St Peter's Basilica

St Peter's Basilica

Subscribe to EverythingCatholicBlog

Search This Blog

Monday, 24 October 2016

John Paul II, Vatican II and Condemnation of Galileo: The Devil is in the Details of this Idiocy!



Image result for galileo images

As we have read in the past, John Paul II of most unfortunate memory opened his foul mouth and pleaded that the Catholic Church be forgiven for ‘condemning’ the work of Galileo!


This ‘apology’ makes one wonder whether they henchmen of Novus Ordo religion has any brains at all. They pander on popular myths to make themselves popular!


But the question they fail to answer is ‘how was the Church wrong in condemning Galileo’? What did Galileo do to deserve censure from the inquisition?


At the end we see that Galileo was a heretic not because of his science but because of his theology! So the idea that the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for his science is a myth of idiotic proportions!



Notwithstanding these questions the evil document of Vatican II Gaudium et spes, ‘the Pastoral Constitution of Vatican Council II’, “deplored” the condemnation issued by the Inquisition against Galileo, in this way giving a powerful support to the revolutionary myths. The following paragraph is considered a mention to Galileo’s condemnation:



“The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are. We cannot but deplore certain attitudes, not unknown among Christians, deriving from a shortsighted view of the legitimate autonomy of science; they have occasioned conflict and controversy and have misled many into opposing faith and science” (GS n. 36b)



In one of the few footnotes of the 16 conciliar documents, Gaudium et spes recommends to the reader the then recently published work Vita e opera di Galileo Galilei [Life and Works of Galileo] by Pio Paschini (2 vols., Published by Editrice Vaticana, 1964). It was the way the myth makers at Vatican II found to say that the non-specific quoted text in Gaudium et Spes should be understood as referring to Galileo.



John Paul II, the Great apostate,  took the same path of reinforcing the revolutionary myth about Galileo when he criticized the attitude of the Church regarding the scientist on several occasions. First, he issued a vague critique on November 10, 1979 in the speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he established the commission to study Galileo’s case. Addressing the international scientific community, he stated:



“I desire that theologians, scientists, and historians, in a spirit of open collaboration, profoundly examine the case of Galileo and honestly recognized the errors of any party, and extinguish those suspicions that impede a fruitful concord between science and faith, between the Church and the world”



Second, on September 22, 1989, when visiting the city of Pisa, he issued an indirect acerbic critique of the past condemnation of the Church and said: “Galileo, an example for all, and also for the Church”



Third, during that same visit, he put aside the indirect allusions, and directly and rudely condemned the behavior of the Church. He said:


“Galileo Galilei, whose scientific work was in its beginning improvidently attacked, today is recognized by all as an essential step in the methodology of research, and generally as an essential step along the road of knowledge about the world of nature” .



This statement, considered “definitive” by the Vatican spokesman (Navarro-Valls, press conference, Corriere della Sera, March 30, 1990), raised the enthusiastic applause of revolutionaries and progressivists, and the chagrin of those charged with the impartial study. In fact, Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the commission of studies on the condemnation of Galileo, admitted: “I don’t know if the commission still exists …. I believe that the task is over” .So the Great apostate, John Paul II went ahead to apologize for the non-existent assault on Galileo before his own commission discovers there is no need for an apology! 

He simply wanted to make an apology to impress the myth machine so that they can continue to attach the Church! Interesting for those who say john Paul II is a saint! 

What a mockery! 


But the game was not over with the apology!


The haste of John Paul II who “definitively” judged on the topic before the end of the scientific study, 'Cardinal' Poupard presented the final results of the research on October 31, 1992. Under such powerful papal pressure, it is not surprising that Poupard tried as much as possible to tailor the commission’s conclusions to fit the previous partial judgment of JPII. The 'Cardinal' stressed the “relative character” of the condemnation of Galileo and touched superficially on the essential points of the issue. 

He affirmed:


“The philosophical and theological qualifications, abusively attributed to the new theories regarding the centrality of the sun and the mobility of earth, were the consequence of a period of transition in the realm of the knowledge of astronomy, and an exegetical confusion regarding cosmology”



He concluded that those who condemned Galileo had committed a “subjective error of judgment.” He ended his statement with words that revealed he was working under pressure: “We need to recognize these errors as Your Holiness asked”.


We see here that this ‘cardinal’ had to bend to the pressure from JPII to make sure the outcome of the said study coincides with the myth of JPII about Galileo!


We see the devilish John Paul II’s religion, the Novus Ordo religion at work!


Now to clarify what really happened, what made Galileo face the inquisition, the blogger, Intriobo has published a great piece about the Galileo affair to help us all see the true picture and to prove that the Catholic Church does not condemn science. This piece also proves that the Catholic Church contributed immensely to the development of science and has NEVER worked against science. The piece also demolished the argument that the pope was wrong then and remained pope why not Francis remain pope despite his being wrong on many fronts?

Read:


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 information above was condensed by me from The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Stated and Vindicated by Bishop John Walsh [1875]).



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 
 Doesn't that describe God?



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."  



Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast day of St. Raphael, 24th October 2016


Related post of Interest:

Bearing false Witness: Debunking Centuries of anti-Catholic History











No comments:

Post a Comment