Catholic heliocentrism

[Marc_Anthony]

It didn’t stop someone working out an detailed moral system though. On the other hand if you’re arguing for sola scriptura, who am I to blow against the wind?

I think the answer here’s obvious, no? A detailed morals system helps us to achieve salvation. But knowing exactly how the universe was created doesn’t.

It’s slightly circular because I believe if it WAS necessary/very very helpful to know exactly how the universe was created then God would have revealed it to us, but whatever.

 

[inocente]

It’s slightly circular because I believe if it WAS necessary/very very helpful to know exactly how the universe was created then God would have revealed it to us, but whatever.

I was joking in part, and found the following by a certain J Ratzinger which explains an excellent position.

Scroll down to the last para of the section “True God vs. false gods”. Note how he dismisses the seven days as a literary device and cares not a jot for traditionally claimed authorship. Explicitly, scripture is organic, none of the creation accounts are perfect, and implicitly further perfection is allowed for after the Bible was canonized, including presumably (?) scientific accounts. All these point to one truth.

He’s a much more spiritual guy than I gave credit (apologies Señor Ratzinger), going far deeper than the usual CAF debate. Be nice to have a chat with him sometime.

(Later on he loses focus a little on evolution, seeing it as a sequence of mistakes rather than accidents that overcome “mistakes”, but that’s OK given the Catholic tradition of seeing us as more than flesh).

philvaz.com/apologetics/p81.htm

 

[journierman]

If you mean the men inside the Vatican, those supposedly about the business of protecting the Church’s position,well they all turned Copernican bar one in 1741-1835 and thus propagate their opinion that Catholics can now accept what was once defined and declared as formal heresy as a truth compatible with the Scriptures.search.

Wait a minute. So you are saying that for almost 300 years all the bishops of the Catholic Church and all the popes have held to a formal heresy and allowed that heresy to be taught in Catholic schools and to be believed by 99.999% of all Catholics without one single word of warning or any effort discouraging anybody away from that heresy?

Catholic Church, meet the gates of Hell.

Come on, fella this does not add up.

 

[grannymh]

Wait a minute. So you are saying that for almost 300 years all the bishops of the Catholic Church and all the popes have held to a formal heresy and allowed that heresy to be taught in Catholic schools and to be believed by 99.999% of all Catholics without one single word of warning or any effort discouraging anybody away from that heresy?

Catholic Church, meet the gates of Hell.

Come on, fella this does not add up.

Of course it doesn’t add up.

There have been miles of posts explaining that the Catholic Church does not consider the 1616 decree as part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

There have been miles of posts explaining that the 1616 decree is in no way, no how, a duly defined and universally declared theological dogma. Thus, there is no formal heresy despite all the current yelling of the four-letter word heresy to win a scientific point.

Apparently, there is some kind of personal need to use Catholicism as a proof for a scientific theory.

 

[cassini]

Wait a minute. So you are saying that for almost 300 years all the bishops of the Catholic Church and all the popes have held to a formal heresy and allowed that heresy to be taught in Catholic schools and to be believed by 99.999% of all Catholics without one single word of warning or any effort discouraging anybody away from that heresy?

Catholic Church, meet the gates of Hell.

Come on, fella this does not add up.

At best we can say their heresy is hopefully material. Inculpable ignorance excuses them from formal heresy, due to their belief thast science has proven the 1616 decree to have been erroneous. Since 1905 however that ignorance should have been corrected. Alas now they believe heliocentrism as a scientific dogma, that is, they have placed their faith now in science rather than in the Church of 1616.
Fortunately the Catholic Church is not involved in this as all anti-1616 decree Copernicans acted outside the Church’s magisterium. Proof for this is that nowhere will you find any suggestion of abrogation, the only way to overturn a papal decree, nor was there ever a retrial of Galileo, the only official way to overturn his condemnation as a suspected heretic.

Then again you could believe pope granny who also speaks unofficially for the Church.

 

[hugh_r.miller]

I believe Hugh Miller will be one of the speakers at the Sungenis conference on geocentrism, specifically on the topic of Carbon-14 dating showing support for Young Earth creationism.

Yes I was invited to speak as a scientist who has been involved in laboratory and/field research since 1953 – specifically electrochemistry. In 1968 or so I became totally disenchanted with the theory of evolution that man has evolved from a common ancestor with the chimps going one direction and man going another. In 1982 I branched out [on the side] into the study of fossil ichnites [trace impressions like footprints of man and dinosaur] and then C-14 dating of the fossils – even worked in a small C-14 dating research lab for three years, 2000-2003.

After repeated discoveries of distinct pristine human prints with dinosaurian ones by many teams in the Glen Rose TX Cretaceous rock strata I and other teams began C-14 dating the fossils instead of radiometrically dating the rocks. So from 1986 on the teams I worked with began C-14 dating dinosaur bones and other fossils culminating in a series of technical papers including the last one published in late 2009 by the National Research Council of Italy [The CNR] in a book with other papers and edited by Dr. Roberto de Mattei, VP and historian with The CNR book entitled, Evolutionism: The decline of an hypothesis.

Hopefully this book eventually will be published in English so that CAF staff and members might have a chance to come to the same realization that I have – that the evolution hypothesis - mud changing into people by unknown processes over millions and billions of years - will join the pile of junk sciences along with the “Philosopher’s stone burning lead to gold.”

Meanwhile I will let the spirit lead me where It will as so admirably put by Blessed Cardinal Newman:

'In 1833 Newman had written the wonderful hymn, Lead Kindly Light. His trust in that ‘Light’ was absolute. His faith in Divine Providence was evident in all his preaching. In one sermon he stated:

“Let a person who trusts he is on the whole serving God acceptably,
look back upon his past life, and he will find how critical were moments and acts,
which at the time seemed the most indifferent: as for instance the school
he was sent to, his falling in with those persons who have most benefitted him,
the accidents which determined his calling or prospects.
God’s hand is ever over his own, and He leads them forward by a way they
know not.” ’ REF: Catholic forum on Cardinal Newman.

 

[grannymh]

In two thousand years, has no one in the Church thought to go beyond anything to do with Creation except God done it? I mean there’s conservative and ultra-conservative but…

There are plenty of Catholics and other Christians who have explored natural science, etc.

What I am saying is that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church does not make a duly defined and universally declared theological dogma out of what rightfully belongs in the realm of science.

 

[Pat_De]

Of course members of the Church have thought of it. But the Church is only bound to tell what God has revealed to them. God has revealed to them that He has created the universe. Not much more (I hesitate to say something as constricting as nothing more).

Wouldn’t it be easier to proclaim that God has created everything that has ever existed? The only thing I can think of outside of that is that He allowed sin, but did not create sin; if sin is an actual creation, which I do not believe it is since sin is actually rebellion against God.

I believe God when He said He created in a literal six days; why would anyone take another view? God did make it absolutely clear that my 10 year old can read it and tell me it took six days for God to create the universe. If it was important for God to communicate this, then should we not accept it and rejoice in it?

 

[DavidPalm]

At best we can say their heresy is hopefully material. Inculpable ignorance excuses them from formal heresy, due to their belief thast science has proven the 1616 decree to have been erroneous. Since 1905 however that ignorance should have been corrected. Alas now they believe heliocentrism as a scientific dogma, that is, they have placed their faith now in science rather than in the Church of 1616.
Fortunately the Catholic Church is not involved in this as all anti-1616 decree Copernicans acted outside the Church’s magisterium. Proof for this is that nowhere will you find any suggestion of abrogation, the only way to overturn a papal decree, nor was there ever a retrial of Galileo, the only official way to overturn his condemnation as a suspected heretic.

Then again you could believe pope granny who also speaks unofficially for the Church.

Cassini, I can certainly appreciate your desire to defend the Church’s integrity, but I’m not sure you’re seeing the full ramifications of what you’re saying. You speak very generally of “they” and “them”, without acknowledging that you are speaking of a whole succession of Popes and all the bishops in communion with them.

Over in another thread you explicitly admit that you believe that this “heresy” will harm the faith of the faithful. Is it really true, then, that the entire hierarchy themselves hold a heresy and allow it to spread unchecked for centuries without one word or action to check it? And this has been the status quo for centuries? Notice what happened to Pope Honorius I who, in reply to an heretical letter penned by Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, utilized the phrase “one will”. Most scholars agree that he did not hold the heresy to which he was responding. But he was formally condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and this condemnation was affirmed by Pope Leo II: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Here you tell us that not siding with the condemnation of Galileo will cause tremendous harm to the Church’s credibility, indeed will undermine her claim to infallibility.

So then, what does siding with the pronouncements against Galileo do? For almost three hundred years now, not one word has been said by any bishop or any Pope in condemnation of this “formal heresy”. This includes even the sainted Pius X and the beatified Pius IX and John XXIII. More than that, this “formal heresy” has been openly taught in Catholic grade schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and pontifical institutions. This “formal heresy” has been presented as established fact in numerous articles and books written by Catholics and for Catholics, many of which bear the Church’s imprimatur and nihil obstat. It is believed by the vast majority of the Catholics of the world—that includes the world’s bishops and priests, not to mention the Pope. The Magisterium has given the faithful not one hint that there is any problem whatsoever in believing this “formal heresy”, let alone actively and repeatedly warn them away from it. More than that, a Pope has publicly apologized for the treatment of Galileo, which could do nothing but bolster the view that this belief is perfectly legitimate for the faithful to hold.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but typically within the testosterone-drenched apologetics of those like Sungenis, the only reason anyone could possibly fail to teach openly against a “formal heresy” is if he’s either a simpleton or a coward. Which again tars the entire Catholic magisterium for the past 300 years as either dupes or traitors.

It seems amazing to me that you would be willing to uphold the logical conclusion of your position, namely that all the Popes at least from Benedict XIV (1740) up through Benedict XVI (present), along with all the bishops in communion with them, have utterly failed to exercise the vigilance their office demands of them. According to your position they “did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Now there are very good reasons not to hold that the motion of the earth is a “formal heresy”. But the indefectibility of the Catholic Church is without a doubt a dogma of the faith. I see no way your position can be held in light of that dogma and thus, to be blunt, it seems to me that it is you who are flirting with heresy. GrannyH and others have demonstrated that it is relatively easy to harmonize the indefectibility of the Church with a mistake made by a theological commission, even one approved by the Pope. It is far easier to see that terrestrial motion is a matter of scientific belief and not a matter of faith and morals, to believe that a commission of theologians erred in their judgment of Galileo, than that the entire Church, hierarchy and faithful, have been plunged into this “formal heresy”.

It would seem that those who hold this extreme position with respect to geocentrism are like a monkey grasping a pebble in a precious Ming vase, unwilling to give up his prize and willing instead to smash the jar in order to have it. Or perhaps more like a man who would burn down a whole building, with all the people in it, just to kill a rat.

 

[grannymh]

Can someone explain to me the Vatican’s position on the Copernican thory on the relationship among the Earth, the sun and the planets? I mean, a Catholic can believe it as a scientific fact in good conscience, right?

If you are looking for a duly declared Catholic theological dogma on the Copernican theory, there is none. Thus, one is free to study the Copernican theory, discuss the science surrounding it, and choose what to believe regarding it.

The physical positions of the sun, planets, moon, earth are matters of science exploration. As such, they can be discussed by anyone, including high ranking clergy. However, any individual in the Catholic Church can caution people regarding scientific explorations. Usually, this is done in a positive format by stating the appropriate theological dogma.

For example. Recently, Stephen Hawking wrote a book attempting to show that God is not needed regarding the physical and material universe. Catholics reply with the theological dogma, God is the Creator of all.

 

[grannymh]

Then again you could believe pope granny who also speaks unofficially for the Church.

Cassini.

Putting your sarcasm aside, I respectfully suggest that you owe the Catholic Church an apology for misrepresenting its local actions as an universal, duly defined and declared dogma which is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

 

[grannymh]

Can someone explain to me the Vatican’s position on the Copernican thory on the relationship among the Earth, the sun and the planets? I mean, a Catholic can believe it as a scientific fact in good conscience, right?

If you are looking for a duly declared Catholic theological dogma on the Copernican theory, there is none. Thus, one is free to study the Copernican theory, discuss the science surrounding it, and choose what to believe regarding it.

The physical positions of the sun, planets, moon, earth are matters of science exploration. As such, they can be discussed by anyone, including high ranking clergy. However, any individual in the Catholic Church can caution people regarding scientific explorations. Usually, this is done in a positive format by stating the appropriate theological dogma.

For example. Recently, Stephen Hawking wrote a book attempting to show that God is not needed regarding the physical and material universe. Catholics reply with the theological dogma, God is the Creator of all.

 

[grannymh]

Then again you could believe pope granny who also speaks unofficially for the Church.

Cassini.

Putting your sarcasm aside, I respectfully suggest that you owe the Catholic Church an apology for misrepresenting its local actions as an universal, duly defined and declared dogma which is part of the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

 

[cassini]

Cassini, I can certainly appreciate your desire to defend the Church’s integrity, but I’m not sure you’re seeing the full ramifications of what you’re saying. You speak very generally of “they” and “them”, without acknowledging that you are speaking of a whole succession of Popes and all the bishops in communion with them.

Over in another thread you explicitly admit that you believe that this “heresy” will harm the faith of the faithful. Is it really true, then, that the entire hierarchy themselves hold a heresy and allow it to spread unchecked for centuries without one word or action to check it? And this has been the status quo for centuries? Notice what happened to Pope Honorius I who, in reply to an heretical letter penned by Sergius the Patriarch of Constantinople, utilized the phrase “one will”. Most scholars agree that he did not hold the heresy to which he was responding. But he was formally condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and this condemnation was affirmed by Pope Leo II: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Here you tell us that not siding with the condemnation of Galileo will cause tremendous harm to the Church’s credibility, indeed will undermine her claim to infallibility.

So then, what does siding with the pronouncements against Galileo do? For almost three hundred years now, not one word has been said by any bishop or any Pope in condemnation of this “formal heresy”. This includes even the sainted Pius X and the beatified Pius IX and John XXIII. More than that, this “formal heresy” has been openly taught in Catholic grade schools, high schools, colleges, universities, and pontifical institutions. This “formal heresy” has been presented as established fact in numerous articles and books written by Catholics and for Catholics, many of which bear the Church’s imprimatur and nihil obstat. It is believed by the vast majority of the Catholics of the world—that includes the world’s bishops and priests, not to mention the Pope. The Magisterium has given the faithful not one hint that there is any problem whatsoever in believing this “formal heresy”, let alone actively and repeatedly warn them away from it. More than that, a Pope has publicly apologized for the treatment of Galileo, which could do nothing but bolster the view that this belief is perfectly legitimate for the faithful to hold.

I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but typically within the testosterone-drenched apologetics of those like Sungenis, the only reason anyone could possibly fail to teach openly against a “formal heresy” is if he’s either a simpleton or a coward. Which again tars the entire Catholic magisterium for the past 300 years as either dupes or traitors.

It seems amazing to me that you would be willing to uphold the logical conclusion of your position, namely that all the Popes at least from Benedict XIV (1740) up through Benedict XVI (present), along with all the bishops in communion with them, have utterly failed to exercise the vigilance their office demands of them. According to your position they “did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”

Now there are very good reasons not to hold that the motion of the earth is a “formal heresy”. But the indefectibility of the Catholic Church is without a doubt a dogma of the faith. I see no way your position can be held in light of that dogma and thus, to be blunt, it seems to me that it is you who are flirting with heresy. GrannyH and others have demonstrated that it is relatively easy to harmonize the indefectibility of the Church with a mistake made by a theological commission, even one approved by the Pope. It is far easier to see that terrestrial motion is a matter of scientific belief and not a matter of faith and morals, to believe that a commission of theologians erred in their judgment of Galileo, than that the entire Church, hierarchy and faithful, have been plunged into this “formal heresy”.

It would seem that those who hold this extreme position with respect to geocentrism are like a monkey grasping a pebble in a precious Ming vase, unwilling to give up his prize and willing instead to smash the jar in order to have it. Or perhaps more like a man who would burn down a whole building, with all the people in it, just to kill a rat.

I once described the Galileo case as the largest can of worms in history. Above is that can of worms opened up for all to see. There are important errors in it however. Given your post has used up all alloted space, I will post this and give you my position on new post.

 

[cassini]

OK David, here it is as I found it.

It has always troubled me that the Catholic Church was considered wrong in its 1616 papal degree as to how the Scriptures should be interpreted. It always troubled me that the Council of Trent should get it wrong on the Fathers interpretation of Scripture. I thought the Church was protected by the Holy Ghost in such matters as papal decrees.

Then in 1905 Albert Einstein re-established a scientific fact known to Copernicus and Cardinal Bellarmine, the fact of relativity. This relativity precludes man’s science or reasoning proving or falsifying the 1616 decree. So, I said to myself, the Church was not proven wrong.

Now unlike most other posters I decided to go back into the historical records to see when, why and how this papal decree was abandoned. I visited libraries, bookshops, and received presents of galileo related books from friends. Unlike others before, we now have details of the galileo case never before made public. One such book is Maurice A Finocchiaro’s RETRYING GALILEO.

Now I was led to believe that papal decrees were infallible, be the ex cathedra ones or decrees of the ordinary magisterium. Reading the conditions for infallibility and Catholic adherence in the Vatican I documents one finds the 1616 decree clearly comes under the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium.

One also learned as a Catholic that no papal decree can be overturned without an act of abrogation, an explanation as to why the decree is being officially abandoned. As for Galileo’s conviction, that too would take a new trial finding him not guilty of suspected heresy. Speeches to the PAS by Pope John Paul II are not official acts of the Church so count for little except opinion.

So, thanks to Finocchiaro’s documentation we find word for word the grand U-turn taken IN the Church against the 1616 decree from 1741-1735. To be honest I could not believe my eyes the farce that was enacted in order to obtain imprimaturs for the then heretical books professing the fixed sun/moving earth belief. Now this occurred inside the Catholic Church we both hold as divine, the spotless spouse of Christ. from 1741 to 1835, these churchmen cheated and accepted the so-called proofs for heliocentricity as a lever to totally undermine the words and intentions of the popes and holy office of 1616 and 1633. While holding the ‘unreversability of papal decrees’, they said that it was saved because the heliocentrism condemned was not the perfect scientific heliocentrism of Newton but one that contained philosophical points now abandoned. On these spurious grounds formal heresy was loosed onto the Catholic world by way of imprimatur. Pope Gregory XVI in 1835 ordered the new Index but gave a ‘no comment’ as to the decree itself. He simply didn’t know what to do with it.

With Rome’s abandonment of the geocentric interpretation and tradition, due of course to their belief that science had proven the earth was one of the planets of the solar system, this revolution eventually eat into every aspect of Catholic faith and belief especially scholastic theology and philosophy. The Bible could no longer be read as the Fathers read it, and interpretations were now subjected to the dictates of ever-changing science. Throughout the retreat however, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man, woman or child thereafter saw the matter of a fixed sun or moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their belief. Yet Copernicanism continued to undermine the basis of the faith like dry rot in a cathedral, unnoticed and invisible by those worshipping and praying in the pews while effecting changes that would give rise to modernism in the 20th century and eventually undermine the very sources of grace themselves. This revisionism was applied slowly to Catholic theology under the name of ‘neo-scholasticism’. As a consequence of accepting Copernican-evolutionism as scientific truth, one that had to be harmonised with the truths of faith, a new synthesis with Catholic doctrine became necessary. This of course meant abandoning traditional scholasticism, that is, theologically based knowledge, and replacing it with ‘scientifically based’ reasoning that in turn led to a philosophical/theological/metaphysical shift within Catholicism that formed the main elements of modernism. One quote from Chardin should suffice:

‘As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other…Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind.’— Fr Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38

So David, heresy was loosed on the faithful because it was believed and is still believed that science has proven the Church wrong. History shows this. A false history has been manufactured by Church apologists over the centuries in order to try to make it all look legal. But now that the truth is out the consequences of the U-turn as you described cannot be avoided.

 

[Pat_De]

It has always troubled me that the Catholic Church was considered wrong in its 1616 papal degree as to how the Scriptures should be interpreted. It always troubled me that the Council of Trent should get it wrong on the Fathers interpretation of Scripture. I thought the Church was protected by the Holy Ghost in such matters as papal decrees.

Then in 1905 Albert Einstein re-established a scientific fact known to Copernicus and Cardinal Bellarmine, the fact of relativity. This relativity precludes man’s science or reasoning proving or falsifying the 1616 decree. So, I said to myself, the Church was not proven wrong.

Now unlike most other posters I decided to go back into the historical records to see when, why and how this papal decree was abandoned. I visited libraries, bookshops, and received presents of galileo related books from friends. Unlike others before, we now have details of the galileo case never before made public. One such book is Maurice A Finocchiaro’s RETRYING GALILEO.

Now I was led to believe that papal decrees were infallible, be the ex cathedra ones or decrees of the ordinary magisterium. Reading the conditions for infallibility and Catholic adherence in the Vatican I documents one finds the 1616 decree clearly comes under the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium.

One also learned as a Catholic that no papal decree can be overturned without an act of abrogation, an explanation as to why the decree is being officially abandoned. As for Galileo’s conviction, that too would take a new trial finding him not guilty of suspected heresy. Speeches to the PAS by Pope John Paul II are not official acts of the Church so count for little except opinion.

So, thanks to Finocchiaro’s documentation we find word for word the grand U-turn taken IN the Church against the 1616 decree from 1741-1735. To be honest I could not believe my eyes the farce that was enacted in order to obtain imprimaturs for the then heretical books professing the fixed sun/moving earth belief. Now this occurred inside the Catholic Church we both hold as divine, the spotless spouse of Christ. from 1741 to 1835, these churchmen cheated and accepted the so-called proofs for heliocentricity as a lever to totally undermine the words and intentions of the popes and holy office of 1616 and 1633. While holding the ‘unreversability of papal decrees’, they said that it was saved because the heliocentrism condemned was not the perfect scientific heliocentrism of Newton but one that contained philosophical points now abandoned. On these spurious grounds formal heresy was loosed onto the Catholic world by way of imprimatur. Pope Gregory XVI in 1835 ordered the new Index but gave a ‘no comment’ as to the decree itself. He simply didn’t know what to do with it.

With Rome’s abandonment of the geocentric interpretation and tradition, due of course to their belief that science had proven the earth was one of the planets of the solar system, this revolution eventually eat into every aspect of Catholic faith and belief especially scholastic theology and philosophy. The Bible could no longer be read as the Fathers read it, and interpretations were now subjected to the dictates of ever-changing science. Throughout the retreat however, Catholicism as a sacramental religion sustained the flock as ever before and not a priest, man, woman or child thereafter saw the matter of a fixed sun or moving earth as having any significance or bearing on their belief. Yet Copernicanism continued to undermine the basis of the faith like dry rot in a cathedral, unnoticed and invisible by those worshipping and praying in the pews while effecting changes that would give rise to modernism in the 20th century and eventually undermine the very sources of grace themselves. This revisionism was applied slowly to Catholic theology under the name of ‘neo-scholasticism’. As a consequence of accepting Copernican-evolutionism as scientific truth, one that had to be harmonised with the truths of faith, a new synthesis with Catholic doctrine became necessary. This of course meant abandoning traditional scholasticism, that is, theologically based knowledge, and replacing it with ‘scientifically based’ reasoning that in turn led to a philosophical/theological/metaphysical shift within Catholicism that formed the main elements of modernism. One quote from Chardin should suffice:

‘As a result of the collapse of geocentrism, which she has come to accept, the Church is now caught between her historic-dogmatic representation of the world’s origin, on the one hand, and the requirements of one of her most fundamental dogmas on the other – so that she cannot retain the former without to some degree sacrificing the latter… In earlier times until Galileo, there was perfect compatibility between historical representation and the Fall and dogmas of universal Redemption – and all the more easily too, in that each was modelled on the other…Today we know with certainty that the stellar universe is not centred on the earth, and that terrestrial life is not centred on mankind.’— Fr Teilhard de Chardin: Christianity and Evolution, Collins, 1971, pp.36-38

This is very interesting and I am learning…thank you. I’m not surprised by any of it because the magisterium is made of fallible men. Just as the apostles were fallible; only God is infallible. Look at Peter; more of his blunders are recorded than any other and he was the leader of the original apostles; I mean Jesus called him satan. Paul, the “super-apostles” said at the end of his life (paraphrased) the things I should do I don’t and that which I shouldn’t do I do. Were there any greater men under the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit than these fallible men? Just thinking.

I am going to continue to observe this fascinating dialogue and topic. Thank you again.

 

[grannymh]

This is very interesting and I am learning…thank you. I’m not surprised by any of it because the magisterium is made of fallible men. Just as the apostles were fallible; only God is infallible. Look at Peter; more of his blunders are recorded than any other and he was the leader of the original apostles; I mean Jesus called him satan. Paul, the “super-apostles” said at the end of his life (paraphrased) the things I should do I don’t and that which I shouldn’t do I do. Were there any greater men under the influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit than these fallible men? Just thinking.

I am going to continue to observe this fascinating dialogue and topic. Thank you again.

Of course men and women acting on their own are fallible. However, that is not the point of infallible dogma.

The unfortunate mistake of individuals claiming a theological dogma is the painful root of all the current confusion surrounding individual interpretation of earth science in 1616 and following.

 

[Pat_De]

Of course men and women acting on their own are fallible. However, that is not the point of infallible dogma.

The unfortunate mistake of individuals claiming a theological dogma is the painful root of all the current confusion surrounding individual interpretation of earth science in 1616 and following.

I will just observe unless I have something relevant to say; which I don’t think I will unless I did some research of my own, but that probably wouldn’t help since you seem to have really done some serious study on this.

 

[DavidPalm]

Cassini,

Thank you for your reply. I see that you have definitely wrestled with this issue. I would prefer not to interact with various conspiracy theories as to why events have unfolded as they have–that’s a sure dead end. I’d prefer simply to note again that the actions of the Church do make it clear that a rejection of geocentrism is not “formal heresy”. And I would point out again that you did not harmonize your view with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

I thought the Church was protected by the Holy Ghost in such matters as papal decrees.

This, I believe, is the error which has caused so much difficulty. The Church has never taught that every papal decree is protected by the Holy Ghost. The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes well the acts of the Congregation of the Index against Galileo:

Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra.

As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. (Galileo; my emphasis)

Another article spells out the distinction in authority between decrees from Roman Congregations approved in forma communi and in forma specifica:

As regards the doctrinal value of Decrees of the Holy Office it should be observed that canonists distinguish two kinds of approbation of an act of an inferior by a superior: first, approbation in common form (in forma communi), as it is sometimes called, which does not take from the act its nature and quality as an act of the inferior. Thus, for example, the decrees of a provincial council, although approved by the Congregation of the Council or by the Holy See, always remain provincial conciliar decrees. Secondly, specific approbation (in forma specifica), which takes from the act approved its character of an act of the inferior and makes it the act of a superior who approves it. This approbation is understood when, for example, the pope approves a Decree of the Holy Office ex certa scientia, motu proprio, or plenitudine suae potestatis.” (The Roman Congregations.)

Thus the 1616 decree from the Congregation of the Index may not be cited as creating a dogma binding on the universal Church for this was not only beyond the competence of the Congregation but also did not receive the papal confirmation that would be necessary.

 

[DavidPalm]

It is for the Church to decide what is and is not taught infallibly by the universal and ordinary Magisterium. And I think it is very clear that the Church does not hold geocentrism to be infallibly taught by her own Magisterium. Here is an explicit indication of that from an encyclical from Benedict XV:

If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre 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 Praeclara Summorum 4; my emphasis)

This encyclical proves, at the very least, that Catholics are perfectly free to reject geocentrism without any fear of being tainted by a “formal heresy”.

I have always been inspired by the humility of Bishop Karl Joseph von Hefele who opposed the definition of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council. He was criticized afterwards for his submission to the definition:

It is true that I stood on the side of the opposition. But thereby I made use of my right; for the question was proposed for discussion. However, once the decision had been made, to tarry in the opposition party would have been inconsistent with my whole past. I would have set my own infallibility in the place of the infallibility of the Church (cited in the Karl Joseph von Hefele; my emphasis)

I would urge you, Cassini, to consider whether your present position really can be harmonized with the dogma of the Church’s infallibility and be humble enough to relinquish your position in light of her teaching. The long and short of it is that this is an area in which the Church has given us freedom and we should not unnecessarily chain ourselves, especially if in doing so it would destroy (were that possible) the very Church that we love.

God bless,