E
EphelDuath
Guest
Amen brother. Perhaps then you would accept that the Church has allowed its faithful lay to believe in heliocentrism and evolution.
- Status
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
How can you guys say this is NOT a matter of faith and morals? The bull “speculatores domus israel” was to the condemnation of Galileo. IOW it had to do with Galileos faith seeing as their is no salvation outside the church
C
cassini
Guest
Omyo, Here is something you and the others do not know because up to NOW there has not been a Catholic informed enough to know what he is talking about. Not once in the history of the Church since 1616 did any pope or high ranking Churchman involved in the infamous U-turn DENY THAT THE 1616 DECREE WAS PAPAL and IRREVERSABLE ( i.e. immutable, i.e., infallible). As a matter of fact the authority of the anti Copernican decree was RECOGNISED as an immutable papal decree by the very Holy Office that plotted to have the ban on Copernican books removed in 1820So do you say the Church is 100% infallible? even when she doesn’t claim to be?
Remember, that heliocentrism is no longer accepted since science has developed since the time of Galileo.
What about
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
It contains an NIHIL OBSTAT and an IMPRIMATUR and featured on Catholic-Answers
The Church is infallible in matters of FAITH and MORALS
The Original Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) states:
I think we can all agree geocentrism has nothing to do with morals…
So are nearly all Catholics heretics in your view?
I guess your answer would be yes?
‘Remember, that heliocentrism is no longer accepted since science has developed since the time of Galileo.’
I presume you mean geocentricism. If you can show me a development of science since Galileo that falsifies geocentricism and proves heliocentricism, I will laugh at the 1616 decree like all you so-called Catholics have been indoctrinated to do. A Catholic will first and foremost SEEK the TRUTH. Even when informed you prefer to REJECT any possibility that the Church you supposedly believe has God’s protection was WRONG.
‘What about this website and that website.’
Websites are human opinions. I trust the Church when She uses Her highest Authority to define and declare a revelation in Scripture. Websites however have taken over from the Bible for many a year now.
‘I think we can all agree geocentrism has nothing to do with morals.’
Another who thinks they know more about what is a matter of faith or not than the Church or even Cardinal Bellarmine one of the greatest theologians ever to serve the Church. . Remember the Church of 1616 is the SAME Church that you say you belong to. The 1616 Church IS YOUR CHURCH, just as much as today’s CHURCH is the same CHURCH. Different people run it now and it is they who came to office under the condition as all the others: THAT THEY WERE ELECTED, NOT TO CHANGE TEACHING, BUT TO PROTECT WHAT WAS TAUGHT. This lot have not lived up to their responsibilities because they have MORE faith in SCIENCE than the CHURCH they were elected to protect.
So are nearly all Catholics heretics in your view?
Yes, material heretics if you know what that means. But it is your duty now that you have been informed to seek the truth and not FIGHT and REJECT it as most of you are doing. The truth is you would PREFER to reject the Church’s 1616 teaching because that would mean intellectual shame, especially among your peers.
I was once an evolutionist and Copernican. I believed what Catholics told me about the Galileo case over the last 250 years. But one minute after I was told there is no proof that the Church was wrong I placed my trust in Holy Mother Church. If that brings ridicule I know I am RIGHT again for only one’s TRUST in GOD and His CHurch not to make OFFICIAL mistakes brings out such contempt in human beings.
E
EphelDuath
Guest
As do I. The Holy Mother Church teaches that we are free to belief in evolution and heliocentrism, and the matter is as simple as that. You are not proclaiming obedience to Christ’s church but the heresy that the gates of Hell have prevailed against it.
C
cassini
Guest
Very good post EphelDuath, I will answer it and then go walk my dog. I will return later tonight to take up any more posts.Amen brother. Perhaps then you would accept that the Church has allowed its faithful lay to believe in heliocentrism and evolution.
First of all we MUST distinguish between the CHURCH and the men who run it.
OFFICIAL teachings never change but men are prone to making bad judgements and make mistakes. There is not a single OFFICIAL declaration of the CHURCH that abrogated the anti Copernican decree. This is the CHURCH’s position.
But the men who run the Church slowly began to accept the FREEMASONIC (yes, I have traced the heresy to the enemies of the Church throughout the ages) lies that heliocentricism was proven. Now what do ‘good’ Churchmen do when they realise (MISTAKENLY) the Church decreed a heresy in error? They find every excuse to reverse the condemnation. But they know they cannot reverse immutible teaching, so they use a diversion - THEY DROP ALL BANNED BOOKS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE CHURCH HAS REVERSED ITS TEACHING. They then HIDE the immutible decree. Pope Gregory XVI was the last and he ordered the ban to be lifted ‘WITHOUT EXPLICIT COMMENT.’ THat was 1835. In other words he ordered all TO SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE DECREE DEFINING A FIXED SUN AS HERESY.
Let me use an analogy. When the same hierarchy were informed of a mountain of scandals against children WHAT DID THEY DO? The HID the scandal FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHURCH. They did the same with the 1616 decree and let every Tom Dick and Harry say what they like about the matter.
NOw evolution. The CHURCH has NEVER OFFICIALLY taught that evolution is CATHOLIC. The only SEMI-OFFICIAL statement was HUMANI GENERIS in 1950. Pope Pius XII said that we may debate the pros and cons, but equal time must be given to each side. IN TIME he said, the CHURCH MAY decide on the matter but not until then.
Here again the CHURCH’s POSITION IS CLEAR. Debate but no BELIEF. It may well be the CHURCH will BAN evolutionism in time.
But look at the MEN who run the Church now, evolutionists to the core, letting the flock believe it is OK to believe in evolution, just as the did earlier with Copernicanism. Now check the debates in the Vatican. ALL CREATIONISM is BANNED and not a creationist is invited to be a member of PAS. This is in SPITE of the CHURCH’s order to give BOTH SIDES EQUAL HEARING.
O
Omyo12
Guest
Thank you St. Cassini- doctor of the Church, You who are so wise in the doctrines of the Catholic Church.
honest question:
since when are tribunal papal decrees considered to be infallible?
(show me documents, not your own interpretation)
Well you presume wrong. Heliocentric theory is no longer a scientific theory because it presumes the sun is immobile. You don’t even know what the theories are…
To understand the nature of space, you would first need to understand what gravity is and how the laws of nature operate. Things I doubt you’ll ever want to look into.
I do not “laugh” at the 1616 papal decree. Instead, I respect it for the Church did not give in to Galileo’s theories that are now partially false. I have great respect for all the Church documents, but I also know when to take them as infallible and when not.
Again, since when are tribunal papal decrees considered to be infallible?
They’re links to Catholic sources that I trust know about Church doctrine.
Oh wait, I forgot, they’re heretics and you understand Church doctrine more than anyone…
So Cardinal Bellarmine considered geocentric theory to be forever truth?
Yes he believed it, but he also stated that if definitive proof was given, an alternative interpretation was to be carefully given.
Did he say:
NO he didn’t!
He said if proven wrong, alternative interpretations were needed, not rejection.
I’m sure you were…
P
pickguard1
Guest
I retract my former comment because I forgot what this thread was about - sorry
L
Luke65
Guest
Exactly. And, not surprisingly, that was the same thing another Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine said a thousand years earlier. Remember?
“When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. And we will cling to our Mediator, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge [Colossians 2:3], that we will not be led astray by the glib talk of false philosophy or frightened by the superstition of false religion.” (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1, 41)
And that is precisely why I pointed out that Geocentrism has not been proven to be false, nor has Special Creation been proven to be false. So the Church has no need of changing Her doctrines, and especially not when we have been forewarned about all of this by our prophets.
And I wonder, are there any Christians who think that God could not have made the Earth the gravitational center of the universe? Are there are any Christians who think that God could not have created the universe in six days? If you do, then I have to tell you, and I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense, that you are not only ignorant of the power of God, but you are also ignorant of true science. Don’t you guys realize that what mainstream science is teaching the world as fact, is actually founded on anti-supernaturalistic assumptions - sand? Don’t you realize that these unbelievers have to believe their theories in order to be unbelievers?! Don’t you realize that the most important thing to God is that we come to Him of our own free will? And how can we have true free will if we don’t have options?
God has set before us life and death; the blessing and the curse; the Tree of Life and the Tree of (Death); Creation and Evolution; Geocentrism and Heliocentrism; the truth and the lie. So don’t be like Eve and prefer the Serpent’s version of events to the Word of God. Believe so that you may understand. God bless.
C
cassini
Guest
Good evening pickguard, loved your last post on Arianism, you hit the nail on the head.Don’t bet too much Cassini
I think you need to calm down and take a deep breath. The Church’s claim to be infallible most definitely does NOT hinge on whether the earth moves.
Now don’t worry about my passion for truth. As for your ‘The Church’s claim to be infallible most definitely does NOT hinge on whether the earth moves.’ No, it hinges on the earth not moving.
Well, I’m waiting for your notion as to what the ‘hypothesis’ term means in the context of Copernicanism and from where did it come.
P
pickguard1
Guest
Good evening!
As for my “hinges” comment, I meant “whether or not” the earth moves. If it could be proved that the Earth does indeed move, it would in no way invalidate the infallible magisterium of the Church.
As for my hypothesis statement, it is taken from here:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Galileo Galilei:
“By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the “Epitome” of Kepler, but in each instance only donec corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact.”
“donec corrigatur” means forbidden if not corrected.
I must admit I haven’t read the 1616 tribunal decree. I’ll have to track it down to get a clearer picture of where your argument comes from.
P
pickguard1
Guest
Cassini
OK, I read the 1616 documents, and I can *kind of *see where you are coming from. But those documents don’t amount to an infallible definition of any doctrines that need to be held de fide. The only thing really said about Copernicanism is that it can’t be held as true becasue it is contrary to the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. But according to the Index decree, his books could be published if corrected, and I believe it was the fact that in the books it was proposed as fact that the earth moved and the sun is motionless. Correcting this to posit this as a theory would suffice for its puiblication and removal from the index.
OK, I read the 1616 documents, and I can *kind of *see where you are coming from. But those documents don’t amount to an infallible definition of any doctrines that need to be held de fide. The only thing really said about Copernicanism is that it can’t be held as true becasue it is contrary to the literal sense of Sacred Scripture. But according to the Index decree, his books could be published if corrected, and I believe it was the fact that in the books it was proposed as fact that the earth moved and the sun is motionless. Correcting this to posit this as a theory would suffice for its puiblication and removal from the index.
P
pickguard1
Guest
I think the crux of the matter is that the Church, in possessing the ability to interpret scripture infallibly, will not acquiesce in adopting any revised interpretation unless and until it is definitively proved that the earth moves. I’m not a scientist, nor a theologian, so I can’t say waht the exact nature of such a proof would have to be, but Cardinal Bellarmine’s comments make it clear that should a proof ever surface, it wouldn’t present a problem to the Church, but rather it would be a simple matter of stating that previously, full knowledge of the matter didn’t exist, and scripture had been interpreted correctly in light of existing knowledge.
P
pickguard1
Guest
Of course, people of faith know that no “proof” from science could ever disprove any dogmas of the Church, so any new interpretation of scripture would necessarily still be in conformance with previous interpretations. It must be granted that if the Church has the ability to infallibly interpret scripture, she most definitely has the ability to offer multiple and yet still infallible interpretations of the same passage.
C
cassini
Guest
Note what the Lateran Council V of 1512-17 had to say:
‘And since truth never contradicts truth, we declare every assertion contrary to the truth of illuminated faith to be altogether false; and, that it may not be permitted to dogmatise otherwise, we strictly forbid it, and we decree that all who adhere to errors of this kind are to be shunned and to be punished as detestable and abominable infidels who disseminate most damnable heresies and who weaken the Catholic faith.’ —(Denzinger - 738)
Given the Church’s duty is to preserve truth, and truth is reality, physical, philosophical and spiritual reality that permeates all time, past, present and future, even to its co-relationship with eternity, then all things that threaten truth must be condemned and corrected by the Church. This obligation was dogmatised at Vatican Council I of 1869-70:
‘Further, the Church which, together with the apostolic duty of teaching, has received the command to guard the deposit of faith, has also, from divine providence, the right and duty of proscribing “knowledge falsely so called” (I Tim. 6:20), “lest anyone be cheated by philosophy and vain deceit” (cf. Col. 2:8). Wherefore, all faithful Christians are not only forbidden to defend opinions of this sort, which are known to be contrary to the teaching of the faith, especially if they have been condemned by the Church, as the legitimate conclusions of science, but they shall be altogether bound to hold them rather as errors, which present a false appearance of truth.’ — (Denzinger - 1795-98.)
The Authority of the Anti-Copernican Inquisition
In 1542, in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Pope Paul III set up various congregations to assist the Pope in his task of safeguarding the Apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Then, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such papal authority.
THE INFALLIBLE ‘MAGISTERIUM OF THE ROMAN PONTIFF
VATICAN I
The Roman Pontiffs moreover, according to the conditions of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, **sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, **have defined that those matters be held which with God’s help they have recognised as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition……Denzinger - 1836
C
cassini
Guest
pickguard. Who do you think wrote the Catholic Encyclopaedia? God? No God, through men, wrote the Bible. Now what you get in Catholic encyclopaedia is Copernicanism, Copewrnicanism, and more Copernicanism, that is HERESY.
Note now that the man written book leads you to believe the word ‘hypothesis’ meand NOT YET PROVEN. Is this the kind of ‘hypothesis’ you think it is?
P
pickguard1
Guest
I believe a hypothesis is a question about the nature of something which is put through various tests to determine the validity (truth or falsity) of the question.
C
cassini
Guest
See, making it up as you go along. There are MILLIONS of such definitions of the 1616 decree offered to Catholics by amasteur Copernican wanna-be theologians trying to ‘save the Church’.
Well here is a POPE telling the world what the decrees mean.
The Inquisition’s Sentence as ordered by Pope Urban VIII, as told by a Fr Roberts
‘… “And to the end,” said the document, “that so pernicious a doctrine might be altogether taken away, and spread no further to the heavy detriment of Catholic truth, a decree emanated from the Sacred Congregation of the Index [in 1616] (sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied - Vatican I), in which books that treat of doctrine of the kind were prohibited, and that doctrine was declared false, and altogether contrary to the sacred and divine Scripture.’
And observe in what emphatic and unmistakable terms Rome repudiated the notion that the decree might be interpreted as a practical direction, as a measure of caution for the time being, or as anything short of an absolute settlement of the question.
“Understanding,” the Congregation said, “that, through the publication of a work at Florence entitled Dialogo di Galileo Galilei , the false opinion of the motion of the earth and the stability of the sun was gaining ground, it had examined the book, and had found it to be a manifest infringement of the injunction laid on you, since you in the same book have defended an opinion already condemned, and declared to your face to be so, in that you have tried in the said book, by various devices, to persuade yourself that you leave the matter undetermined, and the opinion expressed as probable; the which, however, is a most grave error, **since an opinion can in no manner be probable which has been declared, and defined to be, contrary to the divine Scripture.” **
Thus the declaration of the Index, for which all the authority of an absolutely true decision was claimed, was identified with the condemnatory judgement made known to Galileo by a Congregation held in the Pope’s presence. This was significant enough; but mark what followed.
“And when a convenient time had been assigned you for your defence, you produced the following certificate in the handwriting of the most eminent Lord Cardinal Bellarmine [Here the Commission quotes Bellarmine’s letter]:
… procured, as you said, to protect you from the calumnies of your enemies, who had put it about that you had abjured, and had been punished by the Holy Office; in which certificate it is affirmed that you had not abjured, had not been punished, but only that the declaration made by our Lord the Pope, and promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Index; had been announced to you the tenor whereof is, that the doctrine of the motion of the earth, and of the fixity of the sun, is contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, and therefore can neither be defended, nor held. “But this very certificate produced in your defence has rather aggravated the charge against you; for it asserts that the above-mentioned opinion is contrary to Holy Scripture: yet you dared to treat of it, to defend it, and advance it as probable.” Here, then, the Congregation plainly made it known that the decision of the Index was Papal. But Papal in what sense? In a sense, according to what had been said above, to make it a most grave error to suppose that the opinion condemned thereby could in any manner be probable. In a sense, according to the sentence that followed, to justify its being classed with those declarations and definitions, the conclusiveness of which it would be heresy to deny. Papal in such a way that a Catholic might be compelled to yield its doctrine the assent of faith.
“Invoking, then, the most holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that of His most glorious Mother Mary ever Virgin, by this our definitive sentence we say, pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo, on account of these things proved against you by documentary evidence, and which have been confessed by you as aforesaid, have rendered yourself to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures -to wit, that the sun is in the centre of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth moves, and is not the centre of the universe; and that an opinion can be held and defended as probable after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture. And consequently that you have incurred all the censures and penalties decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against delinquents of this class. From which it is our pleasure that you should be absolved, provided that, with a pure heart and faith unfeigned, you in our presence first abjure, curse, and detest, the above-named errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, according to the formula which we shall show you.
“And that this your grave and pernicious error, and transgression remain not altogether unpunished, and that you may be the more cautious for the future, and be an example to others to abstain from offences of this sort, we decree that the book of the Dialogues of Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict; and you we condemn to the prison of this Holy Office during our will and pleasure; and, as a salutary penance, we command you for three years, to recite once a week, the seven Penitential Psalms; reserving to ourselves the power of moderating, commuting; or taking away altogether, or in part, the above-mentioned penalties and penances.” ’
C
cassini
Guest
Cardinal Bellarmine’s letter must be read in full to see what he actually said. He was speaking about IF GALILEO HAD PROOF. He went on to say that he doesn’t believe proof will ever be produced. One year later the Holy Office ended all debate, no matter what Bellarmine said. This is just another ploy to try to use Bellarmine for their heresy.
P
pickguard1
Guest
What do you mean?
C
cassini
Guest
Which is true, so I presume you and a billion others have been led to believe this is the hypothesis allowed by the Church during the affair. yes?
Well again another LIE.
Copernicus’s Heliocentricism and the Church.
In the wake of the H/G U-turn taken by Churchmen from 1741 onwards, there is a tendency by Catholic writers to portray De revolutionibus’s heliocentricism as having been acceptable in the eyes of the Church of the time. If this were not so, they infer, why didn’t the Church condemn heliocentricism as heresy in 1543 and not until 1616. Well there are good reasons for this. First, because Copernicus presented his reasoning prefaced by a question, thus it was framed as no more than a hypothesis. We can confirm this because Cardinal Belarmine himself, who was instrumental in getting heliocentricism condemned in 1616 said so in his Letter to Foscarini in 1615.
The second reason has a story to it. It seems Copernicus had always feared his thesis, some 30 years in the writing, would be met with derision among natural philosophers rather than with theologians, and this is why he curtailed its publication over the years. Finally, with old age coming upon him, he handed it over to a Protestant friend, a Lutheran theologian named Andrew Osiander (1498-1552) who was the one who had it printed. On the revolutions of heavenly spheres was published in 1543. An advance copy was dramatically rushed to Copernicus who was gravely ill in his home at Frauenburg, arriving on May 24th the day he died. The first edition however, had the following introduction entitled To the Reader Concerning the Hypothesis of this Work:
‘Since the newness of the hypothesis of this work –which sets the earth in motion and puts an immovable sun at the centre of the universe- has already received a great deal of publicity, I have no doubt that certain of the savants have taken grave offence and think it wrong to raise any disturbance among liberal disciplines which have had the right set-up for a long time now. If, however, they are willing to weigh the matter scrupulously, they will find that the author has done nothing that merits blame…
This artist is markedly outstanding in both these respects for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even possible; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations…And if it constructs and thinks up causes - and it has certainly thought up a good many - nevertheless it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they provide a correct basis for calculation…Maybe the philosopher demands probability instead; but neither of them will grasp anything certain or hand it on, unless it has been divinely revealed to him.’
In other words, the preface presented explicitly defined they type of ‘hypothesis’ Copernicus presented in De revolutionibus.
As a declared false one, one the Church would permit without interference, to facilitate the concept of phenomena, and for the convenience in making calculations.
It was this disclaimer then that avoided the possibility of an Inquisition enquiry.
- Status