Jesuits in Rome looking to aliens to save humankind.
#21
(03-28-2014, 04:50 AM)jhfromsf68 Wrote: Since the topic is on alien life forms, I was wondering if anyone here has had any close encounters that they don't mind sharing about. I've had four distinct experiences with UFO's and related phenomenon. I've never shared these before and I would like to get them off my chest. Maybe I should start a new thread?
Fortunately I had no close encounters, only a few times I saw exceptionally strange lights in the sky. Please do start this thread, it'll be most interesting.

By the way, I do think that if the governments or the Vatican tells us that an extraterrestial race has come to visit us, I'll know they've begun to implement the NWO.
Reply
#22
Well we have an idea how it all might go down  :P




I really didn't like that they canceled this series, it was really good...and yes I'm well aware of the 80s mini-series with the kick-a** Michael Ironside.
Reply
#23
To understand the Vatican's interest in aliens one has to know the history of the Galileo case. After Rome conceded to the heliocentric heresy it had condemned in 1616, the only way to save face was to show the Church had learned its lesson by going along with the Copernican revolution from 1741 onwards. That revolution went from a God-could-only-have-created-the-geocentric-world-we all-see-with-our-eyes to one created by a big bang 5 billion years ago that formed a solar system that has the earth as one of its planets where life evolved and gave rise from bacteria to the body of Adam and eventually even the human part of the body of Jesus Christ. This big bang heliocentric world could not have been the only one because billions of other solar systems HAD to contain similar sited planets where the conditions matched the earth causing a SIMILAR NATURAL EVOLUTION of life that evolved into their version of intelligent man we call extraterrestrials. To get to earth they MUST HAVE INTELLIGENCE even greater than man's.
Now for the boys in Rome to be considered modern astronomers and cosmologists, invited to speak at institutions all around the world, they must show the Church has grown up since it put Galileo on trial for formal heresy based on that stupid Bible whose writers did not know the truth was the opposite of what they wrote. To prove to the world the Vatican is into science and that we will adjust that belief in creation to comply with real truth SCIENCE, the Pontifical Academy of Science was founded in 1847 and reinvented in 1936. Pope after pope attended its meetings telling its mainly agnostic intellectuals how grateful the Church is for their input intp a greater understanding of the material world. From Pope Pius XII approving the Big Bang was God's creative act, to Pope John Paul II telling us of Einstein's brilliance and gifts to science. Thus we can claim our CHURCH is at the top of the scientific ladder with all the agnostics and atheists. Yes, Catholicism is now science compatible, not like those troublemakers of 1616 and 1633 (Gaudium et Spes No. 36). 

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questio...4_UFO.html

I was sent this site too by a Vatican alien-watcher. It was an add for the Vatican astronomers willing to teach all about the cosmos, including extraterrestrial life. When I opened it today I find it had disappeared, gone, back to that planet 'that has to be out there. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/NewsB...zDId86idGI

Be aware that Pope Pius II in 1459 in his letter 'Cum sicut' condemned the idea

2) That God created another world than this one, and that in its time many other men and women existed and that consequently Adam was not the first man.

Put in context today 'another world' could be another universe, another sun, moon earth system, and 'men and women' could apply to other intelligent creatures.




Reply
#24
Everyone should keep in mind when reading thr article that the author, Michael Snyder, despite many excellent articles, is a protestant and has some anti-Catholic beliefs.
Reply
#25
"cassini" Wrote:After Rome conceded to the heliocentric heresy it had condemned in 1616, the only way to save face was to show the Church had learned its lesson by going along with the Copernican revolution from 1741 onwards
So it's been over 250 years since the Church began teaching heresy? Wouldn't that mean we're not the true Church?
Reply
#26
(03-28-2014, 11:43 AM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"cassini" Wrote:After Rome conceded to the heliocentric heresy it had condemned in 1616, the only way to save face was to show the Church had learned its lesson by going along with the Copernican revolution from 1741 onwards
So it's been over 250 years since the Church began teaching heresy? Wouldn't that mean we're not the true Church?

That PolishTrad is one of the usual responses to this dilemma. Some Trads have no problem with the heresies of Vatican II and retaining their one true Church, but when told of this heresy rampant in the Church since 1741 they have a problem keeping their one true Church.

It all comes down to the one thing. The only guarantee the one true Church can give NOW is that the Church will never teach a heresy OFFICIALLY. The Copernican heresy (That the sun does not move and that the earth is not created at the centre of the universe and moves, AND that the Scriptures be read accordingly) entered the Church by stealth. Indeed the last pope to drop the ban on books containing the heresy did so 'without explicit comment.' From then on every Catholic PRESUMED the truth was Copernicanism.

Similarly with the post Vatican II heresies. Not one post Vatican pope dared define that Catholics must believe in any of their heresies. It was all done and said outside the 'gates of hell' so to speak.

Reply
#27
I myself, have always wondered about that-that is to say, if Traditionalist are just the equivalent of post-councilor neo-conservatives in regards to the papal magisterium of Popes Pius IX-Pius XII.  Though it would seem to me that the problem with your insistence that we are obligated to believe that the sun orbits the earth is the very same problem with the Second Vatican Council-and those who accept its validity, yet claim that it teaches error. It, to put it plainly, makes the ordinary magisterium of the Church a joke. If you can't trust the Pope, who Christ gave the Church to strengthen us in faith,  without wondering if obeying him and his pronouncement puts one's soul at risk, then our whole religion falls apart.

To illustrate, some sedevacantist, as well as those who are not, have made the claim that the Church's pronouncements on Jansenism are in error, apparently, they say, the Church father's writings indicate that they were in favor of the Jansenist position even before it came be called as such. Most of us, hopefully, when seeing groups such as these, would not take them seriously. We would reason that the Holy Ghost has guided the Church and that the many pronouncements against Jansenism (even though they are not infallible) means that we are justified in rejecting it and do not have to worry about the possibility of ending up in hell because of it. I think the same logic could apply to geocentricism-I doubt any Pope in the last two hundred years was one and they all seem to have said in various ways that it was okay and did not contradict the faith-heck they lifted the condemnation of Copernican ism in 1820 for crying out loud.
Reply
#28
(03-28-2014, 01:43 PM)cassini Wrote:
(03-28-2014, 11:43 AM)PolishTrad Wrote:
"cassini" Wrote:After Rome conceded to the heliocentric heresy it had condemned in 1616, the only way to save face was to show the Church had learned its lesson by going along with the Copernican revolution from 1741 onwards
So it's been over 250 years since the Church began teaching heresy? Wouldn't that mean we're not the true Church?

That PolishTrad is one of the usual responses to this dilemma. Some Trads have no problem with the heresies of Vatican II and retaining their one true Church, but when told of this heresy rampant in the Church since 1741 they have a problem keeping their one true Church.

It all comes down to the one thing. The only guarantee the one true Church can give NOW is that the Church will never teach a heresy OFFICIALLY. The Copernican heresy (That the sun does not move and that the earth is not created at the centre of the universe and moves, AND that the Scriptures be read accordingly) entered the Church by stealth. Indeed the last pope to drop the ban on books containing the heresy did so 'without explicit comment.' From then on every Catholic PRESUMED the truth was Copernicanism.

Similarly with the post Vatican II heresies. Not one post Vatican pope dared define that Catholics must believe in any of their heresies. It was all done and said outside the 'gates of hell' so to speak.
Well, but if the Sun revolves around the Earth, then isn't the quote from Benedict XV:
Quote:though this earth on which we live may not be the center of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ.
in essence the same as
Quote:though Our Lord Jesus Christ may not be the sole Redeemer of the mankind as at one time was thought
?
In saying so I wouldn't be formally a heretic ('may'), but should a pope in his encyclical write so? It's official after all.
Reply
#29
The decree of 1616
The Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina prompted the papal authorities to decide whether heliocentrism was acceptable. Galileo was summoned to Rome to defend his position. The Church accepted the use of heliocentrism as a calculating device, but opposed it as a literal description of the solar system. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo's model made "excellent good sense" on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:

"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."
—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448

In 1758 the Catholic Church dropped the general prohibition of books advocating heliocentrism from the Index of Forbidden Books.[51] Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
Reply
#30
Polish Trad.

The sedevacantist Brother Dimond uses Benedict XV's quote (out of his letter on DANTE) as proof that the 1616 decree was not a proper binding decree.

It does not, for note the pope says MAY NOT BE, leaving it an open question. He of course must have been aware that science had 'proven' the earth goes round the sun, and the fact that there was an about turn done by popes from 1741 to 1835 on the geocentric position in science and Scripture. If that about turn had been an official abrogation, he would have had to say WAS NOT.
To compare it with the indisputable dogma of CHRIST being the sole redeemer of mankind is not on for it was never challenged unofficially by any pope.
I think we will leave this problem to other threads on the subject. So let us get back to the extraterrestrials.

Some day they will present us with aliens. If they do you can guarantee they will be demons.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)