Heilocentrism infallibly condemned

[TheWhim]

This only objection that is really worth of being repeated:

Instead, it was an assertion of the Roman Curia, approved by the pope (which can never be infallible), and a Papal Bull by Alexandria VIII attached to the Index of Forbidden Books, primarily as a “cover letter” for the Index, primarily an exercise of the supreme authority of the pope as judge, not as magister.

Well, this is worth being answered at some lenght. But let me cite I passage:

Next, if the pope decides in a bull to call a new General Council in the year 2010, this, of course, is just a question on disclipline. But if he says in a bull that something is HERESY, you’ve got a decision on faith.

Do you guess, my dear dave, where I got this citation from? Yes, from one of my former postings! But why should we bother to read TheWhim’s postings? -_-

I remember that I was, some time ago, quite concerned about whether sanctifications, declared by the Roman Pontiffs, would be infallible: has this or that French king, who was happy at getting Protestants slaughtered, infallibly gone into heaven? Well, the answer is: sanctifications are not directly infallible, but at laeast theologically certain. Therefore, it would be sin to doubt their value. Why I am forcing this off-topic into this thread? Well, straight-forward young man as I am, after consulting my parish priest - who wasn’t sure about his - I phoned the Erzbistum to get some canonist and theologians on the line. I was told the following: “You should be aware that every doctrinal act, say, the proclamation of a Dogma, is also a jurdicial act, for if you don’t believe in a Dogma, you incur excommunication, which is juridical. You also have to yield obedience to a Dogma, so to say, which is a juridical term. Every doctrinal act is a juridical act. Well, as to your question: Sanctifications by the Roman Pontiff seem to present a borderline case, though modern theoligans have abandoned almost entirely the old view of sanctifications being infallible - rather, they constitute juridical acts.”

Let’s not meddle into this. The point is this: If the pope presents you a list of books you should’nt dare to read,
this has nothing to do with papal infallability
, for this is a matter of discipline. Say, Benedict would adress in a bull to the universal church:
“We order the abominable books of Harry Potter to be extinsguished with fire and sword. Whoever dares to read them, or to refrain from yielding obedience to this Our will, will be excommunicated.”
If he would do this, we would have to agree with him - because we must be obedient to the Pope, unless he wants to force sin on us. (And I don’t think that the burning of HarryPotter books is sinful.)
Well, however, if Benedict dys, and a new Ope comes up - personally being a fan of J.K. Rowling - he may well adress a bull to all the faithful, saying:
“We order that the constitution of Our beloved brtoher Benedict - blessed he ever may be - be withdrawn and declared completely null and void.”
He may well do this - this is jurdical.

But imagine that Benedict had also attached to his bull certain decrees, formally approved by him, in which certain propositions, on which the story of Harry Potter is based, are condemned in most solem terms: say:
“That there exists something like magic apart from the Scramental Grace of the Church, is erroneous in faith, repugnant to Scripture and it’s true and Catholic interpretation, repugnant to tradition, and what’s the more, FORMALLY HERETICAL.”
Benedict woulod have decided in a matter on faith, that Harry Potter would never be able to swing his wizard-staff - um…but this was rather Gandal, I fear - in the real world. To believe that he actually could, would be heresy. You got a decision on faith. You cannot withdraw it. The follower of Benedict could very well withdraw the order of Benedict concerning HarryPotter books being burned.
BUT he would be enterily unable to withdraw the doctrinal decision Bendeict made on magic - ex sese, non ex consensu ecclesia, IRREFORMABILES
esse.
Benedict based his juridical decision on DOCTRINAL reasons, nay, what’s the more, he made CLEAR that this DOCTRINE is condemned.

 

[TheWhim]

This is exactly what happened in the Galileo case and Alexanders bull. I repeat what has already been written:

These, therefore, were some of the things the Pope confirmed and
approved with Apostolic authority by the tenor of his BULLl. 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[inclusive the theoligical censure of 1616 condemning heliocentrism - for the sake and benefit of geocentrism - as heretical], 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.”

Foe example, take the bull that promulgated the Immculate Conception. (and thefore the opinion contrary to this as “heresy”). Do you think this is not a genuine ex-cathedra-utterance because the Pope didn’t work the text by all himself but had conselours who did refinements, and so on? But nevertheless, Pius approved and promulgated the bull. Well, we got the two decrees of Paul and Urban. Alexander din’t work them out be himself. But he nevertheless prumulgated them in a bull, approving them, making them his own, not as a thing external to the Bull, but as though
actually in it, “quem præsentibus nostris pro inserto haberi volumus; - therefore, if the condemnation of heliocentrism isn’t an excathedra-utterance, then NOTHING is an ex-cathedra-utterance.

I may also quote a passage from the “Pontifficial Decrees”, which will further illuminate this point:

Alexander wrote:
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.

I think, dave, you’re objection has been sufficiently treated now. Well, I’m again stopping to post until a good new argument comes up. But I won’t waste my time with endless repetitions. If you satrt to present a new objection, care to read through ALL of my postings carefully again, before you do so. I think this will spare also you the time of psoting.

A final thing has to be said:
I’ve already read now several times the objection that whether you believe in geocentrism or heliocentrism, it’s all the same, it’s all REALTIVE. Please read AGAIN - of course, I’m joking now - my posting #45.

Yours ever.
TheWhim, a Protestant.

 

[TheWhim]

argh… “sanctifications”? Well, this is my problem with forerign languages: I can easily read and understand them but suck at expressing myself with them. For example, take French. I love to read it but can’t construct a single French sentence without making thousand of mistakes.

The correct term is maybe “canonization” - well, I simply mean when the ope declares in front of the universal church a person to be a saint and permits that he’s called upon in the official church service.

This as a little off-topic-posting.

Yours.

 

[ncjohn]

Bigwill:

Neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is a matter of faith or morals. Just because I say it’s a sin to enjoy a little Mili Vanili doesn’t make it so. If the Pope had declared a belief in geocentrism or a rejection of heliocentrism to be a matter of faith and/or morals, and I firmly dispute that he did, he would simply have been mistaken about that categorization.

itsjustdave1988:

Thus, to assert that these disciplinary and judicial decrees rose to the level of infallible and immutable dogma is absurd. It was never defined by the solem magisterium as such, neither by ecumenical council nor papal ex cathedra act.

And here, as I’ve said before is exactly where the problem is and why it appears that people are attempting to “have it both ways”.

Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis were both stated to NOT be ex Cathedra (and obviously were not the products of a council), but just clarifications of the Ordinary Magisterium, having always and everywhere been taught as Catholic Doctrine. Being able to claim that also explicitly requires that they be stated by the Church to be matters of “faith and morals”.

In parallel fashion, the Church (and several Popes in particular), also declared geocentrism to be a matter of faith and morals since to not believe it contradicted scripture–at least in their understanding at the time. I have yet to see anyone show that the Church believed or taught anything else up until the time that even the Church finally came to realize that the science did not support it and abandoned that condemnation.

So, sorry Bigwill, but it’s not just a matter of the Pope being wrong about something that doesn’t matter. Whether it ***should have been *** a matter of faith and morals isn’t the relevant question. What IS relevant is that the Church believed and declared that it WAS a matter of faith and morals, just as they have done with HV and OS. And then Dave, you can’t claim that it isn’t infallible because there wasn’t an *ex Cathedra * statement or one from a council because then HV and OS also would fail on the same grounds.

By the way Dave, I think you do people a great injustice with your statement that

itsjustdave1988:

Whether something is infallible or not seems to only matter to theologians–for academic reasons–or to dissenters who want to rationalize to themselves the reasons they should not obey Sancta Mater Ecclesia.

There are at least two other very valid categories of people who deal with this. One is faithful Catholics who accept the teaching of the Church’s infallibility even while struggling with it; a second is faithful Catholics who just want to understand their faith more deeply and don’t mind asking the hard questions to do that. I for one happen to fall into both of those categories, along with enjoying theology as a hobby, and found that implication that people who ask questions are *de facto * dissenters and looking for ways around the rules very insulting. That is the same kind of argument used often by politicians to defuse the questions of opponents–i.e. “anyone who opposes the war isn’t patriotic”–by creating a diversion and attacking the opponent rather than answering the questions in a straightforward and rational way. Since you typically do answer questions in a logical way, even if one might not fully agree with your conclusions, I found it distressing to see you use that type of approach.

Don’t get me wrong here. I am not questioning HV or OS, nor am I saying that geocentrism should be, or should have been an infallible teaching. I am however struggling to come to a rational conclusion that the Church did not believe it to be since all evidence that I’ve seen from all sources of the Church at the time indicates that they did.

Peace,

 

[TheWhim]

I may endeavour to treat a final accusation, or, better to say, misunderstanding. My dear friend dave writes:

Thus, to assert that these disciplinary and judicial decrees rose to the level of infallible and immutable dogma is absurd. It was never defined by the solem magisterium as such, neither by ecumenical council nor papal ex cathedra act.

Arguing that a doctrine is de fide catholica is different than arguing that it is de fide definita. TheWhim is arguing the latter, not the former (or, he’s a bit confused).

Now I believe that my dear friend’s confusion - because I think it is rather him who is confused - would have been already cleared up if he had try to read “The Pontificial Decrees” (I’ve given the link many a time now and won’t repeat to do so).
I’ll just quote at lenght a long passage:

 

[TheWhim]

“It is,” he remarked “he” is Fr. Robert’s opponent, Dr. Ward] (p. 352), “essential to the present inquiry that all
our readers should understand how much is implied in the allegations of
this pamphlet. Any one who reads the facts therein so usefully brought
together will see that the charge against heliocentricism was nothing less
than a charge of heresy. It was considered by the Pope and the
ecclesiastical authorities that this theory is ‘opposed to’ Scripture’ (p. 5);
‘contrary to Scripture’ (p. 20); ‘repugnant to Scripture’ (p. 21); ‘a heresy’
(p. 21). Supposing, therefore, that Paul V. had really pronounced this judgment ex cathedrâ, his declaration would have been nothing less than
a definition of faith. In other words, according to our opponent, Paul V.
defined it to be a dogma of the faith that the sun moves round the earth,
precisely as Pius IX. long afterwards defined it to be a dogma of the faith
that Mary was immaculately conceived.”

 

[TheWhim]

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. And De
Lugo remarks1 that this holds good whenever an opinion can be properly
called “heresy,” simply because of its repugnancy to Scripture.
“Ego….puto, in casu proposito, si constat sufficienter de revelatione Dei
in Scriptura contenta, constare etiam sufficienter de propositione Ecclesiæ,
atque adeo non posse dissensum excusari ab heresi ex defectu solum
propositione, seu applicationis ab Ecclesia faciendæ, quare si dissensus sit
error contra fidem, quia constat sufficienter de revelatione Dei, erit etiam contra propositionem Ecclesiæ, quia eodem modo constat de propositione
Ecclesiæ. Nam Ecclesia clare et manifeste proponit credendam
Scripturam, et omnia et singula in ea contenta; si ergo manifeste constat,
aliquid in Scriptura contineri, æque manifeste constare debet id ab
Ecclesia nobis credendum proponi. … Si communiter in Ecclesia
dubitetur, vel saltem non habiatur pro certo et indubitato, licet aliqui cum
(sensum) manifeste percipiant, ita ut prudenter formidare non possint, et
ideo dissentiendo peccant graviter contra fidem, non tamen credo eos esse
proprie et stricte hæreticos. Ratio autem est, quia hæresis, ut sæpe diximus
est secta seu divisio, et hæreticus est sectarius, quia secat et dividit
unitatem Ecclesiæ, seque a reliquo Ecclesiæ corpore et sensu dividit,
sectando, et amplectendo proprium sensum et opinionem, contra id quod
Ecclesia sentit” (De Virt. Div. Fidei, disp. xx. sect. ii. 58, 59).

 

[TheWhim]

If, then, the Pope said in effect that heliocentricism was a heresy, he
said in effect that it was not only de fide, but de fide Catholicâ, that it was
false; that it was not only de fide, but de fide Catholicâ, that its
contradictory was true. In what capacity he spoke, and whether he meant
what he said, are further questions, but it is a great point to have it
conceded that he did in effect declare heliocentricism to be a “heresy.”
But we also learn from .the statement of a Pontifical Congregation that the
utterance was a definition, i.e. a final authoritative judgment. [this refers to Galileos solemn abjurement, an abjurement only required for heretics - please read my posting #2] We are
brought, therefore, to the conclusion that the Pope did in fact publish,
through the Congregation of the Index, a definition of faith. [Fr. Roberts is writing thids still BEFORE pointing to Alexander’s bull, that totally vindicates his case] Now, suppose
for a moment that he did so ex cathedrâ, would it follow that the definition
was of the same kind as that by which Pius IX. decided the question of the
Immaculate Conception? And ought it to have been promulgated with like
emphasis and solemnity? Assuredly not. The definition of the Bull “Ineffabilis”
was put forward to make that of Catholic faith which
confessedly was not so before. Up to the 8th of December 1854 it was, by
the force of Bulls that had not been formally revoked, excommunication to
call the denial of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception heresy, or
even, if I mistake not, to say that those who impugned it were guilty of
grave sin. Since that date, according to the Bull, any one who ventures to think that the doctrine has not been revealed by God, ipso facto, makes
shipwreck of his faith, and cuts himself off from the unity of the Church.
Clearly the definition was of the nature of a new doctrinal law, and
therefore needed a promulgation that would challenge the attention of all
Christians. But not every Pontifical definition ex cathedrâ ascribing heresy
or repugnancy to Scripture to dissentients is a definition of faith in this
sense. By far the greater number are issued, not to generate any fresh
obligation of faith, but to protect and vindicate one that already exists; and
to this class obviously belong ex cathedrâ censures of books, and
propositions, as heretical. The mode of publishing these judgments will
vary of course with circumstances, but from their nature there is no reason
for their being put forward with any greater emphasis and solemnity than
the evil to be met requires.

 

[TheWhim]

Well, my dear dave, my dear friend, I believe we could have spared each other much trouble if you wouln’t have decided, for what reason whatsoever, to notorously not read my postings and to don’t listen to my recommendation to print out “The Pontificial Decrees” and read this great and honest work.

I think, at least, that this thread has given me the amazing experience of just how ruthless people are able to twist facts and truth. so long as their own religion, or, rather, their own ideology, can be vindicated. Umm… but I fear I’m getting far to bitter in tone now.

To show you how serious I am about my Catholic faith, I assure you that I will even study the nonsense - as I believe - preached by lewisdt.com to really make it sure that I abandon my Catholic faith because geocentrism is scientifically wholly unacceptable.

I want to point out that I am not a great christian scholar or something like this. Indeed, I’m wholly ignorant about the Old Testament and only know the Gospels in the New Testament for sure(I rather study the bible - histroical-critical method and so on, than to actually read it -, I am also ignorant about sacramental theology - and still need much education on many other points.

But I’m well termed in Dogmengeschichte and church history. And in dogmatical theology.

Therefore, I would have to denounce everything I know, yes, I would have to abandon my brain, if I should embrace the church’s infallability though I knew that the church has erred.

But I can’t lie - and I think this seperates me from some other posters in this thread.

Well, I fear I’m getting insulting now. But I’m really steeming while typing this!

Finally, I want to repeat m,y annunciation that I’m leaving this thread. I’ll force myself not to look any longer on CatholicAnswers and to refrain from posting any further. Well, I’ve announced this before - to make sure that I won’t post nevertheless, I solemnly declare that I want to be cursed by the blessed Apostels Peter and Paul if I should dare to post in this thread again - well, I think this will suffice to refrain me from posting.

A last thing may be said: In the decree of the Holy Office “Lamentabili”, approved by Pope Pius X., the following sentence was condemed:
“Because in the deposit of faith only revealed truths are contained, it isn’t allowed to the church to judge on claims of human sciences.” (Cum in deposito fidei veritates tantum revelatea contineantur, nullo sub respectu ad Ecclesiam pertinet iudicium ferre de assertionibus disciplinarum humanum)

Yours ever.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

theWhim:

I just want to make sure that you, itsjustdave, don’t get a wrong opinion on my faith. I’m certainly not searching for a “pretext to leave the Catholic Church”.

I don’t believe you. Nonetheless, I’m not at all interested in why you’ve decided to embrace heresy, and have attempted to influence others to do the same. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve been deceived and I will pray for you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ncjohn:

And here, as I’ve said before is exactly where the problem is and why it appears that people are attempting to “have it both ways”.

Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis were both stated to NOT be ex Cathedra (and obviously were not the products of a council), but just clarifications of the Ordinary Magisterium, having always and everywhere been taught as Catholic Doctrine. Being able to claim that also explicitly requires that they be stated by the Church to be matters of “faith and morals”.

True. Most Catholic theologians have asserted they are not ex cathedra. At least one notable exception is Fr. Ermenegildo Lio, O.F.M., Humanae Vitae e Infallibilità (Vatican City, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986). Fr. Lio was a Vatican II peritus, and Professor of Moral Theology at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome. Yet, his views are just as much speculative as the contrary view is.

Thus, it can be difficult, even for the most learned theologians in the Church, to reach consensus as to what is an ex cathedra papal act, and what is not. Thank God Being a faithful Catholic doesn’t require skill in this area.

In parallel fashion, the Church (and several Popes in particular), also declared geocentrism to be a matter of faith and morals since to not believe it contradicted scripture–at least in their understanding at the time.

I agree it was the authentic teaching of the ordinary magisterium in accord with their interpretation of Scripture that the earth did not move and that it was the center of the “world” (Latin mundi).

The Church has plenary authority over the faithful regarding all matters the Church herself deems as touching upon faith or morals, as well as ecclesiastical discipline and government. The Church can be wrong in this ordinary power, but still it must be obeyed.

The Church affirmed: “We teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” (Pastor Aeternus)

Thus, if I were living in St. Robert Bellarmine’s day, I would be certainly compelled to give my religious submission of intellect and will to this authentic ordinary teaching of the magisterium. I would have no problems doing this, especially given the scientific certitude of these hypotheses in the 17th century, and how general relativity today seems to have relativized the entire debate such that, although scientifically impractical, one could easily model the universe with an immovable earth at the center.

In fact, if Pope Benedict XVI wrote an encyclical on Geocentrism and insisted that it was as to be held by Catholics, I would give it my religious submission of intellect and will. The Holy Spirit was sent to make us good Christians, not mathematicians. Heb 13:17 states, “Obey your leaders and submit to them.” Cardinal Ratzinger, commenting on how absurd it was to cover 14 encyclicals in one half-hour address said, “But out of obedience sometimes I do absurd things.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, address to Lateran University, May 2003).

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

ncjohn:

I have yet to see anyone show that the Church believed or taught anything else up until the time that even the Church finally came to realize that the science did not support it and abandoned that condemnation.

I don’t see the need to show that the Church believed or taught anything else, as ex cathedra status was the issue, not whether it was an authentic exercise of the ordinary magisterium.

Yet, it appears the Church only allowed (without necessarily giving their agreement) other views if they were offered as a hypothesis of science. Once Benedict XIV suspended the decrees of the Congregation of the Index against heliocentric works in 1757, you are likely to find more Churchmen considering contrary interpretations of Scripture.

Vatican II’s *Gaudium et Spes, *specifically referring to the Galileo case, affirmed:

Therefore if methodical investigation within every branch of learning is carried out in a genuinely scientific manner and in accord with moral norms, it never truly conflicts with faith, for earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. (6) Indeed whoever labors to penetrate the secrets of reality with a humble and steady mind, even though he is unaware of the fact, is nevertheless being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity***. Consequently, we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, which are sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science and which, from the arguments and controversies they spark, lead many minds to conclude that faith and science are mutually opposed.***(7) [Gaudium et spes, ch. 3, par. 36)

1. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter III: Denz. 1785-1186 (3004-3005).

1. Cf. Msgr. Pio Paschini, Vita e opere di Galileo Galilei, 2 volumes, Vatican Press (1964).

I’m obliged to obey the living magisterium, not what was affirmed by St. Bellarmine or even popes in the 17th century insofar as it differs from the teachings of the current pope. The authority as pope ends when they die. There is always only one valid pope, and it is he that Heb 13:17 obliges me to obey.

So, sorry Bigwill, but it’s not just a matter of the Pope being wrong about something that doesn’t matter. Whether it ***should have been ***a matter of faith and morals isn’t the relevant question. What IS relevant is that the Church believed and declared that it WAS a matter of faith and morals, just as they have done with HV and OS.

I agree. Yet, I don’t believe theologically speaking, a matter “erroneous to faith” is the same as a “matter of faith.” Interpreting the Bible contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers is a matter “erroneous to faith” but that does not make it a heresy, per se, just bad Catholic hermeneutics. (see post by mich2 above.)

continued…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

continued…

ncjohn:

And then Dave, you can’t claim that it isn’t infallible because there wasn’t an *ex Cathedra *statement or one from a council because then HV and OS also would fail on the same grounds.

I’ve not made any such claim. You’ve taken my comments out of context of my other posts on this thread. I’m sorry you misunderstood me. I only claimed that it was not manifestly de fide definita by virtue of an exercise of the solemn or extraordinary magisterium. If it is an article of Catholic Faith, I find it odd that the Catechism fails to mention it. There are certainly other ways a teaching can be infallible, that is, de fide catholica. The scope of this thread seemed to be regarding papal ex cathedra pronouncements, which is an exercise of the solemn magisterium, not ordinary magisterium.

It may very well be de fide catholica, but before climbing on board that dubious thesis, I’d like to see the evidence. I’m certainly not championing that cause as the magisterium themselves do not even teach the doctrine, which is a hint that it is not doctrinal. To assert that it is de fide catholica would be, in my opinion, to think against the Church. I’m inclined instead to “think with the Church” as St. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits taught.

Nonetheless, I’ve not seen any attempt on this thread to show that geocentrism is de fide catholica. Such research takes a lot of work. I’m waiting for Robert Sungenis’ book on the subject, which was expected to be published in 2005. Yet, it is even more difficult to find theological consensus with regard to de fide catholica than with regard to whether something is a papal *ex cathedra *act.

For Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, however, we have an explicit decision of the Holy See on the matter stating that it is infallible by virtue of the ordinary univesal magisterium, a rather unprecedented explicit decision on the matter. If only all of theology was that easy. We have no such pronouncement regarding Humanae Vitae, yet given the norms of dogmatic theology and the evidence detailed by John T. Noonan’s book *Contraception, *I find it difficult to believe that the teaching in Humanae Vitae is anything but de fide catholica. Yet, I’m just dave, and not the pope. For now, it is sufficient for me to obey my leaders and submit to them as Heb 13:17 demands, whether they are being infallible or not.

By the way Dave, I think you do people a great injustice with your statement …

I’m sorry but I think you misconstrued my words.

“… faithful Catholics who accept the teaching of the Church’s infallibility even while struggling with it; a second is faithful Catholics who just want to understand their faith more deeply and don’t mind asking the hard questions to do that.”

I consider these theologians, as it is the work of theology to attempt to better understand and describe the deposit of faith. On other threads I’ve described this as “pious contention,” which does not gainsay Catholic doctrine. This is contrasted with sinful contention, which St. Thomas Aquinas describes as “denoting a disclaimer of the truth and an inordinate manner.” (Summa Theologica, IIb, 38, 1)

I found it distressing to see you use that type of approach.

Sorry I caused you distress, but as I said, I think you read into my words something that was not intended.

 

[TheWhim]

Ah… well, now I incur the wrath of Peter and Paul. But Apostels of the truth as they are, I believe that they would permit breaking my oath - or, rather, suspending it for this single posting - that I may apologize for an error expressed quite a few times.

AND ALL IT CONTAINED[inclusive the theoligical censure of 1616 condemning heliocentrism - for the sake and benefit of geocentrism - as heretical], came to the Church DIRECTLY FROM THE POPE HIMSELF, speaking to her as her Head,

BUT Alexanders Bull did NOT contain the two theological censures. The problem was, that I took this decree of 1616 for the “Quia ad notiam” similarly issued at 1616. Well, this is embarrassing. I’m constantly complaining about dave not reading my posts but can’t carefully read myself.

I realize that my argumentation is decisively weakend by not Alexanders Bull containing the condemnation of heliocentrism as “heresy”.

However, I would like to draw attention to the following matters:

1. The Index was brought into action to give public effect to these
   proceedings.
   “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 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.”

This means that the “Quia ad notiam” of 1616 and the theological censures of 1616 are closely linked. Well, the books wouldn’t have been prohibited if it wouldn’t have been for the censures. Therefore, if Alexander inserts and approves the “Quia ad notiam” - and this he actually does - it seems hard to imagine how he could have done this in any other intention than in the intention the document, on which “Quia ad notiam” based, was issued: the intention of condemning heliocentrism as “heresy”.
What’s the more, “Q. a. n.” talks about the “heresies and errors” contained in the books prohibited, for which heresies and errors they are prohibited at all. Heliocentrism is attacked as a “false Pythagoran DOCTRINE” - a heresy, in other words. (Well, but “false” seems rather an unsure term.)

Secondly, we should always keep in mind the severety of the sentence passed on Galileo(READ THE PONTIFICAL DECREES for a full account). Indeed, Pope Urban expressly ordered that Galielo should solemnly abjure and he also had the sentence, in which anything short of geocentrism was condemned most solemnly as “heresy”, be send to Aspostolic Nuntius, Inquisitors, and universities. I can’t refrain from reading a direct approval into this his actions.

Well, but this is enough after all - I don’t want to stress the patience of the blessed Apostels too much. Goodbye. Once for all. Finally.

 

[ncjohn]

itsjustdave1988:

I’ve not made any such claim. You’ve taken my comments out of context of my other posts on this thread. I’m sorry you misunderstood me. I only claimed that it was not manifestly de fide definita by virtue of an exercise of the solemn or extraordinary magisterium. If it is an article of Catholic Faith, I find it odd that the Catechism fails to mention it. There are certainly other ways a teaching can be infallible, that is, de fide catholica. The scope of this thread seemed to be regarding papal ex cathedra pronouncements, which is an exercise of the solemn magisterium, not ordinary magisterium.

That has been my entire point though. I agree that it is almost impossible in this case to determine whether the statements on geocentrism were ex cathedra or not. To me however, it seems clear that the Church considered it to be infallible as part of the Ordinary Magisterium–just as HV and OS are–as that is pretty much the only way that a heresy charge could have originated and been sustained. And since they eventually dropped that position, the question becomes one of a change in an infallible position taken by the Church, which would by defintion make it not infallible. This is the troubling aspect which I am trying to overcome.

itsjustdave1988:

I consider these theologians, as it is the work of theology to attempt to better understand and describe the deposit of faith. On other threads I’ve described this as “pious contention,” which does not gainsay Catholic doctrine. This is contrasted with sinful contention, which St. Thomas Aquinas describes as “denoting a disclaimer of the truth and an inordinate manner.” (Summa Theologica, IIb, 38, 1)…
…Sorry I caused you distress, but as I said, I think you read into my words something that was not intended.

Thanks for clarifying that. The way it was worded it came across to me as a backhanded slam against people asking questions. As I said, I didn’t find that consistent with the way I’ve seen you approach things, which is why it distressed me. I feel much better about that part now anyway.

I didn’t know Sungenis was doing a book on this. I’ll have to keep my eyes open for it. In the meantime I’ll continue to do some research on my own, although as you note, finding information on some of these kind of issues isn’t real easy, especially since it doesn’t seem like much was written on it early on since it was probably considered so fundamental that no one would have felt the need.

Thanks for all your comments Dave. I always find them interesting and informative and you’ve given me some good directions to look in.

Peace,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ncjohn:

To me however, it seems clear that the Church considered it to be infallible as part of the Ordinary Magisterium–just as HV and OS are–as that is pretty much the only way that a heresy charge could have originated and been sustained.

I understand, however, I’m not personally convinced, as the reaction of the magisterium clearly has differed with regard to the world’s 17th & 18th cent. insistence on heliocentrism (sun is the center of the mundi or world) as compared to the world’s insistence on women priests and contraception. For heliocentrism, as soon as the scientific community began to build consensus, the Church not only allowed the publication of the hypothesis of heliocentrism because it “practically” explained things, she gave her ecclesiastical approval for them. For women priest and contraception, there was much more pressure from the world to conform, to include pressure from many non-Catholic Christian denominations, including Orthodoxy in the case of contraception. Yet, the Church never budged.

Nonetheless, I leave the decision of what the Catholic deposit of Faith consists of to Pope Benedict XVI and my direct episcopal shepard, Most Rev. Michael Sheridan, neither of which have taught that heliocentrism is heresy. Nor is it found in any of my dogmatic theology texts. Nor have my professor taught it as part of my post-graduate Theology degree.

I’m very happy being among the Taught Church, even if I should study theology for another 30 years. I have no illusory conception that I’m more capable or authorized at defining the Catholic Faith than the Teaching Church, the living magisterium.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ncjohn:

I didn’t know Sungenis was doing a book on this…

See here:

"Galileo Was Wrong,’ claims geocentrist writer
by DRU SEFTON
The SunHerald, 28 Mar 2006
Newhouse News Service

Mr. Sungenis stated on his web page,

“…it makes no difference whether we have a rotating earth in a fixed star system, or a fixed earth in a rotating star system. The mathematics and the forces for each are precisely the same. Any scientist worth his salt will admit that heliocentrism is merely a “preferred” system, not the only system. This was proven long ago by Tycho Brahe. Unfortunately, Kepler murdered Brahe and stole his 40 years worth of notes and pressed them into service for Copernicus. There is much more intrigue concerning the history of geocentrism versus heliocentrism that I will bring out in my book.”

He doesn’t seem to make the dubious claim that it was pronounced ex cathedra, yet he insists that Galileo was wrong (which he was) and that given general relativity, geocentrism is not disproved nor is heliocentrism proved objectively true. This is another reason why theWhim’s polemics fail miserably–heliocentrism is not a “scientific truth”–indeed it never was.

Mr. Sungenis also insists that geocentrism remains Catholic doctrine because there’s been no official retraction. I think he tries too hard when insisting upon it being current doctrine, however, as the lack of a retraction doesn’t explain why it doesn’t appear in organs of ordinary teaching.

Pope John Paul II made personal comment to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that Urban VII was wrong about Galileo. While his comments were not a formal magisterial act, it shows that a learned theologian such as John Paul II didn’t consider it a definition of irreformable dogma. I could study theology another 30 years and still not have studied as much as John Paul II, so I respect his views, even if not necessarily promulgated as an Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

I love Robert Sungenis’ books, and while I might end up disagreeing with him on the doctrinal “certainty” of geocentrism, I will certainly enjoy reading his book when it is available for purchase.