Speculatores domus Israel

[LilyM]

So the interpretations of scripture that you guys use from the vatican they are not infallible? Because they weren’t addressed to the whole church?

A lot of 'em square up with the Catechism, which IS addressed to the whole church and expressed in terms which clearly indicate that it is infallible. Some are debatable - have you never seen differing opinions on which bit of which document takes precedence over which other?

Then again, there are some matters (such as some details of the rubrics by which Mass is to celebrated) that very wisely the Pope leaves up to the Bishops Councils of individual countries, or even to individual Bishops and priests. In as far as they act within their powers and don’t contradict anything that Rome says, they too can be infallible.

 

[kleary]

Anyone familiar with this Papal Bull?
It demanded the faithful believe our earth didn’t rotate. I’m interested in learning more about it. Does a papal bull make it Ex Cathedra?

Even if the Pope declared any such statement to be “Infallible” it would not be for the only things the Roman Pontiff can infallibly define are matters of faith or morals.

Ken

 

[Eden]

The context in which Pope Alexander was acting is lacking in the original post. The first article details the betrayal of Pope Alexander VII by Galileo. The second one fills in a few more details:

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp

 

[trth_skr]

Anyone familiar with this Papal Bull?
It demanded the faithful believe our earth didn’t rotate. I’m interested in learning more about it. Does a papal bull make it Ex Cathedra?

The Bull does exist. It is open to debate whether it is ex-cathedra (my opinion is likely not). Read about it here (including a picture of the cover of the bull in part III). I especially discuss the ecclesiatical aspects in part III nd the supplement:

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course

• Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
• Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
• Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
• Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
  Of critical importance today is the book Galileo Was Wrong, written by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett (Ph.D.'s). Volume I mainly deals with the science.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

By the way, it iclearly is a matter of faith (from the supplement):
Catholic Truths:

Based on the Fathers and other considerations, the eleven theological qualifiers of the Holy Office came to an opinion regarding the doctrine of Corpenicism. This opinion would show up again and again over the next 48 years and three popes. The opinion is expressed as:

*24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.

( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.*

Notice the following:

The sun can not be considered immobile. Today we would not have a problem with that notion, but it is clear that the qualifiers were referring to Scriptural paasages almost all of which talk about the sun moving through the heavens cyclically to make day and night. So acentrism really does not satisfy the idea behind this opinion. Also, the immobility of the earth is recognized as a matter of faith. This makes it hard to argue that this issue is not a matter of faith and morals. Clearly if something is fomally heretical by contradicting Scripture, this is a matter of faith and morals…* *

As for the Bull:
Catholic Truths:

15 years later, a Papal Bull was written which probably did more than the prevous declarations. Alexander VII created the Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus. Unlike many Indices of the past, he created a Papal Bull, Speculatores Dominus Israel, to which he explicitly attached:

1. …Tridentine and Clementine Indices…
   2.** …all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement…**
   3. …also the rules of the Tridentine Index, with the observations and instructions added to the Clementine Index, have been prefixed…

Of these explicitly attached documents, he stated in the Bull:

…which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, the things contained therein…

He then stated , explicitly in the Bull:

…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…

First, attaching the entire Index to a Bull and approving it with Apostolic authority carries significant weight in itself. Then, attaching previous Indexes, confirming them and approving them with Apostolic authority only adds more weight. But, more important is point ‘2’ , attaching …all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement… AND *confirm[ing], and approv[ing] with Apostolic authority. *What does this include? According to Father Roberts (The Pontifical Decree Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, 1885):

1. The decree of Paul V: …And because it has also come to attention of the aforementioned Sacred Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine concerning the mobility of the earth and the immobility of the sun, which Nicholas Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium . . . taught, and which is false and altogether incompatible with divine Scripture…

2. 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".

Plus a few other items dealing with Kepler’s writings, Galileo’s Dialogue, etc.

Many Catholic apologists want to pass off this series of events as non-doctrinal because either “it is only disciplinary” or it is “prudential judgement”, etc. I believe they are ignoring the Fathers, the Scriptures (as interpered by the Fathers), as well as the repeated and consistent actions of three popes. Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say in Donum Veritatis…

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

I would propose that this is a matter of science and not faith. …

See post above.

-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.

This was a Bull (Speculatores Dominus Israel)

…-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. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

"Alexander VII:

…the things contained therein, we, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm, **and approve with Apostolic authority … **

…-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.

"Alexander VII:

and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…*… *

Note that the Index explicitly includes the Bull:
Alexander VII:

which we will should be considered as though it were inserted in these presents, together with all, and singular, *… *

As these requirements were not met, the teaching was never meant to be infallible.

I still am not sure it was infallible, but certainly the requirements were met. I would vote for calling it a theologically certain doctrine.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

“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 **…"

(Translation from: “The Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of Them”, Rev. William Roberts, 1885, London.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[OraEtLabora]

I wanted to be done with this thread, but I just want to warn everyone reading it to take with a grain of salt the last few posts. What you will read on the website links is a regurgitation of Sungenis’ out of whack view. Be careful with websites!

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I wanted to be done with this thread, but I just want to warn everyone reading it to take with a grain of salt the last few posts. What you will read on the website links is a regurgitation of Sungenis’ out of whack view. Be careful with websites!

Who is robert sungenis, I always thought he was a Catholic apologist?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Here is an excellent link on this subject…
ldolphin.org/geocentricity/Roberts.pdf

 

[trth_skr]

…What you will read on the website links is a regurgitation of Sungenis’ out of whack view. Be careful with websites!

No OraEtLabora, unlike the unsupported personal opinions declared in your posts, what you read in the last few threads includes actual statements from the pope’s involved.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Randy_Carson]

Robert Sungenis (“Catholic Apologetics International” web site)

I didn’t say geocentrism “is officially taught by the Church.” I said it “WAS” officially taught by the Church. It is a fact of ecclesiastical history that Pope Paul V, Pope Urban VIII and Pope Alexander VII all condemned the notion that “the sun is the center about which the earth revolves” and “the error and heresy of the movement of the earth.” Alexander VII actually signed a papal bull (Speculatores domus Israel), which was attached to the Index of Forbidden Books, stating that he condemned “all books which affirm the motion of the earth,” binding the consciences of the faithful. This information is not hard to find, and anyone who wants to be an honest Catholic has to admit it.

What is this telling us?

Robert Sungenis is a briliant man. He has written three massive books entitled:

• **Not By Faith Alone **- A devastating 700-page repudiation of sola fide
• **Not By Scripture Alone **- illustrating the fallacies of sola scriptura
• **Not By Bread Alone **- supporting the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist

I’m guessing you won’t be quoting from any of these works, will you?

Yes, Sungenis is a geo-centrist. That’s his pet-project. However, the issue surrounding Galileo had to do not with the correctness of his teaching but that he could not actually PROVE it. Therefore, the Church asked him to teach his ideas as a theory. He agreed initially, but later began teaching Copernican theory as FACT. The Church withheld its judgement of the facts but disciplined Galileo for his disobedience.

To my fellow Catholics, if I have mischaracterized this summary in any way, I await your loving correction.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No OraEtLabora, unlike the unsupported personal opinions declared in your posts, what you read in the last few threads includes actual statements from the pope’s involved.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Mark-

May we assume rightly that you are a geocentrist, also?

 

[trth_skr]

…the issue surrounding Galileo had to do not with the correctness of his teaching but that he could not actually PROVE it. Therefore, the Church asked him to teach his ideas as a theory. He agreed initially, but later began teaching Copernican theory as FACT. The Church withheld its judgement of the facts but disciplined Galileo for his disobedience.

…

*Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples… …and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scriptures:

The Sacred Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Sacred Faith, by command of His Highness and of the Most Eminent Lords Cardinals of this supreme and universal Inquisition, the two propositions of the stability of the Sun and the motion of the Earth were by the theological Qualifiers qualified as follows:

****The proposition that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the centre of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.**

…We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…
*
Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[myfavoritmartin]

…We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of the Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine – which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures* – that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world;…

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Wow, and this isn’t considered ex cathedra?

 

[LilyM]

Wow, and this isn’t considered ex cathedra?

It’s addressed specifically to one person - Gallileo - and it was said in the context of his heresy trial, which was a private event. And was it said by the Pope himself? The only one who can speak ex-cathedra is the Pope.

Court judgements in any event are generally not considered binding for all people for all time, are they? Future judges can and do often change them, overturn them on appeal, future legislators change the law upon which they are based …

 

[LilyM]

Wow, and this isn’t considered ex cathedra?

Ex-cathedra firstly means it has to be said by the Pope. ‘Ex cathedra’ literally means ‘from the seat’, which refers to the seat of Peter. This means it is said by his successor the Pope. It doesn’t sound like this was in fact said by the Pope of the time.

Secondly it has to be addressed to all the faithful. This was said to one person, Gallileo, in the context of his heresy trial. Court documents and speeches aren’t always made public - certainly the Roman Inquisition had a terrible amount of secrecy built into it.

Thirdly it has to be intended to be binding universally and for all time. Court or trial judgements generally aren’t, by their very nature. They can be overturned on appeal, and are every day, or legislators can change the law upon which the initial trial was based.

One secular example - the playwright Oscar Wilde was charged in the 1890s for sodomy. Huge, scandalous trial in London which correctly found him guilty and ruined his career. Today it couldn’t happen - sodomy is no longer illegal in Britain. The first trial wasn’t in error, but neither was it intended to be binding for all time upon the British legal system.

Clearer now?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Ex-cathedra firstly means it has to be said by the Pope. ‘Ex cathedra’ literally means ‘from the seat’, which refers to the seat of Peter. This means it is said by his successor the Pope. It doesn’t sound like this was in fact said by the Pope of the time.

Secondly it has to be addressed to all the faithful. This was said to one person, Gallileo, in the context of his heresy trial. Court documents and speeches aren’t always made public - certainly the Roman Inquisition had a terrible amount of secrecy built into it.

Thirdly it has to be intended to be binding universally and for all time. Court or trial judgements generally aren’t, by their very nature. They can be overturned on appeal, and are every day, or legislators can change the law upon which the initial trial was based.

One secular example - the playwright Oscar Wilde was charged in the 1890s for sodomy. Huge, scandalous trial in London which correctly found him guilty and ruined his career. Today it couldn’t happen - sodomy is no longer illegal in Britain. The first trial wasn’t in error, but neither was it intended to be binding for all time upon the British legal system.

Clearer now?

Marginally.

 

[LilyM]

Marginally.

I know that it’s not at all an easy thing to wrap your head around … only slightly easier for theologians who’ve been studying the concept for decades

Full marks for making the effort to understand

 

[trth_skr]

Ex-cathedra firstly means it has to be said by the Pope. ‘Ex cathedra’ literally means ‘from the seat’, which refers to the seat of Peter. This means it is said by his successor the Pope. It doesn’t sound like this was in fact said by the Pope of the time.

The Bull was written by Alexander the VII- the “Pope of the time”.

Secondly it has to be addressed to all the faithful. This was said to one person, Gallileo, in the context of his heresy trial. Court documents and speeches aren’t always made public - certainly the Roman Inquisition had a terrible amount of secrecy built into it.

Thirdly it has to be intended to be binding universally and for all time. Court or trial judgements generally aren’t, by their very nature. They can be overturned on appeal, and are every day, or legislators can change the law upon which the initial trial was based.

Wrong. Please go up to the links I inserted previously and read Part III and the supplement. Three different popes addressed this issue directly- Paul V, Urban VIII (condemned Galileo), and Alexander VII (ended it with his Bull).

In Alexander’s Bull, he said:
Pope Alexander VII:

…and: command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield this Index a constant and complete obedience…

So where is the formula missing- perhaps only in clarity. But I think you have not sudied this issue and your facts are completely wrong. The Galileo trial was not the beginning nor end of this story.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com