CathInfo.com

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

Quote from: cassini

Now we ask, is a decree of the Holy Office ‘official’ Church teaching?  Well, take out your Denzinger, THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, and you will find 37 teachings of the Holy Office included, from 1602-1949.  Now that is proof that in the Church the Holy Office's decrees are ‘official’ teachings.  

Actually, the one in 1949 (122/49) was not official, for it had no AAS number, and it was not in regards to any official teaching of the Holy Office.  It was instead a kind of sleeper-letter that was going to be used as a basis to deconstruct the dogma EENS in the minds and hearts of Catholics, in preparation for Vat.II.  

As such, the Marchetti-Selvaggiani letter DOES NOT BELONG in Denzinger, but it was specifically placed there by one Karl Rahner, for his own personal agenda.  We have to wonder how many other docuмents were KEPT OUT (like this 1616 decree was!) for the same sort of reasons.

Regarding other such items, though, any Holy Office docuмent that CONDEMNS ERROR and receives the Pope's approval can be taken to be very high in the order of officialness.  For any matter of faith or morals that the pope ONCE CONDEMNS, is condemned in eternity, that is, such condemnation of error is protected by the Holy Ghost.  BTW there was absolutely no such thing in all of Vat.II.

But the fact that the decree of 1616 condemned an error of faith, AND the fact that the pope approved of it, makes it well-nigh infallible.  If the pope had actually promulgated it himself, it WOULD be infallible, for the pope cannot erroneously condemn any proposition of faith or morals.  The Holy Ghost would not allow that to ever happen.  Something would prevent him, whether he would lose his ability to speak, or he would be incapacitated by illness, or he would find himself unable to stand up and go to the Chair of Peter, or perhaps he would fall into a coma, or worse, but the Holy Ghost would never allow it to take place.  

Remember when Sisster Lucia was commanded to write down the Third Secret -- she tried to do so every day for about 3 months and was unable to make the pen move on the paper, and she did not know why that was happening.  The same kind of thing could happen to the Pope.  There are many examples of this.

Quote

Now some will say 'But there is no 1616 decree in Denzingers, that shows it was not 'official' and was discarded legally.  No, that CANNOT be held.  Vatican I declared not even popes can contradict PREVIOUS decrees of popes.  The 1616 decree is not in Denzingers or any other such records because no one in the Church wants it to be seen anywhere since the U-turn lest it remind anybody that the CHURCH was found to be in error AS THEY SAW/SEE it.  Like the paedophile scandal, churchmen are good at keeping secrets that might hurt the Church if admitted to.

There is a better reason that the 1616 decree is not found in Denzinger.   That reason is as follows:  Denzinger is not an 'official' publication of the Holy See;  in fact, it is not a publication of the Church.  It is ENTIRELY a private organization that produced it, under no jurisdiction of the Church, and not accountable to any bishop.  

Anyone can publish an edition of Denzinger, as it's a mere list of Church docuмents.  

At the time, there was the Index of Forbidden Books in effect, and such books could be banned by that means, but not long after the turn of the 20th century, the Index was abolished, so the publishers of Denzinger could pretty much do what they wanted.  And keeping certain things quiet, as you say, cassini, is not outside the scheme of possibilities.  

.

Very interesting Neil, thanks for that.

Quote from: Thurifer

Quote from: cassini

Quote from: Renzo

"...at no time did any official Church teaching condemn heliocentrism as heretical."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0006.html

There have been at least 10,000 books and articles written about the Galileo case. Probably 9.990 of these could be summarised in what ANNE W. CARROLL wrote here, that a forged docuмent was used by the Holy Office to get Galileo convicted and "...at no time did any official Church teaching condemn heliocentrism as heretical."

First of all the docuмent was not a forgery, as scholars have now confirmed. As for there being no 'official' Church teaching, well that is another invention by the CARROLS of the world to save their Catholic Copernicanism.

Twice the Holy Office - that is the Holy Office with the Pope in charge - CONFIRMED the decrees were official and not reversible. If you like I can details these occasions for you.

Please do if it is not too much trouble for you. I believe you, but I would really like to see it and be a able to understand the case better and also be able to reference this in my talks with others in the future.

I think I read somewhere that even Rick Delano states that no dogma was proclaimed here, however the dogma of scripture being inerrant kind of takes its place.

Perhaps Rick was misquoted, someone assumed his identity, or he made a minor mistake.

Wow, getting sandwiched between Renzo and Claudel is taking some risk; the latter advising ‘I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to substantiate his claim. It's false.’

Ok then, let us see. First of all let us try to interpret the word 'official' properly. By 'official' many mean 'infallible,' as in the 'non-infallibility' of the 1616 decree that has been out there since about 1633. Then we have to ask, what do they mean by 'infallible' when it comes to the condemnation of Copernicanism. Usually they try to limit infallibility to acts of the extraordinary magisterium. Now if we followed the Copernican teaching on infallibility there would be only a few teachings of the Church we HAD to believe. By far the greater number of dogmas come under the auspices of the ordinary magisterium, and it is here the dogma of geocentrism lies. The Church often teaches by way of the negative. In other words, if something, a belief, is defined by a pope as formal heresy, then its contrary is defined as a doctrine to be believed. This is the case with geocentrism. Before we carry on we now have to dismiss the assertion that the matter of geocentrism is not, was never a matter of faith. If you believe so then you dismiss the teaching of St Robert Bellarmine who wrote in 1615

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe.’

'Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.’

A year later, The Holy Office decreed:

(1) “That the sun is in the centre of the world and altogether immovable by local movement,” was unanimously declared to be “foolish, philosophically absurd, and formally heretical, - AND WHY - inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the declarations of Holy Scripture in many passages, according to the proper meaning of the language used, and the sense in which they have been expounded and understood by the Fathers and theologians.”

‘Official’ or ‘unofficial?’ Well to determine that we must know the status of the Holy Office:

In the wake of the Protestant rebellion, Pope Paul III (1534-1549) set up various congregations to assist the popes in their task of safeguarding the apostolic faith held ‘in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.’ One of the most important of these was the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, otherwise known as the Congregation of the Holy Office. The function of this body was specifically to combat heresy at the highest level. Later, in 1588, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) gave this congregation even more explicit powers in the Bull Immensa Dei (God Who cannot be Encompassed). In this directive he made the reigning pope, whoever he may be, Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition. This gave the Catholic world to understand that decisions assigned to its judgment, before publication, would invariably be examined and ratified by the Pope himself as supreme judge of the Holy See, and would go forward clothed with such formal papal authority.

Now we ask, is a decree of the Holy Office ‘official’ Church teaching. Well take out your Denzinger THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA and you will find 37 teachings of the Holy Office included, from 1602-1949. Now that is proof that in the Church the Holy Office's decrees are ‘official’ teachings. Now some will say 'But there is no 1616 decree in Denzingers, that shows it was not 'official' and was discarded legally. No, that CANNOT be held. Vatican I declared not even popes can contradict PREVIOUS decrees of popes. The 1616 decree is not in Denzingers or any other such records because no one in the Church wants it to be seen anywhere since the U-turn lest it remind anybody that the CHURCH was found to be in error AS THEY SAW/SEE it. Like the paedophile scandal, churchmen are good at keeping secrets that might hurt the Church if admitted to.

OK, finally next the two occasions when THE CHURCH confirmed the 1616 decrees were ‘official.’ The first was in 1633 when Pope Urban VIII ordered the Holy Office to declare”

“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 docuмentary 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.’ Now there is an ‘official’ confirmation of the 1616 decree by THE CHURCH if ever you saw one.
The second confirmation came in 1820 when the Holy Office again agreed the 1616 was not reformable.

Olivieri (Copernican) in a debate against Anfossi ( 1616 decreeist) in 1820 is perhaps the most instructive of all, for in it even he confirms the authority of the 1616 decree.

Olivieri: ‘In his “motives” the Most Rev. Anfossi puts forth “the unrevisability of pontifical decrees.” But we have already proved that this is saved: the doctrine in question at that time was infected with a devastating motion, which is certainly contrary to the Sacred Scriptures, as it was declared.’

Notice Olivieri does not argue that the decrees against a fixed sun and moving earth were not ‘irreversible pontifical decrees.’ No he does not. The opposite in fact, for, in spite of his attempt to show the heretical nature of the decree was based on its philosophical basis in 1616, he still confirms that the 1616 decree was papal and of a kind that could not be reversed.