Heilocentrism infallibly condemned

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheWhim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheWhim

Guest
Yes, it is true. Heloicentrism, a scientific truth, was infallibly conedmned by Rome as “repugnant to Scripture” and flat-out “heresy”.

A word has to be said at the beginning of this thread. Before you post an answer, I would like to compell you to read “The Pontificial Decrees against the Earth’smovement and the ultramontane defence of them” Here’s the link:

Link
As for me, I printed it out: it’s worth printing every page of it. I now cite the following passages, giving remarks in brackets:

"It then appeared from the account of things2 which the Congregation of
the Inquisition, by order of Urban VIII., promulgated expressly for the
benefit of Catholic men of science,—that, on Galileo’s impeachment
before the Holy Office in 1615 for his doctrine on the fixity of the sun and
the motion of the earth, and for his manner of dealing with the objected
passages of Scripture, the following steps were taken by that holy Tribunal
to obviate the inconveniences and prejudices which were arising and
prevailing to the injury of the sacred faith:
  1. By order of the Lord Pope, and the Lord Cardinals of the supreme
    and universal Inquisition, two propositions were qualified by the
    theological qualifiers of the Holy Office, as follows:— That the sun is in
    the centre of the universe and immovable from its place, is absurd,
    philosophically false, and FORMALLY HERETICAL, because it is expressly
    contrary to Holy Scripture.
    That the earth is not the centre of the universe nor immovable, but that
    it moves, and also has diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false,
    and, theologically considered, is at least ERROUNEOUS IN FAITH.
  2. To deal mildly with the accused, it was decreed in a Congregation
    held in the Pope’s presence, on the 25th February 1616, that Cardinal
    Bellarmine should enjoin him to give up altogether the said false opinion;
    and in the event of his refusal, the Commissary of the Holy Office was to command him, under threat of imprisonment, to abandon it altogether,
    and forbid him to teach, defend, or treat of it in any manner whatever,
    either by word of mouth, or in writing."
[By a first decree of Pope Paul the attittude of Galileo - helicentrism - was condemned as errouneous and formally heretical. It was condemned as heresy.
But Galileo contunied to preach this and was to abjure his “heresy”:]
 
"Unless Galileo was bound to accept, with
the assent of faith, the assertions of Scripture in a geocentric sense, unless
he was bound to reject heliocentricism absolutely by an act of faith, as
infallibly false, by no possibility could he have lost faith, and, therefore,
by no possibility could he have been in “heresy,” simply in holding the
theory. Upon this point there cannot be the shadow of a doubt. But Urban
VIII., by his decree of the 16th of June, ordered a Pontifical Congregation
to inform Galileo that heliocentricism had been declared and defined to be
contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures in such sense that his holding
it afterwards would be “heresy,” in other words would be an offence
destructive of his faith as a Catholic. He was called upon to declare on
oath that “he had always believed, and did believe, and would for the
future believe, all that the Roman Church holds, preaches, and teaches.”
Now, the Roman Church notoriously holds, preaches, and teaches, and
requires all her children to hold, that it is of faith that all opinions opposed
to Scripture are false. And therefore Galileo had to confess that he had
given Catholics strong reason to think that he had not been true to the faith
he had just professed, that he had in fact fallen into “heresy,” for he had
treated of a certain theory he had been duly and authoritatively informed
was contrary to Scripture, in such a way as to lead people to suppose that
he really held it. He was made to say: “Because, after this Holy Office had
juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which
holds that the sun is in the centre of the world and immovable, and that the
earth is not the centre and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend,
or teach in any manner the said false doctrine, and after it had been
notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I
wrote and caused to be printed, a book, wherein I treat of the same
doctrine, already condemned, and adduce arguments with great efficacy in
favour of it without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged
vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that
the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not
the centre and moves.”

[It is made clear that Galielo was, in preaching heliocentrism, preaching a theory already and finally condemned as “heresy” by the church. Some poeple have objected that both decrees were not signed by the pope and that therefore the necessary attribute for an ex-cathedra-statement was missing - however, this decree-signing came in use not until much later and both opoes gave their explicit consent to the decisions. Furthermore, both decrees were FORMALLY APPROVED by one of their succesors:]
 
"M. Bouix requires me to adduce some officially published document
attesting the Pope’s confirmation of the anti-Copernican decrees. The last
thing he expected to see was a Bull to this effect. Nevertheless there is
one.1 Towards the end of his Pontificate, it occurred to Alexander VII. that
it was his duty, as guardian of the household of Israel, to compose and
place before the faithful a new Index of prohibited books that should be
complete up to his time, and be more conveniently arranged than former
indices. Whereupon he set to work with a specially chosen number of
Cardinals; and in the March of 1664 there issued from the Vatican press a
book entitled Index Librorum prohibitorum Alexandri VII. Pontificis
Maximi jussu editus. It was prefaced by a Bull wherein the Pope describes
this composition of his Index, and gives reasons for putting it forth.
Amongst other things, the Pontiff says that the books noted therein will
not be found distributed into three classes as they were in the Tridentine
Index. That method of arrangement has been found inconvenient, and has
given rise to mistaken estimates of the relatively bad character of the
books prohibited. Yet it is so far retained that the class to which each book belongs will be found cited where the book is named, and also the decree
by which the book was originally prohibited, in order that the whole
history of each case may be known. “For this purpose,” pursues the
Pontiff, “we have caused the Tridentine and Clementine Indices to be
added to this general Index, and also all the relevant decrees up to the
present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor
Clement, that nothing profitable to the faithful interested in such matters
might seem omitted. Since then all these directions have been faithfully
and accurately carried out, and a general Index of this kind has been
composed,—to which also the rules of the Tridentine Index, with the
observations and instructions added to the Clementine Index, have been
prefixed; this same general Index as it is put forth, composed by our order,
revised, and printed at the press of our Apostolic Camera, and which we
will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents,
together with all, and singular, the things contained therein, we, having
taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic
authority by the tenor of these presents, and: command and enjoin all
persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete
obedience.”
Turning to this Index, we find among the decrees the Pope caused to be
added thereto, the following: the “Quia ad notitiam” of 1616; the
“monitum” of 1620, declaring the principles advocated by Copernicus on
the position and movement of the earth to be “repugnant to Scripture and
to its true and catholic interpretation;” the edict signed by Bellarmine
prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ
the edict of August 10th, 1684, prohibiting and condemning the Dialogo
di Galileo Galilei; and under the head “Libri,” we find: “Libri omnes
docentes mobilitatem terræ, et immobilitatem solis, in decr. 5 Martii,
1616.” These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and
approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his Bull. It is clear,
therefore, that the condemnation of Copernicanism was ratified and
approved by the Pope himself, not merely behind the scenes, but publicly
in the face of the whole Church, by the authority of a Bull addressed to all
the faithful. Nay, more—and I call particular attention to this point— the
Index to which the decrees in question were attached, was confirmed and
approved by the Pope, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though
actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus;” and
therefore it, and all it contained, came to the Church directly from the
Pope himself, speaking to her as her Head, “as guardian of the household
of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to
protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed
by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of
truth.”
 
[The author also makes it clear that the condemnation of heliocentrism constitutes an ex-cathedra-decision:]

“It is satisfactory to obtain so frank an acknowledgment from my
opponent that the terms of the condemnation meant “heresy,” and nothing
short of it; that the Pope and the ecclesiastical authorities considered, and
in effect said, that heliocentricism is a heresy. Now, I submit that, no
matter who says it, ‘whether a ‘Pope speaking ex cathedrâ, or a mere
layman, whoever says categorically that an opinion is “heresy,” ipso facto
says that the contradictory of that opinion has been revealed by God with
sufficient certainty to oblige a Catholic to accept it by an act of divine
faith. To generate an obligation of faith, it is by no means necessary that
the witness to the fact of revelation should claim for his testimony
infallible certainty, but only such certainty as will exclude all prudent fear,
ne non locutus sit Deus. And to say that an opinion is “heresy” is to say
more than that its contradictory is matter of faith. There is an implicit
reference to the infallible testimony of the Church. The assertion means
that the contradictory is not only of faith, but of Catholic faith.”

Thefore, if you belive that the pope is infallible, you also have to belive in geocentrism, including the immobility of the earth.

We just got these two alternatives: reject the Catholic church or embrace Geocentrism.

(As for infallability, I may add that what the theoligians of the past sixty years want us to believe, that only SUCH pronouncements of the Pope are infallible that are clearly DOGMATIC definitions. Of course, they teach this becuse the Second Vatican Council is clearly in conflict with former tradition. For example, religious freedom was most severely condemned by Pius IX in “Quanta Cura”. Most theologians prior to Vatican II belived “Quanta Cura” to be ex-cathedra. But after Vatican II, this opinion was quickly withdrawn. I may note that it was proposed by some council-fathers of VATICAN I to head the passage concerning the pope’s infallability as follows: The Pope’s infallible DOGMATIC masgisterium. However, this advice was rejected - this means that not only DOGMATIC prounouncements are infallible, but whenever the pope decides ex cathedra, that means, from the chair of Peter, that a matter of faith and morals is to be held by the universal church, he’s speaking infallible. “from the cair of Peter” means nothing else than “by hisapostolic authority, when speaking as pope”. We shoulod also note the following remark in the constitution: It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] This would mean that the Council fathers even held the opinion that when a bishop writes to the pope to get a clarification on faith and morals, the letter that goes back is an infallible pronouncement! Of course, the constitution is quite ambivalent. It is elaborated both by those who, like Manning, were fiercely advocating infallability, and also by those who wanted to reduce infallible pronoucements to rare occasions(like Gasser). Eighty council fathers even didn’t accept the rather moderate definiton and left Rome before the pronouncement of the Dogma. We know that Pius IX. was symphatizing with the opinions of Manning. Cardinal Newman, the great Anglican convertit, was quite right when writing after the pronouncement: “Pius has been overruled[by God]. I believe he has wished a much more stringent dogma.” After the pronouncement, different interpretations arose. Manning said that the definition would mean that “all censures of the pope, whether for heresy or with a note LESS !] than heresy, are included in : when he [the Pontiff] decides on matters of faith and morals.” Cardinal Newman, of course, fought for a minimizing interpretation, But both parties agreed that when the ope condemns something as “heresy”, there can be no question anymore that he has defined ex-cathedra. Thefore, it is evident that Heliocentrism was condemned as “heresy” by the Roman Catholic church. I restate what I have already written:

We just got these two alternatives: reject the Catholic church or embrace Geocentrism.]

Before you answer, I may repeat again that I would like yu to read “The Pontificial Decrees etc.” - BEFORE you answer. This would spare me much pamphlets and accusations or misinformated postings.

Yours ever.
 
Excuse me, I’m not a scientist or a deep philosopher, but didn’t heliocentrism teach that the sun wasn’t merely the center of our solar system but of the universe? If that is the case, it is certainly wrong whether one believes in geocentrism or not. Yes?
 
At that time, the Church did not feel like there was enough evidence to prove otherwise like there is today. Interpretation of scripture from the beginning took the Sun moving as literal. The magisterium discouraged Galileo from teaching this, but they most certainly did not say that this was scientific fact. They merely said that it contradicted what the accepted interpretation of Genesis was for many years.

I find it funny that the only thing that protestants can find close to error by the magisterium is the heliocentric debate.

Although I believe that the Earth rotates around the sun, frankly, wherever the Earth is, no matter where it is moving, it is the center of my universe. And since God put his beloved children on it, I would bet he considers it the center of His universe.

By the way Galileo, the sun is not the center of the universe. (Great point Della)
 
40.png
TheWhim:
We just got these two alternatives: reject the Catholic church or embrace Geocentrism.
Click to expand...
What happens if we embrace the Church and reject Geocentrism?

Are you really trying to say that the entirety of Catholic history and experience is NULL because of what you claim is a definite example of an infallibly declared falsehood?

Have you rejected the Church? What have you embraced instead?
 
TheWhim,

Please don’t take a fundamentalist reading of papal declarations.🙂
 
Please offer your proof that the ruling you cite in fact meets all of the requirements for an infallible teaching.
 
It appears that you believe that the Sun is the centre of the universe. I can assure you that it is a small star at that edge of a galaxy that is itself at the edge of the universe and no where near the center of the universe.
 
40.png
Ignatius:
It appears that you believe that the Sun is the centre of the universe. I can assure you that it is a small star at that edge of a galaxy that is itself at the edge of the universe and no where near the center of the universe.
Click to expand...
In a land far, far away…
waaaaa haaaaaaa! Good point Ignatius! I wonder if OP in his zeal to discredit the Catholic Church read this carefully? I noticed that TheWhim has not posted since his OP, Della kinda squashed his zeal with the truth…good work Della!
 
I note that the link posted by the OP comes from lewisdt.com as the source. From a quick scan of his website, Mr. Lewis seems to be, in addition to a teacher, something of a fundamentalist Christian; having a discussion, for example of the six days of Creation under his ‘Discovery Series’ of links. I’m not sure that I trust his webste as a fair source of information about these matters.
 
40.png
BlestOne:
In a land far, far away…
waaaaa haaaaaaa! Good point Ignatius! I wonder if OP in his zeal to discredit the Catholic Church read this carefully? I noticed that TheWhim has not posted since his OP, Della kinda squashed his zeal with the truth…good work Della!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the props, but it may be that the OP is just a “post and run” kind of person, instead of being scared off by any truth. Sadly, some people are simply impervious to the truth. So, they post something they think cannot be refuted and simply leave. Let’s see if he’s just a troll or a stand up kind of person. What say you, TW?

Ignatius:
It appears that you believe that the Sun is the centre of the universe. I can assure you that it is a small star at that edge of a galaxy that is itself at the edge of the universe and no where near the center of the universe.
Click to expand...
And it’s that truth that truly shows the goodness of God, to me. Just think if Earth wasn’t just where it is. We might not have been able to live on a planet closer to the center of our galaxy or the center of the universe (if there is one). God knew just where to put us and when. I don’t know about anyone else, but that thought just gives me shivers of awe and respect for our Great God! 👍
 
While I do not at all agree with the OP that somehow the Church is invalid because of his “proof”, yet I would like to remind all of you of this line in the declaration against Heliocentrism:

“That the earth is not the centre of the universe nor immovable, but that it moves, and also has diurnal motion, is absurd, philosophically false, and, theologically considered, is at least ERROUNEOUS IN FAITH.”

The declaration wasn’t simply against Heliocentrism (which is false) but FOR Geocentrism (also false).

The OP’s claim (that the pope declared a falsehood to be infallibly true) isn’t defeated by pointing out that Heliocentrism isn’t true.

The OP, while a troll, does bring up an interesting “test case” of infallibility: It certainly does appear that the pope is declaring Geocentrism to be true and to be a matter of faith.
 
40.png
bengeorge:
The OP, while a troll, does bring up an interesting “test case” of infallibility: It certainly does appear that the pope is declaring Geocentrism to be true and to be a matter of faith.
Click to expand...
Again, you have to provide proof that the declaration fits all of the criteria for an infallible teaching. I quote the criteria from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:

–The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
–Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
–Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
–Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible. *
 
Let’s consider relativity.
Any point in space could be considered the center of space since from the view at that point, everything moves around it.
Also, as we look out into the rest of the universe, we see stars in all directions are moving away from us (based on the doppler shift of the light we receive from them) just as if the ‘big-bang’ occurred right here.
And finally, the infallibility of the Church is in Faith and Morals, not science.
 
Peace be with you!

Let me just remind the OP that the pope was actually the one that gave Galileo the OK to publish his book against geocentrism. And that Galileo was not the only one teaching that stuff–in fact, there were many Jesuit astronomers teaching the same thing!

In Christ,
Rand
 
neither theory is a matter of our salvation.

neither theory is any more than a theory

neither theory can be proved to be true

neither theory can be proved to be false

Since there is only One God, and since he sent His Only Son to earth, and since we specifically are made in His Image and Likeness…I guess I opt for the earth being the center…
 
I’m very thankful for your most chaming replies! 🙂

I am especially flattered at being called a “troll”.

Well, in the decrees that condemned heliocentrism it is made clear that geocentrism is the truth the church embraces. - bengeorge has pointed this out.
Please read the documents in question again - I cited them partly.

As for VociMikes thought, that one should consider if really an ex-cathedra pronouncement has been made, I may refer to the quotations already given and to my explaination, that since 1870 there have been many theories abput as to actually WHAT constitutes an ex-cathedra utterance. Since I’m studying dogmatic history, I’ve learned that whenever there has been a pronouncement that is clearly false or even contadicts some other teaching, theologians and church authorities are quick to tell you: “Well, if this is wrong, then it just wan’t an infallible decree, was it?” As an Eastern Orthodox theologian put it: “All infallible decrees are certainly true, but no decrees are certainly infallible.”

I ugrged everyone of you to read my postings - though long they are - carefully and even to read “The Pontificial Decrees etc.” in full. Then your question, VociMike, would already be answered. But I may take the time and sort the requirements through again:
  1. The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians
    Aleaxander anewed the decrees of his predecessors: “we, having
    taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, and approve with Apostolic
    authority…” He was not just giving his private feelings on this matter, but acted, as he himself writes in his BULL TO THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, “as guardian of the household
    of Israel, as the shepherd who had to take care of the Lord’s flock, to
    protect it from the evils that threatened it, to see that the sheep redeemed
    by the precious blood of the Saviour were not led astray from the path of
    TRUTH.” The decrees he ratified were also talking about heresy and errouneous faith - therefore, he was acting as doctor. Point 1 is won.
  2. Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals
    In the decrees concerned, doctrines adversary to geocentrism are condemned as “heresy” “errouneous in faith” and “repugnant to Scripture.” Therefore, this concerned a matter of faith. And don’t tell me that the pope can’t decide in matters of profane science. It is, for example, a dogma of the church, that Christ instituted his disciples as “true sacrfificing priest” at the last Supper when he said “Do this in remembrance of me”. Hoewever, the first Christian centuries, including Pauls letter to the Corinthians, know of no priests having character indelible etc. Thefore, the church teaches us history. Another example. as far as I know, the earliest mention of Marys BODILY Assumption is dated by 300 A.D. Nevertheless, it is a Dogma of the faith. And insofar you don’t tell me that Marys Assumption isn’t a histroical happening, but, instead, a mere “theological truth”, you will admit that the church can teach in profan science - history in this case. And so on… Point 2 is also won.
    3 Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority
    This is given when something is condemned as “heresy” Note that heresy is not a small thing: if you believe in heresy, you incur eternal damnation. Please also read my postings above -_-
    I repeat, and repeat… With the consent of Urban, and the explicit approval of Alexander, the decree of Galileos abjurement was given out: It reads: "He was made to say: “Because, after this Holy Office had
    juridically enjoined me to abandon altogether the false opinion which
    holds that the sun is in the centre of the world and immovable, and that the
    earth is not the centre and moves; and had forbidden me to hold, defend,
    or teach in any manner the said false doctrine, and after it had been
    notified to me that the said doctrine is repugnant to Holy Scripture, I
    wrote and caused to be printed, a book, wherein I treat of the same
    doctrine, already condemned, and adduce arguments with great efficacy in
    favour of it without offering any solution of them; therefore I am judged
    vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that
    the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not
    the centre and moves.”
    Note that the decree of the Holy Office of 1616 was mentioned as a final decison on this point - this decree passed with the consent of Pope Paul. Galileo was “suspected of HERESY” for nevertheless sticking to this opinion. Please also read “The Pontificial Decrees etc.” where the author shows that after 1616 Galileos contemporaries showed that they very well understod that “rome has spoken, the case is finished”
    Point 3 is won as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top