Dear ItsJustDave,
- Alexander VIII’s papal bull is not an ex cathedra pronouncement according to all learned theologians since his Bull, excepting the opinion of a rather insiginificant number of Catholics, none of which are vested with magisterial authority.
However, this is wrong. I would have been happy - for it would have spared us much discussing - if you would have bothered to read “the Pontificial Decrees etc.” Here’s the link again:
http://www.lewisdt.com/research/Geocentrism/roberts.pdf#search='The%20Pontifical%20Decrees%20Against%20the%20doctrine%20of%20the%20Earth’s%20Movement’
On the first pages, Roberts shows how Pius IX understood his Papal infallablity. I give an extract:
Moreover, it seemed to me, as it did to Dr. Ward,
that this opinion was powerfully supported by certain utterances and Acts
of the Holy See itself. Take, for instance, the language I quoted in my
pamphlet, used by Pius IX. in the Brief Eximiam tuam, in reference to the
original decree prohibiting Günther’s works. That decree was a simple
edict of the Index, having the usual notice that the Pope had ratified the
decision and ordered its publication. Yet the Pope speaks of it as having
been approved “by his supreme authority;” and remarks that, “sanctioned
by our authority and published by our order, it plainly ought to have
sufficed that the whole question should be judged finally decided –
penitus dirempta, and that all who boast of the Catholic profession should
clearly and distinctly understand….that the doctrine contained in
Günther’s books could not be considered sound,” “sinceram haberi non
possa doctrinam Güntherianis libris contentam.” How, in the name of
common sense, could a decree possibly erroneous have made it clear to all
Catholics that the doctrine of the books thereby prohibited could not be sound? And how could such a decree have plainly sufficed to determine
the whole question at issue?
This, and other examples of Pius’ pontificate show us that he, the pope whose intentrion counts in asserting the true meaning of the Dogma of Papal Infallability - because it was he who promulgated it - had a very different notion of his infallability than later theolgians, who, like Itsjustdave, wanted to reduce it to solemn dogmatic pronouncements.
I already cited a passage of the first Vatican Council. May add the following:
Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
Holy Mother Church is threatening everyone with anathema who dares to give a different interpretation to a Dogma than the pope who promulgated it. And, as on Papal infallability, we really must concentrate on the pope’s intention to get some clarification. The wording of the definition was that ambigious that so different minds like Newman and Manning could read their own interpreations into it - well, I already mentioned this.
I recommend everyone to read books like “How the pope made himself infallible”, where it is shown in an almost frightening way how much the pope himself forced the result of the council, proclaiming his own infallabilty. The speeches of Manning in co. in council aula were void of history, for most times even of theology, and filled with even godless hymns on the pope: for example, one bishop said that Christ incarnates three times: In Bethelehm, in the tabernacle, and in the old man in the Vatican[meaning the pope] I just give you an epiosde to show you how irrational forces had occupied Rome at 1870: Pius IX. broke the resistance of a French bishop, who was quite outspoken against Papal infallability, by looking fatherly at him and asking him: “Amas me?” [Do you love me?]
Well, but this is getting too far----
Yours.
). What I’m trying to establish is the absurdity of Whim’s position, who seemingly does believe that the earth is the absolute gravitational center of the universe, unless I have completely misunderstood him (which is only too likely 
).
