Speculatores domus Israel

  • Thread starter Thread starter myfavoritmartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

myfavoritmartin

Guest
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?
 
First of all, it is not clear whether this supposed Bull does, in fact, exist. Robert Sungenis purports that it does, but I’ve seen no other indication.
On top of that, while there was a decree in 1616 from the Congregation of the Index, that tribunal had absolutely no power to make infallible decrees. It does not even matter that the pope approved the decision in forma communi. The pope and the tribunal both made a judgment that happened to be wrong, but the form of the decree in no way makes it a decree ex cathedra.
 
Depends on the wording of it for starters … but I must say I’ve never heard of it before.

Sounds like its not really a teaching of a matter of faith or morals though, which it would need to be to be deemed infallible, but rather a Pope attempting to teach on science.
 
You are slightly mis-informed. In 1664 – in response to the Galileo affair -Pope Alexander VII issued Speculatore Domus Israel in which he solemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth’s movement and the sun’s stability. Pope Alexander VII published a new official Index which included the Congregations prohibitions from 1596 to 1664. The pope declared “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 to this Index a constant and complete obedience.”
scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

This means he condemned the publication of books which espoused the errors that Galileo put forth (and he *did *make errors – not in his conclusions, but in supporting data, which scientists today would find laughable, as did scientists then). This is different than “demanding the faithful believe our earth didn’t rotate.”

To understand this in context of the times and particular circumstances, one must take a mature look at the facts of history rather than rely on the tired polemics and half-truths we are used to. I suggest you start here. After you’ve read these, see if you understand the whole issue a little better.

catholiceducation.org/links/search.cgi?query=galileo&submit.x=23&submit.y=17
 
I’m still not seeing where this supposed Bull is. The first article you linked me to is an attempt to defend geocentrism on the grounds that three popes have declared it to be true, so it takes a quick credibility knock for me. I would just like to see the actual Bull, if it exists, instead of the one quote that everyone gives that supposedly came from said document.

The important point, and answer to the original question is, no, there is no *ex cathedra *proclamation that the earth stands still.
 
from a science and theology page…

Yes I cut and pasted it…

In spite of all that has been said by these apologists, there no longer remains the shadow of a doubt that the papal infallibility was committed fully and irrevocably against the double revolution of the earth. As the documents of Galileo’s trial now published show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed on with all his might the condemnation of Galileo and of the works of Copernicus and of all others teaching the motion of the earth around its own axis and around the sun. So, too, in the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, and in all the proceedings which led up to it and which followed it, Urban VIII was the central figure. Without his sanction no action could have been taken.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the Copernican theory THEN; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and “all books which affirm the motion of the earth” a papal bull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful. This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally, decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of “all books teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun.”[76]

[76] See Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, London, 1885, p. 94; and for the text of the papal bull, Speculatores domus Israel, pp. 132, 133, see also St. George Mivart’s article in the Nineteenth Century for July, 1885. For the authentic publication of the bull, see preface to the Index of 1664, where the bull appears, signed by the Pope. The Rev. Mr. Roberts and Mr. St. George Mivart are Roman Catholics and both acknowledge that the papal sanction was fully given.
 
Careful, because there are a lot of false things going on in that cut/paste you posted. First of all, the 1664 Index had no Bull attached. This is confusion over the fact that in 1665 an abbreviated version of the Index was released with a Brief (meaning it dispensed with some of the formalities of the Bull) by Alexander VII which was called Speculatores. However, and this is the important part, the statement was NOT made infallibly, as this article you read says.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
How do we know this?
Because it has been proven wrong?
Click to expand...
No, either because of the form of it, or the expressed intent behind it, or the subject matter of it is such that it isn’t infallible. It must be intended to be binding on all Catholics for starters.

Like I also said, the content - the fact that the earth revolves or not - would appear to be a matter of science, not faith and morals, and will probably never become a matter of faith and morals.
 
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?
 
The science described a natural law that God set in order.

The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong. He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; how is this not a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) or a moral issue (insistent on one’s point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?
 
Remember that just because a website claims to be Catholic or has purportedly Catholic writers, does not mean everything they say is correct. You have to be careful out there on the net, because there is some crazy stuff. That said…

Yes, several popes said the earth stands still.
No, none of them said it ex cathedra.

This was not at any time an official church teaching that bound the consciences of the faithful. Here’s some Vatican II reading for you:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

No such statement was ever made regarding this topic, end of story.
 
OraEtLabora said:
Remember that just because a website claims to be Catholic or has purportedly Catholic writers, does not mean everything they say is correct. You have to be careful out there on the net, because there is some crazy stuff. That said…

Yes, several popes said the earth stands still.
No, none of them said it ex cathedra.

This was not at any time an official church teaching that bound the consciences of the faithful. Here’s some Vatican II reading for you:

“We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

No such statement was ever made regarding this topic, end of story.
Click to expand...
The science described a natural law that God set in order.

The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong. He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; how is this not a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) or a moral issue (insistent on one’s point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?
 
myfavoritmartin said:
The science described a natural law that God set in order.

The infallible pope said otherwise. Time showed him to be dead wrong. He was WRONG concerning something that God has done; how is this not a matter of faith (in God who did set it up as the science described) or a moral issue (insistent on one’s point of view; not preferring another greater than himself as stated in the Scriptures)?
Click to expand...
For starters, when you call the Pope ‘infallible’ you get a false idea. Not everything the Pope says either is or is intended to be infallible, not all of it is inspired by or protected by the Holy Spirit and intended to be binding for all time. It is only in very specific circumstances, and what those circumstances are is very much open to debate.

There are theologians who hold that ONLY a handful of Papal pronouncements and documents - things such as the Dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception, and the Catechism - are infallible. There are others who would include virtually every word ever written by any Pope (which obviously causes huge problems trying to reconcile it all!)

Bear in mind at a minimum an infallible pronouncement has to be said ex cathedra. You’re not a Catholic theologian, neither am I - trust those who’ve studied a bit more than you and I to know the precise definition of ex cathedra and whether or not these pronouncements fit that definition. Since they don’t then the content of it doesn’t even matter.
 
I would propose that this is a matter of science and not faith. However, even IF it were a matter of faith, that alone does not make the statement infallible. Popes can speak on matters of faith without speaking infallibly. Requirements of infallible teachings are as follows:

-The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

-Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

-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.

-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.

As these requirements were not met, the teaching was never meant to be infallible.
 
myfavoritmartin said:
from a science and theology page…

Yes I cut and pasted it…

In spite of all that has been said by these apologists, there no longer remains the shadow of a doubt that the papal infallibility was committed fully and irrevocably against the double revolution of the earth. As the documents of Galileo’s trial now published show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed on with all his might the condemnation of Galileo and of the works of Copernicus and of all others teaching the motion of the earth around its own axis and around the sun. So, too, in the condemnation of Galileo in 1633, and in all the proceedings which led up to it and which followed it, Urban VIII was the central figure. Without his sanction no action could have been taken.

True, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the Copernican theory THEN; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and “all books which affirm the motion of the earth” a papal bull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful. This bull confirmed and approved in express terms, finally, decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of “all books teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the sun.”[76]

[76] See Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth’s Movement, London, 1885, p. 94; and for the text of the papal bull, Speculatores domus Israel, pp. 132, 133, see also St. George Mivart’s article in the Nineteenth Century for July, 1885. For the authentic publication of the bull, see preface to the Index of 1664, where the bull appears, signed by the Pope. The Rev. Mr. Roberts and Mr. St. George Mivart are Roman Catholics and both acknowledge that the papal sanction was fully given.
Click to expand...
Unbelievable! You haven’t addressed **anything **anyone has said or the information that has been provided you. It is clear that you have you mind made up to accept the bigoted and uninformed slant on this that you have embraced in desperation to prove infallibility and thus Catholicism wrong.

For my part, I promise to stop confusing you with the facts. So long, thread. 👋
 
OraEtLabora said:
I would propose that this is a matter of science and not faith. However, even IF it were a matter of faith, that alone does not make the statement infallible. Popes can speak on matters of faith without speaking infallibly. Requirements of infallible teachings are as follows:

-The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

-Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

-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.

-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.

As these requirements were not met, the teaching was never meant to be infallible.
Click to expand...
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?
 
OraEtLabora said:
I would propose that this is a matter of science and not faith. However, even IF it were a matter of faith, that alone does not make the statement infallible. Popes can speak on matters of faith without speaking infallibly. Requirements of infallible teachings are as follows:

-The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

-Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.

-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.

-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.

As these requirements were not met, the teaching was never meant to be infallible.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Fidelis said:
Unbelievable! You haven’t addressed **anything **anyone has said or the information that has been provided you. It is clear that you have you mind made up to accept the bigoted and uninformed slant on this that you have embraced in desperation to prove infallibility and thus Catholicism wrong.

For my part, I promise to stop confusing you with the facts. So long, thread. 👋
Click to expand...
c’ya, you linked a couple of biased web pages to refute what other Catholics have readily admitted…:rolleyes:
 
myfavoritmartin said:
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?
Click to expand...
Umm, not most of 'em, most of 'em are mentioned in the Catechism which HAS been declared infallible 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top