[geocentrism] Infallibility.

From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <governor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:26:17 +1000
In pursueing the word infallibility, and following up on Galileo, I could not 
ignore this 1910 CE  article wherein, Highlighted in brown, the author is 
indoctrinated by what Science has convinced him to be true concerning a moving 
world, when the evidence was still not, as it is still not today, proven or 
provided.  And thus he is reduced to avoidance, and pretending, looking for 
every loophole, in his denial that the decrees concerning geocentrism were not 
infallible. Yet in attempting to do so, he has inadvertantly placed doubt upon 
an enormous amount of infallibly declared decrees of the past history of the 
church. 

Obviously the Devil through his agency of science, has won a large tactical 
battle against Scripture and the Church, and it began way before the last 
council. 

However, true Catholics can indeed take comfort in the fact that the earlier 
decrees which still stand, have never been revoked "ex cathedra" or their 
contents denied by any decrees whatsoever. Despite the errors of churchmen, 
even Popes,  the infallibility doctrine remains standing and unfaulted.  

It is certain that the scientific dogma of heliocentrism will fall before the 
One True church will ever use "infallibility" to contradict herself.. 

I do not expect the New Church to ever try it for two reasons.  

1.    Philosophically they do not believe in or teach the dogma of 
infallibility, preferring to ignore it than say so definitively. 

2.    Believing themselves to still be the successor and rightful heir to the 
name RCC, they dare not tempt the spirit with any attempted "excathedra" 
pronouncement, knowing full well that such an attempt must call down the wrath 
of God with a violence. Such has been the precedent of History, admittedly just 
one known case of a Pope who tried it on.. who was struck dead in a horrible 
manner before he could finish his heretical pronouncement..   (he knowingly did 
this fully intending to destroy the church and specifically its infallibility 
dogma, which he mentioned in advance) 

From my point of view, they have no need to worry on this score.  They are not 
the Catholic church, and it does not seem reasonable for God to work such a 
supernatural event confirming imposters. Mind you,  It would do no harm if I 
was wrong... 

Here is the relevant passage of which I speak.      

Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index dated 5 March 1616, 
prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any advocating the 
Copernican system. Then followed a decree of the Congregation of the Index 
dated 5 March 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any 
advocating the Copernican system. .........

.......there is no doubt that he (the Pope) fully approved the decision, having 
presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed 
and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical 
authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an 
altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and 
Foscarini rightly urged that the Bible is intended to teach men to go to 
heaven, not how the heavens go. 

At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no 
sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was made to its being 
taught as an hypothesis which explained all phenomena in a simpler manner than 
the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. 
What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, 
"which appears to contradict Scripture". It is clear, moreover, that the 
authors of the judgment themselves did not consider it to be absolutely final 
and irreversible, for Cardinal Bellarmine, the most influential member of the 
Sacred College, writing to Foscarini, after urging that he and Galileo should 
be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena -- an 
unexceptional proposition, and one sufficient for all practical purposes -- but 
should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus 
continued: 

  I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not 
revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be 
necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of 
Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have 
misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.
[geocentrism] Infallibility.

Other related posts:
