel that there is something deep at work within themselves, that there is something sublime to be learned about ourselves and the world. While many books have been written about Lennon, this is the first time someone has looked at Lennon from the inside.
As Joseph Azize works through the various themes in the book, he arrives at an objective look at an extremely complicated man. As John Lennon found his way towards being a Normal Man certainly one who has had an impact on the entire world and extraordinary in that manner inside he struggled like anyone else with his demons and angels and fought the good fight, just as Jacob wrestled all through the night ending up with a broken hip and a promise. John Lennon also ended up scarred and wounded, but whole.
While there are many books about John Lennon which are really just jingoism and gossip the dish and the dirt this book is about John Lennon in the light of the Gurdjieff Work. Although Lennon was probably not a student of G.I. Gurdjieff or his ideas, the course of his life until his untimely death is ripe with material for pondering his state of being during those times.
Those readers who do not know anything about the Fourth Way Gurdjieff s path in life will be amply rewarded by reading this book, and those who take a serious interest in Mr. Lennon s work will also be amply rewarded by sharing the insights of the author who truly has a genuine and heartfelt love for Lennon s music.
********************
About the Author
Joseph Azize is a priest in Sydney, Australia. He is active in spiritual direction, especially contemplation and vocational askesis, while also working as an academic and writer of church music. His life was transformed when he met and studied under George and Helen Adie, who had been personal pupils of G.I. Gurdjieff, and embodied the path of mysticism in daily life. Fr. Azize s other books include: How to Spot a Fraud, The Phoenician Solar Theology: An Investigation Into the Phoenician Opinion of the Sun Found in Julian's Hymn to King Helios, and George Adie: A Gurdjieff Pupil in Australia.
************************************************************************************ (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/on.com/s/r/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=on.com/s/r&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Azize[/url)
If you are wondering who in the world G.I. Gurdjieff is please take a look at the Wikipedia article on him. It is quite telling! (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/on.com/s/r/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=on.com/s/r&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Azize[/url)
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/on.com/s/r/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=on.com/s/r&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 Azize[/url) [/b]
[/url]
-
1820: 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.
1822: ‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’
That doesn't look like a statement only about non heretical heliocentric books, unless you are admitting that modern cosmology is not "heretical".
The text you quoted says the Pope decreed that "no obstacles exist to sustain" this.
Note above in 1820, the decree refers to 'Copernicus's affirmation regarding the Earth's movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today.' Note also the reference to the Index decree of 1757.
Now why did the decree refer to the point 'in which it is affirmed today?' Well that is because Olivieri told him the heresy of 1616 was a violent heliocentrism, and that the heliocentrism 'affirmed today' by all heliocentrists was not violent so was allowed. The Pope was also told that the heresy of 1616 still stood, so he made sure to say the heliocentrism of today.
Note then the 1757 Index decree. Do you know the circuмstances of the change in the 1757 Index. Well it all began like so;
On September 29, 1741, the Padua Inquisitor Paolo A. Ambrogi wrote to the Holy Office under Pope Benedict XIV in Rome on behalf of the Padua seminary looking for permission to publish the complete works of Galileo Galilei, including the banned Dialogue. Such, he said, was the demand for Galileo’s writings that it was prudent to reproduce them, if allowed, in the light of the Church’s correction conditions. Ambrogi said the works would be edited so as to comply with the ‘hypothesis’ rule, that is, heliocentrism as a way to study the sky but not as the possible true order of the universe.
In 1616, the Holy Office allowed certain astronomy books to be published and read if they depicted heliocentrism as a 'hypothesis,' that is as a means of figuring out the movements in the sky. What was banned was any suggestion heliocentrism was a truth and therefore a biblical truth contrary to the opinion of All the Fathers. In some cases only a little correction was necessary to receive permission to publish. In 1741 as we see above, such permission was sought for the Dialogue and eventually granted after corrections. The 1616 heresy was kept in mind during this process. Eventually the holy Office took other books off the Index but kept 5 that claimed heliocentrism was true. So, this 1741-1757 issue was about astronomical books that adhered to the 1616 decree.
So too were the decrees of 1820-22 about astronomical books. The Pope allowed their publication then because they did not contradict the heliocentric heresy decreed in 1616, or so he was assured by Olivieri and all his pals. Olivieri got away with his scam because the 1616 files had been removed from Rome by Napoleon and they only had the 1741-57 files to decide things on. And again, Pope Pius XII when he said 'no obstacles' did not mean no heretical obstacles but no astronomic obstacles to heliocentrism so allowed Canon Settele's astronomy book with its non violent heliocentrism to be published. . Finally it was Pope Gregory XVI who took the last five books off the Index, but we are told he did this 'without comment.' And again, just because a book is taken off the Index does not mean the Heresy in it has gone too.
Finally, Stanley, be aware that it is YOU and OTHERS who accuse Pope Pius VII of spreading heresy if you insist he meant no doctrinal obstacles. Klas and I do not accuse any Pope of the time of spreading heresy.
-
Finally, Stanley, be aware that it is YOU and OTHERS who accuse Pope Pius VII of spreading heresy if you insist he meant no doctrinal obstacles. Klas and I do not accuse any Pope of the time of spreading heresy.
Amen!
-
After serious study of the subject, I certainly agree with the following taken from one much more learned than myself:
"All in all, the fallacious arguments that Oliveieri submitted in his Summation, the Congregation of the Index was grossly ill-advised when it came time to deciding whether to grant an imprimatur to Canon Settele. Under such duress and false information, the whole affair is tainted from start to finish. Olivieri may have been successful in obtaining an imprimatur for Settele but this did not mean the Church's condemnation of heliocentrism had been rescinded. Imprimaturs given to private books have no authority in overturning Congregational decrees approved by supreme pontiffs and/or facilitated by a canonical trial, as was the case in both 1616 and 1633. In face of the fact that the permission initially given to Galileo's Dialogo was later rescinded by the 1633 magisterium because it found the imprimatur was issued under false pretenses, makes the Settele imprimatur mor of an anomaly than a precedent. In addition Copernicus, Zuniga, Foscarini, Kepler, and Galileo remained on the Index. Hence, the Settele affair proved only one thing, namely, that a high-placed cleric could convince his peers with pretentious scientific claims that neither he nor they could prove since the science of cosmology was still in its infancy. As we noted in the case of Bradley versus Airy, science would not mature nearly enough to shed sufficient light on Olivieri's claims until long after he and his contemporaies had died. And when it shed its light, it would show that Olivieri's claims were fallacious.
As for Pius Vll's role in the Settele affair, although there are various accounts that, after receiving Olivieri's report, he helped smooth the pathway for Settele to obtain the imprimatur, no docuмent exists containing a quote directly from Pius VII endorsing either Settele or heliocentrism."
-
Finally, Stanley, be aware that it is YOU and OTHERS who accuse Pope Pius VII of spreading heresy if you insist he meant no doctrinal obstacles. Klas and I do not accuse any Pope of the time of spreading heresy.
You may not "accuse" the pope of spreading heresy, but it is implicit in your beliefs.
In 1820 the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining the view that you think was infallibly defined as heresy in 1616.
Even if you think 1820 was only about permitting books, the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining what you think are heretical views, even by Catholic authors.
-
You may not "accuse" the pope of spreading heresy, but it is implicit in your beliefs.
In 1820 the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining the view that you think was infallibly defined as heresy in 1616.
Even if you think 1820 was only about permitting books, the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining what you think are heretical views, even by Catholic authors.
In the 1820 statement, Copernicanism is never referred to as a fact or thesis but only as an "opinion" (e.g., "the opinion of Copernicus," and "the Copernican opinion," cited in the first decree). Likewise in the second decree of 1822, the heliocentric cosmology then advocated by various scientists is never referred to as a fact or thesis, but only as an "opinion" (e.g., "the common opinion of modern astronomers"). An opinion is not a fact or thesis. It is closer to a hypothesis or a theory. As such, the Congregation of the Index appears to be saying that, as an official institution of the Catholic Church, it is not, and will not, advocate heliocentrism as a scientific fact, but if a Catholic author (such as Stanley? ) desires to formulate arguments to the contrary he may do so (even on a tradCat site such as CathInfo), and, of course, he does so at his own risk. As such, the permission to print Settele's book is never said to be granted on the basis that the Index recognizes heliocentrism as a fact or these, but only as the "Copernican opinion, as it is presently defended..." since both Copernicus' and "modern astronomers'" treatment of heliocentrism is nothing more than their respective opinions, then obviously Settele's advocacy of heliocentrism cannot be considered any more than an opinion, regardless of whether he, himself, (or even Stanley) believes it to be a thesis or fact.
-
Well, let's not leave out the last of the 3 public endorsers of Fr. Robinson's book who show up on his website (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements (https://therealistguide.com/endorsements) ) and the book itself, namely Dennis Bonnette. This man allows for Neanderthals as having been the descendants of Adam and Eve and places the appearance of the famous first couple at about 750,000 B.C. As to how Adam came about he allows that God may have infused a human soul at the embryonic level into a non-human primate's embryo Uhh, as for Eve -- well, he finds that might be a bit more problematic, but hey, whatever - que sera sera. (And no, I'm not making this up!)
Do the search yourself. This will help to get you started if you want to know more about this third of the (terrible?) three's who make up Fr. Robinson's group of 3 big public endorsers of his work: https://strangenotions.com/the-scientific-possibility-of-adam-and-eve/ (https://strangenotions.com/the-scientific-possibility-of-adam-and-eve/)
http://drbonnette.com/ (http://drbonnette.com/)
(Be sure to watch that little video on the home page!)
See his book Origin of the Human Species: Third Edition (2014) on Amazon
(Be sure to read the most substantial of the reviews -- the 2 star one.)
-
After serious study of the subject, I certainly agree with the following taken from one much more learned than myself:
"… the permission initially given to Galileo's Dialogo was later rescinded by the 1633 magisterium because it found the imprimatur was issued under false pretenses … ."
I have chosen to highlight this particular sentence as a representative sample of the evidently uncontrollable impulse to falsify evidence—or fantasize it into existence; take your pick—that is ever so characteristic of those soi-disant orthodox Catholics who have little to no respect, not only for Galileo, but for the successors of Peter and the Apostles who have taken the utmost care to use the power of the Keys, divinely entrusted to them, with seemly gravity.
Put plainly, there was no such statement in the "1633 magisterium," whatever that curious composite term may actually refer to (when one is going to prattle legalistically, the least he can do is stick to proper legal terminology). What there was was this: a draft docuмent, prepared for Galileo's formal abjuration, in which this claim was included with no evidentiary support whatsoever. When Galileo flatly refused to sign the abjuration, regardless of the consequences to himself, if this charge was retained, the Examiners deleted the wording (as they doubtless knew full well they had to).* Incidentally, Galileo also required the removal of the charge that he was not "a good Catholic." As the Examiners, unlike cassini and many other CathInfo commenters, lacked the remarkably useful ability to read minds, they conceded that point to Galileo, too.
The bottom line is this: the formal docuмent of abjuration signed by Galileo on June 22, 1633, did not include either a charge or an admission of an illicitly obtained imprimatur. The fact that someone cited as an authority by klasG4e gets this elementary fact wrong calls into question his reliability on everything else he writes about the affair.
____________________
*Galileo's grounds were that, as he had acted in all candor by following to the letter the requirements for obtaining the imprimatur, to admit that he had employed false pretences would constitute the mortal sin of perjury. In addition, a false admission would make everyone else in the approval and printing process liable to severe criminal penalties—hence, another grave sin against justice.
-
You may not "accuse" the pope of spreading heresy, but it is implicit in your beliefs.
In 1820 the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining the view that you think was infallibly defined as heresy in 1616.
Even if you think 1820 was only about permitting books, the Pope said there was no obstacle to sustaining what you think are heretical views, even by Catholic authors.
Considering the history of the Galileo case, one of the most complicated in the history of the Church, the truth is contained in the word of God, and the popes when acting officially in His name. This occurred in 1616 and again in 1633 when Pope Urban VIII ordered the following: '“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy.
Now when a pope confirms a decree issued by his predecessor invoking Jesus Christ, anyone who rejects it shares in that heresy. For a Catholic to even suggest a pope could invoke Jesus Christ to witness an error shows me a lack of faith.
Moreover, any Catholic worth their salt should know no pope can ever officially reject a dogma that a previous pope has defined.
The banning of books containing heliocentrism began in 1616. When senior churchmen began to believe the lies of Satan that the Bible's geocentrism was proven wrong they literally did not know what to do. But we also know from our Church's teaching that God will not allow a pope to define a heresy in error, nor will he allow an official abrogation or denial of that heresy. That is Church teaching and if you don't agree with it go to a Protestant forum instead.
As we demonstrated above the Church of 1616 allowed books on heliocentrism that did not claim it was a truth, merely as a means of measuring the movements of the Sky. It banned books that portrayed heliocentrism as a truth, contrary to Scripture.
By the Eighteenth century The heresy was forgotten but the ban was a huge embarrassment to churchmen. Thus when in 1741 the holy Office was asked if a book on Galileo's astronomy could be published it was allowed only after it complied with the book-ban decrees. This eased pressdure on the Church, but the philosophers kept up their protests and assertions that heliocentrism was a natural truth.
1820, and another book was looking for licence to print. Olivieri, 100% convinced heliocentrism was a proven fact, wanted to allow publication. But a Fr Anfossi stopped this and challenged Olivieri saying that in 1616 heliocentrism was defined as heresy. In answer to that Olivieri conjured up his 1616 violent heretical heliocentrism and his non-heretical non-violent heliocentrism. He managed to convince the pope to allow all heliocentric books of the time be published because their heliocentrism no longer had a violent turning Earth. The Pope believed him and allowed publication and forbid any attempt by the Anfossis to try to stop books with the new helionentrism. Throughout the 1741-1820 U-turn, no pope dared try to undermine the 1616 decree defining the heresy. That is proof of infallibility and proof that no matter the circuмstances no pope will officially contradict an irreformable decree.
But of course you are right Stanley, by allowing books to be printed it did 'infer' the 1616 decree was abrogated or ruled of no authority. But this 'inference' was not explicit, and to say it was is to accuse popes of allowing heresy. I have no doubt that when Pope Gregory in 1835, emptied the Index of all heliocentric books he did so 'without comment.' In other words, like Pope Pius VII before him, he did not say the heresy no longer exists, he offered no abrogation, a necessity to abandon any Church teaching.
Now with heliocentrism rampant in the world, it suited churchmen to allow this illusion that it was no longer a biblical heresy. It got the Church off the 'embarrassing ' hook, while safely placing that heretical violent heliocentrism 1616 decree out of sight.
In time, in spite of Einstein's pointing out the geocentrism of the Bible cannot be proven wrong, the Church was so infiltrated by Modernism that no one was bothered or interested in recalling the U-turn. It had now become a bigger 'embarrassment' that the 1616 decree if the truth got out.
-
I have chosen to highlight this particular sentence as a representative sample of the evidently uncontrollable impulse to falsify evidence—or fantasize it into existence; take your pick—that is ever so characteristic of those soi-disant orthodox Catholics who have little to no respect, not only for Galileo, but for the successors of Peter and the Apostles who have taken the utmost care to use the power of the Keys, divinely entrusted to them, with seemly gravity.
Put plainly, there was no such statement in the "1633 magisterium," whatever that curious composite term may actually refer to (when one is going to prattle legalistically, the least he can do is stick to proper legal terminology). What there was was this: a draft docuмent, prepared for Galileo's formal abjuration, in which this claim was included with no evidentiary support whatsoever. When Galileo flatly refused to sign the abjuration, regardless of the consequences to himself, if this charge was retained, the Examiners deleted the wording (as they doubtless knew full well they had to).* Incidentally, Galileo also required the removal of the charge that he was not "a good Catholic." As the Examiners, unlike cassini and many other CathInfo commenters, lacked the remarkably useful ability to read minds, they conceded that point to Galileo, too.
The bottom line is this: the formal docuмent of abjuration signed by Galileo on June 22, 1633, did not include either a charge or an admission of an illicitly obtained imprimatur. The fact that someone cited as an authority by klasG4e gets this elementary fact wrong calls into question his reliability on everything else he writes about the affair.
____________________
*Galileo's grounds were that, as he had acted in all candor by following to the letter the requirements for obtaining the imprimatur, to admit that he had employed false pretences would constitute the mortal sin of perjury. In addition, a false admission would make everyone else in the approval and printing process liable to severe criminal penalties—hence, another grave sin against justice.
The Trial of Galileo as told by the Rev. W. W. Roberts:
‘Every one admits that Galileo during his trial was treated with unusual indulgence; and his sentence was a much lighter one than he had reason to expect. Let us look at things from the standpoint of the court. It assumed; we must bear in mind, that the doctrinal question had been settled, and that the decision of 1616 was absolute. The issues before it were these. Had Galileo wilfully transgressed the order he was under, not to treat of heliocentrism in any manner, and did he hold and had he written advisedly in favour of that condemned opinion? If so, by the ruling of the court, his crime was heresy.
‘Galileo’s answer on the first count was that he had completely forgotten the order contained the words “teach in any manner.” And to render this statement credible he produced Bellarmine’s record of the order without the words. He had taken, he said, that certificate as a complete account of the transaction it referred to. Nor had it occurred to him to tax his memory on the subject. Further, since it was obvious that the judgement notified to him was one and the same thing with the declaration of the Index, he had not supposed himself to be under any special restriction, and had not thought it necessary to mention the order when he applied for his imprimaturs.
With regard to the second point he absolutely denied that he had meant the Dialogo to be a defence of Copernicanism. He granted that vainglory, and the desire men have to show off their cleverness in arguing even for propositions they allow to be false, had led him to give an appearance of strength to the Copernican side; but his real intent had been to show the inconclusiveness of the argument for the theory. And he begged the court to allow him to add a dialogue to the work, to make the thing quite unmistakable. But the evidence was dead against him. And we cannot wonder that the three consulters of the Holy Office, Oreggi, Inchofer and Pasqualigus protested against his defence, and declared their conviction that the accused had held, defended, and taught, the theory of the Earth’s motion [and sun’s stability]. It remained for the Pope to determine what should be done. He must have been morally sure that Galileo had not spoken the truth and had it been his object to crush the man, he might, I take it, have condemned him for heresy on the data he had. Instead of doing this, he decreed as follows:
Galileo was to be questioned about his intention. He was to be threatened with the torture even though it was never intended due to the fact it was illegal to torture anybody of Galileo’s age. If he responded to the threat and admitted his guilt, he was to be condemned - after making the abjuration “de vehementi” in a full assembly of the Holy Office - to imprisonment during the pleasure of the Sacred Congregation. An injunction was to be laid on him never again to treat of the heliocentric theory, for and against, by word of mouth or in writing, under pain of being dealt with as a relapsed heretic. The Dialogo was to be prohibited. And that all might know those things, his Holiness commanded the Congregation to send copies of the sentence to all the nuncios Apostolic, to all the Inquisitors of heretical pravity and to the Inquisitor of Florence, who was to summon mathematical professors to hear it read publicly.[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)
Accordingly, on the 21st June 1633, Galileo underwent a final examination with respect to his intention in writing the Dialogo. He was asked to say whether he held or had held, and since when, that the sun is in the centre of the universe, and that the Earth is not the centre, but moves, and with a diurnal movement. He replied that before the determination of the Congregation of the Index, and until he received an order to the contrary, he had suspended his judgement on the matter, and had thought it an open question whether the truth lay with Ptolemy or Copernicus, there being no reason in the nature of things why either might not be right. But when his superiors decided the point, he ceased to doubt, and held, and continued to hold, the opinion of Ptolemy, that the Earth is fixed, and that the sun moves.
The Congregation submitted that his having written the Dialogo was inconsistent with this statement, and urged him to speak the truth. He said that his object in writing the Dialogo was to exhibit the astronomical and physical arguments that might be advanced on both sides of the controversy; and to show that, as reason could not settle the question, recourse must be had to a higher teaching – “alla determinatione di piu sublimi dettrine.” He concluded by again asserting that he did not hold the condemned opinion, and had not held it since its condemnation in 1616. He was then warned that the evidence was so strong against him, that if he did not confess, the court must have recourse to the remedies the law provided for such cases. He repeated his assertion that he had not held the opinion of Copernicus since he had been ordered to give it up: “I am in your hands, and you must do what you think fit.” He was then told, in plain terms, that if he did not speak the truth, he would be put to the torture. “I am here,” he said: “to obey. I have not held that opinion since the decision against it.” The Congregation, having so far carried out the Pope’s orders, dismissed him to his place: The next day he was summoned to the convent of the Minerva; and there, in the presence of the Cardinals and prelates of the Holy Office, the Pope Urban VIII’s sentence was pronounced:’
The Inquisition’s Sentence:
‘… “And to the end,” said the docuмent, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.” And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question. “Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei delle due massime Sisteme del Mundo Ptolemaico e Copernicano, the false opinion of the motion of the Earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.”
Thus the declaration of the Index - for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed - was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough, but mark what followed. “And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the Earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held.[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn2) “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But in what sense Papal? In a sense according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with declarations and definitions the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. It was papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by docuмentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy,[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn3) that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you. And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.”’
Galileo’s Abjuration:
“I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, appearing personally before this court, and kneeing before you, the most eminent and reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General of the universal Christian Republic against heretical pravity, having before my eyes the most holy Gospels, and touching them with my hands, swear that I always have believed, and now believe, and with God’s help will always believe, all that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches. But because, after this Holy Office had juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which holds that the sun is in the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre, and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend, or teach in any manner, the said false doctrine; and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I wrote and caused to be printed a book, wherein I treat of the same doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments with great efficacy in favour of it, without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the Earth is not the centre, and moves. Wherefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and all Catholic Christians, this vehement suspicion legitimately conceived against me, with a sincere heart and faith unfeigned, I abjure, curse, and detest, the above named errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the above-mentioned Holy Church; and I swear for the future, I will neither say, nor assert by word of mouth, or in writing, anything to bring upon me similar suspicion. And if I shall know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor, or Ordinary of the place in which I may be. Moreover I swear, and promise, to fulfil, and observe entirely, all the penances that have been or shall be imposed on me by this Holy Office. And if -which God forbid- I act against any of these said promises, protestations, and oaths, I subject myself to all the penalties and punishments which the sacred canons, and other constitutions, general and particular, have enacted, and promulgated against such delinquents. So help me God, and His holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands. “I, Galileo Galilei above-named, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; in token whereof I have signed with my own hand this formula of my abjuration, and have recited it word by word.”‘Thus did Rome’s supreme Pontifical Congregation, established, to use the words of Sixtus V., “tanquam firmissimum Catholicae fidei propugnaculum . . . cui ob summam rei gravitatem Romanus Pontifex praesidere solet,” known to be acting under the Pope’s orders, announce to the Catholic world that it had been ruled that the Papal declaration of 1616 was to be received, not as a fallible utterance, but as an absolute sentence and abjuration, as an expression of the mind of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome, and that the Holy See regarded the opinion condemned thereby as nothing less than heresy.’
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Footnote p.88. In this part of the order the Pope not obscurely intimated his will that the Copernican-minded Catholics should be forced to yield assent to the decision of 1616. For the local tribunals of the Inquisition were to take their tone from the Supreme Court.
[2] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref2) Footnote page 72. The abjuration was a solemn profession of faith, accompanied with a renouncement of every opinion opposed to the Church’s teaching, exacted only from those attainted of some crime implying unsoundness of faith. Hence Galileo’s anxiety to return to Florence after the proceedings of 1616 with a testamur that he had not abjured, and therefore was not guilty of any breach contrary to the Catholic faith.
[3] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref3) To be condemned as a heretic Galileo would have had to admit interior dissent to the prohibition of heliocentrism as a truth consonant with Scripture. Exterior assent such as that in his book was not enough to show what was in his heart. Without a confession, which Galileo did not admit to, the Holy Office could not assume nor condemn something it cannot know with certainty. Thus Galileo was found guilty of suspicion of heresy based on his writings alone.
-
Every one admits that Galileo during his trial was treated with unusual indulgence; and his sentence was a much lighter one than he had reason to expect. …
In and of itself, the quoted sentence is highly revealing of the mind-set of both cassini and his source, a certain Father Roberts, in that it is a glaring example of petitio principii; that is, it takes for granted the very question that is at issue and then improperly uses this unwarranted assumption as a basis for further blackening its target.
Facts and evidence mean literally nothing to such people. To them, the Galileo affair is a moral fable, a kind of fairy tale in which all the good guys are as simon-pure as the white hats they figuratively wear and the bad guys are so evil that we may justly assume that, in addition to committing all the crimes they are accused of, they kick puppies and children and push old ladies off the sidewalk.
As I see not the slightest evidence that cassini and his allies have read with comprehension the tens of thousands of words they ceaselessly continue to post here, generally in oversized type, it is virtually pointless to hope that they will someday embrace rationality, let alone charity. All one can reasonably hope to accomplish is to persuade one or two readers not to emulate their un-Catholic closed-mindedness.
-
That is Church teaching and if you don't agree with it go to a Protestant forum instead.
Says the person who in this discussion has invoked an atheist philosopher and a heretic clergyman as authorities.
-
Many years ago I read the following anticipating typically the above two rhetorical replies from Claudel and Stanley to posts by myself and Klas.
As a consequent of our research, many new readers will first endeavour to ignore our findings, and that failing will dismiss or censor it out of hand according to their needs, a censorship already implemented in some prominent Catholic discussion forums. The credibility of four hundred years of Galileoism and its promulgators in Church and State will be defended on every ground. If Einstein’s ‘special relativity’ offers them an ‘intellectual’ choice then they will stick with their heliocentrism through thick and thin. They will do this with an arrogance we can easily predict, for, as you will see for yourself, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them because their belief in the heliocentric Copernican revolution and Galilean reformation is, as Albert Pike the Freemason forecast, ideologically and psychologically based, not theologically, metaphysically and empirically founded.
‘Science perishes by systems that are nothing but beliefs; and Faith succuмbs to reasoning. For the two Columns of the Temple… must remain separated and be parallel to each other…. Harmony is the result of an alternating preponderance of forces.’ --- Morals and Dogma, p.306.
Accordingly, the Catholic truth they should be defending will be corrupted to meet their philosophical position. And this is why they will resort to a censorship of kind and the tried and tested ‘ad hominem’ ploy, that is, either an unqualified rejection of the disclosures, or rhetoric designed and directed against the contributors and contents of this [thread] to avoid actually having to address the evidence contained within it. The entrenched Galileans will also point out in no uncertain manner that the geocentrism and geostatism defended herein is simply stupid according to most and it is outrageous to assert the Catholic Church made it a dogma of Scripture. They will also claim the defenders of the irreformable 1616 decree are this or that, not trained scientists, cosmologists, mathematicians, historians or theologians, so what could they know? We know all this will happen because it has already begun.
Talk about predicting the future as our friends above demonstrate.
-
Talk about predicting the future as our friends above demonstrate.
How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?
I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.
The best I can say is the view of geocentrism you've presented is a caricature. You may mean well, and even believe it, but it looks like the sort of thing that non-Catholics come up with because they don't really understand the Church.
That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.
-
since both Copernicus' and "modern astronomers'" treatment of heliocentrism is nothing more than their respective opinions, then obviously Settele's advocacy of heliocentrism cannot be considered any more than an opinion, regardless of whether he, himself, (or even Stanley) believes it to be a thesis or fact.
You think heliocentrism was defined heresy and/or contrary to defined doctrine, right? But you have apparently no difficulty with the Church saying a Catholic can defend [what you think is] a heresy in print?
1820 is about 200 years after 1616. It hasn't quite been 200 years since the Immaculate Conception was defined, but are you really saying the Church could say that it's OK to formulate arguments advocating the contrary, and print them in books, with the proviso that of course he does so at his own risk? That it is only an opinion, even if the author believes the contrary of the Immaculate Conception to be fact?
-
You think heliocentrism was defined heresy and/or contrary to defined doctrine, right? But you have apparently no difficulty with the Church saying a Catholic can defend [what you think is] a heresy in print?
1820 is about 200 years after 1616. It hasn't quite been 200 years since the Immaculate Conception was defined, but are you really saying the Church could say that it's OK to formulate arguments advocating the contrary, and print them in books, with the proviso that of course he does so at his own risk? That it is only an opinion, even if the author believes the contrary of the Immaculate Conception to be fact?
Stan, I imagine you are familiar with the old saying, "He who frames the argument/issues wins the argument." No problem with that as long as the one who wins has framed correctly/truthfully. I probably won't be carrying on any longer in this thread since there seem to be so few people posting and from my perspective it seems like you and I (and Cassini) as well as me(and Cassini) and Claudel are ships passing in the night.
I would ask, however, that you please keep in mind that the Church is in a state of diabolical disorientation. As for me, I think Vatican II will be in for a major rectification when the long awaited Consecration of Russia takes place. When that comes about, I think the Church will be very clear and straightforward in teaching geocentrism, the geocentrism which is clearly seen in the pages of Sacred Scripture.
I believe that the Bible on a literal/traditionalist reading of it many times more than once asserts the truth of geocentrism. I believe in the Church's doctrine that the Bible is totally inerrant. On that note I think I will just bid adieu to this thread at least for the foreseeable future.
P.S. The condemnation of usury is still an official doctrine of the Church, but we don't hear too much about that anymore.
-
How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?
I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.
The best I can say is the view of geocentrism you've presented is a caricature. You may mean well, and even believe it, but it looks like the sort of thing that non-Catholics come up with because they don't really understand the Church.
That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.
Stanley, I am well aware that the likes of yourself will argue until the cows come home with no intention at all to acknowledge anything I or klas might have to say. However there are others reading this thread and for them I now reply.
Indeed such are your responses that you could well be a machine programmed to simply deny anything it reads. You never once told us if you are a helio trying to make your heresy (yes, once informed, material-heresy becomes formal-heresy) orthodox on account that the Church allowed the flock to read helio books that DID NOT HAVE A VIOLENT ORBITING EARTH. Are you disputing that Pope Pius VII of 1820 put forward this new non-heretical helio as he understood it? Are you saying he put forward a heliocentrism that he knew to be the heretical one? Or like a machine, will you avoid the question once again with further rhetoric?
Klas and I, who have studied the records of the Church on the matter, can swear to God the facts are as we have recorded them.
'How would you think a Catholic would respond if someone presented a doctrine as taught by the Church, that the Church doesn't teach?'
I note Stanley, or machine, that you keep professing shock as a Catholic, that the Church would allow the subject matter (ex parte objecti) to be read by the Flock. Boy you must have have a near heart attack to know Pope Paul VI when he abandoned the Index altogether in 1970s allowed the subject matter of hundreds of heresies to be read by the flock.
But there is a second answer to your question here. How would a Catholic respond to a Pope and his Holy Office issuing a decree, infallible or not, whatever that means, that said a helio reading of the Scriptures was formal heresy and that any of the Flock who insists on that are excommunicated? How would a Catholic respond if Galileo was put on trial, found guilty, and confined to house arrest for a heresy that the CHURCH DIDN'T TEACH? This is what you accuse the Church of 1616, 1633 and 1664 of doing. When I think of the popes, theologians and St Robert Bellarmine and their fight against the Protestant Reformation, their catechism, and the catechism of Trent being told by the likes of you and claudel that they approved a false doctrine and implimented it, I wonder if you are Catholics at all.
Now you Stanley, Claudel or machines, you guys may pretend not to see the absurdity of your question but I would think other readers might.
'I think I've given you a fair hearing, and you haven't demonstrated that the 1616 statement of the Index was infallible, let alone plausibly explained how the Church could fail to teach for 200+ years what you consider to be defined dogma.'
'A fair hearing,' wow, thanks. 'Infallible'? Again what do you mean by that? Show us a claim for infallibility by a pope in the history of the Church? The word infallibility was not used before 1870. The word 'irreformable' or 'non-revisible' was used in the case of the 1616 decree and it means exactly the same thing. You cannot have a reformable non-reformable decree. Well you can Stanley, but not the rest of us Catholics. Both Pope Urban VIII and Bellarmine's successor in the Holy Office of 1820 are ON RECORD AS ACKNOWLEDGING THE 1616 DECREE AS IRREFORMABLE. I use capitals so that you cannot miss these two demonstrations that were issued by THE CHURCH, not by me or Klas.
As to why the Church FAILED to teach the helio for the last 200 years was heretical. Well I have already told you why, but it seems you prefer to ignore why. But for others, it was because they thought heliocentrism was proven in 1820, and you cannot teach as heresy what you believe to be a fact of science. So Fr Olivieri thought up a way to have their irreformable heresy and allow what they believed was proven to be acceptable to the Flock. He said the heretical helio had a violent Earth, but a non-violent helio of 1820 was not heretical. That is why the decrees of 1820 said 'according to modern astronomers.' This left the heresy behind in history, no longer relevant, so could be forgotten without having to deny an irreformable papal decree. But in truth the heresy was to say the orbiting sun of Scripture was not true.
'That geocentrism leads someone to use quotes from enemies of the Church as doctrinal authorities should be an indication that something is wrong with geocentrism.'
Finally, If St Thomas can use the thoughts of a Pagan that reflect truth, then I will use a truth uttered or written by a Pagan also. Nor do I consider all non-Catholics as 'enemies of the Church' as you do, not even atheists. But the above does tell me you are a helio, so no wonder you do not like what you are reading.
-
Finally, If St Thomas can use the thoughts of a Pagan that reflect truth, then I will use a truth uttered or written by a Pagan also. Nor do I consider all non-Catholics as 'enemies of the Church' as you do, not even atheists. But the above does tell me you are a helio, so no wonder you do not like what you are reading.
The difference is that the non-Catholics in this case do not reflect truth. The atheist was reflecting false objections in the field of theodicy (the part of philosophy dealing with the existence of God), yet that's the specific point you endorsed. The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine.
I think the framework of your view makes way more infallible (or "irreformable") statements than even conservative theologians writing after 1870 think. I happened to check the Galileo affair in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm), and it says the Index can not define doctrine. (This is much more fundamental than your arguments about who signed what.)
Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation's decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.
Even taking your narrow interpretation of the 1820 statement, it is a statement confirmed by the Pope saying a Catholic can write books advocating something you are claiming is heresy. Whatever backroom machinations happened ibefore 1820 might say something about the people involved, but it's not actually reflected in the decree beyond the phrase "as held by modern astronomers". That would appear to imply that modern cosmology is different than the 1616 heliocentrism, but whether that difference is the "violence" angle you mention or something else, is not part of the decree. Thus, the difference doesn't need to be specifically the "violcence" angle, but could be something else, something that also makes your scriptural objections moot.
It was the proposition that the sun is motionless in the center of the world that the 1616 assessors of the holy office said was contrary to Scripture, something they did NOT say of the earth's movement. The 1616 decree of the Index refers to the "doctrine" (singular, not plural) of the sun's rest and the earth's motion, so they form one doctrine in that decree. So, even IF you claim the 1616 decision defined doctrine, nobody today holds the heliocentrism of 1616, because nobody thinks the sun is motionless in the center of the universe.
-
I would ask, however, that you please keep in mind that the Church is in a state of diabolical disorientation.
Yes, I just think geocentrism is part of that disorientation. To deceive, if possible, even the elect...
Good idea considering the case of usury.. There are some parallels. Also some key differences. Spirago-Clarke's Catechism Explained (1899) mentions usury, for example, but to my recollection, it doesn't mention geocentrism.
-
The difference is that the non-Catholics in this case do not reflect truth. The atheist was reflecting false objections in the field of theodicy (the part of philosophy dealing with the existence of God), yet that's the specific point you endorsed. The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine.
Just so others will see what you are talking about I shall put my quote in context:
The courtship between Catholic faith and modern science reached a lower point on November 22, 1951 when Pope Pius XII once again addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The title of the Pope’s address was ‘The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science.’ What followed was an inferred endorsement of nearly every evolutionary theory on offer at the time, theories that (1) conflicted with the literal order of creation and the geocentric order of the universe held by the all the Church Fathers; (2) theories that denied the biblical age of 6-7,000 years for the universe; (3) theories that denied the global Flood as recorded in Genesis and its effect on the topography as we find it today, and God knows what else. Here is some of Pope’s speech:
‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’
48. On the other hand, how different and much more faithful a reflection of limitless visions is the language of an outstanding modern scientist, Sir Edmund Whittaker, member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, when he speaks of the above-mentioned inquiries into the age of the world: “These different calculations point to the conclusion that there was a time, some nine or ten billion years ago, prior to which the cosmos, if it existed, existed in a form totally different from anything we know, and this form constitutes the very last limit of science. We refer to it perhaps not improperly as creation. It provides a unifying background, suggested by geological evidence, for that explanation of the world according to which every organism existing on the Earth had a beginning in time. Were this conclusion to be confirmed by future research, it might well be considered as the most outstanding discovery of our times, since it represents a fundamental change in the scientific conception of the universe, similar to the one brought about four centuries ago by Copernicus.”
50. It has, besides, followed the course and the direction of cosmic developments, and, just as it was able to get a glimpse of the term toward which these developments were inexorably leading, so also has it pointed to their beginning in time some five billion years ago. Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, it has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the cosmos came forth from the hands of the Creator.’
Yes, admits Pope Pius XII, it all began with Copernicus. Not for the first time a pope has placed the creation act and order into the hands of secular theory. But there are philosophical and theological consequences to placing the creative act of God at the mercy of science’s Big Bang and the condemned heliocentrism.
‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith? My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by cosmology he [or it] should be at the mercy of cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriousness,” cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftn1)
[1] (http://file:///C:/Users/JamesRedmond/Desktop/TE%20THE%20BOOK.doc#_ftnref1) Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378-379.
'The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine' you said.
Now Stanley, will you show us all the defined doctrine you are referring to?
-
I hope Fr. Robinson looks at this, and then let us know who his expert advisors are.
http://kolbecenter.org/contact-us/special-creation-advisors/
-
I think the framework of your view makes way more infallible (or "irreformable") statements than even conservative theologians writing after 1870 think. I happened to check the Galileo affair in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm), and it says the Index can not define doctrine. (This is much more fundamental than your arguments about who signed what.)
Catholic Encyclopedias are written by men but you would like us to think they were written by the Apostles.
Again, when churchmen believed the geocentrism of the 1616 decree was proven wrong by science, they conjured up a story of the Galileo case to 'get the Church off the hook.' Now the Catholic Church does not need anyone to get it 'off the hook' as God protects its decrees on matters of faith and morals. As it turned out it was found that the geocentrism of the Bible has never been proven false.
To demonstrate the credibility of Stanley'sd preferred version, all I need do is show how the deception was carried out. One never absent from the Apologists version is the use of Bellarmine's 1615 Letter to Foscarini, put in a context that could fool the Catholic world.
Bellarmine was addressing the illusion that Galileo had found proof for heliocentrism. Here is what he actually said:
‘Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and the Earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the Earth but the Earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But as for myself, I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun is at the centre and the Earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun really is in the centre and the Earth 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.
So what does Stanley's version say:
It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02411d.htm), the most influential member of the Sacred College (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm#x), writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena — an unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes — but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm), thus continued:
I say that if a real proof (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm), very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm) which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm) which is demonstrated.
Now here we find the Catholic Encyclopedia using a private 1615 letter to try to undermine a papal decree issued a year later. But worse, these encyclicals always twist Bellarmine's words to make it look like a dogma for the future of the Catholic church. What Bellarmine said was Galileo had no proof in the PRESENT TENSE, but look how the Encyclopedia made it look like he was talking in the future tense.
Final PROOF that Catholic Encyclopedias since 1913 can deceive even the elect, note Bellarmine's letter says: IF REAL PROOF BE FOUND THEN...' Now tell me that the writer of this item DOES NOT BASE HIS ARTICLE ON THE FACT THAT THE LOT OF THEM IN THE CHURCH BELIEVED PROOF HAD BEEN FOUND.
And on this basis, they conjured up a deception to try to undermine the fact that in 1616 a papal decree had found geocentrism as truth of scripture.
-
Catholic Encyclopedias are written by men but you would like us to think they were written by the Apostles.
...
And on this basis, they conjured up a deception to try to undermine the fact that in 1616 a papal decree had found geocentrism as truth of scripture.
First, wherever did I suggest the Catholic Encyclopedia was written by the Apostles? My point was that it reflects the view that the Index doesn't define doctrine. [At least, when the Index was distinct from the Holy Office, from 1571-1917.] You just continue as if it's given the Index does define doctrine and in fact did in 1616.
Second, as I just noted, the 1616 assessors report covered two propositions, but only one was evaluated as contrary to Scripture, namely the sun's rest and centrality. Current science happens to coincide on rejecting the sun's rest and centrality.
-
Second, as I just noted, the 1616 assessors report covered two propositions, but only one was evaluated as contrary to Scripture, namely the sun's rest and centrality. Current science happens to coincide on rejecting the sun's rest and centrality.
You mean only one defined as heresy!
(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement, was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”
In red we see the term movement is QUALIFIED.
Here is one example:
“Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon. And the sun and the moon stood still... Is it not written in the book of the just [now lost]? So the sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day. There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel.” --- (Josue 10:12-13).
The MOVEMENT of the heresy then is the daily course of the sun, not the supposed movement of the sun you would like to give it to avoid that heresy.
-
In red we see the term movement is QUALIFIED.
I don't think it's binding to begin with.
But even Ineffabilis Deus, in addition to the Immaculate Conception definition properly speaking, has a lot of other text giving explanations and so on. That Church is not "irreformably" bound to the other text.
'The heretic was denying an unambiguously defined doctrine of the Church (after it was defined), yet you brought him in as if he was an authority on that very doctrine' you said.
Now Stanley, will you show us all the defined doctrine you are referring to?
Rev. Roberts book was published in 1885, after papal infallibility was defined. The intro to the version linked above says he denied infallibility.
-
I don't think it's binding to begin with.
But even Ineffabilis Deus, in addition to the Immaculate Conception definition properly speaking, has a lot of other text giving explanations and so on. That Church is not "irreformably" bound to the other text.
Rev. Roberts book was published in 1885, after papal infallibility was defined. The intro to the version linked above says he denied infallibility.
Yes, Fr Roberts denied the dogma of infallibility. But why did he fall into heresy? Read his book and you will see he shows how and why the 1616 decree was infallible. but, as with them all then, believed it was proven false, a falsification decreed by his pope in 1820. His arguments totally convinced him the 1616 decree was infallible, which the Holy Office of 1820 agreed with (but Roberts did not know this). Such was his faith in the 1616 decree had all the authority of infallibility that he had no choice but reject the 1870 dogma. Had Rome not abandoned the 1616 decree believing it was proven wrong, Fr Roberts, who correctly accepted the infallibility of the 1616 decree would not have fallen into heresy.
Here is what he said about the Immaculate Conception:
If, then, the Pope said in effect that heliocentricism was a heresy, he said in effect that it was not only de fide, but de fide Catholicâ, that it was false; that it was not only de fide, but de fide Catholicâ, that its contradictory was true. In what capacity he spoke, and whether he meant what he said, are further questions, but it is a great point to have it conceded that he did in effect declare heliocentricism to be a “heresy.” But we also learn from .the statement of a Pontifical Congregation that the utterance was a definition, i.e. a final authoritative judgment. We are brought, therefore, to the conclusion that the Pope did in fact publish, through the Congregation of the Index, a definition of faith. Now, suppose for a moment that he did so ex cathedrâ, would it follow that the definition was of the same kind as that by which Pius IX decided the question of the Immaculate Conception? And ought it to have been promulgated with like emphasis and solemnity? Assuredly not. The definition of the Bull “Ineffabilis” was put forward to make that of Catholic faith which confessedly was not so before. Up to the 8th of December 1854 it was, by the force of Bulls that had not been formally revoked, excommunication to call the denial of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception heresy, or even, if I mistake not, to say that those who impugned it were guilty of grave sin. Since that date, according to the Bull, any one who ventures to think that the doctrine has not been revealed by God, ipso facto, makes shipwreck of his faith, and cuts himself off from the unity of the Church. Clearly the definition was of the nature of a new doctrinal law, and therefore needed a promulgation that would challenge the attention of all Christians. But not every Pontifical definition ex cathedrâ ascribing heresy or repugnancy to Scripture to dissentients is a definition of faith in this sense. By far the greater number are issued, not to generate any fresh obligation of faith, but to protect and vindicate one that already exists [a Pythagorean heresy] ; and to this class obviously belong ex cathedrâ censures of books, and propositions, as heretical. The mode of publishing these judgments will vary of course with circuмstances, but from their nature there is no reason for their being put forward with any greater emphasis and solemnity than the evil to be met requires. Why, then, should they not occasionally be issued through one of the Congregations the Pope has erected to assist him in discharging his functions as guardian of the faith? And why should such a mode of publication prejudice their infallibility, if they are certainly Papal decisions, and are known to be such?
When the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was defined, all the conditions of an ex cathedrâ Act were so abundantly and clearly fulfilled that no Roman Catholic theologian would be permitted to raise a doubt on the subject. I do not for a moment pretend that heliocentricism was condemned by any judgment of which the same may be said; neither have I attempted to prove that it was. My contention was a very different one; and I will try to explain and vindicate it.
I found it laid down by such distinguished representatives of the Ultramontane school as Cardenas, La Croix, Zaccaria, and Bouix, that Congregational decrees, confirmed by the Pope and published by his express order, emanate from the Pontiff in his capacity of Head of the Church, and are ex cathedrâ in such sense as to make it infallibly certain that doctrines so propounded as true, are true.
Similarly, Hans Kung, who also found the 1616 decree was infallible and accordingly claimed the dogma was proven false by way of the same 'proofs' for heliocentrism.
We see then two men were led to reject the 1870 dogma based on that U-turn of 1741-1835 when they too thought the 1616 decree was falsified by science.
So whose fault was it that these two, and many others, rejected the dogma of infallibility?
-
Yes, Fr Roberts denied the dogma of infallibility. But why did he fall into heresy? Read his book and you will see he shows how and why the 1616 decree was infallible. but, as with them all then, believed it was proven false, a falsification decreed by his pope in 1820. His arguments totally convinced him the 1616 decree was infallible, which the Holy Office of 1820 agreed with (but Roberts did not know this).
Rev. Roberts apparently thought infallibility applied where it doesn't, and was too proud of his faulty view to subject his mind to the Church's definitions. And that reveals his lack of properly formed faith.
If we were discussing some liberal theologian denying a dogma, wouldn't you say something like that?
-
Here Stanley, maybe this suits your position better than Moses's Genesis and the facts of history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORUUqJd81M)
-
Catch this falling star (as in one star rating/review) for Fr. Robinson's book before it falls down the memory hole like Fr. Rusak's one star rating/review:
https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)
Read 17 reviews (https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#) Write a review (https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#)
Liberalism is a sin
Suzanne, Dec 2018
This is another attempt by the SSPX to reconcile Catholic principles with the world and with Vatican II:
It is called liberalism.
Read rather "Giants and Atlantis", it gives a much more catholic and biblical view of the world. and shows concrete evidence of the fact that the earth is not millions of years old...
-
Catch this falling star (as in one star rating/review) for Fr. Robinson's book before it falls down the memory hole like Fr. Rusak's one star rating/review:
https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science (https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science)
Read 17 reviews (https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#) Write a review (https://angeluspress.org/collections/frontpage/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science#)
Liberalism is a sin
Suzanne, Dec 2018
This is another attempt by the SSPX to reconcile Catholic principles with the world and with Vatican II:
It is called liberalism.
Read rather "Giants and Atlantis", it gives a much more catholic and biblical view of the world. and shows concrete evidence of the fact that the earth is not millions of years old...
Yup, it got disappeared.