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.  

Now -- up, up, and away -- on youtube!

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".

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 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 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. 

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.)

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