E rev around S :popcorn:There's no proof for it other than the Foucault pendulum and that is a hoax that is driven, damped, and tuned. The fact that that gravity is not at all a lateral force ruins heliocentrism's insane attempts to find some justification in space or nutcase math.
My understanding is that Focault pendulum is proof E rotates on axis. It is James Bradley( along w/ Newton) who proves E rev around S... :popcorn:Foucault's pendulum is driven, damped, and tuned. Copernicus had more epicycles than Ptolemy and no proof. If you read Newton's "Principia", you may conclude that he was insane, and Newton was chiefly an alchemist who suffered from recurrent bouts of insanity.
Am i the only one in the Forum who has ACTUALLY READ Copernicus? :confused:
Size doesn’t matter when you can make something from nothing.While wondering with great awe at the God of all creation whose attributes are infinite, we may still stand back in utter amazement when we contemplate the sizes of things in our material world, this material world which is a reflection, albeit limited, of the infinite greatness of God. Perhaps, you will find as I do, the following site to be quite amazing as an aid in that regard: https://www.htwins.net/scale2/ (https://www.htwins.net/scale2/).
Size of creatures doesn’t matter when you’re already infinite in size and power yourself.
Contemplate the actual Divine attributes instead of fairy tales. And if you want to be impressed by a creature then contemplate the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Size doesn’t matter when you can make something from nothing.
Contemplating the awesomeness of God!
Anything of a finite size is infinitely small compared to God.
E S are Both in motion...
:confused: :popcorn:
E rev around S :popcorn:
Cassini is a LIAR as I have posted numerous times that S is in motion,...
My understanding is that Focault pendulum is proof E rotates on axis. It is James Bradley( along w/ Newton) who proves E rev around S... :popcorn:
Am i the only one in the Forum who has ACTUALLY READ Copernicus? :confused:
First of all let us see what Pope Paul V, as Prefect of the Holy Office and the only authority that could approve and order decrees of the Holy Office, put out in 1616 for all Catholics to obey:roscoe is confirmed a heretic :clown::popcorn:
(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] 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 [all] 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.”
Now roscoe, your ‘E rev around S’ asserts the Earth revolves around the sun. This is ‘erroneous to the Catholic faith’ for starters, and by any definition the heresy as defined.
Now what kind of movement of the sun was it heresy to deny? The movement ‘as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages,’ So, let us see one of those passages:
“One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the Earth standeth forever. The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward, surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits..” --- (Eccl. 1:4-7, 10).
So, here the Bible reveals the Sun revolves around the Earth, not roscoe’s E rev around a moving S.
So then, roscoe, when you tell readers of CIF that ‘Cassini is a liar as I have posted numerous times that S is in motion,’ what motion of the sun do you think will make me a liar and your quip not heresy? It certainly isn’t the sun’s rotation as that was known by all in 1616. So again roscoe, what movement of the sun renders you not guilty of the above quoted heresy with your constant ‘S rev around S?’
I am not at all surprised to see Dimonds( Diamonds?)-- libelers of Popes Leo XIII, Pius XII & Card Rampolla-- pushing a dogmatic Geo-centrism...
What this has to do w/ 'bod' is :confused:
the science of cosmology now admits that Bradley’s 1726 find of stellar aberration, Bessell’s 1838 find of stellar parallax, and Foucault’s 1851 pendulum proved nothing as a geocentric universe can explain all of the above.
Perhaps he meant the observable objects within the universe move in a toroidal orbit? Given that the background of the universe, truly, wouldn't move into nothingness.
For me, I was convinced about geocentrism until I learned about stellar parallax. I think a lot of the other data points towards geocentrism except that, and I have never heard any response to it. In Sungenis's video, his explanation was that the whole universe is moving in a toroidal orbit around the earth (just going from memory here). This makes no sense because the whole universe isn't able to go anywhere -- by definition, there's nowhere for it to go!
Perhaps he meant the observable objects within the universe move in a toroidal orbit? Given that the background of the universe, truly, wouldn't move into nothingness.Maybe I don't remember the argument very clearly ...
Maybe I don't remember the argument very clearly ...Here's what Dr. Sugenis has to say about it in Geocentrism 101, p. 64-65:
So what is the geocentrist explanation for stellar parallax, then?
However, just as the geocentric system could answer stellar parallax by means of a reciprocal geometry, so was the case for stellar aberration. In fact, the alignment of the stars with the sun that provided the geocentric answer to stellar parallax also provides the geocentric answer to stellar aberration. Since the geocentric star field is offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit, then, as the star field rotates around the Earth on a 93 million mile radius, it will produce the same circular and elliptical formations of Gamma Draconis as that which is claimed for the heliocentric system.
[...] stellar aberration not only produces a circular star trail for stars near the north celestial pole, but it also produces elliptical trails for stars at a lower declination. For example, for a star situated at a 45 degree declination with respect to the Earth, its star trail over the course of a year would resemble the typical ellipse. But for a star situated at the equatorial celestial plane, its star trail would look like a hyperbola or straight line. These various formations will be exactly the same in both the heliocentric and geocentric systems for the same star.
Thus, neither stellar parallax nor stellar aberration could prove the heliocentric system. This fact was recognized in 1901 by the famous physicist Henri Poincare:QuoteThe observation of the aberration show us, therefore, not the movement of the earth, but the variation of this movement; they cannot, therefore, give us information about the absolute motion of the earth.
The phenomenon of stellar parallax is not what we have been generally led to believe, because in exactly the same way that Eddington 'proved' Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 1919 by rejecting, omitting or deleting 60% of his measurement data on the bending of starlight, so modern astrophysics maintains the misconception that parallax 'proves' the Kopernikan philosophy of the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire dataset of negative parallax measurements.
Here's what Dr. Sugenis has to say about it in Geocentrism 101, p. 64-65:
Since the geocentric star field is offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit, then, as the star field rotates around the Earth on a 93 million mile radius, it will produce the same circular and elliptical formations of Gamma Draconis as that which is claimed for the heliocentric system.
... the sun and not the earth would be the center of the universe.
That proposition was condemned as heretical by the Holy Office.Are you talking about the condemnation of Galileo? Wasn't that reversed on some level?
That proposition was condemned as heretical by the Holy Office.You might want to look at the link below by MHFM on the matter of Geocentrism and the Holy Office. It's a good proof that the Holy Office itself is not protected in its decrees as would a teaching by the Pope on Faith or Morals or those teachings which are part of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.
Leaving aside the geostatic model, would it be sufficient to still call modern science's model of the universe geocentric considering the scale of the universe? Of course by that logic the sun could be said to be just as much the center as the earth, but considering the size of the universe that would be an insignificant distinction.There's an argument to be had from Einsteinian General relativity, which, if the universe is indeed what they say it is, would be the next most solid argument for Geocentrism
A flaw with this line of thinking may be that modern science only knows about the visible universe, and therefore can't know for sure where we are located within its distribution of space and matter since we see equally far in all directions.
Are you talking about the condemnation of Galileo? Wasn't that reversed on some level?
I feel like I'm stepping into a bear trap here, but ... honestly, I've never read any account of the Galileo case and its subsequent history that really made any sense to me at all, on either side of the question.
What if we leave aside the theological aspect of this? Wouldn't the sun be the center of the universe if the stars rotate around the sun and not the earth? I mean, how would you define the word "center" otherwise?
You might want to look at the link below by MHFM on the matter of Geocentrism and the Holy Office.
Maybe I don't remember the argument very clearly ...
So what is the geocentrist explanation for stellar parallax, then?
You might want to look at the link below by MHFM on the matter of Geocentrism and the Holy Office. It's a good proof that the Holy Office itself is not protected in its decrees as would a teaching by the Pope on Faith or Morals or those teachings which are part of the authentic Magisterium of the Church.
Further, unrelated specifically to Geocentrism, they get into this because of the condemnation the Holy Office raised against Fr. Feeney with Card. Cushing's heretical letter Suprema haec sacra. Which, if the Holy Office is infallible, then the condemnation of Fr. Feeney would in fact be true and we are heretics for not believing that non-Catholics can be saved outside of the Church without baptism.
https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/the-holy-office-geocentrism-fr-feeney/
I still believe that Geocentrism is the Catholic position, as, again, the Church Fathers are unanimous about it, as proved by Dr. Sugenis.
For heliocentrism to work, the Earth has to spin at different speeds along all its latitudes to account for the universal 24 hour day. Yet the Earth is a simple body and a sphere, as simple as being the only one that it is, and it cannot spin at many different speeds at the same time. Therefore, heliocentrism is not possible, and some things are impossible even for God..What do you mean? The length of daylight does of course vary depending on latitude. But a day is just measured as the time it takes the Earth to rotate, so why would that change?
No Roscoe, the Dimonds are on your side, they try to show that the 1616 decree and the confirmation of its authority by Pope Urban VIII in 1633 and by the Holy Office in 1820 meant nothing by way of Pope Benedict XV's 1921 encyclical on Dante In Praeclara Summorum.Pope Benedict XV may not have denied that the Earth is geocentric, but that doesn't mean the 1616 decree was infallible. If it were, His Holiness or any of the other popes between 1757 and today would have noted as much.
First a quote from this encyclical:
'If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory shines in a part more or less elsewhere: and though this Earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.'
The Dimonds say:
Here we see Pope Benedict XV, in a 1921 encyclical, declare that “this Earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought.” In all the discussions of the issue with which I’m familiar, I’ve never seen the above quotation from Pope Benedict XV brought forward. People such as John Daly, Solange Hertz, Paula Haigh, etc., who have spent much time on this issue, were obviously unaware of this quotation.
There are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe; or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide.
If #1 is true, that means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical. It also means that he and other numerous other popes (as will be explained below) were ignorant of the true theological status of geocentrism.
My answer to this is:
It has been asserted by certain men, like the Dimond brothers, that the above encyclical shows the 1616 edict was not an irreversible (infallible) decree because Benedict XV did not confirm a geocentric universe. The Pope was of course referring to Einstein’s theory of relativity of his time as the progress of science that held ‘the world rested on no sure foundation.’ In other words, a geocentric universe was still as viable as a heliocentric one. Moreover, the Ptolemaic system of the universe was the universe of Dante, and yes, the Pope was right about it no longer being the true system. Given the fact that in his time geocentrism was still considered falsified by the Jesuits surrounding him, one surely would have expected the Pope to say the Earth ‘is not at the centre.’ But he did not, nor that the sun does not orbit the Earth, leaving the 1616 decree as defined and declared. One could equally say Pope Benedict XV with the words ‘may not be’ did not accept the physical non-violent heliocentrism ‘of modern astronomers’ insisted on by the Holy Office from 1820.
Pope Benedict XV may not have denied that the Earth is geocentric, but that doesn't mean the 1616 decree was infallible. If it were, His Holiness or any of the other popes between 1757 and today would have noted as much.
Since the geocentric star field is offset from the Earth by 1 astronomical unit, then, as the star field rotates around the Earth on a 93 million mile radius, it will produce the same circular and elliptical formations of Gamma Draconis as that which is claimed for the heliocentric system.
From Sungenis's book:First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
This is a contradiction. The center of a ball is a point that is equidistant from every point on the surface. For the earth to be the center of the universe, that would mean that the stars remain always the same distance from the earth as they rotate around it. So when Sungenis is saying the stars are offset from the earth by one astronomical unit, he is saying the earth is actually not the center of the universe.
First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the sun, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.
First, why would anybody give your comment a thumbs down Yeti? You put your point across and asked a question.Thank you cassini. If I remember Sungenis's video, I think he explained parallax by a computer animation in which the stars remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and the whole system moves in a sort of orbit around the earth in a space that seems to be outside the universe. But if the stars rotate around the earth and the sun, in such a way that they remain always the same distance from the sun, not the earth, and this is the cause of stellar parallax, then isn't the sun by definition the center of the universe?
My answer is that the centre of something does not mean the mathematical centre. From Earth we see the sun is one astronomical unit away from us. Now the stars must, in a geocentric universe created by God, be aligned to the stars, a ball of stars that circle the Earth every day and year. It is this sun-stars movement around the Earth that causes both stellar aberration and parallax to be seen from the Earth. All go around the Earth so the Earth is at the centre of this movement.
Thank you cassini. If I remember Sungenis's video, I think he explained parallax by a computer animation in which the stars remain equidistant from the sun, not the earth, and the whole system moves in a sort of orbit around the earth in a space that seems to be outside the universe. But if the stars rotate around the earth and the sun, in such a way that they remain always the same distance from the sun, not the earth, and this is the cause of stellar parallax, then isn't the sun by definition the center of the universe?
... no?
The M&M experiment of 1887 did not show the 30kms/s 'fringe' expected if the Earth orbits the sun. All it showed was 5kms/s. This 5kms/s was brought down further after more tests, a 'fringe' of inertia up to 98% correct expected if the earth rotated, or if the universe rotated. Heliocentrism needed the goose and the gander (30kms/s) result, but geocentrism needed just the gander (-5kms/s), a rotational inertia. So, the M&M test proved geocentrism,
I think I recall something about this. As I briefly understand it, he's saying that if in fact M&M had been invalidated due to the alleged "Lorentz contraction" or else relativity, then M&M should have shown 0 movement. Or did I misread that or misremember it?
There are only two possibilities: 1) St. Robert Bellarmine and the members of the Holy Office were correct that geocentrism is de fide; in that case, Pope Benedict XV was wrong (and was teaching heresy) when stating that the Earth may not be the center of the universe;To be fair, if a pope uses "may not" in an encyclical, that's hardly a definitive teaching. Not all encyclicals are infallible, by nature. It depends how they are written. Benedict's "openness to science" (similar to Pius XII on theistic evolution) is neither a teaching, nor a decisive statement. In my opinion, both were horribly wrong for opening pandora's box but there is no authoritative nature in any of this. In other words, Benedict XV was just wrong (as was Pius XII) and St Robert and company are still correct.
or 2) Pope Benedict XV was correct that the issue has not yet been settled (and the Earth might not be the center) and St. Robert Bellarmine, many theologians of the Holy Office and the Holy Office’s 1633 sentence against Galileo, etc. were therefore wrong for declaring heliocentrism to be heretical and considering geocentrism to be de fide.The Holy Office of 1633 is correct.
If #1 is true, that means that Pope Benedict XV was teaching heresy in his encyclical. It also means that he and other numerous other popes (as will be explained below) were ignorant of the true theological status of geocentrism.No, the 3rd possibility is that Benedict XV, like Pius XII, were either liberal or listened to liberal advice. Their encyclicals were not heretical and neither were they authoritative. When speaking on science, you can't judge such as a "teaching" in the same way as an encyclical on the sacraments. Infallibility only protects faith/morals. The matters of science (those discussed in the Bible) are part of Faith but also outside of it.
To be fair, if a pope uses "may not" in an encyclical, that's hardly a definitive teaching. Not all encyclicals are infallible, by nature. It depends how they are written. Benedict's "openness to science" (similar to Pius XII on theistic evolution) is neither a teaching, nor a decisive statement. In my opinion, both were horribly wrong for opening pandora's box but there is no authoritative nature in any of this. In other words, Benedict XV was just wrong (as was Pius XII) and St Robert and company are still correct.From Alberto Martinez' book, this paragraph from a timeline of events regarding the Galileo and Bruno affairs.
The Holy Office of 1633 is correct. No, the 3rd possibility is that Benedict XV, like Pius XII, were either liberal or listened to liberal advice. Their encyclicals were not heretical and neither were they authoritative. When speaking on science, you can't judge such as a "teaching" in the same way as an encyclical on the sacraments. Infallibility only protects faith/morals. The matters of science (those discussed in the Bible) are part of Faith but also outside of it.
My opinion = they were convinced that "new facts" had emerged to possibly change the Church's views. Theology cannot change, but science can still discover. So since Faith and Reason are not in opposition, it is *possible* for new facts to emerge which can partially (but not substantially) change the Church's views...only in the realm of science. That's why Benedict used "may" to denote theory and also why Pius XII said that "further investigation" is allowed on evolution.
But we know now that these "new facts" are lies and so all of this is water under the bridge. We return to the Church Fathers and 1633 as our authority.
From Alberto Martinez' book, this paragraph from a timeline of events regarding the Galileo and Bruno affairs.According to John Daly's article on heliocentrism (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf), Fr. Roberts was a liberal Catholic who had major problems with the dogma of papal infallibility, and used the seeming about-face of the Church on geocentrism as a means of attacking infallibility, so it fits into his argument to argue that the original condemnation of heliocentrism was infallible even if it really wasn't.
1885 – Father William Roberts publishes his book The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement. In this book, Fr. Roberts presents a strong case for the position that the Church’s condemnation of heliocentrism is infallible. He concludes: (1) Alexander VIII’s Speculatores was a papal act of supreme authority by which the pope, in the face of the whole Church, confirmed and approved the decrees with his Apostolic authority, and made himself responsible for their publication, that heliocentrism was false; (2) heliocentrism was false because the Church declared it a heresy, and whoever says an opinion is heresy ipso facto says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine faith; and, (3) infallible teachings, even those ex-cathedra, do not generally generate any fresh obligation of faith, but protect and vindicate one that already exists.
In any case, that quote from Benedict XV pretty much does away with the argument that it's heretical to reject geocentrism. Obviously a pope can't say, in effect, "it appears geocentrism is not correct" in an encyclical, if geocentrism is a dogma of faith. It would be like a pope saying in an encyclical, "It appears there are four Persons in God." Such a thing is against the nature of the papacy.
According to John Daly's article on heliocentrism (http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Daly.pdf), Fr. Roberts was a liberal Catholic who had major problems with the dogma of papal infallibility, and used the seeming about-face of the Church on geocentrism as a means of attacking infallibility, so it fits into his argument to argue that the original condemnation of heliocentrism was infallible even if it really wasn't.Daly's article certainly favors the idea that heliocentrism was condemned for heresy and the arguments are strong. I won't list them here. The arguments against the condemnation not being infallible were less persuasive. 1. It seemed only to be against Galileo, 2. never specifically said it was heretical (although they admit it was said other places) 3. did not define a doctrine and 4 wasn't addressed to the whole Church. I'm no theologian, nor is it necessary for me to argue in detail against the parsing of words this argument rests on, but even if technically true, the conclusion drawn would be in direct contradiction to the reason for condemnation. Why condemn what isn't heretical? How can a condemnation only apply to one man and no one else and the problem be solved if he abjured? I suppose there may be technical reasons for this opinion, but they don't add up to much. The churchmen discussed the doctrines heliocentrism contradicted and errors it promoted during the trial. Obviously, from discussion within the trial, along with the Bruno Affair and arguments and condemnations against others defending heliocentrism, they considered it all intolerable, an extreme danger to the faith as well as the source of innumerable errors, like reincarnation. This reminds me of Anne Catherine Emmerich's assessment of the false notion of cosmology would be the mother of all heresies.
In any case, that quote from Benedict XV pretty much does away with the argument that it's heretical to reject geocentrism. Obviously a pope can't say, in effect, "it appears geocentrism is not correct" in an encyclical, if geocentrism is a dogma of faith. It would be like a pope saying in an encyclical, "It appears there are four Persons in God." Such a thing is against the nature of the papacy.
While wondering with great awe at the God of all creation whose attributes are infinite, we may still stand back in utter amazement when we contemplate the sizes of things in our material world, this material world which is a reflection, albeit limited, of the infinite greatness of God. Perhaps, you will find as I do, the following site to be quite amazing as an aid in that regard: https://www.htwins.net/scale2/ (https://www.htwins.net/scale2/).Love that link! Thank you Charity.
Love that link! Thank you Charity.
Daly's article certainly favors the idea that heliocentrism was condemned for heresy and the arguments are strong. I won't list them here. The arguments against the condemnation not being infallible were less persuasive. 1. It seemed only to be against Galileo, 2. never specifically said it was heretical (although they admit it was said other places) 3. did not define a doctrine and 4 wasn't addressed to the whole Church. I'm no theologian, nor is it necessary for me to argue in detail against the parsing of words this argument rests on, but even if technically true, the conclusion drawn would be in direct contradiction to the reason for condemnation. Why condemn what isn't heretical? How can a condemnation only apply to one man and no one else and the problem be solved if he abjured? I suppose there may be technical reasons for this opinion, but they don't add up to much. The churchmen discussed the doctrines heliocentrism contradicted and errors it promoted during the trial. Obviously, from discussion within the trial, along with the Bruno Affair and arguments and condemnations against others defending heliocentrism, they considered it all intolerable, an extreme danger to the faith as well as the source of innumerable errors, like reincarnation. This reminds me of Anne Catherine Emmerich's assessment of the false notion of cosmology would be the mother of all heresies.
That Robertson was a liberal has no bearing whatsoever. He concluded, after intensely detailed work, that the condemnation was infallible and Roberts believed in heliocentrism which makes his conclusion all the more plausible.
What's truly interesting is the people who suggest that heliocentrism can't be heresy. That's strange since the entire panel of popes, saints and theologians who expounded on the problems with heliocentrism at the time were extremely erudite and animated about the errors it produced and most notably for them, because it contradicted scripture.
The devil may be in the details, but along with innumerable errors, there's another good reason to abandon heliocentrism: It can't possibly have been so deeply divisive and not be a danger to one's soul.
Yes, I find it much more probable that this decision of the Holy Office is infallible than that Benedict XV's passing comment would be infallible.
There's no question that the Holy Office did intend to address this to the entire Church. What, when the next guy came along teaching the same thing as Galileo, they would then have to issue a new decree? And it does quite clearly teach a doctrine. To me the biggest question is whether a decree of the Holy Office has behind it a sufficient plenitude of papal authority, i.e. the biggest question mark is whether the POPE taught this by virtue of his Petrine office. To me, ratifying a decision from the Holy Office falls a hair short of that.
On 2nd, July 1633, under orders of Pope Urban VIII, the condemnation of heliocentrism was made universally public, not just confined to Galileo alone as some apologists would argue later. Copies of the sentence and Galileo’s abjuration were sent to all vicar nuncios and inquisitors who in turn made them known to professors of philosophy and theology throughout the Catholic world. - Prologue, p. 9