Religion and Science

[grannymh]

The pope, as official head of the Holy Office defined and declared belief in a fixed sun formal heresy because it contradicted Scripture.

The Pope, as head of any kind of committee, can also act as an individual. The sun is a member of the material/physical universe and does not have a spiritual soul. The Pope or any committee is free to look into scientific opinions about material/physical objects which do not have spiritual souls.

Is the purpose of the Catholic Church that of bringing material/spiritual objects without spiritual souls to eternal life with God? Of course not. That is why the sun is not the object of a theological dogma.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

the understanding that everything presupposes the Creation by God.

God as Creator of all is an explicit theological dogma of the Catholic Church which can be documented. See Nicene Creed and check its history starting with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

So where is the theological dogma that explicitly defines the exact position of one of the material/physical planets in the entire universe? Since there was no Church Council in session at the time, the trial of Galileo would be considered a local event and not part of a Church Council.

Consequently, all statements supporting a scientific geocentric religion would be considered as individual conclusions separate from the Catholic Deposit of Faith. As my Irish Mother would say: One cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear."

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55: 6-9

 

[grannymh]

Even today, when man has a choice of orders for the world, either H or G, he still prefers the heresy to the revealed G. No matter that the choice of G restores the protection of the Holy Ghost to those churchmen in 1616 and 1633, they still argue in favour of the one that denies this.

Is the implication that a choice of a particular scientific position of a created object has power over The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity?

It is my understanding that the First Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. added the following Catholic theological dogma to the Nicene Creed. “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.”

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church gives meaning and purpose to human life.

To see it attacked over a strictly scientific issue is a source of deep sorrow.

 

[DavidPalm]

David, you can believe what you like, no, you have to believe the likes of Fr Harrison

The “likes of Fr Harrison”? A Catholic priest and doctor of theology writing in defense of the Church. You cite “the likes of” Andrew Dickson White, Skull and Bones member and vehement critic of religion to attack the Church. Interesting.

Was that not the Church’s FIRST Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est.

No. Disciplinary decrees issuing from Roman congregations and approved only in forma communi do not constitute instances of Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. We have been over this ground before. What is more, the Roman Pontiff cannot delegate his infallibility. False premises, false conclusions.

No pope, no church instrument can CHANGE the Church’s first teaching.

This could only be true if disciplinary decrees, issued only in forma communi by Roman congregations, were in and of themselves infallible and irreformable. But they are not. If you claim otherwise, please cite the magisterial authority.

It was Galileo who challenged the confirmation of a fixed earth and moving sun in Scripture.
The pope, as official head of the Holy Office defined and declared belief in a fixed sun formal heresy because it contradicted Scripture. In 1633 under another pope the Church declared this ruling immutable.

‘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.’

The competence of the Congregation of the Index was to determine which books the Christian faithful should not read. It could not and in fact did not issue a doctrinal decree in 1616 binding on the whole Church. It issued a disciplinary decree stating that certain books should be placed on the Index. This bound Catholics to the obedience of not reading those books. But it was certainly reformable and it was later reformed to remove those books from the Index.

The Holy Office convened in 1633 to judge whether Galileo was guilty of disobeying the 1616 decree. This was a disciplinary tribunal, concerned with the personal actions and fate of Galileo. They ruled that he had disobeyed the 1616 decree, which he had. It had doctrinal content, but did not constitute a doctrinal decree, binding on the whole Church. And I have already showed where that same Holy Office in 1822, also approved by the Pope, ruled to allow non-geocentric views to be taught as fact. And I have also shown where two Popes have taught the principle grounds on which the doctrinal position in the 1633 decree was in error and one more Pope who has said that there was in fact an error. You keep saying these things have not been abrogated, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

The seventeenth century Popes knew how to issue doctrinal decrees binding on the whole Church. For whatever reason—providentially, I would say—they chose not to do so in this case. Therefore Fr. Harrison’s summary of the situation is exactly right: “Rome’s 17th-century insistence on geocentrism . . . was promulgated only in disciplinary documents, not in formally doctrinal ones [and] was never promulgated directly and personally by any Pope, only indirectly, through the instrumentality of the Vatican Congregations of the Index and the Holy Office”.

 

[DavidPalm]

So, here is the scenario: 1700 years of belief in geocentrism, one papal decree defining and declaring a fixed sun formal heresy,

There have not been any papal decrees on geocentrism.

one trial confirming the immutability of this definition and judgement of Galileo as a suspected heretic (he pretended he was a geocentrist all the time) and confinement to house arrest for life, was shown to be an error. This remember, in a Church or religion that claims special protection from God against errors of faith and morals.

The Catholic Church only claims special protection from God against errors of faith and morals under very specific conditions. As grannymh and others have pointed out to you repeatedly, these conditions were not met in the Galileo incident. The decrees of Roman congregations approved in forma communi are not infallible. That means that they are fallible. That means that they can err.

As Pope Leo XIII taught, this matter of geocentrism is not a matter of faith and morals at all. That indeed was precisely the error of the theologians of the seventeenth century. Pope John Paul II stated publicly that they did err.

So, the Catholic Church was faced a dilemma it thought was impossible. Their whole DIVINE PROTECTION had been blown away by these ‘proofs’ for a fixed sun.

Not at all. The Church has never held or taught that the decrees of Roman congregations are infallible. Therefore such an error does not “blow away” her claim to divine protection, since she never claimed such protection in those instances.

What you did not show readers David was this from the record:

The Status of the 1616 Decree
Olivieri’s last presentation is perhaps the most instructive of all, for in it he confirms the authority of the
1616 decree.

Msgr. Olivieri’s private correspondence is interesting, but not authoritative. Same with Lalande’s private conversation with the head of the Congregation of the Index. No, if you are going to paint the whole Church black you need an authoritative statement from the Church that the decrees of Roman congregations approved in forma communi are “unreviseable”. No private opinions, please. We need a formal, authoritative statement from the Church.

For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment. Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ — Retrying Galileo, p.198.

The positive decree of the Holy Office in 1822, ratified by the Pope, gave permission to publish works presenting non-geocentric cosmology as fact. In 1835 the Index itself was revised and all non-geocentric works were dropped. No additional comment was necessary because it had been covered already in 1822.

In other words, I will not abrogate the 1616 decree itself, I will hide it under the carpet where it will disappear from the official annals of Church teachings like Denziners and in time all will think the error of defining a false formal heresy will be forgotten.

There has been no hiding. The 1616 decree was about books on the Index. The Index was reformed several times, including to remove those books from the Index. And in 1820 and 1822 the Holy Office issued formal rulings which overturned the discipline enacted by the 1616 and 1633 decrees. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII issued encyclicals which covered the principles with which these issues should be addressed. And Pope John Paul II has stated that the 1616 and 1633 decrees were in error and that things have been set to rights in 1820/1822.

Now Cassini, you have admitted on this forum that Pope Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus 18-19 directly addresses the geocentrism issue. There he states that the authors of sacred Scripture were using figurative language and that that Holy Spirit did not put any details of the physical details of the universe in there. It is not a matter of faith and morals and therefore it is not heresy to opt for a cosmology other than geocentrism. This teaching was reaffirmed by Pope Pius XII. It appears that you dissent from these papal decrees.

 

[cassini]

Rather, what we are talking about are “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable unto salvation” of which St. Augustine spoke. There has been no reversal of the Church’s teaching in this area. She has upheld and reiterated the teaching of St. Augustine, which was taken up by the medievals and especially St. Thomas, and even acknowledged by St. Bellarmine (although it would seem that he, perhaps understandably but unfortunately, misapplied this in the Galileo incident.) These patristic and medieval principles have been taught officially by the Popes, most notably by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus. Cassini himself has acknowledged that geocentrism is the most obvious reference of Pope Leo’s words: “The only interpretation of note in the history of the Church that the encyclical could be referring to was the fixed sun/moving earth heresy [sic].” Thus, they cannot be the very poison from Hell that Cassini states, since such a view cannot be reconciled with the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility.

It is my view that it is easy to reconcile the error of two Roman congregations in the seventeenth century with the dogma of the indefectibility of the Church. I believe it is impossible to reconcile the treatment of these matters by Cassini and other neo-geocentrists with that dogma. For them the Church has been doling out poison to her children for centuries. I don’t expect an atheist like you ( ) to uphold the dogma of the Church’s indefectibility, but it seems that to a man the neo-geocentrists end up attacking the very Church they profess to love and serve.

Well David, I believe gentle atheist might well be able to see better the trees from the woods in the Galileo affair. Indeed his freedom from pro Copernican propaganda means he can see the hypocrisy involved.

You Copernicans hog St Augustine and St Thomas for your cause, both geocentrists, both of who stated the literal understanding of Scripture must be held unless ‘clear and certain’ reasoning deems it untenable. If St Augustine were shown the ‘clear and certain reasoning’ you Copernicans have for a heliocentric reading of a fixed earth and moving sun in Scripture he would have been very angry that you use him to promote what the Church defined as formal heresy.

As fr St Thomas; didn’t he say the following:
‘The knowledge proper to this science of theology comes through divine revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore, it has no concern to prove principles of other sciences, but only to judge them. Whatever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science of theology must be condemned as false.’ — (ST, I, Q 1, a 6, ad 2).

So it seems St Augustine and St Thomas can be better quoted on specifics David, can’t they

As for Pope Leo XIII’s Provintissimus Deus, well he lived in Copernican times so had to include that paragraph to try dodging that 1741-1820 contradiction to all he had written already in his encyclical. Note however he did not mention the Galileo case - why not? Because he could not be seen in an encyclical teach contrary to his predecessors. So, whereas all the Copernicans, like you, insist it ruled on the Galileo case, it did no such thing.

You also think you know better than St Robert Bellarmine, successive professor of theology and preacher at Louvain; director of the course of controversy in Rome; Consulter of the Holy Office (Inquisition) and Master of Controversial Questions. (St. Robert Bellarmine (‘although it would seem that he, perhaps understandably but unfortunately, misapplied this in the Galileo incident.’) If any do not see the arrogance of this then they too are incapable of understanding the Catholic faith.
Look up your daily St Andrew missal and go to May 13th, the feast day of St Bellarmine. Here is what it says:
‘Born in Montepulciano Italy, the now Saint Robert Bellarmine was made cardinal in 1599 by Pope Clement VIII who said that his equal in learning was not at that time to be found in the Church. By his books, published at the height of the Catholic Church’s reply to the Protestant Reformation, he dealt formidable blows to their heretical doctrines and ecclesiological ideas, , while by his catechism, translated into forty languages, he spread the knowledge of Christian doctrine in all countries of the world.’

These then are the credentials of a man you Copernicans tell us didn’t know faith from science, did not understand the Fathers. What on earth is the daily missal talking about. You Copernicans bring everything into disrepute, even the credentials of St Bellarmine just to support your heresy.

I know this because you say Rather, what we are talking about are “the essential nature of the things of the visible universe, things in no way profitable unto salvation” No what we are talking about is the credibility of Holy Scripture. If you and granny do not know that then you know nothing about the Galileo case. You dare say such a thing about Cardinal Bellarmine because you have to as a Copernican. How sad.

I have long understood that if you are not familiar with Bellarmine’s Catholic mind, you know nothing about the Galileo case. The dual between faith and science was fought out between Galileo and Bellarmine. It concerned factual statements in Scripture. I have already challenged granny to state her opinion as to the status of factual statements in Scripture. She however continues he role as Pope Granny, defining this and declaring, in one liners, contradicting history itself.

So now I will ask you David, what status do you give factual statements in Scripture, one of these being a moving sun/fixed earth cosmos. Let us see what caused the Galileo affair.

 

[cassini]

The “likes of Fr Harrison”? A Catholic priest and doctor of theology writing in defense of the Church. You cite “the likes of” Andrew Dickson White, Skull and Bones member and vehement critic of religion to attack the Church. Interesting.
White was a Copernican, just like you and Fr Harrison. He was also a brilliant historian. His history of the Doctrine of Geocentrism is one of the best.

Andrew Dickson White. White, born in New York in 1832, became a student of history and after receiving his BA at the age of twenty-one spent a year of study in Europe. Then, after a spell as professor of history at the University of Michigan, he served in the New York Senate in the mid-1860s. As Chairman of the Senate’s committee on education, White, a long-time member of the ‘Order of the Skull and Bones’, another branch of the New World Order groupings, dedicated himself to the establishment of a completely secular university, one totally free from all religious influences, especially Catholicism. After a fierce public debate on the merits or demerits of such a university, Ezra Cornell emerged as a willing benefactor, ready to finance such a venture. The University of Cornell duly opened its doors in 1867 with White serving as the university’s first president until 1885.
White’s first published works included a series of pamphlets dealing with the history of the advancement of what he calls ‘science against theological opposition’. These he later compiled into a book of two volumes.
Andrew White was without doubt a brilliant scholar, linguist and researcher. He was acquainted with all the best libraries in Europe as well as America, and had a capacity to absorb the scholarly works of the learned authors of most nationalities.
With regard to the subject matter under examination, in the preface of this book he tells the reader:

‘I propose to present an outline of the great, sacred struggle for the liberty of science – a struggle which has lasted for so many centuries, and which yet continues. A hard contest it has been; a war waged longer, with battles fiercer, with sieges more persistent, with strategy more shrewd than in any of the comparatively transient warfare of Caesar or Napoleon or Moltke.’

And present this he does. His bibliography is without doubt one of the most varied and comprehensive. His footnotes alone take up a considerable space, and his source material was found in many different languages. Now White may have been a world-class historian, but a philosopher of science he most certainly was not. An informed reading of this book shows that what White accepted as ‘science’ would not have qualified as such were it not for the metaphysical assumptions of the Copernican revolution. Much of what he included in his book as proof or verification for heliocentrism as against geocentrism; for uniformitarianism against catastrophism ; for evolutionism against creationism , was nothing short of multiple suppositions based on biased and wishful thinking. But White, like so many other anti-Biblicists writing on the same subjects, was in the propaganda business, and the extent of his success was astounding. ‘It was’, he said, the ‘theological spirit that had a tendency to dogmatism which has shown itself in all ages to be the deadly foe not only of scientific inquiry, but of the higher religious spirit itself.’ What White found unacceptable was that in theology we find infallible truths that rightly oppose the ‘scientific’ inventions of godless minds and therein lay the clashing of faith and false reasoning, the two totally incompatible, and warfare was inevitable.

 

[cassini]

Originally Posted by cassini
Was that not the Church’s FIRST Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est.

No. Disciplinary decrees issuing from Roman congregations and approved only in forma communi do not constitute instances of Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. We have been over this ground before. What is more, the Roman Pontiff cannot delegate his infallibility. False premises, false conclusions.
The following was dictated personally by Pope Urban II, who everybody knows, presided over every aspect of the Galileo affair and dictated what was to be declared.

“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.” ’

The following was sent all around the Catholic world:

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.” ’

Now that sounds like a *Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est *to me David. It was sent out to the Catholic world as Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est Pope Urban VIII certainly meant it as a Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. formal Heresy is not temporary, defining and declaring formal heresy is a Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. Your Copernican Church may tolerate heresy here today, gone tomorrow. Modernism at its best.

 

[cassini]

The competence of the Congregation of the Index was to determine which books the Christian faithful should not read. It could not and in fact did not issue a doctrinal decree in 1616 binding on the whole Church. It issued a disciplinary decree stating that certain books should be placed on the Index. This bound Catholics to the obedience of not reading those books. But it was certainly reformable and it was later reformed to remove those books from the Index.
David, don’t you know the difference between the Holy Office of the time and the Congregation of the index?

‘We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, …declare that the said Signor Galileo Galilei has not abjured, … but only the declaration made by the Holy Father,** and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index**, has been intimated to him, …-that the earth moves round the sun, and that the sun is stationary in the centre of the world, and does not move from east to west- is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and therefore cannot be defended or held.’

Here Bellarmine states that Formal heresy was declared by the Pope. Then he says it was only PUBLISHED by the Congregation of the Index.

Publishers, I agree, do not define formal heresies, popes do that.

 

[cassini]

The Holy Office convened in 1633 to judge whether Galileo was guilty of disobeying the 1616 decree. This was a disciplinary tribunal, concerned with the personal actions and fate of Galileo. They ruled that he had disobeyed the 1616 decree, which he had. It had doctrinal content, but did not constitute a doctrinal decree, binding on the whole Church.

And I have already showed where that same Holy Office in 1822, also approved by the Pope, ruled to allow non-geocentric views to be taught as fact. And I have also shown where two Popes have taught the principle grounds on which the doctrinal position in the 1633 decree was in error and one more Pope who has said that there was in fact an error. You keep saying these things have not been abrogated, but the evidence indicates otherwise.

Oh please David, do not try to rewrite history. The 1633 Holy Office found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy. Nobody said it defined anything, that was done in 1616. The 1633 Holy Office merely confirmed it was formal heresy and Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est.

The Holy Office of 1741-1835 merely dropped heliocentric books from the Index. Poper Paul VI got rid of the Index altogether after Vatican II. By your Copernican reasoning that amounted to an abrogation of every heresy under the sun. In truth dropping something from the Index does not abrogate the heresy inside it. That remains. Your abrogation is spurious, another ploy invented to save a lost cause.

 

[cassini]

There have not been any papal decrees on geocentrism.

.

All history knows there was a papal decree in 1616 and 1664 defining a fixed sun as formal heresy.

The same decree said:

(2) The second proposition, “That the earth is not the centre of the world, and moves as a whole, and also with a diurnal movement,” was unanimously declared “to deserve the same censure philosophically, and, theologically considered, to be at least erroneous in faith.”

 

[grannymh]

I have long understood that if you are not familiar with Bellarmine’s Catholic mind, you know nothing about the Galileo case. The dual between faith and science was fought out between Galileo and Bellarmine. It concerned factual statements in Scripture. I have already challenged granny to state her opinion as to the status of factual statements in Scripture. She however continues he role as Pope Granny, defining this and declaring, in one liners, contradicting history itself.

For the benefit of readers.

I am deliberately ignoring factual statements in Scripture because they are not necessary for anyone to believe in geocentrism.

In other words, anyone can believe in geocentrism without ever opening a Bible. One doesn’t have to be Catholic in order to believe in geocentrism. One doesn’t have to understand the issues involved in the Galileo case to believe in geocentrism.

One can believe in geocentrism without mocking the Catholic Church by calling someone “Pope Granny”.

Blessings for the new year,
granny

Bible means – Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

 

[cassini]

The Catholic Church only claims special protection from God against errors of faith and morals under very specific conditions. As grannymh and others have pointed out to you repeatedly, these conditions were not met in the Galileo incident. The decrees of Roman congregations approved in forma communi are not infallible. That means that they are fallible. That means that they can err.
.

A Papal decree, confirmed by the Church in 1820 as an immutable papal decree, enjoys the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium. Like every other definition by the Church, no matter how, enjoys the same infallibility. Pope Granny is not empowered to deny this. Only a pope or council can say ‘that was not infallible’.

I’ll answer the rest tomorrow.

 

[grannymh]

A Papal decree, confirmed by the Church in 1820 as an immutable papal decree, enjoys the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium. Like every other definition by the Church, no matter how, enjoys the same infallibility. Pope Granny is not empowered to deny this. Only a pope or council can say ‘that was not infallible’.

I’ll answer the rest tomorrow.

One doesn’t need to use personal attacks because one is already free to believe in geocentrism. Nor is it necessary to continually mislead people regarding Catholic Church procedures because these local procedures are not properly defined or universally proclaimed theological dogmas based on the Catholic Deposit of Faith; therefore they do not prevent people from believing in a geocentric planet.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[grannymh]

The following was dictated personally by Pope Urban II, who everybody knows, presided over every aspect of the Galileo affair and dictated what was to be declared.

“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.”
’

The following was sent all around the Catholic world:

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.” ’

Now that sounds like a *Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est *to me David. It was sent out to the Catholic world as Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est Pope Urban VIII certainly meant it as a Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. formal Heresy is not temporary, defining and declaring formal heresy is a Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. Your Copernican Church may tolerate heresy here today, gone tomorrow. Modernism at its best.

Your Copernican Church? What does that mean? The Catholic Church does not forbid belief in geocentrism, so there is no need for name calling.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[grannymh]

The following was dictated personally by Pope Urban II, who everybody knows, presided over every aspect of the Galileo affair and dictated what was to be declared.

“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.”
’

The following was sent all around the Catholic world:

“To your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of the error in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.” ’

Now that sounds like a *Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est *to me David. It was sent out to the Catholic world as Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est Pope Urban VIII certainly meant it as a Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. formal Heresy is not temporary, defining and declaring formal heresy is a Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est. Your Copernican Church may tolerate heresy here today, gone tomorrow. Modernism at its best.

In Galileo’s time frame, theological dogmas were defined by Church Councils consisting of representatives from the universal Church. For example, one Catholic Church Council had 5 cardinal legates of the Holy See, 3 patriarchs, 33 archbishops, 235 bishops, 7 abbots, 7 generals of monastic orders, and 160 doctors of divinity.
It lasted for 18 years under 5 Popes.

A Pope dictating a local decree is not a Church Council discussing theological dogmas based on the Catholic Deposit of Faith.

In my humble opinion, in any discussion of religion and science, it is appropriate to defend Catholicism when it is being attacked by advocates of geocentric science. Nonetheless, I submit to the evaluation of moderators.

Blessings to all.
granny

 

[DavidPalm]

Oh please David, do not try to rewrite history. The 1633 Holy Office found Galileo guilty of suspected heresy. Nobody said it defined anything, that was done in 1616. The 1633 Holy Office merely confirmed it was formal heresy and Roma Locuta Est - Causa Finita Est.

The Holy Office of 1741-1835 merely dropped heliocentric books from the Index. Poper Paul VI got rid of the Index altogether after Vatican II. By your Copernican reasoning that amounted to an abrogation of every heresy under the sun. In truth dropping something from the Index does not abrogate the heresy inside it. That remains. Your abrogation is spurious, another ploy invented to save a lost cause.

Ah now Cassini you have me at a disadvantage. I try very hard not to post on the weekends.

A few points. First, I think you will find that you’re mistaken and that the 1616 decree did not speak of the “false Pythagorean doctrine” as a heresy. Therefore, contrary to your position the 1616 decree did not define anything as heresy and you have admitted above that the 1636 decree did not define anything either. They were both disciplinary decrees, not doctrinal definitions and, as such, were reformable as the Church’s discipline is generally.

As I demonstrated above, the Holy Office in 1822 did more than “merely” drop books from the Index. Rather, it gave positive permission to publish such books, thus abrogating the prior prohibition.

Finally for now, I will leave you with a question. Do you know what it means that the Church always interprets condemnations strictly? If not, look it up and let’s discuss it next week.

 

[grannymh]

I have no doubt the LAST people who want the truth are Catholics, for that would show how churchmen fell for the illusion conjured up for them by Satan’s agents.

What are you really implying about the Catholic Church?

As far as religion and science, Catholicism does not forbid belief in geocentric science.

Blessings,
granny

 

[grannymh]

Della. It is not **MY IDEAS **I defend, but those officially defined and declared by the Church.

Since there were no Catholic Church Councils during the lifetime of Galileo, I don’t see any problem for people who want to believe in Catholicism while believing in one or the other theory about one of the planets in the universe.

Blessings,
granny