CathInfo.com

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

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.