Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

[grannymh]

But you cannot show me or anybody where this decree - supported by the 1633 pope and the 1664 pope - was ever recinded legally.

It is cassini’s responsibility to provide credible evidence that the above decree is currently, actively, officially enforced with appropriate documentation. Since this has not been done,

therefore, the above decree has been de facto rescinded.

 

[cassini]

We do know that it had something to do with the problem of the heliocentric model as being real, and that there was indeed only one reality. We also know that Galileo attempted to interpret the scriptures problematic to a moving earth. In this, he may have been set up and “forced” to explain the so called controversies within scriptures, I don’t know. again,I am in the process of trying to find Galileo’s scriptural explanation in order to see whether he really believed the sun to be truly static.

Andre

Thank you Mitch. Perhaps the following may help you understand the context of the Galileo case… This affair is indeed a long story and very difficult to put in perspective. There are so many versions of it that only an objective examination of the original Vatican archives can be guaranteed bias free.

It has also been pragmatically argued since Churchmen adopted the heretical Copernican or cabbalistic interpretation of Scripture that the Bible is not intended to teach us the ways of nature, but the way to eternal salvation. This is a principle spawned by the hermetically inclined Cardinal Caesar Baronius, who not only claimed in his Annales Ecclesiastici of around 1610 that Hermēs Trismegistus was one of the pagan prophets heralding the birth of Christ, but in the wake of the Galileo affair gave posterity the now famous often used quip ‘the Bible is not intended to teach us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven.’ Now whereas this could be so, the hard fact is that throughout the holy Books there are many cases where facts of nature are mentioned or stated, both implicitly and explicitly. Indeed we saw earlier that there are occasions where the Scriptures disclose laws and facts of nature some thousands of years prior to man’s own discovery of them. What really matters of course is that whatever the Bible says and truly means is the truth of it, whether the matter is of natural things or of divine things. We know this because this is what the Church has always taught. The most recent and accurate reiteration on this very point is to be found in Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical on Scripture: Spiritus Paraclitus of 1920, where he declares:

‘Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase –and indeed every word of Scripture– yet, by endeavouring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration –namely, absolute truth and immunity from error- are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest –things concerning “profane knowledge”, the garments in which the Divine truth is presented- God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science.’

Very good. We see then that much of the rhetoric spoken on the subject of nature or science in the Bible must be discarded with the Holy Father’s clear and unambiguous teaching. And if we know the Bible we should know that Jesus Himself, by regularly quoting the Old Testament, even on matters of a physical nature such as the universal flood of Noah, showed this teaching to be the truth of it. Following this we can now note what the Lateran Council V of 1512-17 had to say:

‘And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of illuminated faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatise otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.’ —(Denzinger - 738)

Given the Church’s duty is to preserve truth, and truth is reality, physical, philosophical and spiritual reality that permeates all time, past, present and future, even to its co-relationship with eternity, then all things that threaten truth must be condemned and corrected by the Church. This obligation was dogmatised at Vatican Council I of 1869-70:

‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)

To be continued.

 

[cassini]

The Council of Trent

One could say that as far as the Church is concerned, the Galileo case began with the Council at Trent, a city in the Austrian Tyrol, which was held from the year 1545 to 1563. Three popes presided over this council, Pope Paul III, Pope Julius III, and Pope Pius IV. The assembly was convened for the purpose of combating Protestantism and reforming the disciplines of the Catholic Church. It was the longest and without doubt the most important general council in the history of the Church. Among the principal dogmatic decisions were, the confirmation of the Nicene Creed; the authenticity of the Latin Vulgate (the Latin version of the Bible); the canonicity of all the books contained therein, and of them only, and the definition of the doctrine of Original Sin. After the Council came the Catechism of Trent, and interestingly, in it we find inferences to a geocentric world.
Of crucial importance to the condemnation of earthmoving and sun-fixing, and the Earthmovers themselves, are the methods prescribed for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture decreed on April 8, 1546:

‘Furthermore, in order to curb imprudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgement in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions, shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.’ — (Denzinger - 786)

By Order of Trent

Note carefully the law as regards biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. That, according to the conclusion of the Council, is a settled matter. But what has been missed by many of the casuists, apologists and Church critics, is the imposition put by the Church on the ordinaries. They were obliged to report any breach of this directive to their superiors. Throughout the vast literature written on the matter, even to this very day, those who exposed Galileo’s breach of Trent have been called many names, from ‘his enemies’ to their being ‘jealous and vindictive’ etc.

‘When the meddlesome Dominican Caccini preached against Galileo’s theories…’

Rarely, if ever, will one find much understanding that Church discipline bound all Catholics morally to highlight the likes of Galileo’s written defiance of Trent’s hermeneutics and exegesis of the Scriptures.

Such then was the situation within the Church as we come to examine the Galileo case.

 

[cassini]

Breakfast with the Medici

In this same year of 1613, the Benedictine abbot named Dom Benedetto Castelli, a former and adoring pupil of Galileo’s, was given the coveted chair of mathematics at the University of Pisa on Galileo’s recommendation. Thus the first of the Copernican ‘plants’, whereby important positions are given to those with the ‘right’ ideology. Castelli would surely insert Copernicanism into the educational system so as to begin the indoctrination of the young and impressionable, and who themselves would become the professors of the future, a policy that dominates all politics and one also highly recommended and promoted by Francis Bacon’s freemasonry at the time.

On Dec. 13th, 1613, Castelli was invited to a court breakfast at which were gathered members of the ruling Medici family. These included Cosimo II himself, his wife, his mother the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, an Austrian Archduchess, Don Antonio de’ Medici, and Don Paolo, a member of the powerful Orsini family. Also present as one of the learned guests was Cosimo Boscaglia, a professor of philosophy.
As was likely to happen of course, the conversation turned to astronomy and in particular the moons of Jupiter that Galileo had named after the Medici family. They then discussed Galileo’s assertion that the world is heliocentric. Boscaglia argued that Galileo was in error for the simple reason that the Scriptures confirm the world is geocentric. As Castelli was a monk, well acquainted with both theology and Galileo’s astronomy, Christina detained him later to address this paradox and to explain to her how the sun of the heavens could be stopped as told in the miracle of Joshua’s long day (Josh. 10:12-13) if it is immobile in the centre of the world. Castelli began by defending Galileo’s position and insisted that science should decide celestial matters and not the Scriptures. Thereafter he tried to explain how such passages in the Bible were interpreted erroneously. With this suggestion the debate entered a new public dimension, scriptural exegesis. The dye was now cast; the first shots had been fired. Finally the Earthmovers true mission had emerged, the hermetic-cabbalistic reformation of scriptural hermeneutics and exegesis.

Castelli immediately sent a report of the debate to Galileo in Florence in a letter that contained the following words:

‘I began to play the theologian with such assurance and dignity that it would have done you good to hear me. Don Antonio assisted me… and I carried the discussion off like a paladin. I won over the Grand Duke and his Archduchess completely and Don Paolo contributed to my help a very apt quotation from the Scriptures. Only Madama Christine remained against me, and as for Professor Boscaglia, he never opened his mouth.’

 

[cassini]

Galileo sent Castelli a hasty reply. This was the famous letter-manifesto of December 21st 1613. Such lengthy letters were used to air views that may not have been given an imprimatur had they appeared as a printed book. Galileo knew copies of his letters would be made and circulated widely. The real purpose of this document was, of course, to meet the theological objections to Copernicanism, for Galileo knew that the Bible and its Church interpreters had jammed the earth to the centre of the universe preventing him from ever being credited with the most astounding ‘scientific’ discovery of all time.
The letter to Castelli addressed the whole subject concerning ‘scientific’ matters and the Bible. Galileo took a similar stand to that promulgated by Johannes Kepler, the erroneous view that the Bible’s inspiration reveals only those things necessary for salvation and not facts of natural science. He then supported his argument on the safe grounds that there could be no conflict between science and Scripture, for all agreed that God is Author of both. Galileo then played his trump card, noting the fact that whereas the Sacred Scriptures cannot contain any untruth or error, exegetes can be mistaken, especially when interpreting certain passages literally. Biblical hermeneutics, he said, should always be enlightened by natural science and its findings.

‘Since it is plain that two truths cannot contradict each other, it is the duty of wise interpreters to take the pains to find out the real meaning of the sacred texts, in accordance with those conclusions of natural science which the clear evidence of the senses, or apodictic demonstrations, have put beyond dispute.’ — Galileo.

Here then was Galileo’s offence, practically accusing the Church, past and then, of interpreting the Scriptures erroneously while mouthing about evidence and proof for heliocentricism.

Galileo: Hypocrite Personified

It is obvious to me that Galileo, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, was never concerned for the interests of Scripture, but with eliminating it as an impediment to his own vainglory. Most Galilean scholars propound that Galileo was too good an empiricist to actually believe he had proof for the earth’s supposed motion, but methinks this has to be said to prevent anyone thinking their hero was too stupid to see he had no real proof. If however, we go along with the apologists then, we are presented with a clear scenario that really shows us Galileo in his true colours. Had Galileo really believed there could be no conflict between the Scriptures and science, and that he was too good an empiricist to believe there was any real proof, then why didn’t he hold to the accepted traditional meaning of Scripture? But no, he did not, for Galileo abandoned the Bible’s position, the unanimous interpretation of the Church’s position, that of the Fathers (a sign of infallible elucidation) and all the exegetes, from the moment he decided for himself - many years before his discoveries it must be said - that Copernicanism was the truth of it. Galileo wanted this ‘unearthing’ badly and the world to credit him with the most astonishing discovery of all time, and he was not going to allow the Bible to deny him such a place in history.

‘In his great polemical work The Assayer, directed against the Jesuit Orazio Grassi who had published a book on comets under the pseudonym of Lothario Sarsi, Galileo wrote: “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress.” ’

If you want the rest of the story just let me know Mich2

 

[cassini]

So you keep saying. And continue to beg the question. Where in the Catechism does it state that the Church “defined and declared the Church believes the Scripures when it states the sun moves around the earth?”

Have you eve read the Catechism, or do you just prefer writing it yourself?

Eleven popes, I think, enforced the 1616 decree to the letter. In 1741 the Church considered the matter. But by then Newton and stellar aberration had convinced even the elect that H was proven and that the problem of the 1616 decree had to be dealt with. The story after that would probably give many a heart attack on this thread, so histerical are the objections to my repeating what are historical facts.

The Promulgation of a dogma ( a promulgated revelation by God found in tradition and holy writ) by the teaching authority of the Church has three routes; in an extraordinary manner, a General Dogmatic Council, OR THROUGH THE ORDINARY AND GENERAL TEACHING POWER OF THE CHURCH.

By 1741, the elect, that is those elected to run the Church, from Pope down, had one concern, how to rid the Church of the 1616 decree they all believed as Copernicans was a BIG mistake. Again I tell you that this great disappearing act was nothing but making a farce of the Church’s teaching authority.

So, why in God’s name would they put the decree in any catechism? They want all to believe it was a null and void act of the Church by a bunch pof ignorant popes, cardinals and theologians. That is why it cannot be found in your CCC.

But go to the Vatican or any library in the world and you will find it there. every last word. That they cannot hide.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I believe in the Holy Catholic Church…’

That Holy Catholic Church defined and declared the Church believes the Scripures when it states the sun moves around the earth. If you believe in the Holy Catholic Church then you must accept its definitions.

indeed we do believe the 1992 Pontifical commission stating the galileo affair was a mistake, under the auspices of JPII. why dont you? let me guess, in 1600 they were Holy, in the 1900 they were not. yeah right.

Rant all you like about science, photos of heliocentricism, non-infallibility,

‘rant’ ? aint that the pot calling the kettle black

me pointing out that the Vatican Council II Fathers contradicted this same Catholic Church they were supposed to be upholding,

so the Church was not upholding the Church?

but none of you can show where and when the Church’s decision was abrogated, where the Vatican II popes, cardinals and bishops got a legal and canonical right to ridicule their predecessors in the eyes of the world. That is all that matters. If one of you can show me an abrogation I will disappear immediately.

sure, check this out from wikipedia

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are as follows:

1. "the Roman Pontiff"
2. "speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….")
3. "he defines"
4. "that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
5. "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

But you cannot show me or anybody where this decree - supported by the 1633 pope and the 1664 pope - was ever recinded legally

.

ok, there you go. see #4, its the faith and morals thing? heliocentrism is a purely scientific matter. before you cut and paste more bellarmine, his opinion is no more official than yours

This is what you guys just cannot cope with. Call me all the names under the sun if you like, but you still have to deal with what Providence allowed the Church to decree in 1616.

well, now that i ‘coped’ with it, i expect you should be a man of your word and disappear immediately

good day…i said good day sir! -fez

 

[cassini]

It is cassini’s responsibility to provide credible evidence that the above decree is currently, actively, officially enforced with appropriate documentation. Since this has not been done,

therefore, the above decree has been de facto rescinded.

grannymh, I see you are taking over as the resident theologian in this matter.

Galileo tried to make it the responsibility of the Church to falsify heliocentricism.

Cardinal poupard tried the same ploy in 1992.

Now I am the one who has to prove that the 1616 decree is still in effect.

Well that is easy, but impossible for Copernicans to accept. I shall do what the Church told Galileo. Once the 1616 decree was defined and declared it was IN EFFECT. Pope Urban VII and his Holy Office took this for granted as did every other pope thereafter who had to consider the decree in his capacity as head of the Holy Office. No pope ever said it was not a papal decree that could be ignored. No pope ever abrogated it.

So dogmas and their heresies do not go out of date you know, they do not fade away because no one believes in them anymore.

So, what is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a thing? Hilaire Belloc, prolific author, wrote:

‘Like most modern words, ‘heresy’ is used both vaguely and diversely… Today, with most people, the word ‘heresy’ connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead; because it deals with matters no one now takes seriously.’

But understanding heresy, Belloc goes on to say, is crucial to the individual and to society, and is of special interest for anyone who would now try to understand the world and its history. ‘Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. Heresy then, is a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind because it is bound up with the subject of religion, without which no human society has endured, or ever can endure.’ The history of Europe, the very heart of civilisation, the source or catalyst of world domination and influence, cannot be separated from the successive anti-Catholic heresies, and especially not from the Copernican heresy, which the Catholic Belloc himself unwittingly shared.

The heliocentric heresy is one of these ‘forgotten’ heresies, and a heresy is a rejection of a revealed dogma.

So grannymh, the decree of 1616 is still in effect. It is not enforced because the men running the Church now think it is a nonsense dogma and want nothing to do with it. But they can’t bring themselves to abrogate it. For over 300 years now they know you cannot abrogate defined matters of faith.

Now you can all collectively argue till your are blue in the face, but you cannot show where our Church can touch an immutible decree. If that happens, start looking out for the true Church elsewhere.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

grannymh, I see you are taking over as the resident theologian in this matter.

Galileo tried to make it the responsibility of the Church to falsify heliocentricism.

Cardinal poupard tried the same ploy in 1992.

Now I am the one who has to prove that the 1616 decree is still in effect.

Well that is easy, but impossible for Copernicans to accept. I shall do what the Church told Galileo. Once the 1616 decree was defined and declared it was IN EFFECT. Pope Urban VII and his Holy Office took this for granted as did every other pope thereafter who had to consider the decree in his capacity as head of the Holy Office. No pope ever said it was not a papal decree that could be ignored. No pope ever abrogated it.

So dogmas and their heresies do not go out of date you know, they do not fade away because no one believes in them anymore.

So, what is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a thing? Hilaire Belloc, prolific author, wrote:

‘Like most modern words, ‘heresy’ is used both vaguely and diversely… Today, with most people, the word ‘heresy’ connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old prejudice against rational examination. Heresy is thought to be of no contemporary interest. Interest in it is dead; because it deals with matters no one now takes seriously.’

But understanding heresy, Belloc goes on to say, is crucial to the individual and to society, and is of special interest for anyone who would now try to understand the world and its history. ‘Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. Heresy then, is a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind because it is bound up with the subject of religion, without which no human society has endured, or ever can endure.’ The history of Europe, the very heart of civilisation, the source or catalyst of world domination and influence, cannot be separated from the successive anti-Catholic heresies, and especially not from the Copernican heresy, which the Catholic Belloc himself unwittingly shared.

The heliocentric heresy is one of these ‘forgotten’ heresies, and a heresy is a rejection of a revealed dogma.

So grannymh, the decree of 1616 is still in effect. It is not enforced because the men running the Church now think it is a nonsense dogma and want nothing to do with it. But they can’t bring themselves to abrogate it. For over 300 years now they know you cannot abrogate defined matters of faith.

Now you can all collectively argue till your are blue in the face, but you cannot show where our Church can touch an immutible decree. If that happens, start looking out for the true Church elsewhere.

why are you still here?

i showed you where the church abrogated the 1616 decree in 1870 at vatican 1, by defining, dogmatically an infallible statement as one dealing with faith and morals.

so like i said

why are you still here?

 

[1holycatholic]

The Promulgation of a dogma ( a promulgated revelation by God found in tradition and holy writ) by the teaching authority of the Church has three routes; in an extraordinary manner, a General Dogmatic Council, OR THROUGH THE ORDINARY AND GENERAL TEACHING POWER OF THE CHURCH.

At one point a majority of bishops were teaching Arianism, that doesn’t make it dogma.

 

[pnewton]

So, why in God’s name would they put the decree in any catechism? They want all to believe it was a null and void act of the Church by a bunch pof ignorant popes, cardinals and theologians. That is why it cannot be found in your CCC.

You sure as heck can fint the virgin birth there. By “they” may I remind you that the Catechism was promulgated be the Holy Father, himself. He was the properly chosen pope at the time and had the charism of guiding the Church. What is your authority in the Catholic Church?

 

[grannymh]

By 1741, the elect, that is those elected to run the Church, from Pope down, had one concern, how to rid the Church of the 1616 decree they all believed as Copernicans was a BIG mistake. Again I tell you that this great disappearing act was nothing but making a farce of the Church’s teaching authority.

So, why in God’s name would they put the decree in any catechism? They want all to believe it was a null and void act of the Church by a bunch pof ignorant popes, cardinals and theologians. That is why it cannot be found in your CCC.

But go to the Vatican or any library in the world and you will find it there. every last word. That they cannot hide.

The above period is known for the great explosion in scientific discoveries staring Isaac Newton. When he was 24, his theory on the universal law of gravitation was published. One of the posters pointed out the possibility that the earth’s gravitation forces could have bolstered geocentricism. What was not known was that there were other gravitation forces in the universe. (If I misunderstood, somebody correct me.) Either way, science was in bloom and so was intellectual pride and intrigue. I’ve read that Galileo had a tendency to mock his opponents while overstating his case. No wonder he had enemies.

Considering that back in 1628, William Harvey discovered the circulation of blood with the use of experiment, observation and dissection, it is easy to understand that the ordinary person could become unsure of his familiar world. In addition, many adopted a form of determinism since the universe appeared to follow pre-determined patterns. Naturally, the Catholic Church, with its theology and philosophy basis, was concerned.

This background is offered so that we can get a better picture of the times. Though from reading about poorly run hearings and forged documents and misinterpretations of rulings, most of which is probably hearsay, my observation is that the whole episode of geocentriscism/heliocentricism is tainted and regrettable.

A side note: one commentary of the Galileo thing quoted some kind of a decree that Galileo had rendered himself “vehemently suspected of heresy.” Since I cannot verify the source, I will not say that this is a valid quote. However, knowing a little bit about the politics of those times, I would suggest that “kitchen” negotiations were going on to find the best way to handle the delicate situation at hand.

As to statements issued by the Church, not only is the statement itself important, but it is totally necessary to check who issued the statement. The “statement” often referred to was actually a theological opinion issued by the theologians of the Holy Office. Theological opinion does not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church.

Those familiar with the Catholic Church will complain that the Church takes a long time making important decisions regarding matters of Faith. By the early 1700’s, the Church’s perspective would be unbiased.

 

[grannymh]

At one point a majority of bishops were teaching Arianism, that doesn’t make it dogma.

This is a great analogy. It also shows that when the Catholic Church is dealing with a major situation concerning Faith, there is a great deal of serious documentation from a variety of experts.

This is not the case with Galileo who faced a type of judicial court hearing where there was lots of nasty name calling, none of which represents the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church. While there were high ranking theologians in the Holy Office investigating heliocentricism, their conclusions were theological opinions which do not represent the Magisterium (official teaching) of the Church.

 

[grannymh]

the church abrogated the 1616 decree in 1870 at vatican 1, by defining, dogmatically an infallible statement as one dealing with faith and morals.

Speaking as the resident historian–cassini got my title wrong-- Vatican 1 is an important point. One of the interesting aspects of real dogmas and infallibility is that the subject matter deals with the “deposit of Faith.” The “deposit of Faith” comes from Divine Revelation which was completed in Jesus Christ. Even though Revelation is complete, the Church must gradually grasp its full significance over the course of centuries. Those familiar with the development of dogmas sometimes chuckle at the repeated phrase “as was always taught”. Nonetheless, “as always taught” is essential because the period of Revelation is closed.

It may sound odd, but to evaluate the Galileo thing, we need to know why it is not the official teaching of the Church. The way to do this, is to compare the available documentation with that which leads to real dogma. Hilaire Belloc may be a brilliant writer but he doesn’t qualify as an experienced theologian.

 

[mich2]

Galileo sent Castelli a hasty reply. This was the famous letter-manifesto of December 21st 1613. Such lengthy letters were used to air views that may not have been given an imprimatur had they appeared as a printed book. Galileo knew copies of his letters would be made and circulated widely. The real purpose of this document was, of course, to meet the theological objections to Copernicanism, for Galileo knew that the Bible and its Church interpreters had jammed the earth to the centre of the universe preventing him from ever being credited with the most astounding ‘scientific’ discovery of all time.
The letter to Castelli addressed the whole subject concerning ‘scientific’ matters and the Bible. Galileo took a similar stand to that promulgated by Johannes Kepler, the erroneous view that the Bible’s inspiration reveals only those things necessary for salvation and not facts of natural science. He then supported his argument on the safe grounds that there could be no conflict between science and Scripture, for all agreed that God is Author of both. Galileo then played his trump card, noting the fact that whereas the Sacred Scriptures cannot contain any untruth or error, exegetes can be mistaken, especially when interpreting certain passages literally. Biblical hermeneutics, he said, should always be enlightened by natural science and its findings.

‘Since it is plain that two truths cannot contradict each other, it is the duty of wise interpreters to take the pains to find out the real meaning of the sacred texts, in accordance with those conclusions of natural science which the clear evidence of the senses, or apodictic demonstrations, have put beyond dispute.’ — Galileo.

Here then was Galileo’s offence, practically accusing the Church, past and then, of interpreting the Scriptures erroneously while mouthing about evidence and proof for heliocentricism.

Galileo: Hypocrite Personified

It is obvious to me that Galileo, despite all his rhetoric to the contrary, was never concerned for the interests of Scripture, but with eliminating it as an impediment to his own vainglory. Most Galilean scholars propound that Galileo was too good an empiricist to actually believe he had proof for the earth’s supposed motion, but methinks this has to be said to prevent anyone thinking their hero was too stupid to see he had no real proof. If however, we go along with the apologists then, we are presented with a clear scenario that really shows us Galileo in his true colours. Had Galileo really believed there could be no conflict between the Scriptures and science, and that he was too good an empiricist to believe there was any real proof, then why didn’t he hold to the accepted traditional meaning of Scripture? But no, he did not, for Galileo abandoned the Bible’s position, the unanimous interpretation of the Church’s position, that of the Fathers (a sign of infallible elucidation) and all the exegetes, from the moment he decided for himself - many years before his discoveries it must be said - that Copernicanism was the truth of it. Galileo wanted this ‘unearthing’ badly and the world to credit him with the most astonishing discovery of all time, and he was not going to allow the Bible to deny him such a place in history.

‘In his great polemical work The Assayer, directed against the Jesuit Orazio Grassi who had published a book on comets under the pseudonym of Lothario Sarsi, Galileo wrote: “You cannot help it, Signor Sarsi, that it was granted to me alone to discover all the new phenomena in the sky and nothing to anybody else. This is the truth which neither malice nor envy can suppress.” ’

If you want the rest of the story just let me know Mich2

Very interesting…yes, if you can, I’d be interested in reading anything you have on the subject matter.
Thanks.

Andre

 

[grannymh]

Regarding Post #248 by cassini

Now I am the one who has to prove that the 1616 decree is still in effect.

Yes. Preferably in the current century.

So, what is a heresy, and what is the historical importance of such a thing? Hilaire Belloc, prolific author, wrote:

‘Like most modern words, ‘heresy’ is used both vaguely and diversely… Today, with most people, the word ‘heresy’ connotes bygone and forgotten quarrels, an old prejudice against rational examination.

Belloc’s comments can also be applied to words like dogma, degree, revelation, Magisterium, Holy Office. The modern difficulty is that these words are often interchanged with each other so that the true meaning is lost.

‘Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self-supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. Heresy then, is a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind because it is bound up with the subject of religion, without which no human society has endured, or ever can endure.’

Belloc’s quote about heresy being a subject of permanent and vital interest to mankind is a good one and I can see why you chose it. However, the Catholic understanding of heresy does not involve a scheme.

The heliocentric heresy is one of these ‘forgotten’ heresies, and a heresy is a rejection of a revealed dogma.

I do have to admit that I’ve forgotten most of the heresies which I studied as a student many years ago. Fortunately, the Catholic Church remembers many of them in the Creed which is said during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass each Sunday. The rest of the heresies, including ones that are offshoots of the major ones, are countered by the teachings in the Catechism. In addition, there are wonderful encyclical letters dealing with these issues.

While a heresy is a rejection of a revealed dogma, both heliocentricism and geocentricism are not revealed dogmas.

So grannymh, the decree of 1616 is still in effect. It is not enforced because the men running the Church now think it is a nonsense dogma and want nothing to do with it. But they can’t bring themselves to abrogate it. For over 300 years now they know you cannot abrogate defined matters of faith.

The decree of 1616, geocentricism and heliocentricism are not matters of faith.

Now you can all collectively argue till your are blue in the face, but you cannot show where our Church can touch an immutible decree. .

Are you referring to a formally, officially defined doctrine of faith which must be believed because it comes from Divine Revelation and has been taught as true since the early Church? If so, by definition, it must be contained in the current official teachings of the Catholic Church forever.

 

[grannymh]

FYI

Before Christmas fades,

Let us applaud both the first chapter of the book of Genesis and the Virgin Birth. :clapping:

Notice that Genesis describes the universe with joy. “God looked at everything He had made, and He found it very good.” (Genesis 1: 1-31) What a wonderful invitation to scientists, inviting them to explore.

The account of the Virgin Birth is full of joy as Mary says: “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.” (Luke 1: 46-55) “The angel said to them, [shepherds] 'Do not be afraid ; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people.” (Luke 2:1-20)

:clapping:

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[cassini]

For you mitch2, hoping the others may learn something.

Galileo and the Academia dei Lincei

‘The first scientific society of lasting significance had been founded in Rome in 1603 by four young men headed by Frederico Cesi, who named it the Lincean Academy [now the Pontifical Academy of Sciences]. Cesi gave a banquet for Galileo at which the word ‘telescope’ was coined and the guests observed the new discoveries in the heavens.’

In April 1611, Galileo went to Rome to spread the good-news of his new discoveries to all and sundry who would listen to him. Once there, he renewed an old acquaintance with the Jesuit astronomer Fr Clavius, was treated as an honoured guest by the Jesuits and Pope Paul V even granted him a long audience. It was at this time that Galileo was elected the sixth honorary member of the Academia dei Lincei, the first of many scientific societies devoted to philosophical and scientific studies prone to excluded Revelation. Influenced greatly by the anti-Catholic philosopher and occultist Francis Bacon, the Italian aristocrat Federico Cesi (1585-1630), who was only 18 at the time, gathered four like-minded men in his house under the title of the Lincean Academy. They called themselves ‘Lynxes’ because they believed, like the lynx that could see in the dark, the learned of their academy could see what others could not (like a fixed sun and moving earth?). This peculiar title, for those with a sense of esotericism, is Gnostic, with its doctrine of secret knowledge, privy only to the select few of course. Cesi’s father however, aware of the goings on, including alchemy, did not approve.

‘The Lyncean Academy was steadfastly opposed by Cesi’s father and other Roman aristocrats. Its members were accused of black magic, opposition to Church doctrine, and living a scandalous life.’

Behind the scenes however, with an intelligence system that reaches to parish ground level, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine’s Inquisition got wind of that other relationship between Cremonini and Galileo.

‘There was as yet no sign of theological opposition to Galileo or his discoveries, though Bellarmine wrote to the Inquisition at Venice to know whether he had been involved in proceedings against Cremonini. Probably this was because Galileo broached to Bellarmine the Copernican implications of his work. Cremonini had nothing to do with that, but he was always in hot water with the Inquisition because he refused to note in his books that certain doctrines of Aristotle had been pronounced heretical, such as the mortality of the soul and the eternity of the universe.’

Of course Cesare Cremonini ‘had nothing to do with that’, i.e., Galileo’s heliocentric leanings. No doubt as a Master Rosicrucian 9Luciferians) he took the Church’s side on this matter, yes? Anyway, confident that he had won support for himself, his discoveries and postulations, Galileo left Rome and returned to Florence.

 

[cassini]

Galileo Confronts Rome

In December of 1615, Galileo decided to go to Rome to prevent Copernicanism being banned, believing his considerable powers of persuasion would convince others that biblical exegesis would benefit from the use of (his) natural reasoning. Galileo had read Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini very shortly after it was written and is on record as having rejected it outright.
It was then Cardinal Boniface Gaetani wrote to the Dominican Friar Tommaso Campanella asking for his views on the dispute. Campanella responded by writing an eloquent plea for scientific freedom entitled Apologia pro Galileo, and although the book had merit, it failed because in this case it pitted human reasoning against the revelations of God Himself.

Meanwhile Galileo’s arrogance became bolder and bolder. He had now become an irritant, a dangerous irritant, and one that no authority like the Church could tolerate for too long.

Reading the situation clearly, the Tuscan ambassador had warned the Grand Duke to tell Galileo to avoid confrontation with Pope Paul V when next in Rome, as the Pope, it was known, was becoming weary of the controversy. But Galileo persisted, saying that he had another ‘proof’ up his sleeve, his infamous and absurd theory of the tides. This theory, which purported to show that the tides are caused by the rotation of the earth, was given to Alessandro Cardinal Orsini. He in turn approached the Pope with it. The Pontiff’s reaction was one of severe annoyance. He told Orsini to tell Galileo he had enough and unless he called off his attack on the Church’s scriptural exegesis immediately, the Inquisition would be called upon to put an end to it. Galileo however, true to form, carried on regardless.

Pope Paul V Acts

As with centuries of conflicts affecting the Catho1ic faith, there comes a time to resolve such matters once and for all in order to prevent any further detriment to doctrines left in the protection of the Church. What happened then is clear from a letter written by the Ambassador Guicciardini:

‘In Consistory on Wednesday, Cardinal Orsino, it may be with a want of prudence and consideration, spoke to the Pope in favour of Galileo. His Eminence, the Pope said, would do well to persuade Galileo to give up his opinion; and then, somewhat nettled at the Cardinal’s reply, his Holiness put a stop to further remarks by saying that he had placed the matter in the hands of the Cardinals of the Holy Office.’

 

[cassini]

Galileo Retreats

Galileo remained in Rome for a time after the judgement. One can only imagine the dilemma he now found himself in. Soon after he was recalled to Florence, but before he went he asked Cardinal Bellarmine for an affidavit confirming that he had not been put on trial in Rome, nor had he been made abjure any guilt, a disgrace he could not have lived down at the time. Cardinal Bellarmine of course obliged, giving Galileo the following letter on May 26, 1616:

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, having heard that it is calumniously reported that Signor Galileo Galilei has in our hand abjured, and has also been punished with salutary penance, and being requested to state the truth as to this, declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, either in our hand or the hand of any other person here in Rome, or any where else, so far as we know, any opinion or doctrine held by him; neither has any salutary penance been imposed upon him, but only the declaration made by the Holy Father, and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, has been intimated to him, wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus -that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.
In witness whereof we have written and subscribed these presents with our hand this 26th day of May 1616.
Il medesimo di sopra,
ROBERTO CARD. BELLARMINO.’

It is here in this letter that we find evidence that Cardinal Bellarmine attributed the decrees to the highest authority. He certainly did not regard it as a simple congregational judgement as the apologists would soon argue. On the contrary, in this certificate he ascribed it exclusively to the Pope himself as Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition and named the Congregation of the Index as the mere medium of its publication.

Galileo finally returned to Florence where he remained in his hermitage near the city in silence, working and writing on a draft of a new book that would, in time, stir the pot once again. The following year, 1621, Pope Paul V and his faithful Cardinal Bellarmine died. They had fought the good fight and condemned a most dangerous heresy for what it is: Roma