Author Topic: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather) (Read 28456 times)

apollo · « **Reply #210 on:** July 23, 2018, 08:22:34 PM »

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 07:11:54 PM

Since the Church absolutely condemned heliocentrism by decree, in very distinct language, as well as in subsequent writings by Popes and prior to the Affair in teachings by Fathers of the Church, and since the Church subsequently permitted the publication of books on the subject, we know automatically that She is merely permitting the publication of books, and not giving license to what She has already condemned. Reading a few articles on the web does not make you an expert nor have you proven the case for heliocentrism which is not only the basis of pagan religion, but also at odds with Scripture and the Fathers of the Church. Now, if anything is over anyone's head, it's over yours because you don't even know the Fathers of the Church spoke against heliocentrism, nor are you aware that Scripture renders it false.

.
Please quote Scripture, the verses that render Heliocentrism false.
And the Church absolutely condemned those people that oppose Heliocentrism.
Sorry, you are mistaken. You cannot read a few webpages and become an expert
on this topic. You have to go the the Vatican Library and dig out the docuмents
yourself ;D.
You must have missed ALL my previous replies, especially the one where I proved
Heliocentrism. I'm not going to repeat all my previous replies, you have to read
them.
Excuse me, the Church warns of a penalty for refusing to publish books that promote
Heliocentrism.
Do you even remember how fast I said the Sun must be moving in the Geocentric
model ?? How fast ? Tell me, oh wise doctor of the Church who has merely read
a few webpages.

How does the earth keep the moon in orbit? Do you even know that?
I guess the Fathers of the Church knew that. Probably, the scientists who determine
where Jupiter is going to be next month, used the formulas derived by the Fathers of
the Church. Probably those Fathers of the Church knew quantum physics also.
You are living in La-La land and think you are a doctor of the Church.

Oh my gosh. Now it's the basis for a pagan religion. :o

apollo · « **Reply #211 on:** July 23, 2018, 09:15:36 PM »

If you really want to see a proof of Heliocentrism, I will show it to you,
but you really don't, do you ... Gencentrist people? You just want to keep
shouting about the Fathers of the Church and the decree of 1633.

You have to start with some basic astronomy. Watch this video it shows
the basic material:

If anybody wants to go to the next step in the proof, leave a positive reply.
If no positive replies show up, then I won't waste my time.

happenby · « **Reply #212 on:** July 23, 2018, 10:42:35 PM »

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 08:22:34 PM

.
Please quote Scripture, the verses that render Heliocentrism false.
And the Church absolutely condemned those people that oppose Heliocentrism.
Sorry, you are mistaken. You cannot read a few webpages and become an expert
on this topic. You have to go the the Vatican Library and dig out the docuмents
yourself ;D.
You must have missed ALL my previous replies, especially the one where I proved
Heliocentrism. I'm not going to repeat all my previous replies, you have to read
them.
Excuse me, the Church warns of a penalty for refusing to publish books that promote
Heliocentrism.
Do you even remember how fast I said the Sun must be moving in the Geocentric
model ?? How fast ? Tell me, oh wise doctor of the Church who has merely read
a few webpages.

How does the earth keep the moon in orbit? Do you even know that?
I guess the Fathers of the Church knew that. Probably, the scientists who determine
where Jupiter is going to be next month, used the formulas derived by the Fathers of
the Church. Probably those Fathers of the Church knew quantum physics also.
You are living in La-La land and think you are a doctor of the Church.

Oh my gosh. Now it's the basis for a pagan religion. :o

If you think you're going to roll out a fifth grade science video to prove heliocentrism, you'd better think again. Let's start with this:
(my comments in blue)
The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of The Earth’s Movement and the Ultramontane Defence of Them By Rev. William W. Roberts (1885)
Introductory commentary by a Catholic layman in 2002 1543
Nicolaus Copernicus published De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium (On the Revolutions of Spheres). 1534-1549 Reign of Pope Paul III, who was quite aware of Fr. Copernicus’ work. The two were actually friends. 1605-1621 Reign of Pope Paul V, who issued a 1616 decree condemning pro-heliocentricity work of GalileoGalilei. 1623-1644 Reign of Pope Urban VIII, who issued a 2nd decree [1633] condemning Copernicanism. 1655-1657 Reign of Pope Alexander VII, who issued a Bull [1664] reinforcing that Copernicanism was heretical. 1740-1758 Reign of Pope Benedict XIV, who removed the Copernican books from the Index in 1740. 1846-1878 Reign of Pope Pius IX, who called Vatican Council [1869-70] wherein Papal Infallibility was defined. In 1870 the Vatican Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. Until then, the infallibility of the Catholic Church’s teachings had never been defined explicitly although accepted by the Fathers throughout its history. This definition brought criticism from those outside the Church and even from some within. There were at least three reasons for this: (1) It decreed that God Himself dictated the teachings of the Catholic Church, a notion that other religions were prone to deny; (2) some did not want to elevate the papacy to an infallible level, even when declaring matters of faith and morals; (3) some believed the Church had erred on previous occasions and that therefore the definition was erroneous. It is the third reason with which this book ofFr Roberts concerns itself. In the wake of the promulgation of the Papal Infallibility dogma, a spate of books by both Protestants & Catholics were published, the latter supposedly listing the occasions where this infallibility had proven to be null and void. At the top ofeach list is the Galileo case, perhaps the most infamous of all the Church’s supposed ‘failures’ wherein the Church explicitly condemned the acceptance of the movement of the earth as formal heresy. Those lists alleged that the Galileo decision turned out to be a blunder of unimaginable proportions. From generation to generation this tale is told, much to the delight of antiCatholics and much to the inconvenience of Catholics. The tale is told not, mind you, because anyone within the Church now actually denies that the earth does move, nor do they deny that Galileo was right all along or that the Church of 1616/1633 couldn’t tell faith from science, but because Catholics want their infallibility and their fixed sun and moving earth. As one can see, the only way to have this cake and at the same time eat it is to deny that the anti-Copernican decrees of 1616-1633 had any real authority at all, that they were like a bad joke gone wrong. 2 Perhaps the most honest history ever written of the Galileo case – and the casuistry that followed the alleged ‘proofs’ that earth moves and was not placed by God at the centre of the world, and that the sun stood still – was A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 1896, a book by Andrew Dickson White. He records that the history of the denial ofinfallibility of the 1616-1633 antiCopernican decree began even before Galileo died. At first they resorted to a denial that the Copernican theory was declared formal heresy and conjured up a load of excuses that sufficed for the world who had no other facts to judge the matter on, but who simply trusted Churchmen to feed them the truth as expected. But as the archives were opened up and the records themselves were made public, it was soon seen the faithful had been led astray. And as each objection to infallibility was shown to be a contradiction of the facts, the apologists became even more desperate. Andrew White tells us what happens next: …This contention, then, was at last utterly given up by honest Catholics themselves. In I870 a Roman Catholic clergyman in England, the Rev. Mr Roberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth, published a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth’s Movement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that the papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the movement of the earth… …Various theologians attempted to evade the force of the argument. Some like Dr Ward and Bouix took refuge in verbal niceties; some, like Dr Jeremiah Murphy, comforted themselves with declamation. The only result was, that in 1885 came another edition of the Rev. Mr Roberts’s work, even more cogent than the first; and, besides this, an essay by that eminent Catholic, St George Mivart, acknowledging the Rev. Mr Roberts’s position to be impregnable,1 and declaring virtually that the Almighty allowed Pope and Church to fall into complete error regarding the Copernican theory, in order to teach them that science lies outside their province, and that the true priesthood of scientific truth rests with scientific investigators alone. In spite, then, of all casuistry and special pleading, this sturdy honesty ended the controversy among Catholics themselves, so far as fair-minded men are concerned.2 And how that pleased the anti-Catholic Mr White. Now the problem facing faithful Catholics who have read Fr Roberts’ book is this: How can the Church have its infallible dogma on infallibility while at the same time conceding that Fr Roberts was correct in his seemingly flawless assessment of the decrees? 1 The Nineteenth Century, July 1885. 2 White, A History…, pp.165-6. 3 Well, there is only one answer to this, as any Catholic worthy of the name should know, but be warned, for it will test your faith as nothing else has ever done. The fact is that any definition on a matter of faith by the Church is infallible, even if it arises from the ordinary magisterium, let alone an extraordinary definition. This being so, if our Catholic faith is worth anything, then this definition is the truth guaranteed by God. Thus if the Scriptures, Fathers and Church (1616) say that the sun moves and that the earth does not but rests at the centre of the world, then that is the truth. ‘But, but, but’, I hear you say, ‘we all know that the earth moves around a fixed sun, so the Scriptures, the Fathers and the Church of 1616 are wrong.’ Is that a fact now? Well read this: I have known too, for a long time that we have no argument for the Copernican system, but I shall never dare to be the first to attack it. Don’t rush into the wasps’ nest. You will bring upon yourself the scorn of the thoughtless multitude…to come forth as the first against opinions, which the world has become fond of – I don’t feel the courage. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859)3 Now I’ll bet this is the first time you ever heard that. But no doubt you could teach von Humboldt a thing or two, yes? You can prove the earth moves, can’t you? Well, no you can’t, for it is something that cannot be proven, demonstrated or verified. Were you to even try, anyone that has studied the matter could run rings around your pathetic ‘proofs.’ You see, at best, mankind has accepted Earthmoving (PythagoreanismCopernicanism-heliocentricism) as the ‘preferred’ system. Yes, I know we all, every last one of us – popes, cardinals, kings, emperors, lords, teachers, academicians, students, etc. etc. – were led to believe the earth moves, but that, as von Humboldt and others knew, was never shown, that it was merely an intellectual illusion to inhibit the true interpretation of the Scriptures, to deny the wisdom of the Fathers, to undermine the authority of the Church and popes, to destroy the Catholic faith itself of the people. No, Jesus was not exaggerating when He told us just how good a liar Satan really is. And how successful the hoax was, for the visible Church is now in pieces, all coherence gone, with Genesis considered a book of myth and poetry; with heresy and schism everywhere, right up to the Chair of Peter itself; with no hope other than the direct intervention of Our Lady to remedy the ignorance of billions. But back to this book, for we first have to convince you that the decree stating the earth does not move, was from God Himself, for that is what infallibility means. Once we see we cannot deny the decree did invoke the full authority of Church 3 Quoted by C Schoepffer: The Earth Stands Fast, New York: Ludwig, 1900, p. 59. 4 teaching, only then will we even entertain the idea of investigating how they hoaxed the world. That story is told in another place. Be aware, however, that in Fr Roberts’ thesis he too was convinced that Newton, Bradley and others had established a moving earth. He will assert this nonsense throughout, trying to establish a proof when all he has is relative theories, and this will lead him to believe the Church was in error and to deny the dogma of infallibility. It was Fr Roberts faith in ‘science’ that caused him to reject the 1870 dogma of Papal Infallibility, plunging him into yet another heresy, but this time formal heresy. Boy, didn’t Satan set a trap-and-a-half for those who prefer human reasoning to the 1616 declaration of the Church? And if we think this is frightening, consider from whom Fr Roberts took his cue, from where this heresy received its stamp of approval for Catholics. Why from none other than the papacy itself. You see it was Pope Benedict XIV in 1740 who first gave the nod to accepting alleged ‘proof’ that the earth moved, an endorsement that was given full and open approval in 1820 by Pope Pius VII and the Holy Office, even against the objection of one canonical expert. SUMMARY The importance of Fr Roberts’ book cannot be overstated. It alone, among the thousands and thousands of books, articles and debates of the past 350 years, gives us the full authority of the 1616, 1633 and 1664 decrees and Bull. Once this is admitted then there is only one option left for Catholics who have faith that the Holy Ghost did/does guide the Church, the Pope when deciding matters of faith. Fr Roberts’ book does not give us every detail of the affair that has destroyed the faith of billions, but they are recorded elsewhere. We can only hope and pray that Fr Roberts died with something different in his heart and that the Copernican heresy did not take one more soul to damnation for all eternity. Yes, such were/are the consequences of the Galileo affair, for what we are dealing with are matters of supreme importance for the salvation of souls. Redmond O’Hanlon 82 Braemor Rd Churchtown Dublin 14 Ireland 2002 A.D.

Here are Scriptural references against heliocentrism:
Joshua 10:12
"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."

But there are at least sixty-seven Scriptural references showing the sun moves, not the earth.
Genesis 15:12…… “…and when the sun was going down…”
15:17….. “…when the sun went down…”
19:23….. “The sun was risen upon the earth.”
28:11….. “…because the sun was set….”
32:31….. “…the sun rose….”
Exodus 17:12….. “…until the going down of the sun….”
22:3…… “…if the sun be risen upon him….”
22:26…. “…the sun goeth down….”
Leviticus 22:7…… “…And when the sun is down….”
Numbers 2:3…….. “…toward the rising of the sun….”
Deuteronomy 11:30….. “…the way where the sun goeth down….”
16:6……. “…at the going down of the sun….”
23:11….. “…when the sun is down….”
24:13….. “…when the sun goeth down….”
24:15….. “…neither shall the sun go down….”
Joshua 1:4….. “…the going down of the sun….”
8:29… “…as soon as the sun was down….”
10:12.. “…Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon….”
10:13.. “…and the sun stood still….”
10:27.. “…the time of the going down of the sun….”
12:1…. “…toward the rising of the sun….”
Judges 5:31…. “…as the sun when he goeth down….”
8:13…. “…before the sun was up….”
9:33…. “…as soon as the sun is up….”
14:18…. “…before the sun went down….”
19:14…. “…and the sun went down….”
II Samuel 2:24…. “…the sun went down….”
3:35…. “…till the sun be down….”
23:4….. “…when the sun riseth….”
I Kings 22:36…. “…the going down of the sun….”
I Chronicles 16:30…. “…the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved….”
II Chronicles 18:34…. “…time of the sun going down….”
Job 9:7…. “…commandeth the sun and it riseth not….”
Job 26:7…. “…He hangeth the earth upon nothing….”
Psalm 19:4…. “…tabernacle for the sun….”
19:5 … “…cometh out to run….”
19:6…. “…goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other….”
50:1…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
93:1…. “…the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved….”
104:19.. “…the sun knoweth his going down….”
104:22.. “…the sun ariseth….”
113:3…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
Ecclesiastes 1:5…. “…The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down and hasteth to the place where he arose….”
Isaiah 13:10…. “…sun shall be darkened in his going….”
38:8…… “…is gone down on the sundial of Ahaz….”
38:8…… “…so the sun returned….”
41:25…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
45:6…… “…from the rising of the sun….”
59:19…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
60:20…. “…the sun shall no more go down….”
Jeremiah 15:9…. “…her sun is gone down while it was yet day….”
Daniel 6:14…. “…going down of the sun….”
Amos 8:9…. “…cause the sun to go down at noon….”
Jonah 4:8…. “…when the sun did arise….”
Micah 3:6…. “…and the sun shall go down….”
Nahum 3:17…. “…when the sun ariseth….”
Habakkuk 3:11…. “…the sun and moon stood still in their habitation….”
Malachi 1:11…. “…from the rising of the sun….”
Matthew 5:45…. “…for He maketh His sun to rise….”
13:6….. “…and when the sun was up….”
Mark 1:32…. “…when the sun did set….”
4:6…… “…when the sun was up….”
16:2…… “…at the rising of the sun….”
Luke 4:40…. “…when the sun was setting….”
Ephesians 4:26…. “…let not the sun go down upon your wrath….”
James 1:11…. “…for the sun is no sooner risen….”
The pagans have been at this heliocentric game from the time of Noah. Heliocentrism is the science of the Gnostic religions and has been foisted on men for centuries. Interestingly, NASA, world governments and modern pagan science happily endorse it...along with all its progeny: evolution, godless creation, and the Big Bang. Some of the most notorious pagans promoted it heavily, including Karl Marx who praised Copernicus for making Communism possible.

apollo · « **Reply #213 on:** July 23, 2018, 11:42:15 PM »

Quote from: happenby on July 23, 2018, 10:42:35 PM

But there are at least sixty-seven Scriptural references showing the sun moves, not the earth.
Genesis 15:12…… “…and when the sun was going down…”
15:17….. “…when the sun went down…”
19:23….. “The sun was risen upon the earth.”
28:11….. “…because the sun was set….”
32:31….. “…the sun rose….”
Exodus 17:12….. “…until the going down of the sun….”

'
The sun goes up and down? Wow that is way too scientific for me to understand.
You did not understand the 5th-grade video. Perhaps I should provide a link to a 1st-grade
video.
Where is one standing when one sees the sun going up and down?
Is that what one sees when standing on the earth? Or 100,000,000 miles above the earth?
Because if one is standing on the earth and the earth is rotating, the sun would look like it is
going up and down. So your argument is useless.
I'm not talking to you anymore.
You are a complete idiot, sorry.

apollo · « **Reply #214 on:** July 24, 2018, 07:56:17 AM »

Quote from: happenby on July 24, 2018, 12:26:00 AM

Scripture tells us the sun moves, not the earth. Scripture says the earth is fixed, never to be moved. Calling me names doesn't change the facts.

.
"Shall not be moved" in the Bible means "Shall not be shaken". This proves nothing about Astronomy.
And you can repeat that one thousand times, but it still proves nothing about Astronomy. So, you
are WRONG. You keep repeating the same LIE (that this proves something about Astronomy) over
and over and over again. That's why I called you a bad name. So go ahead and just keep repeating
it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

happenby · « **Reply #215 on:** July 24, 2018, 08:18:39 AM »

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 07:56:17 AM

.
"Shall not be moved" in the Bible means "Shall not be shaken". This proves nothing about Astronomy.
And you can repeat that one thousand times, but it still proves nothing about Astronomy. So, you
are WRONG. You keep repeating the same LIE (that this proves something about Astronomy) over
and over and over again. That's why I called you a bad name. So go ahead and just keep repeating
it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Scripture says it in different ways so someone is selling you a line.

1 Chronicles 16:20 Let all the earth be moved at his presence : for he hath founded the world immoveable.
Psalm 104:5 5Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.

apollo · « **Reply #216 on:** July 24, 2018, 08:41:30 AM »

Quote from: happenby on July 24, 2018, 08:18:39 AM

Scripture says it in different ways so someone is selling you a line.
1 Chronicles 16:20 Let all the earth be moved at his presence : for he hath founded the world immoveable.
Psalm 104:5 5Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever..

.
You can substitute the word "shaken" in every place where the word "moved" is used and it makes sense.
You cannot substitute the word "rotating" or "orbiting" in place of the word "moved" and still have it make sense.
I have already said this several times.

The earth is rotating once every 24 hours. That is why the Sun appears to go "up" and "down".
If you are sitting on a spinning merry-go-round in the park, is the park going round and round?
No. Therefore the Sun is not going "up" and "down". The Earth is rotating. It is physically impossible
for the Sun to orbit the Earth.

You don't want to go beyond the word "moved", so I can't prove anything to you about Astronomy.
Have you ever studied Astronomy? Do you know anything about Celestial Mechanics? Do you even know
why the Moon stays in orbit (instead of flying off into space)?

You always avoid these questions about the physical world and just repeat, blah, blah, blah "moved" blah, blah.
Question. Where are the "bases"? I would like to see a photo of the "bases".

Your brain is still in 500 BC.

I wonder if anybody else is reading this topic anymore.

happenby · « **Reply #217 on:** July 24, 2018, 08:54:35 AM »

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 08:41:30 AM

.
You can substitute the word "shaken" in every place where the word "moved" is used and it makes sense.
You cannot substitute the word "rotating" or "orbiting" in place of the word "moved" and still have it make sense.
I have already said this several times.

The earth is rotating once every 24 hours. That is why the Sun appears to go "up" and "down".
If you are sitting on a spinning merry-go-round in the park, is the park going round and round?
No. Therefore the Sun is not going "up" and "down". The Earth is rotating. It is physically impossible
for the Sun to orbit the Earth.

You don't want to go beyond the word "moved", so I can't prove anything to you about Astronomy.
Have you ever studied Astronomy? Do you know anything about Celestial Mechanics? Do you even know
why the Moon stays in orbit (instead of flying off into space)?

You always avoid these questions about the physical world and just repeat, blah, blah, blah "moved" blah, blah.
Question. Where are the "bases"? I would like to see a photo of the "bases".

Your brain is still in 500 BC.

I wonder if anybody else is reading this topic anymore.

Modernism: modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression

The Fathers of the Church have already expounded on creation. Redefining terms changes nothing in reality, except to confuse yourself and others for using a modernist mindset. Scripture is so clear the Church condemned Galileo based on it.

happenby · « **Reply #218 on:** July 24, 2018, 09:04:54 AM »

Psalms 104:5

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.
He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.

Above are just a few different translations of this Scriptural passage. If the word "moved" means "shaken", then Scripture denies the existence of earthquakes.

Matthew · « **Reply #219 on:** July 24, 2018, 09:25:30 AM »

Happenby:

Have you ever read Pascendi? That's St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism. If not, please stop talking about what you don't understand.
Apollo (and anyone else on CI) is not guilty of Modernism. You haven't studied it, so what would you know?

You just gave the definition of "modernism" with a lowercase "m", as it applies to artistic and cultural endeavors. That isn't the same thing as Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which is like acid to the Catholic Faith, caused the Crisis in the Church, and caused Vatican II to be a disaster.

I'd love to hear you define Modernism in your own words, in particular how it caused the Crisis in the Church. I'd alternate between groaning and laughing.

Spend more time reading and learning and less time trying to be a teacher of men.

Start with the Epistles of St. Paul, particularly the part where he speaks to women.

cassini · « **Reply #220 on:** July 24, 2018, 09:53:15 AM »

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 02:28:01 PM

.
All the OPINIONS of the Church fathers and the "DECREE of 1616" do not make Geocentrism a doctrine of the Church.
You should come up to date and look at what the Church did in 1820 or 1822 (?). At that time the Pope re-examined the
Galileo question of Heliocentrism. He consulted with astronomers and scientists and finally made a DECREE that Heliocentrism
cannot be condemned.

It is not a Protestant thing. It is a reality thing. A truth thing. You have NO PROOF for Geocentrism. All you have is
Bible quotes that say NOTHING about astronomy. Earthquakes and shaking of the earth have NOTHING to do with astronomy.

"I will not be moved." You forgot to add, "Don't confuse me with the facts."
I was waiting for you to respond. Please show proof (outside of the Earthquakes)
that Kepler was wrong about the mathematics of the motion of the planets.

Once again, read my lips, the Church Fathers do NOT define infallible Church doctrines.
Only the Pope does that AND it must pertain to FAITH and MORALS, not astronomy.
You just have to get out of the dark ages.

It is most difficult Apollo to debate this subject with someone who really hasn't a clue what the Galileo case was all about and how it developed through the years. One line you are putting your emphasis on the scientific truth or not of geocentrism, the next you are challenging Trent's position on the UNANIMOUS interpretation of the Fathers as to what the Bible actually says and means, and finally you take up the position of all those, EVEN THE ELECT, who fell for one of the greatest tricks of the Devil and rewrote the Galileo case to 'SAVE THE CHURCH AS STILL PROTECTED BY GOD.' According, you actually represent probably 99% of all Catholics over the last 150 years who keep regurgitating the same old anti-Catholic line, that the Galileo case was about science, that how ALL the Fathers found the Bible reveals geocentrism has no authority in canon law, that heliocentrism was proven, and that when Popes re-examined the Galileo question of Heliocentrism from 1741 to 1835 they decreed that 'Heliocentrism cannot be condemned' as you put it.

So implanted into the Catholic mind is this story that SAVES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that it suits both the anti-Catholics and especially the Catholics. Anyone, who tries to bring out the TRUTH will be considered AN ENEMY OF CATHOLICISM, and be banned from Catholic forums (as I was with three of them). Not even so-called traditional Catholic priests will give you a hearing, as I have experienced and as is demonstrated by this joke of a book on 'FAITH AND SCIENCE' written by the SSSPX Fr Robinson now being read by Catholics all of whom are now intellectually proud that they are better informed than those 'LUNATIC' geocentrists of 1616, 1633 and especially today.
I read you have other posts after this one so I will just answer some of your questions above. Geocentrism has been a doctrine since Christ found His Church. In the first three centuries, the Fathers, popes and faithful in the Catholic Church fought the Pythagorean heresies, one of them being that the Earth orbits the sun. Now a heresy is a rejection of a dogma, and in 1633 heliocentrism was again found to be a 'Pythagorean heresy.' Now are you trying to tell us that all the Churchmen up to to 1820 didn't know a heresy/dogma from a non heresy or dogmas..
Next you ask me did I not read about 1820. I did, every word of it. Now above you keep harping on about NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF FOR GEOCENTRISM as though the Church needed PROOF for an interpretation of Scripture. Here is St Thomas's answer for you:

‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ --- (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).

Next you said 'He consulted with astronomers and scientists and finally made a DECREE that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned.'

No he did not. He said the heliocentrism of modern astronomers cannot be banned from publication. The significence of this would be lost on you Apollo because you are not open to the truth of it.
Finally KEPLER. Your heliocentric hero do doubt, the man who COMPROMISED his astronomy to come up with ellipses. These same ellipses were the ROCK upon which Newton based his theory of gravity. Well it was Domeniico Cassini who FALSIFIED Kepler's ellipses but seeing as Cassini was a geocentrist they kept pretending orbits are ellipses.

happenby · « **Reply #221 on:** July 24, 2018, 10:09:32 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on July 24, 2018, 09:25:30 AM

Happenby:

Have you ever read Pascendi? That's St. Pius X's encyclical on Modernism. If not, please stop talking about what you don't understand.
Apollo (and anyone else on CI) is not guilty of Modernism. You haven't studied it, so what would you know?

You just gave the definition of "modernism" with a lowercase "m", as it applies to artistic and cultural endeavors. That isn't the same thing as Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, which is like acid to the Catholic Faith, caused the Crisis in the Church, and caused Vatican II to be a disaster.

I'd love to hear you define Modernism in your own words, in particular how it caused the Crisis in the Church. I'd alternate between groaning and laughing.

Spend more time reading and learning and less time trying to be a teacher of men.

Start with the Epistles of St. Paul, particularly the part where he speaks to women.

I've read Pascendi. You've made it clear this is no place to define Modernism in my own words.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #222 on:** July 24, 2018, 11:00:38 AM »

Quote from: apollo on July 24, 2018, 08:41:30 AM

It is physically impossible
for the Sun to orbit the Earth.

False. This has not been proven and cannot be proven ... even according to modern physicists. Even according to Newtonian physics (which has lots of issues), there's only one point in the entire universe that cannot be said to be rotating around some other point, and that's the center of mass of the entire universe. And no one can prove that the earth is NOT at that center of mass of the universe. In fact, certain experiments (measuring gamma rays) suggest that the earth is definitely somewhere in the ballpark.

cassini · « **Reply #223 on:** July 24, 2018, 11:16:46 AM »

Quote from: apollo on July 23, 2018, 04:32:13 PM

.
The Index is OFF topic.
This is ON topic: In 1820, the Pope decreed that Heliocentrism cannot be condemned:
"The Magisterium has ruled: there are no obstacles to Catholics holding modern astronomical
views, which include the motion of the earth."
Source: http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/magisterium-rules-debate/
You might want to read the whole article, then again you might not want to be
confused by the facts.

You've got to be kidding.
So the Church says that heresy can be printed ?
You might want to read the whole article.
No, this is the classic "facing of reality".

OK Apollo, at last you have played the CARD that FRIGHTENS EVERY CATHOLIC FROM FINDING THE TRUTH OF THE GALILEO AFFAIR:

'So the Church says that heresy can be printed?'

SEE THIS, END OF STORY. Either you Catholics accept heliocentrism or you accuse the Church of promoting heresy.
Now correct me if I am wrong. Wasn't it the Church, by way of Pope Paul V and Pope Urban VIII who decreed heliocentrism was heresy?

A couple of things before we get to the UNCOMFORTABLE truth, things you will not find in that website you keep asking posters to read. At Vatican I the Council decreed that not even Peter can change what a PREVIOUS PETER has condemned.
Righ, next, on what GROUNDS did the Holy Office (note I did not say the Church) decide to give IMPRIMATURS for heliocentric books? Well here they are, given to the world by the 1981-1992 papal commission on Galileo.

‘More than 150 years still had to pass before the optical and mechanical proofs for the motion of the Earth were discovered.….. This (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 4^th, 1992. {Note it is the 1633 decree mentioned, not the 1616 decree tghat was papal and untouchable.]

‘In 1820, Canon Settele lodged an appeal [to obtain an imprimatur for his heliocentric book] with Pope Pius VII (1800-1823)… In 1822 a favourable decision was given. This papal decision was to receive its practical application in 1835 [under Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846)] with the publication of a new and updated index [emptied of all heliocentric books].’ --- Galileo Commission, 1981-1992.

Right, as we see the LIE that heliocentrism was proven, and thus geocentrism was WRONG as a biblical meaning IS the reason given - even in 1992, when the DOGS in the street knew there was no such proofs. Did none of them know Einstein admitteed this to science in 1905.

So, fr Benedetto Olivieri, head of the Holy Office, based on his belief that heliocentrism was proven, submitted a huge defence of heliocentrism for Pope Pius VII when considering if they should allow a heliocentric book to be printed. There was however one Fr Anfossi who argued that there was no proof and that the 1616 decree was irreformable (infallible) so could not be challenged. But the WORLDVIEW that heliocentrism was proven won the argument. Neverthe less, Anfossi insisted the 1616 decree was Church teaching and could not be overturned.

Olivieri AGREED the 1616 decree was papal and not-reversible. So how did he/they get the pope to agree their heliocentric books were not heretical?

Well, here is how they did it, Olivieri said the 1616 heliocentrism was a VIOLENT one and therefore was rightfully against philosophy and Scripture, but the heliocentrism OF MODERN ASTRONOMERS was not violent so was not the HERESY condemned in 1616. Now this was absolute nonsense and had NOTHING to do with the decree of heresy of 1616. What was defined as heresy in 1616 was that the sun is fixed heliocentrism, which had nothing to do with a violent Earth. And given the heliocentrism of modern astronomers APPROVED of by Pope Pius VII contained the heretical fixed sun, one cannot deny the heliocentric books allowed in 1820 still contained the heresy.

And surely, a papal approval of a heliocentric book that still contained a heresy condemned by his predecessors in 1616 and 1633, surely INFERRED that Catholics could accept heliocentrism as a physical reality and as a biblical interpretation.

Fr Anfossi and a few colleagues of the 1820 Holy Office who argued Pope Paul V could not have erred because of God's guidance,, have since been vindicated by science. But the abuse they got in 1820 for objecting to heretical heliocentrism was unbelievable.

As one can see, this has to be the greatest scandal in all of the Church's history, one that Catholicism can not ignore for much longer.

Now Apollo, figure a way out of that history.

apollo · « **Reply #224 on:** July 24, 2018, 01:06:29 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on July 24, 2018, 11:00:38 AM

False. This has not been proven and cannot be proven ... even according to modern physicists. Even according to Newtonian physics (which has lots of issues), there's only one point in the entire universe that cannot be said to be rotating around some other point, and that's the center of mass of the entire universe. And no one can prove that the earth is NOT at that center of mass of the universe. In fact, certain experiments (measuring gamma rays) suggest that the earth is definitely somewhere in the ballpark.

.
You fail to take into account GRAVITY. There is a universal Gravitational constant which has been measured and it pertains to all the planets in
our solar system. It is the reason we have Order In The Universe -- one of the proofs of God's existence.
.
The earth does NOT have enough gravity to keep the Sun in orbit around the earth. If it had enough gravity to do that, the Moon would have
come crashing down to the earth many many yeas ago.
.
You don't even know the most basic thing about Celestial Mechanics. I know don't tell me -- Celestial Mechanics is EVIL.
Well good luck converting Astronomy professors to Catholicism.
.
I guess when NASA uses Celestial Mechanics to place the satellites in orbit, it is a total HOAX, because NASA is EVIL. Do you have any idea
about who fast the satellites are moving? 17,500 MPH, any less then they fall to the earth. Well, I guess all the Church Fathers knew that
already. The moon's velocity is about 2,300 MPH. The sun's velocity (if it were orbiting the Earth) would be 24,000,000 MPH !!! Go ahead
quote the Bible to disprove that.
.
BTW, I wrote software in Fortran in 1975 which uses Keplers 3rd law of Celestial Mechanics to compute the positions of all the planets,
so I know something about it. Heliocentrism works well for this. Geocentrism fails miserably, for at least one reason: retrograde motion.
.
My good friend Neil Block is the guy who wrote the software that NASA uses today. He said that the formula for the Moon required
2000 terms (in the Taylor series). His software was accurate to 1/10 th of a degree. I guess he was EVIL also.
.
You people are like cavemen.
.
Lastly, IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE BIBLE TO DEFINE SCIENCE, INCLUDING ASTRONOMY.
Here is a quote from a traditional Priest who used to say Mass at my parent's house:
.
6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?
No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day,
for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around the
Sun and not vice-versa. Link: http://drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson12
.
I'm really getting tired of all the lies from people who know NOTHING about Astronomy.

Author Topic: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather) (Read 28456 times)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

happenby

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

happenby

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

happenby

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

happenby

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

Matthew

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

cassini

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

happenby

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

Ladislaus

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

cassini

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)

apollo

Re: "The Heliocentric Hoax" (by Fr. Robinson's stepfather)