Summary:
I have just three main points and then what I can contribute to this discussion is pretty much tapped out. I want to clarify exactly what I’m saying here. I am arguing that no explanation of the movement of the heavenly bodies is
de fide in the Catholic Church. I am arguing that the Church gives us freedom to explore these things and come to conclusions based on the best scientific evidence. I am asserting that the Catholic Church does not propose any one conclusion as a matter of faith, the denial of which is formal heresy.
I am not entering into the relative merits or lack thereof of any scientific theory. In my limited study I find that geocentrism, like “young earth creationism”, has certain major implausibilities which prevent me from embracing it. But I am not an expert and I am not addressing the scientific questions.
What concerns me is the assertion that geocentrism is
de fide and that the denial of it is therefore “formal heresy”. This I think is fraught with theological difficulties.
Point #1: It Has Happened in the History of the Church that “It’s Not Infallible” is the Truthful and Correct Answer
Although Cassini denigrates the “but it’s not infallible” approach, the fact is that when one surveys Church history there are a few—a remarkably small number but still a few—instances in which one examines all the facts and has to conclude that what was said even in an official capacity was wrong, but that it was not proposed infallibly and so does not negate the Church’s claim.
The most famous of these is probably that of Pope Honorius. Gerry Matatics and Tim Staples in public debate argued that Honorius was not wrong and they were soundly defeated by a knowledgeable opponent. Robert Sungenis was all set to try the same approach, but Steve Ray and David Palm convinced him that the approach to the question taken by the famous patristic scholar Dom John Chapman was the correct one: “The Pope and the Council were in agreement as to the necessity of condemning Honorius, and they were certainly right in doing so under the circumstances” (Chapman,
The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, p. 9). Chapman goes on to argue that, although this was indeed an official papal document and did address a doctrinal matter, Pope Honorius did not convene the Roman Synod, did not invoke the authority of St. Peter, did not do any of the things Popes of his day were wont to do when authoritatively addressing a doctrinal issue. He was wrong on a doctrinal matter, but he manifestly did not bind the Church to his error.
Point #2: The decrees against Galileo were from Roman Congregations, approved only in forma communi. They were not papal decrees and therefore, all the more, were not immune from error.
As I have already demonstrated, the 1616 and 1633 decrees concerning Galileo were not “papal decrees”. Period. They were issued by Roman congregations. A papal decree and a decree from a Roman congregation are two different things. No amount of cajoling can make one into the other. In fact, the
Catholic Encyclopedia states that the 1633 decree “did not receive the pope’s signature”.
I had to smile when in another thread
Cassini insisted that, “It was the Church itself that insisted the decree was papal, not I” and then stated, “Here the
minutes of Galileo’s 1633 trial to prove it” (my emphasis). So now not only the decree of a Roman congregation, but even its
minutes represent the authentic and authoritative voice of the Church! I am quite certain that any number of instances could be cited from various Roman congregations, much less their minutes, which Cassini would be very happy indeed to agree are not
de fide, are not to be simply equated with the voice of the Church.
The
Catholic Encyclopedia points out that even non-Catholics scholars have reasonably conceded that the actions of these congregations in the Galileo case did not commit the whole Church to the positions taken:
Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares
It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope — who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope — and not of the body which calls itself the Church.
And von Gebler (“Galileo Galilei”):
The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church.
It may be added that Riceloll and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff. (
Galileo)
<< to be continued >>
