Author Topic: Outer Space is a deception (Read 17544 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #75 on:** June 19, 2024, 10:45:02 AM »

Quote from: Marcellinus on June 19, 2024, 10:38:03 AM

Wow. Thank you, Holy Office of Cassini.

What are you talking about? It was precisely the Holy Office (with papal approval) which denounced heliocentrism as heretical.

cassini · « **Reply #76 on:** June 19, 2024, 11:18:14 AM »

Quote from: Godefroy on June 19, 2024, 07:28:58 AM

That quote is quite a keeper. Here is the complete letter that Bellarmine wrote to Foscarini

http://www.spaceship-earth.org/OrigLit/Bellarm.htm

The letter is used by "pope" John Paul II in 1992 in a speech at the Pontifical Academy of Science https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/fr/speeches/1992/october/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze.html#_ftnref4

In the speech JPII says " Robert Bellarmin, who had perceived the real stakes of the debate, considered for his part that, faced with possible scientific proof of the orbit of the earth around the sun, we must interpret with "careful consideration" any passage in the Bible which seems to affirm that the earth is immobile and "to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false which had been proven" "

According to JP2, Robert Bellarmine anticipated that the Church would be ready to change it's opinion once 'science' had shown it to be false.

It's probably too reductive to blame everything on Vatican 2 though, there are no 19th century Encylicals warning the faithful about the lies of evolution and dinosaurs.

Hi Godefroy,

there is no affair as misunderstood for 400 years as the Galileo case. Once the Church of 150-300AD, all the Fathers, the Council of Trent, the popes of 1616, 1633 and 1664 were accused of being wrong in their interpretation of Divine Scripture on the basis of scientific proof for a solar-system, it became essential for the credibility of the Catholic religion to use every 'trick' in the book to make that U-turn of 1820 by Pope Pius VII look like a legal doctrinal act.

Now for me, since I read about the Galileo case many many years ago, I could never come to terms with the accusation that the divinely guided Church got it wrong in its Biblical exegesis and in its definition of heresy..

But since 1820 at least, the vast majority of Catholics, atheists and agnostics are quite happy in accepting it did, and many more got into the business in trying to defend the illusion that their Church did get it wrong. They used and still use every tactic they can think of to defend a U-turn on a defined heresy. One of those by the way, is to ask the question 'Are Pius VII and Pius XII heretics? Yes or no?'

Now another trick in the pot is the one you refer to, Pope John Paul's reference to Cardinal Bellarmine's 1615 Letter to Foscarini, written one YEAR before Pope Paul V's definition and declaration that heliocentrism was FORMAL heresy, that is a heresy condemned many times by the Church in the past. John Paul II wants you all to think a remark in a private letter one year before a papal decree can RENDER THE DECREE against heliocentrism useless.

In the 3rd part of Bellarmine's Letter it stated:
"I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe ... we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated." Note the letter is written in the present tense so referred to Galileo's claim that the (one) tide in the Mediterranean sea proved heliocentrism. When told there are two tides a day, Galileo didn't believe them. Now let us see how they tried to use the above, without quoting what came after that in the letter, to try to change a papal decree defined one year LATER.

Poupard said in his report on the Galileo Commission ‘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:

So, Bellarmine's 'If there were' became a 'If there were ever.'
Then came Pope John Paul II's version:
‘In fact, as Cardinal Poupard has recalled, Robert Bellarmine, who had seen what was truly at stake in the debate, personally felt that, in the face of possible scientific proof that the Earth orbited round the sun, one should “interpret with great circuмspection” every Biblical passage which seems to affirm that the Earth is immobile…

What neither Poupard or the Pope quoted was what Bellarmine said after his 'If there were.' Well here it is to put it in context:
'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.'

Anyway, the truth for Pope John Paul and a history of similar apologists rested on the face of possible scientific proof.

The problem whether the sun and stars revolve around the Earth as we see them do, and as the Bible reveals they do, or whether the Earth orbits the sun in a fixed-star universe as we are now told by the intelligent scientists and priests they do, is one of relative movement in space. But only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look in at it, could we humans confirm the true order of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place in space and cannot reach beyond the universe to confirm what is fixed and what moves, the order of the universe lies beyond human science to prove for certain, as finally admitted below.

‘Whether the Earth rotates once a day from west to east as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors believed, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same. This shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical science ought not to contain a metaphysical assumption that cannot be proved or disproved by observation.’-- Bertrand Russell: quoted in D. D. Sciama’s The Unity of the Universe, 1959, p.18.

Metaphysics is not a scientific way of knowing things because it seeks a different sort of truth which cannot be acquired by the methods of modern empirical science. The very same reasoning can be applied to the origin of the universe as it too is beyond any scientific study. On the other hand, for those who believe in God, well, He revealed in Genesis that He created the universe, and He knows what is fixed and what moves in it, and He revealed it is geocentric. In other words, the belief that heliocentrism is a proven fact of science is an illusion, and therefore every scientific ‘theory’ based on it and every Biblical change from the literal to another as a consequence of it, has no true scientific or doctrinal credibility at all. Therefore the Galileo case was never one of ‘faith and science’ as presented in millions of books, articles and websites, but one of ‘faith, illusion and heresy.’

Now you know what brought down the Catholic Church to what it is today. When the supernatural doctrine of Creation was discarded by churchmen themselves for a faith based on secular natural theories, Modernism began.

Godefroy · « **Reply #77 on:** June 19, 2024, 12:01:54 PM »

Thank you Cassini for taking the time to write this. The neo-platonic infiltration in the renaissance Church has never really been properly expunged and whilst the Church is perfect for saving individual souls, when it comes to saving entire societies, it doesn't have the rock solid certainties that it had in the middle ages. Whilst the harrassment of pilgrims to the Holy Land led to the crusades, Pius VI and VII (Yes those two again) were very luckluster in condemning the French Revolution. Pius VII even travelled to Paris to Napoleon's coronation where Napoleon in fact crowned himself.

Consalvi was sent by Pius VII to negociate the concordat with Napoleon and unfortunately he conceded on so much that Napoleon considered the Concordat a victory. Consalvi even attended the reception of Napoleon's adulterous second mariage

This is one of the paintings to represent the victory of Napoleon over the Church. Thats a very sheepish looking pope on the left of the obelisk with Napoleon (like lucifer)bringing the light of the revolution to mankind.

It's very difficult to imagine the medieval popes handling the situation in the same way. When you condede geocentrism, it's not a big move to concede on the rest.

AnthonyPadua · « **Reply #78 on:** June 19, 2024, 05:14:52 PM »

Quote from: cassini on June 19, 2024, 03:58:40 AM

Yes I did, they are.

Cardinal Bellarmine wrote;

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of [all] the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but 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 centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to [all] the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this [geocentrism] is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). 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 prophets and apostles.’

(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 [denial of a revelation by God already defined as heresy] 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.”

(2) “That the Earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered to be at least erroneous in faith.”

So if Pius 7 and 12 are heretics what would that mean for the good things they did/wrote? I am not familiar with Pius 7 but Pius 12 wrote some useful docuмents.

I'm starting to see why Lad prefers sedeprivationism

Ladislaus · « **Reply #79 on:** June 20, 2024, 05:55:34 AM »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those popes just quietly remove the prohibition against heliocentrism? Is there any evidence that they believed it themselves? Such moves can be done for various political motives.

I do think it's disputed whether the Holy Office decision against heliocentrism was infallible and irreformable. I know that cassini believes that it was, but I don't think there's a consensus on the matter. With that said, the decision was clearly the right one.

cassini · « **Reply #80 on:** June 20, 2024, 07:49:39 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on June 20, 2024, 05:55:34 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't those popes just quietly remove the prohibition against heliocentrism? Is there any evidence that they believed it themselves? Such moves can be done for various political motives.

I do think it's disputed whether the Holy Office decision against heliocentrism was infallible and irreformable. I know that cassini believes that it was, but I don't think there's a consensus on the matter. With that said, the decision was clearly the right one.

A very important question Ladislaus. let us recall the history of the compromise.

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia was published with its theory of universal gravity, that is, the planets and Earth must orbit the bigger sun by way of Kepler’s falsified ellipses. Newton’s theory, conjured up by freemasons of the Royal Society of London who then promoted it as proving the Earth has to orbit the sun like all the other planets, another theory believed by Catholics as a fact of science.

‘It is now often said that incontrovertible evidence for the Earth’s annual motion was not found until early in the 19th century, when high precision astronomical instruments first permitted detection of parallax of certain fixed stars. Direct evidence of the Earth’s daily rotation is similarly said to have awaited the Foucault pendulum in the mid-19th century. Such statements are titillating, but they misrepresent the grounds of scientific conviction. No scientist even then had lingering doubts he gave up at the time of those events. The issue of the Earth’s motions had been effectively settled for scientists by Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which linked innumerable astronomical measurements [like Kepler’s false ellipses] and the occurrence of tides to the existence of the Earth’s two motions.’--- S. Drake: Galileo, Past Masters, 1980, p.55.

Forty years later, in 1726, James Bradley’s found what is called Stellar Aberration, wherein all the stars are seen to form small circles annually, after which astronomers and philosophers asserted that heliocentrism was finally a double proven fact of science. It was no such thing. Newton’s theory was only one of others at the time, and Stellar Aberration like the Stellar Parallax that came later, will be similarly seen doing the same thing in a geocentric universe. Nevertheless, can you imagine the pressure put on Rome throughout Europe by astronomers, philosophers, kings, theologians, scholars, atheists and whoever, to admit Galileo’s heliocentrism was now proven and to do something about it. In 1757 Holy Office consultant, Fr Pietro Lazzari SJ, Professor of Church History at the Roman College, consultant to the Holy Office, gave Pope Benedict XIV and the Inquisition the following advice:

‘Reflections on the clause “all books teaching the Earth’s motion and the sun’s immobility” (decree of 5th March 1616). There are three reflections which I plan to make about this clause: (1) that at that time it was prescribed prudently and with good reason; (2) that these reasons no longer exist for the purpose of retaining it; (3) that in the present situation it is expedient to remove it.’--- Fr Lazzari’s report.

In 1758, Pope Benedict XIV, on Lazzari’s advice above, began to empty the Index of the decrees against Biblical heliocentrism and all the literature promoting the heresy from the Index. However, for some reason, probably canonical, five books were left on the Index. In 1765, Pope Clement XIII refused to remove these last five books when asked to do so.

On now to 1820 when another book presenting heliocentrism as a scientific truth by Canon Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at Rome La Sapienza, sought an imprimatur in Rome. It was refused by Fr Filippo Anfossi, Master of the Sacred Palace who put his objections based on Catholic faith in a report named Appendix.

Fr Anfossi: ‘The Holy See considered the matter as theologians and declared [a fixed sun] “formally heretical and [a moving Earth] erroneous in the faith” because it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures; and the Holy See condemned it. If in the judgment of the Holy See it was contrary to the Divine Scriptures in 1616, so it is still in 1820.’

Opposing Fr Anfossi’s position was Fr Benedetto Olivieri, Commissary General of the Inquisition and other high ranking consultants of the Holy Office. In reply, Olivieri wrote a 10,000+ word docuмent giving all the reasons for granting an imprimatur to Settele’s book that presented heliocentrism as a fact, while at the same time refuting Fr Anfossi’s canonical defence of the 1616 decree. This long hidden docuмent, went public in recent times in M. A. Finocchiaro’s 2007 book Retrying Galileo. In it, Fr Olivieri came out with the following statement:

Now before I show all this statement be prepared to know something never before made public in any but one or two of the 8,000 books written on the subject.

Olivieri: ‘In his argument, the Most Reverend Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at the time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared…. Such was the case of the devastating motion from which Copernicus and Galileo had been unable to free the motions of axial rotation and orbital revolution which they ascribed to the Earth; such devastating motion was certainly contrary to Sacred Scripture.’’--- Retrying Galileo.

Let us now carefully consider Fr Olivieri’s reply. Remember he was Commissary General of the Inquisition, a position next to the Pope as Prefect. First he admits that the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V was papal and unrevisable, thus infallible, just as Pope Urban VIII confirmed it was at Galileo’s trial in 1633, a confirmation Pope Pius VII accepted then without question, an authority later denied by Catholics unaware its infallibility was admitted in 1820 as the docuмents were hidden away.

But then, as read above, came a stroke of Catholic genius or if one were honest, holy trickery, how to retain your unrevisable papal decree while at the same time submitting to the ‘scientifically proven’ heliocentrism. Olivieri says above that the orbiting Earth found heretical in the five remaining books on the Index was one experiencing a devastating motion, that is, an orbiting Earth that would cause violent winds etc., resulting in havoc everywhere as it rotated and moved a tremendous speed through space. But in 1820, astronomers agreed the Earth moves around a fixed sun without such devastating motion so any book confirming heliocentrism ‘according to the common opinion of modern astronomers,’ was permitted to be read and accepted by the flock from then on. And that is how churchmen in 1820 kept their infallible 1616 decree safe, while at the same time found a way to allow what they thought was a proven fact of science be accepted by the flock. But this was not true, there was no mention of a devastating motion ever said in 1616 or 1633. Both Copernicus and Galileo had said so in their books.

But then their trick led to further absurdity. Having said the books of 1616 contained a heretical devastating motion heliocentric heresy, Pope Pius VII took these five confirmed heretical books off the Index.

Now taking books off the index does not remove the heresies in them. When Pope Paul VI removed the Index altogether, all the heresies in them remained. It would be reasonable to say Pope Benedict XIV and Pope Pius VII did believe heliocentrism was proven so theirs was material heresy,

What are the two types of heresy?

In its vision of heresy, the Catholic Church makes a distinction between material and formal heresy. Material heresy means in effect "holding erroneous doctrines through no fault of one's own" due to inculpable ignorance and "is neither a crime nor a sin" since the individual has made the error in good faith.

As for all three Encyclicals on Scripture that inferred a moving-sun could be corrected to a fixed-sun, all had included the dogma that when all the Fathers agree on an interpretation of Scripture, that cannot change. In other words, the Holy Ghost protected the Church by making sure no pope ever even tried to deny the infallibility of the 1616 decree, and in their encyclicals, unknown to them, confirmed the geocentrism of all the Fathers cannot be changed..

Author Topic: Outer Space is a deception (Read 17544 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Outer Space is a deception

cassini

Re: Outer Space is a deception

Godefroy

Re: Outer Space is a deception

AnthonyPadua

Re: Outer Space is a deception

Ladislaus

Re: Outer Space is a deception

cassini

Re: Outer Space is a deception