The case of Galileo is one of the most exploited events in the history of the Catholic Church. It has been used to attack papal infallibility, as well as paint the Church in a bad light for being "anti-science" and backwards. Most recently, it has even become a point to attack Traditionalists on sedevacantism, because if the pope got it wrong then and was still pope, couldn't the same hold true today? I wish to set the record clear on Galileo, and demonstrate how advances in modern science (far from being a problem for Christianity as atheists would like us to think) actually help prove God's existence.
The Case of Galileo Galilei
Galileo was born in Italy in 1564. He was an astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician who played a major role in the science of the 17th century. It was alleged that the Roman Inquisition had him condemned because he championed the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (i.e., the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to geocentrism, where the sun revolves around the Earth). Here are the facts you need to know:
- We are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science. Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See.
- The ignorance of the populace took scandal at what appeared to contradict plain statements of the Bible. (e.g., Ecclesiastes 1:5, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth."). Yet, Galileo was left in peace.
- The problem arose when Galileo tried to prove his theory from Scripture. He was warned in a letter approved by Pope Urban VIII which read, "You ought not to travel out of the limits of physics and mathematics; you should confine yourself to such reasoning as Ptolemy and Copernicus used. Theologians maintain that the interpretation of Scripture is their own personal care."
- Galileo promised to abide by the warning, even as Pope Urban VIII was elevating those who held the Copernican theory to high positions; Galileo himself received a pension. Unfortunately, he soon broke his promise.
- It was out of reverence for the Bible, and to prevent scandal to the weak, that the Inquisition came after Galileo at all. Interestingly, when the great scientist Johannes Kepler (a Protestant) wrote a book in 1596 to defend the Copernican theory and presented it to the Academical Senate of Tubingen, it was pronounced a "damnable heresy," and he was forced to take out the references to Scripture.
- The condemnation of the Inquisition did not give a definition as to the true sense of Scripture. It was a condemnation of Galileo's "special errors"--whatever they may have been. It pronounced no dogma or explained no true meaning to the Bible.
- The word "heresy" as used by the Inquisition, was not used in its specialized theological sense, but rather meant "any offense against the Church." This is proven by the declaration of the Pope stating, "The Copernican system is not condemned, nor is it to be considered heretical, only as rash." The works of Galileo were allowed to be published with the references to Scripture expunged.
The Popes Weigh In
That the Scripture does not contradict true science was made clear by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII. As they explain, the inspired writers explained things in terms commonly used at the time. We still say "the sun rises and sets," even though it is not scientifically accurate because it appears to be that way.
Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) teaches:
"...we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether...If dissension should arise between them [science and scripture], here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.' To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - 'went by what sensibly appeared,' or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to." (para # 18; Emphasis mine)
Again, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed his predecessor's teaching in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):
"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order 'went by what sensibly appeared' as the Angelic Doctor says,speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' " (para. # 3)
Modern Science Offers New Proof of God
Far from being an "enemy of religion," true science and the True Church cannot be in conflict for God is the author of both theological and scientific knowledge. The greatest philosopher in the history of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas (rightfully called "The Angelic Doctor" [1225-1274]), admitted that the universe could have always existed. Philosophically, there was no way to prove that it was NOT eternal. He needed to appeal to Holy Scripture and Church teaching in support for a beginning of the universe.
Prior to the 1920s, scientists had always assumed the universe was stationary and eternal. In 1917, Einstein applied his new General Theory of Relativity to cosmology, and found that it would not permit an eternal, static model of the universe unless he fudged the equations in order to offset the gravitational effect of matter. This was the beginning of what would lead to the "Big Bang Theory," accepted by all scientists today. The standard model describes a universe which is not not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Not only all matter and energy, but even time and space themselves came into being at the initial cosmological singularity out of nothing or ex nihil. This is exactly the teaching of the Church!!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (taken from a Mohammedan philosopher Al-Ghazali), is brilliant and has made discussions of God's existence come alive again in academia. (Let's remember that Aquinas used the pagan philosopher Aristotle's ideas that were judged sound by right reason. So too, we can do the same with an infidel). The argument states:
1. That which begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
We know the truth of (1) from our experience and science. An atheist would be forced to admit of miracles should he deny (1). We know the truth of (2) from science (Big Bang). We know the truth of (3) from the logical deduction of (1) and (2). Moreover, this cause must be:
- Outside of time and space, because they did not yet exist.
- Of enormous power to create out of nothing (ex nihil)
- A personal Being of infinite intellect because He created by means of an intelligent design
Summary and Conclusion
- The Galileo affair has nothing to do with a "papal error"
- True science and true faith cannot contradict each other, as God is the author of science and has revealed the truth about Himself to His One True Church
- Modern science has given new proofs of God's existence
To adjust an old phrase, by "learning how the heavens go," maybe we can strengthen our Faith and devotion so we know better "how to go to Heaven."
Thank you for posting this it is interesting.
ReplyDeleteHowever,the Atheist mindset trying to disprove/discredit the Roman Catholic church is meaningless to me.
Wait until those Atheist's have been metaphorically and/or literally knocked to the ground.At that moment they will call out to Jesus Christ.
Sometimes humility is the best gift we can receive.(I speak from experience)
You make a great point, my friend!
DeleteGod bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, you write:
ReplyDelete"The condemnation of the Inquisition did not give a definition as to the true sense of Scripture. It was a condemnation of Galileo's "special errors"--whatever they may have been. It pronounced no dogma or explained no true meaning to the Bible."
This is not true, I'm afraid. Have you read the condemnation yourself, or only interpretations of it? Here is a link to the text of the document itself:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html
Read it over, and I'm sure you will see that the whole basis of the condemnation was the judgment that the heliocentric thesis was expressly contrary to Scripture.
I understand what you're saying George; I did read the declaration. There are several qualifications.
DeleteAccording to the Good Bishop,
No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.
Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.
In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.
I want to further clarify that it "pronounced no dogma" (it defined nothing) and it reiterated the undefined (and increasingly minority view) of the Church against the novelties of Galileo esp. that the sun is the center of the UNIVERSE. Notice the protection of the Holy Ghost at work! Four Cardinals of the Inquisition refused to sign the declaration, and the popes have subsequently reversed so literal a sense of the Scripture as you have read in my post above.
Delete---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteYes, it's true that the doctrine was not infallibly declared by the pope. Nevertheless, the authority of the condemnation of heliocentrism is so high, I don't see haw any Catholic could dare to gainsay it. For example, in the letter of Cardinal Bellarmine to Galileo in 1616, which played a crucial role in his condemnation decades later, we read that Pope Paul V himself made a declaration "wherein it is set forth that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the Earth moves around 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."
Here's the link to that:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/bellarminestatement.html
What are we to make of this? It certainly seems to me that if the Pope declares something to be expressly contrary to Scriptures and that it cannot be defended or held, it's over. Rome has spoken. The thesis is dead, and nothing can save it.
The sad truth is that the Catholic world decided long ago to submit, not to the teachings and judgments of the Vicars of Christ, but to the ravings of the secular scientists. So, it's really no big surprise that we find ourselves in the position we are today.
The dirty little secret, however, is that science has never proved the motion of the earth -- and it never will either.
The thesis is not dead.
DeleteOn March 11, Galileo had a long audience with Pope Paul V. In a letter written the following day, Galileo says, “I told his Holiness the reason for my coming to Rome…and made known to him the malice of my persecutors and some of their calumnies against me. He answered that he was well aware of my uprightness and sincerity of mind, and when I gave evidence of being still somewhat anxious about the future, owing to my fear of being pursued with implacable hate by my enemies, he consoled me and said that I might put away all care, because I was held in so much esteem both by himself and by the whole congregation of cardinals that they would not lightly lend their ears to calumnious reports. During his life-time, he continued, I might feel quite secure, and before I took my departure he assured me several times that he bore me the greatest goodwill and was ready to show his affection and favour towards me on all occasions.” (See [19] Favaro, Opere di Galileo, n. 1189. Cf. Brodrick, p. 375.)
I don't know where you got that citation to Pope Paul, but even if true, it would be subsequently revoked by the acceptance of heliocentric ideas by Pope Urban and explicitly by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII.
Neither the Holy Office nor the pope was speaking infallibly, nor was it considered as part of the universal and ordinary Magisterium as it was up for free theological discussion, until Galileo wanted the Church to adopt his theory wholesale.
To quote Fr. Lavery:
"The Holy Office is not infallible. Galileo’s case is rather a proof of God’s protection over the Church since, at a time when the majority of people in the world, Catholic, Protestant and atheist, opposed Galileo, the Church did not condemn his teaching in any document protected by infallibility. Pope Pius XII, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, listed Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, among others, as “famous and distinguished investigators of the physical world that surrounds us.'"
---Introibo
To clarify my first citation in the comment above please also see
DeleteRoderick, James. "Robert Bellarmine — Saint and Scholar," West minister, Maryland: Newman Press, 1961.
---Introibo
It's not infallible, but it's authoritative. We ought not bend our necks only to infallibility, but also to duly constituted authority. I myself have decided to assent to all things authoritatively declared by the Church. You should try it. It's very liberating.
ReplyDeleteWhat's more, this issue is bigger than you think. In many ways, it was the first crack in the dike.
Moreover, the condemnation of heliocentrism was never revoked, it was just no longer enforced.
George,
DeleteI must admit, we disagree quite a bit, but I must commend you for ever being a respectful gentleman when you write. It's quite refreshing from others who can't disagree without becoming boors.
I'll say this, if the condemnation were not revoked then how would you explain the subsequent endorsement by Pope Urban, and the explanations of the Biblical passages by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII? How could Pope Pius XII praise someone still condemned? I doubt you would hear him praise the work of pseudoscientist Teilhard de Chardin!
You say that you have decided to accept all things authoritative from the Church. Are not the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII authoritative? Do those encyclicals not give a figurative interpretation to those parts of Scripture that were used to condemn Galileo when formerly held as strictly literal?
I know you reject Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB); if you have changed I apologize in advance. I don't think you have because the mindset is the same. You claim the Church has infallibly ruled that one can be saved with Baptism of water only. Yet this would contradict the clear teaching of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. That's highly authoritative. (And infallible as it is a general discipline promulgated for the Church). What about all the theologians that teach BOD and BOB.
You believe in a Church that can only teach infallibly, and everything else is up for grabs. You believe that a true pope does not revoke something formerly held which was not infallible but can simply "ignore" pronouncements of his predecessors, thus failing to really teach and giving scandal.
Please re-think these positions.
God bless,
---Introibo
You gentlemen are talking way over my head, but I recently saw a video purporting to be current cutting edge cosmology. Just for interest: From studies of background radiation, they claim to have proved that the Earth is the stationary centre of the entire universe which rotates around it. Their reasoning is way above me, but that was their conlusion.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Lamb,
DeleteThank you for this info. I like to stay on top of such things, as advances in science can only help prove God. However, we must be careful. I know of not one reputable scientist which holds to such an opinion. I would be most interested if you could cite me the video. I'll warn you and all my readers about a movie called "The Principle" released in 2014 by V2 apologist Robert Sungenis. He likes calling himself "Dr." for having received a PhD by Calamus University--an unaccredited online "university."
The video the producers posted rebutting the charge that they misled the scientists and narrator of this movie actually confirms that they did indeed keep the participants in the dark as to the true purpose of the documentary. It shows that the contract signed by physicist Lawrence Krauss was carefully worded to avoid any mention of geocentrism, either directly or indirectly, merely stating that the documentary would cover various theories and controversies concerning cosmology. There are indeed plenty of scientific theories--mainstream and controversial--in the field of cosmology, and Professor Krauss has contributed his viewpoint to more than a few science documentaries covering them, but geocentrism isn't one of them. As the producers were no doubt banking on, Professor Krauss would not have even considered the possibility that this vague catch-all language in his contract masked their single-minded purpose of promoting the long debunked pseudo-scientific claim of geocentrism.
Sungenis has tried to answer the charge, but in my opinion, he just looks more foolish. When the V2 sect apologists want you to believe this "science," it's a good reason to reject it!!
---Introibo
Whether or not Sungenis misled the people who made that video, what does that have to do with the statements he quoted, or the conclusions he drew from them? It seems a little bit intellectually dishonest for these scientists to try to backpedal on their own words because they're used to draw a conclusion that goes against the institutional atheism of academia.
DeleteI don't know if the sun or the earth or something else is the center of the universe, and as a Catholic it makes no difference to my Faith. But for a scientist or professor whose job it is to preach atheism it matters a great deal, because geocentrism and atheism are practically incompatible. That's why they've been death on geocentrism for centuries, for as long as they've been death on God Himself.
So I wouldn't put much stock in a statement like "No reputable scientist believes in..." The sad fact is that no reputable scientist believes in the scriptural account of Adam and Eve. They're not being paid to explore the truth about the natural world as they claim. They're being paid to destroy the people's belief in God, and they have been wildly successful.
Of course none of this proves the earth is the center of the universe. And again, I don't know if it is anyway. But we should be very careful in what we accept from the so called scientific community, especially in questions that touch on intelligent design, the origin of man, and the order of the universe.
You make some very good and valid points. We must be careful as to what the scientists say, as some have an agenda and twist information to their liking. I don't see how geocentrism would work against atheism. I do see that they intensely dislike the Big Bang. Communist countries actually forbade its teaching because they claimed the universe always existed so their was no need for a Creator.
Delete---Introibo
Introibo, I've looked into this subject quite a bit over the years. I have a good book somewhere written by an ex-Catholic in the 1800s whose own research into the Galileo affair convinced him that the Church erred infallibly. I'll try and find it. My own position on the subject is yes, indeed the Church did err in a matter of infallibility. For me it's not even a question and apologists who try to excuse the Church remind of Feeneyites who try to explain away Suprema Haec Sacra. Whatever. In addition, I'd like to add that I believe Geocentrism was correct. The Church was indeed correct before it sold out to science. Did the same thing with usury too. But be that as it may, I will always be at odds with Catholics who attempt to defend infallibility. The Galileo affair was the WTC 7 of the official infallibility story.
ReplyDeleteSold out to science? Science and Faith come from the same source: God. I'm not surprised that a geocentrist believes the Church can err. You get things wrong in one place it usually has repercussions in another place.
DeleteA number of non-Catholic authors who have been honest enough to research the case do not agree with this attack on the Church. One in particular, Sherwood Taylor, became a Catholic as a result of his research.
You can't possibly claim to be a Traditionalist--you are a heretic. As a life-long New Yorker who was here on 9/11 as it unfolded, I can tell you that the majority of what was reported was accurate.
You would have me deny the infallibility of the One True Church of Christ while thinking the earth is the center of the universe, and 9/11 was a conspiracy. Oh, boy.
At the risk of sounding uncharitable, please forgive me if I decline to join you in this alternate "reality."
---Introibo
I forgive you. But I wouldn't have you deny anything. You are free to believe whatever you like. Geocentrism is not something that can be proven so I won't argue with you, although I don't believe the prevailing cosmology. But 911? Majority of what was reported was accurate? I'm laughing out loud. I suppose you are going to claim you saw the digital composite airplanes fly by and vanish into the plastic buildings too.
ReplyDeleteNo, silly! Everyone knows it was a UFO piloted by Bigfoot!
Delete---Introibo
Introibo, you write:
ReplyDelete"I don't know where you got that citation to Pope Paul, but even if true, it would be subsequently revoked by the acceptance of heliocentric ideas by Pope Urban and explicitly by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII."
The text of the Certificate that Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine gave to Galileo that contains the declaration of Paul V that heliocentrism was contrary to the Scriptures can be seen here:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/galileo/library/1616docs.htm#certificate
and here:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/bellarminestatement.html
Furthermore, the condemnation of heliocentrism for being contrary to the Scriptures no more contradicts the encyclicals of Pius XII and Leo XII than does the assertion that there are non-Frenchmen in France contradict the notion that France is the home of the French.
As for the suggestion that even Urban VIII was a heliocentrist, I'm afraid I'm going to require a citation for this.
From Bp. Walsh above:
Delete"...Pope Urban VIII was elevating those who held the Copernican theory to high positions; ..."
Why would he be giving promotions to proponents of a condemned proposition? What about Pope Pius XII praising Copernicus?
From theologian Van Noort:
"In the Galileo case, therefore, we have a decision which is by its very nature REVOCABLE and nothing more. As a matter of fact, both the more sensible theologians of the time and a fair number of scientists of the day understood the matter in exactly that light." (See Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology" 2: 309; Emphasis mine). Two such persons noted by Van Noort in his footnote to this passage are St. Robert Bellarmine and astronomer LaPlace, cited in theologian Journet.
---Introibo
I'm serious. There were NO planes. If you say you saw planes hitting the towers you lie. Ace Baker's documentary parts 7 & 8 "911 the Great American Psy-opera" should put it all into perspective. The only planes anybody saw in lower Manhattan that day were only seen on TV.
ReplyDeleteAs above, ..."Pope Urban VIII was elevating those who held the Copernican theory to high positions; ..." Bp. John Walsh. Pope Pius XII praised Copernicus. How could this be so if the formal condemnation stands?
ReplyDelete---Introibo
One of my closest friend's mother was on her way to work at the at the WTC on 9/11 when SHE SAW THE PLANE HIT AND RAN INTO THE SUBWAY. Her son, one of my best friends from law school, spent over 24 hrs getting her out of Manhattan. She called him as soon as she saw the first plane hit. He told me this on 9/13---just 2 days later when he was recovering from the ordeal. Both are converts to Traditionalism (2006) and I know them to be of impeccable character. There are several others who have told me what they saw just days afterwards. All lies? All delusional? Not a chance. People are now claiming no one was killed at Newtown in 2012; it was rigged by the government.
DeletePlease.
---Introibo
She did not see a plane hit the towers. She saw it on TV like everyone else. Sorry, but digital composite airplanes are not real Introibo, and plastic / aluminum planes don't poke holes in buildings and pop out the other side intact. She is the one suffering from delusion.
ReplyDeleteNo, she and the several others I knew saw what they claimed. I have no reason to believe otherwise except for whacky conspiracy theories.
DeleteTell Elvis I said hello.
---Introibo
Introibo I just gave you a solid reason to disbelieve what they claimed. It is impossible for digital planes to crash through steel towers.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know they are digital planes...how?? Why doesn't everyone know? Government cover-up like Newtown?
Delete---Introibo
I heard a highly educated woman on coast to coast say planes did in fact crash into the towers.
ReplyDeleteHer theory is the bldgs turned into dust. How this system is triggered she flat out stated 'I have no idea.However if these bldgs didn't turn into dust,the wreckage would've been twice as high.'
I'm no expert nor am I saying she is 100% correct.
There are a few points of 9/11 that make me question the official story.
For instance,has anyone seen the video of bombs going off after the planes crashed into the towers?
Or the black man on the street covered in dust walking away moments after the first collapse saying 'They were marked similar to military planes.'
I in no way am saying any of these ppl are correct but there are many holes in the official story.
I do believe planes crashed into the towers but who what when where and why are beyond my knowledge.
There is merit in what you write. I, too, am wary of the government and I doubt the veracity of certain claims in the official story. However, to claim that the planes never existed and the eyewitnesses were delusional strains the boundaries of credulity---to say the least!!
DeleteGod bless,
---Introibo
Introibo -
ReplyDeleteThanks for the informative and interesting post. If it wasn't for people like you and the work you do on the internet, I would never have found my way home to the True Roman Catholic Church. Thanks again!
Comments like yours keep me writing Joann!
DeleteGod Bless,
---Introibo
Dear Introibo, Here are a bunch of reference sources. Enjoy! :)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theprinciplemovie.com/buythemovie/?lf=3f2053ff0c9b7f9675ad91a0d48d2830
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgnCRWTCipY&list=PLgOZjsuhyBDBvN-1x_byPQLr7u-4mYZ7a&index=21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBWG-Hy_H4w&list=PLgOZjsuhyBDBvN-1x_byPQLr7u-4mYZ7a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBkUtj96vss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7hkC47Tpb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rwx7bYEUIF4
https://twitter.com/PrincipleMovie/status/771781148481581057
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwyM0CLywu127gMw7aLC0TA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=554TOFX3FW8
Preview YouTube video «The Principle» pre-screening at the University of Arizona
«The Principle» pre-screening at the University of Arizona
Preview YouTube video Rick DeLano, The Principle
Rick DeLano, The Principle
Preview YouTube video Rick Delano & Grimerica Talk Geocentrism
Rick Delano & Grimerica Talk Geocentrism
Preview YouTube video Earth Is Center Of Whole Universe pt 1 by Rick Delano
Earth Is Center Of Whole Universe pt 1 by Rick Delano
Preview YouTube video Dr. Robert Sungenis presentation on Geocentrism in Dallas, Texas
Dr. Robert Sungenis presentation on Geocentrism in Dallas, Texas
Preview YouTube video Geocentrism - Crackpot Theory?
Geocentrism - Crackpot Theory?
Aha! It was "The Principle"! Thanks for the citations Dr. Lamb!
DeleteGod bless,
---Introibo
Hello< I'm a geocentrist. As a Christian I find it very believable that the powers that be have lied to us about just about everything, especially in those matters that pertain to Scripture. Any Christian who reads Genesis can clearly see that the Earth was created first and that only afterwards were the sun and stars and moon put in the heavens. Remember, Earth is where God chose to make it all happen. Christ's incarnation and man's redemption. I'm shocked that a Sedevacantist blog is so stacked against what seems obvious to even the naked eye. The sun is 93 million miles away, yeah right. there is a Sedevacantist named Patrick Henry at www.jmjsite.com who has some really interesting information on Geocentrism posted. There is also a couple of Protestant sites that are compelling in support of Geocentrism. As for infallibility, nah, don't believe it. I mentioned above about a good read for anybody learning how and why the Church erred infallibly. The book is called "The Pontifical Decrees against the doctrine of the Earth's movement and the Ultramontane defense of them" by Rev. William Roberts. This book shatters the myth of Papal Infallibility.
ReplyDeleteOK,
Delete1. You're a heretic. Christ endowed His One True Church with this gift of an infallible Magisterium.
2. The "myth" of papal infallibility is taught from the beginning of the Church. The Galileo case is frequently cited by anti-Catholics to "disprove" papal infallibility. I'd be happy to find Roberts book. I'm sure it's nothing that hasn't been discredited before.
3. The "powers that be" have lied to us about almost everything. That's quite paranoid, to say the least.
4. Genesis, like all Scripture, needs to be interpreted by the Infallible Church which you reject. What "seems obvious to the naked eye" often isn't so. A pencil in a glass of water looks bent but it's not.
5. Patrick Henry is a Home Aloner so it's no surprise he believes in goofy things.
Was the moon landing really filmed in the Arizona desert? The Earth appears flat, we never see the curve, so why not believe that too?
It saddens me when Traditionalists align themselves with whacky conspiracy theories and jettison modern science. All it does is make us look strange and drive people away, especially the educated.
At least you're not a Traditionalist. Perhaps someday you'll accept the One True Faith and reject the wild-eyed notions that are as real as Elvis sightings.
---Introibo
Before I respond, is this blog not open to contrary views and opinions? Do I have to be one of your sedevacantist disciples to post here?
ReplyDeleteMy policy has always been to allow anyone to post provided that they are charitable and there is no vulgar/obscene language. I try to be charitable in return, however, please remember that this is a blog dedicated to the propagation and defense of the Traditionalist Catholic Faith of the One True Church. Therefore, if someone posts a comment that is directly contrary to the Faith or (in my opinion) makes the Faith look foolish, etc, I will defend the Church against all Her enemies. I try to both fair and strong in my defense. Sometimes in expressing myself, I may sound uncharitable. That is not my intention, but sometimes it can't be avoided when dealing with certain persons.
DeleteI have no "disciples" ---only readers. Those who are not of the Faith, I hope to convert. Those of the Faith, I hope God will use me as His unworthy instrument to teach, earn and edify them in this time of the Great Apostasy.
I pray for my readers and remember them all at The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I consider them my extended family of friends in Christ.
---Introibo
Geocentrism means that the one planet on which intelligent life exists also happens to be the center of the universe. Evolutionists believe human life came into being as the result of random collisions of matter, despite staggering odds. For them to admit that this happened on the one planet that is also the center of the universe would be too much of a coincidence even for them, and would indicate the presence of a Creator. They believe we are on a tiny star on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy in some random location.
ReplyDeleteBut you seem to have a great resistance to ideas that go against what the pagan media tells us. I'm not defending the other weird claims above about holographic airplanes on 911 or some of the other odd claims, but I have to say in general that if you have spent your life watching the evening news and reading mainstream newspapers and you think the people producing that stuff are basically honest, then this whole discussion will be a waste of time.
Let me begin by thanking you for a well-written and charitable post. I will respond to your contentions.
Delete1. I do not trust the government, nor do I see conspiracies behind every door. Does the government lie to us? Absolutely. Think, "If you like your doctor and your insurance you can keep them." "I never had sex with that woman Ms. Lewinski." "Read my lips, no new taxes." Yes, the government does lie. Yet, I do not think that everything we see and hear (whether coming from the government or not) is the result of some cabal of evil-doers. I'm glad you do not buy into the weird 9/11 conspiracies, you seem sincere and there is some credibility in what you say, but I'll explain why it fails--and it's not because of what I see on TV and newspapers.
2. Some background. I'm a NYC lawyer, but my first career was a NYC Middle School Science teacher. I taught science for 5 yrs and have a Masters degree. This doesn't make me a scientist or the second-coming of Einstein, to be sure. However, I do have a science background and many of those who make the claims for geocentrism have none, so they get taken in by plausible (yet incorrect) claims.
3. What I have to say now may surprise you: Geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and heliocentrism is not any more or less correct. Let me elaborate;I say "The Sun rose in the east today", and not "the rotation of the Earth relative to the rest of the Universe carried me around to a geometric vantage point where the horizon as seen from my location dropped below the Sun’s apparent position in space." To us, sitting here on the surface of a planet, geocentrism is a perfectly valid frame of reference. However, this frame of reference, called heliocentrism, still is not the best frame for everything. Astronomers who study other galaxies use a galactic coordinate system based on our Milky Way galaxy, and the Sun is just another star inside it.
4. So really, there is no one true center to anything. I suppose you could say the Universe is polycentric, or more realistically acentric.One of the guiding principles used by Einstein in formulating his theory of relativity is that there is no One True Frame of Reference. If there were, the Universe would behave very differently.
5. Those who use relativity say that geocentrism can be right and is just as valid as heliocentrism or any other centrism. That’s correct! But the problem is that using relativity by definition means that there is no One True Frame. So if you use relativity to say geocentrism can really be Geocentrism, you’re wrong. You’re using self-contradictory arguments.
6.Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy.
(Continued below)
7. Without relativity, even your GPS wouldn't work, see http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
Delete8. That is why I believe geocentrism to be false. There are only frames of reference. The heliocentric system works best for the solar system but not for the Universe. For example,we also know earthquakes can affect the rotation of the Earth. That makes sense since they shift the mass around on the surface, and that changes how the Earth spins. To a geocentrist, though, that earthquake affects the entire Universe. Does that make sense?
9. Therefore, the heliocentic model, of a round Earth rotating and revolving around the sun in the solar system (and neither Earth nor Sun being the ultimate True center of the universe works best both logically and mathematically. Hence, based on the manifest weight of the credible evidence, I believe that.
10. Atheists realize that relativity does away with a "true center," and is not tied to evolution. The Kalam Cosmological Argument, using the accepted Big Bang Theory, gives them nightmares.
11. Geocentrism is not an article of Faith. As long as you do not intend to tell others they MUST believe it, you are not a heretic, nor are heliocentrists. Since it does not prevent anyone from going to Heaven, I will not argue the point unless someone (wrongly) states it must be believed as a dogma of Faith.
12. In my opinion, by using largely discredited theories that mainstream people see as very strange, we push people away. It's difficult enough to tell someone Francis is not pope, but then to tell them the Earth is the center of the universe, just makes Traditionalists look out of touch with reality. Who would want to convert?
God bless,
---Introibo
My responses to God's chosen vessel of truth
ReplyDelete1. And I think you're a heretic so big deal.
2. The only trace of infallibility in the ancient Christian Church was found in ecumenical councils. Papal infallibility was a Western innovation that only gained ground after the East - West schism. It only became dogma in 1870. Father Roberts' book is lock tight. I'm glad to introduce his excellent work here on this blog so readers can judge for themselves.
3. That's because you are of the world. According to you, Christ was also a conspiracy theorist.
4. No. Open your bible and read the chronological order of creation. God created the sun and moon and put it in the firmament to provide light for Earth after he created Earth. He did not create a solar system and set Earth to revolve around the sun. The entirety of Scripture centers on God and man, which puts Earth at the center of all creation. The Roman Catholic Church had it correct until it lost the faith and sold out. As I mentioned above, Rome did the same thing on many other things like Usury as proven in Michael Hoffman’s book, “Usury in Christendom: the mortal sin that was and now is not.” More recently, add Ecumenism to the list.
5. Patrick Henry wrote a lengthy article that you can’t refute which is the real reason you don't like him. For the benefit of your readers, especially the newbies, go ahead and read his article "My Petition for Spiritual Help" and let any one of your people answer his questions. Therein they will all learn why your position of "make myself bishop" is completely heretical according the laws of the Roman Catholic Church. As for his take on Geocentrism, Mr. Henry demonstrated that the shadow of the moon during a solar eclipse goes the wrong direction. Note that it’s physically impossible for an object’s shadow to move in the opposite direction when passing a single fixed light source. But I’m sure you’ll come up with an explanation.
Additional comments:
6. The moon landing was definitely 100% hoax. But since you are of the world, you can't see it. Pity. You can add the moon landing to your beliefs that you and your friends personally witnessed digital airplanes (CGIs) fly over your head in NY and that all three WTC skyscrapers spontaneously combusted. BTW, that can be proven very easily. Who's the real fool? Yeah, its you. That’s what happens to people who try and defend a world led by music and television.
7. Conspiracy theorist is a name cowards and liars use to discredit people who threaten to expose their affections for the things of the world over the soul. That's YOU! For the benefit of your reading audience thanks for letting me post here. Good day.
I'm no vessel of truth, but neither am I in need of lithium, and your tirade clearly demonstrates you could use some.
Delete1. It's not merely an opinion that you are a heretic, but under the theology of the Traditional Catholic Church, you are a heretic for denying papal infallibility. I'm not sure if you claim to be a Traditionalist or not, but if you do, you deny a dogma of the Faith and have no right to that name.
2. The Church only defines dogmas when such beliefs are under attack. The very book you cite shows that it was held by the Church Fathers such as St. Augustine said, "Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of Hell do not prevail." [See Psalm Against the Party of Donatus 18] The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary became a dogma in 1950, but it was certainly believed as true many centuries prior--going back to the early Church.
3. No, Christ was not a conspiracy theorist. There has always been a struggle between good and evil since the fall of Lucifer. Any claims made by Christ were backed up by (a) public miracles and (b) His resurrection from the dead proving He was God. When you can perform (a) or (b) we will have something to discuss, not before.
4. You advocate sola Scriptura, a Protestant heresy. The Bible says the Earth was created in six days. Thankfully, those of us who have an infallible guide know that the actual autograph used (written word) was the Hebrew word "yom" which means "a period of time." God created the world in six equal time periods, not necessarily of 24 hours each. The translations were sloppy in putting in the word "day." For fundamental Protestants, this was a source of embarrassment. No so true Catholics!
5. See my rebuttal of Henry and his ilk in my post of 7/4/16, "The Church Can Supply Jurisdiction But Not Common Sense." Michael Hoffman is a bigot and is no scientist. He actually posted here once with factually incorrect information about King Henry VIII, whom he was DEFENDING.
6. Yes, the moon landing was faked. So were the Columbine and Newtown shootings. Elvis faked his death and works as a clerk in my local supermarket. UFOs led by Bigfoot control the media and all people (except you) through mind control techniques. Don't forget to wear your tinfoil hat before you go to sleep.
7. Conspiracy theorists are people who disregard the manifest weight of the credible evidence to believe things that they wish to believe. That's you. Go away from where the evidence leads; the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist.
---Introibo
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to a pdf of Rev. William Roberts' book:
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf
Thanks George!
Delete---Introibo
I agree with our local Thuc line priest.We should concentrate on our souls and eternal salvation.
ReplyDeleteLet's worry about converting to & living out the traditional Roman Catholic faith.
This blog has published my comments regarding our disagreement over Pius XII.
(I think he blew it post 1950 the blog owner disagrees)
If youre rational and do not use vulgar language,he will publish your comments.
This blog owner has stated the SSPX is an option if you have no other alternative.(I agree with him)
He is not a arrogant rude irrational communist.If He was I wouldn't post or read this blog.
God bless you all
(Trump Pence 2016!)
Thank you my friend! Let's keep Hell-ary out of the White House!!
Delete---Introibo
To My Readers,
ReplyDeleteA note about the book by Roberts. The foreword in 2002 shows complete ignorance about Roman Congregations and infallibility, as well as the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. I will be able to dismiss it with authoritative citations to theologians Van Noort and Tanquerey.
according to theologian Van Noort:
"It is beyond question that the whole case of Galileo no ex cathedra decision was ever handed down. The pope was aware of the decree of the congregation, and approved it AS A DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION, even though (as was customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found in the decree itself. But the pope himself in his capacity as pope did not hand down any decision. In the Galileo case, therefore, we have a decision which is by its very nature revocable and nothing more. As a matter of fact, both the more sensible theologians of the time and a fair number of scientists of the day understood the matter in exactly that light." (See Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology" 2: 309; Emphasis in original).
What authority does a congregation have? Theologian Tanquerey's teaching proves the position of Van Noort.
According to theologian Tanquerey:
"The Holy See exercises its Magisterium through certain Congregations, in particular through the Holy Office.
The decrees of the Congregations have more or less value and power as they are approved by the Holy Pontiff:
a. in solemn manner--thence they become acts of the Holy Pontiff and may become infallible; however most decrees of this kind are not infallible because very often the intention of defining the matter in question is lacking, or or one of the necessary conditions [for an infallible definition] is lacking.
b. or in common and ordinary manner---then the decrees remain acts of the Congregation and cannot be infallible." (See "Dogmatic Theology" 1:149-150).
Therefore, the idea that anything more than a REVOCABLE act was made in the case of Galileo is sheer ignorance (at best) and outright lies (at worst).
---Introibo