Dogma of the Earth as center of the universe

[cassini]

What about Giordano Bruno?

to continue:

For an insight into the potential heresies inherent in Bruno’s cosmos - heresies recognised by the Church and its Inquisitors of the day – read the following carefully.

‘An infinite universe posed serious theological problems… If the universe was infinite, God must be by definition be part of it, since it includes everything. Where could order and harmony and purpose reside in an infinite, and therefore formless, universe? The entire Aristotelian-Thomist-[geocentric] cosmology that had served Christianity well since its birth would collapse, and with it the thousand-year-old hierarchy of interdependent existence that linked, in an unbroken chain, the inanimate to plant and animal life, to man, to angels, to God. And if that happened, what would become of the painstakingly crafted systems of morals and values built on those assumptions.’ Wade Rowland: The Myth of Galileo, published in Burstein’s Secrets.

A brilliant insight, and perhaps such an understanding will help readers see another reason why the Inquisition pursued Bruno relentlessly throughout Italy.

Present at the Oxford debate was an acquaintance of Bruno’s, Sir Philip Sidney, nephew of the Earl of Leicester, ‘once Queen Elizabeth’s favourite and, according to some, even her secret lover’, a relationship, according to others, that produced a son known later as Lord Francis Bacon. Sir Philip Sidney would of course have been well acquainted with the infamous occult black magician; mathematician, scientist and spy John Dee (b.1527) , astrologer to Queen Elizabeth I. Such was Bruno’s friendship with Sidney that he dedicated his new book Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante (The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast) to him. Bruno said the figurative name for the book had two meanings, the driving out of human vices to create the pure hermetic soul, and the second allegory, the removal of the Pope and every remnant of Christianity on earth. And how was this to be done?

‘In Bruno’s eyes, “the sign in heaven proclaiming the return of Egyptian light to dispel the present darkness was the Copernican sun.” Accordingly he looked on the Copernican diagram on the concentric orbits of the planets encircling the sun as a sort of hieroglyph or talisman. It functioned as a magical Hermetic seal that he, Bruno, thought he understood at its deepest level. He became in consequence acutely aware of the huge ‘revolution’ which it was about to unleash and of its potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Churc. Bruno’s strategy, simple really, was to integrate this inevitable Copernican truth that was about to revolutionize science and religion into his own Hermetic revolution. He believed that Copernicus had vindicated the sun-centred system of the ancient Egyptians, and that it was up to the Nolan to revive and restore that loss of faith in order to reform the world.

We see then that Bruno and friends ‘became acutely aware of the huge ‘revolution’ that Copernicanism was about to unleash and of its potential for inflicting a total upheaval on the dogmas of the Church.’ To those sceptics who raised their eyebrows when in the preface of this book they read of a deliberate mission to impose the new heliocentric hermetic order on the world at the expense of Catholicism, we ask that they note this is now the observation of scholars Hancock and Bouval, two authors totally unaware that the heliocentric theory they take for granted has no claim to truth because it contradicts the Scriptures, has no purpose in the life of man, and never had any verification or proof in science. Remember all this when Galileo tries to have it accepted in Rome.

We do know that it was Cardinal Bellarmine who questioned him. ‘He [Bruno] kept to the end his hope that the Catholic Church, as the most universal body, might one day be gained over to his hermetic dispensation.’ History records that an unrepentant Bruno was handed over to the secular authorities that burned him at the stake on Ash Wednesday in 1600. With no official record surviving however, Bruno’s execution cannot be verified and some scholars now say he died in different circumstances.

Perhaps now folks you will see things in a different light. These extracts are only a part of a chapter I have written on the matter. there is enough here to see the truth, if any are open to truth these days.

 

[cassini]

cassini;4499030:

Hello Cass,
Really? I didn’t use Catholic references check them

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/…/response.html

Martin Luther’s Quote is in His writnings, held by the Lutheran Church.

Show me a viable reference fot this particular FACT.

C’mon where is the reference??

Actuallly If you read the Book On Galileo, ‘Galileo’s Mistake’
it will state that Galileo tried to tell the Church that Science defines truth. The Church answered that Truth is the Revelation of God.
hence the slit between Science and Religion.

WHY? What is God’s will ? God’s wills the Truth,

You try to present opinion as a matter of fact, I have shown you fact with reference’s. Copernicus’ hypothesis was published in a short pamphlet 10 yrs earlier than the one in 1543, also his theory was not unknown prior to thirty yrs before Its publishing.
Which I have used a non Catholic unbiased Religious reference.

God bless,
John

Hi John O. I never disputed what you say about Copernicus and his history. But nowhere will you find that Copernicus did not believe in his system. The whole world knows from history and a thousand books and records that he believed the earth moves and the sun stands still. Yes his ‘theory’ was well know but no book ever supported this theory before ON the Revolutions, wherein Copernicus used the astronomy of geocentricists to make it look he knew something that others didn’t.

As regards the FACT of the preface read the following:
the first edition had the following introduction entitled To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work:

‘Since the newness of the hypothesis of this work –which sets the earth in motion and puts an immovable sun at the centre of the universe- has already received a great deal of publicity, I have no doubt that certain of the savants have taken grave offence and think it wrong to raise any disturbance among liberal disciplines which have had the right set-up for a long time now. If, however, they are willing to weigh the matter scrupulously, they will find that the author has done nothing which merits blame…
This artist is markedly outstanding in both these respects for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even possible; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations…And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation…Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’ – On the revolutions, now published by Prometheus Books, New York, 1995.

How well the Church’s enemies know their trade. This piece, designed as carefully as the wooden horse of Troy, would ensure the book’s safe passage through the corridors of Rome before it fanned out among the cities of Europe. But more than that, for in the Preface and Dedication to Pope Paul III, Copernicus added a little psychology of his own again, relying on the Pope to protect him from the anger of those philosophers that would surely oppose the heliocentric suggestions of his book.

‘I can reckon easily enough, Holy Father, that as soon as certain people learn that in these books of mine, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the world I attribute certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will immediately shout to have me and my opinion hooted off the stage.’

Historians now agree that Osiander did write the first part of the preface of Copernicus’s book, a ‘hypothesis’ he knew the Church would permit in the interest of science. Kepler, in his Opera Omnia held Osiander entirely responsible. History however, was not kind to Osiander for his strategy. Andrew White for instance, in his book A History of the Warfare…, poured ridicule on Osiander’s tactics:

‘He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus for his novel ideas, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth’s movement not as a fact but as a hypothesis…Thus was the greatest and most ennobling perhaps, of scientific truths – a truth no less ennobling to religion than to science - forced, in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.’—Andrew White, A History of the Warfare…, p.123.–

Von Gebler called the foreword ‘an unprincipled introduction… Osiander’s sacrilegious act.’ (Karl von Gebler: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, 1878, p.1)5. But Osiander knew what he was doing. As far as he was concerned had he not written such a foreword the book may not have seen the light of day. Another consideration was that Protestants were even more vehement in their defence of Scripture. Luther, Melanchthon, and, according to White, Calvin, were to condemn Copernicanism. Luther, records White, went on to call Copernicus ‘an upstart astrologer, who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.’ Melanchthon, in his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six years later, said: ‘The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eight sphere nor the sun revolves…Now it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious….’ Melanchthon goes on to suggest severe measures to restrain such impious teachings as those of Copernicus.

 

[StAnastasia]

Therefore the universe is NOT revolving around you.It is as simple as that. just as Bellarmine compared your type of relativity with a boat leaving the shore. Bellarmine however then walked into it by saying the earth/sun relationship can be resolved in similar manner. It cannot, for unlike the shore, which we know to be fixed relative to a boat, not so the earth.

Stellar parallax proves that the earth is revolving about the sun. I know you are probably not an astronomer, but if you do have a counter theory I encourage you to propose a paper on the topic at the American Astronomical Society (meeting in January in Long Beach – aas.org/meetings/aas213)). I’m not sure it would receive much of a hearing in an audience of people who actually understand astronomy, but it’s worth a shot!

StAnastasia

 

[buffalo]

Stellar parallax proves that the earth is revolving about the sun. I know you are probably not an astronomer, but if you do have a counter theory I encourage you to propose a paper on the topic at the American Astronomical Society (meeting in January in Long Beach – aas.org/meetings/aas213). I’m not sure it would receive much of a hearing in an audience of people who actually understand astronomy, but it’s worth a shot!

StAnastasia

So I can learn more - what did the Airy experiment show?

 

[StAnastasia]

So I can learn more - what did the Airy experiment show?

What yo talkin 'bout?

 

[cassini]

Stellar parallax proves that the earth is revolving about the sun. I know you are probably not an astronomer, but if you do have a counter theory I encourage you to propose a paper on the topic at the American Astronomical Society (meeting in January in Long Beach – aas.org/meetings/aas213)). I’m not sure it would receive much of a hearing in an audience of people who actually understand astronomy, but it’s worth a shot!

StAnastasia

StAnastasia, do you really think I and others would entertain geocentricism if there were proof? Do you think philosophers and scientists like plank and einstein would propose their kind of relativity if there were proof like parallax? Sorry pal, but in a geocentric frame of reference parallax would be the same. Not that I expect you to comprehend such as framework and i just know you will be back asking me to show you how this can be…

 

[buffalo]

What yo talkin 'bout?

The experiment went something like this:

Two telescopes were pointed skyward. The idea was that if the earth were moving the tubes would have to be tilted to acount for the movement. One was filled with water, the expectation that the tube would have to be further tilted. That did not happen. THis was known as Airy’s failure.

 

[cassini]

So I can learn more - what did the Airy experiment show?

Buffalo, the Airy experiment was conducted to resolve the relativity of a phenomenon called stellar aberration. Like StAnastasia thinks and uses stellar parallax to ‘prove’ the earth orbits the sun, so too do/did they use stellar aberration as ‘proof’ for H. But just as you can bet your soul on the Church’s reading of the Bible, Airy found that he could NOT show the earth moves relative to the stars. Indeed quite the opposite, the test showed the stars move relative to the earth. Given this was a no no to the freemasons, they came up with a load of ad hocs to try to worm their way out of it. And guess what, even though Airy proved G, it is still put out as proof for H.

And StAnastasia wants me to submit a paper to that lot of ideologists called astronomers. As far as I am concerned the last GREAT astronomer was the Catholic Domenico Cassini.

 

[John_oxios]

Hi John O. I never disputed what you say about Copernicus and his history. But nowhere will you find that Copernicus did not believe in his system.

Hello Cass,
You disputed the fact that Luther could have made a comment about Copernicus’ Hypothesis/theory. Also that the Catholic Church was silent on the matter for many yrs.

Now you point out here that, the Protestant Church leaders also had a major problem with Copernicus and yes later Galileo to restrain such impious teachings? Melanchthon was Martin Luther’s’ right hand man, in fact it is Melancthon who used Luther’s’ theology and founded the Lutheran Church which too approx sixty yrs after Luther’s’ break from the RCC Church to be fully formed

Von Gebler called the foreword ‘an unprincipled introduction… Osiander’s sacrilegious act.’ (**Karl von Gebler: Galileo Galilei and the Roman Curia, 1878, p.1)**5. But Osiander knew what he was doing. As far as he was concerned had he not written such a foreword the book may not have seen the light of day. Another consideration was that Protestants were even more vehement in their defence of Scripture. Luther, Melanchthon, and, according to White, Calvin, were to condemn Copernicanism. Luther, records White, went on to call Copernicus ‘an upstart astrologer, who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon.’ Melanchthon, in his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six years later, said: ‘The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eight sphere nor the sun revolves…Now it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious….’ Melanchthon goes on to suggest severe measures to restrain such impious teachings as those of Copernicus.

So we just can’t blame the RCC can we??? Besides there was a group of Jesuits who also agreed with Copernicus and later Galileo, who were moving within the Church for change.

The Earth being the center of God’s creation was a teaching based on what They knew of Scripture, not Dogma,

God bless
Johnnie

 

[cassini]

cassini;4501014:

Hello Cass,
You disputed the fact that Luther could have made a comment about Copernicus’ Hypothesis/theory. Also that the Catholic Church was silent on the matter for many yrs.

Johnnie

No John O, I never disputed this. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Back track and find out who. I agree with you, Luther did abhor the H heresy, one of the few things the Lutherans agreed with the Church on.

 

[StAnastasia]

Sorry pal, but in a geocentric frame of reference parallax would be the same.

How can this be, and why don’t more astronomers share your wisdom?

 

[StAnastasia]

And StAnastasia wants me to submit a paper to that lot of ideologists called astronomers. As far as I am concerned the last GREAT astronomer was the Catholic Domenico Cassini.

Cassini, if the Holy Spirit has any interest in the truth, and if your theory that the earth is the center of the universe is true, I’m sure that truth will prevail in short order. Surely the Holy Spirit is not impotent against the heresies propounded by the American Astronomical Society. I’m only a theologian, so I can’t pretend to know the inner workings of the Society, but do propose your paper!

StAnastasia

 

[John_oxios]

John oxios;4502479:

cassini;4501014:

No John O, I never disputed this. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Back track and find out who. I agree with you, Luther did abhor the H heresy, one of the few things the Lutherans agreed with the Church on.

My apologies it was:

Originally Posted by StAnastasia View Post
That passage was written four years before De revolutionibus appeared.

Who’s been pretty silent on the subject, and his error.

God bless,
Johnnie O

 

[StAnastasia]

[ho’s been pretty silent on the subject, and his error.

What error?
[/quote]

 

[John_oxios]

I’m only a theologian, so I can’t pretend to know the inner workings of the Society, but do propose your paper!

StAnastasia

Hello Anastasia,
I tried to look up your profile to view you qualifications as a Theologian, but there is none.
Are we a couch theologian? Or a a professor doctorate of some sort?

God bless,
John

 

[StAnastasia]

Hello Anastasia,
I tried to look up your profile to view you qualifications as a Theologian, but there is none.
Are we a couch theologian? Or a a professor doctorate of some sort?

I do own a couch, but I don’t use it when teaching. B.A. 1978; M.A. 1984; PhD in theology 1993; teaching since then in five Catholic colleges and universities, two seminaries, one monastery. One book; numerous articles and book chapters; consultant to dioceses; correspondent with bishops. Invited participant in 2009 conferece on evolution and Catholic theology at the Vatican; member CTSA.

I have actually read theology on my couch, so I suppose you could say I am in part a couch theologian. But I am also a couch movie critic, as I sit there with my kids to watch movies. But I don’t peel potatoes there, so I’m no couch potato (in my spare time I teach rock climbing).

StAnastasia

 

[John_oxios]

What error?

Hello St Anastasia,
You never admitted the fact That Luther, or other Reformers were against Copernicus’ and later Galileo’s hypothesis…

just misdirected my comments:

Join Date: November 17, 2008
Posts: 59
Hi rosarygirl (my what a lovely name you chose). I’m afraid that there are many inaccuracies in John O’s account. The reason for this is because those who hated/hate the Catholic Church have their version of the history under discussion, and Catholics, because of their perceived view that the Church was proven to have been wrong in their anti-Copernican decree, have also amended history to 'save the Church’s divine guidance. Both sides therefore have perverted history so much that few today are aware of the truth of it.

The fact - taken directly from the records - are that when Copernicus published his book On the Revolutions in 1543, it was prefaced by a Protestant Osiander, who knew both Churches, Catholic and Protestant, interpreted the geocentric passages of Scripture in the same way and that Copernicus’s book would not be tolerated if he did not pull the wool over the eyes of all. So what he did was prefaced it with a denial that Copernicus actually presented heliocentricism as a TRUTH, but only as a tool to further the progress of science. Thus his book was tolerated by the Church in silence.

Pg 7

No, Luther did not think Galileo was way off.

StAnastasia

Show me where the Church has amended their history?
If they had why would John Paul or the Church bother to bring it up two hundred fifty yrs later??

Robert Sugenis, Would say that the Eastern Church loves to doctor documents, but I have never heard anyone accuse the RCC of doing such.

God bless,
Johnnie o

 

[John_oxios]

I do own a couch, but I don’t use it when teaching. B.A. 1978; M.A. 1984; PhD in theology 1993; teaching since then in five Catholic colleges and universities, two seminaries, one monastery. One book; numerous articles and book chapters; consultant to dioceses; correspondent with bishops. Invited participant in 2009 conferece on evolution and Catholic theology at the Vatican; member CTSA.

I have actually read theology on my couch, so I suppose you could say I am in part a couch theologian. But I am also a couch movie critic, as I sit there with my kids to watch movies. But I don’t peel potatoes there, so I’m no couch potato (in my spare time I teach rock climbing).

StAnastasia

Hello St. Anastasia,
I’m impressed. One question though Are we all in as far as Catholic teachings?Or do you have reservations concerning the Teachings of the Catholic Church?

Me? I am a trk driver of thirty yr. 1yr of College in aerospace related field, and a lapsed Catholic of some twenty five yrs. converted back after a ten yr stint searching for the Truth in New age or Protestant Church’s Only to find the Church of the Bible right where I lost myself.

However, I will stand toe to toe with you or anyone else to defend Christ Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Johnnie o

 

[StAnastasia]

Hello St. Anastasia,
I’m impressed. One question though Are we all in as far as Catholic teachings? Or do you have reservations concerning the Teachings of the Catholic Church?

God Bless,
Johnnie o

What do you mean by “we”?

 

[StAnastasia]

Hello St Anastasia, You never admitted the fact That Luther, or other Reformers were against Copernicus’ and later Galileo’s hypothesis.

There was nothing to admit, as Luther died eighteen years before Galileo was born, so he cannot have opposed him.